Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Not having read anything the Bishop has said, I only can say that even
    if he is a tyrant, it would be better for the faithful to be obedient
    and to offer their suffering as a sacrifice. Follow the example Mary, the 
    mother of Jesus. She was a devote Jewish woman who observed all the 
    rules of her religion, even as strict as they were. Then look what they 
    did to her son. She remained obedient even after Jesus ascension.

    It seems that sacrifice and obedience are something that people have a 
    hard time dealing with these days.

    Jim

    I don't know what you mean by "ultra-conservative".  By the views of
    ultra-liberal anti-Catholics, he might be "ultra-conservative", but so
    what? For the sake of curiosity what label do you apply to Pope John
    Paul II?

    What is a "negative reaction"?  The issue is fidelity to the Church and
    what it teaches, is it not?

    What exactly is a "sort of censorship"?  A "sort of censorship" exists
    in all colleges that I know of.

    "Women/girls" may not serve as acolytes/altar servers at Mass in the
    Roman Catholic Church.  The priests and bishops who do permit this now
    are in violation of the liturgical rules of the Roman Catholic Church
    for the conduct of the Holy Mass.

    It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that baptized
    Catholics in a persistent state of sin may not licitly receive Holy
    Eucharist before receiving absolution through the Sacrament of
    Reconciliation.

    "Democracy" as it is understood by most people who are not Catholics is
    not a principle of the governance of the Roman Catholic Church.  The
    principle of governance of the Roman Catholic Church is an episcopal
    hierarchy founded by Jesus.
                          
    The Opus Angelorum (this is the name used in English-speaking
    countries) is a Catholic organization for lay people that has
    pontifical recognition and is faithful to the teachings of the Roman
    Catholic Church.  Their "theology" is the theology of the Roman
    Catholic Church.

    Derek, you make but do not substantiate the claim that the bishop is
    "untruthful".  This is really an unfair thing to do.

    What you wrote about him claiming to be "sole possessor of God's truth
    is not likely to be what he literally said.  However, there is an
    important truth here:  The authority to teach in the Roman Catholic
    Church was not granted to theologians or editorial writers, but to the
    Apostles by Jesus.

    It is our belief that bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are granted
    by Jesus the authority to teach and to be the good shepherd and to be
    the fishermen of the New Testament.

    I think you've told us a lot about his critics but little about his
    own views.  "Turbulence" of this nature that defines and defends the
    faith of the Roman Catholic Church is a good thing.
                                           

    I don't understand why, if you are not a Christian and not a Roman
    Catholic, this topic, and even this conference, is of possible interest
    to you?

    The content of .0 doesn't reference a specific source, so how was one
    to know that this wasn't your opinion distilled from other accounts? If
    these are not your opinions whose are they?  What motivates you to
    enter these opinions and not others?  Are you denying that you have a
    point of view?

    Regarding criticism of the bishop in general, I don't see the
    avoidance of criticism at a absolute value.  After all, the other
    active note here is discussing the idea of Jesus as "rebel".

    As for "unquestioning obedience", I sincerely doubt that the bishop
    uses exactly that phrase.  If you want readers here to be informed,
    then why not quote the bishop and not merely his critics.

    Some in this conference have argued that one can be a Christian and
    profess that "Jesus is not God".  One cannot be a Catholic and profess
    that "Jesus is not God".  One can certainly question it, but then such
    a person would not be teaching what the Church teaches.

    As far as I understand the law of the Church, the requirements that the
    bishop has imposed are consistent with the defined authority of Roman
    Catholic bishops.  A bishop is not subject to popular will but only to
    the Pope, to whom I assume the Austrian faithful will appeal.  Such an
    appeal caused the suspension of an American archbishop a few years ago.

    What form has the bishop's "declared contempt for Vatican II" taken? 
    Are you saying that the bishop is not free to express an opinion on the
    work of this Council?

    "Strife" is a necessary part of the life of the Church.  When what a
    bishop says or does, doesn't create some "strife", then one shall know
    that the Roman Catholic Church is irrelevant.
    
    (Someone please give the basenote a title)

	It has been my experience that many atheists and agnostics give
more thought to matters of faith and the church than most "believers."

	While I may not thoroughly understand why this is, I certainly
welcome the opportunity for a verbal exchange with atheists and agnostics.
Is it constructive to squelch the sometimes discomforting questions they ask?
I think not.

Richard

PS  I've given this string a title.  Hope it's suitable.

    It seems a cheap taunt to place believers in quotes.  What motivates
    the denigration of believers?  It this done to squelch believers from
    contributing their own discomforting questions.

    It has been my experience that people who have faith and participate in
    the life of the Church have more thought about matters of faith and the
    Church than those who don't have faith and don't participate in the
    life of the Church.  It's another Christian Perspective.

    
    Derek,
    
    Perhaps Austria is a Catholic country like the U.S. is a
    Christian nation....in name only.  It doesn't matter so much
    what people say, their actions need to back it up.
    
    Jill

    Not to overstep my bound and put words in Richard's mouth, but he may
    have used quotes around the word believers to distinguish between
    those, like yourself, who actively participate in the life and theology
    of their church and those who merely attend Mass out of habit.  Perhaps
    your church is devoid of the latter, but my parish was not.
    
    By the way, when I read Derek's note I thought he made it clear as to
    why this issue was significant to him.  Either I read something that
    wasn't there or you missed something.
    
    Eric

    I leave it to Richard to explain whether or not it is a taunt.

    As for "those who merely attend Mass out of habit", it that supposed to
    be a putdown?

    Perhaps this is a language problem on my part of Derek's part, but
    after re-reading the basenote and replies, I'm at a loss to interpret
    Derek's role here as either being an objective reporter in bringing
    this biased account of the bishop into Christian Perspective, or
    whether he joins in the criticism of the alleged actions of the bishop.

    .6  It probably hasn't been your experience, but it has been mine
    that many people who claim to be believers are so on a mechanical
    basis.  They simply shrug their shoulders at what they don't
    understand and go on.  They figure that someone more knowledgable
    has already worked things out for them, so they need not be too
    concerned.
    
    And you know what?  They're right.  There are lots of people who will
    gladly provide answers for those who do not desire to probe for answers
    for themselves.
    
    Richard

    My guess, Mr. Sweeney, is that you would be less inclined to react so
    vehemently if it was a United Methodist bishop who was being examined
    here.
    
    Richard
    

    re .9

    > As for "those who merely attend Mass out of habit", it that supposed
    > to be a putdown?

    I meant to imply that, with regard to the thought issues, attending
    Mass out of habit rather than conviction of purpose required a lower
    degree of emotional attachment and thought.  It has nothing to do with
    putting down anyone.  I was simply trying to quantify the differing
    levels of religious thought expened across the spectrum of those that
    would call themselves believers.
    
    If you want answers and opinions from only specific persons, perhaps
    MAIL would be a better medium for you.  There appears to be no point in
    my explaining my views as to Derek's role, motives or beliefs.
    
    Eric
    

    I reject your characterization of my replies as being vehement.
    
    I don't characterize what's been written as an "examination" of
    this Roman Catholic bishop, rather it is a list of allegations.
    
    From the perspective of this Roman Catholic, faith in God is a higher
    value to me than the "desire to probe for answers".  Nor do I see a
    lower place in the kingdom of heaven for those faithful who have a
    "lower degree of emotional attachment and thought".
    
    Indeed, it is because I know, and am willing to explain the role of a
    bishop in the Roman Catholic Church that I am responding.  I didn't
    write the basenote.  If the subject of the basenote was a UM bishop,
    then I'd be looking for a Methodist participant in CP to explain it.
                                                                   

Note 708.13

>    I reject your characterization of my replies as being vehement.

It would have surprised me if you hadn't.
    
>    I don't characterize what's been written as an "examination" of
>    this Roman Catholic bishop, rather it is a list of allegations.

I'll settle for "allegations."  This is too petty to quibble over.
    
>    From the perspective of this Roman Catholic, faith in God is a higher
>    value to me than the "desire to probe for answers".  Nor do I see a
>    lower place in the kingdom of heaven for those faithful who have a
>    "lower degree of emotional attachment and thought".

You may be right.  Is there a "lower place" for *anyone* in the Commonwealth
of God?
    
>    Indeed, it is because I know, and am willing to explain the role of a
>    bishop in the Roman Catholic Church that I am responding.  I didn't
>    write the basenote.  If the subject of the basenote was a UM bishop,
>    then I'd be looking for a Methodist participant in CP to explain it.

I've noticed the trend.

Richard
    

    re .13
    
    > Nor do I see a lower place in the kingdom of heaven for those faithful
    > who have a "lower degree of emotional attachment and thought".
    
    Patrick,
    
    You seem to have a problem with distinguishing between quality of an
    individual and the quantity of their religious thought.  The latter is
    what I explicitly said that I was addressing.
    
    As far as the bishop (any bishop) is concerned, as long as what he says
    is in line with the Vatican I guess he's doing his job.  It's just too
    bad that the turmoil within a single religous denomination can send
    tremors of social discontent throughout a country, affecting believers
    and non-believers alike.  I think that this is what Derek was saying.
    
    Eric
    

    Thanks for adding the title, Richard: I'm still trying to get the hang
    of noting using a station instead of my good-old terminal and tend to
    CTRL-Z too early.
    
    It was not my intention to declare war on anyone or anybody; please
    believe that.
    
    Someone asked: Why does the issue concern me. I live in a country where
    the greater part of the population are (at least nominally) Roman
    Catholic. This issue has dominated the media for several weeks -
    even, at times, relegating the Human Rights Conference and the war in
    ex-Jugoslavia to second place. I am impacted by that!
    
    There was a suggestion that, as a non-Christian (non-Catholic), I do
    not have the right to comment. That is tantamount to saying that,
    since I cannot lay eggs, I have no right to comment if I open a bad
    one. The point is: I do not tell the han how to do it better, I merely
    make her aware that she may have a problem.
    
    My basenote asked two questions. The rest of the note, and the later
    expansion (.4 I think) filled out the background to the questions.
    Of course there are voices raised in support of Bishop Krenn but I
    did not see them as being relevant to the questions I asked. I was
    wanting YOUR opinion. Please note that I did not expand until I was
    asked to do so. If there was *too much dirt* I apologise.
    
    I suppose it would have been possible to neutralize the question by
    not naming the denomination, merely quote the words and point to the
    resulting unrest. I learned something!
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
    

    Re: .16
    
    Do NOT think , ever, that you shouldn't note in here. Your notes
    are as important as anyone elses. I have gone around with Pat
    on this type of discusion before........its really to bad
    that the replies get sidetracked.
    
    Interesting subject!
    
    Marc H.

    The Council was convoked by Pope John XXIII, he died after the first
    sessions.  The formal members of the Council and the bishops of the
    Catholic Church.  A conclave (the body of Cardinals formed for the
    election of a Pope) elected Pope Paul VI who continued the council.
    
    I'm not familiar with the document called "Manifestation".  The
    principal documents of the Second Vatican Council are:
    
    Dei Verbum (lit. Word of God) Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
    Revelation
    
    Gaudium et Spes (lit. Joy and Hope) Pastoral Constitution of the Church
    in the Modern World
    
    Lumen Gentium (lit. Light of the World) Dogmatic Constitution of the
    Church
    
    I've read them and none of these documents suggest an imbalance or
    disharmony between Sacred Scripture and what the Catholic Church
    teaches.
                                                          

    	Re .19 Sweeny.
    
    	Thanks for the info.  My note was a direct translarion of the
    	newspaper article. I assumed that reference to the Manfestation
    	document was a sort of general/colloquial name for one of the
    	latin-titled docs. Bishop Krenn *seems* to think so too.
    
    	I will phone the Bishop's press office today and ask which
    	document is specifically addressed. It seems to me that it would
    	be one which re-affirms or re-defines the Church's position on
    	Chirst being the manefestation of God.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    	Phone call to the press office got me put through to the press
    	secretary: a Father (didn't catch the name).
    
    	On my question "which document was specifically meant by Manifest-
    	ation document?" I was told that the Bishop had spoken of the
    	"Document on Revelation and that, somewhere along the line, it
    	had got bent. The specific document is Dei Verbum but the Bishop
    	avoids the Latin when speaking to journalists.
    
    	He then went on to ask me in which district I pay my (church)
    	taxes. When I told him that I'm non-denominational and, therefore,
    	am not subject to church taxes, he seemed to cool a little. "May
    	I ask what your interst is? Another journalist trying to prove
    	that the Bishop does not speak with God's authority?" When I
    	assured him that I was just another concerned citizen, he asked
    	me for which 'scandal-sheet' I write. I tried to explain that I
    	represent only myself and have no subversive motives, but we
    	got cut off.
    
    	..but our telephone system is not as reliable as in the USA!
    
    	Greetings, Derek. 

    RE: .21
    
    That sort of behavior doesn't surprise me at all.
    
    Marc H.

    
    RE: .21 and .22
    
    To put the issue aside because frankly I haven't read this note
    with much interest.  It sure makes you wonder how much harassment 
    they've taken from the press and tabloids.  I mean they are only
    slightly kinder than piranhas some days and other days they are
    worse.   I think that any group has a right to protect their 
    interests in the midst of controversy by not talking to someone 
    they don't know.  They can't gauge your motives over the phone.  
    So what you said you weren't a reporter!   Big deal!  How many 
    reporters have concealed their identity for "the sake of truth?"  
    
    Jill

    RE: .23
    
    I am real...thank you. The replies , too me, demonstrate all to well
    a real problem.
    
    Marc H.

    re .23: Jill
    
    Makes you wonder why they set up a press office, too.
    
    As for harrassment etc. Most of the words which have caused controversy
    have been spoken by Boshop Krenn in front of cameras and microphones.
    It would be unjust to accuse the media of "blowing the affair" out of
    all proportion: priests, deacons and engaged laity have been resigning
    or applying for transfer on the basis of their direct experience, not
    from their reading of the press.
    
    Some people here, too, would like to see the whole thing swept under
    the carpet. Trouble is, there's no room under the carpet: its full
    of issues on human rights, neo-Nazi problems, the war in Bosnia,
    gays and lesbians, population overageing and foreign immigration. I
    thinks it's time that the (responsible) people of this world started
    addressing the problems seriously. Talking about them, or ignoring
    them is not likely to harvest the gratitude of our childrens' children.
    
    What is happening in the religious sphere in Austria is symptomatic for
    the decay which is going on all around us. It's ok by me, Jill, if
    you are "frankly" not very interested in this subject. But my
    experience has shown that folks with this attitude usually add the
    phrase: "there are more important issues."  Those issues usually
    begin with "I..."  I seriously hope that, in your case, this is not
    so.
    
    Greetings, Derek.
                   

    I think we'd all need to review a tape or a transcript of the
    conversation which you had with the press office, I presume this is the
    diocesan press office, before making a judgment.
    
    Since Robert Palmer spoke before microphones and was misquoted and has
    taken steps to get his own version of the message out, very close to
    home we have intimate knowledge of our own press distortions.
    
    I don't know what your interest in this controversy is, if I were in
    that press office, I'd be as skeptical of you as the people are who
    call me on the phone regarding an investment opportunity.
    
    I can state with certainty that the interests of the bishop are in the
    salvation of his flock.  In any case, the proper course of action for a
    priest who can no longer according to his own conscience be in
    communion with his brother priests and bishops is to resign.

    RE .26

    > I think we'd all need to review a tape or a transcript of the
    > conversation which you had with the press office, I presume this is the
    > diocesan press office, before making a judgment.
      				.
                                .
    				.
    > I can state with certainty that the interests of the bishop are in the
    > salvation of his flock.

    You show remarkable faith in the sincerity and righteousness of the
    bishop.  However, I wonder if you have reviewed "a tape or a transcript
    of the conversation" before you made your claims of certainty.  If only
    you could give yourself the leeway to be less skeptical of your fellow
    noters.  I would find it very unsettling if I saw nearly everyone who
    didn't agree with me as being out to get me.


    > In any case, the proper course of action for a priest who can no longer
    > according to his own conscience be in communion with his brother
    > priests and bishops is to resign.
      
    I agree with you on this.  A priest's mission is to serve God in
    guiding God's people.  It is not to blindly follow, with forced
    obedience, the directives of a man-made hierarchy.


    	Eric

    	Re: .26 SWEENY
    
    	>I think we'd all need to review a tape or transcript of the
    	>conversation...... before making a judgment.
    
    	Implicit in this statement is that you have made a judgement
    	not to trust me. OK, that's your privelege. I was trustful
    	enough to make the call without switching on the bugging gear,
    	so your need will go unrewarded.
    
    	Now I will make a judgement: my reading of some responses to
    	this and other notes on CP tells me that not ALL fellow noters
    	would have this requirement. In this, in my judgement, you are
    	wrong too.
    
    	>I don't know what your interest in this controversy is...
    
    	I have explained that already but let's try again.  I am a
    	person who lives in a predominantly Roman Catholic country and
    	who is *aware* of what is going on around him. My wife is Roman
    	Catholic. This issue is making big waves here in Austria (and
    	pretty big ones in the Vatican, too). I am also a person who
    	(and my presence here is witness to this) takes an above average
    	interest in religious affairs and perspectives.  I am non-
    	Christian - and have never made a secret of that. I am NOT
    	anti-Christian nor anti-Catholic, nor anti-Jew, nor anti-Islam.
    	My interst is as an objective observer who, on occasion, takes
    	advantage of the invitation to express an opinion or to ask a
    	question.  In this particular case, I asked what the CP-ers
    	thought of the situation - as I described it - in Austria.
    
    	(From a strictly polemic point of view, it would not matter
    	whether my description was objective or not: your responses
    	would be to MY description, even if it were total fiction).
    
    	It is interesting that, on the basis of the descriptions I have
    	given - I am making an assumption here, that you have not seen
    	other materials on this theme - you have judged the Bishop's
    	motives. He is of course Roman Catholic and *must* be beyond
    	reproach. I, on the other hand, am a heathen whose motive is
    	at least questionable.
    
    	Still, some of my best friends are Christian.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    I deny that I make an implicit judgment.  You are free to judge that I
    have made a judgment despite my denial.

    I make no claim regarding the sincerity or righteousness of Bishop
    Krenn (qv 708.27). My knowledge of and experience with Roman
    Catholicism has led me to the certain belief that the interests of any
    Roman Catholic bishop are in the salvation of the people of his
    diocese. I will believe this until shown otherwise.  If you possess an
    anti-Catholic bias, then you might believe that the interests of a
    Roman Catholic bishop are in the accumulation of personal wealth until
    shown otherwise.  We all come here with different perspectives.

    I read all of Derek Button's notes here as accusation without proof
    that Bishop Krenn is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

    Let's not be stingy with our skepticism here in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.
    Every claim I make is hammered here with demands for more proof. 
    Others may have regarded your report of the phone call in .21 as
    conclusive, I do not.

>    I read all of Derek Button's notes here as accusation without proof
>    that Bishop Krenn is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

I doubt that Derek Button has the background to even consider making the
accusation that Bishop Krenn is not in communion with the Roman Catholic
Church, or to even know what that means.

I have just reread all of Derek Button's notes.  The closest to an accusation
that he is not in communion is the interview in which the bishop is quoted
discussing Vatican II.  But I don't see any rejection of Vatican II.

In another note, the Bishop is quoted as complaining about "misuse of Vatican
II".  This is a very real problem; in many cases Vatican II has been mis-
understood when implemented in certain dioceses.  After all, a council
cannot change the constant teaching of the Church, it can only clarify it
and apply it to changing world conditions.

What I see in Derek's reports is a liberal press and liberal pro-forma
catholics rejecting the constant teaching of the Church in the face of
what appears to be a faithful (though certainly not faultless) bishop.

/john

    A number of replies concerned something called "manifestation", which
    later notes clarified likely to be the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
    Revelation (ie Dei Verbum).  This concilar document clarified Sacred
    Scripture as being a source of Revelation in harmony with and equal to
    the other source of Revelation, Sacred Tradition.
    
    The need for such clarification existed because of the false impression
    among Catholics and non-Catholics that the Bible was superfluous to
    Roman Catholic belief.
    
    Hypothetically, a formal repudiation of Dei Verbum by a Roman Catholic
    bishop would be a serious matter.

    RE .29

    I apologize for asserting that you felt that the bishop was sincere and
    righteous.  These were attributes that, in my mind, are inseparable
    from the activity of guiding people to salvation.  Apparently, although
    you assert that "the interests of any Roman Catholic bishop are in the
    salvation of the people", you are not claiming that the bishop is also
    sincere and/or righteous in his pursuit to that end.  I'll try not to
    make these assumptions in the future, but I hope I have adequately
    explained why I jumped to that conclusion. 

    I'm also sorry if I came across as anti-Catholic.  I'm not.  To raise
    concern about an individual is not the same as casting aspersion upon
    an entire institution.  I hope you would agree.  My personal belief,
    the bishop not withstanding, is that a religious leader, of any
    denomination, should act as a shepherd in guiding the flock.  If the
    shepherd sees that the flock is wandering in the wrong direction, the
    flock should be gently guided back onto the path.  Spooking the sheep
    is not a good idea if you're trying to keep as many as possible on the
    right path.  If you're trying to purge the flock of all but the most
    steadfast sheep, then by all means spooking the flock would be an
    effective way to achieve that goal.

    Sincerely (though perhaps not righteously),

    	Eric

>    Hypothetically, a formal repudiation of Dei Verbum by a Roman Catholic
>    bishop would be a serious matter.

But I don't see a formal repudiation of Dei Verbum.  I see two paragraphs
of a interview with (probabably hostile) journalists, which use a word,
"Manifestation" (Derek: what was the German word used), and discuss the
process of reaching agreement during discussions at the council.

Is the Bishop saying that Dei Verbum is flawed, or is he claiming that
subsequent to the council, Dei Verbum has been misinterpreted by liberals?

/john

	Re: .29 Sweeny.

	I am pleased to acknowledge that, since there was no explicit
	judgement in your previous reply, I may have read it wrongly.
	Your denial confirms that I did and I apologise.

	However, I now - explicitly - declare that you have, in turn
	mis-read my notes. I have nowhere expressed a critisism of the
	Roman Catholic church. The only possible exception to this may
	be the fact that I have stated that I am concerned that such
	controversies impinge themselves onto my life. BUT: That this
	particular controversy is Roman Catholic in origin is purely
	incidental. I am equally concerned when my neighbours fight
	about whose turn it is to go shopping if their differences in
	any way impinge themselves on my life.

	I repeat: I am in NO WAY anti-Catholic. Were I so, I should
	certainly not have chosen a Catholic woman as a life partner
	and, most likely, I would have chosen another country in which
	to live.

	FWIW: I simply dislike - acrimonious - disturbances of any kind.
	I have done military service in three different civil-warring
	countries (one of which, Ireland, is rooted in religious
	differences, despite what some agencies proclaim). I have been
	shot at and have shot back, I have bourne the coffins of good
	friends and I have cursed hatred. I have no energy left to be
	anti-anything. I want peace and love and understanding. I hurt
	when I am judged falsely. Maybe I'm too sensitized.

	You are probably right to say that those priests who are not in
	communion with their bishop should resign. The fact of resignation
	is one thing: the accusations flying around - from BOTH sides -
	is another. This was the reason for my question: how do Christians
	view these things. Your answer to this point is plain enough; for
	which I thank you.

	To .33: John

	The German of the quoted text was "Das Dokument der Manifestation"
	Another newspaper, the Standard, reporting the same interview - and
	seen by me only when a colleague came to me to discuss the topic a
	couple of days later - used the expression "Das Offenbarungsdokument".
	In the German/English book used here in the office:
	German to English: both mean Revelation plus Manifestation can also
		mean appearance.
	English to German:  Revelation = Offenbarung
			    Manifestation = Erscheinung
	You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

	If I understand Bishop Krenn correctly, he is saying that Dei
	Verbum has been too liberally interpreted. He appears to be
	criticising it for its lack of clarity and blaming this, in part,
	on the presence of the media during the Council and, in part, to
	lack of strong leadership in the past.

	His critics are saying that he wants to turn the clock back to
	before the Council and that he is unapproachable on any question
	of compromise. One TV interview comment from a priest was that, to
	protect himself against Bishop Krenn - referring to the Bishop
	having dismissed priests and then publicy claiming that they
	retired voluntarily - he is maintaining a high media profile.

	The press take some of his utterences ("God would have to resign
	before I reconsider..." or "The people shouted for Jesus to be
	crucified, too..") and - depending on their position - either try
	to hang him (the majority) or to defend him. I do not believe that
	there is any real objectivity to be found in the local media: the
	landscape is far too polarized. Unfortunately, even the "opposition"
	(the non-RC Christian churches are all called "Evangelisch"
	although most are not Evangelist) has taken up the cudgels
	instead of maintaining a discrete silence. (Sweeny: You may accept
 	that as a direct critisism/accusation: though not born of anti-
	Evangelisch rather than of anti-opportunism in general).

	The whole subject is not gaining so much media attention as it was
	a couple of weeks ago, but the conflict is still raging in the
	parishes. If there is interest, I will inform you of developments.
	Otherwise, I feel that my basenote questions have been answered.

	Greetings, Derek.

    As I have mentioned here before, the highest ambition of men and women
    isn't to end "acrimonious - disturbances of any kind".

    The origin of Christianity, the subject of this conference, was a great
    disturbance to all.  It is the characteristic of Christianity that will
    disturb people to turn away from this world and turn towards God and
    say "thy will be done".
    
    "Ireland" is not a civil-warring country.  The war in Northern Island
    is not based on religious affiliation, it is far deeper than that and
    predates the Reformation itself.  If everyone Catholic became Anglican
    or every Anglican become Catholic, the war would not end.

"Das Offenbarungsdokument" is correct.  The article which used "Manifestation"
appears to have been edited by someone whose knowledge of theology needs some
improvement.  Manifestation is one means of revelation.  The bishop's office
was correct to tell you that the press had confused his words.

"Dei Verbum" which means "Word of God" is The Apostolic Constitution on Divine
Revelation.  The theology of the "Word of God" is well stated in John 1:1,14:

	Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott.  Und das _Wort_
	ist _Fleisch_ geworden und _hat_unter_uns_gewohnt_.

God's revelation has come to us through nature and history, through many
seers and saints, and especially through the prophets of Israel.  The
summary of God's entire revelation is contained in God's manifestation
of himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God.

/john

>If everyone Catholic became Anglican or every Anglican become Catholic, the
>war would not end.

It is my understanding that the conflict in Northern Ireland is almost
entirely between Scottish Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, and that
Anglicans are such a small group there as to be not significantly involved.

/john

    "Civil war" is a contradiction in terms.
    
    Am I hearing that religion hasn't fueled the fires in Northern Ireland?
    
    Richard
    

	Warning: this note is 115 lines long.

	Good morning!

	re: .35: Sweeny. You are technically correct that it is not a
	civil war in Ireland.  However, when 2 groups of the same populace
	are killing and maiming each other, I think that the use of the
	expression is admissable in a discussion forum; even if it would be
	thrown out of a court of law.

	The history of Ireland is long and only a fool would try to point
	to any particular incident as the trigger for the troubles we are
	seeing there today.

	As in most European countries, the early history was pock-marked
	with tribal differences, power struggles and feuds amongst the
	population: in Ireland predominantly Celts.

	In the 12th century, Henry II began, after his subjugation of the
	Celts, to encourage Norman settlement there and installed a Norman
	governor. The Normans and the Celts didn't hit it off too well and
	the Celts stopped fighting each other and united in resisting
	Anglo-Norman dominance.

	This continued - with varying phases of relative peace and unrest -
	under the first 3 Edwards (keywords: Statute of Kilkenny, death of
	Bruce at Dundalk).

	Under Henry VII, Poynings law, vesting control of the Irish legis-
	lature in the English Council, tended to "externalise" the situation.

	By Henry VIII, the Anglo-Normans had become Irishised and feudal
	lords - up front, the house of Kildare - held sway.  Henry VIII
	broke the power of the feudal lords and proclaimed himself king of
	Ireland. This was, of itself, no big deal but, at the same time,
	he also claimed ecclesiastic supremacy. This was definately not ok.

	In 153?, H-VIII appointed a commission to enforce the Reformation
	in Ireland. The commission was headed by George Brown, an ex-
	Augustinian friar and later, without the Pope's approval, Arch-
	bishop of Dublin. He instigated the "Act of Supreme Head" which
	called for severe penalties for anyone rejecting the king as head
	of the church in Ireland. Another law called for incomes from
	ecclesiastic offices to be paid to the king, not the pope.

	H-VIII dissolved monastries and convents ("hotbeds of idolatory and
	superstition") and had many religious people executed for not
	accepting him as head of the church.

	G. Brown tried to evangelise all Ireland by requiring that 8 bishops
	and 2 archbishops (all papal creations) take an oath. 5 conformed,
	the others were exiled/executed (2 sources, 2 versions!). Many
	priests were also executed for failing to conform.

	The result was that Mary Tudor was able to restore Catholicism 
	with no great difficulty.

	Then came Elizabeth I. She was not a fanatic but, nevertheless,
	Protestant. She had the Irish parlament pass the "Act of Supremacy"
	(1560) declaring her supreme in matters ecclesiastic, spiritual
	and temporal and denying papal jurisdiction.

	From 1567 onwards, the counter-reformation on the European
	continent fuelled Irish rebellion. The so-called "Geraldine"
	revolutions, supported by Jesuits and helped by Spanish and
	French. In 1603, the last rebellion, the O'Niell (Earl of Tyrone)
	was finally put down.

	These rebellions were barbarous affairs: especially from the English
	side who saw the Irish as savages and resented their collusion with
	England's arch-enemy, Spain. Lands were confiscated and given to
	English and Scottish - mainly Presbytarian - settlers.

	Fuelled by fear of Puritan rule (civil war had broken out in England
	and the signs were not good), the great rebellion of 164? broke
	out.  It was finally put down brutally by Cromwell's men. Whole
	garrisons were massacred and hundreds of priests slaughtered by
	the Puritans.  The land was divided up amongst Cromwell's soldiery
	and Catholicism was - more severly than ever - suppressed.


	This could go on for ever at this rate but, I hope, the above
	illustrates the gradual polarisations in Ireland:

	- first was tribal differences ("normal" throughout Europe)
	- then came Celts vs Normans, with the Celts burying their tribal   
	  differences
	- then the polarisation was externalised; Ireland/England
	- finally (starting with H-VIII) the religious polarisation. The
	  Cromwellian brutalities, the sieges of Londonderry and Enniskillen
	  the Battle of the Boyne etc. all served to sew seeds of hate which
	  endures to the present time.

	In one history I read, it was postulated that, had Mary Tudor
	not restored Catholicism, the whole history would have been less
	turbulent and tolerance instead of hate would have been the result.
	I think that's pretty harsh on Mary Tudor.

	To conclude: Sweeny, you are correct when you say that the war
	would not end if all the A's became C's or vice versa.  The hate
	has assumed a life of its own over recent years.  Also, and worst
	of all, many of the younger generation actually ENJOY the adventure
	of it all.  It is also a fact that there are no lack of volunteers
	amongst British army personnel to serve in N. Ireland. 

	There is a saying: a little war is the best recruiting sergeant.
	
	To a degree, I think that the English do not deserve better. Even
	when I was in Ireland, Catholics were denied the one-man-one-vote
	privelege of the Protestants: only Catholic householders had the
	vote.

	Sorry for the rathole: I promise to be good from now on.

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek, since you are not Irish, I demand that you justify your interest
    in this topic.  I think by even bringing up this issue, it is obvious
    that you are engaging in Irish-bashing, and you are no doubt guilty of
    a severe anti-Irish bias.
    
    :-) :-)
    
    -- Mike

    	You're quite right, you clever little ex-colonial, you! .-)
    
    	But seriously, I love the Irish and Ireland. My heart weeps to
    	see what is being done to some of the most beautiful peole on
    	this earth in that lovely country.
    
    	As a rider: it was on Ben Bulba in Sligo, on a beautiful - and
    	peaceful - fall	day that I told my not-yet-wife that she was
    	going to marry me. 4-years later, in the Falkland Islands,
    	she did!
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
        

    	Isn't Italy there where the Vatican is?  Well I always...
    
    	NO.. I will be dragged no deeper into this rathole.
    
        :-) Greetings, Derek.

Good for the bishop.  It is about time that bishops of the Catholic Church
started strictly enforcing the orthodox faith and started putting pressure on
heterodox priests and Catholics to leave.

The Catholic Church has for too long been infiltrated by heterodox people who
seek to lead people astray.  While the bishop himself is not the sole possessor
of truth, the Catholic Church as a whole _does_ possess the fulness of truth,
what .0 describes as his teaching and emphasis is indeed what the Catholic
Church teaches.  He is right to enforce what the Catholic Church teaches.

It makes no difference to me if people are leaving the church there because
he is enforcing the orthodox Catholic faith.  If they refuse to accept the
teachings of the Catholic Church, then they are better off to leave. The bishop
is merely enforcing what the Catholic Church teaches.  Unfortunately few other
bishops are doing so, and the apostasy within the church is so bad that people
don't even recognize when their priest teaches something contrary to the
Catholic faith.  What often passes for Catholicism within churches today is
indeed heterodoxy and contrary to the Catholic faith.

I don't quite agree with his assessment that "too much emphasis is placed on
Scripture," although I'll readily admit that one can twist Scripture and use it
as a weapon against the truth.  However I still think that the Catholic Church
needs to cultivate a strong devotion to Sacred Scripture, while still under-
standing Scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition.

Those who begin to criticize Vatican II worry me, because Vatican II was an
ecumenical council which makes the council itself nearly beyond reproach.
However, it was not implemented very well and many people did not what the
council said but what they thought it said, or what they thought it should
have said, and used it as an excuse for all sorts of abuses. As such, SVC 
(Second Vatican Council) has gotten a bad reputation among conservatives. But
if we look at the council itself, there was really nothing wrong with it or
with what it published: the problem was its implementation and the mis-
interpretation of it by those who oppose the orthodox Catholic faith.

    I may not have time to type it but Eric, you should already have a copy
    of "The Desolate City" by Anne Roche Muggeride.  In it she mentions the
    controversy over the selection of the Austrian bishops and Bishop Krenn
    in particular.

.44

Thanks, Pat -- I've heard of it but I don't have it.  Right now I'm reading
_Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism_ and it's pretty dis-
couraging.

One really begins to wonder why the Vatican has been slow in its efforts to
stop the infection of heterodoxy in the church.  The more I analyze it, the
more I am amazed at the extent of the infection in the American church.

I think there is another book by Dietrich von Hildebrand called "Trojan Horse"
or something like that on the infection of the church from within.

Well, it is widely believed that this apostasy is the subject of the Third 
Secret of Fatima -- as it is, Sister Lucia has already prophesied about 
apostasy and unrest in the church.

Other prophecies have pointed to schism in the church, the rise of an anti-
Pope, and the importance of the role of John Paul II, who allegedly has been
specifically chosen to lead the Catholic Church to the Second Coming of Christ.
Many prophets of the church -- ignoring even the recent spate of alleged
Marian apparitions, but focusing on saints of previous centuries -- have
prophesied an increase in lawlessness and a division in the church this
century.  All of the prophesies uttered by saints concerning the end times
seem to be coming together; most of them point either to the 20th century, or
the end of the twentieth century.  Pope Leo XII (?) in the 19th century saw
a vision of Satan receiving increased power this century.  You know all this
of course, but this is for the benefit of those who do not know.

The more recent, ecclesiastically-not-yet-approved Marian apparitions and
prophecies are much clearer, and seem to point to this decade as the last
decade before the Second Coming of Christ.  Before the Second Coming will be
seven years of tribulation.  If this tribulation begins at time t, then for
this to be the last decade before the Second Coming, t + 7 <= 2000, and,
solving, we get t <= 1993, and we can safely drop the < because we've already
passed 1992.  This leaves t=1993, or shortly thereafter, assuming these 
particular prophesies are correct.  Regardless, however, of whether t=1993,
it seems crystal clear if you give any credence to the recent apparitions that
terrible destruction and disaster is at hand.  But God will show great signs
that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt His existence (and his unhappiness).
The time then to repent will be extremely short.  Those who are here during
this time of destruction and great miracles -- which will start to occur no
doubt within at least two to three years, according to the alleged prophesies --
should repent and turn away from all those sins they've been trumpting are
acceptable for the last ten years, and all the other sins as well, because
the time will be very short. Repent, for the day of the Lord is at hand!

(See the CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY conference for some of these alleged prophesies.)

One of these specific prophecies says that this past year has been a year of
grace that God has give us to permit us to repent before the tribulation
starts.  This particular prophecy indicates that the end of this year of
grace before the seven years of tribulation occurs this OCTOBER.  It also seems
to indicate that those who have surrendered themselves to Christ and who have
repented of their sins and who obey Him will be "lifted up" before the beginning
of the tribulation (i.e., they will leave this earth and go to be with Christ,
whether spiritually alone or both bodily and spiritually, I do not know). This
may or may not be true; however, if it is true, those who are reading this
conference after it happens will know why they are still here and what is
coming next, and, most importantly, what to do!  Regardless of the credence
one may give to this particular prophecy now, it is crucial now to prepare our-
selves through repentance and obedience to Christ for the time to come, what-
ever it may entail. That there is a period of tribulation to come soon seems
to be certain, given the prophesies of trustworthy saints throughout the
years.  The details we are less sure about, but let all of us be ready by
repentance for what is to come.  Those who find themselves in the middle of
the tribulation will know then that what has been said in these prophecies is 
true; these have a short time to repent.

Eric

re Note 708.45 by KALI::EWANCO:

> One really begins to wonder why the Vatican has been slow in its efforts to
> stop the infection of heterodoxy in the church.  The more I analyze it, the
> more I am amazed at the extent of the infection in the American church.

        I find no compelling reason why "heterodoxy in the church" is
        per se a bad thing.  (After all, if I wanted orthodoxy, I'd
        join the Orthodox Church! :-})

        Bob

    
    
    How 'bout a quick and dirty definition of heterodoxy, someone?
    
        GJD

Literally, "different teaching" as opposed to "right teaching".

/john

In article <708.46-930909-122339@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fleischer@lgp30.enet.dec.com (without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)) writes:

>        I find no compelling reason why "heterodoxy in the church" is
>        per se a bad thing.  (After all, if I wanted orthodoxy, I'd
>        join the Orthodox Church! :-})

>        Bob

Actually if the Institute for the Corruption of English Liturgy (ICEL) had
not done their job so well, the Latin words in a section of the First
Eucharistic Prayer would be more evident in the American translation:

"We offer [this sacrifice] for . . . and all orthodox [believers] who cherish 
the Catholic and Apostolic faith."

(the ICEL renders this, "For all who hold and teach the Catholic faith which
comes to us from the Apostles.")

So you see, orthodoxy is as essential to Catholicism as it is to Eastern
"Orthodoxy"; in fact before the schism we, too, our church called itself both
the "Orthodox Church" as well as the "Catholic Church."  Unfortunately after
the schism, the East seized the title "Orthodox" for themselves, so although
it would be confusing for us to call ourselves the Orthodox Church, as far as
we are concerned we _are_ the Orthodox Church, and it's a mistake to think
that Catholicism is so universal that it admits heterodoxy as well as
orthodoxy.  There is no Catholicism outside of orthodox Catholicism, and never
has been; to cease to be orthodox is to cease to be Catholic, and to cease to
be Catholic is to cease to be orthodox.

It's too bad the Eastern Churches got to use what I perceive is the superior
name.  Note that the documents of Vatican II assiduously avoid calling these
churches the "Orthodox Churches"; instead, it uses a circumlocution such as
"separated oriental churches" or "non-Catholic oriental churches".

Eric
(posting from another account)
--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com (was ewanco@mlo.dec.com)                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Greg,
    
    	Ortho means "straight, proper, standard."
    
    	Hetero means "other," implying "varied" or "mixed," as opposed to
    "homo," which means "same."
    
        The suffix - dox - in both cases means "opinion" or "thinking."
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re Note 708.49 by QUABBI::"eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com":

> So you see, orthodoxy is as essential to Catholicism as it is to Eastern

        You have repeated the claim but not supported it.

        Bob

Eric,

You're new to this conference.  The doctrine of this conference is the
doctrine of individual imagination.

In CP, there is no revealed truth.  This conferences asserts that a
Christian Perspective is whatever an individual imagines Christ's message
to be.  Under this premise, following your own imagination is the way to
follow Christ.

/john

    Let me see if I can sum this up.
    
    Orthodoxy means right thinging.
    
    Heterodoxy means different thinking(i.e. wrong thinking.
    
    
    Ergo everybody must think their church(opinions) are orthodox and
    others are heterodox.

    
    
    Thanks John and Richard, for the definition.
    
    
    As a protestant, there are many aspects of the Catholic faith I don't
    understand and with which I don't agree.  And, I suppose, similarly,
    members of the Catholic faith probably disagree with aspects of the
    Lutheran faith.  If one faith is "right thinking" and the other is
    "different thinking", does that say that one group is condemned and the
    other is saved?  Is it that black and white.  Should be *all* be
    Lutherans or Catholics or Baptists or ...
    
           Greg

    Christianity here is self-defining.  If I think it is Christian, it is.
    The concept of heterodoxy is not consistent with self-definition and
    the denial of the authority to define what is orthodox.
    
    Roman Catholicism is defined by what the Church teaches.  One is
    heterodox with respect to something else.  A person isn't "a condemned
    Catholic", a person "isn't" a Catholic who denies the authority of the
    Church to teach.

re Note 708.55 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Roman Catholicism is defined by what the Church teaches.  

        If this is true then "heterodoxy" CANNOT enter the Catholic
        Church, as has been feared before, since if it's in the
        Church it's orthodox, right?

        What Eric seemed to be saying, in contrast, is that SOME of
        what the Catholic church is teaching is true, and these days
        some of it isn't.  If this is true then some other definition
        of "orthodoxy" must be found other than what the church
        teaches.

        Bob

        P.S.  Those who use the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" seem
        to be using them as euphemisms for "true" and "false".  Why
        not just use these simpler, more familiar terms if that is
        what you really mean?

    What ever happened to Christ being a *personal* saviour?
    Why stick an entire church and "Orthodox" thinking 
    between you a Christ?

    He speaks to each of us.  His basic message is the same but
    He has different messages for each of us.  Kind of "fine tuning".
    That's what makes Him personal.  That is to Whom we should be
    listening.

    Jesus didn't die for the church.  He died for you.

    Tom

    It's true that Jesus died for us and that in love we accept Jesus as
    out personal Savior, but it doesn't stop there.
    
    Jesus loves us so much that he didn't abandon us and gave us his
    Church, the visible presence of Jesus in the world until he returns.

    .53
    
    Patricia,
    
    	When people speak about orthodoxy (right thinking), they're usually
    really talking about homodoxy (same thinking); conformity and uniformity.
    
    	When people speak about heterodoxy, they're usually really talking
    about deviance, heresy, and whatever they consider wrongful thinking.
    
    Richard
    

In article <708.56-930910-094444@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fleischer@lgp30.enet.dec.com (without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)) writes:

> >     Roman Catholicism is defined by what the Church teaches.  

>         If this is true then "heterodoxy" CANNOT enter the Catholic
>         Church, as has been feared before, since if it's in the
>         Church it's orthodox, right?

No, that's not quite right.  Heterodoxy can enter through individuals or
small groups.  But if it's universally taught by the the bishops of the church
formally as part of the Catholic faith, then it must be orthodox and cannot
be heterodox.

>         What Eric seemed to be saying, in contrast, is that SOME of
>         what the Catholic church is teaching is true, and these days
>         some of it isn't.  If this is true then some other definition
>         of "orthodoxy" must be found other than what the church
>         teaches.

The difference lies betwen that which the Catholic Church as a whole recognizes
as orthodox, and that which is taught by individuals within the church.

Individual priests, bishops, theologians, and laypeople can teach what is
not what the Catholic Church as a whole recognizes as right doctrine. And many 
of these priests, bishops, theologians, and laypeople _are_ teaching false
doctrine.

Heterodoxy cannot be proclaimed by the Catholic Church as a whole; however,
individual members or even groups within the Catholic Church _can_ proclaim
what is false.

>         P.S.  Those who use the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" seem
>         to be using them as euphemisms for "true" and "false".  Why
>         not just use these simpler, more familiar terms if that is
>         what you really mean?

Well, euphemism is not exactly the right term; heterodox and orthodox are
technical terms.  They mean essentially "true doctrine" and "different
doctrine," but they're a lot easier to use and not as potentially offensive
as "true doctrine" and "different doctrine."

>    What ever happened to Christ being a *personal* saviour?

Show me in Scripture where it says anything about Jesus being a "personal
savior."

When Christ established his covenant with Israel, he established it with a
_people_, not with individuals.  And he set rulers over it to take authority.
Anyone cut off from the nation of Israel was cut off from God. In the New
Testament, the church is the People of God, a "holy nation, a royal 
priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) which -- by the way -- is a direct quote from
Exodus 19:6, which demonstrates that Christ did not abolish the hierarchical
organization of the People of God he established in the Old Covenant.

Certainly Christ calls each of us individually to a personal relationship with
Him.  And each of us are responsible for living out and spreading the Gospel.
But the concept of "just me and Jesus" is not found in Scripture. Christ gave
the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name (John 20:23).  He
gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, a symbol of authority (Matthew
16:19).  In other places, Jesus tells us that if someone does not listen
to church after being called on for a particular sin, we are to treat them
like Gentiles and sinners and have nothing to do with them.

>    Why stick an entire church and "Orthodox" thinking between you a Christ?

Who said the church was between "you and Christ"?  The church doesn't block
us from Christ; it _leads_ us to Christ.

The reason the church exists is because Christ instituted it and set up the
church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus's
personal relationship with us does not give us the authority to believe what-
ever we wish or interpret Scripture as we please.  Rather, Christ told the
Apostles, "He who listens to you, listens to me.  He who rejects you, rejects
me; he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). The church is
a community, a community to which all truth has been revealed (John 16:13),
to which the entire faith was entrusted once for all (Jude 3).

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com (was ewanco@mlo.dec.com)                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

>>    Why stick an entire church and "Orthodox" thinking between you a Christ?

>Who said the church was between "you and Christ"?  The church doesn't block
>us from Christ; it _leads_ us to Christ.

    Yes, a good church can lay the groundwork necessary for someone
    to commune with God, but it can only go so far.  At some point a
    person must listen to her own heart and hear what God has to tell
    her.

    The church can't do that *for* you.  It can only take you so far.
    At some point you must take your own steps toward God.

    Tom

In article <708.62-930913-090706@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, tbaker@tholin.enet.dec.com (DOS with Honor!) writes:

> >>    Why stick an entire church and "Orthodox" thinking between you a Christ?

> >Who said the church was between "you and Christ"?  The church doesn't block
> >us from Christ; it _leads_ us to Christ.

>     Yes, a good church can lay the groundwork necessary for someone
>     to commune with God, but it can only go so far.  At some point a
>     person must listen to her own heart and hear what God has to tell
>     her.

>     The church can't do that *for* you.  It can only take you so far.
>     At some point you must take your own steps toward God.

Oh, yes, that's certainly true.  I'm not saying that the Church's position
absolves us from the need for a personal faith or the need to follow Christ
individually.  We all need to cultivate our own personal faith with the Lord.

However, usually when people say, "Why stick a church between you and Christ"
they mean instead, "Why do I need someone to tell me what is right and wrong
doctrine."  The church's primary role -- in the Catholic view -- is guiding us
in right doctrine, because, while Christ promised to lead the church to all
truth and to call to mind everything that he taught, he did not give individual
believers the right to decide for themselves what to believe, because truth
comes from God and was entrusted to the church by Christ ("contend for the
faith entrusted once for all to the saints", Jude 3).  The church is the
"pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Re .59:
>    	When people speak about orthodoxy (right thinking), they're usually
>    really talking about homodoxy (same thinking); conformity and uniformity.

Wrong.  Quite wrong.

There is a _very_ wide variety of opinions permissible within orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is not a strict uniformity; rather, it is a set of boundaries,
within which it is entirely permissible to believe.  Our church is called
"Catholic" which means "Universal" because it embraces a wide range of
traditions and rites and such, not one of which is imposed in uniformity.

The church does not rule on every single article of faith and demand only one
particular interpretation.  But it does set a boundary beyond which it
believes it is wrong to go.

This is not homodoxy.  What is right is not necessarily uniform.
    
>    	When people speak about heterodoxy, they're usually really talking
>    about deviance, heresy, and whatever they consider wrongful thinking.

Heterodoxy is deviance from the boundaries of right doctrine, heresy, and
wrong thinking.  However simply because I may disagree with the Pope on
capital punishment and nuclear armament does not make me heterodox.

The problem with so-called "liberal Catholics" is that they want to paint the
orthodox Catholics as "conservative", "narrow-minded", "bigoted", etc.  so that
they can advance their own heretical doctrine -- doctrine which the Catholic
Church has never believed and never thought permissible to believe -- as valid
Catholic doctrine.  This is the technique of "demonizing" the enemy so that
one's own position appears more moderate.  There is great flexibility within
orthodoxy of what we can do and believe; however, this flexibility goes only so
far and doesn't include what most "liberal Catholics" want to believe as
Catholic doctrine.  By giving people the impression that the orthodox want to
impose uniformity and making the orthodox look like right-wing fundamentalist
fanatics or traditionalists, they legitimize their own strange doctrines.

Of course, when you compare what is in the range of orthodoxy with the wildly
different doctrine and wide ranges of opinion within "liberal Catholicism,"
orthodoxy _does_ appear "narrow-minded," but this is only because the left-
field doctrines advanced by the "liberal Catholics" destroy the "scale" and
desensitize people to differences in doctrine. It's like calling a surface
"smooth" from the naked eye because you haven't magnified the surface enough to
really see it.  Once you look under the microscope, you see that it really
_isn't_ a smooth surface, but is filled with a variety of interesting features.
It's also like examining an auto-scaling version of a graph.  If you have data
that has 100 points close together but nevertheless different and full of
variety, in fact forming a very interesting pattern, but you have a five or six
points out in left field, the scale of the graph makes the one hundred points
look flat and boring because the scale has to accomodate the very bizarre
points. But once you adjust the scale to exclude the bizarre points, you see a
variety of points in beautiful detail that you were never able to see before.

What a joy it is to know that Christ has revealed all truth to us! (John 16:13)
What an awesome thought that he has promised that this truth he has revealed
would never depart from our lips! (Isaiah 59:21) To no longer be tossed about
by wind and wave of doctrine, by vain traditions of men, but to stand on a
solid rock and know the truth! What freedom from the jungle of worldly-wise
theologians who have left us adrift on the sea by telling us that truth is
relative, that we cannot know what Christ really taught, that it's up to us to
decide what's true and what's false.  What a impotent God who doesn't even
ensure his children can know for sure His Word and teachings!

"He who listens to you, listens to me.  He who rejects you, rejects me; he who
rejects me, rejects Him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

"Keep away from any brother who ... does not live according to the teaching you
received from us." (2 Thes 3:6)

"I urge you, brethren, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put
obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.  Keep
away from them.  For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own
appetites.  By smooth toalk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive
people." (Romans 16:17-18)

"Hold fast to the teachings you have received, whether by word of mouth or
by letter." (2 Thes 2:15)

Praise be to the Word of God, who has revealed to us all truth!
--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com (was ewanco@mlo.dec.com)                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 708.63 by QUABBI::"eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com":

> The problem with so-called "liberal Catholics" is that they want to paint the
> orthodox Catholics as "conservative", "narrow-minded", "bigoted", etc.  so that
> they can advance their own heretical doctrine 

        I strongly resent and deny the implication of the above that
        "liberal" equates to "advocating heresy".

        First you imply the (patently false) assertion that there is
        room for a variety of doctrinal thinking in traditional
        orthodoxy (your examples of capital punishment and nuclear
        armament are not directly the subjects of church doctrine),
        and then you slam liberalism per se.

        (If I were one of the more thin-skinned participants of this
        conference I might ask for your note to be censored because
        it does attack what I believe is truly the nature of Christ's
        church;  but I'm not so I won't.)

> This is the technique of "demonizing" the enemy so that
> one's own position appears more moderate.  

        Yes, I agree that that is what you are doing.  Thanks for the
        explanation.

        Bob

> > The problem with so-called "liberal Catholics" is that they want to paint the
> > orthodox Catholics as "conservative", "narrow-minded", "bigoted", etc.  so that
> > they can advance their own heretical doctrine 

>         I strongly resent and deny the implication of the above that
>         "liberal" equates to "advocating heresy".

Actually no, I am not equating "liberal" to "advocating heresy."  This is
why I put "liberal" in quotes.

To say that someone is a "liberal" Catholic means that their opinions lie
in one half of the range covered by the orthodox Catholic faith.  For
example, a "liberal Democrat" is still within the bounds of the Democratic
party; if Rush Limbaugh called himself a "liberal Democrat" he'd only be
deceiving himself and would elicit laughter from the rest of the world, 
because what he believes shows us his political party.

Most of those who call themselves "liberal Catholics" are not orthodox
Catholics at all, and do not believe even the most basic things of the Catholic
faith.  Hence these are no more Catholics than Rush Limbaugh is a Democrat.  In
his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII declared, "Only those are to be
accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters
of baptism and profess the true faith ..."

>         First you imply the (patently false) assertion that there is
>         room for a variety of doctrinal thinking in traditional
>         orthodoxy (your examples of capital punishment and nuclear
>         armament are not directly the subjects of church doctrine),
>         and then you slam liberalism per se.

Excuse me, but I'd like you to prove that my assertion that there is room
for a variety of doctrinal thinking in orthodoxy is false.

I would point out the wide gulf in thinking between Eastern Catholicism
with its emphasis on mysticism and the Holy Spirit and Western Catholicism
with its emphasis on rationalism and reason.  I'd point out the differing
opinions between the Thomists and the Scotists.  I'd point out the vast
differences between St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, even St. John
the Divine and St. Paul of Tarsus.  I'd also point to diversity in liturgy;
the Latin Rite liturgy and the Byzantine Liturgy are extremely different
from one another but both orthodox.  I can pull out my book "Fundamentals of
Catholic Dogma" which on various doctrinal issues points out the variety
of schools of thought and how they diverge yet remain orthodox.

Yet even though this variety exists, it is certainly not the variety demanded
by "liberal Catholics," for in the vast majority of issues, Christ revealed
through his Apostles once for all the immutable truth which the Catholic
Church teaches.  Christ promised to reveal to us "all truth," and promised
to "call to remembrance that which [he] taught [us]."  Therefore it should
not be surprising that many things are non-negotiable, for Christ, God in
the flesh, Himself revealed them to us.  

Catholics must believe in these non-negotiable items (although how they
are to be explained is a matter of freedom), and these are called the dogmas
of the faith.  On other things, Catholics are freer to believe.

>         (If I were one of the more thin-skinned participants of this
>         conference I might ask for your note to be censored because
>         it does attack what I believe is truly the nature of Christ's
>         church;  but I'm not so I won't.)

If you are not Catholic, you are certainly free to believe what you wish. If
you are Catholic, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, you are not
free to believe whatever you wish and still remain Catholic.

> > This is the technique of "demonizing" the enemy so that
> > one's own position appears more moderate.  

>         Yes, I agree that that is what you are doing.  Thanks for the
>         explanation.

Ah, yes, the old "I know you are but what am I" trick. I have no desire to
appear moderate; because the "wisdom of God is foolishness to man." I
don't lean left or right, I stand on the solid rock of orthodoxy.

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   eje@irenaeus.lkg.dec.com (was ewanco@mlo.dec.com)                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]