G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Simple; they’re kids. Kids don’t have convictions or vocations
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
source?Simple; they’re kids. Kids don’t have convictions or vocations
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Thank you. “Yes, you can process in, you can carry something, you can ring the sanctus bells, you can assist the priest, but remember, you are not* really* an altar server.”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.
That about sums it up. No matter how we got to where we are, most Bishops have allowed girls to be altar servers, but people (priests and layity) can structure things in such a way that there is no question that they are not happy with it.
C
Corki
Guest
Which, by the way, is perfectly fine with the Church. The Church as left it as an option. No one has to like it or chose it. It’s simply allowed personal preference.That about sums it up. No matter how we got to where we are, most Bishops have allowed girls to be altar servers, but people (priests and layity) can structure things in such a way that there is no question that they are not happy with it.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
No one has to like it, and no priest has to allow it at his Masses.Which, by the way, is perfectly fine with the Church. The Church as left it as an option. No one has to like it or chose it. It’s simply allowed personal preference.
However, if you are going to allow girls to serve, allow girls to serve as you allow boys to serve.
C
Corki
Guest
If that’s the priest’s choice, fine. If he wants them to dress differently, fine too. At our parish, the boys and girls have slightly different duties, although they dress the same. Still fine.No one has to like it, and no priest has to allow it at his Masses.
However, if you are going to allow girls to serve, allow girls to serve as you allow boys to serve.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
If the cassock is only for the clergy, no one but the clergy should be wearing it. Also, your example only works if girls who are not in training to become a nun are allowed to wear the habit and wimple.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.
There.Thank you. “Yes, you can process in, you can carry something, you can ring the sanctus bells, you can assist the priest, but remember, you cannot ever be a priest.”
Fixed it.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
If the girls are there with the ok from Rome, then they are there legitimately. The “special permission” has nothing to do with the legitimacy of them being altar servers. Or are you arguing that Rome is saying “it’s wrong, but we won’t tell if you don’t”?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.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Altar servers are acting “as clergy.” They lawfully take the place of the acolyte, which is a minor order. Also, traditionally seminarians wore cassocks (as they still do in traditional seminaries). So, the cassock is a mark of the clergy and of those aspiring to the clergy and those who are lawfully acting as clergy. The connection is to the clergy. Women cannot be clergy, so it seems very odd, to say the least, to see a female in a cassock, since it is a uniform, so to speak, of Holy Order (major and minor and preparatory and acting-in-place-of).If the cassock is only for the clergy, no one but the clergy should be wearing it. Also, your example only works if girls who are not in training to become a nun are allowed to wear the habit and wimple.
A possible analogy: maternity clothing is not just for pregnant women (perhaps such clothing is comfortable for an overweight woman), but it would be odd to see a man, overweight or not, wearing maternity clothing. I use this analogy because just as a man cannot become pregnant, a woman cannot receive Holy Orders, so a man wearing something usually reserved to a pregnant woman is strange, just as a woman wearing something usually reserved to Holy Orders is strange.
- PAX
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Thank you, but I don’t need your help. I wrote what I meant.There.
Fixed it.
Well I figured we should stick with the concrete and not try to indulge in claiming knowledge of what we cannot know.Thank you, but I don’t need your help. I wrote what I meant.
I know there will not be a female priest.
I do not know what others are thinking.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
Two main purposes of uniforms is function and identification. I’ll use the military as an example since I am familar with its system and it is easy to find information on it.Altar servers are acting “as clergy.” They lawfully take the place of the acolyte, which is a minor order. Also, traditionally seminarians wore cassocks (as they still do in traditional seminaries). So, the cassock is a mark of the clergy and of those aspiring to the clergy and those who are lawfully acting as clergy. The connection is to the clergy. Women cannot be clergy, so it seems very odd, to say the least, to see a female in a cassock, since it is a uniform, so to speak, of Holy Order (major and minor and preparatory and acting-in-place-of).
A possible analogy: maternity clothing is not just for pregnant women (perhaps such clothing is comfortable for an overweight woman), but it would be odd to see a man, overweight or not, wearing maternity clothing. I use this analogy because just as a man cannot become pregnant, a woman cannot receive Holy Orders, so a man wearing something usually reserved to a pregnant woman is strange, just as a woman wearing something usually reserved to Holy Orders is strange.
- PAX
Function- You have ACUs [a field uniform], Class As and Bs [semi-dress and “office work” type uniform], and Dress [special functions and duties]
Identification- Ranks- Officers [commissioned and warrant], Officers in training [the silly ROTC ranks], NCOs, and general enlisted
If the garments in question are a form of identification, then only those of the correct “rank” should be wearing them.
If the garments in question are a form of function, then only those undertaking that function should be wearing them.
If they overlap, then the garments need to reflect this. Example- Clergy and deputized [correct term?] non-clergy fullfilling the role of the clergy- same “function” uniform but with differences to identify “rank.”
Since altar servers no longer serve the role as clergy in “rank” or “function”, they shouldn’t be wearing the same “function” uniform as the clergy nor wearing the clergy in training “rank”; regardless of their gender. What their role was in the past or might be in the future doesn’t matter. The uniform needs to reflect their “rank” and “function” of the present.
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
Male and female police officers, doing the same job, wear the same uniform. Same as male and female firefighters, chefs, and military personnel, just to name a few.Perhaps.
However, the role served can never be anything more. So why allow the groundwork to begin with?
Also, what exactly do you find wrong with seperating out how the girl is dressed as opposed to how the boy dresses?
In society, the dress code for male and female is different.
Why should the Mass be different in that respect?
Why should we dress the girls and boys in the same manner?
So they should dress alike because you can find examples elsewhere?Male and female police officers, doing the same job, wear the same uniform. Same as male and female firefighters, chefs, and military personnel, just to name a few.
Interesting logic.
Actually, the military and uniformed services do have differing dress codes for males and females. They are uniforms all, but cut and tailored differently. It may not necessarily be evident in standard duty uniforms, but office and dress uniforms are clearly different.Male and female police officers, doing the same job, wear the same uniform. Same as male and female firefighters, chefs, and military personnel, just to name a few.
That’s the whole point we’re trying to make here. We may have various positions with regards to altar girls, and they’re pretty much accepted as being within the bishop’s power, but the cassock is a male garment, and should not be used by women any more than a male military officer wears female blues.
C
Corki
Guest
Since you mention military uniform, you need to also mention that the more formal uniform not only identifies rank and function but is differentiated by gender. Having a different uniform does not mean that a woman and man are not fulfilling different functions any more than different dress expectations for boy and girl servers would.Two main purposes of uniforms is function and identification. I’ll use the military as an example since I am familar with its system and it is easy to find information on it.
Function- You have ACUs [a field uniform], Class As and Bs [semi-dress and “office work” type uniform], and Dress [special functions and duties]
Identification- Ranks- Officers [commissioned and warrant], Officers in training [the silly ROTC ranks], NCOs, and general enlisted
If the garments in question are a form of identification, then only those of the correct “rank” should be wearing them.
If the garments in question are a form of function, then only those undertaking that function should be wearing them.
If they overlap, then the garments need to reflect this. Example- Clergy and deputized [correct term?] non-clergy fullfilling the role of the clergy- same “function” uniform but with differences to identify “rank.”
Since altar servers no longer serve the role as clergy in “rank” or “function”, they shouldn’t be wearing the same “function” uniform as the clergy nor wearing the clergy in training “rank”; regardless of their gender. What their role was in the past or might be in the future doesn’t matter. The uniform needs to reflect their “rank” and “function” of the present.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
I didn’t forget about the “girly” form of formal military uniforms. Females are authorized to wear the same style [pants] formal uniform as males. Wearing the dress version is a personal option for the female soldier. Since the dress option is personal and since females are authorized to wear the same style as males, it wasn’t worth mentioning.Since you mention military uniform, you need to also mention that the more formal uniform not only identifies rank and function but is differentiated by gender. Having a different uniform does not mean that a woman and man are not fulfilling different functions any more than different dress expectations for boy and girl servers would.
Edit-
Removed “Anything else?” at the end because it was rude and flippant. Sorry.
Addition- My use of military uniforms wasn’t supposed to be a perfect analogy; only to highlight the role a uniform plays “rank” and “function”]. I used the military because I am familar with it. If I were law enforcement I would have used that.
Yes. Why should the female be offered an option not provided the male?I didn’t forget about the “girly” form of formal military uniforms. Females are authorized to wear the same style [pants] formal uniform as males. Wearing the dress version is a personal option for the female soldier. Since the dress option is personal and since females are authorized to wear the same style as males, it wasn’t worth mentioning. Anything else?
C
Corki
Guest
Actually, that’s a perfect example then. In the case of altar servers, at the option of the priest, they can wear the same or different “uniforms”.I didn’t forget about the “girly” form of formal military uniforms. Females are authorized to wear the same style [pants] formal uniform as males. Wearing the dress version is a personal option for the female soldier. Since the dress option is personal and since females are authorized to wear the same style as males, it wasn’t worth mentioning. Anything else?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.