What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?

[LexKnight]

(Part 2…)

Any girl who wants to be an altar-server is not being humble, as God asks of us.

I’m pretty sure any person who volunteers to serve is being really humble.

Two different definitions of “serve” found on Dictionary.com read as such:

*1. to act as servant.

1. to render obedience or homage to (God, a sovereign, etc.).*

---

Well, it’s quite late over here (1:30am!) and those are all the points I could think of for the moment, not to mention that this post is already wall-of-text-tastic, so if I think of anything else I’ll comment later. I’m looking forward to hearing what other people have to say about these things.

God Bless!

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

It provides people, regardless of gender, with a great way to be actively participating in the Mass.

Actively participating is not simply done by doing external things. An old lady praying along at the Extraordinary Form is just as “actively” participating in the Mass as is the young man altar serving at the EF.

I believe that Jesus would be absolutely thrilled that there would be women who wished to serve him in any way they could.

I would agree. Except for the fact that Jesus didn’t have women actively chosen for His ministry.

I’ll be frank “because it’s always been that way” is not a good excuse at all.

It works in some cases.

and the opportunity to serve God in this way may even bring some of these young ladies closer to God.

But it is improper. For 1995 years, women did not serve at the altar. In addition, up until the Spirit of Vatican II, laypeople were not permitted into the sanctuary.
As I posted above, there are numerous other ways a woman can become closer to God.

The idea of the altar-server as priest-in-training has also faded into obscurity in recent years.

Whose fault is that?

The female altar-servers have girly-bits that might distract the men of the congregation.

I find that argument simply imbecilic, for what it’s worth. (And, typically, whenever you see female altar servers, they are dressed in those ghastly drapes they call albs, which hides any figure that a young lady may have).

Women are inherently moody and emotional. Especially when ‘that time of the month’ comes around!

The person who said that is an idiot, and he makes all of us rational anti-girl altar servers look stupid. I’ll speak on behalf of the rational folks, and say we don’t propose this point.

The problem, as someone stated earlier, is that people think equality means doing the same things. Women have not traditionally had the role of serving at the altar. That goes on for 1990 years.

Even Holy Mother Church does not fully endorse it. That is why a bishop (even a priest!) can refuse to have altar servers that are female.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Hi everyone. New reader and first time poster so please be gentle!

Where I come from it has never, in my memory, been a problem to use female altar-servers. Admittedly I’m relatively young; I probably didn’t pay too much attention before I was 6 (when the rules were changed), lol. I suppose because of this I find it quite odd that the idea of female servers poses a problem. It provides people, regardless of gender, with a great way to be actively participating in the Mass. This is good because, contrary to what some people here are suggesting, the Mass is not simply a spectacle that is to be observed. Rather, it is a sacrament that the community participates in, in various ways. This can be as simple as joining in with the congregation when they say prayers, or it could be taking a more active role; such as that of a music minister or an altar-server. That said, one is not obliged to take on such roles if they don’t want to – however if one is both able and willing I don’t see why there should be something stopping them.

So my question is – why not? I believe that Jesus would be absolutely thrilled that there would be women who wished to serve him in any way they could. So far nobody has been able to provide an adequate reason as to why any girl or women should not be allowed to be an altar-server. To prove this, I want to discuss the common responses we are getting here:

Male altar-servers are the way it’s always been. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

I’ll be frank “because it’s always been that way” is not a good excuse at all. For a long time women weren’t allowed to vote, or get certain jobs simply because of the fact that they were biologically different. Did that make it right? At risk of sounding like an extreme bra-burning feminist (not that I have any bras to burn, being a guy, lol) the answer is no. Of course not! Heck, for a long time in some Western countries women weren’t even allowed to refuse their husband sex if they didn’t feel like it at the time (to use and extreme example)! I’m sure many people are glad society changed their attitude on that issue.

The idea that “if something isn’t broken that we shouldn’t try to improve on it” is also lazy at best. Sure, we could sufficient. However I personally don’t think that “sufficient” is a good enough. Female altar-servers certainly don’t make a Mass any worse, and the opportunity to serve God in this way may even bring some of these young ladies closer to God. We all have our own unique spiritualities and I think we would be failing our duties as Christians if we were to deny a girl or woman the chance to get closer to God - if this is one way she may do so.

By having female altar-servers we are denying young men the chance to be altar-servers. This is having a negative impact upon vocations to the priesthood.

This one is equally hard to swallow. In my experience no guy is ever denied the chance to become an altar-boy by the presence of a young lady who wishes to do the role too. Both male and female altar-servers can serve alongside each other if both wish to volunteer for the role.

Some people suggested that seeing women doing this role would mean that people would see it as a “girly” task and therefore not decide to do it. Again, this is really not the case. I don’t know about you, but when someone says to me “altar-server” my mind still automatically conjures images of altar-boys moreso than altar-girls. Not necessarily because I think this should be the case, but because in the public eye the role is still seen as predominantly male. Where I come from we still generally have a relatively equal number of boys and girls as altar-servers; thus it has become more of a unisex role.

The idea of the altar-server as priest-in-training has also faded into obscurity in recent years. As a result, it is not necessarily the case that those choosing not to be altar-boys will miss hearing their call to the priesthood (although, as I said above, the likelihood that a boy would not choose to be an altar-server because a girl also does the role is quite miniscule). This leads on to my next point:

Women altar-servers are a devious back-door into promoting the idea of women priests!

See what I just said – but basically the idea of altar-servers as a lead-in to the priesthood is not prevalent in today’s society.

The female altar-servers have girly-bits that might distract the men of the congregation.

Yes, but the same could be said about the effect of attractive male altar-servers on the young women of the congregation.

Since ugly altar-servers may distract people I propose that instead we put aside the idea of gender and only allow really average-looking people of either gender to be altar-servers. Thus no lust and no problem! (/joke)

Women are inherently moody and emotional. Especially when ‘that time of the month’ comes around!

I’m sure that many women would be offended by the first half of this point as it suggests that they lack the self-control to perform a task without letting their emotions interfere. In most lines of work this generally doesn’t prove to be a problem, I don’t see why it would be any different in altar-serving. I’ve also met some pretty emotional men in my time who certainly need to get control of their emotions better than some of the women I know.

Part 2: While PMS does exist (I’m not a PMS denier!), it generally doesn’t prevent most women from doing tasks they have been assigned. Yes, for some women it can be a problem but generally most have a level of self-control that allows them to overcome their mood-swings.

(I have to cut my post here, it’s too long, lol. More in the next post…)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

acolyte ( ) n. One who assists the celebrant in the performance of liturgical rites. A devoted follower or attendant.

as far as i know the definition of this word never changed.

im afraid on this issue we are going to agree to disagree.

You are, of course, free to disagree. You might, however, want to read the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “acolyte” before you say the definition never changed.

i would hope with your duties as a deacon you would have attended a traditional mass. i am sure you have just because you obviously love history. and the tridentine mass is a large connection to catholic history.
an acolyte(altar boy) for the traditional mass, and the acolyte(server)for your mass have very different duties. this does not make our acolytes any less of an altar boy. we have so many acolytes in our mass that there are 5 pews at our altar. on sunday they are almost full. because they are sitting at the altar just studying the future duties of a priest and not handling the bread and wine does not make them any less of an acolyte.

There is no role for a deacon in the Low Mass which is the standard EF Mass that is celebrated. Having grown up long before Vatican II I served at many a Mass, Low, High and Missa Cantata. The use of the term “acolyte” to refer to an altar server was a misnomer. An acolyte, prior to the Second Vatican Council, was a man in minor orders. Altar servers were just altar servers. They were not acolytes.

when someone writes that a pope says he had acolytes then they did exist and if meant just watching and studying the mass in hopes to be made a priest on day… well that is what being an altar boy is all about. and it just proves my point from the very beginning. modernists skewed what altar boys really were so they could have their “servers”. the original intent is not for another person in the laity to perform at the altar who can never have hopes of becoming a priest. the proof is in our mass.

Either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood what I was saying. Acolytes had their own functions. Assisting the pope was part of that, although we do not know what their liturgical functions were since they are not documented anywhere. Again, read the article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia as it will help you to understand the historical perspective on this function.

so by what you are writing back i can only assume that your ideas (not mine) of what an acolyte is and why they existed in the first place, is incorrect.

There is always a danger in making assumptions. What I have written is historically accurate and correct. You appear to have taken the role of the altar server as it existed from roughly 1900 to 1965 and projected it unchanged back into history. This would be an erroneous projection.

[quotge]it also so seems very silly to me to make girls server when your modern church are so needy for future priests!“My modern church”? There is only one Catholic Church and it’s not “mine.” The Church belongs to Christ and we are the members, not the head. Since being an altar server is not a prerequiste for the priesthood such a claim seems to carry no weight. I was an altar server from 3rd grade into college. I’m not a priest. God didn’t call me to be a priest. He called me to be a husband, a father, and a deacon. That’s more than enough!

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

my guess is Jesus picked men and only men because like it or not all of you in the feminist movement God gave us specific roles. men were to provide leadership, emotional, financial, and spiritual support to the family. this role of the male still stands today. when me step out of that role the family the family suffers. we see this today in the high divorce rate and the reasons for them.
because this was God’s intention it makes sense then to have a man lead His family the church.
women are to nurture the church with prayer. it is said no prayer is more powerful than a mothers prayer. where it came from or how it came about i dont know but i believe it. so when a mother prays for holy priests and for a holy church its a strong one. and any woman who thinks women should be priests are not respecting the God wanted his church set up, or they feel they should be a star the show not fulling grasping the concept of the holy mass.

 

[Layman]

To: LexNight:

“I believe that Jesus would be absolutely thrilled that there would be women who wished to serve him in any way they could.”

A common argument. People think they can infer what Jesus would want in novel situations. I’d go by what he said, what he did, by approved revelations and what the saints of the Church have recommended. None have proposed women in the sanctuary, as far as I know.

Intellectualism is a trap in matters of religion. You can rationalise anything.

“Male altar-servers are the way it’s always been. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”

Correct. This is the Mass we’re talking about. The central rite of our religion. It seems now to have been fiddled about with, like children making up the rules of a game as they go along.

What is a Mass for? To worship God and to invite Him to come amongst us to a greater degree.

To BayernAnhaenger:

I was the idiot who made the remarks about women mentruating and mood swings and such. **Men and women are different beings physically, mentally and emotionally. **

[Aside: Pseudo-liberal modern culture is trying to erase such notions, as well as notions of nationality, family ties, religion and loyalty to anything other than money. Then the Adversary will destroy *that too, so ushering in chaos and moral devastation. Just a notion. See the current economic crisis as, hopefully, a temporary example.]

I was attempting to guess why the Church fathers forbade women any role at the altar. Our religion didn’t come out of nothing. The Jews were surrounded by ancient, pagan cultures which had priestesses. A priestess is a different creature to a priest, and I shall watch with interest what happens to our Protestant brothers, as their faith evolves, now they have them.

To: LexNight

“The female altar-servers have girly-bits that might distract the men of the congregation.”

That’s a distortion of what I said. My point is that I perceive that women are much more competitive with each other in getting attention than men, whereas men tend to be embarassed by it. Doesn’t help the boys in the congregation either if she’s a pretty young thing.

I suppose in essence what I’m saying is that the Church now seems to be trying to please men, rather than appease God.

Moses was told by God to take off his sandals on the mountain top, for he stood on holy ground. Now anyone can literally clomp around on there (no altar rails). Jesus is not diminished by this, but we are, in my opinion.

Aside: are we now so confident in making such changes because we now believe, like Protestants, that we are saved, or at least in good odour with Jesus?

 

[weepixie71]

You are, of course, free to disagree. You might, however, want to read the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “acolyte” before you say the definition never changed.

There is no role for a deacon in the Low Mass which is the standard EF Mass that is celebrated. Having grown up long before Vatican II I served at many a Mass, Low, High and Missa Cantata. The use of the term “acolyte” to refer to an altar server was a misnomer. An acolyte, prior to the Second Vatican Council, was a man in minor orders. Altar servers were just altar servers. They were not acolytes.

Either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood what I was saying. Acolytes had their own functions. Assisting the pope was part of that, although we do not know what their liturgical functions were since they are not documented anywhere. Again, read the article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia as it will help you to understand the historical perspective on this function.

There is always a danger in making assumptions. What I have written is historically accurate and correct. You appear to have taken the role of the altar server as it existed from roughly 1900 to 1965 and projected it unchanged back into history. This would be an erroneous projection.

[quotge]it also so seems very silly to me to make girls server when your modern church are so needy for future priests!

“My modern church”? There is only one Catholic Church and it’s not “mine.” The Church belongs to Christ and we are the members, not the head. Since being an altar server is not a prerequiste for the priesthood such a claim seems to carry no weight. I was an altar server from 3rd grade into college. I’m not a priest. God didn’t call me to be a priest. He called me to be a husband, a father, and a deacon. That’s more than enough!

Deacon Ed

yes i specifically wrote modern church because modernists are insistent on changing everything in the mass that is associated before vatican II that is not dogma…
soon dogma is all we as catholics sadly will have in common

 

[Deacon_Ed]

yes i specifically wrote modern church because modernists are insistent on changing everything in the mass that is associated before vatican II that is not dogma…
soon dogma is all we as catholics sadly will have in common

One of the benefits of being a bi-ritual deacon (I serve both a Latin Rite and an Eastern Rite parish) is that I get to see more of the fullness of the reality that is Catholicism. The Church is far broader and much more than you seem to want to admit. Disciplines can and do change, but doctrine and dogma do not, although even there it can be expressed differently (as it is between East and West).

Sorry, I simply don’t see what you seem to see.

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

lets see laity handle the consecrated wine
you have laity passed the communion rails when they are not needed. exp: readings, gifts to the alter, homilies for children
female servers
changed the words of the consecration from “many” to “all”
you only fast for an hour
women are before the consecrated host with their heads uncovered.
most parishioners dress immodest and inappropriate
no chanting at most services
our priest turns his back so he will not be distracted while consecrating… while at your mass he takes the risk.
you take Christ in your hands and place it in some mothers hand that more than likely just got done wiping little Tommy’s nose
your priest will walk beyond the communion rails once mass has started, exp… homily ours only will to give communion to one who is handicapped.
most do not say their mass in ecclesiastical latin.
my husband who never walked into a church before he met me did not say all the time “christians start your engines” when leaving mass, when we used to go to the OM for no reason.
quiet statues are removed in a lot of churches and replaced with a noisy choir. i believe you said at one time this took place… but id be willing to bet it was quiet respectful chant and not a loud rock band and choir that stomp and clap.
no confessions before mass

gosh this is just off the top of my head and i know there is more but my kids need me… so another time.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

lets see laity handle the consecrated wine
you have laity passed the communion rails when they are not needed. exp: readings, gifts to the alter, homilies for children
female servers
changed the words of the consecration from “many” to “all”
you only fast for an hour
women are before the consecrated host with their heads uncovered.
most parishioners dress immodest and inappropriate
no chanting at most services
our priest turns his back so he will not be distracted while consecrating… while at your mass he takes the risk.
you take Christ in your hands and place it in some mothers hand that more than likely just got done wiping little Tommy’s nose
your priest will walk beyond the communion rails once mass has started, exp… homily ours only will to give communion to one who is handicapped.
most do not say their mass in ecclesiastical latin.
my husband who never walked into a church before he met me did not say all the time “christians start your engines” when leaving mass, when we used to go to the OM for no reason.
quiet statues are removed in a lot of churches and replaced with a noisy choir. i believe you said at one time this took place… but id be willing to bet it was quiet respectful chant and not a loud rock band and choir that stomp and clap.
no confessions before mass

gosh this is just off the top of my head and i know there is more but my kids need me… so another time.

Laundry lists are pretty much meaningless as it’s impossible to spend the time to respond to each point. In general, however, you are talking about changes to discipline. BTW, “ecclesiatical Latin” is really late Latin – even the early Church when Latin was first used (3rd century) didn’t use “ecclesiatical Latin.” Greek was the common language of the Church for many, many years. Latin slowly took over in Rome and, from Rome, spread to the rest of the West. Eastern Catholic Churches have always had a tradition of using the language of the people although there are “sacred languages” for most of them.

The “pro multis” argument is pointless as the translation was approved by Rome and will, when the new English translation is released, go back to be “for many.” But, since you raised the issue, did Jesus die for all people or only for some?

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

this isnt a laundry list it isnt even a grocery list… this is the holy sacrifice of the mass!

if you cant see the difference between the changes before vat II

and the extremely rapid and dramatic changes after vat II

there is nothing to talk about

and as far as changes to discipline: you change enough rules and discipline with your children you get a spoiled rotten brat… the church is no different in that regard.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

this isnt a laundry list it isnt even a grocery list… this is the holy sacrifice of the mass!

if you cant see the difference between the changes before vat II

and the extremely rapid and dramatic changes after vat II

there is nothing to talk about

and as far as changes to discipline: you change enough rules and discipline with your children you get a spoiled rotten brat… the church is no different in that regard.

And the Mass is still the Mass. Jesus is made present under the form of bread and wine – the only constant since the Last Supper.

Deacon Ed

 

[palmas85]

Laundry lists are pretty much meaningless as it’s impossible to spend the time to respond to each point. In general, however, you are talking about changes to discipline. BTW, “ecclesiatical Latin” is really late Latin – even the early Church when Latin was first used (3rd century) didn’t use “ecclesiatical Latin.” Greek was the common language of the Church for many, many years. Latin slowly took over in Rome and, from Rome, spread to the rest of the West. Eastern Catholic Churches have always had a tradition of using the language of the people although there are “sacred languages” for most of them.

The “pro multis” argument is pointless as the translation was approved by Rome and will, when the new English translation is released, go back to be “for many.” But, since you raised the issue, did Jesus die for all people or only for some?

Deacon Ed

In the original Greek the term is **PERI POLUS **which I believe translates to **CONCERNING OR ABOUT OR FOR MANY ** not for all, so it would seem that the translators, at least those translating from Latin into English, took some liberties and were not interested in maintaining scriptural integrity with their translation. The simple fact that the Vatican is returning to the proper translation indicates that they now see the problem with what they allowed to happen.

Jesus quite obviously died to give ALL the chance for salvation, not the guarantee of it. What they choose to do with that chance is completely up to them.

The belief in Universal salvation, I believe was in fact condemned by the Church many years ago was it not?

 

[Layman]

I think the error of archeologism is being promoted here. Because such-and-such a practice was briefly done by (a minority within) the ancient church is no justification for reviving it.

Whereas saints have been inspired by the same Mass for over a thousand years. No altar girls present. Laymen kept outside the sacred precincts as much as possible.

Can you imagine the reaction of some of those hardcore old-timers to seeing teenage girls in the sanctuary? To lay women doling out communion?

 

[b_ulmen]

It simply strikes me as being as meaningless as declaring that God can make a rock so big He cannot lift it (or, if He can’t, He isn’t God).

Deacon Ed

thats a good one

 

[Deacon_Ed]

In the original Greek the term is **PERI POLUS **which I believe translates to **CONCERNING OR ABOUT OR FOR MANY ** not for all, so it would seem that the translators, at least those translating from Latin into English, took some liberties and were not interested in maintaining scriptural integrity with their translation. The simple fact that the Vatican is returning to the proper translation indicates that they now see the problem with what they allowed to happen.

The problem is that, at least in Greek, the concept of “many” can actually mean “all” – as it does in English in sentences like: the many passengers on the flight were saved.

Jesus quite obviously died to give ALL the chance for salvation, not the guarantee of it. What they choose to do with that chance is completely up to them.

Precisely! Thus, it is true to say, as Scripture does, that “Christ died once for all.” It is also reasonable to conclude from Scripture that not all will be saved, yet that is not certain. The Church has never said that anyone is in hell, so we don’t actually know.

The belief in Universal salvation, I believe was in fact condemned by the Church many years ago was it not?

Not exactly. What is condemned is the idea expressed by Origen that God must save everyone because of His nature. God is, of course, free to save everyone if He chooses to do so. We can certainly hope for the salvation of all, but that’s quite different from what Origen taught.

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

And the Mass is still the Mass. Jesus is made present under the form of bread and wine – the only constant since the Last Supper.

Deacon Ed

my gosh who cares if the greek was first you want to get that picky, aramaic was first… the reasoning behind ecc latin is enough… it was more thing that was to unite us and to make us more universal and to help stop all the confusion.

i can not believe you would have even brought that up knowing the importance of it.

bottom line vat II is making so many changes that it is now to the point of being scandalous. i can see you shaking your head no now. but its true. when there are this many catholics who feel uncomfortable worshiping at a valid mass its scandalous. a catholic should be able to walk into any catholic church and not be afraid of what they are going to see or hear next. they took a beautiful mass that many of our most popular saints came from and ripped it shreds without batting an eye. and you appear to proud of it and proud to defend it.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

my gosh who cares if the greek was first… the reasoning behind ecc latin is enough… it was more thing that was to unite us and to make us more universal and to help stop all the confusion.

The reason for raising the point is to help you to understand that the Catholic Church is much bigger than your vision appears to allow for.

i can not believe you would have even brought that up knowing the importance of it.

The problem is that I don’t see any importance to it! In my Eastern Rite parish we use Arabic, English and Greek. Arabic because most of the parishioners are from Arabic speaking countries. English because we’re in the United States. Greek is used because it is the “sacred language” of the Byzantine Rite churches. Latin is the “sacred language” of the Latin Rite Church, but it’s not the only language.

bottom line vat II is making so many changes that it is now to the point of being scandalous. i can see you shaking your head no now. but its true. when there are this many catholics who feel uncomfortable worshiping at a valid mass its scandalous. a catholic should be able to walk into any catholic church and not be afraid of what they are going to see or hear next. they took a beautiful mass that many of our most popular saints came from and ripped it shreds without batting an eye. and you appear to proud of it and proud to defend it.

I’m proud of my Church – I’ve dedicated my life to serving her. Why shouldn’t I defend her? I disagree with your assessment of the Church, although I know there are people who agree with you and, for them, the Church has offered the EF. But to tear down the OF is to fail to be fully Catholic. You see, one of the great hallmarks of the Church is that she doesn’t need to tear another down to demonstrate that she is right. When one not onlyfails to understand that one fails to understand the Church and her greatness but also reduces the Church to little more than a human organization that grows through destruction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Deacon Ed

 

[Layman]

I thought the ‘pro multis’ controversy was about making sure the Last Supper part of the Mass was enacted as Jesus spoke it. He used the words ‘for many’, so we should too.

I can tell you I wasn’t happy when I actually read that passage in the Douay-Rheims bible I bought. Just what are these ‘liturgical scholars’ playing at?

Not a living saint among 'em, I dare say.

You ‘correct’ a little bit here and a little bit there, like you might try on a great painting, until you find in the end it’s nothing like the original. And a mess.

When I tried to find a bible as a gift for my godson, I was shocked at how colourless modern translations were. In the end I got him a King James, as I didn’t know about the Douay-Rheims then.

 

[weepixie71]

The reason for raising the point is to help you to understand that the Catholic Church is much bigger than your vision appears to allow for.

The problem is that I don’t see any importance to it! In my Eastern Rite parish we use Arabic, English and Greek. Arabic because most of the parishioners are from Arabic speaking countries. English because we’re in the United States. Greek is used because it is the “sacred language” of the Byzantine Rite churches. Latin is the “sacred language” of the Latin Rite Church, but it’s not the only language.

I’m proud of my Church – I’ve dedicated my life to serving her. Why shouldn’t I defend her? I disagree with your assessment of the Church, although I know there are people who agree with you and, for them, the Church has offered the EF. But to tear down the OF is to fail to be fully Catholic. You see, one of the great hallmarks of the Church is that she doesn’t need to tear another down to demonstrate that she is right. When one not onlyfails to understand that one fails to understand the Church and her greatness but also reduces the Church to little more than a human organization that grows through destruction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Deacon Ed

i do not fail to be catholic so long as i admit that the OM is valid. i do not have to like what modernist have done to the mass no more than you have to like the EM. nor do i have to agree with whatever changes vat II comes up with next in the future so long as a the pope does not have ex cathedra or dogma.

and the ecc latin should be very important to you. today it is the only language that still unites us. and it scares me that a deacon of your status does not recognize that.