Area parish decides altar-serving is for the boys

[fix]

Yes but only to "to best promote “an ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.”

That must be kept in mind, not due to an old priest that feels women should not do it simply because, “thats how it use to be.”

Where does the Vatican not encourage their use since it has been allowed by the Pope?

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid*.*)

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can 228, §1, Interdicasterial Instruction Esslesiae de mysterio*, *August 15, 1997, no. 4, see *Notitiae *34 [1998] 9-42).
adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

Now, this practice started as an abuse. It was eventually found to be acceptable by the Pope. That does not mean he encouraged it. As has been said female servers are not used at the Vatican.

As for the reasons any individual priest has that is not part of the equation. In fact, if he reasons not to use them because that is the way it has always been that is a perfectly valid position. The real question is why should they be used now when it is an innovation and an innovation started as an abuse?

 

[Spence06]

The real question is why should they be used now when it is an innovation and an innovation started as an abuse?

Would not you also consider receiving the Eucharist on the hand started as an abuse but now completely acceptable. Some things do progress through time, we are not dealing with defined dogma of the Church.

The Church is always in constant reform and progress. It is up to the Pastoral Judgment, which should not rely solely in the mind of the pastors own particular opinion or preference but rather what is best for the People of the parish and diocese and what is found in orthodox judgment in union with the Pope.

As has been said female servers are not used at the Vatican.

But it is understood in the light that the Late John Paul II has celebrated many masses where female servers are present to my understanding.

 

[fix]

Would not you also consider receiving the Eucharist on the hand started as an abuse but now completely acceptable. Some things do progress through time, we are not dealing with defined dogma of the Church.

I do not know how that started in modern times. I do know that it is allowed. I do know the Vatican has not said any indiviual priest has the authority to stop it. I do not see how they are equivalent?

The Church is always in constant reform and progress. It is up to the Pastoral Judgment, which should not rely solely in the mind of the pastors own particular opinion or preference but rather what is best for the People of the parish and diocese and what is found in orthodox judgment in union with the Pope.

The Pope has said each priest may decide. That is orthodoxy. To claim that he may only decide based on your private criteria is to place yourself above the Church.

But it is understood in the light that the Late John Paul II has celebrated many masses where female servers are present to my understanding.

Even if true that does not mean he wanted it. Many abuses may have happend during public papal masses. Note the current pope is changing that.

 

[Spence06]

Communion on the hand was seen in the past and still by a radical minority today, as an abuse or just part of the liberal agenda tearing at the fabric of our Church. This is what many Catholics that I personally know believe, and it saddens me. It can be equivalent to that of other things that were first seen as abuse in previous times but now allowed, such as female servers, Eucharistic ministers, saying mass in English, The priest facing forward, ect. Though all on different levels it is my belief they can be put in the same statement.

To claim that he may only decide based on your private criteria is to place yourself above the Church.

This truly offends me and I do know that was not your intention. But I got my criteria from common sense, as everything must be in union with the Pope, second in the letter written by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, he made it clear this was to be done for a pastoral advantage depending on the situation in the local diocese. To say pastoral judgments come from what the Bishop or Priest “likes” and not what is more prudent, is poor seminary formation. They must look at the pastoral needs of their respective diocese and parish. That is in no way, placing myself above the Church or an attempt to do so.

 

[fix]

Communion on the hand was seen in the past and still by a radical minority today, as an abuse or just part of the liberal agenda tearing at the fabric of our Church. This is what many Catholics that I personally know believe, and it saddens me. It can be equivalent to that of other things that were first seen as abuse in previous times but now allowed, such as female servers, Eucharistic ministers, saying mass in English, The priest facing forward, ect. Though all on different levels it is my belief they can be put in the same statement.

Not all those things are equivalent. The Church never allowed female servers. Some thought they finally found a loophole and started the practice without seeking proper approval. That is an innovation. That is not obedient.

This truly offends me and I do know that was not your intention. But I got my criteria from common sense, as everything must be in union with the Pope, second in the letter written by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, he made it clear this was to be done for a pastoral advantage depending on the situation in the local diocese. To say pastoral judgments come from what the Bishop or Priest “likes” and not what is more prudent, is poor seminary formation. They must look at the pastoral needs of their respective diocese and parish. That is in no way, placing myself above the Church or an attempt to do so.

You have decided that if a priest chooses not to use females servers for the reason that it has never been as such is an incorrect reason. If a priest decides it is not best then that is his prerogative. You have imposed on him your interpretation of what the proper authorities have said.

The letter mentions reasons a bishop may allow them. The letter specfically says the bishop may not require any priest to use them. That is what the proper authorties have said is how the law is to be interpreted.

 

[zuzu]

Communion in the hand was the norm back in the earliest days of the Church - so were deaconesses.
Let us hope that when we have all finally stopped spinning from this way and that, that our heads are all facing the right direction again

Love ya
Suze:thumbsup:

 

[fix]

Communion in the hand was the norm back in the earliest days of the Church - so were deaconesses.
Let us hope that when we have all finally stopped spinning from this way and that, that our heads are all facing the right direction again

Love ya
Suze:thumbsup:

We ought to follow obediently, not “bring back” what we think was once done on our own initiative. We are Catholics, not holy archeologists.

 

[Lovemyfaith]

I found this article: ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR19.HTM
and I think it made some good points about the use of female servers. I especially liked the point of what works in some parishes to foster religious vocations should be considered, as someone mentioned the use of all male servers works in his parish. The most important point is that serving is a special privilege, not an inherent right. The needs of the parish, as much as the reverance of the individual Altar Server, must be considered.

 

[Spence06]

Not all those things are equivalent. The Church never allowed female servers. Some thought they finally found a loophole and started the practice without seeking proper approval. That is an innovation. That is not obedient.

Yes they are not all equal, but I believe they can be put in the same breath.Deaconess, as point out previous was allowed, which could be considered a form, not the exact same, but a form of server to liturgy. They did seek approval and Rome decided it was allowed as the new canon law stated for female servers.

You have decided that if a priest chooses not to use females servers for the reason that it has never been as such is an incorrect reason. If a priest decides it is not best then that is his prerogative. You have imposed on him your interpretation of what the proper authorities have said.

The priest, is placing his own opinion above the possible pastoral needs of a parish that may for whatever reason, profit from female server, if for the only reason he does not allow them for the sake of “thats how it was” he is in making a poor judgment. I know many people with this mindset, that will not accept change or development no matter what the reason or serious need. It may be under hist authority to say no, but whatever his decision, all decisions as parish priests rightly do know and make, should be done with pastoral concern as the letter indicates. It is not my own criteria;

This is the message Rome sent to the Bishops;

Rather, after having heard the opinion of the Episcopal Conference, he is to **base his prudential judgment upon what he considers to accord more closely with the local pastoral need **for an ordered development of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, bearing in mind, among other things, the sensibilities of the faithful, the reasons which would motivate such a permission, and the different liturgical settings and congregations which gather for the Holy Mass

 

[fix]

Yes they are not all equal, but I believe they can be put in the same breath.Deaconess, as point out previous was allowed, which could be considered a form, not the exact same, but a form of server to liturgy. They did seek approval and Rome decided it was allowed as the new canon law stated for female servers.

Again, the practice was started without approval. No matter what other practice started in the same incorrect way it is incorrect for any of us to approach the faith as if we are owners of the mass.

The priest, is placing his own opinion above the possible pastoral needs of a parish that may for whatever reason, profit from female server, if for the only reason he does not allow them for the sake of “thats how it was” he is in making a poor judgment.

No, that is your opinion. How things were always done is the right attitude to take. The onus is on the one who supports the novelty to show why change is needed.

I know many people with this mindset, that will not accept change or development no matter what the reason or serious need.

No, the mass is not something we each shape. Rome is supposed to be in charge.

It may be under hist authority to say no, but whatever his decision, all decisions as parish priests rightly do know and make, should be done with pastoral concern

Sure, and keeping things as they were is good pastoral practice. The ever changing novelty mindset is partly due to all the abuse we have this day.

as the letter indicates. It is not my own criteria;

This is the message Rome sent to the Bishops;

Correct and it further states the priest cannot be ordered to accept female servers.

More:

The Congregation’s letter said that the bishop who originally sought the guidance of the Congregation asked “whether a Diocesan Bishop would be able to oblige his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar”. The Congregation’s answer is a very firm “no”. Priests may not be required to utilize altar girls, contrary to what some American bishops may have believed. (Press reports indicated this was the prevailing view of the letter.)

            The Congregation's letter re-emphasized the similar l994 letter announcing the ruling of the **Pontifical Council for the Interpretation   of Legislative Texts** (PCILT)3, that "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar". The new letter also repeats that "the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well-known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations".

Thus the Congregation places renewed emphasis on what almost everybody always knew: boys who have served at the altar become priests in larger numbers than boys who have not. The new letter to bishops adds a further stress on the limited nature of this “temporary” service, and notes with especial clarity: “the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar”.
adoremus.org/0302Altargirls.html

 

[Spence06]

if we are owners of the mass

I am not saying we are.

No, that is your opinion. How things were always done is the right attitude to take.

Not according any of the Councils especially since Trent and Vatican II, reform is constant within the Church and people who oppose that, SSPX, are making their own judgments of faith and becoming their own infallible judge. It is ever constant reform and development while staying rooting in our Apostolic Traditions.

Rome is supposed to be in charge.

I agree. It is when people think they know better then Rome we are in trouble and that happens on both traditionalist and more modern Catholics. So when priests reject the new reforms to the mass, such as it is in English, they are in serious error. I am saying, a priest who neglects pastoral concerns for a parish is making a poor judgment. I am not saying, a priest who doesn’t allow female servers is making a poor decision.

“Ecclesia semper reformanda, Ecclesia semper purificanda”

 

[fix]

Not according any of the Councils especially since Trent and Vatican II, reform is constant within the Church and people who oppose that, SSPX, are making their own judgments of faith and becoming their own infallible judge. It is ever constant reform and development while staying rooting in our Apostolic Traditions.

We do not initiate any reform by disobeying Rome and by introducing novelty upon our own initiative. Experimentation with the mass is by special permission which was not used when this novelty was started.

I agree. It is when people think they know better then Rome we are in trouble and that happens on both traditionalist and more modern Catholics. So when priests reject the new reforms to the mass, such as it is in English, they are in serious error. I am saying, a priest who neglects pastoral concerns for a parish is making a poor judgment. I am not saying, a priest who doesn’t allow female servers is making a poor decision.

Rome has said priests do not have to accept female servers. Your assertion that they need reasons, that you deem acceptable, is not part of the process.

“Ecclesia semper reformanda, Ecclesia semper purificanda”

False reform is no reform. Those who wanted female servers wanted reform alright, but not the reform that is consistent with obedience.

 

[fix]

Just to be clear:

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid*.*)

The dicastery in charge of this makes the above point. Why? The tradition is male only servers. That tradition is in place for a good reason. Simply changing because we want innovation is wrong. It is also wrong to think anything old is bad and anything new is good.

 

[Spence06]

Simply changing because we want innovation is wrong. It is also wrong to think anything old is bad and anything new is good.

Agreed. With the balance that knowing the belief that anything new is bad while everything old is the only way is also wrong. Such as the rejection of the new mass by some, is wrong while liturgical dances and abuses are also wrong. Keeping both in mind is what it means to be Catholic.

Your assertion that they need reasons, that you deem acceptable

Putting words in my mouth is getting old. And frankly, is annoying. I do not deem acceptable certain reasons on my own accord, I am saying a priest, as Rome instructs, must keep in my mind pastoral concerns of his parish. If that includes or doesn’t include female servers is immaterial. The instruction for all priests from the first days at the seminary formation is to always keep in mind the pastoral needs of the people because that is who they are serving not themselves(within reason). Some priest are open to this while a minority of others continue to believe they know better and refuse to accept this.

Those who wanted female servers wanted reform alright, but not the reform that is consistent with obedience

.

I can’t speak for what I do not know. I can speak however, in saying, I am not promoting disobedience to the Catholic Church.

 

[Thekla]

I wish you luck in trying to change basic and essential human nature. Actually, I DON’T wish you luck in that, as human nature was created by God, for God’s reasons, and is not to be changed, except by God Himself.

I agree with you that’s it’s best that my kids won’t be altar servers. But it’s for a reason other than not wanting a priest in the family; that would be a blessing.

If things are a result of human nature, that’s completely… natural. What I object to is adults continuing to foster the idea that women and girls “taint” boy stuff. There are things that are male things and there are things that are female things. Fine. But it’s this idea of woman/girl “taint” that, for example, many have used to justify not educating girls.

If people don’t want girl altar servers, no problem. But children take their cues from adults so let’s not act like little boys and girls are the only offenders. The world has a long history of adults with the same cootie syndrome.

 

[rlg94086]

Wow…I didn’t read this thread until now, because I thought “what’s the big deal?” Yikes. It seems obvious to me that the purpose of having boys as altar servers is to encourage the priesthood.

As others have said, there are other ways for girls to serve. As far as shortage of boys to serve, I think it’s a matter of the boys relating to the priest. In our average-sized parish , we have 4-6 altar boys at every Mass. I think the enthusiasm and age of our priest (he’s 35 and very “orthodox” in his views) attracts the service of the boys, including teenagers. Even my son, at age 16, has offered himself for service. I couldn’t believe it, when I heard it!

Of course, I can’t prove it, but I would bet anyone on the forum a substantial amount of dough that at least one of these boys will become a priest.

Here is how Fr. Lappe explained things, when he made the change at our parish (in 2004):

The tradition of altar boys comes from a time in the Church when there were no seminaries. If a young man wanted to be a priest, he would be like an apprentice to the pastor in his local parish. The pastor would teach him how to administer the sacraments, and the young man would serve him at the altar. When he was ready, the candidate for the priesthood would be presented to the bishop for ordination. Then, when seminaries were invented, and young men destined for the priesthood no longer assisted the local parish priest in this way, their place was taken by men or boys.

In March 1994, a Circular Letter was sent from the Congregation for Divine Worship, allowing each bishop to decide to allow girls to begin serving at the altar. This permission was granted with one important note as part of its text: “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.”

---

When this letter was first published many priests thought that they were obligated, if their own bishop decided in favor of girl altar servers, to invite them to serve alongside the boys. However in June of 2001 it was clarified that this was not in fact the case: “In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See, such an authorization may not in any way exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (circular letter, 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations.”

Read the whole thing at st-thomascamas.org/moretreasures/altarboys.htm

God bless,

Robert

 

[zuzu]

We ought to follow obediently, not “bring back” what we think was once done on our own initiative. We are Catholics, not holy archeologists.

Mmmm!
I’m not suggesting we ‘bring back’ anything - regardless of whether or not it’s on our own initiative. But try to think, and remember that for an example of deaconesses, one only has to look to the Scriptures. On whose initiative was that ‘brought in’?

BTW, i’m not in favour of women priests or deacons

 

[sweetirishct]

So here’s my take, for what it’s worth… As the first girl altar server in my parish as a child, I felt much more connected to the service, and it helped to ground me during a very difficult time in my life (mother’s illness). I understand that some may be concerned about the potential for negative impact re: less men entering the seminary. So I pose this question: what if it increases the number of young girls considering the habit? I think that would be a great thing, since there are decidedly fewer nuns these days than there were in my childhood.
I will also mention, that a distinction was made during my years of service: girls were not allowed to touch the water and wine. We were allowed to bear the Crucifix in procession, or carry the Scriptures. So in that, there were restrictions to our duties.

Also, may I say, that my family learned how many “good Catholics” could easily turn very nasty. On more than one occassion, my mother (an otherwise very strong woman) was reduced to tears after being told that we were all going to Hell for my service at the altar. Great Christians, eh? Just thought I would throw that out there…

I think that any interest from kids in the Church should be encouraged. We are living in a very scary world, and the stronger thier attachment to the Church and her lessons, the better off they will be!

 

[fix]

Putting words in my mouth is getting old. And frankly, is annoying. I do not deem acceptable certain reasons on my own accord, I am saying a priest, as Rome instructs, must keep in my mind pastoral concerns of his parish. If that includes or doesn’t include female servers is immaterial. The instruction for all priests from the first days at the seminary formation is to always keep in mind the pastoral needs of the people because that is who they are serving not themselves(within reason). Some priest are open to this while a minority of others continue to believe they know better and refuse to accept this.

I have never said pastoral needs should be neglected. My point is the reasons any priest uses to exclude female servers are his and I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is acting in good faith. There seems to be some notion if a priest excludes female servers he is being imprudent.

 

[Brendan]

Communion in the hand was the norm back in the earliest days of the Church - so were deaconesses.
:

FYI,

The Orthodox Churches still have deaconesses, but I don’t think you understand what they really are.

“Deaconess” is a title generally given to senior nuns, in some cases to lay women known for their service to the poor. It does NOT involve an Ordination, just a consecration. They are not clergy, they don’t assist the priest at Mass, they don’t read the Gospel, they don’t preach and they don’t even Baptize.