Author Topic: CITH and Girl Altar Boys Were Never Abuses (Read 2762 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:09:31 PM »

Steve,

Ask him if he would be so willing to throw out other traditions based upon the mere fact that they may fall into the category of "discipline." Celibacy? Gone. The entire liturgy? Discipline. Goodbye. Say HELLO to women priests. The list could go on and on. Then maybe you could mention to him that if he wants to be a part of the true People of God, then he better submit himself to the fact that women were NEVER ALLOWED IN THE SANCTUARY DURING DIVINE WORSHIP. The fact that they are allowed to serve the altar is actually a sign of God's judgment upon their heads. The whole of the history of the true religion, spanning thousands of years, stands against him in reproach.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:21:48 PM »

Caminus,

How about this one?

Quote

They had CITH and altar girls in the OT???

This is really getting off topic, so let me try to bring it back. The way I see it, you seem to be making the opposite point of what you are trying to argue. Moses allowed the discipline of divorce, which was approved by God (as Moses was his messenger). Was divorce "good" in the OT? It must have been, for God allowed it to continue for thousands of years (as I know of no prophet that spoke the word of God against it). Or, are you arguing that God "tolerated the evil" of divorce by allowing it?

We then see Christ changing the discipline of divorce as he elevates matrimonty to a sacrament. When Christ forbids divorce, are you saying he automatically makes all former divorce allowed under the law evil? I think not. Christ fulfills this law and gives us a new take on marriage.

In a similar way, having altar girls now does not change the good that was done by not having them in the past, and by having altar girls now we are not "tolerating an evil" we are expanding a discipline. If in the future they are no longer allowed, it will not make having them now evil.

When it comes right down to it, you and I can respectfully stand by our opinions as to the "good" of having altar girls or debating if they should be banned. The OP however was looking for Canon Law and the facts of why we have them now and the fact is that we have them now because 16 years ago the Pope said it was OK to have them.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:26:41 PM »

He is freakin' crazy. "Divorce" was never a "discipline." It was a moral evil tolerated because of the general moral depravity of men. To claim that God "approved" of this moral evil because He tolerated it is beyond absurd. It is the inversion of reality.

His relativist attitude undercuts all discipline. There's no way around it.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:35:46 PM »

My response to his first babbling:

I'm sorry, are you asking me if girl altar boys were legally allowed before 1994? I'm finding it hard to take this question seriously.

In the '83 Code "laici" clearly referred to men and was deliberately translated by our friends at ICEL, (who gave us "for all" in the consecration), as "persons" to create ambiguity. Clerics before 1980 up until '94 continued to disobey the express will of the Pope until the Vatican gave permission for the first time in 1994 to allow the practice.

Your logic would have us believe that JPII in his own '83 Canon Law meant to allow girl altar boys across the Church, having just three years previously condemned the practice.

Not only this, you would have us believe he changed the entire 2,000 year tradition of the Church of not allowing women to serve at the altar with not so much as a peep of explanation and no media fanfare in '83?

This is absurd.

The same liberal Bishops and priests who were disobeying Rome on this issue before Dominicae caenae, and who caused the need for JPII to write Dominicae caenae, used the '83 Code translation as a pretext to justify their own continuing disobedience.

Were these Bishops acting in good faith when they continued to allow the practice from 80-83?

Come on now. Many Catholics were born at night, but not last night.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:47:16 PM »

Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoctor
The way I see it, you seem to be making the opposite point of what you are trying to argue. Moses allowed the discipline of divorce, which was approved by God (as Moses was his messenger). Was divorce "good" in the OT? It must have been, for God allowed it to continue for thousands of years (as I know of no prophet that spoke the word of God against it). Or, are you arguing that God "tolerated the evil" of divorce by allowing it?

Divorce was a "good"? Seriously?

I believe I explicitly stated that the evil of divorce was tolerated in the OT. Not sure where the confusion is.

Quote

Quote:
We then see Christ changing the discipline of divorce as he elevates matrimonty to a sacrament. When Christ forbids divorce, are you saying he automatically makes all former divorce allowed under the law evil? I think not. Christ fulfills this law and gives us a new take on marriage.

Divorce was a "discipline"? So marriage given by God to Adam and Eve under the natural law was a Church "discipline"? So marriage was not a good? It was neutral? Or was it bad then but good now?

I'm saying that your line of thinking regarding CITH & girl altar boys is equivalent to those who say something goes from evil to good because it is "approved". I pointed out the flaw in that positivist logic.

Quote

Quote:
In a similar way, having altar girls now does not change the good that was done by not having them in the past, and by having altar girls now we are not "tolerating an evil" we are expanding a discipline. If in the future they are no longer allowed, it will not make having them now evil.

So banning women from the altar was "good" in the past. But banning them now would be "evil"? But in the future, if they are banned again, it would again be "good"?

Quote

Quote:
When it comes right down to it, you and I can respectfully stand by our opinions as to the "good" of having altar girls or debating if they should be banned. The OP however was looking for Canon Law and the facts of why we have them now and the fact is that we have them now because 16 years ago the Pope said it was OK to have them.

So now it's 16 years ago? So you are admitting the '83 code did not allow them and that it was prohibited until 16 years ago?

Because that's not what you said in your previous post.