S
sskelly
Guest
When girl servers first appeared, a priest at a local parish said to one “The only reason YOU’RE here is because we don’t have enough BOYS.”
Don’t take it out on the girls meanies. Not THEIR fault.
- Status
Don’t take it out on the girls meanies. Not THEIR fault.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Malleus are your red herrings wild or farm raised? I see that you really love them!
M
Malleus_01
Guest
You’re getting pretty worked up over a simple Yes or No answer. You could have saved a lot of time typing by simply giving a one word answer.
Malleus: I most certainly could have. But I didnt , did I.
I’m asking because I’m merely curious, as I wish to know more about your mindset and why you think the way you do. I respect the “traditionalist” mindset, but there are some elements that some people have on here that frankly I find troubling. I want to know more, learn more.
Malleus: Well then there you have it. You agree that you have no right to demand an answer to merely satisfy curiosity. And as for curiosity I too am curious as to how a person can stick out his hand for Communion knowing and believing the Dogma of the Real Presense. Or how Women can dress immodestly and inappropriately for Mass. Or how they justify not wearing a veil. I find that , frankly , very troubling as do many others on here as evidenced by the numerous posts whenever such things are discussed. And the more I learn about such things , the more Traditional I become.
You seem hostile though. I hope you don’t talk down to inquiring minds in this method outside of this message board.
Malleus: Yes the Pharisees felt the same way about OUR LORD. I would hope you dont wind up Crucifying me or stoning me outside of this message board either.
Pax
Malleus: I most certainly could have. But I didnt , did I.
I’m asking because I’m merely curious, as I wish to know more about your mindset and why you think the way you do. I respect the “traditionalist” mindset, but there are some elements that some people have on here that frankly I find troubling. I want to know more, learn more.
Malleus: Well then there you have it. You agree that you have no right to demand an answer to merely satisfy curiosity. And as for curiosity I too am curious as to how a person can stick out his hand for Communion knowing and believing the Dogma of the Real Presense. Or how Women can dress immodestly and inappropriately for Mass. Or how they justify not wearing a veil. I find that , frankly , very troubling as do many others on here as evidenced by the numerous posts whenever such things are discussed. And the more I learn about such things , the more Traditional I become.
You seem hostile though. I hope you don’t talk down to inquiring minds in this method outside of this message board.
Malleus: Yes the Pharisees felt the same way about OUR LORD. I would hope you dont wind up Crucifying me or stoning me outside of this message board either.
Pax
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Malleus: Well perhaps you should identify your own red herring (this one) introduced so as to attempt ad hominem/ biased induction / and add in appeal to ridicule for good measure. Rather than address such nonsense , I’ll respond in a Catholic manner and simply turn you my other cheek.
Have a nice day
pax
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I am very sorry if this comes across as sexist, but I just don’t think the position of altar server is a female role. I am all for women exercising ministry within the Church, but I think altar serving should be male-only. My view is not strange; it was the position of the Church for many centuries. Remember, girl altar servers is a recent novelty that John Paul II unsuccessfully tried to suppress.
I think the role of altar boy is a great way to get young men interested in the priesthood. Many priests first felt the call after they began serving as an altar boy. We currently have a priest shortage and I think more should be done to encourage young men to be altar servers. I do not think it is wise to allow a women to serve, when this position could be taken up by a male who has the option of becoming a priest.
Furthermore, I think some female altar servers may get the misguided notion that they are called to be priests; the enjoyment and sense of service they feel as an altar server may lead them to believe that they have the right to become priests and I think this could fan the flames of dissent.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Sorry Steve, I can’t really see that is anything but plain wrong.
As you mentioned, in Inaestimabile Donum Pope JPII did indeed teach the discipline that the tradition of the Latin Church was for male altar servers. He taught it as discipline, not doctrine in 1980. Note that in 1980 we were still under the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
About a decade later, some Bishops did permit girl altar servers based on their reading of Canon 230 Section 2, which was adopted in the new code in 1983 : “§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.”
Since this interpretation from the new code seemed to be in conflict with the Pope’s teaching under the 1917 Code, the Pope himself asked that the matter be settled and this was done via the Congregation for Divine Worship which clarified the issue in 1994: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwcomm.htm The basic parts that apply to our conversation (underlined parts are mine)
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.
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.
In communicating the above, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to carry out the mandate received from the Supreme Pontiff to provide directives to illustrate what is laid down in Canon 230 #2 of the Code of Canon Law and its authentic interpretation, which will shortly be published.
JPII allowed this interpretation to be published, hence he approved. If he believed that female altar servers should not have been allowed, even in light of the new Canon Law, he could have stopped it.
I guess if you already have an agenda then you can spin it to whatever suits you. However the facts seem to bear out it was only Bishops, not priests, who did this; they did it on the basis of their interpretation of the new code; their interpretation was upheld by the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Pope; and you have to go a long way to convince me that the Pope “caved” by (1) Asking for a review and (2) approving the interpretation.
Female altar servers are a discipline, just like CITH, and disciplines change. There is nothing tragic about that.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
The way I look at it is if there are males willing to server, the altar servers should be male.
Additionally, males should be encouraged to serve (as a general rule, I find we aren’t very likely to volunteer without an invitation)
Female altar servers should be used like EMHCs, in cases of emergencies
Additionally, males should be encouraged to serve (as a general rule, I find we aren’t very likely to volunteer without an invitation)
Female altar servers should be used like EMHCs, in cases of emergencies
P
ProVobis
Guest
I was going to say that too. The responses were about the only things where servers were really needed. But as the OF has everyone responding and the EF now with a modest growth in the congregation responding, it seems as if the priest can pretty much say the Mass alone, perhaps with a reader or even the deacon who can fill in with light duties such as bringing water and wine if the priest hasn’t already done that.
As for special occasions, I’ve served (in the EF) at Solemn High Masses as an MC and thurifer, weddings, funerals, confirmations, first communions, benedictions, Asperges Me, and other events so I can understand the need to have servers sometimes, but I’m one of those who believes the fewer distractions around the altar, the better.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I am not sure if anyone addressed your question. The Code of Canon Law is silent specifically on alter girls, however Canon 230 has been interpreted by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments as allowing girls to serve. See my post #46 above for the link.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/litugicalb.htm
**Feminine Service at the Altar and Inclusive Language **
The feminists attempt to destroy by lobbing for inclusive language, liturgical dance (which I will cover in depth in the next installment) and women priests. By their warped insistence on inclusive language, they further corrupt translations of the Bible in the vernacular and feminize the male hierarchy. They are against traditional male and female roles and traditional language, and seek to paganize the Mass.
This is part of the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic at work again, as the feminist play men against women in practice and theory. This is not Christian and we must refuse to read these inclusive language bibles and lobby for a return to the orthodox practice of no females on the altar during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We should seek out Churches that not only follow this tradition of male altar servers, but also follow the traditions of the Mass immemorial said in Latin.
Unfortunately, too many modern precedents have been set, for John Paul II allowed altar girls after pressure, that is to say, outright disobedience by his Bishops. But Pope Benedict XIV stated:
“Pope Gelasius in his 9th Letter (chap. 26) to the Bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words …” (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Al latae Sunt, July 26, 1755, sec. 29).
He called it an evil practice because it leads people to think that women can be priests or that women can be in the sanctuary during Mass, which they should not be. In the Orthodox churches they never let women set foot in the sanctuary during their liturgy. Pagans had women priests, but at no time in the Old Testament or in Christendom were there ever priestesses. Never until the 20th century were female altar servers permitted and sanctioned in the Latin Rite. Women had to cover their heads until the mid 1960’s upon entering a Catholic Church, and it would have been a great scandal for a woman to do anything like read or give out Communion.
**Lay Persons Are Not Able to Celebrate a Mass **
Today many of the laity think that lay people are needed to help the priest “celebrate” the Mass. In fact, the priest is the only priestly sacrificer, not us. He is the only one who can consecrate the bread and wine and touch the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. Without the priest there is no Eucharist. According to Pius XII the laity assist in the offering with our prayer in a limited sense. The priest does not even need us to be present to offer the sacrifice. We assist him, but we cannot make the sacrifice. We are there to worship, not to confect the Eucharist.
This fact is emphasized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei, sec. 93:
"The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made pre-sent upon the Altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the Altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church.
“Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship."
The effeminization of the priesthood …… have contributed greatly to the loss of vocations. Many lay lectors and so-called Eucharistic ministers have the mistaken belief that the Mass could not occur without them. Only when we rid ourselves of modern accretions not rooted in tradition will we see the masculinity of the priesthood restored.
Many good priests have complained that they feel out of place with so many lay people crawling all over the sanctuary. He feels no longer like a priest in the order of Melchizedech, but a “Eucharistic technician” soon to be obsolete due to the conspirators’ contempt for the sacrament of Holy Orders. God will not let this happen.
**Feminine Service at the Altar and Inclusive Language **
The feminists attempt to destroy by lobbing for inclusive language, liturgical dance (which I will cover in depth in the next installment) and women priests. By their warped insistence on inclusive language, they further corrupt translations of the Bible in the vernacular and feminize the male hierarchy. They are against traditional male and female roles and traditional language, and seek to paganize the Mass.
Code:
These Amazons are feminizing and revolutionizing the Church while the ‘The Church Impotent,’ as Leon J. Podles termed it, is becoming empty of real men. Such feminists such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary Daly, and Monica Hellwig are disdainful of our Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity and hold purity up to ridicule.Unfortunately, too many modern precedents have been set, for John Paul II allowed altar girls after pressure, that is to say, outright disobedience by his Bishops. But Pope Benedict XIV stated:
“Pope Gelasius in his 9th Letter (chap. 26) to the Bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words …” (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Al latae Sunt, July 26, 1755, sec. 29).
He called it an evil practice because it leads people to think that women can be priests or that women can be in the sanctuary during Mass, which they should not be. In the Orthodox churches they never let women set foot in the sanctuary during their liturgy. Pagans had women priests, but at no time in the Old Testament or in Christendom were there ever priestesses. Never until the 20th century were female altar servers permitted and sanctioned in the Latin Rite. Women had to cover their heads until the mid 1960’s upon entering a Catholic Church, and it would have been a great scandal for a woman to do anything like read or give out Communion.
**Lay Persons Are Not Able to Celebrate a Mass **
Today many of the laity think that lay people are needed to help the priest “celebrate” the Mass. In fact, the priest is the only priestly sacrificer, not us. He is the only one who can consecrate the bread and wine and touch the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. Without the priest there is no Eucharist. According to Pius XII the laity assist in the offering with our prayer in a limited sense. The priest does not even need us to be present to offer the sacrifice. We assist him, but we cannot make the sacrifice. We are there to worship, not to confect the Eucharist.
This fact is emphasized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei, sec. 93:
"The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made pre-sent upon the Altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the Altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church.
“Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship."
Code:
To have lay people (other than altar boys) and altar girls in the sanctuary is hetero praxis (bad practice) that leads to false belief and foments revolution. This anti-traditional practice confuses people about the male priesthood and the role of the laity at Mass, and leads to anti-clericalism and a blurring of roles.Many good priests have complained that they feel out of place with so many lay people crawling all over the sanctuary. He feels no longer like a priest in the order of Melchizedech, but a “Eucharistic technician” soon to be obsolete due to the conspirators’ contempt for the sacrament of Holy Orders. God will not let this happen.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That is a great book. I read it some ten years ago and it is still spot on.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
TheDoctor,
It is irrelevant that these are disciplinary laws or that they were changed. This is obvious.
The point is that CITH and girl altar boys began in disobedience. CITH was forbidden, but practiced in disobedience before Paul VI caved and allowed it. He had even previously preached against it! So did JPII although he allowed it as an “exception” (which is now the rule in practice.)
Girl altar boys were forbidden in 1980 and yet disobedient priests were allowing it, which is why JPII forbade it explicitly in the Encyclical I quoted.
Bishops did not suddenly find a “new right” to girl altar boys in Canon Law. They were obviously forbidden and their appeal to Canon Law was a charade.After years upon years of disobedience Rome finally caved, just like CITH, rather than try to discipline numerous disobedient clergy.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
It is irrelevant that these are disciplinary laws or that they were changed. This is obvious.
The point is that CITH and girl altar boys began in disobedience. CITH was forbidden, but practiced in disobedience before Paul VI caved and allowed it. He had even previously preached against it! So did JPII although he allowed it as an “exception” (which is now the rule in practice.)
Girl altar boys were forbidden in 1980 and yet disobedient priests were allowing it, which is why JPII forbade it explicitly in the Encyclical I quoted.
Bishops did not suddenly find a “new right” to girl altar boys in Canon Law. They were obviously forbidden and their appeal to Canon Law was a charade.After years upon years of disobedience Rome finally caved, just like CITH, rather than try to discipline numerous disobedient clergy.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And now they’re paying the price for some of this.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
You don`t have to worry about Mary Daly; she met her Maker (or maker? ummmm!) three months ago.
Don
t place the blame on poor old Marx and Hegel! Just place it directly on the Red Dragon. Some of those radical feminists seem to have a direct line to him. As Donna Steichen says in her book "Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism", their goal isnt really to become “priestesses”, but to DESTROY the priesthood.
O
Ockham
Guest
Debates like these remind me of how the EF is much more condusive to prayer - fewer distractions.
4
4elise
Guest
Thank you for going to so much trouble to post all of this - I really appreciate it and found it educational.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Divorce is a great example of something that was tolerated due to the “hardness of their hearts” (like CITH & girl altar boys) in the OT yet some can’t tell the difference between “tolerating an evil” and “promoting a good”.
To some divorce must have been a positive good that Christ, by His words, then magically turned into a diabolical evil.
This is the error of positivism; where the principle of non-contradiction need not apply.
“Approved” does not necessarily = “good”.
Divorce was “approved” (tolerated) in the OT. It wasn’t good.
To some divorce must have been a positive good that Christ, by His words, then magically turned into a diabolical evil.
This is the error of positivism; where the principle of non-contradiction need not apply.
“Approved” does not necessarily = “good”.
Divorce was “approved” (tolerated) in the OT. It wasn’t good.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I respectfully disagree. It is relavant as disciplines can and do change, some for the good, some for the worse.
Again, I am not sure this is true since this thread is about altar girls and not CITH. In all bluntness, anytime someone tells me the Vicar of Christ “caved in” on a discipline matter I find it suspect.
I have yet to find where altar girls were expressly forbidden (perhaps in the 1917 Canon?). As JPII said in the encyclical you quoted, it was a long standing tradition of having males serve at the altar. I agree that JPII’s teaching was clear in 1980, but again the issue is the 1983 code which seemed to allow it, and in 1994 the Pope changing this discipline and allowing it as well. And again, from what I have read it was Bishops who allowed it, not individual priests. Do you have some reference material you are using?
You will have to prove that in light of the documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship or else I will take it for what it is worth as opinion only.
I’m sorry my brother, I fail to see any one fact you have presented. Perhaps I have missed them, perhaps I have not.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
They had CITH and altar girls in the OT???
This is really getting off topic, so let me try to bring it back. The way I see it, you seem to be making the opposite point of what you are trying to argue. Moses allowed the discipline of divorce, which was approved by God (as Moses was his messenger). Was divorce “good” in the OT? It must have been, for God allowed it to continue for thousands of years (as I know of no prophet that spoke the word of God against it). Or, are you arguing that God “tolerated the evil” of divorce by allowing it?
We then see Christ changing the discipline of divorce as he elevates matrimonty to a sacrament. When Christ forbids divorce, are you saying he automatically makes all former divorce allowed under the law evil? I think not. Christ fulfills this law and gives us a new take on marriage.
In a similar way, having altar girls now does not change the good that was done by not having them in the past, and by having altar girls now we are not “tolerating an evil” we are expanding a discipline. If in the future they are no longer allowed, it will not make having them now evil.
When it comes right down to it, you and I can respectfully stand by our opinions as to the “good” of having altar girls or debating if they should be banned. The OP however was looking for Canon Law and the facts of why we have them now and the fact is that we have them now because 16 years ago the Pope said it was OK to have them.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I take it you’re not up to speed yet on all the coverups of all the sex abuses that have been going on since the 60’s?
- Status