25 Responses to “New Indults in Diocese of Arlington”

1. 1 Iacobus Mar 23rd, 2006 at 6:11 pm

   Saucy…

2. 2 Ambrosius Mar 23rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm

   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.

3. 3 boatrocker316 Mar 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm

   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!

4. 4 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pm

   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.

5. 5 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

   “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 minister *to the priest* — yes. *To the priest* is the all-important stipulation that defines the usage of “minister” here. Please provide me with the canon that distinguishes “minister” from “serve” in regard to ministering/serving a priest. It’s a distinction without a difference (I claim — prove me wrong). Minister to the priest does not in my mind entail only ordained functions — it presumably includes helping him with sacred vessels and with the lavabo — which altar girls do. Although you claim that “ministry” has at least the connotation of ordination (which isn’t a necessary connotation), you turn around and equate “service” and “ministry” in an editorial note!:
   “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] *THE BRACKETED PART IS JOHNBOY’S NOTE* of the Church”, without implying any official status.”

   So are “ministry” and “service” different and/or the same depending on which meaning suits your point at the given moment?

   “I the thing to note here is that female altar servers were debased in times past because of the practical implications that would arise.” What does, “were debased” mean? Do you mean, “were condemned”? This sentence isn’t clear to me.

   “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.”

   Nonsequitur. Previous popes burned people at the stake. That’s a bigger statement than allowing altar girls, and you think that *this* “matter of discipline” can be *debunked* (meaning what precisely? “objected to”?) theologically. So, yes, altar girls can be legally allowed, as can the burning of heretics — that *alone* doesn’t make either one theologically appropriate.

   “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.”

   Yes, that is the continuous Church teaching. And the continuous Church practice till 1994 was against altar girls, too. That is subject of debate, not the ordination of women . . . except insofar as the principles behind excluding women from priestly service also apply to excluding altar girls (see the canonical argument against women “ministering” at Mass from the encyclopedia article).

   So thanks for giving me the opportunity to match wits with you again.

6. 6 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

   One last thing — your argument that “ministering in a subordinate capacity” doesn’t apply to altar servers — a fine example of straining gnats and swallowing camels. Incidentally, altar boys perform the function of acolyte. “Acolyteship” (or whatever the abstract noun is) is/was one of the Minor Orders. Only men were admitted to the Minor Orders, as these offices, while not sacramental themselves, were directly ordered (hah!) toward the Sacrament of Orders. So girls would not be a good substitute for acolytes, since real, honest-to-goodness official acolytes are always men.

7. 7 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

   WHOOPS! Since the insert “service” was highlighted, I thought that it was your insertion. It was in fact in the original. Mea maxima culpa. Did you highlight it, though? Well, anyway, apparently ministry means service there, so what makes you think that “minister” means something other than “server” in the other article? Do you have any actual basis for a difference in terminology, or did you generate an ad hoc argument?

8. 8 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

   Last post for awhile:

   “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.”

   By this I meant that they did not have a *legitimate* role as altar servers — the roles that overlap between deaconness and acolyte were condemned as abuses.

9. 9 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

   REALLY the last words for awhile:

   “That is subject of debate” — I meant “That is THE subject of THIS debate”

10. 10 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    “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] *THE BRACKETED PART IS JOHNBOY’S NOTE* of the Church”, without implying any official status.”

    The above comment from Tobias is incorrect!

    The bracketed [i.e. service] is copied directly from a quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent) article “Deaconesses.”

11. 11 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    oops! I see you corrected yourself, Tobias…

    Neglect my last comment.

12. 12 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    John-Boy, I already caught that. Once again, mea culpa — I assumed (and we know what that means) that since it was highlighted that you had somehow modified the original. But did you highlight it? Can ministry and service mean the same thing? If “minister” refers specifically to ordained minister, then female extraord. Euch. minister is a problematic title.

13. 13 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    Well, good, now we’re back on an even keel.

14. 14 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    Tobias,

    “Ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden” as indicated in the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Woman” on New Advent.

    However, I think it’s appropriate to judge by the context of the surrounding discussion that the intent is the females are not permitted to take on the priestly role as “minister.” Even the complete quote you cite states “much more [reflecting on a womans silence in Church] should she abstain from the ministry of the altar.”

    Now it is clear based upon the first several sentences in this particular paragraph that the ministry is in fact the ordained ministry:

    “In religious and moral matters, the common obligations and responsibilities of men and women are the same. There is not one law for a man and another for a woman, and in this, of course, the canons follow the teachings of Christ. Women, however, are not capable of certain functions pertaining to religion. Thus, a woman is not capable of receiving sacred orders (cap. Novae, 10 de poen.).”

15. 15 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    So I think my interpretation…

    That is a woman could serve the liturgy but not minister (act as a psuedo priest) at the altar are valid points.

16. 16 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    What do you think “minister to the priest in a subordinate capacity” means? Of course the most important point is that they can’t be ordained. But they are also forbidden to “approach the altar,” period. So, how do you go about being an acolyte without approaching the altar and ministering (a word which is *not* limited to ordained people) to the priest in a subordinate capacity? What subordinate capacities at the altar that are limited to ordained ministers do you think the author has in mind?

17. 17 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Okay, here’s some more citations from the Roman Theological Forum (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html):

    “[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West. 3
    Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying

    We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] 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. 4
    Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase.

    In short, it appears that the 1994 Vatican permission for altar girls was the most radical single liturgical change ever officially permitted by the Church’s supreme authority.”

    So someone out there in the blogosphere with a copy of the canons of Laodicea propping up their coffee table care to submit the requisite canon for our edification?

18. 18 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    Shall I assume that you concede that Pope John Paul II’s mere legal permission for the existence of altar girls *alone* does not validate the practice on theological grounds?

19. 19 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    ‘nother citation from Roman Theol. Forum:

    “This condition is very significant, and was also reflected in the wording of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, §2, of the old Code, already referred to, 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” (emphasis added). 6″

    This is a citation from canon law, and says that a woman may in fact serve as a *minister* (now that can’t mean a priest, can it?) provided she make the responses (so *minister* just has to mean altar server, right?) provided she not approach the altar for any reason. So she can say the responses from, I presume, outside the sanctuary. No lighting of candles (one of the essential jobs of an altar boy, so Cath. Enc. informs me), no approaching the altar, no handling of sacred vessels. Seeing as in the NOM the laity usually says the responses, all this canon allows for women/girls is a function that altar boys no longer have!

    Frankly, I’m confused as to why you’re still arguing, John-Boy. It’s clear that altar girls weren’t used legitimately in the past. All I would argue (if I were you) is that Pope John Paul changed those rules. But perhaps you realize that that fact alone, minus precedent and in fact *contrary* to precedent (and prudence, and right reasoning), is not a satisfactory justification.

20. 20 Joe Six Pack Mar 25th, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Johnboy,

    You can defend John Paul II’s right to allow vestal virgins, I mean altar girls, without agreeing to the soundness, justness, prudence, or even sanity of his decision.

    Why do you feel compelled to defend the indefensible?

21. 21 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    Tobias, you quote the following:

    “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.” –Roman Theological Forum.

    It is clear the quote above is simply indicating the use of female altar servers is reaching a point where women are carrying out roles not suited to their sex (aka: Apparently acting as priests). Notice the “and” between the two points. Divorce the latter part (ie, taking on roles proper to priests) and the reason at the end does not makes sense (ie, only applicable to a male priesthood). They need to get it straight or at least indicate that they think female altar service is reserved to the male priesthood only (but that, obviously, does not make sense).

    As for the other quote you give from an apparent older Code of Canon Law:

    “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.”

    It is clear in this case old Canon Law refers to “service” when it states “minister”. Obviously, this is because the woman is not able to go up to the altar and act as a priest (thus “minister” must mean “serve”).

    In any case don’t forget the altar servers in the Tridentine Mass never actually approached the altar like the priest. I think approach means actually ascending the “steps” to the high altar, not necessarily being in the sanctuary or near the altar in the particular case described in the apparent 1917 Code of Canon Law.

    In any case it sounds like that quote more or less supports female altar servers. Doesn’t it?

22. 22 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    No. Forget it. You define the word ministry/minister as referring specificilly to “ordained ministry” when that’s what you want it to mean, and as referring to altar server when that’s the meaning you want. It’s all ad hoc. You construe canons as permitting altar girls when no one framing those canons took them that way, and you know that there were not altar girls between 1917 and 1994. And altar boys most certainly approach the altar when they light candles there. So I don’t care to waste my time. I’m not even looking back at this page to check if it’s been updated. No, I’m not conceding defeat.

23. 23 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Say, someone else want to read our discussion and comment? Nary a chirp except from JSP. I’m not asking since I’m betting most agree with me — I’m asking to judge the specific arguments each side presents.

24. 24 Tobias Petrus Mar 25th, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    “I think approach means actually ascending the “steps” to the high altar, not necessarily being in the sanctuary or near the altar in the particular case described in the apparent 1917 Code of Canon Law.”

    If no altar server went near the altar, then why stipulate that women couldn’t do it. Whatever’s being restricted for women in part. is clearly allowed to men in the same role. The male altar server has to *approach* the altar for this restriction to make any sense at all. Now I end my case. Good night.

    Well, shoot. Re: last post, how am I supposed to read others’ opinions without looking back to see if people have responded? That’s a puzzler.

25. 25 johnboy316 Mar 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm

    Ok, so perhaps the issue is more or less the amount of space the female altar server has with the altar itself (according to your interpretation of the old Canon Law). I would generally agree, actually.

    However, is your suggestion that females are not allowed to serve at the Mass or that they are allowed to serve at Mass, so long as they maintain some sort of distance from the altar?

    Of course, I think the distance thing is a prudential decision from the Church to not fall back into the error (as per apparently some local circles did in 400+/-AD) whereby deaconesses were construed to be ordained or to somehow take on some psuedo-priestly role.

    In our day and age when the Holy Father has confirmed that females are not able to take on the priestly role, and that the emphasis has been on the service in the Church regardless of sex, it is clear that issue of altar girls is not as prudentially repulsive as I think you would like it to be. And of course the issue is not a matter of theology, but discipline. Of course you are entitled to opine that female altar servers is not a prudential decision; you will however disagree with JPII. But it is clear he maintains that the male altar service is more appropriate.

    In any case I graciously end, too, with my own opinion that I think the goal should be male altar servers; but not to restrict female altar servers on the basis of sex only.

Leave a Reply