Restore the minor orders!
#61
(01-19-2011, 05:07 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 05:00 PM)Anthem Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 04:40 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Further, women started teaching orders. Angela Merici, 15th century. Mother Seton, 19th century, just to name a few.

You neglected to mention that these two women started schools for girls only.

So?

Was not your point that because these women started "teaching orders" it was evidence of some gender egalitarianism?  My point is that these two women, in particular, did not set out to work for "equal roles".  They were filling a gap, certainly, in the education of young women, but that is not an argument that nuns should be teachers for both genders, nor does it have any bearing on eccleasiastical structure.  On the contrary, that these women recognized that girls required a separate educational experience is evidence of their cognizance of the differing gender roles.
Reply
#62
(01-19-2011, 05:07 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: We're talking about singing in the choir and editing bulletins for goodness sake!

Let me offer some clarifications.

On singing in the choir: there are actually two types of choirs for two types of music, at least where the traditional liturgy is concerned. First, you have the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. These can easily be sung by everyone as a congregation, and this is indeed the preferred form. For more complex settings, laymen (and women) can get together to sing the Ordinary in polyphony. This is a lay choir, preferably situated in an organ loft. This is also the most common Catholic practice in the past few centuries.

The other kind is the liturgical or ecclesiastical choir. They should be the only ones to sing the Propers: Introitus, Graduale, Alleluia or Tractus, Offertorium and Communio (the chants that change by the day). This is a liturgical office as much as serving the altar. This sort of choir should be made up only of men vested in choir dress (cassock and surplice), ideally seated in stalls within the sanctuary.

While I think the two functions are ideally kept by the liturgical choir, I'm not opposed to lay choirs (the first type above). I AM opposed to the lay choir being the only one to provide music. In practice, those choirs are dominated by older women, and even in trad churches there's a mentality among some that singing is for girls, serving is for boys. There are few things that could skew the idea of altar service more than that. As I've said before, if I were pastor of a parish, I'd require all my servers to first learn how to sit in the choir stalls, bow at the proper times and sing chant before learning to serve.


On editing bulletins: no, I didn't mean fire all the old ladies literally. I did mean firing them if there was no room on the payroll for an incoming deacon (who's ordained specifically to the task of administering God's church), and giving preference to minor orders before laywomen, or even laymen.


Finally, back to the choirs, here's a citation from Pius X's Tra le sollecitudini to show I'm not just making this up:

Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini Wrote:V. The singers
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.
Reply
#63
(01-19-2011, 05:25 PM)Anthem Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 05:07 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 05:00 PM)Anthem Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 04:40 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Further, women started teaching orders. Angela Merici, 15th century. Mother Seton, 19th century, just to name a few.

You neglected to mention that these two women started schools for girls only.

So?

Was not your point that because these women started "teaching orders" it was evidence of some gender egalitarianism?  My point is that these two women, in particular, did not set out to work for "equal roles".  They were filling a gap, certainly, in the education of young women, but that is not an argument that nuns should be teachers for both genders, nor does it have any bearing on eccleasiastical structure.  On the contrary, that these women recognized that girls required a separate educational experience is evidence of their cognizance of the differing gender roles.

I am not talking about absolute equality. I do not support women priests or so-called deaconesses. I am not a fire-breathing feminist simply because I think women should be able to – and are certainly capable of – serving in teaching roles.
Reply
#64
There have been many examples of the parish secretary or housekeeper becoming a surrogate wife for the priest.  This would be prevented if these positions were held by men.  That presupposes that the priest and deacons are not homosexuals, of course.  And, as HK points out, if a deacon can make a living as a parish administrator, especially if he's married, then so much the better that his wife can be home to raise their traditional Catholic children.

I agree also with HK, that the propers ought to be sung by men.
Reply
#65
We have two deacons on staff (employed) at our parish. They do not do the administration tasks for one simple reason - they don't have the skills. They have pastoral skills..They didn't go to the seminary to learn desktop publishing and page maker. That's my job. Yes, I'm a church secretary ... a CHURCH LADY. So you'll understand that I take this a little personally. You guys want me out of a job.

PS: Just to clarify, they don't get paid for being a deacon! They teach in the school and offer counsel but they do not have administrative skills.
Reply
#66
(01-19-2011, 05:26 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 05:07 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: We're talking about singing in the choir and editing bulletins for goodness sake!

On editing bulletins: no, I didn't mean fire all the old ladies literally. I did mean firing them if there was no room on the payroll for an incoming deacon (who's ordained specifically to the task of administering God's church), and giving preference to minor orders before laywomen, or even laymen.

Most deacons work in the world and are not on the payroll at parishes where they serve. Again, see my above post. If they don't have sufficient administrative skills the church will still need a secretary and an accountant - most always a lay person.
Reply
#67
Just curious SCG, how do your two deacons support themselves? 
Reply
#68
(01-19-2011, 05:48 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Most deacons work in the world and are not on the payroll at parishes where they serve. Again, see my above post. If they don't have sufficient administrative skills the church will still need a secretary and an accountant - most always a lay person.

This is a problem. There are good reasons for many deacons to work in the world, especially if they require high-paying jobs to pay off student loans (like doctors and lawyers). But the norm ought to be for deacons to be full-time church staff. Even with the doctors and lawyers, they should have some sort of advantage in the hiring process at Catholic hospitals, for example. Seminaries should aggressively recruit devout Catholic men who are accountants and managers for ordination to the diaconate. (My opinion only there.)

For the secretary work, I believe the Clerical Oblates of the Institute of Christ the King has things like word processing as part of the brothers' training. That's a model I could get behind, and see implemented for the Church at large.
Reply
#69
(01-19-2011, 06:00 PM)Anthem Wrote: Just curious SCG, how do your two deacons support themselves? 

First, they are both retired from jobs they had in the world. One worked with an optometrist (he actually has a teaching degree), the other worked as an intake counselor in Catholic Social Services for the Archdiocese. At our parish they do a little administrative work - BUT they don't have the proper skills to be secretary or do payroll. Mostly they teach religion class and handle more "pastoral" tasks such as marriage prep, annulments, directing RCIA classes, youth groups, etc. This is not full time work.. They are employed part time - but remember, they are retired..
Reply
#70
(01-19-2011, 04:40 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: It's talk like this that keeps people like me from taking traditionalism seriously.

Hey, I'm pretty moderate, all things considered. Or rather, I'm not vocal about a lot of trad issues due to ignorance or lack of interest or personal involvement. I could never get a job writing for The Remnant or Tradition in Action. In this case, I'm arguing for a position that I believe all trads can get behind, but is one that doesn't get a lot of attention paid to. Really, for the same reason that Trent never got around to implementing what it said about the orders below priesthood: since priesthood and episcopacy were attacked by Protestants more than any other order, Catholics put all their attention to defending and promoting those. It seems to have had the side effect of actually inflating the numbers and centrality of the priesthood beyond what it was prior to the Reformation. This continues even in the Novus Ordo with Pope Benedict's "Year of the Priest", for example, while the minor orders/subdiaconate got the axe entirely and most bishops still don't know what to do with their deacons or how to properly train them.

If anything, my argument is a "seamless garment" approach to Holy Orders. By defending and promoting the minor orders, subdiaconate and diaconate, you ultimately do a service to the priesthood. At the same time, you'll have a more solid ground to refute the encroachment of women in the sanctuary via female acolytes, lectors or whatever else.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)