Girl Altar Servers?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou @ Feb 26 2005' date=' 02:22 PM'][. . .]  The valid matter, a member of the male gender, is not there.  [. . .][/quote]
As far as the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is concerned, Pope Pius XII defined that: "Invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge, We declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the imposition of hands . . ." [Pope Pius XII, [u]Sacramentum Ordinis[/u], no. 4]

[toledo_jesus]

Why anybody thought it was ok for women to approach the altar is beyond me. I don't recall that being handed down, but rather swelling up from the ranks of the lay and such. Maybe Apotheoun can help me out if I'm mistaken here. Now they say it's permissible, just like holding hands during the Our Father is permissible...and also a complete waste of time. As I see it, girls serving at the altar essentially means nothing. It does not benefit the Church. It is at its core an instance of women not accepting their place and (pridefully?) attempting to change it. Any hogwash about alleviating the vocations shortage or having equality is just that, hogwash. There is no demonstrable point to girl altar servers. I have yet to see someone come close to making one.
John Paul II gave his fellow bishops the chance to exercise their legitimate authority as his brothers and heads of their diocese, and I think that a few of them blew it big time. Now their mistakes are institutionalized.

BLAH.

Edited February 27, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[FiZzGiG]

Hold up.
Yes, women altar servers are permissible. The Church allows women altar servers, and so, I accept it.
The Church does not change with the times. It is constant. While almost every other Christian denomination (esp. protestantism) succumbed to the use of birth control with the pressures of our times, the Catholic Church has remained steady in its teaching and has not joined with these denominations, because the Church knows what is truly revealed. Likewise, the Church has remained steady in ordaining ONLY men as priests. This, as everyone knows, is because of divine revelation.
As such, I think that, with the Church's constancy, it would not allow female altar servers if it was wrong. BUT the Church DOES allow female altar servers. Even though society today strongly promotes feminism, I have faith that the Church does not succumb to the pressures. It does not "tickle our ears" and give society what it wants.
If indeed it doesn't succumb to society's pressures, then female altar servers can't be simply the result of appeasing today's feminists. No, somehow it had to be permissible for other reasons. I think it promotes a more modest and holy lifestyle for girls today.
Of course I completely understand how it could encourage priestly vocations, and I think that it should be explained to women altar servers that they cannot become priests. BUT these women can be inspired to become nuns. The girls, as altar servers, can be inspired by the order of the Church and the sacredness of the Mass to become nuns in order to more fully participate in the Church.


This is my opinion on the matter. I don't think it is a complete waste of time for women to be altar servers. I think boys should be encouraged more than girls, but I don't think girls should be DIScouraged.
These girls want to serve the Church in any way they can, and if altar serving is permissible to them, they will sieze the chance.

That's my take on the matter. But I agree that there should be MUCH more boys up there. We need priestly vocations!!!!

Pax,
Kerry

[JP2Iloveyou]

I don't really think you can compare it to holding hands at the Our Father. That practice has never been approved anywhere, by anyone. The practice of allowing female altar servers has been approved by Rome and by local ordinaries.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Kerry, nice post. Essentially, here is my argument, laid out in premise/conclusion form. Apoth and others, please tell me which premise is wrong.

P1. If the Church is infalible, then she makes no mistakes.
P2. If the Church makes no mistakes, then no decision she makes regarding Tradition is a mistake.
P3. A decision the Church made is allowing females to serve on the altar.
P4. If this decision involves tradition, then it might be a mistake.
P5. If this decision involves Tradition, then it is not a mistake.
P6. The Church is infalible.
C1. Therefore, since allowing females to serve either falls under the realm of tradition or Tradition, if this decision was a mistake, then it comes under the realm of tradition.
C2. If it comes under the realm of Tradition, then the Church is not infalible, which is absurd because we have a conclusion of "The Church is not infalible" when one of our premises says, "The Church is infalible."

Please point out where I'm wrong.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:24 PM'] I don't really think you can compare it to holding hands at the Our Father.  That practice has never been approved anywhere, by anyone.  The practice of allowing female altar servers has been approved by Rome and by local ordinaries. [/quote]
approved by Rome or permitted by the bishop who is the head of his diocese? two very different things.
The bishop is the lord and master of his diocese, and gives his allegiance to the pope by choice, acknowledging the primacy of the Bishop of Rome while being aware of the first among equals thing. It appears to me that the pope acknowledged his fellow bishops' authority and so trusted them to make the right decision, one that would be the best for the Church and vocations. While nothing outright forbids female altar servers, neither is it recommended. It is permitted as the use of EMoHCs is permitted.
I think that female servers had the same origins as handholding, i.e. a lay innovation that was pressured into the Mass at certain parishes. Just because people do it doesn't make it wrong, but just because the Church doesn't outright forbid it doesn't make it right. It makes it a meaningless gesture. pointless.

Edited February 27, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:42 PM'] Kerry, nice post. Essentially, here is my argument, laid out in premise/conclusion form. Apoth and others, please tell me which premise is wrong.

P1. If the Church is infalible, then she makes no mistakes.
P2. If the Church makes no mistakes, then no decision she makes regarding Tradition is a mistake.
P3. A decision the Church made is allowing females to serve on the altar.
P4. If this decision involves tradition, then it might be a mistake.
P5. If this decision involves Tradition, then it is not a mistake.
P6. The Church is infalible.
C1. Therefore, since allowing females to serve either falls under the realm of tradition or Tradition, if this decision was a mistake, then it comes under the realm of tradition.
C2. If it comes under the realm of Tradition, then the Church is not infalible, which is absurd because we have a conclusion of "The Church is not infalible" when one of our premises says, "The Church is infalible."

Please point out where I'm wrong. [/quote]
If it ventures into Tradition it's a liturgical abuse. if it is tradition then it's simply a pointless one since the terminal end of altar service is the priesthood.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 26 2005, 07:46 PM'] If it ventures into Tradition it's a liturgical abuse. if it is tradition then it's simply a pointless one since the terminal end of altar service is the priesthood. [/quote]
you didn't answer my question. Which premise are you rejecting?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote]P1. If the Church is infalible, then she makes no mistakes.[/quote]
People in the Church make mistakes.
[quote]P3. A decision the Church made is allowing females to serve on the altar.[/quote]
Permitting it when there wasn't another option.
"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."

I don't believe that the Church advocates female altar servers as the ideal, the preferred, or on par with male altar servers. In fact if I'm not mistaken females shouldn't be approaching the altar at all. Historically it has been a tool to cultivate vocations, and allowing girls to even take that first step is not only quixotic, it puts bad ideas in their young heads.
I know it's totally not cool nowadays to say that women can't do something. But they really should stay away from that entire realm. There are so many other things that girls can do...

[crusader1234]

I don't feel it is my place to comment on something regarding the mass that is up to the Church to decide. Debating interpretations of Church doctrine, wars, marriage, etc. is fine but I find debates about the mass to be quite pointless from a personal standpoint. In things like this, what the Church says is more than enough for me.

[Micheal5403]

When I serve mass I do it to serve God. I don't think that it is just a "tool" for vocations. In fact, I have never even heard of that until tonight. I believe that serving mass is a way for anyone to become closer to God and to get to know Him better. I don't think that this should be limited to just guys. Actually, I don't even know what the big fuss is about guys and girls serving at the same time, Ive done it numerous times. It's not any more distracting than sitting in the pews of church.

Having girls alter serve is fine. If the Pope and the bishops say it's okay, then it's okay. I'm sure they have their reasons for changing the "rules". I'm sorry if you all feel that some guys are being cheated out of vocations, but if God is truly calling them, He'll find a way. I don't think that girls alter serving is a waste of time. Isn't it good for people to grow in their faith? No wait, it doesn't help the church; therfore, it's a waste of time. The church is made up of individuals joined together to worship God. Doesn't it help the church when more of the individuals become closer to God?

Edited February 27, 2005 by Micheal5403

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 26 2005, 07:02 PM'] It is at its core an instance of women not accepting their place and (pridefully?) attempting to change it. [/quote]
Peanut butter and jelly! Could you please argue your point in a way that is a little more respectful of the female sex like others have done here? Maybe I'm being too touchy but that wordage of "knowing our place" comes across as incredibly demeaning.

[Guest Jakedubbleya]

This is my first post, happy to be here.

My view is this,

The role of altar server is, and always has been a masculine one. Among its direct relationship with the priesthood and the altar, altar servers were traditionally used as body guards for the priests while they were serving mass, not a female role.

The use of women in this traditionally and logically masculine role is innapropriate. This is a decision I feel the church will revoke in good time.

Also, although there is no over-abundance of altar servers, the inclusion of women into the role eliminates the need for a proactive movement to get more males to serve, who knows how many priests we have lost by this decision alone.

Women do have a place, a place of equal importance, but it different than that of men, secularism has clouded this fact.

That place does not include the responcibilities of the altar server.

----------

Sine this is my first post I would like to say a little bit about myself, if that is appropriate.

I am a 6'6" 18 year old caucasian (and a bit of native american I believe) Catholic male living in Salt Lake City Utah, I grew up in Park City Utah. I am currently considering (very seriously) entering the Army Rangers as a diplomat for both my country and my religion, and obtaining a degree (while in service) in both chinese and history.

I am an imperialist who would conquer the world and hand it to the pope, I have no tolerance for tolerance, for our souls will either burn or bling for all eternity, this is the battleground. So may the truth be evident to all. Amen.

You should see me pop up here and there with my little bits of unwarranted ego and pompousity lol. I hope we all learn much from each other, thanks.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 05:42 PM'] Kerry, nice post.  Essentially, here is my argument, laid out in premise/conclusion form.  Apoth and others, please tell me which premise is wrong.

P1. If the Church is infalible, then she makes no mistakes.
P2. If the Church makes no mistakes, then no decision she makes regarding Tradition is a mistake.
P3. A decision the Church made is allowing females to serve on the altar.
P4. If this decision involves tradition, then it might be a mistake.
P5. If this decision involves Tradition, then it is not a mistake.
P6. The Church is infalible.
C1.  Therefore, since allowing females to serve either falls under the realm of tradition or Tradition, if this decision was a mistake, then it comes under the realm of tradition. 
C2. If it comes under the realm of Tradition, then the Church is not infalible, which is absurd because we have a conclusion of "The Church is not infalible" when one of our premises says, "The Church is infalible."

Please point out where I'm wrong. [/quote]
A liturgical indult is not an infallible act of either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, and so, a Catholic is free to hold that an indult given by the Holy See, particularly one permitting female altar servers, which breaks a universal Apostolic Tradition, is imprudent and even dangerous and that it should be rescinded. Moreover, no one is required to accept a liturgical indult as a matter of divine and catholic faith.

Now, just as some "traditionalists" have mistakenly invested Pope St. Pius V's Apostolic Constitution [u]Quo Primum[/u] with infallible authority; so too at the present time, many Catholics have erroneously promoted the idea that an indult given by the Holy See is an infallible act, when clearly it is not. The Pope in granting this indult has not bound the Church definitively through an irrevocable act to the use of female altar servers; instead, he has negatively permitted something contrary to the universal Tradition of the Church, and hopefully at some point in the future the indult given will be rescinded and the ancient Apostolic practice of only allowing men to serve at the altar will be restored in the Roman Rite.

God bless,
Todd

[JP2Iloveyou]

but Todd, the point is that he has given an indult, so therefore, this CAN'T be an issue of Tradition. It must be an issue of tradition. Either that or the Church made a mistake on Revelation, which as you know, is impossible. The point is, there is an indult to do this. The Holy See, for example, could not give an indult to use the Gospel of Thomas, or to not believein the Immaculate Conception. Those are matters of the Deposit of Faith, Tradition, and are therefore unchangeable. I don't think this falls into that category. Do I like female altar servers? No, of course not. I'm a seminarian and when I go home, I sit in the pews and watch Mass as a bunch of little girls serve. I think it is absurd! In this case, I fail to see the pastoral need, so in this case, it is probably illicit. However, I think the time could arise where a pastoral need could be shown to be present. I'm just saying, I wouldn't rule it out de facto.