Altar Girls in Cassock/Surplice

[Baelor]

Please be specific. What exactly is it that the church has permitted?

First, back up your statement: where does the Church state that altar serving is for discernment of vocation and nothing else.

Second, respond to my questions in my previous post.

 

[vz71]

First, back up your statement: where does the Church state that altar serving is for discernment of vocation and nothing else.

I never made that statement.

Second, respond to my questions in my previous post.

Look, if you are having difficulty determining what actually is and is not permitted by the church, just say so.
I am sure there are many here that can provide the proper direction to discern the answer.

So again, I am asking…what exactly is it that you are claiming the church permits when you say
*

The church permits it. You believe the church to be in error on this?

You asked if I believe the church in error on this.
I cannot be truthful without knowledge of what specificly you are claiming the church permits.

 

[vz71]

I cannot honestly give a coherent answer and before you say I am anglican etc, many of the church hold strong Catholic views like you guys on it.

I am not going to say that.
But I will point out that this conversation is likely to dive deeply into doctrine that the Anglican church does not follow.

 

[Baelor]

I never made that statement.

Wrong:

This is incorrect.

in response to my statement that “altar serving is not to be taken as a time for young men to discern the priesthood and nothing more.”

If it is incorrect, prove it. Show me where the Church disagrees with me and agrees with you.

So again, I am asking…what exactly is it that you are claiming the church permits when you say [insert etmom’s quotation]

Look, if you have problems with reading comprehension, just say so. I never made that statement.

You asked if I believe the church in error on this.
I cannot be truthful without knowledge of what specificly you are claiming the church permits.

I did not ask that. I asked the following:

So you are arguing that boys and girls should be dressed differently because of a potentiality that may never be realized? Why do you feel this way?

In other words, why not just dress all of the servers in albs?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the cassock should be reserved for clergy, instituted acolytes, and those in the seminary.

Servers who do not fit into these categories should wear albs.

Cheaper for the parish anyways.

But that is just my opinion. You will never catch me in a cassock.

 

[richard_wang]

First, back up your statement: where does the Church state that altar serving is for discernment of vocation and nothing else.

Second, respond to my questions in my previous post.

Well maybe this will help.

“The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that **it will always be very appropriate **to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.”

Congregation for Divine Worship, “Vatican Communication on Female Altar Servers” (Emphasis Added)

 

[Baelor]

Well maybe this will help.

“The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that **it will always be very appropriate **to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.”

Congregation for Divine Worship, “Vatican Communication on Female Altar Servers” (Emphasis Added)

And do you think it is then fair to claim that the institution of altar serving serves a single purpose and has a single purpose: priestly vocations?

 

[vz71]

Wrong:

Then provide the quote.

 

[maryjk]

And do you think it is then fair to claim that the institution of altar serving serves a single purpose and has a single purpose: priestly vocations?

And if so, when boys have discerned that they are not interested in the priesthood, should they stop serving on the altar?

 

[Corki]

Actually, the expensive fancy white dress is not a requirement to receive the sacrament. I’m certain the sacrament would not be denied to those who could not afford either the suit or the dress or veil. The efficacy if the sacrament is not dependent on a specific style of clothing when receiving. Otherwise , would not those receiving for the first time at Easter Vigil also be required to do the same? Dressing respectfully and reverently would be appropriate.

You are missing the point. In our parish, a white dress, with a veil is required for the girls and dress pants with a tie (suit preferred) is required for the boys. If a family doen’t want to follow the dress code, they can bring their child to a regular Mass for First Communion. The Sacrament isn’t denied but the privalege of participating in the group celebration is dependant on following the rules. Altar service is not a right. If you want your child to serve, you should follow the dress code.

If you don’t care what they wear for First Communion, why does it matter what the altar servers wear? The point is only that we have different dress expectations for boys and girls in all kinds of situations. Forget about FHC, since it seems to have gotten you stuck off topic. Use my other example of school uniforms. I was responding to the comment which said:

You know, if you allow girls to be altar servers but then require them to wear different garb, that’s a passive-aggressive way of reminding girls that they really don’t belong among the altar servers.

It is no more “passive-agressive” to have different garb for boys and girls at the altar than to have different uniforms for boys and girls in school.

 

[englishredrose]

And if so, when boys have discerned that they are not interested in the priesthood, should they stop serving on the altar?

that depends on why they have been called to serve now doesn’t it.

 

[Corki]

Why are different vestment necessary for boys and girls who are altar servers? I fail to see why I should accept the reasoning that because we can make them dress differently, we should.

I never said it was necessary. I am just saying that it isn’t **wrong **to have different dress codes for the boys and the girls. We accept rules for different dress in lots of other situations. Why, if a pastor prefers it, does it seem somehow part of an anti-altar girls plot, to apply different dress codes for altar servers?

And you don’t have to accept or reject it. It’s ultimately up to the pastor and neither your opinon nor mine count.

 

[Brendan]

Females should never wear the cassock and surplice. At our Cathedral Basilica the girls wear albs with a large scapular covering them.

I would agree. The cassock is the garb of male clerics. To have a girl wear a cassock would be similar to dressing a boy up in a nun’s habit and wimple.

 

[richard_wang]

And do you think it is then fair to claim that the institution of altar serving serves a single purpose and has a single purpose: priestly vocations?

Well the Congregation did say, “As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.”

So I would argue that it is a major purpose of having altar boys.

 

[vz71]

Baelor;9169355:

And do you think it is then fair to claim that the institution of altar serving serves a single purpose and has a single purpose: priestly vocations?

Ah, now I understand where the hostility is from.
I misread your single sentence early on.

Altar serving is not to be taken as a time for young men to discern the priesthood and nothing more.

I misread this to be a statement of single purpose of the servers.

My apologies.

 

[vz71]

I would agree. The cassock is the garb of male clerics. To have a girl wear a cassock would be similar to dressing a boy up in a nun’s habit and wimple.

 

[PaulinVA]

It is no more “passive-agressive” to have different garb for boys and girls at the altar than to have different uniforms for boys and girls in school.

Absolutely false analogy. Boys and girls wear different clothes all time time.

We are talking about special clothes, special garb, a costume if you will. Altar servers have always worn cassocks and surplices or albs or whatever in a a particular parish. To cloth the boys and girls in different garb at a particular parish has no reason other that to make a statement that the girls are just there because they have to be allowed, but we don’t have to let them dress and look like altar servers.

The argument that boys and girls normally don’t dress the same isn’t applicable here, since boys and girls never wear cassocks or albs on the street, either. It’s special garb for Mass, and to separately dress the sexes that are doing the same thing serves no purpose.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Absolutely false analogy. Boys and girls wear different clothes all time time.

We are talking about special clothes, special garb, a costume if you will. Altar servers have always worn cassocks and surplices or albs or whatever in a a particular parish. To cloth the boys and girls in different garb at a particular parish has no reason other that to make a statement that the girls are just there because they have to be allowed, but we don’t have to let them dress and look like altar servers.

The argument that boys and girls normally don’t dress the same isn’t applicable here, since boys and girls never wear cassocks or albs on the street, either. It’s special garb for Mass, and to separately dress the sexes that are doing the same thing serves no purpose.

It serves a purpose, you just don’t like what the purpose is.

Let’s not forget that the indult (it is an indult) to have girl servers was born of disobedience in the first place. Many parishes had it before it was allowed, and then Rome allowed it afterwards.

So it serves a good purpose to distinguish them, IMHO. The boys are there legitimately and as a matter of routine, tradition, normality. The girls are helping, but are there by a current special permission, which is not applied everywhere, and the permission could be taken away.

It’s like if I’m at a retreat at a monastery, they might let me help with the labor and let me chant the psalms, but they aren’t going to give me a habit because I’m not really a monk.

 

[vz71]

The argument that boys and girls normally don’t dress the same isn’t applicable here, since boys and girls never wear cassocks or albs on the street, either. It’s special garb for Mass, and to separately dress the sexes that are doing the same thing serves no purpose.

In that case, perhaps one should argue that it is improper for school uniforms to be different for the two sexes.
After all, the exact same logic is at work.

 

[Corki]

Absolutely false analogy. Boys and girls wear different clothes all time time.

We are talking about special clothes, special garb, a costume if you will. Altar servers have always worn cassocks and surplices or albs or whatever in a a particular parish. To cloth the boys and girls in different garb at a particular parish has no reason other that to make a statement that the girls are just there because they have to be allowed, but we don’t have to let them dress and look like altar servers.

The argument that boys and girls normally don’t dress the same isn’t applicable here, since boys and girls never wear cassocks or albs on the street, either. It’s special garb for Mass, and to separately dress the sexes that are doing the same thing serves no purpose.

This is a very weak argument. Even for “special garb”, more often than not, the garb is different for boys and girls. My son is competing with his band next week - boys will wear tuxes and the girls will wear black dresses. Many choirs in church have one color for the men and one for the women. The only “statement” being made is that boys are boys and girls are girls.

Altar boys wear both albs and cassock/surplice combinations. How is it making the girls not look like altar servers if they wear one of the choices (alb) and the boys wear the other (c/s). It’s not like anyone was suggesting that the boys wear cassocks and surplices and the girls wear street clothes. Both would be identified as altar servers.

In my own parish, the server attire has always been albs. So, if we went to differentiated garb, are you saying we would be sending a message that the boys are not really wanted since we are dressing them differently than the girls who wear what has always been the garb?

In any case, if a priest doesn’t want altar girls, he can simply choose not to use them. He wouldn’t have to resort to some “passive-agressive” dress code trick.