Women & the Mass 2

[jmcrae]

All of these are traditionally male roles. Singing in the choir was forbidden to women until the 1950’s.

So was voting, having a bank account/credit rating, attending University for the purpose of getting a degree, and being paid for work done outside the home.

The recognition of women as human beings is a very recent development, and yet, it has been in the Bible from the very beginning. This new understanding of women is part of the development of doctrine.

 

[jmj603]

So was voting, having a bank account/credit rating, attending University for the purpose of getting a degree, and being paid for work done outside the home.

Totally off-topic. I won’t get this thread closed by breaking forum rules.

The recognition of women as human beings is a very recent developmentt, and yet, it has been in the Bible from the very beginning. This new understanding of women is part of the development of doctrine.

If you’re saying that the Church only recently discovered that Christ thought women were human beings, then you really don’t understand the history of the Church at all. And, I suspect, you don’t want to.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Who’s going ballistic here? Your ARCHBISHOP is not of the same mind as Rome on the matter, and therefore is not to be emulated. If you’d care to provide his name, and the place and date on which this occurred, I will write an e-mail informing him of gravity of the scandal he has obviously caused you.

I bet I know what “file” that letter would go in as soon as it’s received - but there’s always the Nuncio, right?

 

[jmcrae]

If you’re saying that the Church only recently discovered that Christ thought women were human beings, then you really don’t understand the history of the Church at all. And, I suspect, you don’t want to.

No, what I’m saying is that the implications of women being human beings didn’t become clear to the Church, and that it is only relatively recently that both the Church and society in general have come to realize that being human comes with certain rights and certain responsibilities, which belong just as much to women as to men.

 

[Lazarette]

603, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen anyone as obstructive to clarity as you have in this thread. In a single post #32, you say both that “lectors have always been considered clerics” and in the very next paragraph, “lectors are not considered clerics now.”

You object to the word reader (btw, that was taken directly from the earlier GIRM). You object to the word lector, “still insisting” that it means only an instituted lector. You objected to my first post addressing a repeatedly mentioned aspect of the discussion. You object to my not typing something full out. You object to Catholic90 using caps instead of italics.

Ever notice how frequently you make objections?

Then there is the negative attribution of others’ motivations. tor instance, implying Catholic90 went ballistic when it looked to me like he or she simply used caps instead of italics for emphasis. Or phrasing “you (still) insist” on shortening text as if it was some wrongdoing when in fact, I was short of time. Or you claim of “taking it personally.” Not true. You’ve done the same to others besides me on this thread. Besides, far from taking it personally, I’m beginning to take you less and less seriously with each post of yours that I read. That’s unfortunate because it does look like you’ve done some serious reading.

If you spent less time in shooting others down, you might find that we’re actually on the same side. For the most part that is. You have a different definition of “radical feminism” than I’ve heard.

 

[Lazarette]

Hope the original poster got his question answered that it’s okay for a woman to read the first reading at Mass.

 

[jmj603]

No, what I’m saying is that the implications of women being human beings didn’t become clear to the Church, and that it is only relatively recently that both the Church and society in general have come to realize that being human comes with certain rights and certain responsibilities, which belong just as much to women as to men.

I would go one step further and say that society even now does not understand the ramifications of the full humanity of woman. Radical feminism is not the promotion of feminine humanity, but the desire of its annhilation–its masculinization, becoming male.

Likewise, the Church has not yet responded effectively in its discipline to counteract this tendency among the faithful. Women and men wearing the same exact clothes, for example, does not express the full beauty of God’s plan for humanity.

 

[HotLeather]

“I have a Lutheran lady friend who gets asked to be reader at a Catholic Mass in a retreat center. She happens to have a masters in theology so I don’t debate theology with her. She is very forceful and dramatic and has taught me a few things as well. She certainly keeps them awake there.”

I do not wish to cause trouble, but I have a problem with a non-Catholic acting as Lector at a Mass. Am I wrong in this?

That woman disagrees with the Church in more than one way if she is a Lutheran. She rejects (for example) the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. She has no business reading during the Mass.

 

[jmj603]

Look, if you want to correct me, it’s charitable to do so in private. In the midst of an argument, it’s essentially a personal attack. I’m interested in clearing up confusion on this confusing issue and I’m afraid that your paraphrases are merely adding to it.

I’m sorry to have to split words. I’m not the one who came up with these formulas, they were devised by feckless prelates who have a hard time saying “no” to anyone. “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no”, Christ told His Apostles. There is a lack of this sort of clarity in the Church documents of today, but we can’t create clarity by taking shortcuts. It’s very important that we don’t distort, even out of haste, the meaning of things related to the Church.

In a single post #32, you say both that “lectors have always been considered clerics” and in the very next paragraph, “lectors are not considered clerics now.”

What’s unclear about this?

Lectors have always been considered clerics…[L]ectors are not considered clerics now in the Latin Church…However, lectors are still considered clerics in the Eastern Churches.

1. Lectors have always been considered clerics in the Catholic Church.
2. The Catholic Church is composed of the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches.
3. In the Eastern Church, lectors are still considered clerics to this day.
4. In the Latin Church, lectors were considered clerics until 1972 AD.

Lazarette:

You object to the word reader (btw, that was taken directly from the earlier GIRM).

Right, the term is “designation to serve in such ministries as reader”. It does not confer the title. It’s clear from the context that the designation is temporary. These are important points which if misunderstood lead to greater confusion.

Lazarette:

Hope the original poster got his question answered that it’s okay for a woman to read the first reading at Mass.

That’s certainly not the answer I gave.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s certainly not the answer I gave.

No, it’s the answer the Church gives.

You are not the Church - thank God!!

 

[jmcrae]

Women and men wearing the same exact clothes, for example, does not express the full beauty of God’s plan for humanity.

I wonder what you would have thought of the clothing in the time of Christ, when both He and His mother were wearing long robes with sandals?

 

[jmj603]

I wonder what you would have thought of the clothing in the time of Christ, when both He and His mother were wearing long robes with sandals?

1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

 

[jmcrae]

1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

True. Back in those days, pants were women’s clothing. But don’t worry - if you didn’t buy your pants in the women’s department, then you aren’t really wearing women’s clothing. Men’s pants are men’s clothing - so you’re safe.

Still, I do prefer men in kilts - it’s much more masculine looking.

 

[Lazarette]

As for correcting, since you were dishing it out left and right, I figured it went both ways.

Funny, you’re the only one who seems to thing that my “paraphrases” are adding to the confusion. OTOH, I still don’t know clearly what you think of women reading at Mass. I do know what the Church says, but not what you’re saying.

Your 1-4 list is a nice presentation about clerics, but it’s not clear how you’re trying to connect that to a woman reading at Mass today.

Do you think that the sheets with the assignments that are now called Lector Schedule should read “Schedule for those who have received the designation to serve in such ministries as reader?”

I can just imagine the reaction of the person doing the schedule if you tried to persuade them.

It’s not the answer I gave.

But’s it not clear what your answer is.

 

[jmj603]

No, it’s the answer the Church gives.

Wrong again. It’s only OK under canon law and liturgical law if there are no instituted lectors available. The lack of instituted lectors is itself a problem which is manifested by the regular appearance of women at the lectern. It’s not OK that there are no lectors available.

Then there is the question, whether the Church is rejecting or accepting the changes of 1972 and 1994. I think the signs are that the Church is rejecting these changes: Latin bishops are again ordaining men to minor orders, and the Holy See is tightening its regulations on the use of extraordinaries and temporaries.

Is it a sin to knowingly participate in iconoclasm, even if approved by ecclesiastical hierarchy? The Eastern Martyrology would seem to say yes.

 

[jmj603]

Back in those days, pants were women’s clothing.

Really? I thought you said they wore the same clothing. Which is true?

Still, I do prefer men in…

Lust is still a mortal sin, even for women.

In the Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II writes against the objectification of the other sex as a crime against human dignity and personhood.

 

[jmj603]

Do you think that the sheets with the assignments that are now called Lector Schedule should read “Schedule for those who have received the designation to serve in such ministries as reader?”

No, I think lectors should be instituted, and the lector schedule should contain instituted lectors.

I can just imagine the reaction of the person doing the schedule if you tried to persuade them.

That’s why we have to pray for pastors.

 

[Lazarette]

Hallelujah! 603 finally wrote some succinct and clearly stated posts!

*No, it’s the answer the Church gives.

Wrong again.*

This must be an example of charitable correction. (cough)

jmcrae isn’t wrong. The woman was reading because apparently there were no instituted lectors. The fact that you don’t like that there wasn’t an instituted lector available does not make jmcrae wrong.

My point is that it’s taken you five pages to say what you said in post #75.

The Church obviously has the role of instituted lector. However, I just took a quick look through The Spirit of the Liturgy and I don’t see that then Cardinal Ratzinger spends any time on instituted lectors. His reform of the reform clearly has higher priorities. That’s not to say that there are some minor orders, but the lack of mention in his book and that there are women lectors/readers at papal Masses indicate an acceptance of women that you don’t.

At best, you sound as if grace couldn’t flow through a woman reading at Mass. At worst, despite all your protestations about the dignity of women, you do sound as if the presence of a woman somehow contaminates the ambo.

Your comment about iconoclasm sounds like you think you’re more Catholic than the pope.

 

[jmcrae]

jmj603;

Your double-standards are really annoying.

It’s fine for men to prefer women in skirts (and even insist on it as the religious duty of women to be nothing more than eye-candy for men), but I’m committing the sin of lust if I prefer men in kilts?

Once again, what is virtuous for men (telling women how to dress) is sinful in the extreme, for women.

 

[jmj603]

Your comment about iconoclasm sounds like you think you’re more Catholic than the pope.

Your comments about me sound like you think you’re my spiritual director.

Knock off the harassment, please.