reflections from a former altar girl

[CB_Catholic]

Of course. I take it the readings within the Mass have already been interpreted to the mind of the Church. And I will be the first to admit some of it has been translated awkwardly or with bias. However, the part about women being silent in church, etc., etc. INTER ALIA has not been cut out AFAIK. In fact, it took a woman companion of mine to point that out to me, to her dismay as she lives by scripture. Say what you want about the circumstances and intentions and audiences surrounding St. Paul’s journeys but it is what it is.

Note, however, I’m not saying it can’t be done. But if we are to uphold Tradition as we say we are, then perhaps we should study exactly what Tradition is.

See, this is the type of thing that is bothersome. The Church has been around for 2000 years and the magesterium is quite familiar with Tradition. A decision has been made to change a tradition. Sacred Tradition can never be changed. The magesterium is quite aware of this. Thus, they don’t consider this matter part of Sacred Tradition. So in your and some other’s opinion the Church has possibly made an error and does not understand Sacred Tradition. That is problematic. This is the type of thinking that leads to division (I am not saying you are guilty of being divisive) and if one is honest,take a look at the Sedes and other groups who have broken from the Church They refused to accept the teaching authority of the Church or they misunderstood the distinction between what is unchangeable Tradition and the rulings of men, which are tradition. One has to be very careful when they claim that perhaps the Church does not understand what it is doing.

I think the Church has made a legitimate decision and should not be questioned on their understanding of what is Tradition and tradition. I think that is a dangerous position to take, and a not very well thought out one. I may not like something–fine. But I steer clear of implying that the Church does not understand itself (which is the essential point in this discussion, as the distinction between Tradition and tradition is a bedrock of our faith) and should perhaps study up on the matter. In other words, I’m not sure the magesterium knows what it is doing.

In Christ.

 

[salvemater]

See, this is the type of thing that is bothersome. The Church has been around for 2000 years and the magesterium is quite familiar with Tradition. A decision has been made to change a tradition. Sacred Tradition can never be changed. The magesterium is quite aware of this. Thus, they don’t consider this matter part of Sacred Tradition. So in your and some other’s opinion the Church has possibly made an error and does not understand Sacred Tradition. That is problematic. This is the type of thinking that leads to division (I am not saying you are guilty of being divisive) and if one is honest,take a look at the Sedes and other groups who have broken from the Church They refused to accept the teaching authority of the Church or they misunderstood the distinction between what is unchangeable Tradition and the rulings of men, which are tradition. One has to be very careful when they claim that perhaps the Church does not understand what it is doing.

I think the Church has made a legitimate decision and should not be questioned on their understanding of what is Tradition and tradition. I think that is a dangerous position to take, and a not very well thought out one. I may not like something–fine. But I steer clear of implying that the Church does not understand itself (which is the essential point in this discussion, as the distinction between Tradition and tradition is a bedrock of our faith) and should perhaps study up on the matter. In other words, I’m not sure the magesterium knows what it is doing.

In Christ.

Female altar servers were the result of a portion of the new Canon Law that was not clearly worded. Canon 230 paragraph 2 states: “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.” Because the Code of Canon Law used the word “persons” instead of “boys” or “men,” people made the argument that it applied to females as well as males.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made this interpretation in 1994, but they also stated in their letter to the bishops, “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.” They also said in 2001 that priests are not compelled to have girls serve at the altar, even if a bishop permits it in the diocese.

It’s not at all coincidental that most dioceses that permit female altar servers exist in the English speaking world, where the feminist revolution was in full swing. It’s also not coincidental that when priests or bishops return to male-only altar serving, blogs start complaining that “the Church is seeking to undo all of the progress that women have made in the Church, keeping them out of the sanctuary.” (These blogs also usually talk about how women in the sanctuary is the first step on the road to women being ordained. This is damaging because, although many Catholics know that priests are supposed to be men, they don’t know why anymore.)

 

[Brendan]

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made this interpretation in 1994, but they also stated in their letter to the bishops, “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 is not the decision to allow altar girls, but the fact that the Vatican’s directives on it were ignored.

The use of girls is an option. But, as you noted, there is an OBLIGATION to support groups of altar boys.

That is the part that most parishes forget.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Female altar servers were the result of a portion of the new Canon Law that was not clearly worded. Canon 230 paragraph 2 states: “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.” Because the Code of Canon Law used the word “persons” instead of “boys” or “men,” people made the argument that it applied to females as well as males.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made this interpretation in 1994, but they also stated in their letter to the bishops, “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.” They also said in 2001 that priests are not compelled to have girls serve at the altar, even if a bishop permits it in the diocese.

It’s not at all coincidental that most dioceses that permit female altar servers exist in the English speaking world, where the feminist revolution was in full swing. It’s also not coincidental that when priests or bishops return to male-only altar serving, blogs start complaining that “the Church is seeking to undo all of the progress that women have made in the Church, keeping them out of the sanctuary.” (These blogs also usually talk about how women in the sanctuary is the first step on the road to women being ordained. This is damaging because, although many Catholics know that priests are supposed to be men, they don’t know why anymore.)

Nonetheless the Church did speak, and we have female altar servers, most of whom have no aspirations to the priesthood. And yes, “persons” does include females, and it was clearly worded. Laypersons means exactly that–laity of either sex And that is what was written, deliberately. Any time the Church does not consider females as persons, we have a problem, don’t we? I can’t help it if some don’t like what was written, but there has been no effort since 1983 by the Church to change it, and it was not changed in your 1994 reference.
Thus it was intended to read exactly as written.

Why is it that it is so frequently assumed that any woman who wishes to serve Jesus Christ in the sanctuary is suspected of being a " feminist" with an agenda to push for ordination of women by certain traditionalists? Is not that a rather prejudicial attitude? How did they come upon this knowledge? Have they taken a poll? Or are they guilty of rash judgment and presumption?

I respect your right to not like something and have an opinion. However, there are other opinions out there that are just as legitimate as the one you and others of like mind hold, and they don’t come from the so-called “feminists”, but from orthodox and faithful Catholics who respect magesterial decisions and teachings and love the Church as much as anybody else.

 

[pianistclare]

Nonetheless the Church did speak, and we have female altar servers, most of whom have no aspirations to the priesthood. And yes, “persons” does include females, and it was clearly worded. Laypersons means exactly that–laity of either sex And that is what was written, deliberately. Any time the Church does not consider females as persons, we have a problem, don’t we? I can’t help it if some don’t like what was written, but there has been no effort since 1983 by the Church to change it, and it was not changed in your 1994 reference.
Thus it was intended to read exactly as written.

Why is it that it is so frequently assumed that any woman who wishes to serve Jesus Christ in the sanctuary is suspected of being a " feminist" with an agenda to push for ordination of women by certain traditionalists? Is not that a rather prejudicial attitude? How did they come upon this knowledge? Have they taken a poll? Or are they guilty of rash judgment and presumption?

I respect your right to not like something and have an opinion. However, there are other opinions out there that are just as legitimate as the one you and others of like mind hold, and they don’t come from the so-called “feminists”, but from orthodox and faithful Catholics who respect magesterial decisions and teachings and love the Church as much as anybody else.

Yes. Well stated. Thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

The use of girls is an option. But, as you noted, there is an OBLIGATION to support groups of altar boys.

That is the part that most parishes forget.

At my parish, never exactly considered a conservative one, the Spanish Mass appears to be going male-only servers now. I haven’t seen or heard any major objections except perhaps from the ex-altar girls.

 

[pianistclare]

At my parish, never exactly considered a conservative one, the Spanish Mass appears to be going male-only servers now. I haven’t seen or heard any major objections except perhaps from the ex-altar girls.

At our Spanish Masses, it’s mostly girls, but boys still in the game.
At the anglo Masses it’s mostly adults. The occasionally boy-girl sister-brother combo.
We have 4.5 Deacons, so it’s pretty crowded.

 

[ProVobis]

At our Spanish Masses, it’s mostly girls, but boys still in the game.
At the anglo Masses it’s mostly adults. The occasionally boy-girl sister-brother combo.
We have 4.5 Deacons, so it’s pretty crowded.

So how do you address that .5 Deacon?

Is that a restoration I haven’t heard about?

 

[pianistclare]

So how do you address that .5 Deacon?

Is that a restoration I haven’t heard about?

Well, bless his heart…he’s not really a half-pint…he’s just a couple years out from being ordained. He acts as the MC at most Masses.
He’s a great guy

 

[Sirach2]

It is not the decision to allow altar girls, but the fact that the Vatican’s directives on it were ignored.

The use of girls is an option. But, as you noted, there is an OBLIGATION to support groups of altar boys.

That is the part that most parishes forget.

Are you still a member of St. Cyril & Methodius? That would explain your zealous dedication to altar boys.

 

[Sirach2]

See, this is the type of thing that is bothersome. The Church has been around for 2000 years and the magesterium is quite familiar with Tradition. A decision has been made to change a tradition. (Small “t” I agree! )
Thus, they don’t consider this matter part of Sacred Tradition. So in your and some other’s opinion the Church has possibly made an error and does not understand Sacred Tradition. That is problematic.

This is simply a matter of “discipline” which may be changed. Discipline was also defined in the Vatican I definition of Infallibility. (In case others who read here have forgotten…)

**First Vatican Council
**2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,

by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,
and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals …
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, bless his heart…he’s not really a half-pint…he’s just a couple years out from being ordained. He acts as the MC at most Masses.
He’s a great guy

MC as in Master of Ceremonies or MC as a Ministry Coordinator? We seem to have a lot of roles, both in the old rite and the new.

 

[pianistclare]

MC as in Master of Ceremonies or MC as a Ministry Coordinator? We seem to have a lot of roles, both in the old rite and the new.

Master of ceremonies…sort of. Mostly he makes sure nobody lines up wrong, does the wrong thing, takes care of the sensor when in use, prompts the servers when they are slow to move…Things like that. He’s the go-to guy when people have questions.

 

[Brendan]

Are you still a member of St. Cyril & Methodius? That would explain your zealous dedication to altar boys.

I am I never gave it much thought until I joined that parish and saw the huge number of vocations that came from that altar boy cadre

8 priests in 1he last 10 years, with 4 more in the seminary.

 

[otjm]

It’s okay to use this argument. It is to be noted, though, that the Protestants also believe in the Holy Spirit Who guides them as well.

My recollection is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were fairly evident in the Protestant church - I think it was in L.A. - from which source the Catholic Charismatic movement came. So to would appear that not only they believe that, but the evidence appears to support the belief.

 

[otjm]

FYI, there was never a point in the history of the Church where we did not have permanent Deacons. They were just rare

St. Francis of Assisi is a great example. He was a permanent Deacon.

Amazing - then the Vatican must not have been told that it was continuing on, as the documents of Vatican 2 wanted it reinstated.

 

[otjm]

It is not the decision to allow altar girls, but the fact that the Vatican’s directives on it were ignored.

The use of girls is an option. But, as you noted, there is an OBLIGATION to support groups of altar boys.

That is the part that most parishes forget.

Parishes forget, or pastors forget? Nothing prevents a pastor who has both boy and girl altar servers from encouraging the boys to consider the priesthood.

As you are not the only one to stat the issue about encouraging boys, I wonder if there is a subliminal current that somehow, encouraging boys to consider priesthood would be fruitless should a girl stray into the sanctuary as a server. These are not mutually exclusive issues.

 

[ProVobis]

Master of ceremonies…sort of. Mostly he makes sure nobody lines up wrong, does the wrong thing, takes care of the sensor when in use, prompts the servers when they are slow to move…Things like that. He’s the go-to guy when people have questions.

We have a deacon who isn’t very fluent in Spanish, it’s quite obvious; yet he manages somehow to direct the servers, which is sort of impressive in a way. They must have some common signal or two between them.

 

[salvemater]

Why is it that it is so frequently assumed that any woman who wishes to serve Jesus Christ in the sanctuary is suspected of being a " feminist" with an agenda to push for ordination of women by certain traditionalists? Is not that a rather prejudicial attitude? How did they come upon this knowledge? Have they taken a poll? Or are they guilty of rash judgment and presumption?

That was not what meant, and I apologize if that’s what I suggested. I know very well that many women serve in the sanctuary because they are very pious and desire to serve Christ in a manner that they believe will strengthen their faith and empower them to strengthen the faith of others. I am an altar server in a parish where both boys and girls are allowed, and I have served with some very faithful female servers. I do not wish to pass judgement on women’s intentions.

I just meant to say that the acceptance of the change itself was motivated by a feminist movement within the Church. Most individuals don’t support the change for that reason, and it is highly unlikely that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments implemented it for that reason, but it was a significant reason behind the acceptance of the change.

We often view liturgical changes from this perspective: here’s what we have in the liturgy now, here’s what used to be in the liturgy, what reason do we have to change back?
But it’s beneficial to view liturgical changes from this perspective as well: here we are, in the old form of the liturgy; why should we change it?

It’s also always beneficial to note that while the Vatican has allowed certain changes to the liturgy, they have almost always expressed that they have a preference, which is the traditional manner.

And it should also be noted that, while Pope Benedict XVI did make use of altar girls, he himself, while as a Cardinal, pointed out that there were certain changes made in the liturgy that aren’t beneficial to helping people understand “the spirit of the liturgy.” Granted, many of these changes were not directed by the Vatican, but it does demonstrate that it is quite a valid position to question the changes that were made, not in the sense to claim that they were illicit, but in the sense to claim whether they were beneficial, and whether or not we should have a “reform of the reform.”

 

[Salvelinus]

“Active participation”… these two words are so badly misunderstood, where everyone thinks it means they need to “do something”.
I wish someone would clarify this, but the bus appears to have left the station (ie pagan liturgical dancing at parishes still to this day).