HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Must we talk about women priests?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:09:13 GMT

In article <921005161831.28802778@beast.cs.hh.ab.com> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
writes:
>Becka,
>You are absolutely right. We shouldn't be talking about women priests,
>we should be talking TO them:-) -J.J.


All I want to know is: CAN SINEAD O'CONNOR BE ORDAINED?
(it's a joke :))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kutz@andy.bgsu.edu (Ken Kutz)
Subject: Re: All about the Book of Revelation
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:05:59 GMT

edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:

>In <BvpGx7.E1v@andy.bgsu.edu> kutz@andy.bgsu.edu (Ken Kutz) writes:

>>Every revelation has a source and destination.  These are laid out for us
>>in the verse two verses.

>>Summary for verses 1 & 2:  The author claims this a divinely written
>>book, inspired and revealed by God to His Son who sent an angel to
>>John.  Hence the name of the book: The Revelation

>Are you disputing what was orginally posted, Ken?  

I stated that the author claimed his writings were divinely inspired.
It is up to the reader to discern whether or not the author really meant
what he said in Revelation 1:1-2.

>We can't look to the Scripture literally.

Ever?  Was Jesus born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod (Matt 2:1)?
I believe a reasonable hermeneutic (principle of interpretation)
is "When the plain sense make sense, don't look for any other
sense, lest you end up with nonsense".  So when you apply this
principle to Psalm 91:4...

PSA 91:4  He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

we see that the "plain sense does not make sense, therefore we look for
another sense".  The other sense in this case is that this is an
anthropomorphism.  Does the "plain sense" of Rev 1:1-2 (the author's
claim of divine inspiration) make sense?  Our answer to that question
depends on whether we believe God could and did send a "revelation" to His
Son who entrusted it to an angel who told the author to record it
for our benefit (Rev 1:1-2).  Does this claim "make sense" or should
we "look for another sense"?

>We must also look at its historical and literary contexts
>as well.

How would these contexts change the validity of the claim of divine
inspiration?  Can a piece use apocalyptic language and metaphors and
still be divinely inspired?

Ken
-- 
  Ken Kutz			  Internet 	kutz@bgsu.edu         
  Systems Programmer		  BITNET   	KUTZ@ANDY
  University Computer Services    UUCP     	...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz   
  Bowling Green State Univ.       US Mail   241 Math Science, BG OH 43403
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: from SUNY College at Buffalo, NY 14222
X-Envelope-to: catholic@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"catholic@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: PIATKONM
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:27:15 -0400
From:         "Nancy M. Piatkowski" <PIATKONM@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Opus Dei

There was an article in the NAtional Catholic Reporter last spring that
discussed Opus Dei at length. What Eric  and JoJo have said follows along much
of the article. In it Opus Dei was compared to a cult- isolation, hierarchical
structure, all or nothing--- I know I have the article somewhere- I'll try and
dig it out and post the exact date if anyone is interested in digging it out.
Opus Dei being a personal prelature means it is answerable only to the Pope-
regardless of where it is--
Nancy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: tjrad@iastate.edu (Thomas J Radosevich)
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:33:35 GMT

In <1992Oct14.043052.2369@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:

>In article <tjrad.719006881@pv0a0f.vincent.iastate.edu> tjrad@iastate.edu (Thomas J Radosevich) writes:
>>
>>
>>from an interpritation of scripture--by humans.  The Church is not God.
>>The Church is God's representative on earth and is made up of humans who
>>try their best to understand God's laws.  Disobediance to the Church should 
>>not be undertaken in a flippent manner, but does not necessarily mean 
>>corruption.   
>The Church is the body of Christ, it is not made up of humans, it has
>humans as parts, just as I am more than the sum of my parts.  The Church is

While trying to make my point earlier I was not as clear as I should have been.
I agree with your definition of the Church.  But even you admit that humans
are involved and I have yet to meet an error free human.  God does not write
out specific laws (altergirls) therefore the human part of the Church must 
interprit it.  As a human interpritation it is subject to error. 
Whereas I origionally downplayed the Devine aspect of the Church I feel you 
are ignoring the human aspects in your following replies 

>not God's representative on earth, the Church is Jesus Christ continuing His
>action of salvation in history.  In this light ask your question about 
>disobedience to the Church.
>"Who sees you sees me."
>>
>>Is disobediance of Church law direct disobediance of God?
>Again ask yourself this question in light of what the Church actually is.
>>Who is the final judge of our actions--The Church or God?
>What if the Father through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit delegates
>to the leaders in the Church the power to judge, "what you hold bound on
>earth shall be held bound in Heaven."
>Peace,
>John

You skipped a few questions which are difficult to fit in your interpritation:
Again,

Is the Church ever wrong?
Does God change his mind when the Church changes its laws?
Would Church approval justify wrongdoing?

Tom Radosevich--strictly amature theologian

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:10:54 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anglican Church Question...

> Ok, this 'cradle Catholic' needs some help on this one.  There's a sign
> in a large empty lot 9 blocks down the street from my house that says:
>
> Future Home of:
> Christ Anglican Church
> 1928 Book of Common Prayer

This sounds like a congregation that has split off from the local Episcopal
Diocese because they don't like the current version of the liturgy (and
probably a number of the other reforms in the Anglican Communion that took
place during the '70s).  They may be associated with the Prayer Book Society,
an organization which promotes the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer,
which uses Elizabethan English, and is liturgically much less "catholic" than
the current Anglican liturgy.

> A local phone number rounds out the sign,  There's also a shield next to
> the name of the church which is a cross of St. George, with two white
> crossed croziers on a blue field in the upper left quarter.

Hmm.  I'm not certain, but this sounds like the device of the Episcopal Synod
of America, another conservative splinter group, though one that has tried to
remain within the Episcopal Church.  However, if the parish uses only the
1928 liturgy, and displays the ESA's device instead of those of the Episcopal
Church, its relation to the Episcopal Church is probably tenuous at best.
The label "Anglican" as opposed to "Episcopal" is often adopted by such
splinter parishes.

> Can someone explain the difference between this church-to-be and a
> typical Episcopal church?  TIA.

They are almost certainly much more conservative (both politically and
liturgically), and probably much more "Protestant" in flavor than a
contemporary mainline Episcopal parish.

The easiest way to find out more information, though, would be to simply call
the phone number on the sign.  I'm sure they'd be quite happy to describe how
they are different from a mainline Episcopal parish :)...


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:17:28 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Originality of Scriptural Text

Brain Tillman wrote:
> ...How can we ever be guaranteed that even the oldest texts we posess is what
>God actually passed on to the inspired writer of those old texts?  The answer
>is: we cannot.  We can only approach what we think God said and the rest we
>must discern through his Spirit...

Brian, I don't think you are being fair to the case for the reliability and
accuracy of Scripture.  Whole volumes have been devoted to the subject, so
I can't do it justice here.  But I will point out:

1).  No fundamental doctrine of our faith rests upon a disputed passage
of Scripture..

2).  Virtually the whole New Testament can be reconstructed from the
writings and letters of early Church Authorities.

3).  Very ancient translations to other languages were made of the Books
of the New Testament around 150 AD.  Along with many other ancient manuscripts
near the time of the originals, this places the reliability of accuracy at
a high level.

4). Many of the ancient manuscripts show palaeographical marks, indicating
accurate copying by scribes.

5). No archaeological find has ever controverted Scripture. Actually the
case for the accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelmingly supported by
archaeology.

6). Internal consistencies of Scripture give it all the more credence.

7). Why the heck would God give us divine revelation, only to let it fall
into irretrievable corruptness after a short period of time?

     Brian, given the evidence, we have to give the Bible much more
credence over "what we THINK God said", or over our emotional feelings
about an issue.  If we as Christians discount Scripture in favor of our
own views, we will have about a million contridictory "truths" that
people ascribe to.

In Christ,
Brent Winiger
abdwinig@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: English translation
Summary: sensu stricto
Keywords: propter nos homines et nostram...
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 04:34:39 GMT


    Strictly speaking, I think "for us men and our salvation" is more
accurate.  Here is why.  As I understand it, the Church consists of
the faithful here on Earth, the suffering in purgatory, and the blessed
in heaven; and when we say "Credo" -- note the singular verb -- we are
proclaiming this as the one Church.  When we say "We believe" we are
speaking on behalf of the whole Church.

   But, if this is so, and that's a big "if," it is important to 
consider that Christ became man (or human) to save us humans, because
the angels have either no need or no possibility of salvation.  So,
"propter nos _homines_" underscores just who it is in the Church who
needed to be saved.  To say only "for us" is not quite so accurate.

   Fair enough?


John Rickert					Nec vitia nostra nec
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		remedia pati possumus.
							-- Livy
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: English translation
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:44:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

No, Steve, Memphis is west, Knoxville is east, and we have Nashville in
the middle.  I know little about the former Bishop of Memphis, except
that our E. TN Catholic paper said the people hated to see him go.  For
your sake, I hope that is true.  We had a few anxious moments that we
might lose our beloved Bishop O'Connell to Memphis.  It is too bad that
all bishops cannot be as prayerful and generous as he is.  The priests
truly love him and take pleasure in following his lead.  If I can find
out good things about your new Archbishop, I will pass it on.  If the
news is bad, it will spread quickly enough without my help.

Wallace Mayo
mayo@cs.utk.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:32:12 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Latin nostalgia <as Re. Alter girls ...>

> A brave attempt, but no banana here either. <Spiritui> is dative, the
> genitive is <Spiritus>.

Finally someone gets it right.  I was wondering how long it would take :)...

For those who don't have a Latin missal handy, and don't remember enough
grammar:

"In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Santi."
"Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto."
"Dominus vobiscum."  "Et cum spiritu tuo."

... and so on.

If people are going to use Latin, they should at least get it right!


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lmeissne@carson.u.washington.edu (Loren Meissner)
Subject: Re:Episcopal/Anglican Newsgroups
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:01:39 GMT

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:03:32 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: translation

OK, Brad informed me that the Latin really is "Verba Domini", no verb, and
so I guess "Word of the Lord" is closer to the Latin.

I still think it sounds stupid.

I will reiterate that I don't have any doctrinal objections, I just don't
like the way it sounds.  My faith doesn't depend on this.  I won't call it
heresy or a compromise to change it.  Unpoetic, yes.

You said earlier that they were NOT approved by Rome yet. . . .

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: women priests
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:43:11 GMT

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   Actually, this is not such a bad analogy.  Many people who call for
>the ordination of women either choose to ignore the significance of
>the Eucharist, or else are just plain ignorant (no pun intended) of
>it.  They conveniently forget that the priest acts _in persona
>Christi_, "in the person of Christ."  The Eucharist itself is the most
>intimate act between Christ, Who is the Bridegroom, and His Church,
>Who is the Bride.  A woman cannot act in the person of the Bridegroom.
>
>Steve Creps, Indiana University

Yes, but is it "male" that is the critical aspect of the person of
Christ in this context?  I don't think so.  Jesus was a human person, and
both male and female qualify equally as humans.  Or are you saying that
a female can't be just a Christlike as a male?  I see that as the implication
of your argument.

I don't buy the Bridegroom analogy at all, any more that heaven being
a big ice-cream store.

Please don't just repeat the above argument *again*.  Why do you think only
a man can act "in the person of Christ"?  and is it significant that you
used the word "Christ" instead of "Jesus" here?

Thanks, Steve.

Peace,

Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Ratzinger (was: Homosexuality)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:01:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.230816.4491@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>
>I'm here to publicly eat crow.  That's not what the article said.
>What it said was that his _father_ was a policeman in Nazi Germany.
Ray,
I commend you for your honesty.
Peace, John>
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:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:22:37 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Oct 14,  5:44pm, Jim McIntosh wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
}
} Your statment above rings as hollow as hers. It's illogical to say that
} sex acts with someone of the same gender are wrong because they're done
} outside of marriage, and then turn right around and deny those same
} people the ability to get married!
	No, it's not illogical.  I am denied the ability to bear
children.  Why?  Because it's not possible -- I am male.  Similarly,
marriage IS the union of a man and a woman, and a sacrament.  People
of the same gender can't get married because that's not what marriage
IS.  All the peace and justice committees in the world can't change
reality, and that is reality.  Marriage, as a sacrament instituted
by Christ, is NOT ours to change.  It's not a concept we have, but
a symbol and sign of divine Grace acting in our lives.
}
} It doesn't matter to me if the cause if biological or environmental, the
} effect is certainly ingrained and highly resistant to change. Like it or
} not, it is the way gay people are "wired". I have argued before on this
} list that loving relationships come from God, and reflect God's love. As
} such, any relationship between two adults who are acting in love the only
} way they find possible, should be blessed.

	Hogwash.  Where's your scriptural reference?  Should we accept
this on your word, or that of the media?  Why?  It sounds to me that
you don't think marriage is important at all.  After all, from the above
it sounds like you think adultery and/or divorce are okay, too.  Yet
we see Christ himself forbidding it in the Gospel.
}
} No, committed gay relationships are not as "ideal" as relationships
} between men and women, but for people who are only capable of this type
} of relationship it is better than a lonely life of furtive anonymous and
} promiscuous sexual encounters. It is an opportunity to express that love
} which comes from God. It is an opportunity for them to live a life of
} love together. That expression of God's love cannot be sinful. Requiring
} someone to live a life without love, is.
	I thought we already agreed here that gay people weren't
(at least, not necessarily) either 'anonymous' or promiscuous in their
relationships.  Besides that, as I've said before, love does not equal
sex.  Reading the last sentence of the above would seem to imply that
you think otherwise.  Good Lord, by your statements you would seem to
imply that if a couple can't "do it" (due, perhaps to old age, or
accidents, etc) that they are doomed to loveless lives.  Poppycock.
}-- End of excerpt from Jim McIntosh



--
* 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.
Stop searching forever.  Happiness is just next to you.
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: English translation
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:04:52 GMT
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <1992Oct16.142902.6419@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:
>
>
>It's not "see how they never changed the liturgy" but "see how they love 
>one another".  The Mass is there to support us, not the other way around.
>
Since when?  The mass is there for us to offer our worship to God, not
for God to offer his worship to us.  One of the fallicies of the 
fallout after vatican II was the humanistic bent that the worship took:
People of God became more important than God himself.  The Mass is
directed towards the creator-his existence or greatness does not depend
on our existence.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 09:27:13 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones


John,

I am not familiar with the document you mention about seminaries.
Therefore, I don't know whether Pope John XXIII commanded or strongly
recommended the use of Latin.  I do know that _some_ Church rules
permit exceptions for pastoral reasons.

A bishop is a successor of the Apostles and has authority in his own
right, but he is not independent of the successor of St. Peter.  Back
to the days of the Church Fathers the authority of the Bishop of Rome
over other bishops was acknowledged.  For example, St. Irenaeus (125-
202) wrote of the Church in Rome, "For because of its pre-eminent
authority, every church...must agree with this church...."

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:11:45 -0500
Reply-To:     sdl@austin.ibm.com
From:         "(sdl)" <sdl@AUSTIN.IBM.COM>
Subject:      English translation
              15 Oct 1992 23:15:50 GMT
              <9210160737.AA21262@netmail.austin.ibm.com>

I think the comment about "political correctness Nazis" misses the
point.  The fact is that the ENGLISH language is evolving such that
it's not common usage (note I didn't say "correct" or "proper") to use
"men" as a collective for people of either gender.

Now if you don't believe that a living language such as English
changes and evolves, just hit 'd' now.  I'm not even going state my
personal position regarding if this change to English is good or bad,
it's simply a fact.

Given that, I don't see any problem with translating "Qui propter nos
homines" as "For us".  It's certainly more elegant that "For us
people".

Now the "and became fully human" (if true) bothers me, mostly because
"fully human" has become such a catch phrase is too many good-for-you
personal improvement books.  I'd prefer "and became incarnate".  But
ICEL's not asking me, and is not likely to :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Linam   AWSD Austin  T/L: 678-3308  Bell-net: (512) 838-3308
sdl@austin.ibm.com                         IBM VNET: LINAM at AUSTIN
Quae narravi, nullo modo negabo.               I don't speak for IBM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz)
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones update
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:56:38 GMT

In article <BvtzCH.IIE@news.udel.edu> stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>******
>
>I've gone back and forth on the issue of women priests for the last
>few years.  Now I find myself fairly squarely on the side which says
>that the Church will not and should not change its position.

*****

Oops.  I see that in my zeal to discuss something that's been on my
mind for awhile now -- women priests -- I responded to the string
on female altar servers.

I haven't thought about that issue much.  But please don't dismiss
my posting just because I jumped into the wrong debate.  I think this
automatic assumption that the hierarchy is sexist simply because it
is all male is wrong and harmful to the truth we are all striving for.


Rae

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU