Altar Girls= Liturgical Oxymoron.

I recieved the following question in an email:

According to this letter, http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship reaffirmed that bishops may allow altar girls, at their discretion. (Supposedly this was first allowed under JPII?) “With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors. Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.” What do you think?

What can I say, it sounds cocky, but JP2 (of happy memory, and soon to be declared Blessed), was simply wrong about altar girls (He was wrong about evolution too) This does not shake my faith because I know the Pope is only infallible when speaking in certain situations. Well, I will give the benefit of the doubt in most situations where I am tempted to disagree, but some things we must draw the line. Altar girls and similar abuses are one of those lines in my opinion. Scripture, tradition, and 2000 years of magisterium are against this practice of women on the altar 100% right up until the sexual revolution of the 20th century. Coincidence? What about "taking things slow" which I always hear is how things are to be done in the Church. Shouldnt we wait a hundred years or so after the sexual revolution before entertaining the idea of women on the altar? Instead it took, what... 5 or 10 years? And in many ways we are not even done with the depths this revolution will likely sink to. As far as what I think about Cardinal Estevez letter, it is just weak. Asking people to remember things they should know is not the same as telling them what they should do. Sometimes a shepherd needs to use his hook instead of just whistling. There are some liberal Bishops and Priests in this country who will merely crumple up Estevez' letter and toss it in the trash and think... "welp, on with business as usual, lets start a new "women on the altar" program and we can have them dancing on top of the altar, because hey its not forbidden". They could care less about vocations or tradition, they want women at the altar because they are modern femenists, or they have caved to the spirit of the age, or they just don't care about the issue. Thank God Estevez did not cave to what the liberal Bishop asked for. The Bishop requested whether "a Diocesan Bishop would be able to oblige his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar" (my emphasis) How sick is that? He wants to be able to FORCE his Priests to have this practice. I have not researched the issue much, mainly because my Parish thankfully does not allow the practice. From the document you provided it looks like it is allowed for local Bishops to allow the practice. OK I knew that. But it is still an abuse. (There was a time when married Catholics could not recieve the Eucharist for a lengthy period of time (24 hrs I think?... not sure) after having relations. I think that was an abuse as well, even though it was sanctioned by the Church.) All I know is that it is insane. Do you doubt that women at the altar is an abuse? The church has had 2000 years to come up with that one and never did. Then it just so happens it starts having women servers during the most massive "sexual revolution" the world has ever known. Now don't get me wrong, the Church has been protected from accepting the deadly sin of contraception. That is a miracle, and one that we can be proud of. So perhaps God is allowing the church to be infected with less serious things instead. Like a good Father He is allowing us to get drunk so we can have the hangover, but protecting us while we learn our lesson. Altar girls are like if you saw the preist consecrating the wine in a Zip-Lock bag. Would the consecration be valid? Well, I think it would. What if the practise was sanctioned by Rome in some way? Well they are wrong. And I will say they are wrong untill they declare I MUST say otherwise. Bad attitude to have? Yeah, probably. But give me a break, look at what has happened to the world in the last 50 years! This is war, and our Church leaders need our support not only in the good they preach and do, but they need our encouragement to STAND UP as bold shepherds like David who killed lions and bears in defense of his sheep. Be bold Bishops! Call this generation to a new level of holines, drive the siliness from the temples with your whip, and the sheep will flock to you! Of course, I should probably just shut my mouth about all this and pray and worry about my own "abuses" and sins. Bear with me.

Evolution part trois

I was asked by my online acquaintance Brent what I mean by evolution, and that kind of information we can expect to get from a theory like evolution. My answer got long enough I thought I would post it on my blog so I can have a better record of the conversation. Here is my thinking at this point: OK, my idea of evolution is what I believe to be the broad cultural view of it. It is seen as the theory that explains how one species becomes another over long periods of time, by very gradual changes, by natural selection of fitter characteristics over less fit ones. Darwin’s book is called on the Origin of the Species, and that certainly is what evolution attempts to explain; how different species originated from a common ancestor. On the face of it, this could be true. I mean I can imagine in my mind little evolution factories in the cells that are "selecting" traits and making the gradual changes. I can picture the cell knowing that it needs to get this amphibian turned into a whale and it sets about getting it done over millions of years. And if that were the case, well then glory to God for an amazing design. But by its practitioners own admission, that is not what science has seen in the cell. What they have seen contradicts their theory, yet they still cling to it. What they see in the cell is not a blob as Darwin thought it was, but the complexity of a galaxy full of planets which are each full of cities which are each full of libraries which are each full of books which are each full of unique and wonderful literature. Next to each of those libraries are factories that all work together to maintain and repair the libraries and build more galaxies. What they see in the fossil record directly contradicts what Darwin said should be expected as far as transitional forms, yet they still cling to the theory as if it were the theory of gravity. If you have the time, this series of videos of Dr. David Berlinski is really interesting. (I love this guy!) I am no scientist that is for sure. But that does not mean I will swallow a theory that seems to have been disproven, (or at least that does not have the kind of evidence it seems it should by this point in history) just because scientist mostly agree it is true. ESPECIALLY when it seems to me they have non-scientific motives for holding the theory. Here is what I mean: I think the main reason evolution is rarely questioned even in the face of a lack of evidence is because of the alternative. Which for Godless mainstream scientists is NO alternative at all. I suspect they think that if the story of evolution is false, the only option is special, instantaneous creation. Now that may not be the case, and Berlinski says as much. There could be some yet undiscovered theory of how speciation happened. But evolution ain’t it from what I have seen. Now one might ask, "who cares" about evolution either way. Well, if my suspicion is right, and evolution, against the evidence against it, is being held out there as a theory for the express purpose of giving a further excuse for sin and unbelief ala Romans 1, then whether or not the theory itself is compatible with Christian theism it should be rejected as evil. Put another way: If it appears to me that this scientific theory is being believed for primarily pagan religious motives, namely to deny the Creator as it says in Romans 1, then although it can be argued that the theory is technically neutral as far as science goes (it does not necessarily imply Godless motives to believe it), it should nevertheless be resisted by Christians so as not to give scandal. For instance: if you live in a village where all the men go out and chop wood on Thursday evenings while singing “waltzing Matilda”, then hey that’s great. Chop away Christian. But then you discover that instead of using the wood for cooking like you are, the other men are using it for a bonfire for human sacrifice. I think it is clearly wrong to go out chopping with them on Thursdays in this case, and you might even want to sing a different tune when you go on Wednesdays. If a hundred years later they are merely pretending to chop the wood, and are incredulous that you can't see their stacks of wood piled all around, then you really should stop "chopping" wood with them. Things have obviously progressed to some sort of pagan religion or madness and you should run away. The more I think about this topic and examine the “proofs” for evolution, the more I become convinced that for the scientists that hold to it evolution has long since past the point of being what St. Paul is speaking of in Romans 1:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”

Global warming has some similarities here. Most scientists may well believe in man-made global warming. But their godless reasons for doing so should make us want to steer clear of them. Their science has crossed over into religious belief. Evolution is atheistic religious belief, held to in opposition to good evidence for the falsity of the belief. A special creation is just impossible to the mind of modern man. So he clings to an ad hoc, improbable theory of evolution as the only “possible” explanation. Well, I am under no such delusion, and do not see why I should worship in their temple. If my fellow Catholics or Protestant brothers want to eat the meat sacrificed in their temple, so be it. You are probably not sinning, and I am not your judge. But I will point and laugh at you. And I will point out that you look absolutely absurd down on all fours eating the crumbs that fall from this decadent cultures table. I believe history will show your compromise to be needless at best, and damaging to the faith at worse. Have a blessed day on this Holy Thurday! I look forward to recieving the Lord at mass tonight when we remember the Last Supper. Peace, David Meyer

Bottle rockets from howitzer barrels

"I had joined the [Presbyterian] church because I had despaired of myself, and because despairing of reason I had wished to submit to authority. If the Presbyterian church had satisfied me that she had authority, was authorized by Almighty God to teach and direct me, I could have continued to submit; but while she exercised the most rigid authority over me, she disclaimed all authority to teach me, and remitted me to the Scriptures and private judgment. ‘We do not ask you to take this as your creed,’ said my pastor, on giving me a copy of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith; ‘we do not give you this as a summary of the doctrines you must hold, but as an excellent summary of the doctrines which we believe the Scriptures teach. What you are to believe is the Bible. You must take the Bible as your creed, and read it with a prayerful mind, begging the Holy Ghost to aid you to understand it aright.’ But while the church refused to take the responsibility of telling me what doctrines I must believe, while she sent me to the Bible and private judgment, she yet claimed authority to condemn and excommunicate me as a heretic, if I departed from the standard of doctrine contained in her Confession. This I regarded as unfair treatment. It subjected me to all the disadvantages of authority without any of its advantages. The church demanded that I should treat her as a true mother, while she was free to treat me only as a step-son, or even as a stranger. Be one thing or another, said I; either assume the authority and the responsibility of teaching and directing me, or leave me with the responsibility [of] my freedom. If you have authority from God, avow it, and exercise it. I am all submission. I will hold what you say, and do what you bid. If you have not, then say so, and forbear to call me to an account for differing from you, or disregarding your teachings. Either bind me or loose me. Do not mock me with a freedom which is no freedom, or with an authority which is illusory. If you claim authority over my faith, tell me what I must believe, and do not throw upon me the labor and responsibility of forming a creed for myself; if you do not, if you send me to the Bible and private judgment, to find out the Christian faith the best way I can, do not hold me obliged to conform to your standards, or assume the right to anathematize me for departing from them." Orestes Brownson, in The Convert; or, Leaves from my experience (1857), (pp. 23-25)

That was taken from a comment by Bryan Cross on Called to Communion. I think Orestes Brownson is spot on. His words mirror my recent experience in the PCA, and so well put! I want to read more of him. It is true about Presbyterians that they make discipline one of the “marks” of the church, and will certainly excommunicate, but at the same time will leave doctrine to the individual. That is just inconsistent. It is like they have a big howitzer, but instead of artillery shells they drop bottle rockets down the barrel with a helpless shrug. They know they *should* be firing the authentic magisterial rounds, but think the ammo ran out in the early church.

Theistic Evolution or Materialistic Evolution Part 2

So I am listening to the radio today and the show "the inner life" comes on the Catholic radio. The guest priest is asked to talk about suffering. He proceeds to say that suffering began when man first sinned. He then talked about how all creation is affected by that sin too. As an example, he gave natural disasters, but also mentioned animals attacking man, and.... mosquitoes. So if god made mosquitoes before the fall of man, did they suck on fruit? If not, did they drink animal blood only? Were they created after the fall? Did they "evolve" the ability to suck blood as a result of the fall? Update: I am trying to keep an open mind, but finding the "evidence" fro evolution of any kind seriously lacking. More and more, it looks as if Christians that believe evolution are either just believing what they were taught and (admirably) making it fit the bible, or worse, they are embarrassed to not believe the majority view on origins. The theory just makes no sense! Sure your allowed to believe it, and your allowed to wear shorts to mass with a beer-bong on your head. That does not mean you SHOULD do so however. So far I have heard that I SHOULD believe evolution followed mainly by reasons why as a Catholic I CAN believe evolution... not why I should. If I were a Catholic biology teacher, I can see how these arguments might persuade me. Having your job on the line might make you willing to swallow all sorts of weird theories. Take panspermia for instance. The theory that life came from outer space on an asteroid! The discoverer of DNA liked that theory. I am not kidding you, this theory is spoken of with a straight face by modern scientists. A STRAIGHT FACE! Noah's ark is crazy, but panspermia is science... yeeaaahhh.

Today's headline: "The birthrate plunged from 2.08 to 2.01 between 2008 and 2009..." The following video is from 2008. The "point of no return" of 2.11% it describes for a society's birth rate has now been passed in this country according to the latest demographics. In 2080 while evangelical Christians argue about whether head coverings are required in Church and whether the Pope is the antichrist or not, the new Islamic Republic of the USA will mandate that their wives wear burkas, turn their churches into Mosques, and force them to convert or pay a slave tax. Worldwide, Islam recently became bigger than the Church (the Catholic Church), so if the Protestants will unite under the Pope, and we can unite under the banner of Christ with a new fervency, perhaps we can have a fighting chance. But if Protestants remain addicted to sola scriptura and contraception, and continue to disobey Christ's command that we all have one faith under one shepherd, this nation will be an Islamic Republic a century from now. Christian men, arise and prepare your house for battle. If these Muslim hordes rush our defenses and find their children being converted to Christianity, and their culture being won to Christ, we have a chance. If they find us docile and lukewarm in our faith, Christ will let them overrun us. Christ has promised his Church, towering upon the rock of Peter, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Let us form our ranks and prepare for the next crusade.