Girl Altar Servers

[ChurchTorch]

In reference to the emphasized above, the trouble is that we have too many liberal Bishops and priests, or Bishops and priests who are literally afraid to cross the liberals within the Church. And although many Bishops would agree to ordain women as priests, the Pope would not concur. So I’m sure that we are safe for the time being.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach
Shalom Aleichem

Any proof for that assertion?

 

[CDNowak]

In reference to the emphasized above, the trouble is that we have too many liberal Bishops and priests, or Bishops and priests who are literally afraid to cross the liberals within the Church.

Absolutely, so we who do support the long held traditions of the Church, not to mention Tradition, can and should make our desires and arguments known.

Church Torch see CCHD, Fr Pfleger, Fr McBrien, “Catholic” Democrats in the US Senate, “Catholic” Democrats in US House Leadership, etc., etc.

 

[choy]

Interesting. Why the change? Because Vatican caved to disobedience and went against long held traditions of the Church.

Pope John Paul 2:
Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.
adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html

wow, you’re accusing the Vatican to caving into disobedience? so the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the Church anymore?

or is it just you who accuse the Church of disobedience when they do something you are not in agreement with. are you better than the Vatican?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_altar_servers

Pope John Paul II in fact confirmed that females are allowed to be Altar Servers, according to this

It doesn’t matter. That’s going against encyclicals of previous Popes before Vatican II. Like I said in another thread, if you argue with past encyclicals, you argue with tradition, and tradition is something that can never be transformed.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

wow, you’re accusing the Vatican to caving into disobedience? so the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the Church anymore?

or is it just you who accuse the Church of disobedience when they do something you are not in agreement with. are you better than the Vatican?

No Traditional Catholic on these forums, neither I nor any other, has ever stated they think they’re better than the Vatican. It’s accusations like these that don’t make much sense if nobody said such a thing. It’s not about being “better” than the Vatican.

The Holy Ghost does still guide the Church. However, franklinf is right when he says the Vatican caved into dis-obedience at Vatican II. Most past traditions were thrown out the window and were replaced with things they wanted. Exactly why now traditions of having only male altar servers are being ignored by some parishes all around the world.

 

[choy]

It doesn’t matter. That’s going against encyclicals of previous Popes before Vatican II. Like I said in another thread, if you argue with past encyclicals, you argue with tradition, and tradition is something that can never be transformed.

so why are you still Catholic, if you believe in what you are saying?
or are you still?

 

[choy]

No Traditional Catholic on these forums, neither I nor any other, has ever stated they think they’re better than the Vatican. It’s accusations like these that don’t make much sense if nobody said such a thing. It’s not about being “better” than the Vatican.

The Holy Ghost does still guide the Church. However, franklinf is right when he says the Vatican caved into dis-obedience at Vatican II. Most past traditions were thrown out the window and were replaced with things they wanted. Exactly why now traditions of having only male altar servers are being ignored by some parishes all around the world.

i didn’t throw out an accusation, i threw out a question. it was him who said that the Vatican that gives in to disobedience, outright. i never said outright that he thinks he’s better than the Vatican, i was asking him if he thinks he is

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

so why are you still Catholic, if you believe in what you are saying?
or are you still?

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Care to elaborate?

I am still Catholic, by the way. If I weren’t, I would not be posting on this section still.

 

[CDNowak]

wow, you’re accusing the Vatican to caving into disobedience?

That is a matter of historical fact, altar girls as an abuse preceded their approval.

so the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the Church anymore?

Non sequitur, the Church can err in prudential matters, and has repeatedly over the centuries.

 

[choy]

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Care to elaborate?

I am still Catholic, by the way. If I weren’t, I would not be posting on this section still.

well, you seem to be not in line with the Catholic Church

the handful of Traditional Catholics here on this forum, or in this thread specifically, seems to think that you can pick-and-choose what you want from the Church. accept everything until Vatican II, reject everything afterwards

thats not Traditional Catholicism, thats Cafeteria Catholicism. by rejecting what the Vatican II has brought about, what difference does it make between you and a Catholic who would reject Church teachings about abortion, same sex marraige, divorce, family planning, etc? theres no difference! you pick and choose the beliefs you like, then reject all the other beliefs you don’t, then brand yourself Catholics. thats not Catholicism.

to quote Bbigam from the Restoring Tradition thread:

So in other words, you have rejected the teachings of an Ecumenical Council of the Church, called, overseen, and affirmed by all the Popes since that time. That’s not following the Pope, and it’s not “Traditional.”

On the other hand, the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” isn’t traditional either. Being a truly Traditional Catholic includes submitting oneself to the teaching Magisterium and all of Sacred Tradition, which includes Vatican II, properly understood in the context of all that came before, whether one prefers the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (or an Eastern Liturgy, of course).

 

[choy]

That is a matter of historical fact, altar girls as an abuse preceded their approval.

and since they are approved now, they are not seen as an abuse anymore

Non sequitur, the Church can err in prudential matters, and has repeatedly over the centuries.

funny, cafeteria catholics use that very same argument about those teachings they reject

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

well, you seem to be not in line with the Catholic Church

the handful of Traditional Catholics here on this forum, or in this thread specifically, seems to think that you can pick-and-choose what you want from the Church. accept everything until Vatican II, reject everything afterwards

thats not Traditional Catholicism, thats Cafeteria Catholicism. by rejecting what the Vatican II has brought about, what difference does it make between you and a Catholic who would reject Church teachings about abortion, same sex marraige, divorce, family planning, etc? theres no difference! you pick and choose the beliefs you like, then reject all the other beliefs you don’t, then brand yourself Catholics. thats not Catholicism.

No, that’s not really what Traditional Catholicism is. Traditional Catholicism is upholding tradition of the Church, which as I said cannot be changed. You may say that dis-agreeing with the post-Vatican II church isn’t upholding tradition. We weren’t the ones to break tradition, though. Paul VI and everyone else involved with the reform of the Church were the ones who broke tradition. We go by the pre-Vatican II Church most of the time. Telling me that’s not Catholicism is bull. Like the reform at Vatican II was really out of Catholicism.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

and since they are approved now, they are not seen as an abuse anymore

funny, cafeteria catholics use that very same argument about those teachings they reject

1.- I guess if they approved abortion we should accept it. Exactly why Traditionalists go by what took place BEFORE Vatican II. Them approving such a thing now means nothing.

2.-Your definitions of Traditional Catholics and CAF Catholics seems jumbled a bit.

 

[choy]

No, that’s not really what Traditional Catholicism is. Traditional Catholicism is upholding tradition of the Church, which as I said cannot be changed. You may say that dis-agreeing with the post-Vatican II church isn’t upholding tradition. We weren’t the ones to break tradition, though. Paul VI and everyone else involved with the reform of the Church were the ones who broke tradition. We go by the pre-Vatican II Church most of the time. Telling me that’s not Catholicism is bull. Like the reform at Vatican II was really out of Catholicism.

i agree, that is not what the REAL Traditional Catholicism is
but thats the attitude of SOME people here. i never said that that is Traditional Catholicism or that all Traditional Catholics are that way

i’m saying, there are people here who make Traditional Catholicism as an excuse to berate the OF practices. and that is just not right.

Traditional Catholics want to remain with the pre-Vatican II practices, and the Church approves that, and that is perfectly fine. what we’re calling out here is the FEW people who berate what Vatican II brought about and call it something less that what they have. there is nothing greater or lesser, we all are Catholics, we all are equal in the eyes of God. i, nor the others here have never attacked Traditional Catholicism. what draws our ire is those who call themselves Traditional Catholics and use Traditional Catholicism to place themselves in a higher pedestal than other Catholics who prefer the changes of Vatican II.

 

[choy]

1.- I guess if they approved abortion we should accept it. Exactly why Traditionalists go by what took place BEFORE Vatican II. Them approving such a thing now means nothing.

the Church should know better than us on that issue or any issue. we put our faith in our Church leaders that they are guided by the Holy Spirit, then if they make a decision we don’t like we make up all these excuses

2.-Your definitions of Traditional Catholics and CAF Catholics seems jumbled a bit.

oh no, my definition of Traditional Catholics i think its spot on. i just think there are cafeteria catholics here who hide behind the name Traditional Catholics

i know those i call out here are not representative of what TRUE Traditional Catholicism is

 

[CDNowak]

the handful of Traditional Catholics here on this forum, or in this thread specifically, seems to think that you can pick-and-choose what you want from the Church. accept everything until Vatican II, reject everything afterwards

This is the Traditional Catholic portion of the forum, if you don’t like it, stay out. In the meantime, altar girls are a novelty introduced contrary to any Council of the Church, a matter of discipline and prudence (a virtue sorely needed in this “discussion”).

thats not Traditional Catholicism, thats Cafeteria Catholicism. by rejecting what the Vatican II has brought about, what difference does it make between you and a Catholic who would reject Church teachings about abortion, same sex marraige, divorce, family planning, etc? theres no difference! you pick and choose the beliefs you like, then reject all the other beliefs you don’t, then brand yourself Catholics. thats not Catholicism.

Altar girls, an optional discipline that can be prudentially rejected by any Bishop, Pastor, or priest, is not equal in weight to the teaching on abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, family planning, etc. All of those are moral issues, matters of belief that the Church teaches about. To equate them is not Catholicism it is fideism and ultramonatism.

and since they are approved now, they are not seen as an abuse anymore

However, you claimed (post 282) that the practice was not born out of disobedience, ignoring the actual events.

funny, cafeteria catholics use that very same argument about those teachings they reject

A novel practice is very different from a teaching of the Church. Particularly a practice not imposed on the whole Church, allowing for a variation of belief and praxis. **You **(along with Church Torch) are the one elevating yourself to declare the discussion closed.

 

[choy]

This is the Traditional Catholic portion of the forum, if you don’t like it, stay out. In the meantime, altar girls are a novelty introduced contrary to any Council of the Church, a matter of discipline and prudence (a virtue sorely needed in this “discussion”).

Altar girls, an optional discipline that can be prudentially rejected by any Bishop, Pastor, or priest, is not equal in weight to the teaching on abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, family planning, etc. All of those are moral issues, matters of belief that the Church teaches about. To equate them is not Catholicism it is fideism and ultramonatism.

However, you claimed (post 282) that the practice was not born out of disobedience, ignoring the actual events.

A novel practice is very different from a teaching of the Church. Particularly a practice not imposed on the whole Church, allowing for a variation of belief and praxis. **You **(along with Church Torch) are the one elevating yourself to declare the discussion closed.

oh, i like this forum a lot. i think those who need to stay out are those who practice bigotry and try to hide behind Traditional Catholicism. they give Traditional Catholicism a bad name

its funny that you guys are painting this in a way that we are anti-Traditional Catholicsm, when we’re not. what we’re asking for here is a fair treatment by some who try to elevate Traditional Catholicism above other approved practices in the Church, and dismiss us as inferior. these are the people you should be going after. i know you’re not one of them, but you should read our entire posts and see what we’re all about and don’t buy into this propaganda by some to paint the reverse that we are attacking Traditional Catholicism. no. we’re attacking the bigotry promoted by A FEW and using the guise of Traditional Catholicism to promote that bigorty. i’m sure you as a Traditional Catholic wouldn’t want that.

 

[CDNowak]

oh, i like this forum a lot. i think those who need to stay out are those who practice bigotry and try to hide behind Traditional Catholicism. they give Traditional Catholicism a bad name

Really? You want to play supporting altar boys over coed altar servers as bigotry? You do realize that does open up the question in the OP, how is excluding women from the priesthood any different? We can go down this road if you like, but I will not be kind.

its funny that you guys are painting this in a way that we are anti-Traditional Catholicsm, when we’re not. what we’re asking for here is a fair treatment by some who try to elevate Traditional Catholicism above other approved practices in the Church, and dismiss us as inferior. these are the people you should be going after. i know you’re not one of them, but you should read our entire posts and see what we’re all about and don’t buy into this propaganda by some to paint the reverse that we are attacking Traditional Catholicism. no. we’re attacking the bigotry promoted by A FEW and using the guise of Traditional Catholicism to promote that bigorty. i’m sure you as a Traditional Catholic wouldn’t want that.

You are not asking for fair treatment, you are shouting down. You are not being dismissed as inferior, you are dismissing others. You are trying to impose the legitimate but novel (and minority in the greatest democracy) position on those who hold an equally legitimate position.

Oh, I don’t think your anti-Tradition, I think you are anti-traditionalist, you insist on arguing ad hominem to the point you have yet to raise an argument for altar girls or for ending discussion. I realize you only have one document to cite, but citing it would establish some credibility. Arguing with the historical facts, repeatedly yet, destroys what little credibility you have here.

 

[choy]

Really? You want to play supporting altar boys over coed altar servers as bigotry? You do realize that does open up the question in the OP, how is excluding women from the priesthood any different? We can go down this road if you like, but I will not be kind.

You are not asking for fair treatment, you are shouting down. You are not being dismissed as inferior, you are dismissing others. You are trying to impose the legitimate but novel (and minority in the greatest democracy) position on those who hold an equally legitimate position.

Oh, I don’t think your anti-Tradition, I think you are anti-traditionalist, you insist on arguing ad hominem to the point you have yet to raise an argument for altar girls or for ending discussion. I realize you only have one document to cite, but citing it would establish some credibility. Arguing with the historical facts, repeatedly yet, destroys what little credibility you have here.

if there are things you don’t agree with the Church, then you can express your disagreement in charity. berating those who accept practices approved by the Church is not charitable.

if you don’t want to attend masses with girl altar servers, then don’t. you have your choice. but don’t make those who attend that mass feel like they are such evil people.

i am agruing ad hominem because the problem here is not Traditional Catholicism, but the attitude of some specific people. how can i make an argument that doesn’t target an individual or this small gourp of people when they are the problem itself?

 

[pnewton]

This is the Traditional Catholic portion of the forum, if you don’t like it, stay out.

Be that as it may, this topic is not an issue for the TLM, as girl altar servers are not used. Something strikes as just not quite right to start this topic, or other topics related to the current Mass, in this forum, then criticize the type of poster that responds.

I someone posted a criticism of the TLM in the L & S Forum, would it not be unfair for those who actually know the TLM to be discouraged from posting? This topic is not at issue in Traditional Catholic spirituality.