Women Serving During Mass

[Apotheoun]

The lay faithful have never "taken" communion for themselves; instead, it has always been given to them by the ministers of the Church. Traditionally the non-ordained faithful have not been allowed to approach the altar during the liturgical synaxis, and this tradition is still maintained by the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic.

[goldbug16]

Only when necessary. I don't condemn anyone who does it though.

[iggyjoan]

I think it's fine. I think it's a neat way for women to get involved with the Mass.

And yes, I know they also could read or sing. I just think being an altar server is cooler.

[Resurrexi]

I think that women have no place in the sanctuary, since the tradition of both the Roman and Eastern rites attest to this.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1580437' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:55 PM']I think that women have no place in the sanctuary, since the tradition of both the Roman and Eastern rites attest to this.[/quote]
I agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1579990' date='Jun 23 2008, 01:06 AM']The lay faithful have never "taken" communion for themselves; instead, it has always been given to them by the ministers of the Church. Traditionally the non-ordained faithful have not been allowed to approach the altar during the liturgical synaxis, and this tradition is still maintained by the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic.[/quote]
That's semantics though; that's seems to me to not be the central part of the argument.

[Apotheoun]

It is not semantics. The priest, as an icon of Christ, distributes communion. Communion is not self-serve.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1581254' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:48 AM']It is not semantics. The priest, as an icon of Christ, distributes communion. Communion is not self-serve.[/quote]
My understanding of that article was that he was referring to recieving on the hand or the tongue, and that the early Christians would have recieved on the hand, thereby 'serving themselves'.

A thought came to me last night, and I'd love reactions to it.

I think we're forgetting a major point here. This is JESUS in the Eucharist that we're talking about. In Mass we're recieving Jesus Christ himself. It seems to me that Jesus wouldn't mind all that much if one extra person touches him on the way from the priest to you. It's Jesus after all.
As long as things are done with proper reverence and respect, I would imagine that Jesus has a lot bigger issues to be angry about than Eucharistic Ministers.

This argument seemed a lot more powerful yesterday at one in the morning. Hopefully it still makes sense.

[Deo Iuvente]

But the second Vatican Council didn't SAY anything about female servers. This came about only a few years ago, because people were disobeying canon law and liturgical law, and it was so widespread, the CDW eventually just allowed an indult to permit it. (like communion in the hand.) That's all.
The fact that it's allowed, rather than encouraged, seems to send a message to me, because unlike having all male servers, having female servers can be banned by the local bishop or pastor. Also,the indult could be revoked by the Holy See,because it has no standing in the tradition of the church.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm sorry, but I just can't find any reason in my own conscience that would prevent girls from being servers...
I know people are saying that it's to help young boys discern a vocation to the priesthood... but I've never seen that actually being the case. I served, and both my younger brothers did, but we never once saw it as some kind of discernment process.
At the same time, I know our church in particular has a very difficult time finding young people. There just aren't very many. Most of them happen to be girls. We only have one priest (maybe another in residence, but I've never seen him). There are no other priests that could regularly distribute communion or take care of the altar serving.
...but more importantly, if done with an attitude of reverence, what's really stopping a girl from being in the sanctuary? I just don't understand the basis for this.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1581464' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:56 AM']My understanding of that article was that he was referring to recieving on the hand or the tongue, and that the early Christians would have recieved on the hand, thereby 'serving themselves'.[/quote]
The Eucharist has always been given to the lay faithful by an ordained minister, so they have never served themselves. The laity have always been (until the revisions in the Roman rite in the late 1960s) forbidden to approach the altar, or take anything off of it, during the liturgical synaxis.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1581647' date='Jun 24 2008, 03:26 PM']The Eucharist has always been given to the lay faithful by an ordained minister, so they have never served themselves. The laity have always been (until the revisions in the Roman rite in the late 1960s) forbidden to approach the altar, or take anything off of it, during the liturgical synaxis.[/quote]
If this is so traditionally incorrect, then why did it change?
I ask this not confrontationally, but out of honest curiosity.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1581641' date='Jun 24 2008, 02:21 PM']I know people are saying that it's to help young boys discern a vocation to the priesthood... but I've never seen that actually being the case. I served, and both my younger brothers did, but we never once saw it as some kind of discernment process.[/quote]
That is a nice pragmatic justification for male only service at the altar, but it is in fact irrelelvant.

Male only service at the altar of the Lord is a part of holy tradition, and this revealed doctrine is common to both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1581654' date='Jun 24 2008, 03:30 PM']That is a nice pragmatic justification for male only service at the altar, but it is in fact irrelelvant.

Male only service at the altar of the Lord is a part of holy tradition, and this revealed doctrine is common to both the Old Testament and the New Testament.[/quote]
In that case refer to my previous post.
I had seen that the same way.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1581651' date='Jun 24 2008, 04:28 PM']If this is so traditionally incorrect, then why did it change?
I ask this not confrontationally, but out of honest curiosity.[/quote]
That's a good question. The same applies to minor orders, Latin in the liturgy, ad orientem,chant, etc. It's so old, why did it change?
Mostly, because liberal theologians thought it promoted inclusivity, universality, and helped the laity to be engaged in the mass. They thought that changing these things would bring hordes of people into the church (Didn't happen, sadly.) I don't know why any of those things had to go away.