Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

.0> ............. some of those who [grew] up in the Roman Catholic Church have
.0> it so deeply ingrained within them that it becomes virtually impossible to
.0> ever completely sever, for whatever reason, that sense of connectedness
.0> with the church.

     (slight rewording mine)

     Describes me to a T, although personally I'm more comfortable  calling
     myself  an ex-Catholic, not a "recovering Catholic", if I'm describing
     myself in terms of my relationship to the Roman Catholic church.   But
     if someone asks, "What are you?", I say agnostic.

     One of the symptoms I  have  of  this  (hmmm,  maybe  I  *should*  use
     recovering  Catholic  :^D)  is  that  I  feel uncomfortable in all but
     Catholic churches and I generally always feel at home among Catholics.
     I find this odd and fascinating since intellectually I'm probably more
     in agreement with several Protestant and non-Christian groups.

     What are the reasons I'm like this?  I'm still working  this  out  for
     myself  and I think if I started writing on this, we'd run out of disk
     space.

     Would I  become  a  practicing  Catholic  again?   I  would  say  it's
     unlikely, but not impossible.

     Hope this gets things started in the right spirit.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

      I usually refer to myself as former Catholic when the subject
    comes up. I suppose I've recovered.

      I guess the sense of connectedness comes from the feeling that 
    you have something in common with Catholics. There is this knowledge
    and experience base that you have in common with someone else.
     
      There is a feeling of familiarity in Catholic ritual and ceremony
    that in my case go back to some of my first memories of community
    life and interaction. You just don't forget that kind of thing.

       I attended a Catholic University and look back on it as a place
    of great intellectual challenge and academic freedom. 

       Those I think of as "recovering" Catholics are people who have left
     the church, but feel a great deal of resentment and anger towards it.
     They are unable to let go of their Catholic past. They still have a 
     lot of things that they need to work out and resolve about their 
     relationship with the Church. For some people it is not an easy thing
     to do. It can be very hard to let go of the past, very painful. In
     such a case I think "recovering" is probably a very good description.


                                                               Mike

    P.S. I think Phil D. stole the line from comic Elaine Boozer.

       
                                  

        

My spouse, Sharon, was raised Catholic; complete with parochial school,
uniforms and all.

She was the eldest daughter in a family of six.  As a woman, she is
dutiful and self-sacrificing, which I suspect her Catholic upbringing
reinforced in her, if it did not instill in her.

As some point as a young adult, she had a less-than-fruitful exchange with
a priest.  From that time, she no longer felt welcome in the church.  This
has been a little difficult for me to understand, since I've never placed
that much stock in the behavior of a single individual.

A couple of Summers ago we visited the city where she grew up.  Interestingly,
Sharon felt it important to show our children the church where she'd spent so
much time in prayer and worship.  We made it a point to attend Sunday mass.
And there we lit a candle on behalf of Sharon's ailing mother.  I could see
that just beneath her lingering bitter feelings, she's never really left the
church.

Peace,
Richard

        As a person who was raised in a Catholic home and Catholic
        schools and who remains� and practices� as a Catholic to this
        day, I am a little bit disturbed by the phrase "recovering
        Catholics."  It implies that being a Catholic, per se, is a
        disease or disorder that should be overcome for proper
        health.  I do not believe this is true.

        On the other hand, I do believe that many, many people have
        acquired through their early associations with Catholics and
        Catholic institutions something that is disfunctional.  There
        is certainly something associated with Catholicism that hurts
        many people, but I do not consider that something to be an
        essential part of Catholicism.

        Thus, while I can easily accept the notion that one may need
        to recover from that thing associated with a Catholic
        cultural upbringing, I do not accept that the Catholic faith,
        per se, is something from which one needs to "recover" to be
        in good health.

        (While I am offended by the phrase "recovering Catholic," I
        am in no way suggesting that these notes or their title and
        topic be deleted or changed -- in fact, I would be offended
        more if they were so altered.)

        Bob
        -------------

        � I spent a good deal of time during my early adult years
        attending and participating in evangelical Protestant
        services and congregations -- about half of that time while
        also frequently attending and participating in Catholic
        activities.  I met my wife, an evangelical Protestant by
        background, in one such non-Catholic setting.

        � According to the position that some advocate in, for
        example, the CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY conference, one cannot call
        oneself a Catholic unless one entirely agrees with the
        doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic authorities.  I
        strongly disagree; I hold that this teaching (among others)
        is incorrect.

As a friend of several self-proclaimed "recovering Catholics"...

I believe the expression was lifted from 12 step anonymous meetings, where a
common line use to start telling one's story is "Hi, my name is _____ and I'm
a recovering _________." 

I can well understand the offense this might cause to Catholics who are 
comfortable with their faith, but I've found that what is really beneath the 
surface is an element of fanaticism, the forgetting of WHY one believes what 
one does.

Each and every one of the people I've talked with had the facts, stories, 
prayers and such jammed into their heads, but with little or no explaining 
why, or what it all means.  This can happen in ANY religion or faith, but 
perhaps, due to historical circumstances, the Catholic church exhibited more 
of this in the Christian world than other denominations.  (Consider the 
liturgy said in Latin, when perhaps no one in the congregation understood 
Latin..."say the prayer, don't question what it means...")

It's much easier to decree "this is the way it will be" than to explain the 
basis for it.  And it's much easier to read the headlines than the story 
behind it.  (That is, while the "tell-er" of the message may be failing in 
their responsibility to explain the message, the "tell-ee" has a
responsibility to question and dig as well.)

A dear friend of mine, after staying away from the Catholic chuch for many 
years, felt the need to return.  She called a priest (at the Calvary Retreat 
center in Shrewsbury) and told him that she felt like the church had 
steamrolled over her, she had been hurt by the church, and was quite wary of 
returning.

His reply was yes, the church HAD rolled over her, it had put her through the 
ringer.  Mistakes were made, but the Church is learning and growing, too, and 
trying to support the current needs of her people.

He told her that he would ask her to first reconcile herself with God, even if 
she never stepped into a Catholic church again.  He invited her to visit with
him, to vent her anger, and he would support her in working through her fear
and anger with the church.  I have a great deal of respect for that man. 

Interestingly, there exists a support organization called Fundamentalists 
Anonymous focused on supporting,...you guessed it.  NOT because fundamentalism 
in itself is wrong or bad, but because again, there is a very real possibility 
of knowing the do's and the don't's, while loosing sight of the why's.

A drink can be fine and pleasant for some people, but when one forgets why
they're drinking, and takes another drink simply to take another drink, or to 
avoiding dealing with life, that is a dangerous situation.  Likewise, being 
active in a church can be wonderfully rewarding and an action of deep faith.  
But to go to church simply to go to church, to be on committees, go to study 
groups, and such in order to avoid dealing with life, that is again a similar 
dangerous situation.

Peace, 

Jim

   Sorry Bob I understand why you don't like recovering Catholic...
   That term however is correct for me.  My relationship with that church
   was very painful for me, and not unlike my growing up in abusive home.
   I have to heal(reconcile for a better word) many spritual wounds from
   that interaction.  I still see it as a cold distant religion whose
   view of people is _your broken and only we can fix it_.  They may
   be right in that I'm broken, I can't accept the idea they are the
   only right answer.  It is clear to me I will likely not return to 
   that church, I do wish those who belive well.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Interesting topic! I am a former catholic, in that I left the catholic
    faith last year (age of 42) and joined a congregational church.
    
    I don't expect to return. Former is the correct term, in my opinion.
    
    I left for many reasons....the main reason was that I heard the pope
    state that you could not " pick and choose" what you believed or not.
    You either excepted ALL the teachings or NOT. I could not except
    the position on sex,womans roles, and others....therefore, I left.
    
    As to this note, I miss the communion part of the service and the
    spirituall "feeling" that I got in the old church. The church always
    felt special, and an ideal place to pray. My present church has a
    different feeling....not better or worse...just different.
    
    I am presently a sunday school teacher and a deacon in the
    congregational church.
    
    Marc H.

    A few comments..
    
    There is a program of both instruction and support conducted by the
    Catholic Church for former/hurt Catholics to become reconciled with
    the Church. The Diocean office would have information on the programs.
    
    The Church has never claimed to be 100% responsible for raising 
    Catholics in their faith. It is the parents who are given the bulk
    of the responsibility to make the Catholic faith whole, meaningful,
    and a natural part of the child's life.
    
    The Church provides education for children, but the parents then need
    to make it 'real' by both living example and also through their own
    explinations to children about the Church's teachings on faith and
    morals.
    
    No doubt there have been failings from both ends. I fell away from
    the Catholic Church for many years. I did not have a 'bad experience'
    with a priest or nun, but the Church's teachings seemed oppressing,
    controlling, and irrelevent to me. 
    
    Now I can see that my attitude occured in a large part because there
    was no Catholic foundation in my family life when I was a child. 
    Therefore, I never made the connection between God's plan for living
    and real life. The Church tried, but there was little support at home
    where discussion about God was suppressed.
    
    Misconceptions and other type of conflicts are certainly likely if
    the foundation is not solid and parents do not take the time or
    personally value their faith. 
    
    Mary
    

re Note 463.7 by MICRON::HILDEBRANT:

>     I left for many reasons....the main reason was that I heard the pope
>     state that you could not " pick and choose" what you believed or not.
>     You either excepted ALL the teachings or NOT. I could not except
>     the position on sex,womans roles, and others....therefore, I left.
  
        I figure that I would respond as you did only if I really
        believed he was speaking infallibly when he said this --
        since I don't, I don't have to accept this as the only
        alternative.

        Bob

Bob F .4,

	I suspected some might feel uneasy about this particular topic
before I started it.  At the same time, I felt the potential that this
could be a rewarding, and even a *healing*, topic.

	I also knew that no other notesfile would likely provide a positive
climate for such a topic.

	I've described myself as a "Closet Catholic" on occasion because
I feel such a strong affinity with many Catholics and former Catholics,
and because Catholics do not tend to place emphasis on the Bible to the
same extreme as many non-Catholics do.

	I mainly see the expression "recovering Catholic" as the least
threatening way of dealing with a sometimes painful relationship which has
had no small influence on many lives.

Pax et bonum,
Richard

re Note 463.8 by JUPITR::NELSON:

>     Now I can see that my attitude occured in a large part because there
>     was no Catholic foundation in my family life when I was a child. 

        It's interesting, but I think I believe the way I do, and
        have the kind of attitude I have towards the Church, because
        my parents had similar attitudes.  My parents were not slaves
        to the Church, and evaluated each practical teaching on its
        own merits.  I learned from them that one did not have to
        check one's reason at the door as they entered the Church.

        Even as I was a teen-ager I realized that their attitude
        towards the Church was far different from that of most other
        Catholic adults with whom I had contact -- especially the
        nuns!  (Interestingly, my mother had a public school
        education and her family "experimented"� with other churches;
        my father was raised a Lutheran and converted after I was
        born.)  In addition, the Benedictine friars by whom I was
        taught in high school exhibited none of the nuns' attitudes
        -- that helped a lot, too!

        Bob
        --------
        � but did not inhale :-)

     This seems appropriate, but I may not have it quite right, so  anyone,
     please, correct me if I'm wrong.

     When I say "practicing Catholic" I mean at least doing the minimum the
     Roman  Catholic  church  says  one  must  do  in  order to be "in good
     standing" (my words), which  is;  receive  communion  at  Easter.   Of
     course  a  good practicing Catholic will do much, much more than that!
     Going to Mass and receiving communion *every* Sunday, being  the  next
     minimum  level,  and  going to Mass and receiving communion *everyday*
     being the next higher level.

     For those of you who don't know, Mass is very  important  to  a  Roman
     Catholic,  but  you  can  go  to  Mass  and not receive communion, and
     receiving communion is very important too.  You  must  especially  not
     receive  communion  if you believe you have committed a mortal sin, in
     which case you must go to confession and  receive  absolution  and  do
     penance  for  your sins to get back into a state of grace.  You should
     go to confession, et al., for venial sins, but I  think  nowadays  the
     priest  says  a  little absolution at the beginning of Mass that kinda
     "tides you over" (my words) till you can go to confession.   (This  is
     from  (old,  old)  memory, and I may have it wrong somewhere, so don't
     read this as Gospel unless no  one  corrects  me,  preferably  a  good
     practicing  Catholic!)   This  must  seem  like a strange way of doing
     things to one born and raised in, say, a  Congregational  church,  but
     Catholics  have  been  doing it this way for almost 2,000 years, so it
     doesn't seem strange to them.

     Point is, I call myself an ex-Catholic  because  I  haven't  fulfilled
     that  basic  minimum  in  *years*.   Did  the Pope say a Catholic must
     accept the Church's teachings lock, stock, and barrel?  Then I haven't
     been a Catholic since I was 19!

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

     p.s.

     These have been great REPLYs.  Wish some of the other topics  (need  I
     mention 91 :^/) could be as well mannered!

     A.

        Actually, there are areas of theological latitude in the Church,
    but you are right to say that Church Doctrine is not open to question.
    Beyond that, many things are discussed and even argued in the Church
    today. What we are not allowed to do is to make certain changes
    without ecclastical approvals. The question of Celibacy for Priests
    and Religious may be discussed, argued, and theologically explored
    but no priest or Bishop has the authority to vary from Celibacy until
    approved by the Holy See. The Priest does not have to like it, but
    his continued role as a Priest demands it. 
    
        I don't see how this, as an example, is different than the
    requirements of life in a human society. If I want to remain as a DEC
    Employee there are some fundamental requirements, a means to promote
    a desired change, and some areas where I have latitude to act with
    minimal authorization. Even in a Union shop, the members cannot simply
    vote in every desired change; some changes, even desired by the 
    majority of employees, cannot be instituted without a final
    authorization by a Board of Directors.
    
        All Social Institutes, including families and religions, have at 
    least a tacit set of obligations which range from 'Unquestionable'
    down to those that are open for personal interpertation. There is
    always a need for a certain degreee of agreement and obedience.
    
        In this day of 'relativism' no one wants to admit that an
    organization, business, or religion has any right to establish specific
    committments, agreements, or performance expectations as part of
    membership. This leads to discord, lack of direction and progress
    towards goals, and a watering down of the vision and principles of
    the organization. 
    
        The Church, then, is attacked from the outside (and often the
    inside) with demands that it change or be more 'inclusive' to 
    principles, ideals, and practices which is are actually in conflict
    with very clear 'charters'. 
    
        Stereotypes are propagated because the details which
    demonstrates the Church's logicalness, fairness, and intelligence
    get lost. What is left becomes a picture of the Church as being 
    unreasonable, illogical, and an array of other negative adjectives.
    
        Ex-Catholics, when questioned about their background as Catholics,
    reveal that either their Catholic experience was very superficial or
    they were raised in VERY Catholic homes ritual-wise (frequent Mass, 
    Novenas, Rosaries, etc.), but that an understanding of those Catholic 
    activities or doctrines was never really taught. Rather than find out 
    what is the REASON the Church teaches as they do or we participate in 
    certain rituals, these things are dismissed as being wrong. 
    
        Everyone can tell you that the Church teaches artificial means of
    birth control is wrong; how many who disagree with this teaching (as an
    example) has read the Encyclical and studied the Scriptural pointers
    and other philosophical documents given within? I don't believe the 
    rejections are truely INFORMED. (I might add, I've never seen the Media
    give and informed summary of the Church teaching on such a doctrine
    either.)
    
        I, a happy Catholic, may not LIKE every Church teaching, but
    I can at least give the Church some intellectual credit for being
    based on credible, and usually profound, theological development.
    
        The 'Recovering Catholic' Program sponsored by most Catholic
    Diocese helps those people who have become disaffected by the 
    Church to recieve this deeper understanding of whatever teachings
    underly the separation. Church teachings on Marriage/Annullments/
    Divorce, the Sacraments, Birth Control, Sexuality all have theological
    and scriptural bases. Ex- and recovering Catholics often only
    see them as lists of "Dos" and "Don'ts"; the program does not insist
    that a participant re-enter the Church or even be reconcilled. It is
    a forum for perhaps allowing healing to occur through understanding
    and even forgiveness. I know that the program also addresses the
    personal abuses that have come from priests and nuns who, being human,
    may have not been a good Catholic witness.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

    Re .14,  Thank you, Mary.
    
    The Lord be with you,
    Richard

    I had to think about this before entering a reply but something tells
    me that I have to respond. Maybe I'm not included in the "recovering
    Catholic" in the truest sense but I feel that the term does apply to
    me.
    
    I have not been a practicing Catholic since the time of my divorce.
    Having been married in the Catholic Church, this meant that I could
    not consider myself a "good" Catholic. I grew up going to parochial
    schools and entered the seminary in high school studying to become a 
    priest. I eventually decided not to become a priest and married
    instead. 
    
    I have always felt that I am still a Catholic and will be until the day
    that I die. Since remarrying, I have been very active in the
    Congregational Church and find many of our parishoners are Catholic.
    I have been a Deacon in our church and teach Sunday School to 7th and 
    8th graders. Our church is very family oriented and the care-giving
    network is tremendous. I've never felt more involved with a church but
    there is something missing.
    
    Where is all this leading? I feel that I am a recovering Catholic and
    want to come back. I am taking steps in this direction and hope to find
    someone who will give me the right answers. I'm not looking for the
    easy way and know that some might say that I can't come back. But I'm
    still going to try.
    
    I hope that this discussion continues.
    
    Pax vobiscum
    
    Dave

    re: .16
    
    Dave,
    
        Your situation is probably one of the most common ones that needs
    to be addressed (that of divorce and remarriage) by most former
    Catholics who contemplate returning to the faith. Because of this,
    you should be able to recieve expert assistance by calling your 
    Diocese office; explain that your are a divorced and remarried
    former Catholic and that you would like to talk to someone about the
    procedure for returning to the Church. 
    
        I do not know the exact ministry because it will differ depending
    on the size of the Diocese and the names might be different. But
    I know that our CT Diocese has a ministry for Divorced and Separated
    Catholics. If they direct you immediatly to the Annullment office, I
    would recommend that you ask to meet with a counselor or priest first.
    
        To re-enter the most successfully, my suggestion is that more 
    than your divorce and re-marriage should be explored; there may
    be past hurts to heal, some re-education into the Catholic faith,
    and the formulation of a process which will either involve your
    whole family, or at least help them understand.
    
        You can begin by calling the Diocean office or by asking a Priest
    how to begin. I'm sure you will be greeted with hospitality and a 
    willingness to match you up with the right ministries for your needs.
    
        God bless you in this. If I can be of any support, drop me a line
    at my Mail Account anytime.
    
        Peace,
    
        Mary
    

Note 463.16

Dave,

	I'm glad this string reached out to you.  I'm speculating that it
did strike a chord with you.  I don't recall reading any other entries of
yours.  So first of all - Welcome to CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE!!

>    I have been a Deacon in our church and teach Sunday School to 7th and 
>    8th graders. Our church is very family oriented and the care-giving
>    network is tremendous. I've never felt more involved with a church but
>    there is something missing.

	I'm certain you are a valued member of your adopted church home.
And I wouldn't attempt to persuade you to part company with it.  Neither
would I discourage you from reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church.
I think if I were in your place I'd want to talk it over with a trusted
friend, perhaps with a priest or other religious whom I believed to have
my best interests at heart.  Then I think I'd also want to devote considerable
time to prayer before attempting to catalyze a decision.

	My prayers are with you.

Pax vobiscum,
Richard

  
    Having thought about this a bit more and talked to a couple
 of my "recovering Catholic" friends there is an issue that both of
 them brought up and that I had to deal with during the time when I
 was trying to figure out my relationship with the church.
 
    The issue is one one of no compromise and no accommodation. I think that
 that this is a particularly tough one for Americans. The Catholic church
 is not a democracy. Change does not occur because it is desired. 
 It is not like a business deal where there is give and take and at some
 point you strike a deal that is acceptable to both parties. The church 
 expects disciple and obedience. Two qualities that Americans, in general,
 possess in limited quantities.

    One of my friends said that the realization that church really was
 authoritarian in nature was traumatic. They knew this all along, but 
 is never really sunk in until they were in a situation where they were
 told quite clearly that they at odds with church doctrine. They thought
 they could discuss this and reach some kind of compromise. Instead they were
 told to conform or leave. 

     I also remember when I came to the conclusion that I had changed, but
 the Catholic church was not going to change, even a tiny bit, to accommodate
 me. Actually, there is no reason why millions of members and hundreds of
 years of tradition should change to accommodate one person. 

     I am somewhat confused by some of my friends and relatives who are
 still practicing Catholics who hmmm....shall we say do not conform in 
 thought or deed to church doctrine. Even more curious is in a few cases 
 their pastor must be aware of this, but ignores it. I dunno... I am at
 a loss to understand this.

     Some time last year I remember an interview with a Bishop. I don't 
 remember which one. He said that over half of all Catholic families
 practiced some form of artificial birth control and most American Catholics
 disagreed with church teaching on divorce, celibacy for priests and the
 role of women in the church. He said he was worried that there would soon
 be an "American Catholic Church" separate from Rome and that the "old" 
 church would become a small, irrelevant curiosity with a membership
 of mostly old women.

     I think the reason that people think of themselves as recovering
 Catholics and why there are so many former Catholics is that the church
 as an institution is very much at odds with the basic American self-concept.
 Even if we do not behave in accordance with this self-concept, it holds a
 mythological...dare I say even, sacred place in how we view the world. 

     Any of this make sense to anyone or am I just rambling on 
 and confusing people ?


                                                          Mike

Re: .19 Mike Seabury

> He said he was worried that there would soon
> be an "American Catholic Church" separate from Rome and that the "old" 
> church would become a small, irrelevant curiosity with a membership
> of mostly old women.

A couple of years ago my father (a Methodist minister) got a letter from a group
of Catholics who were trying to split from Rome.  I don't know how much support
this group has among American Catholics.  I'm also not quite sure why people
trying to split from the Catholic church would write to a Methodist minister -
were they looking for a donation, moral support or what?

Would an American Catholic Church still be Catholic?  It would presumably
dispense with many Catholic beliefs, including the inerrancy of the Pope on
doctrinal matters, or for that matter it probably wouldn't recognize a Pope at
all.  With so many Catholic doctrines discarded, would it become almost
indistinguishable from the Protestant denominations?

I would guess that one obstacle to the formation of an American Catholic Church
would be property rights - the Church in Rome would still own all the buildings.

				-- Bob

    As a Catholic I find the term "recovering Catholic" offensive.  It
    links in an insulting way the Catholic belief with alcoholism, drug
    abuse, and gambling.  It seems fitting that the term originates from
    anti-Catholics as another tool of ridicule for them.
    
    In charity we refer to the baptised and confirmed who no longer attend
    Mass as lapsed or fallen Catholics, in the hope that they will return
    to faith in Jesus and the Church he founded.
    
    Then there are maginal or "cafeteria" Catholics who pick and choose
    among its beliefs.  Of which most often rejected are belief in the Real
    Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, confession of sins to a priest
    in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the integrity of marriage.
    
    In frankness, the Catholic teachings on faith and morals are part of
    the narrow way that Jesus described in Mt 7:13.  It would be a little
    more honest simply to reject Catholicism for something more relaxed and
    accomodating to one's own idea of faith and morals than to claim as the
    heretic does that he or she is correct and that the Roman Catholic
    Church is in error.

    RE: .21  Patrick,
    
    
    		When I first heard the term "recovering" linked to any
    church, I was also offended until I met several "recovering" people
    from several denominations.....including my own.  I believe that in the
    interest of an "open" file that the term should stay.  For many, this
    is the term prefered.  For my own belief, Jesus is far more important
    than the "church".  Individual belief, I believe, should be the primary
    focus.
    
    
    Dave

    The connection between secular humanism or agnosticism or atheism and
    alcoholism, drug abuse, and gambling by using the term "recovering" is
    not made.  The term is distinctly applied to Catholicism and is
    offensive in itself.  I'm not interested in supressing the discussion,
    outnumbered as I am, my interest is in defending my faith whether it is
    ridicule or reasoned argument.
    
    The Christian Church exists for the formation of "individual belief". 
    From dead martyrs in Rome, to Irish monks in the Middle Ages who copied
    the manuscripts, to the Christian missionaries who fill the world, all
    support through the Church, individual belief in Jesus Christ.
    
    The Bible ends "Behold I am coming soon.  My reward is with me, and I
    wil give to everyone according to what he has done.  I am the Alpha and
    the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
    
    Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to
    the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.  Outside
    are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the
    murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
    falsehood.  I Jesus have sent you my angel to give you this testimony
    for THE CHURCHES.  I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the
    bright Morning Star."  NIV Rv 22:12-16 (I added emphasis)

<    offensive in itself.  I'm not interested in supressing the discussion,
<    outnumbered as I am, my interest is in defending my faith whether it is
<    ridicule or reasoned argument.

   Patrick,

   I would hope your not feeling the need to defend yourself against the
   overwhelming odds.  This conference is a diverse one, I'd bet there 
   are more people than you may know who would support you.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Mike and Bob
    
    Both my own church, the Episcopalian and the Lutheran church, started
    as break away Catholic churches. Both have kept much of the Catholic
    tradition but have remained more flexible. One would hope that any
    break away American Catholic group would do the same{
    
    and Patrick, I'm really sorry that the expression of{ some fromer
    Catholics is so troubling to you,{I would hope that you could
    dialogue further with some of them to come to a deeper mutual
    understanding of the problems and issues.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 463.23 by SICVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The connection between secular humanism or agnosticism or atheism and
>     alcoholism, drug abuse, and gambling by using the term "recovering" is
>     not made.  

        Actually, Pat, I have heard the term "recovering" applied to
        these things, typically by conservative writers and radio
        commentators.

        But I doubt that such a use of "recovering" would grab your
        attention as this one does.

        Bob

re Note 463.21 by SICVAX::SWEENEY:

>     It would be a little
>     more honest simply to reject Catholicism for something more relaxed and
>     accomodating to one's own idea of faith and morals than to claim as the
>     heretic does that he or she is correct and that the Roman Catholic
>     Church is in error.

        Pat,

        I am astonished by your notions of "honesty." Do you really
        mean that if one held the latter position, i.e., "the Roman
        Catholic Church is in error," that it would be nevertheless
        "more honest" to do or say something else?

        In what way is that "honest"?  It sure sounds dishonest to
        me.

        Bob

ME:       Hi, my name is Glen and I am a recovering Catholic.

Audience: HI GLEN!


	This is just how this topic does sound. In some cases a lot of people
probably feel that this is how it was for them. I too am a recovering Catholic.
There is a lot about the Catholic church that I do like, more than not. But,
it's the nots that add up to me not wanting to be Catholic anymore. Right now I
am not attending church anywhere, but am thinking of going to the UU church in
Arlington. Anyway, I like this topic so far and it does say a lot. 




Glen

    Re: last several
    
        Pat, I agree with what you wrote. I'm not very comfortable with the
    term "recovering Catholic" either. It's hard to tell the sense in
    which it is ment. The discussion in this note, for the most part,
    has been centered around the discussion of reconcilliation with the
    Church and in that way, I think it is healthy. 
    
        Mike (if I recall correctly), it is true that the Church is not
    bending on it's positions on faith and morals. Scripture says that
    God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Therefore, on the
    fundamental aspects, there can be no change. False religions are 
    known for suiting "the times" and again, scripture warns against this
    because what is being held to be of God in this case is either only
    human or 'of the world' which is still under the influence of Satan.
    
        The Church does not require a 'passport of holiness' for entry;
    we are all sinners who need the supernatural Grace of God in order
    to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Catholics receive the Grace to
    be transformed into the image of Christ (the "New Man") through
    the grace that comes to us through the reception of the Sacraments,
    particularly that of Reconcilliation (Confession) and the Eucharist.
    
        What God wishes from us is our willingness to accept God's Will
    and Word and therefore to surrender our own wills to Him. If we are
    willing to surrender our sin to Jesus and to struggle (by attempting
    to resist the sin and confessing when we fall) and if we receive Jesus
    in the Eucharist worthly, then Jesus will win the victory for us which
    will allow for our transformation.
    
        For Catholics, then, it is a surrender of self always aided, and
    indeed, made possible by the Sacraments of the Church that allows the
    Holy Spirit to transform us. 
    
        It is true that perhaps a large percent of Catholics take the
    Church for granted and therefore cannot 'utilize' the graces of the
    Sacraments in their lives. For those who are actively seeking the Lord
    in the Sacraments and who are willing to make the surrender of self
    in FAITH in God then God's Grace is very very powerful.
    
        For those who wish to witness God's transforming power through
    the Church, it is neccessary to seek out the witnesses that take 
    advantage and live their faith in the manner intented by the Church
    itself rather than look upon the lives of the spiritually lukewarm.
    It is God's own choice to give each person free choice in the degree
    to which we will accept and invite Him into our lives. The Church
    has been given EVERYTHING, like a hugh bank deposit. How much each
    Catholic chooses to 'withdraw' is what is the difference between
    the witness we give of the Church and our Lord.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    
    

As Mary has stated, the overall tone of this topic has been reconciliatory,
rather than hostile.

Granted, there might be a gentler, kinder term for this phenomenon than
"recovering Catholics."  I can understand why offense might be taken.
I would extend a challenge to all readers herein, especially those who
feel wounded or offended by it, to find a more accommodating term.

The title of this string can easily be changed.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    Here are some suggestions that are more accurate/broad titles 
    for this topic:
    
              Harmful religious experiences
              People harmed by religious experiences
              Wounding religious experiences
              People wounded by religious experiences
              Healing the wounds caused by bad religious experiences
    
    or something along those lines.
    
    You need not zero-in on Catholics, or any other singular religious/
    spiritual domain, for that matter, in order to discuss people who have
    been harmed, in any way, shape, or form by their exposure to,
    experience with, certain religious/spiritual areas, be they Catholic
    or Protestant or Christian or Non-Christian.
    
    The term 'recovery' seems to imply that the whole religion or spiritual
    domain is inherently unhealthy, like an addiction;  I think you are
    looking to talk about healing wounds stemming from individual sour
    experiences, rather than saying an entire religion, by its very nature
    -- though some people think so -- is generally 'unhealthy' for the
    human palate.
    
    I personally have had sour experiences with certain religions, a few
    things that have left some emotional scars, and I think all of us know 
    friends who have been 'shaken up' pretty badly by certain experiences.
    
    Paul
    

    Re .31
    
    Paul,
    
    	Welcome back!  I get the drift of what you are saying and I agree
    with it up to a point.  I would like to hear from others before
    actually making a title change.
    
    	Again, I see this string as facilitating healing.  And I suspect
    the healing would address different symptoms if the topic was broadened
    to blanket all Christian churches.  Mary, in particular, I must laud.
    For though she's uneasy about the topic, rather than going into denial
    or expressing extreme indignation, she seized the opportunity to share
    what resources the Catholic church is presently offering towards
    reconciliation.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I believe that many former Catholics insincerely claim that the Roman
    Catholic Church teaches error (ie from their point of view, they become
    Protestants, from my point of view, heretics)... when what they
    sincerely feel that they can't live according to the moral teaching of
    the Church.

    It's honest for them to admit they have separated from the Church, it's
    less than honest for them to insist that they are right and what the
    Church teaches to all is wrong for all, with hostility and ridicule.

    I believe that the Church as a human as well as a divine institution
    has it's share of evil, immoral, abusive people acting in sin and not
    in grace.  My perspective is that as the Church can heal itself through
    the power of the Holy Spirit, the victims of such evil and hurt can be
    healed as well.

   re: .33

   Patrick,

   I use the term "recovering Catholic".  Please do not invalidate my
   experience.  What I am recovering from was the smothering of my
   sprituality because I didn't fit the Catholic definition but was
   expected to grow up with it.  I do not wish to demean the religion
   you believe in, it simply is not my religion.  There is no, they are
   wrong and I am right.  I disagree with many of their teachings as
   the Church interprets them.  I see people every day that derive great
   faith and strength from those teachings.  I recognize now that religion
   or sprituality is a very personal thing. I talk about it very 
   differently with people I agree with, that is the essence of personal
   experience.  Please tread lightly, the term "recovering" is part of a 
   process some of us must go through if we are to come to peace in
   our life.  A small amount of sensitivity to anothers pain does help
   heal wounds.

   I was made very uncomfortable by comments made here about recovery.
   The one note that associated the recovery movements was a bit hard to
   take.  There are many prople in 12 step programs that are even
   supported by the Catholic Church.  

   I add that before and even after I left the Church my education in it
   never ended.  I had to understand it more fully to realize where the
   differences arose.  

   Peace,
   Allison

   PS: you may send mail if you have questions.

    re: re-naming this topic
    
    Of Paul's suggestions in .31, I think only the last one encompasses
    an intention of healing (if not reconciliation with a religion).
    
    My 2 cents.
    
    Mary
    

    RE  .33  Hi Patrick,
    
             "I believe that many former Catholics insincerely claim
              that the ... church teaches error... when what they
              sincerely feel that they can't live according to the moral
              teachings of the church."
    
    Patrick, as a former Catholic myself, who DID leave the church many
    years ago precisely because I thought church doctrine is in error in many 
    areas, I am a bit disturbed by your claim to know about my sincereity
    and honesty, which also implies personal intent/motivation, and that
    of other former Catholics.   
    
    As for not being able to 'live according to the moral teachings of
    the church,' well, you are correct, in part.   A more accurate
    statement, at least in my case, goes something like this:   I choose
    not to live according to the moral teachings of the church, simply
    because I feel much of what the church teaches is neither moral nor
    reflective of Divine truth.   This is *my* choice.   I respect your
    choice and your spiritual life and relationship with God via the Catholic 
    church and do not question your sincerity/honesty.  I do not question
    your intentions and motivations, either.
    
    Peace,
    Paul                                   
     

    By the way, Patrick, in your opinion, which is worse.... a church-going
    Catholic, who disagrees with and disobeys much of the church's
    teachings, but reluctantly sticks with the church, or someone who decides
    to leave the church because he/she has the same types of disagreements and
    doubts with the validity of much of the doctrine?
    
    This is one of the components that drove me away from the Catholic 
    church -- the hypocrisy among so many church-goers, who would show up
    at mass every Sunday but who didn't really want to be there, didn't
    really 'get into' the church services, not to mention the doctrine
    itself, which so many did not adhere to.
    
    Just curious,
    Paul
    

    Re: .36
    
    Very nicely said Paul.
    
    Marc H.

    The title of this string has been changed from "The Phenomenon of
    'Recovering Catholics'" to "Healing the wounds: the Catholic
    experience."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

     In all honesty I must say that the new title sounds far more
    damning than the old one.  Just my opinion mind you , but before it
    was a discussion of the phenomenon of how some people viewed
    their relationship with the Catholic church. The new title makes
    it sound like Catholicism is an injurious experience in general.


                                                               Mike

    .40
    
    After considering your input, I decided to change the title from
    "Healing the wounds: the Catholic experience" to "Healing the wounds:
    the Catholic perspective."
    
    I remain open for further suggestion.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: .41
    
    I really don't think that *any* title will be O.K. with everyone.
    The word Wounds will make some folks upset because it implies that
    being a catholic means you have to have been hurt.....(although
    I do like the title myself).
    
    Just keep the title, and lets continue the discusion.
    
    Marc H.

    I like this new title.  
    
    I am grateful that during my childhood, I was Graced
    with the discernment to recognize that:
    
       the messenger isn't the message.
    
    I continue to live a committed, healing, Catholic-Christian life
    by His Grace.
    
    Dolores

re. 1055.78 (John R. Covert)

> >I am reading Hans K�ng, a fellow countryman, a very knowledgeable author.
> 
> And no longer authorized to claim to be a Catholic theologian, due to
> his writings, mostly those later than "On Being a Christian"; but he
> began to depart from orthodox teachings as he wrote even that book.


kueng is a critic of official catholic church positions and as far as i can
tell from his "Christ Sein" ("On Being a Christian"), a fairly moderate one 
at that. kueng is against keeping a lid on areas of doubt and on new findings 
in theological research. in his view, in our communicative age, news of new 
findings or of internal theological disputes is bound to reach the flock. 
kueng would like to see a more open and less dogmatic church.

as a critic he does not claim to speak in the name of the catholic officialdom. 
he is a catholic and a theologian no less. kueng, as the other noted (and
fairly controversial) catholic church critic, eugen drewermann, is with
the majority of german catholics who are critical of catholic church positions.

ironically, where critics such as kueng and drewermann are doing much to 
revive interest in the christian faith, they are forbidden to speak by their
church (ref 1051.19). the result being that as the catholic church discredits 
itself with its stance on dogma, more people leave the curch (ref 1051.17)


andreas.

the term "real existing catholicism" (which is my literal translation of
the german "real existierender katholizismus") is one used by german catholic 
church critic eugen drewermann, who is himself a catholic theologian. the 
term makes a mockery of the catholic church in germany today, which is losing 
much of its flock. the term "real existing catholicism" is a mutation of the 
original: "real existing socialism" ("real existierender sozialismus"). 

"real existing socialism" was the term used by the former east german communist
rulers to underline the supremacy of their communist socialism over western 
social democray.


andreas.

>an interesting point - are catholic critics no longer catholic?

They may still be catholic individuals, but noone may use the title
"catholic" to describe an _office_ or an _organization_ without the
consent of ecclesiastical authority.  Canon 300.

Thus Hans K�ng is still a catholic layman, but is no longer a
catholic theologian, because the theology he teaches is not
catholic.

Catholic means that which is the same everywere, for all people,
for all the Church, for all time, until the end of the ages.

/john

where i live, unfortunately, it looks like the catholic church might 
not be around "until the end of the ages" if it continues to refuse
to take its critics seriously.

once the exodus reaches such dimensions that the financial might of
the church is noticeably impacted, it will become more open.



andreas.

    Let us make sure to differentiate between the catholic church and the
    "Catholic" church.
    
    One is the universal church of all believers in Christ .
    
    The other is a denomination of Christiandom.

When I say "Catholic" I include Anglicans and Orthodox, but do not include
Protestants, or anyone who has new revelations.

When I say "Roman Catholic" I refer to the Churches in full communion with
the Bishop of Rome.

/john

Re: .49 John

>                -< capitalization does not make any difference >-

It makes a difference to Protestants, who when they recite the Apostles'
Creed say that they believe in the "holy catholic church".  According to
Protestants, the "catholic" church referred to in the Creed does not mean
just the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches but includes all
Christian denominations.

At least that's what they taught me when I took United Methodist
confirmation classes.

				-- Bob

    re: .50
    
> It makes a difference to Protestants, who when they recite the Apostles'
> Creed say that they believe in the "holy catholic church".  According to
> Protestants, the "catholic" church referred to in the Creed does not mean
> just the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches but includes all
> Christian denominations.
    
    
    That's what I was taught too, in my Episcopal Sunday school and
    confirmation classes of the late 1960s.

    Do all protestant churches then use the term "catholic" without any
    reference to an ecclesiastical organization then?

From the American Heritage Dictionary, that supreme font of wisdom:

	catholic adj. 1. Universal; general.  2. Catholic.  Of or
	  pertaining to Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church.
	  --n.  Catholic.  A member of the Roman Catholic Church.

				-- Bob

>    That's what I was taught too, in my Episcopal Sunday school and
>    confirmation classes of the late 1960s.

In the Creeds and Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer in use in the 1960s
the word "Catholic" is capitalized.  See pp. 15, 71, 578, and other places.

In the current Book of Common Prayer, the word is capitalized in some
places (e.g. the creed on pp. 327-328 and the prayer for the Church on
p. 816), but not in others (e.g. the creed on pp. 326-327).

/john

    Whether it was capitalized or not (I don't happen to keep a copy of any 
    BCP in my office), when I specifically asked why the word catholic in
    the creed, my Sunday school teacher didn't know.  So she asked the
    priest, and returned with the answer as Bob expressed it in the
    previous note.  Then, when I had my confirmation classes, which were
    taught by a different priest, I asked the question again, and got the
    same answer.

The point is, Debby, capitalization has nothing to do with what the word
Catholic means.

For your information, the official teaching of the Episcopal Church on the
word catholic is found in the Book of Common Prayer.  It has not changed
since you were in confirmation class.

From the point of view of the Episcopal Church, the word, regardless of
capitalization, does not mean "all Christian churches" unless you limit
"Christian churches" to those which "proclaim the whole faith" (p. 854)
including all of the inherent parts of the sacred deposit of faith,
especially "The Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of God.  The Nicene
Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.  The two Sacraments,
-- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with the unfailing use of
Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by him.  The
Historic Episcopate, locally adapted..."  (p. 877)

This last element is a critical element in whether the Episcopal Church
considers another Church to be Catholic.  It is why we are in communion
with Lutherans in Sweden but not with Lutherans in Germany or the United
States.  The Church of Sweden maintained the historic episcopate; the
Roman Catholic bishops there became Lutheran and carried on the unbroken
apostolic succession.

I personally take a somewhat more narrow view, in particular of what local
adaptations to the historic episcopate are permissible.  For this reason I
consider the Episcopal Church in Vermont to no longer be a catholic Church,
and when in that state on Sundays I am required to attend the Holy Sacrifice
at some other church, such as a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church.

/john

re Note 463.57 by COVERT::COVERT:

        And here I thought the word "catholic" meant "universal" --
        your note seems to claim that it means anything but
        universal, and in fact means "very, very, particular".

        Bob

        re .58

    ... Yes but it's universally very, very particular. 

    I think it misses the point to site what the Book of Common Prayer says
    on page 886, or what conclusions were reached by some medieval council.
    The point is how well -- or poorly -- a church has educated its flock.
    Of course, legalistically a church or denomination is defined by its
    dogma, but as a practice point I think it is defined by the beliefs of
    it's worshipers. After all a church is a body of believers, not a body
    of volumes.

              Eric

re Note 463.59 by HURON::MYERS:

>     After all a church is a body of believers, not a body
>     of volumes.
  
        Perhaps that's what you or I would think, but John placed a
        lot of emphasis on some "deposit of faith" (and, no, he
        doesn't mean the gift of faith received by all believers).

        So perhaps a church is that thing deposited somewhere.

        Bob

Since a Church is a body of believers, what do they believe in?

Anything they want?

Or in that which is universally taught, recorded in a deposit of faith?

/john

re Note 463.61 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Or in that which is universally taught, recorded in a deposit of faith?
  
        Does this mean that only that which can be shown to have been
        universally taught can be a component of the "deposit of
        faith"?

        I suspect that very, very little of what is considered
        Christian doctrine has been "universally taught" (all time,
        all places).

        Of course, if we allow ourselves to engage in circularities,
        we could define "universally taught" to mean "teaching (a
        particular) deposit of faith".

        Bob

>        I suspect that very, very little of what is considered
>        Christian doctrine has been "universally taught" (all time,
>        all places).

You would be wrong.

The Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic churches have universally
taught almost the same thing for all of the 2000 years since the time
of the Apostles.  The only major difference deals with the amount of
authority Peter's successor has over the entire church, i.e. whether
his primacy is a primacy of honor or a primacy of absolute authority.

The footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are an excellent
resource for exploring the catholicity of each teaching of the Church.

/john

I'd also recommend reading "The Catholicity of the Church" by Avery Dulles.

/john

    Actually if you limited a church to what is universally taught you
    totally and completely eradicate Faith!
    
                                 Patricia

    My experience with Roman Catholicism is that the believers are not
    taught the "deposit of faith." With the exception of the mechanics of
    the liturgy, I haven't found any particular universality of teaching.
    For that matter I've found the actual teaching of believers to be
    sorely lacking. You yourself have pointed out the lack of universality
    of thought in the Episcopal church.
                                        
    Eric                                          

    John

    I am not as well read nor as well studied as you are.  But I do know
    that many times the things you label as _the official teaching of the
    Episcopal Church_ are often slightly skewed to fit your personal
    belief.  Yes, I am sure you can quote chapter and verse from canons and
    a wealth of other sources, but just as the Bible is interpreted
    differently by different people, and the Constitution is open to wide
    interpretation, so are the sources you quote.  The Episcopal Church,
    like any other group of two or more people, has members with different
    opinions, and different interpretations.  Whethers yours is a majority
    or minority opinion, I do not know.

    I assume that your objection to the Diocese of Vermont is their female
    bishop.  While I am not surprised at your stand, I find it sad.
    
    +++
    Debby

re Note 463.63 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >        I suspect that very, very little of what is considered
> >        Christian doctrine has been "universally taught" (all time,
> >        all places).
> 
> You would be wrong.
> 
> The Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic churches have universally
> taught almost the same thing for all of the 2000 years since the time
> of the Apostles.  

        Remember that universal does not admit of qualification -- if
        there is *any* exception, if there be *any* time or *any*
        place where believers believed and taught differently than a
        proposed universal belief, then it isn't universal.

        If 99% of believers believed the same thing for 2000 years,
        and 1% did not, then the belief of the 99% fails the test of
        universality.

        I suspect that I would have a far easier time coming up with
        one example of Christians who did not teach a given doctrine
        than you would have coming up with proof that there were no
        such Christians (without, of course, resorting to such
        proposed universal teaching as a standard of "Christian"
        before proving its universality).

        Bob

    .65  Patricia,

    Doctrine seems to have started to supercede faith sometime between
    the undisputed letters of Paul and the writing of the pastoral letters
    (Timothy and Titus).
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.68>        If 99% of believers believed the same thing for 2000 years,
>        and 1% did not, then the belief of the 99% fails the test of
>        universality.
    
    	Not true.  There have always been individuals (and whole groups)
    	who believed differently.  That does not change the unyielding,
    	unbending, unchanging, universal teaching of the Church itself.
    	You are mixing apples and oranges.

>        I suspect that I would have a far easier time coming up with
>        one example of Christians who did not teach a given doctrine
>        than you would have coming up with proof that there were no
>        such Christians 

    	If one were trying to claim that all individuals who claim
    	membership had identical beliefs, you would be correct.
    	Unfortunately, that is not the claim being made here.
    
    	Re .62
    
>> Or in that which is universally taught, recorded in a deposit of faith?
>  
>        Does this mean that only that which can be shown to have been
>        universally taught can be a component of the "deposit of
>        faith"?
    
    	That would hold true for all the things that have been taught
    	so far.  But as humanity evolves, things which have never been
    	addressed (or even conceived of in the past) have been added,
    	are still being added, and I suspect always will be added.  
    	Those additions do not change what has already been taught.

>        I suspect that very, very little of what is considered
>        Christian doctrine has been "universally taught" (all time,
>        all places).
    
    	Within the Catholic Church, as taught by the Church (and not
    	necessarily individual members) every bit of it has been
    	universally taught.

>        Of course, if we allow ourselves to engage in circularities,
>        we could define "universally taught" to mean "teaching (a
>        particular) deposit of faith".
    
    	But that's exactly the point!  I see no flaw in that circular
    	logic.

re Note 463.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> >        Of course, if we allow ourselves to engage in circularities,
> >        we could define "universally taught" to mean "teaching (a
> >        particular) deposit of faith".
>     
>     	But that's exactly the point!  I see no flaw in that circular
>     	logic.

        (The flaw is that such circular logic demonstrates that *any*
        doctrine that has ever been taught is universal in the same
        way, i.e., held by all those who hold it.)

        A circle does indeed have a kind of perfection, but in logic
        such perfection is not usually desirable.

        Bob

	.71
    
>        (The flaw is that such circular logic demonstrates that *any*
>        doctrine that has ever been taught is universal in the same
>        way, i.e., held by all those who hold it.)
    
    	"The Church" is the only entity that I have claimed has held
    	that universal teaching.  You are the one trying to apply that
    	universal teaching to all the individuals who claim allegiance
    	with the Church.  But you are correct in that the circular logic 
    	can be applied to any universal teaching.  Here I are talking
    	specifically of the Universal Teaching of the Church.

>        A circle does indeed have a kind of perfection, but in logic
>        such perfection is not usually desirable.

    	God is not always logical to men.  We run into the problems that
    	we see today when we humans try to force God to fit our logic.
    	Someone back there asked where faith comes in if all we have is
    	Universal Teaching.  It takes faith for me to go beyond my personal
    	beliefs and logic to trust that the Church's teaching is what God
    	really intends for me.

    >    	"The Church" is the only entity that I have claimed has held
>    	that universal teaching.  You are the one trying to apply that
>    	universal teaching to all the individuals who claim allegiance
>    	with the Church.  But you are correct in that the circular logic 
>    	can be applied to any universal teaching.  Here I are talking
>    	specifically of the Universal Teaching of the Church.

    I have heard "The Church" defined as: the sum total of Christiandom,
    Roman Catholicism, all Christianity but Roman Catholicism, and finally
    as an inanimate collection of documents. It's too confusing.

    Jesus established "the Church," right. He taught his disciples, and
    sent them to teach the good news. This was "the Church": a singular
    message shared by a group of people. What is the singular message and
    who is the group today?

    Eric

    Jesus also taughtf wherever two person who believe get together there
    is the church.
    
    The church is the amorphous body of Christ.  What that is is subject to
    as many interpretations as there are people.
    
    I'm going to paraphrase a wonderful sermon I just read from my mentor
    David Parke.
    
    No two people hold the exact same beliefs about the nature of God,
    Jesus Christ, Church, abortion, spirit, prayer, ordination of women. 
    No two Christians hold the exact same beliefs.  No two of the 800 Million
    Roman Catholics hold the exact same beliefs.  Each one of us must do
    our own believing which for each of us begins with our own individual
    relationship with God and with Jesus Christ for those of us who profess
    to be Christian.  Just as every single human relationship is unique and
    individual, every single relationship with the Divine is unique and
    individual.  It is that relationship with the Divine which is the
    central point of all Faith and not the memorization of a set of
    doctrine.  Even if every Christian did agree to which set of doctrine
    to memorize, every Christian would understand that doctrine based on
    their own individual relationship with The Holy One.
    
    The only Universal Religion is one the affirms the infinite diversity of
    individual relationships with the divine.
    
                                 Patricia
    
    

    	.74
    
>    Jesus also taughtf wherever two person who believe get together there
>    is the church.
    
    	No, he said "There I am in their midst."  Big difference.
    
>    No two Christians hold the exact same beliefs.  No two of the 800 Million
>    Roman Catholics hold the exact same beliefs.  
    
    	First of all, I really doubt that we can say this so absolutely.
    	But rather than quibble over absolutes, let me remind you that
    	while it is possible that no two BELIEVE the same, we can easily
    	say that many PRACTICE the same.  Many are willing to defer to
    	the authority and collective wisdoms of their Mother Church. Many
    	recognize that their individual WANTS are what form their
    	"beliefs".  Many are willing to recognize that the Church really
    	is Christ's authority, and that their own limited understanding
    	should not take precedence.
    
>    Each one of us must do
>    our own believing which for each of us begins with our own individual
>    relationship with God and with Jesus Christ for those of us who profess
>    to be Christian.  
    
    	What exactly is "do our own believing"?  If "our own believing"
    	is that God is an occult figure, or money, or personal power,
    	or sexual depravity, should we still be encouraged to pursue
    	that belief in God?  Why do we instruct children in religious
    	matters?  If we are to "do our own believing", why shouldn't
    	we simply let children develop their own beliefs too?
    
    	There is nothing wrong with deferring to the wisdom of the
    	Church in overriding our own beliefs.
    
>    Just as every single human relationship is unique and
>    individual, every single relationship with the Divine is unique and
>    individual.  
    
    	And here's the rub.  Even in human relationships one cannot
    	be selfish and demand his own way, and insist on forming that
    	relationship to his specific "beliefs".  One must be willing
    	to bend and defer to the other, or the relationship is destined
    	for failure.  How much more so, then, must we be willing as a
    	human being to defer to God?!?  We cannot attempt to force God
    	to conform to our own terms.  We MUST be willing to bend to God's
    	will.  We are not going to hear Gods will for us if it conflicts
    	with our human wants.  Without guidance from outside of ourselves 
    	we will most likely take the human way out and decide that our
    	wants are our beliefs, and that surely THIS must be what God
    	wants for me...
    
>    Even if every Christian did agree to which set of doctrine
>    to memorize, every Christian would understand that doctrine based on
>    their own individual relationship with The Holy One.
    
    	No, more likely based on their own individual wants.

    Joe,
    
    I  Have Faith in God's ability to penetrate through our human desires and
    to inspire each one of us with the Living Word.
    
    Meditation and Prayer and participation in spiritual community prepare
    us to receive this Living Word into our hearts.
    
    I have NO Faith in the ability of any human organization to completely 
     mediate the Living Word.
    
    I have No Faith in any human book to completely mediate the Living Word.
    
    All organizations and all human books are corrupted by the same forces
    that corrupt individuals.  I have faith in the Living Word to redeem us
    all individually and collectively from those powers of corruption.
    
    If Christ is the Living Word, then I have Faith in Christ, not the
    Church and not the Bible.  Both the church and the Bible are
    authoritative in pointing us to the Living Word.  Neither the Church
    not the Bible is the Living Word.  Neither is infallible. both point us
    to that which is Divine which must ultimately be experienced directly
    in our own hearts.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Beside that I guess i believe that the
    
    Only way to the Divine is through the Living Word communicated directly
    to our human Hearts.
    
    This is true, regardless of how we name "The Living Word"
    
    
    I Thank you Joe, for helping me solve another Bible contradiction!
    
                                     Patricia
    
    

you speak my mind patricia.

a principle which i like to follow, is, that noone owns the exclusive 
truth, and that there's always a better truth between any two.

in this sense, a question which i keep working on lately: "why the need 
for doctrine?"

what you said,
>  Only way to the Divine is through the Living Word communicated directly
>  to our human Hearts.

makes most sense when the one who speaks the living word is jesus.

but what happens when that man is gone?

i can only explain the rationale of catholic doctrine, that those who try 
so hard to preserve the message (every action, every spoken word) do so
because the message was so gigantic, so large, that perhaps, no one will
ever fully understand it? perhaps this is the reason for all the books, 
to preserve what once was... whilst the books are a mere shadow of what once
was, in a sense, they are the only material witnesses.

what would happen if new scrolls, say, dated 50AC, were discovered tomorrow?



andreas.

	.76
        
>    I  Have Faith in God's ability to penetrate through our human desires and
>    to inspire each one of us with the Living Word.
    
    	Then I guess there are billions of different living words.
    
    	I don't buy into your philosophy.
    
>    Meditation and Prayer and participation in spiritual community prepare
>    us to receive this Living Word into our hearts.
    
    	I see the Church as the ultimate spititual community.  I accept
    	that you don't buy into my philosophy.  :^)

>a principle which i like to follow, is, that noone owns the exclusive 
>truth, and that there's always a better truth between any two.

	Andreas -- the principle that I follow is that The Chruch
    	owns the exclusive truth.
    
    	I accept that you don't buy into my philosophy too.

.75 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	matters?  If we are to "do our own believing", why shouldn't
    	we simply let children develop their own beliefs too?

Excellent question! Why shouldn't we? If God is as obvious as you think, the
vast majority of them should reach the same level of understanding without
coaching, correct?

    	with our human wants.  Without guidance from outside of ourselves 
    	we will most likely take the human way out and decide that our
    	wants are our beliefs, and that surely THIS must be what God

Joe, I believe that you have done exactly this! Your human want is for guidance
from above, a chance to lift the burden, so to speak, so you have chosen
religion as a means to do this.

    	No, more likely based on their own individual wants.

Same point. Sometimes you subjegate some immediate wants, but it is all in
service of your greater want.

Steve

    	.81
    
>Excellent question! Why shouldn't we? If God is as obvious as you think, the
>vast majority of them should reach the same level of understanding without
>coaching, correct?
    
    	Steve, I think you misunderstand my entries entirely.  God is
    	not aleays obvious, thus we need guidance from other sources
    	besides our own imaginations.

>Joe, I believe that you have done exactly this! Your human want is for guidance
>from above, a chance to lift the burden, so to speak, so you have chosen
>religion as a means to do this.
    
    	Exactly.  And not just any religion, nor one that seems to most
    	closely fit my personal wants and imaginations.

>Same point. Sometimes you subjegate some immediate wants, but it is all in
>service of your greater want.

    	This seems terribly contorted and I don't understand what you
    	are saying here.

Patricia's statement
            
>    I  Have Faith in God's ability to penetrate through our human desires and
>    to inspire each one of us with the Living Word.
    
    Joe's response.
    
    
    "	Then I guess there are billions of different living words.
    
    	I don't buy into your philosophy.  "
   
     Patricia's statement
    
>    Meditation and Prayer and participation in spiritual community prepare
>    us to receive this Living Word into our hearts.
    
    
    Joe, this is not "my philosophy"  so to speak.  It is part of the
    fundemental Christian message developed in the Gospel of John and
    Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Romans.
    
    The Living Word, is John's LOGOS
    
    The Theology of Christ, the Living Word being written in our heart's is
    Paul's.
    
    If your ultimate authority is the Catholic Church, I believe that the
    Catholic Clergy would affirm the correctness of those two statements
    taken together  particularly if the "Each one of Us" is taken to mean
    those who seek the Living Word through meditation and prayer and
    participation in Spiritual Community.
    
    I hope this helps!
    
                                      Patricia

| <<< Note 463.79 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >    I  Have Faith in God's ability to penetrate through our human desires and
| >    to inspire each one of us with the Living Word.

| Then I guess there are billions of different living words. I don't buy into 
| your philosophy.

	Joe, I guess it struck me as weird that you would say this. I would
have thought what Patricia said above was true in your book. Why is it
different?


Glen

| <<< Note 463.82 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Steve, I think you misunderstand my entries entirely.  

	Seems to be catchy. :-)

| God is not aleays obvious, thus we need guidance from other sources besides 
| our own imaginations.

	I believe that faith would solve this, right Joe? I mean, faith will
lead us to where He wants us to find the answer(s), right? It could be the
Bible, it could be another person, it could even be a street sign. But through
faith, the answer will get to us.


Glen

.82 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	Steve, I think you misunderstand my entries entirely.  God is
    	not aleays obvious, thus we need guidance from other sources
    	besides our own imaginations.

I probably do frequently miss the point. The reason I am in this conference is
that I truly do not understand how obviously intelligent well educated people
come to believe in this, as I cannot seem to see even a shred of evidence. My
reply to the above (God is not always obvious) would be 'but why not?'.

    	Exactly.  And not just any religion, nor one that seems to most
    	closely fit my personal wants and imaginations.

Were you raised Catholic? If not how did you come to regard it as the one true
religion among all the others.

>>    Even if every Christian did agree to which set of doctrine
>>    to memorize, every Christian would understand that doctrine based on
>>    their own individual relationship with The Holy One.
>    
>    	No, more likely based on their own individual wants.
>
>Same point. Sometimes you subjegate some immediate wants, but it is all in
>service of your greater want.
>
>    	This seems terribly contorted and I don't understand what you
>    	are saying here.

The above provided to supply context. I believe that you meant each would apply
their own individual wants and base their faith on that. The implication is that
your individual wants do not always agree with the doctrine, but you suppress
your wants to fit. My point was that your suppression of some wants still
services your overall desire, that of guidance from above, so you are still
basing your faith on your individual want.

For example, I want a hot fudge sundae, but a greater want of mine is to lose
wieght, so I forgo the sundae. I still service my desires, but in order to
service one desire I forgo another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.85 BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"

>>	I believe that faith would solve this, right Joe? I mean, faith will
>>lead us to where He wants us to find the answer(s), right? It could be the
>>Bible, it could be another person, it could even be a street sign. But through
>>faith, the answer will get to us.

But where does the faith come from? This is still like saying, to believe, start
by believing.

Steve

>| God is not always obvious, thus we need guidance from other sources besides 
>| our own imaginations.
>
>	I believe that faith would solve this, right Joe? I mean, faith will
>lead us to where He wants us to find the answer(s), right? 
    
    	*IF* you truly go where your faith leads you and not where you
    	personal wants lead you.
    
    	I don't accept where your "faith" has led you, for example, nor 
    	the fruits of your "faith" journey.
    
    	This is a perfect example of multiple living words based on
    	individual "faith".
    
    	There is but one Living Word.  Yes, it is in all of us, but we
    	are not at liberty to rewrite it according to our personal whims.
    	We are to conform to it, not it to us.

    	re 91.4836
    
    	Patricia --
    
>    Is [the Catholic Church] all the people of the faith or is it the 
    >	hierarchy.
    
    	It is both, and it is neither.
    
>    What does an institution do when a larger and larger majority of the
>    institution is separate from the teachings of the institution.
    
    	The Catholic Church is not a democracy.  Her theology and morals
    	and doctrines are not up for vote.  Other faiths may employ this
    	approach, but that is often their downfall.  Other faiths self-
    	create out of this approach, and that is the reason for the 	
    	splintering of Christianity.

    Joe,
    
    So what happens if the Hierarchy of the church becomes currupt?
    
    what is the mechanism for self correction?
    
                                           Patricia

| <<< Note 463.87 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >	I believe that faith would solve this, right Joe? I mean, faith will
| >lead us to where He wants us to find the answer(s), right?

| *IF* you truly go where your faith leads you and not where you personal wants 
| lead you.

	I agree fully.

| I don't accept where your "faith" has led you, for example, nor the fruits of 
| your "faith" journey.

	To be honest with you, the only one it really matters where my faith
is, journey, etc, is with Christ Himself.

| This is a perfect example of multiple living words based on individual "faith"

	But Joe, I could easily say the same of you. But your faith is not
between you and I, but between you and Jesus. ONLY He can truly know what is in
your heart.


Glen

>    So what happens if the Hierarchy of the church becomes currupt?
>    
>    what is the mechanism for self correction?
    
    	It has happened in the past.  But Christ promised that not even
    	the gates of Hell would pravail against it.
    
    	The Church has survived corruption in the past.  It is still
    	here.  It always will be.

	.90
    
>	To be honest with you, the only one it really matters where my faith
>is, journey, etc, is with Christ Himself.
    
    	The only one?  It doesn't matter to you?

>| This is a perfect example of multiple living words based on individual "faith"
>
>	But Joe, I could easily say the same of you. 
    
    	You easily could.  Would you be correct?  I base my "living word"
    	on the teachings of the Catholic Church -- sometimes in conflict
    	with what I would have chosen for myself.  I'm not willing to
    	believe that I have more insight than the history, tradition, and
    	collective wisdom of The Church.

| <<< Note 463.92 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >	To be honest with you, the only one it really matters where my faith
| >is, journey, etc, is with Christ Himself.

| The only one?  It doesn't matter to you?

	Yes, it matters to me. But seeing this was in response to your
statement that you don't like where my faith is, I would have thought you to
understand I was talking about outside thoughts. My faith, as I have said many
times, is between God and myself. This also applies to every single person who
has a relationship with Him.

| >	But Joe, I could easily say the same of you.

| You easily could. Would you be correct?  

	I would be as correct as you believe you are. 

| I base my "living word" on the teachings of the Catholic Church -- sometimes 
| in conflict with what I would have chosen for myself.  

	I base mine on the guidance of Jesus, sometimes in conflict with what I
would have chosen myself.

| I'm not willing to believe that I have more insight than the history, 
| tradition, and collective wisdom of The Church.

	I am not willing to believe a book will run my life when I know He can
and does. 



Glen

    Joe,
    
    Why are you not as confident that the Living Word of God will
    accomplish its aim as you are the the Church will always accomplish its 
    aim?
    
    What is more powerful?  Christ or the Church?  
    
    Patricia

re Note 463.75 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>       Many
>     	recognize that their individual WANTS are what form their
>     	"beliefs".  

        No doubt that this is true, Joe.  However, it is so *very*
        hard for those in authority to realize that they are human,
        too, and that *their* wants *also* influence their beliefs,
        including that which they teach.


>         Many are willing to recognize that the Church really
>     	is Christ's authority, and that their own limited understanding
>     	should not take precedence.
  
        Again, the leaders of the Church (Catholic and non-Catholic)
        must have the humility to understand what the Apostle Paul
        understood so well, that even *their* understanding is
        imperfect, as Paul admitted about himself in I Corinthians 13:

        13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 
        13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which
        is in part shall be done away. 
        13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as
        a child, I thought as a child: but when I
        became a man, I put away childish things. 
        13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face
        to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 

        This is not the arrogance that says the Church has full
        understanding (as opposed to the imperfect understanding of
        the general body of believers, who must simply put their
        faith in the perfect understanding of the Church).


>     	There is nothing wrong with deferring to the wisdom of the
>     	Church in overriding our own beliefs.

        And there is nothing wrong, and in fact everything right, to
        not follow an authority figure when they show a lack of
        wisdom.

        Bob

re Note 463.79 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> 	.76
>         
> >    I  Have Faith in God's ability to penetrate through our human desires and
> >    to inspire each one of us with the Living Word.
>     
>     	Then I guess there are billions of different living words.
>     
>     	I don't buy into your philosophy.
  
        According to her philosophy, you don't have to.

        According to yours, apparently she should buy yours.

        Bob

re Note 463.82 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> >Joe, I believe that you have done exactly this! Your human want is for guidance
> >from above, a chance to lift the burden, so to speak, so you have chosen
> >religion as a means to do this.
>     
>     	Exactly.  And not just any religion, nor one that seems to most
>     	closely fit my personal wants and imaginations.
  
        How would you know, Joe, what would "most closely fit your
        personal wants and imaginations?"

        You have chosen Roman Catholicism, right?  To me that itself
        is powerful evidence that Roman Catholicism is the best fit
        to your personal wants and imaginations.  Unless you can give
        convincing evidence that there actually is some existing
        religion that better fits your "personal wants and
        imaginations", I just won't believe this.

        Bob

.95>    And there is nothing wrong, and in fact everything right, to
.95>    not follow an authority figure when they show a lack of
.95>    wisdom.


bob, in a similar vein one might ask: 

"to which extent is a soldier not responsible/responsible for his actions"

in a sense joe's stance reminds me of that of an upright soldier who puts
his trust in the judgement and wisdom of his superior officers.


andreas.

.94>  What is more powerful?  Christ or the Church?  
    

i understand that in the absence of christ, the church is the body of christ.

this is what makes each one of us so valuable, does it not?



andreas.

    The body of Christ can be the community of all the believers in Christ.
    
    If you define the Church as the community of believers then you are
    correct.
    
    not everybody defines the church that way.
    
    Patricia

         <<< Note 463.94 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Why are you not as confident that the Living Word of God will
>    accomplish its aim as you are the the Church will always accomplish its 
>    aim?
>    
>    What is more powerful?  Christ or the Church?  
    
    	The Church *IS* Christ.  I am not confident that any one human
    	will always receive the Living Word of God without first filtering
    	it through his own human weaknesses.  But we can use the Authority
    	that Christ Himself set up as a lens to correct our own blurry
    	vision.
    
    	A person with blurry vision often doesn't realize that his vision
    	is deficient until he gets to see through a corrective lens.

<<< Note 463.95 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>
    
>                         -< authority is not absolute >-
    
    	It depends on what you are calling "authority".

>        No doubt that this is true, Joe.  However, it is so *very*
>        hard for those in authority to realize that they are human,
>        too, and that *their* wants *also* influence their beliefs,
>        including that which they teach.
    
    	You still can't see the difference between the Authority of
    	the Church itself, and the authority of the individual leaders
    	in the Church.  I'm not sure what more I can to to help you
    	with that.
    
    	Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of Church
    	Teaching would, for example, know that a Catholic Pastor is 
    	misusing his authority in counseling a Catholic couple that 
    	they really can use artificial birth control -- a position that 
    	is in direct conflict with the Teaching (that has always been) of
    	the Authority, the Catholic Church.
    
>        Again, the leaders of the Church (Catholic and non-Catholic)
>        must have the humility to understand what the Apostle Paul
>        understood so well, that even *their* understanding is
>        imperfect, as Paul admitted about himself in I Corinthians 13:
    
    	Again, you are addressing individuals.  
    
    	I'm more willing accept that The Church is more likely to be
    	correct than any individual would be -- myself, my pastor,
    	some theologian, anyone.
    
>        And there is nothing wrong, and in fact everything right, to
>        not follow an authority figure when they show a lack of
>        wisdom.

    	And how does one know that an authority figure -- an individual --
    	shows a lack of wisdom?  Against whom/what should one compare
    	him?  Our own limited wisdom and understanding?  Or the time-tested,
    	collective wisdom of The Church?

<<< Note 463.97 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>
    
>                          -< should we believe you? >-
    
    	No.  You should believe The Church.

>>     	Exactly.  And not just any religion, nor one that seems to most
>>     	closely fit my personal wants and imaginations.
>  
>        How would you know, Joe, what would "most closely fit your
>        personal wants and imaginations?"
    
    	There are things that The Catholic Church teaches with which
    	I disagree (or that I would have never concluded on my own), and 
    	that other faith expressions teach/allow that more closely
    	parallel what I would have chosen.

>        You have chosen Roman Catholicism, right?  To me that itself
>        is powerful evidence that Roman Catholicism is the best fit
>        to your personal wants and imaginations.  Unless you can give
>        convincing evidence that there actually is some existing
>        religion that better fits your "personal wants and
>        imaginations", I just won't believe this.
    
    	My personal viewpoint on matters surrounding artificial birth 
    	control and sterilization are different from The Church's.  Even
    	certain other aspects of the "marriage act" as well.
    	Sterilization would seem perfectly acceptable to me.  Condoms,
    	diaphragms and other contraceptives (as opposed to abortifacients, 
    	which I do disagree with) also seem OK as I would rationalize
    	them on my own.  I could shop around and find another Christian 
    	faith expression that would satisfy my personal opinion.  I can
    	even find plenty of Roman Catholic Priests, and even Bishops,
    	who would tell me that my belief is really OK and that I would
    	be able to espouse and even practice these and still remain in
    	communion with The Church.  But The Church Herself tells me 
    	otherwise.  Humanae Vitae tells me otherwise, in unmistakable
    	language.  Further research (such as reading Sex And The Marriage
    	Covenant, which is approved by the Church) explains to me in detail
    	the reasoning and the theology behind Humanae Vitae.  I have grown
    	to accept most of it, and what doubt still remains I allow my
    	Faith in the Church to fill the gaps.  I defer my personal wants
    	to the Wisdom and Authority of The Church and obey Her teachings
    	and requirements.

    <<< Note 463.98 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>in a sense joe's stance reminds me of that of an upright soldier who puts
>his trust in the judgement and wisdom of his superior officers.

    	You'd be more accurate if it reminded you of a soldier's trust
    	in the written code of ethics when his superior officer says
    	he can violate them.

re Note 463.103 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

        But Joe, you proved my point:  you didn't name any existing
        religion that better fits your wants and imaginations.  You
        simply gave one example in which the RC Church was not a
        perfect fit.

        (This is a side issue, I'm dropping it.)

        Bob

re Note 463.102 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	You still can't see the difference between the Authority of
>     	the Church itself, and the authority of the individual leaders
>     	in the Church.  I'm not sure what more I can to to help you
>     	with that.
  
        Probably nothing.

        Unless the Church is directly taught by apparitions of the
        Lord Himself, or some equivalent, I don't see any ability to
        make a practical distinction.

        Everything that is or has been taught since the time of Jesus
        came from some human being's mouth or some human being's pen.

        It's a distinction you can talk about all you want, but to no
        effect.

        Bob

<<< Note 463.105 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        But Joe, you proved my point:  you didn't name any existing
>        religion that better fits your wants and imaginations. 
    
    	I know you said that you would drop it, Bob, but I must
    	answer, for I misunderstood what you were asking.
    
    	I suspect that I could find what I wanted in the Episcopal
    	Church.  Also, if an American Catholic Church were ever to
    	be formed (which I believe we'll see in our lifetimes) it
    	would be a near perfect fit in all areas, not just the ones
    	I gave here.
    
    	I would choose neither.  I don't search out alternatives.

Re: .103 Joe

>	I defer my personal wants
>    	to the Wisdom and Authority of The Church and obey Her teachings
>    	and requirements.

Words like Wisdom and Authority do look rather more impressive when
they're capitalized... :-)

				-- Bob

    	I capitalized a lot of other words too, by design.

.101>	The Church *IS* Christ.  I am not confident that any one human
.101>	will always receive the Living Word of God without first filtering
.101>	it through his own human weaknesses.  But we can use the Authority
.101>	that Christ Himself set up as a lens to correct our own blurry
.101>	vision.

can you name this authority? what does this "authority" physically translate
to? is it the "church"? the pope? the roman catholic church? the combination 
of the greek orthodox, roman catholic and the anglican churches? is it all 
of christianity?

.102>	You still can't see the difference between the Authority of
.102>	the Church itself, and the authority of the individual leaders
.102>	in the Church.  

what is the difference between the authority of the pope and the authority
of the roman catholic church?

what does this unchanging everlasting truth, which this authority seems to
be based on, translate too? 
if it translates to god and if god were detached from individuals, as you 
appear to suggest, does god drop scrolls from heaven?



andreas.

   <<< Note 463.110 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>
    
>appear to suggest, does god drop scrolls from heaven?
    
    	In a manner of speaking, yes, through the Holy Spirit.  Thus
    	the gates of hell shall not prevail...

    	Even the Pope himself does not act on his own, you know.  Yes,
    	he is the final word (not Word), but he is guided and advised
    	by others, (as well as, and maybe even more importantly, by
    	the history, tradition, and collective wisdom handed down
    	through the centuries) so that one person's individual ideas
    	and wants will not corrupt the teaching and wisdom of The
    	Church.  Even in the years when we had corrupt popes, they
    	managed to do evil things, but never managed to corrupt or
    	alter the teachings and theology of The Church.

> >appear to suggest, does god drop scrolls from heaven?
>    
>    	In a manner of speaking, yes, through the Holy Spirit.  Thus
>    	the gates of hell shall not prevail...


i grant you that it must take a *lot* of faith to believe in scrolls being
dropped from heaven (figuratively speaking, that is).



andreas.

    I've recently obtained some materials from the ministry below, suitable
    to sharing the Gospel in a Catholic (and even SDA) context.  They have
    some excellent excellent tracts, tapes, books, and videos.  Here's the 
    contact information:
    
    Mission to Catholics International, Inc.
    PO box 19280
    San Diego, CA 92159
    (619) 698-1823