www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Altar Girls in the UGCC-Part II

Yes, so sorry for the misstatement. Keating did not allow the Tridentine to be celebrated in his diocese. It is now widely available under the new directives of Pope Benedict.

True. But, at the time, so were the Emperor and Empress. The clerical exclusivity of the altar is a rather late reform. In some of the more remote parts of the Byzantine world, the various ruling princes claimed a similar prerogative into the late Middle Ages.

Yet, Eastern Orthodoxy has not been always faithful to its own traditions either, among them:

1) Several Orthodox jurisdictions within one country
2) Use of organs or other musical instruments in the Divine Liturgy
3) Western icons (e.g., God the Father as an old man, western depictions of the Resurrection)
4) Use of altar girls (yes, it's happened)
5) Use of confessionals (I've seen it myself)

If you want to remain separate and be the tertium quid, so be it. But you'll be marching to the beat of your own drummer.

As to your observations, remember, abusus non tollit usus. Specifically:

1. The Orthodox are aware of the non-canonical nature of their present ecclesiastical arrangements. Such anomalies are not uncommon through Church history, in both the West and the East. I don't know any Orthodox hierarch or theologian who says the present situation is normative or appropriate. And, of course, we are no better.

2. Organs and other musical instruments are representative of a phase of Orthodox life in this particular country. I've never seen an organ or piano outside of a Greek church, and, mercifully, these are now disappearing. Like many immigrants, the Greeks wanted to fit in, and their attempts at assimilation extended to making their churches look and sound like those of the dominant Protestant culture. A more self-confident and assertive Greek Orthodox community has no need for such crutches, and has been actively working to remove these abuses. It's interesting that this summer I visited a Greek Orthodox church in Greenville, SC. Not only was it the largest church in the entire city, it was also built and decorated in canonical fashion--and not an organ in sight, despite being in the heart of the Bible Belt. Also interestingly, I have visited many Greek and Russian churches in the UK and Western Europe. Not an organ in any of them.

3. Westernized icons likewise are the product of a particular time and place--in this case, Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. Early immigrants to this country brought them along, as they were all that they knew. Of course, you would have to be blind to ignore the renaissance in Orthodox iconography of the last half century, which has seen the restoration of canonical norms and the emergence of powerful, talented iconographers working within the ancient canon with a modern sensibility.

4. Altar girls--yeah, but very rarely.

5. Confessionals: Now you're picking nits, but I would have to say they are very rare indeed, and might be most common in former RC churches taken over by the Orthodox. Again, in all my visits to Orthodox Churches outside the United States, I have never seen a confessional box.

In any case, I fail to see what your point is, other than "So's your mom!" If we can be examples of Orthodoxy to the Orthodox, so much the better.

I would like to offer some observations to Deacon Robert's post from last week, in which he gave his argument as to why there should be no female altar servers.

(and please note that I am not trying to make an argument for or against the practice, just making observations.)

I do not question this role in the Eastern Rite Liturgies. However, I do not how this really applies to the Latin Rite today. There is no sub-deacon in the latin rite anymore. Therefore, it isn’t really a compelling argument, at least considering the west.
While it is “linked”, does that then automatically mean that it is? Does the sub-deacon act in persona Christi in the way that the priest does? It is my understanding that the ordination of the sub-deacon does not receive the sacrament of holy orders. That being the case, this link would seem to be a weaker argument for the restriction to male only.

I’ve asked this question on this forum as well as the orthodoxchristianity forum. It seems that there is no universal consensus on this because it all depends upon one’s ecclesiology. Since the East and West have a different ecclesiology of Orders, it seems compatible with the Eastern view but not the Western view.
Yes, agreed. The Sacrament of Orders makes one distinct in their priesthood from the priesthood of believers. The sacrament of orders places one in an apostolic role, continuing the work of the Apostles, who were consecrated by the Lord in the Spirit. An altar server does not participate in this apostolic role, because they do not have the laying of hands from the Bishop in a sacramental ordination.
I wholly agree with that imagery. However, I think that your argument then needs to include an explanation of how a female altar server compromises that imagery since it is not the altar server that acts in persona Christi. Or, if you believe that the altar server does in a certain way, there must be an explanation of exactly how.
Granted. However, (and I am just being practical here), that argument will have little traction anymore. We cannot simply say, that’s the way it’s always been without a compelling reason as to why it is wrong. The reasons given for its inclusion is that some traditions are changeable, and that it does not do harm by letting females serve since many of them would like to. A more compelling reason to the 21st century world we live in is needed. We are far more aware of equality and social justice issues today. And while you may not feel that these are equality or social justice issues, the fact is that others do. Therefore, in order to make a compelling argument, one must accept the fact that others believe that this issue revolves around an equality and social justice issue. While a solid theological argument can be made for a male only priesthood, does that argument really apply to a non-ordained position? Many simply do not think so.
But not necessarily anymore. While it has been “a” means, it certainly has never been the only means, and neither does it automatically mean that any female altar server


This is anecdotal evidence.
But this is a really a rear defense strategy. I agree that the women priests movement is a real problem. However, I think that a compelling theological argument needs to be made to respond to this. Simply saying that female altar servers is a back door strategy by these groups really isn’t an effective way to address the problem, IMHO.
Of course, the Church doesn’t have the authority to do so. But to say, “it’s your problem so take it up with God” can be seen by some as a rather uncharitable way of saying, screw you if you don't like it (and i am not inferring that you feel that way).

The point I am making is that these arguments will be ineffective becuase they don't address the reasons why others believev that the practice is acceptable. I am not criticizing you. I am just observing as to why I believe that your position needs a better response to those who believe that there is really nothing contrary to the faith in female altar servers.

Simply put, they affirm that there are some traditions which can indeed change because they are secondary or tertiary, and because they are non-essential, equality and social justice becomes the operative factors in determining the inclusion of female altar servers.

As I see it, that’s really the issue here.

danman:

I think that instead of asking people why a tradition should be preserved, people who want to change a tradition should be the ones to come up with the justification. The argument of "equality and social justice" is a secular one and should have no place in the Church or her culture. This whole area came up in Western thought and argument since the movement in Protestantism to ordain women began in the 20th century. And it should be noted that the move in some countries where there was a state Church came about for just this reason. But it should also be noted that these same state Churches had their doctrines defined by the secular legislative organs as well. So whether they can still be considered as the Church's response to something can be questioned.

The Episcopal Church in the US began its journey down this road when retired bishops up and ordained women without any authority. And that pushed the issue so that after two years it was made legal.

The question that must be answered is why, in the Church's terms, not in terms of secular culture ideas of equality and social justice, should this change in traditonal liturgical practice be made. The real agenda behind this move is to push the issue of women's ordination, though for Catholics, the issue has been finally decided as of the late Pope John Paul II's decision in 1994 on the issue. So the question becomes why are we still bringing this issue up time and again?

There is an additional phenomenon that is going unnoticed here. The traditional practice was seen as a way to intorduce young men to the idea of considering the priesthood as a vocation. There seems to be some thought that this is causing some young men, especially in the pre-teen and teen age brackets, to withdraw from serving.

Bob

Hi Bob,
I agree, which is why I mentioned equality and social justice.
You’ve really got me puzzled there. To me, that makes no sense. Of course these are issues that are germaine both to the Church and to the Christian faith. Catholic Social Justice is one of the central tenets of our faith, and it is the mission of the laity to go out into the world to create a just society. So I don’t see how you can say that.

Now, I readily agree that there are differing notions of equality. In our Catholic paradigm, equality does not mean everyone can do the same thing. That means that just because a woman can perform the rubrics of the liturgy, that equality demands that women must be allowed to do so. I understand that this reasoning is also used for altar servers. However, the response to that is that an altar server and a priest are ontologically two different things.

Things secular have always been a part of the Church. The liturgical garbs used today used to be common clothing articles back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The chasuble and dalmatic were commonly worn items. There is nothing inherently wrong with the secular world or culture per se. We live in a secular culture. We are formed by our secular culture and the secular culture has influenced the Church for 2000 years, otherwise there would be no “Greek” or “Latin” Church, who’s traditions were heavily influenced by the Greek or latin culture in which these Churches developed.
Tradition (little t) can certainly change. Whether it should or not is where this discussion revolves.
But then there was Emperor Constantine and his influence at the Council to suppress the Arians.
It all depends in how you want to look at it. We can look back 17 centuries ago, and see the same influences of secular culture, but we call it something different. We look at secular influence now and see it as bad all the time.
The cause of that was not due to female altar servers. We are not the Episcopal Church. You’re trying to make a connection where none exists, IMO.
I think it goes deeper than that. I think the question as posed is inadequate, for I would assert that the distinction between “Church’s terms” and “secular ideas of equality and social justice” needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more precisely.

For example, there was a time when black men were not ordained in America (Fr. Augustine Tolten in 1886). I don’t think anyone here is going to say that this was just or equitable, yet at the time, yet it was the secular culture that had to lead the way for the racism in the seminaries at that time. Not all secular concepts of social justice and equality are incompatible with the Church. As in this case, the secular preceded the Church. Therefore, we cannot simply reject secular notions outright as incompatible, IMO.

In my opinion, this is anecdotal evidence only.

As someone who does ministry in my parish as a lay leader, these are real questions and real issues that people have. Their questions of “why” are valid ones, and the fact of the matter is (whether we like it or not) that an answer of “it’s always been that way and it’s the tradition” is wholly insufficient without giving them a deeper understanding.

Also, like it or not, our culture is very attuned to social justice and equality, and their appeal to female altar servers is made on these reasons. If we are going to tell them that these are wrong reasons, we have to tell them why those notions of equity and social justice are incompatible with the belief of the Church. I really think you’re going to have a hard time with that.

The old explanations simply don’t suffice in the 21st century. People are far more educated and sophisticated. Many Roman Catholics today are very sensitive to the ”pray, pay, and obey” mentality that is our heritage. They won’t go back there.
Simply put, the Church needs a compelling argument in today’s language, for people in today’s culture and society. The answers given to a bygone time simply don’t satisfy anymore.
I’m not trying to be negative. I’m just stating it how I see it from someone who is “in the trenches” so to speak.

That doesn’t mean that theology and doctrines must bend to the whims of a fast changing world. That just means that we need to reflect on our traditions in light of what can change and what cannot change, and we must be able to express that to a modern people so that they can make those things their own in the 21st century.

danman:

I think I see where you're coming from. The view that our life in the Church, our liturgical experience, is parallel to our life outside the Church is, IMHO, part of the misinterpretation of Vatican II that saw the updating of the Church to mean that all the past was to be thrown out and a whole new Church established. It sees the past's life as being totally out-of-touch with the way people live their lives; it sees the need to change the Church rather than the idea that the Church should be changing society. To me, it's the loss of vision of what it is we do in the Church, who we are called to be, and what the implications are of all of this.

Part of this whole shift is the inadequate "meal theology" that has been used to describe the Mystical Sacrifice; the idea that liturgy is "the work of the people," rather than the Catechism's "the participation of the People of God in 'the work of God.'" (#1069); the emphasis of what we are about from the worship of God to building community. When all this is taken together, the question is often posed as to what's the difference. And this latter I hear all the time as one who is also "in the trenches" and runs up against this all the time when training other lay ministers.

But I think we're moving far afield. The thread is about this altar girl thing in the UGCC, not the Latin Church. Their particular law forbids it and the question is properly framed as to why it is occurring.

Bob

Bob, I hear what you're saying. I agree in many ways but view it a bit differently. I will also admit that I, as a Latin, see things as a Latin, and I realize and acknowledge that the east has the right to go forward as it sees is best on this and other issues.

Peace

danman:

I, too, am a Latin, but I have entered the Eastern mindset in my study of other Christians not like me, but having an experience of the Mystery just the same. It's taken me into an experience of what it means to be an Eastern Christian, giving me the opportunity to see through different eyes. It takes a tremendous amount of discipline to listen and learn from another without interrupting with one's own orientation and training. It began with the insight that here are people who have experienced Christ and the Mystery of the Incarnation and have no need of us Latins. (Boy, was that humbling!!)

Can you imagine what it felt like and how long it took to absorb an Orthodox priest telling a woman that "women who enter the altar will perish in everlasting fire"? Now, I don't even want to begin to debate this oe way or another. It seemed to be part of the total experience of what it meant to be an Orthodox Christian. And it may not even be universally held by Orthodox Christians, but I ahve met lay people of both sexes who have told me the same thing.

So this issue takes on a whole different dimension for me. When we discuss what the implications are for Eastern Catholics and what it means for ecumenical reconciliation and waht it means for Eastern Catholics to regain their patrimony, it all means much more than adapting to our current Western experience or understandings. It also has implications for us, as Latins, too, since we have to bridge what His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch described as an "ontological difference" between us that will be as difficult to bridge as the many things we are discussing in ecumenical dialogues. I think we, too, need to step back and take a look at those things. We seem to assume that with a Divine Liturgy that includes a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist, seven Mysteries/Sacraments, a common Bible, a common Creed, and a common first millenium, we can easily brdige anything. Maybe.

We had this discussion in our liturgical committee about retaining young men in the ministry of altar server. I'm the only layman on the committee. The women don't seem to "get it" as to why young men seem to ditch this as they enter their teen years. For me, it's obvious: their developing self-image as different from a girl diverges at this point. where one can ask a young boy in elementary school to do a ministry that involves wearing a long robe in front of a large group of strangers, the preteen and teen is far more self-conscious, especially if his friends are not of the Faith and he starts to face the kinds of teasing common among his peer group.

But, enough. I've taken this far off topic and will let it go. Apologies to my Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brethren.

bob

Dn. Lance,

I see where you are coming from. My formation for diaconate occurred just prior to the Passaic Eparchy's establishment of its own diaconal formation program. Therefore, my formation was carried out under the auspices of the RC Archdiocese of Philadelphia. I remember, quite distinctly, being taught that it is the official view of the (Universal) Catholic Church that the male diaconate involved reception of Holy Orders, while the female diaconate did not.
I think its also helpful to get the Orthodox perspective on this matter. The other day, I managed to relocate my copy of OCA Fr. Thomas Hopko's 1983 book Women and the Priesthood. (Link: http://www.amazon.com/Women-Priesthood-Thomas-Hopko/dp/0881411469). It is a series of essays, by various Orthodox authors, primarily on why Eastern Orthodoxy holds to a male-only priesthood. I recommend this book for anyone interested in the topic. However, there is treatment of the question of the female diaconate by Kyriaki Fitzgerald She makes the case that there are two primary views, in Orthodoxy, on the question of the female diaconate. One view, held by Professor John Karmiris, holds that the male diaconate is the "third level of the ordained priesthood", while the female diaconate is not, being an "auxiliary institution in the work of the Church", although a valuable one. On the other hand, the view of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou is that male and female diaconal ordination ceremonies were both virtually identical, they both are truly ordained, but neither are ordained to the "officiating priesthood", but to "diakonia", or service to the Church. From what I can discern here, neither of these Orthodox views would support the notion that the female deacon was ordained to "Holy Orders", as understood by Catholicism.


In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I know this to be true, from a lecture given at St. Tikhon's OCA seminary in South Canaan, Pa., a few years ago. by the Abbess of an OCA-affiliated woman's monastery in Elwood City, Pa. (sadly, I forget her name-it will come to me when I am finished posting). She expressed that, as a young woman, she went into shock upon visiting the monastery which she eventually entered, when she discovered women (nuns) serving in the altar. She went on to explain that this is permissible because, other than the officiating male clergy, no males are allowed in the monastery. She went on to say that such an arrangement would not be defendable in a parish.

In Christ,
Dn Robert

Deacon Robert,

Does the book discuss the differing ecclesiologies between East and West in which the west sees the minister as "possessing" the order of priesthood directly to Christ while the east sees the minister as "participating" in the priesthood as a delegate of the Bishop?

It was explained to me this way, and i would like to understand this distinction better. Does the book go into this?

Thank you

Good question. It's been a while since I read the whole thing. In the piece on female diaconate, the author mentions that some Orthodox theologians were having concerns about an ecclesiolgy which leans heavily on "ontology" and "function" (see pages 112 and 113). The comments appear to be close to what you are saying, but mostly in describing the Western notion. Here is another link (you may have to copy and paste) where you can read most of the book on-line.

Dn. Robert

http://books.google.com/books?id=H0omnUfYJj8C&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=%22Women+in+the+Priesthood%22%3B+Hopko&source=bl&ots=eXDpm7NuTm&sig=gZiDoyyU8ANc01-VMNmfoQB1nyQ&hl=en&ei=Voc4TZjSG4PHgAeR4fmcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

thank you. I am interested to read more.