The Role Of Women In The Church

[cmotherofpirl]

perfect timing Holy Father :
WOMEN DID NOT ABANDON JESUS



VATICAN CITY, FEB 14, 2007 (VIS) - The role of women in the history of the Church was the theme chosen by Benedict XVI for his catechesis at today's general audience, which was held in the Paul VI Hall in the presence of 20,000 people.

"Jesus chose 12 men as fathers of the new Israel, 'to be with Him and to be sent out to proclaim the message'," said the Holy Father, "but ... among the disciples many women were also chosen. ... They played an active role within the context of Jesus mission. In the first place ... the Virgin Mary, who with her faith and her maternal care worked in a unique way for our redemption. ... Having become a disciple of her Son, ... she followed Him even to the foot of the cross where she received a maternal mission for all his disciples in all times."

After mentioning other women who appear in various parts of the Gospel - such as Susanna, and Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary - the Pope pointed out that "the women, unlike the Twelve, did not abandon Jesus at the hour of His Passion. Outstanding among them was Mary Magdalene ... who was the first witness of the Resurrection and announced it to the others." Pope Benedict also recalled how St. Thomas Aquinas referred to Mary Magdalene as "the apostle of the apostles."

In the first Christian communities, Benedict XVI went on, "the female presence was anything but secondary." St. Paul "starts from the fundamental principle according to which among the baptized 'there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female'." Furthermore, "the Apostle admits that in the Christian community it is quite normal that there should be women who prophesy, in other words who pronounce openly under the influence of Holy Spirit for the edification of the community."

Therefore St. Paul's subsequent assertion that "women should be silent in the churches" must "be relativized," said the Pope, and he explained that "the problem ... of the relationship between these two apparently contradictory indications should be left to the exegetes."

"The history of Christianity would have developed quite differently without the generous contribution of many women," said the Pope and he recalled how John Paul II had written: "The Church gives thanks for each and every woman ... for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius'."

"We share this appreciation, giving thanks to the Lord because He leads His Church, generation after generation, indiscriminately using men and women who know how to bring their faith to fruition ... for the good of the entire body of the Church.

After the audience, relatives of three Israeli soldiers - Ehud Goldwaser and Eldad Regev, held by the Lebanese group Hezbollah since July 2006, and Gilad Shalit, in the hands of the Palestinian group Hamas since June 25 - handed the Pope the copy of a letter in which they request the immediate and unconditional liberation of their loved ones

Prior to the audience in the Paul VI Hall, the Pope had met in the Vatican Basilica with bishops from the Italian region of the Marches, who are currently undertaking their "ad limina" visit. The prelates were accompanied by civil authorities and faithful from their various dioceses.

The Holy Father also recalled that on September 1 and 2, he will participate in a national meeting of Italian youth at the shrine of Loreto, Italy, and he invited young people to attend in large numbers. In closing, he read a prayer to the Virgin Mary asking, among other things, that she watch over this pastoral initiative so that it may be "fertile soil for the Italian Church."

AG/WOMEN/... VIS 070214 (630

[Seven77]

Philosbrat,

Thanks for posting. satan likes gender conflicts and may even use PM to do it. He's the enemy. Fight him with Truth.

You need to read [u]Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) [/u] by JPII.

Catholic Answers had a recent show with Gloria Purvis called "The Role of Women in the Church"!

[url="http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category="]http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php...1&category=[/url]

Look under Fri. Feb. 2nd.

Peace of Christ!

and Happy St. Valentine's Day

[philosophette]

Ugh. My quoting got goofed up. Oh well.

CMother - The people who told me that i should cook after Mass were both men AND women. And one man (the cantor-in-charge) told me that my singing, although it was the best of my life and many people said they liked it, was offensive to God... and he never allowed me to sing again; and the priest, although he supported me at the beginning, caved to the male pressure.


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1194709' date='Feb 14 2007, 10:24 AM']
For the record, I don't dislike men. I would actually like to see them more active in many churches, since they have wimped out in so many other places in society. Separate distinct equal roles [off the altar]would be ideal.
[/quote]

Agreed. I do not generally think that altar girls are necessary, but I am sure that there is the rare exception. .. and some of my best friends are men.

I used to only wear skirts because I was converted by "neocons" (used in the "more Catholic than the pope" sense) and that told me that was the only acceptable dress for women. I was zealous and did not want to offend God, so skirts it was. I still like skirts very much, BUT since then I have launched out of my own and discovered that they were wrong and that pants are rather useful in daily life.

[quote] GoldenChild:*off-topic alert* I find your guys' usage of the word neo-con extremely interesting. I didn't know that's how it was defined in other circles. Okay, back on subject [/quote]

My understanding is that if you desire a reverent liturgy, balanced roles for men and women in the Church, a respect for the dignity of each person, a sense of the sacred and the vocation of the Catholic in the modern world then you are CATHOLIC not a neo-con. Neo-con, in my experience, means you are too far to the right; liberal is too far to the left. The happy middle is where Benedict XVI sits and JPII sat. I like to stick with the Pope.


Rock on, Holy Father... its like he KNEW that we needed it. I did start reading Mulitartis Dignitatem (sp?) last night. It made me feel better.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1194709' date='Feb 14 2007, 08:24 AM']For the record, I don't dislike men. I would actually like to see them more active in many churches, since they have wimped out in so many other places in society. Separate distinct equal roles [off the altar]would be ideal.[/quote]agreed.

[Seven77]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1194863' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:55 PM']The happy middle is where Benedict XVI sits and JPII sat. I like to stick with the Pope.
Rock on, Holy Father... its like he KNEW that we needed it. I did start reading Mulitartis Dignitatem (sp?) last night. It made me feel better.
[/quote]

[HeavenlyCalling]

First off, I am a girl ( that feels odd to say, but is kinda needed online : ) and I am an alter server. I started it on my mothers insistance, and I really feel out of place doing it. I think, like cmom said, that it is a step toward the priesthood, and not a place for girls. However, I have no problem with woman in other positions. For example, in my favorite church the choir ( minus the organist ) is all-woman, the two retired Srs. of Saint Joe deal with most of the 'behind the scene's' work in the church, and always welcome help, woman teach the majority of ccd classes, and are a large part of planning for major evens ( which we have a lot of, we love to party! ).

I prefer to wear skirts, but I have no problem with woman who dont ( excpert,of course mini skirts and short shorts ) and I think you can look very feminan in pants. In the skirts I wear I can do everything I do in pants, from jumping over our fence ( dont ask ) to riding my bike. I think it is a matter of personal prferance.

Happy Valentine's Day!!!!

[Aloysius]

please.. tell us how you really feel!

on PhatMass I focus mainly on academic facts and what is best according to the documents and history of the Church... and because of that my language as to whether women should wear veils in Church tends to be a lot stronger than when I'm discussing it in person. Either way, I am of the opinion that all women ought to do it... but there's no need to get angry about it. That is my legitimate opinion informed by the history of the Church; the men and women who supported and defended and practiced this as sacred and required throughout our long history (although there are more men with writings about it, the women just led by example). Yes, I am a man; but that doesn't give me any less ability to speak on the subject. I like to talk about many subjects of differing levels of importance... and I put my whole effort into all of them. Just because something has a low level of importance does not mean that it ought to be ignored. I once participated in a very deep discussion about how many angels could dance on the tip of a needle.

There are a lot of comments that go to far or are superficial about altar girls and chapel veils. The Creepy Aliens topic was a bit ridiculously worded and strong... that's why I laughed and said "brilliant" (the tagline from Guiness commercials when they've usually just done something outlandish which might make some sense)

Anyway, these are legitimate areas of discussion and oftentimes you will find the faithful being reactionary against the androgyny of our society to a degree which might border on misogyny... but that's because there's misandry permeating our modern culture and the attitudes about the liturgy.

I do believe everything I've ever said on the subject has been perfectly in line with the positions of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI; and I don't like the labeling going on here one bit. In Trad circles, the term "neo-con" refers to people who try to be conservative of the 'new order'... ie these people are considered 'liberal'. The people you're calling neo-con would not agree with the term at all. But that's besides the point: you've single handedly excommunicated people just for having legitimate liturgical opinions (oftentimes supported by Rome and the history of the Church) as not "real Catholics". It's absurd, ridiculous, and offensive. Yes, they might have been slightly abrasive with their comments; but you're doing no better calling them neo-cons and saying we have to all 'get to the middle'. There's a certain type of middle which we all must go to in order to navigate away from dangerous waters but that type of middle is a lot more radically off to a direction unknown to either the right or left than this middle analogy makes it out to be.

Anyway, as the Church herself continues to suggest: true active lay participation is found in the pews not on the altar. The proper types of people who ought to go to the altar are those who are either clergy or have the potential to become clergy or are on their way to becoming clergy. everything else is considered extra-ordinary by the Church. I am a lay man who will be a lay man the rest of my life and therefore I am in the same boat as any lay woman in this regard.

Now, the architecture of the Church being better would make this a whole lot easier... I like the loft choir in the back of a church which is full of laity. but even though choirs are now being put on the altar, it's fine to have women in the choir because that is not a proper function of the clergy. the minor readings can be taken by the laity if there is no one available who represents an extension of the clergy... lay men and women alike are fine for that extra-ordinary situation (which is, by sad fact of the vocations crisis, all too ordinary nowadays). the gospel and homily and all other liturgical altar-centered acts ought to be conducted by the clergy and those who may one day become clergy, though.

women ought to be equal in dignity and distinct in roles, slightly distinct in the liturgical roles from the lay man (merely by liturgical dress) but wholly distinct in the liturgical roles along with the lay men from the clergy... because the whole congregation represents the feminine side of the exchange going on there between heaven and earth.

EDIT: anyway, the Choir is an extension of the congregation fit for the laity (male and female alike). the bringing of the gifts is an extension of the congregation for for the laity (male and female alike). Extraordinary ministors of communion/readers are fit only when a proper extension of the clergy is not available.

[XIX]

I could really afford to stop labeling people myself. I could be a better person. Definitely.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1194453' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:54 AM']
1) I am SICK SICK SICK of hearing about how women should/must/have to/are offending God and the angels of they do not/are recommended to wear chapel veils in church.

...

2) I feel like there is a spirit of misogyny around here, especially among the more traditionally leaning Catholics. I doubt that it is intention, but it still clouds the discussions. The whole discussion about altar girls in the Creepy Aliens board was more annoying than anything else I have read. The debate was not even kind towards females. It felt a lot like "ew, ew, ew... get them away! They are going to creep the boys out!" rather than something more charitable.

...

Do you know why we are silent, why we do not have time to do all that you do? It is because we are fulfilling the love of Christ in the lives of others. You may have the staff, but we have the heart and the heart is what draws people to Christ.

So, PLEASE people, lets have a conversation about what women CAN DO in the Church and the liturgy... because I am VERY frustrated.
[/quote]

Amen sistah! ;-)

You just hit on a lot of the reasons it took me several years to finally choose Catholicism. It's tough getting past Catholics themselves, but it's worth it to discover that there really is a passionate, loving heart within the Church. This is also why I don't care anything for attending Traditionalist churches that are into the Latin thing... frankly, I'd rather attend Mass with a bunch of liberal Catholics. At least there I don't have to worry about what I look like, say, how many people I shake hands with, whether I stand or kneel after Communion, if someone's labeled me a heretic because I was distracted by something and forgot to kneel before sitting, if I should receive Communion kneeling or standing or on the tongue or in my hand and what each of those options implies about me, my faith, and my politics.... what else is there???

Anyway, it's good to vent once in a while.

For the record, I receive on the tongue (because I actually prefer it, not because I give a rats a** about looking holy), and I'm completely faithful to the Church (because I love the Church and depend on it for my salvation, not because I'm scared of qwerties), and I like liberals (because most of them will actually have a conversation with you while my fellow conservatives don't like the fact that people are individuals with individual opinions), and I go to Reconciliation once or twice a month (because I know it's strengthening power against anything evil; I don't care about performing religion for religion's sake).

And maybe this Saturday I'll be confessing about my judgmental attitude towards Trads

In all seriousness, we don't want to tear each other down, but everyone needs the occasional constructive criticism since it's easy to fall into divisions where we see only the good in our own segment of the Church and only the bad in everywhere else (case in point, this Traditionalist vs. Charistmatic worthip thing... if anyone wants to point out problems in the Charismatic Movement, they should be willing to hear what's wrong with Traditionalism and we must recognize what's good about both).

[Aloysius]

There's a lot of problems in the prideful attitudes of traditional Catholics. There's a lot of problems in the irreverent attitudes of many non-traditional Catholics.

I hate the way people take holy and beautiful traditions of the Church and turn them into the prideful vs. the humble. But I mean on both sides... those who would act holier than thou and be judgemental against those who do not do all the same good pious practices; as well as the frustratingly well intentioned people who won't do pious practices because they're afraid of coming off as being holier-than-thou. if everyone acts like that then OF COURSE the only people doing those pious practices will be the ones with the holier-than-thou attitudes. It's really quite a sad cycle.

Anyway, I am no misogynist. I love women for their unique femininity and feel a lot of feminism is trying to justify women by giving them masculinity thereby fueling all the old sexisms in a new and more androgynous way. It's really sad, there could be such a beautiful and good feminist movement to expand upon the beautiful choreography the sexes could have; instead we get this contentious bitter movement trying to tear down distinctions between the sexes.

[philosophette]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1195013' date='Feb 14 2007, 02:16 PM']
There's a lot of problems in the prideful attitudes of traditional Catholics. There's a lot of problems in the irreverent attitudes of many non-traditional Catholics.

I hate the way people take holy and beautiful traditions of the Church and turn them into the prideful vs. the humble. But I mean on both sides... those who would act holier than thou and be judgemental against those who do not do all the same good pious practices; as well as the frustratingly well intentioned people who won't do pious practices because they're afraid of coming off as being holier-than-thou. if everyone acts like that then OF COURSE the only people doing those pious practices will be the ones with the holier-than-thou attitudes. It's really quite a sad cycle.

Anyway, I am no misogynist. I love women for their unique femininity and feel a lot of feminism is trying to justify women by giving them masculinity thereby fueling all the old sexisms in a new and more androgynous way. It's really sad, there could be such a beautiful and good feminist movement to expand upon the beautiful choreography the sexes could have; instead we get this contentious bitter movement trying to tear down distinctions between the sexes.
[/quote]

Al,

I agree with everything which you say here. I am sorry if you felt personally attacked in any way, for that was not my intention. I was speaking to a mindset and an attitude which I find to be wholly demeaning feeling. I think that you do a great job in what you do on PM and I have often found your posts to be very helpful. I do not agree with everything you say, but I do respect you for it.

I do not want an androgynous version of the Church! My Lord, how boring that would be! What I want is the attitude of those who speak about women's roles in the Church to not have such a harsh and demeaning sound to it. I do not think that people are necessarily aware of sounding that way, either, which is the main problem. This is why, in the post, I said "seems misogynistic" not "is misogynistic".

The middle I want is were there is no need for these stupid labels. Self-labling, labeling of others, labeling of ideas, but a place where Catholics are simply [i]Catholics[/i] and can do and be themselves without needing to resort of politics. Perhaps it is too utopian of me, but I have had very bad experiences on both sides of the spectrum, and I do not want to be thought of as either neo-con or lib. It is hard to find a place where you are not somehow compelled to take a side.

[Aloysius]

great... just wanted to make sure I was not contributing to this sense you had of an anti-woman sentiment. my position is pro-woman, that women ought to reclaim femininity and the men ought to reclaim masculinity and that the gender signs of the liturgy ought to be restored to help facilitate all of this.

but you are correct about the more abrasive simplistic posts which may pop up in support of my side. the explanation I offer is that it is reactionary against androgyny and that's why it may seem misogynistic. but that doesn't make a position that veils are required demeaning... that just makes their abrasive, direct, and simplistic comments seem demeaning. in that sense I can understand what you're against.

I'll never like this idea that we all just have to get in the middle and tolerate the charismatic movement as if it were on equal footing with the traditionalist movement. divisiveness and contentiousness is terrible, yes, but there are many things about the traditionalist movement which are necessary to the life of the Church to restore because it keeps a continuity with the entire history of the Church. sometimes innovations might be somewhat good and eventually be adopted into the liturgy; but lots of fleeting innovations are bad for the life of the Church and produce a sense of discontinuity in the liturgical history of the Church and that is unacceptable.

[philosophette]

Hehehe... Charismatic movement is a little too emotional for me (I tend to be uncomfortable with public displays of emotion and laying hands on one another and so on) but the Traditional Latin Mass also seems a little distant to me, as well. I used to attend it, but it is hard for me to feel comfortable at it, even though I learned Latin and made friends there. I guess it is the end result of growing up with video games! hahaa.

How about a Charismatic Latin Mass?

Ok, Al, don't have a heart attack - I'm teasing.

I would willingly wear a chapel veil if it was the norm and the theology behind it was properly understood (which is where people like you come in). I kind of like it, as it makes the Church space feel different, but I hate those lace ones *gag*. My mother over did the lace in our house when I was a kid. I have lace-trauma. I tend to have a big ego though, and unless it was the norm somewhere I went I would not do it. I would quickly go to Pharisee....

Edited February 14, 2007 by philosobrat

[Oik]

Two initial points:
1. I am an Eastern Catholic, all my points come from this
2. I am only replying to the OP, though I have read through the entirety of the thread.

[quote]
1) I am SICK SICK SICK of hearing about how women should/must/have to/are offending God and the angels of they do not/are recommended to wear chapel veils in church.
--- Some women feel a call to do this, some women do not. It is not the norm anymore. I do not do it because most of the women who do do it around me are very "holier than thou" about it and it makes me feel ostracized. I respect anyone who does it for devotional reasons, but I think there is a fine line between devotion and showmanship and I have seem far more showmanship than devotion where I live.
I also notice that it is mostly MEN who devote SO MUCH time to talking about it. Geesh. If only they were SO INTERESTED in compassionating us and understanding what our monthly annoyance entails.[/quote]
There are always holier than thou out there in the world. It is not going away. I have been accused of it myself many times for insignificant things. However, I don't see how a chapel veil or headcovering has anything to do with it, either way.
It does not matter to the actaul practice of headcoverings whether men or women are more or less concerned with it.
The Pope is a man. He will always be a man. If He institutes the mandatory pracitce of headcovering for the Roman Church, they I submit that women in his Church would follow it. Still, it would be a man that decided.
The closing generalization is one I don't understand.

[quote]2) I feel like there is a spirit of misogyny around here, especially among the more traditionally leaning Catholics. I doubt that it is intention, but it still clouds the discussions.[/quote]
Feminism, misogyny...its all the same in clouding one's judgment.

[quote]FOR THE LOVE OF MARY people, if you are going to debate SO MUCH about the how women are not to do this or that PLEASE have a few decent conversations about what women CAN DO in the liturgy. What can we do? Is us reading also offensive? I am sure a number of you would say so. How about bringing up the gifts? How about doing the collection? How about ANYTHING.
I am not a mother, I am not a wife, I am not a nun. I do not have those roles in the Church at this time... I am a single woman and I go to church, I participate in the liturgy and I feel very ALONE. I feel like there are few places for me in the Church outside of Mothering someone or cleaning the Church or cooking... THERE has to be more. I did some cantoring at one point and several people had the NERVE to come up to me and tell me that the place of women in the Church is to cook the after Mass meal, not to lead the singing. It hurt even worse because the men who cantor make it a competition and are not nice to one another... and I had spent a month preparing without their support.
I look back at the whole "Alter Girls" discussion and its tag line is "step away from the alter". Excuse me? This is the mindset of the future leaders of the Church? I love reverence in the Mass, but it is like the involvement of the woman seems to destroy that in their minds. Is not that flesh that the priests hold of a WOMAN. Was not the first Altar of Christ a WOMAN, was not his first throne a WOMAN, was not his first friend a WOMAN, his first disciple a WOMAN, were not the ones who were faithful to him in his passion WOMEN.
People of this mindset which so bothers me also seem to have a deep devotion to Mary, but what kind of Mary do they love? She was WOMAN, she was instrumental in our salvation, she said yes to God when most men would not even have the courage to do so. She had breasts, a womb, long hair, a feminine features and emotions - she was the best of each and every woman we know --- not some kind of uber woman who was/is beyond any other womanly trait we can think of. If she is I do not think I want her for my model then, for that will just set me up for discouragement and failure.
[/quote]
I am sorry that you were ill treated. Sounds like some people you have encountered are misinformed.
What can anyone DO in the Liturgy? First off, the word Liturgy means "work of the people." Just by showing up and celebrating (in the East, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy) you are doing God's work. So, Liturgy already involves doing. Demanding that you have a right to do things merely becuase of 'gender' or 'sex' is offensive. It is not a matter of can men or women read, it is a matter of who is the tonsured reader (which the West has completely and purposely forced into disuse). No one can go behind the Iconostase unless they are given this. It is the Holy Place. Again, this has been lost in the West. No one but a tonsured reader should read unless they are asked to by the Priest. In my Church, women are asked all the time. In other Eastern Churches, there are Women readers, trained and blessed by the Bishop. We need to restore this everywhere, HOWEVER, not because of 'gender' or 'sex', but becuase of Tradition. Who does the collection can be man or woman. As for 'bringing up the gifts', only the Roman Church does this. The Eastern Chruches don't (to my knowlegde). In my Church, the Holy gifts are prepared before the Divine Liturgy. We have the beautiful tradition of having certain people (those who have volunteered ahead of time) in the parish baking the prosphora (bread used for the Eucharist).
In the Eastern Chruches, there will not be altar girls ever. This practice allowed in the Roman Church is against our tradition. However, Priest' wives and Deacon's wives have very important roles in the Church. I also hope that one day soon, the order (legitimate and historical) of Deaconesses will be restored, as well as consecrated virgins and widows.
In regards to the Holy Theotokos, we have a deep devotion to her in the East. The Holy Mothers are also highly commemorated in our Churches. Some even have the title, "Equal of the Apostles". I invite you, as did Pope John Paul the Great, may his memory be eternal+, to research the treasures of the East. See also Orientale Lumen written by Him.

[quote]
One of the posts says this:
1 Corinthians 14:34
"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53014.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53014.htm[/url]
Women are commanded to keep silent and not to have authority of teaching in the Church, this command of Saint Paul the Apostle is in reflecting the Jewish Temple System that the Catholic Church proceeds to being the Universal Religion of God.


Ouch. That is all I can say. Where is the kindness and sensitivity to women in these responses? It is so harsh. So black and white.

Well, I don't want to be silent. I want to speak, and teach, and love, and use all of my gifts, but as time goes on and I keep being mistreated by men in the Church and put down simply because God made me female I really really wonder if the Catholic religion is really the true faith. How could God, who made men and women both, desire that we be treated like this?[/quote]
Sister, I urge you to persevre and like so many, run the race to win.
[quote]
Now do not take me as some kind of liberal, left wing feminist. I am Catholic feminist. I do not want a female priesthood or anything like that. What I want is for YOU MEN to stop talking to us like we are either idiots, going to take over the Church, want to destroy the Church, want to take away all of your little roles from you and never give them back... talk to us as if you are the sole authority on EVERYTHING CATHOLIC even though you are lay men and not priests or bishops... you are not greater than we are just because you are a man or have read more books than we have time to because we are busy serving and doing your laundry, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children.

Do you know why we are silent, why we do not have time to do all that you do? It is because we are fulfilling the love of Christ in the lives of others. You may have the staff, but we have the heart and the heart is what draws people to Christ.

So, PLEASE people, lets have a conversation about what women CAN DO in the Church and the liturgy... because I am VERY frustrated.[/quote]
I have met a few who use this term Catholic feminist. What are its fruits? I do not see what feminism can offer the Church, either here or in Heaven. I can see the fruits of dignity that Christ and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church offers.
What I see is a society were men and women do not understand even the most basic realities of 'mankind'.

For a true Christian Anthropolgy, we need to realize that we do not know WHY God created man and woman. Man and woman is a Mystery. Like all Holy Mysteries, we MUST respect it, because it is given from God.

[philosophette]

Oik.

I attended an Eastern Rite Parish (Romanian Byzantine) for two years. I was very involved in the parish life and I learned how to bake the prosphora. It was definitely different from my Roman Rite experience. I especially like how there is a deeper involvement of the congregation (The Lord Have Mercys... Father Bless...). I attended the Chrysostom Liturgy and I feel it is more attentive to the attention span of the normal person! :

The issue of the iconostasis is something which bothered me. The men of the parish would be allowed to go behind it, but they would stand back there with the priest and gossip and chat, but the women were told that they were not allowed because they are impure (do to menstruation). It was an odd situation indeed.

Catholic Feminism has nothing to do with mainstream feminism. It is an understanding of the authentic role of women in creation and the Church. I consider Edith Stein's book on woman to be a paramount Catholic Feminist work.

[Oik]

Sadly, many Eastern Chruches are marred by markedly ethnic exclusiveness.
However, The US is not Romania, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Thankfully many Bishops (including those of my Church) understand this and the 'ghetto ethnic' mentality is falling a way.

I can tell you that while this might happen, it is not the norm. The Deacon or Priest is usually very strict about the Holy Place. However, like anything, you have those who do not respect this.

[quote]Catholic Feminism has nothing to do with mainstream feminism. It is an understanding of the authentic role of women in creation and the Church. I consider Edith Stein's book on woman to be a paramount Catholic Feminist work.[/quote]

This isn't feminism, this is the Truth and it transcends such labels. Can a man be a feminist? If so, why can't Manism be about feminism? Can I call myself a Manist, meaning one who is a man supporting the same idea. It all seems too exclusive. The Truth is all inclusive and it is the Church.
I have not read the book you mention, but I can tell you that the miracle (or at least one imporant one) that lead to the canonization of Edith Stein was one of a married Melkite priest!
Please see this [url="http://www.melkite.org/Stein2.html"]link[/url]

[Veritas]

+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.

[philosophette]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1195207' date='Feb 14 2007, 05:06 PM']
+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.
[/quote]


Just because you have not experienced does not mean that other women have not.

I think the male/female leadership really depends upon the situation. I do not think that men always make the best leaders.

Feminazis? Wow, you are harsh. That kind of attitude is the type that really hurts other people. I do not think Jesus would ever call anyone a "feminazi".

I think that I will get "over myself" once I start having some decent experiences of the proper roles of men and women in the Church. Until then I am going to keep waiting and see what happens. You are really very rude to be so hard on the people in this conversation without actually reading the whole discussion.

Edited February 14, 2007 by philosobrat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1195207' date='Feb 14 2007, 06:06 PM']
+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.
[/quote]

Maybe you SHOULD actually read the entire thread before commenting, since your comments do not respond to the actual discussions that took place.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1194863' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:55 PM'] My understanding is that if you desire a reverent liturgy, balanced roles for men and women in the Church, a respect for the dignity of each person, a sense of the sacred and the vocation of the Catholic in the modern world then you are CATHOLIC not a neo-con. Neo-con, in my experience, means you are too far to the right; liberal is too far to the left. The happy middle is where Benedict XVI sits and JPII sat. I like to stick with the Pope.
[/quote]

It's all good. It's a different, and basically useless because I don't like labels for anybody for the most part, discussion anyways. I just thought it was interesting because most "traditionalist" catholics that are still in union with your Pope etc. call the many catholics who are not overly conservative or liberal a "neo-con". It's a generalization, but but looking from the outside in many people see the "conservatives" "neo-cons(ervatives)" and the "liberals". I just thought it was interesting that the label was thrown in the other direction.

Okay, back on topic for realz this time