HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:25:46 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Feb 1

                    Monday, February 1, 1993

Hebrews 11:32-40          Psalm 31              Mark 5:1-20

                         LEFT-OVERS

Jesus "gave the word, and with it the unclean spirits came out and entered
the swine." --Mark 5:13

After Jesus drove the unclean spirits out of the demoniac and into the swine,
the townfolk begged Jesus to go away (Mk 5:17).  The people preferred to live
with a legion of demons rather than with the Lord.  At least they could eat
pork chops, bacon, and ham, while being oppressed by demons.

Jesus left the district, as the people requested. But, by rejecting the request
of the former demoniac to accompany Him, Jesus made sure that His truth, power,
and love would stay in the area through the new life of the former demoniac
(Mk 5:19).

We have many places, businesses, cities, nations, families, and even churches
where Jesus has been told to go away.  As requested, Jesus left.  However,
He also has left us behind.  We live in these cities and families.  We work
in these businesses and churches.  Jesus is still present through us, the
members of His body.

We are to be "other Christs" in the Christ-less situations of our society;
sacraments, signs of Christ's presence; walking tabernacles, invading the
secular world by carrying within us God's presence.  Satan showed his
presence through a herd of pigs; may the Lord show His presence through us.


Prayer:  Father, may I be a walking tabernacle (see I Cor 3:16).

Promise: "Women received back their dead through resurrection."  Heb 11:35

Praise:  When Joyce walks into the office, her co-workers stop using profane
         language.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
 Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward J. Gratsch
 Imprimatur:  +Most Rev. James H. Garland, V.G.
              Archdiocese of Cincinnati, August 17, 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:06:48 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexual acts
              2:15pm)

Thank you, Ray, for your thoughtful essay on the position of the
Vatican re homosexuality.  The Catch-22 of the rejection of
homosexuals by religious orders is particularly cogent.  I know the
reaction you will get from most of the legalists, but I just wished to
let you know that thisstraight grandfather thinks you are right on
target.

Sahlom,                                         Len Howard
                                                tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Receiving Holy Communion
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:34:42 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spike.jpl.nasa.gov

john covert writes:
>
>The fasting requirement for Roman Catholics is currently "don't bring
>a sandwich with you."  Well, not quite, but basically it's an hour if
>possible, but receiving is more important than fasting.

  - chuckle -
>
>The last written guideline I ever saw was "from midnight if going to an
>early mass, three hours otherwise, but receiving is more important than
>fasting."

Canon 919 1. Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain
for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with
the sole exception of water and medicine.

2. [exception for priests after 1st mass of the day]
3. [exception for elderly, sick, and care provider for sick]

Reminds me of the old joke:

Young newlyweds approaches priest before Mass.  "Father, is it alright to
have sex before communion?"  Priest ponders a moment, "Sure, just don't
block the aisles."


--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:04:33 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 21-Jan-1993 2003" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Receiving Holy Communion

>In John's recent post I noticed there is no fasting requirement listed.
>Do Anglicans/Episcopalians, then, have no fasting requirement before
>reception of Holy Communion?

The fasting requirement for Roman Catholics is currently "don't bring
a sandwich with you."  Well, not quite, but basically it's an hour if
possible, but receiving is more important than fasting.

The last written guideline I ever saw was "from midnight if going to an
early mass, three hours otherwise, but receiving is more important than
fasting."

/john
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary... 
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:48:03 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-3740]: zeus


In article <9301251521.AA20456@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>,         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, writes:
> 
>     The Church teaches that any sexual act outside of the (possibly
>     fertile) marital act is a grievous sin and mortal to the spiritual life
>     of the soul.  The teaching is that these sexual acts (masturbation,
>     homosexual acts, heterosexual acts outside of marriage, marital
>     contraceptive intercourse, etc.) are intrinsically evil in and of
>     themselves.
> 
> [...]
> 
>     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.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu, tfm+catholic@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:12:03 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 21-Jan-1993 1331" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anglicans,Divorce, and Royalty

> Wasn't the Anglican schism directly inspired (at least on the face of it
>-- I've heard of lots of deeper causes) by Henry VIII's desire to divorce
>and remarry?

This is quite complicated; I could write pages on this...

However, today, the Church of England has the most strict laws on divorce
and remarriage of any part of the Church.  Recently Princess Anne had to
go to Scotland (where, by law, she automatically becomes a Presbyterian
until she returns to England) in order to remarry, because she could not
have been married in the Church of England.  Neither she nor Charles have
any obvious grounds for annulments of their presumably valid marriages.

Henry had married his dead brother's wife; though this is prohibited in
Leviticus 20:21, international politics dictated he should, and kings and
emperors convinced the Pope to grant an indulgence permitting the marriage.

However, no male heir was produced (and Leviticus 20:21 states that such a
union will remain childless), so Henry began to believe that he was being
punished for violating God's law.  He sought an annulment of the marriage.

Popes regularly granted such annulments, but Henry's wife, Catherine of
Aragon, was the aunt of Emperor Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and King
of Spain, who was holding the Pope prisoner at the time.  Truly a bad time
to ask for an annulment from his captor's aunt.

Without a male heir, the threat that England would become subject to
continental rule was approaching every day.

A number of politicians, especially Thomas Cromwell (not to be confused with
Oliver Cromwell), were working on a theory of independent nation-states,
where the power of the Papacy would not be so great.  Thus Parliament
passed the Act of Supremacy, which declared that the Pope had no power in
the realm of England and permitted the local bishop to grant Henry's
annulment.

It is important to note that the first Archbishop of Canterbury appointed
after the Act of Supremacy went into effect, Thomas Cranmer, was appointed
with the approval of the Pope.  The Church of England, though independent
of Rome, was still in full communion, and Henry, a devout Catholic, resisted
Protestant encroachments on the Church and published decrees enforcing
priestly celibacy and declaring that Transubstantiation was the true doctrine
of the Church of England concerning the Eucharist.

The partial Protestantization of the Church of England occurred much later,
and has swung back and forth like a pendulum over its 400 year history,
with the most recent swing, the denial of Catholic Unity on the Apostolic
Succession by the unilateral ordination of women.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:56:26 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Real Presence

"John R. Covert 25-Jan-1993 1624" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:
>An Anglican need have no concern about the validity of Anglican orders, as
>long as the ordination was not performed by one of the women who have been
>ordained without the Whole Church agreeing that women can receive the
>sacrament of Holy Orders.

John, dispite your disagreement with your church's policy on ordaining
women, would you go to a Mass celebrated by a women? Do you not believe
in the real presence in a Host consecrated by a woman? I don't know if
you have Confession as Roman Catholics, but would you not confess your
sins to a priest simply because of their sex?   Curious as usual -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: directions
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:13:51 GMT

In article <9301261702.AA21182@yap.dcs.gla.ac.uk> "N.O. Monaghan" <monaghan@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> writes:
>
>I wonder if anyone else has noticed that it is perhaps those churches
>and seminaries which are doing least to adapt to the modern world (by
>that I mean, doing least to change fundamental beliefs, principles,
>social outlooks and so on) which are the most flourishing.
>
>Nils.
>

Of course, everyone has noticed it, but, as a catechist well versed in 
these matters once stated: the main difference between a traditionalist 
and a modernist was that a traditionalist knew what they should believe,
and a modernist, because of the fuzzy structure, was never sure what
was supposed to be believed.

Or, in my opinion, a modernist can excuse a lot more heterodoxy because
there are no absolutes....:-)



-- 
\   Bryan D. Boyle            \           _         ______ |
 \  Senior Engineer            \        /   \___-=0`/|0`/__|
  \ Exxon Research & Engineering\_______   N7068W  / | /    )
  / 908 730-3338                /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:50:05 -0500
From:         Michael I Bushnell <mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      eastern rite catholics

Do Eastern Rite Catholics use the Gregorian calendar (and its date of
Easter) or the Julian calendar?

        -mib
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Real Presence, Trans. versus Con.
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:55:08 GMT

There has been a good deal of talk lately about different statements
of the mode of divine presence in the Eucharist.  Many have said to
quibble over such a distinction of transubstantiation versus 
consubstantiation is silly.  After all we all agree on the real presence
of Christ in the Eucharist.  These other things like "transubstantiation"
and "consubstantiation" are just meaningless to us, and it is meaningless
for the Church to teach such meaningless things, and cause division by
such meaningless.  These terms are part and parcel of outmoded philosophicla
terminology, that has been rendered meaningless by modern science.  And
After all we can all agree on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I was wondering if there is anyone out there who holds these things, or some
of them, or none of them that could answer some questions for me:

Since we all agree that Christ is really present in the Eucharist:

	1)Why do we all agree on that?

	2) Could you explain for me what it is we all agree on, that is
		to say, could you explain for me, without using the
		term "real" or any of its variants, why we affirm that
		'Christ is really present in the Eucharist'?

	3) If you have gotten this far.  In what sense is the term
		'real' being used in such a statement?

		a) Real as a mathematician, qua mathematician, uses the
			term?

		b) Real as a physicist, qua physicist, uses the term?

		c) Real as a psychiatrist uses the term?

		d) Real as the woman on the street, qua woman on the
			street, uses the term?  (Think about this one:
			if you took someone of the street and showed them
			a host you took from your pocket would they say
			Christ is really present?)

		e) As various philosophical schools have used the term,
			i.e. Platonic, Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic,
			Augustinian, Thomistic, Scotistic, Ockhamist,
			Cartesian, Humean, Kantian, Hegelian, Idealist,
			Empiricist, Positivist, Logical Positivist, ]
			Analytic, Continental, Structuralist, Deconstructionist,
			Neo-Kantian, Neo-Hegelian, Neo-Thomist, Neo-Aristotelian
			Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Existentialist, Nihilist?
			That is, since most of these schools use the term
			"real" within their philosophical systems, but mean
			quite different things by it, which one are we all
			using when we all agree that Christ is really present?

		f) If none of the above, could you supply for me the meaningful
			sense in which we are using it, that is none of the
			above?

	4)Finally, given that the best translations we have today of the
		old language written down back then say that Christ said
		"this is my body", "this is my blood", and not "I am really
		present", why do we agree at all?

Peace,
John

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:50:34 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 25-Jan-1993 2138" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject: Re: The Shroud of Turin

>However, a caveat was thrown in by the group (non-church folks) that
>the most modern carbon dating technique used could literally be off by
>1000 to 1400 years!
>
>  So the debate goes on!

Well, the Archbishop of Turin and the Pope have said that they no longer
consider there to be any real possibility that the shroud is authentic.

Check out the New York Times, October 14th, 1988, pages 1 & 10.

The article is entitled "Church says Shroud Isn't Authentic".

It states that Catholics were still encouraged to continue their veneration
of the shroud as a pictorial image of Christ.

It includes a photo of Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin, who made
the announcement of the findings from three separate, independent, Carbon-14
datings of postage size pieces of the shroud.

The work was done independently at Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Z|rich Federal Institute of Technology.  Each site was
sent pieces of the shroud plus control pieces not from the shroud.  Only
the British Museum knew which pieces were controls and which were actual
bits of the shroud.

Luigi Gonella, Turin Archdiocesan Science Advisor, said great care had
been taken to remove any particles which would have contaminated the
dating.

Also see articles in the 3 Oct Newsweek and the 15 Oct Economist, and
in other periodicals of the time period.

In an article on page 8 of the 11 June 1989 issue of the New York Times,
the Archdiocese of Turin reports that visits to the shroud have not
declined at all since the findings were announced -- the shroud still
retains its allure for visitors to the Cathedral of Turin, where the
shroud is kept locked inside a silver chest.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:38:02 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The tragic tale of a moral theologian.

Diane Jennings <CCDIANE%MIZZOU1.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>I dont understand.. is everyone on his side or hers?

I don't think Steve's point in posting this story was for us to
choose whose side we're on, as far as that couples anyway, I
think it was some sort of an attempt to show that if you leave
the priesthood, get married, and choose to publicly dispute some
of the "teachings" of the Church, that God'l Getcha, and your
life will be miserable:-)

Am I close, Steve? - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:32:10 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 25-Jan-1993 1624" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Real Presence

>Joan, That is exactly it 'the validity of ordination'.

>Part of the hierarchy of the Church is the Bishops, whose leadership
>comes under that of the Pope.  Because of their ability to ordain priests,
>Roman Catholic Bishops possess the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders
>and are our representatives of the Apostles.

However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that other Churches have valid
Holy Orders.  Specifically the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and by implication
"other churches whose orders are valid" (see Canon 844).

Now, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid, but his argument is not
valid for the Episcopal Church of Scotland or the U.S., for the troublesome
ordinal was never used in Scotland.  Furthermore, he issued his declaration
of invalidity even though the bishops he consulted with were not at all in
agreement that the declaration should be issued.  The position of the Roman
Catholic Church with respect to Anglican orders is not closed -- as recently
as 1986 the Vatican stated that if the Anglican Bishops at Lambeth would
make certain appropriate statements about the nature of the priesthood,
the issue of Anglican Holy Orders could be revisited.

It should be pointed out that the documents of Vatican II specifically
refer to the Anglicans as _distinct_ from Protestants.

>As a visible society, the Roman Catholic Church is unique.  Other
>Christian churches possess some very basic "elements" in common with it,
>such as "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all"
>(Eph 4:5).  But as Vatcan II points out, "these elements, as gifts properly
>belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism toward Catholic
>unity" (The Church 8).

However, if other churches' orders were not valid, canon 844 would not permit
Roman Catholics to receive in "those churches with valid orders".  Since there
is a question (in the minds of the Vatican) about at least some Anglican
Orders, Roman Catholics are not permitted to receive in Anglican Churches.

An Anglican need have no concern about the validity of Anglican orders, as
long as the ordination was not performed by one of the women who have been
ordained without the Whole Church agreeing that women can receive the
sacrament of Holy Orders.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:45:56 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Shroud of Turin (was: Real Presence)
              22 Jan 1993 15:31:09 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:31:09 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:

>I'd classify it along with the shroud, as another forgery.

Does anyone know if the Church has officially decided that the Shroud is
conclusively a forgery?  It seems I read something a while back that several
scientists have claimed the datings done on the Shroud were in error, and that
a separate secret dating done at UCLA came up with a much earlier date than
the official datings.  If I remember correctly, there was speculation that the
carbon datings were done on a piece of Shroud that was sewed on later to
repair fire damage.  There was further speculation that oil from human fingers
may have skewed the datings since the sample of the cloth that was tested
was along the edge where the cloth was handled.
     If the Church has decided the Shroud is a forgery, has anyone been able
to determine how the image on the cloth was made?

Brent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:33:03 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::,
              MSO1-1/J50 25-Jan-1993 1024" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      philosophical tenable-ness of the Christian religion...

    Martin Barry (<mfulsmb@UTS.MCC.AC.UK>) writes about Transubstantiation:
>It follows, I submit, that if the C-word turns out to be philosophically
>untenable, then so does the T-word.

    But, in this sense, to the mind of the purely rational person the
    entire Christian religion turns out to be "philosophically untenable."

    A clear example of this are the works of Mortimer Adler.  While he
    works out what he believes is a better philosophical proof of the
    existance of God than that of St. Thomas Aquinas, he then goes on to
    issue a scathing attack against the Christian religion on the grounds
    that it is philosophically untenable.  (See his book about "How to
    think about God" paraphrase of the title, I don't have it in front of
    me...)

    Revelation transcends the philosophies of pure reason.  What man could
    have figured out via a rational philosophy of pure reason that God is
    three persons in one nature?

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:57:09 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...

    J.J. (URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM) writes:
>...you would have no objection to a chaste homosexual in the military, while
>you would perhaps favor rules dispelling un-chaste heterosexuals? - J.J.

    Finally, your question shows that you are beginning to get the point.

    A chaste homosexual is no different than a chaste heterosexual.  It is
    the ACTS that are condemned.

    Neither you nor I are able to look at a person and say "this person has
    some innate desire for same-sex-relations and that this other person
    has some innate desire for other-sex-relations."  It is invisible!

    What is visible is the ACT of (same|other) sex relations.

    It is the visible ACTIONS of people that are contrary to God's
    Commandments that are condemned.

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU