Mother Miriam on EWTN states that women should not be in the Sanctuary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I could easily be mistaken, but my understanding is that EMHCs are a recent innovation, and lectors also were until relatively recently in what was called Minor Orders, and the position typically was a step on the way to priesthood, and so closed to women. So I don’t think those specific examples are all that relevant. But I do believe that at least some people in the Church leadership did have such an attitude towards women in general, and the understanding of women’s equality developed over time, much like the understanding of other things.
 
Lenny said:
She follows this up by saying that the fruits of this are what we see in the amazon synod where women are now being elevated to positions of deaconess outside of any orders from the Holy see.

Mother Miram airs Monday to Friday from 10-11 a.m.
Click to expand...
Not that I mistrust the accuracy of your summary but is there a way for me to listen to what she said? Some archive somewhere?

Dan
 
thistle said:
40.png
Lenny:
You must have some unusual practices in your Church.
Click to expand...
You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand what an altar is.
Please explain what you think the altar is.
Click to expand...
“On the altar” is a colloquialism for being in the sanctuary that is used extensively in my neck of the woods. So much so that when I told a new reader that she was to place the Book of Gospels on the altar at the end of the entrance procession, she seemed surprised and asked, “On the altar?” I didn’t clue in and replied, ”Yes.” I only realized my mistake when at the time of the Gospel, Fr. Chris had to pick the Book of Gospels off the floor in front of “the table”.
 
whatistrue said:
I could easily be mistaken, but my understanding is that EMHCs are a recent innovation, and lectors also were until relatively recently in what was called Minor Orders, and the position typically was a step on the way to priesthood, and so closed to women.
Click to expand...
The position of acolyte was also part of minor orders for men on the way to the priesthood. When the path to the priesthood was streamlined and these minor orders done away with, the role became open to the laity. In keeping with tradition and to encourage priestly vocations, lay men were permitted to fill these roles.

The issue of whether women should be in the sanctuary is, first and foremost, not a woman/man issue. It’s an ordained/laity issue and because those particular ministerial roles of lector, altar server, etc have been opened to the laity because they are no longer ordained steps on the way to priesthood, it’s completely legitimate and lawful (canon law) for either men or women to serve. The secondary issue is one of tradition in which some feel that it should be open to lay men only so as to encourage vocations. This part of the issue is in the realm of opinion and while individuals can hold opinions in favor or not, and individual bishops can keep the practice of the tradition of male altar servers or not, it does not change the fact that women as part of the laity, can indeed legitimately serve in any role open to lay people. We are duty bound to accept canon law despite personal opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Seems as if we are in basic agreement. You fleshed out the underlying logic more (and better) than I did, however.
 
Yes. We are in agreement. I thought your statement was an important one to the discussion and I wanted to highlight some points for the sake of those reading along.
 
Lenny said:
You do not see men and woman are created equal, but different
Click to expand...
You’re making a wrong assumption here. My point is that in certain contexts, they would and should be treated the same. A lay man does not have more authority than a lay woman, for example. If lay women are unfit to be on the sanctuary, lay men should be as well.
 
Last edited:
Diaconia said:
You are mistaken in your question:

I do not know better, Holy Mother Church knows better. When the Church says women can be in the sanctuary (because of ministerial duties they are doing), a lone bishop who says “no, not here,” is the exception that needs updating.

The current bishop of Lincoln has updated this practice of one of the former bishops, and now Lincoln is in line with the rest of the Church.

Deacon Christopher
Click to expand...
As I recall, a document that allowed women to be readers clearly said that women were not to do so from within the sanctuary. I know that canon law has changed but you really couldn’t fault a bishop who had tried to accommodate female readers.
 
Phemie said:
As I recall, a document that allowed women to be readers clearly said that women were not to do so from within the sanctuary.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. Younger folk like me might easily and incorrectly think that all the liturgical changes took place at once. Big changes did happen overnight, so to speak, but there are other things that started here and there, taking more time to run their course.

On this particular point, I know of local provisions, approved by the Holy See, that had such an arrangement (women can proclaim a reading at Mass but only outside the sanctuary). By the time of the 1970 document “Liturgicae Instaurationes”, it was left to Conferences of Bishops to “give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly” (n. 7 of that document). I do not know of how any conferences handled this possibility.

The 1975 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, similarly, stated: "Laymen, even if they have not received institution as ministers, may perform all the functions below those reserved to deacons. At the discretion of the rector of the church, women may be appointed to ministries that are performed outside the sanctuary.

The conference of bishops may permit qualified women to proclaim the readings before the gospel and to announce the intentions of the general intercessions. The conference may also more precisely designate a suitable place for a woman to proclaim the word of God in the liturgical assembly" (n. 70).

As time went on, this distinction fell to the wayside since, for one thing, canon law changed (1983) and so the prior prohibition on women being in the sanctuary was dropped.

Dan
 
Ironic, being posted on a message board for Catholic opinions.
 
But she didn’t do it typing on her Ipad while sitting indian-style on the altar, so it’s cool.
 
Diaconia said:
The bishop of Lincoln, NE was one such example. In the Cathedral he installed a second pulpit for women to read from that was outside the sanctuary; whereas lay men could read from the Ambo, which is located inside the sanctuary/altar area.
Click to expand...
That must have been a long time ago. I moved to Lincoln in the early 1980s, and while not a parishioner at the Cathedral of the Risen Christ, I did attend Mass there occasionally. I do not remember a lectern outside the sanctuary used only by women. There was then, and still is now, a separate lectern in the sanctuary (same level as the ambo, only on the opposite side) that is used by Lectors (males) and Cantors (males and females).

Bishop Flavin (1967-1992) legislated in 1984 that the only people who could read the Scriptures at Mass were those who were installed into the Ministry of Lector upon completion of the diocesan training program. Since the ministry of Lector is reserved to men, that meant no women were reading at any church in the diocese.

Bishop Bruskewitz (1992-2012) relaxed that rule somewhat, allowing for non-instituted Readers to read the Scriptures at Mass. That includes both men and women. The choice of using Lectors or Readers is left to the discretion of the pastors.
 
Lea101 said:
I don’t see why a lay woman and a lay man are differentiated in this context. A lay man doesn’t have more authority than a lay woman in general.
Click to expand...
In the very narrow context of lay altar servers in byzantine churches: the alter servers are filling in for subdeacons, which are very hard to find these days (and even then, they are usually near their diaconal ordinations, but my Eparchy seems to have a couple of permanent ones). lacking subdeacons, men who could be ordained as subdeacons take their place. (non clergy, including males, are generally not permitted in the Holy Place in byzantine practice)

(personally, I’d like to see subdiaconal ordinations instead [and, yes, I’m up there most Sundays]–but the vow of celibacy would probably need to be dropped for this to be practical. [historically, some churches have that vow for subdeacons, while others do not]).
 
" Mother Miriam on EWTN states that women should not be on the altar"
German bishops and others say differently.
 
Curious why lay women weren’t allowed all the same roles as lay men from 1970-1983 (roughly). Obviously the Church did see laymen and laywomen differently. Why? Because the Church saw women as inferior, as @whatistrue has stated?
Or some other reason?
Do @whatistrue and @Diaconia think the church is mistaken to reserve the ministerial priesthood only for men as well, the way they think the Church was mistaken, or unenlightened, to not allow women in the sanctuary?
 
Why is it that women never take issue with the separation of men and woman in the Olympics or any sport for that matter? Is it because women are inferior?
 
Jen95 said:
Curious why lay women weren’t allowed all the same roles as lay men from 1970-1983 (roughly).
Click to expand...
I’m not a canon lawyer but it’s my understanding that it was deemed fit to keep with the tradition of men/boys serving so as to encourage vocations. While women were permitted to serve, it was not required that they do so. It was left up to Bishop’s to decide whether to implement female altar servers but it was encouraged to preserve the tradition of allowing only boys to serve.
Jen95 said:
Because the Church saw women as inferior, as @whatistrue has stated?
Click to expand...
No. As stated above, it had to do with fostering vocations to the priesthood. It wasn’t a value judgement of boys over girls. It was a prudential judgment due to priestly vocations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top