X-Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:36:00 -0400
From:         Lora Harris <LHARRIS@UPEI.CA>
Subject:      Marty, Darryl (2 unrelated remarks)

Hello all, and a blessed Easter-tide!

        Just two points (rather minor, really), which I want to make.  I'm set
NOMAIL, so any replies should be sent to LHARRIS@UPEI.CA.

Marty commented "One cannot "remain" a priest unless one is a priest in the
first place, and Anglican clergymen, as such, are not priests in the Catholic
sense of the term."

        Here is one place where I must differ, Marty, when I usually am in
agreement.  Some Anglican priests are priests in the _Roman_ Catholic sense.
Anglican priests (I except here women (a discussion I don't want to get into
for reasons of time constraints and disk space) and those ordained by female
'bishops') ARE priests in the Catholic sense - they are ordained by bishops in
the Apostolic succession.  The difference in opinion between out respective
churches on the validity of orders is not over the succession itself, but
whether the wording used to ordain the first Anglican bishops and priests was
technically correct.

        Do you know the Orthodox position on the validity of succession of the
Anglican orders?  Anyone?  BTW, I'm not trying to make you change your position
Marty, and I know you do not recognise a difference between those who are in
succession and those whom the RCC recognises as being in succession.  I just
wanted to point out to the rest that we do claim to be in succession, having
had the first bishops consecrated by valid but dissenting RCC bishops.


Darryl said "I don't believe that any form of psychology is a religion, because
they don't postulate the existence of a Supreme Being.  To me, if a belief
structure doesn't have a Supreme Being/Creator, then it is not a religion, but
a philosophy."

        Unfortunately, this is a very common conception.  The problem with it
is, that only Judaism and its offshoots include the concept of a Creator in the
popular sense.  Other religions tend to have creation stories that start
_after_ what we would call creation.  By Creation we mean God making the
universe out of nothing.  Most others start with matter, and tell how their
god/s shaped it, or gave birth to it, or exuded it, or evolved out of it.  As
to a Supreme Being, this is again a Judeo-centric ( is that a word!? ) idea of
religion.  It excludes the multitude of polytheisms and pantheisms that don't
necessarily refer to one Supreme.  For that matter (Dan? please correct me
here), I think we have one person on the list who will gladly tell you that he
follows a religion, not simply a philosophy, but whose religion does not have
one Supreme Being.  So unfortunately, your definition leaves out most of the
world's religions - and hence is not very useful.

        (I am disagreeing with your definition, but not necessarily with your
conclusion.  I don't think of phycology as a religion.  However, I do believe
it to be a form of mythology, which is a slightly different thing.)

Lora Harris, Virology Technician                        |
University of P.E.I, Atlantic Veterinary College      --+--
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, C1A 4P3            |
1-902-566-0845   LHARRIS@UPEI.CA                        |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU