A question on contemporary and traditional Catholicism??

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan_Daly said:
While Altar servers who are female and EMHCs (male or female) are not abuses in and of themselves, there can be (and are) abuses associated with each.

Examples might be a situation where a priest is told by his bishop that he must use female altar servers or when EMHCs are used in an innappropriate manner.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
👍
 
Dan_Daly said:
While Altar servers who are female and EMHCs (male or female) are not abuses in and of themselves, there can be (and are) abuses associated with each.

Examples might be a situation where a priest is told by his bishop that he must use female altar servers or when EMHCs are used in an innappropriate manner.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
True…but that is not how the other poster presented it. Lots of things can be an abuse… This poster listed them as an abuse almost on par with women priests :eek:

Only problem…Pope thanks altar girls for their service vs. Pope comes out definitely AGAINST women priest. So to list them as almost the same level is just wrong!
 
Zosimus41 said:
Acolytes are no longer called acolytes because little girls now adorn the vestments aswell…Get it?
Click to expand...
Z, you’re making a fool of yourself.

Acolyte is no longer used because acolyte is a term that can only be used (in most of the US and in all of Canada) for those formally (as in formal) on the way to Holy Orders (so by and large it’s Seminarians). Most alter servers are not Seminarians (including the younger guys that many seem to favour), so acolyte is actually the incorrect term for them. It has nothing to do with boys and girls, but with the fact that most of them are not seminarians.

Acolyte is now a canonical term that has a specific meaning.
YoungTradCath said:
I would say that progressive Catholicism advocates for an extremely skewed and biased form of social justice. I would say that progressive Catholicism, at its root, is based in narcissistic factors and/or a poor religious education. A Catholic with a good religious education cannot legitimately support the poor and not support the pro-life movement, for example, even if said Catholic is active in only serving the poor.

Furthermore, I would say that traditional Catholicism is rooted in social justice just as equally as progressive Catholicism. The difference, I think, is that traditional Catholicism does this with a full and well-rounded set of principles, rather than just, “Whine, I feel bad, help me.” I would say that progressive Catholicism’s “flavor” of social justice is ironically reactionary and wrong-minded.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve got the right idea.

This is something I’ve been thinking about lately because of the class I’m taking in ethics, and I think that the so-called progressives just have the wrong starting motivation. They seem to want to put the highest good as alleviating suffering itself. They focus too much on events and states (of being, or happiness) instead of people, and this seems to bleed backwards into their moral judgements (abortion becomes a question of suffering instead of life, gay “marriage” becomes about promoting happiness without regard for what is correctly ordered. It’s extremely utilitarian actually).

When it comes to issues of social justice, we need to put the focus back on people. We believe that we are made in the image and likeness of God and that we are Children of God, so any decision should be made to respect the reality of the dignity that comes with that (call it a modified Kantian view). We feed the poor not to alleviate suffering in the world, but because they are human beings who have dignity and because that dignity in some case is being denied (by circumstances within or beyond their control; by themselves or others). Our outreach to the poor (or anyone) should first and foremost be to affirm their dignity, which means that we will help them in areas where that has been denied (giving food, or shelter, or clothing).

I think that this is the connection that we’ve lost in the last 50 years. When we affirm the dignity of our fellow human beings then we are also praising the God who made them because we acknowledge that our dignity comes from God and not from anything we do. I believe that this is the interpretation we should use when looking at Matthew 25:31-46. It is not the acts of feeding or clothing or visiting that is worthy of praise, but the underlying act of treating people with dignity (treating people the way we would treat Christ) that makes you a righteous person.
 
curlycool89 said:
Acolyte is no longer used because acolyte is a term that can only be used (in most of the US and in all of Canada) for those formally (as in formal) on the way to Holy Orders (so by and large it’s Seminarians). Most alter servers are not Seminarians (including the younger guys that many seem to favour), so acolyte is actually the incorrect term for them. It has nothing to do with boys and girls, but with the fact that most of them are not seminarians.

Acolyte is now a canonical term that has a specific meaning.
Click to expand...
Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.
 
wasserfall said:
Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.
Click to expand...
In our diocese we have instituted acolytes that are not in any path to ordination.
 
wasserfall said:
Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.
Click to expand...
In practice though it is restricted. So there’s no real point complaining about it being “girl’s fault” when it was a decision taken by the Bishop’s Conferences way before girl alter servers even entered the picture.
Cristiano said:
In our diocese we have instituted acolytes that are not in any path to ordination.
Click to expand...
That’s true in some diocese, but the norm in most of North America is for them to be seminarians.
 
curlycool89 said:
In practice though it is restricted. So there’s no real point complaining about it being “girl’s fault” when it was a decision taken by the Bishop’s Conferences way before girl alter servers even entered the picture.

That’s true in some diocese, but the norm in most of North America is for them to be seminarians.
Click to expand...
No the norm is for any lay man, the common practice is usually limited to men pursuing the holy orders. The term “norm” has a very specific meaning in the Church.
 
Cristiano said:
No the norm is for any lay man, the common practice is usually limited to men pursuing the holy orders. The term “norm” has a very specific meaning in the Church.
Click to expand...
And I said norm because it’s an actual rule in most of North America (it’s a rule cross-Canada that only men pursuing Holy Orders can be acolytes. So yes, norm is right).
 
mymamamary said:
Hey Everyone!!

Disclaimer** I am not trying to start a fight, im just asking for opinions, no rude comments or sarcastic ones either!!

I have noticed something. Why is it that contemporary Catholicism (what you would call "liberal Catholic) emphasize social justice (e.g helping the homeless, the immigrant, etc.) and Traditional Catholicism ephasizes Mysticism and prayer. Now i can be very wrong but i have a soft spot for homeless people. However my leanings are traditional. Is there such a rift between the ephasis or am i just seeing things?? Any help please !! 🙂
Click to expand...
The two co-exist very well, they are called Franciscans!
 
curlycool89 said:
In Canada it’s a rule agreed to by all bishops in the CCCB (my understanding by way of a canon lawyer).
Click to expand...
I do not know what the CCL says in regard to that and so I would assume that you are correct when you say that in Canada it is the norm. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Cristiano said:
I do not know what the CCL says in regard to that and so I would assume that you are correct when you say that in Canada it is the norm. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
I don’t think CCL would have anything to do with it because it’s part of the bishop’s discretion (if anything, the CCL will be like Holy Orders; it’ll have minimum requirements) who to accept as an instituted acolyte. In Canada, it’s restricted to seminarians (those preparing for Holy Orders).

We’ve actually been wondering if the CCCB might relax the rules in light of the new GIRM since an acolyte can purify the sacred vessels (no. 192). So far, there’s been no change.
 
****Such comparisons have nothing to do with Catholic tradition. They only instigate arguments as evidenced by this thread.
**

CLOSED**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top