What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?

[Layman]

Traditionalists would say that Vat. II was a pastoral council and declared no infallible dogma, which only the Pope can do himself anyway, by expressly stating that he is pronoucing as infallible such-and-such a belief.

Their objections are that a lot of novelties were introduced which had nothing to do with what was proposed by this pastoral council, as well. So you’re at two removes there from anything that might be considered an infallible teaching.

Anyway, you’re in the right place. I learned a lot about Catholicism in this forum. I hope you will persevere and find the warm, loving, shining light that exists at the core of our religion.

Be warned: you may have to make some sacrifices of your intellectual beliefs before you get there. In my opinion, Christ calls us to a very high standard of behaviour, which is not compatible with modernist, progressive thought.

 

[JReducation]

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?

Since the bishops is the legitimate head of the local church, you must always go with the bishop and let him take responsibility for his decisions, unless he encourages you to sin. The decree does not say that it is sinful for women to serve on the altar. Therefore, a bishop who allows it is not sinning or inviting others to sin. He may be ignoring a decree, which may not be the best pastoral practice, but his not sinning.

Our holy father Francis wrote in one of his letters to his brothers and sisters to avoid conflicts with the bishops at all costs. He wrote this because when our order was founded the Church was going through the Lateran Council and there were many issues, not unlike today, though the bishops and issues wee different.

His mandate was for his brothers and sister to keep their mouths shut and to obey, except in cases of sin. This was something that he taught more by his life than by his words. When he wrote the rule of the order, he was asked to rewrite it three times, because the bishops believed that living the Gospe literally was both impractical and too difficult… Francis argued that this was the life that the Lord had revealed to him, but the bishops and the Pope said no. They would not accept his interpretation of the Lord’s revelation to him until his third rule in 1223. He wrote one rule in 1209, which received verbal approval. Another in 1221 which he was asked to rewrite and finally one in 1223 which the bishops and the Holy Father believed to be more consistent with the Church’s understanding of the Gospel life.

From then until today the hundreds of Franciscan saints and doctors of the Church have lived by the rule of obedience. Today the Order is flourishing with more than one million Franciscans around the world in 114 countries, including Communist China. It is probably the largest religions family in the Church or in the top five at least. Christ did keep his promise to Francis, that his order would not fall and would survive to see his second coming.

The key to remaining in existence seems to be obedience and the detachment from from one’s vision’s and opinions until the are asked forti a public forum.

JE

 

[Layman]

Hello again, JRe.

I think what St. Francis was aiming at was stopping people beating up or haranguing their bishop. In the old days, people were more robust than they are now.

However, if you think something is wrong, and you keep quiet about it, you are complicit in it. **Nothing wrong with polite complaints about the liturgy. **

[It makes me sad that I have to vote with my feet, as I live near a Franciscan church whose friars are quite ‘post Vat. II’.

Knowing what I know now, I am agitated by the novelties. Thus I go to the TLM in the next parish.]

If St. Athanasius had kept quiet, we’d still have the Nicene heresy.

I find it interesting that St. Francis had to rewrite his Rule three or four times. I’m guessing what Christ communicated to him was something similar to what the Church desert fathers did; utter poverty and relying of God’s bounty for your daily bread, like He enjoined the apostles in the Bible.

 

[eichenb2]

What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?
What is the official church position on female altar servers???

 

[weepixie71]

did Jesus himself say be careful of wolves in sheeps clothing?

im sorry but not everyone has a great bishop they love trust with a great deal of confidence.

i think we need to ask ourselves some questions:

why was the tradition of “altar boys” or acolytes started in the first place?

up until pope john paul II, what did “altar boys” represent?

what changed in our mass or society that changed our concept of what an altar boy is?

i gave this analogy before and ill give it again. its like signing your daughter up to play baseball knowing she’ll only get to play outfield. she will never know how good it feels to hit the homerun because she could never be up at bat.
well she may be able to be a server but she can never be a priest. why do you want to have girls start something they can never finish?

 

[mystified]

Deacon Ed,
Maybe I missed it here, but are altar girls allowed in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches?

 

[CradleCath]

Since, from the beginning, the Church has taught that where the bishop is there is the Church we should follow the lead of the bishop. After all, he is a successor to the apostles and is charged by the Holy Father with the administration of the local Church. Since the appropriate congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, has said that women may serve as altar servers if the bishop permits it, we should follow the guidance of the bishop.

Deacon Ed

So what do you do when your Bishop is at odds with the Pope?

 

[Just_Lurking]

So what do you do when your Bishop is at odds with the Pope?

The only person actually qualified to determine if your Bishop is at odds with the Pope, is the Pope. So report your Bishop to the Vatican, and they will make the official determination of whether your Bishop is doing wrong.

 

[CradleCath]

The only person actually qualified to determine if your Bishop is at odds with the Pope, is the Pope. So report your Bishop to the Vatican, and they will make the official determination of whether your Bishop is doing wrong.

Wrong. We are not mindless idiots. If a Bishop refuses to allow the Latin Mass, if he tells divorced & remarried Catholics to come & receive the Sacraments, if he gives Communion to one of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the laity can know that he isn’t in communion with the Pope.

americansfortruth.com/news/more-san-francisco-nuttiness-catholic-archbishop-gives-communion-to-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence.html

I’ve been a Catholic all of my life & was born in 1941, & I’ve never seen many Catholics recommend BLIND obedience until I came to this board. What’s with this??? Is it “blind obedience” because you like what your Bishop says?

It’s not that easy, really. WE are responsible for our own souls. Our Bishops will be held accountable for their teaching & actions & to some extent the souls of the people in their care (think millstones)…but we will be held accountable if we don’t search & learn about what is wrong & what is right.

BTW. Notifying the Vatican… Especially those Catholics in Ca.
where abuse of the liturgy common.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Wrong. We are not mindless idiots.

I’ve been a Catholic all of my life & was born in 1941, & I’ve never seen many Catholics recommend BLIND obedience until I came to this board. What’s with this??? Is it “blind obedience” because you like what your Bishop says?

Just FYI, I’m a Protestant who is not a mindless idiot either, because I feel that I am qualified to determine that the Pope and the Catholic Church are at odds with the Bible. I just didn’t know that Catholics were also allowed to think for themselves about such matters.

 

[weepixie71]

Just FYI, I’m a Protestant who is not a mindless idiot either, because I feel that I am qualified to determine that the Pope and the Catholic Church are at odds with the Bible. I just didn’t know that Catholics were also allowed to think for themselves about such matters.

we as catholics do not live by bible alone. he have a catechism that we are supposed to know. the catechism is a sort of religious user’s manual, outlining the basic doctrine and beliefs. it also explains how and why we as catholics do the things we do. we are given tools to know if a priest, bishop, and yes even the pope are teaching and guiding appropriately and according to our catholic beliefs. if they are not it is called heresie. if one is a heretic we are not to follow them for they would no longer be considered in union with the catholic church.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Ed,
Maybe I missed it here, but are altar girls allowed in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches?

No. In the Eastern tradition women are not allowed in the “Holy Place” with the exception that at monasteries with all women it is sometimes permitted that they may serve. In fact, a long time ago, women were ordained as deacons and served under the same conditions.

Deacon Ed

 

[savienu]

No. In the Eastern tradition women are not allowed in the “Holy Place” with the exception that at monasteries with all women it is sometimes permitted that they may serve. In fact, a long time ago, women were ordained as deacons and served under the same conditions.

Deacon Ed

Show me, please, where an ordination such as what occurs with male deacons today ever happened in Eastern CATHOLIC Churches, or, for that matter, ANY Catholic Church. The link you provided really wasn’t historical evidence, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says that women were never ordained.

 

[Mary_W]

Well, I’m new to this forum and a cradle Catholic who is still trying to recover from some of the negative effects of VII. I haven’t time to read all the pages on this thread but I’d like to give my opinion.

I personally haven’t read anything that Benedict may or may not have said regarding female altar servers but the fact that you never see any assisting at the Masses he celebrates, tells me that this is not a practice he approves. Although I’d much rather see the priest served by only altar boys, I am bothered more by the ‘bathrobes’ that they wear- male or female.

By the way, isn’t it true that there was no new dogma or doctrine affirmed by VII?

 

[Layman]

“By the way, isn’t it true that there was no new dogma or doctrine affirmed by VII?”

Correct. But VII is now effectively touted by our liberal brethern as being the ‘year zero’ of a whole new faith, with that which came prior to it as being of secondary importance.

I see it partly as a symptom of the fixation with ‘newness’ and ‘updating’ that you get in commerce nowadays. It’s a marketing gimmick e.g. ‘New improved biological Ariel*’.

*Which incidentally is the name of an archangel!

 

[savienu]

“By the way, isn’t it true that there was no new dogma or doctrine affirmed by VII?”

Correct. But VII is now effectively touted by our liberal brethern as being the ‘year zero’ of a whole new faith, with that which came prior to it as being of secondary importance.

I see it partly as a symptom of the fixation with ‘newness’ and ‘updating’ that you get in commerce nowadays. It’s a marketing gimmick e.g. ‘New improved biological Ariel*’.

*Which incidentally is the name of an archangel!

Yep- both Paul VI and Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, so that the council was a PASTORAL council only, and that no new dogma was defined. I really have to wonder why the council was necessary in the first place, since it was the only one in history not convened to combat an existing heresy.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I’ve read the arguments about validity and obedience. I have to say, as a ‘punter’ who sits at the back, the Latin Mass beats the N.O. in the appearance of holiness, if nothing else. I don’t think you can assume everyone attending is theologically advanced.

Beautiful chant, solemnity, everyone facing the tabernacle, a foreign, yet familiar language and the absence of distractions like female servers or your neighbours reading lessons all help to keep the ‘boys in the back’ from fidgeting, and thereby save some souls.

I thought so too until I went to a NO High Mass. It was, for the most part, in Latin with polyphonic chant and only an organ accompanying it. I had a hard time believing it was actually a NO mass. I believe this was what was intended by the Council when the Pope commissioned (?) the new mass. I also attended a NO Low Mass at this particular church, and though it was in English it was reverent enough (not your regular hoot-nanny mass, and neither was it rushed as some priests tend to do when there is no “music”).

 

[Layman]

That’s the crux of it. Not only was the old rite effectively banned, but** they won’t even do the new rite properly. **

An N.O. done properly, in Latin, ad-orientem, with no EMCs, lay lectors or female servers, with communion on the tongue would not be much different to the old rite.

As the agenda appears to have been to make the Latin Rite more palatable to … Protestants, modern sensibilities or liturgical archaelogists(?) … it has rarely been done this way.

The fix is in. Make the Latin Rite less ‘offensive’ or more pleasing to Protestants or crowd-pleasing or dumbed-down or something(?) It’s truly queer.