HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:32:17 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RE: Role of the Papacy (was Re: Homosexual acts)

    Ray Lang (lang@cs.tulane.edu) writes:
>So, to sum up, I believe Christ meant for his church to have a single
>visible leader who serves as the head ... is the sign of the unity ...
>This single leader is, among other things, the chief teacher of the
>church; ... Likewise, he does not teach people who know nothing about the
>subject matter; on the contrary, he teaches people who, as a whole, are
>given just as much access to the eternal mysteries as is given him. ...

    Interesting.  What about the Infallibility of the Church as it finds
    its expression in the Magisterial Teaching office of the Pope?

    The Infallibility of the Church (taught by Vatican Councils I & II)
    protects the supreme teaching authority of the Church (the Pope), and
    the Bishops IN UNION with him, from teaching that which is in error in
    Faith and Morals.  No such protection is accorded to the rest of the
    faithful no matter how many are in agreement with the proposition in
    question.

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:31:13 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: The Real Presence

CCCAMPER%MIZZOU1.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU writes:
>  The most notable was a case where not only did the bread and wine
>turn to flesh and blood, but it remains incorrupt to this day and has
>been examined by contemporary scientists. Their conclusion was that
>the blood type matched with both samples, and the tissue was truly
>that of a human heart. Add to this the fact that it remains miraculously
>incorrupt after ? (hundreds of, I think) years and it seems a rather
>remarkable witness that God can do whatever He chooses, whether our
>feeble minds can master the concept or not.

Not only that, but with advances in medical science, the actual second
coming of Christ, may be in that of a clone. - J.J.

(Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has considered requiring prospective priests
to have the exact blood type of Jesus:-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:17:25 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Origins
              21 Jan 1993 16:02:36 -0500 from <URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:02:36 -0500 <URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:

>But since you failed to take your queue, I have no recourse but to
>file a discrimination claim against you.

Bzzzt.  Forget that J.J.  Now if you were anything other than an adult
heterosexual white male, you'd probably have a pretty good chance of getting a
suit going, but  - Wait a minute! - You're a liberal!  There's your ticket!
Forget what I said.  I'm sure liberals are afforded the same protected status
as other minorities - Proceed.

Brent
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Kenneth Bath)
Subject: Re:      Natures of Jesus
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:04:18 GMT
Reply-To: bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Kenneth Bath)
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne  FL

Len Horn writes:

|>Our upcoming topic in RCIA is simply titled: "Jesus".
|>(actually Jesus I and II  - apparently it used to be covered
|>in two sessions).
|>
|>>From Catholic Update "Who is Jesus ?" by Leonard Foley, O.F.M:
|>
|>" ... It turned out that Jesus' expectations about his mission on earth
|>were not to be fulfilled in the way he had hoped.
|>Because of the hardness of heart of his listeners, the Kingdom would
|>not come in the way he had thought it would. ..."
|>
|>Could someone explain this ?
|>I have difficulty with the issue of
|>what Jesus knew, and when did he know it.
|>Please, no textbook definitions. I have three catechism
|>books at home, I think I know the definitions.
|>I dont have the image.

I ran into the concept that "Christ didn't know he was God" when
I was in high school.  It lead to statements to the effect that
Jesus sat around  as a teenager and comtemplated what he was 
going to do with his life.  The purpose, I guess, was to make 
Jesus more real to us as teenagers.

But it made me think about Jesus comtemplating....

ME:  "Should I study meteorology or oceanography?"
JESUS:  "Should I be a carpenter or should I be God?"

See the problem.  While its easy for me to see Jesus as a human
teenager, its hard for me to see Him comptemplating his mission
in life.  Christ said, "I and the Father are one."  Although it is clear 
that there is knowledge that is not shared between the Father and 
the Son (Only the Father knows the time), surely Jesus must have 
known the Divine Plan to bring about the Kingdom on earth.

In Mathew, Jesus tells Peter that He will entrust him with the Keys
to the Kingdom.  This implies that Jesus was the keeper of the Keys
and so must have known about that Kingdom.

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
From: mcbary@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Sins against the Spirit
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:58:11 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Someone asked a while back:
>>Could someone please explain what is meant by the expression "a sin
>>against the (Holy) Spirit"?  Because we profess the Holy Spirit to be
>>"Dominum et Vivificantem," does that mean that abortion is a sin against
>>the Holy Spirit?

"326. Which are the six sins against the Holy Spirit?
The six sins against the Holy Spirit are:
1. Presumption
2. Despair
3. Resisting the known truth
4. Envy of another's spiritual good
5. Obstinacy in sin
6. Final impenitence"

[_A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, approved by the archbishops and bishops
of England and Wales, and directed to be used in all their dioceses_,
London: Catholic Truth Society, 1889]

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:56:11 GMT

In article <C1Iz07.A9t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <C1I2BF.FyC@NCoast.ORG> aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski) writes:
>>In article <9301261417.AA132672@oldgwenbnc> mlj@EVOLVING.COM writes:
>>>
>>>         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 know a number of homosexual couples who are involved in monagomous
>>loving relationships.  They are church goers and are active on a civic
>>level.  
>>
>>I find it hard to describe them as "detrimental" or "non-productive"
>>to the human race.
>>
>>I fail to see the damage done by any relationship founded in love
>>and mutual respect.
>>
>>Perhaps you should invest more than (a moment only :-) )  and search 
>>that inner part of yourself where the Spirit speaks to the hearts of
>>mankind.  
>
>   This poster seems to be saying that homosexual acts are not sinful,
>and that the Holy Spirit leads him and others to this belief.
>
>   It's dangerous to attribute to the Holy Spirit that sinful acts are
>in fact not sinful.  Especially when one is claiming that one knows
>better than the Church which Jesus promised would have the Holy Spirit
>to protect her from error.  If you are wrong it could very well be
>blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
>
Somehow, Steve, I get the impression that the moral relativists aren't all
that concerned about the fine points of church or theological imperatives
when trying to set forth their "progressive" agenda.  You know that 
12 years of elementary and high school education and 2 years of
"philosophy", along with 20 years of exposure to the mass media make one
qualified to pass judgement on the doctors, theologians, writers, and
clerics that have managed to guide and teach the church for the last 1900+
years.  How the heck did we ever do without these people we meet here 
on the list, and where have they been hiding since Christ's time??????

(heavy dose of sarcasm here for the clueless)


-- 
\   Bryan D. Boyle            \           _         ______ |
 \  Senior Engineer            \        /   \___-=0`/|0`/__|
  \ Exxon Research & Engineering\_______   N7068W  / | /    )
  / 908 730-3338                /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:19:18 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <9301252103.AA169088@oldgwenbnc> mlj@EVOLVING.COM writes:
>     Furthermore - and this is a decisive point regarding the uniqueness of
>the Roman Catholic Church - Vatcan II states that "This Church, constituted
>and organized in the world as as society, subsists in the Roman Catholic
>Church..." (The Church 8).  This key statement teaches that the basic fullness
>of the Church, the vital source of complete Christian unity in the future,
>is found uniquely in the visible Roman Catholic Church.

Note the (much agonised over) choice of the phrase "subsists in" in place of
"is", which would have supported your thesis more strongly. An exclusive
material identification of the Church and the Roman Catholic communion is
carefully avoided, as one commentator (Butler) puts it. So I'm not so sure
about your "uniquely": the intention of _Lumen Gentium_ is neither to claim
that the church of Rome possesses the fullness of the mystical body of
Christ in its entirety, nor that other churches and Christian communities
are wholly lacking in it.

Martin Barry.
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Symbols at Mass (was Re:homilies)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:50:47 GMT
Organization: UW Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redx.cac.washington.edu

In article <C1J48n.Loy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
|> In article <930127083926.20202489@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
|> >>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.
|> 
|>    Please expound on this.  Also, what if no ordained priest is
|> present?
|> 
|> -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
The rules (American Conference on Bishops) for the Liturgy of Word and Communion
(common form of Sunday services in the absence of a priest) permit a lay person
to give INSTRUCTION based upon the liturgy of the word; they are not permitted
to give a HOMILY.  Said instruction may be read (having been prepared by the
priest).  Or, given the approval of the priest (either for the person giving
the remarks in general or for the contents of this particular instruction) may 
be the words of the speaker.  Our neighboring parish which has a priest who is
not the pastor (a sister serving in the role of pastor with an appropriate
title) frequently has the sister provide instruction in lieu of a homily.
Does the congregation know the difference? I doubt it.

No, the new edition of the Canon Law is not already riddled with "blue laws";
it just depends on a technical definition of "homily" that is narrower than
the application you tried to make. 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:18:05 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Real Presence, Trans. versus Con.
              Trans. versus Con." (Jan 22,  3:55am)

John, I fear you are getting specific again concerning a mystery.  Is
it not sufficient to say "Christ is here" without having to explain
how?  He said so when he started the Eucharist, that's good enough for
me.  But it is certainly nothing that can be 'proved' by scientific
methods, nor need it be.

Shalom,                                     Len Howard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:00:30 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Feb 3

                    Wednesday, February 3, 1993
                            Saint Blase
                           Saint Ansgar

Hebrews 12:4-7, 11-15       Psalm 103           Mark 6:1-6

                           INTENSE?

"They found Him too much for them." --Mark 6:3

Christ is much more intense than most Christians.  Therefore, if we are to
follow Christ, we must grow in intensity and change from lukewarm to hot
(Rv 3:16).  If we, like His home-town folk find Jesus "too much" for us
(Mk 6:3), we must repent of being "too little" for Him.  Zeal for God's house
consumed Jesus (Jn 2:17), so we should let it consume us (see Heb 12:29).
Jesus came to light a fire on the earth (Lk 12:49).  We also must desire this
fire to burn.  When Jesus had the Last Supper, the first Mass, "with great
desire, He desired" (Lk 22:15, our translation) to share this meal with the
apostles.  He wants us also to "desire with great desire" to receive
Communion with Him and each other at Mass.  Instead of taking a minimalistic
attitude toward the Christian like, we should abandon ourselves "into the
hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31).  Instead of not getting too concerned
about sin, we must fight against it "to the point of shedding blood"
(Heb 12:4).

The Christian life is not a spectator sport but a race and a fight (see
II Tm 4:7).  The world is full of intense athletes, CEOs, politicians, and
pleasure-seekers.  We should be intense like the Lord and for the Lord.


Prayer:  Father, "through the intercession of St. Blase, bishop and martyr,
         may I be delivered from every ailment of the throat and every other
         evil.  Amen."

Promise: "Do not disdain the discipline of the Lord.  Heb 12:5

Praise:  Saint Ansgar's zeal drove him to pagan Scandinavia.
-----
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, October 15, 1992.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: directions
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:08:02 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1k43juINNnkh@shelley.u.washington.edu> mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:

>In article <eharbin.728073719@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:

>|> Those of us who take traditional stands don't feel particularly sealed
>|> off from conflict. To the contrary, if you really want to get beaten
>|> about the head and shoulders, expresss reservations about the regnant
>|> point of view today, which is implacably 'progressive.' Here's a test:
>|> you're from Harvard, a center of enlightenment. Stand up in a public place
>|> first opposing abortion, then supporting it. See which position draws
>|> the brickbats....
>|> 
>But what about those of us who consider ourselves "traditional" - following a
>2000 year tradition of spiritual theology - that so-called "traditionalist"
>call liberal?  An easy way to avoid real involvment in the world is to take

Agreed. I was just asserting that traditionalists don't get that way
from unwillingness to face the perils of the world - they'll come and
get you.

>up a single cause that defines "the in group" - an example is a fundamentalist
>church to which a friend belongs that insists there were 4 not 3 crosses on
>Calvary and that those who deny it are condemned to hell.  One may oppose
>abortion on moral grounds and still not believe that legal prohibitions are the
>best way to ensure moral behavior.  One may support legal prohibitions against
>abortion and not believe that public demonstrations are the best way to achieve
>the goal.  To be traditional is to insist on the sanctity of life, on the
>image of God in man, in the primacy of God's love and concern for all people
>of all times (born and unborn; alive and dead since God is outside time).

>Being in conflict (Harban's verbage) does not imply an engagement in the
>complexity and ambiguity of the real world (Rasch's verbage) - conflict

Nor does it imply the opposite. Again, I think the original charge was that
traditionalists are taking the easy way. I see in this and the below the
bland assumption that love sits entirely in another camp, which I devoutly
deny.

>(dividing the world into us and them) is a very good way of sealing oneself
>off from real engagement and conflict.  It is much easier to participate in
>blanket anti-abortion demonstrations (a good thing) than to deal one-on-one
>with the gut-wrenching decisions/situations that lead to an individual choosing
>an abortion. Remember that all of us are capable of truly good acts only thru
>the grace of God; failure is a very human condition. Being engaged in the
>real world demands love and empathy for the individual choosing an abortion
>while at the same time not condoning the act.

Please don't suppose I'd disagree with any of the last paragraph.
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: philosophical tenable-ness of the Christian religion...
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:36:53 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <9301251533.AA22356@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM (Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50 25-Jan-1993 1024) writes:
>    But, in this sense, to the mind of the purely rational person the
>    entire Christian religion turns out to be "philosophically untenable."

Hold on. 'Transubstantiation' does not equal 'the Christian religion'. It
was an attempt to articulate in philosophically coherent terms an aspect of
our faith that has a mystery at its core, namely the operation that brings
about the real presence of our Lord in the blessed sacrament. If the
enterprise is now judged _not_ to be philosophically coherent, it is
appropriate to look for a different explanation. Christianity does not need
to be "philosophically tenable", nor does the doctrine of the real presence;
transubstantiation was an attempt to render the real presence
philosophically coherent, however, and so it is judged by a different
yardstick. If it were judged to be philosophically untenable, it would be
wrong to elevate it in consequence to a matter of faith; this is what you
were advocating earlier in your citation of the decrees of the Council of
Trent; my suggestion then was that you were misrepresenting the intention of
the Council fathers.

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:35:48 GMT
 <1993Jan25.184803.3790@cs.tulane.edu>  
 <1993Jan25.192345.19732@erenj.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan25.192345.19732@erenj.com>
bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

> Uncomfortable, unpopular, or modernistic thought does not good
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
> theology or belief make. 

I'm reminded of the joke made about modernism made on the wonderful
British sitcom "Yes, Prime Minister".  PM Hacker had to name a new
bishop and was being given brief descriptions of the candidates by his
secretary, Bernard.

Bernard: That candidate is a 'modernist'.

PM Hacker: What exactly do you mean by the word 'modernist'?

Bernard: Well, it means (slight pause) he doesn't believe in God.


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Encoding: 41 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:26:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is n

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:22:22 GMT Kenneth Bath asked:
>When was the last time you heard a sermon on the Precepts of the Church?
>How can people be expected to attend Mass on Sundays or go to Confession
>or fulfil their Easter Duty if no one tells them about it?

I really doubt the reason people are not going to mass is because no one told
them to! No one told me to breathe, but it's something I've done consistantly
for some time now. :-)

>When was the last time you heard a sermon on why the Pope is the head
>of the Church?  How about a sermon on the symbols of the Church like
>the Ixthus, the Chi-Rho, the Alpha and Omega, or even the Cross itself?

The homily at mass is part of the liturgical celebration, not part of an
adult education semimar. It is a very brief time during which we are able to
reflect on the readings we have just heard and decide how they are to be
applied to our lives. I, for one, would look for another church to attend if
the priest stood up and said "Let's ignore what we just heard and what we are
about to do, and instead continue our series on 'Church Symbols of the Middle
Ages'."

>Remember, those who don't pass on their heritage are doomed to lose it.

I agree with you completely that we are under-educated in our faith. (I,
among others, demonstrate that regularly on this list.) The place for this
education, however, is in seminars held at a parish or diocesan level, or
continuing education classes at a local Cathoic college, not during our
celebration of the mass.

Ah!, you say, we have those seminars but only a few show up. The only way to
reach the remaining Catholics is to lecture them at mass. Then, I respond
that we have a more serious problem than a series of sermons on Church
Regulations will solve.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:53:17 EST
From:         "Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: priests switching churches
              Carpenter" at Jan 26, 93 5:28 pm

>
> I've read and heard a great deal about Episcopal priests becoming
> Roman Catholic priests and Roman Catholic priests becoming Episcopal
> priests.  My own priest was a Roman Catholic priest who became an
> Anglican priest.  There's a common saying in Anglican circles:
> "We get the best of the Roman Catholic priests and Rome gets the
> worst of ours."  By and large, I think that's true.  I've known several
> Anglican clergy personally who have opted for Rome and they were
> ill-suited for the priesthood.  Rome can have them.
>
> Cindy Smith
> cms@dragon.com
>

Cindy,

    The Roman Catholic priests (I assume Latin Rite) who left
'Rome', did they then get married in the Anglican/Episcopal Church?
Just wondering, as they did take a vow of celibacy.

-Don
trent!djm@jolt.att.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic