CathInfo.com

Emile, I am wondering why you need to have your morbid curiosity satisfied as to “what underlies [Bocca’s] postings on this subject” (in your reply #121) -- or, for that matter, any of your other replies. You, along with several other ecclesiastical armchair quarterbacks on this thread, have either ignored what he [assuming Bocca is a “he”] has said -- or offered no valid counter arguments to what he has said.  All you can do, Emile, is to resort to name-calling, referring to him as “Jorge” or “Bocca di Escrementi” (reply #95).

Whether “Bocca” is a “he,” or a “she,” (or a “they”) is immaterial (as is  “Yeti’s” childish fetish about what “person” Bocca is speaking in).  Focus not on wondering who or what this Bocca is, or what “group” Bocca belongs to -- or the person, number, or case that he’s speaking in.  Focus instead on Bocca’s message – and on addressing the merits of his arguments  – and then offer any valid, logical counter arguments (if you can).  But, again, don’t “showcase your ignorance” by resorting to cheap name-calling (or any of the other ad hominem parlor tricks that you and several others have been using).  But that’s just your problem: you can’t successfully counter Bocca’s arguments.  All you can do is sling arrows at him – but the arrows in your quiver are toy arrows: name-calling, and looking down your noses in disdainful aloofness (as did the oh-so-self-important “Ladislaus”).

Emile, I’ve noticed that you always tack on a quote from Chaucer to your replies, as if quoting Chaucer adds a touch of “learnedness” to your post  (whether the quote is applicable or not).  Well, in your reply #121, the quote was applicable – but only in an incriminating way: you did not heed Chaucer’s words about “patience,” but instead persisted in your impatient and misdirected curiosity over (what amounts to) much ado about nothing.  Indeed, in just about every one of your replies, you want to have your insatiable curiosity satisfied about some irrelevant point, and/or you sling another ad hominem arrow at Bocca.

Your Chaucer quote, of course, is a Modern English “translation” of the original Middle English words (excerpted from Franklin’s Tale in Canterbury Tales).  This is perfectly understandable, since the original Middle English would now be almost unintelligible to anyone.  But you also wanted to impress us with your Italian, so you decided to look up your name-calling slur of “Bocca di escrementi” (online, of course, as even a child can do).  But employing a foreign phrase just to level a cheap slur really doesn’t impress anyone; nor does it demonstrate erudition.  It only exposes you as a boorish ignoramus.

I sometimes wondered why “Bocca” hasn’t said anything in answer to your slurs (or those of your comrades).  Well, Bocca probably didn’t want to waste any time responding to such pettiness, but only focus on what’s really important.  (And so far, that seems to be what Bocca has done.)  And -- you know what -- I think I’ll do the same.  I’ve said my peace and made my point.  So, I’ll just ignore any petty barbs and jabs that come my way – and “only focus on what’s important.”

Since that specific part of the Canon is usually inaudible to the laity, the priest usually can just skip over it without anyone noticing. The same goes for when it comes to mentioning the bishop.