Altar Girls in Cassock/Surplice

[Baelor]

Read. There are a couple hundred posts now.

I have. Where is the confusion? Where is the clamoring for female priests in this thread? Where are people claiming that they are using female altar servers as a way to promote female priests?

Sure it does.
I challange you to show an historical precedent to show otherwise.

Of historical appropriation? Go nuts.

Of historical precedent? Irrelevant – either something is possible, or it is not. You stated that because it was rooted in “abuse and rebellion,” it is reasonable (how reasonable?) to assume it will cause these issues in the future. I challenge that notion and ask for proof. You made the claim; the responsibility falls on you to back it up.

At present there is a string over 200 posts long that provides ample evidence of the confusion.

How, exactly? Telling me to read is not going to work, because I have, and see no confusion. What confusion would this be? And how has it manifested itself in the posts? Say what you mean specifically and I promise to do the rest.

If the poster wishes to object to my interpretation of what was said, they can explain the error to me and perhaps obtain an apology.
It is not your place to demand apologies for another that is perfectly capable.

It is not anyone’s job to ask you for an apology, since you should give it freely when you are in error. Nor have even I asked you for an apology. You very clearly misread something, posted a statement on that basis, put words in someone’s mouth erroneously, and now refuse to acknowledge that you erred at all.

Prove that. Find the specific statement I attributed and to whom.
I am curious to see if you can.

Okay:

The slippery slope that the church stands at allowing female alter servers.
The church has indicated many times that it simply has no authority to allow a female priesthood.
It would seem you have correctly discerned where exactly female alter servers lead.
If not an outright call for priestesses, at the very least a confusion of the respective roles men and women serve.

 

[vz71]

I have. Where is the confusion? Where is the clamoring for female priests in this thread? Where are people claiming that they are using female altar servers as a way to promote female priests?

I mentioned confusion. Not what you have mentioned here. Although now that you bring it up…

Of historical appropriation? Go nuts.

Of historical precedent? Irrelevant – either something is possible, or it is not. You stated that because it was rooted in “abuse and rebellion,” it is reasonable (how reasonable?) to assume it will cause these issues in the future. I challenge that notion and ask for proof. You made the claim; the responsibility falls on you to back it up.

I stated it was reasonable.
And it is. And this thread, at 200+ posts, attests to this.
Were the issue so innocuous, it would not generate such traffic.

How, exactly? Telling me to read is not going to work, because I have, and see no confusion. What confusion would this be? And how has it manifested itself in the posts? Say what you mean specifically and I promise to do the rest.

I did.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water…

It is not anyone’s job to ask you for an apology, since you should give it freely when you are in error. Nor have even I asked you for an apology. You very clearly misread something, posted a statement on that basis, put words in someone’s mouth erroneously, and now refuse to acknowledge that you erred at all.

I am in as much error as you concerning the meaning in a given post until the author clarifies.
I have placed no words in anyone’s mouth. I provided my own opinion based upon what has been written.

(find the statement…)Okay:

Well, I see my own words from my own post.
I do not see an attribute to anyone, false or otherwise.

You seem to be getting unduly irritated with this thread. I would suggest a few moments to cool down, and pray. Clearly this issue is important to you. It would be best to pray first, then post rather then risk hurting your own goals.

Others may interpret this unusual anger as an uncomfortable truth being stumbled upon.
Whether or not this is the case, I believe prayer to be the best next move.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But it is not the role of acolyte, it is the role of altar server. It is not a clerical role, it is a lay role.

Even the acolyte role is a lay role. Acolytes are not clergy.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

You misread – KA very clearly stated that it is possible discernment for vocations allowed, that is, open, to women. Your own post proves a point, but it is that of your own paranoia, not the one you intended to demonstrate.

Thank you Baelor,** yes, I spoke of the vocations allowed.** I think Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary and Her Son are inspiring us all, to those vocations allowed through Holy Church Magisterium.
May you day be blessed!
Kathryn Ann:angel1::heaven:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The slippery slope that the church stands at allowing female alter servers.
The church has indicated many times that it simply has no authority to allow a female priesthood.
It would seem you have correctly discerned where exactly female alter servers lead.
If not an outright call for priestesses, at the very least a confusion of the respective roles men and women serve.

Why must the role of altar server lead anywhere?

Where do the other ministries, those of usher, cantor, sacristan, and reader lead to?

It is not the purpose of the ministries to lead to anything. They are there to serve.

They may assist one who is discerning a vocation but, again, that is not the purpose of the ministry.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This thread is itself evidence that there is a very real problem and a very real reason for concern.

Yes it clearly shows the problems of understanding the Church held by those who are against the practice.

However, people understand where exactly the practice of female altar servers came from.

It is irrelevant where the practice came from. The Church allows for it and the Church is incapable of error. It can not allow an evil to be done.

 

[CB_Catholic]

It is not the sole purpose. But it is difficult to deny the function is there.

She can. But the functionality is not representative of what her vocation will be.

And the roles have always been different between male and female.

And there it is.

The slippery slope that the church stands at allowing female alter servers.
The church has indicated many times that it simply has no authority to allow a female priesthood.
It would seem you have correctly discerned where exactly female alter servers lead.
If not an outright call for priestesses, at the very least a confusion of the respective roles men and women serve.

Nothing at all, not one word, in her post about priestesses, or role confusion. It is you who are starting down the slippery slope here, by adding an implication that is not there to support your argument. And this is an example of how these threads get off to a bad start and then deteriorate afterwards.
Stick to what was actually posted, not what you would like to attribute to the poster’s intent.

Sometimes this place sounds like a bunch of politicians arguing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

At one time so also was the role of lector. There was a mild outcry against women reading the epistle. Once women were accepted into the sanctuary, questions were raised about the possibility of priestesses. Yes, they have been sinced squelched but continued allowance of ladies in the sanctuary will always blur the roles of the sexes in the Church IMO.

Technically the role of Lector is still reserved for men. Most of the men doing the readings and all of the women who read at Mass are readers not lectors. Lector is an instituted ministry.

So is acolyte, which the altar servers are doing the job of.

 

[vz71]

Thank you Baelor,** yes, I spoke of the vocations allowed.** I think Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary and Her Son are inspiring us all, to those vocations allowed through Holy Church Magisterium.
May you day be blessed!
Kathryn Ann:angel1::heaven:

My apologies.
I misinterpreted what had been posted to speak of the church in a process of discernment concerning the vocations rather then the individual discerning.

 

[vz71]

Nothing at all, not one word, in her post about priestesses, or role confusion. It is you who are starting down the slippery slope here, by adding an implication that is not there to support your argument. And this is an example of how these threads get off to a bad start and then deteriorate afterwards.
Stick to what was actually posted, not what you would like to attribute to the poster’s intent.

Sometimes this place sounds like a bunch of politicians arguing.

What was posted was ambiguously written and could well have been interpreted either way.

The post spoke of "Since the Church has now allowed girl altar servers, could this not be a step in discernment towards the possible vocations allowed for them as well? "

I viewed this as a statement of the church reviewing the possible vocations available toward women.

Before making the implied accusation towards my motives, you should understand my interpretation is a valid one.
I do not have the benefit of knowing the author, their motives, their tone of voice, or anything else. I only know the words written. And the words written above tell me something that they apparently do not tell you.

The author has since clarified.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

It is irrelevant where the practice came from. The Church allows for it and the Church is incapable of error. It can not allow an evil to be done.

It’s not evil. It’s a confusion and a distraction. The are practical and symbolic reasons not to do it.

Here’s another one: at the rate of progress in the Roman Rite, if altar girls become normal, then the next little change will seem quite acceptable. There are already queer stagings of the rite which have the approval of the local Ordinary, worldwide; the Church is not immune to this sort of incremental distortion.

One way this can be explained is the constant reliance on the legal argument: if it’s not forbidden, we can do it. When the questions is asked “Should this be done?”, out come the lawyers.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

It is not the sole purpose. But it is difficult to deny the function is there.

She can. But the functionality is not representative of what her vocation will be.

Kathryn Ann’s response: Functionality? The function is to assist, to serve, in humility and grace. These attributes will bode well for any future vocation.

And the roles have always been different between male and female.

Kathryn’s Ann’s response: Viva la difference! You mis-read my post.** I said the role of altar server, be she a young lady, may lead to those roles allowed her by Holy Church. **

The slippery slope that the church stands at allowing female alter servers.
The church has indicated many times that it simply has no authority to allow a female priesthood.

Kathryn Ann’s response: You need to re-read my post. I specifically stated that girls are not allowed by Holy Church the office of priesthood.

The very fact that the female altar servers are still inspired to assist, knowing full well that the priesthood is denied them, shows an admirable motivation to assist while knowing full well they will not have the same vocations as the boys serving beside them.

To judge the actions of Holy Church on this matter as “a slippery slope?” I think not.

Christ said "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Holy Church has spoken and allowed female altar servers. They have the authority handed down by Christ Himself. I would not challenge them on this.

It would seem you have correctly discerned where exactly female alter servers lead.
If not an outright call for priestesses, at the very least a confusion of the respective roles men and women serve.

Kathryn Ann’s response: Priestesses? Confusion? I do not discern that at all, those are your words.

Altar boys and girls lighting candles, ringing bells, assisting the priest in true humility and grace? This is a perfect preparation for the roles allowed by Holy Church as befits each individual.

If we asked each of the young ladies serving at the altar if they plan to become “Priestesses,” I think they would wonder at the question. They are not allowed the vocation of priest. This is not why they serve.

Our Heavenly Father and our Lady are simply inspiring them to serve. Period. I see no underlying agenda except the purest form of love, which is beyond petty gender issues.

Holy Church has spoken. We might look in cases like this at what the higher ideal is: pure service, pure dedication. The choice of future vocations for both genders are mapped out by this same Magisterium who has allowed the young ladies to serve.

We should always be reminded of another very special young Lady,
a pure and innocent Handmaiden who also said

“Yes,”

and meant only to serve and obey. The angels rejoiced. So should we all!

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[vz71]

One way this can be explained is the constant reliance on the legal argument: if it’s not forbidden, we can do it. When the questions is asked “Should this be done?”, out come the lawyers.

 

[vz71]

I specifically stated that girls are not allowed by Holy Church the office of priesthood.

I must have missed this statement.
Can you please point it out?

 

[Baelor]

I mentioned confusion. Not what you have mentioned here. Although now that you bring it up…

What confusion? And what confusion that should demand attention? The fact that people are confused about something does not necessarily mean that the issue should just be eliminated altogether, but rather that the confusion should be eliminated. One way of doing this is to eliminate the source of confusion, but this is not the exclusive solution.

I stated it was reasonable.
And it is. And this thread, at 200+ posts, attests to this.
Were the issue so innocuous, it would not generate such traffic.

Please do not think for a second you have gotten away with this rhetorical sleight-of-hand. You stated the following:

The practice was rooted in abuse and rebellion.
It is reasonable to expect it will sow confusion and discent as long as it continues.

Note that confusion and dissent are listed together, although I acknowledge that you may have meant them as totally separate issues.

To what confusion to you refer? To what dissent? How has this thread demonstrated this confusion and dissent? The ignorance of the vulgus is not tyrannical, and should not be treated as prescriptive. The fact that some people think the Earth is 4,000 years old and discuss it in threads that are over thirty pages does not change the underlying reality or irreality of that claim.

And you have yet to explain why it is reasonable that it will continue to sow confusion and dissent, and how this ties to its allegedly abusive origins.

I did.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water…

For the sake of being thorough, I went through every single one of your posts in this thread to see where you actually answered any of the questions I asked you.

The answer, of course, and as I said, is nowhere. It is rather difficult for a horse being led through a brick wall.

I am in as much error as you concerning the meaning in a given post until the author clarifies.

English permits only interpretation, so, no, I am still correct and you are still wrong given what is written. If the author wants to claim that she meant to write something else, fine. But your interpretation is grammatically inconsistent with what was posted.

I have placed no words in anyone’s mouth. I provided my own opinion based upon what has been written.

You have provided a fact, since it is verifiable and false. It is a false fact, not an opinion.

Well, I see my own words from my own post.
I do not see an attribute to anyone, false or otherwise.

You actually said “you.” You specifically referred to the previous poster. I do not understand in what way you could interpret that as anything other than attribution.

Anyway, enough time on this. My case is airtight and your own presumptuousness has been meticulously laid out by me, as has your intransigent unwillingness to admit you were wrong, even at a factual level.

What was posted was ambiguously written and could well have been interpreted either way.

False, as I will demonstrate subsequently.

The post spoke of "Since the Church has now allowed girl altar servers, could this not be a step in discernment towards the possible vocations allowed for them as well? "

I viewed this as a statement of the church reviewing the possible vocations available toward women.

There is no way to reach that interpretation based on what was written. This is because
of the bolded statement, which necessary implies a current state of Church teaching, with “the” and “allowed” being operative phrases. In no way could you construe that as advocating an alteration of current Church teaching on vocations.

 

[Baelor]

I must have missed this statement.
Can you please point it out?

You can read – follow the commands that you gave me. Except the difference is that I was searching for an illusion, and you are searching for something concrete. In case you do not wish to do what you ask of others, I have posted the solution for you below.
KA:

And some of the boys may not be thinking of the priesthood, but of becoming deacons. … This doesn’t mean that girls serving at the altar will become priests. But they are allowed to think about other callings allowed them by Holy Church.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not evil. It’s a confusion and a distraction. The are practical and symbolic reasons not to do it.

I agree. And unnecessary distractions during Mass used to be, if they’re not anymore, sins. So in that sense, it is a moral issue.

 

[vz71]

False, as I will demonstrate subsequently.

What is demonstrated is a lack of understanding of English grammar.
Whether it is on your part or mine remains to be seen.

But it cannot be disputed that the phrase quoted can be interpreted a variety of ways.

What does it say that you are making my unwillingness to cater your opinions the subject rather then the actual subject?
An apology was not demanded, but was provided once clarification given. Yet you are unwilling to move on.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Given the glacial pace of change in the Church, I’d say you and your progeny will safely be in Heaven long before that happens.

How long will it take until this sight worms its way into people’s psyche until everyone is clamoring for women priests?

 

[Corki]

This is confusing to me and begs another question, if I may.
If both male and female children can be altar servers…why is it that the females are not allowed to do all that altar servers are supposed to do if the roles are not gender-specific?

Because that’s the way Father wants it. Everything about what altar servers do is based on what the pastor wants - whether it’s girls, boys or adults.

and which tasks are they not allowed to do?

I think I addressed this above.

Specifically, only older boys are chosen to to be MCs or thurifers. Technically, only boys hold the water when we have asperges but that’s mostly because it’s the same person who is serving as MC for that Mass.