women's authority in the church

[Lily0fthevalley]

I think that men should be the lead of the church since women are in charge of everything else anyway

 

[OraLabora]

Nope, women aren’t to blame for all that.

Here’s the nub of it:

**All the changes since the 1940’s, examined in isolation, seem reasonable. You can find a precedent, however tenuous, for them.

But all together,** and over time, ah, then a very different picture emerges.

It’s like the frog in the fying pan. The pan heats up slowly so he doesn’t know he’s being cooked.

Except that the use of the vernacular, and sentimental vernacular hymns, predate the 1940s, although for vernacular in the Mass, it was a limited exception. Unless you consider that the Eastern Churches are in fact celebrating in their vernacular, just as Latin was once the vernacular, the the “vernacular” was not so rare before Vatican II.

So I don’t think your theory holds much water. Other things you mention also have a lot to do with the situation of diocesan clergy (wanting a lighter Divine Office), the lack of vocations (more lay participation), etc.

You can also argue that the attachment to the EF Mass and other pre-Vatican II liturgies, is also related to a sort of nostalgic sentimentalism. I especially get a chuckle when folks speak to me of the “Traditional” 1960 breviary. That particular “tradition” only started in 1910.

I think that men should be the lead of the church since women are in charge of everything else anyway

Thanks for my laugh of the day

I’m reminded of when I became an oblate, I had this misguided notion that I would become our family’s abbot.

Mother Abbess soon set me straight on that issue

 

[PhilOSophia]

Except that the use of the vernacular, and sentimental vernacular hymns, predate the 1940s, although for vernacular in the Mass, it was a limited exception. Unless you consider that the Eastern Churches are in fact celebrating in their vernacular, just as Latin was once the vernacular, the the “vernacular” was not so rare before Vatican II.

That’s it! Creeping secularisation. Bit by bit. Sure, there was a precedent, somewhere, for all of these things, individually. A decade is a long time in the life of a man, but in the life of the church … massive change will seem perfectly normal if it spans decades.

Was there ever, in the history of the church, such a revolution, in our worship and subsequently, our belief? (Please don’t mention Pentecost! C’mon!)

Many Catholics genuinely believe that since the 60’s, our religion has fundamentally changed. It’s like we’ve all retired and are putting our feet up: relax, Jesus loves you! But the devil is still working 24 hours a days for the ruin of souls.

The Roman Catholic Church used to have a sacred language, a language different to the secular, used in it’s rites. Now it doesn’t. It uses the common language, which can have vulgar connotations. What a waste! All those wonderful hymns!
youtube.com/watch?v=c8ZbIwHeX3g

An odd change to make, if you want to convey a sense of the sacred.

 

[TrueLight]

All those wonderful hymns!
youtube.com/watch?v=c8ZbIwHeX3g

An odd change to make, if you want to convey a sense of the sacred.

What a sea of white mantillas!

And is that a woman’s voice I hear in the schola? I figured it would be an all male schola or bust for you.

 

[PhilOSophia]

What a sea of white mantillas!

And is that a woman’s voice I hear in the schola? I figured it would be an all male schola or bust for you.

Probably a castrati Video was picked by typing “Gloria IX” into Youtube.

The reasoning behind all-male scholas I’ve been told is that they are a minor order of clergy and thus should be men.

I would characterise the changes of the last century as the exception being touted as the rule. Behind this, a burning desire, an eagerness, an excitement at making an accommodation with a world in ferment. This is doomed to fail, because the World, when not passively indifferent to the Catholic Church, is actively hostile, as I think even liberal bishops are realising now.

 

[JReducation]

It’s a simple observation that if you a imagine an pre-1940’s Sunday mass in a suburban or rural church and then fast-forward to 2012, the changes are wide and significant.

Let’s list some, shall we?

Vernacular
CITH
Sentimental, vernacular hymns,
Laity in the sanctuary,
Laity orating at funerals,
Pop bands,
A rewritten mass,
The dropping of Prime and the Prayer to St. Michael and the rewriting of the Rite of Exorcism.

And a weird emphasis on eco-social-justice-feminist concerns and a corresponding lack of basic teaching from the pulpit.

The feminisation of our religion is part of this. I think it goes back to a de-emphasis on Judgement and an overemphasis on Love.

If Jesus loves you, sins and all, then religious practice isn’t important and can be left to the women. It becomes … nicer. So relax.** Thus, the first generation contracepts, the second divorces and the third becomes pagan.**

What’s particularly galling about this is that it seemed new and original to Catholics but the same Pentecostal feel-good religion has been pushed by Protestants for much longer. And look how they are imploding.

That’s it! Creeping secularisation. Bit by bit. Sure, there was a precedent, somewhere, for all of these things, individually. A decade is a long time in the life of a man, but in the life of the church … massive change will seem perfectly normal if it spans decades.

Was there ever, in the history of the church, such a revolution, in our worship and subsequently, our belief? (Please don’t mention Pentecost! C’mon!)

Many Catholics genuinely believe that since the 60’s, our religion has fundamentally changed. It’s like we’ve all retired and are putting our feet up: relax, Jesus loves you! But the devil is still working 24 hours a days for the ruin of souls.

The Roman Catholic Church used to have a sacred language, a language different to the secular, used in it’s rites. Now it doesn’t. It uses the common language, which can have vulgar connotations. What a waste! All those wonderful hymns!

An odd change to make, if you want to convey a sense of the sacred.

Don’t you see that none of this has to do with women in positions of authority. The thread is about women in positions of authority.

You have not proven that women in positions of authority have caused any of this. Much of what you’re condemning is quite legal, so you have to take those things out of the equation. When you’re left with what are real abuses, not preferences, none of them can be proven to be the effect of women in authority.

You’re making a correlation that does not exist. Women have been hired for positions of authority, because they compete for them and have proven that they can do the job as well as any man. Prior to 1965, we did not allow women to study advanced theology, scripture, canon law, ministry, divinity, or to get ecclesiastical degrees. If a Catholic woman wanted an advanced degree in theology or ministry, she had to attend a Protestant school of divinity. There were not many that accepted women.

Schools of divinity and schools of theology operated much like schools of medicine. They were boys clubs.

Do you want to go back to these days when women’s right to advanced education was limited? Do you want to go back to the days when only priests could be assigned to hold positions of authority, even if they were not educated for those positions or they did not want them? It was not only women who were banned from positions of authority, but any male who was not a priest, even if he was a religious. Women fell into that group by default, since they could not be priest.

What was an even greater silliness was the male religious were allowed to get higher education in ecclesiastical fields. But if they were religious brothers and not ordained priests, they could not practice their field of study. There were Brother Theologians teaching high school religion class, when they should have been teaching at a seminary or university.

There were sisters that could not teach beyond the Baltimore Catechism, because they were not allowed to read theology. They had the catechism memorized, but they could not tell you where those answers originated or spell out for you the historical development of those doctrines. In other words, they could not tell Aquinas apart of Augustine, because they never studied them. They got into trouble after Vatican II, because they had never studied canon law. They began to make changes in their communities that were contrary to canon law and were contrary to the history of religious life, but they were not educated in either, yet were told to renew their congregations by returning to the roots of religious life. They never studied the roots of religious life. Perfectae Caritatis came out in the early 60s and the schools of theology were not open to women until the 70s and some later.

I don’t believe that the Church wants to go back to that era when women were not allowed to know much more than the catechism. The Church wants to make open the possibility for those women who want to go beyond the basics.

She wants to hire these women, be they religious sisters or lay women. If they can do the job, let them have it

Remember, you have to separate liturgy from governance. We’re talking about positions of authority here, not about liturgy. Even in liturgy, we have to distinguish between our preferences and what the Church lawfully allows. The Church has always lawfully allowed many things that made some happy and other people not so happy. You can’t please everyone.

If you don’t make the distinction between governance and liturgy, between what is allowed and what is contrary to law, then you fall into the area of chauvinism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sarabande]

Probably a castrati Video was picked by typing “Gloria IX” into Youtube.

The reasoning behind all-male scholas I’ve been told is that they are a minor order of clergy and thus should be men.

I would characterise the changes of the last century as the exception being touted as the rule. Behind this, a burning desire, an eagerness, an excitement at making an accommodation with a world in ferment. This is doomed to fail, because the World, when not passively indifferent to the Catholic Church, is actively hostile, as I think even liberal bishops are realising now.

I am fairly certain the treble voices you hear are not castrati as I would think that most parents would not think of castrating their sons prior to puberty today. The only option would be countertenors, but they also do not sound like countertenors. Nor do they sound like boy singers nor women’s voices who are adapt to sing with little vibrato as the treble voices in the video have more vibrato than what you would hear in a countertenor’s voice. So, in my opinion, as a trained, professional classical singer, the treble singers sound like female voices. I could be wrong, but it’s rare you hear a countertenor sound like that. You can usually tell when it’s a male singing. They have a certain quality in their voices that distinguishes their sound from a female sound. Although you can find all-male scholas, I have found from the EF masses I’ve attended with choirs, they usually contain female voices in the soprano and alto ranges or female sopranos and countertenors for altos.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

LAST WARNING

Last warning. Suspensions and bans have begun for ANY comment that is offensive to women. I gave a warning before. Continuing to make such comments is

a. offensive to women

b. failure to comply with moderator directions.

 

[TrueLight]

I am fairly certain the treble voices you hear are not castrati as I would think that most parents would not think of castrating their sons prior to puberty today. The only option would be countertenors, but they also do not sound like countertenors. Nor do they sound like boy singers nor women’s voices who are adapt to sing with little vibrato as the treble voices in the video have more vibrato than what you would hear in a countertenor’s voice.

Agreed.

 

[JReducation]

I am fairly certain the treble voices you hear are not castrati as I would think that most parents would not think of castrating their sons prior to puberty today. The only option would be countertenors, but they also do not sound like countertenors. Nor do they sound like boy singers nor women’s voices who are adapt to sing with little vibrato as the treble voices in the video have more vibrato than what you would hear in a countertenor’s voice. So, in my opinion, as a trained, professional classical singer, the treble singers sound like female voices. I could be wrong, but it’s rare you hear a countertenor sound like that. You can usually tell when it’s a male singing. They have a certain quality in their voices that distinguishes their sound from a female sound. Although you can find all-male scholas, I have found from the EF masses I’ve attended with choirs, they usually contain female voices in the soprano and alto ranges or female sopranos and countertenors for altos.

Not every schola is male. This was the common practice in monasteries and among diocesan clergy. It was never a universal law for the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Sarabande]

Not every schola is male. This was the common practice in monasteries and among diocesan clergy. It was never a universal law for the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

Oh, yes, I agree, as I’ve been part of many scholas. I would have taken part in one this year, but I’m due any time and didn’t want to leave the altos in a lurch should I go into labor.

Blessed Easter everyone!

 

[OraLabora]

Not every schola is male. This was the common practice in monasteries and among diocesan clergy. It was never a universal law for the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

It would certainly come as a surprise to Benedictine nuns to learn they aren’t supposed to have a schola!

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Not every schola is male. This was the common practice in monasteries and among diocesan clergy. It was never a universal law for the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

I’ve worked with an all male schola, and I’ve worked with a mix, too. In my own professional opinion as a musician, I prefer all male just because they voices blend that much better for chant. Now, if you’re doing something other than chant it’s easier to work in a mix of voices, but it doesn’t sound great to have that mix singing a one-tone chant. So while it may have been just the common practice, it made sense musically speaking.

(And so I don’t offend women, I’ve heard a group of women only chanting before and they’re weren’t bad. I still prefer the lower pitch though! )

 

[TrueLight]

I’ve worked with an all male schola, and I’ve worked with a mix, too. In my own professional opinion as a musician, I prefer all male just because they voices blend that much better for chant. Now, if you’re doing something other than chant it’s easier to work in a mix of voices, but it doesn’t sound great to have that mix singing a one-tone chant. So while it may have been just the common practice, it made sense musically speaking.

(And so I don’t offend women, I’ve heard a group of women only chanting before and they’re weren’t bad. I still prefer the lower pitch though! )

Oh boo!

Actually I like male voices for chant too, but love women in polyphonic music.

In any case, they sound great!

Except for the non-flipping of the “r”.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Oh boo!

Actually I like male voices for chant too, but love women in polyphonic music.

In any case, they sound great!

Except for the non-flipping of the “r”.

I do as well. But that’s very different from chant and very often requires voices that are varied in pitch. Of course, I’ve heard all men choirs do SATB extremely well. I was quite surprised one time when I heard that the person doing the soprano (and he did an EXCELLENT job) was actually the usual bass singer in that particular choir.

I recommend listening to Chanticleer to hear some nice SATB by an all male. I think I’d break something trying to get my voice so high.

 

[Blue_Jr]

Thanks for all the replies, seems there are mixed views on the subject, I don’t have time tonight to read them all (7 pages!!). I wanted to see what people had to say on the issue. I have reached a point in my life where I have this renewed enthusiasm in Christ, and am looking for answers to why we do things in our faith, instead of just being on automatic.

I still believe our altar servers should all be boys, we need priests and this is where they start. I used to look up to our priest and feel inspired when I served, wanting to be in that position myself. The parish I attend now has 10 to 12 boys who serve, no girls, and they all share roles. When a boy reaches 7 or so father asks him to join, and they do. Two of the boys give out communion and I hope they take things further. There are no young lads in the congregation.

As for women giving out communion, I still struggle with the idea. Jesus sent out his disciples who were all men, there has never been a woman do this role for nearly 2000 years. Times changing doesn’t sit with me as an excuse and it just feels weird. At Fatima the angel was a man. When I go to communion it’s a man presiding as Jesus stood in front of me who I say amen to, that’s weird if it’s a woman, because she can’t preside as a man…

 

[severus68]

Thanks for all the replies, seems there are mixed views on the subject, I don’t have time tonight to read them all (7 pages!!). I wanted to see what people had to say on the issue. I have reached a point in my life where I have this renewed enthusiasm in Christ, and am looking for answers to why we do things in our faith, instead of just being on automatic.

I still believe our altar servers should all be boys, we need priests and this is where they start. I used to look up to our priest and feel inspired when I served, wanting to be in that position myself. The parish I attend now has 10 to 12 boys who serve, no girls, and they all share roles. When a boy reaches 7 or so father asks him to join, and they do. Two of the boys give out communion and I hope they take things further. There are no young lads in the congregation.

As for women giving out communion, I still struggle with the idea. Jesus sent out his disciples who were all men, there has never been a woman do this role for nearly 2000 years. Times changing doesn’t sit with me as an excuse and it just feels weird. At Fatima the angel was a man. When I go to communion it’s a man presiding as Jesus stood in front of me who I say amen to, that’s weird if it’s a woman, because she can’t preside as a man…

You did not become a priest, did you?
Angels are spirits, they have no gender like God.
An excuse? The fact is that in the past women were treated as lesser beings, it does not mean that we should continue to treat women in that manner.
Perhaps you could read JPII in his Letter to Women and in Mulieris Dignitatem?

 

[Blue_Jr]

I thought god was a man hence father? The children referenced the angel as a man, what about the angel Gabriel? No gender?

 

[JReducation]

Oh, yes, I agree, as I’ve been part of many scholas. I would have taken part in one this year, but I’m due any time and didn’t want to leave the altos in a lurch should I go into labor.

Blessed Easter everyone!

Yeah, you don’t want to go into labor in the middle of the Gloria or something long like that.

It would certainly come as a surprise to Benedictine nuns to learn they aren’t supposed to have a schola!

I don’t know if Benedictine nuns have scholas. I believe they all sing, maybe I’m wrong. I’ve never been to a female Benedictine abbey.

I know that Poor Clares and Carmelites don’t have scholas. Clare and Teresa banned them.

I thought god was a man hence father? The children referenced the angel as a man, what about the angel Gabriel? No gender?

The God-head is neither male nor female as we understand gender. God is male in the sense that he has male attributes thus making him Father. But this does not deny his female attributes. We refer to the First Person of the Trinity as father, because the son revealed him to us as father. We refer to the Holy Spirit as male, again because Christ revealed to him to us as male.

To avoid confusion, I would probably use the term “masculine” instead of male. It actually fits Jewish theology better. They do have a difference between masculine and male. Male is used when speaking about biology. Masculine is used to speak about traits. Jesus would be male. The Father and the Spirit would be masculine. That would probably be a more consistent way of say it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t know if Benedictine nuns have scholas. I believe they all sing, maybe I’m wrong. I’ve never been to a female Benedictine abbey.

On this page you can see part of the schola at the local women’s Benedictine monastery (Solesmes congregation, same as the abbey I’m affiliated with). They’re just outside Montreal. The choir-mistress is on the right in the picture, I met her a few years ago, when our choir visited their abbey and sang for them.

FWIW, they pray the original Benedictine Liturgy of the Hours, with the Vatican II reforms (same psalmody as the Rule of St. Benedict but with modern collects, intercessions and liturgical year), in Latin Gregorian chant. They also do the OF Mass in Latin several days a week, and in French plainchant on the remaining days but with Latin/Greek propers and ordinary.

They only fairly recently, from what I heard, gave up the office of Prime.