Replies

In terms of the elements of the Lord’s Supper . . .

imho,

I suspect that many Proddys find that a

distinction without a difference.

. . .

Just as we find . . . no significant FUNCTIONAL, BEHAVIORAL, ATTITUDINAL

DIFFERENCE

between adore, venerate, worship.

I think I remarked to you years ago . . . that the two camps come from

EXTREMELY DIFFERENT REALITIES.

IIRC, you go at some length into

What is “real,” etc.

I mean above, “realities” in the sense that our representations of what we perceive

in our own cognitions and mental space, emotions, spirit . . . one might say . . . body, mind, soul, spirit—the totality of our representations of what we perceive and experience . . .

THOSE representations are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.

I don’t know that the analogies of ET’s vs Humans or Aardvarks vs collies quite gets at it . . . but hints, maybe . . . at the degrees of difference.

Given such horrendous DIFFERENCES in the very substrate, foundation, descriptions, experiences of

“REALITY”

How can there NOT be such excruciating and intense sparks, conflicts, jangling of sensibilities, incongruence, discord?

I don’t know that any of us are so saintly as to much at all and certainly not easily eradicate such huge spans of DIFFERENCE.

I’m not too terrible a boundary worker, normally.

Have sure done 100’s of hours of such between groups, between family members etc.

And, I’ve earnestly tried my hardest to translate between our two groups in redemptive ways.

My EXPERIENCE is that ALWAYS, the RC side has RUTHLESSLY SHREDDED SUCH EFFORTS and certainly me, in the process.

And that’s with me sheathing my horns!

There’s a thread in the News/Activism section about the Alaskan cases where 80% of the children of a village were molested by RC priest(s).

The facts are indisputable. For a larger geographic area $166 million is being paid out for the abuse.

And STILL RC apologists are assaulting the messengers, rationalizing and DEFENDING the INSTITUTION

and dancing every rationalizing, self-justifying, absurd 2-step tango they can to avoid anything close to saying anything substantive about—YUP—GUILTY AS CHARGED—HORRENDOUS, MEA CULPA . . .

The message that comes across loud and clear for the 10,000th time is

THE INSTITUTION IS purported to be, defended as SAINTLY—AT ALL COSTS—REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY DEMONS AND DEMONIC ACTIONS ARE HANGING OFF OF EVERY LOCAL PART OF IT.

Proddys watch such a chronic phenomenon on FR and shake our heads.

How CAN there be ANY reasoning with such a mentality?

Certainly, I’ve frequently added that Proddys need to be cautious about pointing any fingers about any kind of sin. Sinning in one point of the law = guilt of the whole law. NONE of us is righteous, no, not one. But for the grace of God, go we all. etc. etc.

Nevertheless, these ARE horrendous cases of wholesale tragic abusive iniquitous sins perpetrated, covered up and excused by the Vatican system for decades.

And with very rare exceptions—probably less than 0.05% of the posts, RC’s do nothing but justify and excuse the INSTITUTION.

To Proddys, that is OBVIOUS BRAZEN DEMONSTRATED PROOF that SOME RC’s WORSHIP THE INSTITUTION MORE THAN GOD.

Yet, because of the huge differences, willful blindness, . . . whatever . . .

there appears to be ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that such issues can be discussed civilly between our two sides.

There’s just no way. Won’t happen. There’s no CAPACITY for that to happen—from the Proddy perspective—that lack of capacity seems to be virtually entirely on the RC side—an incapacity and unwillingness to

—see facts as facts;
—discuss facts as facts;
—admit facts as facts;
—reach rational conclusions about facts.

And if that’s SOOOOOOOO IMPOSSIBLE with something as fairly clear cut as these examples of rank sexual abuse . . .

HOW ON EARTH does ANYONE IMAGINE

rational reasonable discourse can occur between the two camps

when splitting hairs about The Lord’s Supper,

Mary’s sex life,

Mary’s trumped up deity,

etc.???

All the more so when virtually all the Proddys ever experience is being murdered as the messengers—regardless of the facts.

In terms of the elements of the Lord’s Supper . . . imho, I suspect that many Proddys find that a distinction without a difference.

I don't mean this as a nyah nyah, but to us they seem incoherent and to misrepresent us. YOU may find the difference between "real" and "physical to be a distinction without a difference. (Are angels "real"? Are they "physical"? Is God "real"? Is He "physical"? You see no difference?) Then you do not understand what we mean, and are not able to criticize it.

Just as we find . . . no significant FUNCTIONAL, BEHAVIORAL, ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCE between adore, venerate, worship.

That argues a coarseness of vision. Adore means "pray to". Over time it has come to mean "pray without words to". Venerate means "to show respect", as for the aged, the 'venerable'. Worship means "to attribute worth." As used these days, it means to attribute ultimate worth. But is wasn't so long ago that rich people were addressed with "your worship."

Again if you see no difference between the respect I pay a child and the respect I pay my nation, that doesn't mean there's no difference there. And I can't be held answerable to one who doesn't or won't look and insists there's nothing there.
===========

I think I remarked to you years ago . . . that the two camps come from EXTREMELY DIFFERENT REALITIES. IIRC, you go at some length into What is “real,” etc. I mean above, “realities” in the sense that our representations of what we perceive in our own cognitions and mental space, emotions, spirit . . . one might say . . . body, mind, soul, spirit—the totality of our representations of what we perceive and experience . . . THOSE representations are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.

We are prepared to discuss those differences. But your sides insists it knows what we mean and that we MUST mean real in their way, and then turns and says we look at things differently. It's, again, incoherent.

It is as if someone were to say, "I do not understand what you mean, I think differently; therefore you REALLY think the way I think."

What am I to make of that?
===========

I think I remarked to you years ago . . . that the two camps come from EXTREMELY DIFFERENT REALITIES. IIRC, you go at some length into What is “real,” etc.

I mean above, “realities” in the sense that our representations of what we perceive in our own cognitions and mental space, emotions, spirit . . . one might say . . . body, mind, soul, spirit—the totality of our representations of what we perceive and experience . . . THOSE representations are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS. I don’t know that the analogies of ET’s vs Humans or Aardvarks vs collies quite gets at it . . . but hints, maybe . . . at the degrees of difference.

Given such horrendous DIFFERENCES in the very substrate, foundation, descriptions, experiences of “REALITY” How can there NOT be such excruciating and intense sparks, conflicts, jangling of sensibilities, incongruence, discord?

I don’t know that any of us are so saintly as to much at all and certainly not easily eradicate such huge spans of DIFFERENCE.

In the period in which non-Catholics think we were doing nothing that wasn't superstitious or cruel, we were discussing "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Everybody makes fun of this, but this is a question about "physical" v. "real", about modes of being.

We have literally centuries of work on analyzing and thinking about all those things which you mention. And those who do not look at the work, who despise it, who think in one life-time they can accomplish more than hundreds of people doing it full time for centuries, they tell us we're wrong, that we make distinctions without differences.

Because they despise the work already done, they rarely can come up with the vocabulary to discuss the differences. I don't think it's a problem of saintliness or its lack. It's an unwillingness to do the work. (and, truth be told, there are many who don't know the work is there to be done. They proceed entirely on sketchily examined assumptions and assume we do the same.

I remember coming up, after prayer,anguish, and study, with what I thought was a new take on the Baptism of the Lord. Then I found that Cyprian or Cyril or somebody came up with the exact same idea around 1,500 years ago.
===========

My EXPERIENCE is that ALWAYS, the RC side has RUTHLESSLY SHREDDED SUCH EFFORTS and certainly me, in the process.

Backatcha. I came to the RF and found, in the charges of alchemy, that the question was pre-shredded for my convenience. The very insistence that there is no difference between "physical" ("of or pertaining to the realm of physis -- growth", as "nature" is the realm of things that are born - natus) and "real" is already a potential shredding. It becomes actual when our distinction is just thrown away as impermissible.
===========

As to the child-abuse. It is wonderful to me that the same people who note and resent the media's slimy reporting about conservatives go directly to the worst and most sensational of their reporting on this horror and swallow it whole. The accusation against the late Cardinal Bernardin gets front page above the fold. The later retraction by the accuser is forgotten. The current pope writes a letter, it ismischaracterized and blownoutofproportion and broughtup for years. Where do we go to read of the positive steps? And not reading of them your side eagerly and salaciously concludes there are none.

And the judgment your side makes is without logical foundation. We know it's a horror almost beyond imagining. What we don't know is if it's worse than what goes on in school or in other denominations. We just don't know.

So your side guesses and then acts as if the guesses were facts. It's irresponsible in those who claim to want to judge with right judgment.

Anyone who commits such gratuitous and irresponsible errors of thought and then claims to speak of what comes acrossloudand clear is simply incredible to me. I cannot believe him. When the judgment is almost universally bad in matters which I CAN check, why would I believe it in matters I cannot check?
===========

THE INSTITUTION IS purported to be, defended as SAINTLY

There you go again.

We mock the institution. Popes themselves mock the Vatican. WE'RE the ones who say that the"operation of the Holy Spirit" required to make a bishop is "Removal of the Spine." When Napoleon said he meant to destroy the Catholic Church, somebishopor something said, more or less, "Good luck! We've been trying to destroy it for 1800 years."

And with very rare exceptions—probably less than 0.05% of the posts, RC’s do nothing but justify and excuse the INSTITUTION.

Once again, I am stunned at the eagerness to condemn, even to describe, without checking the literature. DO you look at First Things? Do you read Catholic journals? I can't get Twitter to work for some reason,but "The Anchoress" (Justice Scalia's daughter,btw) just linked to articles deploring the venal incompetence of various bishops. This is merely an irresponsible rush to judgment AND a failure toallow us our distinctions. The Church is indefectible ONLY where we NEED for to be. Otherwise she serves mostly as a bad example.
===========

To Proddys, that is OBVIOUS BRAZEN DEMONSTRATED PROOF that SOME RC’s WORSHIP THE INSTITUTION MORE THAN GOD.

And once again, the distinctions that you climare not real turn out tobe critical and the careful thought your side disdains is central.
Some Americans worship the US more than God. That doesn't make the US bad. Some Catholics worship the Church more than God. That's not the Church's desire or fault.

However making that valid argument interferes with the gang-banging, so it is called evasive and hair-splitting.
===========

You close with lamenting that Protestant messengers get killed, regardlessof the facts..

100% backatcha. Look at this perfect well-poisoning. You guys are right to say that we believe in alchemy because YOU do not acknowledge the distinctions we make. You can tell us what we think because, in other words, what we think doesn't matter.

I can, as requested, explain a post and then get mocked for verbosity and evasiveness. Metmom can repeat falsehoods that she previously acknowledged to be false. And then you all can look up with expressions of injured innocence and dare to complain that we are unfair!

Onlyboatbums or Catholics have acknowledged my defense of the OPC. Your side won't take yes for an answer, and complains at every no, all the while telling us what we think and do without consulting the world's fore most experts on what we think and do -- ourselves, or like the little girl in the cartoon whose mother says, "It's broccoli, dear," responds, "I say it's spinach and the hell with it." You guys say that the distinction between physical and real is not important and then insist that when we say 'real' we really mean 'physical' and the hell with it.

There is harsh injustice on both sides of this battle. What do you suggest I do, and what do you offer to do to mitigate it?