Radical Reinvention

  • Thread starter Thread starter datritle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

datritle

Guest
I recently started following Kaya Oakes on twitter, and she sent me one of her books (she’s a writer…) I chose Radical Reinvention. I’ll won’t get into the story, but she is frequently talking about how the early church had female deacons, and how her church in California has “reflections” given by women instead of a homily delivered by a priest. She also seems to be advocating women in the priesthood…

has anyone read this book? any thoughts? on the book or on these topics…
 
datritle said:
I recently started following Kaya Oakes on twitter, and she sent me one of her books (she’s a writer…) I chose Radical Reinvention. I’ll won’t get into the story, but she is frequently talking about how the early church had female deacons, and how her church in California has “reflections” given by women instead of a homily delivered by a priest. She also seems to be advocating women in the priesthood…

has anyone read this book? any thoughts? on the book or on these topics…
Click to expand...
The early church did not have deacons there was att one point deaconess, this was not a ordained person such as a deacon would be or Preist. This was a lay ministary muchn in the mode of what today would be a nun and was to directed towards ministary to women.
 
I realize this is an old post, but I just read Ms. Oakes’ book and found it…

Well I’m inspired to write a review–as a demonic reviewer per CS Lewis’s Screwtape Letters

It’s still in progress, but here is my opening paragraph:

“This reviewer initially wanted to dismiss Oakes’ confessional screed as a too-little, too-late paean for feminist ultra-liberal reconstruction of Catholicism. There is very little in this book that has not been done before and done better. Again and again the author rejects the Magesterium in matters of faith and morals supposedly in favor of private judgment and superior interpretation, but in actuality, she swallows uncritically all the defining doctrines of feminist and gender “studies”. Essentially she trades the authority of the Church the Enemy founded in favor of the authority of a few contemporary and increasingly passé academics and heretics. From our viewpoint, this is essentially useless–unless it can lead other mortals into conscious error and separation from the Enemy.”
 
Here’s a little bit more–comments appreciated:rolleyes:

“Mostly this book seems, to use a human phrase, “to be preaching to the choir” of the already radicalized. Devout and aware believers are likely to spot the densely-packed errors that proliferate on nearly every page. Ad ignorantums, ad hominems, straw-man attacks—almost any logical and rhetorical fallacy that has been defined, Oakes commits. Perhaps this is only to be expected from someone who was born (1971) when the purely mythological über-liberal “spirit of Vatican 2” was just hitting its stride, when Catholic education (mostly) abandoned anything like a defined catechism or logical reasoning in favor of the fickle god of “social relevance”. Those were glory days for our workers; when we winnowed out thousands of the most educated teaching brothers and sisters into the “self fulfillment” of the secular world and away from bright minds who might actually want to know the whys and hows of the faith. What Catholic religion teachers remained were often the “no-chance-outside” bullies and incompetents—or else steeped in the heady wine of psychological fads and religious relativism. Other tempters efforts were rewarded handsomely by the liturgical fidget of insipid and mawkish performances that when combined with the lack of real Catholic teaching, succeeded in driving millions out of the pews and away from those deadly-dangerous Sacraments.
Make no mistake; the lure of the Enemy instituted Sacraments will call to any human who has not murdered by cynicism and sarcasm the sense of the numinous. Oakes explicitly admits to being drawn back into formal communion with the Church by this very thing. Fortunately, Oakes does not dwell upon this; for if she had spent as much thought about the reality of the Sacraments as she did in attacking the Magesterium’s rejection of priestesses she might have realized she could not coherently accept the supporting authority in one case while denying it in another. As it is, she blames much of her return to the Church on contemporary pseudo-science (e.g. “belief genes”). The rest of the book follows this justification, for just as Oakes accepts the Sacraments non-rationally she likewise rejects the clear, ancient, and very consistent teachings of the Church.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top