End of Altar Girls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franciscum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
katherine2:
Yet you haven’t offered an iota of evidence about how serving alongside the mentally or phyiscally handicapped discourages priestly vocations.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with gender differences in young kids?
 
40.png
katherine2:
Yet you haven’t offered an iota of evidence about how serving alongside the mentally or phyiscally handicapped discourages priestly vocations.
Click to expand...
Please stay on the subject – “End of Altar Girls?”

ALL altar server positions should go to those who might just have a vocation to the priesthood or permanent diaconate.
 
40.png
fix:
Please. You want to make the rule the exception and the exception the rule. No one advocates your line of reasoning and you know it. As a general principle altar servers can be a good way to foster vocations to the priesthood.

I can play your game too. Since the start of girl altar boys we have a vocations crisis, so it would be reasonable to assume the influx of female servers has caused fewer vocations. Seem reasonable?
Click to expand...
No …it doesn’t. Non sequiter.
 
40.png
fix:
I say the same to you libs. Why foist your myopic, secular agenda on the faithful? I ask again, who started females servers? Did they have permission or did they just start it in disobedience and then Rome gave in?
Click to expand...
There was WIDE disobedience using altar girls/moms before it was allowed. I DO wonder what the Vatican was thinking when they allowed the change.

I suppose at least around here we don’t have the priestess type around here anymore that felt they needed to serve wearing their own costumes (some dressed like real clownesses), so maybe that was one positive thing given to use by the change…
 
40.png
fix:
I say the same to you libs. Why foist your myopic, secular agenda on the faithful? I ask again, who started females servers? Did they have permission or did they just start it in disobedience and then Rome gave in?
Click to expand...
The fact that the Holy See accents is enough…are you unwilling to be obedient to Rome? Even if it began in disobedience, the fact that Rome reconsidered (since this is NOT an issue of faith and morals!) and approved it is all that needs be said. I submit that there are far more important things to work on in Holy Mother Church than this pissant issue. We have altar girls at my parrish and they do just fine and all the older servers help the younger ones get it right. WHO CARES who came up with the idea. The fact is that it is not a position that means a girl wants to be a priest, but that she wants to serve Christ at that altar. I have no fear of the advent of priestesses because I trust Christ to keep His promise not to let the gates of hell prevail and I trust Him to guide the Holy Father.
 
40.png
Franciscum:
There was WIDE disobedience using altar girls/moms before it was allowed. I DO wonder what the Vatican was thinking when they allowed the change.

I suppose at least around here we don’t have the priestess type around here anymore that felt they needed to serve wearing their own costumes (some dressed like real clownesses), so maybe that was one positive thing given to use by the change…
Click to expand...
As I said before, IMO, some of these folks have a radical agenda and some just have not thought it through because pop culture sees men and women as interchangeable in every single aspect and if one does not assent to that “truth” then one is discriminating.

They will go so far as to assert there is no difference bewteen young males and females. See the posts above here.
 
Church Militant:
The fact that the Holy See accents is enough…are you unwilling to be obedient to Rome? Even if it began in disobedience, the fact that Rome reconsidered (since this is NOT an issue of faith and morals!) and approved it is all that needs be said. I submit that there are far more important things to work on in Holy Mother Church than this pissant issue. We have altar girls at my parrish and they do just fine and all the older servers help the younger ones get it right. WHO CARES who came up with the idea. The fact is that it is not a position that means a girl wants to be a priest, but that she wants to serve Christ at that altar. I have no fear of the advent of priestesses because I trust Christ to keep His promise not to let the gates of hell prevail and I trust Him to guide the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
You are misreading the arguments. No one has said to disobey Rome. The same way the libs got Rome to OK it, with strict conditions btw, means Rome can change it. So, if it is ok for the libs to disobey and Rome caves in to the rebellious ones, then why is it wrong to lobby, in a respectful way, for Rome to change it back?

There are bigger problems I agree, but this is one symptom of a deep problem in the Church. Read between the lines.
 
40.png
fix:
There are bigger problems I agree, but this is one symptom of a deep problem in the Church. Read between the lines.
Click to expand...
That is soo true. When I read between the line, I see fathers not teaching their sons how to be holy because they are not holy. I see children from broken homes because the parents did not fight for the marriage. I see boys with no role model in the domestic Church (the home). The parents are the first priest of the family, when we shirk our responsibilities, the boys will not learn their duties properly.
 
40.png
caroljm36:
Interesting article on how altar girls came about.

culturewars.com/2002/Weakland.html
Click to expand...
Rambling and uninformed article, I would say. By the time the article gets around to discussing altar girls, it gets the facts all wrong. The 1987 Synod on the Laity dealt with the issue of permanently installed female acolytes and lectors, i.e., a revision of canon 230 §1. Altar girls had already been allowed for several years (since 1983) under canon 230 §2.
 
40.png
fix:
You are misreading the arguments. No one has said to disobey Rome. The same way the libs got Rome to OK it, with strict conditions btw, means Rome can change it. So, if it is ok for the libs to disobey and Rome caves in to the rebellious ones, then why is it wrong to lobby, in a respectful way, for Rome to change it back?

There are bigger problems I agree, but this is one symptom of a deep problem in the Church. Read between the lines.
Click to expand...
I disagree about this issue…it’s a NON issue. Rome reconsidered and changed it. quit http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gif
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Rambling and uninformed article, I would say. By the time the article gets around to discussing altar girls, it gets the facts all wrong. The 1987 Synod on the Laity dealt with the issue of permanently installed female acolytes and lectors, i.e., a revision of canon 230 §1. Altar girls had already been allowed for several years (since 1983) under canon 230 §2.
Click to expand...
Who in 1983 knew that the canon would be interpreted in that way? It was not until many years later that the Vatican gave the interpretation.
 
Church Militant:
I disagree about this issue…it’s a NON issue. Rome reconsidered and changed it. quit http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gif
Click to expand...
What is your problem? This thread is discussing the issue. Rome has said it may be allowed if the bishop and the priest agree. It is not a doctrine. It can be changed. It started out as illicit. The point some are making is that many who push for it have an agenda, not to mention less boys are serving and that affects vocations. Get it?
 
40.png
fix:
Who in 1983 knew that the canon would be interpreted in that way? It was not until many years later that the Vatican gave the interpretation.
Click to expand...
There were scholarly articles by doctors of canon law that were published in 1984. By the time the 1985 Canon Law Society of America Commentary was published, canon lawyers were nearly unanimous on the issue.
 
40.png
fix:
BTW, it is the libs who just disobey and change practices by their own authority. The orthodox comply, obey just commmands, and let those in authority know when they are abuses. That does not mean the abuses are corrected, either.
Click to expand...
  1. My parish only commence once it was approved. SO why are you trying to impose your opinions on everyone.
  2. The orthodox comply? Depends on whose ox is being gored.
  3. When the lawmaker and the law interpreter doesn’t act on a complaintant’s report you might want to consider what is being said. Give it a rest.
 
40.png
Franciscum:
Please stay on the subject – “End of Altar Girls?”

ALL altar server positions should go to those who might just have a vocation to the priesthood or permanent diaconate.
Click to expand...
Well, i think give every interested boy who might have a vocation a chance to serve but also allow girls and handicapped boys as well.
 
40.png
fix:
What does that have to do with gender differences in young kids?
Click to expand...
It has to do with the claim only those who mightbe candidates for the priesthood should be allowed to be altar servers.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Well, i think give every interested boy who might have a vocation a chance to serve but also allow girls and handicapped boys as well.
Click to expand...
Your attempt at misdirection fell flat. Try sticking to the subject of the discussion.

The simple fact is that ALL altar serving positions would go to males if the Church was tryly interested in doing all that it can to increase vocations.

Based on the language in RS, JPII seems to be taking steps in that direction right now.
 
40.png
Franciscum:
Your attempt at misdirection fell flat. Try sticking to the subject of the discussion.

The simple fact is that ALL altar serving positions would go to males if the Church was tryly interested in doing all that it can to increase vocations…
Click to expand...
  1. You need to be more than just a male to be a candidate for ordination. By your book, people with other exclusions such as a mental disability should not be servers either.
  2. Of course, you still have not offered any evidence as to once all such vocation candidates have been accomodated, no one else can join them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top