What if the Holy See abolished female altar servers?

[Walking_Home]

In a marriage – when one looks to Christ as the Head – His Grace will flow to smooth out any/all bumps.

 

[JetteZ]

You’re misconstruing the clear words of St. Paul to fit your ideology.

I’m not sure you aren’t doing the same.

The context of St. Paul’s letter was regarding conduct at the liturgy and, in this case, specifically women should cover their heads because it was the polite custom of the time.

In the same letter he writes, “Wives and Husbands. Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

He again uses the allegory of husbands are like Christ and Women like the church but it is about mutual sacrifice for the other. Women are called to respect their husbands and husbands are called to love their wives as Christ and be willing to die for them.

That’s some intense mutual subordination.

 

[Duesenberg]

one might argue for maintaining a loose quota on the basis that making sure that both men and women are represented

The mix should loosely approximate the parish.

 

[misstherese]

“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands.” 1 Peter 3:1-6

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." Titus 2:1-15

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.1 Peter 3:7

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

 

[Saxum]

I’m not sure you aren’t doing the same.

I know the Scriptures you have mentioned. I’ve also read Theology of the Body. Nevertheless, I believe that a man has to be the leader, guardian and protector of his wife and family. I believe that is the correct construction of the biblical and magisterial texts. Furthermore, I believe it conforms with the natural order of things. That is, the nuclear family is the form or ideal structure of society - and this ideal requires men to be the breadwinners and protectors.

Lastly, the erosion of the masculine role has thrown many men into crisis. It produces a nation of Homer Simpson’s. It is imperative that men reclaim their role - and a perfect model for us is St Joseph.

 

[JetteZ]

You can believe as you will; however, when you said someone is bending scripture to maintain ideology when you are behaving in the same manner is disingenuous.

You read and see what you want to see; the other poster reads and sees what they want to see.

…I think I’ve read about that somewhere…

 

[Walking_Home]

Christ came to raise marriage to what God intended from the beginning – before sin entered the heart/soul of men.
It is through Christ’s Grace that Christian spouses can overcome the subjugation/the disfigurement/ the disorder of one sex over the other.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

Drawn into the Paschal mystery and made living signs of the love of Christ and his Church, the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin. For Christian spouses, the goodness of love, for which the wounded human heart has continued to long, is revealed with new accents and possibilities. It is in this light that Jesus, faced with the question about divorce (cf. Mt 19:3-9), recalls the demands of the covenant between man and woman as willed by God at the beginning, that is, before the eruption of sin which had justified the later accommodations found in the Mosaic Law. Far from being the imposition of a hard and inflexible order, these words of Jesus are actually the proclamation of the “good news” of that faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness over weakness, over injuries and over the couple’s sins. In the grace of Christ which renews their hearts, man and woman become capable of being freed from sin and of knowing the joy of mutual giving.

“For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

[Saxum]

You read and see what you want to see; the other poster reads and sees what they want to see.

The difference between my interpretation and the others is that my interpretation conforms with truth. It clearly says men are the head of their wives. In the marriage ceremony, the father gives his daughter away to the husband. The traditional male role was always as breadwinner and protector - and the bible calls woman the “weaker vessel.”

It is the others who are imbued with feminist ideology who want to change the traditional roles. They are disingenuous because they can’t quite take the next logical step: female priests. Their zeal for egalitarianism means they can’t see how the sexes are complimentary but have different roles.

 

[otjm]

As to your first bullet, I have a tendency to say that coincidence is not correlation. My archdiocse has 124 parishes; give it 100 in the 1950’s and early 60’s, and assuming an avwerage overall of 10 boys per parish, my starting class in college in seminary had about 30, and several were from out of state. That amounts to a little less than 3% of altar boys going to seminary.

Out of my parish, two women have professed vows with two different orders of sisters; both were altar servers.

In 1965, when about 50% of Cahtolics attended Mass on a regular basis, 994 priests were ordained; in 2016, when Mass statistics are somewhere between 20 and 25% attending Mass regularly, more than half that amount were ordained: 548. Actually, about 55%.

Yes, I know that many in the upper echelons of the Church repeat the mantra, but proof seems a bit on the shy side. The argument is made that allowing girls to serve means boys won’t serve. And my answer is my parenting style let grade school children make some choices - but not all. Boys won’t serve? I had twin daughters, but had I had boys, they would not have told me they would not serve. They didn’t like it? Guess what - there’s gonna be a whole lot of things you aren’t going to like, kiddo. Get used to it.

As to commonality with some of the Orthodox and Eastern rites - the Roman rite leads, not follows.

And as to the EF: that amounts to less than 35 of parishes in the US with some Mass sometime during a period of time - on occasion once every 2 months. The OF is the norm, not the EF.

So, overall, it cannot be said, from some rough statistics, that allowing femal servers is causing a downtrend in ordinations. if anything, we are doing better now than back then.

 

[Duesenberg]

As to commonality with some of the Orthodox and Eastern rites - the Roman rite leads, not follows.

Wow, that’s quite arrogant…

Like it or not, something like 95% of all priests today were altar boys growing up. The diocese with the greatest number of vocations/faithful (Lincoln, Nebraska) does not allow female servers. They don’t even have deacons!

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope John Paul II—Letter to Women

I greet you all most cordially,
women throughout the world!

1. I am writing this letter to each one of you as a sign of solidarity and gratitude on the eve of the Fourth World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing this coming September…
2. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?

Yes, it is time to examine the past with courage, to assign responsibility where it is due in a review of the long history of humanity. Women have contributed to that history as much as men and, more often than not, they did so in much more difficult conditions…

1. And what shall we say of the obstacles which in so many parts of the world still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life? …
   As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.

This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future…

 

[Saxum]

And as to the EF: that amounts to less than 35 of parishes in the US with some Mass sometime during a period of time - on occasion once every 2 months. The OF is the norm, not the EF

This paragraph is sad but true. It’s sad because it highlights the fact that the EF was falsely claimed to be abrogated for decades. It highlights the fact that modernist bishops and priests unjustly suppressed the EF. And it highlights the fact that two generations of Catholics have been deprived of their liturgical and spiritual heritage - and most don’t even know it! And in an attempt to connect this post to the topic, I’ll say that the absence of the EF has encouraged a deluge of novelty - including girl altar servers.

 

[Duesenberg]

This paragraph is sad but true. It’s sad because it highlights the fact that the EF was falsely claimed to be abrogated for decades. It highlights the fact that modernist bishops and priests unjustly suppressed the EF. And it highlights the fact that two generations of Catholics have been deprived of their liturgical and spiritual heritage - and most don’t even know it! And in an attempt to connect this post to the topic, I’ll say that the absence of the EF has encouraged a deluge of novelty - including girl altar servers.

All those excuses were taken away with SP and now some are upset that the celebration of the EF has not spread like wildfire.

 

[Saxum]

All those excuses were taken away with SP and now some are upset that the celebration of the EF has not spread like wildfire

This is a naive response. It assumes that all priests and all bishops welcomed SP with open arms and gave the EF parity with the OF. SP was an act of justice that cleared away the lies, but it didn’t remove the liars. They’re still in power and they still oppose the EF. They oppose the EF because it stands for pre-revolution (pre-Vatican II) Catholicism. The modernists who are the most pernicious enemies of the Faith oppose anything that reminds them of the Church as it existed before Vatican II. That’s why they oppose the Latin language, nuns dressed in habit, the Rosary, traditional Churches, confessional booths, communion on the tongue, Eucharistic adoration, priestly celibacy. The modernists are in control and that’s why they opposed Pope Benedict’s attempts to reform the reform. Any attempt to cancel the novelties will be vociferously opposed - especially under the current Pontificate.

 

[Saxum]

When did you decide 2 + 2 = 5?

If you’re a permanent deacon, I suppose I’m not surprised by your illogical response since permanent deacons are also part of the post-Vatican II changes. You possibly feel insulted. The civil war has that effect. Those of us who adopt a hermeneutic of continuity can describe reality without fear. Those who embrace the novelties of the evil “spirit of Vatican II” feel threatened by snybody who declares that the emperor has no clothes.

But since I receive the Sacraments from Church approved traditional priests, I’m sure of my fidelity to Rome.

 

[Saxum]

I’d also like to add that only ostriches would deny the crisis in the Church or claim not to see the civil war that rages all around. The war is between the Catholics who accept the perennial Deposit of Faith and the neo-Catholics who, to varying degrees, have embraced unprecedented novelties - novelties that commenced in the liturgy, moved to disciplines, and now attack morality. As for me, I’ll keep my Mass in Latin, my stained glass windows, my nuns in habits, and future priests serving the altar. You know why I say they’re mine? Because I love them and support them with time and money. I vote with my feet and go were tradition remains.

 

[Duesenberg]

This is a naive response. It assumes that all priests and all bishops welcomed SP with open arms and gave the EF parity with the OF…

For years (particularly in my small Eastern Catholic parish) some would bitterly whine about the fact that the local (Latin) ordinary did not allow the EF Mass. He was on record saying that it would cause division. Looking back he was right about the division, but wrong for not allowing the EF in my opinion because it created a mythical demand. People were CERTAIN there would be a huge demand for the EF, if only the bishop would allow its celebration.

When SP was introduced, we had just received a new bishop. He directed the EF to be celebrated in 4 strategically located parishes throughout the diocese. Some were absolutely on-fire, many others at least wanted to see what was going on. The long-held excuse was finally taken away!

Several years later the celebration of the EF is just barely hanging on because of division. Rather than become an integral part of the good, existing parish that hosts the EF, they struggle to become a “TLM-community” filled with people who hold the same sort of beliefs you do – that the EF is intrinsically superior to the OF, etc. That’s a huge turn off to those that know better.

It’s nice to see the EF experience some growth. It’s terribly sad that it won’t experience a great deal more in many cases because of the actions of those that often surround it in many locations.

 

[Walking_Home]

It looks to be – the passage below – is speaking of those who disparage the OF and/or its disciplines (which have the authority of the Church)

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI

INSTRUCTION
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

 

[otjm]

No, orthodox and traditional are not the same thing, although they may, or may not, be similar. Two of the meanings: 1 (of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved. 2: (of a thing) of the ordinary or usual type; normal.

Traditional, however, as can be seen from many posts on CAF, including other forums, can mean anything from soup to nuts, and often means the EF; at other times it means “reverence” which has nothing to do with either Mass in particular, but rather the attitude and demeanor of the priest (and parishioners) .

The Mass was absolutely not revised for ecumenical reasons - that is claptrap that comes from the radical Traditionalists. Liturgical research goes back to at least Pope Pius 10th , and was well in movement before Msgr. Bugnini became involved with liturgical changes - which occurred when Pope Pius 12th appointed him.

The bishops of the world, in a 2,147 vote, approved the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which in part said "34. The rites should be distinguished by a notable simplicity, They should be short, clear, and free from useless repititons>

The bit about making the Mass "ecumenical started with the French philosopher Jean Guitton. He wasa philosopher, not a theologian. And he was French, and I will leave that as it is.

John Paul 2 said “This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and ‘in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers’.”[

Pope Benedict said “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.”

Radical traditionalists have said far worse about the OF, and the lies keep being repeated.

 

[Saxum]

It looks to be – the passage below – is speaking of those who disparage the OF and/or its disciplines (which have the authority of the Church)

That paragraph is not about individuals; it is about groups - most likely the SSPX. In no way does that paragraph censure laymen from expressing opinions.