What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?

[Deacon_Ed]

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.

Let’s see, the original draft of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was written in French. Most of Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals were written in Polish and translated into Latin for release. Pope Benedict XVI writes in German which is then translated even though both popes were fluent in Latin.

Latin is a langauge that unites the LATIN RITE of the Catholic Church, but not the Church herself. The Catholic Church is composed of 23 churches of which the Latin Church is the largest, but she is only one. Greek is the standard language of the Byzantine churches, but Old Church Slavonic is the sacred language of the Slavic Byzantine churches. There isn’t one single language that unites the Church. The reason I don’t recognize what you think is the binding force of Latin is because I have studied the Church – extensively. Ecclesial Latin is a late development. It is still used in the standard liturgical texts of the Latin church and any priest can say the Mass in Latin without any permission necessary. But since the Mass is also the work of the people (that’s what liturgy means, it comes from the Greek words laos meaning people and ergon meaning work) it follows that for the people to do the work they need to know the language. Most people today do not know enough Latin to follow the Mass – that’s why most missals for the EF have Latin on one side and the vernacular on the other. That way people can follow along by reading the Mass. How much better if they could actually pray it with the priest in the same language.

Deacon Ed

 

[jw9495]

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

Very well said Deacon Ed!

 

[palmas85]

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.

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.

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

Yes in Greek in a certain usage it can mean all. However in the scriptural verse quoted that particular linguistic usage is not present or even hinted at. It means quite plainly concerning or for many. That’s it. No ambiguity at all.

I think that is why the Vatican is revising it’s translation. Otherwise why bother? If it could mean for all leave it the way it is. But it doesn’t, it didn’t and it never will. The Church has realized that and is returning to the proper translation

Of course, I will be most surprised if all Priests suddenly start using it…

 

[LexKnight]

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.

You’ll notice I did acknowledge that. The point is that the opportunity to serve at the altar provides young women the chance to actively participate in another way.

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

Just because none of the Twelve Apostles were women does not mean that Jesus did not have women chosen for His ministry. See discussion re: female deacons earlier in the thread. There were many important women in the early Church, as far back as the Gospels – some of Jesus’ most important followers were women. It’s even possible that there were women serving at the Last Supper; I’m not too familiar with the Jewish Passover meals but I imagine at the time the men wouldn’t have prepared all the food and done a lot of the serving of the meal itself.

It works in some cases.

Some, but generally not all. We are a Church that is moving forward through time and need to be able to revise ourselves in light of the current world. This, of course, is not the same as saying the Church just needs to “get with it” like many liberal thinkers would suggest (I think anyone who says that misses the point). To be unchanging simply because we are comfortable with our current routines is, as said before, at best lazy. Tradition is great; tradition is wonderful; tradition is amazing. It’s one of the best things about Catholicism! However we need to ask ourselves “why do we have this tradition?” If it can’t be justified then we seriously have to think about revising our position, particularly if this tradition prevents people from engaging with the Lord in a way that may be meaningful and significant to them.

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.

“Improper” is a relatively subjective term. Obviously the official Church teaching is that it is not improper; otherwise it would be forbidden in all circumstances. At the moment it is considered a personal preference of the Bishop or priest.

And indeed there are numerous other ways that a woman can become closer to God; however what if this particular way is particularly beneficial for them. There has already been one poster here who has said her serving has helped her to become closer to God.

Whose fault is that?

I certainly wouldn’t say “the female altar-servers.” It’s been that way even before that change was made.

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.

Well, equality means equal opportunity. Obviously not every woman is fit to be an altar-server, just as not every man is. However if a woman is both willing and able to be an altar-server, and the best reason we can think of to say no is “well… it’s always been that way!” then that’s really not good enough.

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.

But Holy Mother Church does endorse it by allowing it to occur. If it was wrong or disrespectful to any degree then the Church would immediately discontinue the practice. It is a personal preference of the priest or bishop.

 

[LexKnight]

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.

This would make sense; except that Jesus (nor the Apostles) actually devised the current liturgical formula that we use at Mass. The Mass is something that has evolved over time and, for some reason, people decided at one point that it should just stop evolving. The official stance of the Church on this matter is that women are allowed to be in the sanctuary. Full stop.

Also I do not know the contents of every revelation, but I don’t think many of them generally concerned the structure and carrying out of our liturgies.

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

Religion without intellectualism is a dumb religion (literally, lol). In fact, it is one of the great aspects of Catholicism that is not present in many other religions (even other Christian denominations). Our beliefs come from rigorous study and contemplation.

We need to be able to rationalise our own beliefs, and if we can’t provide an adequate reason as to why something is the case then we seriously need to look at ourselves and say “why are we doing this?”

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.

Change does not equal destruction. Like I said before, for a long time the Mass was not a stagnant and unchanging ceremony. It developed and evolved over time. I agree that not all change is good, but then again not all change is bad either. If this change enables more people to worship God in an appropriate way that is good and comfortable for them, then I believe it is a good change.

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. **

Yes, however you did make a lot of assumptions about people. Like I said before, I know many men who are way more moody and emotional than a lot of my female friends, and vica-versa. It’s not so much an entire gender but rather individuals.

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.

My guess would be that the Church fathers lived in an extremely patriarchal society that probably wouldn’t have accepted women in positions of power as easily as they would accept men. That’s just my guess though.

“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.

First, I was paraphrasing what a few people have said – not just you. I still don’t think this is a valid point. I know plenty of guys who would want to get the attention of attractive young women, and I know plenty of girls who would want to get the attention of attractive young men. It’s not a gender-exclusive thing. In fact, in my experience men are more likely to be show-offish around girls than the other way round. Although I was joking in my first post, the only way to be entirely sure that the looks of an altar-server do not distract any members of the congregation would be to have only average-looking people perform this task.

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

I don’t think a women serving at the altar displease God one iota. In fact, the Church teaches that it doesn’t (otherwise they wouldn’t allow female altar-servers). Without knowing the mind of God, I can imagine what would please God is us giving people the opportunity to become closer to Him; which is what this can do.

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.

As long as the space is treated with respect by people I highly doubt the presence of people who lack a Y chromosome diminishes us.

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?

As I said before, change is not always bad thing. This kind of change reflects the evolving nature of the Church and our willingness to promote equality amongst the family of Christ.

 

[Layman]

I’m afraid you lost me when you mentioned ‘patriarchal society’ and ‘men can be as moody as women’.

“I don’t think a women serving at the altar displease God one iota. In fact, the Church teaches that it doesn’t (otherwise they wouldn’t allow female altar-servers).”

The Church has granted recent permission for them, but doesn’t approve of them, from what I’ve read here.

Y’see, I’m a practical man. I favour what works. The N. O. mass, with attendant novelties and abuses, doesn’t work as well as the TLM, in my opinion. **Less reverence, more distraction, more novelty, more focussing on the participants and less on the Redeemer, likely resulting is less graces attendant. **

**I see it as a clever move by the Devil to weaken the Church. **Banning it didn’t work, killing it’s priests didn’t work, but destroying it from within is far more effective. Water it down, sugar it up and in a few years people will forget it was ever important.

The result of 40+ years of ‘change’?: Fewer priests, closing parishes and worse, a general sense by a lot of baptised Catholics that missing mass, contraception, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are OK. Worse still, they don’t even know the basics of their religion.

From a purely statistical view, another 40 years of this and we’ll be in the same state as some eccentric Protestant sect in the American wilderness.

All because some intellectual bishops and academics thought to remake the Mass according to their own conceits.

Ha ha, a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and The Last Super with young ladies, guitars and the tabernacle shoved into a side altar? The Host doled out like biscuits? Nuns reading the epistle?

The contrast between this Mass, these times and times past are so stark I’m surprised to be even wriing this, now.

 

[LexKnight]

I’m afraid you lost me when you mentioned ‘patriarchal society’ and ‘men can be as moody as women’.

Well in that case I’m very glad I don’t know any of the women you do. It must be frustrating when every woman you know is moody and emotional.

“I don’t think a women serving at the altar displease God one iota. In fact, the Church teaches that it doesn’t (otherwise they wouldn’t allow female altar-servers).”

The Church has granted recent permission for them, but doesn’t approve of them, from what I’ve read here.

By granting permission the Church therefore approves of them. Some people, the Pope included, may have preference for male altar-servers only but this does not mean that the Church doesn’t approve of female altar-servers. At the moment it is a matter of preference.

Y’see, I’m a practical man. I favour what works. The N. O. mass, with attendant novelties and abuses, doesn’t work as well as the TLM, in my opinion. **Less reverence, more distraction, more novelty, more focussing on the participants and less on the Redeemer, likely resulting is less graces attendant. **

While abuses are indeed more prevalent at N.O. Masses there is actually nothing inherently wrong with the N.O. by itself. A well-done N.O. (in my opinion) can be just as beautiful as a TLM. To be honest I imagine it’s much easier to get distracted when a priest is speaking a language that you don’t actually understand. (I tend to drift off when people speaking in English waffle on about things I don’t get.)

**I see it as a clever move by the Devil to weaken the Church. **Banning it didn’t work, killing it’s priests didn’t work, but destroying it from within is far more effective. Water it down, sugar it up and in a few years people will forget it was ever important.

That’s nice, but I disagree.

The result of 40+ years of ‘change’?: Fewer priests, closing parishes and worse, a general sense by a lot of baptised Catholics that missing mass, contraception, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are OK. Worse still, they don’t even know the basics of their religion.

From a purely statistical view, another 40 years of this and we’ll be in the same state as some eccentric Protestant sect in the American wilderness.

Statistics are handy, however only when looked at in context. Yes, there has been change in the Church and yes there has been a decline in the practice of the faith. However, to say the former caused the latter is a logical fallacy. In fact, most people I know who are ‘lapsed Catholics’ do not practice their faith because the Church is “too far behind” or “not progressive enough.” Not because it’s too liberal. (This doesn’t mean the Church needs to ‘get with the times’ but it does give us an understanding of why people don’t come.)

All because some intellectual bishops and academics thought to remake the Mass according to their own conceits.

Again, you’re ignoring the evolutionary nature of the Mass and the Church.

Ha ha, a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and The Last Super with young ladies, guitars and the tabernacle shoved into a side altar? The Host doled out like biscuits? Nuns reading the epistle?

While I do get tempted not to be nit-picky, I do have to say that guitars can be very beautiful instruments when used properly. They may not be organs but they really can be used to set the mood and create a good atmosphere for the celebration of the Eucharist. Also, there is a very good reason for the movement of the tabernacle to the side – although that’s really a discussion for another day. Finally, do you honestly think that when Jesus passed out the bread at the Last Supper that he did so by carefully cutting each piece of and placing it directly on the tongue of the Apostles using a spoon? No, he probably passed it around and the Apostles probably just ripped chunks out of it. That doesn’t mean we don’t treat The Host with respect; just that we can be reverent without all the pomp and ceremony.

The contrast between this Mass, these times and times past are so stark I’m surprised to be even wriing this, now.

Change is not inherently a bad thing. Remember that.

 

[Layman]

“In fact, most people I know who are ‘lapsed Catholics’ do not practice their faith because the Church is “too far behind” or “not progressive enough.” Not because it’s too liberal.”

If they want the Church to change to accomodate the latest ‘progressive’ thinking, they’re in the wrong religion. Christ expects a very high standard of behaviour from us.

“Do you honestly think that when Jesus passed out the bread at the Last Supper that he did so by carefully cutting each piece of and placing it directly on the tongue of the Apostles using a spoon? No, he probably passed it around and the Apostles probably just ripped chunks out of it.”

Errr… don’t you understand that receiving bread from the hand of Christ himself cannot be compared in any way with getting it from the hand of an EMC?

The priest acts ‘in persona Christi’. He acts in place of Christ. Letting some unconsecrated woman dole it out is one remove too far.

I think you don’t understand what the Mass is, really. And I find your tone faintly patronising e.g.:

“Change is not inherently a bad thing. Remember that.”

I shall, next time I’m singing the Agnes Dei at my local TLM, and again, when I’m in Ireland, when I have to work out how to get to the line to get Communion direct from the priest, and try to ignore the fish-pond under the side-altar.

 

[paperwight]

I question your need to use such a casual and irreverent word as ‘doling’. To you hope thereby to associate women EMHC with irreverence and lack of respect for the Blessed Sacarment?

In what way does the actaul process of distributing Holy Communion by a woman differ from that by a man? It is the same method, is it not? Or would you just as easily talk of men EMHC ‘doling’ out’ Holy Communion. If not, why not?

 

[LexKnight]

“In fact, most people I know who are ‘lapsed Catholics’ do not practice their faith because the Church is “too far behind” or “not progressive enough.” Not because it’s too liberal.”

If they want the Church to change to accomodate the latest ‘progressive’ thinking, they’re in the wrong religion. Christ expects a very high standard of behaviour from us.

You seem to have missed the point. The point isn’t that the Church needs to ‘get with the times,’ rather I was saying that it’s wrong to assume that it has been the liberal elements within the Church that have caused a decrease in the numbers of practicing Catholics.

Errr… don’t you understand that receiving bread from the hand of Christ himself cannot be compared in any way with getting it from the hand of an EMC?

The priest acts ‘in persona Christi’. He acts in place of Christ. Letting some unconsecrated woman dole it out is one remove too far.

Obviously it’s incomparable, however the Eucharist is supposed to be a recreation of the Last Supper. I believe other people earlier in the thread were saying that they wanted to stick with what Jesus did and said. Jesus certainly didn’t distribute His body in the way it is often done at the TLM. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; what is done at a TLM is a way of showing reverence and respect for the Body of Christ. That said, handling The Host with our hands is not necessarily irreverent, as long as we understand and recognise the significance of what we are doing (the Apostles would have touched the Bread with their own hands I imagine – and their hands were probably a lot dirtier than ours are in modern society).

On the issue of using extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist; well, the Church doesn’t have a problem with it and neither do I. Obviously it is preferable if a priest is able to distribute the Eucharist, but the Church doesn’t consider it a bad thing and so I don’t see why I should either.

In terms of the gender of the extraordinary ministers, I don’t think that this should be an issue at all. If you wanted to get picky, only men attended the Last Supper; does this mean that only men should receive the Eucharist? In the same way I don’t see why it is an issue that women should distribute the Eucharist. Christ resides within us all, men and women alike. While women are biologically different to Christ’s human body, woman can be just as Christ-like as us gents spiritually, emotionally and mentally.

I think you don’t understand what the Mass is, really.

I understand the Mass quite well actually. I just disagree with you on the specifics of what is irreverent behaviour. I’m not suggesting anything that is outside of what the Church already permits. If it’s good enough for the Church, it’s good enough for me.

And I find your tone faintly patronising e.g.:

“Change is not inherently a bad thing. Remember that.”

I apologise if you interoperated this statement in this way – I was being succinct rather than attempting to be patronising. It’s a point I’ve probably made about seven or eight times already and I didn’t feel the need to elaborate on it further.

 

[Peccavi]

Somebody in the wider Forum once asked me why I am a lapsed Catholic who still goes to Mass (where my grand-daughter serves as an altar girl ) but declines communion and confession. The fact that you are even having this mysogenist debate when the world (which God so loves) is stricken by war, violence, disease, hunger, ignorance and hatreds, confirms me in my self-impose exile .

 

[LexKnight]

Somebody in the wider Forum once asked me why I am a lapsed Catholic who still goes to Mass (where my grand-daughter serves as an altar girl ) but declines communion and confession. The fact that you are even having this mysogenist debate when the world (which God so loves) is stricken by war, violence, disease, hunger, ignorance and hatreds, confirms me in my self-impose exile .

I’m not quite sure what this post is supposed to mean. We generally have debates over issues like these rather than the ones you mentioned because we generally agree on the fact that war, violence, disease, hunger, ignorance and hatred, are all bad things.

For me, this is an important issue as I believe altar-service can help to bring people (including women) closer to God and can’t see why someone would want to deny them this opportunity to do so.

 

[maurin]

Somebody in the wider Forum once asked me why I am a lapsed Catholic who still goes to Mass (where my grand-daughter serves as an altar girl ) but declines communion and confession. The fact that you are even having this mysogenist debate when the world (which God so loves) is stricken by war, violence, disease, hunger, ignorance and hatreds, confirms me in my self-impose exile .

quite likely because your sensus fidei recognizes the contradictions between the Orders of your Mass of today, and the Mass of your youth.

 

[Jude_Smith]

mass is not a feminist boot camp… i am appalled at your hateful views towards woman in the catholic church. there are so many other things she can do.
start a program she is passionate about, like a childrens rosary, have her lead it and help her guide it.
help decorate and clean church
repair vestments, cassocks, and albs
offer to wash altar clothes
heck put her in girl scouts if you want her to learn leadership skills
BUT DO NOT USE A SACRED MASS FOR YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA

Not Girl Scouts! My wife is ending her and our daughters’ affiliation there due to ties with Planned Parenthood. Boy Scouts offers Venture Patrols which can be coed or not, for teens aged 14 and up.
I am told Girl Scouts has become quite hostile to traditional feminine roles and virtues, and the religious element is gone or going. (Some places have eliminated God from the oath.)

 

[tulsacubfan]

it scares me that a deacon of your status does not recognize that.

Rather than respond to all of the discussions, I will just say I completely disagree with this. In fact, I was wondering where in Orange County Deacon Ed is so I can attend that church the next time I am in OC.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Rather than respond to all of the discussions, I will just say I completely disagree with this. In fact, I was wondering where in Orange County Deacon Ed is so I can attend that church the next time I am in OC.

My Latin Rite parish is St. Joseph in Placentia and my Eastern Rite parish is Holy Cross Melkite Greek Catholic Church, also in Placentia. You are always welcome at either parish. I’m (normally) at Holy Cross the 1st and 3rd Sundays of the month and at St. Joseph the other Sundays, although which Masses I’m scheduled for varies. If you contact me before you visit I can let you know what my schedule is.

Deacon Ed

 

[hays1122]

Are Catholic pastors the same thing as priests?
The reason I ask is that I was listening to Teresa Tomeo on the radio and she referred to her pastor as “she”.
I know the Catholic church does not approve of female priests,but are there female pastors then?
I always thought of pastors and priests as equal.
Or Maybe Teresa Tomeo isn’t a Catholic. Her show is on EWTN.

 

[savienu]

I’m afraid you lost me when you mentioned ‘patriarchal society’ and ‘men can be as moody as women’.

“I don’t think a women serving at the altar displease God one iota. In fact, the Church teaches that it doesn’t (otherwise they wouldn’t allow female altar-servers).”

The Church has granted recent permission for them, but doesn’t approve of them, from what I’ve read here.

Y’see, I’m a practical man. I favour what works. The N. O. mass, with attendant novelties and abuses, doesn’t work as well as the TLM, in my opinion. **Less reverence, more distraction, more novelty, more focussing on the participants and less on the Redeemer, likely resulting is less graces attendant. **

**I see it as a clever move by the Devil to weaken the Church. **Banning it didn’t work, killing it’s priests didn’t work, but destroying it from within is far more effective. Water it down, sugar it up and in a few years people will forget it was ever important.

The result of 40+ years of ‘change’?: Fewer priests, closing parishes and worse, a general sense by a lot of baptised Catholics that missing mass, contraception, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are OK. Worse still, they don’t even know the basics of their religion.

From a purely statistical view, another 40 years of this and we’ll be in the same state as some eccentric Protestant sect in the American wilderness.

All because some intellectual bishops and academics thought to remake the Mass according to their own conceits.

Ha ha, a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and The Last Super with young ladies, guitars and the tabernacle shoved into a side altar? The Host doled out like biscuits? Nuns reading the epistle?

The contrast between this Mass, these times and times past are so stark I’m surprised to be even wriing this, now.

I agree with everything you said here! I love the cries of “I’m not a feminist, but the patriarchal society of 1993 (since women weren’t granted even ANY permission to serve until after then) was suppressing women!!” Forgive the sarcasm, but c’mon, give me a break! I wonder if St. Therese the Little Flower felt like she wasn’t being honored as a woman because she couldn’t serve the Priest at the altar.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Are Catholic pastors the same thing as priests?
The reason I ask is that I was listening to Teresa Tomeo on the radio and she referred to her pastor as “she”.
I know the Catholic church does not approve of female priests,but are there female pastors then?
I always thought of pastors and priests as equal.

A priest can have several roles, and one of them is pastor. There are women whose title is Pastoral Minister, but I’ve never heard one of them called pastor by anyone. Was she perhaps talking about her spiritual director, who could certainly be a woman?

 

[savienu]

While I do get tempted not to be nit-picky, I do have to say that guitars can be very beautiful instruments when used properly. They may not be organs but they really can be used to set the mood and create a good atmosphere for the celebration of the Eucharist.

Okay, I am a guitarist, I need to make that clear. I write music, christian music. It is a great way to honor the Lord. But there is a time and a place for it, and a guitar has NO place in the liturgy. There is a reason there are different instruments- different instruments give a different feel. Organs give a feeling of reverence. NO guitar can do that.