Women Serving During Mass

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1573760' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:57 AM']This is done at my parish as well, but I thought the bell was to signify that the Sacrifice is now complete? Regardless of meaning, I can't stand it when the EMHC go up during the Lamb of God and even worse is when they go [i]into[/i] the sanctuary, behind the altar.[/quote]

Yes. I think that the bells to signify the end of the sacrifice. However, the EMEs come up at this point in to the sanctuary.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Where is the NO option?
[/size]

[Apotheoun]

[i]From the particular law of the Ruthenian Catholic Church:[/i]

Canon 707 §8: Women are prohibited from serving at the altar.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='156900' date='Apr 7 2004, 04:17 AM']PLEASE DO NOT BE MEAN TO WOMEN! I LOVE THEM! (Actually, I should be very nice because I may marry one one day, and my mommy's a woman!!)

I've heard that many places and a few dioceses do not care for women serving during Mass.

I personally think they should have the men serve on them and shouldn't have to be reduced to serving themselves. Like my mom, she does enough for me as it is that for her to have to serve anymore would kill me.

LoL, while I believe all of that I've just said, I also believe that helping out in Mass is a great thing. I'm curious to see what your dioceses have said and things.[/quote]

Altar servers should be exclusively male, for reasons mentioned earlier in regards to the priesthood.

EMoHCs (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion), I can see either way. The reason why we call them "extraordinary" is because there is a definite priestly character in ministering communion, but I don't see as much of a problem with it as I see with altar servers.

Lectors should be co-ed, IMNSHO.

[prose]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1573536' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:12 PM']Funny how that works, eh? I think that the movement back in the 70s and 80s is pretty much shrugged off by most women these days. We're not offended by the fact that men and women are different. And I'm finding that the generation that is all high and mighty about not discriminating think that we're crazy. But, I don't know what to say... I'm not offended that I can't be a priest nor do I think I'm discriminated against when girls aren't altar servers.[/quote]

This pretty well sums up how I feel.

As to the poll question... I don't think it matters how I feel anyways. If the bishop or priest (as my shepherd) states it is okay, then I will follow their lead. The Church has not (and probably should not) consult with me on these matters.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with Prose. If Vatican II said that it's fine, I'm not going to say otherwise.
It also helps that I've only ever grown up with it being this way. It just seems natural to me.

[dustthouart]

The Church says that it is permissable (in the Latin rite), so it' is permissable. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea in most circumstances.

I'm a woman and I would never do any of the roles mentioned. The only situation where it seems absolutely necessary would be a Mass where the priest was the only man there. This is conceivable, but surely very rare. And even in that situation, a priest can do all the roles himself, can't he?

I don't receive from EMs if at all possible either. One thing I LOVE about my parish here in Taipei is that there are no EMs at all, even though it is a large parish! Other priests come to help distribute, or (gasp) WE ARE PATIENT. I can wait 5 minutes to consume the Precious Body of our Lord!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='prose' post='1576376' date='Jun 19 2008, 10:32 PM']As to the poll question... I don't think it matters how I feel anyways. If the bishop or priest (as my shepherd) states it is okay, then I will follow their lead. The Church has not (and probably should not) consult with me on these matters.[/quote]
Oh yes, I agree (that my feelings don't have a bearing on it, not yours ). Sure I have my own feelings & opinions, but I will respect what my bishop & priest say on the matter.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='159473' date='Apr 10 2004, 03:43 PM']I have no problem with boy-only altar servers.
However there is nothing wrong with women lectors.[/quote]


Actually, women are never lectors, for to be a lector one must be installed as one. It is a minor order reserved to Men as all orders are.

You do not have a problem with women readers (and neither do I.)

However, I do have problem with using readers when there are lectors around.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1576379' date='Jun 19 2008, 05:41 PM']I agree with Prose. If Vatican II said that it's fine, I'm not going to say otherwise.
It also helps that I've only ever grown up with it being this way. It just seems natural to me.[/quote]

Vatican II never said it was ok to do have lay liturgical ministers. And the our Current Holy Father is not "Fine " with it. But he does allow it, for he is the servant to even poor traditions.

[Maria Faustina]

I don't think girls should be altar servers, and I am a girl. Maybe if girls were not allowed as altar servers, boys would eventually have to be, thus exposing more young men to the priesthood, and finally making up for some of the lack of priests currently. Just a theory.

Women are okay to be readers though, in my opinion. I'm not so sure about EEM's, though. I don't really have a stand on that.

[heavenseeker]

I have no problem it

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1579466' date='Jun 22 2008, 02:53 PM']Vatican II never said it was ok to do have lay liturgical ministers. And the our Current Holy Father is not "Fine " with it. But he does allow it, for he is the servant to even poor traditions.[/quote]
To be honest, I missed the point there. Let me rephrase it...
The Church formally allows this, which means by extension and by tradition that the Holy Spirit allows this. Let's not forget...
Unless I'm way off and missing the mark entirely...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1579791' date='Jun 22 2008, 08:30 PM']To be honest, I missed the point there. Let me rephrase it...
The Church formally allows this, which means by extension and by tradition that the Holy Spirit allows this. Let's not forget...
Unless I'm way off and missing the mark entirely...[/quote]


I agree whole heartedly that the Church allows this to happen. However, it is an error to say that Vatican II and the Holy Father invision these things as a good thing.

Let me clarify my point.

The way lay liturgical ministry is done is licit and valid, it is just very poor judgment based on poor anthropology and ecclesiology.

Such innovations were not the intention of the Second Vatican Council or even the Spirit of the Council.

The Holy Father is on record as criticizing many of the actions that are debated here, especially the way the transition from the ordinary to the extraordinary form.

And as far as the Spirit even the Crucification of the Son was allowed.

[Nihil Obstat]

All I mean is that we see the Church as infallible.
If the way we do things is so wrong, then it wouldn't be happening... or at the very least there would be something coming in the very near future telling us how very wrong we are.
I can't see this being an issue to get quite so worked up over considering that this isn't the case.

Also, I have a book called Catholic Q&A by a Fr. Dietzen. He answered a question about Eucharistic Ministers. I will post this.

"Certainly a focal point of that mission for the ordained priest is to preside at the eucharistic liturgy and make possible for the rest of the Christian people, and celebrate with them, the unbloody renewal of the death and resurrection of our Lord. ...For the first 1200 years or so, it was common for any Christian to give communion to any other Christian. People took communion in their hands at mass, gave it to each other, and even took the Eucharist home to family or friends who could not be present at Mass.
Within the past several centuries, in an effort to counteract certain heresies which dnied the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the church gradually built up the detailed prohibitions we learned about not touching the host. When I was small (in the 1930s), we were taught that it was seriously sinful to touch not only the host itself, but even the chalice and ciborium in which the host and consecrated wine were contained.
We now know, however, that such prohibitions did not reflect (as we then assumed) what the church had "always" done, and that [b]they involved nothing essential to Catholic doctrine or practice.[/b]
You are never, of course, forced to recieve Communion in your hand if you do not wish to do so. There's always the option to recieve either way.

[The rest of this paragraph is about recieving on the tongue or hand, but this last sentence applies regardless.]

[b]The incredible fact is that Jesus gives us his body and blood as our spiritual food and drink in the first place. From that viewpoint, at least, to make a big deal our of which part of our body [or anyone else's?] touches the host first appears to me to be supremely ridiculous."[/b]


Thought you might want to see this... It was bugging me that I couldn't remember what he said.