C
choy
Guest
the Church allows it. who are you to make such a decree?
- Status
O
Onegin
Guest
Just because it is allowed doesn’t make it right. Mahoney allows liturgical dancing. Lifeteen allowed teens to swarm around the Altar at the consecration. Should we mainstream these practices as well?
Why were altar girls eventually permitted and these other practices not? Perhaps we just need to wait a little bit longer…
C
choy
Guest
so you’re telling me that the Church teaches in error, that it allows evil within the Church?Just because it is allowed doesn’t make it right. Mahoney allows liturgical dancing. Lifeteen allowed teens to swarm around the Altar at the consecration. Should we mainstream these practices as well?
Why were altar girls eventually permitted and these other practices not? Perhaps we just need to wait a little bit longer…
O
Onegin
Guest
Evil has been allowed in the Church in various forms throughout Her entire history. The Church has sometimes embraced error. This is nothing new.
C
choy
Guest
is it the Church in error or just the pride of some who cannot accept what the Church teaches?
O
Onegin
Guest
Well, the Truth never changes and the Church possesses the fullness of the Truth.
However, this doesn’t mean that those within the Church (including some of Her highest authorities) are not susceptible to error - they have been in the past and continue to be today. The way to discern the error, therefore, is to compare it to the Truth and, where they vary, we can reject the error.
And where is the evidence of this found? In the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic Tradition. So, if a traditional document stated quite clearly that women serving at the Altar is wrong and a later statement by an authority purports to say that it is right, are we not to reject this later innovation to the extent that it contradicts pre-existing tradition?
C
choy
Guest
so we are to accept something just because it was decreed hundreds of years ago?
if we can be wrong now, why can’t we be wrong then?
O
Onegin
Guest
From Pope Benedict XIV:
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
I think the burden is on those who want female altar servers to be allowed to show that the Church has officially changed Her teaching on this matter. Otherwise, it’s just an issue of those within caving to political pressure to accept an abuse. And “accepting” an abuse certainly doesn’t make it any less of an abuse or right.
C
choy
Guest
i don’t see it as a want but as a need
less and less teens come to Church or are religious. if you look around you in most churches its usually the older people who are there or the really young ones.
if they did see this as a genuine evil in the past, why didn’t the pope make an infallible statement against it? perhaps it was just an evil of that time but not today. i believe those who run the Church would know better than you and i
less and less teens come to Church or are religious. if you look around you in most churches its usually the older people who are there or the really young ones.
if they did see this as a genuine evil in the past, why didn’t the pope make an infallible statement against it? perhaps it was just an evil of that time but not today. i believe those who run the Church would know better than you and i
O
Onegin
Guest
Since the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared, there has only been 1 infallible declaration. One. Usually the Pope relies on His office alone to be enough for people to listen to what is promulgated in an encyclical.As for the words of Benedict XIV being only relevant to his time, that strays much too close to cultural relativism for my taste. The teachings of the Church - including the teachings regarding women and the Altar apply to us today in equal force as they ever did.
**If the Church’s teaching on Altar girls has officially changed show me where! **
It doesn’t matter how much you “need” something. An abuse is an abuse no matter how many people allow it or look the other way. Also, an altar server isn’t a necessity to have Mass. Rely on the providence of God to provide if there aren’t enough altar boys instead of resorting to justifying liturgical abuses instead.
C
CDNowak
Guest
As I said, to have 7 Masses on a single day you should have 3 priests. 1000/3=333.3 and 1500/3 =500, each priest can easily distribute Communion in that range.
Yes, that is an option. Necessity is not an issue for altar servers, as they are not required by the Missal.
That is a problem with your perception.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Since no-one else seems to be able to find it:
AAS 1994:
([%20-%20ocr.pdf"]Source]("http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS 86 [1994)pp. 541-542)
My Latin is almost good enough for me to understand, but not good enough to translate, sorry.
PS. On the Ides of March, really?
O
Onegin
Guest
Thank you CDNovak! I get the basic concept of what you posted.
So, the question remains: how can the words of Pope JP II in 1994 be reconciled with the words of Popes Benedict XIV who called it an abuse, Innocent IV and Gelasius who went so far as to call this an “evil practice”?
Surely something evil doesn’t become good merely by the passage of time.
Assuming that to be true, either the Popes of the past were wrong or JPII was wrong.
So, the question remains: how can the words of Pope JP II in 1994 be reconciled with the words of Popes Benedict XIV who called it an abuse, Innocent IV and Gelasius who went so far as to call this an “evil practice”?
Surely something evil doesn’t become good merely by the passage of time.
Assuming that to be true, either the Popes of the past were wrong or JPII was wrong.
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, I don’t think the errors lie with Vatican II, rather to the MANY who either have never read it, chose to ignore it, or pretended it’s ghost [they call it’s spirit] is equal in every way to the actual teachings.
Shalom,
C
choy
Guest
they are not required but its up to the Parish priest to determine if they are needed, right?
its also not REQUIRED that we all receive communion in every mass, but we do so anyway (when in state of grace). do you consider that an abuse as well?
the problem with your perception is that if you don’t agree with something as a personal opinion, you make it sould like its evil when its not.
EMHCs are necessary so that masses can finish as scheduled and that succeeding masses can be started as scheduled. if there are enough priests in a parish, then they are not necessary. but fact is, most parishes don’t have enough priests.
P
PJM
Guest
Perhaps,
BUT it was not the Personal Option of John Paul II, It is not the Personal Option of Benedict XVI, and it was NOT even he Persona Option of the MAJORTY of Church Fathers at Vatican II. Nor should it be your’s !
"Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue [receiving on the tongue is the right of all the faithful–it is not licit for anyone, bishop, priest or layperson, to deny this right to someone (see also below)], at his choice [this refers to the following statement (i.e. receiving in the hand), not the preceeding], if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 92)
If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying: Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies: Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. [Receiving on the tongue is the norm; this is made clear by the statement that the faithful can receive in the hand only “where this is allowed”. The teacher should not be teaching children to receive in the hand, but on the tongue, because the tongue is the norm. Moreover, by incorrectly teaching children that receiving in the hand is the norm, the teacher denies the children that choice which the Church here says is rightly theirs to make.] As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal 161)
Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing. [The same, by extension, holds for tongue vs. hand; just as the faithful have the right to receive kneeling or standing, so they have the right to receive on the tongue and (where it is allowed) in the hand if they choose. Denying communion on these grounds is not licitfor anyone; again, by extension, it is not licit for the teacher to force children into receiving in the hand by telling them that they must.] (Redemptionis Sacramentum 91)"
O
Ockham
Guest
What parish is this?
C
choy
Guest
here’s the website
stmarysvancouver.ca/
my apologies i said 7 masses, there are 6. the last time i was there they were talking about adding a 3pm mass and i thought that pushed through
this is a huge parish in terms of membership. also its possible that many who attend aren’t registered parishoners. its a very convenient place to go to mass because its one block from our local rail transit, which means even people living from afar can easily get ther during sundays. bus service is virtually non-existent on sunday here. when i first moved here and lived with my cousin, i had to take the bus to a church and my travel time was about 45 minutes because of waiting for transfers and just because of the bus schedule. if i had a car, it’ll take me 5-7 minutes to drive to the church. just to have an idea why tons of people would go to this particular parish for mass, aside from the fact that its located in a high density area, with several highrises within 1km of the church
P
pnewton
Guest
One can not refer to disciplinary practices as such, and point out that they are subject to change, then turn around and treat them as error. There is not moral or doctrinal errors in reference to girl altar servers. There use is either prudent or imprudent. The Church is very capable of doing some foolish things.
C
choy
Guest
personally its not my preference as well. but i can’t be pretending to be living in an ideal world. i’d rather have the problem of not enough priests and too many people, than have too many priests and not enough people. we all pray for more priests but until that happens, we have to make do with what we have. i have complete trust in the Church leadership that they are making the right move given what they have, and that they are not violating any teaching, commandments or laws of Christ.
i don’t know why the COTT and CITH got inserted here, it was never part of any argument i made, so i will not reply on that matter
- Status