Lectionary

[son_of_angels]

To answer your question, there really isn't any part of the liturgical reform that addresses the specific issue which you bring up. Nor, for the reasons that I stated above, does it really need to.

There are not a lot of women in the readings because, although they often are in important biblical roles, throughout the whole Bible, compared to men, the number of women is significantly less, and they are often there only in scandalous roles.

However, I might mention that in many parishes every Saturday is a commemoration of one Great Woman, Our Blessed Lady. In Tridentine masses she is specifically mentioned in the readings for these votive masses.

By the way I don't think that it is "such a terrible thing that it classifies as something that 'doesn't even merit acknowledgment.'" I merely think that it is such a SMALL, PETTY, and ultimately, SELF-DEFEATING thing that it doesn't merit acknowledgment.

[cmotherofpirl]

Why would anyone care if women were in the readings of not? How could this ever be an issue? What passages could give any women a problem if read in proper context? Please explain.

As a woman I have no problem with the Word of God.


[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:35 AM'][color=purple]
I'm a little confused. Do any of  you know the changes the lectionaries made in regards to like, the concerns women made at the time? Including more women in the scripture and such? I would think that the post-Vatican II lectionary would be better at addressing their concerns but I might be wrong.

I guess I just wonder, how, if 97% of Sacred Scripture is read at mass over a 3 year cycle, with whatever changes were made in the readings post-Vatican II, is there still a large omission of women from the readings? Not that I don’t whole-heartedly revere, value and learn from all scripture, but, as some critics say, readings with women are either missing, reconfigured, made "optional", or exised/skipped over within the context of a larger story - and if the passage makes it past these 4 things is more likely to be on a Weekday. It's not even like it's just a little difference, like, 70% male 30% female, (both stories can be read for either gender, I just mean highlighting the characters, although there is a greater male presence in the Bible as a whole), but it's far lower.

The lectionary includes many readings showing the struggle people face in joining Christ, and dealing with their own lives along the way…but so many passages for women in particular are difficult for them to understand and reconcile with their own lives in a Christian manner – whether that be wives submitting to their husbands, the portrayl of a woman’s body, or whatnot. While I don’t know that I mind that being left out, that is a major issue that affects Christ’s message for many, many women that is never in the lectionary and rarely talked about on the altar on Sunday. We need to address somewhere besides quiet study groups the fact that the divine word of God has used woman to explain evil … it’s so hard to understand, and I think more people would if this was addressed more in the lectionary.

Does anyone know of any changes to the liturgy pre/post Vatican II that deal with this?
[/color]
[right][snapback]613184[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 05:23 PM'][color=purple]I am not trying to provoke attack here I'm just really, really... confused. Why is being a Catholic concerned about being equated with evil in the Bible or wondering why there aren't a lot of women in the readings only professing the tenants of dissenting radical feminists?

I acknowledge that there are a large number of woman to whom this doesn't apply but, regardless, this deeply affects me, which is why I'm posting about it. I'm not trying to advocate some political agenda and I'm not trying to speak for Catholics who are. Vatican II was not about liberalizing the Church, right? It was about involving the laity, which includes women. There might be a problem with male involvement but that's not a solid argument for not addressing the above issues and others.

In what ways has the Church become too feminized? Harkening back to one of my earlier questions, does anyone know of any changes to the liturgy pre/post Vatican II that deal with this. Why is this so scandelous to even talk about or propose talking about? Is this such a terrible thing that it classifies as something that "doesn't even merit acknowledgement"? How does that help me learn? It just makes it harder for someone like me to understand.
[/color]
[right][snapback]617197[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not trying to fight you. I'm trying to help. It seems that most of the things you bring up are the standard complaints of feminists. It's not totally clear which of these are actually a problem for you personally.

Involvment of the laity does not necessarily involve having women at the altar. Nothing in Vatican II calls for this. There are countless other ways to serve the Church.

As for women being "only equated with evil in the Bible," I don't get it. In the New Testament, almost all the women are good - The Blessed Mother, St. Elizabeth, Anna the Prophetess, Mary Magdalen, Veronica, etc.

And traditionally, abstract qualities of both good AND evil, such as virtues and vices, have always been personified as women.

As for "feminization of the Church," this is a controversial issue, but in many places around the world, church and going to mass is perceived as a "woman's" thing, and men don't go to mass. Many more women than men go to church and are active with the church. Many men see the church as "unmanly" (and the growth of feminism in the Church, and the homosexualization of many seminaries hasn't helped this situation.)(Fortunately, my parish is an exception.)
But that's really for another topic - my point is, there is a bigger problem with men being driven away from the Church than of women. (For details, read The Church Impotent -[forget the author])

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:20 PM']Why would anyone care if women were in the readings of not? How could this ever be an issue? What passages could give any women a problem if read in proper context? Please  explain.

As a woman I have no problem with the Word of God.
[right][snapback]617377[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's a good question.

Basically, because it's makes it more difficult for women to relate to and learn from. It's all the divinely inspired word of God, but I don't know of many scholars that wouldn't admit that the Bible is androcentric at least in some aspect (always tell me when I'm wrong though . There's a quote from Teresa Berger that sums it up some..

"women-friendly omisisons do not undo the larger problem. What do we - as women who entrust our lives of faith, at least to some degree, to the liturgy - do with the fact that there is a limited number of stories about biblical women's faith the lectionary omits and veils some of the beautiful stories that we do have? Women who want to make meaning of liturgy will have to resist the ways in which the lectionary renders women voiceless and asks us to be complicit in this."

The biblical readings that resonate with women's lives are rare because the textual representation of women in the Bible is limited, and sometimes women can even be lost in translation (such as the apostle Junia in Letter to the Romans, referred to for years as a male.) Another claim is that the lectionary that decides the choice of passages for reading hasn't attended carefully enough to biblical stories about women and their faith, which has left some women to ask why their foremothers seem voiceless.

Omitting, making them optional, or just cutting them out of a story further makes women of the Bible appear voiceless, when there already isn't a lot of women presence anyway...They may lengthen or complicate the narrative...the omission of the couragous Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah is cut out from the liturgical reading of Exodus 1:8-22, and the Hebrew prophet Hulda (2 Kings 22:14-20) who validates a text, Phoebe, the coworker of the apostle Paul in Romans, the prophet Deborah, a judge and military leader, Judith, are all omitted... Excerpts from Ruth appear twice in the liturgy but only on weekdays, same with Esther, and Mary's song of praise to Elizabeth, or the story of Jesus appearing directly to Mary Magdalane in John 20:17. There's also the optional presence of the prophet Anna at the presentation of Jesus at the temple in Luke 2:36-38, and the excision of the woman with the hemorrhage healed by Jesus in the larger story of healing the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:25-34).

(These are not my references, I conglomerated a number of sources)

As to specific passages that could give women a problem, you could google women and the bible for that I don't really want to focus a lot on them, I don't know how many good things could come from too much focus on that, but here are just two quick examples:

In reference to the house of Israel, "their conduct in my sight was like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual period" (Ezek. 36:17b)

Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. (1Corinthians 14:34-35)

Many of these can be explained, I know, but they aren't normally given a chance to be explained on the altar because they're omitted from the lectionary.
[/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:34 PM']I'm not trying to fight you.  I'm trying to help.  It seems that most of the things you bring up are the standard complaints of feminists.  It's not totally clear which of these are actually a problem for you personally.

As for "feminization of the Church," this is a controversial issue, but in many places around the world, church and going to mass is perceived as a "woman's" thing, and men don't go to mass.  Many more women than men go to church and are active with the church.  Many men see the church as "unmanly" (and the growth of feminism in the Church, and the homosexualization of many seminaries hasn't helped this situation.)(Fortunately, my parish is an exception.)
But that's really for another topic - my point is, there is a bigger problem with men being driven away from the Church than of women.  (For details, read The Church Impotent -[forget the author])
[right][snapback]617398[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Sorry, I don't mean to attack you either It's not that I think that women are "only equated with evil", but sometimes they are. And there are many, many good women, I agree, but they're not always very visible to learn from in the readings (see above post). This to me is a problem because from a feminist perspective, it looks bad and I want to know how to answer, all the arguments why it is this way, or how to change it if it can or should be changed at all.

On a more personal level, I do feel that, as a woman, it's hard for me to understand things the Bible says sometimes and I wish that they would be mentioned on the altar. If the reasoning behind the lectionary is just that those are the most strictly relevant readings to the main teachings of Christ and the rest of the Bible can be learned in Bible Study, that is a great and perfectly reasonable justification, but I just want to know if there is more. And to me, that doesn't seem to justify the omission of many women in the readings just for simplification and length, when, and I know it might sound faithless or silly, but their presence would help me see myself in the Bible and myself learning in God.

The problem about men being driven away from the Church is not good at all but I still don't know that I think that is a good reason for not addressing these concerns. Just because they deal with women, and women are in attendance in great numbers, doesn't mean there still might not be a confusion about things, even if it is just to clear me up about it .

(Thanks for your patience with me, I do really appreciate it)

[journeyman]

this may be a gross over-simplification, but I think snowcatpa's point is that it is easier to learn from stories when there are characters with whom you identify. Growing up, I had a choice of "detective" stories to read . . . the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew . . . same author . . . same basic story lines . . . guess which ones I read?

another great story involving women is the trial of Susanna, falsely accused of immoral behavior because she resisted the advances of older, but corrupt, men. The ultimate "hero" is a male youth, whose cross examination of the older scumbuckets reveals their perfidy, but Susanna's faith while under trial is a deeply moving story . . . that is rarely, if ever, heard.
(Daniel 13)

So, is that an argument to read the bible more on your own? For catechists to tell the stories that don't make the Sunday Readings List? Or would it be reasonable to ask why some of these inspiring stories can't be added to the lectionary cycles?

Edited June 21, 2005 by journeyman

[Apotheoun]

Thankfully I am Byzantine Catholic and we have our own Lectionary.

[Mrvoll]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:26 PM']Thankfully I am Byzantine Catholic and we have our own Lectionary.


[right][snapback]617541[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Is it online, because I would like to read it

[son_of_angels]

[quote]Thankfully I am Byzantine Catholic and we have our own Lectionary.

[/quote]




At one time we Roman Catholics could say the same thing. Try talking Eastern Catholics into changing their rite due to "social circumstances." They'll tell you to take off.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:29 PM']At one time we Roman Catholics could say the same thing.  Try talking Eastern Catholics into changing their rite due to "social circumstances."  They'll tell you to take off.
[right][snapback]618500[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I see that the notion of changing anything about the lectionary is pretty repulsive to you, son of angels. Could you explain a little more indepth to me why? Maybe that will help me understand why you do not like my questions and/or suggestions. Thanks
[/color]

[son_of_angels]

Sure. I am not intrinsically opposed to a closer look into the women of the Bible to understand the role of women in salvation history, I simply think that the Roman Lectionary does that adequately already and that the Lectionary itself constitutes a part of the Mass itself.

I, for example, think that changing the one year traditional lectionary to the three year lectionary and creating a daily lectionary did something unheard of in the liturgical heritage of the West. The previous readings were designed around a single devotional subject, and were themselves part of the prayer of the Mass, rather than, as in modern votive masses and commemorations, being separated from the prayers and minor propers in order to maintain continuity. The former readings were generally read from the ALTAR in order to emphasize this fact, or carried to the people from the altar with great solemnity. The Epistle was always read facing the altar. In other words, they emphasized the unity of the Mass itself, and demonstrated the singular characteristics of the WESTERN rite itself.

By constantly changing, reforming, and "renewing" liturgical practices and the lectionary, we admit that the Western rite, and how it developed, is somehow inferior to other rites, and cease trying to understand what Western liturgy itself is. The Eastern Rites, recognizes the value of liturgical unity, care and maintain their rites much more closely because they heed this advice. That is why constant liturgical "adjustments" are so repulsive to me, because they insult the Western tradition from which those liturgics spring, while encouraging novel and often heterodox abuses.

The only liturgical adjustment I see as necessary is such as is required to maintain the uniqueness of the liturgy itself, such as the reforms to sacred music and liturgy which Pope St. Pius X instituted.

Even the Council of Trent, probably the most influential council before the First and Second Vatican Councils, did not really create a new rite, but only sought to harmonize Western rites with Roman usage in order to prevent abuse. Considering the state of affairs in the 1960's, one wonders why a similar course of action was not taken by the second Vatican Council and His Holiness Pope Paul VI (probably because Vatican II did concern itself too much with maintaining orthodoxy in the troubled times it existed, but in making the Church more palatable to American and European liberals, not that I reject the authority or teachings of that Council, just the politics involved).

So, I hope that is a sufficient explanation.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:36 PM']Sure.  I am not intrinsically opposed to a closer look into the women of the Bible to understand the role of women in salvation history, I simply think that the Roman Lectionary does that adequately already and that the Lectionary itself constitutes a part of the Mass itself.[right][snapback]618696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Really? Why do you think that the lectionary portrays the role of women in salvation history adequately? What is your response to the post I had a while back about the presence and lack of presence of women in the liturgy?

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:36 PM']By constantly changing, reforming, and "renewing" liturgical practices and the lectionary, we admit that the Western rite, and how it developed, is somehow inferior to other rites, and cease trying to understand what Western liturgy itself is.  The Eastern Rites, recognizes the value of liturgical unity, care and maintain their rites much more closely because they heed this advice.  That is why constant liturgical "adjustments" are so repulsive to me, because they insult the Western tradition from which those liturgics spring, while encouraging novel and often heterodox abuses.
[right][snapback]618696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your explanation definitely helped, especially the part I just quoted from above.

I was wondering what anyone else thought about changes in the liturgy? Never...? Only if....? Only in this way... ? All for it...? and why? What do phatmassers think about changesin the liturgy for any reason? Under what conditions would a change be permitted?

[son_of_angels]

I agree that a close study of many old Testament women, who certainly deserve and greater amount of interest, would be a good and pious thing.

BUT we are not carnal Jews. We are in a new covenant, with a Church that, both through heritage and discipline, has created a new understanding of piety and devotion. The Lectionary, including the new but especially the traditional one, adequately addresses women because it focuses on THE woman, the new Eve, our Mother Mary and those who specifically have a part in salvation history, not just history.

Esther and Ruth, for example, are both good and pious women, according to the Law, but their role in salvation history, perhaps a reason for the proclamation of Scripture in the Mass, is little. What involvement they did have can and should be addressed in a good expository Bible Study. Mass is not a Bible study. Simply saying that something is good to be learned does not make it necessary for Mass, nor even that it would address some particular pastoral need, of whatever motive. The reading of Scripture should be guided by the purpose of the Mass, which is why, in my opinion, votive masses are so great, because they emphasize this.

Edited June 25, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jun 25 2005, 02:47 AM']I agree that a close study of many old Testament women, who certainly deserve and greater amount of interest, would be a good and pious thing. 

The Lectionary, including the new but especially the traditional one, adequately addresses women because it focuses on THE woman, the new Eve, our Mother Mary and those who specifically have a part in salvation history, not just history. 

Simply saying that something is good to be learned does not make it necessary for Mass, nor even that it would address some particular pastoral need, of whatever motive.  The reading of Scripture should be guided by the purpose of the Mass, which is why, in my opinion, votive masses are so great, because they emphasize this.
[right][snapback]622520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
I agree that the mass does well in addressing women by focusing on our Mother Mary, and those who have a specific part in salvation history... but I think the question is... what do you determine as salvation history? And why is one story in salvation history, featuring more males than women, better to learn from while focusing on the purpose of the Mass?

You referenced Old Testament women, but many New Testament women important to salvation history and particular stories of them that reach out to women are not in the Lectionary: Phoebe, the coworker of the apostle Paul in Romans, Mary's song of praise to Elizabeth, or the story of Jesus appearing directly to Mary Magdalane in John 20:17 are all omitted. There's also the optional presence of the prophet Anna at the presentation of Jesus at the temple in Luke 2:36-38, and the excision of the woman with the hemorrhage healed by Jesus in the larger story of healing the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:25-34). I mention these not just because they include women, but because they show other voices in different ways that complicate the narrative and help us to understand our faith and grow towards Christ's love in the guiding purpose of the Mass.

Why is it appropriate to have myriads of male witnesses to Christ, who are key in Salvation history, while omitting/cutting out/making optional many female witnesses, who have such little presence in biblical recollection to begin with? I agree, Mary is the most important woman by far in salvation history, but Jesus was by far the most important man, but that doesn’t seem to deter hundreds of other stories about men witnessing their faith and helping to spiritually guide us today. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying… we’ll be content with one female who was the most important to salvation history, with an occasional spattering of others, but we need to focus on the males in salvation history more. ? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Could you explain what you understand as the purpose of the Mass? And why the lectionary (votive masses, in particular, you said you liked best) fulfills this best already? And why changing it would deter this?
[/color]

[son_of_angels]

To answer one of your questions, the Magnificat is likely omitted because it is already said every day at evening prayer, thus the redundancy of reading it from the pulpit. Granted there are other such repetitions, but this may be the explanation for this one.

To answer the last questions.

1. The purpose of the Mass, as I see it, is for the priest to convey the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to the people. All other things are preparation for that Holy Sacrifice, or proceed from it.

2. I like votive masses simply because they have one single devotional focus, as opposed to the Daily Lectionary. The Lectionary does well, and we trust that it does well, because it has done well. Yet the issues which you seem to place against it, namely, more involvement of women, we know have only led to more trouble and confusion, ultimately obscuring Catholic doctrine on the priesthood and gender in general. Therefore "women's issues" in my mind is hardly a reason to make any changes in the Mass whatsoever, considering the sanctity and importance of the Liturgy.

3. I think that changing the Lectionary would detract from the unity of the Mass, and encourage the feminist movement in the church. This would affect the sanctity and security of all the Liturgies of our Holy Mother Church, not only the Mass itself.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]That's interesting. I completely agree with your first answers and I enjoyed your reflection on votice masses But I'm still not convinced that addressing "women's issues" is not worth the cost of potentially leading others to do wrong (obscuring doctrine and arguing for a female priesthood). To me, not doing something because the potential for someone to take it the wrong way and do wrong with it is a poor excuse for not changing something that can be shown to be a complicated problem (this is what I've tried to explain the case for in our posts).

What most interested me though, was your answer to #3 - that encouraging the feminist movement in the church would affect the sanctity and security of all of the liturgies.

I think part of the reason we see this so differently is our different views of feminism and feminist movements. It seems like you might see "feminist movements" just as those androgenous, woman-power secular movements in society, and those aren't the ones I want to see in the Catholic Church either!!! blegch!!

However, I see nothing wrong with feminist movements in the Church that are Christ-centered, trying to help women understand their own purpose in God and Christ in the Church and considering some suggestions from their perspective. I almost see them not as fulfilling a lack of something in the Church, but enriching the profound and perfect Mass even more than it is.[/color]

Edited June 27, 2005 by Snowcatpa

[son_of_angels]

When I think of Christ-centered women's religious movements, I think of the movements of the 16th century, where women gathered after Mass or work to pray the Office of Our Lady and where women joined new groups of Religious Orders, or went to Church to sing hymns at the "La Salat" (which led to the service of Benediction and Adoration). Yet these movements did not try to introduce anything new to Church customs and practices, but rather tried to foster a humility and devotion to the authority of the Church.
These strike me as being true women's religious movements.

I do not think of the androgenous, woman-power secular movements in either, whether it be in the Church or society (and there are many in the Church) as being uniquely tied to this idea which you propose. What I do worry about is the possibility of such groups capitalizing on such a move, which I do not even see as a necessity. Perhaps the idea would be appropriate for another, less tempestuous era of the church, but not in our time. It is like encouraging people to start eating pork when there is disease in the pigs, just because the New Law allows it.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple] I've been reading some more about "Catholic feminism" in the past decades...and I'm beginning to really understand what you mean by the dangers of such changes! I had NO idea some of these women were that... out there... Specifically, I was reading Donna Steichen's "Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism" and I was appalled!!!! Just appalled!!! It's about 15 years old...but...still revealing. I'm so glad that... while we as Catholics still have our work cut out for us in the world... that we're at least over the immediate hurdle of the post-feminist theological backlash of the Goddess movements and heterodox feminist takeover. I was truly shocked.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know, son of angels, about my reaction to such UNBELIEVABLE actions. I definitely see your concern more about changing any part of the lectionary in light of such abuses.... I still do'nt know that I'm [i]completely[/i] convinced about tossing aside some feminist suggestions (particularly Marian feminists, mulieris dignitatem, JP the Great's Feminism, NOT the other ones) about some other stuff. If I hear of some that are specific that strike me, I'll check in with you to resume the conversation. [/color]