Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I define a sect differently.
    
    Richard
    

    Mike:
    
    In continuation of discussion of your incident in Colorado, (See
    645.13). I guess it only would make sense as some churches don't only
    teach doctrine from the Word, but also dogmatic teachings which come
    from tradition (which in my opinion is incorrect).
    
    Any teaching contradictory to sound biblical doctrine can sometimes
    have the potential to cause division.  This is why Jesus said, "By your
    tradition you nullify the Word of God".  
    
    It would only make sense that this person would receive council or
    teaching from their church as dogma dictates this.  
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    Your a hot ticket!!  This file would be boring without you!!!  If I
    owned a chevy you would insist its a Ford!!!  Hahaha!
    
    -Jack

    I think I could always use more sects.  The more sects, the better.  I
    *really* like sects.  I just can't get enough sects.
    
    -- Mike

    Richard:
    
    To define what I was thinking more clearly!
    
    Catholics - Follow Jesus
    Lutherans - Follow Jesus
    Episcopals - Follow Jesus
    Presbytarians - Follow Jesus
    Baptists - Follow Jesus
    Unitarians - Follow Jesus's
    Evangelicals - Follow Jesus
    
    They all understand the cross but they all don't prescribe to the same 
    teachings for methods of following Christ.
    
    Kind of like Republicans and Democrats.  They all are Americans but
    they believe in two distinct ways to achieve National Prosperity.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .4
    
    Mike:
    
    Somehow, I was waiting for that one - and somehow, I knew you would be
    the one to deliver!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    Richard, 
     How would you define a sect?
    
    
    Jack,
     Use liberals verses conservatives as an example. Rebublicans and
    democrates aren't very different anymore.
    
    Marc H.

    .3  :-)
    
    Sort of a left-handed compliment, Jack, but one I'll accept.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Re: Marc

>>    Jack,
>>    Use liberals verses conservatives as an example. Rebublicans and
>>    democrates aren't very different anymore.
    
Marc:  As provocative as this sounds, democrats lean toward larger government 
and regulation as a method to give equal prosperity to all.  Whether or not it
works, it is noble and respectable.

Liberals on the other hand have an agenda!!

-Jack 
   

    .7  I'll get back to you.  One of the key factors is something called
    "high virtuosity."  And there is at least one more factor.  I'll be
    gone the rest of the week, but I'll get the info and try to punch it in
    next week.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    a "sect" is just another word for "group".
    
    It carries along the baggage of: religious, small, distinctive beliefs,
    separation from something larger, and hostility or bigotry.

    re .4
    
    Mike,  
    
    Me too.  I bet we could form a sect. ;^)
    
    Ruth

    
    I'd say that Jack's definition of a sect should be adequate for
    most here as it's almost right out of the dictionary.  
    
    Sect (AHD)
    1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by
    virtue of certain refinements or distrinctions of belief or practice.
    2. A religious body, esp. one that has separated from a larger
    denomination.  3. A small faction united by common interests or
    beliefs.  

    Actually, after checking over .5 again, I think we're very close
    in definition.
    
    For example, Franciscans (OFM & OPC) are sects of the Roman
    Catholic Church.
    
    According to my definition, this would be true.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  See 66.24 for a preview of some of the material I'll be sharing
    next week.
    

    .14 

    The Franciscans are not a sect.  They are a religious order within
    in the Roman Catholic Church.

    .13

    What's missing in .13 was included in my .11, namely the semantic
    baggage of hostility or bigotry that accompanies references in the
    media to a "sect".

    A bit further down the page of a Second College Edition of the
    American Heritage Dictionary, under the word "sectarian", one finds
    they characterize it as "one characterized by a bigoted adherence to a
    factional viewpoint".  No one pays another a compliment by calling them
    "sectarian".

   re: 646.14 <CSC32::J_CHRISTIE>

   >For example, Franciscans (OFM & OPC) are sects of the Roman Catholic
   >Church.

       That's good.  Another example: denominations are sects of the Christian
   faith.

   Tony

    Patrick:
    
    By your definition, Would you say Lutheranism is a sect of the R.C.C., 
    since they still recongnize Jesus as the focal point of Christianity
    but left the R.C.C. in a "sectarian" way?
    
    -Jack

    Actually, the Franciscan order can be legitimately called a
    fraternal sect.  Something I appreciate about the RCC is its
    ability to incorporate sects, rather than allowing division.
    
    Richard
    

    Actually, Richard, you are wrong.  The Franciscan order cannot be
    legitimately called a fraternal sect.  It is a religious order, or
    rather several religious orders of men and women.
    
    The Roman Catholic Church does not "incorporate sects".

re Note 646.18 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE and
   Note 646.19 by SICVAX::SWEENEY:

        Are you two arguing over the general English definition of
        the word "sect" or over the (official?) usage of the word
        "sect" by the Roman Catholic Church?

        These two things are different and may have different
        definitions and rules for usage.

        You might both be right:  the Franciscan order may fit the
        definition of the general English word "sect" and the Roman
        Catholic Church may choose its official usage of words such
        that it would never apply the word "sect" to the Franciscan
        order.

        Bob

    Bob, it cannot be right.  Even if one blows the dust off a dictionary
    and reads an obscure definition of the word "sect", it would still be
    wrong because it is misleading.

    The word "sect" in contemporary usage always denotes distinctive and 
    derivative  beliefs.  To use it to apply to a Roman Catholic religious
    order in communion with Roman Catholic Church is incorrect.

No, the Franciscan order only fits an archaic usage of the word sect.

See the following G.C. Merriam definition:

sect 1a: a dissenting religious body; esp one that is heretical in the
eyes of other members within the same communion  b: a group within an
organized religion whose adherents recognize a special set of teachings
or practices <the Pharisees have been called a ~ within Judaism>  c: an
organized ecclesiastical body specifically one outside one's own communion
d: a comparatively small recently organized religious body; especially one
that has parted company with a longer established communion  2a: obsolete:
a class, order, or kind of persons  b: archaic: a religious order  c: archaic:
sex  3a: a separate group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or way of
thinking or to a particular leader  b: a school of philosophy or philosophic
opinion  c: a group holding similar political, economic, or other views,
as (1) party (2) an opinionated faction (3) a school of opinion in science
or medicine  4: obsolete: a body of followers.

re Note 646.22 by 19570::COVERT:

> b: a group within an
> organized religion whose adherents recognize a special set of teachings
> or practices 

        I don't know much about Franciscans, but having been taught
        by Benedictines, I do know that they have a "special set of
        teachings or practices" known as the rule of St. Benedict.

        It is true that they are not heretical -- it is true that
        they are not a denomination -- but they most definitely have
        at least a special set of teachings or practices (if not, the
        order would be indistinguishable from any other group of
        religious, and it is most certainly true that many orders
        within the Catholic Church pride themselves on their
        distinctions -- another example would be the Jesuits).

        Bob

The Rule of St. Benedict is not a special set of religious teachings or
practices.  It is a rule of life, similar to any religious order, calling
for stronger adherence to the religious teachings and practices of all good
Catholics, not any special ones, and does not fit the definition of sect.

/john

re Note 646.24 by COVERT::COVERT:

> The Rule of St. Benedict is not a special set of religious teachings or
> practices.  It is a rule of life, similar to any religious order, calling
> for stronger adherence to the religious teachings and practices of all good
> Catholics, not any special ones, and does not fit the definition of sect.
  
        Well, by what you have written above it would seem to fit the
        definition you quoted.

        Bob

Then let's put it this way:

	Only out of ignorance or malice would someone choose to
	apply the label "sect" to an officially approved Roman
	Catholic or Anglican religious order.

	The Episcopal Church Annual lists our Franciscans and
	Benedictines and other communities with a rule of life
	in a section of the book headed "Religious Orders and
	other Christian Communities".

	Deliberate use of the term "sect" is rude.

/john

    .19
    
    Actually, Patrick, you are wrong.
    
    Richard

    You're basing what you're saying on vulgar (common) connotations,
    rather than objective denotations.  All orders of the RCC can be
    legitimately classified as sects.
    
    Richard
    

> All orders of the RCC can be
>    legitimately classified as sects.

    Not by intellectually honest people of good will though.

    		Alfred

    .29 You will need to decide for yourself if the source is
    intellectually honest or of good will.
    
    Richard
    

    .7 See .30 for an overview of what I mean when I speak of a sect.
    Too many times "sect" is used interchangeably with "cult."  And as you
    can see by the definition provided in .30, "sect" is not necessarily a
    negative label.
    
    Richard
    

One of the problems with this conference, as I see it, are personal attacks
such as the following:

.26>	Only out of ignorance or malice would someone choose to
.26>	apply the label "sect" to an officially approved Roman
.26>	Catholic or Anglican religious order.

.29>> All orders of the RCC can be
.29>>    legitimately classified as sects.
.29>
.29>    Not by intellectually honest people of good will though.

Isn't it possible for people to have an honest disagreement about the
definition of a word without questioning the motives or honesty of other
noters?

				-- Bob

>Isn't it possible for people to have an honest disagreement about the
>definition of a word without questioning the motives or honesty of other
>noters?

	Sure. I don't have any questions about peoples motives or honesty.

			Alfred

    Bob, perhaps you don't see the insult and rudeness in it, but given the
    contemporary usage of the word "sect", the description of the
    Franciscan orders of the Roman Catholic Church as sects in an insult to
    them.

    Near Two Penn Plaza where I'm located there's a friary and I spoke to
    Franciscan in the bookshop there about it.  He thought it was absurd.
    Is there a Franciscan priest, sister, or brother that considers himself
    or herself a member of a sect and not a member of the Roman Catholic
    Church?

    The facts that the contemporary usage of the word "sect" includes
    distinctive beliefs, and that the Franciscan orders hold no distinctive
    beliefs apart from the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been disagreed
    with.

    .35  Didn't read .30, did you?
    
    Look, you and your buddies chose to jump on my case even before giving
    me a chance to explain.  You wrote me off as "wrong," "rude," not
    "intellectually honest," etc..
    
    Fine.  What I've provided in .30 is legitimate and certainly more
    thought out than asking a clerk at a bookstore who just happens to be
    a member of an order.
    
    Richard
    

    It might interest some to know that under the definition provided in
    .30, Quakers may also be defined as sectarian in orientation.  No
    surprise here.  Quakers at one time were believed to be Franciscans
    in disguise.
    
    Richard
    

from _Religion: The Social Context_ by Meredith McGuire (second edition):

Sectarian.  The sectarian orientation is characterized by normative virtuosity
and diffusion of the religious role (cf. Knudsen et al., 1978).  The sectarian
orientation toward perfection is part of the reason for the sect's negative
tension with the "world."  Sectarian dissent is a form of judgment of the
imperfection of the rest of society.  The sectarian orientation insists upon
the pervasiveness of the religious role, which is, ideally, the organizing
principle of work, family, leisure activities, political stance, and personal
life.  This commitment to perfection and diffusion of religious role explains
why sectarianism is frequently characterized by total commitment (Wilson,
1967:1-45; Snow and Machalek,1983; cf. nonreligious institutions described
by Coser, 1974).  The sectarian orientation is also more prone to religious
extremism, precisely because of its characteristic emphasis upon applying
a virtuoso religious norm in all spheres of social life.

    Just for my own edification, what's an "order" and how, in your own
    mind, does it differ from a "sect"?  In my unschooled and
    intellectually dishonest mind I thought the two were nearly
    interchangeable with respect to groups within a larger religious
    community.  I hear a lot of gnashing of teeth and clutching of breasts
    and wails of oppression, but I don't get it... must have been out that
    day.
    
    And another question: can't the term "sect" mean something different
    based on it's use?  Don't the terms: "religious sect", "Christian
    sect", and "Roman Catholic sect" all imply slightly different things,
    each one giving a finer resolution?
    
    Eric
    

    Eric,
    
    Some see the word "sect" as completely negative.  I do not.  See .30
    for my reference.
    
    I believe my reference would cover the orientation of any religious
    sect.
    
    Richard
    

    Eric, contemporary usage of the word "sect" implies distinctive beliefs.
    That's not just in my mind, that's what most people think the word
    implies: Distinct beliefs not beliefs all held in common.

    Franciscans believe what I as a Roman Catholic believe.  I believe what
    the Franciscans believe.  There is a no distinction among us regarding
    faith.  It's insulting to use the word "sect" to apply to the
    relationship of the orders of St. Francis to the Roman Catholic Church.

    The word "order" applied to religious communities: they have adopted a
    written rule which members of the community have agreed to follow for
    the conduct of their life in that community.

    .40
    
    Religious communities are sects.  See 646.30.  Yours is simply the common,
    albeit quaint, understanding of what a sect is.
    
    Richard
    

Well, I just called a few Franciscans.

	At the Provincial HQ at Little Portion Friary, Mt Sinai,
	NY, I was told that they are not a sect but a style.  I
	was told that someone who insists on using the term sect
	is "wrong."

	At St. Elizabeth's Friary, Brooklyn, NY, I was given a
	long lecture on what a sect is, and told that Franciscans
	are not a sect and that someone who insists on using the
	term sect after being told that it is wrong is "ignorant."

	The phone at the third friary I called was answered by
	someone who did not speak English well enough to understand
	the question.

/john

    .42  You haven't read .30 either.  I can just imagine based on your
    previous replies how objectively your questions were posed.  I could
    do the same thing, but I doubt that you would be any more impressed
    with my results than I am with yours.
    
    Richard
    

re .43

Horse-hockey.

In both cases, the friars made it clear that they know what the term sect
means and that it is incorrect to use it to refer to them.

Why do you insist on using the term?

/john

    .44
    
    Donkey-dust.
    
    See .30.  There's nothing wrong with my use of the term.  Franciscans
    are simply one example.  I've also said that Quakers fit the definition.
    That detail doesn't seem to affect you.
    
    You and your buddy are insisting on a tempest in a teapot, it is clear
    to me.
    
    I was asked in .7 what my definition would be.  I have given it.
    
    Richard

I have seen .30.  I think Franciscans would be unimpressed if you read it to
them and then explained that it was why you prefer to use the term sect, even
though they reject it.

Why do you insist on using a term that carries baggage with it that the
Franciscans feel does not apply to them.

What is your motivation for using a negative term?  Even .30 refers to
negative tension.

Why can you not agree with them that they are not a sect?

What are you attempting to accomplish by using a term they reject?

>What is your motivation for using a negative term?  Even .30 refers to
>negative tension.

Ah, the one possibly beneficial question.

When I speak of negative tension, I mean they literally and outwardly do not
embrace the values of the world.  How many Franciscans do you know who are
CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, for example?

Richard

    Thanks for your reply, Pat.

    But how can you say: "they have adopted a written rule which members of
    the community have agreed to follow for the conduct of their life in
    that community"  and imply that this doesn't constitute "distinctive
    beliefs"?  Don't the rules of any order go beyond simple dress codes
    and into areas of how the members practice their faith?  Is there some
    threshold of distinction that needs to be crossed before a distinct
    group (i.e. and order) is considered a sect?

    I think what you describe as a sect I might define as a denomination.

    Eric

    RE .42

    ... and I don't consider myself fat, therefore I'm not fat.  To insist
    on using the term "fat" to describe my build is wrong and ignorant.

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

    Let's give David Koresh a call and see if we're right in characterizing
    his ill fated group as a cult...
    
     

re .49

"fat".

"cult".

"sect".

Negative terms.

Why do you wish to use negative terms to refer to religious orders?

Why do you wish to use negative terms that they reject?

/john

    .50
    
    Sect as it is defined in .30 is not a negative term, insist as you will
    that it is.
    
    Richard
    

It is to Franciscans, insist as you will that it isn't.

Why do you insist on using a term they reject?

    .30 is not negative towards Franciscans (or any other sect) who would
    bother to understand it.
    
    Richard
    

    Let's take a different approach.  What is it about .30 that does
    not fit a religious order?
    
    Richard
    

    Why is it that you take exception only when RCC religious orders
    are defined as sects and no others?
    
    Richard
    

    Eric,

    Every belief that a Franciscan accepts as what his or her church
    teaches them is what I believe.  Every belief my church teaches, I
    believe, each Franciscan believes.  There is a substantial unity of
    belief among all Roman Catholics.  The Franciscans hold no distinctive
    beliefs, I hold no distinctive beliefs, from what is taught by the Roman
    Catholic Church.

    The areas where a Franciscan and I will be distinct is in the conduct
    of our lives.  Part of the rule of some Franciscan orders are solemn
    vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  They do not believe that I
    am less of a Catholic by not making such vows.

    A denomination is an organized religious group.  Unlike a "sect" it
    doesn't carry the baggage of bigotry or hostility within its
    definition.
                    

    (I'm waiting for someone to chime in and say that there's no Scriptural
    support for sects or religious orders, either one!)
    
    Richard
    

    Eric,
    
    .30 doesn't mention a divergence in tenets of belief.  It succinctly
    articulates much of what Patrick described in the second paragraph
    of .56.
    
    Richard
    

    .56
    
    I would define a denomination differently.
    
    Richard
    

>    Why is it that you take exception only when RCC religious orders
>    are defined as sects and no others?

Say what?  None of the Franciscans I spoke to earlier today were Roman
Catholics.

/john

>    Let's take a different approach.  What is it about .30 that does
>    not fit a religious order?

OK:

	The sectarian orientation is also more prone to religious
	extremism, ...

Now, let's ask the question again.  Why do you insist on applying a term
which the Franciscans reject?

/john

re .61

;Now, let's ask the question again.  Why do you insist on applying a term
;which the Franciscans reject?


	John, 

	You appear to applying a double standard here. Last July you were
	quite happy to apply a label to my religion and felt nothing wrong
	in doing so. You insisted on labelling my religion Arian, even going 
	so far as saying that we made an "Arian claim". In defence I gave 
	evidence to show that none such had been made and was false. 

	But at the time you felt you could claim what you liked, even at the
	expense of the feelings of others. However, now you do not feel that 
	others should apply such a standard.

	Why not read note 9.263.

	Phil.

    I suggest that calling a religious order a sect is no different from
    calling Gays queer or African-Americans Negro. Both my examples are
    dictionary correct. Neither is all negative. At least in some peoples
    minds. Yet I seem to remember a discussion elsewhere in this conference
    where some insisted that people should not use words that the targets
    of that word find offensive regardless of technical correctness. Some 
    of those same people now insist on using the word "sect" to describe 
    people who themselves find that usage wrong and offensive.
    
    			Alfred

But I was upfront about why.

I intended to use the term to indicate exactly what ancient heresy
JWs proclaim when they say that Jesus is not God.

When questioned why, I answered the question.  Arianism is a rejection
of the revealed nature of the triune God.  JWs do not deny that they
have rejected the teachings of the rest of Christianity.  I used the
term to identify JWs as dissenting from the rest of Christianity.  I
didn't do a silly little dance claiming that there was no implication
by the use of the term that JWs were outside the main.  I used the
term to indicate the need for change on the part of JWs.

Now, will Richard answer the question?  Why does Richard choose to use
a term which the dictionary and current usage clearly indicates is
negative?  Does he call on the Franciscans to change?

/john

re Note 646.56 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The areas where a Franciscan and I will be distinct is in the conduct
>     of our lives.  Part of the rule of some Franciscan orders are solemn
>     vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  They do not believe that I
>     am less of a Catholic by not making such vows.

        This would seem to meet one of the definitions of "sect"
        offered by John Covert in Note 646.22:

        "b: a group within an organized religion whose adherents
                    ^^^^^^
        recognize a special set of teachings or practices"
                                                ^^^^^^^^^

        (Admittedly, John disagreed that the practices of the
        Franciscan order were "special".)


        Actually, when this discussion began, I didn't realize that
        the word "sect" had such negative connotations -- I
        primarily viewed it as a group "set apart" by something. 
        Religious orders are "set apart" by something.

        Perhaps it's like calling black people "colored people" --
        (only the NAACP is allowed to do that any more, and they only
        in their name :-).


        I'm reminded of a time I visited Nice, France on business. 
        The hotel I stayed in had a local services card printed in
        French and English.  The English translation was rather poor.

        In the section on local religious services, there was a
        sentence about the local Catholic church, followed by a
        sentence that read "consult the hotel desk to locate other
        cults."

        Their use of the word "cult" was humorous (to me, I suppose
        some would be insulted) but, you know, one of the definitions
        of "cult" in my unabridged dictionary can mean what we
        ordinarily mean by "denomination".

        I'm certainly going to drop this issue.  I wouldn't
        ordinarily use the word "sect" to describe a religious
        order, but I wouldn't be intending insult if I did.  Perhaps
        the problem is that the word "sect" often, perhaps usually,
        implies doctrinal disagreement, and the Roman Catholic Church
        tries very hard to claim and prove that it is absolutely one
        monolithic doctrinal system, and goes to great length to
        exclude any disagreement on such matters from the realm of
        possibility.  I suspect that what we are seeing here is a
        touch of Catholic "political correctness" -- you just are not
        allowed to describe a Catholic institution as a "sect".

        Bob

    Bob,   
    
    Your point in 646.65 only begs the question of what is a "practice".
    
    "set apart" in a positive religious sense, at least when the word is
    used by Roman Catholics is "consecrated".
    
    "set apart" or "sect" or whatever is full of ambiguity.  It can mean
    heretical or scismatic, and it certainly doesn't imply the unity of
    faith that I mentioned earlier.  I don't consider it a matter of
    "political correctness", it's a matter of accuracy.
    
    Your translator for that hotel information card may not have known
    better.

>        I'm reminded of a time I visited Nice, France on business. 
>        The hotel I stayed in had a local services card printed in
>        French and English.  The English translation was rather poor.
>
>        In the section on local religious services, there was a
>        sentence about the local Catholic church, followed by a
>        sentence that read "consult the hotel desk to locate other
>        cults."

In French the word "culte" merely means religion, and has none of the
negative connotations that "cult" and "sect" do in English.

One reason that there are negative connotations in English is cultural.
Non-English speaking countries generally do not have a large number of
different disagreeing religious groups.  A classical German attitude
towards England is "A hundred sects but only one sauce."  England was
the first country to have any sort of religious tolerance, which allowed
a large number of dissenting groups which would have been thrown out of
any other country to grow there.

/john

re .64


John,

;But I was upfront about why.

Oh and that makes it alright does it?. 

;I intended to use the term to indicate exactly what ancient heresy
;JWs proclaim when they say that Jesus is not God.

And I replied to show that Jehovah's Witnesses are not proclaiming that
so called ancient heresy. 

;I used the term to identify JWs as dissenting from the rest of Christianity.

There was no need to, Jehovah's Witnesses openly confess that they are
no part of Christendom. However, they do NOT make the claim to be Arian
and it is you who claims that they do. To me this was offensive but it seems
that you don't see it as so, however it is different when you see someone 
attacking your own religion. Hence my reason for highlighting your double
standard here.

;I used the term to indicate the need for change on the part of JWs.

Perhaps it is you who needs to change, in a way that you apply the golden rule
yourself. 

Phil.

    RE: .55
    
    I very good question.
    
    Marc H.

    I find nothing insulting whatsoever about the use of the term "sect" to
    describe Quakerism.  I don't see the term as insulting in general, and
    certainly not as applied to my denomination.  However, I *would* take
    offense at the word "cult", which to me does carry a great deal of
    negative baggage.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .65
    
    You hit it correct Bob!  This string sounds like just another walk
    down PC lane!
    
    How are we ever going to have one religion when silly word games
    can keep us apart?
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 646.67 by "John R. Covert" 

> One reason that there are negative connotations in English is cultural.
                                                                ^^^^
/john, I trust you don't mean this in an insulting way to speakers of English.
.-)

Interesting about non-English speaking countries in general...

Peace,

Jim

    re .56

    Pat,

    Thank you very much for your calm, clear and concise reply on the
    distinctions of what constitutes an order.  It was very helpful and
    cleared up a lot of confusion that I had.  

    I'll be honest; for me, the word "sect" never held the negative
    connotation that "cult" does.  It seems that to some folks "sect" is as
    politically incorrect a word as "crippled".  (i.e. sect is to order as
    cripple is to handicap).  I can respect the fact that, as a matter of
    religious conviction, you and others take umbrage to the use of "sect"
    as a characterization of a Roman Catholic order.  However, this is how
    I would define a sect: a group of people forming a distinct unit within
    a larger group by virtue of common beliefs and practices.  This is also
    how my dictionary defines it.  The negative connotation is in the minds
    and hearts of individuals... not in the definition.

    If all of our replies were as uncharged as your .56, we could go long
    way down the road of understanding.  I hope I have explained where I'm
    coming from, and my intent, if you hear me use the word sect.


    	Eric

    Upon reading these replies, I always believed that under the RCC, the
    Jesuits, Fransiscans, Benedictines, etc., they would not be termed as
    sects.  I always thought of them as branches of the RCC with different
    missions in mind, i.e. prayer, vows of poverty.
    
    I always thought a sect was a branch of christianity that although
    under the same umbrella, formed their own fellowship because they felt
    the main body (no particular denomination in mind here), wasn't
    adhering to the proper conduct or guidelines for church worship.
    
    So to me, the benedictines are not a sect, but the Lutheran church
    would be a sect of the R.C.C.  Make sense?
    
    -Jack
    

>    I always thought a sect was a branch of christianity that although
>    under the same umbrella, formed their own fellowship because they felt
>    the main body (no particular denomination in mind here), wasn't
>    adhering to the proper conduct or guidelines for church worship.

And for that reason the various religious orders are not sects; they do not
believe that other members of the main body are doing anything wrong.

They continue to be a part of the main body, not separated at all.

Benedictines and Franciscans continue to be Roman Catholics or Episcopalians
just like Pat and I; they come to our churches and receive communion; we can
go to their services in their monasteries and receive communion.

They have no different guidelines for conduct or church worship; they have a
rule of life which they apply only to themselves as a special personal
consecrated life.

This is why one of the Episcopalian Franciscans I spoke to said "We are not
a sect, we are a style."

/john

    John:
    
    I agree with this.  So would you say Lutherans are a sect of the
    R.C.C.?
    
    -Jack

    It is incorrect to refer to Roman Catholic religious orders as
    "branches".  They are in the same Catholic Church as I am.  If you are
    seeking descriptive words, "congregation" and "community" come to mind.

    The men and women of religious orders share the same "mission" as
    myself, namely to give glory to God.  The means to this end, they
    choose, is distinct from mine.

    As for how the Lutheran Church describes their relationship to the
    Roman Catholic Church, that I do not know.  The Roman Catholic Church
    uses the term "separated brethren" to refer to the Protestant churches.

Note 646.61

>>    Let's take a different approach.  What is it about .30 that does
>>    not fit a religious order?

>OK:

>	The sectarian orientation is also more prone to religious
>	extremism, ...

So?  I suppose you don't consider vowing lifelong celibacy, poverty, silence or
whatever to be a bit on the extreme side.  Besides "more prone" does not make
such a condition inevitable.

I do not consider "sect" as it is defined in .30 to be a derogatory term.  You
and those who participated in your "impartial" survey apparently do.  So, since
it is such cause for wailing and gnashing of teeth, I will cease to use the
term "sect" to describe religious orders, even though religious orders do meet
the criteria outlined in .30.

Peace,
Richard

    .75  Again you choose to attach a definition which varies from .30,
    which, I submit, is not wrong, rude or intellectually dishonest.
    
    Richard
    

>    John:
>    
>    I agree with this.  So would you say Lutherans are a sect of the
>    R.C.C.?

No, I would say they are a Christian sect, which has separated itself from
the Catholic Church.

1. Lutherans do not consider them a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

2. The Roman Catholic Church considers them separated brethren.

/john

    re .80

    Why do you attribute such "negative baggage" to your Lutheran brothers?
    :^)

    (serious)
    In your opinion are ALL Christian denominations (with the exception of
    Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox), sects?
    (endserious)

    Is there a quick look-up guide that we all can get to determine if a
    group is a denomination, order, sect, or cult? :^)

Note 646.81

>    Is there a quick look-up guide that we all can get to determine if a
>    group is a denomination, order, sect, or cult? :^)

Not that we'll all agree on.  The book I referenced in .30 is well researched
and well thought out.

Richard

    Oddly enough, the title, "christian", was originally a label of scorn
    or shame used by the Jews and the Roman Empire in the days of the
    Ceasars.  Now 86% (guessing) of the United States claim to be
    christian.  I guess a label is only as good or as bad as how you
    interpret it!
    
    -Jack

>    In your opinion are ALL Christian denominations (with the exception of
>    Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox), sects?

There are some who would say that those three are neither sects nor
denominations, but branches of the original Church.

There are others who would say that Anglicans have become a sect by
departing from the unity of the apostolic ministry by ordaining women
without first obtaining agreement, at least in principle, from the
others.

/john

    On the other hand, one could argue that Roman Catholicism and the
    Orthodox church have become sects by departing from the unity of
    apostolic ministry by refusing to ordain women.  If you have a division
    over whether or not to perpetuate a practice, it is interesting how
    it is those who insist on perpetuating it, rather than those who are
    unwilling to do so, who are the ones considered guilty of departing
    from the unity of apostolic ministry.  When there are two sides to an
    issue, it is the ones you disagree with who are guilty of "departing
    from unity".  How convenient.

    -- Mike

re Note 646.85 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     On the other hand, one could argue that Roman Catholicism and the
>     Orthodox church have become sects by departing from the unity of
>     apostolic ministry by refusing to ordain women.  If you have a division
>     over whether or not to perpetuate a practice, it is interesting how
>     it is those who insist on perpetuating it, rather than those who are
>     unwilling to do so, who are the ones considered guilty of departing
>     from the unity of apostolic ministry.  When there are two sides to an
>     issue, it is the ones you disagree with who are guilty of "departing
>     from unity".  How convenient.
  
        It is especially convenient to maintain the status quo since
        conservatives such as John Covert maintain that one problem
        is that the Anglican community has no right to act on its own
        in a matter such as this, and must only make such decisions
        in concert with the other apostolic churches (presumably,
        Roman Catholic and Orthodox).

        When was the last time these groups met together to formally
        decide, together, any issue of doctrine, discipline, or
        church order?

        Bob

    What motivates using a word like "convenient"?  Is this an accusation
    that the position taken by John and myself is insincere or dissembling?

    If one assigns no inherent value to unity among Christians through an
    apostolic succession of bishops, then there's no value in arguing
    around the process used in restoring that unity.  Otherwise, he
    ordination of women will stand or fall on its own merits as argued
    within the denomination.

    The last councils recognized by the Orthodox is Nicea II 787 and by
    the Anglican Communion, Lateran V (Rome) 1517.  The pace of meetings
    among these Churches to restore unity has accelerated in the last 20
    years.

    The convenience that I see likes in the one-sidedness of the complaint
    about a violation of apostolic unity.

    The lack of unity already exists when there are parties who view the
    issue in contradictory ways.  The unity will only be resolved once they
    view it the same way, if they ever do.  To blame one side for violating
    that unity by perpetuating a practice, but not the other for
    perpetuating it, expresses an implicit bias.  It makes no sense to
    attack the Anglicans for violating that unity by acting on their own,
    when one can just as easily criticize the Orthodox and Roman Catholic
    churches for acting on *their* own by acting to perpetuate a practice. 
    There are two sides to the issue, and blaming one side for a lack of
    unity ignores the fact that the other side is making a decision on the
    issue as well.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    The separation of the Church of Constantinople was "from" the Church of
    Rome.  The separation of the Church of England was "from" the Church of
    Rome.
    
    Restoration of that unity will be the return of Church of
    Constantinople and the Church of England "to" the Church of Rome.
    
    Pat

  I would like to add that of all the Roman Catholic orders of which I am
aware, I feel the most affinity to the Franciscans (OFM & OPC).  I also
deeply appreciate the Benedictines, the Jesuits, the Sisters of Charity and
the Sisters of Mercy with whom I'm familiar.

Richard

    I spoke to Father Francis Scanlon (president of the Franciscan
    University at Steubenville) once about the image that some have a St.
    Francis.  It wasn't all talking to the animals and plants like some
    sort of 12th century Dr. Dolittle.
    
    He suffered throughout his life:  He went to the Islamic sultans to
    convert them to Christianity.  He bore the wounds of Christ.  He fought
    the members of his own order who had betrayed him in relaxing the rules
    of poverty, chastity, and obedience that he wrote in founding the
    order.  He loved God and all his creatures.
    
    So like Richard I feel some affinity to the Franciscans.

        From the Dictionary of Modern Sociology:

    "sect. A religious grouping that ideal-typically is a relatively small,
    organized, voluntary association with an exclusive and demanding
    ascetic philosophy and a highly personalized and charismatic leadership
    -- a set of characteristics suggesting that the sect stands somewhere
    between the cult on the one hand and the church and denomination on the
    other, being more organized and permanent than the cult, but less
    world-acceptiing than the denomination-church."

    			Alfred

    I (basically) concur with this definition, Alfred (.93).
    
    Peace,
    Richard