HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: mysticism
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:23:01 GMT
Organization: UB

zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft)) writes:

>On Sep 25, 11:10am, Brent Winiger wrote:

>	On the other hand, I really was annoyed at the total disregard
>for, for example, the contemplatives of the Church who spend their lives
>praying on her behalf.  The author is obviously totally oblivious of
>such matters...

Folks...Don't be fooled in to thinking that Catholicism is monotheistic.
It never has been...it never will.  Angels are simply renamed versions of 
pagan gods...placed in to a more 'biblical' format.  Remember the 'Communion
of Saints'?  The thing that makes biblebelters think that Catholics are 
Satan worshipers?  How do you think the church converted millions of pagans?
By EXPANDING their relegion...not killing it.

Idbil Fubar
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, 1 Oct 1992 10:13:25 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Lay leadership of communion services
              of communion services" (Sep 30,  4:34pm)

Bob, in this particular topic, the Episcopal Church agrees completely.
Our Deacons can lead a communion service using reserved Sacrament, but
cannot consecrate the elements, neither can they give absolution.

Shalom,                               Len Howard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:23:12 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

> Indeed what someone pointed out is very true: We _cannot_ under any
> circumstances change our stance on female priests, because we have
> declared it quite unquestionably impossible, and even (supposing) we
> were wrong (which we cannot be, but for the sake of argument), if we
> were to change it, it would totally destroy the fabric of our church and
> open up to question our most sacred beliefs.

I think I'm the one that pointed this out, ironically enough.  However, your
summary also points up what are to me the most disturbing aspects of this
position.  You say, " (supposing) we were wrong (which we cannot be, but for
the sake of argument)"--No matter how charitable I try to be towards this
position, I cannot in honesty accept it as anything other than incredible
arrogance.  Not necessarily on your part, Eric, but on the part of the
Magisterium whose authority you cite.  I also am saddened by the observation
that this arrogance has led Rome to paint herself into corners on some issues
which are now causing greater and greater stress and dissension within the
Catholic Church.

You also say, " it would totally destroy the fabric of our church and
open up to question our most sacred beliefs."  This disturbs me as well,
because it elevates belief in the Church (or, more accurately, a particular
church) to the status of "our most sacred beliefs."

In my own life, God continually challenges me to see where I have been wrong,
to admit my mistakes, and to change my life so that I do not continue to make
those mistakes--"repent; go, and sin no more."  I am likewise challenged to
continually re-examine my habits, conceptions, and beliefs, and to change or
break them if they do not fully serve the will of the Lord.  Sometimes, this
is very, very painful, and means setting aside things that served very good
purposes in their own time and place, but which have since become stumbling
blocks to further growth and understanding.

We don't get to be complacent.  This, it seems to me, is true in the life of
the Church as much as in the lives of its members.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: topcat@hardy.u.washington.edu (Thanh - Vincent)
Subject: Re: Mary
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:21:26 GMT

come on folks.
stop taking everything so literally.
most of the time, it is just non-productive conversation (argument)
when one person insists on taking things literally and trying to stir
something up.
have some real, thought provoking questions for a change...

vince

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Kneeling in church (how long a tradition?)
Organization: none
	<1992Sep26.040014.17512@cs.tulane.edu>
	<JHPB.92Sep26090858@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us>
	<1992Sep26.194811.21456@epas.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:39:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.194811.21456@epas.toronto.edu> scordova@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephen Cordova) writes:

   Is it absolutely necessary to have a cushy pad for your knees if
   you're going to kneel?

Cushy pads are fairly recent; I prefer plain old 2x6's, myself.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: sex
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:31:42 GMT


Concerning how to teach children proper sexual morals:

     Remember when Tom Sawyer had to whitewash the fence? He couldn't
convince anyone to help him until he figured out that if it looked fun,
people would do it on their own. He ended up selling the privilege of
whitewashing the fence.

     Nowadays the message kids get is "Sex is fun" and "Virginity and morality
are boring (not fun)." I think it would help greatly if children were shown
examples of people who have done it the right way. Show them role models
who have great lives and families, but do not abuse their sexuality. Too many
kids idolize people like Magic Johnson and other pro athletes, who take 
advantage of their fame to be as promiscuous as possible with their female 
fans. They must learn to see sexual responsibility as a good thing.

     As an example, take the show "Herman's Head" on Fox. It is generally a
funny show, but it is rare that I see an episode where Herman doesn't
end up in bed with someone. There is no talk of the dangers of AIDS, the
problem of pregnancy. There seems to be no deep emotional attachment generated
on screen, just sex.
     As a counter-example, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers *never* had an
on-screen kiss. Yet some of their movies are very romantic. Modern day
pop-culture doesn't realize that sex is not integral to a relationship.
It is love.

Karl
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:37 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Deacons

> I've been wondering about this for a while, but haven't gotten around to
> investigating it.  Can someone post a rough outline of what is involved in
> becoming a Deacon?  I'm curious as to education requirements, time
> commitment, etc.  It might be a role many of us might be able to step into
> in the future if the shortage of Priests continues to worsen.


      Brent --

      I've been interested in the same subject for sometime now.
Apparently you have to be 33 years of age.  The program is a three
year one and involves your entire family (wife kids and in some cases
parents).

      If there is anyone else out there with more info I'd like to
know as well.

      Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:21:00 CDT
From:         "(Edward J. Branley)" <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>
Subject:      girl servers...

This issue reminded me that there was a letter printed in our parish bulletin a
couple of weeks ago from our archbishop regarding several aspects of the Mass.
Our pastor mentioned at Mass that week that he was printing the letter as a way
to respond to questions he had received of late regarding girls as servers.

Anyway, if you ask about this issue in New Orleans, this is what you get.
Below are excerpts from a letter from Archbishop Francis B. Schulte of New
Orleans.  Typos may be His Excellency's, or they may be mine...<g>

----begin excerpt---

In view of some of the aubses that have crept into the liturgy, I felt it
important to state some of the norms and directives regarding the eucharist set
forth by the _SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE SACRAMENTS AND DAILY WORSHIP_ which
was published following the letter Pope John Paul II addressed on February 24,
1980 to the bishops throughout the world.

The Sacred Congregation notes the many positive results of the liturgical
reforms, but it also is concerned about varied and frequent abuses being
reported in different parts of the Catholic World. It states and I quote:

"There are of course various roles that women can perform in the liturgical
assembly:  these include reading the word of God and proclaiming the intentions
of the Prayer of the Faithful.  _Women are not however permitted to act as
altar servers._"

[paragraph regarding type of bread used for Mass omitted]

[paragraph dealing with thanksgiving after Communion omitted]

"The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary
ministers of the eucharist, can distribute Communion when there is no priest,
deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or
when the number of faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the
celebration of Mass excessively long."

[paragraphs on the proper way to receive Communion omitted]


----end excerpt---

Interesting that women as Eucharistic Ministers is not listed as one of the
ways they can participate in the Mass.  However, if Msgr. Duke (my pastor)
allows women, rest assured that it is then far from a radical notion.

I too find the concept of allowing women to handle the Body of Christ, yet not
allowing them to serve at Mass to be extremely contradictory.  There is no
rationale given for the prohibition here, perhaps there is one in the full
document that His Excellency is quoting.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:47:24 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: To kneel or not to kneel...to suffer the slings and arrows...
              kneel or not to kneel...to suffer the slings and arrows..." (Sep
              27, 6:58am)

Dennis, If you feel bound to kneel, then kneel you should.  I have
spent many minutes (long minutes) kneeling on the floor, or carpet (if
you are lucky) or in the dirt (during National Guard Summer Training.)
There is no requirent that you be comfortable physically, only
spiritually.

Shalom,                           Len Howard
                                  tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:54:39 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      pre-vat II?

Liz wrote:
>...the more I study my Bible the more I disagree with many things I
>have been taught and many things they now are trying to teach me.

     Liz, how about sharing some of the facets of Catholic Faith you're
having problems reconciling with the Bible?  That would not be so
anyone could lecture you, but because: 1) there are probably others
reading this list who are having the same difficulties, and 2) We all
could learn something from such a discussion about why Catholic and
non-Catholic Christians interpret Scripture the way they do.  Since I'm
sure that I'm not the only one who has a Protestant background it would
give some people a good opportunity to share why they have chosen one
interpretation over another, etc.

Brent Winiger
abdwinig@idbsu.idbsu.edu
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, 2 Oct 1992 15:23:00 EDT
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: pre Vat II?

>I could never go to another church no matter how great the teaching ministry.
>What about Eucharist?  What about the sacrifice of the Mass?  These are the
>things I go to Church for.  I'd much rather go to a Catholic church
>without "warmth" and without a great teaching ministry than any non-Catholic
>church because, even if I only ever know the most basic truths of my Faith,
>JESUS IS THERE, TRULY PRESENT IN BODY, GIVING HIM SELF UP FOR MY SINS!  Nothing
>is better than this and nothing is more important, no matter how appealing.

As you can probably already tell, we are far apart in our thinking.
That's okay as long as we are both willing to study and learn.  One of
our main differences is that I feel the church is the body of
believers and not a specific denomination.  Yet, I'm still trying to
hold on to the faith I was brought up in, although the more I study my
Bible the more I disagree with many things I have been taught and many
things they are now trying to teach me.

When I stand before the throne on judgement day, I can't claim that
the pope or the priest or the CCD director led me wrong ... I have to
answer for my own sins.  I can't say ... they said it was okay, don't
blame me.  We are all responsible for our own salvation.  We just need
to believe that Jesus died for our sins, repent and confess and grow
in the Word.

As for hypnosis in your other reply today, I still stand against it.
As I said earlier, I don't believe in giving up your will or mind or
opening your mind to who knows what.  IMHO this means hypnosis and
this is what I have chosen to believe.  I know you believe different
and you are entitled to your opinion also.

					God Bless,

						Liz Moreau
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:55:44 HST
From:         "(Tom Jenkins)" <tomj@PNET16.CTS.COM>
Subject:      Episcopal Mailing List

Sir,

May I request that your mailing list delete the following user:

pnet16!003

Thanks in advance (she's no longer using this feed).

--Tom


UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!tomj
ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!tomj@nosc.mil
INET: tomj@pnet16.cts.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Kneeling in church (how long a tradition?)
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:41:17 GMT

In article <yg0PRB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> "(Edward J. Branley)" <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US> writes:

   Hmmm...well, how do you explain churches that never had kneelers in the first
   place?  Protestant architects?

Pre-Reformation architects; before refusal to adore the Blessed
Sacrament was a known heresy.
From: 91babik@gw.wmich.edu (Lisamarie Gemma Babik)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Parish hopping
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:54:42 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Marty,

I'm summing up here, and probably haven't done justice to your post, but 
you stated that you didn't think a person should have to "parish hop."

Well, I'll be the first to admit that I'm new to the Catholicism game 
(confirmed 4/18/92), but I think that although they *shouldn't* have to hop 
around, many of us do.  I visited a huge number of parishes before I found 
one that was right for me.  This summer (I was interning in Detroit) and I 
went to about 12 different catholic churches before I found one that seem 
"right" for me.

Now that I am back in Kalamazoo, I attend mass at St. Augustine's 
Cathedral, one of the most (if not THE most) "LC" (liturgically correct) 
churches I've been to.

Why, you might be tempted to ask, was I not satisfied with the other 11 
churches I visited?  Because I felt many were taking too many liberties 
with the mass, or because the priest was "just doing his" job, or because 
there wasn't a crucifix in the church.....  There was something different 
about each one that just didn't sit right with me.  When I finally got 
myself to St. Augustine's, I sat down and felt at home immediately.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
    "Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of this faith 
                        is to see what we believe...."
				  - St. Augustine
________Lisamarie Gemma Babik_____________________91babik@gw.wmich.edu_________
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: scordova@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephen Cordova)
Subject: Re: Kneeling in church (how long a tradition?)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:48:11 GMT
Keywords: kneeling and kneelers 

In article <JHPB.92Sep26090858@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.040014.17512@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>   How long has it been since Catholic churches have even had pews and
>   kneelers?

Some comments deleted

>Kneeling has been part of Catholic Tradition for a *very* long time.

>Priests and bishops who remove kneelers from the churches are doing so
>because they've lost the Faith; they have become Protestants.  There's
>really no other reason.

Is it absolutely necessary to have a cushy pad for your knees if
you're going to kneel?  If by kneeling one displays a humble
submission to the Lord, then why must there be some sort of pillow to
make it more comfortable?  If you relly want to kneel, then kneel.
Unlees, of course you've lost your faith and want your submission to
your Lord and God to be as easy and undemanding as possible.  I'd
worry more about your own state of faith before judging priests and bishops.
peace,
Steve
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, 1 Oct 1992 13:14:26 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Women are unclean
              unclean" (Oct  1,  2:28pm)

Jay, I don't really prefer either of your options.  I think many
individuals answer a call to Holy Orders.  I don't see it as a power
trip, a desire for sainthood, or even anything relating to the self.
It is rather an intense feeling of love for the Body of Christ, and a
desire to express that love.  This does not depend on reward as the
reward is in the doing, not as a result of the doing.

Shalom,                              Len Howard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Belief
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:45:00 GMT

In article <9209262032.AA15372@pegasus.com> "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Hi John,
>     I was struck by your mention of Peter saying to Jesus "You are
>the Christ", i.e. direct and personal, then after Pentecost he says
>"He is Lord and Christ" which is preaching and one step removed from
>the personal encounter, then for us today being centuries removed from
>the personal encounter.  I suppose this is a common theme in
>theological teaching however.  His "Introduction to Theology" is the
>text we are usisemester on Theology in the Diocesan Institute here in
>Hawaii.
Yes this is the crucial aspect, Jesus is the Christ IN history, i.e. recognizable
at certain moments to the apostles, though obviously they had their own problems
of comprehension.  What did they see or understand?
Anyway thanks for the info.
Shalom also,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:24:58 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject: RE: Omnipresent? (was Re: pre Vat II?)

Gordon Zaft (zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org) writes:

>	I don't see anything in the post that refers to Christ not dying for
>our sins.  What I do see is an acknowledgment of the Real Presence.

Reexamine the original post:

"JESUS IS THERE, TRULY PRESENT IN BODY, GIVING HIM SELF UP FOR MY SINS!"

Jesus already gave Himself up for our sins on Calvary once for all.  It is no
longer necessary for Him to do so each time the Eucharist is celebrated.  The
original post leads me to believe the poster feels we are constantly in need of
redemption.  That is not true.  We have been redeemed.  We are in need of
repentance and must accept that redemption, but we no longer need redeeming.
Yes, He is there, truly present, but He is not continually giving Himself up for
our sins.  He already did it, once for all.  We are commemorating that
sacrifice.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |           tillman_brian@si.com
 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129    | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:16:51 CDT
From:         Ernest Conrad Mueller <mueller@OWLNET.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      Help, I'm drowning!

For those of you who are new to this group, let me explain what's going on.
This is actually a mailing list, based at american.edu, which subscribers mail
posts to.  The posts are then re-mailed to everyone on this list.
Just recently, this list got 'gated' to a newsgroup, for the convenience
of using news readers instead of mail.  However, there are those out there
who must still use mail because either they do not get the bit.listserv
groups, or because (like me) this group just seems to have not shown up yet
at their site.

Since this is a gated mailing list, it is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than normal that
you use good Internet etiquette.  Why do you bring this up, you wonder?
Because I have 252 messages waiting in my mail spool.  PLEASE, keep the
volume down!  Do NOT include someone's entire post, add the line "Me too"
to it, and repost the whole thing!  If a reply can be handled by PRIVATE
EMAIL, please use it!  We're all Christians here, right?  Please be considerate
of those poor souls who have hundreds of letters plunged into their mailboxes
every Monday morning.  Besides the "hundreds if not thousands of dollars"
it costs the net, it really inconveniences some readers.

Reading news.anounce.newusers will provide plenty of keep-the-bandwidth-down
hints for your use.  Observe an ongoing conversation before leaping in; what
have to say has probably been said already.  If someone comes on and asks a
dumb question ("Say, don't Catholics say you're saved by works and not faith?")
reply BY EMAIL, because another 50 people are typing their replies in at the
same time you are.  Think out your replies before posting; take some time.
Back-and-forth "You're a heretic!"  "No, you are!" debates can usually be
made much shorter if you think out a well-reasoned response carefully
taking into account the points first.

Anyway, please keep this in mind.  So when you want to flame me for being
a net.cop or abridging your free speech, USE EMAIL, don't post.
I'll get to it soon; it'll be letter #253.

Ernest Mueller
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU