HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: kneeling
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:57:01 GMT

In article <01GP4EF7J81E9QWFYA@SNYBUFVA.BITNET> "Nancy M. Piatkowski" <PIATKONM
@SNYBUFVA.BITNET> writes:
>Does the fact that one kneels or stands really make that much difference?
>Sometimes we place too much emphasis on the externals than on what is really
>important- the belief in the action- of the Real Presence.  Physically in some
>cases it makes more sense for the congregation to stand than to keep popping 
up and down when they don't understand why- also some seniors have a problem 
wher
e
>they can't kneel- because of the pain of arthritis or just old age!- and using
>girls as servers-  so what! I can be a Eucharistic Minister- handle the Body
>and Blood but my daughter can't touch the cruets?  We use girls, we call them
>servers not acolytes- nit picking a term- acolyte is a step to the priesthood
>and a fourth grader certainly isn't on the way to priesthood  in a formal
>caonical sense. AND no one has proven that being a server has helped in the
>growth of vocations-  Please skip the canon law and liturgical document quotes
.
>I have my own copies- some of this is the difference between the European and
>American interpretation of the law- if it isn't absolutely forbidden---- and i
t
>is easier to ask forgiveness than permission-  and if you really feel the need
>for kneelers in your church talk to the pastor and the liturgy committee. I'm
>sure they'd welcome a finanacial contribution toward the purchase of a few-- o
r
>else find a spot and kneel-  one last comment (for today)- better people in
>church standing and praying than kneelers and no one there- think about it-
>Nancy

We should not be so quick to dismiss certain liturgical actions as being
"externals." Of course these actions are external; the question is, do they
have an internal significance? We are not angels but EMBODIED spirits; what we
do with our bodies expresses and affects what happens to our souls. What would
a wife think of a husband who said "I love you" but never touched her? I am
reminded of C.S. Lewis' saying that while I can say prayers while brushing my
teeth, that doesn't mean that I should brush my teeth in Church.
     You seem sure that the pastor and liturgy commitee in a church with no
kneelers would be happy to accept a contribution toward the purchase of some.
Alas, I am not so hopeful, as I know of cases where kneelers have been removed
or left out of a church precisely because a pastor and liturgy commitee who
thought themselves smarter than the Church Universal didn't want them.
     Yes, better people standing in church and praying than kneelers in an
empty church--but these are not the only alternatives. How about people in
church, praying along with the church, according to the mind of the church,
because they know they are part of a church that is more than one congregation,
or liturgy commitee, or pastor. Externals mean something--that's why so many 
people are in on this discussion.
Ciao.
From: CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Fatima
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:49:21 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              5 Oct 1992 17:41:00 LCL from
              <SUTTON_R_1@PRIME1.LANCASHIRE-POLY.AC.UK>

On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:41:00 LCL The Banshee said:
>(From the banshee   )

>certainly be even more dilagent about praying my Rosary daily now.
>How about everyone else?

Mary has said to Fr. Gobbi (and I believe others but am not certain
just who) that the rosary is the "chain that will bind Satan".
It will only accomplish this feat when enough people are praying
it. There are currently people of many different religions praying
the rosary. :)

In Christ,
Elizabeth
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:02:48 EDT
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: jokes
              29 Sep 1992 13:53:56 -0700 from <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>

On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:53:56 -0700 (Gordon C. Zaft) said:
>Okay, here's my contributionto the joketelling...

Okay, one more...

Three women who've grown up in a convent decide they want to become nuns.
The Mother Superior tells them that they are too young and innocent, and
they should try life in the world for a year. If at the end of that time,
they still want to be nuns they will be welcomed into the order.

At the end of the year the three women come back to the convent. The
Mother Superior goes up to the first and asks her how she decided. She
says "Mother, I've seen the world and I've decided I really want to
become a nun." The Mother Superior welcomes her into the order, and then
asks the same question of the second woman. She, too, says "Mother, I've
seen the world and I've decided I really want to become a nun." The
Mother Superior also welcomes her into the order.

Finally, the Mother Superior asks the third woman about her decision.
"Mother," the third woman says, "I've seen the world and I've decided I
really want to become a prostitute."

The Mother Superior screams and faints dead away. The other nuns hear the
scream and come running. They gather around the Mother Superior to revive
her. As she wakens she props herself up on one arm and asks weakly "What?
What did you say?" The woman repeats herself, "I've seen the world and
I've decided I want to become a prostitute."

"Oh thank God" says the Mother Superior, "I thought you said Protestant!"
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Skinhead O'Connor
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 22:56:59 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Yeah, I saw it.  Did it bother me?  Not really, because the impression I was
left with was 'it figures.'

Sinead O'Connor is pro-choice.  She is Irish.  The Republic of Ireland is very
close to being a theocracy, given that better than 90% of the population is
Roman Catholic and the government takes its cues on social issues directly from
their bishops, who in turn get their guidance from Rome and the Holy Father.

Look at how much angst the entire abortion issue has generated in the US, where
church and state are still pretty much separated.  Imagine the frustration one
must feel when the government of your country is 100% in step with one
particular denomination, and you disagree with that denomination's beliefs.

So, I understand her anger.  I certainly don't agree with it.  However, it
should serve as a reminder to us all that our separation of religion and
government in this country is an asset, not a liability.  We're surrounded by a
lot of Catholic-bashing preachers down here in New Orleans.  I guess I'm a bit
more sensitive to this sort of thing.  Were it not for the constitutional
protections we have in this country, the anger we saw from O'Connor could well
be coming from Catholics in various parts of this country.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
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 12:04:03 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Fatima: warning or prediction

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Oct-92 Re: Fatima: warning or pred.. Liz
Moreau@UMASSD.EDU (249)

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

> Eric:

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

Well, the church doesn't really have an official stance, but everyone
tends to take the amillenialist point of view as espoused by St.
Augustine.

Hence in general, Catholics do not believe in the "Rapture" as
Fundamentalists mean it.  While they are correct in that those faithful
who are alive at the time of the Lord's coming will be "caught up"
(rapturus in Latin) in the air, they understand this as happening
_before_ the end of time -- in essence, they believe that Christ is
coming not only a second time, but like a 1.5th time.  They believe the
verse in Thessalonians means that Christ will return invisibly and
rapture the faithful away, but unbelievers will remain for the
tribulation. Several years later will be Christ's real Second Coming,
when he will judge the living and the dead.

Well, I think Christ is only coming one more time, and we will be
raptured when the world ends, and not a moment sooner.  Catholic thought
calls this the "Parousia", a word from Scripture meaning Presence,
referring to the physical return of Christ.  At this time we will
receive our glorified Resurrection bodies.

So in general Catholics don't believe that there will be a significant
gap between the time when we return to the Lord and the time of
judgment, but rather both will occur in short succession.  This,
however, is not a binding interpretation on the faithful, but rather a
traditional one.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:33:26 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject: Re: Omnipresent? (was Re: pre Vat II?)

> 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.

This is a Protestant position.  The Catholic position is that the Eucharist
is *one and the same* with the sacrifice of Calvary.  This is why it is not
considered to be a commemoration of, but a participation in, that sacrifice.

It is not another sacrifice, it is the same.  The Eucharist is an opportunity
for us to participate in that one, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:00:33 -0400
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: A power vocation?

Thank you, Brent and Ed, for your replies. You both base your position
on Scripture.

Brent, I don't pretend to fool myself into thinking I'll change anyones
mind on this list. I'm sure we're all set in our ways.

I need to hear your sides as my Adult CC Class would be considered very
liberal by most of you. I also need to prepare my three children for
what they'll hear outside of our parish (and the home:-)).

Ed, I would like a specific example of what responsibility a woman priest
could not perform (assuming they could be ordained). Your examples of
sexism dealt with specific sexual organs and sexual feelings. I don't
think you mean to imply that the vocation of a priest Requires these:-)

Thanks, - J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re:      Re: Half full/Half empty
Organization: ERE Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.154435.19643@watson.ibm.com> dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com writes:
(Lots of stuff deleted...)
>
>This sitation today is a terrible division. and _not_ unity. I pray (at the
>encouragement of a priest) for the restoration of true UNITY among Christian
>faiths. And so I want to challenge the _church's_ laws when they seem in
>conflict with what seems to me is God's intent. I'm not satisfied by saying,
>that's the way it's always been, so the Church has decided, and that's God's
>intent. Seems to me the hierarchy is God then Church; let's not force-fit God
>into the laws and rules people have set up.
 
the continuing question is whether the Roman Catholic Church, as a corporate body
consisting of believing members, can legitimately rule as to who _can_ and
_can_not_ validly receive communion (the eucharist) within the walls of its
churches.  It has nothing to do with transubstantiation, consubstantiation, 
nonsubstantiation, belief in Christ as the second person of the trinity, 
the primacy of the pope, etc.  It has to do with whether they can say 
"if you are not a member of the Catholic (and uniate) Church, AND do
not believe as we do that the Eucharist is a unifying act between Catholics,
then we would appreciate it if you would respect our wishes and  not 
receive communion in this edifice.  We would ask that you pray that the
divisions seperating us are healed, but until this time, we ask that you
show us some consideration concerning this ritual.  Thank you."

Yes, it is a division.  It is a real division.  The churches are not unified.
There are differences in theology, issues over sacraments, clerical 
priviledges, papal authority, and all down the pike.  Some have been 
blured over the past 20 years, but the central tenets (such as transubstantiation)
are still clearly pronounced.  The Eucharist is not a treat to be handed out or
taken lightly.  It is not a symbol.  It is the Real Presence.  The church would
be less that rational if it gave it to anyone that walked in the door, based
on the long-thought-out theology.  Just because we may be uncomfortable with
not handing it out to anyone that comes forward doesn't mean that we should change
the rules.  All I hear is a criticism of "why don't the catholics...(add your
favorite complaint) to make the church more acceptable to US?".  
 
-Bryan 

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:33:31 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Mary
              2,  4:31pm)

Rebecca, I fear that your friend is putting the cart before the horse.
If he first accepts the doctrine that "Before the creation, God was"
and keeps that in mind, then what we as humans call Mary has no effect
on the reality of the infinite nature of God.  We refer to Jesus also
as the "Son of God" which by the same logic would make Jesus exist
later than God, and we know that they are co-equal according to the
Doctrine of the Trinity.  This is basic Christian doctrine, which I
think even the Baptists accept.

Shalom, Rebecca                            Len Howard
                                           tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: sinead o'connor
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:47:38 GMT

In article <9210051356.AA02067@mayo.cs.utk.edu> mayo@CS.UTK.EDU writes:
>Yes, I saw the insult to our Holy Father as well.  I was outraged, and
>immediately prayed for Sinead O'Connor.  I called my husband into the
>room, and could hardly describe what I had seen.  I felt physical pain.
>I plan to offer sacrifice in reparation for her offense and am praying
>about whether or not to write the network.  Does anyone have the address?

As a former employee of a broadcast network, I can tell you that is exactly
_why_ the lady did what she did.  Look at the bandwidth this is taking up...
Regardless of the fact that she is a marginal songstress and sometime
loony cause activist, she certainly got everyone's attention.  Like a 
child, if you ignore the attention-getting tantrum, then there will be
less of it to deal with.  Prayer is the best defense...

But, if you must write, NBC Television Network, 30 Reckefeller Center, 
New York, NY 10019 Attention: Broadcast Standards and Practices.  Best
tack to take is a reasoned, well thought-out letter (not shrill, nor
strident...) detailing 1) you know all about freedom of the media, 2)
you maintain standards that may or may not be higher than the least-common
denominator the nets use to determine broadcast content, and 3) the
personal insult you feel at the fact that NBC apparently condones
by providing a soapbox to this marginal performer.  Also, let them 
know, that regardless, you feel obliged to counsel your friends to 
not frequent the local NBC station any longer until they consider _ALL_
points of view.  YOu will probably get a form letter back, but, 
enough of them get sent, there will be some discussion in the management
suites...

Bryan D. Boyle     | Opinions mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    | Fly because you can...
ER&E Co.           | 908 730 3338


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Disruptive posts (was Re: mysticism)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:44:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.160725.12758@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>>Idbil Fubar
>
>This is the price we pay for having an open group.  Look at the name,
>for heaven's sake.  I Do Believe I Lie    Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition,
>would be my guess/interpretation.  I guess we could check with the sys-admin
>and find out who dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu really is.  dewind -- right.

   Due to the nature of this group (gatewayed from a mailing list), it
is certainly within the rights of the listowners to control the types
of messages sent here to keep disruptive posts out.  In the
bit.listserv.christia group there have been cases in which someone was
being disruptive, and were asked by the listowners not to post there
anymore.  If that doesn't keep such a person from being disruptive,
their system administrator can be written.  Cindy and Jim?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re:      Re: Half full/Half empty
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:44:35 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In article <IekplOi_NU00556Qoq@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com>,         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM> writes:

|> The Eucharist is not mere food that anyone has a right to.  It is most
|> sacred and holy to us, and must be treated with the utmost respect.  It
|> has always been a sign of unity, and we cannot grant it to those who are
|> not in union with us. 
                     ^^^
Shouldn't the Catholic Church focus on unity in _Christ_? 

Is the Catholic Church following God's example and desire in proliferating
exclusion/separation from other Christians?  Is unity illustrated in
the exclusion of (even respectful) non-Catholic Christians? And is the 
Church primarily interested in my spiritual growth in prohibiting me from 
accepting communion at a non-RC church? 

Would this be your suggested scenario of Jesus facing a devout, not-RC 
Christian in line for the Eucharist at mass:
"I'll meet you over at your church in an hour. You can't share in my body
here. But that's precisely the way I want it..."

Did Jesus by example ever exclude a believer from his presence? Was not even
Judas invited and welcomed by Jesus in the last supper, the first Eucharist?
Think of all the times Jesus joined with sinners as well as devout, seeking 
Jews (Joseph of Arimethea, eg.) 

This sitation today is a terrible division. and _not_ unity. I pray (at the
encouragement of a priest) for the restoration of true UNITY among Christian
faiths. And so I want to challenge the _church's_ laws when they seem in
conflict with what seems to me is God's intent. I'm not satisfied by saying,
that's the way it's always been, so the Church has decided, and that's God's
intent. Seems to me the hierarchy is God then Church; let's not force-fit God
into the laws and rules people have set up.

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kutz@andy.bgsu.edu (Ken Kutz)
Subject: Re: All about the Book of Revelation
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:12:40 GMT


REV 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

What do we know from this verse?  It appears the order of revelation goes
this way:

God ---REVELATION---> Jesus Christ ---> angel ---> John

The first establishes the origin of this book.  That it is revealed divine
truth from God the Father to God the Son.   God the Son sent an angel
(as a divine messenger) to John, who according to verse 2:

REV 1:2  Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

So the new "revelation" diagram becomes:

God ---> REVELATION ---> Jesus Christ ---> angel ---> John ---> written record

Every revelation has a source and destination.  These are laid out for us
in the verse two verses.

Summary for verses 1 & 2:  The author claims this a divinely written
book, inspired and revealed by God to His Son who sent an angel to
John.  Hence the name of the book: The Revelation

A cross reference for this: "All Scripture is God breathed and is
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
(NIV).


Ken
-- 
  Ken Kutz			  Internet 	kutz@bgsu.edu         
  Systems Programmer		  BITNET   	KUTZ@ANDY
  University Computer Services    UUCP     	...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz   
  Bowling Green State Univ.       US Mail   241 Math Science, BG OH 43403
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: pol30546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peder Larsen)
Subject: Re: Secrets of Fatima
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:07:42 GMT

	Has everyone heard about the Korean Pastor in California who
says the end of the world will start on Oct. 28?  What are your opinions?

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: cts@dragon.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:07:13 EDT
From:         "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts@DRAGON.COM>
Subject:      Joke

A rich man had been on the verge of death for some time, and during this
illness, had talked extensively with three priests.  When he finally passed
away, the three clergy were shocked to learn that he had left a huge sum
to the three of them, and the church - they were to divide it between
themselves and the church.  They talked for some time about how to do
this.  The first priest suggested that they draw a circle, throw the money
in the air, and what went in the circle was theirs, the rest went to the
church.  The second suggested the reverse - what went out of the circle
was theirs.  They finally settled on the plan suggested by the third
cleric - "Let's throw the money up in the air.  What God wants, he keeps.
Then we devide what's left over."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"Catholic@American.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:59:08 -0400
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Lay leadership at communion services

Bryan writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article <920930120526.28e02e65@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
writes:
>This is an interesting concept. Our parish has recently gone down to one
>priest, however we do have a parishioner who is a deacon. Is there any
>chance that the bishop could delegate his authority to a deacon to celebrate
>the Mass. I suppose there is some rule about transubstantiation only occurring
>with a priest or higher, but can this be modified or waivered under special
>circumstances? Or am I blaspheming again:-) - J.J.

only a priest can consecrate the bread and wine into the Eurharist, and
celebrate the mass.

The permanent deacon can, however, perform other sacrimental services
under his order.  A good canonical explanation can be found in the
revised code-

Bryan
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I rather suspected this was the case, I guess I was wondering
if there were any loop holes in the Dogma. It seems unfair to
deny access simply for lack of a priest, especially if it will
be for any great length of time. I suppose we could just have a
central "consecrating site" and then transport "volumes" of
consecrated Hosts to remote sites for distribution at these
communion rituals. Or is this not feasable either? - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU