Female altar servers at Latin Mass

[otjm]

As I said, just try and do it. You will be turned away.- do not be offended when YOU ARE TOLD NO. Just like the guy who plays guitar at the local parish- he will be told “pack up your guitar and go home”. This was said on EWTN by some priest from the FSSP I forget which one.

Ken

Again, I think you are right for any parish that has an established Indult Mass already.

I am not, however, convinced that a parish which has only the OF but chooses to add an EF would necessarily have the same mind set, to wit: if they already have girls serving at the altar (and believe it or not, there are OF Masses that are not “liberal” - that is, they follow the GIRM and RS and have altar girls) and may choose to continue to do so with the additional EF. It is certainly not out of the realm of possiblity.

Consider also that most parishes have been OF since the Missal was promulgated and the use of altar girls is widespread. Most of the people in those parishes have not ever been to an EF Mass. They will be the group that will have to be drawn from if the EF Mass is to become a regular part of the Sunday liturgy and where the people who fit the definition of “a stable group” is relatively small. That defines a whole lot of parishes.

For parishes with the OF but no altar girls, I would have no reason to think that they would start with the EF. But some of the language which has been used since the MP was released has the tone and tenor of “We are going to show you!”; hardly a tone of charity.

It will all work itself out over time, and the time span is not going to be a short 6 month one.

 

[otjm]

I am quite sure that the FSSP priest that was on EWTN discussing the EF if fully aware of Canon Law. A man that plays guitar in the OF called and said he wanted to play the guitar in the EF. Both Priests, one FSSP the other from Pius V { whatever that other organization is called that celebrates the EF] said the guitar is not allowed in the EF. I wish someone had called in about altar girls and communion in the hand. I just can’t believe it will be allowed.

Just because they ahve been ordained in the FSSP does not make them experts at either Canon law or the intricacies of rubrics which in part may have not been explicit at the time because Canon law was.

There comes a point where people need to understand that rubrics are not absolutes and not dogmatic. I make no suggestion of not following the rubrics; we are, however, entering a new period where we have two sets of rubrics as to how the Mass is said. whether and if so how much there may be an overlap has not been determined.

Keep in mind also that the FSSP superiors had forbidden their priests to say the OF; they were taken to task very pointedly and explicitly over the issue and told in no uncertain terms they could not prevent an FSSP priest from saying the OF. And it would be naive to think that only the superiors held that position; some of the priests did also. Given a penchant by some of them for reading into law what was not there with that issue, I would be hesitant to consider any of them an expert simply because they said thus and so was not allowed.

 

[stmaria]

Just because they ahve been ordained in the FSSP does not make them experts at either Canon law or the intricacies of rubrics which in part may have not been explicit at the time because Canon law was.

There comes a point where people need to understand that rubrics are not absolutes and not dogmatic. I make no suggestion of not following the rubrics; we are, however, entering a new period where we have two sets of rubrics as to how the Mass is said. whether and if so how much there may be an overlap has not been determined…

I e-mailed my FSSP priest and this is what he said in regards to the EF and the 1983 Canon Law.

“When celebrating either the ordinary or extraordinary form one is bound to adhere to the rubrics and liturgical laws which bind to the useage. What that means in practice that since communion in the hand and altar girls were not in use in 1962 they will not (and cannot be) imposed on the extraordinary form.”

 

[Contarini]

Only if you buy into the secular culture thought of men and women being the same.

Nonsense. That’s a straw man.

Men and women are different and have different roles in the Church. The reason for women not being on the altar is not because they are unclean. The only way this can be taken as insulting is if you misrepresent Catholic belief that way.
I think the poster did a bad job of presenting why women are not allowed. It is not uncleanliness it is because it is the altar of sacrifice, which is made primarily for Priests.

I was responding to that particular poster. I think that his language was telling, and I don’t think there is any doubt that historically women were regarded as unclean. The Catholic Church today is trying to defend the traditional practice without the cultural assumptions that have historically supported the practice. But occasionally you get someone like kleary who lets the cat out of the bag.

In other words, I know that you and the Pope and most other orthodox Catholics (orthodox in terms of current official teaching) don’t think that women are unclean. But I think you are supporting a practice (the male-only priesthood) that would never have arisen if women were regarded as equal in value and dignity and purity to men. It is not about men and women being the same. It is about the reasons for this particular difference, and the utter failure of modern Catholics to come up with a convincing rationale to replace the traditional attitudes they reject.

Edwin

 

[Sr_Sally]

She posted at 8:41 AM PT. It has only been 12 hours or so. I am sure she has no response, as they usually do not. Like the one who pushed her daughter up to the altar last Sunday- in her mini skirt and flip flops- no cassock, nothing to hide her clothes- when there were no servers at Mass.

Ken (I have been attending the local Novus Ordo Mass recently)

But if she’d been a boy in shorts and flips that would have been OK? It’s not the parent’s fault that the child who was supposed to serve the Mass didn’t show up. And it’s not the child’s fault that no cassock, robe, or other altar garment was available.

I prefer boy altar children myself, and my parish does not have any girl servers, but the Church does allow it, so I except it when I’m visiting (as you seem to be doing lately).

 

[Sr_Sally]

(the above paragraph, is tounge in cheek)…but seriously, dont mess with my Mass, and I PROMISE to leave yours alone…I can even promise you, you will NEVER see me there…even if its the only show in town.

Excuse me!? Since when is any Mass your Mass?? I think you need to re-read the sections on humility in the CCC.

 

[estesbob]

.** But I think you are supporting a practice (the male-only priesthood) that would never have arisen if women were regarded as equal in value and dignity and purity to men.** It is not about men and women being the same. It is about the reasons for this particular difference, and the utter failure of modern Catholics to come up with a convincing rationale to replace the traditional attitudes they reject.

Edwin

This coud be true ONLY if one believed it was just happenstance that Jesus was born at the time he was. Being that the male only Priesthood existed in all of Chrisitnaity until very recently i think the burden of proof for female Priests lies with those going against 2,000 years of teachings.

 

[Sure]

I e-mailed my FSSP priest and this is what he said in regards to the EF and the 1983 Canon Law.

“When celebrating either the ordinary or extraordinary form one is bound to adhere to the rubrics and liturgical laws which bind to the useage. What that means in practice that since communion in the hand and altar girls were not in use in 1962 they will not (and cannot be) imposed on the extraordinary form.”

With all due respect, I believe he is incorrect. Esteemed traditionalist priest, Fr. Z. has written about this specifically. What the FSSP priest says about the rubrics and liturgical laws are true EXCEPT that the law covering altar girls is not covered in the rubrics or liturgical laws but rather in canon law. It is clear that even though the code of canon law from 1983 was not in effect in 1962, it IS in effect NOW (we don’t revert back to the code of 1917 for these Masses). When the missal of 1962 is used it is not as though we rewind to the year 1962. We follow the missal of 1962 which contains the rubrics, and current canon law for those things that are covered in canon law (altar girls is one of these things).

I will try to find the link from Fr. Z on this as he described it well.

Please let me know what he says about this or if he has references to any documents. I am open to being corrected. Thanks!

 

[kleary]

But if she’d been a boy in shorts and flips that would have been OK?

Absolutely not. I trained altar boys there in the past and no one was allowed under my rule to wear even sneakers that were not black, no shorts allowed at all.

It’s not the parent’s fault that the child who was supposed to serve the Mass didn’t show up. And it’s not the child’s fault that no cassock, robe, or other altar garment was available.

Better for no server at all than for one to do what was done. Her mother pushed her to do it. Has done it regularly when no server was there.

I prefer boy altar children myself, and my parish does not have any girl servers, but the Church does allow it, so I except it when I’m visiting (as you seem to be doing lately).

I quit as server coordinator at that parish when they told me I had to train, or tolerate female servers, back when they started it.

Ken

 

[kleary]

So all it takes for the gates of hell to prevail against the Church is Female altar servers? Bet Satan is kicking himslef for not having figured that out 2,000 years ago!

No- “Elsewhere” is to a place like Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ. I am sure that is what the person meant. Like I do and many others.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Right, before her filthy femaleness kicks back in. . . .

And then you guys claim that traditional Catholicism is not misogynistic

This language insults my wife and my daughter and my mother and every other Christian woman.

Edwin

No- there is a REASON why no females are allowed to take a liturgical role in the TLM. It is not because they are considered “filthy”. As your affiliation says “Episcopalian” I do not think your comments would be given credence here since the Episcopalians allow even “female” and “openly homosexual” “priests” and “bishops” these days.

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No- there is a REASON why no females are allowed to take a liturgical role in the TLM. It is not because they are considered “filthy”. As your affiliation says “Episcopalian” I do not think your comments would be given credence here since the Episcopalians allow even “female” and “openly homosexual” “priests” and “bishops” these days.

Ken

I happen to think that girl children should not serve at the altar, BUT…you misjudge Contarini and you do a disservice to the Gospel in your answer to him. The Episcopal Church is SPLITTING apart because of the issues you mention. That means that many good people in that ecclesial community are rebelling at the idea of openly gay priests and bishops, same sex-marriage blessings, etc. Many may well find their way to Rome (but I suppose that depends on which Catholics they meet while they’re making what has to be an agonizing decision). The Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande has just resigned and will be received into the Catholic Church by the Archbishop of Santa Fe, because he cannot countenance any further heterodoxy. Others may follow. Let’s not give them reason NOT to, especially by lumping them all in together with Katherine Jerfferts Schorri and V. Gene Robinson.

 

[stmaria]

With all due respect, I believe he is incorrect. Esteemed traditionalist priest, Fr. Z. has written about this specifically. What the FSSP priest says about the rubrics and liturgical laws are true EXCEPT that the law covering altar girls is not covered in the rubrics or liturgical laws but rather in canon law. It is clear that even though the code of canon law from 1983 was not in effect in 1962, it IS in effect NOW (we don’t revert back to the code of 1917 for these Masses). When the missal of 1962 is used it is not as though we rewind to the year 1962. We follow the missal of 1962 which contains the rubrics, and current canon law for those things that are covered in canon law (altar girls is one of these things)
I will try to find the link from Fr. Z on this as he described it well.
Please let me know what he says about this or if he has
references to any documents. I am open to being corrected. Thanks!

My FSSP priest is current on regulations regarding the EF. I don’t believe he pulled this out of thin air. I have e-mailed the FFSP main office about this and I will let you know what they say. I can guarantee you one thing. If someone sticks out their hand to receive communion my FSSP priest will refuse to give it to them and he will also refuse any altar girls.

 

[Sure]

My FSSP priest is current on regulations regarding the EF. I don’t believe he pulled this out of thin air. I have e-mailed the FFSP main office about this and I will let you know what they say. I can guarantee you one thing. If someone sticks out their hand to receive communion my FSSP priest will refuse to give it to them and he will also refuse any altar girls.

Thanks for doing that, I am curious to see what he says and also which specific documents support such actions.

He is certainly within his rights under canon law to refuse to have altar girls at his Masses. However, it would seem unlawful for him to deny Communion in the hand to a communicant. After all, priests saying the ordinary form are forbidden from denying Communion to those who want to receive kneeling despite the fact that the norm in the US is standing. It would seem that ALL priests who are approached in legitimate fashion by a communicant (standing, kneeling, on the tongue, in the hand, preceded by a bow or genuflection) ought to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Here is some info from Fr. Z’s blog…This is from one of his famous “fisks” of a poorly written document issued by a layman in one particular diocese (Fr’s comments are in red):

Some of the liturgical laws in force in 1962 have been abrogated or superseded. For example, in 1962 a Tridentine Mass could not be celebrated in the afternoon: that prohibition has now ceased. [finally something correct] The faithful are no longer required to fast for three hours as they were in 1962, [too bad, but this is true. I think we need to return to the older form of fasting for the whole Church, but that is another tale] and a priest may not deny the reception of Holy Communion in the hand [sad, but true] if someone requests it. Concelebration [Noooo….] and the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds may both take place in Tridentine rite celebrations, if desired. ** A community that wants to make use of girl altar servers [yes, perhaps, but the priest would be barking mad to impose this and still think he would get out of the church alive]

Just to reiterate, I am not advocating that any of these things be adopted or become common in the EF. I am only pointing out that they are (at least for now) permitted according to the laws of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

This coud be true ONLY if one believed it was just happenstance that Jesus was born at the time he was.

Non sequitur.

Being that the male only Priesthood existed in all of Chrisitnaity until very recently i think the burden of proof for female Priests lies with those going against 2,000 years of teachings.

I agree, but I would say that an argument showing the clear cultural assumptions that underlay the traditional view meets that burden, and throws the burden back onto conservatives to show that their practice does not in fact rest on these assumptions (assuming that they do not hold traditional views about the inferiority of women).

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Non sequitur.

I agree, but I would say that an argument showing the clear cultural assumptions that underlay the traditional view meets that burden, and throws the burden back onto conservatives to show that their practice does not in fact rest on these assumptions (assuming that they do not hold traditional views about the inferiority of women).

Edwin

Why should I have to jusfiy a 2,000 year old practice that has been upheld by the magestrium at every turn? Can you give me a good reason why we should change OTHER than current societies view on the role of women?

 

[mmm1]

Hi, Edwin. I’m pretty uninformed compared to most people here, but I just had to comment. I don’t understand 100% of all the terms & abbreviations used on this thread, but I feel so strongly that the Catholic Church has to hold strong on this 2000 year tradition of male priests.

You mentioned the burden rests on conservatives to “show that their practice does not in fact rest on these assumptions”. (Sorry, I don’t know how to provide quotes…) I would submit to you that the burden rests on Jesus. He was not afraid to challenge social norms & customs of His day. He hung out with sinners & tax collectors & performed small tasks on the Sabbath. He chose 12 men as His apostles, not even 1 or 2 token females.

As a mom, my daughters are altar servers & always dress appropriately. I would not allow them to serve at a Latin Mass. Women are honored by & can do so much in the Catholic Church, but we must listen to our Popes.

 

[Sure]

Let’s keep the discussion on topic, please. This is a good thread, let’s not get it closed down. Maybe it would be good to start a thread on female “priests.”

Thanks!

 

[otjm]

I e-mailed my FSSP priest and this is what he said in regards to the EF and the 1983 Canon Law.

“When celebrating either the ordinary or extraordinary form one is bound to adhere to the rubrics and liturgical laws which bind to the useage. What that means in practice that since communion in the hand and altar girls were not in use in 1962 they will not (and cannot be) imposed on the extraordinary form.”

That is his take on the issue of form; but I think he may be putting form over substance.

The substance - receiving Communion - is regulated by Canon law, as is the issue of refusing Communion to an individual.

When the issue came up over priests refusing to distribute Communion to people who knelt rather than sttod, when the rubric set standing as the norm, Rome responded forcefully; the essence was that refusing Communion was a canonical sanction only allowed for very serious issues (such as Archbishop Burke recently wrote about). Kneeling (which was the old form) was not grounds for imposing the canonical sanction of refusing Communion.

Given that Canon law is superior to an issue of rubrics and Canon law controls the issue of refusing Communion to someone, your FSSP priest might want to review the matter with a Canon lawyer before deciding that rubrical laws bind what Canon law does not bind.

A further point is that Canon law has changed since the OF was introduced; so the old law has been abrogated (Canon law) to the extent that the prior Canons may have had any issue with mode of reception.

In other words, other issues, such as fast prior to Communion, are regulated by current law, not prior law.

 

[anamchara]

Girl altar boys, in the TLM???
If “they” try it there will be riots…
And the fact that someones askin, means that ,given the general insanity, of modern Americans…“They” are gonna try it…
get ready!!!
I know I am preparing…

Please don’t use the term “girl altar boys” it is not only insulting to my daughter who does serve but it is an abvious snide little dig. Very childish.

Your post seems filled with paranoia. Calm down for heavens sake.