Girl Altar Servers?

[toledo_jesus]

Girl altar servers are just a waste of everyone's time. you train them, they do the job, but it all amounts to nothing because she can't go any further than that. better to keep her in the pews if she is so holy. Anyone who is concerned with vocations will not use girls as altar servers, even if that means they are short-handed.

dialogue from my nightmares:
"Oh there is a vocations crisis"
"Well, why don't we have girls altar serve to help out since boys aren't interested"
"The pope said it was up to the bishop...yay! I live in Richmond VA...girls everywhere"
"The vocations crisis keeps getting worse, even though we added girls and took away the special place of boys in this service. What do we do now?"
"Well, the only solution is to ordain women, of course. That was the plan all along"
"You are so smart."
"If only the Church were as smart as me. let's go write some letters."

[Cam42]

[quote]Girl altar servers are just a waste of everyone's time. you train them, they do the job, but it all amounts to nothing because she can't go any further than that. better to keep her in the pews if she is so holy. Anyone who is concerned with vocations will not use girls as altar servers, even if that means they are short-handed.[/quote]

Hold on a second!!! Female altar servers are and have been permissible for centuries if deemed necessary. I have never had a problem if there is a definite and obvious need for them.

What do I mean by that? Convents. Priories. Abbeys. Places in which it is an all female community and the priest doesn't bring a deacon, acolyte or altar boy. In the early Church, the bishops would use females to assist in the matter of baptism. This is also a liturgical action.

However, when boys are available they should serve. I think that this point is made about the boys, but to simply dismiss girls as being a waste of time is a little imprudent.

Cam42

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 25 2005, 10:49 AM']
Hold on a second!!! Female altar servers are and have been permissible for centuries if deemed necessary. I have never had a problem if there is a definite and obvious need for them.

What do I mean by that? Convents. Priories. Abbeys. Places in which it is an all female community and the priest doesn't bring a deacon, acolyte or altar boy. In the early Church, the bishops would use females to assist in the matter of baptism. This is also a liturgical action.

However, when boys are available they should serve. I think that this point is made about the boys, but to simply dismiss girls as being a waste of time is a little imprudent.

Cam42 [/quote]
agreed

[Oik]

Female alter servers should only be used if they are approved by the bishop of your diocese and only when there is a need. There is rarely a need. It should futhermore be realised that liturgical abuses should not be guised attempts to further any agenda (feminist agenda). Nor should undue scrutiny be made upon the practices of the Church and Her Hierarchy in an attempt to further an agenda of "traditionalism."

-Todd is correct.

[Apotheoun]

As far as female altar servers are concerned, Pope Benedict XIV, repeating the teaching of two of his predecessors in the See of Peter, pointed out that, "Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: 'Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.' We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution [u]Etsi Pastoralis[/u], sect. 6, no. 21." [Pope Benedict XIV, [u]Allatae Sunt[/u], 26 July 1755] In saying this Pope Benedict was merely reaffirming the constant tradition of the Church as it had been proclaimed in the canons of the councils of the Church, including the Council of Laodicea (circa A.D. 343), which said, "It is not permitted for women to enter the altar area." [Canon 44 of the Council of Laodicea, Hefele-Leclercq, vol. 1, p. 1020; Mansi, vol. 2, pp. 571, 581] Thankfully the Eastern Catholic Churches continue the ancient Catholic tradition of only allowing males to serve at the altar.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Certainly though, you wouldn't deny that the Holy Father has the authority to change liturgical law, would you? This is essentially the argument put forward by the SSPX crowd that Pope John XXIII did not have the authority to reform the liturgy because Pope Paul V (I think) had said that the Mass could never be changed. What he meant was that only the Pope, or his legitimate successor, could licitly reform the Mass. The same thing is happening here. It seems that what Pope Benedict was referring to was the evil practice of females serving without the approval of the Church. The Church has granted that approval, pending the approval of the local ordinary. Who are we to argue with the Church? So, Bishop Bruskewitz doesn't allow female servers in Lincoln. That's fine. He has the total authority to do that in his diocese. However, in other dioceses, the ordinaries have determined that they are going to allow female altar servers. Again, that is their right within their dioceses.

As for the Eastern Churches, I commend you for staying true to your tradition. However, please don't criticize the West for changing this (small "t") tradition. I love and respect the Eastern Rite Churches. Please afford the same respect to the West.

[Apotheoun]

As recently as 1970 the Congregation for Divine Worship had reiterated the norm reserving service at the altar to men and boys in the Latin Rite when it decreed the following:

[quote name='Liturgicae Instaurationes' date=' no. 7']In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women (single, married, religious), whether in churches, homes, convents, schools, or institutions for women, are barred from serving the priest at the altar.
According to the norms established for these matters, however, women are allowed to:

a. proclaim the readings, except the gospel. They are to make sure that, with the help of modern sound equipment, they can be comfortably heard by all. The conferences of bishops are to give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly.

b. announce the intentions in the general intercessions;

c. lead the liturgical assembly in singing and play the organ or other instruments;

d. read the commentary assisting the people toward a better understanding of the rite;

e. attend to other functions, customarily filled by women in other settings, as a service to the congregation, for example, ushering, organizing processions, taking up the collection.[/quote]

Some people may wonder why section (a) of the above norm directs the Episcopal Conference to find a suitable place for women to stand when they proclaim the readings, and of course the answer to that question is to be found in the Church's liturgical Tradition which has always forbidden women from approaching the altar, i.e., from entering into the sanctuary; in other words, the conference of bishops was supposed to find a place outside the sanctuary where a woman could read the biblical texts.

Sadly, the various directives issued by the Holy See after the close of the Second Vatican Council were ignored.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 25 2005, 12:57 PM'] Certainly though, you wouldn't deny that the Holy Father has the authority to change liturgical law, would you? This is essentially the argument put forward by the SSPX crowd that Pope John XXIII did not have the authority to reform the liturgy because Pope Paul V (I think) had said that the Mass could never be changed. What he meant was that only the Pope, or his legitimate successor, could licitly reform the Mass. The same thing is happening here. It seems that what Pope Benedict was referring to was the evil practice of females serving without the approval of the Church. The Church has granted that approval, pending the approval of the local ordinary. Who are we to argue with the Church? So, Bishop Bruskewitz doesn't allow female servers in Lincoln. That's fine. He has the total authority to do that in his diocese. However, in other dioceses, the ordinaries have determined that they are going to allow female altar servers. Again, that is their right within their dioceses.

As for the Eastern Churches, I commend you for staying true to your tradition. However, please don't criticize the West for changing this (small "t") tradition. I love and respect the Eastern Rite Churches. Please afford the same respect to the West. [/quote]
That really is the point at issue. Is this a small (t) tradition or is it a part of the Church's Tradition? No one prior to the 1970s questioned that this was a part of the universal Tradition of the Church. Lucky for me the Eastern Catholics have retained this Tradition, and perhaps someday the West will reapply it within their own venerable liturgical rite.

[Oik]

Todd's point is that tradition should develop over a period of time, not just abruptly. Equating his statements with the logic of SSPX is undue. Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum quotes from another encyclical, De Musica Sacra (117):
[quote]
47. It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or  youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the  manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in  accordance with their power of comprehension.[119] Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over  the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these.[120] Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of  their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way greater  pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. Whenever such associations are  international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for  Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to  approve and revise their statutes.[121] Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the  discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.(122) [/quote]


In De Musica Sacra, the rubrics for women in choirs:
[quote]
100. Wherever such a choir cannot be organized, a choir of the faithful, either mixed or consisting only of women or girls, can be permitted. But such a choir should take its place outside the sanctuary or Communion rail. The men should be separated from the women or girls so that anything unbecoming may be avoided. Local Ordinaries are to issue precise regulations about these matters, and pastors are to see to their enforcement (Decr. Auth. SCR 3964, 4210, 4231, and the encyclical Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS [1956] 23).[/quote]

De Musica Sacra still applies, though not necesarrliy practiced. The issue at hand: the permissibility for female alter servers to be in the sactuary, not female choir members.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:16 PM'] That really is the point at issue. Is this a small (t) tradition or is it a part of the Church's Tradition? No one prior to the 1970s questioned that this was a part of the universal Tradition of the Church. Lucky for me the Eastern Catholics have retained this Tradition, and perhaps someday the West will reapply it within their own venerable liturgical rite. [/quote]
it seems that this is a small t tradition, because as we know, Tradition can't change. There's nothing that happens to a person when he or she serves at the altar which changes that person permanently in an objective way. What I mean is that there is no indelible mark, like orders. Of course, no one disputes that it is invalid to ordain women. The valid matter, a member of the male gender, is not there. However, since no ordination is taking place, this doesn't appear to be a part of the deposit of faith, just a discipline which Rome saw fit to change.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 02:22 PM'] it seems that this is a small t tradition, because as we know, Tradition can't change.  There's nothing that happens to a person when he or she serves at the altar which changes that person permanently in an objective way.  What I mean is that there is no indelible mark, like orders. [. . .][/quote]
Clearly on this topic we shall not agree.

Service at the altar has always been restricted to men, and this is a clear datum of divine revelation, affirmed in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox hold that this Tradition dates back to Apostolic times and as such it is to be maintained inviolate. Prior to 1970 the Latin Rite held to this same belief, but because of the modern feminist movement, the Latin Rite has decided to abandon this Apostolic practice. Now, rather than reveling in this fact, the members of the Roman Rite should lament it. Hopefully at some point in the future the Latin bishops who have chosen to use this indult will recognize the harm that they are doing to the integrity of the Roman Rite and will reestablish the Apostolic Tradition of having only men serve at the altar of the Lord.

God bless,
Todd

[JP2Iloveyou]

Todd, for what it is worth, I agree with you. If I am a priest some day, God willing, I will slowly phase out female altar servers, because the directive is quiteclear, that a priest may use only males if he so chooses. Anyway, if you are correct, and this is part of sacred Tradition, then that means the Church erred in some way, either in not allowing women to serve at one point or in allowing them to now. Either way, you just threw Papal Infalibilty out the window. If you are correct, that would mean that doctrine not only developed, but CHANGED. Please explain how this can be to me. I really am confused here. I'm trying to understand your position, but I just can't figure it out.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 02:22 PM'] [. . .] There's nothing that happens to a person when he or she serves at the altar which changes that person permanently in an objective way.  What I mean is that there is no indelible mark, like orders.  [. . .] [/quote]
No where in any of my posts have I argued that service at the altar in and of itself brings about or causes an indelible mark or character upon a man's soul; rather, I have argued -- in line with the universal Tradition of the Church -- that service at the altar requires the ability to be in potency to the reception of sacred orders; in other words, it requires that those who serve at the altar be male, since only males can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Entrance into the presbyterium (the sanctuary) has always been reserved to members of the male sex.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 02:22 PM'] [. . .]  The valid matter, a member of the male gender, is not there.  [. . .] [/quote]
The matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands, and not the maleness (i.e., the male sex) of the recipient. (cf. Pope Pius XII, [u]Sacramentum Ordinis[/u], nos. 4-6]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 03:24 PM'] Todd, for what it is worth, I agree with you. If I am a priest some day, God willing, I will slowly phase out female altar servers, because the directive is quiteclear, that a priest may use only males if he so chooses. Anyway, if you are correct, and this is part of sacred Tradition, then that means the Church erred in some way, either in not allowing women to serve at one point or in allowing them to now. Either way, you just threw Papal Infalibilty out the window. If you are correct, that would mean that doctrine not only developed, but CHANGED. Please explain how this can be to me. I really am confused here. I'm trying to understand your position, but I just can't figure it out. [/quote]
I can only tell you that for both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox this is a Tradition of the Church, which has been given to her by the Holy Apostles. Now, if you think that the indult of the Pope permitting this innovation destroys the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, that is prerogative, but I don't view the indult in that way.