Can We Put this Myth to Rest: EF vs EMHC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MartyrForJesus said:
It is also upsetting to see 2000 years of tradition just thrown out the window in order to be ‘inclusive’. No offence intended, but that is how I see it.
Click to expand...
2000 years of tradition?

I suspect the sacrificial liturgy of the early church was far closer to the OF Mass than the EF Mass.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
It is also upsetting to see 2000 years of tradition just thrown out the window in order to be ‘inclusive’. No offence intended, but that is how I see it.
Click to expand...
The failure of men to step up and take an interest in serving and promoting and training altar servers is partially responsible in those areas where tradition was "thrown out the window in order to be “inclusive’”. When duties are neglected and nearly abandoned, the space is left wide open for those with ulterior motives to step in.
 
Colt said:
2000 years of tradition?

I suspect the sacrificial liturgy of the early church was far closer to the OF Mass than the EF Mass.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but many such liturgies were celebrated in catacombs and many more were martyred for the faith.
 
zab said:
The failure of men to step up and take an interest in serving and promoting and training altar servers is partially responsible in those areas where tradition was "thrown out the window in order to be “inclusive’”. When duties are neglected and nearly abandoned, the space is left wide open for those with ulterior motives to step in.
Click to expand...
Yes, in parishes that weren’t already giving into the liturgical abuse (it was at the time, until Pope Blessed John Paul II allowed it) of letting girls become altar boys, it wouldn’t surprise me that there was lack of training and motivation. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the baby boomer generation simply did not pass on the faith. Surprisingly enough that same generation was the ‘Vatican II’ generation, the generation that were called by the reforms of Vatican II to go out there and convert the world. However, with more young people becoming more active in the Church we will, and have, started to see a difference. The young people and priests at the F.S.S.P. parish for example spend time each week training the altar boys. Female altar boys might have been a necessity for a time, but the allowance now should be reversed.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
Yes, in parishes that weren’t already giving into the liturgical abuse (it was at the time, until Pope Blessed John Paul II allowed it) of letting girls become altar boys, it wouldn’t surprise me that there was lack of training and motivation. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the baby boomer generation simply did not pass on the faith. Surprisingly enough that same generation was the ‘Vatican II’ generation, the generation that were called by the reforms of Vatican II to go out there and convert the world. However, with more young people becoming more active in the Church we will, and have, started to see a difference. The young people at the F.S.S.P. parish for example spend time each week training the altar boys. Female altar girls may have been a necessity for a time, but the allowance now should to be reversed.
Click to expand...
No, you got it wrong. The lack of training and motivation came before the girls were allowed to serve. That was the excuse for their stepping in- “Well the boys don’t want to serve” When actually, no one was taking an interest in getting boys to serve and to train.
 
Colt said:
2000 years of tradition?

I suspect the sacrificial liturgy of the early church was far closer to the OF Mass than the EF Mass.
Click to expand...
So you’re implying that the early Church used female altar boys? Can you document that?
 
zab said:
No, you got it wrong. The lack of training and motivation came before the girls were allowed to serve. That was the excuse for their stepping in- “Well the boys don’t want to serve” When actually, no one was taking an interest in getting boys to serve and to train.
Click to expand...
The girls were starting to serve following Vatican II but the Vatican attempted to stop it, however the practice continued in some areas. I said that female altar boys might have been necessary because of the lack of altar boys some time ago, but it isn’t necessary any longer. I still think that letting girls become altar boys was a huge mistake. It was an attempt to bolster the depleting ranks of altar boys, but in the process feminised the role and made it even more unattractive for boys.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
Yes, in parishes that weren’t already giving into the liturgical abuse (it was at the time, until Pope Blessed John Paul II allowed it) of letting girls become altar boys, it wouldn’t surprise me that there was lack of training and motivation. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the baby boomer generation simply did not pass on the faith. Surprisingly enough that same generation was the ‘Vatican II’ generation, the generation that were called by the reforms of Vatican II to go out there and convert the world. However, with more young people becoming more active in the Church we will, and have, started to see a difference. The young people and priests at the F.S.S.P. parish for example spend time each week training the altar boys. Female altar boys might have been a necessity for a time, but the allowance now should be reversed.
Click to expand...
Baby boomers - came after the war, and just before the “pill.” They were the healthiest, best fed, best educated, most spoiled generation ever. They were the first Teenagers, the first to experience Rock and Roll, the first to have cars as teens, the first to “hang out,” the first to make significantly more money than their parents, the first to question the previous generation in any meaningful sense, the first to refuse to go to war, the first to indulge in “free love,” the first to use drugs in a big way, the first to “Tune in, turn on and drop out.” they brought music, drugs, philosophy and “spirituality” from the East. They rebelled against society and the Government - the riots of 68 for instance.

Before the baby-boomers there had been no fast food chains, no Woodstock, no TV, no joints, no Pill, no “free love” etc etc etc.

For the most part they were too rich, too educated, too busy, too indulged to pass on any faith to their kids.

Vatican II didn’t cause all these phenomena.

The generations that came after take all these things for granted, and see them as normative for society. But they weren’t.
 
triumphguy said:
Baby boomers - came after the war, and just before the “pill.” They were the healthiest, best fed, best educated, most spoiled generation ever. They were the first Teenagers, the first to experience Rock and Roll, the first to have cars as teens, the first to “hang out,” the first to make significantly more money than their parents, the first to question the previous generation in any meaningful sense, the first to refuse to go to war, the first to indulge in “free love,” the first to use drugs in a big way, the first to “Tune in, turn on and drop out.” they brought music, drugs, philosophy and “spirituality” from the East. They rebelled against society and the Government - the riots of 68 for instance.

Before the baby-boomers there had been no fast food chains, no Woodstock, etc etc etc.

For the most part they were too rich, too educated, too busy, too indulged to pass on any faith to their kids.

Vatican II didn’t cause all these phenomena.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that Vatican II was the cause of all these problems. It may have contributed to it, but I think the blame should be put on two things: First, the reason you stated; the increasing secular culture and sexual revolution. Second: the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ movement. Vatican II wanted the laity (the baby boomer generation at the time) to go out to preach and convert the world, but instead they had a sexual revolution and tried to push secular ideas into Catholicism.

Those are some good points you raised, and some of them passed onto the younger generations.
 
triumphguy said:
Baby boomers - came after the war, and just before the “pill.” They were the healthiest, best fed, best educated, most spoiled generation ever. They were the first Teenagers, the first to experience Rock and Roll, the first to have cars as teens, the first to “hang out,” the first to make significantly more money than their parents, the first to question the previous generation in any meaningful sense, the first to refuse to go to war, the first to indulge in “free love,” the first to use drugs in a big way, the first to “Tune in, turn on and drop out.” they brought music, drugs, philosophy and “spirituality” from the East. They rebelled against society and the Government - the riots of 68 for instance.

Before the baby-boomers there had been no fast food chains, no Woodstock, etc etc etc.

For the most part they were too rich, too educated, too busy, too indulged to pass on any faith to their kids.

Vatican II didn’t cause all these phenomena.
Click to expand...
Good points. And I might add that many of the ones holding on to the traditions of their Faith during that time of turmoil were women. There were some men, too, but the majority of those attending daily Mass, and praying their rosaries in church and defending the Church and her traditions with letters to the editor etc. were women!
 
MartyrForJesus said:
I didn’t say that Vatican II was the cause of all these problems. It may have contributed to it, but I think the blame should be put on two things: First, the reason you stated; the increasing secular culture and sexual revolution. Second: the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ movement. Vatican II wanted the laity (the baby boomer generation at the time) to go out to preach and convert the world, but instead they had a sexual revolution and tried to push secular ideas into Catholicism.

Those are some good points you raised, and some of them passed onto the younger generations.
Click to expand...
Right, but I think it’s very safe to say that much, not all, but much, of the “Spirit of Vatican II” was caused by the increasing secularization and sexual revolution in the first place.

That is why I hold on to the idea that much of the “Spirit of Vatican II” is a made-up culture identifier of that generation of Catholics to give themselves a “mark on the Catholic world,” their own identity, so to speak. I think much of it is an amalgamation of the popular social trends at the time that the Catholics of that generation “gave as their gift,” if you can call it that, to Catholicism. These people, as teenagers and young adults, were expected to “change the world.” What better way to do that than by starting out with the institution that was ingrained into their minds by birth?
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right, but I think it’s very safe to say that much, not all, but much, of the “Spirit of Vatican II” was caused by the increasing secularization and sexual revolution in the first place.

That is why I hold on to the idea that much of the “Spirit of Vatican II” is a made-up culture identifier of that generation of Catholics to give themselves a “mark on the Catholic world,” their own identity, so to speak. I think much of it is an amalgamation of the popular social trends at the time that the Catholics of that generation “gave as their gift,” if you can call it that, to Catholicism. These people, as teenagers and young adults, were expected to “change the world.” What better way to do that than by starting out with the institution that was ingrained into their minds by birth?
Click to expand...
👍
 
MartyrForJesus said:
That’s why I said ‘Men/Boys’, to refer to males in general. The whole ideal of “Oh well if they are upset and don’t want to serve because of feminisation then they shouldn’t become priests in the first place” has the potential to be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Catastrophic in what way?

I am sorry but if an adult male wants to be a priest but doesn’t want to be an EMHC with females…then we certainly don’t need him as a priest! I don’t need to have someone administering the sacraments who has a negative attitude toward women.

You have yet to provide any documentation that female EMHC’s have an effect on the priesthood. Most of the males that I know that serve are married.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
That’s not true. There is no certain ‘proof’; there is simply knowledge acquired through psychological studies that show that feminised roles become unattractive to males. The same applies to altar serving. At the F.S.S.P. parish in this diocese, they only have boys serving. They now have 10-15 altar boys every Sunday and that number slowly increases.
Click to expand...
What psychological studies? Citations, please.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
That’s why I said ‘Men/Boys’, to refer to males in general. The whole ideal of “Oh well if they are upset and don’t want to serve because of feminisation then they shouldn’t become priests in the first place” has the potential to be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Catastrophic how?

Men that are scared from a vocation because they see women as EMHCs are probably just a bit too delicate to be priests.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right, but I think it’s very safe to say that much, not all, but much, of the **“Spirit of Vatican II” **was caused by the increasing secularization and sexual revolution in the first place.

That is why I hold on to the idea that much of the “Spirit of Vatican II” is a made-up culture identifier of that generation of Catholics to give themselves a “mark on the Catholic world,” their own identity, so to speak. I think much of it is an amalgamation of the popular social trends at the time that the Catholics of that generation “gave as their gift,” if you can call it that, to Catholicism. These people, as teenagers and young adults, were expected to “change the world.” What better way to do that than by starting out with the institution that was ingrained into their minds by birth?
Click to expand...
Do you really mean the Spirit that emanated from the good fathers of the Council, or do you mean interpretations and interpretations of interpretations of the Council Documents by various local Churches, the media and individual Catholics?
 
triumphguy said:
Do you really mean the Spirit that emanated from the good fathers of the Council, or do you mean interpretations and interpretations of interpretations of the Council Documents by various local Churches, the media and individual Catholics?
Click to expand...
“Spirit of Vatican II” always means the latter, that is, the precarious renderings by the “architect-archaeologist-liturgists.”

The term doesn’t refer to the Holy Spirit at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top