Women in Traditional Parishes

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But she served Christ at the cross, which was the real sacrifice.

If she was good enough to do that, I believe that girls are good enough to serve at the sacrifice of the Mass.
it is not about being good enough šŸ™‚ no one is good enough… the only reason the priest touches the Host is out of necessity. THe only reason we have altar servers at all is out of necessity. We can’t be ā€œgood enoughā€ for something like this, the Mass is very holy.

It remains that in the EF, no altar girls can be used… there was an article about that by Fr Z I believe… the official document by the Pope, I think, says that the EF should follow 1962 guidelines in all things. (not NO guidelines).
 
Second, altar service by females was explicitly banned long, long ago. It was reintroduced after the 2nd Vatican Council by renegade priests and/or liturgists who defiantly disobeyed the laws of the Church to further a secularist-feminist agenda. It was then permitted (reluctantly) by the Holy See when the question was raised to avoid an outcry.

All practices introduced disobediently contrary to the traditions and long-standing practice of the Church should be banned as soon as possible.
We have to be very careful here. We may disagree with something. But we don’t have the right to say that the Church is wrong in permitting something, regardless of how it started. Many things began the wrong way. Somehow, God brought good out of them and they have helped the Church. Female altar servers certainly do not hurt the Church.

If you ask me what I prefer, I’ll say that I prefer male servers. If you ask me what should the Church do? I will say, whatever the hierarchy decides I will obey without questioning and without giving it a second thought. Sanctity is not earned through questions, but through obedience.
I understand the importance of keeping traditions and encouraging boys to have an active role in the Church to encourage vocation to a Priesthood.

Myself, if there was a TLM near me, I would choose to go to that instead of an NO mass. I veil at NO because I believe it’s appropriate for me as a woman to do so. I’m fairly traditional for a British convert. Yet still, I believe girls should still be altar servers.
I am no so convinced that there is a direct corrolation between alter service and the number of men entering the priesthood. Allow me two examples.

About 40% of the priests in the Catholic Church belong to religious orders. However, only 10% of the parishes in the Catholic Church are run by religious orders. These men who became religious + priests, were not exposed to religious. They were exposed to secular priests. Yet, they were called to the consecrated life, not the secular life. That’s an interesting thing to think about.

My second example comes from my own experience. We live inside the boundaries of a parish run by diocesan priests. In fact, they have five priests and four deacons. We’re a community of religious men. The parish is not our parish. We all work for the diocese. However, we attend mass at the parish and some of us volunteer in different parish ministries: youth, religious education, adult religious education and other. We arrived here in 2009. Since then, seven men from that parish have become religious brothers. The parish is 26-years old and not a single parishioner has become a diocesan priest. Two have become Redemptorists and one joined the Dominicans. The truth is that they have very holy secular priests and they have male altar servers. All seven of our novices from that parish were altar servers there, but they are not called to the priesthood.

One or two of them may be ordained anyway. That will be determined later between the brother and the major superior. For the moment, they come knocking at the door asking to be brothers. They all say that what attracts them is St. Francis of Assisi and the poverty of the brothers. This was funny. One fellow said that he looked at my shoes and thought to himself, ā€œI want to do that.ā€. My shoes are 12-years old. I’m diabetic, so I can’t ear sandals and we onlly have one pair of shoes and one pair of sneakers. I thought that was an interesting way for God to get someone’s attention.

If you look at the emerging religious communities of men, the fellows who enter them all come from diocesan parishes. However, they are attracted to the lifestyle of the religious community to which they apply. The fellows who enter the Franciscans of the Eternal Word are attracted to their contemplative lifestyle. They’re happy that they will never have to serve in a parish.

The men who enter the Franciscans of the Renewal are attracted to their itinerant life. They’re happy that they will never serve in a parish or live a traditional conventual life. They will spend their lives walking the streets, feeding the hungry, preaching on corners, etc.

The guys that enter the Franciscans of the Immaculate don’t want to serve in parishes. They like the life of prayer, the Marian spirituality, the reatreat work, the preaching, teaching and contemplative silence.

We have had many guys leave our diocese to enter the Missionary Brothers of the Poor. They too want to walk the streets picking up the poor. The MOP have a rule that they ordain only 1 in 10 of their men in order to preserve the purity of the religious life. However, their congregation is growing faster than most dioceses.

All of these guys have been exposed to priests on the altar as servers; but they have not followed in the footsteps of these very holy men to whom they have been exposed, nor have these priests tried to persuade them to do so. These priests have been very supportive of their journey toward the consecrated life.

I do believe that serving at the altar has been beneficial to these men. I do not concur that it will lead them to become secular priests, which is where the big shortage is right now, because 90% of parishes are run by secular priests.

The presence of women or lack thereof does not seem to influence the large numbers of men entering the consecrated life instead of the diocesesan seminaries. On the other side, several diocesan seminaries are full with men who come from parishes with many active women.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF šŸ™‚
 
I don’t know I guess I see Our Lady a little bit differently šŸ™‚

she lived a very humble, hidden life, even though God honoured her by receiving human nature from her, and making her Queen of Heaven, higher than the angels. But on earth, she was very simple and she is always humble.

From St Therese:

ā€œI know that at Nazareth you lived modestly, without requesting anything more. Neither ecstasies, nor miracles, nor other extra ordinary deeds enhanced your life, O Queen of the elect. The number of the lowly, ā€œthe little ones,ā€ is very great on earth.
They can raise their eyes to you without any fear. You are the incomparable Mother
who walks with them along the common way to guide them to heaven. Beloved Mother,
in this harsh exile, I want to live always with you and follow you every day. I am enraptured by the contemplation of you and I discover the depths of the love of your heart.
All my fears vanish under your motherly gaze, which teaches me to weep and to rejoice!
Amen.ā€

Isn’t that beautiful? šŸ™‚

Mary is courageous, she is not weak… not at all… but she lived a hidden life. There is nothing weak about that. If anything, it requires more strength, to overcome self in this way šŸ™‚ (of course, Our Lady was given a special gift of that through grace, in her Immaculate Conception).
 
Although I have no idea if women leading the rosary is a rule or not, but I’ve only seen men leading. But as far as ushers, collection baskets, lectors no I’ve never seen women in those roles at either the FSSP or SSPX.
Help…what does FSSP, SSPX, EF and OF mean?
 
Help…what does FSSP, SSPX, EF and OF mean?
EF = Extraordinary Form (traditional pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin)

OF = Ordinary Form (new Mass introduced in 1970 - usually in the vernacular language)

SSPX = Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X - the original Catholic organization formed to resist the changes after Vatican II and to preserve traditional Catholic liturgy and doctrine. Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

FSSP = Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter - Another order of Catholic priests that seeks to preserve traditional Catholic liturgy and doctrine. Split off from the SSPX in 1988 over the ordination of 4 new bishops by Archbishop Lefebrve against the express wishes of the Pope.
 
EF = Extraordinary Form (traditional pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin)

OF = Ordinary Form (new Mass introduced in 1970 - usually in the vernacular language)

SSPX = Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X - the original Catholic organization formed to resist the changes after Vatican II and to preserve traditional Catholic liturgy and doctrine. Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

FSSP = Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter - Another order of Catholic priests that seeks to preserve traditional Catholic liturgy and doctrine. Split off from the SSPX in 1988 over the ordination of 4 new bishops by Archbishop Lefebrve against the express wishes of the Pope.
So the FSSP believed that since the guy who founded the SSPX disobeyed the Pope, they decided to leave? So I guess the FSSP is more for Papal authority than the other?
 
I’m a woman and I serve as lector at my church. We have female altar servers and eucharistic ministers and ushers. The reason being we don’t have enough men stepping up and taking the job.

I think it would be great if we had more men being more devoted to their faith. I’m considering stepping down as lector though.
 
So the FSSP believed that since the guy who founded the SSPX disobeyed the Pope, they decided to leave? So I guess the FSSP is more for Papal authority than the other?
well Pope John Paul II started the FSSP after the SSPX were excommunicated… (the excommunications were lifted later on, but they’re still not in completely perfect standing with the Church. The FSSP is though :)). They both believe in the Papacy, but the FSSP is in perfect standing with the Church, whereas the SSPX is not.
 
I don’t know I guess I see Our Lady a little bit differently šŸ™‚

she lived a very humble, hidden life, even though God honoured her by receiving human nature from her, and making her Queen of Heaven, higher than the angels. But on earth, she was very simple and she is always humble.

From St Therese:

ā€œI know that at Nazareth you lived modestly, without requesting anything more. Neither ecstasies, nor miracles, nor other extra ordinary deeds enhanced your life, O Queen of the elect. The number of the lowly, ā€œthe little ones,ā€ is very great on earth.
They can raise their eyes to you without any fear. You are the incomparable Mother
who walks with them along the common way to guide them to heaven. Beloved Mother,
in this harsh exile, I want to live always with you and follow you every day. I am enraptured by the contemplation of you and I discover the depths of the love of your heart.
All my fears vanish under your motherly gaze, which teaches me to weep and to rejoice!
Amen.ā€

Isn’t that beautiful? šŸ™‚

Mary is courageous, she is not weak… not at all… but she lived a hidden life. There is nothing weak about that. If anything, it requires more strength, to overcome self in this way šŸ™‚ (of course, Our Lady was given a special gift of that through grace, in her Immaculate Conception).
To understand how St. Therese understood Mary, you may want to read what I wrote in Post 33. St. Therese is identifying with Mary the contemplative, which is very true. She is not implying that Mary lived a hidden life or an inactive life. That is contrary to Carmelite Tradition. Carmelite tradition teaches us the opposite . . . Mary was very involved in the life and ministry of her son and the early Church. At the same time, she was also the contemplative. If we could blend Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese into one person, we would have a more complete picture of the historical Mary.

We have created an image of Mary that is more consistent with out imagination than with history. Our image of Mary is the quiet woman who is in the background and who is demure, says and does very little because she is humble.

Mary is humble. However, humble means honest. She is certainly that when she says that all generations shall call her Blessed. That’s not a demure woman speaking. That’s a woman who is very confident about herself and her role in Salvation History. She is very active in Jesus ministry. She’s present at many events, times and places outside of Nazareth. History tells us that she did not remain in Nazareth, but traveled with the Church as far as Ephesus. We’re not sure whether her last day on earth was at Ephesus or in Jerusalem, but we know one thing for sure. It was not in Nazareth in the quiet of her home. We also know that the Apostles refered to her as Mother. St. Polycarp gets this from St. John. The early Eastern Christians, who would later become the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a long oral tradition of Mary as an active participant in the life of the Church during Apostolic times.

We can see a woman who is very much a contemplative, a woman of intense prayer, silence and dedication to the Lord, but also a woman who was a missionary, an intercessor, and even a source of consolatioin for the early Christians. In other words, she was not hidden as we use that word.

Hidden, as St. Therese uses the word is more like her spiritual mother, St Teresa of Avila who did what she had to do and at the same time tried to do it without calling too much attention to herself. The truth is that she attracted a lot of attention, but Teresa tried very hard not to do so. The same is true for Bl. Mother Teresa and St. Therese. That’s the true meaning of hidden in Christian Mystical Theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF šŸ™‚
 
well Pope John Paul II started the FSSP after the SSPX were excommunicated… (the excommunications were lifted later on, but they’re still not in completely perfect standing with the Church. The FSSP is though :)). They both believe in the Papacy, but the FSSP is in perfect standing with the Church, whereas the SSPX is not.
Ah I see, thanks for taking the time to explain. I was almost right, and considering I know nothing of either and I guessed, that was pretty good detective/guess work on my part! šŸ‘
 
So the FSSP believed that since the guy who founded the SSPX disobeyed the Pope, they decided to leave? So I guess the FSSP is more for Papal authority than the other?
The priests who were the founding fathers of the FSSP did not want to be suspended. This was a very big problem for them. They were unwilling to remain ā€œhappyā€ just knowing that the mass that they celebratate was valid, even though it was illegal to celebrate it.

They understood why it was illegal for them to do so, because they understood the reason for the suspension. We don’t know for sure if they agreed with that reason or not. I should say, I don’t know for sure. However, one thing that I have heard them say is that whether they agreed or disagreed with the suspension, did not change the reality. They were suspended. This was an unacceptable reality, because they knew that the reason they were suspended was because the bishops had disobeyed. That was the second problem for them.

In a nutshell, they had problems with the disobedience and with celebrating the mass illegally. They left, not knowing what they were going to do. They knew no one in Rome and no one knew them. I believe that it was the Holy Spirit who led them to Cardinal Ratzinger who then made Pope John Paul aware of their situation. I think that their founding fathers were very holy men.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF šŸ™‚
 
So the FSSP believed that since the guy who founded the SSPX disobeyed the Pope, they decided to leave? So I guess the FSSP is more for Papal authority than the other?
Well they’re both for Papal authority, but the SSPX is willing to disobey the Pope in some things.

I once saw a sermon by Bishop Fellay, the current superior of the SSPX, in which he spent some time lamenting the necessity of not being in complete obedience to the Pope. The SSPX believe that if they place themselves under the authority of the hierarchy, it will directly result in the loss of souls to hell, so they refuse to do so.

The FSSP disagree with the SSPX on this point and place themselves in subjection to the legitimate authorities of the Church. It has suffered some persecution from unfriendly members of the hierarchy at times as a result.
 
well Pope John Paul II started the FSSP after the SSPX were excommunicated…
For clarity, only the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated. Neither the priests of the SSPX nor the faithful attached to the SSPX were ever excommunicated.
 
Oh just quit it all ready, the SSPX are not Sede. Since you claim to be an ex Sede, I’m guessing you already know that.
Yeah, I know that. Sorry, didn’t come out of my mouth (fingers?) quite the way I intended it. You’re totally right. And I thought my friends and I were the only ones who used the term Sede… šŸ˜‰
 
To understand how St. Therese understood Mary, you may want to read what I wrote in Post 33. St. Therese is identifying with Mary the contemplative, which is very true. She is not implying that Mary lived a hidden life or an inactive life. That is contrary to Carmelite Tradition. Carmelite tradition teaches us the opposite . . . Mary was very involved in the life and ministry of her son and the early Church. At the same time, she was also the contemplative. If we could blend Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese into one person, we would have a more complete picture of the historical Mary.

We have created an image of Mary that is more consistent with out imagination than with history. Our image of Mary is the quiet woman who is in the background and who is demure, says and does very little because she is humble.

Mary is humble. However, humble means honest. She is certainly that when she says that all generations shall call her Blessed. That’s not a demure woman speaking. That’s a woman who is very confident about herself and her role in Salvation History. She is very active in Jesus ministry. She’s present at many events, times and places outside of Nazareth. History tells us that she did not remain in Nazareth, but traveled with the Church as far as Ephesus. We’re not sure whether her last day on earth was at Ephesus or in Jerusalem, but we know one thing for sure. It was not in Nazareth in the quiet of her home. We also know that the Apostles refered to her as Mother. St. Polycarp gets this from St. John. The early Eastern Christians, who would later become the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a long oral tradition of Mary as an active participant in the life of the Church during Apostolic times.

We can see a woman who is very much a contemplative, a woman of intense prayer, silence and dedication to the Lord, but also a woman who was a missionary, an intercessor, and even a source of consolatioin for the early Christians. In other words, she was not hidden as we use that word.

Hidden, as St. Therese uses the word is more like her spiritual mother, St Teresa of Avila who did what she had to do and at the same time tried to do it without calling too much attention to herself. The truth is that she attracted a lot of attention, but Teresa tried very hard not to do so. The same is true for Bl. Mother Teresa and St. Therese. That’s the true meaning of hidden in Christian Mystical Theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF šŸ™‚
Thanks for the post šŸ™‚

I do agree that Mary probably did a lot in the ministry of her Son… and afterwards, when the Church began… at the same time, when I read books like by St Louis de Montfort, it does seem that she also lived a very hidden life… ? I realize I can’t know for sure, I’m just trying to examine the different sources that we have about Mary šŸ™‚ I’m sure there are many sides to her role in the Church.
So great was her humility that she desired nothing more upon earth than to remain unknown to herself and to others, and to be known only to God.
  1. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, ā€œWho can she possibly be?ā€, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.
  1. God the Father willed that she should perform no miracle during her life, at least no public one, although he had given her the power to do so. God the Son willed that she should speak very little although he had imparted his wisdom to her.
Even though Mary was his faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that his apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.
  1. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and he has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her ā€œWomanā€ as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter. She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding his dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim. No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged. (True Devotion to Mary, St Louis de Montfort)
 
Ah I see, thanks for taking the time to explain. I was almost right, and considering I know nothing of either and I guessed, that was pretty good detective/guess work on my part! šŸ‘
šŸ™‚ šŸ‘
Well they’re both for Papal authority, but the SSPX is willing to disobey the Pope in some things.

I once saw a sermon by Bishop Fellay, the current superior of the SSPX, in which he spent some time lamenting the necessity of not being in complete obedience to the Pope. The SSPX believe that if they place themselves under the authority of the hierarchy, it will directly result in the loss of souls to hell, so they refuse to do so.

The FSSP disagree with the SSPX on this point and place themselves in subjection to the legitimate authorities of the Church. It has suffered some persecution from unfriendly members of the hierarchy at times as a result.
I see…
For clarity, only the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated. Neither the priests of the SSPX nor the faithful attached to the SSPX were ever excommunicated.
thanks for the info šŸ™‚
 
Thanks for the post šŸ™‚

I do agree that Mary probably did a lot in the ministry of her Son… and afterwards, when the Church began… at the same time, when I read books like by St Louis de Montfort, it does seem that she also lived a very hidden life… ? I realize I can’t know for sure, I’m just trying to examine the different sources that we have about Mary šŸ™‚ I’m sure there are many sides to her role in the Church.
So great was her humility that she desired nothing more upon earth than to remain unknown to herself and to others, and to be known only to God.
  1. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, ā€œWho can she possibly be?ā€, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.
  1. God the Father willed that she should perform no miracle during her life, at least no public one, although he had given her the power to do so. God the Son willed that she should speak very little although he had imparted his wisdom to her.
Even though Mary was his faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that his apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.
  1. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and he has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her ā€œWomanā€ as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter. She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding his dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim. No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged. (True Devotion to Mary, St Louis de Montfort)
This is Mystical Theology speaking, not history. The Mystical Theologian focusses on the activityof grace on the soul. What was kept hidden from her contemporaries was the nature and scope of the activity of grace on her soul and the anatomy of her soul. God works on Mary in the secret and silence of her soul. Mary does not share that with the world. We can only assume and extrapolate from the bits of information that we have through Christian Tradition. There is the silence of Mary found in the writings of St. Louie and St. Therese.

St. Therese does this very well, because she’s a cloistered nun; therefore, she understands the whole concept of a hidden life, without being in obscurity. I think that many very traditional Catholics believe that being like Mary means being almost anonymous. That is not Mary. That is not the Mary of St. Therese nor St. Louie. Catholics to the other extreme, I hate to call them liberal, because in my book liberal has a very positive meaning, these other folks to the left, believe that Mary was a passive figure who did not do much. That’s not Mary either.

That’s why I said above, if we could blend the three Teresas: Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux and Teresa of Calcutta, that’s the real Mary.

Notice, that she’s such a complex person and there is so much richness to her soul that it would take three of our giants to give us a glimpse into the historical Mary. As far as the anatomy of Mary’s soul, you can forget that. Everything that God did there will remain hidden to us until God wishes for us to know it and only as much as he wishes for us to know.

There is a wonderful book about her by a Capuchin Franciscan Friar The Silence of Mary by Ignacio LaraƱaga. This book and the writings of St. Louie changed my life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF šŸ™‚
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top