Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:04 PM, 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:

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.

... 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.

--- 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: 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. ... 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.

On 22/09/2009, at 3:34 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: --- 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: 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. ... 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 Boucher ("The Quest for St. Aquin") ... and ...

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

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Zachary Kendal <zackendal at optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 22/09/2009, at 3:34 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

--- 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: 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. ... 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 Boucher ("The Quest for St. Aquin") ... and ...

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

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):

"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,

"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).

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.

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

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Zachary Kendal <zackendal at optusnet.com.au>wrote: On 22/09/2009, at 3:34 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: --- 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: 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. ... 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 Boucher ("The Quest for St. Aquin") ... and ...

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

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 _______________________________________________

(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.)

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote: On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Zachary Kendal wrote:

"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.

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.

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?

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?

overrepresented in SF authorship (and, concomitantly, why are there relatively few Jewish SF stories) ? I mean, just off the top of my head:

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?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: 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

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 _______________________________________________

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 _______________________________________________

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. 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

As Adam Thornton wrote: 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.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:28:55PM -0400, brunians at brunians.org wrote: Orson Scott Card has written some very interesting Mormon based stuff.

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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:28:55PM -0400, brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________

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>

? ? ???_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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

? ? ???_______________________________________________

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

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

Heretics all.

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

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. _______________________________________________

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

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.

Bah! Humbug!

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

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: 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. .

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

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

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:

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. .

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

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

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.

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.

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. _______________________________________________

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. .

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.

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. _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: Remember, I always use the radical meaning of a given term.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

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.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

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 + The Ides of March have come. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63 _______________________________________________

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.

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

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote:

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 + The Ides of March have come. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63 _______________________________________________

Doxology originally meant "statement of belief." And the radical meaning of "radical meaning" would be "root meaning." Shall we go into grammatology? On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

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 + The Ides of March have come. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63 _______________________________________________

At 01:10 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote: Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

Once again, this is exactly correct.

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

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 At 01:10 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote:

Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: 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. .

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

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

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

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. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity.

The forms of Protestantism are Christianity with various bits sliced off.

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: 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. .

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. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity.

The forms of Protestantism are Christianity with various bits sliced off.

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

Or, as the Catholics would say, only in extremis? I buy that. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

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. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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. .

Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity.

The forms of Protestantism are Christianity with various bits sliced off.

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.

Bah! Humbug!

Now you sound like a Puritan. :-D _______________________________________________

Heretics all.

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 _______________________________________________

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: (Will the filioque clause be coming down your chimney this Christmas? Have you been a good brunian or a bad brunian?)

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

brunians at brunians.org wrote: 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.

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

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote: Not if you are, as I am, using the radical definition of the term 'heterodox'.

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.

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 _______________________________________________

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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.

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

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

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. _______________________________________________

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.

brunians at brunians.org wrote: 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.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote: brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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.

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

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

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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.

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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.

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 + The Ides of March have come. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63 _______________________________________________

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

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.

... 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 _______________________________________________

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: What, you expect consistency? Sheesh. .

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

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.

... 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 _______________________________________________

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:

What, you expect consistency? Sheesh. .

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

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.

... 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 _______________________________________________

Indeed. .

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:

What, you expect consistency? Sheesh. .

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

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.

... 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 _______________________________________________

brunians at brunians.org wrote: Jeff Wilson writes:

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

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.

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

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.

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....

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 [Luther] 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.

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

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

On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: I'd settle for uniformity. But no doubt you are large,

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.

brunians at brunians.org wrote: How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

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

Really?

Adam Thornton wrote: 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.

On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

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_______________________________________________

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

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

Really?

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

Adam Thornton wrote:

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.

As long as they don't eat the limbs

Adam Thornton wrote:

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.

As long as they don't eat the limbs

At 02:02 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote: 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. . .

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 At 01:10 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote:

Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

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 At 02:02 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote:

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. . .

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 At 01:10 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote:

Um, no it isn't. "Ortho" = "right" and "doxa" = "belief." Right-believing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: No, but they've redefined terms (you know, like "I believe ... in the Holy 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 unprecedented principle of "Sola Scriptura."

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).

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

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.

-- 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.

See above on Reformed Catholics.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: 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.

brunians at brunians.org wrote: brunians at brunians.org wrote:

How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?

What about them?

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

Really?

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

I see. You're in college, right?

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: 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. 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/.

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: 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. 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.

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

brunians at brunians.org wrote: Jeff, you are using the modern definition of the term 'science'. Traditionally, any coherent and systematically organized body of knowledge is a science.

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.

So there were only two choices? How binaristic.

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

I'm curious as to what those bits were.

[The deuterocanon]

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

That's exactly what it was.

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

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.

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.

[Reformed Catholics] 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.

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

So there were only two choices? How binaristic.

When you are presented with a choice with existential Too, they tossed out bits of Scripture that didn't suit them....

I'm curious as to what those bits were.

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

That's exactly what it was.

I repeat: Luther's point was that it struck to the heart of the doctrine of Salvation.

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. 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.

The concept was not created at the Vatican Council. 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.

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

Protestants are really "heretics"; they live in a new orthodoxy that happens, in my opinion, to be wrong, but are not damned 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. _______________________________________________

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:13 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: [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.

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

That's exactly what it was.

I repeat:

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

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.

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.

The concept was not created at the Vatican Council.

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.

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).

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.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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 above paragraph, as it isn't relevant to the information below.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: 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 above paragraph, as it isn't relevant to the information below.

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

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.

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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." -- Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

If it was both, why can't the Lutheran Church make the same claim since they 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.

[question posed by me]

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

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.

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

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.

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 did exist as early as the seventeens, and maybe a little earlier.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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. Incidentally, along with the Roman church, I do believe that Protestants 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. 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.

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? No. Rather, the authority of the church hierarchy derives from its 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. If it was both, why can't the Lutheran Church make the same claim since they branched from the same root?

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

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. 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.

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]

Since I deny that the Reformed Church was at that time "also that 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). 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.

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. 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.

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. That's because the hierarchy isn't the Church. Never was, though the 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. 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.

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. Incidentally, indulgences are still present in the Catholic faith.

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 did exist as early as the seventeens, and maybe a little earlier.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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 _______________________________________________