Posted on 09/24/2003 3:06:09 PM PDT by Lorianne
Aren't they all?
Pedofile or pederast? There is a difference.
There is a big difference between gossiping and being brave enough to come forward with the truth. The light of truth will always give us a reason to strengthen our resolve and adhere more closely to God.
One of the blessings of having a faithful priest or pastor to aid you in your walk with Christ, is his discretion when it comes to personal matters and his belief that God will love you and help you at all times. Often this close interaction and discussion of our lives and our faith, leads us to a greater understanding of God's love. I don't believe you can characterize all priests or pastors' dealings with the parishoners as being cloaked in secrecy or darkness.
The problem with the folks who fell hook, line and sinker for all these novelties is that,once they accepted them, they can't admit that they might have made a mistake. It's as if the Coca Cola company insisted that New Coke was better and more popular with people even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At least Coca Cola learned from their mistake.
Since these "novelties" (like permanent deacons, and the Anglican dispensation) were approved by two popes, am I correct in assuming that Pius XII (who also changed the liturgy) was the last "real" pope to you?
The Tridentine Mass should be widely available. I'm all for that.
But the Novus Ordo is the normative Mass, we permanent deacons continue to increase in number, and laymen will play an increasingly larger role in the Church.
What I've read of this thread so far was mostly talking about the altar girls, but this was the bit that jumped out at me. Among other things, what would this do to Catholic military chaplains?
Being a Protestant myself, I can't say I'm too amused with being compared to a Black Mass in seriousness. Ah well, still no skin off my nose.
Drew Garrett
What I've read of this thread so far was mostly talking about the altar girls, but this was the bit that jumped out at me. Among other things, what would this do to Catholic military chaplains?
Being a Protestant myself, I can't say I'm too amused with being compared to a Black Mass in seriousness. Ah well, still no skin off my nose.
Drew Garrett
The girl's presence at the alter probably means there is one less boy there. If she is not out-right displacing the boy, having her fill the position means there is less ipetus to find a boy to fill the position. As it stands at many churchs today, all of the alter servers are girls and there are no boys. Being an alter server increases the chances of a boy later seeking the priesthood, therefore we should seek to have as many positions filled with boys as possible.
There is one important psychological characteristic of boys - they instinctively do not want to appear or be "girly". So girls can push boys out, at least those boys who should be priests. :)
Are girls are less "pure" than boys? Do they sully the altar?
Watch out, my first post on this thread was along this same line and it was deleted along with 2 others talking about the gay priests. But then again I had some Bustard on my behind who obviously thought I shouldn't voice an opinion and hit the cry button.Hope you have better luck.
Some of us whisky-swillin' Irish Catholics are prepared as well.
I wish I was what I sound.
here is a question for you; After communion is given and you say amen, I was taught not to make the sign of the cross because it detracts from the moment and draws attention to yourself and away from God. My Dad always crosses himself and in our Church it runs about 70/30 who cross themselves after communion......any wisdom?
The Sign of the Cross is quite probably the oldest sacramental in Christendom.
It is an expression of one's faith in God's triune nature.
When one uses it as it was intended - namely, to express faith - it is never inappropriate.
Surely one of the best times to express one's faith in the mystery of the Trinity is at the exact moment when one partakes of the mystery of the Incarnation.
There is no good or canonically legitimate reason to forbid someone from making the Sign of the Cross at communion - it is a good and pious practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.