HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:45:26 GMT

       Martin, I concede the essential point, which I
understand to be that we are not obliged to hold 
to a particular school of philosophy, and that we may
dispense with the particular philosophical scaffolding
used to erect a doctrine in the past.

       However, I am baffled by the first of Rahner's
points. I have deep respect for his work, having read
quite a bit in his "Theological Investigations". 
Doubtless, he understands Aristotelian ideas far better
than I (at least did :-)).  I know more of Aristotle
and St. Thomas refracted through the thought of Lonergan
than directly. But I would have said that the "form"
of a thing is its intelligible structure. The fact that
bread is composed of molecules, and the particular way
that it is composed of molecules is part of this 
intelligible structure or "form". It would be silly to
say that bread has a form that is ontologically prior to
its being composed of molecules, but I doubt Aristotle
or Thomas would (had they known about molecules) have
said such a thing. 
       Frankly, here I think Rahner is being incredibly
stupid. Obviously Aristotelianism exists in a variety of
forms. The type he has in mind seems to be a stupid kind.
The concept of "form" seems to me to be a metaphysical
one, not, as Rahner seems to use it a physical concept.
The task of science is to grasp the "forms" --- the 
intelligible structures -- that exist in nature. 
      I admit that there are difficulties in understanding
transubstantiation. I have no problem with people using
other terms than substance and accident. But, frankly,
I find the objection Rahner makes on the basis of science
rather silly. I do not say that scientific thought does
not raise questions about this doctrine, just that the
ones Rahner gives are dopey.   Steve Barr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:15:19 -0600
From:         Roger L Rainwater <RAINWATER1@LIB.IS.TCU.EDU>
Subject:      in re recent rosary posting

    Some days ago someone posted a long description of the many types
    of rosaries.  I accidentally pushed the wrong key and this file
    disappeared.  I tried to get the appropriate log file but found one
    isn't authorized to obtain these.  Would whoever posted this rosary
    information please send me another copy?  Many thanks in advance.

    Roger L Rainwater

    Rainwater1@LIB.IS.TCU.EDU
    Rainwater1@TCUGVMS.BITNET
From: jww@EVOLVING.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Why is it?
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:26:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

"John R. Covert 21-Jan-1993 0018" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> writes:
>>6.  Does a deacon "assist" at Mass?  (What is the proper verb?)  Is the
>>sash that a deacon wears called a stole?
>
>I thought anyone attending Mass "assisted."  I think only priests and
>bishops wear stoles; what a deacon wears is probably called a sash.

Deacons wear a "stola" at Mass, or in English a stole, but wear them
over the left shoulder and tied (or pinned) under the right arm.
It's the same vestment the priest wears.  (There is a modern thing
called a "deacon's stole" that is cut specifically to be worn by a
deacon, but the old rubrics don't contemplate any such beast.)  A
deacon in full Mass vestments wears cassock, amice, alb, cincture,
stole, maniple, and dalmatic.  (And biretta sometimes.)  For offices,
he wears cassock and surplice.  If he's not the deacon of the Mass,
but is administering Communion, he wears cassock, surplice, and stole
tied deacon-wise.

I don't know a verb for "to act as deacon at Mass".  But since
diakonos means servant, I think "serve" would work as well as anything.

In the early church, a Christian at Mass was called an offerer --
where we say someone "assists" (or, worse, "hears Mass"), they said
he "offers" the Eucharist.

-- Fr. John Woolley
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:17:13 MST
From:         mlj@EVOLVING.COM
Subject:      Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
              93 9:22 am

>
> >>>     Thus, in this climate, we need to affirm in the public forum what the
> >>>     Church teaches about sexuality and that what the Church teaches is the
> >>>     Truth.
> >>
> >>Some of what the Vatican teaches is the Truth.  Some of it isn't.  What
> >>they teach about homosexuality isn't.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >And to what do you attribute this startling revelation?  The misinformed
> >judgement of ex-catholics or protestant theologians, or homosexual
> >activists, or the media, or _your_own_opinion_?
> >
>
> Have you ever considered the possibility of the Spirit
> moving in the hearts of the people?
>
> At one time slavery was commonly accepted as a part of the culture
> of the time.
>
> Later people realized that slavery was an evil, and the Spirit prompted
> them to do something about that.
>
> Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the Spirit
> is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices?
>
> Steve Otlowski-
>

Steve,

         Let's assume, for a moment ( and a moment only :-) ), that the "Spirit"
 > is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices

How would you explain the Burst of insanity that the "Spirit" would move/stir
the hearts of men to engage in an act that is detrimental and non-productive
to the human race?

I'm sorry, but I agree hole heartedly with:
>> And to what do you attribute this startling revelation?  The misinformed
>> judgement of ex-catholics or protestant theologians, or homosexual
>> activists, or the media, or _your_own_opinion_?

--mlj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"Catholic@American.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:39:26 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Symbols at Mass (was Re:homilies)

Kenneth Bath <bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com> writes:

>It would strike me that 'Church Symbols of the Middle Ages' would indeed
>be a topic which would fit this definition.  Certainly symbols (some of the
>dating to the Middle Ages) surround the Ordinary and Proper parts of the
>Mass.  (BTW, the symbols I suggested pre-date the Middle Ages and can
>be found in Scripture, except maybe the Ixthus.)

The symbol I'd like to see acted out some day is the "Lamb of Christ".
We could have an Anglican priest and a Catholic priest slice a live
lamb down the middle, both would then ceremoniously rip out the blood
and guts from their respective halves and "sprinkle" their followers
with the remains while announcing that the same fate of the lamb
awaits us if we should ever not have peace between us.
I suppose a fitting conclusion to this ceremony would be for all to
receive the Eucharist out of the same Chalice.

>BTW,  in researching what a homily should be, I noted that Canon Law reserves
>the preaching of a homily during Mass to persons who are ordained.  Well,
>last Sunday's sermon was delivered by a lay person.  You learn something
>every day....

Like there are obsolete laws on the books?:-) The Mass is celebrated by
all present, not just the ordained. - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:04:14 MST
From:         mlj@EVOLVING.COM
Subject:      Re: Natures of Jesus
              93 12:35 pm

>
> >Finally, as a friend of mine said in class:  If Jesus didn't know He was
> >God, why didn't Mary tell Him?
>
> >Ken Bath
> Part of being fully human, though, must have been facing doubt and fear of
> death, just like all of us. I think the 'take this cup from me' refers
> not just to the coming trial, but the truly awful appreciation of
> who he was and claimed to be.
>

"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name
him Jesus" (Luke,1:31)
But Mary Said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations
with a man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come
upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.  Therefore the
child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God..." (Luke,1:35-35).

I realize that Mary not knowing that Jesus was the Son of God is not in
question.

> If Jesus didn't know He was God, why didn't Mary tell Him?

I just wanted to re-state that there was no possible way that she could not
have known.
     To claim that Jesus himself did not know He was God is to place more
importance on His humanity than on His Divinity.
     When Jesus was in the garden, He knew that He was going to take the
sins of the world upon His shoulders and be Crucified (Our salvation).  How
can one speculate that the Divinity of Christ would not be aware of His hole
purpose on earth... the salvation of mankind.
     The devil tempted Jesus in the garden, so much so that He sweat blood.
The devil showed Jesus all the sins of the world in the past and all the sins
that would be commited in the future.  (Hence, our salvation as well, not
just the savlation of those before and in Jesus' time).  Knowing what He was
going to have to suffer and seeing the sins of the future He said 'take
this cup from me' in the same breath 'but let thy will be done not mine'.
     As for > refers to the coming trial, lets remember that Jesus embrased
the cross before carring it to calvery.  He loves us that much.

--mlj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:28:39 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: The Real Presence

CCCAMPER%MIZZOU1.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU writes:
>At what you perceive as a "sexist tradition".

Yes, I do perceive it to be merely a "sexist tradition". There are
others who prefer to follow tradition blindly.

>>>As often happens, the true content of what I was posted was ignored.
>>>What do you think of the bread and wine turning to real human flesh
>>>and blood for the doubting? (assuming this is real) Just curious.
>>
>>OK, I found it quite unbelievable, the opportunity for fraud could
>>not be ruled out as I would doubt the traceability of the evidence.
>>Changing bread and wine into flesh is not so unbelievable as our
>>own bodies do it all the time. That God would single out this
>>particular priest for this spontaneous event, and also chose to
>>make it a piece of His heart (how romantic) seems a bit far-fetched.
>>I'd classify it along with the shroud, as another forgery.

>So you choose to pass judgement before ever studying the matter?
>Seems rather narrow minded, it could be a great help to your faith.

Elizabeth, you asked twice for someone to comment on your story. If
you only wanted someone to pat you on the back and say "Wow, what
a great story, I'm afraid I'm not the person who should have commented.
Sorry, don't let me take away your exuberance over something I
"perceive" as a ruse.

>>If He really wanted to make people believe in the Church's pet
>>theory on transubstantiation, He'd single out some Sunday and have

>He has done this many Sundays in history. Just the case I mentioned
>is the best documented and verifiable. Why don't you read about it?

I don't suppose He's done it in recent times in a controlled environment
where any chance of forgery could be ruled out?

>>all hosts become organically human flesh. In fact, if He wanted to
>>show the importance of His maleness, He'd chose some other organ than
>>his heart:-)(sorry, couldn't resist) - J.J.

>Frankly, Jesus is too Holy in my heart and understanding to laugh at this
>'humor'. I'm sorry, but it offends me.

Well, at last we can agree, I find several traditions of the Catholic Church
offensive because Jesus is too Holy in my heart and understanding.
So I trade my 'humor' for their 'serious' prejudices. -J.J.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 05:36:46 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Married Saints


Recently Rae expressed an interest in married saints. She, or anyone
else with that interest, might want to check libraries for _Married
Saints_ by Selden Peabody Delaney.  (First published 1935, reprinted
1969). Delaney was an Episcopal clergyman who became a Catholic.  His
1930 book _Why Rome?_ explains why.  Like Newman's _An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine_ it was written while the author
was still an Anglican.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:11:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.220732.8104@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>Well, Steve, apparently you've identified "the Church" with
>"the Vatican."  Jesus promised his Holy Spirit to the whole church,
>not just the Pope and his inner circle in Rome.  The Catholic
>magisterium is comprised of the entire college of bishops, and they
>(to say nothing of the Church at large) can hardly be said to be
>of one mind on this matter.

   You seem to be identifying "the Church" with everyone _except_ "the
Vatican."  Not everyone is the head of the Church.  Have you not read
1 Corinthians chapter 12?  You say the Church is not of one mind on
this matter.  The vast majority of the bishops are.  The Church _has_
been of one mind on this matter since the earliest days, and it is
only recently that there have been those among the Church who have
changed their minds.  This is just another example of how many have
lost the virtue of faith.  Two thirds of the laity today don't even
believe in the Real Presence as taught by the Church for centuries, as
two thirds did not believe Christ to be true God during the Arian
heresy.  The Holy Spirit, through "the Vatican," has always protected
the Church as a whole from such error, even when some (or many)
members strayed from the path.

   For our information, are you Catholic or Protestant (or Anglican)?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:42:48 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re:JOY! Praise God!

On Jan 19, 11:23am, Elizabeth Stevens wrote:
} Subject: JOY! Praise God!
} Thank you to all the people who have prayed for me over the last number
} of months. On Friday I received notice from the Tribunal of the Diocese
} of Jefferson City that I may now proceed to marry my husband ( O;-) )
} and receive the sacraments of the Church. The annulment process if
} finally completed. Hopefully Bob and I will be confirmed together
} at Easter, after "marriage counseling" and marriage in the Church.
} This is such joy it feels like I could burst.
}
} Love in Christ,
} Elizabeth
}-- End of excerpt from Elizabeth Stevens

Elizabeth,
        This is great news!  Having 'seen' this waiting time that you've
gone through, I know it's been rough at times; I'm glad the results
were positive.  God bless!

GZ

--
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting  4500 E. Sunrise #N-6, Tucson, AZ 85718
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | noao.edu!coyote!caritas!zaft
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.
From: achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU (Alfred S. Chavez)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is n
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:55:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Don Magee writes:
>Somewhere those delivering homilies need to strike a balance.  At
>least in the Arch. of NY, we need a little more Tradition and a little
>less secular life.

Such as....farming, finances, familial relationships, etc?  Seems to me the
gospels were full of such "secular life."  Do you have any doubt that had
Christ come today His gospels would have reflected life as it is today?
Homilists I admire the most follow Christ's way of doing it, which took into
account the analagous ways in which we learn.  Could you be missing some very
good sermons because you fail to see the underlying messages?

His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 41 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:38:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexual acts

On Tue, 19 Jan 1993 12:32:09 PST Greg Wolff said:
>Make adequate the means of expression to the people, but do not change the
>underlying truth that must be expressed.

I use the time I spend commuting to read various books. This week I am
reading "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong. I know
some people on the list don't like his writings, and that raised my interest
enough to out and buy a copy. :-)  I read this quote this morning:

"...There may well be an eternal objective truth beyond all of our words, but
the minute that truth is spoken by a human being who is a subject, it ceases
to be either eternal or objective. It becomes then truth compromised by time,
concept, vocabulary, history, and prejudice.
   "Both the sacred Scriptures and the creeds of the Christian church can
point to but they can never finally capture eternal truth. The attempt to
make either Bible or tradition 'infallible' is an attempt to shore up
ecclesiastical power and control. It is never an attempt to preserve truth.
Indeed, those who would freeze truth in any words, concepts, or creed will
guarantee a time warp that will finally doom that truth to extinction. Only
truth that is freed from its captivity to time and words and allowed to float
in the sea of relativity will survive the ravages of subjectivity. Only truth
that can constantly call out new words capable of lifting yesterday's
experience into today's mind-set will survive.
   "The formulations of today or tomorrow will be no more eternal than the
formulations of first-century people. This is not a plea to give up
inadequate ancient words for ultimately inadequate modern words. It is to
force upon us the realization that all words are, in the last analysis,
inadequate. Truth  is never finally found in words. Truth is always beyond
words. Yet there can be no truth for human beings unless we use words first
to understand it and convey it. So we mortals live with our subjective truth
in the constant anxiety of relativity. That is all we can do and that
realization strikes a mortal blow at the traditional excessive claims of all
religious systems."

Interesting book.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: The tragic tale of a moral theologian.
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:09:31 GMT

      Close, JJ, but no cigar. :-). Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:39:18 MST
From:         jww@EVOLVING.COM
Subject:      Re: Edward Schileebeecx (sp?) writings & Justification by Faith...
              93 4:45 pm

Steve Creps writes:
> In article <6589@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
> writes:
> >>    One book that I would suggest is Cardinal Ratzinger's....
> >
> >Yes, thank you, no further questions.
>
>    My, aren't we _ad hominem_ today.

I always figure if somebody uses an _argumentum_ad_hominem_, you just
can't trust anything else he says, either.

-- Fr. John Woolley
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:58:07 GMT

In all the discussion thus far I have not heard a reason WHY the church should
abandon it's tradition, and constant teaching about homosexuality.  At least
for theological or similar reasons, and not just because it would be Politically
Correct.  In this country, you are free to form your own church.  And you are
free to spread any message you want.  But people aren't forced to join - either
your alternative or the Catholic Church.

It really would help if I knew the rationale behind liberalizing the teaching
against homosexuality.  I have heard a few scriptures thrown out, but then no
explanation of where they get their system of interpreting scripture so I can
try to understand.  Another argument seems to be that it is rude to tell
someone that they are sinning, so in order to be polite, we should stop calling
sin sin.  Another is "I personally think...", therefore the church should
listen to me (sort of ex cathedra).  Most of the rest are simply political
correctness arguments (the church should follow society's whims).

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum.  St. Gabriel the Archangel, Pray for us.
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:47:33 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <930120103842.2e012052@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>Do I believe these definite things about the "how" are infallible?
>No, I suppose it's a lot like evolution to me, while there's a given
>there are several plausable theories as to the how.
>
>But I suppose I've failed the Catholic test again:-( - J.J.

If so a lot of Catholic theologians would agree with you. It's not clear (to
them) whether the Council of Trent really does require belief in
transubstantiation, nor to what extent either the term 'transubstantiation'
or the transubstantiation/consubstantiation dialectic are really meaningful.
Karl Rahner (or one of his contributors) says that 'transubstantiation' is
rendered meaningless by modern scientific knowledge.

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:15:38 GMT

In article <6538@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>In article <930120103842.2e012052@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>Do I believe these definite things about the "how" are infallible?
>>No, I suppose it's a lot like evolution to me, while there's a given
>>there are several plausable theories as to the how.
>>
>>But I suppose I've failed the Catholic test again:-( - J.J.
>
>If so a lot of Catholic theologians would agree with you. It's not clear (to
>them) whether the Council of Trent really does require belief in
>transubstantiation, nor to what extent either the term 'transubstantiation'
>or the transubstantiation/consubstantiation dialectic are really meaningful.
>Karl Rahner (or one of his contributors) says that 'transubstantiation' is
>rendered meaningless by modern scientific knowledge.
>
>Martin Barry.

Martin,
Is that an argument from theological authority?

Perchance, could you tell me how meaningful modern scientific knowedge renders
the real presence?

Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic