HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mary.Curtin@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Kneeling/Authority
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:37:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.170538.26704@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:

> It is my understanding that there is still an obligation for all Catholics
> to attend Mass weakly on Sunday.  The exceptions are because one is sick,

It is preferred, however, that you attend at full strength, ready to
participate in the celebration in any way that the community asks of you.

:-)

-- 
\   \/   /  |  
 \/\/\/\/   |  mary.curtin@bbs.actrix.gen.nz

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: kneeling...
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:33:39 GMT

Obedience/should/have to

I think many are missing the point.

Knealing is a SYMBOL.  It is symbolic of inner devotion.

Thomas Merton writes that a symbol loses its effectiveness in proportion 
to how much significance we put on IT.

If one is more concerned about knealing (for yourself or others) than about
what it represents, if it is knealing that becomes important then we have
become Idolaters.

If it is idolatry to let money run our lives, then the same is true about
the symbols (or the prayer, or the liturgy) we use.
We must use the symbol, not let it use us.

Steve Otlowski
aiden@ncoast.org



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: who's got *THE* answer?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:40:46 GMT

We don't deny anyone a chance to share bread and wine. We ask that non-Cathlics
>not receive Holy Communion, which is the Body and Blood, sould and divinity of 
Jesus Christ--not bread and wine.

I'm not advocating anarchy in any church; I am guided and I learn and grow
>from the teachings of the RC Church. But aren't Catholic (or any
>religion's) laws there to bring people to God?  Yet, when they *prevent* that
>encounter, perhaps the rule shouldn't apply.

The "laws" of the Church include human and divine ordinances. One of God's laws 
is to tell the truth, by our actions as well as words. To receive Holy 
Communionat Mass in a Catholic Church is to proclaim one's unity with the 
Catholic Church, united under the authority of the pope and bishops, and to 
assert that one accepts her teachings as guaranteed free from error by the Holy 
Spirit. Those who do not wish to profess the Catholic faith should not be put 
into the position of being encouraged to lie by their actions; i.e., receiving 
Holy Communion along with Catholics.
>    The Church articulates this "law" for the same reason that she proclaims 
the Ten Commandments: you can help "bring people to God" if you first warn them 
about actions that would push them farther away from God. We do no one a 
service by pretending that no problem exists.
Peace.
>Peace,
>Donna
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, 30 Sep 1992 14:14:18 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Intercommunion (was Re: Half full/Half empty)

On Sep 29,  8:46pm, "()" wrote:
}
} I am learning the extensive similaries in beliefs between the RC & Meth.
} churches because of our situation. One big difficulty: According to the Meth.
} practices, any Christian in good faith is welcome to share in their
} communion. But not so with the RC church. And in fact the RC church prohibits
} me from sharing with my husband in communion at his church. We attend either
} both RC & Meth. services on a Sunday, or we alternate, together. It is
} increasingly painful at mass to step past Ken as I go to communion. I
} know he has a strong faith, and his spiritual state would not prohibit
} him from taking communion. It is the RCC that does this. One Christmas,
} we were at a beautiful midnight mass, and at communion, my husband was not
} welcome to partake. Why? Because Jesus wants it so? No, I believe this is
} not Jesus' desire, but man's. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for laying
} up rules that separate people from God. I believe Jesus came to unite,
} and here were are so divided.
}
} Donna
}-- End of excerpt from "()"

	Well, I sympathize with your situation and it is another reminder
of the grievous division among Christians.

	That said, I must say that there's more required than a correct
'spiritual state'.  By remaining a Methodist your husband is not in
communion with the Catholic Church; to receive communion when communion
does not exist is a falsehood.  Someone (Eric, I think) in another post
pointed out that Jesus did not call back those who left him because they
couldn't accept that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood.

GZ

--
* 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.
Auribus teneo lupum.  (I hold a wolf by the ears.)
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, 29 Sep 1992 11:54:51 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      space for worhsip

On Sep 26, 10:47pm, "Nancy M. Piatkowski" wrote:
} Subject: space for worship
} In response to Brian's objection to the Aiden Kavenaugh/Pueblo material
} -- the documents refer to a cross in the worship space not a crucifix
} -- the moving of the tabernacle out of the body of the church into its own
} space is to no way negate the power of the reserved Eucharist but to separate
} reservation from the place of action during the celebration of the Liturgy.
} Environment and Art 78/79 describes the reasoning behind this- "active and
} static aspects of the same reality cannot claim the same human attention at
 the
} same time-"  This space becomes a place for private prayer and devotion.
} --setting the altar off-side does not put it ina a lesser space but should put
} it in a relationship with the Ambo or place for the proclamation of the Word-
} the Word in which Christ is also present- as teacher.  New churches should be
} designed to establish a relationship between the places of Initiation (the
} Font), the Word (the Ambo) and the Meal (Altar) and the worshipping community
} which by its coming together to pray makes the entire space holy. We no longer
}-- End of excerpt from "Nancy M. Piatkowski"

	I have read 'Environment and Art' and I find it an interesting
document.  While there seems to be a good deal of thought in it, I find
an inherent conflict reflected in it.... namely, there has been an
attempt of late to regard the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as
being on the same level of Christ in the proclaimed Word and in the
community.  For one thing, this tends to downplay sacrifice as the
key element that it is (though admittedly it's not the only element).
Nancy's statement above reflects this.... when she equates 'Meal' with
'Altar'.  The altar is a place for SACRIFICE.  The Mass reflects the
view that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is superior to the
other ways in which he is present; for example, we genuflect when we
enter the church.  We are genuflecting to the Eucharist, not to the Gospel!
We kneel during the Consecration; we stand during the Gospel.

	I'd appreciate other's comments on this.

GZ

--
* 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.
Hackers of the world, unite!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Zippy-Says: Hello, GORRY-O!!  I'm a GENIUS from HARVARD!!
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:55:54 -0400
From:         "(Michael I Bushnell)" <mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Crisis in the Episcopal Church (Episcopal Synod of America)
              28 Sep 1992 20:47:40 PDT
              <9209290354.AA11867@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Lest anyone be confused about the "Episcopal Synod of America", it is
not an organization of the Episcopal Church.  It is a group formed by
some members of the Episcopal Church, but has no formal tie.

In addition, it has declared its opposition to the Episcopal Church on
a few key areas, including most notably the functioning and authority
of Bishops within their own dioceses.  If, in particular, ESA bishops
perform episcopal acts (as threatened) outside their jurisdictions,
they will be liable for censure.

While the ESA quotes the preamble to the Constitution of the Episcopal
Church, to the effect that

   The Preamble of the Constitution reads in part `The Episcopal
   Church....is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a
   Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of
   those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches
   in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating
   the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common
   Prayer."  We are now in impaired communion with the Church of
   England and most of the Anglican Communion world-wide.

as evidence that the Church's policy on the ordination of women is
contrary to its Constitution.

In fact, the Anglican Communion, at the Lambeth Conference of 1988,
made it quite clear that the various Provinces do not have an "in
principle" objection to the ordination of women, and supported those
Provinces which have chosen to ordain women.

Moreover, the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that the Episcopal
Synod of America is not a part of the Anglican Communion, except in so
far as its members are members of the Episcopal Church.  Were various
of its clergy to be sanctioned for its disobedience, or were it to
establish an alternate episcopate, it would cease to be a part of the
Anglican Communion itself.

	-mib
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: pre Vat II ?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:47:18 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In article <1992Sep28.181651.28451@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
|> {...} so many Catholics who were taught to revere Holy Tradition.
						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What is this? I am happy to say that in my RC upbringing, I was taught
about the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, Holy Mary, mother of God, but
never Holy Tradition!

This reminds me of the story....
A little boy was helping his mother cook. He asked, "Mom, why do you cut
the ends off your roast before you put it in the pan and cook it?" Mom said
it was just what her mother always did, and how she was taught. So the boy
goes to grandma and asks her the same question.	Grandma replies as mom did.
Luckily, great-grandma is still alive, so when our inquisitive young man 
poses his question to her, she replies, "Because I had a small pan, and I 
had to trim the roast to make it fit."

Holy cow! ;-)

Perhaps some of our "traditions" were appropriate under specific situations
or times that have changed. I hope we are "tinkering" with such situational
things. But let's not bind ourselves to the past just because it is THE PAST.
Is God calling us to new growth? Is our struggle merely with our own natural
human resistance to change? Are we fighting for our own comfort, or for the 
propogation of the faith in our current age?
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:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:27:00 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: Fatima: warning or prediction

>hoping that I will not die in the tribulation, but be taken up alive at the
>end of time.  Ah, to be one of the few who will not taste death . . .

Eric:

Could you please explain to me the church's stance on the rapture?
Thanks.

					Liz Moreau
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:36:44 -0400
From:         Jane Wallace Mayo <mayo@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hello?

Hello from the University of Tennessee!!  It is always good to know there
are other Catholics in TN.  The Knoxville diocese is 1.8 per cent Catholic,
and I suspect Nashville does not fare much better.  I suspect the reason
you did not hear from your posts is the heavy volume -- most people have time
only to read, not reply!  God bless you and welcome to CATHOLIC.

Jane Wallace Mayo ("go by Wallace")	| Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me
mayo@cs.utk.edu				|    	and set me free.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: kneeling...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:48:44 GMT

In article <199209242210.AA08550@caritas.cotdazr.org> "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@
CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>On Sep 23,  2:54pm, "(Bob von Buelow)" wrote:
>} Subject: Re: kneeling...
>} "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>} >Ed,
>} > Read my post again... this is not in violation of Canon law if there
>} >truly wasn't room.
>}
>} This is not Canon Law stuff.  I can find nothing in Canon law about posture,
>} or indeed any other conduct, at Mass.  The Code of Canon Law is an
>} administrative document that deals with permissions and authority.  The
>} General Instruction on the Roman Missal comes from the bishops, and is
>} a direct result of Vatican II.
>}-- End of excerpt from "(Bob von Buelow)"
>
>Bob,
>    You are correct that it's the GIRM, not Canon Law; I hadit
>correct in the first post but not in my response to it.  In any
>case, the issue is address in the GIRM and in the NCCB's appendix.
>
>Just to point out something which may be of general interest: the approved 
liturgical books, including the GIRM, are considered law. See Code of Canon 
Law, canon 2, and any canon law textbook.

Buffman.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 98yuwono@cua.edu
Subject: Re:      Women are unclean
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:53:56 GMT

>>	The Church says women can't be priests or altar servers. Period.
>
>Oh, I see, it's the period thing, women are unclean. They obviously represent
>what is dirty and icky in the world like menstruation, childbirth and sex.
>
>> GZ
>
>- J.J. (don't take this as a personal flame, Gordon, some of us Catholics will
>never grow tired of arguing for equality)


What kind of arguments is this??? 
I must be so stupid for not understanding this kind of flame ??

Peace
 ==============================================================================
* Leonardus K. Yuwono			   *  "Use it up...
* Internet: 98yuwono@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu   *    Wear it out...
* Bitnet  : 98yuwono@cua.bitnet            *     Make it do...
* UUCP	  : leo@garuda.UUCP  (not Active ) *      Or do without."   
* Jesus is my Postmaster general.(Zippy)   *		 WWII Slogan.
 *********************************AMDG**************************************** 
 

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: pre Vat II ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:16:51 GMT

Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

>Something had to change. The Church was out of touch, and the Second
>Vatican Council was a start. Given the distance which needed to be
>traveled to bring the Church into the twentieth century, I guess any
>progess should be seen as good. It would be wrong, I think, to think that
>the Second Vatican Council was the end of growth. The Church still has
>far to go. Remember, the only thing constant is change, and the church
>must continually change with the people or else it will no long be able
>to speak to them and will become irrelevant in their lives.

>As with any organizational change, there are some who rush forward
>changing everything in an attempt to see what needs to be changed. Some
>changes are silly, or even wrong, and need to be set back to what they
>were before. Other changes are found to be good and enhancing and needed.

While I agree with you that the changes of Vatican II were necessary and
will ultimately serve to benefit the Church, I fail to see how the Church
was really "out of touch" before, as you wrote. I have heard many times that
the Catholic Church in the U.S. experienced its greatest period of growth,
relative to the entire population, during the 1950's, the very decade
preceding the changes of Vatican II. How do you reconcile the fact, that
as Vatican II was set in motion, the Church entered into a period of
stagnation from which it has not yet fully recovered? I would guess that
it is a result of this continual change within the Church which has
disillusioned so many Catholics who were taught to revere Holy Tradition.
Again, I really do not oppose the Vatican II changes, but I do oppose the
continual tinkering that has since become the norm. 

-ACF

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: Kneeling in church (how long a tradition?)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:00:10 GMT

In article <JHPB.92Sep26090858@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>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.

REALLY NOW, isn't this a bit extreme!

Though we all have many differing ideas and shades of belief
I think that we all try to act in good faith for the betterment of all.

To make statements and accusations like this is discourteous,
unfair, and down-right un-christian!

Relax!

THINK!

You have no way to see into peoples souls and judge their faith
And if you did you certainly still would have no right to do so.

Steve Otlowski
aiden@ncoast.org
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: mysticism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:57:13 GMT

Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

>I've never really understood the rosary. I've thought that repeating the
>same prayer over and over again would make it hard to keep track of the
>words of each prayer, and the leaders always want to rush right through
>the prayers as if it were a race ("Hailmaryfullofgrace..."). I always
>thought people were either being disrespectful by not considering the
>words they were praying, or were treating the prayers as some kind of
>magical tool. It seemed that their actions were implying that the number
>of times a prayer was said was more important than the meaning someone
>put into those prayers.

Well, I'll tell you what little I know about the rosary. It is said to
have originated with St. Dominic in the 13th Century, in southern France,
during his efforts to convert the people from their heretical ways. The
prayers of the rosary (the Hail Marys) each represent one of the 150
psalms. This had been practiced in earlier times, as those who could
not read would substitute one Hail Mary for every psalm, when the psalms
were recited. 

Normally, only one third of the rosary is said at one sitting -
or five decades. During the praying of the rosary, one of the three sets
of 5 mysteries are contemplated: The Joyful Mysteries, The Sorrowful
Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries. At the beginning of each decade
of the prayer, one of these mysteries is read aloud and is contemplated
throughout the recitation of the 10 Hail Marys. At the same time, I
believe that we are to be fully aware of the prayers that we are saying.

So, I believe that the rosary is primarily a contemplative and meditative
prayer, while at the same time a profession of the Catholic faith.

-ACF
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Women are unclean
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:13:14 GMT

jkythe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jay K. Kythe) writes:

>Is the desire for women to become priests simply a desire for power or
>truly a desire to become saints?  Doesn't Jesus call all of us to
>become saints, despite the vocation?  I'd even challenge present
>priests, or rather seminarians, what their true goal is: to become
>powerful or to become saints.  Look at St. Catherine of Siena or St.
>Teresa of Avila.  They didn't want to become altar servers or priests.
>They wanted to sanctify themselves before the Lord in the context of
>the Church they loved.

I'd add to these comments the fact that it is not within the scope of each
of us to determine the motives of another individual.  I spent 12 years in
Catholic school and I always wondered why women couldn't be priests.  As a
high school senior at an all-girls high school, I investigated this topic
for a project for my theology class.  The best answers that I could get from
what I read were that women do not "resemble" Christ and that women "cannot
truly have this vocation."  I still didn't understand.  Both women and men
are mortal, whereas Christ is divine.  And both women and men are originally
sinful, whereas Christ was born immaculate.  So, are we saying that there
are physical requirements for the priesthood that women cannot fulfill?

But I still didn't understand how the Church could assert that women don't
have the vocation.  How do all these bishops know what motives I have?  And
how can they just decide that my motives are not from God?  (By the way, I
have *NO* desire to become a Catholic priest.  I just always wondered why
women couldn't be priests.)

Of course, a lot of people say it's biblically based.  But heaven knows, 
we Catholics do not literally interpret the bible, not even the New 
Testament.

I might add to this discussion -- pulling in the tangent about girl altar
servers -- and adding my own tangent about female EMEs and lectors -- I
think that my old parish would just about fall apart if it weren't for the
women who keep it going.  Of course, we didn't have female altar girls, but
the girls had quite a few active Catholic women to look up to and get their
examples from.  I don't think that they could have gotten enough male
EMEs and lectors to last them for half the Sunday masses.  

Of course, most recently I lived in a very conservative diocese, Lincoln NE,
where women are expressly forbidden from being lectors OR EMEs by the former
bishop.  (A new one was selected in May, I'm not sure if he's changed these
policies.)  Of course, there are a lot fewer Catholics living in Lincoln and
so there aren't even nearly the number of churches OR masses.  Omaha is
quite overrun with Catholic schools and churches and would probably come to
a halt without the volunteer work of all the women lectors and EMEs.

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU