P
ProVobis
Guest
Thank you.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
The priest is in persona Christi; when he says, “This is My body” he is not speaking of his own body, but of Christ’s body as imaged by his own body.Or the priest for that matter?
Altar servers image the servants of Christ by their service to the priest, including not only Peter and Paul (ringing the bells, carrying the cross), but also Martha and Mary (carrying the book and candles, wiping the vessels).
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Proof of that?
If the Church were trying to appease dissenters, then they would just have easily allowed remarriage after divorce and artificial birth control. Even without gay marriage, that would have doubled the number of people in the pews.
I honestly cannot believe that people who claim to strong and devout faith have very little faith in the leadership of the Church.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
Misogynistic is a label you put on us to make yourself feel better…just like calling someone a racist when they state the fact that the majority of crimes committed in this country are committed by black people…despite that it is the truth…and to answer your last statement, I guess the Catholic Church was a Cafeteria prior to 1962, since the Rubrics explicity denied any woman from serving in any capacity on or around the Altar. So what is it? By holding fast to Tradition as we are instructed to do by St. Paul against an abuse that is not a doctrine of The Church make us Cafeteria Catholics? I think not.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Answering the thread topic question:
Absolutely not. The Church has no authority to ordain women. So naturally there is no way that ‘altar girls’ could lead to women priests.
Now --as an older ‘woman’ (54 later this month, woo-hoo, beats the alternative any day). . .I well remember that my brother could serve at the altar in our youth, while my older sister and I could not.
Now, IF serving at the altar carried only the kind of connotation that today ‘singing in the choir’ does --that is, ‘singing’, or ‘reading’, or ‘bringing up the gifts’, are all considered some type of 'service to the Church, and they are done by males and females --I would not have a single problem with altar boys and altar girls, for there is no particular ‘masculinization’ or ‘feminization’ inherent in singing in the choir, bringing up the gifts, etc.
But IF serving at the altar carries something beyond --an idea that being ‘up on the altar’ as a server could and SHOULD lead to one someday presiding at the altar, and that the person presiding could be EITHER a man or a woman, and that it absolutely does not matter and in fact, a woman should have as much right to serve in a priestly capacity as a man, and this has been ‘proven’ by the fact that both boys and girls CAN today ‘serve around the altar’. . .then that IS a problem.
Because it is not the ‘service’ itself that is the problem --it is the **incorrect assumptions that are drawn ABOUT the service which lead to confusion and to unrealistic ‘expectations’. **
So. . .altar girls cannot ever lead to women priests. No worries there.
But altar girls **can **lead to incorrect presumptions and assumptions that a woman priest is a possibility, and that the role of an altar girl both ‘legitimatizes’ and helps promulgate that possibility as a good thing. Again, the role itself does not CAUSE the presumptions but there is certainly a hugely verbal crowd out there that is not doing anything to **correct the incorrect presumptions. **It may be that the role for women will have to be dropped, not because it was ‘wrong’, but because (as happened for example a few hundred years ago with the reception of the Eucharist under both kinds). . .a perfectly LEGITIMATE Church practice (reception of Communion under both kinds) wound up having all sorts of **false and incorrect assertions made about it. Assertions that one HAD to have ‘both’ because having just one species was only having “part of Jesus”. Well, in order to address those assertions that had become (though wrong) so widespread, the Church had to SHOW that reception under just ONE species was totally sufficient. It took centuries before people’s wrongheaded muddles were addressed enough that once again the Church could offer both species and the people knew that it was not 'extra Jesus!" **
**So it may be that the role of altar server will have to be (for a time) limited to men again, because men and women have gotten some wrong ideas that if women can serve ‘around the altar’ it opens up the possibility for women ‘presiding’ at the altar. That will be up to the Church. **
Absolutely not. The Church has no authority to ordain women. So naturally there is no way that ‘altar girls’ could lead to women priests.
Now --as an older ‘woman’ (54 later this month, woo-hoo, beats the alternative any day). . .I well remember that my brother could serve at the altar in our youth, while my older sister and I could not.
Now, IF serving at the altar carried only the kind of connotation that today ‘singing in the choir’ does --that is, ‘singing’, or ‘reading’, or ‘bringing up the gifts’, are all considered some type of 'service to the Church, and they are done by males and females --I would not have a single problem with altar boys and altar girls, for there is no particular ‘masculinization’ or ‘feminization’ inherent in singing in the choir, bringing up the gifts, etc.
But IF serving at the altar carries something beyond --an idea that being ‘up on the altar’ as a server could and SHOULD lead to one someday presiding at the altar, and that the person presiding could be EITHER a man or a woman, and that it absolutely does not matter and in fact, a woman should have as much right to serve in a priestly capacity as a man, and this has been ‘proven’ by the fact that both boys and girls CAN today ‘serve around the altar’. . .then that IS a problem.
Because it is not the ‘service’ itself that is the problem --it is the **incorrect assumptions that are drawn ABOUT the service which lead to confusion and to unrealistic ‘expectations’. **
So. . .altar girls cannot ever lead to women priests. No worries there.
But altar girls **can **lead to incorrect presumptions and assumptions that a woman priest is a possibility, and that the role of an altar girl both ‘legitimatizes’ and helps promulgate that possibility as a good thing. Again, the role itself does not CAUSE the presumptions but there is certainly a hugely verbal crowd out there that is not doing anything to **correct the incorrect presumptions. **It may be that the role for women will have to be dropped, not because it was ‘wrong’, but because (as happened for example a few hundred years ago with the reception of the Eucharist under both kinds). . .a perfectly LEGITIMATE Church practice (reception of Communion under both kinds) wound up having all sorts of **false and incorrect assertions made about it. Assertions that one HAD to have ‘both’ because having just one species was only having “part of Jesus”. Well, in order to address those assertions that had become (though wrong) so widespread, the Church had to SHOW that reception under just ONE species was totally sufficient. It took centuries before people’s wrongheaded muddles were addressed enough that once again the Church could offer both species and the people knew that it was not 'extra Jesus!" **
**So it may be that the role of altar server will have to be (for a time) limited to men again, because men and women have gotten some wrong ideas that if women can serve ‘around the altar’ it opens up the possibility for women ‘presiding’ at the altar. That will be up to the Church. **
P
ProVobis
Guest
Or the priest, bishop, or Pope for that matter?What is it that is specifically “male” about any of the things that Altar servers do?
M
Milesius
Guest
No they couldn’t just as easily allow those things because they would actually be contrary to faith and morals and the Holy Spirit would not allow them to go that far and anyone who did try to do that would simply have become a heretic. Girls on the altar on the other hand is just a matter of discipline and is not protected in the same way.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Which suggests, then, that having girls serving at the Altar isn’t actually “dissent”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Certainly not from the lack of trying though.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
It is funny you mention it…the statistics for number of annulments filed vs. number granted has exponentially increased…perhaps it is possible that with how screwed up people are today it is nearly impossible to have a valid marriage…but it is also possible it is becoming easier and easier to get them thanks to the laxer approach they take now a days.
M
Milesius
Guest
I didn’t say having girls on the altar was dissent.Which suggests, then, that having girls serving at the Altar isn’t actually “dissent”.
I said it was allowed because of dissent, ie because of people pressurising the Church into allowing it just as they do today about women priests etc.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Won’t stop them from trying though.
C
CDNowak
Guest
That is a serious charge, let’s take it seriously (I call to order the Court of Beacon House!)
How is desiring a traditionally male role (and traditional method of training for a still male only role) misogynistic?
Saying that boys avoid activities seen as feminine is merely a statement of fact. Adding the emotional component (“fragile little things”) is decidedly unhelpful to civil discourse.
Straw man. One must be an acolyte (that which altar servers replace) before ordination, not necessarily an altar boy. (although 70%+ of US ordinands were altar boys).
What doctrine are we “cafeteria” Catholics rejecting again? We need to stop trying to short cut by labels…
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
And its contrary to what you believe, with all due respect. Because clearly Traditionalists are the one dissenting on the decision. So why rile your most loyal followers?
Really, most people don’t even care about this issue. Just look around at this thread. Its mostly concerned traditionalists. This is a non-issue for most people who may be classified as the so-called “dissenters”.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
How do you know why I applied that label? How presumptuous of you! I’m not saying that being against altar girls is misogynistic - I said that some of the posts in this thread show an overall comtempt for women. I stand by that.
There is no difference in saying I don’t believe/won’t follow what the Church says for liberal purposes or for traditional purposes.
Saying that the Church is wrong in a certain area is still saying the Church is wrong in a certain area.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
I have a great idea all you people who are worried about women having a “meaningful role” in The Church…have you checked out the number of religious vocations for women lately? They have plummetted to virtually nothing. And most nuns these days are close to retirement. Orders are on the brink of extinction…Nuns are pillars of the Church…why not be proud of your gender and serve The Church in that capacity. I have the utmost respect for nuns…and we sure could use you. So to you parents out there and you feminist…please stop encouraging your daughters to pursue duties that are reserved for men and please start encouraging them to vocations where they are truly needed and can do most good…as a religious.
M
Milesius
Guest
Dissent from who?
Not from Rome they don’t Rome doesn’t want female altar servers and never really wanted them, so it is the traditionalists who are actually more in line with Rome, also Rome forbids women to serve at the altar at an EF Mass in keeping with the norms of that liturgy.
Read this for all the official information,
adoremus.org/0302Altargirls.html
Your loyalist supporters are the safest to rile
And I assure you it was a huge issue back in the day by the dissenters and seen by them as a great victory on the way to their ultimate aim of women priests.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Is it possible to dissent from an optional discipline?
I think more people are in favor of altar girls, but aren’t going to argue for the status quo (L&S and News forums were more representative than the infamous Traditional forum. The more vociferous dissenters (aka a feminist who writes for L’Ossovertore Romano) are the reason why we’ve had a half-dozen of these threads in two days.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
Just like we are dissenters because we want wider use of Latin in the OF, Communion on the tongue, Altar Rails, Statues, etc…we are such horrible Catholics.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
First of all, this is an ad hominum argument, if it is intended to actually refute what I said. And I don’t think anyone in this discussion is in a position to tell the Catholic hierarchy to do anything. I thought we were discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of female servers.
But if you are wondering why I am interested, or feel I might have something to contribute: since I don’t subscribe to the ordination of women, the issue is pretty much exactly parallel for me as an Anglican. Traditionally there haven’t been female servers except in convents, just as in the Catholic church, but there are now. Is this a good or bad thing?
The only real difference from a traditionalist Anglican perspective is that there is no way to argue that the Magisteruim has approved this, so it must be ok. In some ways then it could be a more difficult argument to make. There are traditional Anglicans who don’t allow female servers, but there are some that do. Even those who don’t do not consider that allowing it is an abuse, just that it is perhaps unwise or less desirable. So it isn’t much different than the positions found within Catholic circles.
Personally, I have been in traditional Anglican parishes that did allow female servers, so I have some personal experience of how that worked which is relevant; especially since it was a parish that had a lot of vocations, which is one of the common arguments against female servers.
- Status