HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: mysticism
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:11:07 GMT

In article <Iekq6vW_NU00F56SUd@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> ewanco@mlo.dec.com writes:
>However, what is *NOT* good is adopting the teaching of pagans  in
>teaching this to ill-prepared people.  First of all, mysticism of any
>kind is powerful and is not for the weak in faith.  Using these mystical
>techniques opens us up spiritually to both God and Satan, and Satan is
>going to be more agressive.
Who is to judge who is "ready"?

>Second of all, any teaching on mysticism should be WHOLLY based in
>Christianity and on Christian teachings.  That means we don't follow the
>instructions of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.  We don't adopt Hindu chants and
>shamanistic prayers.  It means we look to the teachings to St. Teresa,
>St. John of the Cross, St. John Damascene, and other Catholic saints or
>orthodox Catholic writers.
>
>Catholic pastors have NO BUSINESS quoting substantial portions from
>Buddhists or Hindus, PARTICULARLY if they are promoting their
>theological views! This is idolatry and heresy!

Is truth not truth no matter where it comes from?
There is much to be revealed to us from the teachings of other cultures.
"We" do not have a corner on the truth market or on insights into the 
nature of the Godhead.  
It is interesting to note that most religions have more in common than
they do appart.  God reveals himself to different peoples in ways their
cultures allow them to understand.
If you can lead people to God by reading passages from Hindu writings, 
so much the better.  
It might be interesting to consider the idea that exclusivity and 
division are just tools the "Devil" has used to separate us from God.

>Catholic Christianity has more than enough spirtual fullfillment -- of
>the right kind -- to offer.  Involving yourself with yoga,
>transcendental meditation (which is different from Christian
>meditation), and other Eastern pagan practices invites demonic powers
>into your life.  THIS IS not only DANGEROUS, it is IDOLATRY.  Eastern
>pagan spiritual practices involve invoking Hindu gods! No Christian
>invokes any other God but Yahweh.

It might also be interesting to consider here the concept of what so many
people do when invoking/seeking intercession from - the saints.
Hmm.
If one takes the basic precept that is supposed to bind all Judeo/Christians
namely that the Lord alone is God, and that we should pray to him alone, 
then this practice can only be termed Idolatry.
Perhaps we should seek our own self-consistancy before attempting to clean 
other peoples houses.

>
>Eric



--
Steve Otlowski
aiden@ncoast.org

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"Catholic@American.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:15:16 -0400
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Vile thoughts - Return Flame to Ed

Edward Harbin writes:
>Why do the politically correct spend so much energy attributing
>vile thoughts to those who disagree with them? Whose vile thought is it?

Do you think that menstruation, childbirth and sex are vile thoughts? Or is
it that you think that the thought of ordaining women to the priesthood is
just a passing fad. Do you have an opinion on the topic at all or do just
like to throw around the "politically correct" phrase to be politically
correct yourself?

>Why would anyone ever take such a thing personally?

Gee, no reason, I guess I'm just human and made another terrible mistake.
Sorry that I've confused you so, Ed.  Please ignore my message to Gordon
as I wouldn't want you to lose any sleep over it. - J.J.
From: FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Arnold Palmer
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:55:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).

>   Does anyone remember the joke that has the punchline about
> 'who does he think he is, Jesus Christ?' 'No, hethinks he's
> Arnold Palmer'.  It's a golf joke, obviously....


     Goes something like this:

     Jesus and Moses are playing golf.  At the 6th tee Moses drives a
shot roughly 200 yards and manages to steer clear of the lake at 250
yards.  Jesus is ready to tee off when he turns to Moses and says he
read an article by Arnold Palmer that gave tips on how to drive the
heck out of your ball for holes such as these.

     Jesus tees off and "plink" right into the water.  He turns to
Moses and asks if he can help him out.  Moses grumbles a bit but
gives in.  He raises his 1 wood over the lake and it parts.  Jesus
walks down into the lake to retrieve his ball.  He tees off again
and "plink" right back in the drink.  He turns to Moses who says:  No
way your on your own this time.  So Jesus walks up to the lake and
starts walking on the water to the middle of the lake.

     Just then the next fourome comes up to the tee and in
amazement just stare out at the lake.  Finally one of the golfers
cries out:  Who does that guy think he is?  Jesus Christ?

     At which Moses quickly turns around and says:  No!  He thinks
he's Arnold Palmer!

      boom, booom, boooom, crash!


      Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:09:23 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: RCIA Update

Len, Hang in there, my brother.  The parable of the rich man and
Lazarus is not one of the easiest to interpret or understand.  I am
surprised that it was used in a RCIA course.  There are several ways
of looking at it, but I will share my interpretation of this story
with you.
     Since he wore the purple, the rich man was either a Roman or a
Jewish high priest.  He was not a bad man, as he did not drive Lazarus
away from his front door, so his sin is that of indifference, which is
actually the opposite of love.  Lazarus would have liked the crumbs
from under the table.  In our prayer of humble access prior to
communion we pray "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the
crumbs from under thy table."  In one sense we are Lazarus, and in
another sense we are the rich man.
     I don't know if you have ever had a dog as a pet, but one of the
things I have seen many dogs do when they have an injury is to lick
their hurt.  And in Jesus' time, the gentiles were referred to by the
Jews as 'dogs.'  So the allusion to "the dogs even licked his sores"
is another good Samaritan story.  This was a healig attempt by
non-Jews.
     When both die, the story gets into the teaching of the prophets,
and of Jesus specifically.  Jesus is telling the Jews that they had
not listened to the Prophets, and he was telling them that they were
not even going to listen to him.  The obvious connection was between
the Lazarus of the parable and the brother of Mary and Martha who was
raised from the dead.
     I see the meaning of the story as Jesus telling the Jews what was
going to happen if they did not listen to the word of God, given by
the Prophets and he himself.  In that sense it is very Old Testament
in that the individual suffers the logical consequences of his
actions, but is at the same time New Testament in the outcome for
Lazarus.
     Len, much of revelation is dependent reveation.  That is to say
that as your foundation in Scripture and the Word of God increases you
will be able to discern more meaning in the scripture as you read and
hear it preached.  And new meanings will come to you as you read it
again.
     Listen to the Spirit.  It was telling you to stay there....and
you did.  The messages you reveive from people are a product of their
own faith acting on the revealed truth of the Word of God.  And open
your heart to the love of God, expressed by your companions.  His love
comes in all different packages.
     Shalom, my brother.
                                Len Howard
                                tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: from SUNY College at Buffalo, NY 14222
X-Envelope-to: catholic@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"catholic@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: PIATKONM
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:25:32 -0400
From:         "Nancy M. Piatkowski" <PIATKONM@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject:      servers vs acolytes

Granted acolyte is a minor order on the road to priesthood but answer me- do we
have enough young men ordained to the order of acolyte to serve at every Mass
offered in this country every day- regular, funeral, wedding etc?  Our parish
has three regular daily Masses, five on the weekend, often as many as three
weddings each weekend and in one week recently over five funerals--  I haven't
seen a decree from Rome making it a matter of church law to not use girls- as I
said last week we do and they serve well. Yes someone complained to the Bishop-
a non-parishoner at a wedding. My wonderful, deeply spiritual pastor's
response- "I may not be from Missouri but show me in Canon Law where it says we
can't".
Nancy
ps: I even went to a Jesuit school
also- thanks for God's e-mail address- I just sent it to an Episcopalisn friend
who has been looking for it-- *<8+}
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:33:25 -0400
Reply-To:     ewanco@mlo.dec.com
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: mysticism
              Mailing List)" dated "Tue, 29 Sep 92 10:35:50 -0400"

Excerpts from catholic: 29-Sep-92 Re: mysticism Free Catholic Mailing @? (1679)

> 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

Who are you?  You obviously know little about Catholicism and
Christianity, for every week we declare our faith in one God.  The only
named angels we know are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, all names from
Scripture.  Michael means "Who is like God?", Gabriel means "God is my
strength", and "Raphael" means "God heals" (I think that's how it goes).
 Hardly renamed pagan gods.

You appear to me to be Muslim at first glance.  In any case, you are
welcome to listen and post, but you should extend common courtesy and
politeness to us; we do not get on the Islam list and attack the Islamic
faith, so it would be courteous if you did not come on this list with
the intention of knocking our faith.

Sincerely,
Eric Ewanco
ewanco@mlo.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:20:15 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

Eric James Ewanco (ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM) writes:

>It should be noted that the reason the Church got upset about this --
>and you NEVER hear about this in history books, especially ones written
>by Protestants -- is because they perceived Galileo as attacking the
>authority of Scripture.

Yes!  And that appears to be exactly one of the reasons why the church is upset
about the idea of women priests - because they perceive the idea as attacking
the authority of Scripture.  They were obviously wrong in Galileo's case, so
there is precedent for the church's misinterpretation of what Scripture says.
Thus, Scripture-bases arguments for the banning of women priests may be equally
misguided.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Not about women priests, it's about changing rules
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:33:15 GMT

collison@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (COLLISON,STEVEN) writes:
>Listen to Eric. He is correct in saying that women cannot and will not be 
>priests. (At least not in the Roman Catholic Church). One reason for this is 
>that in the Mass the priest, in persona Christi, is the bridegroom and the 
>laity as a whole is the bride. It is a wedding feast as described in the 

This is JUST an analogy.  We should not be bound up by analogies.  Jesus
was a Jew.  Do we therefore allow only Jews to become Christian?  No. This
was debated about 2000 years ago.  Jesus was a person.  Women are persons,
100% totally equal.  I do not think it fair to use the 'Jesus was a man.
Period.' argument and then accept the 'Jesus was a Jew, but ...'.  Fair is
fair.

I do not see that these are rules that God set down, as far as I can see 
the only rules directly from God are to love Him (sorry about that pronoun, 
but it is all English offers) and to love one another. 

Man-made rules can change.  Whether they will or not is another question,
it is the objection that they CANNOT change that gets my dander up.

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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:21:56 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Omnipresent? (was Re: pre Vat II?)

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Oct-92 RE: Omnipresent? (was Re: .. Brian I.
V. Support@SWDE (1218)

> 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.

Umm, I'm not sure if you are correct, for we believe that the Mass *is*
a true, propitiary sacrifice (i.e. it pleases God and remits sin) that
takes away sins.  It is not a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice of
Calvary, it is a *re-presentation* where Christ does offer himself up
again for our sins.  But it is a mystical union with the one Sacrifice
of Calvary, so it is not another sacrifice -- it is the same sacrifice
of Calvary.

Through the Eucharist, we apply the fruits of the Sacrifice of Christ to
our sins.  We participate in the Sacrifice of Calvary through the
Eucharist.

I don't see this as contrary to the book of Hebrews because it is the
ONE sacrifice of Calvary that is re-presented through the Mass.
Mystically, we break the time barrier and again are present at the
Crucifixion of Christ, and it is truly the Sacrifice of Calvary which is
offered for us.

Eric
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 09:25:23 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Altar girls and millstones


     "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name wel-
comes me.  But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe
in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone
hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
(Matthew 18:5-6 NIV)

I started reading this list when it was gatewayed to usenet, so I
don't know what was said before, but I haven't seen anyone mention
the most serious objections to using altar girls in defiance of the
Church's rules.  The first objection is suggested by the passage I
quoted from Jesus.  Using altar girls corrupts the children of the
parish, especially the altar girls themselves.  They are taught by
example that if they don't like any of the Church's rules they are
free to ignore them.  And they are taught this by the people who have
a special responsibility before God to obey God and His Church: the
pastor who permits the unauthorized use of altar girls and the par-
ents who permit their children to participate.  That is bad enough,
but if it is okay to defy the laws of God's Church, why not defy the
laws of God Himself?  After all, the Church's legislative authority
comes from God.

The second objection is that the primary purpose of the Mass is to
worship God.  How can these people think that God will be pleased by
worship conducted in deliberate, willful defiance of the rules of the
Church He founded?

Marty Helgesen
From: dflynn@aludra.usc.edu (Daniel Flynn)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Authority on the Church...
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:28:44 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Ladies and gentleman of the listserv.catholic news group. I have over the
past couple of weeks had the opportunity to read over many of the questions
and comments that have passed through here on a regular basis. I was so 
intrigued by the fact that there were so many catholics on the net who had
a real desire to learn more about there faith that I brought this newsgroup
to the attention of my employer.

Currently, I work for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. During a meeting which
I attended with His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahoney and others, I presented
some of the more interesting posting to him. Needless to say, he was quite
impressed with the intelligence of the discussions as well as the strong
conviction of many of the posters.

I have asked His Eminence to see if he couldn't take the time to call our
local internet site and answer some of the questions that have arisen.
While I haven't received a confirmed answer, I was authorized to take e-mail
and select the ones which could be answered, and present them to the Cardinal.
He will attempt to answer questions, and I will do repost back to the group.

If you are interested, please feel free to e-mail me or call me via voice
at the number below. If you do have questions, try to keep them of a general
nature, since I will be reposting the question and answer back to the news-
group.

Kim Callis
dflynn@aludra.usc.edu
(310) 247-4167
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:04:26 -0500
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: relative importance of various doctrines (pt 2 of 2)

From: >Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
> Asking a friend to pray for you and asking a saint to intercede on your behalf
> are two quite different things.  While you hope that your friend one day may
> see God, you *know* that the saint already has.

While I agree that a saints intercession may be more efficacious than that of a
 friend
I guess I don't really see that it is "two quite different things".
As I see it its on the same lines as if I am seeking for someone to pray
for/with me, I may seek out someone who I know to have a solid prayer life.
A saint (particulary a patron saint of some area) is someone who fits this
as one who has demonstrated a life of faith in God.

I certainly hope that God's answering of prayer is correlated to the pray-er's
ability to see God at the time fo the prayer request.

Perhaps I am being to nit-picky on the definition of 'prayer'.  To me
praying and asking for an intecessor are different.  I will concede however,
that other definition may be more expansive than mine.


joel
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 09:23:29 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Parish hopping
 <1992Oct1.195442.5582@gw.wmich.edu>

Lisamarie,

Since you are a new Catholic, welcome home.

My remark that Catholics should not have to parish hop was not a
criticism of Catholics like you who are "forced" to go outside the
parish in which they live in order to find the Mass celebrated prop-
erly.  It was a criticism of those insubordinate priests who defy
Church rules and the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the
Liturgy by making unauthorized changes in the liturgy of the Mass.

I am not happy with your statement, "I attend mass at St. Augustine's
Cathedral, one of the most (if not THE most) 'LC' (liturgically cor-
rect) churches I've been to."  The context of your posting suggests
that you mean that the liturgy is done correctly there, which I am
glad to hear.  However, "LC" and "liturgically correct" suggest
parallels with "PC" and "politically correct".  In that case a
"liturgically correct" parish would be one that followed the latest
trendy secular ideas in defiance of Church rules.  A "liturgically
correct" parish would have altar girls, would use Extraordinary Ministers
of the Eucharist to distribute Holy Communion even when there were
enough priests and deacons available to do so, would have the congre-
gation say all or part of the canon along with the celebrant, etc.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via: uk.ac.lancashire-poly.prime1; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:42:33 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:45:34 LCL
From:         The Banshee <SUTTON_R_1@PRIME1.LANCASHIRE-POLY.AC.UK>
Subject:      Points, Questions and Sinead O'Conner

(From the banshee   )

Hello everyone!
Just a couple of points and questions.
1.  I need some readings on Beginnings (other than Genesis) and some psalms
it's for a prayer meeting I have to lead in about 24 hours... any suggestions?

2.  I would like to know what people think of Medjugorje.  I have been there and
am for it

3.  I think we should all pray for Sinead O'Conner's conversion.  It sounds like
 she
needs it.

God bless
Rebecca
ps If any of this came before we've been having trouble with our servers.

pps  Is there anyone elswho lives in Britain on this list or am I the
only one?
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Secrets of Fatima
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 17:49:57 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, writes:

> Well, since this is supposed to happen in the last half of the 20th century,
> guess we have only nine more years to wait!
>
> -----------------------------+--------------------------------
>  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.
> -----------------------------+--------------------------------

After reading that excerpt, I can't help but wonder whether WWII is the
disaster mentioned.  Of course, it's quite possible that God is cutting us a
little slack.  Given that Mary has (supposedly) appeared many times since
Fatima to others, it's hard to determine whether or not the more sensational
aspects of Fatima still apply.

Of course, the Pope is taking the right course by just saying 'pray the
rosary.'



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU