[quote:kmlg8186]No altar girls. No EMs, at all, either. But you’re not really talking to me, I know. I’m a traditionallist Anglican.

GKC[/quote:kmlg8186]
[quote:kmlg8186]I’m with GKC on this one.

These were abuses that were later reluctantly allowed in as concessions. The individual bishop or priest still has the option of not using them – though I think the diocese of Lincoln is the only diocese in the U.S. in which altar girls are not allowed by the bishop.[/quote:kmlg8186]
[quote:kmlg8186]I speak, of course, as an outsider to the RC usages, but it seems to me there is a slippery slope involved. If females are vested (as appropriate to the function), performing minor liturgical functions, process and recess with the clergy, carrying crucifixes, thuribles, etc, are around the altar and assist in the Mass (I assume the altar girls are like our acolytes in this), to say nothing of females in the EM role (or, for that matter, anyone not in Holy Orders touching the consecrated elements at all), then a natural expectation arises. What stops them from being ordained and doing the rest of the service. You and I know what, but it is harder to make the arguement, in today’s world, then when no one was beyond the rail who was not male. [/quote:kmlg8186]
[quote:kmlg8186]Yes, this is another area that frequently leads to abuse. The Holy See has frowned upon the widespread use of lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. But once the crack in the door was opened, it is hard to reign it back in. Communion in the hand also originated by this same process. While it is now licit, one wonders about the fruits of this practice. It is actually an exceptional provision, but in many places receiving on the tongue is not taught to first communicants as even an option.[/quote:kmlg8186]