HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:39:28 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
              "Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)" (Jan 11,  3:32pm)

Hi John,  I am so glad you have the book in front of you.  You can
then read at the top of p.82 in the area from which you quoted, this
sentence; "The work of the Holy Spirit is not confined to the original
writing which produced the authoritative witness."

I really wish you would take the entireity of what I write and apply
it to the question under discussion rather than chopping it up into
small pieces and arguing out of context.  If everything we write and
read from each other is nit-picked, then no conceptualization can ever
be understood.

I realize that you and I are somewhat different in our theological
stance, but that is what this arena is about, John, diversity.

If I must simplify what my posting was saying for the sake of those
who have trouble getting to the kernal, what I said was that "There
are theologians writing today who think we have to consider the
reality of today's experience when making pronouncements based on
scriptural prohibitions."  In other words "Revelation did not end with
the death of the last Apostle."

Most of the discussion I hear on the topic of homosexuality in the
Church boils down to the trotting out of the same few verses and using
them as a proof text for whatever negative position you wish to take.
The fact that we are dealing with living, loving people never seems to
make any impression.  I am merely suggesting, from my own experience
as a gray-haired heterosexual who has been around the Church for a
while, that we have to take a good look at the question from the point
of view of today's knowledge and experience.  There are obviously
zealots on both sides, but I think there are also many of us in the
'via media' that are amenable to reason.  This is why I continue to
reply to most dissention.

Shalom, John                            Len Howard - tas@pegasus.com
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:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:37:52 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: EWTN

        Well, when I had access to EWTN I really enjoyed it; in particular,
I liked Mother Angelica's show.  I also liked the Rosary ( I usually
listened while doing other things (and chiming in on the responses)) and
in particular Fr. Rutler's stuff.  There is some new programming this
year that should be interesting...some specials about:

        The facelift for St. Peter's Basilica facade;
        The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne;
        The Shoenstatt movement;
        Padre Pio.

        I also liked Fr. Pacwa's series and Fr. Dubay's stuff.

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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:10:31 -0700
From:         "John W. Woolley" <jww@EVOLVING.COM>
Subject:      Re: Saints in the Episcopal Church...

Edward Branley asks:
> Does the
> Episcopal Church canonize people on their own, or do they simply recognize
> those canonized by Rome?

Anglicans in general recognize saints canonized either by Rome or by the
Eastern Church, and also commemorate notable Anglicans (who are almost
never called "Saint").  The Episcopal Church even has entries in its
calendar for people who weren't Catholics of any stripe.  (The Anglican
Catholic Church does not.)

The only person ever "canonized" in any kind of official way by the
Anglican Church is Charles I, King and Martyr, King of England and
Scotland from 1625 to 1649, who suffered for the faith at the hands of
Puritans.  His feast is celebrated on the anniversary of his martyrdom
on January 30, 1649.  He was canonized by act of Parliament (!) in, I
think, 1660.

I've always loved one story about Charles I, that falls under the heading
of "grace under pressure".  It is reported that, on the way to his
beheading, he asked for a Bible to hold; and when they brought him one,
he stopped and made sure it included the Apocrypha before he'd carry it.

In Christ,
-- Fr. John Woolley
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:34:57 GMT
Organization: UW Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redx.cac.washington.edu

In article <C0K1Cq.C62@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
|> In article <930108143846.2e003145@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
|> >> (2) Even if Scripture is ambiguous,
|> >>why is not the constant teaching of the Church enough?
|> >
|> >Traditional errors are still errors:-)
|> 
|>    Are you saying that what was taught to the Apostles by Jesus was in
|> error; or do you deny the Apostolic nature of the Church, that what
|> has been handed down as Sacred Tradition comes through the Apostles
|> from Christ?
|> 
Not all tradition is Tradition.  For example, the doxology at the end of the
Lord's Prayer ... how long did it take the scribe's addition to become
tradition?  How long for the addition to be recognized as such and removed (but
not from protestant versions)?

I think we need to be very careful when we try to identify sin.  To sin requires
knowledge, freedom, conscious choice ... the more we are embedded in sin, the 
less free our choices are.  The more free we are, the more our actions are free,
informed choices.  Hence the paradox that the greater the sinner the less the
guilt; the greater the saint the greater the sin.

Leech in Soul Friend quotes someone to the effect that sinners need therapy,
saints need confession.

I think it was Augustine who said something to the effect that only the
fundamental choice against God (freely, consciously, deliberately made) truly
deserved to be called "sin".

As one reads classical spiritual literature it becomes clear that the legalistic
sense of sin is a discipline that is needed for the earlier portion of one's
spiritual development, but that as one grows the sense of sin changes.  This
latter sense of sin is far slower to condemn another's behavior, far quicker
to condemn its own - not just for actual behavior but for omissions and
motivation.

There seem to be a number of somewhat contradictory traditions passed down,
traditions that are reconcilable by considering the stage of spiritual life
for which they are intended to be applicable.  But even on "clear-cut" dogma
Ott (in Fundamentals of Dogma) often traces competing traditions upon which
the Church has never difinitively ruled.


 

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:25:33 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
              12 Jan 1993 12:54:14 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

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.?

>
>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.

Brent.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:40:06 GMT

In article <9301120022.AA02778@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Oh my, Thomas, did you get no farther in my post that my quote about
>scripture?  For if you did you would know that I am not an
>inerrantist, and certainly do not hold with 'sola scriptoris'.  But by
>the tenor of your posting, I discern that you and I would never agree
>on anything theological, so I will merely wish you 'Shalom' rather
>than to try to hold any sort of meaningful dialog with you.
>
>Len Howard - tas@pegasus.com

I did get further, but your first argument was to throw an interpretation
of scripture at me.  Unless you are used to sending mere noise, I assume
that there was something there that you thought would be persuasive.  It
was not, but I am curious why you think it would be so.  Also, I am
interested if you interpret scripture in any systematic way, or merely
pick verses (or quote others doing so) that happen to agree with a
preconcieved notion.

You yourself use the word meaningful - I am simply exploring meanings.
YOu wish me "shalom" - - what are you wishing me specifically?  How do
you hold meaningful dialogs with one you disagree with?  If you don't
explore the differences you seldom learn things.  It is clear that we
disagree.  I am looking for the reason and basis for it.  If you think
the way you do because "it feels right" it is a way of looking at things.
I am wondering if you can go beyond that.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
zerucha@fim001.ets.ford.com - work address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Saints in the Episcopal Church...
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 18:51:09 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"John W. Woolley" <jww@EVOLVING.COM> writes:

> Edward Branley asks:
> > Does the
> > Episcopal Church canonize people on their own, or do they simply recognize
> > those canonized by Rome?
>
> Anglicans in general recognize saints canonized either by Rome or by the
> Eastern Church, and also commemorate notable Anglicans (who are almost
> never called "Saint").  The Episcopal Church even has entries in its
> calendar for people who weren't Catholics of any stripe.  (The Anglican
> Catholic Church does not.)

Ok, I was wondering why Episcopal calendars had some folks listed as 'Saint,'
and others just by their names.

>
> The only person ever "canonized" in any kind of official way by the
> Anglican Church is Charles I, King and Martyr, King of England and
> Scotland from 1625 to 1649, who suffered for the faith at the hands of
> Puritans.  His feast is celebrated on the anniversary of his martyrdom
> on January 30, 1649.  He was canonized by act of Parliament (!) in, I
> think, 1660.

Parliament?  That figures, given the period.  Fr. John, do you know if there is
a specific reason why Episcopals have declined to canonize anyone since then?



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:59:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: EWTN

R.Chonak writes and Edward Bramley responds:

>> On the other hand, some of EWTN's programs are promoting the dubious
apparitions
>> at Medjugorje in Herzegovina, which will prove to be embarrassing for the
>> network if the Church ever gets around to decisively condemning the
apparitions
>> as false.  (Roma eterna, civitas Vaticana sempiterna.)  ;-)


>I've got problems with the apparitions themselves, also.
>I get the impression that they just wish that Medjugorje would just 'go away,'
>but the civil war keeps things in the news so much.  Ah, but another time for
>Medjugorje.

What are the objections to Medjugorje?  So far, in all I read, serious
students of the alleged apparitions always demur to the ultimate authority
of the Church.  The catch-22 seems to be that the Church never rules on
such phenomena until the sequence of apparitions is all over and have
withstood the test of time, or whenever something occurs that definitvely
shows the phenomena are not of divine origin.  The Virgin's "messages" all
seem, to me at least, to be straightforward and in line with the gospel, and
the main point of the events.  There is also a great deal of talk about the
predictions of Medjugorje (and, as it turns out, of numerous other apparitions
all over the world, including a rather astonishing offshoot of Medjugorje at
a parish in Scottsdale, Az.).  But interpretation of apocalytic messages has
always been a tricky business: it's one area I feel most comfortable in
relying on the Magisterium.  The basic messages of Medjugorje,
however--prayer, fasting, penance, conversion, and renunciation are pretty
basic to the gospel.  With so many things going to hell in a handbasket, it
does not stretch my belief system too far to think that heaven would
intervene in some way.  And as many point out, the woman in the Book of
Revelation does just that, during the end times.

On this last point, my own take (strictly!) on "end times" is that, besides
the final one, there have been, and will be, many "end times" when history
turns over a new leaf and new eras begin.  I believe we are going through just
such a sea change, and that the apparitions, if true, are meant to raise our
consciousness to what is occurring and to help those "with ears to hear" to
prepare for the inevitable and not get lost in the confusion described in the
gospels for end times.
Fred Chavez

P.S. There's also a Dominican on EWTN; forget his name (Brian Mulroney???)but
he's done a series on the Apostle's Creed that I thought was very appealing and
intellectually satisfying.
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:25:55 GMT

[replying to Jim McIntosh]

You are asking for a narrow exception.  But you don't state any basis other
than the people of God have been wrong in their interpretation for over 4
millenia.  Under your system, it seems that if people love each other, there
is no possibility of sinning in pursuit of that love.  So a couple that could
not afford a ring could steal one.  Another could kill an ex-husband instead
of getting an annulment.

My other examples still stand - If you make an exception for two people
because they cannot get sexually excited (unless you state that Gay Males
cannot love their sisters, or be friends with women - "love" has many
meanings) with the opposite sex, why not another narrow exception for a man
that cannot be faithful to just one wife.  And the FAS children I described
do not have a conscience, so will you make an exception when they steal?

The other question is whether love (other than eros) should lead anyone to
commit sin.  If two men "love" (phileo or agape) each other, the last thing
I think they would want to do is "love" (eros) each other because they would
each be sinning against themselves, the other, and against God.  Also to
repeat something brought up before, the "Gay" community is better defined
by anonymous sex with as many partners as possible.  I don't think those
who are comitted and monagamous are represented in the parades in SF and NY.
But every other deviation is.  Would those seeking acceptance completely
renounce every other aspect of the Gay Community?  The few I have seen
interviewed don't seem to want to.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
zerucha@fim001.ets.ford.com - work address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Newman and Norfolk
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:30:54 GMT

In article <9301110140.AA15394@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Martwe discussed John Henry Newman yesterday in our Liturgics class in
>connection with the Oxford movement.  He was attempting to change the
>practice of the Church of Engla in the ninteenth century.  The
>practice at that time was Morning and Evening Prayer.  In the city of
>on on Christmas of 1800 there were four cmmunica for eucharist.
>Nobody had received Confrimation and thus few were able to receive.
>Newman wanted to change that and return the practice of the Church of
>England to what it had been about 200 years earlier.  His efforts met
>with little success and much (and violent) opposition.  He thereupon
>went to the Church of Rome with his efforts and was (conditionally)
>ordained in the Roman rite, where his efforts are today memorialized
>by the many Newman Centers on college campuses.

Hello again Len.
While not wanting to "challenge" you on this, I have to admit I'm pretty
confused about what you write here.  I am presently reading Newman's
Apologia Pro Vita Sua, his autobiographical explanation of move to Rome.
He doesn't mention any of what you quote here.  Rather he relates his
going over to his recognition of which Church, the Anglican, or the Roman
had the greater claim to being the Ancient Church of the Fathers.  He, Newman,
says that his first principle was the principle of Antiquity, roughly that
the documents of the ancient Church provide the criterion for deciding in which
Church the ancient Church lives.  Prior to his study of the Fathers, the Arian,
and the Nestorian heresies, and a particularly felicitious reference given to
him by a friend, namely "judicat orbis terrarum", he had maintained that the
judgement of antiquity resides with the Anglican church.  However, after his
study, he concluded that in fact is resides with the Roman church.  He reports
that the only thing at that point keeping him from going over was his 
misperception of the Cult of saints, and in particular of Mary in the Roman
church.  When he settled this issue, he says he went over and never looked back.

He says his specific charge against the Anglican church when he was the leading
author of the Tractarian movement, otherwise known as the Oxford movement, was
against the principle of Liberalism, which he explains is the "anti dogmatic"
attitude of the leading Anglicans of the time.

He also claims to find that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the development
of doctrine is to be found in the ancient Church.

But when he was the leading author of the Oxford movement, he had absolutely
no inclination to leave, but to reform.  IN fact, at the time he says explicitly
and quite seriously, that he thought on dogmatic grounds that the Pope is
the anti-Christ.

I'm not saying that what you relate is false; but it seems inadequate given what
Newman relates, and given that he doesn't even mention it.

Peace,
John
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Communication Problems, Gregory XVI and (oh, no, not again) Railways
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:30:46 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <1993Jan7.221958.27646@news.nd.edu> jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>He banned railways!  My God, how absurd.  He banned railways
>for God's sake.  YOu ignorant peasants, you hang on every word of the pope,
>surrending your intellect and will to a foreign power; but for God's sake
>he banned railways.  Don't you see how ignorant you are?  Join me  in my
>enlightened stance

My goodness. So much venom from such a small vessel. This is the way I
like it: none of this wimpish sticking to the arguments or respecting your
interlocutor; let's just put some words in his mouth and abuse him.

>Forgive me if I am wrong, but you still do not seem to have provided the
>"ample historical documentation" (hope I didn't change any words there ;->),
>nor the historical context.

Actually a short quote from _Ad Extirpanda_ was one of the things that got
sucked into oblivion by our communications breakdown in December. I'll
submit it again, since you asked so sweetly.

> I suppose if he forgets
>words, you'll always find some to put in his mouth.

Words fail me, but I expect you'll be kind enough to provide some.

>I guess you have your authorities to whom you submit your judgement then?

No, don't be stupid. I don't "submit" to Butler, I agree with him. It's
called "thinking", John.

>>David Lodge: "How Far Can You Go?", Penguin Books, 1980. pp114-5.
>
>The title of this book says it all.  Reminds me of my childish questions to
>my father, "Dad how much sin can I do and still get into heaven?"

Yes, you're right, it's always best to examine the contents of a book just
by reading the title. What do you do with all the spare time?

Martin "Yippee I'm Back" Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU