Female Altar Servers? How has this 11 year experiment gone?

[jordan]

Communicationes, volume 13 (1981), page 242, contains the pontifical commission’s minutes on the canon 230 §2 wording and vote.

OK, so we’re not talking 1978. Now, I don’t have access to what was voted on in 1981, so I’d be very interested to see specifically what was voted on and what the verbiage was, since the canon was not at that time in effect.

Catholic2003:

It was more than an “opinion” - it was a “correct opinion”, as the 1992 authentic interpretation proved out, that did in fact represent the will of the Supreme Pontiff.

Until the 1992 interpretation which was not made available to the bishops until 1994, it was merely an opinion.

Catholic2003:

I agree with the Church’s position of local control on this issue, so that each diocese and parish can do what is best for their congregation.

The “Church’s” position of “local control” on this issue was not given until 1994. Many bishops had already taken control and made it a norm.

I am among the more than 2:1 majority thus far in the poll who will disagree that it’s a good thing. It is not supportable to claim that it was necessary.

As for Archbishop Weakland, there is no doubt that he was an outspoken advocate of altar girls in the USCCB, and had influence in the Council and at the 1987 synod. The following year, the Holy Father published his Apostolic Letter on the dignity and vocation of women, Mulieris Dignitatem, which he attributed in part to the discussions of the synod:

The Fathers of the recent Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 1987), which was devoted to “The Vocation and Mission of the Laity in the Church and in the World Twenty Years after the Second Vatican Council”, once more dealt with the dignity and vocation of women. One of their recommendations was for a further study of the anthropological and theological bases that are needed in order to solve the problems connected with the meaning and dignity of being a woman and being a man. It is a question of understanding the reason for and the consequences of the Creator’s decision that the human being should always and only exist as a woman or a man. It is only by beginning from these bases, which make it possible to understand the greatness of the dignity and vocation of women, that one is able to speak of their active presence in the Church and in society.

The wording from your 1971 BCL quotation that there should be no “apparent” discrimination against women in the liturgy is most unfortunate. Does it not “appear” that the Church discriminates against women by not allowing them the ultimate “service at the altar” - the priesthood? And yet the Supreme Pontiff, in the same letter, writes:

Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is *the Eucharist *above all that **expresses **the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride.**This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in *persona Christi”, ***is performed by a man.

Is it wrong to suggest that since the Church acknowleges that “a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these,” it just might be worthwhile to preserve the “noble” and “laudable” custom of altar servers for potential candidates for the priesthood, which girls are not? I don’t think it is. You do. We will agree to disagree.

Blessings,
jb

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

OK, so we’re not talking 1978. Now, I don’t have access to what was voted on in 1981, so I’d be very interested to see specifically what was voted on and what the verbiage was, since the canon was not at that time in effect.

The meeting and the vote took place in 1978. The minutes were not published until 1981.

I’d also be very interested to see specifically what was voted on, but unfortunately I only have a second-hand source. I’m assuming the minutes were published in Latin, so it wouldn’t do me much good to try to locate them myself.

jordan:

The “Church’s” position of “local control” on this issue was not given until 1994. Many bishops had already taken control and made it a norm.

The bishops did not “take” control. They already had control, by virtue of their office, and the authority given to them by Jesus Christ. From Lumen Gentium:

In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.

jordan:

I am among the more than 2:1 majority thus far in the poll who will disagree that it’s a good thing. It is not supportable to claim that it was necessary.

I don’t know how representative the people on this forum are of Catholics generally.

jordan:

The wording from your 1971 BCL quotation that there should be no “apparent” discrimination against women in the liturgy is most unfortunate.

Certainly, if you think the wording from bishops’ statement is unfortunate, then it is hard to see the necessity of implementing altar girls.

jordan:

We will agree to disagree.

I agree.

 

[davy39]

Get rid of altar girls and you’ll see an increase of altar boys. My parish has only altar boys serving Mass and there is no shortage of servers. We have so many that some altar boys may only serve a couple times a month. This includes daily Mass as well as Sunday Mass.

Our parish is much different. If you take away the female servers, communion distributors, readers, etc, their wouldn’t be anybody to perform these duties half the time. I think blaming the priest shortage partially on female altar girls is just plain dumb. There are lots of other things enter into this problem. One of which is bad publicity from the media about priests.

 

[Purificator]

Kielbasi:

It gets young ladies involved in the liturgy.

Some of them may be discerning a calling to be a lector or eucharistic minister of Holy Communion, and service at the altar is a first step.

Hardly. An honest to goodness altar server requires far more training than a reader or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Serving at the altar is not a stepping stone to those two ministries.

 

[Kelly]

batteddy:

I say we officially institute more men into the offices of Acolyte and Lector and stop having any unofficial “readers” or “altar servers” or “EMCs”. Acolytes can official distribute communion if necessary

I agree 100%!! Many people don’t realize there is a difference between lectors and “readers” and acolytes and “altar servers”.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

The meeting and the vote took place in 1978. The minutes were not published until 1981.

I’d also be very interested to see specifically what was voted on, but unfortunately I only have a second-hand source. I’m assuming the minutes were published in Latin, so it wouldn’t do me much good to try to locate them myself.

If this document, that you have not seen, says what you think it says, then why would the Pope John Paul II approve a document in 1980 expressly prohibiting female altar servers?

1. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers. Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980.If, as you are inclined to believe, “other functions” in the 1983 Code were at that time intended to refer to altar servers, how can female altar servers, expressly prohibited with the approval of Pope John Paul II in 1980, now somehow be “according to the norm of law.”

If this permission for altar girls was clear prior to 1994, why the 1992 “dubium” asking if it was “possible” that serving at the altar ***might ***be included among those “other functions.” The PCILT “affirmative” that was not released to the bishops until 1994 is the first Magisterial “permission.” Unless you can produce something we can all examine, 1994 will be the year when the Holy See “permitted” altar girls.

Catholic2003:
The bishops did not “take” control. They already had control, by virtue of their office, and the authority given to them by Jesus Christ.They do not have carte blanche with the liturgy and you know it. Why do you think Pope John Paul II wrote his letter to all the bishops of the Church, Dominicae Cenae? Here are some exerpts of this 1980 letter:

The Eucharist is a common possession of the whole Church as the sacrament of her unity. And thus the Church has the strict duty to specify everything which concerns participation in it and its celebration. We should therefore act according to the principles laid down by the last Council, which, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, defined the authorizations and obligations of individual bishops in their dioceses **and **of the episcopal conferences, given the fact that both act in collegial unity with the Apostolic See…
In order to be able to continue in the future to put into practice the directives of the Council in the field of liturgy, and in particular in the field of eucharistic worship, close collaboration is necessary between the competent department of the Holy See and each episcopal conference, a collaboration which must be at the same time vigilant and creative. …
Above all I wish to emphasize that the problems of the liturgy, and in particular of the Eucharistic Liturgy, must not be an occasion of dividing Catholics and for threatening the unity of the Church.

What control they have must respect the unity of the Church, and be closely collaborated with the Holy See.

Catholic2003:

I don’t know how representative the people on this forum are of Catholics generally.

I don’t either, but for what it’s worth, out of well over 1,000 views, and 114 votes thus far, Catholic Answers’ Forums viewers consider altar girls a negative development by well over a 2:1 margin.

Catholic2003:

Certainly, if you think the wording from bishops’ statement is unfortunate, then it is hard to see the necessity of implementing altar girls.

Do you think the male-only prieshood is discrimination, or merely “apparent” discrimination? Do you favor women’s ordination in the interests of equality?

Our problem now, is that priests/bishops who want to revisit the altar girl issue risk being called sexist. Hopefully they can do as good a job as the pastor of this parish.

st-thomascamas.org/moretreasures/altarboys.htm

God bless,
jb

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Catholic2003:

This is the position that radical traditionalists take; however, the majority of canon lawyers think otherwise.

Inaestimabile Donum is an instruction, so it doesn’t have the force of law. It merely explains the law. And the law that it explains is the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was the law in effect in 1980.

After the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Inaestimabile Donum no longer applied.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with liturgical law.

The problem you have with your position is that this is an event that happened in the last twenty years. Up until a clarification occurred girls where forbidden. It makes me wonder if you were old enough to remember this? If you were old enough to know what was going on than you must remember the controversy? If it was as you said authorized by the 1983 Code than why when priest did this they said they knew they were in disobedience instead of it is Canon Law? Why did the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issue a letter to the presidents of Episcopal conferences permitting altar girls? The Congregation came to the conclusion you did but until they did it was not permitted until that letter in 1994 was issued.

 

[BigPaulie]

MrS:

The use of female servers began as an abuse… period.;

After some time, bishops decided to make it a norm, and it is only that today.

They are acceptable today (as even the late bishop of Rome said), but are still unnecessary, and will be eliminated by Benedict XVI.

The male servers often use this period of serving to better understand the Mass, the functions of a priest, and to enjoy the privilege and the responsibility of entering the sanctuary.

Hopefully the Lectors will be properly called Readers, and all female funtions in the sanctuary will cease. Those who will be most upset are those who think they are being treated as inferior, and those who are priests wannabes.

, Big Paulie

 

[Sue_OCDS]

When my son was an altar boy, the topic of girl altar servers was just beginning. My son, about 10 years old, made the comment that he would never want to serve Mass with girls. I understood he was expressing the natural boy-girl distaste for each other of normal elementary school-age children. As soon as girls began serving, he quit as he said he would.

I didn’t understnd the significance of his feelings/actions until lately. Recently, I have noticed that all Masses at my parish are staffed by altar girls. If there is an altar boy, he looks pretty miserable and embarrassed. And I can just imagine the feminist indoctrination he must be getting (from his mother/sisters?) that would force him to go against the natural intincts of his age group to “not play on” the girl’s team. Pardon the expression, but he looks “hen pecked”.

It has occured to me that men, as well as boys, have a hard time “playing” on the “girls team”. When women take lead roles, men stay home, or at least back off. At first I thought this was a “male chauvinist” attitude. But lately I recognize that this is an innate quality in men/boys. Dare I say it?..I think God created men with the need to lead, to take care of their wives & children, to be “in charge”, so to speak. I think subcounsiously men feel “squeezed” out by all the women they see “taking over” all around them…at work, on tv, and now in the Church.

And this is even more far-reaching. At my parish, nearly all the lay ministries are staffed by women. At Sunday Masses, 12 of 18 Extra-ordinary Eucharistic Ministers are women. Also, at the “washing of the feet” this past Holy Thursday night at my parish, of the 12 “representatives of the Apostles”, only 2 were men and 2 were boys…the rest were women.

I think girls/women are very capable. Given their raised expectations, the push will be/is being made to “take over” the Church until the only males we will have left are priests/deacons. I cringe to think of the pressure these priests/deacon will experience from women. I forsee even more liturgical abuses.

For example, we have a priest-less parish in my city. It is “administered” by a nun (habit-less). I attended Mass there a while ago. An infant baptism was performed at the start of Mass. This nun did everything short of sprinkling the water and saying the words…which she reserved to the priest. Her resentment at having to bow out and let the priest take over was pretty clear.

This is a long way of saying I think allowing “altar girls” has allowed the expectation that women can, and should, do everything in the Church. And men/boys, innately shy away when women/girls “take over”. Not only has it emptied the sanctuary of potential priests, it has made the presence of men pretty scarce in all areas of the Church.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

If this document, that you have not seen, says what you think it says, then why would the Pope John Paul II approve a document in 1980 expressly prohibiting female altar servers?

We’ve already gone over this. Inaestimabile Donum was an instruction which applied the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was still in effect in 1980, and which prohibited female altar servers. The new code didn’t go into effect until Nov. 27, 1983. The text and sources of the new code were made available well in advance so that the bishops and canon lawyers could study it in detail before it went into effect. However, it was not permissible to apply the provisions of the new code until Nov. 27, 1983.

jordan:

If, as you are inclined to believe, “other functions” in the 1983 Code were at that time intended to refer to altar servers, how can female altar servers, expressly prohibited with the approval of Pope John Paul II in 1980, now somehow be “according to the norm of law.”

Because the norm of law changed on Nov. 27, 1983, when the new code when into effect.

Under the new code, it is permitted to receive communion twice on the same day, for any day. Under the prior rule (from 1973), this was only permitted in eleven (or twelve?) specific situations. Do you claim that we could licitly receive twice on an arbitrary day before Nov. 27, 1983, merely because we knew that the new code would start permitting it? I don’t think so.

Female altar servers were a liturgical abuse on Nov. 26, 1983. They were permitted on Nov. 27, 1983.

jordan:

If this permission for altar girls was clear prior to 1994, why the 1992 “dubium” asking if it was “possible” that serving at the altar ***might ***be included among those “other functions.”

Because canon 230 §2 is permissive and not prescriptive in character. No one has ever claimed that canon 230 §2 requires bishops to make use of female altar servers, or indeed of temporarily deputed persons for any liturgical function. But the text of the authentic interpretation that I quoted uses the word “can”; where are you getting “possible” and “might be included” from?

jordan:

The PCILT “affirmative” that was not released to the bishops until 1994 is the first Magisterial “permission.” Unless you can produce something we can all examine, 1994 will be the year when the Holy See “permitted” altar girls.

You can believe what you want. The majority of canon lawyers believe otherwise. (BTW, the Magisterium includes the bishops; it is not just the Pope.)

If you want to be consistent in your legal reasoning, you must also claim that bishops who schedule vigil Masses are being disobedient to the Holy See, because there has been no official clarification of when evening starts.

jordan:

They do not have carte blanche with the liturgy and you know it.

Neither are they mere “flunkies” of the Pope who must ask permission before blowing their noses. Bishops have full power in their own diocese, except when that power is circumscribed by the Pope. Again from Lumen Gentium:

Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord’s commandments and the Church’s laws, as further defined by his particular judgment for his diocese.

Bishops who permitted female altar servers prior to November 27, 1983 were indeed being disobedient to the Pope. Bishops who permitted female altar servers after that date were acting completely in accord with canon law, not only by the correct authentic interpretation of canon 230 §2, but also by canons 14 and 17 which govern doubts regarding canon law.

The 2000 CLSA New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law holds that the 1992 authentic interpretation is retroactive to 1983. This is not some “hocus-pocus” or “legal fiction” kind of retroactivity, but a common sense principle of canonical interpretation that holds if the majority of canon lawyers could correctly figure out what a canon law means, but an obstinate few require an explicit declaration via an authentic interpretation, then the correct interpretation of the canon law dates back to when the law was promulgated and not when the authentic interpretation was issued. Otherwise, the Vatican could never issue authentic interpretations without “resetting the clock” on when canon law applied.

jordan:

Do you think the male-only prieshood is discrimination, or merely “apparent” discrimination? Do you favor women’s ordination in the interests of equality?

I think that arbitrary discrimination against women in liturgical roles where they are permitted by divine law (e.g., readers and EMHCs) obscures the Church’s teaching that “no women priests” is truly from divine law.

 

[Purificator]

mjdonnelly:

I prefer male altar servers, but parents today are more interested in having their sons playing sports or some other activity than being an altar server. They don’t want to be bothered with at least dropping their son off at the chruch.

My daughter and her friend are both altar servers, the friend wouldn’t be if it were not for us. Consequently, she goes to mass on a regular basis now.

I plan on having my son be an altar server wether he wants to or not.

I’m always telling them that if Jesus could have nails hammered through his hands and feet, they can go through the discomfort of kneeling properly, being up near the altar under the hot lights and wearing the robes in 90F weather. (there is no A/C at our church). A little sacrifice now will pay off later.

So you say. It sounds as if no one is doing anything to recruit male altar servers…

 

[Catholic2003]

Ann Cheryl:

It makes me wonder if you were old enough to remember this? If you were old enough to know what was going on than you must remember the controversy?

I only became a Catholic in 2003. I have no first-hand experience of what went on in the Catholic Church before then.

I’ve studied documents from the 1980’s, as well as more recent commentaries. By 1985, all but a few off-of-the-deep end canon lawyers knew perfectly well that the new Code of Canon Law permitted altar girls.
Ann Cheryl:

If it was as you said authorized by the 1983 Code than why when priest did this they said they knew they were in disobedience instead of it is Canon Law?

Do you have a reference for this? I’ve never heard of this before.
Ann Cheryl:

Why did the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issue a letter to the presidents of Episcopal conferences permitting altar girls?

For the same reason that the Vatican issued an authentic interpretation in 1984 of canons 1066 and 1686 which confirmed what most canon lawyers were already doing since 1936: Because an obstinate yet vocal minority needed to see it explicitly spelled out.
Ann Cheryl:

The Congregation came to the conclusion you did but until they did it was not permitted until that letter in 1994 was issued.

If this were actually true, then that would mean that the CDWDS changed the 1983 canon law. However, that Congregation has absolutely no authority to change canon law.

 

[jordan]

Inaestimabile Donum was an instruction which applied the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was still in effect in 1980, and which prohibited female altar servers.

You have yet to show that a source prior to 1994, other than nebulous references to opinions of canon lawyers, and some 1978 document you’ve never seen. If you can give me that text, I’ll be happy to get it translated. Why would the Holy Father make any reference to prohibitions on female altar servers when there was no need, if the PCILT had decided in 1978 that the new canon would allow them. Why not grease the skids for the new permission?

Catholic2003:

Because the norm of law changed on Nov. 27, 1983, when the new code when into effect.

Until you can produce something authoritative (i.e., with the approval of the Holy See) other than the 1994 letter regarding the permissive nature of 230.2, I would agree…but you have yet to do that.

Catholic2003:

Because canon 230 §2 is permissive and not prescriptive in character. But the text of the authentic interpretation that I quoted uses the word “can”; where are you getting “possible” and “might be included” from?

The precise words are “if” and “may:”

The Pontifical Council for the interpretation of Legislative Texts was recently asked if the liturgical functions which, according to the above canon, can be entrusted to the lay faithful, may be carried out equally by men and women, and **if **serving at the altar may be included among those functions, on a par with the others indicated by the canon. CDF letter of 15 March 1994

Why is a bishop asking the question if the matter was settled? Because altar server was nowhere mentioned in 230.2, and this bishop wants to know if it may be included among those “other functions.” Subsequent to (after!) receiving the dubium, Pope John Paul II confirmed the decision and ordered its promulgation…never before that time. Why would the Pope allow this now? Because American bishops, not acting in communion with the Holy See, had already been permitting this to such a degree that to not permit it now would have caused extreme divisiveness.

BTW, the Magisterium includes the bishops; it is not just the Pope.

Absolutely. The bishops “in communion” with the Pope. (CCC, para. 85)

Catholic2003:

Neither are they mere “flunkies” of the Pope who must ask permission before blowing their noses. Bishops have full power in their own diocese, except when that power is circumscribed by the Pope.

Lumen Gentium does not say bishops have “full power” in their own dioceses.They are obligated to ensure adherence to liturgical norms. It is precisely the problem of abuses that prompted Pope John Paul II to write in his Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (given on Holy Thursday, 17 April 2003):

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf.* 1 Cor* 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist.

Bishops who permitted female altar servers prior to November 27, 1983 were indeed being disobedient to the Pope. Bishops who permitted female altar servers after that date were acting completely in accord with canon law, not only by the correct authentic interpretation of canon 230 §2.

Show me something approved by Rome, and written prior to 1994.

 

[jordan]

continued…

Catholic2003:

The 2000 CLSA New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law holds that the 1992 authentic interpretation is retroactive to 1983. This is not some “hocus-pocus” or “legal fiction” kind of retroactivity…

Of course it does. The bishops are told, for the first time in 1994, that their decision (not Rome’s) to interpret 230.2 the way they did would be respected. The specific paragraph reads as follows:

The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishop 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.

It sounds to me much more like the bishops who did this were not doing it with prior permission, but the Holy See elected to “respect” their “decision” to interpret 230.2 in a way which a careful reading simply doesn’t support. Again, show me.

Catholic2003:

I think that arbitrary discrimination against women in liturgical roles where they are permitted by divine law (e.g., readers and EMHCs) obscures the Church’s teaching that “no women priests” is truly from divine law.

What are you calling arbitrary…the Holy See’s wishes, the historical tradition of the role of altar server as preparation for priestly vocations? I don’t call those arbitrary.

Here’s another related link for your reading pleasure.
adoremus.org/0302Altargirls.html

God bless,
jb

 

[JNB]

I see you have studied many “progressive” interperations of canon law from various “sources”. All I can say is for a new Catholic, you certainly have a very “Spirit of Vatican II” view of it, or many of the worst aspects of the church in the years after Vatican II that men like the late Cardinal Bernadin represented.

All I can say is that like Theologians, Canon Lawyers ARE NOT THE MAGESTERIUM, and they have no right to take their role, and like many theologians, many canon lawyers had an agenda that was different than that of the magesterium.

Catholic2003:

I only became a Catholic in 2003. I have no first-hand experience of what went on in the Catholic Church before then.

I’ve studied documents from the 1980’s, as well as more recent commentaries. By 1985, all but a few off-of-the-deep end canon lawyers knew perfectly well that the new Code of Canon Law permitted altar girls.

Do you have a reference for this? I’ve never heard of this before.

For the same reason that the Vatican issued an authentic interpretation in 1984 of canons 1066 and 1686 which confirmed what most canon lawyers were already doing since 1936: Because an obstinate yet vocal minority needed to see it explicitly spelled out.

If this were actually true, then that would mean that the CDWDS changed the 1983 canon law. However, that Congregation has absolutely no authority to change canon law.

 

[JNB]

The only short term solution is to support parishes that still have only altar boys. That is what I do. Not a dime of my money will go to a parish with either altar girls or parishes that make excessive use of EMHCs. I hope and pray that there will be a more workable long term solution to this disgraceful mess, that Catholics that do not want any part of this modernism will have a refuge, and not just in select cities.
Ann Cheryl:

The problem you have with your position is that this is an event that happened in the last twenty years. Up until a clarification occurred girls where forbidden. It makes me wonder if you were old enough to remember this? If you were old enough to know what was going on than you must remember the controversy? If it was as you said authorized by the 1983 Code than why when priest did this they said they knew they were in disobedience instead of it is Canon Law? Why did the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issue a letter to the presidents of Episcopal conferences permitting altar girls? The Congregation came to the conclusion you did but until they did it was not permitted until that letter in 1994 was issued.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Cheryl
If it was as you said authorized by the 1983 Code than why when priest did this they said they knew they were in disobedience instead of it is Canon Law?

Do you have a reference for this? I’ve never heard of this before.

only became a Catholic in 2003. I have no first-hand experience of what went on in the Catholic Church before then.

You have answered your own question. It was quite clear to me that you were not personnally experienced. Your arguments fall flat because of this inexperience. You try to dismiss our personnel experience and knowledge with what you think you know by reading. It isn’t so. As an aside I hate the reliance to an unknown authority such as “The majority of canon lawyers believe otherwise” As I said it is to recent event, that many of us experienced. We know what was being said at the time. We know that it was introduced as a disobedience and just because later it was decided that canon law would apply does not change that fact. I hope you can see that if I could spot from your writing that you did not live through this period that there must be something you are missing.

 

[Jakub]

Liturgicae Instaurationes 7., September 5, 1970: In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women(single, married, religious) whether in churches, homes,convents, schools or institutions for women, are barred fro serving the priest at the altar.

adoremus.org/LiturgicaeInstaurationes.html

Inaestimabile donum 18., April 17, 1980 : There are of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly, these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not however, permitted to act as altar servers.

adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html

Then Rome gave in to the femi-modernists.

There are many other articles but why bother…the damage is done.

james

 

[Fergal]

With a heavy heart I would say on the negative.
In 1992 we had over 50 Altar Boys ranging in ages from 10 - 20’s at our parish and the PP of the time decided to ask the older ones to consider leaving. We declined and then he brought in the girls, when there was no serious need to do so. The Holy Mass along with all religious services were looked after well. In fact every First Friday and First Saturday of the month all Altar Boys were serving Mass, and after would remain for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, recitation of the Rosary and Benediction. 50 of us lined up along the sides of the sanctuary, it was wonderful. We would process out before Holy Mass, take our places and then participate in the Mass and the extra liturgical proceedings. It would last about 90 mins.

So once a month we would serve Holy Mass, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

I have nothing against girls/women serving at the Altar but agree that only in cases of necessity should they be employed.

Now in this Parish in Dublin we have no servers at all. 2 elderly non robed assistants wander in and out during the times of necessity. It breaks my heart to think back on the good old days and I wonder where it has all gone.

By the way I am only 34 so the change has been rapid.

 

[Pug]

Fergal:

With a heavy heart I would say on the negative.
In 1992 we had over 50 Altar Boys ranging in ages from 10 - 20’s at our parish and the PP of the time decided to ask the older ones to consider leaving. We declined and then he brought in the girls

Fergal, do you know if the parents pulled the boys in protest? Also, did people leave and go to another parish, or is everyone still there in the parish? I’m just curious. We had a lovely choir (that sang in latin) that was decimated in a short period of time after some changes were made. I’m wondering if the pattern worked the same with the altar boys.