Breaking news in Arlington, VA is that Bishop Paul Loverde, the much reviled successor to famed conservative Bishop John Keating, has decided to permit two new indult Tridentine Masses in his Diocese, in the cities of Arlington itself and Front Royal, VA, home of Christendom College. The two priests given the right to say these indult Masses are Fathers Christopher Mould and Edward Hathaway, the latter pictured below at his parish, St. John the Baptist in Front Royal. More in keeping with his modernist history, his Excellency has also, alas, decided to permit that abomination: female altar servers!
Of course, God willing, we may have a Papal widening of the use of the old Rite very soon. But in any event, more Bishops giving even grudging permission for the widening of the availability of the Traditional Rite is always good news. The allowance of female altar servers is much more saddening: Arlington, once a veritable fertile crescent for priestly vocations, is now joining the deplorable “mainstream”. Let us hope that many good priests exercise their right to continue to bar women from serving the altar despite their bishop’s cowardly allowance of this insidious practice.
go to main page
Cor Iesu Sacratissimum,
miserere nobis
miserere nobis
Ephemeris
Polls
Loading ...
Saintly Souls whom We Love
Pope Leo XIII
Pope Pius XI
John Henry Cardinal Newman
Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val
Saucy…
ok, funkier,
my point is that one does not “read clear” in the sense of seeing clearly the meaning of the text. The colloquial sense of “clear” here is quite removed from its more ordinary meaning.
Since we are on a slight tangent I would add that, surprisingly (?), I happened to hear of this Cornellian “Ambrosius” via a Una Voce homie at the….
…you guessed it:
LATIN MASS.
And I ain’t no socialite!
Tobias,
I think the thing to note here is that female altar servers were debased in times past because of the practical implications that would arise.
The Holy Father JPII has made it fairly clear (at least indirectly) that the issue of altar girls is not able to be debunked theologically. It is a matter of Church discipline.
Canon law is often dealing with Church discipline rather than theological proofs.
Now even if in fact “deaconesses” were the potential equivalent of modern day altar girls it does not mean that altar girls are not appropriate. Neither does quoting previous Canon Law really help support your claim because it actually is dynamic and takes into account the present day circumstances.
I think the following article may be of use:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/
altar_girls.htm
In any case I fail to see your comparison of the “extravagances” contravened by an older version of Canon Law could be applied to altar girls. The Canon you cite from the New Advent article on Deaconesses does not contradict altar girls as you seem to propose. It does, however, contradict the modern use of females in the distribution of Communion as extra-ordinary ministers as well as reading the Bible passages other than the Gospel. But as mentioned, these are disciplinary matters so really it’s up to the authority to determine taking into account the present age.
Now your second quotation of an older version of Canon Law from the New Advent article on “Woman” appears to be addressing the issue of altar girls. However, I think the nuanced differences in the words “to minister” and “to serve” are very important in coming to a proper understanding of that former code of Canon Law. “Minister” to me implies the performing of actions reserved to the ordained. It speaks of even ministering in a subordinate capacity. This may mean, for instance, that the woman is able to perform the priestly functions (or similar functions) secondary to the priest. “Serving” to me appears more or less as a secondary function that is not only subordinate but has no implications on the usage of actions reserved for the ordained. Furthermore, consider the following quote from the New Advent Article on Deaconesses:
“There is indeed the mention of Phebe (Romans 16:1), who is called diakonos, but this may simply mean, as the Vulgate renders it, that she was “in the ministry [i.e. service] of the Church”, without implying any official status.”
I would again repeat that the New Advent article on “Deaconesses” does indicate that females (e.g., widows) did in fact serve in the sanctuary and had certain liturgical roles that apparently were permitted at the time. Granted, the article does cite older Canon Law that condemns “extravagances” of female liturgical actions.
In any case the issue over women and “ministry” does in fact appear to be a matter of theology when the Church condemns the ordination of women, not the service of women. Apparently there is something to note with the newly discovered “Testament of Our Lord” (c. 400) which indicates that “widows had a place in the sanctuary during the celebration of the liturgy” if in fact 100 or so years later the issue was more or less having females ordained! Furthermore:
“The First Council of Orange decreed in 441 that ‘deaconesses are absolutely not to be ordained; and if there
are still any of them, let them bow their head under the benediction which is given to the congregation.’ But the female diaconate continued to take hold in Gaul, and in 533, the Second Council of Orleans effectively suppressed the order. The most likely reason for its early demise in the West was that it was a transplant from another setting, one where the Church had different needs, and where matters of order and discipline in the Church had developed differently.” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURG
Y/AROSEBY.TXT).
The actual theological issue that the Church has continuously maintained (up to the most-recent infallible declaration by JPII) reveals that women are not able to be ordained.
“In any case I fail to see your comparison of the “extravagances” contravened by an older version of Canon Law could be applied to altar girls. The Canon you cite from the New Advent article on Deaconesses does not contradict altar girls as you seem to propose.”
“lighting the candles, burning incense in the thuribles” — among the things condemned as abuses
In my Church, and most churches I have seen, lighting candles and burning incense in thuribles are the function of altar servers, including females where this applies. Ergo, these precise things now done by female altar servers have been condemned in the past when done by women. Does this alter current canon law? No, but it takes away the claim to legitimate precedent for altar girls.
If you recall, neither Ambrosius nor I introduced the discussion of deaconnesses — you did. You claimed that it represented precedent for women’s role in the liturgy vis-a-vis female altar servers. The only things that deaconesses and altar servers did in common, as far as I can see, are the two *abuses* noted above.
For the umpteenth time, yes, deaconnesses seem to have had a liturgical role, yes. But not in the function of altar girls, which is what we are trying to discuss here. If we revived the use of deaconnesses for prepping women for full immersion baptism, and for watching over women in their *own segregated part of a church*, then there’d be precedent for *that*, but not for the topics under discussion. My sole point is that your claim to precedent doesn’t work if the precedent is for altar girls, period. I was refuting your claim for precedent for altar girls, not supporting my claim for why they should be suppressed.
Concerning the “woman” article, do altar girls approach the altar (yes). Do they min