Altar Girls in Cassock/Surplice

[Armyvet007]

It’s not just potentiality, it is also the fact that they are acting in the place of someone who has Holy Orders, in an analogous way (though only an analogy) like the priest is acting in place of Christ.

I reach this particular conclusion based on tradition and the traditional understanding of vestments and altar servers. We are a Church of tradition, after all. Our practices should always be interpreted and understood in the light of tradition and the potentiality

The modern age tries to understand things in the past through the lens of current things. Tradition tries to understand current things through the lens of the past.

I think one thing this thread is showing is how disruptive altar girls are to the traditional understanding of who gets to do what and why in the sanctuary; in this specific case, the traditional understanding of vestments no longer works when girls are serving and wearing them, which means that we have to change our understanding of something traditional based on something new. In the Church, as I said above, it usually works the other way around.

• PAX

The fact that Rome allows females to serve as altar servers undermines your argument. The fact that females are allowed to serve as altar servers shows that they aren’t acting/functioning as clergy. As for tradition, we currently use pews. This use of pews is [when speaking in regards to the history of the Church] rather a new tradition.

 

[Corki]

If male and female altar servers were to wear a unisex garb, such as a choir gown or alb, that should be fine; they don’t have to be different. It’s not really about the difference between the sexes but the fact that the cassock should not be worn by girls.

I agree. So if a parish wants to have the “visual” of the more traditional cassock and surplice, they can use those for the boys and albs for the girls. What’s the problem with that? A parish shouldn’t be** required **to abandon c/s for altar boys just because they now welcome girls into altar service.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The fact that Rome allows females to serve as altar servers undermines your argument. The fact that females are allowed to serve as altar servers shows that they aren’t acting/functioning as clergy.

This was part of my point. The traditional understanding was that yes, indeed, altar servers are acting as clergy, in the place of clergy, and the novel indult is now causing confusion in this area, as evidenced by this thread. As another example, there is the traditional use of straw sub-deacons, which are acolytes acting in place of the sub-deacon. It was also licit to have a non-installed acolyte (a non-tonsured, non-cleric lay man) act as a straw sub-deacon. Here’s a Father Z article on it: wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/quaeritur-tlm-straw-subdeacon/ It’s interesting that Father Z, at the end of his comments, realizes that the allowance of non-installed acolytes to act as straw sub-deacons could theoretically extend to females since we allow females to be non-installed acolytes:

The can of worms opened up by this line of argument is that there has been an official interpretation of CIC 1983 can. 230 §2 indicating that females can substitute for absent acolytes and lectors in some liturgical actions. If that is the case, what – other than common sense, a horror of the downright wrong, and a healthy sense of self-preservation – would prevent a female from substituting for the absent acolyte who would be substituting for the absent cleric to take the role of subdeacon in a Solemn or even Pontifical TLM?

My point in quoting this is to show how confusing our understanding of who does what when where and why in the sanctuary becomes when we 1) allow altar girls, and 2) allow altar girls to wear traditionally male vestments. Perhaps we should go with the traditional understanding here, rather than novelty, and keep the traditional vestments for those who could traditionally wear them, i.e. males.

As for tradition, we currently use pews. This use of pews is [when speaking in regards to the history of the Church] rather a new tradition.

I’m sorry, but this is rather a red herring. I suppose I can’t help following that smoked fish, though. First of all the use of pews cannot compare to clerical vestments and altar service in the sanctuary. The former is simply a custom, while the latter has to do with the expression of theological truths via the liturgy. Also, you say that pews are rather a new tradition in regards to the history of the Church. Indeed. And from the same point of view, altar girls wearing cassocks is like something that happened less than a second ago. But we digress on the trail of the red herring…

• PAX

 

[Armyvet007]

Confusing is an understatement. If altar servers are performing functions that only clergy can do [this is what I meant by function as clergy; stuff that lay people aren’t allowed/supposed to do], then why are females allowed at all? What they wear isn’t even important if female altar servers are a violation/deviation of the example set by the Holy Mother [who I assume is the “yardstick” used in determining the role/function of women within the Church].

As for the pew thing, yeah I didn’t know that was a red herring. Sorry about that.

 

[CB_Catholic]

It’s our business because we are Catholics.

Church leaders do things that are wrong. To be clear: what I mean is that Church leaders make decisions in the law that are not prudent. They are fallible. It is wrong that they have allowed girls to serve. Many leaders of the Church agree that it’s wrong, hence they exercise their option not to allow it. Some bishops do this for their diocese, but otherwise individual pastors also have the right to use only boys and men for service at the altar.

There is no rule as to what altar servers are to wear. The custom of cassock and surplice is because the altar boys were fulfilling the function of clerics. To have girls wear clerical garb is absurd.

Finally, I note that this “focus on personnel vs God” is uncharitable and a false dichotomy. I do need to focus more on God, but caring about how the liturgy is conducted and caring about our traditions is part of how we focus on God.

And you are qualified to make these judgments because ??? You are qualified to state the Bishops are wrong when they allow it? Do you have their authority?

The only thing you have is an opinion, which binds nobody. That is fine. Don’t pretend that your opinion supersedes that of the legitimate Church authority for the Diocese. That is not fine.

 

[moon1234]

Yes, we should be listening to our bishops, and their instructions. If our local bishop says “no - not allowed” or “yes - allowed” we should follow.

But, I will listen to what my LOCAL bishop (successor to the apostles) says is appropriate for HIS diocese, and as long as the OFFICIAL word from Rome coincides. I will not question his direction, especially if the questioning is based upon the OPINIONS of other bishops, with authority over OTHER dioceses. It is called obedience to the local ordinary.

A Bishop can not order Priests to use altar girls. He can choose to permit their use in his diocese, but each Priest is free to use them or not. Some Priests choose to NOT use them and they are fully within their rights to do so.

 

[moon1234]

This was part of my point. The traditional understanding was that yes, indeed, altar servers are acting as clergy, in the place of clergy, and the novel indult is now causing confusion in this area, as evidenced by this thread. As another example, there is the traditional use of straw sub-deacons, which are acolytes acting in place of the sub-deacon. It was also licit to have a non-installed acolyte (a non-tonsured, non-cleric lay man) act as a straw sub-deacon. Here’s a Father Z article on it: wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/quaeritur-tlm-straw-subdeacon/ It’s interesting that Father Z, at the end of his comments, realizes that the allowance of non-installed acolytes to act as straw sub-deacons could theoretically extend to females since we allow females to be non-installed acolytes:

My point in quoting this is to show how confusing our understanding of who does what when where and why in the sanctuary becomes when we 1) allow altar girls, and 2) allow altar girls to wear traditionally male vestments. Perhaps we should go with the traditional understanding here, rather than novelty, and keep the traditional vestments for those who could traditionally wear them, i.e. males.

I’m sorry, but this is rather a red herring. I suppose I can’t help following that smoked fish, though. First of all the use of pews cannot compare to clerical vestments and altar service in the sanctuary. The former is simply a custom, while the latter has to do with the expression of theological truths via the liturgy. Also, you say that pews are rather a new tradition in regards to the history of the Church. Indeed. And from the same point of view, altar girls wearing cassocks is like something that happened less than a second ago. But we digress on the trail of the red herring…

• PAX

The issue of a women filling in as a straw subdeacon was answered (at least for the EF Mass, in the OF sub-deacons have no role) by Universae Ecclesiae. They are banned, along with communion in the hand, altar girls, etc. in the EF.

 

[TempleServant]

Traditionalists simply don’t want altar girls. Modernists use them. Some think they are being genteel or egalitarian by doing so, I suppose.

Personally, having been long exposed to the TLM, then going to an occasional NO and seeing albs on young ladies, some pubescent, makes me grit my teeth. Along with the other sentimental changes, I’m quite averse to them.

“Holiness and majesty in His sanctuary”. That’s what I want to see.

 

[Baelor]

“Holiness and majesty in His sanctuary”. That’s what I want to see.

Altar girls prevents this how?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Traditionalists simply don’t want altar girls. Modernists use them. Some think they are being genteel or egalitarian by doing so, I suppose.

Personally, having been long exposed to the TLM, then going to an occasional NO and seeing albs on young ladies, some pubescent, makes me grit my teeth. Along with the other sentimental changes, I’m quite averse to them.

“Holiness and majesty in His sanctuary”. That’s what I want to see.

Would you rather they wear casual clothing?

 

[Armyvet007]

Traditionalists simply don’t want altar girls. Modernists use them. Some think they are being genteel or egalitarian by doing so, I suppose.

Personally, having been long exposed to the TLM, then going to an occasional NO and seeing albs on young ladies, some pubescent, makes me grit my teeth. Along with the other sentimental changes, I’m quite averse to them.

“Holiness and majesty in His sanctuary”. That’s what I want to see.

I fail to see how being pubescent has any additional impact on this discussion. Please explain.

 

[Monty61]

I am a new Catholic that was just confirmed on Holy Saturday. One of the things I love about my Catholic faith is, it stays true to tradition, has strict guidelines and has structure. The alter girls are fine .But I think they should wear what is traditional for girls and the boys should do the same.

That is the root of the whole discussion, there IS NO traditional garb for female altar servers because, traditionally, there were NO female altar servers.

 

[Corki]

Altar girls prevents this how?

I wouldn’t say they **prevent **it but they do change it. This whole thread is evidence of that. Once you admit girls to altar service, you have to decide what they will wear, what the grooming codes will be for hair, etc. will they be allowed to wear make up, shoes, pants?

Some parishes have done an admirable job at addressing this. Others, maybe out of fear of offending someone, have been less diligent. For example, when my boys were trained to serve, they were told: short hair combed, dress shoes, dress pants. But I have rarely gone to a Mass with girl servers that didn’t have pony tails, sandals, nail polish, and often jeans under the alb (sometimes shorts). I would be willing to bet that most of us who have a preference for an all-male altar server corp have experienced the same and it colors our opinons.

 

[Monty61]

Maybe some posters here should let the Bishops and Pastors who use young women as servers know they are doing it wrong. Or, did you agree they are doing it wrong and not want to attack those posters?

There is not one thing “wrong” with having female altar servers or the Church would not allow the option. They wear what altar servers are required to wear. The Bishops and Pastors make these choices. It’s actually none of our business.

More focus on God, less on personnel is still my opinion.

The Bishops and priests who allow female servers already know they are doing it wrong. They just don’t do it right to avoid dealing with the drama.

You can discern which practices are wrong by the Church’s unwillingness to force people to do it. With regard to female servers, the documents say “A priest cannot be forced…” To have female servers. Why not? The Catholic Church generally has no problem forcing (demanding might be a better word) what is right. If females were right, why would the priest have the right to refuse?
Similar reasoning applies to Communion in the hand.

 

[TempleServant]

I think people who want this sort of thing just don’t get it. They don’t get what a sacred rite should look like. Or they don’t want that. It’s sentiment, sentiment, sentiment all the way.

I think if you were a burly priest from a wealthy background you could slowly assert yourself in a parish and get rid of the distractions.

 

[Armyvet007]

I think people who want this sort of thing just don’t get it. They don’t get what a sacred rite should look like. Or they don’t want that. It’s sentiment, sentiment, sentiment all the way.

I think if you were a burly priest from a wealthy background you could slowly assert yourself in a parish and get rid of the distractions.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing [it’s sentiment] about those who decry this [female altar servers] as some sort of horrible violation of the Mass. As for what a sacred rite should look like, I’ll go with what the people who actually know what it should look like [the Church] say.

 

[Baelor]

Once you admit girls to altar service, you have to decide what they will wear, what the grooming codes will be for hair, etc. will they be allowed to wear make up, shoes, pants?

So? This is not even an argument. May boys wear tennis shoes? Dark shirts? Slacks? Jeans? etc.

The Bishops and priests who allow female servers already know they are doing it wrong. They just don’t do it right to avoid dealing with the drama.

Really? Show me where the Church states that altar servers may not be female.

I think people who want this sort of thing just don’t get it. They don’t get what a sacred rite should look like. Or they don’t want that. It’s sentiment, sentiment, sentiment all the way.

I think they do. I think that they look to the Church for guidance, and the Church is very clear on whether females may be altar servers in the OF.

 

[Corki]

So? This is not even an argument.

This is only “not even an argument” when you snip off the sentances that preceeded it.

I wouldn’t say they prevent it but they do change it. This whole thread is evidence of that. Once you admit girls to altar service, you have to decide what they will wear, what the grooming codes will be for hair, etc. will they be allowed to wear make up, shoes, pants?

I am not saying there is anything wrong with those decisions, only that by adding girls, you now have different decisions to make.

May boys wear tennis shoes?

No.

Dark shirts?

Yes

Slacks?

Yes

Jeans?

No

etc.

No.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Traditionalists simply don’t want altar girls. Modernists use them. Some think they are being genteel or egalitarian by doing so, I suppose.

Personally, having been long exposed to the TLM, then going to an occasional NO and seeing albs on young ladies, some pubescent, makes me grit my teeth. Along with the other sentimental changes, I’m quite averse to them.

“Holiness and majesty in His sanctuary”. That’s what I want to see.

Please define “Modernist”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Bishops and priests who allow female servers already know they are doing it wrong.

So the Church is doing it wrong?

By definition the Church can not be “doing it wrong”.