Archived comments to the post: "Hermeneutics of sacramental fittingness: altar girls" (Musings, July 27, 2006):
If Instituted Acolytes are lacking, lay persons can perform many of the duties of an acolyte without being acolytes. These altar servers can be men or boys, and, with the approval of the bishop, pastor and presiding priest, women or girls.
Brian W. Harrison, “"ALTAR GIRLS": FEMINIST IDEOLOGY AND THE ROMAN LITURGY,” http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 813, #2 of the old Code, stated: “A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar.” Thus the prohibition of the presence of women in the sanctuary, even as lectors, remained an official norm of the Church’s liturgical law right up until 1994, even though it was widely disregarded, even in papal liturgies.
What is the theolgical case FOR them, lo, after all these years?
'The question before us, however, is another question -- not the question of legitimacy which has been settled by the Church. Our question is this: what is the fittingness of having the priest served at the altar by girls?'
Herein lies a conundrum. If the question of legitimacy has been settled, to what extent is the question of fittingness relevant? On the other hand, if we pursue the question of fittingness with vigor, how can we avoid the question of legitimacy? Is the latter really settled?
Dave | 07.27.06 - 4:28 pm | #
Dave, there's no problem in discussing one question apart from the other. Something may be legitimate, for example, and yet wholly unfitting; or vice versa -- witness the Bauhaus church architecture of the last 40 years.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 5:02 pm | #
Dave, PP, I would also say that particularly because of the pastoral judgments that are allowable in this matter, it is very useful to debate fittingness. It's really up to the bishops and priests to decide.
I don't think, though, that it was factually the 1994 communique that de facto made acolytes an endangered species. That happened with the dismissal of the other minor orders at Vatican II. No one really knows what to do with acolytes since then. There have been "altar servers" all of my waking years--some of them, more recently, have been girls.
I think it's quite nice to have altar girls, because it provides a no-particular-talent-necessary way for girls to serve in the Church, but I would be just as happy doing away with all this altar-playing-around business and thrive up the acolyte corps. These would be mature, committed layMEN, not kids of any kind--and they legally double as EMHCs, but with higher status. The GIRM even lets them purify the vessels.
(I remain SOOO unmoved by the slippery-slope-camel's-nose argument. Oh please.)
Bring it, Ralph!
Kathy | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 5:14 pm | #
Dr. Blosser, I'm tempted to say that some things can be so unfitting as to be well nigh illegitimate. But that could put me on the slippery slope to radtrad-dom.
Dave | 07.27.06 - 5:42 pm | #
Kathy,
I have a great idea: let's collaborate on a musical project. I propose an oratorio based entirely on the text of the "Syllabus of Errors"!! It'll wow them at Sophia University!
About the fittingness of altar girls in [nod, wink, nod, wink] EXTRAORDINARY situations: I will be gallant and observe that the con position would be a whole lot easier to make if young Lance and Erik and Jared and Wilburforce were willing to do something more in church than scratch their rears and chew gum.
ralph roister-doister | 07.27.06 - 5:51 pm | #
Is it fitting for a priest to be served by a girl during Holy Mass? It was fitting for the holy women who followed our Lord to serve Him, wasn't it? Then why cannot the altar girls serve the priest, who is a representative of Jesus, as representatives of the holy women? Would this not be a way of encouraging vocations to the convent?
Pope_St_Peter | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 6:17 pm | #
Pope St. Peter -- I was thinking exactly the same thing. You took my thought a step Pope St. Peter -- I was thinking exactly the same thing. You took my thought a step further with the vocation idea.
I'm not sure if I understand Mr. Doister's objection.
Dave | 07.27.06 - 6:38 pm | #
'I'm tempted to say that some things can be so unfitting as to be well nigh illegitimate.'
By the way, I was thinking there of Bauhaus church architecture, not altar girls, necessarily.
Dave | 07.27.06 - 6:42 pm | #
Of all the things that make me cringe during Mass, altar girls do not come anywhere near the top of the list.
Dave | 07.27.06 - 6:43 pm | #
Once upon a time I saw a girl being dropped off for Mass. Usually that's bad, an 11-year-old being dropped off by her mom, who's wearing a bathrobe. Sunday duty, right? Just till the sacraments of initiaion are complete, then bye-bye? Wrong. She hopped out of the car with a big smile. Turns out she was "serving" that Sunday morning, cross-bearer.
Ralph, I get your first paragraph fine, hahaha, but what the heck are you saying after that? I mean, I get the gum part.
Kathy | 07.27.06 - 6:55 pm | #
12-16 year old girls in high heels
mid length cassocky things, and make up,
which is how they appear at one of the churchs I go to ....
I dont think its a great idea, but my
personal opinion is that boys should be
recruited first with maybe a few girls,
or if their is a shortage of boy volunteers, then grab some girls.
Of course their needs to be some standards of appearance and maybe the
priest where he has these dolled up girls, should apply some direction 12-16 year old girls in high heels
mid length cassocky things, and make up,
which is how they appear at one of the churchs I go to ....
I dont think its a great idea, but my
personal opinion is that boys should be
recruited first with maybe a few girls,
or if their is a shortage of boy volunteers, then grab some girls.
Of course their needs to be some standards of appearance and maybe the
priest where he has these dolled up girls, should apply some direction
or should have something from the Bishop or Vatican to guide him.
Beeline | 07.27.06 - 10:22 pm | #
If we hope to bring the Eastern Orthodox back into the Church, female altar boys will have to go.
Jordan Potter | 07.27.06 - 11:22 pm | #
I'd like to hear what our dear friend the Spirit of Vatican II has to say...
Anonymous | 07.28.06 - 12:10 am | #
Kathy, the camel's nose logic I had in mind was from the Call to Action/Women-Church folk.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 7:17 am | #
If the Eastern Churches hope to re-enter into full communion with Holy Mother Church, then they'll have to realize that they've been wrong about alot of things!
Pope_St_Peter | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 9:51 am | #
PP, it's no surprise that they are stoopid.
The anthropology of girls is different from boys. Girls don't look up to priests in the same way that boys do. Boys are hierarchical: they want to emulate the top dawg. That's why the 1994 Communique emphasized the usefulness of altar boys for fostering priestly vocations. Girls just want to do stuff and be like the other girls.
Militant feminists want to rule the world. They see everything in terms of power grabs. So that's how they paint this issue: wrongly.
In any case, I don't think we've sussed out this question until we've looked at the benefits it might have for girls. Which no one but me ever seems to want to address.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 10:04 am | #
Just because something is "O.K." does not mean that we should participate in such.
The allowance of girls to serve at the altar has done nothing but make boys less interested, taking the stance, "well if girls can do it, I do not have to!" I know this first hand.
Charles | 07.28.06 - 10:08 am | #
Can we just talk about the girls, first, then about the boys? Believe me, we'll have no trouble getting back to their concerns.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 10:12 am | #
Women cannot be acolytes. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow them as acolytes or Readers. Rather, the new rules say that -- if acolytes are lacking, women may perform the duties of an acolyte (without being an acolyte) if the Bishop, Pastor, and celebrating priest all accept the use of women. An individual priest can refuse to use women, as can a pastor, as can a Bishop.
In the Arlington, VA Diocese, when the Bishop decided to allow more use of women, a large number of priests signed a document saying they would not use alter girls -- they said that if they were asigned to a pastor who allowed the use, they would excersize their own "nuclear option" and refuse to use them for the Masses they celibrate.
chrysostom15 | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 10:21 am | #
Just to spell that out a little more clearly, what the new rules say is that if Instituted Acolytes are lacking, lay persons can perform many of the duties of an acolyte without being acolytes. These altar servers can be men or boys, and, with the approval of the bishop, pastor and presiding priest, women or girls.
(Wow. Nuclear.)
Kathy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 10:36 am | #
'In any case, I don't think we've sussed out this question until we've looked at the benefits it might have for girls. Which no one but me ever seems to want to address.'
'Can we just talk about the girls, first, then about the boys? Believe me, we'll have no
trouble getting back to their concerns.'
I'm not biased against altar girls (as indicated in my previous comments), yet shouldn't the first question be, not the benefits to boys or girls, but the "benefits" to God? What is the case for the SACRAMENTAL fittingness of having altar girls?
Dave | 07.28.06 - 10:49 am | #
Didn't altar girls start as a disobedient kind of thing in the United States before the Church approved them.
Anonymous | 07.28.06 - 10:56 am | #
Female service at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an abomination, condemned by countless popes for nearly 2,000 years.
The simple explanation is that female service received approval in March, 1994 as a sop to the French and German bishops before the May, 1994 release of Ordinatio sacredotalis, which infallibly reserved the priesthood to men.
Although just twelve years, this was a life-time ago in terms of the situation in France. In 1994 the revolution was still in full swing, with collapse on the horizon but not believed. Liberals were still at full cry.
That's no longer the case.
Earlier this year the French bishop's conference ate mighty crow and in April released a statement welcoming reapproachment with the SSPX. This is simply because the writing is now there on the wall for all to see. Attendance at the Novus Ordo in France is at 15%. Attendance at the Tridentine Masses is 75% higher than that number. Ordinations to traditonal orders, indult as well as the Lefebvrists, outstrips French Novus Ordo ordinations by nearly four to one.
Believe me, if 1994 were 2006, gasoline would never have been poured on what John Paul justly called "the garden of vocations."
Belloc | 07.28.06 - 11:07 am | #
Kathy,
Ok, we'll put the syllabus of errors thing on hold for now.
I do not understand your sudden difficulty in understanding my prose. What I was suggesting is that my resolve to argue against altar girls is undermined by the reluctance of boys to do the job. Boys don't want to do it -- altar boys are in short supply in virtually every parish I have attended. Gee, do you think it might have something to do with the parents?
But -- people who fear that altar girls are the thin edge of the female priest wedge are not being ridiculous or paranoid. To many, the "political" significance of altar girls is exactly why they are to be desired.
If you are going to insist on a church that "engages" the culture, then you are going to have to accept a church in which all maladies of that culture are present and flourishing in microcosm: feminism, the normalization of aberrant sexual behavior, relativism repackaged as "tolerance", etc. You will then be fighting a battle on two fronts, engaging the enemy without as you are weakened and undermined by the same force within.
ralph roister-doister | 07.28.06 - 11:49 am | #
My concern with female altar is primarily practical. What seems to happen is that it promotes the idea that religion is in fact "women's work." This view may be arbitrary, but it does seem common that after alter girls are allowed it won't be long before there is no one interested in being an alter boy. This is at least the experience of the parish where I grew up. Thus, whether we wish it to be so or not, it doubtlessly affects vocations. I don't believe female altar servers should be used. Fortunately, my current church does not allow them.
Allan Edwards | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 12:02 pm | #
I know a lady who runs a mission on the east side of Buffalo. She and I disagree on a great many points, most of them liturgical, most of them already discussed on this blog. I cringe at the Laughing Jesus t-shirt she recently gave to my god son, Hard Head #2. But she is a wonderful lady, and no one is more cognizant of the importance of priestly vocations. Her ideas concerning altar girls are roughly as follows: God has provided so many vital roles for women within His church -- how could they possibly desire more, causing dissension in the process, even to the point of envying the role of altar server traditionally and reasonably reserved for boys?
It's a good thought.
By the way, if you want to check out my god son, Hard Head #2, at the moment of his baptism:
http:// www.stlukesmissionofmercy...ministries.html
ralph roister-doister | 07.28.06 - 12:19 pm | #
'Female service at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an abomination, condemned by countless popes for nearly 2,000 years.'
Dear Belloc,
Any specific citations? Not that I'm doubting, just would like to see it with my own eyes.
Dave | 07.28.06 - 12:55 pm | #
It's interesting that in those dioceses where altar girls are forbidden, vocations are up. Such as in the Diocese of Lincoln, which I believe is the only diocese left in the US without altar girls, they have the most seminarians in the US. That's very interesting to me. Now of course there may be other factors, but think about it. I was never an altar boy because my parents discouraged me for some very good reasons and I won't get into any details, but I think that the idea that altar boys helps with vocations is a very strong one.
Andrew S. | 07.28.06 - 1:20 pm | #
Sigh. I've never seen so much ex post hoc ergo propter hoc in my life.
Ralph, I was obviously being obtuse. Pardon. Please carry on as you will. Cute baby by the way!
Andrew, yes, there are many other factors.
Allan, there are many parishes with lots and lots of altar girls and boys. At my mom's parish they have a waiting list. Boys come home from college and serve during their vacations. These counterexamples show that the difference is in HOW THE ADULTS HANDLE THE SITUATION. Talk to the boys, talk to the girls, guide them. It will be fine.
Ralph, I'm not advocating "engaging the culture." I'm talking about allowing half of the population of CATHOLIC children to serve in way that shouldn't offend anyone.
Sigh. I've never seen so much ex post hoc ergo propter hoc in my life.
Ralph, I was obviously being obtuse. Pardon. Please carry on as you will. Cute baby by the way!
Andrew, yes, there are many other factors.
Allan, there are many parishes with lots and lots of altar girls and boys. At my mom's parish they have a waiting list. Boys come home from college and serve during their vacations. These counterexamples show that the difference is in HOW THE ADULTS HANDLE THE SITUATION. Talk to the boys, talk to the girls, guide them. It will be fine.
Ralph, I'm not advocating "engaging the culture." I'm talking about allowing half of the population of CATHOLIC children to serve in way that shouldn't offend anyone.
Belloc, the French these days are either atheistic or fideistic. Neither one of those is at the heart of the Church. The current raging Catholicism is really on shaky ground. It is untested, it is young, and it is very proud. It's not yet a shining example. Give it ten or twenty years and maybe it can be a leaven, but not yet. The same thing is happening here but to a much lesser extent. Give them time to mature and fall away, get into scandals--or set an abiding example.
Ralph, yes, WOMEN have many roles in the Church. But GIRLS do not! Altar service begins before talents have truly begun to manifest themselves. That's one reason why it is so great for boys: if they feel drawn to serve the Church, they can do that, without having any remarkable virtue or strength. It helps if they don't constantly trip over their feet, but even that isn't absolutely required, judging by a good priest I know who is all thumbs and who used to serve for the Carmelites.
I was lucky to be given the chance to lector and sing at Mass from grade 4--the same grade my brothers began serving. Truth is, I've never envied them on that score, partly because I think that job is pretty boring. But if I wasn't musical or a good reader, then I wouldn't really have had the chance to be involved until I was much older.
When I suggest considering the girls (not women who used to be girls, by the way, but the GIRLS), I'm asking:
Can you imagine that it might be possibly beneficial for a young girl to have an outlet for her love for the Church, that regularizes her service to it in a concrete way?
Kathy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 3:20 pm | #
The flip side of my question is: Is your parish willing and able to provide opportunities for YOUNG GIRLS to serve, in a regular and responsible job in the life of the parish, apart from altar service?
Kathy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 3:24 pm | #
"Just to spell that out a little more clearly, what the new rules say is that if Instituted Acolytes are lacking, lay persons can perform many of the duties of an acolyte without being acolytes. These altar servers can be men or boys, and, with the approval of the bishop, pastor and presiding priest, women or girls."
And that's why Instituted Acolytes are almost ALWAYS lacking. Why bother making any Acolytes if literally anyone can do the job?
Jordan Potter | 07.29.06 - 12:00 am | #
"The anthropology of girls is different from boys. Girls don't look up to priests in the same way that boys do."
That's true enough -- the way a girl would look upon a spiritual father- figure is bound to be different from the way a boy would look upon him.
"Boys are hierarchical: they want to emulate the top dawg. That's why the 1994 Communique emphasized the usefulness of altar boys for fostering priestly vocations. Girls just want to do stuff and be like the other girls. "
Well, there's another, even more important reason the Communique emphasized the usefulness of altar service for fostering priestly vocations: it's because it's actually possible for boys to grow up to become priests, whereas girls cannot become priests no matter how much they serve at an altar. When a boy serves, he is or can be at least in part, or at least temporarily, a sort of apprentice to the priest. But a girl's service at the altar can never be a kind of apprenticeship for ordination.
As for the question of what, if any, benefit a girl might obtain from being an altar server, that's very hard to say, since the Church has only been experimenting with female altar boys since 1994 (or for a while longer in those places where they were introduced in the context of the sins of rebellion and unauthorised innovation). For most of her history, the Church had clearly delineated liturgical roles of men and women, for better or worse. Blurring those roles is still so recent an innovation that the jury is still out on whether or not there is any benefit to anyone in allowing women to do things in the liturgy that had always been assigned to men in the past.
Jordan Potter | 07.29.06 - 12:16 am | #
Jordan, my question wasn't really empirical. I would like to know if anyone besides me can imagine that it might be beneficial to girls to have a way to serve.
Kathy | 07.29.06 - 7:23 am | #
Kathy,
If it is in fact true that it is not beneficial to the Lord and the Church for girls to serve at the altar, as is suggested by the apparent condemnation of female altar service by 'countless popes for nearly 2000 years' (according to Belloc), then I would think that it is not beneficial to girls to serve in that way.
I'm still waiting to see documentation of the Church's constant teaching on this issue.
Dave | 07.29.06 - 8:26 am | #
Dave, I don't know what you mean by "constant." 1994 is considered part of the Tradition.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 11:13 am | #
Kathy,
"Belloc" wrote:
'Female service at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an abomination, condemned by countless popes for nearly 2,000 years.'
That sounds something like a "constant" tradition. I'm waiting for Belloc or someone to provide the documentary evidence of that tradition.
Of course, the question is hotly debated whether all of the post-Vatican II reforms, including the 1994 communication on female altar servers, are part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Dave | 07.29.06 - 12:47 pm | #
Isn't it precisely here that the distinction between "legitimacy" and "fittingness" begins to falter? How can something that is wholly unfitting be legitimate? I'm not saying that such is necessarily the case with female altar servers; I'm still awaiting the evidence of Tradition on that issue.
Dave | 07.29.06 - 12:51 pm | #
Of course, the question is hotly debated whether all of the post-Vatican II reforms, including the 1994 communication on female altar servers, are part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Among sedevacantists, I presume?
Kathy | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 5:22 pm | #
Kathy, that's precisely what I've been trying to figure out.
Again, how does a vigorous debate about the fittingness of the Vatican II reforms avoid the discomfiting question of the legitimacy of those reforms?
Dave | 07.29.06 - 5:57 pm | #
Fittingness has traditionally been an argument to EXPLAIN doctrine, not JUDGE it. But your question is about judging the Magisterium.
Ultimately, Dave, you're asking whether your private judgment should be considered higher than that of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. Of course it should not.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 6:21 pm | #
Kathy, of course I would not presume to judge the magisterium. I'm not a sedevacantist. Also, we're not talking about doctrine and "fitting explanations" thereof (if that's what you mean). We're talking (mostly) about liturgical "reforms" that never should have been allowed to happen -- that is, things that are so wholly unfitting as to be illegitimate. Maybe I'm just confused.
Dave | 07.29.06 - 7:35 pm | #
Given the present nervousness about clerical pedophilia I suggest that acolytes should be adults. In Ireland a priest is forbidden by law to be alone unsupervised with an altar boy -- in such a climate the institution of the altar boy lacks an edifying basis for either the boy himself or the faithful.
Those who have a visceral objection to altar girls are often, I suspect, motivated by a certain homosexuality, like that of Joyce's Leopold Bloom who preferred boys to girls up to a certain age. Nothing new about such a Waughish delectation on this site.
SV2 | 07.30.06 - 9:07 am | #
'Those who have a visceral objection to altar girls are often, I suspect, motivated by a certain homosexuality, like that of Joyce's Leopold Bloom who preferred boys to girls up to a certain age. Nothing new about such a Waughish delectation on this site.'
And YOU take offense at "sniffing" on this site? What a hypocrite.
Dave | 07.30.06 - 10:50 am | #
That said, your suggestion that acolytes should be adults actually has some merit.
Dave | 07.30.06 - 10:51 am | #
I also think that there should be a minimum age requirement, say 25, for entry into the seminary.
Dave | 07.30.06 - 10:54 am | #
'Nothing new about such a Waughish delectation on this site.'
SV2, what is it with you and Waugh??? Talk about an ideologically jaundiced point of view.
I have a friend who loves the Novus Ordo and thinks that Brideshead Revisited is one of the greatest Catholic novels ever written. Go figure. Ideology doesn't have to reign supreme.
By the way, I regret now calling a Catholic priest a hypocrite -- on the Lord's Day, no less. My apologies to all present.
Fr. O'Leary, with all due respect, it would be helpful if as a Catholic priest you set a better example here for the rest of us. Your insinuation, if not hypocritical, was certainly undignified. Just because the likes of me exhibit boorish behavior doesn't mean that you, too, have to dive into the pig trough.
Dave | 07.30.06 - 1:55 pm | #
It is not a dive into the pig trough to saay that Waugh's snobbish campy smirking at the smell of the poor, as quoted with delectation by Phil Blosser, is unchristian. As to Brideshead, I read it twice or three times with delectation, but I recognize that the feebleness of its plot is due to the imposition of an improbable apologetical schema on the rich material. It is a good but not a great novel. I was enthralled with the television version on Masterpiece Theater 24 years ago.
Blosser's totally uncritical attitude to Waugh's theology, which damaged even his literary art, is of a piece with his visceral dislike of altar girls.
SV2 | 07.30.06 - 7:49 pm | #
For truly great Catholic novels, see Bernanos. Also good, if not great, are the sultry narratives of Mauriac. Today we do not have any great or even good Catholic writers, a sign of the cultural paralysis of the Church, due to its betrayal of Vatican II. Jews have stolen the show on us, and there are even more good novels about the Anglican church than about ours.
SV2 | 07.30.06 - 7:52 pm | #
I object to your claim to entitlement to dive into the pig trough while refusing to your targets the same right, sepecially as my dives are merely an effort to show up the nature of your own discourse, which you have not corrected despite repeated apologies.
'amending the minor order of 'acolyte' to be understood now as 'altar server,' inclusively so as to include also females, to whom the priesthood remains closed.'
No problem then -- the minor orders have been abolished, leaving the function of altar boy without any connection with ordination. But altars were never acolytes in the strict sense in any case, so talk of minor orders is a red herring.
'the use of altar girls was already being actively promoted by those interested in leveraging the Vatican into accepting the ordination of women' This kind of reasoning would forbid ANY recognition of women's charisms in the community (e.g. as lay ministers of the Eucharist). It is paranoid reasoning.
'the Vatican's new position backing away from its traditional view of the acolyte as a transitional minor order en route to becoming a priest, while the dissenters' view actually embraces that transitional undestanding as a ticket to women's ordination.' Again this confuses the minor order of acolyte with the altar boy who never had any order.
' what is the fittingness of having the priest served at the altar by girls? Is this a matter of indifference, as many would suggest? Is it altogether unfitting, as others would insist.'
WHY would it be altogether unfitting? I can think of no good reason. Eugen Drewermann has argued that the RCC is rife with male-directed pedophilia, since the idealized image of the priest is founded on narcissistic identification with one's own pure boyhood self as emblematized in the altar boy. Stark honesty is needed in dealing with such matters. Senimentalizing the altar boy and sniffing at the altar girl is a self-indulgence we can no longer afford.
SV2 | 07.30.06 - 8:04 pm | #
'I object to your claim to entitlement to dive into the pig trough while refusing to your targets the same right, sepecially as my dives are merely an effort to show up the nature of your own discourse, which you have not corrected despite repeated apologies.'
I object to your objection, Fr. O'Leary. I have in fact attempted to correct the nature of my discourse in these pages; it has been a long time since my last "sniffing" expedition. In any case, the Gospel forbids you to retaliate in kind.
Enjoy splashing in the pig trough, Father. I'm climbing out.
Dave | 07.31.06 - 8:17 am | #
By the way, Father, you have NEVER backed down from your use of the inflammatory and ad hominen term "homophobia", which amounts to sniffing at the other person's inner motivation and psychological state.
Speaking of Bernanos, beware the fate of Father Cénabre, whose erudition was accompanied by loss of faith.
Dave | 07.31.06 - 9:13 am | #
"WOMEN have many roles in the Church. But GIRLS do not!"
BALONEY!
There are any number of things girls can do within a CYO setting: food drives, group bible studies, prayer groups, etc. They can volunteer at their local mission and serve in many different ways. My local mission just completed a "Kids of the Kingdom" camp that took local kids to Mass every morning, then to museums, to the beach, to the park, etc, during the entire month of July, and the majority of the counselors were teenage girls. What a wonderful idea, and what a blessing to both the kids and their parents. There's plenty of things for girls to do -- what they need is a little attention and direction from their self-absorbed parents, many of whom wouldn't be caught dead doing anything conspicuous for their Church.
No, Kathy, I think what is irritating you is not the lack of opportunity for girls within the Church, but the lack of opportunity for girls ON THE ALTAR. Will that irritation be soothed merely by the presence of altar girls?
ralph roister-doister | 07.31.06 - 9:40 am | #
Enough with the sniffing already!
Dave,
Fr Joe bewails the real and imagined insults, slurs, misrepresentations, and ridicule heaped upon him by everyone else on this blog, almost as often as he insults, slurs, misrepresents and ridicules everyone on this blog. His whining about his treatment is the purest hypocrisy. As a priest, he makes a boffo propagandist -- just not for Catholicism. Attempting to argue reasonably with him is like trying to catechize a wolverine. But people will try.
ralph roister-doister | 07.31.06 - 9:57 am | #
'Attempting to argue reasonably with him is like trying to catechize a wolverine.'
Well said ... except that I would add that it's like trying to catechize a wolverine in a hot tub!
Dave | 07.31.06 - 10:48 am | #
Ralph,
What is the argument against female altar servers from the standpoint of sacramental theology? "Belloc" claims that countless popes have condemned the practice. I am open to this view and would like to hear more.
Dave | 07.31.06 - 11:08 am | #
Dave,
Belloc will have to explain that one for himself.
I see the issue as one of liturgy, not sacramental theology. In the 1994 letter and the controversy that followed it, defenders of the decision attempted to trivialize the issue, denying that it was a matter of doctrine, but rather, a "pastoral" matter.
The issue that Kathy regards as so vital was regarded by its 1994 adherents as relatively trivial -- not a matter of liturgy, theology, or canon law -- but rather, a "pastoral" fillip that the bishop could decide for himself. Hence, there is no clear argument FOR altar girls -- there is only the preferences of individual pastors. Da fix is in.
This is the irony of it all -- the argument that altar girls do not constitute a breach of liturgical tradition is based on the conveniently sudden "insight" that the issue is not important enough to be considered a vital part of that tradition. It's not significant -- but we NEED it!
Wonder of wonders, this is much the same template for deconstruction that has blessed us with EMHC ant farms. Deny that the tradition is a significant tradition. If it is not a significant tradition it cannot be condemned as an significant innovation. Rather, throw it on the "pastoral" junk pile, which has become a kind of elephant's graveyard for traditions not congenial to the aspirations of Fr Joe and his wrecking crew.
I think the altar girl issue is correctly thought of as the thin edge of the women priests wedge, even though not all of its supporters see it that way, or desire to see woman priests in the Church.
In fact, Dave, try out this useful barometer of liturgical reform: whenever you hear a committee or synod describe something as "pastoral", beware -- it means that another tradition is about to receive the royal flush.
ralph roister-doister | 07.31.06 - 12:21 pm | #
Ralph: There is no wedge. There will be no women priests. Try and have a little faith, willya? Then there won't be this panic at events that could be remote suggestions of slippery slopes. Camels' noses. Metaphors awild.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 12:47 pm | #
Ants and elephants, camels' noses
Everything that presupposes
Change where change can never be
Won't change my priority:
No matter how this wide world whirls
I'll think of how to serve the girls.
(Since it can't be a doctrinal matter if the Holy See says it's not.)
Kathy | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 12:54 pm | #
Here are two old articles that may still be of interest. Thanks!
""ALTAR GIRLS": FEMINIST IDEOLOGY AND THE ROMAN LITURGY
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
by Brian W. Harrison
July 2000"
=
"Anger at Vatican plan to ban altar girls
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ religi...1048563,00.html
John Hooper in Rome
Wednesday September 24, 2003
The Guardian"
==
Paul Borealis | 07.31.06 - 2:45 pm | #
'you have NEVER backed down from your use of the inflammatory and ad hominen term "homophobia", which amounts to sniffing at the other person's inner motivation and psychological state.'
Homophobia kills -- and religious homophobia is the most lethal kind. I have never found you, Dave, in any way concerned with the huge suffering inflicted by homophobia (and I am not talking about murders only), either because you are unaware of it, which in this day and age is rather difficult to excuse, or because you are in fact prejudiced against gays. Have you another explanation?
SV2 | 07.31.06 - 5:56 pm | #
many people can't resist
the power of the feminists
http://www.womensordination.org/...es/ action24.htm
http://www.redemptoristpublicati.../ editorial.html
http://catholicism.about.com/lib...y/ aa092802a.htm
change where changes should not be
that is their priority
a will to power! can you not tell?
they'll drag the Mass into their hell
in the end, it will make us sick
all these feminist politics
-
"I could hold my peace no longer and I asked if I could be an ‘altar girl’. I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not allowed, but I could give out the hymn books instead. Again, no one ever made any attempt to explain why. Later on, the argument was put forward that altar boys were potential vocations to the priesthood, and having girls serving alongside them might put them off! Eventually, in April 1994, the Vatican agreed that it was acceptable to have female altar servers, but only if there were no men or boys available! Of course many parishes had had female altar servers for years so this was not such a big issue for them, but for me it was a significant turning point. It showed me that the hierarchy was beginning to acknowledge the diversity of women’s ministry. It is very interesting that when lay people were commissioned as Eucharistic ministers over ten years ago, both women and men were asked to take on this ministry, which involves actually administering the consecrated elements of Holy Communion. Yet women and girls had to wait several more years before they could simply assist the priest through the ministry of serving."
http://www.womenpriests.org/call...ed/ blackbur.asp
-
"For a long time the theological imperative which excluded women from ministry seemed to have an extended halo which did not just exclude them from priesthood but from being altar girls and of course from the diaconate. And whatever Christ’s implied or stated view of women priests, it became increasingly difficult to sustain the exclusion of altar girls on the grounds of either tradition or doctrine. That looked like what it was: age-old and biased assumptions about the proper spheres of men and women translated into fixed perceptions, fixed rules and fixed roles. And under pressure which has grown increasingly sensitised and educated about equal opportunity issues, the rule went. A small first victory for Christian feminists within the Catholic Church among whom, it is worth pointing out, are a highly educated generation of young men and women who will no longer suffer sexist fools gladly."
http://www.womenpriests.org/teac...ng/ mcalees2.asp
==
Paul Borealis | 07.31.06 - 6:43 pm | #
modern Catholics can't resist
the dogmas of the feminists
==
Paul Borealis | 07.31.06 - 6:49 pm | #
An idiot can see a sign
And read it wrongly every time
Especially if he or she
Is wont to read politically.
In this the fault lies not the least
With champions of womanpriest.
But just because they doc this spin
That doesn't mean they'll ever win.
It doesn't mean the change they greet
with pleasure can't be right and meet.
The Church, when she drew in the dust
A line that never will be crossed
Looked carefully before she drew
To see if everything was true:
If every practice she employs
Makes sense for all the girls and boys.
And one, she found, is not quite right,
And if in cases, bishops might
As altar servers women choose
The Vatican would not refuse.
Unfortunately in these times
When genders bend worse than these rhymes
It's hard to see when lines are crossed
If every breach is serious.
This one is scary but it's sane;
I hope its like won't come again.
The point is not what girls deserve.
It's great, though, when they get to serve.
Kathy | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 10:09 pm | #
Nice try, SV2. You use the word "homophobia" as a broad brush to smear anyone who disagrees with you on ANY aspect of this issue. Go play your emotional mind games somewhere else.
Dave | 08.01.06 - 1:21 am | #
Fr. O'Leary, I agree with Kathy. Your constant haranguing and browbeating is wearisome. It no longer a stimulating intellectual debate -- it is an exhausting trip through an emotional wringer, over and over again. Maybe that's your game, SV2: an emotional war of attrition, in which if you keep telling us often enough that we're bad people, we'll start believing it. Sorry, Padre, life is too short. Good luck with your attempt to re-create the Catholic Church in your own image.
Dave | 08.01.06 - 1:54 am | #
'if you keep telling us often enough that we're bad people, we'll start believing it.'
Pot, kettle? If you argue in a coolly rational way, that is fine, but bluster in defense of merely negative attitudes to gays (including your enthusiastic and uncritical subscription to Blosser's recent sodomy post, which the merest caution would have shown you to be a form of hate speech) is not rational discussion, especially when loaded with ad hominem insinuations of a below the belt kind. Look at the log in your own eye.
SV2 | 08.01.06 - 5:40 am | #
Personally, Fr Joe, I don't mind your presence at all. I ignore your notes most of the time, and when I read them I offer a little prayer for their author. Hope you don't mind. It is sad -- but to be truthful, amusing too, and not a little bizarre -- the kind of feeling one might get at a carny geek show -- to watch someone wriggling with such discomfort inside his own skin.
But it can't be very amusing to you, though.
ralph roister-doister | 08.01.06 - 8:58 am | #
"Group ordains 8 women as priests
The Catholic Church rejects validity of a riverboat rite
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...3/710168- 85.stm
Tuesday, August 01, 2006"
==
Paul Borealis | 08.01.06 - 9:55 am | #
"Homophobia kills"
Shouldn't it kill the "homophobe" then? Or does it work more like the cooties?
OO..
philip | 08.01.06 - 11:00 am | #
Yes, I did mean that it kills the homophobe -- even primarily. See the French Canadian film C.R.A.Z.Y. for how this functions. Violence always affects the violent person more intimately than his victims -- hence the dictum, 'who lives by the sword dies by it'.
SV2 | 08.01.06 - 11:29 am | #
The words of Mel Gibson's apology could be applied mutatis mutandis to the relation between homophobes and gays (there are lots of repentent homophobes around):
There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of Anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge.
I am a public person, and when I say something, either articulated and thought out, or blurted out in a moment of insanity, my words carry weight in the public arena. As a result, I must assume personal responsibility for my words and apologize directly to those who have been hurt and offended by those words.
The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.
I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.
I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realizing is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery. Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.
This is not about a film. Nor is it about artistic license. This is about real life and recognizing the consequences hurtful words can have. It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad
SV2 | 08.01.06 - 11:36 am | #
There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of Anti-Gay remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Gay community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I used about them on many occasions.
I must assume personal responsibility for my words and apologize directly to those who have been hurt and offended by those words.
The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. But please know from my heart that I am not a homophobe. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.
I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Gay community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.
I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realizing is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from, and I am asking the Gay community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery. Again, I am reaching out to the Gay community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.
This is about real life and recognizing the consequences hurtful words can have. It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad
SV2 | 08.01.06 - 11:39 am | #
There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of Anti-Homophobe remark.... ...mad.
philip | 08.01.06 - 12:14 pm | #
This comment thread is about altar girls.
Or about cooties. Same thing.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 1:33 pm | #
"This comment thread is about altar girls.
Or about cooties. Same thing."
Hey, you leave those poor altar girls alone! I may not want them, but they aren’t 'cooties'. You kind of make me feel guilty, like I am a big bad meany or something
==
Paul Borealis | 08.01.06 - 1:42 pm | #
...like maybe I am some sort of grumpy old bear.... grrr
==
Paul Borealis | 08.01.06 - 1:46 pm | #
"Group ordains 8 women as priests"
Grrr...
"On a riverboat cruising the confluence of Pittsburgh's three rivers yesterday, eight women held hands triumphantly and danced with three others they call bishops, as one of the latter proclaimed: "It is with great joy we present to you our newly ordained women priests.""
Grrr...
"Roman Catholic Womenpriests Community"
Grrr.... Growl....
'Altar girls today...Womenpriests of tomorrow?'
Grrr.... Groan....
Is this the true agenda, and political strategy behind the altar girl movement?
Kathy sang:
"An idiot can see a sign
And read it wrongly every time
Especially if he or she
Is wont to read politically.
In this the fault lies not the least
With champions of womanpriest.
But just because they doc this spin
That doesn't mean they'll ever win."
==
Paul Borealis | 08.01.06 - 2:16 pm | #
Questions: (1) Does the so-called "Roman Catholic Womenpriests Community" (see link above), have/use altar boys? (2) Do their female 'bishops' ordain males?
I wonder.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.01.06 - 2:46 pm | #
Kathy,
oo..
"Can you imagine that it might be possibly beneficial for a young girl to have an outlet for her love for the Church, that regularizes her service to it in a concrete way?" (sic)
I don't see how obedience to parents, teachers, and confessors isn't just as concrete unless you are valuing the public appearance as what truly counts.
philip | 08.01.06 - 4:17 pm | #
"Is this the true agenda, and political strategy behind the altar girl movement?"
It's not a movement. It's an approved liturgical option.
"I don't see how obedience to parents, teachers, and confessors isn't just as concrete unless you are valuing the public appearance as what truly counts."
When I was counting up Confirmation service hours as a DRE (two deadly things: DRE jobs and service hours, but that's a very long story) I would occasionally make an exception and allow service in the home to be considered as volunteer work--if there were particularly demanding situations within that family, such as illness of a parent. But ordinarily I would consider obedience as you describe it to be part and parcel of just living in a family. You help out, that's what you do. And the service hours were supposed to be beyond simply what everyone is supposed to do--they were supposed to be training for volunteer work in the larger community.
That's a strained analogy for what I mean by service that's regularized. A young girl who wants to do more--can she? I'm not sure. Somebody would have to make arrangements, and offer supervision (because she's still a minor.) In fact I knew a kid who was in high school and wanted to do more, always more--but we could never organize enough things for him to do. Great kid--needed more outlets than we could provide. Outlets FOR SERVICE.
Altar service is easy and free, supervision is practically a no-brainer. Kids have to show up, dressed up, and do their best. It will make them more attentive to the Mass and affect their non-liturgical lives for the better, most likely. It's good for kids, boys and girls. And the Holy See doesn't see a problem with fittingness.
Does anyone? I mean, is there any real problem with the actual fact of girls being on the altar and carrying vessels, books, candles, crosses, etc.?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 11:20 pm | #
Kathy,
how did you address what you quoted from me? I think you are saying it is the appearance that counts: service hours and all that.
"I mean, is there any real problem with the actual fact of girls being on the altar and carrying vessels, books, candles, crosses, etc.?"
Well, there is the whole androgony aspect to it. It strikes me as aesthetically disruptive, as if it were a surrealist venture. And it's flatly degrading to reduce the service at worship to young girls. I find it uninspiring.
Admittedly, I may be biased by bad experience as I can't get out of my head the vision of those slouching girls holding candles before the pulpit while the priest reads the Gospel. Were they meant to be the witnesses from Revelations, or the children cloaked by the ghost of Christmas yet to be?
Lastly, "Outlets FOR SERVICE." Ha.
Pascal: "I have discovered that all the unhappiness of men arises from one single fact, that they cannot stay quietly in their own chamber."
philip | 08.02.06 - 4:27 am | #
Sorry, I should have realized long ago that you aren't the reasonable and gentlemanly Philip I'm used to dealing with.
If you were able to use your head instead of just your prejudices, you would be able to see that I addressed your "appearances" issue quite directly.
Congratulations on having such strong opinions. Keep 'em. Have fun with that. And Pascal was a Jansenist.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 8:56 am | #
Kathy,
(1) you persistently dismiss the political aspect of this, the likelihood that the usual suspects (some of whom Paul has documented for us) will exploit this issue, and those little girls you are so concerned about, to advance their agenda of feminizing the priesthood.
(2) nothing good comes from monkeying with Church traditions. V2 was used as a massive tradition-monkeying mechanism, and we are still suffering the consequences.
(3) transforming every issue into a matter of "pastoral" judgment is a strategy that liberals have promoted over and over again to decentralize the church into a medieval aggregate of strong lords and a weak king. By doing so, they make it easier to protestantize the Church, one diocese at a time. Do you doubt that these sorts of efforts occur constantly within the Church?
(4) I'm sorry, but as I've said before, on this issue it seems to me that you are concerned not so much with roles for girls within the Church, which are plentiful, but with roles for girls ON THE ALTAR. That is a very different thing, very problematic, IMO, and ought not to be reduced to an emotional appeal.
ralph roister-doister | 08.02.06 - 9:28 am | #
Ralph,
1. Is there a theological problem with girls being on the altar? No. There cannot be women acolytes because there is a close connection between acolyte institution and ordination. No such link exists between altar servers (a casual deputation) and priesthood.
2. That leaves us with pastoral concerns.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 10:08 am | #
"It's not a movement. It's an approved liturgical option."
No Kathy, it is/was a movement, and it eventually became an 'approved liturgical option' only later. The Vatican (for good or ill) 'gave in' on the female altar server issue (perhaps for strategic reasons), but only after it could not stop the disobedient Bishops and priests and nuns and laity from doing as they pleased. It was all progressivist symbols and optics, of little substance perhaps, but filled with defiance; because it was never about giving the sweet young girls activities, not by a long shot - it was all about power, and the eventual ordination of women. Old church versus new church, and old church lost the battle. Oh, it was a movement, and remains so, and I hope I showed a bit of this with my 'links' and 'quotes' from 'womenpriests', and others: it was in fact a "small first victory for Christian feminists [...]", wrote Mary McAleese, President of the Republic of Ireland.
So to the question, 'Hermeneutics of sacramental fittingness: altar girls?', I say sadly they are not fitting, because they in my opinion were implemented in disobedience (!) against/contra the longstanding liturgical tradition, norm and custom of the Church, and symbolize and embody for me disobedience to Catholicism, and the advancing and powerful liberal secular agenda in the Church and Liturgy. This 'altar girl' issue was about equal opportunity, social advancement, gender politics, and the sexual revolution in a secular age and traditional (outmoded) Christian church. Feminism. Of course, people will label me a sexist for such a position or perspective, I am sorry for this, as it really is not so.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.02.06 - 10:11 am | #
Paul, you and my good friend Ralph are following into the liberal tendency to view the historical momentum of Vatican decisions as the decisive criterion in judging their validity.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 11:19 am | #
"the liberal tendency to view the historical momentum of Vatican decisions as the decisive criterion in judging their validity."
Pullllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz.
ralph roister-doister | 08.02.06 - 11:59 am | #
The teaching, for more or less twenty centuries, has been that women may not "approach the altar".
Altar girls are probably the least egregious of breaches of this teaching. We know you favor this one.
Woman lectors?
How do you feel about sermons being delivered by women?
"Extraordinary" Ministers of Holy Communion?
Busy, busy, busy, these non-acolytes!
Do you see a problem here, Kathy? How much of this "momentum" are you comfortable with?
There is indeed a "momentum" discernible here, and one may call it "historical" in the sense that it occurs in time, but it is really a movement toward a diversity that is fractious and contrary to church teaching.
ralph roister-doister | 08.02.06 - 12:29 pm | #
Kathy,
you owe me an apology. I did not imply that you were stupid or unthinking or dishonorable. I did not pretend to be someone I am not. You recognize that you mistook my identity, and then you go on to insult me, as someone you only know from two posts.
philip | 08.02.06 - 1:21 pm | #
Ralph, you are taking historicity too much into account. Not Tradition, but Momentum. As if that Mattered.
How do I feel?:
--Woman lectors, yes.
--Altar servers, yes.
--Sermons, of course not. Ordained people do that, and women can't be ordained. Duh.
--EMHCs--I wish there weren't any at all. But if men are doing it without being ordained, yes, women should too.
The question is, are people "approaching the altar" without being ordained or on their way to being ordained? In other words, have lay persons been assigned roles that once were reserved to clerics of whatever degree? If yes, then there is no reason not to include women.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 1:28 pm | #
Philip, you were mocking to me and insulting to girls. And you weren't thinking, as far as I can tell.
But you're right, I don't know you. So I hope I'm wrong about whether or not you're a gentleman.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 1:34 pm | #
Kathy,
Eyes wide shut, IMO, but you think I'm Mr McGoo, so there's some kind of symmetry.
ralph roister-doister | 08.02.06 - 2:36 pm | #
I'd swap glasses with you but I can't see as how that would make much difference.
Three blind mice.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.02.06 - 2:53 pm | #
Kathy,
I didn't mock you or insult girls. If you think I crossed the line of decency, say where.
As far as your speaking directly to my point, I wondered why obedience at home, in school, or to a confessor was any less concrete a religious service than serving at Mass, and you went on about community service, and I honestly have no idea what your point is in that.
All I get from that response is "we need to give children service work." There is no explanation about the comparison.
philip | 08.02.06 - 4:58 pm | #
Philip, as I said, obedience at home, to one's confessors and any other legitimate authority is not usually what I would consider SERVICE. It is DUE to the authority--it is MINIMAL.
I understand you a little better now, and I apologize because apparently you weren't mocking me. You really really didn't understand the above, right?
On the other hand, these are remarks that could definitely be taken by an innocent bystander to be considered insulting to girls:
Well, there is the whole androgony aspect to it. It strikes me as aesthetically disruptive, as if it were a surrealist venture. And it's flatly degrading to reduce the service at worship to young girls. I find it uninspiring.
Admittedly, I may be biased by bad experience as I can't get out of my head the vision of those slouching girls holding candles before the pulpit while the priest reads the Gospel. Were they meant to be the witnesses from Revelations, or the children cloaked by the ghost of Christmas yet to be?
---Especially the word "degrading."
Anonymous | 08.02.06 - 8:44 pm | #
(That was me, obviously. Kathy)
Anonymous | 08.02.06 - 8:46 pm | #
Kathy,
Thank you for explaining. I was confused by your examples which seemed to be incidents of obedience. The first at least, not afterwards. The distinction you make is new to me, as I don't value the service like that (especially) for minors. (For me, that "minimum" you mention was already beyond the max.)
I thought service should be to superiors and circumstance. By circumstance, I was thinking of the Good Samaritan or Lazarus, who wasn't helped.
With what I wrote, "I may be biased" was meant as understatement, not sarcasm. I was also thinking of the habit of those who criticize the Novus Ordo based on how it is (incorrectly) practiced.
I'll hold onto the "degrading" word for now, though. Where else are young girls given so prominent a role at such an important and public function? Where would it be acceptable to use them in that way? It just strikes me as improper for a solemn event.
I may have said more than you needed, but I am through and will likely once again take my own advice, and stay quietly in my own room. Thanks for responding and sorry for the trouble.
philip | 08.02.06 - 11:14 pm | #
And svII, I was probably just wasting your time. Won't happen again.
philip | 08.02.06 - 11:15 pm | #
No trouble, Philip, we're just on really different pages here. Besides, this issue definitely heightens every communication problem.
Solemnity does not exclude young girls--not in the Church. Think of the Virgin Martyrs who now and forever sing the praises of the Lamb around his throne.
Service should be according to the Spirit of God, who gives gifts to build up the common good.--That is Scripture too.
The Blessed Mother is Queen of Angels, Queen of Apostles. She is not a priest, but she outranks priests and sits on a higher throne for eternity.
Culturally, women are less likely to be visible at solemn events. But in the Church it is not like that. When the Church is there the whole Church is there--and never without the Blessed Mother.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.03.06 - 9:25 am | #
Wow, this is a heated and meandering discussion!
I became a (female) alter server in 1993, a year before it became licit. My church had always used female altar servers, during my own lifetime, at least, and at age 11, I wasn't aware that it had not been officially allowed.
I was a server until my graduation from eighth grade in 1996. I loved serving - I did all of the funerals and was called in whenever they needed a substitute. In my final year, I received the Serra Club Altar Server award.
After being a server, I went on to take many other roles in church, including that of lector, EMHC, and choir member. I've taught catechism, led retreats, and served as the president of my college's Catholic student group. None of these things have led me to seek ordination or join the heretical Womenpriests. I'm a happily-married librarian.
I think that it is very true that being an altar server can foster a priestly vocation in boys. During the pre-Vatican II times, when the acolytes were the only ones giving responses to certain prayers at Mass, I think this would have been especially true.
However, being an altar server has been reduced to carrying out menial tasks - fetch-and-carry. I loved having the opportunity to "be involved" in the Mass, but this "involvement" didn't really exist on any sort of spiritual or intellectual level. The prayers and responses I gave were the same as those of any member of the congregation.
Doesn't anyone think that being an altar server could foster vocations in girls? Given the fact that being a Sister often involves this sort of menial work, I would think that there might be connections drawn there as well.
Julie | 08.04.06 - 11:50 am | #
Pope tells 42,000 altar servers they are Jesus' friends
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Although billed as his weekly general audience, Pope Benedict XVI's Aug. 2 appointment in St. Peter's Square was mainly an audience for 42,000 European altar servers.
And, in fact, there was a special focus on the 35,000 altar boys and altar girls from Germany.
"Because most of the servers gathered in this square today are German-speakers, I will address them first in my mother tongue," the German-born pope explained at the beginning of the audience.
Instead of giving his main audience talk in Italian, as is customary, the pope delivered his speech in German, then offered short greetings in Italian, French, English, Spanish, Polish and seven other languages.
Including the altar servers, about 55,000 people had gathered in St. Peter's Square on a hot, humid day for the audience.
The pope explained to the altar servers that he was in the midst of a series of audience talks about the Twelve Apostles.
"The apostles were friends of Jesus," he said. "He himself called them that during the Last Supper.
"They were apostles and witnesses of Christ because they were his friends, united to him by a bond of love enlivened by the Holy Spirit," the pope said.
Pope Benedict told the young people that Jesus also calls them his friends and wants to transform them into courageous witnesses of the Gospel.
The pope asked them to listen to Jesus' voice and to be open to his call, particularly if he is calling them to "give yourself without reservation" in the priesthood.
"Dear friends, in reality you already are apostles of Jesus," he said. "When you offer your service at the altar, you give a witness to all. Your attitude of prayer, your devotion that comes from the heart and is expressed in gestures, song and responses, all this is apostolate."
Pope Benedict asked the altar boys and altar girls to be on guard against becoming too used to serving at the altar and, instead, to let themselves marvel again and again at the love of Christ who sacrificed himself on the cross and sacrifices himself on the altar.
"That love which you receive in the liturgy, carry it to everyone, especially to those places where you see love lacking," he said.
Stephen Hand | Homepage | 08.04.06 - 9:53 pm | #
Kathy:
Since you are posing by far the most interesting questions on this comment box, I will make a serious attempt to help you address the questions that you seem so ardently to want addressed.
First, as a matter of historical fact, the only people who most vociferously but none the less disobediently asserted the right of girls to serve at the altar saw it, precisely, as a way to break down the walls of an all male priesthood. They tend to be the same group who masquerade under the title Voice of the Faithful (which doesn't care about the Faithful, anymore than the liturgical establishment cares about what is pastorally important for the "people"). For this reason, not for any just ideological cause, the point of girls serving at the altar is precisely the thin edge of the wedge.
As to the more serious question: is there something preventing girls from serving at the altar? Yes. It isn't at the same level as,say, a man who wants to be pregnant, but if girls' serving at the altar diminishes priestly vocations because boys aren't serving, then it makes perfect sense to restrict girls from the altar. It isn't a question of whether or not they COULD do such a thing, but only whether or not they SHOULD. Those who want the priest-shortage to get worse should continue to advocate for more girls serving at the altar. [This does NOT mean that all those who allow girls to serve at the altar or who see no reason not to are ipso facto trying to create such a shortage].
Let me take a stab at your third question (if it is higher on your list, please accept my apologies). Is there any way in which serving at the altar could increase a girl's awareness of her own vocation? I suppose it is possible, but if you ask nuns whether serving at the altar would have helped them discern a vocation, or mothers if serving at the altar helped them to be better wives, I would suspect that the answer is "NO", rather emphatically. More importantly, however, is that the layman's vocation is precisely IN THE WORLD, not IN THE SANCTUARY. Ask Vatican II. [No, don't ask the Spirit of Vatican II, but the documents of the Second Ecumenical Council].
Going preconciliar on you, just for a moment, I recall that Pius XII allowed women to serve in choirs, but that when this happened, they should be outside the sanctuary. Presto: choir lofts present a logical, accoustical solution.
Could altar girls serve in the same capacity: outside the sanctuary?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.07.06 - 3:03 pm | #
Provocatively: do altar girls alter girls?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.07.06 - 3:05 pm | #
I believe that girls need a positive way in which they can serve their parishes. I grew-up in a parish where one of the two priests would not accept female altar servers. Despite what the schedule said and the fact that the set-up had already been done, when Fr. R. showed up he would select two boys to serve. I quit after two years during which I only served three or so times. The only other capacity in which I could serve in the parish was as a nursery helper, which was not satisfying as it kept me from attending mass.
Chris suggested that keeping boys from serving may be contributing to the shortage of priestly vocations. I would like to suggest that without positive ways in which girls can be active in the parish, we may not foster vocations to religious life. (Not everyone has been given the necessary talent to join the choir.)
I am still seeking a role in which I feel comfortable serving my parish. Perhaps girls should not be urged to be altar servers, but I don't think that it benefits them any less than boys.
ashley | 08.07.06 - 4:07 pm | #
Ashley--not that this solves the problem, but I wonder if you'd want to help out with CCD. The teachers would probably welcome the help! (Unless it's at Mass time of course.And if you like that sort of thing and are good with little kids. Oh, and if you're not going to CCD yourself.)
You bring up a very important problem, by the way, that is caused by the differences of opinion on this issue. It is liable to only become more common. It was recently clarified that any priest who says Mass--such as a visitor or an eager new crew-cut associate pastor--is perfectly within his rights to say that he does not want girls serving on the altar when he says Mass. Even if the bishop and pastor give the okay, and girls are SCHEDULED, the presider can make the call. So it is bound to happen that Fr. X. will tell girls who show up, having arranged their lives around this responsibility, that their service is not wanted. Like a minute before Mass begins.
The sad part is that the problem is often not going to be because of Fr. X's concerns about vocations, but at least sometimes because Fr. X. doesn't have enough faith to know that, no matter what else happens, the Church will NEVER ordain women. Apparently some people haven't gotten the word that all the faithful are to hold definitively that the Church does not have the authority to do that.
THERE IS NO WEDGE
NO SHARPENED EDGE
NO WAY TO STEP OFF OF THE LEDGE
Kathy | Homepage | 08.07.06 - 7:54 pm | #
By the way, thanks, Dr. Blosser, for the picture that accompanied this post. It's dignified and thoroughly unobjectionable, and the young woman is reverent, so the question can be treated as a real one and not as a straw person.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.08.06 - 8:39 am | #
Ashley,
Does your parish have a CYO? Are you a member? Does your town have a mission? Would serving the poor satisfy your desire to be "active"? I can assure you that you would be needed, and that you could plan your schedule of service around your parish's Mass schedule, so that you would not have to sacrifice attending Mass to fulfil your desire to serve.
By the way, the whole idea of nursery helping as an ALTERNATIVE to attending Mass sounds downright bizarre to me. Protestants do that sort of thing, but what sort of Catholic pastor would allow such an arrangement? Strange -- negligent.
Perhaps you should respectfully inform him about what is going on.
ralph roister-doister | 08.08.06 - 9:36 am | #
Question for those against allowing female altar servers: what is the theological argument against this practice? Where are the relevant Conciliar and/or Papal decrees?
Question for those in favor of allowing female altar servers: has the institution of this practice respected the general norms of liturgical reform stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium?
'That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.' (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23)
Dave | 08.08.06 - 1:12 pm | #
Dave,
Rather than harping on "the theological argument AGAINST" altar girls, let us be TRULY innovative and forward-thinking, and ponder for a moment the theological argument FOR it. It seems logical to me that the burden of proof should always be on the complainant: are we going to whitewash logic as well as tradition? So let me fire the question back at you: where are the theological documents and positive argumentation that specifically justifies girls as altar servers?
Here's an interesting document on this whole business, written by Fr Bryan Harrison, no slobbering hirsute traditionalist bone-gnawer:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
Here is an excerpt:
"If the concession which most clearly represented the earlier "theological" phase was Communion in the Hand, that which can be seen as symbolically ushering in the new period of "ideological" reform in the liturgy is the even more unprecedented change announced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in its letter of 15 March 1994: the admission of women to service at the altar.
This, I suggest, has been a truly revolutionary change. It is worthwhile recalling that as recently as 1980, when the Holy Father reaffirmed the Church's bimillennial prohibition of female altar servers in Inæstimabile donum, the Vatican's own official liturgical publication, Notitiæ, ran an article declaring that this prohibition was "set in stone" as early as the fifth century A.D. 2 That "stone", however, has now crumbled to dust before our eyes. Should we now simply accept this innovation with a passive, silent shrug of the shoulders? Some who before 1994 were adamantly opposed to female altar service have subsequently argued that, whether we like it or not, the question of altar girls is now a closed issue, and indeed, a minor issue, so that we should therefore stop crying over spilt milk, as it were, and just get used to the presence of "altar girls" during Mass.
To this I would reply bluntly that the question of female altar service is not a minor issue. The Eucharistic liturgy is at the very center of the Church's life, and the altar is located at the very center of the Eucharistic liturgy. It is the Holy of Holies under the New Covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This means that any radical and unprecedented innovation regarding what happens at the altar is bound to bring about important changes - whether short-term or long-term, or both - in the hearts and minds of the faithful at worship."
Paul Borealis, I apologize if you have already linked to this one -- I found it almost inadvertently this morning.
ralph roister-doister | 08.08.06 - 2:06 pm | #
Traditionalists needn't worry: boys will always have "pride of place"!
ralph roister-doister | 08.08.06 - 2:47 pm | #
He doesn't distinguish adequately between acolyte and altar girl.
Besides which, dang--traditionalism must be very complex and multifaceted if LIVING TRADITION (in 19th century script) is not a bone-gnawing crab-wrapping piece of traditionalist propaganda.
Oh, sorry, it's an ORGAN. An Organ of the Roman Theological Forum.
At least now I know what you've been reading, Ralph.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.08.06 - 3:19 pm | #
Ooooooh, 19th century script!! Case closed!
Fr Harrison is a conservative priest who writes in a number of forums. Extreme traditionalists dump on him in as knee-jerky a fashion as you just did (although yours was more a guilt-by-association-with-groups-who-use-19th- Century-script).
ralph roister-doister | 08.08.06 - 3:33 pm | #
Wow. I didn't read the entire article by Fr. Harrison, but enough to see that there is indeed a strong theological case against female altar service. I found the argument from liturgical symbolism to be quite compelling.
'He doesn't distinguish adequately between acolyte and altar girl.'
I think that Fr. Harrison would reply that such a distinction is irrelevant, since there should be no girls at the altar in the first place.
I'm inclined to agree that the argument against the traditional prohibition against female altar servers is not theological, but ideological: according to its critics, the traditional practice is sexist.
Dave | 08.08.06 - 6:41 pm | #
Of course I meant distinguishing between acolyte and altar server. What's really central IMHO is that these two very different ways of being on the altar have long been associated together. It would be OUTRAGEOUS if a woman or girl were ever to be instituted an acolyte--unheard of, impossible. That is because acolytes derive their ministry from the priesthood.
Altar servers are helping out. It's a nice thing to do, and possible long before CYO kicks in at adolescence, by the way.
At least I'm happy to hear that there isn't the cohesion I'd thought in the far right. Makes it easier to pick folks off one by one.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.08.06 - 6:55 pm | #
We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
Pope St Gelasius 494 AD | 08.08.06 - 9:19 pm | #
Far right? Kathy, you apparently don't know the landscape! Nobody hereabouts represents it. I've been accused of being both a radical traditionalist and a modernist. In neither case did the accuser have her facts straight.
Ashley:
You put an interesting problem, however inadvertently: why is it that opportunities to serve the Church seem to be lumped into these two groups: 1) those who crowd the sanctuary; and 2) those who miss Mass. Not knowing you from Eve, I couldn't guess what opportunities are open to you. Once upon a time there were things called Altar Cloth Sodalities [Ralph, I will happily accept correction on the name].
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.08.06 - 9:47 pm | #
Excuse me Chris? I was in the den with the gentlemen smoking stogies and haw-hawing over Kathy's latest missives. Mr Chesterton mentioned that Microsoft has a smashing new font called Curlz MT. None of that stodgy 19th century falderal -- bang up to date! Fr Newman is said to be considering it for the new edition of "Grammar of Assent".
ralph roister-doister | 08.09.06 - 9:32 am | #
News bulletin: kids between 9 and 14 are not generally considered to be useful around the parish. The ratio of supervision to effectiveness is too high.
Wow--you guys aren't conservative?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 10:15 am | #
Kathy:
No, we aren't conservative, at least by Catholic standards, my fellow Buffalonian's comments notwithstanding.
Furthermore, children between 9 and 14 are not considered useful by most people in modern society. I teach the middle group -- 12-13 year olds -- and have always come away from conferences with the impression that most of the profession considers adolescence the "unteachable years". This is, of course, utter nonsense, but the children need to be given a firm grasp of reality from an early age, and not simply abandoned to their hormone-enriched biochemistry and their loud, unedifying music (or at least, that which is targeted at them). Traditionally, however, Catholics have understood these years, as well as those before and following, as years of what we must now call character formation.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.09.06 - 10:33 am | #
Chris, my point is that boys of 9-14 have a way of serving at the parish and girls don't. Re: character formation--we are leaving service out of the girls' formation. Which for some reason R. R.-D. can't see. He seems to think you can just throw 4th grade girls into whatever womens' group is working around the church on Tuesdays mornings, without special provisions being made for their supervision. While they're in school, by the way.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 1:15 pm | #
Kathy,
I have not advocated abandoning girls, or anyone, to the apparent incompetence of any parish woman's group.
Still, it is somewhat surprising to see that you judge these women -- mothers themselves, most of them -- incompetent bunglers who cannot prevent young girls from wandering out into the traffic, or something.
Perhaps you want girls on the altar to ensure they won't get lost?
ralph roister-doister | 08.09.06 - 2:35 pm | #
Ralph, did you ever work with kids other than your family? Girl scouts, sports teams, etc? Especially in groups, kids are more trouble than they're worth, up to a certain age.
Imagine hiring a ten year old to sweep and stock a shop. Good heavens. Now multiply that by five girls, all friends, who decide to join the altar guild together.
I'm not saying that altar girls are the only answer, but just that you haven't yet proposed a viable solution. CYO--too young. Altar guild--too young. Meanwhile their brothers are serving every week.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 2:48 pm | #
Well, if these girls are such misbehaving vixens, they probably don't want to be altar girls anymore than they want to fold linen. A great many boys and girls will resist character-formation vehicles, regardless of how wonderful we think they are. There's nothing you or I can do about that. There's nothing unisex altar service can do about that, because, as Fr Harrison's article makes clear, altar service cannot be reduced to a glorified Social Services outreach program.
ralph roister-doister | 08.09.06 - 3:18 pm | #
The role of women in the Church is crucial. It seems to be a prevailing notion these days that to be useful and feel fulfilled about it, one must be SEEN while doing it, and recognized. However, the lives of many Christian role models(women & men saints)emphasize humility and an unseen role. Example: Martha & Mary in the Bible. Martha was DOING something, helping out, but Mary preferred to sit and listen to Jesus - that is, to learn from Him and love Him. Mary, our Blessed Mother, exemplifies the height of perfection in femininity (as well as usefulness to society!). She is a role model for both mothers and religious - working for the Church and for her family. Yet, of all the saints, we know less about WHAT she did while on earth - because the virtues of her PERSON and her LOVE for God eclipse any action she may have done.
My point is this - the God-given qualities of women (very much so in young girls of 12-1lie significantly in their intuitive and nurturing talents - mothers, teachers, religious (who support the Church immensly by their prayer and obedience to Christ). Catholic women (and girls can very naturally be led to this)provide a solid substratum for the Church both at home and in the church literally by providing an atmosphere of holiness - and exemplifying the virtues of holiness: mercy & love, tenderness, humility and obedience. I find this sort of challenge to be both natural and rich in spirituality and the fruit that it bears.
Men are geared towards action in a mechanical sort of way - such as, serving at Mass. This is how they manifest adoration and obedience to God. While women will manifest it from their hearts - silent and unseen - but Glorious to God. Obviously women are not SOLELY going to manifest it in this way, but when speaking of their role within the Church, this seems to be most fitting, most fruitful, and most continuously proclaimed and exemplified by Catholic tradition.
sorry, I am very wordy.
Mary | 08.09.06 - 4:26 pm | #
You guys aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying.
Probably cuz I'm a girl.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 5:59 pm | #
On the contrary, Kathy, we have understood you quite well, and have even removed our rose-colored glasses to do so. You insist that serving at the altar will give the same benefit to girls in the development of vocations as it gives to boys. You insist that there simply aren't other ways for girls to grow in their vocations to the religious life. Aside from the fact that both of these contentions are simply utter nonsense, they smack of an unhealthy feminism.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.10.06 - 7:18 am | #
No, Chris, I don't think I've mentioned religious life at all. So thank you for proving my point.
What I have (repeatedly) contended is that there should be an opportunity for young girls to serve. Which even Ralph seems to grudgingly concede to, being as how he keeps suggesting 9 year old girls join CYO (a high school organization) and Altar Guild (an old ladies' organization that works Monday and Tuesday mornings, during which time federal and state laws often compel girls to be elsewhere.) So thanks, Ralph, and I accept your apology.
On that basis--that of Ralph heartily endorsing the idea that it would benefit girls who desire it to serve their parishes in some capacity--I'm ready to move on to the question of liturgical fittingness.
By the way, Mary, the Liturgy over and over contends that the reason we honor the Blessed Mother is because she brought forth the Savior. It's what she DID that really matters.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.10.06 - 8:41 am | #
'...I'm ready to move on to the question of liturgical fittingness.'
Yes, that is the question!
Dave | 08.10.06 - 10:23 am | #
Shoot me now.
ralph roister-doister | 08.10.06 - 10:38 am | #
No! Don't despair! I forgave you already!
Kathy | Homepage | 08.10.06 - 10:55 am | #
Look like since Spirit took a break Kathy is now the target of the reactionaries.
SV2 | 08.10.06 - 1:28 pm | #
Vastly my preference. Bye!
Kathy | Homepage | 08.10.06 - 1:44 pm | #
Kathy:
By all means let the girls serve, somewhere outside the sanctuary.
SV2: What reactionaries?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.11.06 - 10:19 pm | #
By all means let the girls serve, somewhere outside the sanctuary.
Chris, you know kids. Is this a viable suggestion? Can one just say, "Girls, go serve someplace in the parish!"
What can 9 year olds do? It must be arranged. That takes time, money, and supervision. Or they could do something easily arranged, like altar service.
If anyone thinks this attitude is not very respectful of the dignity of altar service, let's remember that this is exactly how it is usually treated for boys. How many altar servers are necessary for Mass? None, really. One at the most. One boy can carry the cross, bring everything to the priest. Even with patens, two are enough, because if you use a paten you usually have an altar rail.
Boys are allowed to serve en masse (no pun intended) because it is good for THEM to serve, not because it is necessary for the parish to employ a martial phalanx at every Mass.
Okay, I've beaten that drum enough. Nobody will agree with me anyway, except of course Mr. Roister-Doister, thanks very much.
So: what is wrong with girls being in the sanctuary? Is this about menstruation?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.12.06 - 7:45 am | #
Of course it's not about menstruation. See Fr. Harrison's article for the theological case against female altar servers. I'm not saying that his arguments settle the issue, yet they should be given due consideration.
Dave | 08.12.06 - 12:54 pm | #
Kathy:
If altar boys show up on Sunday morning to serve, and fail to practice any aspect of their faith for the other 6 1/2 days, I would largely concur -- just as contraceptive mentality NFP and actual contraception aren't different in essence -- but [and this is a whopping big 'but'] if this is true for boys, it will largely be true for girls also, so we're back at square one.
My home parish, which I have described several times on this site, has no shortage of servers, BOYS, for Sunday Mass. The idea of girl servers only enters the mind of a few fringe lunatics who believe that we should go the way of the rest of the diocese. We parents are proud of our sons who serve. Strangely enough, few people express reservations or outright disgust over the armies of EMHC's. I suppose we're somewhat schizophrenic on this point.
Mind you, the number who regularly attend the Tridentine Rite, fully approved by our bishop, is growing, in part because of the EMHC's.
Now -- what about a rosary maker's guild? What about babysitting [NOT movie-sitting] for parish events? Sure, these take organization, but this only allows us to be involved in the life of our parish and our children, neither of which is a bad thing.
Girls serving at the altar is an unequivocally disastrous pastoral mistake.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.12.06 - 3:14 pm | #
Pastoral, Chris? Or theological?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.12.06 - 9:03 pm | #
Yes, absolutely, pastoral. It isn't helping the sheep.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.13.06 - 10:10 pm | #
What I mean is, are there theological reasons? So far we've seen sociological reasons (Philip above) and pastoral, but reasons like that are not perduringly binding, the way theological reasons are. For example, the reasons women can't be priests are first of all theological. Is there any case to be made that girls and women cannot serve for theological reasons?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 8:46 am | #
By the way, Pope Benedict recently gave an interview to German radio journalists and it is translated here: http://www.oecumene.radiovatican...olo.asp? c=91054
Here's the Q and A about women:
Question: Holy Father, women are very active in many different areas of the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t their contribution become more clearly visible, even in positions of higher responsibility in the Church?
Benedict XVI: We reflect a lot about this subject, of course. As you know, we believe that our faith and the constitution of the college of the Apostles, obliges us and doesn’t allow us to confer priestly ordination on women. But we shouldn’t think either that the only role one can have in the Church is that of being a priest. There are lots of tasks and functions in the history of the Church. Starting with the sisters of the Fathers of the Church , up to the middle ages when great women played fundamental roles, up until modern times. Think about Hildegard of Bingen who protested strongly before the Bishops and the Pope, of Catherine of Siena and Brigit of Sweden. In our own time too women, and we with them, must look for their right place, so to speak. Today they are very present in the departments of the Holy See. But there’s a juridical problem: according to Canon Law the power to take legally binding decisions is limited to Sacred Orders. So there are limitations from this point of view but I believe that women themselves, with their energy and strength, with their superiority, with what I’d call their “spiritual power”, will know how to make their own space. And we will have to try and listen to God so as not to stand in their way but, on the contrary, to rejoice when the female element achieves the fully effective place in the Church best suited to her, starting with the Mother of God and with Mary Magdalen.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 8:48 am | #
I'm afraid, my dear, that His Holiness in this passage supports my position, not yours.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.14.06 - 9:52 am | #
O, sweetie, I didn't put it there for argument's sake but just for information.
(I don't understand why you think it supports your position. It says nothing about altar servers.)
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 10:08 am | #
"Shoot me now."
No! Me first....!
"Chris, you know kids. Is this a viable suggestion? Can one just say, "Girls, go serve someplace in the parish!"
What can 9 year olds do? It must be arranged. That takes time, money, and supervision. Or they could do something easily arranged, like altar service.
If anyone thinks this attitude is not very respectful of the dignity of altar service, let's remember that this is exactly how it is usually treated for boys. How many altar servers are necessary for Mass? None, really. One at the most. One boy can carry the cross, bring everything to the priest."
Groan. I have to admit, I have seldom read a more pragmatic and mundane account (in the quote above and elsewhere here from Kathy) of the role of altar boys/girls. It honestly sounds to me like Kathy sees the role of altar server as a form of daycare. I am disgusted.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.14.06 - 10:43 am | #
"I'm not saying that altar girls are the only answer, but just that you haven't yet proposed a viable solution. CYO--too young. Altar guild--too young. Meanwhile their brothers are serving every week."
The answer to what? The reason for altargirls is....?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.14.06 - 10:49 am | #
"--EMHCs--I wish there weren't any at all. But if men are doing it without being ordained, yes, women should too.
The question is, are people "approaching the altar" without being ordained or on their way to being ordained? In other words, have lay persons been assigned roles that once were reserved to clerics of whatever degree? If yes, then there is no reason not to include women."
I read this as evidence that for you, besides the 'daycare' reason for having altargirls, it is all about sexual/gender equality. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but just want you to tell the truth and admit it.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.14.06 - 11:04 am | #
Paul, if I might clarify something in order to aid your digestion: I don't think that the desire to serve necessitates any form of daycare. I think that a young person's desire to serve should be met, on the part of adults, with the opportunity to serve. If the desire to serve is specifically religious in character, then the opportunity to serve (hereafter OTS) should be met by the parish.
Since we are talking about children, the OTS must be supervised. That's all I'm saying about supervision.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 11:05 am | #
I wrote: "...it is all about sexual/gender equality"
Should be: "...it is about sexual/gender equality".
I wrote: "...but just want you to tell the truth and admit it."
Very sorry, this was a mistake. It was a 'figure of speech'. I am not suggesting that you are less than totally honest and truthful, or that you are lying or hiding. Very sorry. Please accept my apology. What I meant by 'admit it', was that I want you to see that the modern 'sexual/gender equality' position is important to you.
You wrote: "Meanwhile their brothers are serving every week".
Are you saying that establishing 'altar girls' is a remedy for rivalry and envy?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.14.06 - 11:20 am | #
What I'm saying, Paul, is that altar service is an opportunity to serve that is very useful and helpful for kids. Not just like scouting or school is helpful, but religiously helpful.
And unless there is a THEOLOGICAL reason for excluding girls from something helpful to them, they should not be denied this opportunity--subject of course to the pastoral judgment of their pastors, and as for all activities subject to their parents' approval. (That last goes without saying, I should think.)
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 11:26 am | #
By the way, I don't find "sexual/ gender equality" to be the bugaboo that you seem to think it is, Paul.
In some things men and women complement one another, in some, they are equal, in some they're separate but equal, etc etc. Justice alone is really too important for us to be scared away by labels like "equality," as though that's a mortal sin or something. But here we are talking about something more important than justice: the religious development of children. So phantoms in the cupboard simply don't signify. At least not with me.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 11:46 am | #
Chris,
As you are no doubt aware, Kathy is attempting to maneuver us into a position where we are forced to concede that, if there is no theological problem with female altar service, then what remains except the pastoral, and what does the pastoral boil down to, if not merely a matter of who and when? Individual bishops are usually at the top of the food chain, of course, but with this issue, the Vatican, backstepping a bit from its 1994 judgment, the consequences of which have gradually become evident, has left the whole thing, ultimately, in the lap of Fr Goalonggetalong, the parish pastor (please hasten to chasten Ralph for lumping all pastors into this undistinguished category: sorry, but I’m from Buffalo, and most of the time, that’s how it is here).
I don’t know about you, Chris, but I am not a graduate student in theology, and as such do not have the time to uncover what theologians down through the ages have had to say about female altar service. From what I have gathered, the best recent studies of the issue are those of Mgr. A G Martimort and Fr Michel Sinior, both of whom deplore it. Kathy will probably wave them away as traditionalist bone-gnawers, as she did Fr Harrison. As far as I can tell, neither John Paul nor Benedict have had anything definitive to say on the issue, which I’ll wager everyone except feminists within the Church wish would go away.
And I would like to make another point (once again, since it was ignored the first time): suppose, for the moment, that there is no binding theological case against female altar servers. Then, pray tell, what is the positive theological case FOR them? How is it that predominant practice over almost twenty centuries has precluded them? Has the Holy Spirit been mum on the subject until lo, this shining moment? Tradition must always trump innovation that cannot be supported with a powerfully positive, even self-evident case, because tradition represents the best judgment of thousands of good and holy men and women over the centuries, whereas innovation most often represents nothing more solid than the bright ideas of today’s gaggle.
So let’s put the horse before the cart, for a change, and ask Kathy to give us the positive theological and liturgical reasons for the absolute necessity of unisex altar service -- not the pastoral eyewash and nothing-specifically-excludes-it argumentation with which she seems to be exclusively concerned.
ralph roister-doister | 08.14.06 - 1:48 pm | #
There's no absolute necessity.
There are good pastoral reasons for and against.
Take it up with the vocations personnel in Buffalo.
Tradition must always trump innovation that cannot be supported with a powerfully positive, even self-evident case, because tradition represents the best judgment of thousands of good and holy men and women over the centuries, whereas innovation most often represents nothing more solid than the bright ideas of today’s gaggle. Sometimes! Depends on the tradition, depends on the innovation. Older is not always better--otherwise your reasoning in this situation would be much better than mine. As it is, your vision is clouded on this matter by a certain, shall we say, chauvanism. It happens. Men want to be better than women. Happens all the time.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 2:07 pm | #
(I meant the older/ better comparison above to be funny--not sure that comes across.)
Kathy | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 2:26 pm | #
Ralph, yes, WOMEN have many roles in the Church. But GIRLS do not!
Kathy, I agree with you more often than you'd know (I should probably speak more often to the positive!), but this is another area where I have some trouble. There's an attitude toward the Church expressed in common statements (usually in discussions about gender) about 'roles' and 'functions' of males and females in church that sees the church as a place where these 'roles' and 'functions' should somehow be balanced in order to establish some sort of gender equity or 'justice.' This attitude is often piggy-backed onto discussions about the Vatican II imperative concerning "active participation" so as to encourage women to actively seek more 'roles' and 'functions' in church as lectors, EMHCs, members of the Pastoral Council, various church commissions and committees. Girls are likewise encouraged to seek 'roles' as altar servers -- the rationale being that this is the only way in which they will find fulfillment and the only way in which the fair sex will find some sort of gender parity with their male counterparts. I think this is completely wrong-headed. God invented the priesthood. The Church did not invent the priesthood. God invented the Church. The Church did not invent the Church.
Sometimes it seems otherwise, I know. I look at our full-service local Catholic parish, with it's blood drives, it's food drives, its Habitat projects, AA and overeaters anonymous program, scouting and aerobics programs, and parish picnics and suppers and social dances. Sometimes the parish would seem to run itself just as well if Father weren't even around, what with its various commissions -- liturgical, ecumenical, social, communications, etc., etc., etc. -- Sometimes it's tempting to surmise that there may be some who think that the best thing about our parish is that Father really just doesn't stand in the way of anything the parish is planning on doing. He's just sort of there, along for the ride, there to smile amidst the bevy of eight EMHCs after the consecration and to hand out the Body and Blood of Christ for THEM to distribute.
Yet this doesn't quite get it right. The purpose of the Church isn't to provide a social club. The purpose of the Church isn't to provide a karaoke venue for Nancy the local primadonna to hold forth on stage. The purpose of the Church isn't to provide a liturgical venue to serve as a training ground for Bob and Sue in public speaking. The purpose of the Church isn't to provide a liturgical venue for wannabe actors to audition as EMHCs to find fulfillment and feel useful.
Now of course you know all that, in one sense, or you wouldn't accept Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the tradition of the all-male priesthood, which cannot be understood at all in terms of 'function' and 'role' at all. I'm merely suggesting that the metaphysic underlying this tradition, as well as the epistemology it presupposes, be extended to embrace altar boys and female altar servers as well.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 3:30 pm | #
Let SV2's comments stand as a monument to his character.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 3:46 pm | #
What animates the clamor for 'active participation' among the laity for various roles in the Sanctuary, if not the whole revolution in ecclesiastical thinking instigated by the liturgical hijackers since V-II; and what is this but another form of clericalism, which cultivates a wannabe priestly ressentiment in anyone who is not a priest? But what a poverty of Christian vision, which does not see the largesse of God in offering the whole of secular life as the domain of the laity's proper vocation! He has given us the world in which to serve Him, and we clamor for a few minutes at the altar?
Don't get me wrong. There were a couple of years during which I entertained the possibility of a priestly vocation, and I do not for a moment hesitate to say that what happens upon that Altar is the holiest of occurrances available to our senses in this life. But I thank God for the Opus Dei priest who encouraged me during those two years to spend time before the Blessed Sacrament asking God to keep me open to the possibility of a divine vocation in secular life as well; and it is to that life I've been called.
It's hard to resist the thought that this tendency among the laity to seek quasi-clericalist ways of serving their parish (in the Sanctuary) might be readily cured by a dose of a few year's imposition of the traditional Latin Mass, in which nobody, least of all the priest, is permitted by the rubrics to showcase any sort of 'function' or 'role' or 'performance.'
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 4:40 pm | #
By the way, thanks, Dr. Blosser, for the picture that accompanied this post. It's dignified and thoroughly unobjectionable, and the young woman is reverent, so the question can be treated as a real one and not as a straw person.
You're welcome, Kathy. A ten-minute search turned up only two unobjectionable pics. This was one of them. Which isn't to say that it still wouldn't provoke a wrenching response from the Church Fathers, or, for that matter, nearly any priest or bishop before 1950.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 4:47 pm | #
Kathy correctly points out that there is no canonical (she uses the term 'theological') problem with girls being on the altar. "There cannot be women acolytes because there is a close connection between acolyte institution and ordination," however: "No such link exists between altar servers (a casual deputation) and priesthood." As I say, this is -- as far as I can discern -- technically and canonically correct (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).
My concern is otherwise: aren't we allowing canonical technicalities to obscure the larger questions being asked in the post about what is sacramentally fitting within the context of the liturgy of the Mass? In this regard, I think some of the concerns raised by Ralph Roister-Doister are very much a propos -- particularly those concerning how the Mass and Altar and Sacrifice and Liturgy are perceived, since this is intimately related with sacrementality (outward sign/inward grace relation) -- as well as the quote in the article linked by both Paul and Ralph, in which Fr. Harrison says:
"... the question of female altar service is not a minor issue. The Eucharistic liturgy is at the very center of the Church's life, and the altar is located at the very center of the Eucharistic liturgy. It is the Holy of Holies under the New Covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This means that any radical and unprecedented innovation regarding what happens at the altar is bound to bring about important changes - whether short-term or long-term, or both - in the hearts and minds of the faithful at worship."
A canonical loophole isn't much to stand on in the face of these concerns, as legitimate as it may be, IMHO.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 5:08 pm | #
Mary, your remarks remind me of what St. Edith Stein (Sr. Teresa Benedicta) wrote about 'spiritual maternity' as the vocation of women -- some incredible stuff there in that philosophically and theologically-informed mind! I think Kathy's remark that it's what the BMV "DID that really matters" misses its mark in this sense, that what we do cannot be separated from what we think, even though your point about Mary and Martha and the BMV in the NT is a slightly different one. I think you are contrasting different spiritual dispositions -- that of the person who is busy body with that of the person who is a docile listner and lover. Of course Kathy's point is true that the person who loves and listens is thereby DOING something too! But that doesn't annul your point.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 5:18 pm | #
'I look at our full-service local Catholic parish, with it's blood drives, it's food drives, its Habitat projects, AA and overeaters anonymous program, scouting and aerobics programs, and parish picnics and suppers and social dances.'
All of which fills up 5-10 minutes worth of announcements when we should be recollecting ourselves after receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord! (See my comments regarding laughter during Mass in the other combox.) What is worse, these post-Communion announcements are made (at our parish, at least) by the priest as he stands behind the altar! (This is a priest whom I otherwise admire in many respects, by the way.)
'The Eucharistic liturgy is at the very center of the Church's life, and the altar is located at the very center of the Eucharistic liturgy. It is the Holy of Holies under the New Covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This means that any radical and unprecedented innovation regarding what happens at the altar is bound to bring about important changes - whether short-term or long-term, or both - in the hearts and minds of the faithful at worship.'
Quite.
Dave | 08.14.06 - 5:28 pm | #
Kathy, what do you mean by "THEOLOGICAL reason"? Capital letters give it a kind of "Queen of Sciences" aura, but I don't quite think of you as a medieval scholastic.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 5:54 pm | #
Kathy, what do you mean by "THEOLOGICAL reason"? Capital letters give it a kind of "Queen of Sciences" aura, but I don't quite think of you as a medieval scholastic.
Dr. Blosser, I like to take it easy on you guys, so I take the gloves off in this arena.
I was merely opposing theological with Chris' "pastoral." He said it's a pastoral blunder--but before I would agree that it is proper to make a blanket exclusion of half of the Body of Christ from a role that would otherwise be legitimate, there would have to be a theological reason. As there is for priestly ministry.
Such a theological reason does obtain for the institution of acolytes.
No such theological reason obtains for altar service.
*********************************
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 9:09 am | #
FINE. Make my arguments a straw man by reducing them to "babysitting" and "social club", and reducing the desire to serve to some kind of latent performance frustration. Very obvious distortions of my meaning, and rather rude and beneath you.
But if you would look back upon this entire thread, the only person who has advanced any substantial argument AGAINST [capitals for emphasis, not some pseudo-erudite claim to medieval sensibilities] the fittingness of girls for altar service is Ralph Roister-Doister, whose argument echoes that of St. Vincent of Lerins, who of course said "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all."
However. It must be noted that Lerins spoke of BELIEF, not of PRACTICE. Liturgical practice changes ALL THE TIME. It has since the beginning, it has throughout. Our biggest THEOLOGICAL argument with the Orthodox is a change WE made. To the Liturgy. Which the Pope enforced. Which some people would not accept because they were sure they knew that nothing could change and no Pope can change that.
Sound familiar?
Now could anyone please advance any other argument from fittingness, other than Dr. Blosser's apparent argument that "girls just usually don't look right on the altar, you can see it everywhere on the internet?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 9:10 am | #
Kathy:
I am not surprised by the hosts reluctance to accept female altar servers. Most here must have certainly noticed that he does not easily talk much about at least two important women in his live - his daughter nor about the mother of his five children.
My conservative catholic german parents found it rather odd when I told them that conservative american catholics are seriously distressed by female altar servers.
They know many proud fellow catholic parents of female altar servers and can not understand how a decent and humble catholic can find m
I found your smart words in this comment box right on for the most part.
Bravo
grega | 08.15.06 - 9:56 am | #
Hello Kathy
"the only person who has advanced any substantial argument AGAINST [capitals for emphasis, not some pseudo-erudite claim to medieval sensibilities] the fittingness of girls for altar service is Ralph Roister-Doister"
Did you not remember that I made some comments too:
"So to the question, 'Hermeneutics of sacramental fittingness: altar girls?', I say sadly they are not fitting, because they in my opinion were implemented in disobedience (!) against/contra the longstanding liturgical tradition, norm and custom of the Church, and symbolize and embody for me disobedience to Catholicism, and the advancing and powerful liberal secular agenda in the Church and Liturgy."
Remember? Then you wrote:
"Paul, you and my good friend Ralph are following into the liberal tendency to view the historical momentum of Vatican decisions as the decisive criterion in judging their validity."
I remember. Thank goodness Ralph responded, God bless him. Our reputations were under a shadow cast by you.
As for me, I was just waiting for you to supply my liberal-leaning mind with the "decisive criterion in judging" the "validity" of "Vatican decisions".
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 10:13 am | #
'I am not surprised by the hosts reluctance to accept female altar servers. Most here must have certainly noticed that he does not easily talk much about at least two important women in his live - his daughter nor about the mother of his five children.'
Wow, Grega. I hadn't noticed Dr. Blosser's alleged reticence in talking about his wife and daughter. First of all, there was a touching reference in his homecoming post, which you either missed or ignored. Second of all, it's his private life and none of our business. How rude.
Dave | 08.15.06 - 10:16 am | #
And I will thank you in advance for not dredging up any past "sniffing" incidents in connection with a certain recently departed blogger. Apologies have already been made on that score, more than once. In any case, your insinuation about our host's feelings for his family is in a different category altogether, and really quite out of bounds.
Dave | 08.15.06 - 10:19 am | #
Kathy, there are a number of theological arguments in Fr. Harrison's article, which have caused me to rethink my previous opinion that there is nothing in the world wrong with female altar servers. Are those arguments binding? Doubtful, but they are theological.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
Dave | 08.15.06 - 10:24 am | #
Sorry, Paul, you are absolutely correct.
Dave, what are the arguments? Bring them out and we can talk about them.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 10:37 am | #
Kathy, unfortunately I don't have time to lay out all of the arguments right now. They are all through Fr. Harrison's article.
By the way, the Church's reinforcement of a male-only priesthood does not offer a theological argument per se. It offers a practical argument ("Jesus did this; the Church must do likewise") with theological implications.
Dave | 08.15.06 - 10:50 am | #
Dave, "Jesus did this; the Church must do likewise" is just about the highest theological argument that can be made. It's a little more complex than that--because of the apostolic college being male and having its own perduring dignity. But what you say is the gist of it, and is absolutely "theological."
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 11:06 am | #
Now if we could only download a picture of Jesus' altar servers...
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 11:07 am | #
Dave, feel free to argue with me but it's not my place to argue with Fr. Harrison. Let me know what you think--unless it's an authority we both acknowledge like Scripture. Or if you find time to summarize. Honestly I think that's likely to happen long before I find time to read his article.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 11:39 am | #
Fr. Harrison begins by dividing the post-Conciliar liturgical reform into two phases: theological (1969-1994) and ideological (1994-present). He sees the introduction of female altar service as the beginning of the ideological phase. Thus it should be noted that I was incorrect in asserting that Fr. Harrison's article is filled with THEOLOGICAL arguments, although I do see theological implications threaded throughout his case. The aspect of Fr. Harrison's argument that I find most compelling, however, is his argument from theological SYMBOLISM, which is summed up in this paragraph:
'This falsification of the sacred symbolism of the liturgy at its very heart - the Holy of Holies which is the altar of sacrifice - is the deepest reason why female altar service is a serious deformation of the Church's worship. The altar server, traditionally envisaged as a potential priest, is presented visually and symbolically in that role by his location, and by his actions, which provide proximate assistance and preparation for the quintessentially sacerdotal act: the offering of the Sacrifice.'
Kathy, you should at least read Section II of Fr. Harrison's article, which treats of the theological symbolism of altar service in depth. It seems to me that in a discussion about sacramental fittingness, issues of symbolism are most ... fitting.
Dave | 08.15.06 - 12:38 pm | #
'Now if we could only download a picture of Jesus' altar servers...'
That would settle the matter in a most visually compelling way!
Dave | 08.15.06 - 12:40 pm | #
"Liturgical practice changes ALL THE TIME. It has since the beginning, it has throughout. Our biggest THEOLOGICAL argument with the Orthodox is a change WE made. To the Liturgy. Which the Pope enforced. Which some people would not accept because they were sure they knew that nothing could change and no Pope can change that."
If I recall the history of the issue (to which I suspect you are alluding), Pope Leo III had told (ordered) the Franks (Bishops, clergy, theologians) to remove the Filioque from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed; the Filioque had been added at some point to the Creed in the West (but not in Rome!, or in the East). It was an unauthorized change from Rome's point of view. Many in the Eastern Church opposed the Filioque doctrine as a heresy; and (to them) its illegitimate placement in the ecumenical Creed without mandate or the consent of the Church, was seen (by many in the East) as a grave sin. The changed Creed (with Filioque) was being liturgically sung at Mass by the Franks and others. Although the Pope, against the East/Byzantine polemicists, was firm and agreed with the Franks that the Filioque was doctrinally orthodox and completely Catholic, he still however clearly directed the Franks to immediately remove the Filioque from the Creed and liturgy, as it was a harmful innovation and violation of the laws and order of the Church.
However, the Frankish Bishops chose to disobey, to go against Pope Leo III, and they continued on with their practice. In generations to come, long after the death of Leo, even Rome eventually came to accept the Filioque in the ecumenical Creed, and adopted the Western liturgical custom of singing the Creed with Filioque in liturgy. These were all important causes of the schism between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches.
At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which was called mainly to end the schism between West and East, it was decided by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bishops, and the Roman Pope, that the West could legitimately continue to use and sing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the Filioque, while the East did not have to adopt this addition and practice - they would continue to use and sing the Creed without the Filioque. The Catholic Church today is still bound by this Council; sadly, the unity between East and West sought and achieved at Florence did not remain.
Yes Kathy; my first question is, will altar girls (a change and innovation) help the Catholic church today reestablish unity with (1) the SSPX; (2) the Eastern Orthodox churches?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 1:25 pm | #
traditionally envisaged as a potential priest
When? By whom??
Paul, what is your source for this interesting history of the Filioque?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 1:29 pm | #
Paul, the reason I ask is because you are painting the filioque as a gallicanist power grab when it in fact originated in Spain.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 1:49 pm | #
Hello Kathy
I wrote from memory. Sources? Books and articles I have read over the years, a long time ago. Is it proof you require, perhaps about a specific point? In any case quickly and handy, here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia online (with some transcription errors I notice) had to say:
"Equally while acting in harmony with the pope [St. Leo III], Charlemagne combatted the heresy of Adoptionism which had arisen in Spain; but he went somewhat further than his spiritual guide [Pope St. Leo III] when he wished to bring about the general insertion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 09157b.htm
-
"It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papel advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 06073a.htm
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 3:45 pm | #
'"traditionally envisaged as a potential priest"
When? By whom??'
Good question. Fr. Harrison mentions patristic texts and ancient canons cited by Michel Sinoir (1994). Unfortunately, aside from quoting a passing reference to St. Cyprian, he provides no specific citations. Perhaps he's just making it up?
Dave | 08.15.06 - 4:01 pm | #
'When? By whom??'
Are we arguing theologically or from authority? The latter is the weakest form of argument, according to Aquinas.
Is it theologically fitting, or no, for those participating at the altar to be either priests or envisaged as potential priests? Harrison seems to argue that it is unfitting for anyone to participate at the altar who cannot be envisaged as a potential priest. What say you?
Dave | 08.15.06 - 4:19 pm | #
"power grab"
If so, it was perhaps not so much against the Papacy, as against the Byzantine (Roman) empire. But still, when he did the right thing regarding the Creed and the liturgy, Pope Leo III was ignored on an important Church matter by the Franks. It was more than advise; it was a serious matter.
"During his reign of almost 50 years, from 768 to 814, Charlemagne expanded the Frankish kingdom until it encompassed almost all of western Europe. Still, it is uncertain that he would have assumed the title of Roman emperor were it not for the support and urging of Pope Leo III. Leo sought an alliance with the Frankish kingdom because of its power, its extent, and most of all its devout Christianity. For these reasons, he believed it was fitted to become the guardian of Rome and the papacy in place of the weakened Byzantine Empire.
The pope thus broke the ties with Constantinople and created a new Western empire by crowning Charlemagne emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day, 800. The new title did not confer any new powers on Charlemagne, but it did legitimate his rule over central Italy, a fact eventually acknowledged by the Byzantine emperor Michael I in 812. Though not yet known as such, the Holy Roman Empire thus came into being."
http://encarta.msn.com/ encyclope...man_Empire.html
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 4:29 pm | #
'The pope thus broke the ties with Constantinople'
On and off, yes, due in part I understand to the ongoing church and state crisis and problems surrounding iconoclasm (730-787 and 814-842) in the East.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 4:50 pm | #
"Perhaps he's just making it up?"
I kind of doubt it. What I do suspect is that the Catholic liberals do pretty much as they please, and will not stop until they have destroyed it all. Women priests are just around the corner in my opinion; or one hell of a schism.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 5:06 pm | #
The altar girl issue was a "power grab". Old church was hung. And Rome left us hanging; what could it do?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 5:16 pm | #
Paul, I'm confused. It is a heresy to hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Yet Pope Leo III ordered the Franks to remove the Filioque from the Creed. Why did he do that?
Dave | 08.15.06 - 5:22 pm | #
'The altar girl issue was a "power grab".'
That is consistent with Fr. Harrison's thesis that the ideological phase of the liturgical reform began in 1994.
Yet Kathy assures us that there is no wedge, no camel's nose.
Dave | 08.15.06 - 5:25 pm | #
"It was more than *advice*; it was a serious matter."
I need to learn how to spell.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 5:32 pm | #
'Although the Pope, against the East/Byzantine polemicists, was firm and agreed with the Franks that the Filioque was doctrinally orthodox and completely Catholic, he still however clearly directed the Franks to immediately remove the Filioque from the Creed and liturgy, as it was a harmful innovation and violation of the laws and order of the Church.'
How can something that is 'doctrinally orthodox and completely Catholic' be simultaneously 'a harmful innovation and violation of the laws and order of the Church'? Was this a medieval foretaste of Vatican II and its subsequent fallout?
Dave | 08.15.06 - 6:36 pm | #
'doctrinally orthodox and completely Catholic'
It was, is, and will always be. It just did not belong in the Creed. Ask Kathy, she brought this up, no?
'a harmful innovation and violation of the laws and order of the Church'
It helped create a major schism in the long run, did it not? Perhaps I overstated or misunderstood the case historically; I was not there, and my limited scholarship could be wrong. My understanding based on reading was that Pope Leo III maintained that it was basically illicit and prohibited for the Franks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, then sing it in liturgy. The Frankish church leaders thought otherwise, and continued to sing/chant merrily the improved Creed. What could Rome do?
According to Kathy,
"Liturgical practice changes ALL THE TIME. It has since the beginning, it has throughout. Our biggest THEOLOGICAL argument with the Orthodox is a change WE made. To the Liturgy. Which the Pope enforced. Which some people would not accept because they were sure they knew that nothing could change and no Pope can change that.
Sound familiar?"
I did not mean to misrepresent or exaggerate, confuse or scandalize you or others. Still, the Church does stumble... she does not always dance throughout history. Things in this life are not always simple and clean, easy and clear. They can be complex. Why else would we need God?
A 'foretaste of Vatican II and its subsequent fallout?'
In my opinion, yes.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 7:22 pm | #
My problem with the prog-liberals and liturgical innovators is that they seem to have learned nothing from history, and care only about their own needs and fashions, and so on. They forgot that they had traditionalists in the Church, nay, they knew but did not give a damn. They instead provided 40 years of hell, decay, error and confusion, and there is no end or medicine in sight. They and others (inside and outside) will destroy completely the last peace and unity of the Church.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 7:58 pm | #
Again, just the personal opinion of a grumpy old bear. Grrr.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.15.06 - 8:05 pm | #
Paul, are you Catholic? What do you do about the filioque during Mass?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.16.06 - 8:32 am | #
Kathy:
Before I put this post up, let me acknowledge that the image may be a stretch for most people to accept.
Altar girls are a power grab in the same way that rape is an act of pure raw power and hatred.
Here's my justification for this statement.
1) The long-standing word of the Bride of Christ was NO.
2) Nevertheless, the disobedient bishops forced altar girls into a position which they did not request, for the sole purpose of damaging the Church and "recognizing" women priests.
3) Those same priests and bishops (and certain posters here) now insist that the Bride of Christ can not prove any harm from altar girls, and so therefore it must have merely been a matter of prejudice to refuse for all these years.
4) Those same priests and bishops (and certain posters here) argue that since it has now become legal, "they accept it, so it isn't rape: it was consentual.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.17.06 - 7:51 am | #
Whoah--ho--ho!!!!!!
Besides any other considerations that my mind however unwillingly entertains, I must include your perspective in the accusation I made to some of your fellows in arms above:
Paul, you and my good friend Ralph are falling into the liberal tendency to view the historical momentum of Vatican decisions as the decisive criterion in judging their validity.
My question for y'all is: Lookie at the girls on the altar. Feel your gut react with total disgust. What causes that reaction? History? Maybe, but I doubt it. The sensus fidelium? Maybe, but then you've got these people claiming the same sensus: http://arcc-catholic-rights.net/ ...us_fidelium.htm
Prejudice? A desire for male domination? A big "No Gurls Alloud" sign on the clubhouse door? Impossible?
Kathy | Homepage | 08.17.06 - 8:36 am | #
Actually, I'm sorry. I don't believe that last bit about you guys, simply based on the respect you show me.
But: I do think you have a desire for the good of society and especially the good of the family, and thus a respect for the differentiation of gender roles. That's what I think has gone a little bit haywire here: the insertion of the distinction between male and female, healthy and helpful to family and society, into the non-ordained charisms in the Church. If it's good for the domestic Church, even more so it should be good at the Liturgy. That's what I think is really at work here, though of course I'm mind-reading which is risky and also impertinent. And relatively unnuanced.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.17.06 - 8:40 am | #
Kathy,
As you might recall, a certain "Spirit" that once haunted these pages had the habit of appealing to the sensus fidelium to justify all manner of innovation in Catholic doctrine and practice.
In that context, can you agree that concerns about wedges and camel's noses might not be altogether unwarranted?
Dave | 08.17.06 - 11:02 am | #
Dave, you should reread my comment.
I was certainly not "appealing" to the sensus fidelium.
I was rather charitably suggesting that my opponents in this debate might be justified in appealing to it.
Anonymous | 08.17.06 - 11:08 am | #
Somewhat off topic, I am rather disturbed by certain traditionalist sites that accuse Benedict XVI of being a modernizing, liberal, quasi-heretic. Granted, the Catholic Church is capable of sustaining a very wide range of theological opinion, within which there is room for legitimate criticism of a pope who is also a theologian. Maybe there is no reason to be disturbed. Still, I come away from some of those trad sites with an uneasy stomach.
Dave | 08.17.06 - 11:11 am | #
Kathy,
In defending the practice of female altar servers, are you appealing to the authority of the Church? If not, what is left but the sensus fidelium?
In any given case, any of us might or might not be justified in appealing to the senseus fidelium. This is actually pertinent, I think, to the comment that I just posted above.
Dave | 08.17.06 - 11:15 am | #
Anonymous was (and is) me--Kathy
Anonymous | 08.17.06 - 11:29 am | #
Kathy,
Generally, I am fed up with Rome legitimating and trying to lend authority or respectability, after the fact, to liturgical changes (novelties, etc) implemented by liberal committees (official or unofficial), Bishops, priests, nuns and laity, against/contrary to "longstanding liturgical tradition, norm and custom of the Church". This is no way to run a Church in my opinion.
I am an alienated post-Vatican II religious person with feelings and a mind (but with no rights or powers). But even if the modern 'progressive' leadership and people successfully forced Rome to approve (rubber stamp) things such as altar girls (only one small example among many!!! with more to come!), and give them positive legal status where this was originally absent, these things will still always "symbolize and embody for me disobedience to Catholicism, and [represent] the advancing and powerful liberal secular agenda in the Church and Liturgy."
Yes, I am a discontent and rebel of sorts. Not all change is good.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 11:51 am | #
Dave:
"Still, I come away from some of those trad sites with an uneasy stomach."
The larger church will never be able to appease those catholic quasi Taliban’s. They will separate and start their own shop one of these days.
You should not give yourself stomach ulcers nor a headache accommodating such radical intolerant religious minorities. Such folks soil the waters of all larger popular religions. They go way back IMHO to the Scribes and Pharisees that bothered our Lord with their false understanding of scripture and religious laws.
grega | 08.17.06 - 1:04 pm | #
I am fed up with Rome legitimating and trying to lend authority or respectability, after the fact, to liturgical changes that are against/contrary to "longstanding liturgical tradition, norm and custom of the Church". This is no way to run a Church in my opinion. But it is the Church norm since Vatican II.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:05 pm | #
"The larger church will never be able to appease those catholic quasi Taliban’s. They will separate and start their own shop one of these days."
It is the larger Church that is leaving its Catholic faith, identity, tradition and heritage in the garbage can of modernity. Umm, or is it leaving *for* the garbage can of modernity?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:13 pm | #
ooops! Should be: *Garbage Can*
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:16 pm | #
grega, you are the modern Catholic Church. I am not.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:18 pm | #
'Spirit of Vatican II' was the modern Catholic Church. I am not.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:21 pm | #
"The larger church will never be able to appease those catholic quasi Taliban’s."
No, you are correct. It will not.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:23 pm | #
By the way: "The larger church will never be able to appease those catholic quasi Taliban’s."
You were referring to me, correct?
Yes, "The larger church will never be able to appease" us.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:28 pm | #
Dissent is rewarded, obedience is not.
That is the new Church law.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 1:30 pm | #
I will not serve Moloch, nor bend my knee to the Hegelian God.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 2:00 pm | #
Paul, believe me I understand your frustration. But don't leave.
Kathy | 08.17.06 - 2:07 pm | #
Grega,
My uneasy stomach is, in part, a function of cognitive dissonance. There is much in the Traditionalist view of things with which I am in sympathy. Above all, I would like to see the Traditional Latin Mass restored. On the other hand, I have a very hard time with the near-sedevacandist views of many Trads. At the very least, their vicious disrespect for (if not rejection of) every pope after Pius XII really disturbs me. Let it be said that my remarks here are NOT directed at ANYONE who comments on this blog.
Dave | 08.17.06 - 3:32 pm | #
"You should not give yourself stomach ulcers nor a headache accommodating such radical intolerant religious minorities."
So much for the spirit of Vatican II religious tolerance and openness I heard about, which I always knew was a satanic ideological cloak.
"Such folks soil the waters of all larger popular religions. They go way back IMHO to the Scribes and Pharisees that bothered our Lord with their false understanding of scripture and religious laws."
The only people 'soiling' all over the Church are the prog-liberals. They made the mess. Reaction to their unholy stink is enough to cause schisms for years to come.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 4:35 pm | #
I will not serve the Modernist Moloch, nor bend my knee....
==
Paul Borealis | 08.17.06 - 4:46 pm | #
Dave:
"Above all, I would like to see the Traditional Latin Mass restored."
I can agree with you here under the caveat that not all parishes should be forced to do so - A Traditional Latin Mass should be an option available to all priests and parishes that desire to celebrate that way.
As you know to do such things really well and properly it takes some truly talented and dedicated folks - same is true by the way for the kind of hopping and happening activist church service my family attends.
I read Dr. Blossers 'Oxford Post (7.Aug.) and I can certainly feel the joy and deep appreciation that he got out of the attendance of this 'properly' celebrated church service.
I am sure a fair number of catholics would be so much better served by such a mass than by the current affair. After all religion is also very much about the mystical experience and we ought not to explain everything away.
Personally while I attend a very progressive parish - probably the most progressive you can imagine St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis, Minnesota- I most certainly very much enjoy it enormeously when attending more traditional church services once in a while. Back home in germany in a small monestry of Maria Laach for example the monks to this day master the art of gregorian chants and do the most wonderful mass based on that. They also happen to have the most wonderous anchient church at there disposal built around 1200. While I am sure most everybody here would love every second of named service rest assured that kind of service could not be pulled of by your average parish.
Thus we have to understand that our church which has to after all manage to appeal to 1 Billion believers of all kinds of cultures and economic means would be very illadvised to push one kind of celebration only.
We live in my view in as good of a time as ever - while there are real rational reasons why church attendance particular in europe is down - IMHO these things come and go and overall the Lord will see to it that it all will be good in the end.
grega | 08.17.06 - 5:11 pm | #
Grega:
I don't know St. Joan's, but my parish is the most liberal I can stomach. At least we have Sunday Tridentine Rite Mass and access to Daily Tridentine Rite on a fixed schedule.
Let me try this one on for size. Please don't be offended, for my intent is not to offend but to illustrate the problem with "not pushing one celebration only".
What is your name? Grega.
I don't want it to be Grega. I want it to be Billy-Bob. Therefore every time I speak to you, I will call you Billy-Bob. It is only the fact that you are such a stuck-up snob that makes you not answer to Billy-Bob. I will report to the local newspaper that my acquaintance, Billy-Bob, who lives at your address is the most intolerant person I know, and that he should be ostracized because he won't agree with my slightly different opinion, and he won't even let me say that I'm calling him by the right name.
I forget who it was who said it, (Albert Schweitzer comes to mind) but every time we look through our own modern lens to find the "Jesus of History" we find ourselves reflected at the bottom of the lens. What we forget is to listen to what Christ said about His own self and His people.
Jesus said (unless you believe the Jesus Seminar) that unless a man eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, he has no life in him. He also said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Was God joking? Exaggerating for the purpose of making a point?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.17.06 - 5:39 pm | #
" My question for y'all is: Lookie at the girls on the altar. Feel your gut react with total disgust. What causes that reaction? History? Maybe, but I doubt it. The sensus fidelium? Maybe, but then you've got these people claiming the same sensus . . . .
Prejudice? A desire for male domination? A big "No Gurls Alloud" sign on the clubhouse door? Impossible?
Actually, I'm sorry. I don't believe that last bit about you guys"
Kathy,
In your haste to accuse us, but not really accuse, and not really us, of chauvinism, if not outright hatred of women, you overlook the simple fact that, as Chris says, "the long standing word of the Bride of Christ was NO". Then, suddenly, in 1994, twenty centuries of teaching and understanding was overturned, without explanation, save that, voila!, it was now a pastoral matter to be decided by individual bishops (later emended to stress individual pastors -- can individual magic eight balls be far behind?).
All this was based on a -- let's say -- carelessness of wording in #230A of the revised Code of Canon Law, as I'm sure you know. The usual gang of sexist taffy-pullers jumped on it like Tom on Jerry. Incredibly, they prevailed, and, with their usual monochromatic jacobinism, proceeded to characterize all opposition to their dreams of Unisex Everything as a barometer of one's misogyny.
The last forty years of Church history has featured decisions of breathtaking arbitrariness -- unisex altar service is one more for the pile. Can you understand the frustration some of us might have over forty years of Care Bear "pastoralism" and Keystone Kops "governance"? Forty years of watching your Church lurch from one episode of institutional Alzheimer's to another? Can you entertain, purely as a hypothesis, the possibility that all who dare oppose you on this issue are not simply woman-haters and fifties reverts? Actually, I'm sure you can -- the question is, will you?
Paul Borealis,
I don't remember if it was Kathy or Janice who suggested that those who are distressed over current conditions in the Church bake cookies or something. Does that work for you? I didn't think so. Me neither.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.17.06 - 7:32 pm | #
St Joan's is a unitarian aviary with a crucifix, unaccountably, hanging on the wall.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.17.06 - 7:36 pm | #
Ralph, I have a hard time believing that you would quote Chris' rape-sequence post. I know how you hate violent and suggestive movies, and that was NC-17. Surreal, finding such an image on a family blog.
On reserving altar service to boys: there never was a reason. Never a good reason. In situations like that people usually say "Gee, we've been doing something for no good reason or a bad reason. Huh. Well, I guess we should probably change that, provided we make it possible for the ultimate determination to be made on a pastoral level."
Like it or not there are degrees of praxis and degrees of symbolism. This one, unfortunately, as things have fallen out, just doesn't matter. Personally I would prefer an all-male altar, because I would like each person on the altar to have a relationship to ordination: Instituted Acolyte; Instituted Reader. That would make my day. Those roles are ONLY fittingly filled by males. BUT, as long as we have the loosey-goosey category of "Altar Server," which is really an ad-hoc deputation of kids ALMOST SOLELY FOR THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL BENEFIT,
But the change I envision--of reserving altar service to Instituted Acolytes--which by the way is a damn sight more time-honored than some peoples' images of little-boys-in-cassocks--will never occur. Why? Because the people who make decisions like that used to wear cassocks when they were little boys. They think it's "normal," just like some people here.
In fact it was an historical innovation. Not our best, imho.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.18.06 - 7:11 am | #
Can you understand the frustration some of us might have over forty years of Care Bear "pastoralism" and Keystone Kops "governance"
Of course I can, because I'm in the same boat.
I don't believe you hate women. 50's revert? I'm honestly on the fence on that one. Don't really know you too well.
(BTW I had one of those awful email exchanges yesterday that started off with a misunderstanding, due to the narrow communication possible in an emal, and went downhill from there. This is not the most informative medium in the world.)
I would mention that when I write hymns I often consciously consider: Yes, I think that this is a hymn that a guy could sing.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.18.06 - 7:17 am | #
Maybe not all change is Molochular.
Kathy | 08.18.06 - 9:20 am | #
Chris:
I honestly did not understand your Billy-Bob sequence. If you try to illustrate that it can only be one proper way to celebrate mass and that you happen to know this correct way exactly - yes we very much disagree - no reason by the way to get all fancy and invent new names in order to call me a stuck up snob – feel free to do so using my login name if you must.
Ralph, I consistently enjoy your art to describe with very few well placed elegant words the essence of your opinion and feelings.
Have you ever wondered, why you happen to bemoan the very period "The last forty years of Church history has featured decisions of breathtaking arbitrariness" which happen to just coincide with perhaps your own adult life?
Could it be that you and interested party are pretty arbitrary yourself in picking ~1960 as the time when everything supposedly made so much sense in church.
If you ask me church history is full of all kinds of decision that are based as much on the circumstances of the time as anything. Vatican II of course was a reaction to many things and of course it is not the final chapter and of course if enough people do not participate nor enjoy the changes implemented after Vatican II church will modify and adjust.
Do you really think it matters to the creator of this universe if the priest faces this way or that way or sings in this or that language during mass?
The creator of all men and women is supposedly offended if members of one sex come close to the altar – give me a break.
Such thinking might have made sense in a society that afforded women much more limited opportunities – but in 2006 with women serving in the armed services of the United States in combat you think you can tell the average American catholic that girls ought not to be altar servers? You call this all arbitrary?
Are you really thinking about these things within the reality of our times or are you in love with an aestatic ideal that never was and never will be?
grega | 08.18.06 - 10:54 am | #
Kathy, I think you and I might almost agree on one thing: get rid of the altar boy role if we must, as the Catholic feminists and liberal activists and their conservative dupes have spoiled (I was going to write soiled) the whole thing now; and get rid of the altar girls, as this has all been an error brought about by the politically correct through disobedience. Rome should suppress the whole thing as far as I am concerned; only the ordained should be in the sanctuary.
RE: Altar Boys: "They think it's "normal," just like some people here."
"In fact it was an historical innovation."
What are you insinuating? And by the way, could you please tell us how long historically speaking boys have served (assisted the priest) at the altar?
First I am apparently a sexist to you (yes, that is what you are insinuating), then you seemingly question my Catholicism because I suggested that the Filioque was added to the Creed and liturgically used against the ‘advice’ of a Pope, and that the Church should maybe learn from its own history, and take care not to do such things again - Changes are not always good, and can seriously divide the Church - even destroy Church unity. But I am not sure you and others really care about such important things; but to me it is personal, and relates to my duties as a Christian.
"They think it's "normal," just like some people here."
"In fact it [the altar boy/server role] was an historical innovation."
No, what I thought I wrote was that from my perspective many of the post-Vatican II innovations [such as altar girls] were made against "longstanding liturgical tradition, norm and custom of the Church".
==
Paul Borealis | 08.18.06 - 10:54 am | #
"...(yes, that is what you *were* insinuating [in previous posts])..."
==
Paul Borealis | 08.18.06 - 10:59 am | #
'The creator of all men and women is supposedly offended if members of one sex come close to the altar – give me a break. Such thinking might have made sense in a society that afforded women much more limited opportunities – but in 2006 with women serving in the armed services of the United States in combat you think you can tell the average American catholic that girls ought not to be altar servers? You call this all arbitrary?'
Grega,
The Church is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, and service at the Holy Altar of the Mass is not comparable to service in the Army or any other secular environment.
That's my 2 cents. Go for it, Ralph.
Dave | 08.18.06 - 11:06 am | #
"Maybe not all change is Molochular."
Not all changes are good; not all changes are bad.
Most of the changes, liturgically speaking, since Vatican II are bad in my opinion. Ratzinger thought this (or so I was led to believe). I am not sure what Pope Benedict XVI thinks. Perhaps he was discussing it with Kung over dinner.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.18.06 - 11:20 am | #
"Could it be that you and interested party are pretty arbitrary yourself in picking ~1960 as the time when everything supposedly made so much sense in church."
I would not have chosen 1960. Actually, the modern Church makes more sense to me today than ever. Sense=I understand. I just reject most of it.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.18.06 - 11:32 am | #
In my own experience, the Catholic Church has stumbled big time. And as I watch the millions of dollars in lawsuits (even as hush money and legal defence and so on) being paid out by the Church to the poor victims because of the sinful priests who were/are sexual predators, and because of the complicit or mistaken bishops who enabled and covered for the abusers, - try as I might, I cannot but think: 'how much serious resources have been -or were ever- spent on improving the dreadful liturgy, for training, working on music and chant, etc.'. Nothing, or next to nothing. Then I think of the semi-iconoclasm (that the official Church will not talk about!), and the ruins around me, and how much they spent demolishing altars, whitewashing sacred art, trashing statues, etc. - and then I think some more.... heck, altar girls were just one more brick through the window.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.18.06 - 12:32 pm | #
Quo vadis, Paul?
Where are we going on this path of negativity and criticism? Yes, I agree that our sacred liturgy is in shambles. Mass is both a source of joy and pain for me, when it should be all joy. But where are we going, really? Where will we go if October comes and Benedict XVI has still "done nothing" for the Church (in the words of a SPPX bishop, a link to whose interview with a Trad radical I provide below)? Shall we accuse the Pope of heresy, yet insist that we are not sedevancantists? What hypocrisy. Surely you don't want to go down that path, my friend.
Dude, I'm someone who has more than once walked out of a Novus Ordo Mass in disgust. Yet I am even more disgusted by what I read in this interview:
http://truerestoration.blogspot....hip- bishop.html
Stephen Heiner speaks of this SPPX bishop's 'courtesy and gentleness'. I wonder. Read what he has to say about our Holy Father. (Heiner's obsequious and hypocritical use of the phrase 'Holy Father', even as he laps up the good Bishop's scandalous and malicious accusations, makes me want to vomit.)
Once again, visiting a Trad site leaves me with an uneasy stomach. That does not mean that I am thus won over to Grega's liberal/progressive view of the Church. Yet I find something much more courteous and gentle in Grega's tone. There is something to be said for that.
Dave | 08.18.06 - 1:40 pm | #
Dave:
"Grega,
The Church is not an Equal Opportunity Employer,..."
Yes that is certainly true in this instance - on the other hand the church better take the actual living experience of its average believers into account. Like it or not but any argument you possibly can concoct against female altar servers in this day and age better is at least keenly aware of the changed overall circumstances.
Yes, perhaps altar girls indeed are just a hook towards the lingering larger issue of female ordination as some indicated - sure I can see that.
Like everything in life - 'small' things matter and certainly have the ability to influence larger looming issues. Thus I understand why some of you do not like this one at all and find underlying much larger issues.
Sure for me altar girls and women distributing Holy Communion pave a bit of way towards female ordination.
But perhaps we will never see that day either because not enough folks like me (people that actually would welcome female and married priest that is) will hang in to matter for the church leadership.
Be assured that if enough believers truly stick it to the bishops and particular if contributions dry up - we will have married and female priests in a hurry.
The same is true for your side - if attendance and more important financial health of traditional parishes dramatically increase and dominate - you will get your desired housecleaning.
Money talks in my view to extend even in church. Has always -will always.
grega | 08.18.06 - 1:48 pm | #
Vatican II forbade girls serving at the altar:
"Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing". (Sacrosanctum Concilium #23).
It further put the onus on the wreckovators (Kathy, Grega, Atiyah, Fr. O'Leary) to demonstrate that the good of the Church "genuinely and certainly requires" the changes.
There isn't any need to address this nonsense further. Altar girls addressed no certain need, and have not been a boon the Church.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.18.06 - 2:25 pm | #
I think we all need to take a deep breath and read a passage from Pseudo-Dionysius' Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
When the Deacons have entirely unclothed him, the Priests bring the holy oil of the anointing. Then he begins the anointing, through the threefold sealing, and for the rest assigns the man to the Priests, for the anointing of his whole body, while himself advances to the mother of filial adoption, and when he has purified the water within it by the holy invocations, and perfected it by three cruciform effusions of the altogether most pure Muron, and by the same number of injections of the all holy Muron, and has invoked the sacred melody of the inspiration of the God-rapt Prophets, he orders the man to be brought forward; and when one of the Priests, from the register, has announced him and his surety, he is conducted by the Priests near the water to the hand of the Hierarch, being led by the hand to him. Then the Hierarch, standing above, when the Priests have again called aloud near the Hierarch within the water the name of the initiated, the Hierarch dips him three times, invoking the threefold Subsistence of the Divine Blessedness, at the three immersions and emersions of the initiated. The Priests then take him, and entrust him to the Sponsor and guide of his introduction; and when they, in conjunction with him, have cast over the initiated appropriate clothing, they lead him again to the Hierarch, who, when he has sealed the man with the most Divinely operating Muron, pronounces him to be henceforward partaker of the most Divinely initiating Eucharist.
Read more:http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ areopagite_14_ecclesiastical_hierarchy.htm#c2
IMHO this is what liturgy is supposed to be like. Note the differentiation in the dignity of the roles of the ordained. And note that (except the Sponsor, who has a deputed dignity) they are all ordained. No boys or girls, just clerics.
Kathy | 08.18.06 - 2:31 pm | #
(Chris, you're out of line. Again. And rude. Again.)
Kathy | 08.18.06 - 2:32 pm | #
In P-Dionysius' recounting of the liturgical events, the mind climbs the dignity of the actors like a ladder to God. What happens before us is effected in us. There shouldn't be anything going on in the sanctuary that isn't directly symbolic in this way--and the only persons who (ordinarily and not in this baptismal situation) have a directly relatable symbolism to the Sacrifice are ordained persons. By definition: men.
Kathy | 08.18.06 - 2:37 pm | #
I would even compromise and say that if boys confide to their pastor that they feel attracted to the priesthood, they should be allowed to serve as sort of junior acolytes, while growing up enough to become acolytes. Because they really are in some way oriented towards ordination.
But this is not right:
Bulletin Announcement. All boys ages 9-14 who would like to be altar servers please come to rehearsal on Monday night. That's both too universal and too narrow.
-Too universal because it includes boys who have no real consideration for the priesthood but only for being altar servers--liturgical amateurs, a semi-permanent deputation in an industry that presupposes permanence of commitment. Terminal apprenticeship--that's illogical, and, in the case of the liturgy, not dignified.
-Too narrow because, since, as a deputed helping role having no direct intention towards the priesthood, it should not make the same gender distinction that is made in ordination.
Unless there's a good, truly THEOLOGICAL reason for making that same gender distinction. Is there?
Kathy | 08.18.06 - 3:42 pm | #
Kathy,
I think that you have articulated the perfect solution to the problem. Let's pray that it comes to pass.
Grega,
We will never see female ordination in the Catholic Church because the Holy Spirit will not allow it.
Dave | 08.18.06 - 4:19 pm | #
Here is a quite revealing bit of nastiness from Mr. Heiner's fawning interview with His Lordship, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais:
'S.H. Regarding ecumenism, it is said that [Benedict XVI] was not happy about Assisi…
'H.L. Ecumenism is another thing, yes, it was said that he despised Assisi, but we are not sure, and now he has gone into the synagogue many times, with the Jews, so ... It is not clear ... because he has an inclination towards the Jewish religion.'
Anti-semitism: it is so tempting, so very satisfying to the worst angels of our nature. I have been tempted by it myself during the recent Lebanon debacle. Thank God that we have a Pope who will not tolerate it.
Dave | 08.18.06 - 4:34 pm | #
Grega,
It's not that the Church was so wonderful and perfect before 1960. I've never made such a claim, regardless of what some may prefer to believe. It's just that 1960 is a convenient benchmark for the beginning of the period of the post-V2 implementation ('62 or '63 would be more accurate), which which made the Church of 1960 seem wonderful and perfect, compared to what it was about to become.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.18.06 - 7:17 pm | #
Dave,
Affability is a fine thing, but it is no substitute for truth. You may or may not agree with what the SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has to say about Benedict and the prospects for reconciliation, but in either case, the current negotiations are absolutely critical to both sides, and the discussions must be forged of hard facts and harder analysis -- not smiles, hugs, and false compliments. The issues the bishop raises are of great concern to these people, and many others), who understand traditional "Catholicism", Catholicism as it has been through most of the life of the Church, at least as well as we do, and if Benedict desires to "regularize" relations with them, he is going to have to swallow hard and give an accounting. You may find SSPX traditionalists bitter and combative, and they often are. I find them hard to deal with sometimes. But ask yourself, what religious group has been more embattled, more ridiculed and reviled, especially by "regular" Catholics? The situation reminds me of nothing so much as the cvil rights struggle of the sixties, when millions of professed Christians claimed to love their brothers-in-the-abstract, but turned up their aquiline noses at the thought of living next door to "those people".
Grega is no doubt a swell guy with whom to have a beer and watch the Vikings game, but IMO his laidback outlook is larded with nascent indifferentism. We should pray that God will grant him the grace to recognize it.
By the way, Steven Heiner is a decent guy -- get off his back.
Friday night, Dave. It's been a hard week for both of us.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.18.06 - 7:32 pm | #
Kathy,
If you find Chris's analogy offensive, that's between you and him. Don't pull me into it because I object to trashy movies. Why Chris chose to make his point the way he did is less mysterious to me than why you have consistently downplayed the role of feminists, giddily modernist bishops, and unisex priesthood advocates in inflating this issue.
By the way, now that you have left off with attempts to steer the argument in tactical directions, and have finally stated your true feelings on the issue, I will surprise you, perhaps, by agreeing that restricting altar service of any kind to acolytes would SEEM an acceptable alternative. I will further agree with you that it will never happen. Not because of the plaintive illusions of old farts-in-a-bottle, but simply because the supply of acolytes is dismally short. The recent push for deacons, for example, has inspired no one except diocesan vocations directors. So, I suspect that, if this were ever attempted, the definition of an "acolyte" would threaten to become "big-tentish" enough to include any ministry maven under the sun. Which, IMO, would leave us worse off than we are now.
Sometime in the dim past, someone -- a pope? a saint? -- had the bright idea to encourage the development of vocations by allowing boys to perform altar service. For a long time, the idea actually bore fruit. Now, along with so much else, its good effects have been dissipated by yammering claques of ideologues within the Church. Part of the vaunted "spirit of Vatican II", I guess, is that no good deed goes unsullied.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.18.06 - 7:44 pm | #
Points well taken, Ralph. Geniune rapproachment is never easy, especially when the stakes are high. Also, I must admit, again, that my reaction to those bitter and combative SPPX dudes is rooted in a certain cognitive dissonance -- I sometimes have the nagging suspicion that they might be right.
Elsewhere on this blog I advised our friend Atiyah to tread lightly in the middle of family arguments. Perhaps I should learn to follow my own advice, and let the difficult negotiations between SPPX and Rome run their course.
And if Stephen Heiner happens to visit the comboxes of Dr. Blosser's blog -- my apologies for my rash remarks about a person whom I do not know.
Dave | 08.18.06 - 7:55 pm | #
Oh, and incidentally, to those who may be warming up the tar after my note to Dave about the SSPX, I wish to declare that I am NOT an SSPX Catholic, I do not attend their Churches, and I do not sympathize with the schism of Cdl Lefebvre.
But God works in mysterious ways, and it may just be that the persistent irritant this group has been to the Church may result in a greater good, that of SOMEHOW jostling the Church from its leftward lurch, back to its proper path. Perhaps -- maybe -- Benedict realizes, or on some level accepts what he doesn't realize, that SSPX might one day be recognized as the instrument of the Holy Spirit. Presumptuous, maybe, but no more so than liturgical dancing and clown masses.
Hey, it's a thought to take into the weekend, while you're preparing the tar and feathers for ol' Ralph.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.18.06 - 8:00 pm | #
Kathy:
I don't see how I've been rude. Perhaps I'm being obtuse? The thing is that the traditional principle is that Tradition hallows a practice. Therefore, Vatican II merely observes that the good of the Church must necessitate change in order for it to be approved. If you have a problem with this, surely your argument is with the Fathers of Vatican II, not with me.
I'm sorry that the rape image upsets you. I'm not being rude in this case either, for I mean the comparison between rape and altar girls to be very literal and direct. If the image of rape bothers you, the imposition of altar girls does the same thing to the Church. It is a disturbing image because it is the exercise of raw power, misusing what is intended by God as an act of love.
What would you accept as a theological reason?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.18.06 - 11:38 pm | #
Chris, you called me a wreckovater. Very rude, and incorrect.
And yes, you are being obtuse if you think your argument about Vatican II is convincing. As PB could explain, you have a weakness in your minor premise.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 11:20 am | #
Sometime in the dim past, someone -- a pope? a saint? -- had the bright idea to encourage the development of vocations by allowing boys to perform altar service. For a long time, the idea actually bore fruit.
Sometime in the recent past, Pope John Paul II--a pope? a saint?--saw a possibility where none had been seen before. And made a change.
While we're talking about rape, by the way, I do hope that everyone is keeping somewhere in his bean a rather overlooked "pastoral" problem that should not be entirely removed from our considerations: many if not a literal majority of the prosecutions of predatory rapist priests involved their abuse of ... altar boys.
Kathy | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 4:22 pm | #
Kathy:
I'm sorry if I accidentally lumped you in with some of the more severe wreckovators, but describing one who sees that the Church must change merely because in her opinion there is no good reason for the status quo ante a wreckovator is merely calling a spade a spade.
Oh, indeed, by the way, the vast majority of predatory actions in the scandal were men on post-pubescent boys, raising the (legitimate) spectre of homosexual predation --- but we're not allowed to talk about such things, for fear of inviting the ghost of Vatican II, Galileo, the days when we used not to have altar girls and such.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.20.06 - 5:14 pm | #
Chris, I fear you are smoking dope. And since I never argue with someone who has severely limited his capacity to think by artificial means, please expect me not to reply to any further comments you might make to me. On this subject, anyway, about which you are apparently unable to listen, to think, or even to be civil.
("Accidentally" my butt.)
Kathy | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 5:59 pm | #
Is it the judgment of anyone except Kathy that my comments were rude or inaccurate? I already know what Kathy has said on the subject.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.20.06 - 8:39 pm | #
"Pope John Paul II--a pope? a saint?--saw a possibility where none had been seen before"
That's rich, Kathy. There were plenty of "feminists, giddily modernist bishops, and unisex priesthood advocates" who saw the "possibilities" long before John Paul took one of his occasional, unaccountable leftward lurches on this issue. But they, on this issue, seem to be invisible to you.
" the vast majority of predatory actions in the scandal were men on post-pubescent boys, raising the (legitimate) spectre of homosexual predation "
This does not seem to be a problem that should be solved by doing away with pre-pubescent (or otherwise) altar boys, any more than the date rape problem should be solved by doing away with post-pubescent single females. Do away with the predators, instead of stowing them in lavender mafia safe houses.
Chris,
The lady protests too much, I think.
I believe I've had enough of this combox. Carry on.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.20.06 - 9:43 pm | #
Chris, although I've agreed with most of your posts on this, I do think "wreckovators" was a needlessly incendiary word. The post would have been far more effective without it, IMHO. And in fairness, based on what I read, I don't think it was entirely honest for you to characterize your lumping Kathy in with others as "accidental"...but you know your intentions far better than I could.
So please - keep up the good arguments, but keep your nose clean too.
Kasia | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 10:15 pm | #
Kasia:
I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate your advice on making the post more effective.
I stand by my assessment of Kathy's position as consonant with the wreckovators -- and perhaps I wasn't hard enough on her. The very notion that John Paul "discovered" this possibility when he was on record as opposing it is, well, farfetched. Even saints make mistakes. Take St. Augustine, for example.
As to the "accidental", I stand by that characterization: I had not intended to lump her with the lunatic fringe since I have seen her posts on this blog-site for a while, and we have had many positive comments with one another. I am, however, gradually coming to the conclusion that her true position is becoming more clear, and that this position is consonant with the wreckovators.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.20.06 - 11:53 pm | #
Chris:
you call yourself a Monarchist- as such a person in the United States of America you are not exactly wellpositioned to call anybody here "lunatic fringe".
grega | 08.21.06 - 1:25 am | #
By the way, I would like to make clear what the distinction is between pastoral and theological considerations, imho.
A pastoral consideration for not using the image of rape in an argument is that there is no violence that can compare to it. Even Walker Percy erred by putting into a character's mouth the expression "You will feel like a rape victim in every way but one." There is no violence that can compare to a woman's being overpowered by a man and having her sexuality forced from her rather than freely giving it. The violation of her personhood, her womanhood, is so severe that most women never recover. It is rude and insensitive for anyone who has not experienced it him or herself to exacerbate that pain by making an analogy out of it for the sake of an argument.
--That would be an example of a pastoral consideration. Possibly persuasive but not based on God's revelation as such.
A theological consideration for not using the image of rape in this particular instance is the Christological error inherent in the suggestion that the Church could be violated. This is the error of, for example, the Lefebverite schismatics. Christ loves and protects His bride, the Church. He is able to preserve her by the gift of His own life. He will, at the end of time, present her to Himself as a pure virgin, spotless, before His God and Father.
Suggesting that the Church has been or could be "raped" is to fall into one of two errors: Either 1. Christ does not will to present the Church to Himself as a spotless virgin, or 2. Christ does not have that power to preserve the Church. Both of these are egregious errors against the faith.
--That is a theological consideration, properly-so-called. I would really like to hear one about altar girls. I have not, so far.
********
Ralph, look back at the early Councils. How they got there--that is not important. What they said--that's all that counts. You are putting yourself in very bad company, with people way past wreckovating, people who question the divinity of Christ, if you want to hold that the way the Church makes decisions should be factored in so heavily in interpreting the decisions that are actually made. I am not ignoring the influences that you mentioned except as I always do ignore them. Vatican II is not what Alberigo says it is. It's what the documents say.
Kathy | 08.21.06 - 8:50 am | #
Chris,
I don't think Kathy has ever presented herself as a traditionalist. She strikes me as more of a neo-Catholic, though these kinds of labels are so inadequate one has to wonder why people use them.
Though I am a bit disappointed in her tendency to stage manage arguments and set "traps" for those she imagines are her opponents, and though some of her "forward, forward, forward" proclamations are far from my cup of tea, her "Pattonesque" flaming (don't you love that adjective, Kathy??) of Wreckovator #1, Fr Joe, and her good sense generally, establishes that while we may never be close allies in our thinking on a great many issues, we are, or ought to be, comfortable within the same Church. That, at least, is the idea I am holding to going forward.
I think this particular issue has managed to get several of us bent out of shape. It involves children, and those of us close to them react with great sensitivity, which is something everyone ought to try to remember.
But this "peacemaker" role feels weird. I'm just not used to it. So I am going to shut up.
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.21.06 - 9:18 am | #
Chris,
If you are going to call Kathy a wreckovater, you'd best be prepared to call Benedict XVI a wreckovater, too. What about any of us who participate in the Novus Ordo Mass (even if we would prefer the TLM)? Are we wreckovaters by association?
Kathy,
I'm not sure if the SSPX is suggesting that the Church has or can be violated in the sense that you've described. I don't know enough about their views to say for sure, but my sense from what I've read so far (I spent part of the weekend reading Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics") is that while they openly reject the Second Vatican Council (a radical position, to be sure), they don't see the Council (nor its aftermath) as a fundamental violation of the Bride of Christ -- because they would agree with you that such a violation is theologically impossible. Their rhetoric might sometimes suggest otherwise, yet I suspect that if pressed, they would admit that the Church that is led by Christ's Vicar on Earth, currently Pope Benedict XVI, is still a virginal Bride.
Dave | 08.21.06 - 10:20 am | #
Grega, I was very saddened to read your post:
"...But perhaps we will never see that day either because not enough folks like me (people that actually would welcome female and married priest that is) will hang in to matter for the church leadership.
Be assured that if enough believers truly stick it to the bishops and particular if contributions dry up - we will have married and female priests in a hurry.
The same is true for your side - if attendance and more important financial health of traditional parishes dramatically increase and dominate - you will get your desired housecleaning.
"Money talks in my view to extend even in church. Has always -will always."
Reducing people's love of God and faithfulness to Him - no matter what you think faithfulness to Him entails - to an economic equation is just sad. Yes, for some people in any arena (even church) money does talk. However, the notion that the Church is simply tipping with the collection plates (being "bought") on serious issues (i.e. female ordination or whether the clergy should remain celibate) is abhorrent. It is also reminiscent of Judas Iscariot. How many pieces of silver do you think it takes to buy a bishop? How about a cardinal?
While I appreciate that the Church has some serious issues to address, ranging from predatory abuse of young parishioners by some of its priests to the less-horrific but still real challenge of maintaining its traditions within a democratic society (yes, the U.S. is a democracy, but the Church is not), I sincerely hope that you do not believe that you, I, or anyone else can "stick it to" the Church hierarchy such that they will bow to popular pressure as opposed to the Holy Spirit. I should not have that kind of influence on people who are sincerely trying to care for God's flock, even though I act in good faith.
I don't think any of this makes me a "lunatic fringe" member, but of course you are free to draw your own conclusions.
Incidentally, I don't think I ever saw the oft-requested theological reasoning FOR altar girls. I am not well-versed enough to argue either side. I will say, however, about the hotly-disputed alleged 'wedge' to female priests, that practically speaking I have heard non-Catholics (particularly feminists) speak of female altar girls and Eucharistic ministers as just that, in all but those exact words. That does not, of course, prove that it will work as such; it just suggests that there is a perception that it may.
And Chris, I'm glad to hear that your intentions were honorable. I stand corrected on that.
Kasia | Homepage | 08.21.06 - 10:26 am | #
I don't think I ever saw the oft-requested theological reasoning FOR altar girls.
The Church, in Canon and Liturgical Law, tends to favor inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Unless there is a good reason to exclude (as there is in the case of the priesthood), the Church tends to include. Now whether this is good policy or not can be debated. But the burden of providing a theological reason lies on the shoulders of those who would exclude girls from serving. I think.
Ralph, thanks. You too, Kasia. And Dave. Chris and Ralph, it is very true that I have set traps in this conversation and have steered it with force and tricks. College seminar tactics, beneath me and disrespectful. My apologies.
Kathy | 08.21.06 - 10:36 am | #
Kathy,
Socrates laid traps for his interlocuters, too, and it was all in the service of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. No apologies necessary, IMHO.
For those here who know anything of the mind of the SSPX (a topic of great interest to me lately), do you think that they would agree with the following statement by Pope Benedict XVI? If they do, then I think that reconciliation is certainly possible, and their harsh criticism of the Pope is more palatable.
'There is only one Christ. Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, he is wholly and fully present. Because of that, even in the most humble village church, when the Eucharist is celebrated, the whole mystery of the Church, her living heart, the Lord, is present. But this Christ, fully present, is yet at the same time one. That is why we can only receive him together with everyone else. He is the same, here or in Rome, in America or in Australia or in Africa. Because he is one, we can only receive him in unity. If ever we were opposed to unity, we would be unable to meet with him. For that reason, every celebration of the Eucharist has the structure we find in the Communicantes, that of communion not only with the Lord but also with creation and with men of all places and all times. This, too, is something we ought to take to heart anew, that we cannot have communion with the Lord if we are not in communion with each other; that when we go to meet him in the Mass, we necessarily go to meet each other. Therefore the mentioning of the bishop and the pope by name, in the celebration of the Eucharist, is not merely an external matter, but an inner necessity of that celebration. For the celebration of the Eucharist is not just a meeting of heaven and earth; rather, it is also a meeting of the Church then and now and a meeting of the Church here and there; it assumes that we visibly enter into a visible unity, one that can be described. The names of the bishop and the pope stand for the fact that we are truly celebrating the one Eucharist of Jesus Christ, which we can receive only in the one Church.'
Dave | 08.21.06 - 10:49 am | #
Kasia:
I have not thought particular long and hard when I wrote the post. I find your objections very valid. Rereading my initial post it indeed was written a bit careless and blah.
grega | 08.21.06 - 11:04 am | #
Whoa--ho! Socrates! Now that's more like it!!
Kathy | 08.21.06 - 11:33 am | #
Grega: I am truly glad that you are not the hardened cynic one might have thought from reading your original post. God bless you.
Everyone: At risk of sounding flippant, am I the only one who, in reading all of these conciliatory last posts, had the urge to start singing "Kum-ba-yah"?
Kasia | Homepage | 08.21.06 - 11:35 am | #
As far as I know Dave, there is no problem in this area:
"BISHOP FELLAY: We wanted to meet the Holy Father because we are Catholic and, like all Catholics, we are attached to Rome. By requesting this audience we wanted to show, quite simply, that we are Catholics.
Our recognition of the Pope is not limited to the mention of his name in the Canon of the Mass, which is said by every priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It is normal that, as Roman Catholics, we should express our deference. Catholic means universal, and the Mystical Body of the Church is not limited to our chapels."
http://www.sspx.org/discussions/ ...ting_w_pope.htm
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 11:41 am | #
Paul,
Thanks for the link. The SSPX US site will be a helpful resource for future study.
I am trying to correct my tendency to write off the SSPX as lunatic fringe group with nothing positive to offer. That is certainly not Benedict XVI's approach.
Grega, please note that Benedict talks to Kung AND the SSPX.
Dave | 08.21.06 - 12:06 pm | #
Well, if Kathy is Socrates, then I must be Xanthippe.
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 12:18 pm | #
Kumbaya:
"Popular usage
The song has come to be associated with unity and closeness. It is a standard campfire song in Scouting, YMCA, the Indian Guides, and others. [...] This was a tune commonly used in Catholic "folk" Mass of the 1970's."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya
Also:
http://www.straightdope.com/clas...s/ a980911a.html
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 12:51 pm | #
"A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Litu...gy/ ZLITUR19.HTM
ROME, 3 FEB. 2004 (ZENIT)."
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 12:59 pm | #
"Women’s Ordination Conference Applauds Decision to Allow Female Altar Servers and Continues Call for Women's Ordination"
http://www.womensordination.org/...s- ArlAltarGirls
"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 23, 2006"
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 1:12 pm | #
I thought this was interesting:
"I will paraphrase Fr. Dennis Kleinmann, the pastor of St, Mary's parish in Old Town Alexandria: the difference between women or girls lectoring or distributing Holy Communion vs. serving at the altar is that the lectors and extraordinary ministers serve the people of God, while the altar servers directly serve the priest. They have a liturgical connection to the priest not shared by other ministers."
http://www.stveronica.net/ from_t...tar_servers.asp
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 1:26 pm | #
I thought this was interesting:
"I will paraphrase Fr. Dennis Kleinmann, the pastor of St, Mary's parish in Old Town Alexandria: the difference between women or girls lectoring or distributing Holy Communion vs. serving at the altar is that the lectors and extraordinary ministers serve the people of God, while the altar servers directly serve the priest. They have a liturgical connection to the priest not shared by other ministers."
Voila, a theological consideration.
Not good enough because of the following passage in which women directly assisted Jesus (just one of many examples) but at least theological:
Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. Accompanying him were the Twelve
and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources." (Luke 8: 1-3)
Kathy | 08.21.06 - 1:36 pm | #
Hello Kathy
So instead of the altar boy/server functioning like an extension or part *of* the priest (his 'extra' hands for work at the altar), you instead see them as *serving* the priest in a separate role or capacity, and independent of the altar.
In that case, I assume you might agree that they should not be called 'altar boys/girls/servers' at all?
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 2:46 pm | #
Perhaps I should have written: 'his 'extra' hands for work in relation to the altar'....
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 2:49 pm | #
Kathy,
The women mentioned by Luke assisted our Lord in his earthly ministry. Yet did any women assist Jesus in his offering of himself at the first Eucharist and on the altar of Calvary? There were no women at the Last Supper, and while there were women at Calvary, Jesus died there ALONE.
There does not appear to be scriptural justification for female service at the altar. If there is no scriptural justification, where can we look for theological justification? Tradition? Yet the 2000 year tradition of the Church appears to be AGAINST female altar service.
Dave | 08.21.06 - 3:55 pm | #
Dave
I agree with you, the biblical example has little or no relation to the Last Supper (but still, it relates to ministry in a sense, - female as aid or assisting Jesus in His ministry).
I am not sure, but I do not think there can be today any 'theological'/symbolical justification or consideration given for the role of altar server - not in the way Kathy wants. In any case, I do not know of one, though I see Kathy is trying hard to invent one.
The one I remember hearing (before the Pope changed the 'altar boy' tradition or custom), was that the altar server is the 'extension' of the priest, and therefore the server had to be male like the priest. I will call this the 'extension rationale'.
Kathy tries to use Luke 8: 1-3 as a new symbolic basis, but it does not fit with the old 'extension rationale', which was rendered obsolete in any case after Pope John Paul II changed the game. The Pope provided no theological or symbolical consideration/explanation. It seems none was needed (only his Papal power and authority). He acted like there never was a serious theological rationale to begin with, only the Pope's perspective and rule.
This is how I understand Kathy and her new game, which may not be the same as John Paul's game: The women assisting Jesus ARE LIKE the altar server assisting the priest (i.e. the priest acting "in the person of Christ").
==
Paul Borealis | 08.21.06 - 4:53 pm | #
Paul, that's my point exactly. Acolytes are extended hands, anointed by extension. "Altar servers" are helpers. "Mass attendants" might be good, something like that.
There is no "Tradition" without theology. There can be laudable practices without theology but not Tradition with a big T. I think.
Kathy | 08.21.06 - 4:54 pm | #
Kathy,
y:
Kath
I'm sorry that my image upsets you. I take your theological point that the Church is still a virginal Bride, and I wouldn't mean to suggest otherwise. I continue to maintain, however, that the image is entirely a propos.
Let's consider, for a minute. Does someone who is raped commit a sin? No. She is forced into something, even if she submits so as to avoid causing herself physical injury, and therefore is not guilty of any crime or any sin. The ruthless aggressor is in the wrong, both legally and morally. Those who push altar girls, women priests, inclusive language,
armies of emhc's, the banishment of Latin and (Gregorian) chant and similar ills are forcing their own, raw-power-based agenda on Christ's Church, which for 2000 years has refused these idiotic ideas. They are worse, by a long shot, than those who sold indulgences, but perhaps not as bad as those pederast priests who, in the British vernacular, buggered boys. Why this comparison? Since all of the issues I have raised bear directly on the celebration of Mass, there is a direct comparison between them and the priestly abuse of boys.
As to Canon Law, your claim that it tends to favor inclusivity is too broad to be useful. Certainly, it favors the broad understanding of a valid marriage and other sacraments -- but it should be noted that this doesn't stop tribunals across the world from giving the appearance that annulments are Catholic divorce and are even more common than they appear. Condemnations, however, are limited. How broadly or narrowly a statute is to be interpreted by the Opus-Dei-led group for the interpretation of texts.
Now, as to your theological point about Jesus' ministry and women, it should be noticed that when He takes just three men, he takes Peter, James and John. When He takes just one, it's Peter. Sure, He reaches-out to women in ways that no one in His day did, but the very fact that there were no women at the Last Supper, that Simon of Cyrene (a male!) helped Jesus carry His Cross, and that there is not one shred of evidence that Jesus CHOSE women to do the work of the altar, either directly or by deputation, insists that this prohibition is not merely of man, but of God.
Kasia --
Let me get drunk before we sing Kumbaya. In the meantime, though, I have a recent parody of Morning has broken and Let there be peace on earth.
Grega:
I'm not a member of any lunatic fringe group. My monarchist stance is based on well reasoned, well considered moral grounds. While I grant you that most Americans think I have lost my marbles, most think the same thing about the NOR.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.21.06 - 5:13 pm | #
Chris, you've got to learn a lot better about what apologizing is. It's not, "I'm sorry, but I'm exactly right, and the Church is not a virgin but it's not her fault, and here I'm going to lump you in, not only with relativistic wreckovaters but with pederastic rapists."
Other than that, I do rather feel like I'm sitting around a campfire, smokin marshmallows with my homies, singing How Great Thou Art. Not Kumbaya, but close enough for Church work.
Kathy | 08.22.06 - 8:54 am | #
How Great Thou Art was one of my grandmother's favorite hymns (she was a lifelong Congregationalist); the first time I ever heard it was at her funeral. I rather like it, actually. Believe it or not, it's far too reverent for the church I grew up in (not a Catholic church). Kumbaya, on the other hand, was standard fare, as were Morning Has Broken and Let There Be Peace On Earth. Rule of thumb: if you could envision Cat Stevens singing it, we sang it.
Kasia | Homepage | 08.22.06 - 10:03 am | #
The text of How Great Thou Art is not bad--the second verse is very good in fact. But the tune, to which I frankly think it owes most of its popularity, is the kind of tune I think of as spiritually manipulative. The verses are plain and really a little boring in melody, and low-pitched. But then the chorus comes swooping up, up, soaring into the heavens! Just like we will one day!
Kathy | 08.22.06 - 10:15 am | #
That's an interesting point - I guess I don't think too much about the subtleties of musical theory. It's a fair criticism, I think; we had a fabulous soprano perform HGTA at Grandma's funeral, so that was my first introduction to it (at an emotionally vulnerable time to boot).
Ah well - I'll still like it; I just won't play it at my wedding. It's much more appropriate for smoking marshmallows with my homies.
Kasia | Homepage | 08.22.06 - 10:24 am | #
”smokin marshmallows”
Hmm. That can’t be doing your lungs any good. Although it might explain all the syrupy Kumbaya chatter.
“Chris, you've got to learn a lot better about what apologizing is.”
Chris has been one of the coolest and most analytical voices on this blog, IMO. He attempted to engage Fr Joe in reasoned dialogue long after I had gone ballistic.
This reminds me of a joke we Neanderthals often tell at the “gentlemen only” cave:
It seems a priest and his bishop were talking. The priest, a young, dewy-eyed idealist, much-enamored of progessive rhetoric and the hippest social movements, opined that women would make wonderful, marvelous priests. Whereupon the bishop broke into a fit of laughter. “Women as priests?!”, he exclaimed, “women never forgive anything!!!”
Ralph Roister-Doister | 08.22.06 - 1:27 pm | #
Chris has been one of the coolest and most analytical voices on this blog, IMO.
I would very much agree, in general. He was not only patient with Fr. O'Leary but went well out of his way to see the good in him. Very charitable.
Here's a story. It may be ascribable to Churchill or WC Fields, but who knows. A man saw the king bending over and kicked him in the arse. The king stood up, furious, and the man immediately apologized, "Sire, I beg your pardon! I thought you were the queen!"
Kathy | 08.22.06 - 1:46 pm | #
Huh
"Vatican dumps..."
Nice display of respect for friend and 'enemy'.
No reason to gloat quite yet by the way IMHO.
The real world certainly could care less if Traditionalist and Evangelicals out of intellectual laziness, for sheer convenience sake or whatever other reason feel they have to insist on a literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture.
Which by the way is not exactly the position of the Vatican.
By the way, since when is the good Cardinal Schoenborn an expert on all scientific matters?
What is the problem for you guys if Dr. Coyne sees valid scientific evidence that perhaps points to an evolution of species?
For me life is a divine miracle and there is plenty of divine even if god perhaps set things in motion and let them form into various shapes and so on - as the evolution of species seems to suggest. If for nothing else take a look at the dogs and cats in your neighborhood and imagine how they morphed in such strange shape in relatively short time of human breeding efforts - stunning right.
The world is billions of year’s old - stunning stuff can happen - certainly a bit beyond the simplified scripture explanations.
In most reasonable peoples mind, we do understand some aspects of this today certainly much better than people 2000 or even 100 years ago.
Scientific research is by the way open for change - thus Mr. Darwin while certainly important proposed just one concept how we can start to explain the startling diversity of all living things. It is just that, a possible starting point towards a possible better explanation of the world how we see it today.
Sure it is a significant paradigm shift -thus some of the more narrow-minded battle it- but we all can be assured that Science in even 50 years will have filled in more even more of the puzzle pieces and will have refined our understanding even further - good luck fighting against reason.
Most reasonable people IMHO will continue see plenty of room for the divine - even if it seems to transpire ( as it does in my opinion)that the cute creation story of the Bible does not hold much water beyond some mystical way to explain the beginning of times
grega | 08.22.06 - 5:38 pm | #
Didn't read Coyne or Schoenborn either?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.22.06 - 8:22 pm | #
Kathy,
Let me try again. I'm sorry that my choice of image upsets you. That it upset you was accidental in the sense that while I expected some to disagree with the image, my goal was not merely to upset you, to put your back up.
I further accept that, to the extent that it implies that the virginal bride of Christ, it is a decidely distasteful image. I do not mean to deny this important theological point.
What I am at a loss to do is explain with less graphic and somehow more appropriate images exactly what the agenda does to the Church.
Therefore, if you would like to propose a new image, I will be happy to consider it as a replacement. Remember that the image must be one of brutal force used to diminish, harm, belittle the evangelical force of the Church through the raw, disobedient exercise of power and the utter misuse of responsibility.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.22.06 - 8:29 pm | #
Well, Chris, first off I don't have a replacement to offer, but I'm glad you've backed off the rape image, sort of.
But, now you are apparently accusing me of trying to use "brutal force used to diminish, harm, belittle the evangelical force of the Church through the raw, disobedient exercise of power and the utter misuse of responsibility."
So you see, I have two major issues. One, the rape image, seems to have gone away from the fore. But the second, for which you are not apologizing and apparently have no intention of apologizing for, is accusing me of terrible crimes against the Church.
Is that an accurate assessment of where things stand at the moment?
Kathy | 08.23.06 - 9:32 am | #
I'm only accusing you of these crimes if you, knowingly and willingly are supporting their advance in the life of the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger observed (I can't remember where, but probably more times than I can count) that we discredit ourselves and bring shame upon the Church when we behave as if what has been true for 1500+ years is suddenly no longer true. All I did was take his observation and apply it to some specific cases.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.23.06 - 2:34 pm | #
Fair enough. But once again you have trouble with your minor premise.
Kathy | 08.23.06 - 2:54 pm | #
On second thought: not fair enough. When someone quotes the Pope it should be an actual quote, not "I think this is the gist of what the Pope said once or probably more than once."
Chris, I am beginning to think that you really and truly have something in your mind that says "If people don't think like me, they are out to ruin the Church. And they will. They're half finished with the job already."
Kathy | 08.24.06 - 11:38 am | #
Kathy,
I'm sorry you have this impression. It is untrue, but let me explain precisely what I mean.
My opinion, given that it is only my opinion, is absolutely worthless.
My opinion, when it agrees with the teaching of Holy Mother Church, is infallible, but this is because of Holy Mother Church, not because of any intrinsic, objective value in my opinion.
Accordingly, if you agree with me and at the same time disagree with Holy Mother Church, your opinion is as worthless as mine. If you disagree with me but agree with Holy Mother Church, you are infallible on this point, and my opinion isn't worth a pail of warm spit. If you disagree with me, and my opinion is that of the Church, my opinion is correct and yours is utterly wrong -- but the fact that it is my opinion you disagree with is quite beside the point.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.24.06 - 4:01 pm | #
Well and good then. Because the 1994 I'm sorry you have this impression. It is untrue, but let me explain precisely what I mean.
My opinion, given that it is only my opinion, is absolutely worthless.
My opinion, when it agrees with the teaching of Holy Mother Church, is infallible, but this is because of Holy Mother Church, not because of any intrinsic, objective value in my opinion.
Accordingly, if you agree with me and at the same time disagree with Holy Mother Church, your opinion is as worthless as mine. If you disagree with me but agree with Holy Mother Church, you are infallible on this point, and my opinion isn't worth a pail of warm spit. If you disagree with me, and my opinion is that of the Church, my opinion is correct and yours is utterly wrong -- but the fact that it is my opinion you disagree with is quite beside the point.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 08.24.06 - 4:01 pm | #
No comments:
Post a Comment