Girl Altar Servers

[Ockham]

The Catholic Church says differently.

You lose.

It really is that simple.

This post sums up your entire purpose here: to instigate conflict. Try offering something intelligent to these debates and people will start taking you seriously. This topic isn’t simple yet I’m not surprised by your juvenille summary of it.

 

[Ockham]

I didn’t realize that the gender of altar servers was an infallible dogmatic issue.
If it isn’t who is to say that the Vatican cannot change it’s policy over the course of years? As far as I remember the Church requires obedience for both, the fallible as well as the infallible teachings.

What’s at issue here is why this policy was changed and by whom. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right (i.e. abortion). If disobedience becomes the norm, cathechesis absent from the pulpit, what direction is the Church going?

 

[Javl]

The fact is, just because a Pope has authority to change something doesn’t mean he should. Really, a Pope doesn’t actually have the authority to change something that was previously declared wrong by the pre-Vatican II Church unless it wasn’t really wrong, though nearly everything that was ruled as wrong before Vatican II, if not everything, was indeed wrong. Sure, people will say that a Pope does have the authority to change such a thing, but really he doesn’t. He does have the authority to change, but if it’s not a good change then what’s the point? Authority is an excuse often used for Paul VI when people say he had the authority to altar the Mass when really what he did wouldn’t have been considered valid by the Church before Vatican II. Many Popes before Vatican II even wrote encyclicals on how female altar servers is wrong. Tradition is something that can never be transformed, so can we simply ignore tradition by accepting what Paul VI and John Paul II said about such practices? Female altar servers used to be something you’d see in Protestant churches from time to time, then the Vatican II reform came and Paul VI threw that in there. Really, it makes the Catholic Church seem so anti-Catholic when you have girls serving at the altar. If women want to assist they join the convent and become nuns, not altar servers or priests. The Mass Jesus created certainly did not have females serving at the altar, so why should we throw away tradition? Why should we accept a practice that was originally considered wrong by the Church?

Something that was wrong for over 1,000 years clearly should be trusted more than something that has only been considered ok for 41 years. Should we trust the pre-Vatican II Popes when they uphold tradition by saying it’s wrong, or trust Paul VI and JPII, just two Popes who say it’s fine? That is the question to ask in this situation.

Read the history of the Popes and councils. You’l find out how many councils were rejected by the Popes and/or Bishops, how many changes were made in traditions,
and how many Popes negated the rules, orders and rulings made by previous Popes.
The only thing cast in stone is the teachings and truths of Jesus and the Apostles, the sacraments, and dogma. All else is man made and can be changed, negated, overruled, etc.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach
Shalom Aleichem

 

[Janet1983]

What’s at issue here is why this policy was changed and by whom. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right (i.e. abortion). If disobedience becomes the norm, cathechesis absent from the pulpit, what direction is the Church going?

Considering that it is the Catholic Church that we are talking about and not some secular governmental institution, I would assume that the decisions concerning policy that they make are also morally right in their own estimation, and thereby in the estimation of the teachings and the church as a whole.
Am I wrong in that assumption?
I would not assume that the Catholic Church would implement a policy that is morally questionable.

 

[Ockham]

Considering that it is the Catholic Church that we are talking about and not some secular governmental institution, I would assume that the decisions concerning policy that they make are also morally right in their own estimation, and thereby in the estimation of the teachings and the church as a whole.
Am I wrong in that assumption?
I would not assume that the Catholic Church would implement a policy that is morally questionable.

The policy being disucssed here was ruled upon by the Church. It was disobedience that caused the official change. Just like Communion in the hand. What do you think is the next change the rebels will force upon us?

 

[ChurchTorch]

You lose for a comment like that. There are a lot of things the Church says today that is right that was wrong before Vatican II. Once wrong, always wrong, regardless of what is said today.

Good grief. More spaghetti logic. You need to learn how to think in a logical manner. You said:

Females being altar servers IS wrong. Just because Paul VI and John Paul II had no problem with it doesn’t mean we should dismiss what pre-Vatican II Popes said about it. Something else to point out is that more Popes have said it’s wrong than those that have said it’s fine.

And you are objectively wrong. End of story. Not because “Paul VI and John Paul II had no problem with it” but because the Catholic Church specifically allows female altar servers for the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite. If you don’t have the ability to absorb that truth, if you want to continue to treat the Church as your personal cafeteria then that’s on your. It’s called dissent and I want nothing to do with dissent.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Because, after all, the use of female altar servers is an immovable tenet of Catholic doctrine upon which lay people may never disagree!

Nice try but no cigar.

To make a statement like “I much prefer that only men serve at the altar” is fine. One could even be so bold as to say “I believe it’s best for the Church if only males serve at the altar.” But to say “Females being altar servers IS wrong” is not only ignorant it contravenes what the Church allows.

It’s the Catholic Church and not a cafeteria…

 

[ChurchTorch]

The fact is, just because a Pope has authority to change something doesn’t mean he should. Really, a Pope doesn’t actually have the authority to change something…

And you’re setting yourself up as the judge of Pope PVI and Pope JPII?

 

[ChurchTorch]

oh, i like this forum a lot. i think those who need to stay out are those who practice bigotry and try to hide behind Traditional Catholicism. they give Traditional Catholicism a bad name

its funny that you guys are painting this in a way that we are anti-Traditional Catholicsm, when we’re not. what we’re asking for here is a fair treatment by some who try to elevate Traditional Catholicism above other approved practices in the Church, and dismiss us as inferior. these are the people you should be going after. i know you’re not one of them, but you should read our entire posts and see what we’re all about and don’t buy into this propaganda by some to paint the reverse that we are attacking Traditional Catholicism. no. we’re attacking the bigotry promoted by A FEW and using the guise of Traditional Catholicism to promote that bigorty. i’m sure you as a Traditional Catholic wouldn’t want that.

Some not only use the guise of “traditional catholicism” to promote bigotry, they seemingly do so to promote dissent and stupidity as well.

I really don’t know if it’s due to poor catechesis or an outright absence of all catechesis but they clearly need to make changes in their lives. They also need to stop tarnishing true traditionalism within the Church by suggesting they represent it in any way given their current states.

 

[Ockham]

I think what frightens the Modernists the most is awareness. How many Catholics sitting in the pews tomorrow know the history of altar girls and Communion in the hand? How many know EMHCs are only to be used in basically emergency circumstances? How many know the current GIRM wants chant instead of the Glory & Praise hymn book? If the average Catholic is kept in the dark they won’t notice the small incremental creeping Modernist changes. Today’s Novus Ordo is substantially different than the original created forty years ago. At this rate in a century or two the NO won’t be recognizable to any of us.

 

[Ockham]

Some not only use the guise of “traditional catholicism” to promote bigotry, they seemingly do so to promote dissent and stupidity as well.

CONDUCT RULES
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Good grief. More spaghetti logic. You need to learn how to think in a logical manner. You said:

And you are objectively wrong. End of story. Not because “Paul VI and John Paul II had no problem with it” but because the Catholic Church specifically allows female altar servers for the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite. If you don’t have the ability to absorb that truth, if you want to continue to treat the Church as your personal cafeteria then that’s on your. It’s called dissent and I want nothing to do with dissent.

1.- Your post was far more in-mature and un-logical than mine.

2.- Instead of trying to tell Traditional Catholics you know better than them, how about taking a second look at our posts about this subject? You need to see how it is wrong instead of automatically thinking it’s fine just because the Church says it is. I don’t treat the Church like a cafeteria. I don’t treat it any worse than you treat tradition. Saying it’s ok is breaking Church tradition. You should be going by what was considered wrong for many years over what is now considered ok, when it’s only been “fine” for 41 years. Traditional Catholics go by the pre-Vatican II Church, and in this situation everyone should.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Some not only use the guise of “traditional catholicism” to promote bigotry, they seemingly do so to promote dissent and stupidity as well.

I really don’t know if it’s due to poor catechesis or an outright absence of all catechesis but they clearly need to make changes in their lives. They also need to stop tarnishing true traditionalism within the Church by suggesting they represent it in any way given their current states.

This right here is an attack on Traditional Catholics, a violation of forum rules, and seems to show what you really think of Traditional Catholicism. You have to treat us with respect as we have done so to you. If you don’t give us the “fair treatment” then you won’t get it either, although regardless we won’t say you promote stupidity like you said we do. That’s an attack on Traditional Catholicism.

 

[CDNowak]

My **Emphasis **and

The fact is, just because a Pope has authority to change something doesn’t mean he should.** Really, a Pope doesn’t actually have the authority to change something that was previously declared wrong by the pre-Vatican II Church unless it wasn’t really wrong**,<This is something we really need to explore further, it asserts that 1) the Pope has not the authority unless it was in error and 2) that it was not in error. I think the second point would be conceded the question of authority would remain.> though nearly everything that was ruled as wrong before Vatican II, if not everything, was indeed wrong. Sure, people will say that a Pope does have the authority to change such a thing, but really he doesn’t. He does have the authority to change, but if it’s not a good change then what’s the point? Authority is an excuse often used for Paul VI when people say he had the authority to altar the Mass when really what he did wouldn’t have been considered valid by the Church before Vatican II. <Indeed, it took a papal commission to study whether the Pope could add the name of St Joseph to the canon, but changing the entire Mass raises no flags a few years later?>Many Popes before Vatican II even wrote encyclicals on how female altar servers is wrong. Tradition is something that can never be transformed, so can we simply ignore tradition by accepting what Paul VI and John Paul II said about such practices? Female altar servers used to be something you’d see in Protestant churches from time to time, then the Vatican II reform came and Paul VI threw that in there. <JPII, in 1994> Really, it makes the Catholic Church seem so anti-Catholic when you have girls serving at the altar. If women want to assist they join the convent and become nuns, not altar servers or priests. The Mass Jesus created certainly did not have females serving at the altar, so why should we throw away tradition? Why should we accept a practice that was originally considered wrong by the Church?

Something that was wrong for over 1,000 <1600> years clearly should be trusted more than something that has only been considered ok for 41 years.<16 years> Should we trust the pre-Vatican II Popes when they uphold tradition by saying it’s wrong, or trust Paul VI and JPII, just two Popes who say it’s fine? That is the question to ask in this situation.

Read the history of the Popes and councils. You’l find out how many councils were rejected by the Popes and/or Bishops, how many changes were made in traditions,
and how many Popes negated the rules, orders and rulings made by previous Popes.
The only thing cast in stone is the teachings and truths of Jesus and the Apostles, the sacraments, and dogma. All else is man made and can be changed, negated, overruled, etc.

The Pope can’t change Church teaching on a whim, and rarely did he change Church practice (which was much more in the control of the local bishop). And never, prior to Vatican II, did the Pope suppress (de facto or de jure) the traditional expression of the faith. The law of prayer certainly should not be adjusted at whim, because how we pray shapes what we believe. In the Eastern Churches, where Theology is not isolated from worship, there was concern that the new Mass was de facto heresy, as it abandoned many of the prayers that shaped Catholic belief for Millenia.

I am not convinced yet that this particular change was beyond the competency of the pope, but I firmly believe that it was an imprudent novelty. The Church Impotent book is a good explanation of one of the reasons why altar girls are practically problematic. The quotes from encyclicals and Councils concerning altar girls should have given us pause on the basis of tradition, after all it was clearly and universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Certainly this is no closed matter, as the 2001 (?) clarification that prevents the imposition of altar girls shows. If you are personally opposed, as even a number of posters arguing for altar girls claim, then you should be asking your parish priest to consider it on a regular basis.

 

[franklinf]

Crazy…

How exactly? Are you denying that Bishops permitted CITH even though it was forbidden by the Vatican? Same with girl altar servers.

Please explain to me why JP2 reversed his earlier condemnation on girl altar servers?

Please explain why JP2 went against many popes who had condemned and forbidden girl altar servers.

Why was something that was wrong and forbidden now allowed?

 

[pnewton]

This argument is far too common yet never ceases to amaze me. Through disobedience, Modernists get their way and then use obedience as their defence.

A broad brush may be the reason for this phenomenon. “Modernists” is a term that is used by most all to include those that have been progressively disobedient in implementing and promoting changes that were not allowed, from liturgical changes to women priests. We pretty much all agree on that. However, some expand the meaning of “Modernist” to mean anyone who is not as far off the Traditional scale as they are. I have been called a modernist mupltiple times here.

So, if you look at one group labeled modernist and say they are disobedient, and another group and say they always cry about obedience, then of course it appears hypocritical. But consider this. Some of us who urge obedience to the Church, in matters that others see a cause for disobedience, are the very ones that are speaking out against abuses in our own parishes. We stay mainstream in our choice of parish, but we oppose that which the modern world brings in that is unholy. We may be the ones that are helping to re-incorporate Latin and chant (I am) in our own parishes. We may be the ones that go to the priest or even the bishop when we see new problems arise, either in liturgy or in catechesis. There are traditionalist apart, that like the monks withdraw and find their own spiritual path away from the battle. There are also the traditionalist within. Like a Fourth Column, they stay where most of the work is to be done and keep pushing for holiness, reverence and orthodoxy.

I respect both and understand the role each plays. The only one I do not respect is the thrower of stones, the hand that looks down on the foot (1 Cor. 12). We each have our role. In a return to our traditional roots, call it a pendulum swing or a reform of the reform, we may desire to see orders given from the top down and everyone stepping in line. However, the reality is that there must be a core of believers that understand the value of our heritage already in the parish, willing to support changes with our talents, time and voice.

 

[PJM]

=4elise;6498011]Thank you for sharing that video — I know when I have seen ligurgical dance it has been in the context of a multi-cultural liturgy - Asian or African influences as the Cardinal shared where they have these as common parts of their liturgy - and I found it very moving as an entrance and offertory processional - it was prayerful, and not showy at all… I think it enhanced the adoration and worship - it wasn’t for show - it was kind of an outward sign of the entire congregation entering into the service - so sorry I know that isn’t how many feel here - but I found it really beautiful and appropriate.

Hi Elsie, [that’s my mom’s name]

Sorry to disagree.

Mass is first and Formost a represenation of Christ Sacrifice on the Cross. The Priest say’s “In Him. With Him and Through Him.” Eucharist is by God, from God and FOR GOD!

It is about giving God Worship and praise in way’s that honor God, without detracting from focus ON GOD.

Dance in a culture where it is the norm may do that? Dance in our culture changes our focus FROM GOD to the dancers! WRONG FOCUS! Bad idea.

In the Novus Ordo, the priest is on stage, we have numerous [unnecesary] layfolk doing the task of the Ordained, and that itself is destracting. [Who doen’t look to see what so and so is wearing ECT?]

"Jesus is LORD of the Sabbath,"or at least wants to be.

God Bless,

 

[Javl]

Why all this hype about who’s wrong and who’s right, tradition, and all the rest? Please keep in mind that we are all Catholics. All that is important is our faith in God, the teachings and truths of Jesus and the Apostles, the Eucharist, the sacraments, and dogma. Traditionalists or not, all the rest is just personal likes and dislikes and are not cast in stone.

Praise the Lord alone. All praise, honor, and glory belong to Him alone.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach
Shalom Aleichem

 

[wisdomseeker]

taking over the leadership? when were altar servers ever part of the leadership?
you are over exaggerating the situation

really? we started accepting girls Altar serves, now we have women serving in the Sanctuary. women taking the Host back into the Tabernacle, women distributing the Challices to others. women given Communion. i see the women and the priest trample over each other around the Altar. it wont be long.
soon, women will be saying: if we can do all these things, why can we not be priests? do you see where i am going?

because of naive people in teh Church, we have the mess we have today. it is like that lawyer said at World Over program: the bishops allowed disfunctional people into the Church look where we are now. it is costing us millions of dollars and humiliation around the world.

 

[Ockham]

A broad brush may be the reason for this phenomenon. “Modernists” is a term that is used by most all to include those that have been progressively disobedient in implementing and promoting changes that were not allowed, from liturgical changes to women priests. We pretty much all agree on that. However, some expand the meaning of “Modernist” to mean anyone who is not as far off the Traditional scale as they are. I have been called a modernist mupltiple times here.

Placed in the context of a two thousand year old institution, the past forty years have been a liturgical revolution in the name of Modern. If the Novus Ordo keeps changing at this rate it won’t be recognizable next century. What more people need to do is get informed and speak up the next time some novelty is introduced in their parish. If that were the norm we wouldn’t have altar girls, Communion in the hand, ad orientum, Protestant style hymn books, etc. Ours is the actual Church formed by Christ, not some denomination based on private interpretation or opinion.