Girls as alter servers

[mikew262]

AltarMan:

Spin it all you want, you spewed-out ignorance about a very important subject on this thread. Ignorance that someone could tragically take for fact and that’s inexcuseable.

There are “pills” (in addition to the “morning after pill”) that act as abortifacients. You need to learn that fact before commenting on this most serious of subjects.

I admitted my error, how about you? Are you mature enough to do that?

Your statement concerning contraceptives kills babies suggested that all contraceptives kills babies. This is baloney and inaccurate!!! Yes, I admit some do, most of the more common ones do not.

Give it a rest!

 

[Ham1]

AltarMan:

Scoll back. If you think I’m going to re-type everything you’re confused. I wish I could say the same about your “arguments.”

Please attack my arguments. I’d be happy to defend and support them. So far, you have only responded to my questions with: “You’re wrong” and “you’re confused.” While these statements may seem to you to address the issue, I assure you they do not.

I find it quite puzzling that you won’t defend your position. I went back through this thread again. The only evidence that you provide that the Holy See was giving in to previous abuse is your statements about “sleazy” and “septic” genesis and the statement:

“The use of altar girls was approved as a response to gross abuse and dissent.”

All I am asking is that you provide evidence of this!

Thanks!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

dwc:

Oh, I don’t deny that by and large boys will play with boys and girls will play with girls, if by “by and large” you mean often or mostly. But that’s not your claim. Your claim is this:

Playing among their own sex, by and large, is very different from automatically shunning anything in which little girls are involved. Are you backing down from that statement?

Hmm, let me think about this … yup, guess I am and I’ll tell you what I’m basing it on:

1. You speak with such authority about how little boys are all hard wired to automatically shun little girls – if you weren’t just blowing smoke it had to be based on something, the most likely being fatherly experience.
2. What are taught as virtues in my kids’ Catholic school – tolerance, respect and acceptance of others --is merely “pc blathering” to you;
3. Your assumption that if boys and girls are able to tolerate each other and work together it’s because adults have somehow altered natural behavior – natural behavior being the innate desire of boys to shun anything girls are involved in.

You are parsing my words, madam. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that you were the originator of the adjective “any.” Further, the word “any” does not mean “in every single instance” as you seem to be implying it does.

Try again.

 

[MrS]

now I know how some people here have such high daily averages in posting. At this rate, it will take 10,000 to become a true senior member
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_5_136.gif… break… one million posts.

 

[adrift]

mikew262:

I admitted my error, how about you? Are you mature enough to do that?

Your statement concerning contraceptives kills babies suggested that all contraceptives kills babies. This is baloney and inaccurate!!! Yes, I admit some do, most of the more common ones do not.

Give it a rest!

I think that this inaccurate statement needs a further discussion. So go here

The pill and abortion

 

[otm]

ComradeAndrei:

So, do you deny what Trent teaches? Seems like they put a pretty heavy penalty on denying what they taught.

If you want to say that Trent taught history with no error, then I don’t think I have any problem pointing out differences between what happened in history and historical statments in what Trent pormulgated.

To rely on Trent as teaching history infallibly is to misunderstand what Trent was about.

I made no statment about the doctrinal stance about Trent. I made it about presuming that trent taught history infallibly.

 

[ChemicalBean]

otm:

That makes for an interesting question. Perhaps a survey of all of the orders of nuns which are showing growth (as opposed to dying out) would be helpful. Of all of the women who have entered the order - temporarily or permanently, in the last 15 years, how many served as an altar server? Howm many didn’t?

I only have anectdotal evidence of one - from my parish. She is now headed for mission work in Central America, after studying in Rome. But again, that is onloy anecdotal…

I’d like to add further comment to this excellent observation: We’ve only “officially” had coed altar service for 11, going on 12 years now. If the average age range for serving Mass is 10-14 yrs. old, that would place some of the oldest “altar girls” at about 22-26 yrs old. (For the record, I’m 22 and was one from 4th-grade on.)

And if statistics speak right, most church vocations nowadays don’t “materialize” (for lack of better words) until young women and men are at least 28+

So, to those who are worried about the presence of altar girls squelching future priests or encouraging “evil-radical-EDIT-priest-wannabes,” OR if you believe that this is going to encourage more women to enter consecrated life, I think you will have to sit tight for at least 10 years for hard proof of any of this.

Now, if you are so obsessed with proving yourself right over the course of the next 10 years on this non-issue, I would wonder if you’ve closed your heart to God’s graces trying to work in other aspects of your life and the Church. What is the greater sin?

Two more things to Altarman: and then I will quit.

Why “altar boys” and “choir girls”? I think if we are trying to raise “noble, manly boys” we need to teach them that singing is a very noble, masculine thing to do. Good singing takes concentration, discipline, and athleticism. What about all those boys choirs in the history of the Church? Have you ever seen “Going My Way” (btw, it predates Vatican 2.0)?

You also seem to be stating that “girls are filling up all the slots for boys”, and that we should have boys fill these first before allowing any girls to serve at the altar near the Real Presence of Jesus. I seem to remember Jesus telling the people of his day to “let the children come to me, and do not prevent them”. I’m not aware that he added as an afterthought, “but let the little boys come first, and then only if there isn’t enough of them, the little girls.”

Now everybody, can we please let this topic die for awhile? As a poster in another thread said, “Rome has spoken.”

 

[AltarMan]

mikew262:

I admitted my error, how about you? Are you mature enough to do that?

Your statement concerning contraceptives kills babies suggested that all contraceptives kills babies. This is baloney and inaccurate!!! Yes, I admit some do, most of the more common ones do not.

Give it a rest!

You need to take a class in critical thinking. Check your local community college.

 

[AltarMan]

ChemicalBean:

I’d like to add further comment to this excellent observation: We’ve only “officially” had coed altar service for 11, going on 12 years now. If the average age range for serving Mass is 10-14 yrs. old, that would place some of the oldest “altar girls” at about 22-26 yrs old. (For the record, I’m 22 and was one from 4th-grade on.)

And if statistics speak right, most church vocations nowadays don’t “materialize” (for lack of better words) until young women and men are at least 28+

So, to those who are worried about the presence of altar girls squelching future priests or encouraging “evil-radical-feminazi-priest-wannabes,” OR if you believe that this is going to encourage more women to enter consecrated life, I think you will have to sit tight for at least 10 years for hard proof of any of this.

Now, if you are so obsessed with proving yourself right over the course of the next 10 years on this non-issue, I would wonder if you’ve closed your heart to God’s graces trying to work in other aspects of your life and the Church. What is the greater sin?

Two more things to Altarman: and then I will quit.

Why “altar boys” and “choir girls”? I think if we are trying to raise “noble, manly boys” we need to teach them that singing is a very noble, masculine thing to do. Good singing takes concentration, discipline, and athleticism. What about all those boys choirs in the history of the Church? Have you ever seen “Going My Way” (btw, it predates Vatican 2.0)?

You also seem to be stating that “girls are filling up all the slots for boys”, and that we should have boys fill these first before allowing any girls to serve at the altar near the Real Presence of Jesus. I seem to remember Jesus telling the people of his day to “let the children come to me, and do not prevent them”. I’m not aware that he added as an afterthought, “but let the little boys come first, and then only if there isn’t enough of them, the little girls.”

Now everybody, can we please let this topic die for awhile? As a poster in another thread said, “Rome has spoken.”

Your posting added absolutely zero value. Did it make you feel better though? Talk about hubris – you are free to type a diatribe yet everyone else is to allow this topic to die?

 

[MrS]

The Sanctuary **should ****be **reserved ****for male service. This opinion has nothing to do with other ministeries in or for the Church. This opinion has nothing to do with the value of the feminine gender.

MrS has spoken.

now you can move on to other topics if you wish

 

[Catholic2003]

Ham1:

So, there are 2 options:

1. The Holy See, without “caving” in any way, legitimately affirmed that altar girls are acceptable under Canon Law.

OR

1. The Holy See affirmed that altar girls are acceptable under Canon Law only because of “septic genesis” and outside pressures.

Scenario 2 has some rather unpleasant consequences: If the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not in actuality permit altar girls, then the PCILT exceeded its legitimate authority by changing canon law. The 1992 authentic interpretation would thus be a fraudulent abuse of authority (technically known as “misfeasance”), by knowingly pretending to interpret canon law but in reality changing it. Because Pope John Paul II approved the 1992 authentic interpretation, he would therefore be an accessory before the fact in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the entire Church.

It sure seems like a poor opinion of the Holy See to me.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**FINAL NOTICE:

If personal sniping continues or the thread goes off topic again, I regret to say that it will be closed.**

 

[Ham1]

Catholic2003:

Scenario 2 has some rather unpleasant consequences: If the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not in actuality permit altar girls, then the PCILT exceeded its legitimate authority by changing canon law. The 1992 authentic interpretation would thus be a fraudulent abuse of authority (technically known as “misfeasance”), by knowingly pretending to interpret canon law but in reality changing it. Because Pope John Paul II approved the 1992 authentic interpretation, he would therefore be an accessory before the fact in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the entire Church.

It sure seems like a poor opinion of the Holy See to me.

I would agree. Unfortunately, it is that scenario that is being proclaimed by AltarMan as fact although he has yet to offer any evidence to verify such a claim. It’s a bit irresponsible to cast the Holy See in such a light without any proof that they acted in such a way.

It would be a shame for this thread to be shut down because one person refuses to debate beyond saying someone is “wrong”, “confused” or needs to “take a class in critical thinking.”

Oh well.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Consider it closed then.

 

[netmilsmom]

MrS:

now I know how some people here have such high daily averages in posting. At this rate, it will take 10,000 to become a true senior member
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_5_136.gif… break… one million posts.

LOL!

 

[AltarMan]

Ham1:

I would agree. Unfortunately, it is that scenario that is being proclaimed by AltarMan as fact although he has yet to offer any evidence to verify such a claim. It’s a bit irresponsible to cast the Holy See in such a light without any proof that they acted in such a way.

It would be a shame for this thread to be shut down because one person refuses to debate beyond saying someone is “wrong”, “confused” or needs to “take a class in critical thinking.”

Oh well.

In all sincerity, you able to think? Are you able to read commentary by different people (including priests) on this matter? Does your Internet connection reach out to Google?

How exactly do I show evidence that many parishes instituted altar girls based on their own arrogance shortly after the implementation of VC in many cases? Or well before both 1983 and 1994 in MANY cases? Newspaper clippings?

You are in hardcore denial if you are suggesting this did not happen on a widespread scale. You’re deeply naive if you don’t believe this dissent influenced the lamentable responsum of 1994.

A homily by the Rev, Peter R. Pilsner preached on the Fourth Sunday of Easter, April 24, 1994 (brought to my attention by another forum poster) says it all:

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/ALTBYHOM.TXT

 

[AltarMan]

Catholic2003:

Scenario 2 has some rather unpleasant consequences: If the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not in actuality permit altar girls, then the PCILT exceeded its legitimate authority by changing canon law. The 1992 authentic interpretation would thus be a fraudulent abuse of authority (technically known as “misfeasance”), by knowingly pretending to interpret canon law but in reality changing it. Because Pope John Paul II approved the 1992 authentic interpretation, he would therefore be an accessory before the fact in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the entire Church.

It sure seems like a poor opinion of the Holy See to me.

Or deep naivete on the part of someone like yourself.

10 years for a responsum? Even the Holy See isn’t that slow.

Responding in the positive to that responsum was the quickest and easiest way the Church could deal with dissidents who had taken it upon themselves to allow altar girls.

Unfortunately taking the easy way out has also taken quite a toll on the Church in this area.

 

[netmilsmom]

ChemicalBean:

Why “altar boys” and “choir girls”? I think if we are trying to raise “noble, manly boys” we need to teach them that singing is a very noble, masculine thing to do. Good singing takes concentration, discipline, and athleticism. What about all those boys choirs in the history of the Church? Have you ever seen “Going My Way” (btw, it predates Vatican 2.0)?

You also seem to be stating that “girls are filling up all the slots for boys”, and that we should have boys fill these first before allowing any girls to serve at the altar near the Real Presence of Jesus. I seem to remember Jesus telling the people of his day to “let the children come to me, and do not prevent them”. I’m not aware that he added as an afterthought, “but let the little boys come first, and then only if there isn’t enough of them, the little girls.”

I am the one who said “Altar Boys” and “Choir Girls”. It has nothing to do with a boy not being able to sing. It has to do with the idea of giving our girls a place in the liturgy that is not on the Altar.

I will defend this idea. My girls do not want to serve on the Altar, they love being part of the choir. These are the standards set in our parish for many years. Our priest makes both roles equally important but seperate.

To use the Bible quote about letting the little children come to Jesus is not appropriate here. No one is keeping any child from having a part in the liturgy, just each in their place.

 

[Ham1]

AltarMan:

In all sincerity, you able to think? Are you able to read commentary by different people (including priests) on this matter? Does your Internet connection reach out to Google?

How exactly do I show evidence that many parishes instituted altar girls based on their own arrogance shortly after the implementation of VC in many cases? Or well before both 1983 and 1994 in MANY cases? Newspaper clippings?

You are in hardcore denial if you are suggesting this did not happen on a widespread scale. You’re deeply naive if you don’t believe this dissent influenced the lamentable responsum of 1994.

A homily by the Rev, Peter R. Pilsner preached on the Fourth Sunday of Easter, April 24, 1994 (brought to my attention by another forum poster) says it all:

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/ALTBYHOM.TXT

Again, I am looking for evidence that all this dissent CAUSED the responsum. Proof that the motivation of those who made the decision was corrupted by evil outside influences. Just saying that there was dissent or abuse doesn’t establish a causal connection to the responsum. Unless you can prove this connection, then leveling such a charge against the Holy See and the Pope is grossly irresponsible.

On another note, your last post is now the 3rd time you have attempted to dismiss my posts in a most arrogant and offensive manner. First you said. “That’s you opinion and you’re wrong.” Then you said, “…you’re confused” following up with your statement above, “In all sincerity, you able to think?”

Quite frankly, these comments are uncharitable and truly the mark of a small man. I understand that it’s easy to let your fingers fly at the keyboard and question and insult the intelligence of other posters, but trust me it doesn’t make you look good and it’s not particularly effective. When you post such things you embarrass and expose yourself as a man who lacks self-restraint and the ability to reason. In the future, perhaps you could attempt to act as a gentleman.

My apologies to the moderators if I have crossed any line here…Thank you.

 

[Catholic2003]

AltarMan:

Responding in the positive to that responsum was the quickest and easiest way the Church could deal with dissidents who had taken it upon themselves to allow altar girls.

I’m sure Pope John Paul II had studied enough moral theology to know that the ends don’t justify the means.

Even if he had decided that the abuse of using altar girls had gone too far to be stopped (assuming the 1983 code didn’t allow them), he still wouldn’t have conspired to commit fraud; he would have promulgated an Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio, as he did the other time that he wanted to change canon law.