Talk:Female altar servers

" noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar"

does this mean having boys alongside girls, or a team of boy-only servers? the context seems to suggest a male-only team.

If one interprets it with the hermeneutic of continuity (in light of Church tradition) as should be the norm,

then yes boy-only teams are meant. --129.97.171.185

Agreed --Joeman200 (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

female servers and the TLM

A unilateral statement like "the priest gets what he wants" is not helpful to the discussion.

The priest may not get what he wants if forbidden to by Church Law. UE 28 is pretty clear on the matter

Sorry to insist, but this not quite true in several respects: first of all you neglect the fact that even before the changement of can. 230 (which just states the term altar server) it has been possible for femals to give the answers and to serve in a way that she doesn't approach the altar. This has very often been the fact for example in cloistered monasteries. Second, the GORM states that is due to the priest to decide on such a fact. "Noble tradition" or not, if there's just no male server available or doesn't have the ability... Therefore phrases like "halted" and "had begun to creep in" are just not suitable.--Turris Davidica (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

203.59.66.153 said: if can 230 in any form conflicts with the rubrics and law of the 1962 books, then can 230 loses. A laywoman in the congregation making the responses (eg at prayers at foot of altar) from the pews and even ringing the bell for the consecration if TOTALLY different from vesting in faux clerical vestements and impersonating an acolyte.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/universae-ecclesiae-28-and-altar-girls-for-the-extraordinary-form/

why should applicable canon law "lose against rubrics"? (Above you used the term "church law" yourself.) To speak from my own's experience: altar servers are always lay persons whether they're male or female (except you make an additional difference between lay and the consecrated life) and b) indeed there are women who serve at the extraordinary form at the disposition of the celebrating priest.--Turris Davidica (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put your point of veiw

Everyone states facts and the one user Turris Davidica keeps on changing it ot her point of view. Take a look at the history, she is undoing everyone's edits so that the page is just her point of view. She is using POV as an excuse for everyone, when people are just stating facts. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, not just Turris Davidica

71.107.38.230 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please respect this for yourself, IP 1.107.38.230. There were several attempts to put in an improper POV into the article which is not desired in WP (see WP:POV. Sentences like "One must remember, that the pope is not infallible on matters like this, and everyone makes mistakes." are scarcely called to be encyclopedical. It's not your job – nor is it the job of this article – to judge what's a mistake and what not. The same goes for "but one must consider that he can not control everything when he visits places, especially minor issues like this, and only uses males in the Vatican." My dear IP, the pope sent his ceremony master in advance just to check every "minor issue" such as female altar servers at the papal masses. It's the business of the bishop of the diocese to determine on such things.--Turris Davidica (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

User:Kurt20008, you can't in Wikipedia delete at will sourced information without explanation. Don't edit-war but explain your action here on Talk. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)