Feminization of the Church

Donatello

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW-JWhSWmyk

Asry

Wow, that's sexist. Man. I'm not the world's biggest feminist by any means but even I'm insulted by that. Woah. Also, his hair's disturbing.

tenchi-fan

Op, it's traditional to discuss topics in discussion forums!

I see his point. In both Ireland (and Canada) altar girls seem to outnumber alter boys by 2:1.

Most people are used to women readers at mass and women "Eucharistic ministers". The fact is, the role of reader should go primarly to men who have a chance of becoming priests or permanent deacons, while lay people should only distribute holy communion when there is a large crowd and not enough priests/deacons.

The amount of times I see a female and male reader, then a female and male extraordinary minister of holy communion.. i have to wonder whether the priest is getting wrapped up in gender equality at the expense of trying to reach out to people who are interested in joining the priesthood/deaconate.

I wonder if a man walked up to the priest and asked to do a reading, would the priest reply "well it's great that you're interested, but you would be stepping on Mrs. Murphy's toes!"

Maybe that's what the guy in this video means about it being a feminine trait by trying to seek a compromise, or by tip-toeing around issues so that no one starts crying and runs out of the room!

Zombrex

His argument seems to be that women will not confront problems lest they offend or upset someone, and thus their influence in the church should be limited.

Does the OP agree with this assessment of women?

Donatello

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Op, it's traditional to discuss topics in discussion forums!

I see his point. In both Ireland (and Canada) altar girls seem to outnumber alter boys by 2:1.

Most people are used to women readers at mass and women "Eucharistic ministers". The fact is, the role of reader should go primarly to men who have a chance of becoming priests or permanent deacons, while lay people should only distribute holy communion when there is a large crowd and not enough priests/deacons.

The amount of times I see a female and male reader, then a female and male extraordinary minister of holy communion.. i have to wonder whether the priest is getting wrapped up in gender equality at the expense of trying to reach out to people who are interested in joining the priesthood/deaconate.

I wonder if a man walked up to the priest and asked to do a reading, would the priest reply "well it's great that you're interested, but you would be stepping on Mrs. Murphy's toes!"

Maybe that's what the guy in this video means about it being a feminine trait by trying to seek a compromise, or by tip-toeing around issues so that no one starts crying and runs out of the room!

In my parish, most EMHCs are women. Readers are kind-of half and half.

Our priests are also very much like those described in the video.

The priest also allows the EMHC (usually a woman does this) to access the tabernacle. The priest allows them to do this, I think it must be some kind of notion of 'equality'. It's quite bizarre. The man (cos the priest is a man, let's recognise that fact) ordained, consecrated to confect and handle the Eucharist, actually steps back and allows the EMHC to do his God-ordained role. It's crazy.

It sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo patronising too, because it is really saying that lay persons are only equal to the priests if they get to do what priests get to do. Isn't that the worst kind (well maybe not the worse, but it ranks up there) of clericalism?

I, a freaking lay person, have no dignity of my own, according to my own, unique vocation. I am only equal if I can do as much as the priest as is possible (consecrating the host aside).

The ironic thing about it is, in their desire to 'create' 'equality', the priests actually degrade the noble and diverse lay vocations.

Is it any wonder the world went to pot after Vatican II when lay people (particularly women) flooded the sanctuaries to compete with the priest. Meanwhile, who's out sanctifying the world? Oh that's right, the lay people aren't cos they're too busy copying Father.

(Rant over.)

BTW, if you want to know what Vatican II actually said about the apostolate of the laity, read this article, and if you like, read the document of Vatican II on this subject. This is also good: Lay Apostolate: the forgotten concern of Vatican II

Wicknight wrote: »

His argument seems to be that women will not confront problems lest they offend or upset someone, and thus their influence in the church should be limited.

Does the OP agree with this assessment of women?

I can't speak for Michael Voris. Note that what I am about to say is a generalisation and it is not meant to offend anyone.

Note also that there are many men and women who are serving the Church in various ways and their intentions are good.

I think there is an unhealthy dynamic which basically involves wimpish priests kow-towing to women. The women get angry if faith and morals are raised and deep down they may want to be priests and enjoy being the centre of attention and in control. Of course some men get angry too, but I'd guess that women are more easily offended than men if you start talking straight about such topics as sin. And there's something about an angry woman that may be more intimidating to priests than any man.

Priests get henpecked, and they stop preaching about difficult topics because the grief they get is unbearable to them so it's easier to be silent and just preach warm fuzzies.

A strong man can say what needs to be said without fear of consequences. Hand-wringers don't confront anything for fear or what others will say.

That's how it seems to me. I'm not saying this is how it is everywhere.

If we get to your post Wickerman, then I think that women (balanced women, not the angry types I mentioned above) are more sensitive and perhaps less likely to confront difficult subjects. Of course there are always exceptions. I am thinking of Mother Angelica on EWTN, for example, who was never afraid to say it like it is. There are two types of strong women: holy Catholic women, and angry women - one builds up the body of Christ, the other tears down.

Voris is calling for a healthy complementarity of the sexes within the Church, because right now we have the Church dominated by an unhealthy feminism. Note feminism, not authentic femininity. The feminist anti-Christ spirit harms the Church. The authentic feminine complements the masculine and both build up the Church.

philologos

Bad argument. I think it could be a good thing to have more women serve in the church. Indeed women served in the church during the Apostle's time in many of the churches. All one needs to do is look to the ends of Paul's letters and the people he mentions.

There are more women in churches as far as I can tell. Why shouldn't women take a bigger role in the churches?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Why shouldn't women take a bigger role in the churches?

Because of what Paul said in his letter to the Corinthians?

Paul wrote:

let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

I think he's being uncharacteristically clear upon this point

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

Bad argument. I think it could be a good thing to have more women serve in the church. Indeed women served in the church during the Apostle's time in many of the churches. All one needs to do is look to the ends of Paul's letters and the people he mentions.

There are more women in churches as far as I can tell. Why shouldn't women take a bigger role in the churches?

Did it ever occur to you that as women come to dominate, men leave in droves? So by giving women even more power in the Church, more men will leave.

The fact is, men don't like to be in an environment dominated by the feminine. They are repelled by it. The Church gets very girly, religion is seen to be girly and feminine and weak, and men walk away. Hand-wringing, henpecked priests giving limp wristed sermons are the cherry on top. It's like the bishops and priests especially have lay down for the feminist movement saying ''OK so that old guy in Rome says you can't be priests, but you can do EVERYTHING else that is possible - we'll see to that.'' Meanwhile, men and boys leave the Church in droves.

Also, God knows this. Apart from all the strong theological reasons for an all-male ordained priesthood, God knows that the Church must be led by men if it is to be effective in its mission.

What Paul said:

let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

God knows that a feminist Church caters only for women. Men want nothing to do with it. The man-hating anti-Christ spirit that inspires all this is delighted because it wants nothing more than the Catholic Church to transform into a mother earth goddess religion complete with high priestesses and all their impure sacrifices. I recommend the book 'Ungodly Rage' which explains the effect feminism has inside the RCC.

Written by a Catholic journalist who has investigated feminism on its own ground, this remarkable book fully exposes the hidden face of Catholic feminism for the first time, revealing its theoretical and psychological roots in loss of faith. A definitive account of a movement impelled by vengeful rage to revolt against all spiritual authority.

I still go to Mass because I know that is where the Eucharistic Lord is to be found. I grin and bear everything else. But for the average man or boy, they just get pissed off, think it irrelevant, and get on with their lives. They are right on one point: the Church was never meant to be a feminist club. That they end up deserting the Eucharistic Lord is tragic but understandable. Then they wonder why they have no priestly vocations. Then they starts saying we need women priests. That's the thing about liberalism in religion - it's a sickness which recommends more of the same as a solution to the sickness. I'm sure Cardinal Newman wrote a lot about this.

philologos

And PDN a few years ago provided a perfectly good context as to why Paul wrote such (he draws from 1 Timothy 2 but it is a similar argument). Churches were split between women and men in the early church. Women were at that time not as educated as men and often used to shout across to their husbands to help them understand what was going on.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that as women come to dominate, men leave in droves?

I'm going to cut it here.

Who has said anything about women dominating? I'm merely saying that since God has made us male and female that we should serve Him together. That's not dominating that's women and men in healthy friendships and in some cases relationships (Priscilla and Aquilla in Acts served together as husband and wife) living together for God.

That's beautiful and as I see it the way it should be. We are after all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Edit: I've not seen men leaving in droves because women have a part to play in their church.

Asry

This is an interesting article on word variables and translation of 'silence' and the importance of context as regards the Greek verb sigao in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Right up until the very strange leap of logic they make in the last paragraph. I won't ruin the ending :cool:

Doctor DooM

Donatello wrote: »

The fact is, men don't like to be in an environment dominated by the feminine. They are repelled by it.

I wish you'd stop claiming your issues with things stand for others. I am male and have no problem at all with "the feminine".


Although to be honest, I don't even see the world as stratificated like that. People are people.

Asry

philologos wrote: »

And PDN a few years ago provided a perfectly good context as to why Paul wrote such (he draws from 1 Timothy 2 but it is a similar argument). Churches were split between women and men in the early church. Women were at that time not as educated as men and often used to shout across to their husbands to help them understand what was going on.

Context is everything in regards to Scripture. That post by PDN and the accompanying Pdf will make interesting food for thought for me

Asry

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I wish you'd stop claiming your issues with things stand for others. I am male and have no problem at all with "the feminine".


Although to be honest, I don't even see the world as stratificated like that. People are people.

Thank God, we have sanity.

PucaMama

some of these posts are like going back to the dark ages

Jesus Mother Mary was a woman, did everyone forget that?

anymore

Frankly the Catholic faith in Ireland remained so strong because of Catholic mothers and there would have been far, far fewer Irish priests had it not been for the strength of belief of thier mothers.

anymore

PucaMama wrote: »

some of these posts are like going back to the dark ages

Jesus Mother Mary was a woman, did everyone forget that?

No it hasnt been forgotten, rather the catholic church has gone to enormous lengths to try to get people to forget she was a real life woman, a wife to boot, in favour of having her placed up on a plinth and depicted as ' The Blessed Virgin '.
Consider the treatment Mary Magdalen received. I didsnt even know until relatively recently that there was such a thing as The Gospel of Mary. Why isnt it part of the bible ?

philologos

anymore wrote: »

The Gospel of Mary. Why isnt it part of the bible ?

1) It comes centuries after Christ. It couldn't have been written by a contemporary.
2) Last time I looked at it there were loads of passages missing! (You can read all these texts. I have them in "The Other Bible" by William Barnstone).

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that as women come to dominate, men leave in droves? So by giving women even more power in the Church, more men will leave.

I'm not sure if this is your intention, but your comments seem to suggest that it is more important to have men than women in the church?

Is that to facilitate people becoming priests (assuming that was the meaning of your comments).

If so I would have thought that if a person considering becoming a priest was turned off with the idea of working with women perhaps they are not priest material in the first place.

Quality, not quantity and all that

Asry

Yeah I have a book called the Secret Bible and it has all the apocrypha and some gnostic texts as well. It's really interesting because some of the stories of the infancy of Christ correspond in many ways with the passages in the Qu'ran. I love cross-referencing.

But yeah, these accounts were not included because of varying reasons, as in timing, as described in the previous post, or veracity.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

anymore

philologos wrote: »

1) It comes centuries after Christ. It couldn't have been written by a contemporary.
2) Last time I looked at it there were loads of passages missing! (You can read all these texts. I have them in "The Other Bible" by William Barnstone).

Just an article on it on BBC :
" Mary Magdalene's story is intimately linked with Jesus. She plays a starring role in one of the most powerful and important scenes in the Gospels."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/marymagdalene.shtml
" Perhaps the Gospel of Mary was just too radical. It presents Mary as a teacher and spiritual guide to the other disciples. She's not just a disciple; she's the apostle to the apostles. "

philologos

Perhaps you should read it for yourself rather than taking tidbits from the BBC website in all fairness to you.

Mary Magdalene does play a significant role in the canonical Gospels. This is different to saying that we should trust a text that comes too late after the time of Christ with loads and loads of passages missing. It's like saying that a sock is better because it has a hundred holes in it.

Asry

On women....

http://www.bricktestament.com/epistles/on_women/07_1c14_34.html

Links234

Did anyone read the thread title and think someone spiked the holy water with estrogen? :pac:

strobe

philologos wrote: »

And PDN a few years ago provided a perfectly good context as to why Paul wrote such (he draws from 1 Timothy 2 but it is a similar argument). Churches were split between women and men in the early church. Women were at that time not as educated as men and often used to shout across to their husbands to help them understand what was going on.

So Paul was just throwing out rules based on his own opinions rather than anything Jesus taught or said? Does he do this anywhere else Phil?

philologos

When Paul writes to a church, he is speaking into particular situations. I'm sure if that situation became manifest in another church he would give the same advice. You need to take care because when Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, he is writing in a general situation to the church in Corinth, or Ephesus, or Thessalonica etc. Another example could be 1 Corinthians 11 when Paul writes about women's head coverings:

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

lmaopml

I think the guy who came out of the vortex with the lego starwars hair is kind of jumping the gun with the idea that the church is 'feminised'. If there are female alter girls than they may have a vocation within the church someday, and that should not be a problem. Women are good for the church imo, so long as neither gender have an 'agenda' to revolutionise it.

It's not a gender issue, making it a gender issue seems very odd to me tbh, and not a little without direction..

Quo Vadis

lmaopml wrote: »

If there are female alter girls than they may have a vocation within the church someday, and that should not be a problem. Women are good for the church imo, so long as neither gender have an 'agenda' to revolutionise it.

It's not a gender issue, making it a gender issue seems very odd to me tbh, and not a little without direction..

Real Catholic TV is not known for being subtle or diplomatic, but they are generally never too far off track, and refreshingly, are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

I agree with what you said above, but I would also add that parishes should make a better effort in keeping Altar Servers and Ministers of the Eucharist and the Word balanced approx. 50/50 m:f

lmaopml

Perhaps encouraging some of the boys to have a little confidence might help

jill_valentine

Donatello wrote: »

The fact is, men don't like to be in an environment dominated by the feminine. They are repelled by it. The Church gets very girly, religion is seen to be girly and feminine and weak, and men walk away. Hand-wringing, henpecked priests giving limp wristed sermons are the cherry on top. It's like the bishops and priests especially have lay down for the feminist movement saying ''OK so that old guy in Rome says you can't be priests, but you can do EVERYTHING else that is possible - we'll see to that.'' Meanwhile, men and boys leave the Church in droves.

Also, God knows this. Apart from all the strong theological reasons for an all-male ordained priesthood, God knows that the Church must be led by men if it is to be effective in its mission.

This post kinda says more about your own very particular perspective than that of the Church, IMHO. Good grief.

Donatello

THERE'S A VERY GOOD ARTICLE HERE ON WHY GIRLS SHOULD NOT BE ALTAR SERVERS.

A brief excerpt, but go read the whole thing:

Like the recurring pressure to consider female ordination to the diaconate, continued support for and advocacy of female altar servers, at least in part and certainly in the case of some of its advocates, is frankly seen as another wedge issue. Just as women are said by some to have a "right" to ordination if it can be conferred on men, so girls are said to have a "right" to serve at the altar if boys are so allowed. This is considered to be a matter of simple justice by many. From the point of view of the proponents of female ordination, having girls serve at the altar helps keep the whole female ordination issue alive and active.

Whatever the intention, the 1994 letter allowing female altar servers, even if only on a "temporary" and limited basis, thus undermined the Holy Father's definitive judgment in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, issued only a few weeks later.

In the view of its proponents, however, the issue must be kept alive. Their hope is that some day another pope will relent and allow "justice" finally to be done to women, and their "rights" vindicated. The present pope's exclusion of female ordination as something beyond the power which Christ conferred on his Church is ascribed not to the Church's two-thousand-year unbroken tradition in the matter but merely to the Polish pope's relative "conservatism".

Meanwhile, if utilizing female altar servers and agitating for female ordination to the diaconate help serve to keep the whole female ordination issue unsettled and still a subject for debate in the Church, then these things are worthwhile for that reason alone, according to their proponents -- for they really do sincerely believe that ordination is a matter of justice to women and girls.

[...]

Experience since 1994 has proven true the warning that since women are neither eligible for ordination nor even for anything but temporary, "delegated" service at the altar, it is actually a disservice to girls to encourage or even to allow them to serve in this fashion. Just as service at the altar encourages priestly vocations in boys, so it can encourage the (false) hope of possible ordination in the minds of some girls as well. Anyone who has talked to one of these altar girls (or, especially, to her parents!) knows that many of them do think that they should be able to be priests some day.

Those who understand the level of magisterial authority at which the pope has excluded this possibility, however, know that this is something the Church cannot go back on so long as she remains the Church. The teaching is irrevocable. This should be evident not only to anyone who in faith accepts the Church's definitive judgments as coming from Christ; but also to anyone who has studied the actual history of the Church's magisterial pronouncements. Those who might still imagine that John Paul II's judgment definitively excluding female ordination might somehow be revoked or changed by a future pope know nothing of the history of the Church.

We already have an entire generation of feminist-influenced women, significant numbers of whom are currently disillusioned with the Church in precisely this manner; too many of them still work for the Church in various capacities, including in bishops' chanceries, even while they scorn the Church's judgments. Could anyone possibly want to perpetuate such an unhappy situation?

Much better and healthier for girls is to learn at an early age that their role in the Church -- as in life -- is different from that of boys and men, though equal in dignity. Just as men who are ordained bear a natural resemblance to Christ the priest, so all girls and women bear a natural resemblance to the one whom the poet William Wordsworth rightly and aptly called "our tainted nature's solitary boast", namely, the Blessed Virgin Mary -- who was free from all sin and who has now been assumed, body and soul, into heaven, where she makes intercession for us "now and at the hour of our death." Women do not need ordination or even to be "altar girls" in order to know, love, and serve God in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next!

On this point, however, the Congregation's letter is, perhaps necessarily, silent. Significantly, however, it says that this "function" for girls, is an "innovation". The letter explains that it is "important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation [allowing female altar servers], lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations".

But by now the Congregation should have no doubt that the confusion in question has long since been introduced, and, no doubt, either, that priestly vocations have already been greatly hampered thereby. Still, given the initial decision Pope John Paul II made to accept an interpretation of Canon law that recognized no distinction between vested girls serving the priest at Mass and women readers or cantors -- in spite of the tradition and explicit post-Conciliar liturgical Instructions to the contrary, the Congregation for Divine Worship probably has with this letter at least tried to help limit and to make up for some of the damage that has been done. Though if the interpretation of Canon 230.2 remains as it is, problems and confusion will continue.

READ MORE HERE.

swiftblade

Maybe they should replace the Altar Servers with robots? That could solve some problems.

lmaopml

Like the recurring pressure to consider female ordination to the diaconate, continued support for and advocacy of female altar servers, at least in part and certainly in the case of some of its advocates, is frankly seen as another wedge issue. Just as women are said by some to have a "right" to ordination if it can be conferred on men, so girls are said to have a "right" to serve at the altar if boys are so allowed. This is considered to be a matter of simple justice by many. From the point of view of the proponents of female ordination, having girls serve at the altar helps keep the whole female ordination issue alive and active.

Having girls serve at the alter does no such thing imo, there is no wedge, once the faith is explained and understood, the guy from the 'vortex' clarifying what he believes is the 'wedge' in terms of gender is hugely missing the point of faith.

There are those of us 'girls' or 'women' or 'mothers' etc. who have no desire, rhyme or reason to become 'priests'? Why would we, when we have our own part to play in the church. It's not exactly a news flash that women are different to men in many ways..and sometimes that translates itself for the greater good.

A question if you please? How do you encourage 'men' by not encouraging women?

Madness.

I understand frustration, but the 'investigation' by the guy from vortex is leading and I'm not led there...

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

Having girls serve at the alter does no such thing imo, there is no wedge, once the faith is explained and understood, the guy from the 'vortex' clarifying what he believes is the 'wedge' in terms of gender is hugely missing the point of faith.

There are those of us 'girls' or 'women' or 'mothers' etc. who have no desire, rhyme or reason to become 'priests'? Why would we, when we have our own part to play in the church. It's not exactly a news flash that women are different to men in many ways..and sometimes that translates itself for the greater good.

A question if you please? How do you encourage 'men' by not encouraging women?

Madness.

I understand frustration, but the 'investigation' by the guy from vortex is leading and I'm not led there...

We've moved on from the Voris presentation. Did you read Mr Whitehead's article? This is also pertinent:

"ALTAR GIRLS": FEMINIST IDEOLOGY AND THE ROMAN LITURGY

Let us look at another example of how a novel mixing of the sexes would distort a noble ritual. Many or most cultures, Christian and non-Christian, have a ceremonial custom which has been practised at weddings and marriage rites from time immemorial: the bride is surrounded or accompanied by other young women, bridesmaids. 16 Now, would it not introduce a jarring and discordant note into the wedding ceremony if this ancient tradition were suddenly replaced by the practice of surrounding the bride by young men instead of young women? "Bridesmen", rather than bridesmaids, would in fact be a grotesque innovation, sending out uncertain, strange, and disquieting signals to all those present. So would the idea of replacing the "best man" who accompanies the groom by a "best woman," that is, another attractive young lady who is not the one he is marrying!

In the same way, female service in the sanctuary is in reality a bizarre innovation - one which jars with the gender symbolism which is latent in the created order and brought out clearly in revelation. Abbé Sinoir sums it up very well:

The presence of women in the sanctuary, which is the place of Christ the New Adam, Bridegroom and Saviour, and hence the place of the bishop, bridegroom of his [local] church, the place of the priest and the deacon - this unjustifiable feminine presence, even if it does not destroy the objectivity of the perpetually renewed redemptive Act, nevertheless greatly harms the personal faith of each member of the congregation by confronting it with a sign which falsifies the mystery; it impoverishes our faith. 17
This falsification of the sacred symbolism of the liturgy at its very heart - the Holy of Holies which is the altar of sacrifice - is the deepest reason why female altar service is a serious deformation of the Church's worship. The altar server, traditionally envisaged as a potential priest, is presented visually and symbolically in that role by his location, and by his actions, which provide proximate assistance and preparation for the quintessentially sacerdotal act: the offering of the Sacrifice.

[...]

Another analogy from the area of sexual ethics concerns marriage itself as the only legitimate place for male-female intimacy. As a corollary of the sixth commandment, Catholic tradition, and indeed the natural law as recognized by practically all cultures, has always insisted that it is incompatible with true fidelity for a married person even to flirt or become involved romantically with someone other than his or her own spouse (by regularly spending time alone with such a person, exchanging loving glances, words, caresses, letters, and so on), even if no sexual act takes place. Such behaviour is rightly understood by everyone as naturally conducive toward physical sexual union even if it does not always reach that point. In exactly the same way, the constant and emphatic tradition of the Church has been that service at the altar is objectively ordered toward priesthood, even though not every altar boy or acolyte actually ends up becoming a priest. From this perspective we could say that a woman or girl serving at the altar, no matter how devout her personal intentions, no matter how reverent, recollected and modest her deportment and dress, is by her very presence in the sanctuary engaging in what is objectively a kind of spiritual immodesty. She is flirting, as it were, with the goal of priestly ordination - mimicking it, drawing as near as she can to it with an indecorous familiarity and an intrusive intimacy. Her liturgical role insinuates and suggests ordination as its proper goal or fulfilment, even though this is absolutely excluded by the Law of Christ.

Indeed, this natural symbolism of altar service as signifying potentiality for priesthood is so clear and deep that I suspect that there are very few Catholics, liberal or traditionalist, who do not recognize or accept it. To those who feel deeply convinced that female altar service is good and proper, I would put this simple question: "Is it not also true that you are unconvinced by the Catholic Church's stand against women's ordination, and that you would indeed like to see women as priests as well as altar servers?" I would hazard a guess that almost the only persons who would honestly answer 'No' to this question - that is, persons firmly opposed to women's ordination while firmly endorsing female altar service - would be certain cardinals, bishops and priests. And I suspect that, even in such cases, enthusiasm for 'altar girls' on the part of some generally conservative members of the clergy and hierarchy probably springs not so much from any deep liturgical, historical or spiritual reflection on the intrinsic merits or demerits of that innovation, but rather from the feeling that as pastors they should to some extent be responsive to popular demand. There has been a huge drive for altar girls among liberal Catholics, and it is the Church's pastors, after all, who are the decision-makers. They are the ones who have to bear the brunt of the feminist rage, rhetoric and tears of frustration directed at the "patriarchal" Church, and have to formulate some sort of response to these women's ceaseless and strident demands. Under such relentless pressure, it is not hard to see how some prelates who are quite orthodox on the question of women's ordination might nevertheless gladly introduce female altar service as a way of demonstrating that they are not "intransigent". That is, they see it as a compromise (now commonly called a "pastoral solution") which they hope will to some extent pacify or mollify feminists while keeping intact the traditional Catholic doctrine (as distinct from discipline). It is surely no accident that the Vatican itself made public these two related decisions - the admission of female altar service and the Pope's definitive doctrinal declaration against women's ordination - at almost the same time (in March and May 1994 respectively). But such hopes of appeasing the feminist ideologues by making concessions to them are, predictably, proving to be illusory. I see no evidence that the feminist campaign against "patriarchy," with its demand for female ordination, has in any way diminished over the last six years. If anything, it has increased in extension and intensity.

[...]

In short, female altar service introduces a deep tension, an inner contradiction, into the sacred liturgy. It makes an ideological statement which both politicizes and secularizes our Eucharistic worship. Instead of reflecting the sublime harmony of the communion of saints, a foretaste of Heaven itself, the sanctuary comes to symbolize an earthly battlefield in the new cold war against "patriarchy". Women, by their very presence in the sanctuary, are seen as "on the move", and as struggling to conquer more territory (more "worship space", as the new liturgists call it). They are manifested, in fact, as striving to attain something which faithful Catholics must believe can never be granted to them - priestly ordination. At the same time, their presence together with males at the altar, the Holy of Holies, jars against the supernatural ambience of the liturgy by confusing the place of the Bridegroom with that of the Bride. Moreover, in contrast to Communion in the Hand, which is at least limited in scope by being a private and voluntary gesture, female altar service is an innovation which by its very nature leaves no choice to those in the pews. In any Mass where women or girls are serving in the sanctuary, there is presented a highly public scenario which is imposed willy-nilly on everyone who happens to be assisting.

Go read the whole article here - it's packed with irrefutable arguments against the use of girl altar boys.

Donatello

swiftblade wrote: »

Maybe they should replace the Altar Servers with robots? That could solve some problems.

Or, they could just do what we've always done - use boys and young men and foster vocations to the priesthood? What's with the endless novelty? Where is it leading?

anymore

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you should read it for yourself rather than taking tidbits from the BBC website in all fairness to you.

Mary Magdalene does play a significant role in the canonical Gospels. This is different to saying that we should trust a text that comes too late after the time of Christ with loads and loads of passages missing. It's like saying that a sock is better because it has a hundred holes in it.

Ok when was it written ?

lmaopml

I had to google what the 'Voris' presentation was, I don't know who he/she is called after or where it stems from to be honest though. I understand that it's very basically that nobody can argue such a point because it's so simplistic that well it must be a hoax of some sort or other...?

Who is Voris and why does he not like talking?

So I'll move on..

Now, while we Catholics continue to argue vociferously about the positive or negative value of such changes, our disputes in this area tend to be seen by the dominant secular culture in modern Western societies as rather dull and hair-splitting - "internal quarrels" as it were, over minor details of strictly "churchy" behaviour which have little relevance for the wider culture

This quote from the article sums up how valuable this lesson is...'churchy' behaviour...?


Donatello, to be honest I dislike the idea that a 'lay' preacher 'knows it all', either the 'faith' or as a judge of it's faithful, as much as a truely ordained one that wanders off course..

I know that you don't mean division between the genders, but in all sincerity, there's truth and then there is the real real truth - to 'encourage' a little? No?

There is always the 'good news' too.

anymore

Donatello wrote: »

We've moved on from the Voris presentation. Did you read Mr Whitehead's article? This is also pertinent:

"ALTAR GIRLS": FEMINIST IDEOLOGY AND THE ROMAN LITURGY

Let us look at another example of how a novel mixing of the sexes would distort a noble ritual. Many or most cultures, Christian and non-Christian, have a ceremonial custom which has been practised at weddings and marriage rites from time immemorial: the bride is surrounded or accompanied by other young women, bridesmaids. 16 Now, would it not introduce a jarring and discordant note into the wedding ceremony if this ancient tradition were suddenly replaced by the practice of surrounding the bride by young men instead of young women? "Bridesmen", rather than bridesmaids, would in fact be a grotesque innovation, sending out uncertain, strange, and disquieting signals to all those present. So would the idea of replacing the "best man" who accompanies the groom by a "best woman," that is, another attractive young lady who is not the one he is marrying!

In the same way, female service in the sanctuary is in reality a bizarre innovation - one which jars with the gender symbolism which is latent in the created order and brought out clearly in revelation. Abbé Sinoir sums it up very well:

The presence of women in the sanctuary, which is the place of Christ the New Adam, Bridegroom and Saviour, and hence the place of the bishop, bridegroom of his [local] church, the place of the priest and the deacon - this unjustifiable feminine presence, even if it does not destroy the objectivity of the perpetually renewed redemptive Act, nevertheless greatly harms the personal faith of each member of the congregation by confronting it with a sign which falsifies the mystery; it impoverishes our faith. 17
This falsification of the sacred symbolism of the liturgy at its very heart - the Holy of Holies which is the altar of sacrifice - is the deepest reason why female altar service is a serious deformation of the Church's worship. The altar server, traditionally envisaged as a potential priest, is presented visually and symbolically in that role by his location, and by his actions, which provide proximate assistance and preparation for the quintessentially sacerdotal act: the offering of the Sacrifice.

[...]

Another analogy from the area of sexual ethics concerns marriage itself as the only legitimate place for male-female intimacy. As a corollary of the sixth commandment, Catholic tradition, and indeed the natural law as recognized by practically all cultures, has always insisted that it is incompatible with true fidelity for a married person even to flirt or become involved romantically with someone other than his or her own spouse (by regularly spending time alone with such a person, exchanging loving glances, words, caresses, letters, and so on), even if no sexual act takes place. Such behaviour is rightly understood by everyone as naturally conducive toward physical sexual union even if it does not always reach that point. In exactly the same way, the constant and emphatic tradition of the Church has been that service at the altar is objectively ordered toward priesthood, even though not every altar boy or acolyte actually ends up becoming a priest. From this perspective we could say that a woman or girl serving at the altar, no matter how devout her personal intentions, no matter how reverent, recollected and modest her deportment and dress, is by her very presence in the sanctuary engaging in what is objectively a kind of spiritual immodesty. She is flirting, as it were, with the goal of priestly ordination - mimicking it, drawing as near as she can to it with an indecorous familiarity and an intrusive intimacy. Her liturgical role insinuates and suggests ordination as its proper goal or fulfilment, even though this is absolutely excluded by the Law of Christ.

Indeed, this natural symbolism of altar service as signifying potentiality for priesthood is so clear and deep that I suspect that there are very few Catholics, liberal or traditionalist, who do not recognize or accept it. To those who feel deeply convinced that female altar service is good and proper, I would put this simple question: "Is it not also true that you are unconvinced by the Catholic Church's stand against women's ordination, and that you would indeed like to see women as priests as well as altar servers?" I would hazard a guess that almost the only persons who would honestly answer 'No' to this question - that is, persons firmly opposed to women's ordination while firmly endorsing female altar service - would be certain cardinals, bishops and priests. And I suspect that, even in such cases, enthusiasm for 'altar girls' on the part of some generally conservative members of the clergy and hierarchy probably springs not so much from any deep liturgical, historical or spiritual reflection on the intrinsic merits or demerits of that innovation, but rather from the feeling that as pastors they should to some extent be responsive to popular demand. There has been a huge drive for altar girls among liberal Catholics, and it is the Church's pastors, after all, who are the decision-makers. They are the ones who have to bear the brunt of the feminist rage, rhetoric and tears of frustration directed at the "patriarchal" Church, and have to formulate some sort of response to these women's ceaseless and strident demands. Under such relentless pressure, it is not hard to see how some prelates who are quite orthodox on the question of women's ordination might nevertheless gladly introduce female altar service as a way of demonstrating that they are not "intransigent". That is, they see it as a compromise (now commonly called a "pastoral solution") which they hope will to some extent pacify or mollify feminists while keeping intact the traditional Catholic doctrine (as distinct from discipline). It is surely no accident that the Vatican itself made public these two related decisions - the admission of female altar service and the Pope's definitive doctrinal declaration against women's ordination - at almost the same time (in March and May 1994 respectively). But such hopes of appeasing the feminist ideologues by making concessions to them are, predictably, proving to be illusory. I see no evidence that the feminist campaign against "patriarchy," with its demand for female ordination, has in any way diminished over the last six years. If anything, it has increased in extension and intensity.

[...]

In short, female altar service introduces a deep tension, an inner contradiction, into the sacred liturgy. It makes an ideological statement which both politicizes and secularizes our Eucharistic worship. Instead of reflecting the sublime harmony of the communion of saints, a foretaste of Heaven itself, the sanctuary comes to symbolize an earthly battlefield in the new cold war against "patriarchy". Women, by their very presence in the sanctuary, are seen as "on the move", and as struggling to conquer more territory (more "worship space", as the new liturgists call it). They are manifested, in fact, as striving to attain something which faithful Catholics must believe can never be granted to them - priestly ordination. At the same time, their presence together with males at the altar, the Holy of Holies, jars against the supernatural ambience of the liturgy by confusing the place of the Bridegroom with that of the Bride. Moreover, in contrast to Communion in the Hand, which is at least limited in scope by being a private and voluntary gesture, female altar service is an innovation which by its very nature leaves no choice to those in the pews. In any Mass where women or girls are serving in the sanctuary, there is presented a highly public scenario which is imposed willy-nilly on everyone who happens to be assisting.

Go read the whole article here - it's packed with irrefutable arguments against the use of girl altar boys.

]As I read through this, I was reminded of Sir John Gielgud as Father Arnall in 'Portrait of the young man as an artist giving a sermon on Hell.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xidesn_sir-john-gielgud-as-father-arnall-in-portrait-of-the-artist-as-a-young-man_creation
( Incidentally I recall as a schoolkid, a teacher also spending time one day discussing how hot the flames of hell would be ! )
Frankly the excerpts above are cringe inducing and laughable !
A gay friend of mine tells me that the proprtion of priests who are gay is far higher than in the general population, so if the above were true, then boys should also be discouraged from becoming altar boys.

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

Let us look at another example of how a novel mixing of the sexes would distort a noble ritual. Many or most cultures, Christian and non-Christian, have a ceremonial custom which has been practised at weddings and marriage rites from time immemorial: the bride is surrounded or accompanied by other young women, bridesmaids. 16 Now, would it not introduce a jarring and discordant note into the wedding ceremony if this ancient tradition were suddenly replaced by the practice of surrounding the bride by young men instead of young women? "Bridesmen", rather than bridesmaids, would in fact be a grotesque innovation, sending out uncertain, strange, and disquieting signals to all those present. So would the idea of replacing the "best man" who accompanies the groom by a "best woman," that is, another attractive young lady who is not the one he is marrying!

In the same way, female service in the sanctuary is in reality a bizarre innovation - one which jars with the gender symbolism which is latent in the created order and brought out clearly in revelation.

Dear god no! a female best man! male bridesmen! They'd have to switch the pronouns around! It's appalling! [/sarcasm. I'm going to keep doing this in every post until everyone is perfectly clear on my tone of communication.]

That article's reasoning is infantile at best. In fact, so are the RCC's reasons for not allowing female priests.

Jesus didn't come to form a Church. He didn't ordain women? He didn't ordain men! He had far more important things on his mind. It was the apostles who did that. I sometimes think that if Jesus were here among us now in flesh, the story of the anger in the temple with the vendors would be repeated in the Vatican, on far more levels than money.

This is nothing to do with the will of God or the message of Christ. It's just inference twisted to suit the purposes of a load of old men who are into survival and not equality.

The RCC hierarchy is just protecting itself by not allowing the ordination of women. The same way as they are protecting themselves by the election of men to the position of Pope who are really too old to be doing any such thing.

It's about maintaining patriarchal control.

Asry

anymore wrote: »

Ok when was it written ?

120-180 AD. Wikipedia's awesome isn't it?:rolleyes:

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

anymore

P.S Donatello, the time will come when there will be female priests !

Asry

This whole 'new cold war' against patriarchy is pretty much done, my friend. The world has decided to cast off its traditional and restrictive binary notions of gender, and as well as that has also decided that nobody should be a second class citizen in any reality. Really, it's a final fulfillment of the famous line from scriptures - "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or citizen, male or female.All are one in Christ Jesus."— Galatians 3:28. Civil rights, LGBT rights, human rights, women's rights, children's rights.

We find ourselves in a world reforming to something closer to the perfect ideals of God. It's taken much time, and will take more. But it will happen.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

I had to google what the 'Voris' presentation was, I don't know who he/she is called after or where it stems from to be honest though. I understand that it's very basically that nobody can argue such a point because it's so simplistic that well it must be a hoax of some sort or other...?

Who is Voris and why does he not like talking?

So I'll move on..

Now, while we Catholics continue to argue vociferously about the positive or negative value of such changes, our disputes in this area tend to be seen by the dominant secular culture in modern Western societies as rather dull and hair-splitting - "internal quarrels" as it were, over minor details of strictly "churchy" behaviour which have little relevance for the wider culture

This quote from the article sums up how valuable this lesson is...'churchy' behaviour...?


Donatello, to be honest I dislike the idea that a 'lay' preacher 'knows it all', either the 'faith' or as a judge of it's faithful, as much as a truely ordained one that wanders off course..

I know that you don't mean division between the genders, but in all sincerity, there's truth and then there is the real real truth - to 'encourage' a little? No?

There is always the 'good news' too.

Michael Voris loves to talk - did you not watch his video? I posted it. At the start of this thread.

I can tell from your comments that you did not read Mr Whitehead's article. Did you read Mr Harrison's article?

Note: this thread is not about whether or not the Lord intended to establish a Church nor whether or not He appointed an Apostolic College and the Episcopal College which descended from that. It's about the feminization of the Church, a la Voris.

anymore

philologos wrote: »

1) It comes centuries after Christ. It couldn't have been written by a contemporary.
2) Last time I looked at it there were loads of passages missing! (You can read all these texts. I have them in "The Other Bible" by William Barnstone).

Asry, Philogos says it was written " centuries after Christ "

lmaopml

Asry wrote: »

Dear god no! a female best man! male bridesmen! They'd have to switch the pronouns around! It's appalling!

That article's reasoning is infantile at best. In fact, so are the RCC's reasons for not allowing female priests.

Jesus didn't come to form a Church. He didn't ordain women? He didn't ordain men! He had far more important things on his mind. It was the apostles who did that. I sometimes think that if Jesus were here among us now in flesh, the story of the anger in the temple with the vendors would be repeated in the Vatican, on far more levels than money.

This is nothing to do with the will of God or the message of Christ. It's just inference twisted to suit the purposes of a load of old men who are into survival and not equality.

The RCC hierarchy is just protecting itself by not allowing the ordination of women. The same way as they are protecting themselves by the election of men to the position of Pope who are really too old to be doing any such thing.

It's about maintaining patriarchal control.

Well, I'm a woman, and that's quite simply a pile of pretty steaming and biased shyte, it's misrepresenting women who have faith imo, we don't all feel that we're being bashed despite the op's vortex link..

If you want to start up a new church then ye know --->>> but 'no' you don't speak for every Catholic woman.

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

Note: this thread is not about whether or not the Lord intended to establish a Church nor whether or not He appointed an Apostolic College and the Episcopal College which descended from that. It's about the feminization of the Church, a la Voris.

Of course. But in order to understand the worldview that Voris is propounding, one must first understand the context, no? So, yes. This thread is about these things. It's the flipside.

Asry

lmaopml wrote: »

but 'no' you don't speak for every Catholic woman.

I didn't say I did.

Asry

anymore wrote: »

Asry, Philogos says it was written " centuries after Christ "

Seriously dude, the internet has google for a reason.

Quo Vadis

anymore wrote: »

P.S Donatello, the time will come when there will be female priests !

There have been pagan female priests for thousands of years, including in the time of Jesus, but untill Christ himself decrees otherwise, the traditional Catholic Church has no authority or power to do so. We don't know why Jesus chose only male apostles to be our servants, and the Catholic Church cannot change it.