C
Cardinalidae
Guest
Isn’t this indirectly suggesting that we should let the ever changing winds of society guide the practice of our faith? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
- Status
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Totally agree.
Z
zab
Guest
Like other women on this board, I am perfectly fine with all boy altar servers. We never gave it a second thought before the feminists and their sympathizers got envolved. And besides, Why in the world would we want to have our Liturgy consistent with our society today? Our government has legalized the killing of innocent babies in the womb, failed to protect human beings like Terri Schiavo starving her to death etc. Our society is what needs to get with it not the other way around.
E
edwest2
Guest
Sadly, it was the fault of forces inside and outside the Church that want change. And make sense to whom? We need all of the PreVatican Traditions.
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=26779
The Church does not need to change with the times. The Church is not responsible for the Sexual Revolution, adult bookstores and topless bars, or radical feminism. Or casual sex, cohabitation with sex, and the HHS Mandate.
Regarding the Mass:
catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451
Peace,
Ed
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=26779
The Church does not need to change with the times. The Church is not responsible for the Sexual Revolution, adult bookstores and topless bars, or radical feminism. Or casual sex, cohabitation with sex, and the HHS Mandate.
Regarding the Mass:
catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451
Peace,
Ed
T
trickster
Guest
I don’t think your a traitor to your gender you are entitled to your opinion…
The connection to alter boys and the priesthood is a long-standing tradition that popes since Vatican II have upheld…and no one is arguing that point. And just because we invite girls to serve at the alter would we be breaking that tradition. There was one girl alter server who was inspired to go to theology school and that created her ministry within our church…that opportunity exists, that the relationship to the church can be expanded to focus on ministry as well as the priesthood.
Your right its tradition but sometimes traditions need to evolve new traditions this is common place in our church’s history so I support the involvement of girls as alter servers…
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
So the problem was more about behaviour of the kids and boy -girl pre-teen relationships? I can see that as distracting…that is for sure
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
Since we seem to be interested in alter girls and boys I guess what I would like to say is that I do like the idea of alter boys continuing…not necessarily to become priests, but to become good men. I think that when you serve with a priest and get to know religious brothers, you get good role models that teach us what it means to be men, to think beyond the materialism of today’s world and the finite existence that we have in life…so for that I like a place for boys to learn how to be spiritual.
Having said that, I think that girls equally need to be at the alter as servers…again it was women who attended the original sacrifice, and spirituality that is informed by gender experience at the alter is very strong “medicine” in many ways…so we need a place for girls to be altar servers.
Anyways, that’s my updated thought…
Bruce
Having said that, I think that girls equally need to be at the alter as servers…again it was women who attended the original sacrifice, and spirituality that is informed by gender experience at the alter is very strong “medicine” in many ways…so we need a place for girls to be altar servers.
Anyways, that’s my updated thought…
Bruce
J
James924
Guest
I can appreciate the parallel you’re trying to draw, but I think you’re misapplying it. Sacrifice is Priestly duty, and men’s duty. I didn’t make that up, I’m just refering to all of Jewish history prior to Christ and all of Church history after Christ…Priestly duty and men’s duty. The Mass certainly “re-presents” the sacrifice of Calvary, but the mass is also a Sacrificial act of worship and the Church (and the People of God before Christ) always made clear that this was all duty of men. If it were as simple as “there were women at the cross” then you’d think we’d have had altar girls prior to the 1980s, wouldn’t you? The reason we didn’t is for the same reason we don’t have angry italians in metal helmets standing in the sanctuary prodding the Priest in the ribs with a spear at the consecration like the roman soldiers did :knight2:, because recreating that detail of the foot of the cross isn’t the point of the mass.
Sometimes we should give the 2,000 year old Tradition of Holy Mother Church the benefit of the doubt.
T
trickster
Guest
I was just pointing out the irony of women being at the actual sacrifice…I wasn’t trying to make any deep theological statement…
Bruce
J
James924
Guest
In that case I would agree there is a very important and profound irony there. But I could have sworn you had mentioned the fact twice and at least one time was as a reason for altar girls. Perhaps I misunderstood you.I was just pointing out the irony of women being at the actual sacrifice…I wasn’t trying to make any deep theological statement…
Bruce
Another thing to consider with altar girls is that it is a fruit borne out of disobedience (generally a bad tree). It started as an unauthorized abuse in the 60s and the church issued at least two instructions from the vatican condemning it (one of which was confirmed by Bl. JP2 I believe). It wasn’t until 1992 (or was it 94?) that it was permitted and only reluctantly because it was already being done everywhere in disobedience. The same goes for communion in the hand while standing, it was born out of disobedience, started as a liturgical abuse, eventually because it was being done en masse, the pope decided to just grant waivers all around. In fact, quite a few post-V2 things that were introduced as norms in the new mass had questionable origins and were eventually allowed by waivers simply because everyone was doing it. Disobedience is bad fruit, and bad fruit comes from bad trees. Our lord said by their fruits you will know them…
Z
zab
Guest
When Jesus met the women on his way to calvary, he said to them- Weep not so much for me but for yourselves and your children. Women are not only at the foot of the cross today, but they carry their own crosses, offering their sacrifices for their children, loved ones and others. Another thing to be aware of is that It is not a sign of inequality that men and women have different roles. Men cannot get pregnant. Only a woman can grow a baby inside her and nurture it with her own body. The woman is the mother. The man is the father. They both have a different but equal role in the family. It is a similar situation of the different roles of men and women in the Church.I was just pointing out the irony of women being at the actual sacrifice…I wasn’t trying to make any deep theological statement…
Bruce
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Altar girls are just pandering to modern notions of ‘equality under the law’ meaning mathematical equality i.e. being identical. Or your local Mass has become so feminised boys don’t want to do it, so you need them to make up the numbers.
A man can be a priest. A woman can be a priestess, a very different creature and one our Jewish forefathers saw in operation in their pagan oppressor’s religions and did not care to establish. We want more priests. We don’t want priestesses. Be a good idea to encourage the boys, then, hmm, without bossy young misses present to annoy them?
I wonder if there could be a ban on topics like CITH and altar girls in this sub-forum? It’s coming close to trad-baiting.
There’s nothing traditional about girl altar-servers. And before anyone pipes up, yes, we know there were probably exceptions but, hey, maybe the disciplines are there for good reasons rather than something to be got around via legalisms? You know, honouring God the Father, with sacred rites, in His holy temple?
A man can be a priest. A woman can be a priestess, a very different creature and one our Jewish forefathers saw in operation in their pagan oppressor’s religions and did not care to establish. We want more priests. We don’t want priestesses. Be a good idea to encourage the boys, then, hmm, without bossy young misses present to annoy them?
I wonder if there could be a ban on topics like CITH and altar girls in this sub-forum? It’s coming close to trad-baiting.
There’s nothing traditional about girl altar-servers. And before anyone pipes up, yes, we know there were probably exceptions but, hey, maybe the disciplines are there for good reasons rather than something to be got around via legalisms? You know, honouring God the Father, with sacred rites, in His holy temple?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No one, absolutely no one, has a right to any ministry within the Church.
You do realize that the pre-vatican II “traditions” are not “1961.66 years old”?
Plus one point of correction.
The correct spelling is altar. That is an a not an e.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I never claimed it, nor made it a point of discussion either explicitly or implicitly.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I am sorry I miss the point then, I thought you were implying that with the quote I posted.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
All I meant was that 99% of our real traditions were created before the Council, not that they are all 1961 years old.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m just curious… when people suggest that all of the pre-Vatican II traditions ought to be kept, what are they counting as a tradition? There are so many different ‘traditions’ within the church that I think it would be a little hard for any 1 person to follow them all!
I’m not advocating that any traditions be thrown out. I also think it would be wrong for people to be biased against something because its traditional, but I do rather wonder where the idea comes from that since its a tradition, it ought to be followed.
Isn’t it true that different traditions speak to different people depending on their spirituality? and so, while one tradition is extremely helpful and beneficial to person A, it might not help person B at all. This is part of the reason the Church has different Rites.
Also, why isn’t it possible(/why would it be a bad thing) to have people living in todays society start new traditions, so long as they do not advocate change simply for the sake of change, but rather because they find a change in the way they worship helps them to become closer to God through the Catholic Church? Every tradition had a beginning somewhere, and no society is perfect. Of course the Church ought to be very careful when making changes to the liturgy etc, I’m just trying to understand why some people tend to argue against change simply because its change.
I’m not advocating that any traditions be thrown out. I also think it would be wrong for people to be biased against something because its traditional, but I do rather wonder where the idea comes from that since its a tradition, it ought to be followed.
Isn’t it true that different traditions speak to different people depending on their spirituality? and so, while one tradition is extremely helpful and beneficial to person A, it might not help person B at all. This is part of the reason the Church has different Rites.Also, why isn’t it possible(/why would it be a bad thing) to have people living in todays society start new traditions, so long as they do not advocate change simply for the sake of change, but rather because they find a change in the way they worship helps them to become closer to God through the Catholic Church? Every tradition had a beginning somewhere, and no society is perfect. Of course the Church ought to be very careful when making changes to the liturgy etc, I’m just trying to understand why some people tend to argue against change simply because its change.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the tradition was that only men were allowed in the sanctuary.* (Didn’t this go back to the first century?)
The 60’s and 70’s seem to break the barriers and make that sanctuary available to readers, speakers, cantors, EMHC, candle-holders and finally the servers.
- exception being the nuptual Mass.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No one is suggesting anything. There just happens to be this “PILLAGE AND RAZE” mentality that infected many Catholics after Vatican II. Some ideologues decided that it would, for some obscure academic-type “long for the ancient Church” (or what they think was the ancient Church, more precisely) reason, be a good idea to rip every traditional practice from the Church. And much of it happened, and She has lost a lot. There shouldn’t be any mentality to begin with. Why do we have to say, “Hmmmm… tomorrow we’re going to get rid of A, B, and C and next Tuesday we’re going to get rid of X, Y, and Z?” There is no point in that. It just hurts the Church and Her people and does absolutely zero good.I’m just curious… when people suggest that all of the pre-Vatican II traditions ought to be kept, what are they counting as a tradition? There are so many different ‘traditions’ within the church that I think it would be a little hard for any 1 person to follow them all!
I’m not advocating that any traditions be thrown out. I also think it would be wrong for people to be biased against something because its traditional, but I do rather wonder where the idea comes from that since its a tradition, it ought to be followed.
Also, why isn’t it possible(/why would it be a bad thing) to have people living in todays society start new traditions, so long as they do not advocate change simply for the sake of change, but rather because they find a change in the way they worship helps them to become closer to God through the Catholic Church? Every tradition had a beginning somewhere, and no society is perfect. Of course the Church ought to be very careful when making changes to the liturgy etc, I’m just trying to understand why some people tend to argue against change simply because its change.
No one says that just because something is a tradition that we must do it. Hey, the Rosary is not an official practice of the Church, but many Catholics pray it. Who in God’s name would ever think of doing away with that? But that’s what happened with many pious practices and customs after Vatican II due to ideologues. This wasn’t caused by Vatican II. There were, and there continue to be, in some cases lies and in some cases innocently false information, attributed to Vatican II. That is what enrages many people. Traditions die and traditions come, but they should never be systematically ripped from the Church. That should happen naturally. But very little after Vatican II happened naturally or organically. That is what went completely wrong and that is what we are trying to fix.
There should never be a widespread and institutionalized “tradition murder” campaign. But that is what happened. Never before in the entire history of the Church had there been such craze in that way. So, as far as I am concerned, it was a huge mistake. Not Vatican II, mind you, but much of what came after it and was falsely attributed to it.
E
edwest2
Guest
God has established the Church, not men, The Holy Spirit of God guides the Church, not men. Jesus told His disciples to be perfect as His Father is heaven is perfect. Can you explain what you mean by different Rites? And who established them?I’m just curious… when people suggest that all of the pre-Vatican II traditions ought to be kept, what are they counting as a tradition? There are so many different ‘traditions’ within the church that I think it would be a little hard for any 1 person to follow them all!
I’m not advocating that any traditions be thrown out. I also think it would be wrong for people to be biased against something because its traditional, but I do rather wonder where the idea comes from that since its a tradition, it ought to be followed.
Also, why isn’t it possible(/why would it be a bad thing) to have people living in todays society start new traditions, so long as they do not advocate change simply for the sake of change, but rather because they find a change in the way they worship helps them to become closer to God through the Catholic Church? Every tradition had a beginning somewhere, and no society is perfect. Of course the Church ought to be very careful when making changes to the liturgy etc, I’m just trying to understand why some people tend to argue against change simply because its change.
Peace,
Ed
- Status