Lectionary

[Snowcatpa]

While I whole-heartedly share your concern, son of angels, for preserving the Church's beautiful heritage, and understand your reluctance to adapt the lectionary or mass to suit modern congregants, I don't know that I agree that avoiding or ignoring this issue is the proper course of action. At the very least, scholarly teaching and understanding in the faith and reasonings of the Church are necessary. It is difficult for people to understand and many concerns of women are a problem in the Church, and while we may disagree on what to do about it, that doesn't negate the necessity for discussing or approaching the topic, including the possibility of approaching such topics on the altar.

[son_of_angels]

Some discussion do not merit acknowledgement, and even recognizing the value in discussing them leaves room for the opposition to propagate their argument, arguments in which the Church has a hard time getting sympathy for their position. Sometimes it is better to, as John Paul II did concerning women's ordination, simply recognize it as outside the scope of possible debate.

The problem is that by our very actions after the Second Vatican Council, a Council which, though I greatly appreciate it's teaching and accept its authourity, managed to obscure as much as reveal, we have encouraged debate on the whole range of constitutional issues which are the pillars of our church: salvation, liturgy, holy orders, church government, etc. In other words, we have opened the flood doors for the modernist and novel conceptions about the Church. The only way to close this door, which will lead many only to ruin (not the whole Church, as that is impossible, as our Lord has said), is to ride out the wave, let it all calm, and then make a move when the tide has passed. Meanwhile we have to let ourselves maintain a certain balance in all of this and not let ourselves be changed by the problems which face our church, through the fostering of a good and orthodox piety that flows from Catholic tradition.

So, if we acknowledge this threat, it grows, just as what Paul said about the Law, not that the Law was sinful, but that by it he knew what was sinful, and was thereby tempted more strongly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 11:31 AM']While I whole-heartedly share your concern, son of angels, for preserving the Church's beautiful heritage, and understand your reluctance to adapt the lectionary or mass to suit modern congregants, I don't know that I agree that avoiding or ignoring this issue is the proper course of action. At the very least, scholarly teaching and understanding in the faith and reasonings of the Church are necessary. It is difficult for people to understand and many concerns of women are a problem in the Church, and while we may disagree on what to do about it, that doesn't negate the necessity for discussing or approaching the topic, including the possibility of approaching such topics on the altar.
[right][snapback]616800[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Snocatpa, you confuse the "concerns of women" with the demands of radical feminsists. Coming from a largely orthodox parish, I know many women who are not feminists and who do not want the Church to change to fit feminist demands.

The Church does not need to change to fit contemporary fads. It's the dissenters who need to change.

The problem isn't that the Church "excludes" or drives out women. The Church in many places has become too feminized. There is more of a problem of men not going to mass or being involved with the Church, than there is with women. And the Church further giving in to feminist demands isn't going to fix this.

The aging feminist nuns and such who are always making such a fuss are pushing a political agenda on the Church, and are not addressing the genuine problems. They are the problem, not the solution!

Edited June 20, 2005 by Socrates

[son_of_angels]

To be fair, the new lectionary was NOT based on the Revised Common Lectionary but vice versa. Actually, before the RCL there were a good number of Protestant Congregations that used the Vatican II Roman Lectionary, so the new one has done something for ecumenical relationships (not that I see it as a justifiable end in and of itself).

[Snowcatpa]

[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]

[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]