Part 2
When the Church began to grow and parishes existed in places further and further from the cathedral, it became impossible for only those preparing for the priesthood to minister at the altar. More people were needed. A practical solution was to call men of good virtue to exercise them on a temporary or extraordinary basis. This was soon extended to young boy as well. The reason for the use of a cassock and surplice, garments of the clergy, by altar servers was an outgrowth of this. If you exercised that ministry, you wore what those of that ministry wore. Thus a priest in the EF wears a dalmatic where serving in the role of deacon.
This all goes back to the difference between the Order of Grace and the Order of Nature, and God respects both since he instituted both. In the Order of Grace, all people are sinners and are in need of redemption. No one is exempted, even the Blessed Virgin Mary was by a singular grace preserved from the effects of original sin at her conception through anticipation of the grace wrought by Christ on the Cross. It is the Order of Grace that St. Paul speaks of in his letter to the Galatians when he speaks of, in Christ there is no longer slave or free, Jew or Gentile, man or woman. Yet with the Order of Grace, the Order of Nature remains. It goes back to creation, God created them male and female, each reflecting part of his richness, bestowing on each the commonality of being a member of the human race, but also bestowing on each unique gifts and attributes. These distinctions are not man-made but God-made. In our modern society we sometimes fail to distinguish between the two, especially in our push for greater equality. Baptism is totally dependent on the Order of Grace, anyone can be baptized. In addition to being part of the Order of Grace, God chose that the Sacrament of Orders would derive its Matter from the Order of Nature, that only men can be ordained. We can debate this to the end of the age, but what God has ordained in his infinite Providence we are not free to alter.
The chaos in the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council is well documented, attempts to correct abuses often failed, sometimes the abuses became so prevalent it seemed almost impossible to correct. It seems in these cases, the Vatican began to allow the practice instead of condemning it, two being Communion in the hand and the other women and girls serving in the sanctuary. As early as the 1970s I’ve seen pictures where girls are serving at the altar. It is interesting to see that it was only in 1994 that the Vatican permitted this, where is seemed to have become a de facto practice, this was carified in 2001 which stated a priest was not obliged to use female serves where it had been permitted.
Men serving at the altar is part of the history and tradition of the Church, its history is documented as are the reasons for it. If it goes back centuries and even millennia, is there good reason for putting all this history and tradition aside?
Pope Benedict has spoken of the hermeneutic of discontinuity in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. This is especially present in the Sacred Liturgy, but can be found in various other areas of the Church. Whatever the reason or source of the rupture, no matter how pure the motivation, it needs to be repaired. Scripture teaches that a house that is build on a solid foundation will endure, and that one built on sand will fail. That is not to say that a foundation doesn’t need to be repaired or reinforced from time to time. But the hermeneutic of discontinuity tore away the foundation of the past. Should the hermeneutic of discontinuity be preserved when it comes to who is permitted to serve at the altar?
I have heard it said, “tradition is the living faith of the dead.” Are we saying we know better than those of the past, because we are somehow more enlightened? Isn’t that one of the errors of modernism and also part of the vice of pride? It is easy to have tunnel vision, to see things in only of terms of the present. This is why the study of history is so important, for it shows that our time isn’t the only time, that there is something to be learned from the past. That is has value.
Does following the history and tradition of the Church which has roots in both the Order of Grace and the Order of Nature by reserving service in the sanctuary to men and boys somehow make girls and women less important?
If we look at it solely from our modern perspective of rights and equality, confusing the two Orders that God has established, then the answer is yes.
If we trust Jesus who instituted the priesthood and also the Church, which he promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then the answer is no. Those who are part of the Church can ere and have done so in the past, but is the continuous tradition of the Church in error. I don’t see that as being the case.
The title of this thread asks “Are girls not important?” My reply is, of course they are important, they are as important as boys.” Then this begs the question, “They why aren’t girls important enough to serve at the altar?” If we see serving at the altar as a form of prestige and brings us some kind of power, it will lead us to ask that kind of question. To minister at the altar is to serve, since it is so visible we have a way of equate it with importance. We need to challenge ourselves and our common conception that have been formed by the world we live in and be willing to see things from a difference perspective.
If we are to adopt the position that only men should serve in the sanctuary we encounter the difficult pastoral problem of what to do now that it is so commonplace, this would require a great deal of prayer, patience, and catechesis on the part of the Priest or Bishop who chooses to proceed with it. There is no easy solution that will not produce hurt feelings.
(I couldn’t resist. Now I just wish CAF had a caveman smiley.)
Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not ordain women to the priesthood just because it was not a popular idea at the time? You do realize that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, right?
Anyway, we do know God created men and women differently. I believe that He just wants women in different roles. If God sees men as the head of their families, I think it makes sense that those He chooses to head the Church are also men.
