Words of communion service same as words at mass

[Filii_Dei]

How do you separate the generic “he” meaning anyone, from the specific “he” meaning a male. We have moved away from inclusive language so it is hard to tell. Or are we just to assume the primacy of men (specifically male men).

Unlikely the latter, as they would still need to account for female presiders in case there were no competent men. It’s far more likely that the masculine pronoun is assumed where no gender is specified.

As a side note, are there ‘female men’?

 

[Daralharb]

Unlikely the latter, as they would still need to account for female presiders in case there were no competent men. It’s far more likely that the masculine pronoun is assumed where no gender is specified.

**As a side note, are there ‘female men’? **

Absolutely. They say things like “President Obama, let us be Catholic” and “it’s totally OK that women are all around the altar when there are plenty of able-bodied men in the congregation”.

Little boys don’t want to be altar boys because there are altar girls. Cooties. Men do not want to be subject to some female in charge of liturgical anything unless she is a nun, and even that is not preferable.

It has nothing to do with ability. Any idiot can read. It has to do with the fact that men, by their nature, do not subject themselves to women. Any man who subjects himself to any woman other than the Blessed Virgin is no man at all.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Absolutely. They say things like “President Obama, let us be Catholic” and “it’s totally OK that women are all around the altar when there are plenty of able-bodied men in the congregation”.

Little boys don’t want to be altar boys because there are altar girls. Cooties. Men do not want to be subject to some female in charge of liturgical anything unless she is a nun, and even that is not preferable.

It has nothing to do with ability. Any idiot can read. It has to do with the fact that men, by their nature, do not subject themselves to women. Any man who subjects himself to any woman other than the Blessed Virgin is no man at all.

I feel bad for all you British men out there who are subjects of the Queen:

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Any man who subjects himself to any woman other than the Blessed Virgin is no man at all.

So much for marriage…

 

[Oneofthewomen]

So much for marriage…

You’ve got that right, Padre!!

 

[zenith15]

Absolutely. They say things like “President Obama, let us be Catholic” and “it’s totally OK that women are all around the altar when there are plenty of able-bodied men in the congregation”.

Little boys don’t want to be altar boys because there are altar girls. Cooties. Men do not want to be subject to some female in charge of liturgical anything unless she is a nun, and even that is not preferable.

It has nothing to do with ability. Any idiot can read. It has to do with the fact that men, by their nature, do not subject themselves to women. Any man who subjects himself to any woman other than the Blessed Virgin is no man at all.

Woah–are you SERIOUS? Where/how did you form that opinion?

 

[Daralharb]

I feel bad for all you British men out there who are subjects of the Queen:

Different role and paradigm. Supreme job at almost obfuscating the issue. Men once understood the nature of monarchy and from whence its power was derived. It would well serve the current crop of people in the West to reacquaint themselves with the idea of the nature of leadership/authority, and the source of its power. The loss of this understanding is what makes understanding the primacy of St. Peter such a pain for anyone westernized in the modern sense.

So much for marriage…

I find it disingenuous that you chose to twist the very literal meaning of the word “subject” in direct contrast to the Epistles and totally out of the context in which it was said; even more disturbing, is you, a priest, effectively emasculated all married men and made light of a very serious issue in today’s marriages. Machismo is not manliness, and a husband who is subject to his wife is reversing roles.

Woah–are you SERIOUS? Where/how did you form that opinion?

It’s called basic psychology of a realistic, though albeit politically incorrect nature.

WHAT was the point of having servers at the altar? Well, such positions were actually reserved for the minor orders traditionally. When unavailable, it is permissible for those positions to be filled by boys/young men, or even actual men. Why? Well, it gets them used to the idea of making that next step to the priesthood for one. It’s kinda like JROTC. Its origins are not its current reality, but the original intent still stands as necessary. Do most kids who are in JROTC go into the military? Nope. Do some? Darn tootin’. Can Little Joanie be a real Army Ranger because she got to climb a rope bridge and shoot a real M-4 at her little summer camp experience and she’d totally love to try? Not a chance in…

Little Johnny, snot nose that he is, now has a reasonable excuse to not serve at the altar and contribute to the Mass, his faith, and his appreciation of what takes place. Why should Little Johnny serve when Little Joanie will in his place? And if Little Johnny’s best friend is up there, and Huck Finn’s him into serving as well to placate the friend’s boredom by having a best friend around, who knows- maybe Little Johnny will become the next Sheen, Ratzinger, Kempis, etc.

And Little Joanie? She’s now prepped for an altar role. Pointlessly.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I find it disingenuous that you chose to twist the very literal meaning of the word “subject” in direct contrast to the Epistles and totally out of the context in which it was said; even more disturbing, is you, a priest, effectively emasculated all married men and made light of a very serious issue in today’s marriages. Machismo is not manliness, and a husband who is subject to his wife is reversing roles.

#1 it was a joke, relax.
#2 your comments could be perceived by others as being borderline sexist so a little humor was called for. Every married man I know has made similar jokes.
#3 Matriarchy is alive and well in many cultures.

 

[Ohana]

Unlikely the latter, as they would still need to account for female presiders in case there were no competent men. It’s far more likely that the masculine pronoun is assumed where no gender is specified.

As a side note, are there ‘female men’?

Well I guess, since “men” in liturgical texts is now supposed to mean men and women since inclusive language was withdrawn, where the text would have said men and women. Or maybe it just refers to men, and ongoing grief.