Altar Girls

[uruviel]

[quote]everyhting happens for a reason, and since I serve I know God made a reason for that.[/quote]

ok.... soo... I don't really follow your logic. If I jump off of a cliff, then God wants me to because He makes everything happen for a reason. Noooo. God brings good out of everything. He is a positve guy. lol. So perhaps He will bring good out of it, but perhaps it could still be bad for you, He can't guard you from yourself. He can't force you to stop making decisions, and He can't take away your free will.

[Aloysius]

it is not impossible that the Church could allow for something that is objectively sacrilegious. this particular case is a minor sacrilege in my opinion; very close to the border of being merely subjectively sacrilegious; I do not place in the category of a subjective sacrilege, however, because it is universally found in the immemorial histories of the rites of the East and West leading one to the inevitable conclusion that it holds that status of "Apostolic Tradition" and to contradict something which, for all intensive purposes is considered by the Church of God to be originated by the Apostles themselves, is an objective sacrilege in the Christian Order.

for folk who do not like the big word: all of the word here have less than four lets: pope can let bad stuf be done; this girl stuf is bad cuz of bein diff than the long time stuf done from the 12 cool guys we all like.

:

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

What he said.

[iggyjoan]

he wrote too much.

[Didymus]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1253270' date='Apr 22 2007, 05:27 PM']how is that language cruel and sexist?

A man is a descendant of Adam and Eve.

a man of the female sex is a man who is not of the male sex.[/quote]

a pope wouldnt speak like that because they, unlike young teenagers, have the lived experience and understanding of people's responses to wording things certain ways as opposed to other ways even though both may intrinsically mean the same thing.

you still seem to believe the Church is something cold and heartless. Don't you understand that the Church weeps deeply everytime someone falls away from Her fold? There is beauty and dignity to the way the Church operated in traditional times, and you make it sound like the Church was at some point a bully.

[uruviel]

Thanks Aloysius. You always make sense. And for the four letter explanation, I had more trouble understanding that one than the first one you gave!

[uruviel]

[quote]he wrote too much.[/quote]

ok. Your embarressing yourself now. jk. But seriously. If you had a strong stand point, you would have a response to him. But as we can all see you bear no ground under your feet in this arguement and use stupidity as your excuse.


Wow that was cold. Sorry. I'm in a mean mood right about now. :

[Aloysius]

[quote name='uruviel' post='1255439' date='Apr 24 2007, 05:52 PM']Thanks Aloysius. You always make sense. And for the four letter explanation, I had more trouble understanding that one than the first one you gave! [/quote]
haha it was much harder for me to write, too. big words flow naturally from my lexicon and the grammar structures surrounding them seem natural to me. :

on another note, I agree with Didymus about how STM makes the Church of the past sound. She was not triumphalist like that over heretics, schismatics, and other excommunicates. There was a much more beautiful and parental attitude; STM does (intentionally or not) make it sound like the moment of excommunication was the moment of triumph. It was not, it was the moment of defeat; the Church had lost someone.

and his use of the phrase "man of the female sex": there is a real and valid point to be made by the understanding of what a "man" is which is different from a "person" or a "male" or a "female"; "man", or "anthropos", is not necessarily masculine; it is what we are. All of us are men; you, me, the boys the girls the men and the women-- they're all men. but that said, even the most traditional speaker would not nowadays use the term "man of the female sex".. why? because it's pointless. there is a point to the generic "man", but there is no point to using that word and then saying "of the female sex" when there is ONE perfectly valid and concise word to refer to that singular entity: woman. a woman is, of course, a man of the female sex; all the proper connotations are present in terming her a 'woman'.