Altar Server Scheduling in Holy Week

[EasterJoy]

Consider this situation:

1. The liturgy committee at a parish has been in the habit of ignoring the rubrics for Holy Thursday which specify that the the washing of feet shall use “viri selecti” (selected men). Instead, anyone who wants to participate in the foot washing is invited to do so.
2. It is unknown to the altar server scheduler if the altar servers themselves are expected or invited to have their feet washed, or if they have in the past.
3. The altar servers include both males and females For arguments sake, consider whether variations in proportion or the availability servers of some particular age would make any difference.
4. The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy has stated “No distinction should be made between the functions carried out in the sanctuary by men and boys and those carried out by women and girls. The term “altar boys” should be replaced by “servers”. The term “server” should be used for those who carry out the functions of the instituted acolyte.”

Question: What if the altar server scheduler were to schedule only older young men for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and only the older young women for the Solemn Commemoration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday? The idea is that this choice of altar servers would avoid violating the rubric specifying “viri selecti” for Holy Thursday. Conversely, scheduling only females for Good Friday would seem to be a fitting way to make the scheduling fair, since the Last Supper was all males while, with the exception of St. John, the few disciplies gathered at the foot of the Cross ran very long towards females.

Is it a good idea/bad idea/pointless idea or right/wrong/neutral or fair/unfair/neither?

If the altar servers are expected to have their feet washed, would a scheduler who chose females be complicit in liturgical abuse? Does the scheduler have a duty to ask?

If the altar server schedule takes gender into account at all, does that violate the dictate that “No distinction should be made between the functions carried out in the sanctuary by men and boys and those carried out by women and girls”?

Does it matter if the parish is pro-ordination of females, anti-ordination of females, apparently unconcerned with regards to that question, or if there are some factions and tensions among members of the parish about the Church’s stance on ordaining women to the priesthood?

If the parish does observe the rubric about using “viri selecti”, is there any reason to take the gender of altar servers into account for that liturgy?

Does the scheduler have a duty to consult anyone else in the parish about this?

In general, the idea seems like a particularly good way for a scheduler to get himself/herself crucified, and maybe isn’t either fair or more liturgically correct than scheduling both genders at both liturgies. Is this a case where the question is neutral, in which case discretion the better part of valor and the better path to avoiding unnecessary strife?

Comments?

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

Lets assume that a certain scheduler just schedules the male altar servers on holy thursday and leaves it at that.

Br. Paul

 

[Catholic90]

How about you have altar server sign up for Holy Week? That is what we do.

No one scheduled, because so many people travel, and they all end up getting subs anyway.

 

[Spirithound]

Consider this situation:

1. The liturgy committee at a parish has been in the habit of ignoring the rubrics for Holy Thursday which specify that the the washing of feet shall use “viri selecti” (selected men). Instead, anyone who wants to participate in the foot washing is invited to do so.

As in all matters of liturgy, it is the responsibility of the pastor to “select the viri” who have their feet washed on Holy Thursday.

1. It is unknown to the altar server scheduler if the altar servers themselves are expected or invited to have their feet washed, or if they have in the past.

Nobody can be “expected” to participate in any ministry. Having feet washed on Holy Thursday is not something that is proper (that is, reserved) to the acolytes. If there is an invitation that the altar boys have their feet washed, that invitation has emanated from the pastor of the parish.

1. The altar servers include both males and females For arguments sake, consider whether variations in proportion or the availability servers of some particular age would make any difference.

1. The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy has stated “No distinction should be made between the functions carried out in the sanctuary by men and boys and those carried out by women and girls. The term “altar boys” should be replaced by “servers”. The term “server” should be used for those who carry out the functions of the instituted acolyte.”

Question: What if the altar server scheduler were to schedule only older young men for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and only the older young women for the Solemn Commemoration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday? The idea is that this choice of altar servers would avoid violating the rubric specifying “viri selecti” for Holy Thursday. Conversely, scheduling only females for Good Friday would seem to be a fitting way to make the scheduling fair, since the Last Supper was all males while, with the exception of St. John, the few disciplies gathered at the foot of the Cross ran very long towards females.

Is it a good idea/bad idea/pointless idea or right/wrong/neutral or fair/unfair/neither?

No comment

If the altar servers are expected to have their feet washed, would a scheduler who chose females be complicit in liturgical abuse? Does the scheduler have a duty to ask?

Pursuant to my reply to #2 above, there should not be such an expectation, thus the scheduler would not be complicit. As there is no potential for complicity, there is no duty to ask. If said scheduler would like to ask, far be it from me to prohibit such…

If the altar server schedule takes gender into account at all, does that violate the dictate that “No distinction should be made between the functions carried out in the sanctuary by men and boys and those carried out by women and girls”?

I recuse myself from that question…

Does it matter if the parish is pro-ordination of females, or if there are some factions and tensions among members of the parish about the Church’s stance on ordaining women to the priesthood?

*Yes…*but that’s a whole different issue. Your bishop has made a ruling (point #4 above) that female servers are allowed, and so that means the scheduler is free to wade into the parish politics if he or she wishes.

If the parish does observe the rubric about using “viri selecti”, is there any reason to take the gender of altar servers into account for that liturgy?

I see none

Does the scheduler have a duty to consult anyone else in the parish about this?

No

In general, the idea seems like a particularly good way for a scheduler to get himself/herself crucified, and maybe isn’t either fair or more liturgically correct than scheduling both genders at both liturgies. Is this a case where the question is neutral, in which case discretion the better part of valor and the better path to avoiding unnecessary strife?

I don’t see any differing degree of correctness in either having all males for HT and all females for GF, or having both at both. Frankly, through my responses to points 1 and 2, you’re off the hook.

 

[EasterJoy]

How about you have altar server sign up for Holy Week? That is what we do.

No one scheduled, because so many people travel, and they all end up getting subs anyway.

That’s the way it is done for the adult volunteers, but the servers aren’t self-selected.

Sometimes those at the top of the list aren’t available, but the servers for the most solemn liturgies are chosen from those who are the most experienced and dependable. The pastor does not want any comedies of errors during Holy Week, so those servers who initially agree to do it but then later need to get substitutes call the scheduler, and the scheduler finds a replacement.

 

[EasterJoy]

As in all matters of liturgy, it is the responsibility of the pastor to “select the viri” who have their feet washed on Holy Thursday.

Nobody can be “expected” to participate in any ministry. Having feet washed on Holy Thursday is not something that is proper (that is, reserved) to the acolytes. If there is an invitation that the altar boys have their feet washed, that invitation has emanated from the pastor of the parish.

No comment

Pursuant to my reply to #2 above, there should not be such an expectation, thus the scheduler would not be complicit. As there is no potential for complicity, there is no duty to ask. If said scheduler would like to ask, far be it from me to prohibit such…

I recuse myself from that question…

*Yes…*but that’s a whole different issue. Your bishop has made a ruling (point #4 above) that female servers are allowed, and so that means the scheduler is free to wade into the parish politics if he or she wishes.

I see none

No

I don’t see any differing degree of correctness in either having all males for HT and all females for GF, or having both at both. Frankly, through my responses to points 1 and 2, you’re off the hook.

That is a nice detailed response. Thanks.

“Free to wade into parish politics”? Can one stir up a hive of bees for no reason and remain without sin? A sting is OK when it’s no more than the price of keeping company with bees, but no one is looking for trouble here. To continue the analogy: Is there honey in the hive, and is the need for it sufficient to warrant the stings? It is not as if the scheduler is the only one that’s going to face the wrath of that swarm, if it is stirred up.

It sounds as if there is not. IOW,
a) since the pastor or his associate will probably get to share the stings, if not take most of them, if there is a fuss
b) since he/they could reasonably object that the possibility was foreseeable, and
c) since the rubrics alone don’t answer the question
… it would seem most faithful to either schedule as usual or else get permission from those who have both the authority and the biggest bull’s eyes on their backs. It seems the least called for by the trust given by entrusting the job to one of us. The job requires we follow the rubrics, I wouldn’t apologize for that or feel a need to get permission to do it, but otherwise it seems every effort ought to be made to keep the peace.

Besides, when they are already counting the years until retirement, who wants to drive them to start counting the days?

Thanks for your help. If anyone knows of any liturgical rules that have been overlooked so far, let me know.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

1. It is unknown to the altar server scheduler if the altar servers themselves are expected or invited to have their feet washed, or if they have in the past.

. . .

In the 40’s only the servers got their feet washed. I don’t remember when that changed; possibly when Pope Pius XII moved the Triduum celebrations to the evening, but more likely with the introduction of the new mass.

In the 40’s our mothers always did a last minute check that we had clean feet and no holes in our socks on Holy Thursday.

 

[Spirithound]

“Free to wade into parish politics”? Can one stir up a hive of bees for no reason and remain without sin? A sting is OK when it’s no more than the price of keeping company with bees, but no one is looking for trouble here. To continue the analogy: Is there honey in the hive, and is the need for it sufficient to warrant the stings? It is not as if the scheduler is the only one that’s going to face the wrath of that swarm, if it is stirred up.

It sounds as if there is not. IOW,
a) since the pastor or his associate will probably get to share the stings, if not take most of them, if there is a fuss
b) since he/they could reasonably object that the possibility was foreseeable, and
c) since the rubrics alone don’t answer the question
… it would seem most faithful to either schedule as usual or else get permission from those who have both the authority and the biggest bull’s eyes on their backs. It seems the least called for by the trust given by entrusting the job to one of us. The job requires we follow the rubrics, I wouldn’t apologize for that or feel a need to get permission to do it, but otherwise it seems every effort ought to be made to keep the peace.

I interpreted your question about the duty to consult anyone else in the parish too narrowly. The scheduler should perform his or her function according to the directives of the pastor. If the pastor has directed that females are to be allowed to serve at the altar, then females should not be unfairly eliminated from the selection process. If the scheduler wishes to schedule all males, she or he might want to run that by the pastor first, especially if he is going to get “stung” over it.

Now as to the more philosophical question of whether one may stir up a bees’ hive for no reason without sin…Personally, I’m not convinced that any action is ever taken for no reason. There may be malicious reasons for taking a certain course, and that is a sin, but I see an absolute smorgasbord of reasons for taking the course that this scheduler is considering… And sure, it does behoove one to consider whether there is honey in the hive, but in that consideration, do not neglect certain smaller or more remote niches where the honey may be, in favour of the larger chamber of the hive, which may indeed be empty.

 

[GwenL]

Easter Joy, because you are attempting to schedule servers to ensure that only men have their feet washed on Holy Thursday, I disagree with your methods. I think this is the pastor’s decision. (of course, it is always possible that I have misunderstood what you are proposing)

I agree that only post-adolescent men (viri selecti) should have their feet washed. I think you agree also. But that is not our decision.

I think you should talk to your pastor about this. If and when he agrees, then schedule men only on Thursday. But it seems to me that in trying to avoid the habitual incorrect decisions of the liturgy committee, perhaps you are making an “end-run” around the pastor, to ensure that your interpretation of the rubrics are met. Again, I agree with your interpretation, but I think it’s up to the pastor to make this decision. When he tells you to schedule men servers for Holy Thursday, and when he tells you that he will wash the feet of those men servers, then put them on the schedule and prepare them appropriately.

Over the past years at our Cathedral parish, the bishop has washed the feet of RCIA candidates and catechumens–men, women, boys, girls. We have a new, very orthodox rector. I am awating with anticipation the upcoming changes.

FYI, I am an adult female and serve at the altar at daily Mass. I did not attend Holy Thursday Mass at the parish where I was a catechumen because the priest told me that catechumens and candidates would have their feet washed. I went to another parish, because I could not have gone forward to have my feet washed. Also, just fyi, I would not feel “left out” and would not feel like you needed to include me in the Good Friday liturgy. Anyone who does feel “left out” has made the Mass more about themselves and their feelings than about our Lord.

 

[EasterJoy]

Easter Joy, because you are attempting to schedule servers to ensure that only men have their feet washed on Holy Thursday, I disagree with your methods. I think this is the pastor’s decision. (of course, it is always possible that I have misunderstood what you are proposing)

I agree that only post-adolescent men (viri selecti) should have their feet washed. I think you agree also. But that is not our decision.

I think you should talk to your pastor about this. If and when he agrees, then schedule men only on Thursday. But it seems to me that in trying to avoid the habitual incorrect decisions of the liturgy committee, perhaps you are making an “end-run” around the pastor, to ensure that your interpretation of the rubrics are met. Again, I agree with your interpretation, but I think it’s up to the pastor to make this decision. When he tells you to schedule men servers for Holy Thursday, and when he tells you that he will wash the feet of those men servers, then put them on the schedule and prepare them appropriately.

Over the past years at our Cathedral parish, the bishop has washed the feet of RCIA candidates and catechumens–men, women, boys, girls. We have a new, very orthodox rector. I am awating with anticipation the upcoming changes.

FYI, I am an adult female and serve at the altar at daily Mass. I did not attend Holy Thursday Mass at the parish where I was a catechumen because the priest told me that catechumens and candidates would have their feet washed. I went to another parish, because I could not have gone forward to have my feet washed. Also, just fyi, I would not feel “left out” and would not feel like you needed to include me in the Good Friday liturgy. Anyone who does feel “left out” has made the Mass more about themselves and their feelings than about our Lord.

No, it is not in the scheduler’s power to decide who gets their feet washed, excepting that the scheduler is given the job of selecting servers and servers might be among those who get their feet washed. The scheduler does not normally run the schedule past the pastor. The pastor has given guidelines and handed that job off. There are no guidelines to have all males or all females or a mix at any particular Mass, because it would make scheduling impossible.

The question is this: If scheduler has been given authority and duty to select servers, is there an obligation under the rubrics and/or the guidelines of the USCCB to either a) choose servers who are “viri” or b) to studiously choose servers without distinction with regards to gender, rather than making no distinction as to function of various servers at a particular liturgy. (That is what I understand it to mean: No “the boys always carry the cross and the girls always hold the book”.) If the rubrics say what to do, the scheduler has already been given carte blanche to schedule. What liturgical principals argue for or against either choice?

Second, is it the scheduler’s worry that somebody might get their knickers in a knot over a particular decision? I think it is only if the decision is not made based on a compelling liturgical mandate. You must “Say the Black–Do the Red”, and if someone doesn’t like it, the black and the red still win out. But if there is no mandate, then it seems prudence and charity require giving concession to the knickers. There has to be a compelling reason to choose one’s own preference over the preference of someone with scruples about the question. Your preferences only apply when, as far as you know, no one else really cares one way or the other (or cares for reasons that are self-indulgent rather than based on a desire to do the right thing by the liturgy). In this case, as long as whatever scheduling was done wasn’t done “to make a point” or bait someone, it is entirely likely that no one would notice or care.

There is also this reality: if this question has no right answer, it may well be better not to raise it and to let sleeping dogs lie. Once the question is asked, the scheduler puts the pastor in a no-win situation. Because he won’t lie if someone asks him if he was consulted, he is going to offend somebody, no matter what he says, unless what he can honestly say is: I gave the job and the guidelines to him/her and he/she scheduled within the guidelines I gave, and the question you raise was not brought to me. It didn’t come up.

 

[EasterJoy]

I interpreted your question about the duty to consult anyone else in the parish too narrowly. The scheduler should perform his or her function according to the directives of the pastor. If the pastor has directed that females are to be allowed to serve at the altar, then females should not be unfairly eliminated from the selection process. If the scheduler wishes to schedule all males, she or he might want to run that by the pastor first, especially if he is going to get “stung” over it.

Now as to the more philosophical question of whether one may stir up a bees’ hive for no reason without sin…Personally, I’m not convinced that any action is ever taken for no reason. There may be malicious reasons for taking a certain course, and that is a sin, but I see an absolute smorgasbord of reasons for taking the course that this scheduler is considering… And sure, it does behoove one to consider whether there is honey in the hive, but in that consideration, do not neglect certain smaller or more remote niches where the honey may be, in favour of the larger chamber of the hive, which may indeed be empty.

That’s just it. The question is not so much whether or not to do the right thing, but figuring out what on earth the right thing is without dragging the pastor into it. If the question can be settled without ever bringing it up, that might be the better.

 

[Spirithound]

I apologize if I repeat myself. It’s not my intention to hammer you with my opinion/understanding by sheer volume of posts.

No, it is not in the scheduler’s power to decide who gets their feet washed, excepting that the scheduler is given the job of selecting servers and servers might be among those who get their feet washed.

This really says it all (or most of it…) for me. The altar servers might be among those who get their feet washed. A kid at the altar doesn’t seem to me to be any more (or less) likely to want their feet washed than a kid in the pew.

The scheduler does not normally run the schedule past the pastor. The pastor has given guidelines and handed that job off. There are no guidelines to have all males or all females or a mix at any particular Mass, because it would make scheduling impossible.

The question is this: If scheduler has been given authority and duty to select servers, is there an obligation under the rubrics and/or the guidelines of the USCCB to either a) choose servers who are “viri” or b) to studiously choose servers without distinction with regards to gender, rather than making no distinction as to function of various servers at a particular liturgy. If the rubrics say what to do, the scheduler has already been given carte blanche to schedule. What liturgical principals argue for or against either choice?

Female altar servers are not normative. The Vatican has given permission to the bishops to decide further for their diocese. The bishop cannot say that females must be selected, but he can, as yours has, give permission to the pastors to decide for their parish. Your pastor seems to allow female altar servers, but importantly, has he specifically said that females are not to be excluded? If he has, then competent females are to be allowed to serve. If, however, he has not said that, then it is up to the scheduler to decide who to schedule. (of course, if a scheduler were to take this course of action, he or she should first know whether the pastor would back them up on the issue.

Second, is it the scheduler’s worry that somebody might get their knickers in a knot over a particular decision? I think it is only if the decision is not made based on a compelling liturgical mandate. You must “Say the Black–Do the Red”, and if someone doesn’t like it, the black and the red still win out. But if there is no mandate, then it seems prudence and charity require giving concession to the knickers.

I don’t think this is charity. Frankly I’m not convinced that it’s prudent either, but it’s definitely not charity. The OP implied that some in the parish are pushing the issue because they advocate women’s ordination. It is not charity to encourage heresy.

There has to be a compelling reason to choose one’s own preference over the preference of someone with scruples about the question.

These are not scruples, they are rabbles.

Your preferences only apply when, as far as you know, no one else really cares one way or the other (or cares for reasons that are self-indulgent rather than based on a desire to do the right thing by the liturgy). In this case, as long as whatever scheduling was done wasn’t done “to make a point” or bait someone, it is entirely likely that no one would notice or care.

Humility is not to let those with an agenda walk all over you. I assume there is a reason that the current scheduler is the scheduler, and these other people are not. Now please notice what I have highlighted. Are you convinced that female altar servers are the “right thing by the liturgy”? If you are, then the law of your diocese allows that. But perhaps I’m going way off the scope you intended, and all this can be summed up in my first couple sentences

There is also this reality: if this question has no right answer, it may well be better not to raise it and to let sleeping dogs lie. Once the question is asked, the scheduler puts the pastor in a no-win situation. Because he won’t lie if someone asks him if he was consulted, he is going to offend somebody, no matter what he says, unless what he can honestly say is: I gave the job and the guidelines to him/her and he/she scheduled within the guidelines I gave, and the question you raise was not brought to me. It didn’t come up.

Or the scheduler might like to consult the pastor. The Easter Triduum is long off, and he might just have a little free time at this time of year.

 

[Spirithound]

That’s just it. The question is not so much whether or not to do the right thing, but figuring out what on earth the right thing is without dragging the pastor into it. If the question can be settled without ever bringing it up, that might be the better.

oopss…ok, I am reconsidering, with this post…
Regarding Holy Thursday, I can’t see it requiring any further consideration than a usual Mass, with respect to who may serve. I believe this was your immediate concern, and so I will not ramble on (too long…) about other Masses.

Since your pastor has approved female servers, it is not wrong to schedule them. However, it is within the authority of the scheduler to, for legitimate reasons (e.g., any reason other than to spite the person or persons who advocate female ordination) schedule only males. I know that it seems preferable to not involve the pastor at all, but perhaps just a quick meeting, and explaining the plan would assure the scheduler that the pastor will support him or her.