A
agnes_therese
Guest
What does that have to do with reading prayers?
- Status
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
No, sorry, not kidding.
You are right about it being a place for Jesus. That could never be more true, but see the priest acts as persona Christi, in the person of Christ. As Jesus, who is male represents the Bridegroom at the Mass and the people in the nave represent the Bride, Jesus’ attendants, those assisting the Bridegroom to prepare should be male, also. The priest is more special, in that he is called to fill that persona Christi and he is the only one who can, through the working of the Holy Spirit, change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. That is the role of the priest in our salvation. I know people don’t like hearing that there are different roles for different people but that is just truth.
As far as venerating Mary, you bet we do and she is the best human that ever lived outside of Jesus. I couldn’t agree with you more regarding that. Her “yes” to God, her caring for Jesus, her standing by him, her being there at Pentecost, her intercessory prayers, her appearances and more all have a special role to play in our salvation that no one else has. I agree but that was not the question.
No one is saying women are less worthy, it is about roles and who did Jesus call. Mary was not an apostle. He called twelve male apostles and priests and bishops are those following in their footsteps. It is about role not about worth.
I didn’t realize this for a long time either but once you come to understand the full meaning behind the mass and what and why it is set up the way it is, it is soooooo beautiful.
Here is a little link that explains it better than I. It is talking about the TLM but once you understand and know what the different roles people have represented at mass throughout history and the beauty in the way God has planned our salvation through Jesus at the mass, as we go to that one sacrifice, you can appreciate both forms of the mass so much better but it does make it harder to see when people step into places that are not meant for them. Not about value, about calling.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/i-now-present-first-paper-on-service-of.html
I like this link also. There are actually more videos to it. This is just part 4 but the priest explains how basillicas had been built in times past and what each section of the church represents. Very interesting. He, too, is speaking of the TLM but it applies to both.
youtube.com/watch?v=8X8VBdVQwZY
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that women on the altar in a parish is simply an expansion of something that is very old in the Latin Church.
When Benedict and Scholastic first organized monastic life in the Western Church, the abbess actually sat on the side of the sanctuary as would a cleric. She wore a pectoral cross and held a crosier. St. Bridgette also had this practice after she founded her male community. She would often preach to them.
In women’s cloisters, males were not allowed in the choir. Therefore, the abbess or the vicar led the Liturgy of the Hours, which is liturgy, make no mistake about it. This was later expanded from nuns to sisters as well.
Franciscans started the custom of the nuns distributing communion to the sick nuns in the enclosure. The friars were not allowed to enter the enclosure and St. Francis taught that no woman should ever be subordinate to a man. His was the first order where the women were autonomous from the men. Therefore, they were included in certain parts of the liturgical celebrations in their houses and are still to this day, unless there are laity available.
Over the centuries, this was expanded to women missionaries in places where there was a shortage of priests, especially after the permanent diaconate was suppressed in the Latin Church. Women missionaries held prayer services, where they proclaimed the Word and distributed Holy Communion.
As time passes, the expansion went further until it has reached the local parishes. Some people find this bothersome, because this was never seen in parishes. It had been done behind closed doors of monasteries and convents or in far distant lands, but the laity was never privy to it.
I do agree that there is often a surplus of people on the sanctuary. This should be avoided, because it’s unnecessary and distracting. It has nothing to do with gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
When Benedict and Scholastic first organized monastic life in the Western Church, the abbess actually sat on the side of the sanctuary as would a cleric. She wore a pectoral cross and held a crosier. St. Bridgette also had this practice after she founded her male community. She would often preach to them.
In women’s cloisters, males were not allowed in the choir. Therefore, the abbess or the vicar led the Liturgy of the Hours, which is liturgy, make no mistake about it. This was later expanded from nuns to sisters as well.
Franciscans started the custom of the nuns distributing communion to the sick nuns in the enclosure. The friars were not allowed to enter the enclosure and St. Francis taught that no woman should ever be subordinate to a man. His was the first order where the women were autonomous from the men. Therefore, they were included in certain parts of the liturgical celebrations in their houses and are still to this day, unless there are laity available.
Over the centuries, this was expanded to women missionaries in places where there was a shortage of priests, especially after the permanent diaconate was suppressed in the Latin Church. Women missionaries held prayer services, where they proclaimed the Word and distributed Holy Communion.
As time passes, the expansion went further until it has reached the local parishes. Some people find this bothersome, because this was never seen in parishes. It had been done behind closed doors of monasteries and convents or in far distant lands, but the laity was never privy to it.
I do agree that there is often a surplus of people on the sanctuary. This should be avoided, because it’s unnecessary and distracting. It has nothing to do with gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Steady_Eddy
Guest
Hi Kathryn Ann
I met a woman recently (a woman I liked straight away) but she asked me “What do you think of women becoming priests?” I replied the pope is against it, to which she added “The pope is only one man” Now I don’t think Our Lady would have ever said that. Anyway, I finished by saying he’s not just one man, he’s the pope, the head of the Church.
2 Cor 13:13
Eddy Barry
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
It is not unCatholic thinking. There are many people that do not like women at the altar. The other day, I was somewhere I don’t frequent mass too often, during the week. Women helped with distributing the Blood of Christ. When they were finished and took the chalices up to the altar instead of walking away, they began to talk and look at each like what do we do next, so they starting folding the cloths on the altar. The priest had his back to them and didn’t realize what was going on. It only lasted about a minute or so but this was not their role. It was his. He nodded kindly and then they left and went back and sat down. Not their place.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
I do agree that there are areas women can and should be involved in taking Jesus to the world. Prayer services, preaching on the Word, teaching, distributing Holy Communion to the sick and homebound, visiting the sick and homebound, helping men and women in need, raising a family, teaching their children the catechism and teachings of Holy Mother Church, altar and rosary societies, finding ways to help the poor, there is just so much more.I believe that women on the altar in a parish is simply an expansion of something that is very old in the Latin Church.
When Benedict and Scholastic first organized monastic life in the Western Church, the abbess actually sat on the side of the sanctuary as would a cleric. She wore a pectoral cross and held a crosier. St. Bridgette also had this practice after she founded her male community. She would often preach to them.
In women’s cloisters, males were not allowed in the choir. Therefore, the abbess or the vicar led the Liturgy of the Hours, which is liturgy, make no mistake about it. This was later expanded from nuns to sisters as well.
Franciscans started the custom of the nuns distributing communion to the sick nuns in the enclosure. The friars were not allowed to enter the enclosure and St. Francis taught that no woman should ever be subordinate to a man. His was the first order where the women were autonomous from the men. Therefore, they were included in certain parts of the liturgical celebrations in their houses and are still to this day, unless there are laity available.
Over the centuries, this was expanded to women missionaries in places where there was a shortage of priests, especially after the permanent diaconate was suppressed in the Latin Church. Women missionaries held prayer services, where they proclaimed the Word and distributed Holy Communion.
As time passes, the expansion went further until it has reached the local parishes. Some people find this bothersome, because this was never seen in parishes. It had been done behind closed doors of monasteries and convents or in far distant lands, but the laity was never privy to it.
I do agree that there is often a surplus of people on the sanctuary. This should be avoided, because it’s unnecessary and distracting. It has nothing to do with gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
GraceDK
Guest
I totally hear you…
Good news is that the Church agrees with you… It doesn’t matter what a few petty people here think in theoir subjective feelings…
Besides… listen to the brother. He agrees … Only some people make their own ideas and think their emotions more important than what the chuch has wisely decided in this matter…
And dont you believe them if they say they are many. Indeed they are very few among all serious who dont understand that Jesus is mainly the Alter and the Sacrifice, and the Church would not do anything inappropriate.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Brother, I have mentioned this before and people essentially say; “that’s fine for religious, but their traditions are different than on a diocesan level. Why do people insist on bringing those things into the Mass?”I believe that women on the altar in a parish is simply an expansion of something that is very old in the Latin Church.
When Benedict and Scholastic first organized monastic life in the Western Church, the abbess actually sat on the side of the sanctuary as would a cleric. She wore a pectoral cross and held a crosier. St. Bridgette also had this practice after she founded her male community. She would often preach to them.
In women’s cloisters, males were not allowed in the choir. Therefore, the abbess or the vicar led the Liturgy of the Hours, which is liturgy, make no mistake about it. This was later expanded from nuns to sisters as well.
Franciscans started the custom of the nuns distributing communion to the sick nuns in the enclosure. The friars were not allowed to enter the enclosure and St. Francis taught that no woman should ever be subordinate to a man. His was the first order where the women were autonomous from the men. Therefore, they were included in certain parts of the liturgical celebrations in their houses and are still to this day, unless there are laity available.
Over the centuries, this was expanded to women missionaries in places where there was a shortage of priests, especially after the permanent diaconate was suppressed in the Latin Church. Women missionaries held prayer services, where they proclaimed the Word and distributed Holy Communion.
As time passes, the expansion went further until it has reached the local parishes. Some people find this bothersome, because this was never seen in parishes. It had been done behind closed doors of monasteries and convents or in far distant lands, but the laity was never privy to it.
I do agree that there is often a surplus of people on the sanctuary. This should be avoided, because it’s unnecessary and distracting. It has nothing to do with gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
They basically consider elements of the religious to be an outside source.
How would you respond to that?
Z
zertech
Guest
Wow
I hate to say it but what we have here is essentially sexism. Yes what the women were doing was wrong, but doing irreverent things on an alter is not something only women can do and good catholic women will NOT do it.
My mom and my sister are moth Eucharistic ministers and they are extremely reverent about i. My sister was freaking out the night before because she was so worried she would do something like drop the chalice or something. She did not and she has done an excellent job. Both my mom and my sister spend alot of time making sure they are dressed well for the job and they clean the chalices after mass in the sacristy.
also on the whole persona cristi thing the guy above was talking about. That doesnt seem completely correct to me. The Pope is the guy who acts in place of christ, a priest is more like a pipe through which Jesus’s grace flows.
You people say that women simply have different roles, what id ask of you is, what do you base that off of, and what do those other roles conflict with reading scripture during mass and being Eucharistic ministers.
Secondly, I would argue that this is coming pretty close to heresy! People who are saying women shouldn’t be on the alter are going directly against what the pope has implemented as church policy, and as i hope you all know, if the pope approves of it that is Jesus approving on it in about as literal a way as you can get.
Also the guy above me said that Mary was not an apostle. Although she was not one of the 12 it does not mean she wasn’t an apostle, For example read the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One of the lines it “pray for me Queen of Apostles”
E
Exsilivm
Guest
The obvious distinction is that women religious were permitted to take these roles. Women religious were well spiritually formed. Lay men and women today are not. The stats on the number of average children they have proves this, among other proofs that could be offered. The fact is, it is not within tradition for lay men and women to lead prayers or read scripture or stand at the pulpit during the liturgy.
E
Exsilivm
Guest
Are you saying it would not, or cannot do anything inappropriate? Ever?
F
floresco
Guest
I do not like any laity, of either sex, at the altar, with the exception of altar servers. These should be male, by analogy with the old minor order of acolyte. I suppose I would prefer to have the minor orders restored.
S
studentvisa
Guest
I would love an answer to this as well. I, for one, am SICK of religious being brought into the secular.
Try forcing some secular on the religious in their yard. Good luck.
What a double standard.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
I agree with you floresco I don’t like laity of any sex at the altar either and would love to see the acolyte restored.
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re both in the same area. My response is to take a close look into the writings of St. Bonaventure, Bl. John Newman and Pope Benedict XVI on the subject of Theology of History.
What we find is that good things expand at different times in history, either because of necessity or because the Church wishes them to expand. We will know if the expansion is prompted by the Holy Spirit in one of two ways, says St. Bonaventure. The first is more obvious he says. Whatever the Church allows, is allowed by the Holy Spirit. The second is less obvious, the fruits produced over time. One has to allow time to pass. Bonaventure, in his Theology of History points out that time is not just a few years. He talks about centuries. You cannot test the fruit of something in less than 300 years, he says. That’s why he says that the approval of the Church is the best and surest way, because it does not require such a long wait.
As to poor cetechesis, that should never be an excuse not to expand something that is good. In that case, the problem is not the practice, but that lack of proper education. You don’t throw out the practice, you correct the problem. Provide the education.
Finally, that which is part of religious life should never be considered foreign to the rest of the Church. Religious life exists for several reasons.
The most important is the salvation of the religious themselves.
The second reason is that it is essential to the life of the Church. The Church is incomplete without religious sisters, nuns and religious brothers. This has been taught by the Church for centuries. It is a complete vocation in itself and serves as the spiritual backbone of the Church. Through the religious the Church remains in constant prayer, penance and good works.
The third is that the laity is to look to the religious life to learn about the perfection of charity. It must never consider the religious man or woman as separated from the world. That was never the intent. The religious leaves what is worldly, meaning that which leads away from Christ, but he or she remains very much a part of the Church in the world. The religious house is a school for all Catholics, even when there are some religious who are problem children. We can even learn from them.
Having said all that, there is one thing that is very important here. When you bring something from the cloister into the parish, you need to teach it well. This is not always the case. I have seen it with the Liturgy of the Hours. I have seen parishes start it one or two evenings a week, but never instructed the laity. Most laymen do not know that the Divine Office is as much liturgy as the is the mass.
Most laymen know little or nothing about the LOTH, just look at how many silly questions people ask about the breviary on CAF. Everyone wants the “traditional” breviary. In 1962, there were 27 versions of the breviary. Which one is traditional?
The most common one was the Roman Breviary, simply because it was used by diocesan priests, who outnumber brothers and regular priests.But when you bring these things into a parish and you don’t teach it, you don’t get the desired results. The same has happened with women reading at mass or serving as EMHC or women administering parishes. People do not know that this has been done for centuries and have not been taught how to do it well.
I live in a diocese where the chancellor is a woman. She’s a religious. She knows how to run a diocese and does very well. There is not a single priest or brother in the diocese who can do the job as well as she does. If it were assigned to a laywoman, I’m not so sure that it would be the same. Laywomen are not less intelligent than women religious. It’s just the fact that laywomen do not have the exposure to certain things that women religious have. You can’t just throw a laywoman into a role without the proper formation. I will agree with that.
If the problem is formation, let’s fix the problem, not tell the ladies to shut up and sit down.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
H
hudson
Guest
The fruit I have tasted in my lifetime of 30 years has been bitter. Finding a good holy Church with a holy Priest that offers the EF has helped it taste a lot better though.
G
GraceDK
Guest
You’re both in the same area. My response is to take a close look into the writings of St. Bonaventure, Bl. John Newman and Pope Benedict XVI on the subject of Theology of History.
What we find is that good things expand at different times in history, either because of necessity or because the Church wishes them to expand. We will know if the expansion is prompted by the Holy Spirit in one of two ways, says St. Bonaventure. The first is more obvious he says. Whatever the Church allows, is allowed by the Holy Spirit. The second is less obvious, the fruits produced over time. One has to allow time to pass. Bonaventure, in his Theology of History points out that time is not just a few years. He talks about centuries. You cannot test the fruit of something in less than 300 years, he says. That’s why he says that the approval of the Church is the best and surest way, because it does not require such a long wait.
As to poor cetechesis, that should never be an excuse not to expand something that is good. In that case, the problem is not the practice, but that lack of proper education. You don’t throw out the practice, you correct the problem. Provide the education.
Finally, that which is part of religious life should never be considered foreign to the rest of the Church. Religious life exists for several reasons.
The most important is the salvation of the religious themselves.
The second reason is that it is essential to the life of the Church. The Church is incomplete without religious sisters, nuns and religious brothers. This has been taught by the Church for centuries. It is a complete vocation in itself and serves as the spiritual backbone of the Church. Through the religious the Church remains in constant prayer, penance and good works.
The third is that the laity is to look to the religious life to learn about the perfection of charity. It must never consider the religious man or woman as separated from the world. That was never the intent. The religious leaves what is worldly, meaning that which leads away from Christ, but he or she remains very much a part of the Church in the world. The religious house is a school for all Catholics, even when there are some religious who are problem children. We can even learn from them.
Having said all that, there is one thing that is very important here. When you bring something from the cloister into the parish, you need to teach it well. This is not always the case. I have seen it with the Liturgy of the Hours. I have seen parishes start it one or two evenings a week, but never instructed the laity. Most laymen do not know that the Divine Office is as much liturgy as the is the mass.
Most laymen know little or nothing about the LOTH, just look at how many silly questions people ask about the breviary on CAF. Everyone wants the “traditional” breviary. In 1962, there were 27 versions of the breviary. Which one is traditional?
But when you bring these things into a parish and you don’t teach it, you don’t get the desired results. The same has happened with women reading at mass or serving as EMHC or women administering parishes. People do not know that this has been done for centuries and have not been taught how to do it well.
I live in a diocese where the chancellor is a woman. She’s a religious. She knows how to run a diocese and does very well. There is not a single priest or brother in the diocese who can do the job as well as she does. If it were assigned to a laywoman, I’m not so sure that it would be the same. Laywomen are not less intelligent than women religious. It’s just the fact that laywomen do not have the exposure to certain things that women religious have. You can’t just throw a laywoman into a role without the proper formation. I will agree with that.
If the problem is formation, let’s fix the problem, not tell the ladies to shut up and sit down.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Enough said… people who don’t wanna give up their emotion and listen to the church… well, they have to get used to the way things are…
S
studentvisa
Guest
Actually, nothing he said gives me that impression.
Enough said… people who don’t wanna give up their emotion and listen to the church… well, they have to get used to the way things are…
What I read is the issue isn’t women, it’s laywomen without proper understanding and training.
I also read a bunch of religious stuff that has nothing to do with what occurs daily in parishes around the US.
Br. JR, are you in the US? Care to comment on the liberalization of the American arm of the RCC? Any comment on men and boys being pushed from positions and the priests just let it happen?
Spring time? Hazy shade of winter more like it.
G
GraceDK
Guest
I cannot believe you just wrote that!
What about all the priests who don’t live in chastity? or what about the nuns and priests I have met who tried to talk me into becoming a priestess?
Actually today not only religious are PERMITTED to read, but also lay men and women… and some do a better job than even the priest could.
Thank God, your sentiments do not guide the Church.
I’d like you to read the letters of Paul to the congregation in Corinth and then come back and tell me that lay people should have no role in the life of the gathered assembly…
S
studentvisa
Guest
He/she said nothing about the laity being barred from doing anything. He/she just said that laity is doing more than it was ever intended to do.I cannot believe you just wrote that!
What about all the priests who don’t live in chastity? or what about the nuns and priests I have met who tried to talk me into becoming a priestess?
Actually today not only religious are PERMITTED to read, but also lay men and women… and some do a better job than even the priest could.
Thank God, your sentiments do not guide the Church.
I’d like you to read the letters of Paul to the congregation in Corinth and then come back and tell me that lay people should have no role in the life of the gathered assembly…
If you want to be a religious, nothing is stopping you.
The priest is there for a reason, let him do his job; force him to do his job.
- Status