HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:02:07 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU> writes again:
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:54:14 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>>Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU> writes:
>>>J.J., please tell us what basis you have for believing that Scripture may not
>>have been correctly transcripted. Also, given your significant doubts about
>>>the veracity of Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the
>>>Church, please tell us why you believe anything at all about Christianity and
>>>in particular, the Catholic Church.  While I'm asking - Have you examined any
>>>of the volumes of apologetic works which deal with the subject of correct
>>>transcription of the Bible?
>>
>>These are rhetorical, I presume.

>No, not at all.  I think anyone who ascribes to a particular faith should have
>a reason for it.  Please don't be offended by my question, but Christianity is
>an objective faith of which Christ is the object.  Scripture and Tradition
>convey what Christ was and is about which is the cornerstone of Christian
>faith.  If you don't believe in the veracity of those sources, what do you
>base your faith on?   I've had friends tell me they base their knowledge of
>God on their observations of the world.  They pick & chose what they want to
>believe from Scripture based upon their own observations.  Do you fall into
>this category J.J.?

Brent, I've never denied being a cafeteria Catholic. When the physical
evidence conflicts with tradition or scripture, I choose the physical
evidence as the truth. I thought you could have deduced that yourself,
hence the "rhetoric":-)

>>But I guess I'm amazed that people can put so much faith in the printed words
>>of other people even when the physical evidence contradicts them.

>A lot of those people have concluded that the physical evidence for those
>printed words is so good, that they would not only live by them, but stake
>their life on them.

Then I agree with these people, and you should join us, however, when the
physical evidence does not agree (we were talking about loving homosexual
relationships) then the traditions and/or scriptures need a revisiting.
I guess I don't see it as a "all or nothing" situation.

>Brent.

-J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:47:39 -0700
From:         "John W. Woolley" <jww@EVOLVING.COM>
Subject:      submission to teaching, conscience, ... sigh.

Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:
>     Pope Innocent X "condemned" five propositions
>     of the Jansenists in 1653.

A nitpick, but one of considerable historical importance.  The Pope
condemned the famous five propositions in the bull "Unigenitum", which
stated the propositions, declared that they were Jansenist propositions
taken verbatim from Archbishop Jansen's book _Augustinus_, and commanded
that the Jansenists subscribe to his condemnation.

They replied
  1.  That the five propositions were indeed heretical, and
      specifically Calvinist.
  2.  That they (the Jansenists) condemned those propositions
      wherever they were found.
  3.  But that they could not find them, either implied (which
      might be a matter of judgement) or verbatim (which was
      simply verifiable), in the text of _Augustinus_.

Note:  The five propositions seem to have begun life as a Jesuit
analysis of teachings that could be concluded from Jansen's teachings --
which they may be.  That wasn't the point at dispute.

The Jansenists asked the Pope (or the Jesuits, which amounted to the same
thing in this case) for a reference -- which edition of _Augustinus_
contained the heretical propositions, and on what pages?  Rome declined
to answer, except to threaten with excommunication anyone who wouldn't
subscribe.  The nuns and others at Port-Royal answered that they had read
the book in question carefully, watching for the quoted texts, and that
they weren't there -- and that to subscribe a document stating that a
book contained things that, in verifiable fact, it didn't contain, would
be a mortal sin -- the deliberate, formal denial of a known truth.

I believe it was at this point in the debate that one of the Roman
theologians made the famous statement that if the Pope declared the sky
to be green, it was incumbent on all Catholics to believe it, regardless
of the evidence of their senses.  (This emphatically was not and is not
the official position of the Roman church -- just an indication of the
mindset of some of the people involved in the dispute with Port-Royal.)

Port-Royal was suppressed, and those of the nuns (and others) who
refused to sign the paper saying they believed the propositions to have
been taken verbatim from _Augustinus_ were excommunicated.

So, while I agree with nearly everthing Steve says in his posts, I have
to say that it's begging a very unpleasant question to speak of Innocent
VI's condemnation of "five propositions of the Jansenists", when the
Jansenists themselves condemned the propositions as well.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:54:00 EST
From:         lhh@LCUXLP.ATT.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

>
>   Back to Adam and Eve, a Catholic doesn't have to accept the fact
>there there were a real Adam and Eve, but does have to accept that the
>first people sinned in such a way that we all inherit a state of
>sinfulness on account of it.

        Is this true ? I thought by "nature" we are without sin.
        The "original sin" that we inherit is actual the loss
        of a special gift given from God to Adam and Eve. A gift that God
        had intended to be inherited by all people.
        Adam and Eve (or the "first people") lost our inheritance.
        Due to the loss of this grace, we tend to sin.
        Am I just picking nits ?
        It seems important to me because then God does not
        create us in a state of sinfulness - he creates us naturally good.

                Len Horn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:18:11 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      help

Due to an overwhelming amount of mail (and not much time) I would
appreciate if someone, in private email, would remind me how to
unsubscribe from this list.  Thanks, and, all of you, please take care of
yourselves. :)

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
        uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
                --Faxe, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:14:53 GMT

15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:

>     Excellent post, Cindy. I have two questions.
>(1) I have heard this claim that Scripture only
>condemns homosexual rape, cultic homosexuality, etc.
>Could you (or anyone else out there) tell us what 
>the evidence is that Paul's condemnations only referred
>to that? When he condemns Lesbianism is he referring
>to cultic Lesbian acts only? There is nothing in the
>context that suggests it to me. He talks about these
>if I recall correctly in the context of lust rather
>than idolatry. (2) Even if Scripture is ambiguous,

See Romans 1:24-28.

Angelo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:55:42 CST
From:         Elizabeth Stevens <CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Lies about the Consecration

If it weren't so terribly important, it would be simply fascinating
to study the dilemma of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary.

Since it is not my goal to convince everyone the consecration has
NOT been made, but rather to learn the truth, I'm not going to comment
any further right now. The article Fred sent has a few unconvincing
comments (ie 'the Pope was upset about letters being sent to have
the consecration done properly'...only it didn't say *why* he was
upset....perhaps he was upset because he wanted to do it and could
not get it accomplished?) Then some quotes that exactly opposite
other things I've read. (not just Fr. Gruner)

On the other hand, several people I respect cite examples of why
Fr. Gruner's work is not credible. And then there are other people
I know around the country whom I respect who maintain that he is
persecuted, etc etc etc, and the C. has not been made.

For myself, it is difficult to imagine that the world is now pleasing
God when we seem to be falling farther and farther away from God.

One thing is certain, if we truly are in the end times, and triumph
of good over evil is dependent upon a collegial consecration of
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it is not too difficult to
imagine that Satan would cause total confusion over this act.
I pray that we may find the truth. If we are led to believe it
has been done satisfactorily when it has not, God help us all...

I would love to learn the consecration has truly been made properly.

In Jesus and Mary,
Elizabeth

"Jesus I adore You, lay my life before You, how I love You"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:06:55 GMT

In article <2B535224@postoffice.ucc.american.edu> Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:02:44 GMT Thomas E Zerucha said:
>>But let me turn it around - If I get a different "inspiration" from scripture
>>than you do, then who arbitrates the correct interpretation.
>
>Why is one "correct" and the other "in error"?  Francis of Assisi heard
>Jesus's advice for the Rich Young Man and took it to heart and went and sold
>...

Because, at least on fundamentals, there would be chaos otherwise.  There is
a personal side to scriptural studies, but I am talking about authorative
teaching.  Try applying it to driving - The argument that I prefer the
interpration that prevails on German Autobahns will not get me out of jail.
Why should the institution of the church be different, at least the
*Catholic* church.  If you look, these divers interpretations have produced
the thousands of denominations in christendom.  Why not switch than fight?

>I do not criticize the Church for saying *in general* some things are wrong.
>To kill another human being is certainly something that is usually wrong. At
>the same time, I would never presume to judge someone who killed another in
>self-defense, or in a time of war. Similarly the Church should say that a
>marriage between two people is to be prefered. But I would not presume to
>judge someone who has been created by God to act in love in another way.
>
>Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)

Ah, but you do judge, and proclaim them "not-guilty".  And the questions
are far grayer - usually the matter is whether it is really self-defense
or not in the case of a killing.  And there was Nuremburg.  The devil
(literally in this case) is in teh details - usually wrong to kill, our
disagreement is what is usual, as it is in the case of sex.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 17:10:56 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b31

CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET writes:
> I'd like to reinforce John's comments on TLC. When first watching this 
> channel it was one of my favorites. Over time, however, it has become 
> very clear that whenever they deal with Christianity, it is not 
> favorable towards Christianity. In particular the Roman Catholic 
> Church. Be especially wary of their program "Beliefs". 

Hmm.  Haven't seen that--what I was referring to was a couple of programs I 
watched recently which I found both fascinating and quite positive towards 
Christianity.  They were both archaeological programs; one dealt with 
Jerusalem and one dealt with Capernaum.

The one on Jerusalem had as its overall theme evidence that the Biblical 
accounts of Solomon's Temple and the Crucifixion are more historically 
accurate than has been fashionable to propose for the last couple hundred 
years.  In particular, they spent quite some time on the location of Calvary, 
and concluded that despite the somewhat arbitrary route of the Way of the 
Cross that had been set up for pilgrims, that the traditional sites of 
Calvary and the Joseph of Arimathea's tomb are actually the most 
archaeologically convincing.  They included an interview with an archbishop 
in the Armenian church, who described the excavations they have been 
sponsoring in recent years.

The one on Capernaum was principally an interview with a Catholic priest who 
has been working on excavating several houses, one of which has traditionally 
been considered the house where Jesus lived during his time in Capernaum.  He 
has found very early traces of Christian communities, and the layout of the 
house itself matches tradition and biblical accounts.

Now, I'm not an archaeologist, and am so unequipped to judge their 
presentations, but they certainly seemed at least fairly well researched, and 
was certainly positive towards both Christianity and the Roman Catholic 
Church...



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:31:56 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      OSV series on the New Catechism

Our Sunday Visitor will be including a 52-week (!) series on the
new Catechism starting with the February 21, 1993 issue.  The series
will be written by Fr. Alfred McBride, O.Praem.  Orders must be
received by February 5, 1993.  A year's subscription is $21.

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.
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:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:17:30 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      'exciting' church

On Jan 8, 10:44am, John Weitzel wrote:
} Subject: help for a questioning couple
} I received a phone call today from a good (evangelical christian) friend of
} mine (we'll call her Char) concerning a friend of hers (Betty).  Betty grew
} up Catholic, married a Catholic, each a professional, had one son (10yrs).
} Betty and her husband are in their forties.  Anyway, Betty sees that many
} evangelical chr  istians in her area (sparse area of Northern California) are
}  really happy
} and "have a spark".  The Catholic church there ( I have been there myself ) is
} pretty dry from what I have seen.  There seems to be very little going on
} beyond the Sunday liturgy (one priest).  She is now wondering whether to leave
}  the church for what she sees as
} the "excitement of the local evangelical churches".
}-- End of excerpt from John Weitzel

Hm.  Is she Catholic because she wants excitement or because she believes
the teachings of the Church?

        The Catholic Church is many things to many people.  In its more
charismatic sides, it can be far more 'exciting' than any Baptist/evangelical
 church I've seen.  On the other hand, it can certainly be staid at times.

        My suggestion is that if the activities at her parish don't 'excite'
her (I presume from the description that it's the only parish around), they
probably don't 'excite' others who would presumably like something more
'exciting'.  In which case she should probably start some 'exciting' activities.

        Just a thought.

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.
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 01:20:54 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b31

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> Was wondering if anyone had any opinions regarding EWTN and its 
> programming. We're just starting to get EWTN for more than prime time.  
> What I've seen of it, I'm not overly impressed.  The daily Mass from 
> Mother Angelica's monastery in Alabama is ok, but some of the lecture 
> shows are downright boring.  So, I'm hoping that some of you are 
> familiar with some of the priests they have doing these shows, that way 
> I can find out the easy way if any of these guys are worth watching. 

Well, I've found that their material varies a lot.  I loved being able to see 
the Christmas services from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, 
for example.  I also often appreciate the Masses and other services (such as 
Solemn Benediction) that they carry.  I even, from time to time, will tune in 
for a rendition of the Rosary, although I must admit that my saccharine 
filter can get saturated by the visuals :).

However, most of the lecture shows tend to be extremely dry and presented at 
an very elementary level.  I feel like I'm watching visual aids from a 
"Welcome to Roman Catholicism 101" class.  Now, this may in fact be what 
they're for :), but I don't find them particularly engaging, if only because 
they cover such familiar ground.

But hey, it's a lot better than any other religious programming on cable.  
The only things that come even close are occasional programs on VISN or The 
Learning Channel (which recently did a marvelous program on recent 
archaeological developments in Jerusalem and Capernaum, for example).

And, you must admit, it's very Catholic :).



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:22:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: contributions

Elizabeth writes (Sorry, I did not get all of your message; the latter
part of it was appended to another posting.  This is only in reponse to what
did come over;it probably has to do with a brief power failure we had in
this building a little while ago):

>God always before He is about to chastise the world exhausts all other
>remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever,
>then, as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with
>a certain trepidation the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother.
>It is with a certain trepidation because if you despise and repulse
>this ultimate means we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven
>because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin
>against the Holy Spirit....Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very
>good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His
>Most Holy Mother".

A couple of things bother me about this kind of analysis.  First, it places
limits on God's mercy and seems to demand that if we do not place full faith
in these apparitions--something the Church itself does not require us to
do--that we are as good as damned.  Also, I have never understood that, wicked
as it is, the sin of blasphemy that you describe is the "sin against the Holy
Spirit" that Jesus is talking about.  It seems more rational to me that the
only sin that fits that category is a final, knowing rejection of God before
death.  Horrible as such a decision would be, it is always possible given
our free will.  The vehicle for such a rejection could be any serious state
of sin.

>Either His Most Holy Mother, or Satan, has come to Medjugorje to again beg us
>to turn back to God, to prayer, penance, peace, fasting and
>conversion.

...Or neither.  Don't forget that evil can spring just as easily from the
world and the flesh, without Satan's help.  Though I agree, the simplicity
and content of the basic Medjugorje messages appear to be sound.

>Yes, and there will be signs and wonders and an outpouring of the Holy
>Spirit.

True, but I believe that, just as all times are evil times, that there is
always an outpouring of the Holy Spirit going on.  We don't need to wait for
apocalytic moments.  We are surrounded by them.

>Just think, if all comes to pass as has been written, how unbearably difficult
>it will be to cope in those terrible times, without having surrendered to
>God and followed the requests of His Mother. We have insurance,savings
>accounts, retirement accounts, etc. What are we building with God? How
>truly Holy are we trying to become, to prepare to live with Him?

Again, you don't need to look beyond what surrounds us to see these things.
If you're holding your head above water (there's some good baptism imagery
here somewhere), pat yourself on the back.  You are getting there.

Fred Chavez
From: wbs@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Brian Stewart)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Saints in the Episcopal Church...
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:58:52 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <DNiXwB2w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> 
> Anyway, I was wondering if any of my Episcopal/Anglican brothers and sisters
> here can enlighten me on their church's position on sainthood.  I would assume
> that the Episcopal Church recognizes the canonization of those persons who were
> made saints before the split with Rome, but what about after that?  Does the
> Episcopal Church canonize people on their own, or do they simply recognize
> those canonized by Rome?
> 
> |Edward J. Branley

Both and neither and all positions in between.

In practice I think that most Anglicans treat canonization as a formal
legal process, so that it doesn't matter whether it was pre- or post-
the split, and it doesn't matter who did it, whether a roman Pope or a
russian Synod or what; anglicans (the most courteous christians) will
refer to such as St. X.

On the other hand all the new anglican lectionaries and calendars 
(well, almost all)
have a selection of commemorations with readings and collects of specifically
anglican  ``saints''. But they are not, I think, called by the title
St. 

I believe that a recent(ish) meeting of anglican primates agreed there
should be formal processes by which these new  ``saints'' were 
approved; I don't have a reference, it's in a recent source book on
Anglicanism. I think that the South African Church has the clearest rules.

The earliest Anglican  ``canonisation'' must be that of Charles I;
inserted by Parliament into the Prayer Book, Charles King and Martyr,
30th January. There is at least one church and several chapels dedicated
in his honour. His picture stares down at us in my own church, lit by 
two candles every sunday at the high mass; there are still some who clearly 
keep up his cult. 

And contrary-wise, of course, anglicans have no easy way of 
making deletions; so George and Margaret and so on still 
survive.

B.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic