HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 11:16:43 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: English translation

Bryan D. Boyle (bdboyle@ERENJ.COM) writes:

>1) "Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de
>caelis."

This sure looks like "Who, for us humans and for our salvation, descended from
the sky."

>2) "...Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: ET HOMO
>FACTUS EST."

"...and was given a body [became meat] from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary:
and was made human."

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:11:37 -0400
From:         URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: stay or leave... opinions?

Donna, I think you should leave rather than stay dishonestly and cause
trouble:-)
But seriously, I would have to second John's advice from a priest as
far as accepting in good conscience what we say in the creed. The issues
you addressed are not part of our creed.
Of course I'm sure you'll find someone who'll twist the creed into meaning
blind obedience for Canon law:-) Not to mention the fact that I should
probably be out the door before you:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:35:22 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

"Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,               x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:

>Len wrote:
>>writing older than 20 years is out of date...The Bible must be
>>constantly revaluated in light of new information.

>Eric wrote:
>>HA!  What a joke!

>Eric, if what you say were true, there would be exactly and only one version of
>the bible and it would be in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

>Every time biblical scholars go back to the original texts they find something
>new.  In fact, much of the interpretation of the original texts is guesswork,
>because the original texts have holes in the material on which they are written.
>A lot of what you read as they bible today is the result of the scribes in the
>middle ages who spilled ink on the pages they were writing, thus changing the
>punctuation (in Hebrew, punctuation is *very* important.  That's how "Yahweh"
>became "Jehovah" - a few dots out of place).  They also, on occasion, made their
>own marginal notations that later scribes had no idea were not part of the
>original material and so incorporated inthe main texts.

I am neither a Biblical scholar nor an expert at ancient or New Testament
Greek.  However, I have studied Greek and I have actually read a good portion
of the New Testament in the original.  (I shall confess to having had a 
copy of the New Testament that had Greek on one side and Latin on the other.
So if I got stuck on the Greek, I would sometimes resort to the Latin.)

But it's true: you try and translate the original Greek of the New Testament
and see what you come up with.  Heck, you don't even have to know Greek.  Go
out and get yourself four or five different Bibles.  Get yourself a copy of
the Jerusalem Bible, the Living Bible, the Revised Standard, the King James,
and what the heck, why not a copy from ol' Pat Robertson.  Then pick out
various passages and compare how different translators have interpreted them.
I guarantee that Pat Robertson's version and the Living Bible will not always
jive.  Could it be that they have different opinions on what God really meant?
You betcha!

>The church herself has, in the fullness of time, re-evaluated her
>interpretations of Scripture.

What do you think all those Councils were for during the early part of our
Church's history?  They were re-evaluating.  Which books to leave in?  Which
ones to leave out. Folks, it's not like the book just appeared out of 
nowhere.  

>Finally, never make the mistake of believing that God is no longer actively
>revealing Himself to our modern world.  Divine revelation happens all the time
>(or don't you believe the Fatima story that's appeared here over the last day or
>two?)



-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:09:33 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Originality of scriptural texts

Excerpts from catholic: 15-Oct-92 Originality of scriptural t.. Brian I.
V. Support@SWDE (830)

> >We do not possess any original texts, just older copies of copies.

> One of my points exactly.  How can we ever be guaranteed that even the
> oldest texts we possess is what God actually passed to the inspired
> writer of those texts?  The answer is: we cannot.  We can only approach
> what we think God said and the rest we must discern through His Spirit
> in our lives now in this time and in this place.

Since God intended Scripture to be His inerrant written word, I think he
has an interest in preserving it from significant corruption.  I have
faith that what we have now is what God wants us to have.  We cannot
dismiss Scripture because we think it could be corrupt.  God wanted us
to have His inerrant word, and I am sure he has preserved it.

"The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of God stands
forever."  (Somewhere in 1 Peter I think.)

No, Scripture, as the Catholic Church has always affirmed, is inspired
and inerrant and without error, even as we possess it.

Eric
From: topcat@hardy.u.washington.edu (Thanh - Vincent)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: RCIA, heresies, mortal sin
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:48:24 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <gerhyVS_NU004VZ_wu@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>Elizabeth,
>
>The goal is to make an effort to attend Mass every week and every Holy
>Day of Obligation.  As long as that is your desire I would not be
>concerned.  (If you're really concerned, keep in mind that it is not
>necessary to attend Mass if it is difficult due to travel, or if you are
>sick.  Though of course if you make an effort to do so, God will count
>that in your favor.)
>
>Eric


look at it this way:  mass is your chance to go and say thank you and give
glory to God for all that he has given and done for you.
since you can never say thank you enough, is it too hard to go to church
for just one hour a week?
it's sad that many people get to mass late and then leave early.
we would make time out for going out but if this time conflict with church
time, we drop church like a hot potato.
of course, church is usually offered on saturday evening (virgil) for
those who can't make it on sunday.  and sometimes, on sunday evening (at
some locations) should you decide to sleep in in the morning.
now that you know, just do it.
i am not implying that you are a bad person or anything.
the above was a general statement to the public.  =)

vince
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:11:50 -0500
Reply-To:     sdl@austin.ibm.com
From:         "(sdl)" <sdl@AUSTIN.IBM.COM>
Subject:      English translation
              15 Oct 1992 09:22:22 -0400
              <9210151355.AA11598@netmail.austin.ibm.com>

I've heard that in this new translation the creed will be changed from
"for us men and for our salvation" to "for us and for our slavation"
and "became man" to "became fully human" (I'm not entirely sure about
the second one).

Has anyone else heard this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:23:13 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Meaning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (was RE: Omnipresent)

On Oct 5, 11:24am, "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,    wrote:
} 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.
}-- End of excerpt from "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,

Brian,
	I'm presuming you aren't Catholic, or are very badly misinformed.
The Sacrifice ofthe Mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary.  It isn't (just) a
memorial.  In the Mass, the one sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is
re-presented and we join in that same sacrifice made present to and for us.
What the original post said (at least as you quoted it) is exactly correct.

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.
Satire does not look pretty upon a tombstone.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:30:27 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         "(Brad Kaiser)" <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      re: st. michael prayer
              7 Oct 1992 21:32:00 GMT <9210072318.AA29723@motgate.mot.com>

Mike Simpson writes:

>> Could someone send me the words to the prayer to St. Michael? Since
>> I bear his name, I thought I might pray to him for strength. I had
>> a Sunday school teacher who used to close classes with it, but he said
>> it so fast, I could never remember the words.

I think you mean this one:

     St. Michael, the Archangel,
     Defend us in battle,
     Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil,
     May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
     And my thou, O prince of the Heavenly Host,
     By the Power of God,
     Thrust into hell Satan,
     And all the evil spirits,
     Who prowl about the world
     Seeking the ruin of souls.

     Amen.

The history of the prayer is interesting; I just learned about it in
the last few days (after listening to the sisters on EWTN say it every
day after Mass for months).  The legend is that Pope Leo XIII (late
19th Century) added it to the end of the Tridentine Rite after he had
a vision of the power of Satan in this troubled century, and of the
trials the Church would suffer.

The Medjugorje visionaries asked [the alleged vision of] Our Blessed
Mother whether or not this story was true; she affirmed that it was.

(This is in Fr. Pelletier's book, "Queen of Peace Comes to
Medjugorje")

In Christ's Love,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
	  and His care is with His elect.
		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: English translation
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:15:50 GMT

In article <9210151411.AA17698@adagio.austin.ibm.com> sdl@austin.ibm.com writes:
>I've heard that in this new translation the creed will be changed from
>"for us men and for our salvation" to "for us and for our slavation"
>and "became man" to "became fully human" (I'm not entirely sure about
>the second one).
>
>Has anyone else heard this?
>
No, but given the current sorry state of Roman Catholic theology, I
wouldn't be surprised.  I guess the political correctness Nazis are
at work even within our faith.  
Just for the record, the pertinent phrases (from the Latin):

1) "Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de
caelis."

2) "...Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: ET HOMO
FACTUS EST."

I wonder if the same shoddy preparation will be done for these 
"inclusive" changes as was done to justify the Pauline mass?

(note, I am not suggesting that the mass of Paul VI is invalid, just
that the introduction of it to the people that had to both attend AND
perform it was incomplete, riddled with errors, and poorly theologically
justified.)


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, 6 Oct 1992 13:49:45 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      'misogyny'

On Oct 5,  2:27pm, Norman Kraft wrote:
} Subject: Re: women priests (yet again)
} Previously, Eric James Ewanco said:
}
} > As mentioned in the post I made from the Magisterium, there is absolutely no
} > historical precedent for women priests, and in fact plenty of condemnation
 of
} > the idea.  Any time the issue came up, it was roundly condemned as
 impossible,
} > heretical.  We cannot reverse ourselves and allow it.
}
} Many, many things have been considered by the Church to be heretical which
} have now be taken on as common practice. What is your point here? "Plenty
} of condemnation of the idea" [of women priests]?? Like what, Eric, beyond
} your obvious dislike of women.

	This slam was clearly uncalled for, unjustified, and uncharitable.
Where has Eric shown a dislike of women?  Condemnation of the concept
of women as priests does not translate into dislike of women.
}
} > if we were to change it, it would
} > totally destroy the fabric of our church and open up to question our most
} > sacred beliefs.
}
} Right. I know that if the Church allowed female priests that I would
} certainly question everything I've ever been taught about the Father,
} the Son and the Holy Spirit. Come on, Eric, this is patently ridiculous,
} and has been proven, in the Episcopal Church, to be false.

	Hoo-boy!  Using the current state of the Episcopal church
as a positive example?  Don't you think that's stretching it a bit?
}
} Moreover, the whole attitude towards women that is apparent in the
} quoted discussions above is quite troubling. Completely apart from the
} issue of the ordination of women, we have an absolute responsibility
} to treat each and every person, women, men, the "least ones" as we would
} treat Jesus himself. This applies to me, to you, to Paul, and everyone
} else. All these various discussions of the "suitability of women"
} for this task, and that task, are examples of clearly not treating
} women, who after all are fellow humans, as we would treat Christ. The
}-- End of excerpt from Norman Kraft

	Well, then Christ Himself was guilty of this, since he didn't
have any female apostles.  No one has a 'right' to the priesthood.

--
* 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.
A liberal is someone too poor to be a capitalist and too rich to be a communist.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:04:33 GMT

In article <9210131952.AA02370@pegasus.com> "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>
>I hold the positions suggested by Owen Thomas and John Macquarrie,
>that theology is a dynamic issue, and needs to be constantly
>reevaluated to keep it in contact with current social thought.  Our
>teacher of theology in the Diocesan Institute went so far as to say
>that any theology writing older than 20 years is out of date.  This
>does not say that scripture is out of date, mind you, only that our
>understanding of the perpetual truths contained in the Bible must
>constantly be reevaluated in light of new information.
1) Theology is not the teaching of God, the Church, or the Bible.
   Theology is the attempt to understand the teaching if God, the
   Church, and the Bible.  So it seems that such attempts must take
   the teaching of God, the Church, and the Bible as normative; not
   try to constitute it.  This of course does not settle the issue
   of this thread.  However, it seems the order has to be respected.
2)  What does out of date mean?  False?
3)  Why 20 years? Why not 10 years? Why not 5 years? Why not 1 year?
    Why not a month?  This just seems to be an example of the myth
    of progress.  In a technical sense, anything a day old is out of date.
    An actual examination of the history of Theology displays a much more
    cyclical nature; eras of terrible theology following upon eras of 
    flowering theology.  Therare more years between St. Augustine and
    St. Thomas Aquinas than there are between St. Thomas Aquinas and us.
    Can you really look at theology as it is practised today and say to
    yourself that you are confident that anyone will be reading what is
    written today, as we still read Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Newman
    Guardini, de Lubac, VonBalthasar.  Of course not they'll be out of date
    in 20 years.  So why read them now, if they are not of any lasting
    value?>
Peace,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 11:28:33 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: RCIA, heresies, mortal sin

Elizabeth,

The proscription against missing Mass is not one designed to instill
fear in you when you wake up noon on Sunday and realize you've missed
Mass.

Basically, in its spirit it is designed to keep people from falling away
and making a habit of not attending Mass.  I would not count it a mortal
sin to miss one solitary Mass unless it was out of rebellion against God
or the church; simply forgetting, or not feeling well, does not make it
a mortal sin.

The goal is to make an effort to attend Mass every week and every Holy
Day of Obligation.  As long as that is your desire I would not be
concerned.  (If you're really concerned, keep in mind that it is not
necessary to attend Mass if it is difficult due to travel, or if you are
sick.  Though of course if you make an effort to do so, God will count
that in your favor.)

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:44:23 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Excerpts from catholic: 12-Oct-92 Re: Homosexuality Sharon
O'Neil@CWIS.UNOMA (2697)

> But if a gay person wants to enter into a loving, monogamous
> relationship, should we be able to judge that his lifestyle is wrong?
> If he is biologically created gay, then he should be able to seek out a
> life partner just as those of us who are heterosexual are able to do.
> Why condemn the gay person to a life of solitude because of his natural
> difference?

The church's position is that it is not a natural difference, but a
disorder.  Psychopaths can also claim to be "born" that way, but it
gives them no right to do what they do.  There may be genetic links to
alcoholism.  That doesn't mean that alcoholism is a "normal" condition.
Simply because you are "born that way" gives you no license to sin.
That's if in fact homosexuality is inborn; I still see it as an effect
of environment, of a dysfunctional childhood. This is not from a
position of detachment, it's from personal experience.  All the
homosexuals I know have readily identifiable characteristics in the
environment they grew up in.  All of them are emotionally hurt
individuals.  Therefore I suspect that it is a condition caused by
environment.

If homosexuality was a normal human state, why did God not make the
union fruitful?  Indeed we are able to judge that committing homosexual
acts is wrong -- i.e. living homosexual lifestyle is wrong -- because
Scripture and Tradition tells us that it is wrong.

A person with homosexual tendencies does not need to live a life of
solitude.  He needs to refrain from sexual relations with other men, but
that does not condemn one to solitude.  Great joy can be found in
platonic relationships, and it is my opinion that homosexual sex will
never be as fulfilling and as meaningful as heterosexual sex, because
God has ordained heterosexual sex but forbidden homosexual sex.

Eric
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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:50:35 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Stay or leave

On Oct 9,  1:59pm, "(Donna Nitchie)" wrote:
} Subject: stay or leave... opinions?
}
	[.. stuff deleted...]
} So what do readers suggest or advise of someone in such a situation? Does
} anyone know what the RCC suggests someone in my situation do? I haven't
} asked a priest or bishop or (pick your favorite RC official)....
}-- End of excerpt from "(Donna Nitchie)"

As I'm sure you are aware, no one can make this choice but you.
It seems to me you should spend some real quality time in prayer
about it; perhaps go on a retreat?

	I will keep you in my prayers.

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.
If you suspect a man, don't employ him.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU