Every Protestant should listen to and try to understand this before claiming things about "[the awful] Catholics" or "the [evil] Catholic Church"
Visualizzazione post con etichetta catholicism. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta catholicism. Mostra tutti i post
mercoledì, gennaio 23, 2008
sabato, maggio 19, 2007
Altar servers / Ministranter
Regarding the several discussions I've had regarding female altar servers (the infant sibling word of altar boy, 2000 years old):
"[...]
Now, in the case of a religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millennia, there must be a very strong presumption that such a tradition reflects the will of Christ. And this is in fact the case with the tradition against female altar service. In the Vatican journal Notitiæ, the liturgical scholar we have already mentioned, Aimé-Georges Martimort, affirms that
[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West.
Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying
We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase."
the original article is much longer, and worth to read. Found it via this blog.
"[...]
Now, in the case of a religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millennia, there must be a very strong presumption that such a tradition reflects the will of Christ. And this is in fact the case with the tradition against female altar service. In the Vatican journal Notitiæ, the liturgical scholar we have already mentioned, Aimé-Georges Martimort, affirms that
[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West.
Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying
We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase."
the original article is much longer, and worth to read. Found it via this blog.
sabato, giugno 11, 2005
Doctrine Is Not A "Line"
(Från Roman Catholic Blog)
One of the most irritating aspects of media coverage of John Paul's death and Benedict's election was the media seeming inability to separate Church teaching from the man who wears the Fisherman's Ring. How often did we hear the talking heads holding forth about John Paul or Benedict's "stance" on abortion or "position" on same-sex marriage?
On one hand, I understand the reporter's mental processes are practically hardwired to thinking in political campaign terms. But when covering events as momentous as the passing of one Pope and the election of another, shouldn't members of the MSM take the time to educate themselves on the subject they're covering so their reporting is literate?
I was moved to post on this subject by this May article in Egypt Today, about apprehensions over how Pope Benedict XVI will continue his predecessor's interfaith efforts. It's a predictable article, right down to this section:
When will journalists, regardless of which country they are from, understand that Church doctrine is not a "line" emanating from the personal convictions of one man. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church -- the servant of the servants of God. He proselytizes Church teaching and maintains fidelity to it. He doesn't have a "line."
For some reason, too many reporters cannot understand that Church dogma is not the same thing as a political party platform, and the election of a new Pope is not like the Presidency passing from a Republican to a Democrat.
The sooner MSM reporters can grasp that concept and incorporate it into their reporting, the sooner their religious reporting will gain credibility.
One of the most irritating aspects of media coverage of John Paul's death and Benedict's election was the media seeming inability to separate Church teaching from the man who wears the Fisherman's Ring. How often did we hear the talking heads holding forth about John Paul or Benedict's "stance" on abortion or "position" on same-sex marriage?
On one hand, I understand the reporter's mental processes are practically hardwired to thinking in political campaign terms. But when covering events as momentous as the passing of one Pope and the election of another, shouldn't members of the MSM take the time to educate themselves on the subject they're covering so their reporting is literate?
I was moved to post on this subject by this May article in Egypt Today, about apprehensions over how Pope Benedict XVI will continue his predecessor's interfaith efforts. It's a predictable article, right down to this section:
The former Dean of the College of Cardinals and one of John Paul II’s closest advisers, Ratzinger, 78, was a leading candidate for pope heading into last month’s conclave. The fact that the hard-line orthodox theologian was chosen after only the fourth ballot, in one of the shortest conclaves in history, indicates that the 115 cardinals who participated in the conclave were largely in agreement that the Church need not waver from its basic stance on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, contraceptives, divorce, celibacy, women in the clergy and biotechnology.
As one of the Catholic Church’s most conservative voices, Ratzinger is not likely deviate from his predecessor’s line on any of these issues.
When will journalists, regardless of which country they are from, understand that Church doctrine is not a "line" emanating from the personal convictions of one man. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church -- the servant of the servants of God. He proselytizes Church teaching and maintains fidelity to it. He doesn't have a "line."
For some reason, too many reporters cannot understand that Church dogma is not the same thing as a political party platform, and the election of a new Pope is not like the Presidency passing from a Republican to a Democrat.
The sooner MSM reporters can grasp that concept and incorporate it into their reporting, the sooner their religious reporting will gain credibility.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
Post
