Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:54:06 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones

Excerpts from catholic: 9-Oct-92 Re: Altar girls and millstones David
Jansing@ORION.SPD. (4859)

> >Back in the 1940s and 50s some Catholics thought that the sacrifice
> >of the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than in
> >Latin.  This was a legitimate desire.  The requirement that the Mass
> >be celebrated in Latin was entirely a matter of Church law.  The
> >first Masses had been said in Aramaic, which was the vernacular of
> >the Apostles.  Masses were then offered in Greek and other vernacular
> >languages, including Latin, which was the vernacular in Rome.  Be-
> >cause Latin was the common language of the Western Church it became
> >the common language of worship.  Vernacular liturgies were tradition-
> >ally used in some of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Wheth-
> >er it was desirable to change from Latin to the vernacular in the
> >Latin rite was a matter of opinion.  Many Catholics who supported the
> >change formed organizations to promote it.  They wrote books and
> >articles advocating it. They had meetings and conferences to discuss
> >and advocate the use of the vernacular.  At those meetings the
> >priests in attendance celebrated Mass in Latin.  The change they
> >wanted had not yet been approved so they properly and obediently
> >followed the rules then in effect.

> Latin was not the venancular in places like England or (what is today)
> Germany.  Latin was forced upon the Church by an overbearing Roman
> Empire. When the Empire fell, Latin remained mainly for the Church.
> When the Council of Trent came along Latin was by far NOT the venacular
> for the Western World.  There were many other languages, depending on
> the area of Europe that you were in.  The Church basically went to Latin
> to prevent any
> such heresies creeping into the faith via the venacular.  The common
> people then were uneducationed and uninformed.  The Church was acting in
> their own
> best interest.  500 years later, the Church made a conscious effor to
> include the people of in the Liturgy, which meant (among other things)
> changing the text of the Mass from Latin (not even close to the
> venacular) to English (at least for the US).  Your "facts", Marty are
> shaky andill-informed at best.

'Scuse me Mr. Know-It-All, but I hardly find any conflict between what
you said and what Marty said.  Both are entirely correct, I fail to see
how you have "disproven" him.  There was in fact a time period when
Latin _was_ the language of the Western church, like in the 4th and 5th
centuries -- Marty never said that at the Council of Trent it was this
way.

> >You ask if altar girls are against the rules.  Yes, they are.
> >Someone else on the list recently said that he could provide documen-
> >tation proving this fact.

> Then I say, "Put up, or shut up!"

> Once again, share these theological reasons, their sources, and their
> agreement with Rome with the rest of us.  Again, "Put up, or shut up."

Seeing that you cannot come up with evidence to support your own view,
except your dubious opinion, I would offer the same words of wisdom to
you.  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

> >God's law can be changed only by God.  He made some changes when He
> >became a man in Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Old Covenant and founded
> >the New Covenant which shall last until He returns at the end of the
> >world.  Disobeying His commandments is a direct defiance of God.  God
> >founded the Catholic Church to teach in His name, to administer His
> >sacraments, etc.  Disobeying the rules of His Church is an indirect
> >defiance of God because it defies the legislative authority He gave
> >to the Apostles and their successors.

> Your weak arguments are made even weaker by your insistance of this
> paragraph.  If you wish to follow the Old Testament God, the God of
> punishment and anger, then do so in your own space and time.  Don't
> inflict it on me or the Church.  We are Catholics and Christians.  This
> means we follow the message of Christ!  This is a message of Love and
> Forgiveness, not of punishments for "direct defiances" and "disobeying."
>  And if you are so up on Church Law, let me ask you this:  Can women be
> appointed as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist?

In case you didn't know, Mr. Expert, it is a heretical position to claim
that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New
Testament.  It is QUITE heretical to even SUGGEST that the Old Testament
is invalid, so don't impose your heretical views on us!  Catholic
Christianity has ALWAYS believed the Old Testament to be equally
inspired, equally inerrant, and equally valid with the New Testament.
Not only that, I cannot even understand what the heck you are referring
to in his paragraph.  Not only are you behaving arrogantly and
self-righteously, you aren't even making any logical sense (never mind
advocating condemned heresy).  This Catholic and Christian follows the
God of the Old Testament and the New Testament, which are one in the
same God, always have been, always will.  Don't start calling Gnostic
heresies "Catholic and Christian."  Get YOUR facts straight.

Flame off,
Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU