Women Serving During Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with Prose. If Vatican II said that it's fine, I'm not going to say otherwise.
It also helps that I've only ever grown up with it being this way. It just seems natural to me.

[dustthouart]

The Church says that it is permissable (in the Latin rite), so it' is permissable. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea in most circumstances.

I'm a woman and I would never do any of the roles mentioned. The only situation where it seems absolutely necessary would be a Mass where the priest was the only man there. This is conceivable, but surely very rare. And even in that situation, a priest can do all the roles himself, can't he?

I don't receive from EMs if at all possible either. One thing I LOVE about my parish here in Taipei is that there are no EMs at all, even though it is a large parish! Other priests come to help distribute, or (gasp) WE ARE PATIENT. I can wait 5 minutes to consume the Precious Body of our Lord!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='prose' post='1576376' date='Jun 19 2008, 10:32 PM']As to the poll question... I don't think it matters how I feel anyways. If the bishop or priest (as my shepherd) states it is okay, then I will follow their lead. The Church has not (and probably should not) consult with me on these matters.[/quote]
Oh yes, I agree (that my feelings don't have a bearing on it, not yours ). Sure I have my own feelings & opinions, but I will respect what my bishop & priest say on the matter.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='159473' date='Apr 10 2004, 03:43 PM']I have no problem with boy-only altar servers.
However there is nothing wrong with women lectors.[/quote]


Actually, women are never lectors, for to be a lector one must be installed as one. It is a minor order reserved to Men as all orders are.

You do not have a problem with women readers (and neither do I.)

However, I do have problem with using readers when there are lectors around.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1576379' date='Jun 19 2008, 05:41 PM']I agree with Prose. If Vatican II said that it's fine, I'm not going to say otherwise.
It also helps that I've only ever grown up with it being this way. It just seems natural to me.[/quote]

Vatican II never said it was ok to do have lay liturgical ministers. And the our Current Holy Father is not "Fine " with it. But he does allow it, for he is the servant to even poor traditions.

[Maria Faustina]

I don't think girls should be altar servers, and I am a girl. Maybe if girls were not allowed as altar servers, boys would eventually have to be, thus exposing more young men to the priesthood, and finally making up for some of the lack of priests currently. Just a theory.

Women are okay to be readers though, in my opinion. I'm not so sure about EEM's, though. I don't really have a stand on that.

[heavenseeker]

I have no problem it

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1579466' date='Jun 22 2008, 02:53 PM']Vatican II never said it was ok to do have lay liturgical ministers. And the our Current Holy Father is not "Fine " with it. But he does allow it, for he is the servant to even poor traditions.[/quote]
To be honest, I missed the point there. Let me rephrase it...
The Church formally allows this, which means by extension and by tradition that the Holy Spirit allows this. Let's not forget...
Unless I'm way off and missing the mark entirely...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1579791' date='Jun 22 2008, 08:30 PM']To be honest, I missed the point there. Let me rephrase it...
The Church formally allows this, which means by extension and by tradition that the Holy Spirit allows this. Let's not forget...
Unless I'm way off and missing the mark entirely...[/quote]


I agree whole heartedly that the Church allows this to happen. However, it is an error to say that Vatican II and the Holy Father invision these things as a good thing.

Let me clarify my point.

The way lay liturgical ministry is done is licit and valid, it is just very poor judgment based on poor anthropology and ecclesiology.

Such innovations were not the intention of the Second Vatican Council or even the Spirit of the Council.

The Holy Father is on record as criticizing many of the actions that are debated here, especially the way the transition from the ordinary to the extraordinary form.

And as far as the Spirit even the Crucification of the Son was allowed.

[Nihil Obstat]

All I mean is that we see the Church as infallible.
If the way we do things is so wrong, then it wouldn't be happening... or at the very least there would be something coming in the very near future telling us how very wrong we are.
I can't see this being an issue to get quite so worked up over considering that this isn't the case.

Also, I have a book called Catholic Q&A by a Fr. Dietzen. He answered a question about Eucharistic Ministers. I will post this.

"Certainly a focal point of that mission for the ordained priest is to preside at the eucharistic liturgy and make possible for the rest of the Christian people, and celebrate with them, the unbloody renewal of the death and resurrection of our Lord. ...For the first 1200 years or so, it was common for any Christian to give communion to any other Christian. People took communion in their hands at mass, gave it to each other, and even took the Eucharist home to family or friends who could not be present at Mass.
Within the past several centuries, in an effort to counteract certain heresies which dnied the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the church gradually built up the detailed prohibitions we learned about not touching the host. When I was small (in the 1930s), we were taught that it was seriously sinful to touch not only the host itself, but even the chalice and ciborium in which the host and consecrated wine were contained.
We now know, however, that such prohibitions did not reflect (as we then assumed) what the church had "always" done, and that [b]they involved nothing essential to Catholic doctrine or practice.[/b]
You are never, of course, forced to recieve Communion in your hand if you do not wish to do so. There's always the option to recieve either way.

[The rest of this paragraph is about recieving on the tongue or hand, but this last sentence applies regardless.]

[b]The incredible fact is that Jesus gives us his body and blood as our spiritual food and drink in the first place. From that viewpoint, at least, to make a big deal our of which part of our body [or anyone else's?] touches the host first appears to me to be supremely ridiculous."[/b]


Thought you might want to see this... It was bugging me that I couldn't remember what he said.

[Apotheoun]

The lay faithful have never "taken" communion for themselves; instead, it has always been given to them by the ministers of the Church. Traditionally the non-ordained faithful have not been allowed to approach the altar during the liturgical synaxis, and this tradition is still maintained by the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic.

[goldbug16]

Only when necessary. I don't condemn anyone who does it though.

[iggyjoan]

I think it's fine. I think it's a neat way for women to get involved with the Mass.

And yes, I know they also could read or sing. I just think being an altar server is cooler.

[Resurrexi]

I think that women have no place in the sanctuary, since the tradition of both the Roman and Eastern rites attest to this.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1580437' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:55 PM']I think that women have no place in the sanctuary, since the tradition of both the Roman and Eastern rites attest to this.[/quote]
I agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1579990' date='Jun 23 2008, 01:06 AM']The lay faithful have never "taken" communion for themselves; instead, it has always been given to them by the ministers of the Church. Traditionally the non-ordained faithful have not been allowed to approach the altar during the liturgical synaxis, and this tradition is still maintained by the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic.[/quote]
That's semantics though; that's seems to me to not be the central part of the argument.

[Apotheoun]

It is not semantics. The priest, as an icon of Christ, distributes communion. Communion is not self-serve.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1581254' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:48 AM']It is not semantics. The priest, as an icon of Christ, distributes communion. Communion is not self-serve.[/quote]
My understanding of that article was that he was referring to recieving on the hand or the tongue, and that the early Christians would have recieved on the hand, thereby 'serving themselves'.

A thought came to me last night, and I'd love reactions to it.

I think we're forgetting a major point here. This is JESUS in the Eucharist that we're talking about. In Mass we're recieving Jesus Christ himself. It seems to me that Jesus wouldn't mind all that much if one extra person touches him on the way from the priest to you. It's Jesus after all.
As long as things are done with proper reverence and respect, I would imagine that Jesus has a lot bigger issues to be angry about than Eucharistic Ministers.

This argument seemed a lot more powerful yesterday at one in the morning. Hopefully it still makes sense.

[Deo Iuvente]

But the second Vatican Council didn't SAY anything about female servers. This came about only a few years ago, because people were disobeying canon law and liturgical law, and it was so widespread, the CDW eventually just allowed an indult to permit it. (like communion in the hand.) That's all.
The fact that it's allowed, rather than encouraged, seems to send a message to me, because unlike having all male servers, having female servers can be banned by the local bishop or pastor. Also,the indult could be revoked by the Holy See,because it has no standing in the tradition of the church.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm sorry, but I just can't find any reason in my own conscience that would prevent girls from being servers...
I know people are saying that it's to help young boys discern a vocation to the priesthood... but I've never seen that actually being the case. I served, and both my younger brothers did, but we never once saw it as some kind of discernment process.
At the same time, I know our church in particular has a very difficult time finding young people. There just aren't very many. Most of them happen to be girls. We only have one priest (maybe another in residence, but I've never seen him). There are no other priests that could regularly distribute communion or take care of the altar serving.
...but more importantly, if done with an attitude of reverence, what's really stopping a girl from being in the sanctuary? I just don't understand the basis for this.