What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?

[dans0622]

THAT is why we even have female altar servers to begin with: because people ignored the authority of the Pope. So, you can’t take something that started as an abuse (people saying they know better than the Pope what belongs in liturgy), and turn it around on those Catholics who actually long for the days of holy obedience and claim THEY are being disobedient. The Pope CONCEDED on this issue since people were abusing this anyway, and no one was listening to him. As late as 1980, JPII still condemned the use of female altars. So, do you think he just, what, got a revelation from God 14 years later that said “this is a’ok?” Come on! He gave in to public pressure. Period.

Hi savienu,

Without going into all the other issues regarding liturgical law, I want to try to modify your proposed timeline on how the practice of allowing women/girls to serve at the altar progressed. Certainly, before Vatican II and up to the 1980s, it wasn’t practiced. But, when the Code of Canon Law was revised, the door was opened. When this law came into force in 1983, it said that “lay people can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law” (c. 230).

We can see that this is quite vague and these “other functions” were not well-defined. Whether it was a good idea or not, girls started being altar servers. Then, in 1992, the Pope approved an official interpretation of this canon that said, yes, altar server is one of these “other functions” and any lay person can do it. Then, in 1994, the general permission was granted by the Cong. for Divine Worship but it was left up to the diocesan bishop to decide. Then, whenever the latest guideline was put out, it was effectively left up to the priest.

Was there some pressure on the Pope, in 1994, to allow girls to continue to serve? I suppose. But, it wasn’t as though this practice came about in direct conflict with the law–the 1983 law seemed to allow it and the Pope, in 1992, said “Yes, it is allowed by the law.” If you think that it is a mistake to let girls be altar servers, the real “mistake” wasn’t in 1994 or 1992, it was in 1983 when the new Code was promulgated.

At least, that’s the way it seems to me.

Thanks.

Dan

 

[LexKnight]

Have you read the GIRM for the OF? Do you realize how many abuses occur as COMMONPLACE now? For example, EMHC are supposed to be JUST THAT: EXTRAORDINARY. Instead, they are scheduled now, when they are not needed.

Okay, but not we’re actually discussing that…

THAT is why we even have female altar servers to begin with: because people ignored the authority of the Pope. So, you can’t take something that started as an abuse (people saying they know better than the Pope what belongs in liturgy), and turn it around on those Catholics who actually long for the days of holy obedience and claim THEY are being disobedient.

I never said disobedient, I just said (in not as many words) I found it ironic that conservatives will snap at people for discussing changes to one disciplinary issue (eg. ordination of married men), and yet will get all riled up when people disagree with them on changes they (the conservatives) believe should be made.

It also doesn’t matter how the practice started. Rather it matters whether or not a practice is officially allowed by the Church. I’m sure you’ll find that even the TLM arose from a long series of changes (dare I say deviations?) from original Church Eucharistic celebrations.

Female altar-servers are explicitly allowed by the Church and therefore are not and cannot be considered irreverent. Popes, bishops and priests are allowed to have their own personal preferences, but to say “this is irreverent” would be disagreeing with what the Church says.

The Pope CONCEDED on this issue since people were abusing this anyway, and no one was listening to him. As late as 1980, JPII still condemned the use of female altars. So, do you think he just, what, got a revelation from God 14 years later that said “this is a’ok?” Come on! He gave in to public pressure. Period.

Do you not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and our Popes to make the right decisions regarding the evolution of the Church?

Anyway since this is a matter of discipline rather than dogma, you don’t think the Pope maybe changed his mind over the course of 14 years? It is a long time after all.

 

[savienu]

Okay, but not we’re actually discussing that…

I never said disobedient, I just said (in not as many words) I found it ironic that conservatives will snap at people for discussing changes to one disciplinary issue (eg. ordination of married men), and yet will get all riled up when people disagree with them on changes they (the conservatives) believe should be made.

It also doesn’t matter how the practice started. Rather it matters whether or not a practice is officially allowed by the Church. I’m sure you’ll find that even the TLM arose from a long series of changes (dare I say deviations?) from original Church Eucharistic celebrations.

Female altar-servers are explicitly allowed by the Church and therefore are not and cannot be considered irreverent. Popes, bishops and priests are allowed to have their own personal preferences, but to say “this is irreverent” would be disagreeing with what the Church says.

Do you not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and our Popes to make the right decisions regarding the evolution of the Church?

Anyway since this is a matter of discipline rather than dogma, you don’t think the Pope maybe changed his mind over the course of 14 years? It is a long time after all.

The very fact that this is discipline versus dogma means that the Church is not “guided from the holy spirit into all truth” on this. THEY CAN BE WRONG! That is the realm of dogma and morals, not on discipline. Sure, the Pope could change his mind on it. But that doesn’t mean that The Holy Spirit did.

And, yes, females on the altar are irreverent, especially unveiled females. There’s a reason it was considered AN EVIL. It is allowed by the Church due to abuses and disobedience. If they thought it was that great, they would MANDATE it. It DOES matter that the whole thing started with people being disobedient to authority. (Same as the whole “to veil or not to veil” thing started too, interestingly enough.)

 

[LexKnight]

Sure, the Pope could change his mind on it. But that doesn’t mean that The Holy Spirit did.

And now you’re claiming to know what the Holy Spirit intends? Let’s try on some of that humility mentioned earlier in the thread.

How do we not know that this decision was not guided by the Holy Spirit?

And, yes, females on the altar are irreverent, especially unveiled females.

That’s your opinion, not fact. It is also an opinion that happens to go against the Church’s stance. I suppose I will just have to say that I disagree with you on this particular point.

I do have to ask though; why are women at the altar (especially unveiled females) irreverent? Why should it be considered “AN EVIL.”

It DOES matter that the whole thing started with people being disobedient to authority. (Same as the whole “to veil or not to veil” thing started too, interestingly enough.)

I disagree. The very fact that the Church does not consider it disobedient at this point in time is what is important. Therefore it is not an act of disobedience.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Good morning, savienu!

I have to laugh, because I have indeed heard the most skilled guitar player I know, accompany Gregorian chant, and it was stunning. The guitar was very minimal, no cheap strumming whatsoever.

Personally, I will take a pipe organ any day. I love to be able to feel it as well as hear it.

But when the best is not available, the guitar really does work. Particularly if it is up in the choir in the back, unseen, and everybdy assumes it is a mandolin!

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Layman]

Intellectually, of course, it doesn’t matter that there are female servers.
*Intellectually, *of course, it doesn’t matter that there are

Female lectors,
EMCs,
Communion in the hand,
Guitars,
Concelebrations,
Bare churches,
Vernacular Mass,
Versus-populi …

It’s still a Mass. Though some would argue, not. Especially about the “Pro Multis” part of the consecration.

… but cumulatively and individually these things lead to a loss of reverence. It’s a drip-drip effect. If you want to see the hand of the Arch-fiend at work, it’s not hard.

The Church has allowed them, or rather they’ve just sort of slid in. We seem to be heading to a kind of Protestantism. We can see how that’s working for our heretic brethern. Just play down the Virgin Mary and the Sacrificial aspect, let private Confession die off and we’re there.

If you truly don’t see this, then there’s no point arguing, really. I see that the Church has made exceptions for these ‘extraordinary’ things, and the locals have taken the ball and run with it. The exception has become the rule. How strange that the old Latin Mass was effectively forbidden, while folk masses and the like were encouraged.

**But: Church allows it = end of argument? I don’t think so. Especially about non-doctrinal matters. **

If St. Athanasius can go out the bat against the Arian heresy, I and any other Catholic can deplore these novelities introduced by ‘liturgical scholars’.

I can go to a TLM, someone more progressive can go to an N. O. Mass with the now-standard attendant novelties, and the Devil take the hindmost. Literally.

I don’t mean that uncharitably, but as a statement of my general feeling about the issue. I’ve read people get the politicians and priests they deserve. God help us all!

 

[savienu]

And now you’re claiming to know what the Holy Spirit intends? Let’s try on some of that humility mentioned earlier in the thread.

How do we not know that this decision was not guided by the Holy Spirit?

That’s your opinion, not fact. It is also an opinion that happens to go against the Church’s stance. I suppose I will just have to say that I disagree with you on this particular point.

I do have to ask though; why are women at the altar (especially unveiled females) irreverent? Why should it be considered “AN EVIL.”

I disagree. The very fact that the Church does not consider it disobedient at this point in time is what is important. Therefore it is not an act of disobedience.

It has nothing to do with not being humble. The Holy Spirit can not “change his mind” because the HOLY SPIRIT CAN NOT CHANGE! This is DISCIPLINE, not dogma!

 

[savienu]

Intellectually, of course, it doesn’t matter that there are female servers.
*Intellectually, *of course, it doesn’t matter that there are

Female lectors,
EMCs,
Communion in the hand,
Guitars,
Concelebrations,
Bare churches,
Vernacular Mass,
Versus-populi …

It’s still a Mass. Though some would argue, not. Especially about the “Pro Multis” part of the consecration.

… but cumulatively and individually these things lead to a loss of reverence. It’s a drip-drip effect. If you want to see the hand of the Arch-fiend at work, it’s not hard.

The Church has allowed them, or rather they’ve just sort of slid in. We seem to be heading to a kind of Protestantism. We can see how that’s working for our heretic brethern. Just play down the Virgin Mary and the Sacrificial aspect, let private Confession die off and we’re there.

If you truly don’t see this, then there’s no point arguing, really. I see that the Church has made exceptions for these ‘extraordinary’ things, and the locals have taken the ball and run with it. The exception has become the rule. How strange that the old Latin Mass was effectively forbidden, while folk masses and the like were encouraged.

But: Church allows it = end of argument? I don’t think so. Especially about non-doctrinal matters.

If St. Athanasius can go out the bat against the Arian heresy, I and any other Catholic can deplore these novelities introduced by ‘liturgical scholars’.

I can go to a TLM, someone more progressive can go to an N. O. Mass with the now-standard attendant novelties, and the Devil take the hindmost. Literally.

I don’t mean that uncharitably, but as a statement of my general feeling about the issue. I’ve read people get the politicians and priests they deserve. God help us all!

I agree. It’s like, we’re not supposed to think anymore or something. The Church didn’t start with Vatican II, as much as modern Catholics like to pretend it did. And then I’m told I’m not humble because I said the Holy Spirit doesn’t change. Wow.

 

[savienu]

Good morning, savienu!

I have to laugh, because I have indeed heard the most skilled guitar player I know, accompany Gregorian chant, and it was stunning. The guitar was very minimal, no cheap strumming whatsoever.

Personally, I will take a pipe organ any day. I love to be able to feel it as well as hear it.

But when the best is not available, the guitar really does work. Particularly if it is up in the choir in the back, unseen, and everybdy assumes it is a mandolin!

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

And, why shouldn’t the best always be available? It was always available BEFORE these novelties.

 

[EvelynEVF]

And, why shouldn’t the best always be available? It was always available BEFORE these novelties.

Well, my parish church was a mission church, and I guess way back when they didn’t have the cash to buy and build in an organ. I suppose when you run the show you can choose a cappella (which is what we do on weekdays), but I’m grateful for a reverent parish that does the best it can with what it’s got.

If there were another parish very close by with an organ and an altar rail and all the other trappings of traditionalism, I would be there, without a doubt. But this is my parish, this is where Truth smacked me in the face three years ago, and this is where I’ve put down roots.

FWIW, God snagged me when I went to the baptism of a friend’s baby, and it was so reverent and awe-inspiring and that’s what drew me, even though it was NO. I had previously been to a self-described “very Vatican II” parish, and it felt Episcopalian. This is different.

I still think your brush is too broad.

 

[savienu]

Well, my parish church was a mission church, and I guess way back when they didn’t have the cash to buy and build in an organ. I suppose when you run the show you can choose a cappella (which is what we do on weekdays), but I’m grateful for a reverent parish that does the best it can with what it’s got.

If there were another parish very close by with an organ and an altar rail and all the other trappings of traditionalism, I would be there, without a doubt. But this is my parish, this is where Truth smacked me in the face three years ago, and this is where I’ve put down roots.

FWIW, God snagged me when I went to the baptism of a friend’s baby, and it was so reverent and awe-inspiring and that’s what drew me, even though it was NO. I had previously been to a self-described “very Vatican II” parish, and it felt Episcopalian. This is different.

I still think your brush is too broad.

Fair enough. You are right, there. Money of course is an issue, and I should have considered that. I have been to very reverent novus ordo parishes myself. I don’t mean to say they are all bad. I just can’t stand the abuses. I think if the Novus Ordo was practiced the way it was originally written, it could be very beautiful and reverent. The fact of the matter is that the way it looks today it’s just- not.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Pope Benedict XIV explicitly condemned females serving the priest at the altar with the following words:

"Pope Gelasius in his ninth 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 in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21."[2]

A female person may not minister. An exception is permitted only when no male person is available and if a just cause is present. The female person may not, however, approach the altar under any circumstances, and may only respond from afar’. (Canon 813/2).

1980 Pope John Paul II stipulated in an instruction entitled ‘The Inestimable Gift’ that ‘women are not permitted the functions of an altar server’.

The decision came in the form of a circular letter[7] from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to presidents of episcopal conferences on 15 March 1994, which announced a 30 June 1992 authentic interpretation (confirmed on 11 July 1992 by Pope John Paul II) from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This authentic interpretation said that canon 230 §2 states that service at the altar is one of the liturgical functions that can be performed by both lay men and women. The circular letter, written by the cardinal-prefect of the Congregation, also clarified that canon 230 §2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character, that is, it allows, but does not require, the use of female altar servers. Thus it was for each diocesan bishop to decide whether to allow them in his diocese.

so what in your opinion is the right thing to do?

well is like this. you say one thing than you say this but it is up to you to decide what you want to do. so they do what they want to do. since it is up to them.

 

[toughcritic]

Intellectually, of course, it doesn’t matter that there are female servers.
*Intellectually, *of course, it doesn’t matter that there are

Female lectors,
EMCs,
Communion in the hand,
Guitars,
Concelebrations,
Bare churches,
Vernacular Mass,
Versus-populi …

It’s still a Mass. Though some would argue, not. Especially about the “Pro Multis” part of the consecration.

… but cumulatively and individually these things lead to a loss of reverence. It’s a drip-drip effect. If you want to see the hand of the Arch-fiend at work, it’s not hard.

The Church has allowed them, or rather they’ve just sort of slid in. We seem to be heading to a kind of Protestantism. We can see how that’s working for our heretic brethern. Just play down the Virgin Mary and the Sacrificial aspect, let private Confession die off and we’re there.

If you truly don’t see this, then there’s no point arguing, really. I see that the Church has made exceptions for these ‘extraordinary’ things, and the locals have taken the ball and run with it. The exception has become the rule. How strange that the old Latin Mass was effectively forbidden, while folk masses and the like were encouraged.

But: Church allows it = end of argument? I don’t think so. Especially about non-doctrinal matters.

If St. Athanasius can go out the bat against the Arian heresy, I and any other Catholic can deplore these novelities introduced by ‘liturgical scholars’.

I can go to a TLM, someone more progressive can go to an N. O. Mass with the now-standard attendant novelties, and the Devil take the hindmost. Literally.

I don’t mean that uncharitably, but as a statement of my general feeling about the issue. I’ve read people get the politicians and priests they deserve. God help us all!

 

[toughcritic]

Very early in this discussion I made my opinions known about female altar servers and their totoal inappropriateness among other things now perpetrated on the congregations. I would like to agree with “Layman” that there is a drip drip effect within the church on liturgical aberations that take place every Sunday that is gradually eroding respect and decorum in Mass attendance and for our faith in general.

I belong to two parishes. One is in my suburb and has a large membership. The church itself was built just 24 years ago. It is a glorified gymnasium. All the statues but two were removed, the elaborate stations of the cross in the “old” church have been replaced with 6" x 6" plain plaques. The cross in the sanctuary has a “leaping Christ” attempting to fly off the cross. Various Holy Days, the Christmas Season and Easter Season has enormous bolts of ever changing gaudy cloth streaming over the entire ceiling of the sanctuary. Tree boughs and stacks of various dried plants adorn the “table” (altar). The choir sings a repertoire of Negro spirituals and Protestant modeled songs that sound as if they were composed by a grade school music student. There is general talking in the sanctuary of an average cafeteria level decibels, the loudest of which is by the pastor who can be heard all over the church. The church has young girl altar servers who don’t even clasp their hands. The pastor’s sermons revolve around his vacation trips, golf vacations and get togethers with his former seminary buddies. There are never reminders of confession, the rules for receiving Holy Eucharist and never any discussion on any Papal statement or rule. At any given confession on Saturdays there would be at most 3 to 5 people in the church and they are elderly. In brief, if the congregant was not formally educated in a tradtional Catholic high school or college the chances that they know much about their faith and its’ requirements are almost nil. The other parish I belong to is a total joy. It is an extremely traditional and strict parish that is offering the Extra Ordinary form of the Mass in Latin, has a 40 member choir and 30 member orchestra which performs the classic Masses of the Church by Mozart, Gounoud, Schubert and others. Parishoners all genuflect, many women wear veils, silence is the rule before and during Mass accept for the responses in Latin by the congreagation. They have a minimum of twenty altar boys at Mass and sometimes as many as 30. 99 % of the congregation receive communion in the mouth, kneeling at a rail and confessions are heavily attended. The church is known worldwide for its’ beauty, architecture, statues, and paintings as well as its’ traditional Latin Masses and gorgeous music. There is only one altar and the priest faces it, not the congregation. There is no sign of peace and no recitation of the Protestant Our Father. IT IS TOTALLY CATHOLIC and I thank God on my hands and knees every day that this beautiful church is thriving in my city. People come from neighboring states just to attend these Masses every Sunday. I truly believe that unless our church returns to the beautiful traditions of our Faith: Its’ prayers, devotions and music along with the Latin Mass we will have the most luke warm Catholics in our history in the very near future.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i believe we should pray daily that Jesus will save His Church.
i get pretty upset when i see the priest in my parish behaving like a comedian. he thinks he is real funny. he starts with good morning and a joke. his homily is very poor. he seems to be more interested in making people laugh and clap than preach the Word of God. it is very sad to me to see the lack of reverence in the Sanctuary. he invites people to talk during Mass. the music is so poor that i refuse to sing along, not that i have a good voice anyway. i dont have any traditional Church around me everyone i go to is worse than the other. i do see that less and less people are showing up for Mass. i just dont understand what in the world is going on. it seems to me the devil really got his hands on all this.

God may have Mercy on us all.

 

[tulsacubfan]

Yes, thank you. They allow it, apparently grudgingly, since it is left up to the Bishop to give his diocese permission, and then even then the individual Priest does not HAVE to have female altar servers. If Rome thought it was harmful to female spirituality to deny them service at the altar, they would mandate it, considering the Church is in the business of getting people to heaven.

Also, regarding the guitar issue- I disagree. Guitars are inappropriate in worship, especially if parishes actually kept to the GIRM and had some Gregorian Chant. Unless people feel like telling me that you could use guitar to accompany Gregorian Chant?

And if Rome thought it was wrong to have females serving at the altar, they would mandate against it.

Regarding the guitar issue - a guitar can make a beautiful noise unto the Lord and be ver reverential, just as an organ. A guitar also can be very unreverential - just as an organ. It all depends on who is playing and how it is played.

 

[tulsacubfan]

And, why shouldn’t the best always be available? It was always available BEFORE these novelties.

No, the best was NOT always available before these “novelties” (sorry - I don’t see a guitar as a novelty). Not all parishes can afford a pipe organ. I guess I would rather have a guitar than a bunch of folks singing a capella who can barely carry a tune with musical accompaniment (for example - me ).

 

[weepixie71]

because the church says this, because the church says that… blah blah blah blah upon my word. since lately the modern church is throwing every tradition that they can get by with to the point it is not recognizable as catholic, what should we care as long as we have permission?

a lot of traditionalists believe that there are some people who do want to harm our church. and some work in the vatican. so when a tradition that has been taken place for more than 1500yrs i really feel we should ask ourselves why the tradition was started in the first place and why are we changing it now.

since the tradition of altar boys was started to help create more priests, then it should solely be boys up at the altar. now if modernists are wanting female priests (which can not happen im told, with exception of some modernist women) all you are doing is training these young girls to participate in which something they can not truly participate totally in. its like letting your child play only the outfield in baseball and never getting to bat to score the homerun for the team.

i just dont understand why women do not love their important role that God entrusted them with?
do they believe men hate them so much that they do not want them to fully be as much part of the mass than God would allow?
the early father’s of the church were not interested in just saving men souls but womens too.

 

[Layman]

Guitars are irreverent. I speak as a guitar player and former pop musician. The atmosphere they create, the connotations of that instrument are wrong for the rite of Mass.

I vaguely recall reading that at one time stringed instruments were banned from churches.

I know why they’re there now. When I was a lad (70’s) priests and nuns were very keen on getting ‘The Youth’ involved in our religion. This was because they were hypnotised by the ‘Youth Culture’ consumerist fad spreading across the Western World at that time.

They didn’t and don’t realise that this ‘culture’ is predicated upon rebellion, pesudo-intellectualism, consumerism, pseudo-socialism and narcissism; all of which are the antithesis of what the Church represents. (In fact, can you guess which being those qualities most represent?)

Also, ‘cool’ teens squirm when Father Trendy tries to 'talk to them on their own level (instead of bringing them up to His).

Guitars are/were the instrument of the troubador; the wandering vagabond singing about forbidden love to get ‘da ladies’ all excited.

That any novelty or abuse can be done reverently by some people is irrelevant. They are the thin edge of the wedge that at the fat end lets in heresy and The Devil.

I’d guess that’s why the Church standardised our worship in the first place; so local trendies of hundreds of years ago didn’t get creative and lead pious ladies into heresy. Charismatic priest + lax local control + headstrong laity = potential for heresy and damnation at the end of it.

So you set the format rigidly, and as a Pope or Bishop, you can sleep a little more soundly.

 

[weepixie71]

well is like this. you say one thing than you say this but it is up to you to decide what you want to do. so they do what they want to do. since it is up to them.

hey wow …:ehh: i get it… i think…