Altar Girls
#11
I have nothing to add but an anecdote.

The very last time I stepped into St. Mary's in Colorado Springs (the Cathedral no less!), for a daily NO Mass, there was a grown woman in a white... ?habit? Mass had not yet started.

I walked out and then figured maybe I might have not seen what I thought I saw. So I walked back, and took a close look. She was definitely wearing a white something with a hood. Was not an altar server uniform item.

Looked like a pagan priestess, I kid you not and I deny any hyperbole in the description. I've never been to a NO Mass since and they can thank their whatever she was for it. Thank you, Pagan Priestess looking WOMAN. She was no girl. She was a woman.

I'll never go to NO again if I can help it and even then only under extreme duress.

I wish more priests would start refusing to use altar girls, but it no longer has an impact on me since I'm TLM only now.
Reply
#12
Um altar girls? You think them walking up with the priest is bad and hanging around the altar is bad what about the WOMEN extraordinary ministers giving the cup/host?? That is totally.....  :puke:
Reply
#13
When I was in RCIA I was told that altar boys helps to somewhat prepare young men for the priesthood, and that is why it didn't make sense to me when I saw altar girls. I think it stems from the whole "women priest" movement, and modernist women wanting to slowly work up to that. But it is also up to the priests to suppress this notion, instead of yielding to their demands for fear of conflict or whatever it is they are afraid of.

(08-08-2012, 12:32 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: Um altar girls? You think them walking up with the priest is bad and hanging around the altar is bad what about the WOMEN extraordinary ministers giving the cup/host?? That is totally.....   :puke:

I don't see a huge distinction between male and female extraordinary ministers, as they are both improperly used.
Reply
#14
(08-08-2012, 12:53 PM)kayla_veronica Wrote: When I was in RCIA I was told that altar boys helps to somewhat prepare young men for the priesthood, and that is why it didn't make sense to me when I saw altar girls. I think it stems from the whole "women priest" movement, and modernist women wanting to slowly work up to that. But it is also up to the priests to suppress this notion, instead of yielding to their demands for fear of conflict or whatever it is they are afraid of.

(08-08-2012, 12:32 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: Um altar girls? You think them walking up with the priest is bad and hanging around the altar is bad what about the WOMEN extraordinary ministers giving the cup/host?? That is totally.....   :puke:

I don't see a huge distinction between male and female extraordinary ministers, as they are both improperly used.

Agreed with the bolded above. My point was we shouldn't be just annoyed about altar girls any females doing the priest's job/an altar boy's job is wrong. And yeah I don't think they should have EM's of either sex.
Reply
#15
(08-08-2012, 01:30 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: How is the current practice of allowing girls to serve at the altar permitted in light of the following passage?
Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, July 26, 1755 Wrote:Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: "Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry." We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.

In contrast, the majority of dioceses in the world, including papal liturgies, employ the use of altar girls. What gives?

I think because women being forbidden to serve at the altar is not positively forbidden by the doctrines of our Faith. For example, women began singing in choirs before VII, and that was considered a "clerical" office (though I don't think they weer allowed to sing the propers). Then we have the rise of participation in the action of the Mass by the congregation, which would include women singing the ordinary parts of the Mass. And we have the mixed congregation of men and women sitting together. And the ancient use of the "deaconesses," which did fall out of use. So it doesn't offend against our Faith, and currently is an allowed discipline. I am not saying it is the best way, but it is not against our Faith. I personally think women should have the opportunity for some liturgical role, but I don't have an answer for what would be best. And I think that boys and men need to grow up and learn how to foster and discern vocations without complaining that having women around somehow detracts from that. I am not saying it doesn't have psychological repercussions, but it is probably best that men learn to share more of their exclusive zones with women than they did in the past. We're not talking about matters of the Faith, like the priesthood, but stations which women have thrived in, which formerly were male dominated, e.g., education (schools, libraries, etc.), medicine, etc.



http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/200...ngers.html
Reply
#16
Concerning the alleged intrinsic evil of altar girls--what is the dogma? A woman cannot be within 10 feet of an altar where a consecration will happen? 15 feet? A woman cannot ring bells or say the responses or pour water on the priest's hands? None of these are revealed truths or part of the natural law as far as I know.  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, in the early Church widows had a place in the sanctuary, they stood with the priest for the anaphora, and communicated after the priest and deacons, but before the subdeacons and lectors. It also mentions deaconesses having roles, "even in the sanctuary."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

It is true that this practice was suppressed in the West rather early, but it continued in the East much later (and this situation is in fact what Benedict XIV is referring to).  I agree with Scriptorum that this appears to be merely discipline and not contrary to faith per se.

One might object that the Pope calls it "evil" and an "abuse."  The problem is, similar language has been used for changeable disciplines (that have changed) in the past. "Abuse" is very common for disciplinary violations.  "Evil" is less so, but also not un heard of.  For example, St. Pius V uses such language while forbidding bullfights ( De salute gregis), but the Catholic Encyclopedia notes the following:

"But in Spain today these prohibitions are not in force. Gregory XIII (23 August, 1575, "Exponi") moderated the constitution of St. Pius V for Spanish laymen, and Clement VIII (Bull "Suscepti muneris", 12 January, 1597) reduced it to a jus commune, limiting the prohibition to holidays and to the clergy." The article goes on to note that theologians do not consider it a violation of the natural law (despite St. Pius V calling it diabolical).

Reply
#17
(08-08-2012, 01:43 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: However, Pope Pius VI, in condemning the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, said:
Quote:The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

Source: Denzinger 1578. Emphasis mine.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Ecclesiastical Discipline says:
Quote:The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

Emphasis again mine.

All of these quotes are in line with what Pope Gelasius said.

Another prospective "loop jump" I can see is that altar girls isn't a universal discipline. I do not now if this is the case.

I'm not sure if you meant this, but disciplinary infallibility does not mean disciplines cannot change, or even that all disciplines are a good idea, but merely that they contain nothing contrary to the faith.  Here's what van Noort says (citing what you cite):

Van Noort Wrote:Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)
http://sedevacantist.com/van_noort_infallibility.html

It's also good to remember that a strict condemnation of an error does not imply the wholly contrary is true, but merely that a particular contradictory statement is true.



Reply
#18
The Church capitulated on this long ago with the use of women as choristers. Just sayin'.
Reply
#19
Quote:I'm not sure if you meant this, but disciplinary infallibility does not mean disciplines cannot change, or even that all disciplines are a good idea, but merely that they contain nothing contrary to the faith.

Yes, I knew that. In any event, thank you for the clarification.
Reply
#20
Table Girls is more directly true - "altar girl" is just another NO play on words.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)