HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:22:59 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              Homosexuality" (Oct 14,  4:04am)

John, your questions are good ones.  The whole concept of Macquarrie
is that by recognizing that there is a cultural factor in theology you
are acknowledging that there is no final theology.  The work of
theology needs to be done again and again, for its formulations are
culturally conditioned, and therefore need reinterpretation as
cultural forms change.   He points out the risk that by allowing for
change based on cultural factors, you may get modernism for its own
sake.  Karl Barth protested this vigorously in his early writings
"Form believes itself capable of taking the place of content.  Man has
taken the divine into his possession; he has brought it under his
management."  But against this warning from Barth, one may set the
words of his contemporary, Paul Tillich, in defense of his procedure
of stating theology in forms derived from contemporary culture: "I am
not unaware of the danger that in this way the substance of the
Christian message may be lost.  Nevertheless, this danger must be
risked, and once one has realized this, one must proceed in this
direction.  Dangers are not a reason for avoiding a serious demand."
Macquarrie calls for a fine balance.  He says "If the demand for
relavence and intelligibility is to be met, then there will always be
a danger of infringing the autonomous - and even judgemental -
character of the primordial revelation; but this must be weighed
against the other danger of so insulating the revelation against all
contact with the changing forms of secular culture, that it becomes
encapsulated, and shut off from everything else in life.  It should
not prove impossible to find a way beween these dangerous extremes.
But this can best be done if we frankly acknowledge the cultural
factor in theology, and try to handle it in full awareness of its
potentialities;  If we try to exclude this factor, then it will work
unconsciously, for it is inescapable."
    You can get the idea that there is no definite period of time that
a theological tretise becomes outdated....it is a continuum, as is
societal change and evolution.  One either accepts that theology is
dynamic and capable, yea requiring, constant reevaluation, or you lock
yourself into the first three hundred years of the early Church as
many indeed do.  I prefer to think that we must constantly reasses our
thoughts as to Doctrines.  They will survive this investigation, and
if they cannot, then maybe they lack validity.
     Sorry to be so longwinded, but this topic does not lend itself to
sound bites.
Shalom,                                Len Howard
                                       tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Ratzinger (was: Homosexuality)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:55:35 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: Latin nostalgia <as Re. Altar girls ...>
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:06:55 GMT

In <5925@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:

>In article <199210121941.AA19356@dsuvax.dsu.edu> rolfe@DSUVAX.DSU.EDU (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>>
>>>In nomine Patri, Filii, et Spiriti Sancti,
>>           ^^^^^            ^^^^^^^          Wrong declensions
>> In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritui Sancti

>A brave attempt, but no banana here either. <Spiritui> is dative, the
>genitive is <Spiritus>. 

>At least I think so.

Please pass the wet noodle!  You are, of course, right.  A bit of
cross-talk here from

  Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.

Where it IS a string of datives.  Not to mention the string of nominatives
in 

   Benedicat vos Deus omnipotens, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.

as distinct from the genetives of

   Benedictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,
   descendat super vos . . .

--- These are all from (quite possibly fallible) memory.

(Perhaps God is showing his sense of humor in smashing together 2nd,
3rd, and 4th declensions all in this one phrase . . .)
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:08:35 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anglican Church Question...

>development of conservative Anglican churches.  Would you characterize these
>reforms as more of a fringe response to mainstream Episcopal policies, or as a
>serious backlash?

Some us us would like to think they are a fringe response.  I hope we're not
fooling ourselves.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 09:29:43 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones update

In article <9210071625.AA14651@nhgs>, "Patrick S. Golden"
<pgolden@NHGS.VAK12ED.EDU> says:
>
>According to Marty Helgesen:
>>
>> Using altar girls corrupts the children of the parish, especially
>> the altar girls themselves.  They are taught by example that if
>> they don't like any of the Church's rules they are free to ignore
>>  After all,the Church's legislative authority comes from God.
>>
>Seems strange to me that Jesus would allow a women to dry his
>feet with her hair, but, accoding to the above, a woman cannot
>dry a priest's hands with a cloth.

In fact, an altar boy does not dry a priest's hands with a cloth.  If
there is one server he has the water and basin in his hands and the
cloth over his arm for the priest to take.  If there are two servers
one has the water and basin and the other holds the cloth in his
hands for the priest to take.  In either case the priest dries his
own hands.  That is what I have observed over the years, but since I
was never an altar boy, although I did serve Mass a few times as an
adult, I asked my pastor.  He confirmed my recollection.

Leaving that fact aside and assuming for the moment that the altar
boy does dry the priest's hands your comment still does not make
sense.  There is no connection between the incident described in the
Gospels and the act of serving Mass except the superficial fact that
both involve drying something.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:26:40 -0400
From:         "(William E. Aitken)" <aitken@CS.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones update

	Well I just got back from doing a spot of research on this subject.
In particular, I was reading the Canon Law Society of America's
translation of and commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law published
by the Paulist Press.  It has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur (for
those of you interested in such things).  It claims fairly firmly
that the prohibition on female altar servers present in #70 of GIRM
and the 1917 Code no longer binds.   In particular, it mentions that
Inaestmible Donum [sp?] has no legislative force beyond that
of GIRM or the (then still in effect) 1917 Code.  In short, there
seems (at the very least) to be bona fide doubt whether there is,
in fact, any active Canonical prohibition on the use of female
altar servers.

	There seem to be three main arguments for the statement that
the old law no longer binds.  First, the very nature of the office is
fundamentally changed under the new Canon Law.  Second, the prohibition
of the 1917 code is not carried forward to the 1983 code.  Third,
the prohibition in GIRM is part of a more general prohibition on
females serving in the sanctuary.  Since 1967, this prohibition has
been removed [aid to infirm priest, non-ordained reader, extraordinary
minister of Eucharist, etc.]

	I have been unable to find any Roman or National Documents
post-dating the publication of the 1983 Code with Legislative
or Juridicial authority that suggest that the prohibition is
still in effect.  If someone can point me at such a document, I might
believe that those who employ female altar servers are in clear violation
of Church Law.  Otherwise, it seems to me that they are not.
From: waldbill1981@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Peer pressure and grape juice
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:32:38 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <921008103348.202090d0@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
> Gordon writes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> J.J.,
> 	Aside from the horror I feel at the whole idea of grape juice at
> Mass.... does your congregation understand that they most certainly
> do not need to receive under both kinds in order to fully receive the
> body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ which is truly present
> in either the host OR the chalice?  It sounds from your post like people
> think if they don't receive from the Chalice that they're somehow missing
> something.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Gordon,
> I don't think it's a matter of them not understanding, I think that
> they feel that if it is there, you simply 'must' receive both.
> Much like Fred had complained about row after row of people filing
> out to go to communion, I think peer pressure plays alot in people
> receiving both forms of communion whether they want to or not.
> 
> Since my youngest insists on the family sitting up front so she
> can see better, I have observed that those who don't recieve
> the Chalice seem to go out of their way to avoid eye contact with
> that person. I, therefore, make it a point to smile and say hello
> to the person holding the Chalice even though I don't drink the
> wine myself. I suppose I should consider myself fortunate since
> I do have the opportunity to receive both, as I know that other
> larger parishes do not offer wine to the 'general public', but for
> me the actual taste of the wine detracts from the real meaning.
> 
> Hmmm, upon further reflection of what I've just written, a good
> case could be made for me not to be sitting up front at church,
> from some of my previous posts, perhaps I should be waiting in
> the car:-) - J.J.



Beneditus Deus in Saecula!

Lay reception of  the Precious Blood at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not
supposed to be the norm in the Church (this is obvious in the documents of
Vatican II and in the General Instuction of the Missale Romanum).

Using anything but alcoholic grape wine creates a very, very dangerous
situation.  The proper matter for the Mass is bread (unleavened in the Latin
Rite) made from wheat flour and wine made from grapes.  This matter is
necessary to confect the sacrament.  By using grape juice or other substances,
it is highly probable that an invalid consecration will occur.  A priest is
completely unable to validly consecrate invalid matter.

The recent obsession with grape juice is an old Protestant idea which orginated
in the idea that alochol is evil (which is a re-hash of an ancient heresy). 
Try telling Our Lord at Cana and at the Last Supper that alchol is evil.  It
just doesn't work.

In Pax et Veritas Christi,

Brian T. Waldbillig
Petrus Romanus
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: P.S. for Latin & the Church
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:49:54 GMT
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <1992Oct15.191751.7710@iscsvax.uni.edu> waldbill1981@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>P.S.    In reference to the Roman Catholic Church, I deal solely with the Latin
>Rite of the Church, not only because that is the rite in which most of us
>worship, but also because it is by far the largest rite,  with over 90% of
>Catholics belonging to this rite.
>
>Latin Rite -- Latin Language.  There must be some connection here.
>
There is, but don't tell the ICEL or political correctness nazis...
(we are distinguishing the use of LATIN as a language of liturgical 
celebration and the tridentine rite, commonly celebrated in LATIN
(although, I can remember serving as an acolyte in an english language 
tridentine mass in the '60s...The mass promulgated by Pope Paul in 1969
was written, and indeed, is celebrated in Latin.))

 
>Caritas et Veritas Domini,
>
>Brian T. Waldbillig
>Petrus Romanus
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: English translation
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:50:29 GMT

In article <i3VPsB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Before I got married, I was a lector for about 5 years.  In all that time, I
>*never* lifted the lectionary from its stand at the conclusion.  I always felt
>that holding up the book was a bit too theatrical, and would lead to the
>confusion you've described.  One priest in the parish agreed, the other would
>raise the book and hold it up very dramatically after the Gospel.  I don't know
>where he got it from, but this particular priest (a good family friend, btw)
>has always had a flair for the dramatic.  As a deacon, he would make an
>elaborate point of asking the celebrant for a blessing before proclaiming the
>Gospel.  The possibility of confusion didn't bother him at all.  I have to
>admit that the ritual of asking for a special blessing (after his ordination,
>he continued to take his time going to the pulpit for the Gospel) did a lot to
>focus attention on the spoken Word.

   I'm not sure, but I _think_ raising the Book of the Gospels is part
of the rubrics.  If I remember, I'll try to look it up.  As for a
deacon receiving a blessing from the celebrant before proclaiming the
Gospel, I believe it too is part of the rubrics.  I know in last
year's Christmas Mass at St. Peter's Basilica I saw (on TV) the deacon
receive a blessing from the Pope before proclaiming the Gospel.  The
TV commentator (an archbishop) even noted why he was receiving the
blessing (in order to be guided by God in proclaiming His Gospel).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rjtatz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert J Tatz)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:17:21 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92101418124744@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>which comes from God. It is an opportunity for them to live a life of
>love together. That expression of God's love cannot be sinful. Requiring
>someone to live a life without love, is.

I disagree with SEX == LOVE  or  LOVE == SEX.

"Requiring someone to live a life without love..."

What about the couple who uses natural family planning?
What about the husband whose wife becomes terminally ill?

Do these people not still love one another?

What about the celibate priest?  Does he live his life without love?
What about Christ?  Was his life lived without love?


"Love one another as I have loved you."  God's Love may require
different sacrifices of different people.  I think God will decide
what "expressions of love" are sinful.  I love my children dearly, but
certain "expressions of love" would be horribly sinful. 

Bob          rjtatz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 09:24:40 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones
 <tjrad.718396261@pv0a0c.vincent.iastate.edu>

Tom,

Back in the 1940s and 50s some Catholics thought that the sacrifice
of the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than in
Latin.  This was a legitimate desire.  The requirement that the Mass
be celebrated in Latin was entirely a matter of Church law.  The
first Masses had been said in Aramaic, which was the vernacular of
the Apostles.  Masses were then offered in Greek and other vernacular
languages, including Latin, which was the vernacular in Rome.  Be-
cause Latin was the common language of the Western Church it became
the common language of worship.  Vernacular liturgies were tradition-
ally used in some of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Wheth-
er it was desirable to change from Latin to the vernacular in the
Latin rite was a matter of opinion.  Many Catholics who supported the
change formed organizations to promote it.  They wrote books and
articles advocating it. They had meetings and conferences to discuss
and advocate the use of the vernacular.  At those meetings the
priests in attendance celebrated Mass in Latin.  The change they
wanted had not yet been approved so they properly and obediently
followed the rules then in effect.

You ask if altar girls are against the rules.  Yes, they are.
Someone else on the list recently said that he could provide documen-
tation proving this fact.

I have seen statements that there are theological reasons against the
use of altar girls, but I have been able to study those arguments.
Therefore, I am prescinding from that question and treating the
prohibition of altar girls only as a matter of Church law.  If you
consider the example of the vernacular in my first paragraph you will
see that your posted questions miss the point.

God's law can be changed only by God.  He made some changes when He
became a man in Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Old Covenant and founded
the New Covenant which shall last until He returns at the end of the
world.  Disobeying His commandments is a direct defiance of God.  God
founded the Catholic Church to teach in His name, to administer His
sacraments, etc.  Disobeying the rules of His Church is an indirect
defiance of God because it defies the legislative authority He gave
to the Apostles and their successors.


Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:30:11 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Authority on the Church...

> If we are to go on what comes from Rome, then yes, the Pope is chosen
> through God's wisdom which he passes onto the Sacred College of
> Cardinals when they make their vote. Actually, from what I have come
> to understand, there is much political maneuvering which occurs. Factions
> are created to provide voting power to a candidate... It gets really
> nasty. Almost as dirty (if not dirtierr) than U.S. politics. Men will be
> men, whether a common man or one clocked in Scarlet Cloth. The ambitions
> which drive the common man also drive the clergy. Think about it... Power
> over 43 million people plus infalible... Who wouldn't be driven to strive
> for that position... Politics plays an important role in the on-going
> operations of the church.


    Malachi Matin wrote a wonderful book titled "The Final Conclave"
on this very subject.  It drags at times but well worth the effort.

    Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: cts@dragon.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:07:52 EDT
From:         "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts@DRAGON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Episcopal/Anglican Newsgroups

Right now, there is an Episcopal mailing list, maintained at Dragon.com.
Send a message with the body "subscribe" to episcopal-request@dragon.com.

  Charles Smith
  cts@dragon.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:36:39 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Not about women priests, it's about changing rules

> Yes, they can , but it is not our choosing, but that of the Holy Spirit.

This is *precisely* why some of us object to what we see as Rome second-
guessing the Holy Spirit.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: Ratzinger (was: Homosexuality)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:27:13 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-21613]: hermes


In article <1992Oct11.230944.740@news.nd.edu>, jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.221522.19032@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
> >Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Given Ratzinger's past as an honored member
> >of the Hitler Youth, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute
> >such a opinion to him; and I think it's important to understand the
> >biases of the people purporting to advise the Pope in moral matters.
> 
>  Do you have any proof of such a nasty claim

Probably not of the sort that is likely to satisfy you, from the sound
of your post.  I read it in the New Republic some years back.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic