M
MTD
Guest
Yes, I am. To take girl servers as an example: there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with female servers,* but it’s a highly unwise practice, in my opinion, for several reasons, among which is that it detracts from the focus on an all-male priesthood; in other words, it raises questions in the little girls’ minds. Not only that, but what teenage boys are going to want to serve with girls? And if the boys don’t serve, what aquaintance will they have the priesthood? Finally, though it may not be intrinsically wrong for women to have a public part in the liturgy, it’s quite proper that they don’t, given the subjection imposed on them after the Fall.You believe the Church is infallible in her disciplines and that includes the doctrinal portion of any discipline. The practical judgment is not infallible and can be in error for any number of reasons. Are you sure your “choices” all fall under a disagreement with the practical judgment area of the discipline?
*I’ll remind you that before Vatican II, if there was no altarboy available to serve the conventual Mass, it was permitted for a Sister to take his place.
Finally, may I inquire why you asked?
You’re both traditional and a Traditionalist (whereas I’m only traditional). My point is that just because someone is not a Traditionalist doesn’t mean he isn’t traditional. You have to think of what the term traditional means: following a tradition. *Traditionalist *designates someone who is traditional on a set point: the TLM. So in other words, traditional is general while Traditionalist is specific.So, by the application of your logic, does that make me a traditionalist or a traditional Catholic?
Maria