Lectionary

[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]