HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:28:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.203102.21745@news.nd.edu>, jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
    ...
|> 1) The successor of Peter has always been chosen by the successors of the
|> Apostle's.  Because of the expansion in the number of successors, as the
|> Church expanded throughout the world, as a need was felt to have local
|> ordinaries, the practice developed of having the successor of Peter chosen
|> by a limited group selected from those successors, i.e. bishops.  But
|> it remains true to say that the successor of Peter has always been chosen
|> by the successors of the apostles.  This remains true even in the worst
|> days of political intrigue in the selection of the pope.
    ...
    I had another correspondent recently tell me that the Cardinals 
were in effect the priests of the diocese of Rome, and as such the
bishop of Rome was one bishop who was elected by the priests of his
diocese.  It has indeed been the case that some of the Cardinals
have not been bishops, and as recently as the nineteenth century
there have been laymen who were Cardinals (although they may
have been ordained after being named Cardinal -- that's not clear
to me).
 
    I also wonder whether at times the Pope was chosen by some
secular authority, for example, has the Roman Emperor ever done
that?  (Let me make this clear -- this is a real question, not a
rhetorical question.)

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:55:05 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology

Liz,
You said that a minister had stated "God is she and so forth". Did you
mean that the minister thought that she was God or that God was a 'she'?
As I am not familiar with New Age doctrines, I need this explained to me
a bit more slower:-) I had thought that New Age was just crystals, pyramids
and mysticisms. Thanks -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon's TCP/Connect II 1.1b16
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:30:38 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: priest shortage

"John R. Covert 20-Nov-1992 0756" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:
> The Episcopal Church has a clergy glut, with many, many more clergy than
> we need.

I'm curious about how you arrived at the conclusion of "more than we need."
This strikes me as a very odd proposition.  I can understand "more than we
have been used to in the past," but I am at a loss at understanding what "too
many clergy" means.

> The number of clergy has increased by 62%, from 9079 to 14,694.  Some
> have said, that if the trend continues, we will have more clergy than
> members.

Even as a rhetorical device, this seems to be hyperbolic in the extreme.

> I'm also told that only about one-third of postulants in the Diocese of
> Massachusetts are found, under examination, to have vocations.  The
> remainder are not admitted.

Lest anyone think I was holding the Episcopal Church up as an ideal, I think
it has notable problems as well at the moment.

I had a fascinating discussion recently with a friend who is preparing to
begin the process.  This friend was frankly shocked at the preliminary
discussions with people in the local diocese, in which the Church was
characterized in terms of a business, with the bishop as "CEO" (evidently *in
so many words*).  No mention was made of vocation, religious experience,
spirtual development, or the like, although diocesan and national politics
were discussed in detail, especially as they affected one's likelihood to be
admitted.  I have heard similar comments from Catholic seminarians and
priests, where the formation process was described as consisting principally
of politics and "toeing the party line of whoever had your destiny in their
hands at the moment").

The Church is not immune from pettiness, politics, and personal ambition, by
any means.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:10:59 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: polls and women priests
              (Nov 19,  2:45am)

John, thank you for your long reply to many of us.  One further
question.  You refer to the Trinity as an example of an embryonic
revelation that was more fully developed by the Holy Spirit at a later
day.  By this are you referring to the many so-called "Trinitarian"
references in scripture, or are you referring to something else.  I
have not heard the term embryonic referred to revelation before.
Thanks, John.
Shalom,                          Len Howard OSL
                                 tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"catholic@american.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:56:19 -0500
From:         STRZEMECKI@MARY.FORDHAM.EDU
Subject:      Re: "Feminazism" and the "abortion holocaust"

Let me first appologize to all members of this list for engaging into
exchange of postings with Ted Frank on the subject that does not
necessarily belong here. But since there were some ambiguities at
least and errors at worst in the statements by Ted Frank, I felt that
they needed clarification.


To the following text by Ted Frank <thf2@ELLIS.UCHICAGO.EDU>:

- The Holocaust was unique in world history.  Ethnic wars had been
- fought in the past, but often over land, over religion, over money,
- over some ideology.  Never before, and never since, was the sole
- purpose of a war on an ethnic people to eradicate them from the
- planet.

I responded as follows:

If WWII had the "sole" purpose, it was definitely not the eradication
of Jews. The decision about the eradication of Jews was taken by the
highest officials of the Third Reich only at the beginning of 1943.

To which Ted Frank replies:

- First of all, "war on ethnic people" does not mean "World War II."
- It refers to what became to be known as "the Final Solution."  The
- revealed preference of Nazi leaders shows that they were more
- interested in searching out and killing Jews than, say, territorial
- gains, or protecting German soldiers on the Eastern front.

From my previous response it should be clear that my understanding of
your expressions "Ethnic war" or "war on ethnic people" was that you
were referring to WWII. It is simply because whenever anybody refers
to anything that happend between 1939 and 1945 as a (whatever) war,
this to me, and many others, means WWII. If you really meant, by
whatever your expressions were, the Final Solution, our
misunderstanding shows that it is simply better to say so explicitely.

As to whether there was preference on the part of the Nazis to engage
its soldiers into searching for Jews rather than sending them to the
front, you would be in trouble to document that. Simply because the
Nazis maintained occupational forces in many of the lands they
conquered, and it is those forces that were used for the "purpose" in
question. Furthermore, many of the soldiers and officers in those
forces were actually sent to the front as a kind of punishment for
failures attributed to them.

Finally, on my remark that the decision about the extermination of
Jews was taken only in 1943, Ted Frank writes:

- As for the decision-making process, one may wish to read "Mein
- Kampf."

Again you are beeing a little vague here, I am sure unintentionally,
by referring to a "decision-making process". But that does not change
the historical fact to which I referred, namely the meeting of the
seven highest officials of the Third Reich in the Winter of 1943, when
the decision about the Final Solution was made, and as a result of
which the Final Solution happened.


Tadeusz Strzemecki


P.S.

Once again I appologize for taking on the subject not directly related
to the interest of the list members.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:18:00 EST
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology

>You said that a minister had stated "God is she and so forth". Did you
>mean that the minister thought that she was God or that God was a 'she'?
>As I am not familiar with New Age doctrines, I need this explained to me
>a bit more slower:-) I had thought that New Age was just crystals, pyramids
>and mysticisms. Thanks -J.J.

The Episcopalian woman minister and also the Catholic nun talk about
God in the 'she' form.  When they talk about God, instead of saying
Jesus said, or He said, they will say, She said.  While this is not
necessarily New Age teachings, it isn't what my Bible tells me.

                                        Liz Moreau
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: papal electors (was: Re: Church of England & women priests)
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-26706]: clones
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:44:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.203102.21745@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>1) The successor of Peter has always been chosen by the successors of the
>Apostle's.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that.  The successors of the Apostles are
the bishops, and papal electors have not always been bishops.  As a
matter of fact, it was only during the papacy of John XXIII that Cardinals
were required by canon law to be bishops, though in practice that has
been true for some time.

Nonetheless, there have been cardinals, i.e. papal electors, who only
held the rank of deacon.  In the early church, there may even have been
lay electors, since the bishop, including the bishop of Rome, was
elected by the people of the diocese.

I'm not sure how long it's been since there was a non-bishop cardinal,
but in any case, it's just plain false to say that the pope has always
been chosen by bishops.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:24:45 -0500
From:         URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Separating our kids from public schools

Brent, J.J. here, so if you don't want to hear some liberal rantings on
Cal's column, hit "next" now:-)

Obviously, I'm not a religious conservative and therefore feel no pressing
need to pull my children out of the public schools as Cal suggests. I am
quite pleased with the education our children are receiving in our local
public schools. The courses which draw the most attention from "religious
conservatives" are those which are "optional", meaning the parent can
ask that their children be exempted from that course, parents are given a choice
whether to have their children take the course (a liberal idea I guess). It
starts with sex education in fifth grade, the "Quest" program in sixth and
seventh, and all these parenting, alternative lifestyles and whatnot courses
offered in High School as electives. There has always been a meeting for
parents, before the course begins, to explain the material to the parents
and to advise them of their option to have their children take the cours
or not. Let me assure you that in our system, the religious consevative
parents do attend these meetings and express their views:-) Obviously,
I put my faith in the public schools and the CC program at our Church (I
might upset some of you if I said I teach my kids my morals at home:-)

Anyway, I basically think Cal is deriding the democratic process in general,
he's still blowing off steam because of the results of the last election.
I read Cal religiously for amusement and I got a good laugh in that particular
column when he started it by saying he was an officer in Reagan's Moral
Majority:-)
As a side note, in this mornings' paper, there was an article on the Bishops'
letter on women's role in the Church. A bishop was quoted as saying that
one of the problems with American Catholics is that from birth they have
been ingrained with the idea of Democracy. Cal and the bishops must be
thinking alike:-) -J.J.
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:12:36 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 18-Nov-1992 1100" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: polls and women priests

  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
  wrote:

>The Magisterium was written by Church leaders, and will reflect the
>culture in which they were raised.

You seem to think that the Magisterium is some sort of book or written
document.

Not correct.  The German word for "Magisterium" is "Lehramt".  If we
translate that back into English, it means "teaching office".  (I just
started reading a 600 page German theological tome in order to expand
my vocabulary to ecclesiastical terms.)

In other words, the Magisterium is the bishops.  Today's bishops, working
under the influence of the Holy Spirit working through all the bishops to
teach Church doctrine -- to apply what Our Lord Jesus Christ passed on
through His Apostles to us.  (This is an incomplete explanation of the
Magisterium.)

We are called, as Catholics, to apply the teachings of Christ to the
problems of todays world in order to transform the world into a community
of faith living as Christ would have us live.

Secularists are trying to apply the problems of today's world to Christ's
teachings in order to transform Christ's teachings into the will of the world.

Secularists have it backwards.  The world wagging Christ, so to speak.

As Catholics, we are called to live holy lives, to follow Christ, not to
follow the World.

/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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:43:30 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      the Magisterium

On Nov 17,  7:11pm, Haig Kasab wrote:
} Subject: Re: polls and women priests
}
}    The Magisterium was written by men to codify their interpretation of God
} and God's will.  Therefore, they made it so simply by saying it was so.
} When the Pope issues an infallible statement defining the Church's position,
} he has made it so simply by saying it was so.  The Pope is a man like other
} men, why is he more correct than we?  We accept that the Pope has greater
} insight on spiritual matters because (1) it's his job to be a theologian and
} (2) because we believe it is so.  We accept Christ is God because we believe
} it is so.

        Haig, you seem to misunderstand.  The Magisterium is not a
document!  The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church
as embodied by the Pope and the Bishops when teaching in communion with
the Pope.  Furthermore, you are totally mistaken as to papal infallibility.
We don't 'accept that the pope has greater insight' --no claims whatsover
are made that the Pope will have great insight, or even average insight.
Papal infallibility means that the Pope will not teach error.  It does
NOT mean that the pope will be a great teacher.  Furthermore, it is not
the Pope's job to be a theologian.

        We believe in papal infallibility for two reasons (depending on
how you approach it): a) because the Church said so in an ecumenical
Council, and we believe in the church, or b) (the reasoning behind the
Vatican I pronouncement) because the Holy Spirit has been promised as
the guide of the Church.

}
}    Hence, we _can_ make some things so simply by saying or believing them.
} And the Magisterium is no more or less correct than other thinking of men
} but that it is believed to be more correct by the Church.  Because the
} Church says that the Magisterium defines the way to go, that is the way to
} go.  The Magisterium, then, is open to revision should the Church wish to
} revise it.  The Church, as a very reactionary and conservative force, is
} unlikely to revise, especially under Pope John Paul II.

        The laws of God are not open to revision.  The laws of the church
are.  It is the Magisterium's job to distinguish between them.
}-- End of excerpt from Haig Kasab



--
* 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.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU.
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:29:00 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <BxvM1z.65o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>   Sorry, but this cannot be.  The reason the Magisterium has given is
>that it is _invalid_, i.e. not possible.  It can't be suddenly
>possible now if it has been impossible for 200 years.

   Let me correct my typographical error: that should be "2000 years."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Priest shortage
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:04:21 GMT

In article <92323.170545MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>"In the judgement of the Catholic Church, declared by Leo XIII in the
>bull _Apostolicas Curae_ of 1896, 'ordinations performed according to
>the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void.'" --
>NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA v.1, p.525

Ok.  I'll check further because I believe that the RC church does not
re-ordain transfers.  Anyway I was looking for a more recent (since female
ordination) dealing specifically with this issue.

Thanks,

Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:12:26 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      The Mystic Body of Christ

On Nov 16, 10:42am, Martin Barry wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
} In article <1992Nov12.163106.18767@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D.
} Boyle) writes:
} >Perhaps in some humanistic-centered faiths, but certainly not in the
} >Roman Catholic Church. The infallibility of church teaching does not
} >rest with the meanderings of the minds of the faithful, but the
} >doctrinal analysis that is arrived at by those qualified and charged
} >with the care of the deposit of faith.
}
} This is a contemptuous attitude towards the body of Christ.

        No.  We are not all theologians (nor brain surgeons nor
plumbers...).  The body has many parts.  Why should the hands and
feet try to do the work of the brain, or the heart?
}
} This was well understood by John Henry Newman. In his "On consulting the
} faithful" he underlines the sense in which the *repository* for the truths
} of the faith is the entire Church, rather than Pope or the Curia who might
} periodically hand out revised instructions to the obedient and brain-dead
} "faithful" (it's ironic that Bryan Boyle uses this term when he means
} "laity"). He even refers to a particular controversy (I can't remember what
} or when; Arianism? I'll have to go and look it up) during which the
} Bishops appeared for a while to hold the heretical position, while Mr
} Boyle's "faithful" remained, well, faithful to the truth. Are you going to
} tell me that Newman was a liberal? In thrall to a secular agenda?

        I think you are referring to Arianism.  While it's true that
the majority (I think) of the bishops did succumb, the laity didn't have
much to do with the final outcome from what I have read.
}


--
* 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.
Now and then an innocent man is sent to the Legislature.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:57:05 GMT

In article <92323.0118282893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>The absence of a good is not a compelling reason to institute an
>>irregular practice.  In your mind, it may not be a Bad Thing, but,
>>nothing has ever been advanced on either a theological or spiritual
>>basis, underpinned by good scholarship, other than the rantings of the
>>feminist and left end movements with their own agenda to advance.  You
>>want proof for not having women priests?  Instead of the ad hominem
>>attacks on the hierarchy, present some decent scholarship from rational
>>thinkers on the opposition that would support the cause.
>
>So are you saying that since it has never been done, it can never be done.
>Well then one should also eliminate the current method of choosing Popes,
>Papal Infallibility (a rule which is only about a century old) and
>all of Vatican Council II


You still haven't answered the question, nor framed the discussion.  I
am not saying that it is never possible-but _NO_ compelling theological
or spiritual basis has _EVER_BEEN_ESTABLISHED_ that would support your
argument.  A lot of heated rhetoric from the feminazis and PC doyen, but
no rational scholarship.  Your other examples have no bearing on _this_
discussion: the method for choosing popes was developed over centuries
to curb abuses by the _secular_ society and government in attempting to
influence the decision (funny, it is somehow linked-here we have secular
humanists trying to impose their view on the Church...I change my
view...thanks...), the statement on papal infallibility was a
codification of tradition (and, contra to your obvious vitriolic view of
ex cathedra statements, has only been used _TWICE_ since Vatican Council
I codified it in the 1870's...) and a lot of the egregarious abuses that
devolved _out_of_ Vatican Council II (but not the statements and beliefs
of the council itself...there is a difference) should be eliminated.

No, men are just deaf to the call of the Almighty to serve his people.

Bryan D. Boyle    |Opinions mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer   |Sovereign Military and Hospitaler Order of St. John
bdboyle@erenj.com |of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:44:44 GMT

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.921117142507.320@suzy.law.ucla.edu> frank lopez <FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU> writes:
>     Tell that to the handful of high school kids that tried to have a
>     prayer service, amongst themsleves, before school began and were
>     forcibly removed from the school by armed guards at the command
>     of the school principal.  (don't ask me where.  I read it
>in our     local diocean newspaper.)

   I saw this story on the CBN news.  It happened down in Texas.
There may have been a lawsuit over it, but it has been since resolved,
and I believe apologies were made by the school adminisrators.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu