Subject: (urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:26:58 +0000

Saw a relatively new Wolfe blog in my Google Alerts:
http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/

http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2009/09/its-official-i-have-thesis-topic.html

"After a fruitful meeting with my honours supervisor this afternoon, I
have finally settled on a specific topic for my honours thesis! My
intention was always to write something on religion in Gene Wolfe's
solar cycle (or sun cycle, or Urth cycle... I'm not sure anyone can
agree on what it is called), but I had trouble deciding exactly what
to focus on."

We just call it the Briah cycle around here, don't we?

" I narrowed the possible areas of study down to three topics:
1.The religion of The Book of the Long Sun as a parody of Catholicism.
2.Patera Silk and the role of the priest in science fiction.
3.Patera Silk as messiah figure — particularly as compared to
Severian, the protagonist of BotNS, who is cruel and malicious, unlike
the truly 'good' character of Silk, but is also explicitly a messiah
figure.
After much deliberation I have settled on the second topic, which
lends itself well to a comparative study with other texts, and also
offers a promising three-chapter breakdown. In brief, I plan to
contend that there are two dominant uses of the priest protagonists in
SF:
1.To affirm the priest's faith / religion and its positive effect
(e.g. the missionary goes to an alien planet, converts its
inhabitants, and brings peace and utopia to all).
2.To debunk the priest's faith and expose it as false (e.g. by having
the priest discover something that has him renounce his faith).
These will provide the topics for the first two chapters of my thesis.
In the third, I will address Wolfe's use of the priest protagonist in
BotLS, which I will put forth as an interesting and unique case."

Seems like a worthwhile thesis, although I wonder whether those 2
priest archetypes are quite so universal - such a categorization would
have difficulty with Frank Herbert, I think.

-- 
gwern

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:41 +0000

> have difficulty with Frank Herbert, I think.

... and Arthur Clarke ("The Star") ... and Dan Simmons (Hyperion) ... and
Mary Doria Russell (The Sparrow) ... and Peter F. Hamilton (the Night's Dawn
trilogy) ... and Walter M. Miller (A Canticle for Leibowitz) ... and Tony
Boucher ("The Quest for St. Aquin") ... and ...

The makings of at least one excellent doctoral thesis lies in the image of
the (Catholic) priest in SF. However, this person's thesis ain't it.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090921/d34760ab/attachment.htm>

---

From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:12:41 +0000

> Boucher ("The Quest for St. Aquin") ... and ...

Ah yes, how could I forget Father Dure? Although arguably the rest of
Simmons' Catholic Church falls neatly into the lie category.

> the (Catholic) priest in SF. However, this person's thesis ain't it.

This sort of thing is one reason I avoid literature research: of the
dozens of thousands of SF works, is a few dozen works (say) which
avoid the 2 standard storylines enough to render Wolfe's similar
avoidance not newsworthy, or to invalidate the division into 2
standard storylines? What *is* the standard for good literature
research?

-- 
gwern

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:34:41 +0000

--- On Mon, 9/21/09, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM,
> Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... and Arthur Clarke ("The Star")

It's been a long time, but I have the impression the
narrator's faith was shaken, not stirred.

Do the priests or monks in "The Nine Billion Names of
God" count?

> ... and Dan
> Simmons (Hyperion) ... and Mary Doria Russell (The Sparrow)
> ... and Peter F. Hamilton (the Night's Dawn trilogy) ...
> and Walter M. Miller (A Canticle for Leibowitz) ... and Tony

You've got some points there (as best I remember those
books and stories).
 
> The makings of at least one excellent doctoral thesis lies
> in the image of the (Catholic) priest in SF. However, this
> person's thesis ain't it.

Definitely not, if I'm right in thinking this is an
undergrad thesis.  However, hope is a virtue, I'm told.
Maybe he'll get out of his stereotypes by doing the
research.

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Zachary Kendal <zackendal at optusnet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:32:56 +0000

> Maybe he'll get out of his stereotypes by doing the

Ouch! But I should probably introduce myself before taking up my own  
defence: Hi, I'm Zac, and, yes, I'm doing a thesis on Gene Wolfe. I  
know I really should have introduced myself earlier - before my blog  
became a topic of discussion (you couldn't have known I was lurking  
around the Urth mailing list) - but I was a little intimidated by how  
much everyone here seems to know about Wolfe's work.

Anyway, I'll re-post here what I wrote on my blog in defence of my  
thesis topic (slightly edited to fit this context):

"Thank you for your feedback. I fully acknowledge that I have a lot of  
research still to do - indeed, I have hardly begun. I also know that  
these broad categories I have set out above may not hold up under  
scrutiny - and like 99% of people writing theses, I will probably end  
up writing something quite different to that which I had originally  
planned.

"I should have been clearer in my original post, but these crude  
'stereotypes' are what I *currently* have the impression are dominant.  
I gather, from the limited research I have already done, that most SF  
with priests as protagonists (not peripheral or minor characters)  
either use the priest to challenge (or shake or debunk) the priest's  
faith, or to have it reaffirmed. These two categories are, of course,  
generalisations.

"I *plan* to argue that Wolfe finds a middle ground between these two  
*dominant* approaches to the priest. That he manages to do both debunk  
*and* affirm aspects of Catholicism (ritual vs. spiritual?). I do not  
plan to argue that no other author has ever done the same and  
challenged these two approaches.

"Thank you very much for your recommended texts - I'm currently in the  
process of planning my summer reading, and some of these were not yet  
on my list. And I will welcome any texts that may challenge these  
'stereotypes' of mine.

"It may also have been unclear in my post that this is an  
undergraduate thesis - a 15,000 word thesis that I will do in 2010 for  
my honours degree (we do things differently in Australia, I think).  
While the broad topic of the (Catholic) priest in SF would provide  
plenty to study for a PhD thesis, I am very restricted in both the  
time I have to research, and the length of my finished thesis."

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes - I'm not entirely sure you have any right to be so  
negative about my thesis since (a) I haven't written it, and (b) you  
haven't read it. For all you know, my thesis could shake the  
foundations of SF studies and completely change the world... well,  
alright, I highly doubt that too - but it could happen?

I realise that it is not very fair that I was reading these posts  
without your knowing, and I apologise. I would warmly welcome any  
constructive criticism that anyone might have. I am passionate about  
Wolfe's writing, and have been wanting to write on his work since I  
started my degree. Not much scholarship seems to have been written on  
Silk and BotLS, so I thought I would investigate how Wolfe uses his  
priest in an original and exciting way - since I believe that Wolfe is  
an important (and newsworthy, as gwern said) SF author... I'm sure  
that we can all agree on that much at least :)

Cheers,
Zac

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:44:48 +0000

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Zachary Kendal <zackendal at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> Seems like a worthwhile thesis, although I wonder
> whether
> >> those 2
> Ouch!

I'm sorry I caused you to say that.  I would defend my
use of "stereotypes", but after your clarification, it
seems pointless.

> But I should probably introduce myself before taking
> up my own defence: Hi, I'm Zac, and, yes, I'm doing a thesis
> on Gene Wolfe. I know I really should have introduced myself
> earlier - before my blog became a topic of discussion (you
> couldn't have known I was lurking around the Urth mailing
> list) - but I was a little intimidated by how much everyone
> here seems to know about Wolfe's work.
> 
> Anyway, I'll re-post here what I wrote on my blog in
> defence of my thesis topic (slightly edited to fit this
> context):
...
 
> "I should have been clearer in my original post, but these
> crude 'stereotypes' are what I *currently* have the
> impression are dominant. I gather, from the limited research
> I have already done, that most SF with priests as
> protagonists (not peripheral or minor characters) either use
> the priest to challenge (or shake or debunk) the priest's
> faith, or to have it reaffirmed. These two categories are,
> of course, generalisations.
> 
> "I *plan* to argue that Wolfe finds a middle ground between
> these two *dominant* approaches to the priest. That he
> manages to do both debunk *and* affirm aspects of
> Catholicism (ritual vs. spiritual?). I do not plan to argue
> that no other author has ever done the same and challenged
> these two approaches.
> 
> "Thank you very much for your recommended texts - I'm
> currently in the process of planning my summer reading,

Speaking of stereotypes, I thought, "Summer reading?
Isn't this due in 2010?  Oh.  Never mind."

> undergraduate thesis - a 15,000 word thesis that I will do
> in 2010 for my honours degree (we do things differently in
> Australia, I think).
...

Undergrad theses are known here in America--I wrote one.
(I trust yours well be better than mine was.)

> I realise that it is not very fair that I was reading these
> posts without your knowing, and I apologise.

I hope that was irony.  We all know people lurk on
mailing lists, and you linked to this list at your site,
so there's nothing to apologize for.  I don't know
whether I need to apologize for using a less harsh word
at your blog than I did here--no harm was done by my
two faces, since you saw both.

> I would warmly
> welcome any constructive criticism that anyone might have.

You're in the right place.

> I
> am passionate about Wolfe's writing, and have been wanting
> to write on his work since I started my degree.

Still in the right place.

Anyway, best of luck with this project!

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:48 +0000

On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Zachary Kendal wrote:

> 'stereotypes' are what I *currently* have the impression are  
> dominant. I gather, from the limited research I have already done,  
> that most SF with priests as protagonists (not peripheral or minor  
> characters) either use the priest to challenge (or shake or debunk)  
> the priest's faith, or to have it reaffirmed. These two categories  
> are, of course, generalisations.
>
> "I *plan* to argue that Wolfe finds a middle ground between these  
> two *dominant* approaches to the priest. That he manages to do both  
> debunk *and* affirm aspects of Catholicism (ritual vs. spiritual?).  
> I do not plan to argue that no other author has ever done the same  
> and challenged these two approaches.

To apply a slightly different crude overgeneralization: if you're  
making a priest a major figure, then there's presumably a *reason* for  
that choice, and that reason has something to do with his being a  
priest, rather than, say, a fat guy, or a redhead.

At which point, you're probably committed to doing *something* with  
his faith.  Shaking (perhaps to death) and reaffirming are the two  
obvious things to do.

I suppose this wouldn't be true in a book where *everyone* (or at  
least, many of the major characters) are clergy and therefore the  
difference is in particulars of theology rather than being-a-priest-or- 
not.  For examples of this, _Name of the Rose_, _Endymion_, and  
_Anathem_ all come to mind.

Something I'd *really* like to see someone play with is: why is such a  
large proportion of religion-oriented SF Catholic?  If it reflects the  
background of the authors, then why are Catholics overrepresented in  
SF authorship (and, concomitantly, why are there relatively few Jewish  
SF stories) ?  I mean, just off the top of my head:

_A Canticle for Leibowitz_, _A Case of Conscience_ (which really is  
dire), _Hyperion/Endymion_, "The Star", much of Wolfe's work.   
Where's, for example, the Lutheran SF?  (If I were being snarky I'd  
ask and answer where the Baptist SF was.)  Or even specifically  
*Protestant* Christian SF?

Adam

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:47:11 +0000

Zac,

Welcome aboard.

I had no idea that this was an undergrad thesis - I've barely even heard of
those. To me, the word "thesis" conveys images of Ph.D.

I'm also sorry I was so harsh, but truly, I can't think of a single
significant SF text that _does_ fit the description you give. The closest
thing I can think of is the Curate in H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds,"
which is proto-SF in the meaning of the act. (SF proper really begins with
Hugo Gernsback's identifying it as a genre, giving it a name, and providing
it with a home, first in _The Electrical Expermenter_ and then in _Amazing
Stories_.)

There are plenty of SF writers who are blatantly hostile to religion, but
they don't seem to use priests as characters all that much.

I'd be interested in examples of what you're describing.

--Dan'l

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Zachary Kendal
<zackendal at optusnet.com.au>wrote:

> defence: Hi, I'm Zac, and, yes, I'm doing a thesis on Gene Wolfe. I know I
> really should have introduced myself earlier - before my blog became a topic
> of discussion (you couldn't have known I was lurking around the Urth mailing
> list) - but I was a little intimidated by how much everyone here seems to
> know about Wolfe's work.
>
> Anyway, I'll re-post here what I wrote on my blog in defence of my thesis
> topic (slightly edited to fit this context):
>
> research still to do - indeed, I have hardly begun. I also know that these
> broad categories I have set out above may not hold up under scrutiny - and
> like 99% of people writing theses, I will probably end up writing something
> quite different to that which I had originally planned.
>
> 'stereotypes' are what I *currently* have the impression are dominant. I
> gather, from the limited research I have already done, that most SF with
> priests as protagonists (not peripheral or minor characters) either use the
> priest to challenge (or shake or debunk) the priest's faith, or to have it
> reaffirmed. These two categories are, of course, generalisations.
>
> *dominant* approaches to the priest. That he manages to do both debunk *and*
> affirm aspects of Catholicism (ritual vs. spiritual?). I do not plan to
> argue that no other author has ever done the same and challenged these two
> approaches.
>
> process of planning my summer reading, and some of these were not yet on my
> list. And I will welcome any texts that may challenge these 'stereotypes' of
> mine.
>
> "It may also have been unclear in my post that this is an undergraduate
> thesis - a 15,000 word thesis that I will do in 2010 for my honours degree
> (we do things differently in Australia, I think). While the broad topic of
> the (Catholic) priest in SF would provide plenty to study for a PhD thesis,
> I am very restricted in both the time I have to research, and the length of
> my finished thesis."
>
> negative about my thesis since (a) I haven't written it, and (b) you haven't
> read it. For all you know, my thesis could shake the foundations of SF
> studies and completely change the world... well, alright, I highly doubt
> that too - but it could happen?
>
> I realise that it is not very fair that I was reading these posts without
> your knowing, and I apologise. I would warmly welcome any constructive
> criticism that anyone might have. I am passionate about Wolfe's writing, and
> have been wanting to write on his work since I started my degree. Not much
> scholarship seems to have been written on Silk and BotLS, so I thought I
> would investigate how Wolfe uses his priest in an original and exciting way
> - since I believe that Wolfe is an important (and newsworthy, as gwern said)
> SF author... I'm sure that we can all agree on that much at least :)
>
> Cheers,
> Zac
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090922/abea5277/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:05:34 +0000

> (SF proper really begins with Hugo Gernsback's identifying it as a genre,
> giving it a name, and providing it with a home, first
> in _The Electrical Expermenter_ and then in _Amazing Stories_.)

Tut-tut. I suppose Edith Hamilton invented mythology. And Young Adult 
Fiction began with Barnes & Noble labeling a section by that name in their 
stores.

J.

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:29:58 +0000

I'll start by recommending Richard Cowper's  trilogy /The
White Bird of Kinship/, both for Zac's thesis and as
something I liked.  (I can be a little sentimental at
times, though.)  If you find a copy of volume 1, /The
Road to Corlay/, that doesn't start with the story
"Piper at the Gates of Dawn", you should track that
story down and read it first.

Though if you really want suggestions, Zac, you could
ask in rec.arts.sf.written if you haven't already.

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote:
> > "I should have been clearer in my original post, but
> these crude 'stereotypes' are what I *currently* have the
...

> To apply a slightly different crude overgeneralization: if
> you're making a priest a major figure, then there's
> presumably a *reason* for that choice, and that reason has
> something to do with his being a priest, rather than, say, a
> fat guy, or a redhead.
> 
> At which point, you're probably committed to doing
> *something* with his faith. Shaking (perhaps to death)
> and reaffirming are the two obvious things to do.
...

So why did Wolfe make Chris a priest in /Pirate Freedom/?
Just for plot convenience?  To say some some things about
contemporary Catholicism?  To give him vows to break?
(This is a real question, not a rhetorical challenge to
your argument.)

> Something I'd *really* like to see someone play with is:
> why is such a large proportion of religion-oriented SF
> Catholic?

Catholicism is more colorful than most Western religions.
It's got rituals, saints, vestments, cathedrals, celibates
(who can break their vows), a hierarchy, and more.  And as
the storyteller in "The Tale of the Rose and the Nightingale"
points out, color is a requisite for a good story.

Catholicism goes with medieval and pseudo-medieval settings,
which are popular.  The RC Church a worldwide organization,
which makes it suitable as a conspiracy (for good or evil).

Also, until recent decades, Catholicism was more pervasive
in American Catholics' lives than Protestantism in American
Protestants'.  If I may be forgiven a stereotype, being
whacked by nuns can give one deeper feelings about one's
religion than being hushed during sermons.

Recently, conservative Protestant denominations have been
trying to close the pervasiveness gap.  As a result, once
in a while there's a magazine story set during Vacation
Bible School or some such (and maybe fewer stories where
fundamentalism is the root of all evil).

> If it reflects the background of the
> authors, then why are Catholics overrepresented in SF
> authorship (and, concomitantly, why are there relatively few
> Jewish SF stories) ?

Catholics outnumber Jews in the United States by a factor
of more than 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_demographics#Religious_affiliation

Getting numbers for other countries is more work that I'm
willing to do, but the proportion for the UK might be fairly
similar.

> I mean, just off the top of my head:
> 
> _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, _A Case of Conscience_ (which
> really is dire), 

I liked it, at least the ending.  So it's scientifically
ridiculous--whaddya want?

> Hyperion/Endymion_, "The Star", much of
> Wolfe's work. Where's, for example, the Lutheran SF?

As one of Robertson Davies's characters points out,
Protestantism has inspired great music, but not a single
great painting.  (Have I mentioned that I like Robertson
Davies?)

> (If I were being snarky I'd ask and answer where
> the Baptist SF was.)? Or even specifically *Protestant*
> Christian SF?

There's Heinlein: "If This Goes On--" and "Job", neither
of which is favorable to evangelical Protestantism, if I
may understate.

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:49:07 +0000

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote:

> large proportion of religion-oriented SF Catholic?

One reason is that Catholicism is the Big Dog of Christianity. There is no
Protestant sect that comes near Catholicism in terms of total membership;
thus, if you want to present a generic Christian, a Catholic is the logical
choice.

In addition, there is a huge and interesting dynamic between Catholicism,
specifically, and science. Catholicism is the most "rationalistic" of the
Christian religions, with its theology heavily based on the Aristoteleanism
of St Thomas Aquinas. Yet Catholicism is -- or was, until fundamentalism
reared its head and began resenting biology and geology -- the sect which
has the most significant history of conflict with science and rationalism
(can you say Galileo? I knew you could).

Plus, as Jerry observed below, there is all the nifty colorful baggage that
comes with Catholicism - though if that's what you're looking for, Eastern
Orthodoxy is even better.

If it reflects the background of the authors, then why are Catholics
> overrepresented in SF authorship (and, concomitantly, why are there
> relatively few Jewish SF stories) ?  I mean, just off the top of my head:
>

Relatively few Jewish SF stories? Heavens, man, what about Asimov's "Robot"
stories? Those are all basically Talmudic disputation.

There are two excellent anthologies of Jewish SF edited by Jack Dann in the
'70s, "Wandering Stars" and "More Wandering Stars."

> Where's, for example, the Lutheran SF?  (If I were being snarky I'd ask and
> answer where the Baptist SF was.)  Or even specifically *Protestant*
> Christian SF?
>

I can't think of any Lutheran SF offhand, but there's an excellent Quaker SF
novel called "Pennterra" by Judith Moffatt.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090922/43e0a947/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:51:08 +0000

Additional thought:

Genre SF is an American phenomenon (in origin). SF is about exoticism. To
the largely Protestant and Jewish kids who formed the "golden age" writers
bloc, Catholicism was fairly exotic, Judaism less so, and Protestantism, as
the American mainstream culture, not at all.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090922/e3a440b1/attachment.htm>

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:32:55 +0000

> the American mainstream culture, not at all.

If we're going this direction, it might be significant that many
Catholic sf writers are converts. Walter Miller Jr. converted to, and
later from, Catholicism. Wolfe was a convert. Though I guess Tim
Powers comes from a Catholic family.

To move on to more general comments:

If you want something "light" to look at, you might want to glance at
Space Vulture, co-authored by Gary K. Wolf and the Archbishop of
Newark. SF by a priest!

Also, some "mainstream" Catholic writers have stories that have a sf
elements. I believe Graham Greene has a story called "The Last Word"
about the last pope. I suppose that veers towards sf? Evelyn Waugh has
Love Amongst the Ruins: A Romance of the Near Future, which was
originally published independently as a novel but now appears in
Complete Short Stories.

Charles Williams might also be interesting to look at. I don't think
he was Catholic, but he certainly knew one or two influential Catholic
writers...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article4164208.ece

Zac - I nearly did an undergraduate honors thesis on a similar topic,
but decided I would take extra classes instead. Good luck with yours.

-Matt

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:28:55 +0000

Orson Scott Card has written some very interesting Mormon based stuff.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:33:27 +0000

Not in NYC, which dominated the publishing biz, let alone the genre
publishing biz, in the early to mid twentieth. In the NYC where I grew up,
Jews and Catholics were normal: white people were either one or the other,
white Protestants were strange. Protestants is what you expected black
folks to be.

.

---

From: Zachary Kendal <zackendal at optusnet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:15:14 +0000

On 23/09/2009, at 2:47 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

> Zac,
>
> Welcome aboard.
>
> I had no idea that this was an undergrad thesis - I've barely even  
> heard of those. To me, the word "thesis" conveys images of Ph.D.
>
> significant SF text that _does_ fit the description you give. The  
> closest thing I can think of is the Curate in H.G. Wells' "The War  
> of the Worlds," which is proto-SF in the meaning of the act. (SF  
> proper really begins with Hugo Gernsback's identifying it as a  
> genre, giving it a name, and providing it with a home, first in _The  
> Electrical Expermenter_ and then in _Amazing Stories_.)
>
> There are plenty of SF writers who are blatantly hostile to  
> religion, but they don't seem to use priests as characters all that  
> much.
>

Hi Dan'l, and thanks for the welcome.

I fear I was unclear in my original blog posting, but those examples I  
gave of the 'positive' and 'negative' use of the priest as protagonist  
were extremes (and intended to be taken that way). I'll post a  
clarified thesis topic to my blog today later today, which should sort  
out some of this confusion.

I'd consider Clarke's "The Star" to be a fairly clear example of the  
'negative' use of the priest in SF (i.e. in order to shake the  
priest's faith). I know the Jesuit narrator doesn't explicitly  
renounce his faith altogether - he may well retain his belief in the  
existence of God (the extraordinary 'coincidence' of the supernova  
being the star of Bethlehem would suggest this) - but his idea of an  
all loving and merciful God is greatly challenged (and, indeed, I  
believe his faith is profoundly shaken to say the least). It's not an  
uncommon SF motif for Got to be revealed as incredibly evil (often an  
incredibly evil parasite - hell, Stargate SG1 milked this theme for 10  
seasons and 3 films!).

Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz", as a whole, focuses on the  
Church, not the priest (singular) and his personal journey of faith,  
which is what I will be focusing on. While it is a fantastic book, I  
don't believe it will be referred to much in my thesis.

As Adam Thornton wrote:

> making a priest a major figure, then there's presumably a *reason*  
> for that choice, and that reason has something to do with his being  
> a priest, rather than, say, a fat guy, or a redhead.
>

Adam seems to have described my decision well :) rejection/shaking or  
reaffirmation of faith are the two obvious reasons to have a priest as  
a protagonist. The very purpose of my *doing* research is to see  
whether or not these are the two *dominant* uses of the priest. I  
should also be clear here, I am only looking at SF works with a priest  
as the main or central character, where his faith / spiritual journey  
is an important part of the story. And I do believe that some SF  
authors hostile to religion choose to have a priest protagonist  
(especially narrator) - this is usually done in order to attack or  
debunk religion from 'within' (i.e. Clarke?).

Zac

---

From: Jeffrey Brent McBeth <mcbeth at broggs.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:51:48 +0000

> Orson Scott Card has written some very interesting Mormon based stuff.

I find his style too much Perelandra and Anthem and not enough Middle
Earth and Brave New World.  I love Wolfe and Chesterton and Tolkien
and ... precicely because while the author's beliefs are there in all
of them, there is more than just a didactic exercise in the latter.

Jeff

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over 
 the man who cannot read them."
 -- Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090922/e9f3f149/attachment.pgp>

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:27:14 +0000

I don't think that Card became didactic until his later years.  I found Seventh Son to be much more The King Must Die than Atlas Shrugged.  I didn't know he was a Mormon when I read it, and even after I found out I can still enjoy it because it isn't a soapbox.

________________________________
From: Jeffrey Brent McBeth <mcbeth at broggs.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Tue, September 22, 2009 5:51:48 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

Jeff

      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091217/a623fc77/attachment.htm>

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:21:40 +0000

This is pure speculation on my part, as I was raised Protestant, so please forgive me if I stereotype.

1.  SF authors are interested in, um, science.  Science being a logical and repeatable method for explaining the universe.  Expanding on that idea, many SF authors (Wolfe, for instance) are interested not just in the results, but in the nature of logic, rationality, thought, memory, etc.
2.  Protestantism has vague boundaries to many of its practitioners.  Ask ten Baptists what they believe and you will probably get eleven answers.  The clergy in Protestant churches are likely to be well-educated, informed about and invested in their system of belief, but their parishioners much less so (the first two at least).  There is also much less an idea of a "clergy lifestyle" - pastors are very free to pursue their own agendas outside of their pastoral duties, and opinions vary widely as to what is permissible.  Drinking, smoking, dancing, hunting, parties, etc.  Opinions vary widely on these topics, even within one denomination.
3.  As an earlier poster pointed out, Catholicism has a lot of trappings, but I wanted to point out that it also has a more uniform belief system, with predefined actions, rituals, etc, and (I think) a clergyman is much more likely to have a "clergy lifestyle" across the Catholic church.  So, as a symbol a priest has a more universal power and greater accessibility than a pastor does, because many of his attributes and attitudes are known.  At least their stereotypes are known.

Sorry for rambling and chasing rabbits (I'm really tired), but my main point was this: it must appeal to many authors to be able to play two systems against each other to see where they are consonant and dissonant.  This is, I believe, a summary of the proposed thesis.  Because Catholicism seems a more defined system than, say, Methodism or Judaism (where it's much more likely that believers will pick and choose their doctrines), and the priest a more universal symbol, I would think those aspects would appeal to an author looking to juxtapose religion with science.

Ok, one more try: Catholicism is much more like a religious science than many other religions.  That's all I wanted to add to The Big Dog theory.

The temptation to provide a false dichotomy between religion and science often proves too strong for the zealous author.  Too strong for a good story, at least.  One theme of Wolfe's that would bear mention in your proposed thesis is religion as a humanizing element.  Wolfe is aware of the powerful benevolent moral influence of religion as well as the terrible things that it can achieve.  Most of the "negative" religion in SF that you mention comes from authors who believe (as best I can make out) that rationality should be sufficient to conquer our moral problems, who discount religion's benevolent influence as trivial at best, and who have in their minds a scale with the Inquisition, the Crusades, suicide bombers, Mayan sacrifice, etc on one side, and nothing on the other.

Anyway in Wolfe when the priest finds his faith shaken or confirmed, it is often this humanizing process - he must confront what about his faith he can continue to believe, what he finds truly important, what is worth believing, whether he will continue to believe it whether or not there is any proof of it, etc.  These are the same questions that we all confront about our beliefs if we are to shape them into something worth believing, whether or not they are religious.  </sermon>  I also wonder how much of Silk's journey is an analog to Wolfe's own - I feel that I can see Wolfe's shadow on Silk, as he makes a deliberate choice to believe even when it seems foolhardy and dense.  I often feel the same way in my faith so maybe I'm just projecting.

________________________________
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Tue, September 22, 2009 12:49:07 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote:

>
>Something I'd *really* like to see someone play with is: why is such a large proportion of religion-oriented SF Catholic?  

One reason is that Catholicism is the Big Dog of Christianity. There is no Protestant sect that comes near Catholicism in terms of total membership;  thus, if you want to present a generic Christian, a Catholic is the logical choice.

In addition, there is a huge and interesting dynamic between Catholicism, specifically, and science. Catholicism is the most "rationalistic" of the Christian religions, with its theology heavily based on the Aristoteleanism of St Thomas Aquinas. Yet Catholicism is -- or was, until fundamentalism reared its head and began resenting biology and geology -- the sect which has the most significant history of conflict with science and rationalism (can you say Galileo? I knew you could). 

Plus, as Jerry observed below, there is all the nifty colorful baggage that comes with Catholicism - though if that's what you're looking for, Eastern Orthodoxy is even better.

>If it reflects the background of the authors, then why are Catholics overrepresented in SF authorship (and, concomitantly, why are there relatively few Jewish SF stories) ?  I mean, just off the top of my head:
>

Relatively few Jewish SF stories? Heavens, man, what about Asimov's "Robot" stories? Those are all basically Talmudic disputation.

There are two excellent anthologies of Jewish SF edited by Jack Dann in the '70s, "Wandering Stars" and "More Wandering Stars." 

Where's, for example, the Lutheran SF?  (If I were being snarky I'd ask and answer where the Baptist SF was.)  Or even specifically *Protestant* Christian SF?

I can't think of any Lutheran SF offhand, but there's an excellent Quaker SF novel called "Pennterra" by Judith Moffatt.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/9f582dad/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:59:51 +0000

Card's early short work, which mostly appeared in OMNI, was really, raelly
good. He is, at worst, readable.

.

> I don't think that Card became didactic until his later years.  I found
> Seventh Son to be much more The King Must Die than Atlas Shrugged.  I
> didn't know he was a Mormon when I read it, and even after I found out I
> can still enjoy it because it isn't a soapbox.
>
>
>
>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:04:16 +0000

Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity. The forms
of Protestantism are Christianity with various bits sliced off.

Christianity began by being a coherent expression of the common ancient
Worldview with a particular theological slant upon it.

.

> 1.  SF authors are interested in, um, science.  Science being a logical
> and repeatable method for explaining the universe.  Expanding on that
> idea, many SF authors (Wolfe, for instance) are interested not just in the
> results, but in the nature of logic, rationality, thought, memory, etc.
> 2.  Protestantism has vague boundaries to many of its practitioners.  Ask
> ten Baptists what they believe and you will probably get eleven answers.
> The clergy in Protestant churches are likely to be well-educated, informed
> about and invested in their system of belief, but their parishioners much
> less so (the first two at least).  There is also much less an idea of a
> "clergy lifestyle" - pastors are very free to pursue their own agendas
> outside of their pastoral duties, and opinions vary widely as to what is
> permissible.  Drinking, smoking, dancing, hunting, parties, etc.  Opinions
> vary widely on these topics, even within one denomination.
> 3.  As an earlier poster pointed out, Catholicism has a lot of trappings,
> but I wanted to point out that it also has a more uniform belief system,
> with predefined actions, rituals, etc, and (I think) a clergyman is much
> more likely to have a "clergy lifestyle" across the Catholic church.  So,
> as a symbol a priest has a more universal power and greater accessibility
> than a pastor does, because many of his attributes and attitudes are
> known.  At least their stereotypes are known.
>
> Sorry for rambling and chasing rabbits (I'm really tired), but my main
> point was this: it must appeal to many authors to be able to play two
> systems against each other to see where they are consonant and dissonant.
> This is, I believe, a summary of the proposed thesis.  Because Catholicism
> seems a more defined system than, say, Methodism or Judaism (where it's
> much more likely that believers will pick and choose their doctrines), and
> the priest a more universal symbol, I would think those aspects would
> appeal to an author looking to juxtapose religion with science.
>
> Ok, one more try: Catholicism is much more like a religious science than
> many other religions.  That's all I wanted to add to The Big Dog theory.
>
> The temptation to provide a false dichotomy between religion and science
> often proves too strong for the zealous author.  Too strong for a good
> story, at least.  One theme of Wolfe's that would bear mention in your
> proposed thesis is religion as a humanizing element.  Wolfe is aware of
> the powerful benevolent moral influence of religion as well as the
> terrible things that it can achieve.  Most of the "negative" religion in
> SF that you mention comes from authors who believe (as best I can make
> out) that rationality should be sufficient to conquer our moral problems,
> who discount religion's benevolent influence as trivial at best, and who
> have in their minds a scale with the Inquisition, the Crusades, suicide
> bombers, Mayan sacrifice, etc on one side, and nothing on the other.
>
> Anyway in Wolfe when the priest finds his faith shaken or confirmed, it is
> often this humanizing process - he must confront what about his faith he
> can continue to believe, what he finds truly important, what is worth
> believing, whether he will continue to believe it whether or not there is
> any proof of it, etc.  These are the same questions that we all confront
> about our beliefs if we are to shape them into something worth believing,
> whether or not they are religious.  </sermon>  I also wonder how much of
> Silk's journey is an analog to Wolfe's own - I feel that I can see Wolfe's
> shadow on Silk, as he makes a deliberate choice to believe even when it
> seems foolhardy and dense.  I often feel the same way in my faith so maybe
> I'm just projecting.
>
>
>
>
> thus, if you want to present a generic Christian, a Catholic is the
> logical choice.
>
> Christian religions, with its theology heavily based on the
> Aristoteleanism of St Thomas Aquinas. Yet Catholicism is -- or was, until
> fundamentalism reared its head and began resenting biology and geology --
> the sect which has the most significant history of conflict with science
> and rationalism (can you say Galileo? I knew you could).
>
> Plus, as Jerry observed below, there is all the nifty colorful baggage
> that comes with Catholicism - though if that's what you're looking for,
> Eastern Orthodoxy is even better.
>
>
>
> Relatively few Jewish SF stories? Heavens, man, what about Asimov's
> "Robot" stories? Those are all basically Talmudic disputation.
>
> There are two excellent anthologies of Jewish SF edited by Jack Dann in
> the '70s, "Wandering Stars" and "More Wandering Stars."
>
>
>
> Where's, for example, the Lutheran SF?  (If I were being snarky I'd ask
> and answer where the Baptist SF was.)  Or even specifically *Protestant*
> Christian SF?
>>
>
> I can't think of any Lutheran SF offhand, but there's an excellent Quaker
> SF novel called "Pennterra" by Judith Moffatt.
>
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>
>
>

---

From: John Smith <jsmith2627 at att.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:13:58 +0000

Well, EXCUUUUUUUSE me! ? Martin Luther, John Calvin and their followers would beg to differ.

Best wishes,

Jack the Protestant

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Subject: Re: (urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 10:04 AM

..

>
>
>? ? ???_______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/97cdada9/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:30 +0000

Heretics all.

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:53:33 +0000

>> Well, EXCUUUUUUUSE me!   Martin Luther, John Calvin and their followers
>> would beg to differ.

> Heretics all.

....And so Josh got the Christmas party started at the Urth List.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:57:05 +0000

Bah! Humbug!

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:01:31 +0000

> Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan.
:-D

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:07:41 +0000

The original group is the orthodox group: there was no one before them,
they get to say what is orthodox. Any deviation from what that original
group says is therefore, by definition, heterodox.

QED.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:10:31 +0000

The question is, then, whether the Orthodox or the Catholic are orthodox as
regards the _filioque_ clause.

(Will the filioque clause be coming down your chimney this Christmas? Have
you been a good brunian or a bad brunian?)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Well, EXCUUUUUUUSE me! ? Martin Luther, John Calvin and their
>>>>>> followers
>>>>>> would beg to differ.
>>>>
>>>>> Heretics all.
>>>>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:28:41 +0000

> The question is, then, whether the Orthodox or the Catholic are orthodox
> as regards the _filioque_ clause.

That part's pretty minor. They can take sacrament from each other's
priests, in an emergency. The Anglicans are also reasonably close: they
should be considered something other than Protestant if you ask me.

It's not like slicing and the dicing and the mixing and the matching of
the theology that Martin and John and their ilk indulged in.

> (Will the filioque clause be coming down your chimney this Christmas?

I'll be enjoying a nice drive on Christmas.

> Have you been a good brunian or a bad brunian?)

I'll do until something better comes along.

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:41:09 +0000

> group says is therefore, by definition, heterodox.

And here we go...

Well, then we have to ask who is saying it? For quite a long time the 
Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches considered each other 
heretics, excommunicated, and damned. (Same with the Church of England)

IIRC the terms "orthodox" (right-thinking) and "heterodox" (other-thinking) 
were coined by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. He openly criticized the Pope 
for excommunicating churches who persisted in celebrating Easter on the 14th 
of Nisan (Quartodeciman system) rather than on the Sunday *following* the 
14th of Nisan. That he was free to do so without being at odds with the 
Church implies that the system at that time was not the Roman system at the 
time of the Reformation. So you are labeling a group "original group" 
without establishing that it is *in fact* the original group. And the 
argument of Calvin and (eventually) Luther is that they were not. You cannot 
move forward without establishing that point one way or the other.

(Q.E.D. stricken)

J.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:51:17 +0000

I'm just going by the meaning of the terms.

I'm either a Jew or a Brunian, depending what mood I'm in when you ask me:
I have no dog in this fight.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:53:53 +0000

Remember, I always use the radical meaning of a given term.

.

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:08:15 +0000

> Remember, I always use the radical meaning of a given term.
The radical meaning of "orthodoxy" is "right-worshipping."

-- 
Matt +

The Ides of March have come.
Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/bdf8d6b6/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:10:54 +0000

Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:11:16 +0000

> I'm just going by the meaning of the terms. I'm either a Jew or a Brunian, 
> depending what mood I'm in when you ask me:

Well, the meaning of terms is formed entirely by the context and the era it 
is used. The Reformation and Reaction was all about the meaning of those 
terms.

For example, I could argue that all Christian denominations merely branches 
of Judaism based on Jeremiah 31 (where the term New Testament comes from) 
with altered rules for receiving converts. Certainly that is how 1st century 
Jewish Christians saw themselves. Just because they were expelled from the 
synagogues and so had to set up their own synagogues (which were eventually 
called "kyriakon" from which we get "church") does not rationally deny them 
that status. There's not even an "original group" to deny them that status 
since Judaism from the 2nd century on is a new branch itself developed to 
carry on without a Temple in Jerusalem.

Obviously, however, this definition of terms would be unacceptable to 99.99% 
of Jewish rabbis.

J.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:11:34 +0000

Indeed.

And your point?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:12:57 +0000

Sorry, I was wrong to agree with you.

The radical meaning of orthdoxy is right belief.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:13:52 +0000

Exactly, Dan'l.

Still not seeing Matt's point.

.

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:24:12 +0000

> Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing.
That's certainly the sense in which it's most often used now.  "Doxa"
usually seems to imply "praise," as in "doxology".  According to my lexicon,
"doxa" can also be translated as "opinion," but isn't "belief" closer to
"pistis"?

Assuming that by "radical meaning" Brunians meant "root meaning," that is.

-- 
Matt +

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/6271671f/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:30:07 +0000

Doxology originally meant "statement of belief." And the radical meaning
of "radical meaning" would be "root meaning."

Shall we go into grammatology?

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:32:13 +0000

>> I'm just going by the meaning of the terms. I'm either a Jew or a
>> Brunian, depending what mood I'm in when you ask me:

> Well, the meaning of terms is formed entirely by the context and the era
> it is used.

I don't agree. This is not the way I use terms. Each term has a radical
meaning, which is mine to discover and then to always use.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:33:32 +0000

Well, yes.

The radical meaning of the term 'radical' is 'root'.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:34:13 +0000

Once again, this is exactly correct.

.

---

From: James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:45:06 +0000

Um, no. In English, usually "right opinion." In Eastern Orthodoxy, 
"right praise." It can be either. "Right Praise" is original, since 
the arguments were over the date of Pascha and other liturgical matters.

JBJordan

> > The radical meaning of "orthodoxy" is "right-worshipping."

James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32588
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/28648ef1/attachment.htm>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:50:07 +0000

Hmmm...This seems to affirm that "brunians" is synonymous with "radical". So 
I suppose it is logically consistent.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:02:35 +0000

Opinion and belief are the same word in Greek. That word is 'doxos'.

It is sometimes translated as opinion and it is sometimes translated as
belief.

This uniform employment of radical meanings for terms is a personal
practice which I encourage others to adopt.

Some others have.

I freely admit that most others use terms in other, less perfect ways.

.

.

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:52:52 +0000

For the record, Orthodox Christians are told not to take the Sacrament from
Catholic priests, and it is my impression, at the least, that the Orthodox
do not offer the Eucharist to Catholics.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/ddb955e5/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:11:20 +0000

Orthodox Christians may not take the sacrament from Catholic priests
unless they really need it and there are no Orthodox priests around.

This I have from an orthodox priest.

.

>> >>>>>>> Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity.
>> The
>> >>>>>>> forms

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:13:44 +0000

Or, as the Catholics would say, only in extremis?

I buy that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/38efa7cf/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:19:47 +0000

That's the term!

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:58:05 +0000

> Heretics all.

I think you have to depart from the Nicean Creed to achieve heresy, or at
least to depart from Christianity. This was agreed upon in the ageas
before the great schim between Roman and Eastern Catholics.

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:12:30 +0000

Not if you are, as I am, using the radical definition of the term
'heterodox'.

.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:29:59 +0000

> you been a good brunian or a bad brunian?)
That's the filioque clause?  I thought it was the Holy Spirit.  Or maybe 
ectoplasm.

Adam

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:33:09 +0000

Nathan Spears wrote:
>
> Ok, one more try: Catholicism is much more like a religious science 
> than many other religions. 

Paging Father Brown.

Seriously: it's not like Wolfe hasn't told us often enough that we 
should read Chesterton.  I'm finally doing so, and, yeah, you can see an 
awful lot of very, very strong influence.  Plus it's kinda fun.

Adam

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:35:31 +0000

> meaning, which is mine to discover and then to always use.

The question is who's to be master, that's all.

Adam

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:40:35 +0000

> Not if you are, as I am, using the radical definition of the term

It's not which way your doxy swings, it's about the message before that.
Protestants don't slice any material bits off of the Creed.

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:45:47 +0000

> Protestants don't slice any material bits off of the Creed.

Depends on the Protestant.  I'm not sure that Anabaptists mean the same
thing that I do when I say that I acknowledge one baptism for the remission
of sins.

And there are non-magisterial Protestantisms that set personal experience
and opinion far above any credal or dogmatic formulation; Bishop John Shelby
Spong, Gretta Vosper, and Paul Tillich have all felt perfectly comfortable
in contesting or contradicting the historic creeds without violating the
canons of their respective church bodies.

-- 
Matt +

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/6799bb17/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:52:16 +0000

It is certainly scientific in the old sense.

It has been gone over for a long time by some brilliant people and the
loose ends are pretty much all tied up.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:53:09 +0000

Sorry, I'm not into S&M currently.

Not that I have anything against that kind of stuff.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:54:28 +0000

OK, I can disagree with that.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:43:04 +0000

> Protestants don't slice any material bits off of the Creed.

No, but they've redefined terms (you know, like "I believe ... in the Holy
Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church ...") to suit themselves. Too, they
tossed out bits of Scripture that didn't suit them and then set up the
unprecedented principle of "Sola Scriptura."

No: the Protestant "reformation" was a series of heresies.

Luther had a point. There were things that were wrong with the practice
(NOT the theology) of the Roman church. Had he been patient enough
to work within the Roman system, they might have been addressed
much sooner -- some of them were not properly addressed until the
second Vatican council, which might properly be seen as the Church's
response to the legitimate complaints of the Deformers.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:31:37 +0000

> loose ends are pretty much all tied up.

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
< http://ieeetamut.org >

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:57:47 +0000

> How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?
Could you unpack what you mean by "transubstantiation"?  Where I come from,
the word is used to describe a theory of how the Real Presence in the
Eucharist works; a theory couched in 13th-century neo-Aristotelian
philosophico-scientific terms.

Look at any of the great works of systematic theology (Thomas's Summa, John
Damascene's Exposition, Lombard's Sentences).  There's nothing wrong with
the reasoning in any of these works, and they proceed in an orderly,
rational, and coherent fashion.  Whether you find them credible will depend,
of course, on whether you accept their basic assumptions.  Criticizing them
for not following the methods of 21st century science is a bit like
criticizing theoretical mathematics for not having a good beat.  That's not
what they're *for*.

-- 
Matt +

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091218/a1e72600/attachment.htm>

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:02:58 +0000

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> It is sometimes translated as opinion and it is sometimes
> translated as belief.
> 
> This uniform employment of radical meanings for terms is a
> personal practice which I encourage others to adopt.
...

When you write "translated", do you mean "transferred"?
"Employment" is "enfolding"?  "Personal" is "having to do
with masks"?  I must say I find your writing less
comprehensible if I believe what you say about how you use
boundaries, I mean terms.  It gives me a semantic
nightmare (if I may bring Lewis, C. S. in alongside Lewis C.).

Spearwielder Peaceman

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:04:57 +0000

Jeff Wilson writes:
>>                            ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^

> How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:05:46 +0000

No doubt.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:07:01 +0000

What, you expect consistency?

Sheesh.

.

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:40:39 +0000

I'd settle for uniformity.  But no doubt you are large,
you contain multitudes of Brunians.

Jerry Friedman

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> > --- On Fri, 12/18/09, brunians at brunians.org
> <brunians at brunians.org>
> wrote:

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:50:50 +0000

Indeed.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:53:47 +0000

I think it was the third or fourth time I read Whitman, all of a sudden,
he was there talking to me. One of the most remarkable things that has
ever occurred to me.

It only hsppened because I had read something that Borges had written
about Whitman. I had, before that, given up on Whitman.

I first heard of Borges when Gene Wolfe suggested that I might enjoy him.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:57:54 +0000

>> How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

Unobservable phenomena and unfalsifiable hypotheses are scientific in 
neither the current sense nor that used a thousand years ago.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:18:49 +0000

> Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church ...") to suit themselves.

I'm not sure "to suit themselves" is the right term. They were led to their 
positions by a series of empirical observations of the Roman Catholic 
religion in practice. In the end they chose to believe that God and his 
Church were pure and the Pope and his bishops were damned rather than the 
other way around.

>Too, they
> tossed out bits of Scripture that didn't suit them....

Now that this claim has been confirmed by a non-brunians, I'm curious as to 
what those bits were.

>then set up the

Well, perhaps it only seemed unprecedented because the Church authorities 
were burning at people at the stake for translating the Bible into the 
vernacular (which is what St. Jerome did when he wrote the Vulgate). Was 
burning the translators merely a bad practice? Or was it based on a bad 
theology?

Look, Dan'l, the scandal of Indulgences was not just a bad "practice". 
Luther's point was that it struck to the heart of the doctrine of Salvation. 
If you think the Indulgences were wrong (as Luther did), you can either take 
his position that the claim of papal infallibility is "a creation of men" or 
you must presume the papal see was vacant at the time (as my Reformed 
Catholic friends believe has been the case since some time before Vatican 
II).
Otherwise, you have to accept that the Pope has the right to sell an escape 
from Purgatory for cold hard cash (see Acts 8:20).

> (NOT the theology) of the Roman church.
>Had [Luther] been patient enough
> much sooner

I think you need to check out a biography of Luther. What you are suggesting 
seems to have been Luther's intention when he nailed his little tract to the 
door. Unfortunately, the Pope really needed to pay for Saint Peter's 
Basilica, so he wasn't inclined to listen. I'm pretty sure that before 
Luther had successfully worked his way through the Roman system, he would 
have ended up so many other reformers who had tried that over the previous 
400 years (heard of John Huss?). That definitely seems to have been the plan 
in Rome.

I really don't think you can put the long time it took the Vatican to "come 
around" at Luther's doorstep. He tried just about every route until he 
finally decided that "the Church" could not have ever been intended to be 
something that could be subjugated from Rome, Italy.

Speaking of Huss, he was definitely a guy who planned to "work within the 
Roman system". He accepted a promise that he would not be harmed if 
presented him to explain why translating the Bible the common-tongue was not 
heretical. They listened to his explanation and then burned him. When Pope 
Benedict XVI recently when to the Czech Republic, there was a lot of talk 
about how he might chose to admit that burning Huss was a bad thing (since 
the RCC produces lots of vernacular Bibles now). He didn't. So maybe reform 
would have taken at lot longer than Luther's lifetime even if some bishop 
didn't manage to shorten it.

> -- some of them were not properly addressed until the

See above on Reformed Catholics.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:36:08 +0000

> neither the current sense nor that used a thousand years ago.

Really?

.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:58:15 +0000

> I'd settle for uniformity.  But no doubt you are large,

Brunians so fat, when he sit around the house, he sit AROUND the house!  

Oh snap!

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091219/36bb56f2/attachment.bin>

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:59:57 +0000

On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
> 
> Unobservable phenomena and unfalsifiable hypotheses are scientific in neither the current sense nor that used a thousand years ago.

And so Jeff Wilson was torn limb from limb by an angry mob of string theorists.

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091219/d0af4f85/attachment.bin>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:24:30 +0000

>> neither the current sense nor that used a thousand years ago.

Absolutely; I have the nth geenration copies of the written testimony 
penned by fallible men to prove it.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:25:28 +0000

> And so Jeff Wilson was torn limb from limb by an angry mob of string theorists.

As long as they don't eat the limbs

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:50:22 +0000

Merely a hundred, hundred-twenty pounds overweight.

I've been fatter.

.

> Adam_______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:44 +0000

> penned by fallible men to prove it.

I see.

You're in college, right?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:59:34 +0000

> As long as they don't eat the limbs

But that's the best part!

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:59:49 +0000

.

---

From: James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:20:06 +0000

doxologia, paean or prayer, comes from doxa, glory, splendor, 
brightness, fame, prestige. That's the meaning in koine. In earlier 
attic Greek, doxa meant opinion.

Go here for a bit of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa

It's not one or the other. It's context. In the Church, doxology 
means "word of praise," and orthodoxy means "correct praise" or 
"correct opinion." The Russian church is called "pravo-slavnie," 
"true praise," or in English "ortho-dox."

JBJordan

James B. Jordan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091219/6a5fd43d/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:33:24 +0000

That's interesting.

Epictetus, who is in koine, uses it in the earlier sense.

It is also the sense in which I use it.

.

>> >>On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber
>> <palaeologos at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:01:17 +0000

> Church were pure and the Pope and his bishops were damned rather than the

So there were only two choices? How binaristic.

> Now that this claim has been confirmed by a non-brunians, I'm curious as to

Among other things, Ecclesiasticus (a/k/a Sirach), the first two books of
Maccabees, and chunks of Daniel and Esther. You will often find them in
Protestant bibles listed as "apocrypha," a term more properly reserved
for books like the Apocalypse of Peter.

> burning the translators merely a bad practice? Or was it based on a bad

It was unprecedented because Scripture had never been the _basis_ for
the faith: rather, the other way around. The Church had written the New
Testament and established the canon of the Old (independently and
differently from the soi-disant "council of Jamnia"), and therefore could
not have been based on them.

> Look, Dan'l, the scandal of Indulgences was not just a bad "practice".

That's _exactly_ what it was.

> Catholic friends believe has been the case since some time before Vatican

Actually, the concept of papal infallibility didn't even exist at the time.
It was not defined until the first Vatican Council in the 1800s. Which
might militate toward considering it a "creation of men," but that's a
different question.

The claim of the Church's infallibility is strictly limited: when something
is solemnly declared, under defined circumstances and using defined
formuilae, it cannot be wrong in a way that will lead to damnation; further,
infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals.

Thus, the Church has not and _cannot_ issue an infallible proclamation
on, for example, the question of married or female clergy. These are
questions of practice and disicpline, not faith and morals.

The entire concept of indulgences is complicated. The idea that you
describe below...

> from Purgatory for cold hard cash (see Acts 8:20).

...is and was based on a fallacy. Purgatory has never been defined
as a "place," only a fact. Simply enough, it is clear that most of us
do not achieve full sanctification in this life; yet the nature of God is
such that something less than fully sanctified cannot exist in His
presence. Ergo, somewhere after death, the blessed undergo some
process which completes their sanctification. We call this process
"Purgatory," and folk-Catholicism makes it a place.

Priests and Popes are often guilty of folk-Catholicism, but the
guidance of the Holy Spirit (which is the basis for the claim of
infallibility - backed up by the Scriptural promise that the Holy
Spirit will "lead you into all truth") has always prevented it from
being defined.

> I think you need to check out a biography of Luther.

I've read two, including the excellent "Here I Stand." He was
- in my opinion - an oathbreaker who started his own anti-Church
because he couldn't bring himself to follow his vows of obedience
and chastity.

> I'm pretty sure that before

I may have spoken misleadingly. I don't mean to suggest that
Luther would have achieved the reforms he originally sought in
his lifetime. The Church is like a dinosaur; you kick it in the ass
and a hundred years later it turns around and says, "Huh?" This
is both strength and weakness: the weakness is obvious, the
strength is that it doesn't easily change vital opinions to
accommodate the fashions of the age.

> around" at Luther's doorstep.

I don't, entirely. I believe that the Deformation made the real
reform take _longer_, but it would have been a long road in
any case.

> See above on Reformed Catholics.

Those guys are _serious_ heretics. I don't think most modern
Protestants are really "heretics"; they live in a new orthodoxy
that happens, in my opinion, to be wrong, but are not damned
for it. As an Evangelical minister of my acquaintance puts it,
"We aren't going to be met at the Pearly Gates with a theology
quiz."

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:10:07 +0000

> questions of practice and disicpline, not faith and morals.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I figured it was worth mentioning : I agree
with you that clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline and not doctrine
or dogma.  The ordination of women, though, seems to be of a different
order.  Theologians disagree on whether that's a matter of discipline or
doctrine; predictably, the more progressive claim it's a disciplinary issue
and the more traditional hold that it's doctrinal.  The issue, it seems to
me, is whether the proper matter for the sacrament of Orders is a human
being or a male human being.  Traditional practice and thought on the topic
seems to imply the latter.

There are other provinces and jurisdictions of the Church Catholic which
have always had married clergy (the Roman Rite among them, until the early
medieval era); prior to the late 20th century, I can't think of any church
with a claim to the Catholic tradition that ordained women.

-- 
Matt +

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091219/002cdc74/attachment.htm>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:34:38 +0000

> You're in college, right?

Yes, two of them at the moment.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:44:20 +0000

Matthew Weber wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com 
> <mailto:jwilson at io.com>> wrote:
> 
>     brunians at brunians.org <mailto:brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> 
> Could you unpack what you mean by "transubstantiation"?  Where I come 
> from, the word is used to describe a theory of how the Real Presence in 
> the Eucharist works; a theory couched in 13th-century neo-Aristotelian 

It is a conjecture that in the sacrament of Holy Communion the substance 
of the bread and wine literally becomes the substance of the flesh and 
blood of Jesus Christ, while the species, the appearance available to 
the senses remains exactly as before. To be a scientific theory, this 
would have to be supported by a body of observations and experiments 
that would show a different result if the conjecture were false. Not 
only has this not been done by the Church's thinkers, people attempting 
to procure samples of the Eucharist for examination are harassed and 
charged with kidnapping and assault, and falsification has been 
discouraged historically by threat of anathema, despite the continuity 
of species making it unfalsifiable by definition.

> Look at any of the great works of systematic theology (Thomas's Summa, 
> John Damascene's Exposition, Lombard's Sentences).  There's nothing 
> wrong with the reasoning in any of these works, and they proceed in an 
> orderly, rational, and coherent fashion.  Whether you find them credible 
> will depend, of course, on whether you accept their basic assumptions.  
> Criticizing them for not following the methods of 21st century science 
> is a bit like criticizing theoretical mathematics for not having a good 
> beat.  That's not what they're /for/.

The methods of 21st century science are also those of 17th century 
Galilean science and the 11th century Book of Optics, but I agree that 
scientific rigor is not what religious texts are for. I think that their 
highest purpose is explaining that religion is useful despite being 
primarily concerned with things that are not subject to scientific inquiry.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:52:41 +0000

Jeff, you are using the modern definition of the term 'science'.

Traditionally, any coherent and systematically organized body of knowledge
is a science.

The term was redefined in the 16th, 17th century or so, along with many
other terms.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:22:19 +0000

> Traditionally, any coherent and systematically organized body of knowledge

That's the archaic _educational_ sense, then, so one could say that 
Christianity was an artistic faith, as the arts were equally such.

I was thinking you were using it in the sense of research, as Aquinas 
determining the canonical nature of angels and their process of falling 
in the 13th century, two centuries after Alhazed was measuring light 
with surveying instruments to make sure it was traveling in a straight line.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:13:37 +0000

Dan'l,

>>In the end they chose to believe that God and his

When you are presented with a choice with existential

>> I'm curious as to
> [The deuterocanon]

Ah! Well, they didn't "toss" the deuterocanon because there was some 
theology in them they didn't like ("suit them"). They tossed them because 
they considered their origins questionable in the extreme and not included 
in the Hebrew canon.

You're entire denunciation of Luther and the "Deformers" is based on a 
presumption that that "the Church" is synonymous with the the Roman Church 
hierarchy: Therefore, it is *they* (a group that includes the church 
leadership 1500 years later and even at its most corrupted) and not the 
Apostles who wrote the New Testament. And the authority of those apostles 
(you seem to presume) is based on their membership within this group.  But 
one cannot view "them" (that group) as such an eternal entity. Otherwise, 
where was the Church during the *years* when the leadership was deeply 
divided about who was the Pope?

Was it the Roman Church who "wrote" the Bible or the Eastern Orthodox one? 
If it was both, why can't the Lutheran Church make the same claim since they 
branched from the same root? And if the Reformed Church (not to be confused 
with Reformed Catholics) were also that church which wrote the Bible, then 
why can't they reconsider the canon of the Old Testament? After all, we're 
not talking about vital doctrine to either Christians or Jews. The 
harumphing over "tossing out bits of Scripture" seems to have more to do 
annoyance at the Reformer's ephrontery rather than concern that the 
Scripture was actually losing something vital.

Having lived for a time in Rome himself and having seen concupiscence and 
venality as rule among the leadership there, Luther had already dispensed 
with the idea that "the Church" could be closely identified with those men.

>> Luther's point was that it struck to the heart of the doctrine of 

Either the Pope was (and could be) wrong about the doctrine of Salvation and 
made existential promises (From The Chair) that he certainly could not 
deliver on  -- or he was a pretender: not the *real* head of the "True 
Church" (as my Reformed Catholic friends believe is the case now). Luther 
believed the first when he nailed he theses to the door, and probably 
believed the latter as well by he was debating Transubstantiation with 
Zwingli.

> It was not defined until the first Vatican Council in the 1800s.

The concept was not created at the Vatican Council.

> reform take _longer_, but it would have been a long road in

I'd say they sped it along. I think the RCC made some pretty significant and 
good internal reforms due to Reformation. It was also vital to the RCC 
making accommodations with Rationalism.  The Reformation was largely a 
creature of Rationalism and the printing press. Sola Scriptura would have 
been a meaningless platitude without the ability of the masses to easily 
obtain Bible's in their own tongue. Perhaps the Church leaders recognized 
that, and so kept such a brutal thumb on those who attempted to duplicate 
St. Jerome's great feat.

> [Reformed Catholics] are _serious_ heretics. I don't think most modern
> for it.

When most Protestants speak of "orthodox", they are referring to something 
akin to Augustinian theology. Luther, Calvin, and 95% of educated 
Protestants accept Augustine or near-Augustine as the "orthodox" coin of the 
realm. And he's a RC saint. I realize Catholic priests mean something more 
extensive by the term and Eastern Orthodox mean something wholly different. 
But Augustine is a nice broad tent that even has room for Reformed Catholics 
(who in my opinion, are merely doing what you think Luther ought to have 
done).

J.

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:42:28 +0000

James,

Your comment is all very well and good for the deuterocanon as far as it
goes, but I think intellectual honesty requires a few additional
acknowledgements.

1)  Most of the early Christians the Protestant Reformation identified
itself with freely quoted from the so-called deuterocanon, implying that
they accepted its veracity.  St. Paul even quotes from Maccabees in Hebrews,
and obviously Jerome acknowledged the deuterocanon as canonical.

2)  The Jewish acceptance or non-acceptance of the contents of the
deuterocanon is a wee bit more complex of a story than you're admitting.
 It's not as though the deuterocanon was intentionally plucked off the
Hebrew scrap heap by the Catholic Church--the majority of it was included in
the Septuagint, which served as the de facto Hebrew canon in the first
century.  The modern Hebrew canon didn't emerge for some time after that,
and arguably the rise of Christianity, which did use the Septuagint,
influenced the Hebrew decision to break away from it.

I agree with your larger point about the Reformation spurring the
Counter-Reformation, and don't really want to attempt to heal any
six-hundred-year-old wounds on this list.  Obviously your observation about
Augustine and his philosophy and theology establishes that there ought to be
enough common ground to have a nice, productive dialogue bringing Catholic,
Orthodox and Protestant views to bear on any given issue without engaging in
insults.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:13 AM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> Either the Pope was (and could be) wrong about the doctrine of Salvation
> and made existential promises (From The Chair) that he certainly could not
> I'd say they sped it along. I think the RCC made some pretty significant
> and good internal reforms due to Reformation. It was also vital to the RCC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091220/e8181f1f/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:48:29 +0000

> they considered their origins questionable in the extreme and not included

That was the excuse given, yes.

The fact is that the (modern) Jewish canon was not set until _after_
the rise of Christianity.

The fact is that the early Church fathers, including Paul, freely quoted
from the "deuterocanon." If the "Reformation" was a return to the form
of the early Church, they ought to have taken that into account.

The fact is that the deuterocanon - particularly Maccabees and
Tobit - contained theological statements that were inconvenient for
Luther, Zwingli, et alia. Luther even wished he could deform the
New Testament by removing the Epistle of James, "an epistle of
straw" with "nothing of the Gospel in it." (Why? He doesn't state
this clearly but I suspect it was because James' epistle militates
rather strongly against a pure "Sola Fide" approach: "What good
is faith without deeds" and all that.)

> hierarchy:

Not the hierarchy, no; the massed body of believers that constitutes
the Mystical Body of Christ. Luther et al. chose to dismember that
Body.

Incidentally, along with the Roman church, I _do_ believe that Protestants
are members of that Body. Just to be clear on that.

> Therefore, it is *they* (a group that includes the church
> Apostles who wrote the New Testament.

No. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, long before the fifteenhundreds, who
_selected_ the "apostolic" texts that constitute canon. There is some
reasonable doubt as to the apostolic origin of some of those texts, and
there were other texts of seemingly apostolic origin which did not get
selected. The canon was selected by the Church - there was no
divinely-given Table of Contents.

> And the authority of those apostles
> (you seem to presume) is based on their membership within this group.

No. Rather, the authority of the church hierarchy derives from its
continuity with the Apostles.

> But

I don't know that part of history well enough to answer that question
adequately. I freely admit my ignorance.

> Was it the Roman Church who "wrote" the Bible or the Eastern Orthodox one?

That's an interesting question, and complicated by the fact that some of
the Eastern churches include in their canon additional texts that are not
a part of the Roman canon (not to mention a couple of other ancient
canons such as the Coptic). I don't have easy answers for all questions.

> branched from the same root?

My claim is that the Lutheran church chose its canon for wrong
reasons, listed above.

Let me put it this way: if you take the attitude you are proposing here,
then the logical result is that you have no argument against the Book
of Mormon, or the "corrected" Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

> And if the Reformed Church (not to be confused
> why can't they reconsider the canon of the Old Testament?

Since I deny that the Reformed Church was at that time "also that
Church," I can't answer this question meaningfully.

> After all, we're

Disagree strongly. There are theological points in the "deuterocanon"
that are indeed vital. One of the interesting effects of the Lutheran
rejection is that the Protestant Bible manages to contain a book with
not one mention of God - the only references to God in Esther are
in the parts that the Protestants threw out.

Second Maccabees provides the scriptural basis for the practice of
praying for the souls of the dead, something that many Protestant
churches regard as next to necromancy.

> with the idea that "the Church" could be closely identified with those men.

That's because the hierarchy isn't the Church. Never was, though the
hierarchy made that mistake for some centuries.

> deliver on ?-- or he was a pretender: not the *real* head of the "True

But Indulgences have *NOTHING* to do with salvation. A soul "in
Purgatory" *is* a saved soul; it is on the way to Heaven. The
*practice* of selling indulgences was about the purely speculative
nature of Purgatory. No Pope or Council, even in the darkest of
times, provided a definition of Purgatory that would actually
support the practice of selling indulgences.

Incidentally, indulgences are still present in the Catholic faith.
It's just that you can't _buy_ them.

> The concept was not created at the Vatican Council.

I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't defined (i.e., made a part of
actual Catholic ecclesiastical theology) until then. The concept
did exist as early as the seventeens, and maybe a little earlier.

> making accommodations with Rationalism.

Yes. The RCC has the ability to do this. A number of Protestant
churches still don't, which is why we have people who believe that
the fossil record is a lie.

> The Reformation was largely a
> creature of Rationalism and the printing press.

I would add "the rise of the bourgeois class."

> Sola Scriptura would have

Interestingly, it isn't that the Church forbade translations into then-
modern languages; it is that the Church forbade doing so without
the guidance of the Church. Consider the Douay-Rheims translation,
which dates from the fifteens.

> realm. And he's a RC saint.

Not merely a saint, but a Doctor of the Church - his theology is
considered to be baseline for Catholics. But then, Augustine (i.e.,
the City of God) clearly supports the idea that the Church has a
natural hierarchy.

> I realize Catholic priests mean something more

No; I think they're doing what Luther _did_, i.e., breaking from the central
Church because they can no longer accept the authority of the hierarchy.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:15:45 +0000

John,

I absolutely agree with pts 1&2.  On pt 2, I'll go farther and posit that 
Judaism was *recreated* to a large extent in the 2nd century to enable it to 
go on after the destruction of the Temple (I didn't just think this up. An 
Orthodox Jew asserted this much to me about 10 years ago). This Neo-Judaism 
(as you imply) was formed to a great extent as a counter-Christianity and so 
the Septuagint was scrapped (being the Bible Christians used) where as 
before it was accepted as a divinely inspired translation (yet, the Orthodox 
Jews I've talked to still accept the "70 translators" story as factual). So, 
following the Hebrew Bible as the rule was essentially giving the day to 
Christianity's enemies without getting anything in return.

But that leads to my main point: The Reformers (or Deformers if one wants to 
insist) did not dispense with the deuterocanon just because they didn't 
"like" them. They had no reason at all to dispense with them other than that 
they were convinced that the books were self-evidently not authored at the 
time or by the people they claimed. It was an act of Rationalism to drop 
them, and the Reformation was a child of a more Rational age. IIRC Luther 
suspected Revelation should have been dropped as well.

Finally, just because a writer (even a divinely inspired one as the 
Reformers saw it) quotes from a text, does not make that text itself 
divinely inspired. The Book of Enoch was also quoted by Jude and by various 
Church Fathers thru the end of the 2nd century. This, even though it was 
deliberately excluded from the Septuagint. Then, at some time in the 3rd 
century they stopped quoting from it and it was soon "lost". I suspect this 
occurred when Christian scholars ceased to consider it trustworthy as 
Scripture.

Luther was a man of many faults, looking back at him 400 years later. Dan'l 
accused me of being binary, but Luther tended to see all things binarily. In 
his view, the rebels in the Peasant's War were violating the Bible's command 
to be subject to one's rulers and so he bestowed a blessing on those who cut 
them down (Irony? Maybe. But see the end of this paragraph). When Zwingli 
died in battle defending Zurich, Luther's attitude was "Serves him right" 
for carrying a sword as a priest. But to call him an oath-breaker, I think, 
is out-luthering Luther. It seems to me, he had come to believe that those 
who demanded the oath celibacy from him were frauds (the church leaders in 
Rome who --often as not-- never followed the oath themselves and were in 
many cases cynical skeptics toward Christianity as a whole) and that that 
oath was part of their fraud. Maybe he was wrong, but he saw what he saw and 
drew his conclusions, and I don't think there is enough counter-evidence to 
condemn him as an oath-breaker.

J.

---

From: Jeffrey Brent McBeth <mcbeth at broggs.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:16:02 +0000

> of Mormon, or the "corrected" Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Disclaimer, I am a Mormon.  I also am skipping the context of the
above paragraph, as it isn't relevant to the information below.

Just a quick point out.  The Mormons went with the King James version
of the Bible (without Maccabees, etc).  We are encouraged to seek out
the other books, but are told that we are on our own with respect to
its nature as scripture.  

Oh, and fascinating discussion, even if it has fallen off the tracks :)

Jeff

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:16:34 +0000

> condemn him as an oath-breaker.

Obviously, I disagree. If others broke their oaths, that does not excuse
him breaking his. If the Pope and all the Bishops jumped off the Wurtemberg
tower, would that mean Luther should? As it were.

Luther was setting himself up as _better_than_ the Church hierarchy. To
begin that project by breaking his oaths casts the whole project in doubt.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:19:35 +0000

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Jeffrey Brent McBeth <mcbeth at broggs.org> wrote:

> Disclaimer, I am a Mormon. ?I also am skipping the context of the

Jeffrey: Equal disclaimer - I hold no grudge against Mormons in general
or the CoJCoLDS. I picked Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as two
examples of Protestant groups whom "mainline" Protestants often think
have "gone too far" and are "not really Christians." My point is that the
basis of Protestantism is logically inconsistent with making those
judgements.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:28:50 +0000

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote:

>  <http://www.urth.net>

I don't think that's quite fair to Protestantism.  There are still plenty of
Protestants whose creedal orthodoxy is as sound as any Catholic's.  Most of
them aren't mainline Protestants, though, but members of traditionalist
groups that have split from the main line : the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod vs. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian
Church in America vs. Presbyterian Church (USA), the various Anglican
continuing churches vs The Episcopal Church (at least semi-Protestant), etc.

I agree that Reformed Christianity is problematic, but that's chiefly due to
the innovative nature of its theory of authority (and its rejection of, or
indifference to, traditional Christian polity and ecclesiology--which
springs from the same defective theory of authority).

-- 
Matt +

I came, I saw, I conquered.
Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From SUETONIUS, Lives of the Caesars, Julius,
sec. 37
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091220/47be8918/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:46:30 +0000

I personally have no problem with the Book of Mormon or the "corrected"
Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both Mormonism and JWism are perfectly
fine religions.

Remember, I am *not* a Christian. Brunians accept everything that
Catholics accept, and we accept a few extra bits, which is why we are
Brunians and not Catholic Christians. We are a deviation from Christianity
in the same sense that (Catholic and Orthodox) Christianity (and Islam to
a much lesser extent) is a deviation from Judaism.

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:49:02 +0000

> That was the excuse given, yes. The fact is that the (modern) Jewish canon 
> was
>not set until _after_ the rise of Christianity. The fact is that the early 
>Church
>fathers, including Paul, freely quoted from the "deuterocanon." If the
>"Reformation" was a return to the form

See my post to John. For he record, I think excising the deterocanon was 
justified, although I recommend them for reading anyway.

> is faith without deeds" and all that.)

Oh! So Luther not *liking* the Book of James was not enough?! You need to 
make up reasons for him not liking it? As I pointed out to John, Luther 
didn't like Revelation either. Wow! Luther's opinions carried soooo much 
weight among the Reformers who set the Protestant canon, didn't they? And 
his opinions about transubstantiation was law for the Reformers, right? 
Incidentally, Paul had no trouble with the "no true faith without works" 
concept and I can't see that the Reformers did either. Ephesians and James 
both breezed into the Protestant canon.

> the Mystical Body of Christ. Luther et al. chose to dismember that

Well, by your lights he wasn't the first member of that body to do so, was 
he? The Bishop of Rome and the Primate of the Orthodox Church chose to damn 
each other's half of The Mystical Body of Christ (TMBC) to Hell centuries 
earlier. Or maybe he only intended for TMBC to be liberated (from the 
bishops on down) from (as he saw it) unrepentant parasites who were taking 
advantage of it.

> are members of that Body. Just to be clear on that.

Then it's not dismembered. And Luther is part of TMBC too. And he asserted 
that the Church leadership was gravely in the wrong, not because they were 
*inconsistent* regarding their own Church ordinances, but because they had 
violated Scripture in which they claimed their authority was documented. Who 
was to judge between Luther and those in power whom he accused? Sola 
Scriptura.

There is simply no way to dispense with that concept once one accepts that 
Church leaders can often be --not just sinners-- but woefully corrupt.

> divinely-given Table of Contents.

Well, to paraphrase RC Flannery O'Conner, if the "apostolic texts" are not 
authentic, to hell with them.

What Luther saw in Rome caused him to doubt that a significant portion of 
parliament of the Pope and Cardinals were part of  TMBC. So why did the Body 
need them?  Why should those people be forever the mouth and hands of the 
Body if many of them didn't even believe and/or got their positions by 
emphatically unspiritual means?

> continuity with the Apostles.

And if the Apostolic Texts are in doubt, so is the continuity of the 
Apostles. Furthermore, the authority of Rome to make law for other 
Christians is founded on an interpretation of a passage in Matthew. It 
matters who wrote those books and whether Jesus actually said those things.

> My claim is that the Lutheran church chose its canon for wrong

Well, there's nothing wrong with that.  And if someone has the same opinion 
about the Epistle of Barnabus that's fine too. And me and the compilers of 
the Protestant canon will disagree with you both.
As you sort of referenced, the Eastern Orthodox Church considers 1 Esdras 
(part of the Septuagint) to be canonical, but rejects 2 Esdras. The RCC and 
Protestants consider neither to be. There are enough examples of this sort 
to torpedo the theory that the canon is an immutable creation of TMBC. It 
has always been tinkered with around the edges by The Church and by Jews 
before them.

> of Mormon, or the "corrected" Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Sure I can. I can examine the totality of the JW arguments for their 
translations, and choose to accept them or not. TMBC is not necessary for me 
to decide whether they are right or not about the 1st chapter of John or 
Philippians 4.  The Book of Mormon is another issue altogether. It has 
nothing to do with accepting or rejecting books as worthwhile parts of the 
Jewish "Writings". It all depends on whether I believe that Joseph Smith was 
a prophet of God or a con man. If the Pope or Luther or Calvin were 
convinced he was the real thing, I suppose I would have to take that into 
account. But --like you, and unlike generations who were born in the 
Churches of the Pope, Primate or mullah--  I *chose* my religion, because I 
was convinced it was true.

>> [question posed by me]

> Church," I can't answer this question meaningfully.

Then your position is precisely like Luther's toward the Roman hierarchy. 
Who shall choose between you? Sola Scriptura (the only common reference that 
both of you consider authoritative).

> in the parts that the Protestants threw out.

But that's not a theological point. Furthermore, the validity of those 
theological points are crucially supported by whether the authenticity of 
those books can be adequately defended. I understand that it doesn't matter 
to you if the deterocanon books are authentic. But it matters to the RCC and 
it mattered to the Reformers and --I suspect-- it would matter to 99% of 
practicing Catholics.

> churches regard as next to necromancy.

Well, that's putting it pretty strong, but I agree that *every* Protestant 
church considers it a waste of time. Although, granted, I've known some 
squinty-eyed types who would see in it a plot by the RCC to hold people's 
love-ones hostage from beyond the grave. If the praying for the dead needs 
2nd Maccabees to be authoritative, then it is in trouble.

> hierarchy made that mistake for some centuries.

Frankly, the hierarchy is all Luther dispensed with. It wasn't until 
Christianity came to America that individual churches ceased to always be 
part of a total top-down, solid-state, unified structure. And Christians had 
been split into large divisions for (at least) 700 years before Luther.

> support the practice of selling indulgences.

Yet that is how the indulgences were (literally) sold at the time. You 
cannot overlay your appealing and enlightened doctrine of Purgatory on the 
marketing of indulgences 500 years later. I can't remember the source right 
now, but --as I recall-- the most successful salesmen gave very vivid 
descriptions of the loved-ones of buyers suffering in flames of torment 
which could be alleviated with the purchase of indulgences. And, of course, 
the indulgences were freely purchased for the buyers personal use as well. 
Some in advance. And in my experience, Catholics typically do not have a 
metaphoric concept of Purgatory. It's Hell. Temporary Hell, but Hell 
nonetheless. I've heard some recount how nuns gave very specific years of 
agonizing punishment in Purgatory for detailed lists of sins.

> It's just that you can't _buy_ them.

That a great deal of difference, doesn't it. But you can't build Saint 
Peter's Basilica on goodwill.

> I didn't say [the concept of papal infallibility was created at the 
> Vatican Council].
>I said it wasn't defined (i.e., made a part of actual Catholic 
>ecclesiastical theology) until then. The concept

The Council of Trent, two years before Luther died, said the Church's 
interpretation of the Bible was final. They weren't talking about TMBC. They 
meant the interpretation that came out of Rome.

> the fossil record is a lie.

There are Roman Catholics who believe this too. I really don't think the RCC 
is has it sooo over anybody on the issue of Rationalism that they can afford 
to be mocking. What I was getting at is that the Reformation forced the RCC 
to dispense with the underlying presumption that those keys Jesus gave to 
Peter allowed the Pope and Cardinals to say anything, anything at all, and 
have it be so. That's what I meant, and should have said.

> I would add "the rise of the bourgeois class."

I'm disinclined to any "class-theory" of history.

> which dates from the fifteens.

Very *late* fifteens. The 'Deformers' say, "Your welcome".

J.

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:20:34 +0000

I felt, probably unwisely, compelled to reply to this:

"And in my experience, Catholics typically do not have a metaphoric concept
of Purgatory. It's Hell. Temporary Hell, but Hell nonetheless. I've heard
some recount how nuns gave very specific years of agonizing punishment in
Purgatory for detailed lists of sins."

This is not my experience (and I've been Catholic my whole life and went to
Catholic school until I was 22).  I'm not sure I've met a Catholic under the
age of 30 who would agree with this characterization--and maybe not under
the age of 50.  It's true that the concept is not typically "metaphoric,"
but the rest is just off.  I was specifically told (as an eighth grader, I
think) that such interpretations of Purgatory were misunderstandings.

Frankly, the contrast between Dante's depiction of Hell and his depiction of
Purgatory (even though Dante's Purgatory is no picnic) suggests to me that
the distinction has been pretty clear in the typical Catholic imagination
for some time.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:49 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are Roman Catholics who believe this too. I really don't think the
> RCC is has it sooo over anybody on the issue of Rationalism that they can
> afford to be mocking. What I was getting at is that the Reformation forced
> the RCC to dispense with the underlying presumption that those keys Jesus
> gave to Peter allowed the Pope and Cardinals to say anything, anything at
> all, and have it be so. That's what I meant, and should have said.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091220/619e2f6e/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: O'Donnell, Tim BOSI <tim.o'donnell at bankofscotland.ie>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:28:02 +0000

Hi John,

FWIW I agree.  Similar experience - Catholic educated until 17 and I was clear from a 
young age that they were two different places/experiences.

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis
Message-ID:
	<93d4039f0912202020j3e6d50efoe2a0b802091b5d90 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091221/05b7f8fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.bankofscotland.ie <http://www.bankofscotland.ie>

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Bank of Scotland Ireland's network. 
Bank of Scotland Ireland will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. Bank of Scotland (Ireland) reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring its effective operation.

Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited is part of Lloyds Banking Group plc and is regulated by the Financial Regulator. Registered in Ireland Number: 8545  Registered office: Bank of Scotland House, 124-127 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

****************************************************************************************************

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:57:21 +0000

Dan'l says:
>tower, would that mean Luther should? As it were. Luther was setting 
>himself
>up as _better_than_ the Church hierarchy. To

This is so far off. Where to begin?

1) Getting married was not the START of his project. The start was that 95 
Theses nailed to the door of the church. In response Luther was condemned as 
a heretic, his prospects not so different from Salmon Rushdie's after the 
fatwa and his life-style far less glamorous and much more austere. The 
condemnation occurred FOUR YEARS before he married. He had been 
excommunicated 5 years, and it was 8 years after his dramatic attempt to 
change to the direction in the Church.

2) Imagine some oneconvinced you that God had delivered a message to them 
that we all had swear an oath to live in uninsulated shacks in Alaska every 
winter. Then you learned that
a) that person was probably the last person on the planet likely to be 
receiving special messages from God about the way all Christians should 
live, and
b) that person was himself was maintaining a shack in front of a cozy 
mansion which was where he actually lived soaking in a sauna and drinking 
hot cocoa every cold winter night.
c) Finally, you knew that the one source everyone agreed was "God's Word" 
said nothing about living in shacks in Alaska at all, and this guy didn't 
bother to follow any of that either.

Would you still believe your oath had been to God and not to a con man?

To accuse him oath-breaking under his particular circumstances (as he saw 
them), is like saying the people who ran away from the Jonestown cult during 
the kool-aid party were oath breakers because their oaths had actually been 
made to God.

I repeat: AS LUTHER SAW IT. I'm not saying the RCC is a Jim Jones cult. I'm 
only saying that Luther considered his oath wrongly extracted from him based 
on his personal, visual experience in Rome and Bavaria, his knowledge of 
history, and a flat reading of the Scripture. And, for that reason, wrongly 
directed.

John says:
>This is not my experience (and I've been Catholic my whole
>life and went to Catholic school until I was 22).  I'm not sure
>I've met a Catholic under the age of 30 who would agree with
>this characterization--and maybe not under the age of 50."

I accept that your experience is more valid than my hearsay. But we're not 
talking about the last 50 years. We're talking about the early 1500s in 
Bavaria. The state of mind of the purchasers and the claims of the sellers 
are all that matter. It doesn't even matter if Purgatory is actually not 
every bit as bad as Hell, or even that it is not a "real place". It is 
sufficient that it be genuinely unpleasant and that the Church 
representatives were selling a promised sure-fire way to reduce the time 
there.

J.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:29:28 +0000

James,

At this point I am going to drop the discussion, not because I am
convinced, nor because I have no response to your well-thought-out
points, but because I fear that we are edging towards uncharity --
or at least that I might become uncharitable if the conversation
were to continue. Indeed, I admit that my use of the term "Deformation"
was probably uncharitable and I apologize for it.

Further, neither of us is going to convince the other, and so the
discussion is clearly unprofitable.

Thus I conclude by wishing you, yours, and all members of this
list a very happy Feast of the Nativity.

--Dan'l

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:22:32 +0000

> list a very happy Feast of the Nativity.

You as well Dan'l!

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:35:22 +0000

Dan'l, James, All,

Thank you for making this discussion interesting as well as totally civil.
I have enjoyed it immensely. I'd like to wish everyone an excellent turn
of the year, and an excellent coming year, whether and to what extent each
of you spends it above or below ground.

.