A question on contemporary and traditional Catholicism??

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by Zosimus41

Acolytes are no longer called acolytes because little girls now adorn the vestments aswell...Get it?

Z, you're making a fool of yourself.

Acolyte is no longer used because acolyte is a term that can only be used (in most of the US and in all of Canada) for those formally (as in formal) on the way to Holy Orders (so by and large it's Seminarians). Most alter servers are not Seminarians (including the younger guys that many seem to favour), so acolyte is actually the incorrect term for them. It has nothing to do with boys and girls, but with the fact that most of them are not seminarians.

Acolyte is now a canonical term that has a specific meaning.

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

I would say that progressive Catholicism advocates for an extremely skewed and biased form of social justice. I would say that progressive Catholicism, at its root, is based in narcissistic factors and/or a poor religious education. A Catholic with a good religious education cannot legitimately support the poor and not support the pro-life movement, for example, even if said Catholic is active in only serving the poor.

Furthermore, I would say that traditional Catholicism is rooted in social justice just as equally as progressive Catholicism. The difference, I think, is that traditional Catholicism does this with a full and well-rounded set of principles, rather than just, "Whine, I feel bad, help me." I would say that progressive Catholicism's "flavor" of social justice is ironically reactionary and wrong-minded.

I think you've got the right idea.

This is something I've been thinking about lately because of the class I'm taking in ethics, and I think that the so-called progressives just have the wrong starting motivation. They seem to want to put the highest good as alleviating suffering itself. They focus too much on events and states (of being, or happiness) instead of people, and this seems to bleed backwards into their moral judgements (abortion becomes a question of suffering instead of life, gay "marriage" becomes about promoting happiness without regard for what is correctly ordered. It's extremely utilitarian actually).

When it comes to issues of social justice, we need to put the focus back on people. We believe that we are made in the image and likeness of God and that we are Children of God, so any decision should be made to respect the reality of the dignity that comes with that (call it a modified Kantian view). We feed the poor not to alleviate suffering in the world, but because they are human beings who have dignity and because that dignity in some case is being denied (by circumstances within or beyond their control; by themselves or others). Our outreach to the poor (or anyone) should first and foremost be to affirm their dignity, which means that we will help them in areas where that has been denied (giving food, or shelter, or clothing).

I think that this is the connection that we've lost in the last 50 years. When we affirm the dignity of our fellow human beings then we are also praising the God who made them because we acknowledge that our dignity comes from God and not from anything we do. I believe that this is the interpretation we should use when looking at Matthew 25:31-46. It is not the acts of feeding or clothing or visiting that is worthy of praise, but the underlying act of treating people with dignity (treating people the way we would treat Christ) that makes you a righteous person.

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

Acolyte is no longer used because acolyte is a term that can only be used (in most of the US and in all of Canada) for those formally (as in formal) on the way to Holy Orders (so by and large it's Seminarians). Most alter servers are not Seminarians (including the younger guys that many seem to favour), so acolyte is actually the incorrect term for them. It has nothing to do with boys and girls, but with the fact that most of them are not seminarians.

Acolyte is now a canonical term that has a specific meaning.

Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.

In our diocese we have instituted acolytes that are not in any path to ordination.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Of course, there was never any intent by the legislator that instituted acolytes and readers only be seminarians. They were intended to be lay offices open to the laity in general.

In practice though it is restricted. So there's no real point complaining about it being "girl's fault" when it was a decision taken by the Bishop's Conferences way before girl alter servers even entered the picture.

Originally Posted by Cristiano

In our diocese we have instituted acolytes that are not in any path to ordination.

That's true in some diocese, but the norm in most of North America is for them to be seminarians.

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

In practice though it is restricted. So there's no real point complaining about it being "girl's fault" when it was a decision taken by the Bishop's Conferences way before girl alter servers even entered the picture.


That's true in some diocese, but the norm in most of North America is for them to be seminarians.

No the norm is for any lay man, the common practice is usually limited to men pursuing the holy orders. The term "norm" has a very specific meaning in the Church.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

No the norm is for any lay man, the common practice is usually limited to men pursuing the holy orders. The term "norm" has a very specific meaning in the Church.

And I said norm because it's an actual rule in most of North America (it's a rule cross-Canada that only men pursuing Holy Orders can be acolytes. So yes, norm is right).

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

And I said norm because it's an actual rule in most of North America (it's a rule cross-Canada that only men pursuing Holy Orders can be acolytes. So yes, norm is right).

According to which law?

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

According to which law?

In Canada it's a rule agreed to by all bishops in the CCCB (my understanding by way of a canon lawyer).

[Neofight]

Originally Posted by mymamamary

Hey Everyone!!

Disclaimer** I am not trying to start a fight, im just asking for opinions, no rude comments or sarcastic ones either!!

I have noticed something. Why is it that contemporary Catholicism (what you would call "liberal Catholic) emphasize social justice (e.g helping the homeless, the immigrant, etc.) and Traditional Catholicism ephasizes Mysticism and prayer. Now i can be very wrong but i have a soft spot for homeless people. However my leanings are traditional. Is there such a rift between the ephasis or am i just seeing things?? Any help please !!

The two co-exist very well, they are called Franciscans!

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

In Canada it's a rule agreed to by all bishops in the CCCB (my understanding by way of a canon lawyer).

I do not know what the CCL says in regard to that and so I would assume that you are correct when you say that in Canada it is the norm. Thanks for the clarification.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

I do not know what the CCL says in regard to that and so I would assume that you are correct when you say that in Canada it is the norm. Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think CCL would have anything to do with it because it's part of the bishop's discretion (if anything, the CCL will be like Holy Orders; it'll have minimum requirements) who to accept as an instituted acolyte. In Canada, it's restricted to seminarians (those preparing for Holy Orders).

We've actually been wondering if the CCCB might relax the rules in light of the new GIRM since an acolyte can purify the sacred vessels (no. 192). So far, there's been no change.

[Thomas Casey]

Such comparisons have nothing to do with Catholic tradition. They only instigate arguments as evidenced by this thread.

CLOSED