More Weird Liturgy? "Our Lady" Rite Author Inspired By Labyrinth Walk

The Christian Challenge ^ | 7/28/2006 | Lee Penn

[sionnsar]

For those wondering what inspired the Episcopal Church's newly-elected, female presiding bishop to refer to "Mother Jesus" during the General Convention, the answer might be found on the "Office of Women's Ministries" (OWM) page on the official national church website.

Indeed, this is not the first time that the OWM has gotten into liturgical mischief.

The phrase used by Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori appears in a "Eucharist Using Female Nouns and Pronouns" on the OWM's section of the Episcopal Church (TEC)-sponsored website. The rite is accompanied by "Morning Prayers to the Lady" - and this does not mean our Lord's mother. Both services offer worship to "Our Lady" and to the "Holy Mother," and end with the salutation "Blessed be" - a common statement of farewell among Wiccans.

The author of the services, Sandra Thomas Fox, wrote them in 2001, five years after she had a feminist epiphany during her first walk in a labyrinth - a spiritual exercise that actually has New Age roots - at the National Cathedral. There, she became sensitized to "the misogyny in the liturgy."

The webpage that leads to the two feminist liturgies has an all-capitalized disclaimer for each: "NOT AN OFFICIAL LITURGY - FOR USE IN DISCUSSION." Nevertheless, the pages from which each of the services can be downloaded invite readers to use them as well in "gathering communities of worship." Therefore, these services can be used anywhere.

The feminist "Eucharist" invokes God thus: "Blessed be the Lady who births, redeems and sanctifies us."

The threefold Kyrie Eleison becomes this: (Celebrant): Loving Lady, have mercy; (People): Mother Jesus, have mercy; (Celebrant) Loving Lady, have mercy" - thereby giving Jesus both a sex change and children.

The prayers of the people - addressed to "Mother" - include the request that "every member of the Church may be your handmaiden" - thereby praying that all men in the church get a sex change.

The prayer of confession is addressed to "Most Merciful Lady."

The Great Thanksgiving begins, "May the Holy Mother be with you," and continues: "It is truly right, Mother, to give you thanks; for you alone are the I AM, living and true, dwelling in light inaccessible from before time and forever," and adds: "Blessed is she who comes in the name of Love."

With the prayer "Mother, you loved the world so much that you sent your only Son to be our Savior. Incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary," the consecration prayer claims that Jesus has two mommies - and no Father.

Immediately after the consecration of the bread and the wine, the celebrant says, "Mother, we now celebrate this memorial of your redemption." (A Freudian slip, perhaps?)

Oddly enough, the Lord's Prayer is unchanged - so this is the only spot in the service which addresses God as "Father."

The "Mass" ends when the celebrant tells the congregation, "Let us go forth empowered by the Love of our Lady," and the congregation replies, "Blessed be."

THE FEMINIST "MORNING PRAYER" service is similar in spirit. After the confession of sin (again addressed to the "Most Merciful Lady"), the celebrant says, "Nurturing Mother, have mercy on us; forgive us all our sins. Through your beautiful Son, Jesus Christ, strengthen us in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit sustain our eternal life."

Before the psalms, the celebrant says, "The mercy of our Lady is everlasting: come let us adore her." After the Psalm readings, the celebrant sings a new age Gloria Non Patri: "Glory to the Mother, and to her Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever."

In this service, too, the Lord's Prayer was unmolested - but the celebrant precedes it with "May our Holy Lady be with you...Let us pray the words of her beautiful Son, Jesus Christ."

The prayers of the people include "Keep your example of Motherhood ever before us; Let us see in all our children a sacred trust from you" - an invocation that seems out of place here, since the Women's Ministries site lists the pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice among "social justice" groups.

The General Thanksgiving at the end of the service starts, "Most merciful Mother, we your handmaidens give you thanks for your great love for us and for all you have made." The service ends when the celebrant says, "Let us give thanks to our Lady;" the congregation replies, "Blessed be."

AS EARLIER NOTED, this all began with Ms. Fox's first experience with walking the labyrinth at the 1996 Sacred Circles conference at Washington National Cathedral. That day, "during a guided meditation led by Dr. Sarah Fahy, I had met the wise woman who had told me, `Women are beautiful. You are beautiful,'" Fox wrote. "Immediately after I...walked one of the labyrinths set up in the nave. To my surprise, as I entered the path I dissolved into tears. Questions welled up inside of me. Why had no one ever told me I was beautiful? Why did I need to be told that women were beautiful? I sobbed my way into the center, where I sat until I was once again composed. As I began my walk out, the Eucharist was being celebrated at the high altar. I decided I would silently say these comforting, familiar words as I walked...But on this day, to my horror, these words I loved turned to dust and ashes in my mouth. All I could hear was `He, Him, Lord, Son, Father'...I had heard the misogyny in the liturgy, and there was no going back."

Fox continued, "I realized that I did not see my mother, my two daughters, or myself as made in the image of God. When I looked at the liturgy I discovered there are 195 male nouns and pronouns in Rite I and 145 in Rite II. In both cases, there is one reference to a woman - the Virgin Mary in the Creed. If our liturgy is our story, the telling of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, where are the voices of the women that Jesus loved, respected, and held dear? Where is an understanding of the holiness of being a daughter, wife, or mother? Wondering what it would be like to have a service to the Divine Feminine, I used Rite II, Prayer D [from the 1979 Prayer Book] as a starting point and wrote such a Eucharist in 2001.

"If one feels that reading this service is blasphemous, I can only say that writing it felt even more so. Yet I felt called to continue, for what else would allow us to see the narrowness of our current liturgy?...My hope is that this Eucharist will begin a dialogue about the ways in which language affects the quality of our worship, our feelings towards God, and our sense of being created in God's image."

As earlier indicated, this was not the first foray into the bizarre for TEC's Office of Women's Ministries. In 2004, there was an outcry over two other offerings on OWM's section of the official church website: "A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine" and a "Liturgy for Divorce." The Women's Eucharist made no mention of Christ, nor of his Body and Blood, but gave thanks to "Mother God" for things like menstrual blood and breasts.

It emerged that the Women's Eucharist had been on a Druid website since 1998. What's more, it had been penned by "Glispa," who turned out to be part of a husband/wife Episcopal clergy couple who up until a short time earlier had also been involved with and promoting modern-day Druidism, including nude mating rituals and invocation of the "Horned God." Once exposed, Pennsylvania clergy Glyn Ruppe-Melnyck and her husband, W. William Melnyck, repented of their Druidry; Mr. Melnyk lost his parochial job over the issue but Mrs. Melnyk kept hers.

The two offending services, which were removed from the OWM website in the 2004 controversy, were part of OWM's "Women's Liturgy Project" to collect worship resources written by women for women - an initiative that, given the latest from the OWM, is evidently ongoing.

*Sources included: Sandra Thomas Fox, "Reflection on the Holy Eucharist,"

Women's Ministries, http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/41685_60499_ENG_HTM.htm;

Women's Ministries, "Liturgies Using Feminine Images," http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/41685_60497_ENG_HTM.htm, a page that links to texts for the two liturgies;

Women's Ministries, http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/41685_31001_ENG_HTM.htm, a blurb for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

[wmfights]

"Pardon my being blunt, but you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I happen to be born and raised a Catholic and the Scriptures are very revered among my family and my parish. I know many Catholics that know Scripture better than Protestants."
______________________________

GWB: do you see what I mean. When you start getting this "I'm so outraged" type of stuff it's time to move on nothing of interest will be discussed.

[FJ290]

It's the first step in evangelizing. In my church 25% of our members are former RC's and it can be hard for them because of what they've been taught. IOW, if you leave the church you will lose your grace.

Actually, it's more about falling into heresy with me. I'll never become a Protestant because I am in vast disagreement with your various doctrines and believing them would put my soul at stake.

As to the 25 percent of ex-Catholics that attend your church, what does that constitute? Three or four members? You sound like you belong to an Independent Baptist church and they can have as little as 40 members sometimes.

[FJ290]

GWB: do you see what I mean. When you start getting this "I'm so outraged" type of stuff it's time to move on nothing of interest will be discussed.

Oh.. I see. Now it's time to move on when someone challenges your side of the story. The truth hurts I guess.

[blue-duncan]

"I think the worship of the female goes back to the Egyptians"

No, it started long before that: Gen. 2:23, " And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

The obscure ancient Hebrew translation for, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:" is actually, "WOW, will you look at that!". It went steadily downhill after that.

[gbcdoj]

In all those hundreds of years, never, not once, ever, has any Catholic used the word, "worship" to describe his relationship with the Blessed Mother of God, who is Mary

Not quite:

Sophia Institute Press: About Saint Worship and Worship of Mary - Why Devotion to the Saints Makes Sense

Protestants call it idolatry and modernists see it as quaint superstition, but in these lucid pages written over a century ago, Catholic author Orestes Brownson demonstrates that veneration of Mary and the saints is not merely permissible; it’s essential for every Christian who yearns to worship God in spirit and in truth. Worship comes from the Anglo-Saxon word weorthscipe, which means "worthy of honor." And Mary and the saints are worthy of honor more than all other created beings. As Christians praise God in the majesty of the heavens and of the earth, so they praise Him by venerating Him in His saints, who are also the work of His hands and whose good deeds are possible only by His grace. Such praise is not idolatrous because idolatry is the act of rendering to created things the worship that is due to God alone. Catholics do pray to Mary and to the saints, by they don’t invoke them as God; they call on them as humans — humans whose nearness to God in Heaven enables them to assist us here on earth. Catholics simply as of Mary and the saints what they ask of each other while they live in the flesh: prayers. Brownson explains that veneration of Mary and the saints arises from two central mysteries of our Faith — the creation and the Incarnation. And he shows that saint worship is not just a pious devotion that Christians can take or leave as they choose. Rather, it must be part of the faith of every Christian, for it serves as a critical safeguard against atheism, pantheism, and idolatry. Saint Worship and the Worship of Mary challenges every Christian — Catholic and Protestant alike — to take a fresh look at veneration of Mary and the saints, and to discover in these wise and worthy devotions sure means to keep alive in their souls the great mysteries of our Christian Faith.

---

I think it is more illuminating to observe that we don't offer sacrifice to the Virgin or the other Saints, as we do to God in the Eucharist. Sacrifice is the supreme expression of worship and is fit for God alone.

[FJ290]

The obscure ancient Hebrew translation for, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:" is actually, "WOW, will you look at that!". It went steadily downhill after that.

ROFLOL! Well, you have to admit, if you're a man, God sure did make them beautiful to behold.

[blue-duncan]

"God sure did make them beautiful to behold."

Behold, nothing! This was not just eye candy. This was dangerous stuff! He knew what He was doing. Look at His first command to man.

[GCC Catholic]

The Orestes Brownson Society has this book available online:

Saint Worship

I haven't read any of it yet, so I can't give any hint at what Brownson has to say.

[irishtenor]

And they have been a pain in our side ever since. :>)

[conservatative strategery]

Awesmome post!! Keep up the good work.

[wmfights]

Thank you.

God Bless

[starfish923]

Levada didn't seem to accomplish a lot, either. Do you think the new Archbishop is going to improve things? (When I am in SF, I often go to Our Lady of Fatima, the Byzantine rite Catholic church on Lake Street, just to avoid the flakiness.)

Archbishop Levada was a towering rock of strength, a true soldier in the battle against evil.

I guess you didn't hear of the ENORMOUS broo-haha over same-sex partners, the Board of Supervisor Presdient Tom Ammiano, Catholic funds and Levada.

Briefly, the Church does 95% of ALL charity work in San Francisco, including homosexual charity work. It gets 10% of its operating funds from The City. Thus Ammiano believed that HE could tell the Catholic Church how it should operate. Harhar. That pimp hadn't a clue that the Church dealt with the Borgias. How smart did he think HE was.

Anyway, he tried to force the Church to offer same-sex benefits (medical, retirement, dental, etc.) to its employees or ELSE he would cut off the 10% funding to the Church.

1. The Church didn't/doesn't "NEED" no stinkin' 10% because it would do the charity work with or without the extra funding. It did before, since the 1870's.

2. There happen to be NO homosexual employees working for the Chuch at the time, so the whole thing was unnecessary. But it was merely to humiliate the Church and for it to change its very doctrine against homosexuality.

3. The Salvation Army capitulated and Ammiano waited in glee for Levada to give in. Levada DIDN'T.

4. Levada's answer to that threat was to actually pay out MORE money to the Church employees.
***What he did was offer ALL Church employees benefits +1." That meant that all employees could add ONE person to the benefit gravey train. That meant that, true, same-sex partners could be added but so could any family member. THAT is what actually happened. Employees added parents, siblings, elderly family, etc. No same-sex partners were added.

Ammiano was ENRAGED and screamed and raged at Levada for weeks. It was most entertaining. The newspaper editorials DID point out how the Archbishop spiked Ammiano's guns and out-politicked him. Rome was watching, too. You know, Levada now has His Holiness' old job. Our Holy Father saw in Levada the similar qualities of towering intellect and backbone of tempered steel. That is why he is now Cardinal Levada. We are all very proud of him here.

Levada has since, as cardinal, made the SAME ole statements that he made as Archbishop. Two examples:
1. When San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution last week condemning the city's former archbishop, now Cardinal William Levada, for a church policy barring adoptions by same-sex couples, the action drew widespread media attention.
2. Cardinal-designate William J. Levada said a priest who publicly announces he is homosexual makes it difficult for people to see the priest as representing Christ, the bridegroom of his bride, the church.

Our new Archbishop is cut from the same cloth as Levada, very conservative.

[starfish923]

I think you will find justification, free will versus predestination are pretty big points of disagreement.
I think you don't see as many threads about those subjects because Bible study is not emphasized in the RC Church and most RC's are not as well versed as they should be about what their church thinks is truth.

I serioulsy doubt that many folks argue about the points of free will versus predestination anymore. It's rather esoteric to most folks. Perhaps your world is more erudite than most.

You made my argument yourself. Most Catholics DON'T emphasize Bible study. So, it would be hard to have arguments with the predestination folks when Catholics simply don't really care about the argument any more.
Perhaps there are arguments between Protestants but, I don't know about that too much, as I don't care either.

Also, that most Catholics don't even engage in the free will versus predestination argument shows that THEY, at least, know Church doctrine about that one subject. I knew about it LONG ago and I have never heard it discussed in sermon. Why discuss such an antiquated, moot point?

As for Catholics being less well-versed, lol, that's a rather snide thing to say. You couched it but it's simply telling me that, in your opinion, we are ignorant about Church doctrine. I wonder how you would be able to generalize about all 1 billion Catholics.
If Catholics go to Mass and listen to the sermons, they DO hear about doctrine. I wonder why you think they don't. Perhaps it's just your own peculiar bias. It's very odd and saddening to hear such stereotyping.

[livius]

That's very heartening news. I visit SF irregularly (I have family there, but none of them goes to mass anymore, unfortunately) so I don't follow it very closely. Some statements I have heard attributed to Levada have been a little ambiguous, but they were probably out of context and cherry-picked by the media to sound as close to the media's agenda as possible.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of his actions in the "partner benefits" case - it was the best I have read.

[wmfights]

"As for Catholics being less well-versed, lol, that's a rather snide thing to say."
_________________________________

I apologize if you took offense, none was intended.

[Terabitten]

it's a fact that Mary assisted with the redemptive act, although it's also a fact that she in no way had the power to make it more perfect;

I'm sorry, Dangus, my friend, but you can't have it both ways.

You say she assisted in the redemptive act, but had no power to make it more perfect. If she had no power to make it more perfect, then she didn't assist in the redemptive act, she merely attended. To "assist" means to help. Did Mary help Jesus in the redemptive act or not?

Asked from the other direction: Would the redemptive act have lost any of its perfection without Mary's "assistance?" If your answer is no, then Mary didn't assist, and thus should be assigned no greater reverence than anyone else who was there. If your answer is yes, that Jesus needed his mommy to help, then He isn't much of a Savior, is He?

[dangus]

Well, I wouldn't have worded my post the way I did had I seen this book, but this is hardly a spontaneous adaptation of Catholics using the term, "worship": the book is directly addressed to Protestants attacking what they call worship, and is precisely what I referred to immediately to George W. Bush's assertion his neighbor said she "worshipped" Mary: It is accepting a Protestant label for a practice which Catholics do not call worship, and plainly explains that Catholics do NOT do that which Protestants mean when they use the word "worship."

The author is using the tactic of asserting that "worship" did not mean idolatry. From the outside, it seems a foolish tactic, since plainly people use now the word worship to denote what is idolatry, and the Catholic Church had never used that word, but perhaps I shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

[dangus]

>> You say she assisted in the redemptive act, but had no power to make it more perfect. If she had no power to make it more perfect, then she didn't assist in the redemptive act, she merely attended. To "assist" means to help. Did Mary help Jesus in the redemptive act or not? <<

Didn't you ever help your Mom make cookies when you were a kid? DId you actually think you were enabling her to do something she couldn't have done without her help? Of course not! Your Mom had you help her because it was good for YOU, not good for HER. Accordingly, Christ allows us to help him, so that we come to know of his love for us better, and also come to know the nature of what he has done for us. We do need to respond to the call to help the mission of Christ, and Mary, as the first person to know Christ, is held up as an example of saying "yes" to that call.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Would the redemptive act have lost any of its perfection without Mary's "assistance?" If your answer is no, then Mary didn't assist, and thus should be assigned no greater reverence than anyone else who was there.

Amen. There's not one shred of evidence that Mary "assisted with the redemptive act," while the assertion itself borders on blasphemy, no matter how well-intentioned.

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." -- Matthew 4:10

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." -- John 17:1-4

"Mission Accomplished" by Christ alone.

I REALLY like your tag. 8~)

[Terabitten]

Didn't you ever help your Mom make cookies when you were a kid?

Sadly, no, my mother was not present for large chunks of my childhood.

Your analogy actually argues the Protestant point. What you're saying is that Mary's "help" in the redemptive act wasn't really help at all. She didn't assist, she merely attended.

Besides, at that point, how could Jesus "letting her help" have possibly benefitted Mary? Was she not already in a state of grace by that time, according to Catholic doctrine?