catholicinsd Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 8 2006, 09:46 AM']Vatican II said nothing about altar girls. Vatican II called for Latin in the Liturgy and no abuses. This has nothing to do with Vatican II. Altar girls were conceded in 1994 (?) because people had already begun doing it in disobedience. Mother Theresa and Mother Angelica were two of the most upset people in the world when John Paul II made this concession. [right][snapback]906444[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well now Alter girls fall under Papal Infalibility.
Noel's angel Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Can we just move on??? The Pope allowed it, and us sitting grumbling about it, going round and round in circles isn't going to change anything
Desert Walker Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 8 2006, 08:57 AM']Well now Alter girls fall under Papal Infalibility. [right][snapback]906457[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Oh gosh...! That isn't true! The pope is not infallible on matters of discipline! Only faith and morals! And he gave the perogative to allow altar girls to bishops which means they can be disallowed. The American bishops put the decision into the hands of the parish priests. Altar Girls are not allowed at the Vatican you know.
MilesChristi Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 8 2006, 10:57 AM']Well now Alter girls fall under Papal Infalibility. [right][snapback]906457[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, the allowance of female altar servers is a matter of discipline, not faith or morals.
Desert Walker Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Noel's angel' date='Mar 8 2006, 08:59 AM']Can we just move on??? The Pope allowed it, and us sitting grumbling about it, going round and round in circles isn't going to change anything [right][snapback]906462[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think it was wrong to allow it folks! And guess what? Under Canon Law I'm allowed to have that opinion! I think it was irresponsible, and in some cases it was an attempt to undermine the concreteness of the concept of masculine priesthood. Edited March 8, 2006 by Desert Walker
toledo_jesus Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 This thread has run its course. The people who disagree with altar girls are the obvious victors. Regulators, let's get regulatin'.
Noel's angel Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I really don't think there has beena 'victory'....nor do I think this sort of debate is about victory but anyhoo, what do I know?
Noel's angel Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:03 PM']I think it was wrong to allow it folks! And guess what? Under Canon Law I'm allowed to have that opinion! I think it was irresponsible, and in some cases it was an attempt to undermine the concreteness of the concept of masculine priesthood. [right][snapback]906469[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, of course you can have an opinion but I think pages upon pages of people going round and round in circles like a merry-go-round hasn't really come to much good.
toledo_jesus Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='Noel's angel' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:10 PM']I really don't think there has beena 'victory'....nor do I think this sort of debate is about victory but anyhoo, what do I know? [right][snapback]906673[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah, my flippant remarks are meant to convey the "played out" nature of the thread. By injecting completely nonsensical remarks into an otherwise serious thread, it is made clear that the topic is finished. That is my genius.
Recommended Posts