<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 3/3/02 10:12:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, rgaddy@bellsouth.net writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I would think that heresy in particular but the other terms as well would be
<BR>rather subjective depending on one's position.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>In the sense that "heresy" means "people who don't agree with me," then yes. It is completely subjective. But has it always been so? No. Prior to the Reformation era, people seemed to have a pretty good notion that "heresy" meant that which was contrary to Church teaching. When the question of heresy arose, as in the Arian heresy mentioned earlier, the church met in council and resolved it. They did not resolve it by means of two groups trying to convice each other that they are right. They resolved it by sitting down, arguing the issue (in the purest, classical sense of the term argue), and determining what is and is not in line with traditional Apostolic teaching as handed down in the Church. What is not is then determined heretical.
<BR>
<BR>Jump ahead to Luther's time, when for the first time the political as well as religious climate was ripe for someone to accuse the Church itself of being heretical. (Anyone who thinks the Reformation didn't have as much, if not more, to do with politics as with theology needs to read more Reformation history). Throw Calvin and Zwingli on the bandwagon, each accusing not only the Church but other Protestant camps of heresy, and you start to get a new subjective definition of "heresy" that means "not in line with what *I* think is correct."
<BR>
<BR>Notice the difference.
<BR>Heresy = "Teaching contrary to the *Church*" Now let's sit down and figure out what the Church actually teaches and resolve this.
<BR>vs.
<BR>Heresy = "Teaching contrary to what *I think is right*" Now let's sit down and let me tell you why you should agree with me.
<BR>
<BR>I was using heresy in the classical sense. Contrary to Church teaching.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">When one adds the question of by what authority....tradition or solo
<BR>scriptoria or some combination?, then one muddies the waters even farther.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Yes, and there is no need to muddy these waters. The theoretical women priests in question date from at least 1000 years before anyone even dreamed up the phrase "sola scriptura." There is no need to even bring it us (unless you are trying to undermine the authority of the Church that taught us from the beginning that women's ordination is heretical).
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Since as has been pointed out, the church doctrines have not been static,
<BR>rather an evolution, one must define these terms in a specific time period
<BR>as well (sometimes a very brief time period indeed) Take for example the
<BR>Female Pope, the requirement for single (non married state)of the priest,
<BR>and other doctrines that have changed rapidly within our period of study.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">What?
<BR>
<BR>There has never been a female pope. Never. This is a myth. It is a medieval myth, but the fact that it is an old myth doesn't make it any more true.
<BR>
<BR>The celebate priesthood is a discipline. It is not a doctrine of the church, and therefore it can change. In fact, not only is it a discipline, not a doctrine, it is not even a doctrine for the whole Catholic church, just the Roman rite. Other rites (the Byzantine rite, for example) do have married clergy, and always have. And in fact, it is a discipline in the Roman rite that can be waived under special circumstances. There are about 100 married Roman Catholic priests in America today.
<BR>
<BR>What are these other doctrines that you think have changed?
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">One must also include the Mary issues in this as well.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">What Mary issue? And why does it need to be included? No one to my knowledge has claimed her to be an ordained priest.
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">.I am just as glad I have fled to Geneva where I am in the
<BR>majority and get to burn Catholics (actually not done, banishment seems to
<BR>work as well) rather than be on the receiving end.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Are you suggesting that Catholics were not killed at the hands of the Protestants? The Reformation was a bloody time, and there were plenty of tragic victims on both sides, I assure you. St. John Fisher?
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Perhaps we should leave such questions in the modern day, were we are more
<BR>tolerant of differences.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Let me just point out that the question of women being ordained in the early church, and the question of women being ordained today are two seperate questions. One should be able to examine the first question without being influenced by the other.
<BR>
<BR>Trying to determine whether or not women were ordained in the early church doesn't require us to be "tolerant of differences." It just requires us to look at the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion.
<BR>
<BR>If I say 2 + 2 = 4, and you say 2 + 2 = 5, I don't need to be "tolerant of your differences." I should just point out to you your error in arithmetic. After that, if you still want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, then fine. You have a right to be wrong. But the right to be wrong doesn't make being wrong right.
<BR>
<BR>(I know any question of historic research is not going to be as simple as elementary mathmatics, but I am merely illustrating a point).
<BR>
<BR>Aye,
<BR>Eogan
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
<BR>Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
<BR>WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
<BR>-------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE</FONT></HTML>