Talk:Altar server

Eastern Orthodox

When adding this section I realized that I may have introduced a problem in Acolyte. I claimed there that Orthodoxy no longer had a separate office of "taper-bearer" based on the service books available to me, but these all reflect the Slavic tradition. I knew that Greek altar boys were ordained to something, but as I wrote this it occurred to me that I didn't know exactly what. I said Reader (minor orders) here in the event, but it may be that the Greeks still have a distinctive "taper-bearer" and that's what their altar boys are ordained as. I would appreciate it if someone who knows for sure would fix this. TCC (talk) (contribs) (old comment)

the whole section needs a reference or two. E.g. in some places teen boys cannot serve because they are not considered innocent enough. And the bit about vesting during Communion - why then do deacons adjust the orar to the style of a Sub-Deacon? Not to argue about the points, just needs references. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

List of famous altar boys

I think it'd be interesting if we had a list of famous (former) altar boys. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was an alter server in 1946.

References

comment at the beginning of RC altar boy

As a former altar server as well, I can tell you for a fact that there was formal training involved. After your training, you received your cassock and surplus from the parish priest. --209.244.30.235 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

comment at the end of RC altar boy

'Many altar servers see themselves usually not as priesthood candidates, even if the church sometimes tries to influence them in this direction.'

This i think, is not 'entirely' true.. All the altar boys in my parish (including myself) and lots in most other parishes ive served at etc all feel they have a vocation to the sacred Priesthood, which is the only reason we are serving! :). I dont know for sure, but im thinking this is a genreal sweeping statement, feel free to discuss though.

The "gold standard" for Wikipedia entries is verifiability. This article is sadly unreferenced overall, mainly becuase it's not a topic much written on. Editors are therefore writing from their personal experience. In this case that's mainly reliable as far as what being an altar server entails, but when it comes to subtopics that really should be statistically based, personal experience is a hazardous guide. If a study or two could be cited, giving the proportion of priests who were altar boys, or the proportion of altar boys who became priests, that would be much more reliable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

'Other churches'

Ive corrected/added to the point made at the bottom of the article on other churches. Mostly based on my own past experiance and understanding with Anglo-Catholic churches. Feel free to correct if needed.

Rape

Why is there no talk of the rape of altar boys in this article?

Win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.230.166 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to your bigotry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.13.157 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Replace Missal with Sacramentary

I believe that since the 1960's, the missal has been phased out and replaced with the Sacramentary that contains all the prayers related to the mass. Would it be correct to change references to the missal in this article to the Sacramentary? Benrr101 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Altar server vs altar boy

The article's assertion that altar server has "almost completely replaced" altar boy may well be true within the church itself, but it certainly is not so in general/colloquial use. "Altar boy" is, at least here in the UK, far more common (unless, of course, the person in question is not a boy). See, for example, this BBC article, which uses "altar boy" while mentioning the past of a murder victim. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Female altar servers

The material on female altar servers is well sourced, so I have restored it again. Please discuss any problems with it here rather than continuing to remove it. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Altar boy

"Alter boy" is not the usual term anymore, incorrectly stated in the article. Alter server is much more popular, as is female altar servers.Mazeau (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate term is "altar boy," and girls serving as altar boys are called "female altar boys."75.27.148.62 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, there are new things under the sun: female boys. -- Turris Davidica (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are girls doing the duties of boys as if they were also boys.75.27.148.62 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No Sir, this is why we call it altar server. --Turris Davidica (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion does not change the fact that girls are serving as altar boys, hence the term "female altar boys."75.27.148.62 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They are serving as altar servers (what abount adult men? Boys too?). There is no such term as female altar boy. But there's no point in discussing this here, since "female boy" is unsourced. --Turris Davidica (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Acolyte

These two articles discuss the same subject; they should be merged. Neelix (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, an altar server is different from an acolyte even if their duties largely overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.57.98 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, me being a former Lutheran, now Roman Catholic, that they are two completely different people, with different duties. Shark96z (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gay altar servers

I noticed that there was a controversy surrounding the existence of gay altar servers, notably about one such altar server in the Canadian province of Ontario, who announced he was launching a human rights complaint against the Church for having been dismissed while he was living with his male partner. The issue of gay altar servers is not really the same as gay altar boys, given that the former are adults, while the latter were often involved in clerical child abuse cases. [1] ADM (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

please merge this article with acolyte --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge

The lay ministry of altar server, usually filled by young laypersons (usually now both boys and girls), is not the same- not as expansive a role- in the Catholic churches as the former minor order of Acolyte. An instituted acolyte is (especially since Pope Benedict XVI's instruction limiting the role of Acolyte to the following cases) usually a seminarian in graduate theology school or a permanent deacon in formational training who has not yet been ordained a deacon (or who may have been allowed to retain the role when he left beforehand). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right in stating the expressions should not be confused. Just let me add that of course the acolyte, although instituted, is also a lay minister.--Turris Davidica (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Altar boys since when?

Is it true that the tradition to have "normal" boys (rather than adult men or seminarists) as altar servers dates from the pontificate of Pope Pius X, i.e. after 1900? Generally there is too little on the history of altar servers in this article! -- 77.7.142.251 (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Catholics

There should be some mention of girls being disallowed service at the altar in Traditional Catholic parishes, as well as by Sedevacantists.75.27.148.62 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the early to mid-90s my little brother was an altar boy I went to my Tampa St Pete diocese and told them that it wasn't fair because I was a girl I couldn't do it! The following year me and three or four of my friends other girls decided to become alter servers I was officer of the year for 2 years in a row after going to the Tampa St Pete diocese award show 2600:6C5D:50F0:4530:3DF2:A59:2B57:E476 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ministrant

"Ministrant" is a redlink now. On the other hand, altar ministrant redirects here. Can anybody turn it blue? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Altar server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007142135/http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/images/auspetrapavla.jpg to http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/images/auspetrapavla.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520061122/http://moas-srcp.catholicweb.com/ to http://www.moas-srcp.catholicweb.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714132029/http://snpmas.multiply.com/ to http://snpmas.multiply.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary form duties

There is a marked lack of mention of any duties altar servers have in the context of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. These duties are extensive compared to the Ordinary Form, and include making all the Latin responses to the priest's prayers, e.g. the Confiteor. I would think that an extra section could be opened to document these duties. It is not enough to mention them parenthetically interspersed in the Ordinary Form descriptions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Communion-plate during distribution

As it was required for the Communion of the Faithful in 1929 when there was never distribution of the Chalice or intinction, the Communion-plate is obviously for any situation in which the sacred host is administered. Redemptionis sacramentum makes that clear, as well as common practice throughout the world where the custom is still retained (e.g. any community that celebrates the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.) So it is fitting that, since this is a standard practice recommended by the Church herself, that it be placed in order with the other duties of the acolyte. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The section concerns the duties of servers in what is today "the normal form – the forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic liturgy" (not the 1962 form, officially authorized for use but only as an extraordinary (exceptional) form and which you have suggested should be the subject of a new section). What is the relevance of the 1929 form? The Roman Missal in use in 1929 said nothing about the then novel communion-plate: it did not "require" its use. On the contrary, it still kept the centuries-old text: "If some are to be given communion within Mass, the priest, after consuming the Precious Blood and before the purification, genuflects and places the consecrated small hosts in a ciborium or, if only a few are to be given communion, upon the paten (unless from the beginning they were put in a ciborium or another chalice). Meanwhile a server extends before them a white linen cloth or veil, and makes confession for them, saying: Confiteor etc. ..." (Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6). The 1962 Missal kept the opening phrase, "If some are to be given communion within Mass", but radically rewrote the following words, omitting the mention of the traditional white linen cloth and saying nothing of a communion-plate. The 1962 Missal did include the 1960 Code of Rubrics, which under the heading "Preparation of the altar for Mass" says at number 528: "On the Epistle side, on a table set for this purpose, cruets of wine and water with a bowl and a finger towel are to be prepared, along with a small bell and a plate for the communion of the faithful". It said nothing else whatever about that communion-plate, whether for instance two-handled for the communicant to hold or equipped with a long pole for a server to extend.

I think you need a statement by a reliable source, not just a personal opinion, to delare that a communion-plate "is obviously for any situation in which the sacred host is administered". Is it obvious, for instance, that those who receive in their hand (the majority in most countries) must also manage to hold a communion-plate, or that, in transferring the host to their mouth, they must overcome the obstacle of a communion-plate that a server is holding under their chin?

A statement by a reliable source is needed for placing among the normal functions of a server the holding of a communion-plate under the chin of communicants (in contradiction to GIRM, which says the communicants, at least if receiving by intinction, themselves hold it. Should it not be put as an exceptional duty, such as holding mitre or crozier or carrying a baldachin? Or does it belong to the section you desire (and that perhaps you will write) on a server's functions in the 1962 form?

Redemptionis sacramentum, 93 does not say: "The plate is held under the chin of the communicant". Bealtainemí (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As you know, the customs and discipline of the Ordinary Form are informed and mutually enriched by those of the Extraordinary Form: USCCB, Pope Benedict XVI, New Liturgical Movement. Anything not peculiar to the EF or abolished in the OF would be considered appropriate to retain in a hermeneutic of continuity. In 1929, the Congregation of the Sacraments mandated a paten or Communion-Plate to be used in addition to the houseling cloth. This book specifies that it is a "metal plate" when held by the communicant, and an "unconsecrated paten" when held by a server. Various sources describe it as held "under the chin" or "under the mouth", and some even say "under the hands" when CITH is foreseen. I can provide an abundant repository of Altar Boy Handbooks from parishes which describe how the server is to use the Communion-Plate or paten during distribution of Holy Communion, as has been the Catholic custom for 90 years, and not at all exceptional: in fact the practice of abolishing it could be considered exceptional, and possibly an attack on the Real Presence of the Eucharist. I trust this would be sufficient for you to establish widespread and modern usage. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for citing a source that indicates how a server-held communion-plate may be used when people receive the host in their hand. Unless you prefer to leave it to me, you must revise your edit, which declares that the communion-plate is to be held under the chin.

The wishful hope "that the two forms of the one Roman Rite may provide a mutual spiritual enrichment for the faithful and promote the Communion of the whole Church as an expression of unity in diversity" does not mean that Vatican II Masses are celebrated by 1962 rules, still less by the pre-Extraordinary Form rules of 1929, the year when the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments declared "very prudent" the custom introduced in the mid-19th century and that became widespread (not the same as "universal") after 1876 of holding a communion-plate under the chin (see AAS (1929), p. 635) and ordered its use by communicants who were to hold it under their chin and then return it to the priest or pass it to the next communicant (AAS 1929, p. 638).

Dom Matthew Britt's book, which you cite here, was written 84 years ago. Not evidence of what you call "widespread and modern usage". Nor is the source from Holy Trinity Parish, Gainesville, Virginia that you also cite here evidence of widespread usage: there are many similar sources that prove absence of usage today. The source that you cite in the article as basis for your affirmations says that what it calls "chin patens" "are always used in the Traditional Latin Mass", but are exceptional in today's normal Masses: "Some parishes, even in the Ordinary Form, still use them." Like the once obligatory communion cloth, which as far as I know was never officially abolished but is now very rare even in "Traditional Latin Masses", the communion-plate has simply fallen out of use and is now rare. Mention of holding a communion-plate is out of place among the normal "duties at Mass" of altar servers: all and every one of the others mentioned are expressly indicated as duties of servers in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which nowhere mentions as a function of servers the holding of a communion-plate under the chin (or hands) of communicants and instead speaks of the communion-plate only as held by communicants themselves. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that your description of "proof of absence of usage" is an exceptional claim. Your quote says "Some parishes... still use them" - that would seem to state the opposite. It is hardly even evidence of absence. Sure, it is evident that you can walk into any Mass and see that they probably won't use Communion-Plates, and that is only logical because they have many more extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who vastly outnumber the altar servers. But you call it "rare" and I would call that "unproven and unsourced". I did not claim that the Holy Trinity source is "evidence of widespread usage" - it is evidence of something else - but I can provide many more instances of these handbooks, which would tend to indicate that Holy Trinity is not an outlier but engages in a practice that is still quite common today, as well as a description of exactly how it is to be executed by the servers. So, given the historical usage and the clear support over 100 years from the Holy See, I would say the WP:ONUS is on you to prove that this practice is exceptional, such as a survey of worldwide usage or decrees from national bishops' conferences prohibiting or discouraging its use. So far, you have failed to come up with a shred of reliable evidence that indicates what you assert, and Wikipedia is built on the policy of verifiability, reporting on reliable secondary sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Going through the section in the article as it currently stands, I can identify several things which are not mentioned in the GIRM that have been identified as the "usual duties" of altar servers. Such as bringing microphones, or the lavabo towel, or exchanging the Kiss of Peace. So it would seem that if we scrupulously restricted ourselves to only that which is in the GIRM, we would necessarily need to delete a good bit of what's already there. That would not be acceptable to me or to you. So we need to decide on some other criteria of inclusion. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "it is evident that you can walk into any Mass and see that they probably won't use Communion-Plates", an admission that server-held communion-plates are not in general use today. Practically speaking, whether we like it or not, communion plate is: "In the RC Church, a plate of silver or metal gilt formerly held under the chin of communicants as they received the Sacrament. The term is also used collectively of the vessels used in the celebration of the Eucharist, which are often plated with gold" (Oxford Reference (emphasis added)).

I over-simplified when I mentioned GIRM, instead of speaking generically of up-to-date liturgical books, with regard to, for instance, the long-standing mention in the article of presenting to the priest the water and towel for the ritual washing of his hands. This is surely one of the normal duties of servers, unlike bringing microphones (usually arranged before Mass or worn on the person), which is one of the "further duties" that "local custom and particular needs" require.

You still have not corrected your insertion of the statement that it is under the communicants' chin that servers hold communion-plates in churches like that in Gainesville where servers do use them. Why?

As a just-by-the-way remark, it is amusing to picture a small altar boy in the Gainesville church, where there are no altar girls, trying to hold a communion-plate horizontally under the chin of a tall man who opts to receive communion on the tongue. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Smile, kneeling (by the communicant) would help here. At our place, small altar servers helping tall priests sometime lay down the missal on their heads. --10:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, indeed, all (unless handicapped) kneel in that church, which has an abundance of altar boys (see photo here).

I give the Atlanta IP contributor a little more time to return to activity before making further edits here. But I have written a new article on Communion-plate, which I hope others interested here will be good enough to improve. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

While I felt it was perfectly clear and even more readable without your recommended qualification, I have rewritten the passage in a way which I hope will be satisfactory to everyone. It reflects actual use of the plate: servers make a more concerted effort to track the motion of the host with the paten so it is always positioned underneath, no matter where the hands or chin of the communicant may be. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back. However, your presentation of the holding by servers of a communion-plate for communicants as normal, not exceptional, is not satisfactory. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion alone which divides these descriptions into "normal" and "exceptional" sections. It seems to me that the main section simply chronologically describes what would go on during the course of a Mass. It is also your opinion alone which describes this practice as "exceptional" at all, other than a description in an Anglican dictionary. And it would seem useful for us to distinguish between minority use and exceptional use: our chronological description is full of things like lighted candles, thuribles, incense, bells ringing, chalice pall, and other sights which you'll not find as common as you'd like them to be. Why are you so eager to separate this out? Once again we are back to agreeing on criteria for inclusion, and you haven't offered any except "normal" and "exceptional" which would still need to be defined and proven by WP:RS, in order to be useful. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yours (not mine) is the text that, because inserted into a Wikipedia article, must be shown to be based on a reliable source. What reliable source can you cite for the claim you have inserted that it is a duty of altar servers (in general, not just in churches where the custom exists; now, not just in the past) to hold a communion-plate "under the sacred host" (a phrase that wrongly suggests the server moves the communion-plate to follow the hand of ministers of Holy Communion while they transfer the host from the ciborium to the communicants' hand or mouth, a much greater distance today than when the priest held the ciborium quite close to the mouth of communicants kneeling at the altar rail before him and almost touched the communion-plate in between).

What reliable source can you cite for what you have inserted about the duties of servers? The only source you now give is a 1948 book mentioned by Monsignor Pope. Much has changed in the practice of the Roman Rite in the last 70 years. You can cite no official text: the 1929 Instruction, the 1962 Roman Missal, the present Roman Missal and the 2004 Instruction do not mention servers in relation to the communion-plate; indeed, the 1929 Instruction and the present Missal expressly say that the communion-plate is held by the communicant, not the server. The Congregation's reply in, I think, 1930 to a question put to it permitted continuance of an existing custom of having servers hold the communion-plate. So (in addition to clarifying "hold it under the sacred host") shouldn't you add something like "where it is the custom"? As your edit stands, you falsely say the holding of a communion-plate at the distribution of Communion is a regular universal duty of servers, not just in certain situations. Your edit must be either revised or removed. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2018 (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) 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

problems with text

Acolyte and altar server are different things. The first developed from an Apostolic age ministry to a minor order and is now a lay minister. An altar server is a substitute for an acolyte, first developed in convents and then with Trent extended to parishes. This history is essential to understanding its origin and development.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs)

That's what you think. But Wikipedia is not a blog. Please read WP:OR and WP:V. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue of female altar servers does not need to take up a quarter of the article. The events after the Council are sufficient to describe it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs)

In line with your suggestion, I have shortened that section, omitting all that preceded the Second Vatican Council. Information on that is given in Female altar servers.

The image shows girls dressed as altar servers. It does not show them as altar servers. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Servers

There is no reason on only one photo to say there are people "dressed as altar servers". Either apply the phrase to one or none. Kurt20008 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't know where to start

I'm thinking of becoming a server, and wanted to know what the job consists of. I find that it's apparently a children's role (I'm 65, and know that it isn't), and that some people think there are such things as 'female altar boys'. I don't know where to start (not here, obviously).Snugglepuss (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• IndonesianAltarBoy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)