HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:20:47 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Crisis in the Episcopal Church (Episcopal Synod of America)

Is there some compelling reason that ESA propaganda is being posted to a
Catholic mailing list?  There exists a perfectly good Episcopal mailing list,
which gets very little traffic.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:37:42 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Mary

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

>OK, the best way to approach this is this way.
..stuff deleted...
>To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny that Jesus is God.
>That's all there is to it.  The only reasonable objection is perhaps
>referring to her as the Mother of God is confusing to those who do not
>know better, but beyond that, one cannot say that Mary is not the Mother
>of God.

Only the people who don't understand time travel will fail to understand this
line of reasoning! <big grin!>

I'm not trying to minimize this topic.  It just struck me as the very type of
reasoning I use (and agree with) when trying to explain a time-travel story to
someone.  Some people have odd chicken-egg ideas and find it hard to wrap their
minds around non-sequential concepts.


-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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
Via: uk.ac.lancashire-poly.prime1; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:28:21 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:28:06 LCL
From:         Becka <SUTTON_R_1@PRIME1.LANCASHIRE-POLY.AC.UK>
Subject:      Must we talk about women priests?

(From Becka Sutton   )

Dear All,
I don't care about whether women can be priests but if you
have to keep arguing about it can you do it in private you're
clogging up my area.
I have no opinion on the matter as it does not effect me.
Anyway it appears to be the irresistible force and immovable object
situation.  So Nancy and Eric can you please stop name calling and call
a truce.  If you both pray about it the Holy Spirit will show who is right
and who is wrong.
Please let peace prevail.
May God Bless you,
Rebecca.
ps.  AI do have a suspicion as to who is right but as it would only
offend somebody I'm keeping my own counsel.
God Bless (again)
Rebecca (call me Becka you are all my friends)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: mysticism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:14:08 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92092709281994@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERIC
AN.EDU> writes:
>On Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:51:49 GMT (Steven Otlowski) said:
>>Chanting mantras
>>Hmm
>>That's always how the Rosary seemed to me.
>>and I've been brought up Catholic.
>
>Ah! Is that the secret?
>
>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.
>
>If, on the other hand, the rosary is similar to a mantra and serves to
>clear the mind, then it makes more sense to me.
>
>Is there anyone on the list who prays the rosary? If so, can you explain
>what you're doing? Do you consider each word of the prayers you are
>saying, or do you use the rosary as a tool for mediatation?
>
>Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
>The American University
>Washington DC 20016-8019 USA

I do in fact pray the rosary, and I consider it a *prayer* not a mantra or 
chant. The repitition of all those Hail Marys serves in my case to help
the sincerity of my prayer. In other words, if I'm not in the mood or not
really serious or distracted, the 53 Hail Marys will get me in the mood,
serious, and focused. I do try to consider all the words and meanings, but 
obviously I don't always succeed. I always find that after I finish the
rosary I'm having a much better conversation with God :)

I didn't use the rosary for a long time (about 11 years) and during that
time had often thought that it was silly. Then again, this was a period of
agnosticism for me and I thought many church traditions were silly. Now
that I have found a little more faith, I've discovered that all the
stuff that i used to think was dumb I now relish. The imagery
and rituals of the Catholic church are wonderful things and should not
be thrown out in the spirit of ecumenism. Try to find reasons for the rituals,
and I think you will profit much more than if you try to find reasons the
rituals are silly. It worked for me :)

Karl Schudt
A Young Fuddy-Duddy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Belief
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:50:03 GMT

In article <9209260205.AA29978@pegasus.com> "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>John, sounds like you are studying Theology from Owen Thomas.
>
>Shalom,                                      Len Howard
>                                             tas@pegasus.com
Dear Len,
This would be seem odd, as I have no idea who Owen Thomas is.  However,
as reality is the common root of truth for all of us in this life, it
seems possible to have independent confirmation.  Can you provide more
details about Owen Thomas?
Shalom
John]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Re: Fatima: warning or prediction
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:16:59 GMT

v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:

>Suppose that we are bound to accept what this Fatima text says.
>We are not automatically bound to believe that a big war will happen
>within the next ten years.  Why not?  Because pretty clearly it
>is not a prediction but rather a warning.  If we are bound to
>believe what the text says, then we are bound to believe that
>a big war, etc. will happen _unless_ people repent.  But for all
>we know, they will repent, or even have already repented.

The book of Jonah (Old Testament) contains a wonderful story about this. Well
worth reading.

On the other hand, if the message says "Repent or X will happen", and no 
obvious signs of repentance are forthcoming, if one trusts the message, it 
is not unreasonable to believe that X will probably happen.

God bless,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928
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:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:20:14 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject: Re: kneeling...
              3:52am)

On Sep 25,  3:52am, Amanda Walker wrote:
} Subject: Re: Re: kneeling...
} Edward J. Branley wrote:
} > > If you start worrying about whether or not you should or shouldn't,
} > > then the Mass is no longer a mystical ritual but a physical habit.
}
} And Gordon Zaft responded:
}
} > You misunderstand me.  The Mass is most definitely not a
} > 'mystical ritual' but an action of Christ.
}
} The Mass most definitely *is* a mystical ritual.  In fact, it's the most
} potent mystical ritual of the Christian faith (although the other sacraments
} come close behind).  The presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, and
} our participation thereby as a community in his sacrifice, is a profound and
} important Mystery.
}
} It sounds like you think that "mystical ritual" precludes "an action of
} Christ."  This is very surprising to me, especially from an evidently devout
} Catholic...

	I think the point I was trying to make was to counter what I
thought was an assertion that the Mass was *merely* a 'mystical ritual'
with no significance other than what we give it, i.e. no objective
significance.

	I think I misunderstood.  Sorry!

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.
Too clever is dumb.  --Ogden Nash
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.30]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:47:10 EDT
From:         Dick Corrigan <dickc@HPWAMBH.WAL.HP.COM>
Subject:      Vassula Files

>I have some files from Vassula Ryden that relate also to Fatima.
>One is even an address she gave to the World Council of Churches
>meeting in Europe last January. (lest you wonder if she is a
>fanatic with no reasonable audience)

>If anyone would like to read these I'd be happy to mail them out.
>I haven't gotten around to getting permission to publicly post
>them so would prefer to send them privately.

 I would like to recieve these files from Vassula Ryden, as I have heard
her speak at a Marion Conference in Pittsburg(1990?)

Thanks & God Bless

Dick Corrigan
email hpwambw.wal.hp
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: pre-vat II?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:37:42 GMT



In article <01GPHN654M7K8WVZD2@umassd.edu> Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU> writ
es:
>>the same passage.) Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
>>     In the same way as the Lord was wholly one with the Father, and
>>never acted independently of Him, either in person or through the apostles,
>>so you yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy.
>>On no account persuade yourselves that it is right and proper to follow your
>>own private judgemnt.
>
>Okay.  I was asked by Brent to state some of my differences.  I
>honestly don't know if this is the list for it, but I will address MY
>feelings on the above statement.  I can't agree with it.  Maybe it was
>true in Ignatius' time, but I don't believe it is now.  Look at our
>clergy and bishops.  In Massachusetts (and other places) clergy are
>getting arrested weekly.  Don't get me wrong, I feel for these people
>and pray for them for how far they have fallen and I don't feel that
>all clergy are bad because of a few.  But let's face it, we are all
>human - clergy and bishops alike.  I don't follow a man.  I follow the
>Lord.  If the hierarchy's teachings go along with the Bible, then its
>fine with me.
     I certainly dont think St. Ignatius was recommending following bad
clergy into sin. It is a warning to avoid individual interpretations
of Scripture. You say "if the heirarchy's teachings go along with the Bible,
then its fine with me." This would give you the same authority that the
Magisterium of the CHurch has, as *you* would have to judge whether or not
they agreed with the Bible. We as individuals don't have this authority.
The official teachings of the CHurch do, as handed down from Jesus directly
to Peter.

>>This makes perfect sense when you see how Mormons, Baptists,Presbyterians,
>>etc. can all have wildly differnt teachings on things, but base them all
>>strictly from Scriptural passages. There is a reason God chose to establish
>>a single church, not thousands of different ones (IMHO of course! :)   ).
>
>You can't put Mormons in with this group.  Mormons mostly follow
>Joseph Smith's teachings and not the Bible.

You are right, and I apologize. As a matter of fact Mormons really don't
follow the Book of Mormon either. (But this could be another thread :)   )

>                             Liz Moreau

Peace,
Karl Schudt
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: Picking on altar servers and Jesuits now
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-22773]: hermes
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:46:38 GMT


In article <Bv88yC.A9n@NCoast.ORG>, aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski) writes:

> The American Church has been granted permission to allow
> women as servers.

Do you have a reference on this?

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
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 11:25:39 -0400
Reply-To:     ewanco@mlo.dec.com
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Crisis in the Episcopal Church (Episcopal Synod of America)
              Mailing List)" dated "Tue, 29 Sep 92 10:25:21 -0400"

Excerpts from catholic: 29-Sep-92 Re: Crisis in the Episcopal.. Free
Catholic Mailing @? (1168)

> Is there some compelling reason that ESA propaganda is being posted to a
> Catholic mailing list?  There exists a perfectly good Episcopal mailing list,
> which gets very little traffic.

The guy who posted it is a Catholic Episcopalian, and I think it is
fully within the topic of this list.  This is a Free Catholics list, and
considering the wide range of opinions and freedom of discussion on this
list, I hardly find reason to fault him for posting it.  I think the
posting is of interest to many on this list, from Roman Catholics to
Anglicans to Episcopalians.

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, 5 Oct 1992 09:14:59 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests

Excerpts from catholic: 4-Oct-92 Re: women priests Nancy
Piatkowski@AMERICA (369)

> Eric- I find that your last post regarding women priests to be a little hard
 to
> take.  This post strikes me as being one of the homophobic I have read
> anywhere. Why are you so afraid of the possibility of women as priests? Can't
> we drop the whole subject- I, for one, am tired of the attitudes being
> expressed by you and a few others toward women in the church.
> Nancy

Oh, great, not only are people being called homophobic simply because
they believe homosexuality is morally wrong, I am being called
homophobic because I oppose women priests.  Great.

Nancy, don't you understand?  PRIEST CANNOT BE WOMEN.  We have no
choice.  The church has spoken and forbids it, and cannot go back on its
word.  No matter how much I may want women priests, no matter how great
I think they would be, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  It cannot be done.  Case
closed.  I have no choice in the  matter.  Rome has spoken, the  matter
is settled.  Jesus has ordained it, take it up with him and don't blame
me.

Believe me, if Christ had not forbidden it, I would probably have no
problem with it.  But He did.  I am going to obey His wishes.

Eric
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Greeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:20:22 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:

>
> Hi, I just saw Father  Greeley (You know the one that writes the books)
> on PBS. He was rhapsodizing about the wonders of Bill Clinton and
> Carol Mosely-Braun. I don't want to start a political flamewar here,
> but I would like to know if anyone knows how Greeley reconciles voting
> for pro-abortion candidates. Specifically, Clinton has said that he would
> sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act, which bans all restrictions on abortion
> and pays for it with tax dollars.
>
> Once again, I am not interested in a Clinto vs. Bush flame war, I am just
> wondering if anyone knows what Greeley thinks about abortion. (Carol
> M-B is a senatorial candidate in my former home state of IL )
>
> Please no flames!!!!! E-mail would be fine :)
>
>
> Karl Schudt

Given that there was a pastoral letter issued by the US bishops some time back
which stated that Catholics don't have to be one-issue voters, it really
doesn't matter what Fr. Greeley thinks about abortion.  There's more to the
Prez election than abortion, and, thankfully, our bishops have recognized that
fact.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: collison@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (COLLISON,STEVEN)
Subject: RE: women priests
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Southern Connecticut State University - Computer Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:29:00 GMT

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 
Book of Revelation. To be comfortable in accepting a Roman Catholic priestess 
is to be equally comfortable about accepting a _lesbian_ marriage. That's what 
it boils down to - a female "bridegroom" and a female bride. Dream on if the 
Holy Father is going to let that happen.

Stop using the lame complaint that the Church looks upon women as inferior. 
Isn't God's greatest masterpiece, as taught by the Catholic Church, the Holy 
Mother of God? The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and everyone has his
or her own important function as ordained by the will of God. Stop crying about 
what you want to be and be what God wants you to be.

If I may use an analogy similar to St. Paul's; we'd all be in a lot of trouble
if our heart decided it didn't want to be a heart anymore but rather some other 
organ. The same effect would happen to the Church. 

Steve
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
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:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:04:00 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: Authority on the Church...

I don't understand how a Pope is chosen.  The previous post suggested
that since the USA gives alot of money, the next pope could be chosen
from the states.

Now, I thought the Pope was hand-picked from God to carry on the
church.  Why does money come into it?  Is Peter's successor chosen
because of money???  Or does one become 'special' after one is
chosen???

						Liz Moreau
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Must differ with you regarding Catholic Priests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:07:19 GMT

Whew! Canon Law is getting quite a beating all over this net! There are many 
teachings, practices, etc. in the Church which are very important but not part 
of Canon Law. Canon Law is nothing but the applied PASTORAL theology of the 
Church. It aims to protect the integrity of the Sacraments. You remark that if 
any ends up in Hell, he paddled his own boat to get there. Those who feel 
excluded from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church may well be in 
the same boat...but not the bark of Peter.
>--
Ciao.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via: uk.ac.lancashire-poly.prime1; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:05:24 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:08:29 LCL
From:         The Banshee <SUTTON_R_1@PRIME1.LANCASHIRE-POLY.AC.UK>
Subject:      fasting

(From the banshee   )

Dear all,
Yes it's me again.
Does anyone out there fast on a regular basis?
If so can you advise on how best to go about it as I find
it hard.  Thank you in advance.
God bless,
Rebecca
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Women are unclean
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:56:24 GMT

URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:

>What I saw was a lot of circumstantial evidence like 'so and so said this
>and what it means is', 'Genesis is literal blah, blah, blah', 'it's a
>tradition and life as we know it will end if we change tradition', 'Jesus
>had a penis and so did the twelve apostles so it must be important', etc.

>>	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.

Hardly. The Church does not use this line of reasoning to defend its position
that only men may be priests. Rather, the Church is merely adhering to the
instructions laid out in Corinthians regarding women. The Church's present position, then, is well supported by the Bible. If you wish to be anti-Biblical,
you certainly have that choice.

-ACF
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 12:20:59 CDT
From:         "(Edward J. Branley)" <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>
Subject: Re: kneeling...

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <rex!CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG!zaft> writes:

>       It is one thing to be prevented by temporary circumstances from
> kneeling -- for example, one is outdoors, or in a temporary building being
> used for Mass (for example) -- and quite another thing when designers of
> church buildings deliberately deny congregations kneelers based on their
> own opinions rather than the teaching of the Church.
>
>       The issue here (as in so many places) is OBEDIENCE!
>
>       I don't 'worry about whether or not I should', I just DO.  That
> is, I kneel when I'm supposed to pretty much regardless of circumstances.
>

Well, this position puts you at odds with the designers of almost every gothic
cathedral in Europe.  What you call 'denial of kneelers' is not a denial.

If you want to 'just DO,' that's fine.  So long as you realize that there is
ample precedent for 'just doing it' different ways, I don't think anyone is
going to take issue with you.  If you were to happen to live in a parish where
the church doesn't have kneelers, then I don't think anyone would have a
problem with you leading an effort to have them installed.  Making sweeping
judgements about the builders of churches, or the congretations that frequent
those churches, is indeed pointless.

Obedience.  Ok, obedience to what?  Medieval churches didn't even have seats in
many cases, much less kneelers.  Were all of those folks disobedient?
Doubtful.  We've seen references here to religious communities who remain
standing throughout the Mass.  I'm quite sure that the members of that
community see themselves as obedient to their church and to their order.
Obedience is hardly the issue here, and it is hardly your place to say that
someone is 'disobedient,' IMHO.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU