What if the Holy See abolished female altar servers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
misstherese said:
I don’t know about historical sources, but I have read of this previously. Here is more information: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...-about-those-six-protestants-and-the-new-mass
Click to expand...
THE REMNANT!?! Are you being serious right now? Talk about heterodoxy…
misstherese said:
Call it conventional, orthodox, traditional, whatever, that’s the meaning of the world traditional: long-established.
Click to expand...
You’re factually mistaken. Please go look up those different terms in a decent dictionary. www.dictionary.com is fine.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the Mass of Pope Paul XVI. It’s not the “Novus Ordo Missae.”
 
Last edited:
dude siting all that is just nonsense, there isn’t any logical reason to limit altar serving which even though the church thinks is fostering a clerical vocation is merely now today; a way to get children to be more involved with the faith and nothing more.

IF the Church really wanted altar serving to be a form and way to " foster clerical vocations " then it should have been pressed harder in the form of having not boys but teens in the ages of 13 and up, until at least mid 30s participate as an Altar server which would also entail being a reader at mass.

An if you are going to " abolish female altar servers" , after years of them not being able to serve; then guess what is next, no more female readers at mass, no more female EMHC either. Because if we are going to go stone age extremes we mine as well have the Catholic Church go as insane as possible with letting women know they can never ever be a priest. and will never come close to being one. More over are unworthy to be one since they are female.

Plus then you can wonder why there is even more of a decline of people in the catholic church once that hypothetical of abolishing female altar servers takes place.
 
superblue said:
dude siting all that is just nonsense, there isn’t any logical reason to limit altar serving which even though the church thinks is fostering a clerical vocation is merely now today; a way to get children to be more involved with the faith and nothing more.
Click to expand...
It’s not “nonsense.”
superblue said:
IF the Church really wanted altar serving to be a form and way to " foster clerical vocations " then it should have been pressed harder in the form of having not boys but teens in the ages of 13 and up, until at least mid 30s participate as an Altar server which would also entail being a reader at mass.
Click to expand...
Males DID serve from ~13 into their 20’s when they were ordained. Late vocations weren’t all that common back in the day when we had an abundance of priests.
superblue said:
An if you are going to " abolish female altar servers" , after years of them not being able to serve; then guess what is next, no more female readers at mass, no more female EMHC either. Because if we are going to go stone age extremes we mine as well have the Catholic Church go as insane as possible with letting women know they can never ever be a priest. and will never come close to being one. More over are unworthy to be one since they are female.
Click to expand...
Not so. That’s really nothing more than your unsupported personal opinion.
superblue said:
Plus then you can wonder why there is even more of a decline of people in the catholic church once that hypothetical of abolishing female altar servers takes place.
Click to expand...
Actually the Church Church continues to grow world-wide…
 
Goodness gracious, don’t expect me to know every single website’s reputation. That does not make it untrue.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Pope Paul VI with the six Protestant ministers who collaborated in making up the New Mass.

Yeah, actually it is. That’s what it was called then, and I’m going to call it that now. Why would that matter anyway? It’s just a term.
 
good grief if i had to bullet point respond to everything like you did, id have an aneurysm and be held up in the hospital over night from having to try an specifically explain every little meaning and context to what i said and meant, this is like the only time i am ever going to give any kind of answer as to anything I say and that is, If you cant understand what I mean, and only take the time to demand " support and or proof " to what I say and if you or anyone else cant, and or take what I say into some kind of negative context, that is on you and whom ever else is not getting it.

I dont have the energy to try and play gotcha games with people let alone spoon feed answers to people.
 
The Remnant and the Wanderer are notoriously silly and inaccurate rags posing as the keepers of “tradition.”

My goodness…
 
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
(Archbishop Bugnini before the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)

“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimensions since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.”
(Archbishop Bugnini after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Notitiae”, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126)

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
(Father Joseph Gelineau, Demain la Liturgie, Paris, 1976, p. 9-10)

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

Are those enough sources?
 
This source is approved:

Pope Benedict XVI:
In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful. Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak … reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.” [4]

In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII. Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.

Given the continued requests of these members of the faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and having listened to the views expressed by the Cardinals present at the Consistory of 23 March 2006, upon mature consideration, having invoked the Holy Spirit and with trust in God’s help, by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
Click to expand...
 
I think it would be a travesty. A giant step backwards actually. False gender roles should have no place in Christian society. The church speaks out often against gender theory. At the same time, some in the church promote this false gender roles and theory that states that women have no place on the altar. Kind of ridiculous
 
I’ve been a lurker on this site for years, but for some reason this is the first post that’s that’s actually made me want to reply and sign up.

I was a female alter server when I was young, at a Catholic school attached to a church. Did daily mass and everything. I loved it. I loved being part of a such an important interaction, it made me feel like I was welcomed and needed in the church community as a helper to the priest, and I learned a lot about why the mass is the way it is.

Nowdays, due to where I live (abroad and far from a city center) it’s hard for me to get to mass as often as I should, but I still have my faith, partially due to the fact that I was an alter server and the power of the mysteries resides in me still from having served them. It was a strong part of the formation of my faith and I can still remember that I was allowed to help manifest the mystery of faith.

Had girls been excluded, partially when they had been allowed previously, I would have been grievously hurt. There may be theological and church law arguments against it, but those don’t really matter to children as they cannot really be digested by children. I would have just interpreted it as “girls are not as equal as boys” and it would have left a very bitter taste in my mouth towards the church as an institution that held me, solely through virtue of being born a girl, as less than those who had been born boys.

Priests are different because priests are adults, but setting forth the idea that boys and girls, as children, as not the same is very damaging, especially when so much of church instruction towards children is that God loves children the most. Well, my logic would have been in this case that God loves his boy children more.

For me, there is only benefit in letting girls serve, as it shows them that all children are loved equally by God, and there is only detriment in making the distinction that boys>girls at that age.
 
misstherese said:
But the EF mass is more orthodox/traditional because it hasn’t really changed much
Click to expand...
This is absolutely true. The EF Mass is a more orthodox expession of Catholic doctrine - the prayers are very clear and precise. The prayers of the OF aren’t as clear; for example, EP II says “that we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.” One what? The prayer doesn’t say One True Church under the Pope. Therefore, it appears to allow different interpretations of ecclesiology. Furthermore, the OF often has us say “we proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come again” right after the consecration! Our Lord is literally present on the altar and we say ‘until you come again.’ This is confusing to people who aren’t aware of the reality of transubstantiation. These are just two examples off the top of my head.

Never apologise for believing that the EF is superior because you’re telling the truth: it is better. It’s more reverent; more traditional; more doctrinally pure; and is apostolic. The OF is a break with tradition; is doctrinally ambiguous; and has more in common with Thomas Cranmer than the apostolic rites of the Church.
 
Last edited:
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
For me, there is only benefit in letting girls serve, as it shows them that all children are loved equally by God, and there is only detriment in making the distinction that boys>girls at that age.
Click to expand...
But boys and girls are different. The distinction between the sexes is very real. Men and women have different but complementary qualities. It’s very important that boys and girls are taught to embrace their unique differences. Girls should be encouraged to take up feminine roles; boys should be encouraged to take up masculine roles. Gender is not a social construct - it is innate and natural.
 
I am unsure what the disdain for “ecumenicalism” around here is. I would guess the vast majority of us in the U.S., at least, who are converts, are converts from some form of Protestantism. There’s a certain value to having a Mass we can somewhat access initially. The standard Mass isn’t exactly comprehensible to start with if you’re not familiar with it, the Latin Mass, well, was pretty much impossible even with the missal in front of you.
 
Carrying candles and fetching things is not something that is masculine or feminine. I liked doing it, as it is a task well suited for children 8-12 or so, and I don’t think that in any way it made me less feminine or is a service that is unique to masculinity.

What role then do you suppose than girls (not women, but girls) fill in a church community?
 
Saxum said:
But boys and girls are different. The distinction between the sexes is very real. Men and women have different but complementary qualities. It’s very important that boys and girls are taught to embrace their unique differences. Girls should be encouraged to take up feminine roles; boys should be encouraged to take up masculine roles. Gender is not a social construct - it is innate and natural.
Click to expand...
The issue that I see over and over again in society, not just on this board, is that some people believe this wholeheartedly, some believe it to a degree (such as, gender matters for certain biological features, or in a partner -marital relationship, but not elsewhere), and some do not believe it at all and find it divisive and even disrespectful of individual’s qualities.

You are never going to get everybody, and that includes everybody in the Church, on the same page with one mindset about this, ever.
 
I agree that there is a difference between men and women, but the idea of ‘gender roles’ is very fluid and doesn’t really rely on what the individual in question can actually do, or what their gifted skills are. Of course women will be drawn more towards certain pursuits than men, and vice versa, but there is no hard and fast reason to divide the world into masculine and feminine activities, aside from traditional beliefs. To say “you can’t do that only because you are a girl/boy” when the girl/boy has the full capacity and willingness to do so is not only harmful to the individual, but also deprives the society of the realization of the extent of their skills.

To be clear, I am not advocating that women be admitted into the priesthood or anything radical like that, but instead saying that the notion of gender roles for the sake of tradition and tradition alone is not reason enough to exclude millions of girls from participating in Mass in a way that is appropriate for their age and also serves the benefit of enriching their faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top