Women in Church Music and Church Choirs

Now I understand better. The point I am trying to make is that the 4 fundamental assumptions I have made in this thread are precisely the the historical position of the Church of England for at least the first 350 years of its existence. The Church of England has always allowed women to participate in the congregational singing and devotional responses in an audible voice with the men in the congregation during the divine liturgy.

Yet for a long time, especially in cathedral choirs, women have been DENIED the liberty of singing as members of Church of England church choirs, especially in Cathedrals. Some of you have objected that no sound theological basis was needed in order to justify the exclusion of women and girls from church choirs.

But I cannot accept that. On the contrary, several Anglican writes especially in the 19th century gave a theological and ecclesiological (an in some cases, a moral and ethical) and not just merely an aesthetic, artistical, technical, or pragmatical reason for male-only church choirs. For example, Dr. / Rev. G. E. Stubbs, wrote an article entitled, "Why We Have Male Choirs in Churches":

"In regard to the employment of women's voices in the Church service, an authority of the Roman Church says:

It is not sufficiently well known that until recent times it has not been the custom to introduce women into choirs, because the choir which serves the priest has a part in the liturgical action, and as women are excluded from the altar service they have therefore no place in the choir. We here arrive at the fundamental reason. The Liturgy is entrusted to the priests; of this Liturgy the choir is a constituent portion, and hence the words of the Apostle, Mulier taceat in ecclesia, in regard to the Liturgy remain in force. This has ever been observed in the Church, and even though we find that some of the ancient Fathers, for instance Ambrosius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostomus, and Zenobius decreed that women could take part in the Psalmody, the simple fact of the matter is that the singing of Psalms was not at that time liturgical, but more in the nature of folk-singing. The exclusion of women's voices had reference therefore only to the liturgical portion and not to the rest of the Divine Service. When, as is much to be desired, our beautiful Psalms become real folk-songs, when at Vespers and at Compline the whole congregation are able to answer the priest, there will be no objection to the participation of women in this part of the service. These are sufficient arguments to show what authorization ever existed as to women's voices in the choir."

Here are some more professing Anglican witnesses, which I have adduced in order to show THEIR reasons for excluding women from the church choirs:

"Hired women singers ought never to be suffered in the House of God. They may join of course in the music, as private individuals: but to obtrude them into orchestras is at war with the retired modesty befitting Christian women" (John Jebb, The Choral Service of the United Church of England and Ireland, page 204).

"They [women/girls] may of course join in hymns, responses, etc., i.e., in the common service, but must take no leading part. Therefore mixed choirs, and so-called “angel” choirs, are an abomination, nor are solos in church by female operatic singers and others [except only of the MALE sex] permitted" (Rev. S. E. Cottam, A Lantern for Lent, page 135).

"I must mention one practice which should be avoided, as most inconsistent with the spirit of the Church of England: namely, the introduction of female voices as a stated and ostensible part of the Choir. Not that I would by any means intend to discourage their joining in the singing, as part of the congregation … But … the members of formal Choirs hold a PUBLIC and MINISTERIAL office, [and] it is inconsistent with all Christian precedent, that women should be officers of the congregation" (John Jebb’s Three Lectures on the Cathedral Service of the Church of England, pages 113, 114).

"As regards the composition of church choirs, males should be encouraged and females discouraged. The female child voice is often inferior in quality, firmness, and volume. Young boys and girls do not work well together; little jealousies, as experience shows, hinder their so doing, and in choir work would tend to lessen the reverential habit so necessary to choristers. Men are meant to stand out and minister before others in God’s house; women are not. All should join as members of the congregation—“Young men and maidens, old men and children.” But all are not qualified to be leaders of the people's service, and in this sense comes the command, “Let your women keep silence in the Churches.” The adult female voice is often effective and useful; but we must submit to the privation, for consider what would be the numberless obstacles to choir work where young men and women were associated as ministers of the sanctuary. I dare not begin so voluminous a subject. The services of many devoted females in this cause must not be undervalued—services rendered in spite of natural diffidence, in order that a more decent performance of worship may be secured. Still, I am persuaded that, as a rule, boys, if sought after, can be found possessing the requisite natural abilities. But should the difficulty of obtaining their aid be a real one, the female contribution may be given from a more retired situation than the front seats of chancel stalls. As a general rule the Catholic custom is the right one, and departure from Catholic custom is dangerous. Moreover, the presence of a female is out of the question in a surpliced choir" (The Formation and Training of Church Choirs, 1870, page 5).

My posts were written SPECIFICALLY to refute each and every ONE of their reasons for excluding women and girls from church choirs.

 

Does the historical Catholic Tradition of the Church of England allow women in church choirs?

This is not calling for a vote, it's asking for the answer to a question. I for one am not particulartly interested in the answer, if there actually is one.

Tradition can always be changed at times and in places with agreement, if a tradition is outdated and unhelpful.

The question, if it were to have been an actual survey of Anglican opinion, should have been:

Should the historical Catholic Tradition of the Church of England allow women in church choirs?

 

I looked up some of these writers, since I'd never heard of them until the past few days. John Jebb would have written his stuff in the late 1700s. Stubbs and Cottam were writers of the early 1900s. None of them are recognized as important early Anglican theologians. Their writings set no precedents. Their writing are simply their opinions. For example, if an Anglican of today wrote a tome to support the notion that Jesus already returned bodily in 70 A.D., would a reader 100 years from now be justified in citing the book as proof of 'the Anglican belief'? Of course not.

There will always be some people who hold strange doctrinal ideas, and they may write those ideas in a book. They may have also found some like-minded people with whom to congregate in order to propagate (on a small scale) those ideas. It's just a tempest in a teapot.

 

For the record I would have to say it is up to the person given the responsibility of organising the music and conduct of the choir along with its members and those who appointed them all, whether it will be a male only, female only or mixed choir and the only valid reasons are aesthetic ones to do with sound and performance. Religion should not come into it. But that is only my opinion, for what it is worth.
.

 

Like all things in the Anglican tradition, really the only thing that actually matters is "What does Scripture tell us". If Scripture has nothing to say on the gender composition of church choirs, and it doesn't, the tradition doesn't matter.

That's not to say we should do away with all tradition. Tradition has proven to be effective at maintaining and keeping the faith, it has been proven over centuries, but we should always examine whether or not the tradition is doing anything useful, or if it is just something we have always done by coincidence. Anyone sensible can see having all male choirs brings us no closer to God, so even if it was possible to prove the historical Anglican Church only ever allowed men/boys in choirs, who cares? Let's just have a choir that produces the best music.

 

That is precisely what these fustian Romanizing "Anglo-Catholic" Ritualist Tractarians calling themselves High Church Anglican need to be told. According to the Coronation Oaths, the Church of England is the Protestant Reformed Religion established by the Laws of England. The ONE "authority" and "warrant" these same Ritualist Tractarians use in order to bring back Fasting Communion, Intoning the Prayers in Parish Churches, and the revival of Popish Eucharistic Vestments in the Anglican Liturgy when they cannot prove the binding obligation of these things from the Holy Scriptures is precisely the universal customs of the universal church, by which I mean the unbroken custom of the Church merely because it is the unbroken custom of the Church, regardless of the SOURCE of HOW and WHY it CAME to be ACCEPTED or PROPOSED or INSTITUTED by the Church at all in the first place.

I have attached a file, Why the Church of England~1.pdf, to better explain why the Church of England has the lawful right to overrule any one of those universal customs of the universal church which are not essential to the divinely revealed doctrines of faith or morals.

I also have a few maxims of common law on this point, though I for one wouldn’t advise any attempt to DEFIANTLY and OPENLY break the prevailing custom without necessity:

"Usage and custom, generally received, have the force of law." Hale's History of Common Law, p. 65.

"Quia consuetudo, ex certa causa rationabile usitata, privat communem legem;" because custom, derived from a certain reasonable cause, takes the place of law. Littleton, Lib. 2, c. 10, sec. 149,

But "consuetudo, contra rationem introducta, potius usurpatio, quam consuetudo, appellari debet." When custom is adopted without reason, it ought rather to be called usurpation than custom.

"Quia, in consuetudinibus, non [sola] diuturnitas temporis, sed [etiam] soliditas rationis, est consideranda." Because in judging of customs, strength of reason is to be considered, and not [just] length of time. The reason which supports them ought to be regarded, and not [just] the length of time, during which they have prevailed.

- Charles Stuart & Granville Sharp, A Memoir of Granville Sharp, to which is added…, pages 85/86.

These are the reasons why mere customs however long they have been in force continuously without interruption cannot de jure divino bind the conscience to observe them unless they have a reasonable cause of a nature sufficient to make not just the violation of this custom while it is the unbroken and prevailing ancient custom of the Church, but even so much as the very nonexistence of this custom in the first place (and much more, for the Church to have had the contrary custom) – contrary to Divine law. If it could be proven irrefutably unto the conscience and faith of the Church of England that a certain custom is unreasonable and inequitable, well then she may break it and abrogate it and abolish it without therefore becoming unfaithful to the Sacred Deposit of the Revealed Faith she is bound de jure Divino to guard faithfully and diligently against all novelties to the contrary. Yea, she may break it and abrogate it and abolish it – yea, and innovate something to the contrary – without therefore offending against the decency and order and sanctity she is bound de jure Divino under penalty of irreverence and profanity to strictly observe in public worship.

We must therefore look not at the mere FACT that it IS the prevailing ancient custom, but look at the REASONS and FOUNDATIONS for this custom. As I already stated in an earlier post, there were reasons for this custom of male-only Temple Choirs in the OT which show plainly that they were never intended to apply to the NT, nor to OT synagogues outside the temple: https://forums.anglican.net/threads/women-in-church-music-and-church-choirs.4325/page-2#post-46117.

 

Well... I am one of those fustian Romanizing "Anglo-Catholic" Ritualist Tractarians that calls themself a High Church Anglican, so I don't know that we do need to be told that. Anglo-Catholicism has come a long way since the Oxford Movement. No one in my church would argue vestments are a binding obligation, the Eucharist in other parishes in the diocese is no less valid. Perhaps there are some Anglicans who might think so, perhaps more likely in those outside the Anglican Communion that are only in communion with other Anglo-Catholic churches (I don't know for certain, I'm just guessing here), but they are in the extreme minority. The average Anglo-Catholic thinks vestments are good, not necessary. There's an important difference. Having bells, smells, candles and fancy outfits begs us to ask the question why. Members of our church regularly have informal discussions and lay education on why these things are so, it's a mechanism for learning and appreciating the faith. And it helps us keep it.

Just today my rector was still caught in New Zealand because of the recent Covid outbreak cancelling their flight. They were expected to be back for the eucharist so no alternative priest was available to do the service on such sudden notice. We had a deacon do the service with reserve sacrament, many of the regular curiosities of our service were not able to be followed by a deacon, and no one thought the sacrament compromised or invalid. Tradition is good for keeping the faith, not necessary for salvation - hence why there's no tension with the Anglican church two suburbs over we're in happy communion with. Practice the type of worship that best brings you to God, scripture neither supports nor condemns vestments so do as you please.

 

This post conjures in my mind an impression of a person on the outside of a church building, peering in through a stained-glass window, and trying to describe the thoughts, intents, and beliefs of the people therein from the clouded view of their physical appearance.

We Anglicans are, first and foremost, Christians. We attend or belong to the parishes where we go, not because we are beholden to Anglicanism per se, but because God has planted us in those parishes for His good purposes.

We aren't following the Pope. We don't bend the knee to some religious hierarchy. While we enjoy certain customs, traditions, vestments, and suchlike, they do not constitute the sum and substance of our faith. If you're trying to convince us that we shouldn't be hard-fast bound by all tradition, that we shouldn't be subject to the pope, and that women may sing anything in church that the men may sing, you're wasting your time because we already agree. But if you're trying to say that nice vestments, candles around the communion table, and traditional liturgical prayers are somehow wrong, I don't see how you can show any of that from Scripture. The fact that the Roman church uses candles, vestments, etc. does not imply "guilt by association" upon Anglicans; the RC errors are many, but not everything they do is erroneous.

 

It is no insult. One wonders why you would be looking for one.

It means 'original poster', i.e. the person who started the thread. It is widely used in online fora.

 

Here is another observation I have noticed about 1 Corinthians 14:34/35: The prohibition given in the particular precept is precise and generical or else no longer in force today exactly as written. See https://forums.anglican.net/threads...on-women-in-the-church.4044/page-6#post-45343. Another observation I have noticed about in the days of the Church Fathers, the heretics were the first professing Christians ever to permit women to sing in church choirs.

In the 3rd century AD, a certain coward poltroon scoundrel villain dastard runagate heretic & schismatic, named Paul of Samosata, calling himself a bishop, innovated in public worship by introducing a Choir of Women into the Church of Antioch. (Eusebius, History of the Church VII.30)

Even worse, he used the same arguments that many advocates of Exclusive Psalmody use: he argued that because psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ [and by the way, this includes Watt’s versions of the Psalms] are modern psalms and the writings of modern men, therefore they ought to be OUTLAWED from public worship. Yet what did he propose in place of these psalms of Jesus Christ? Not exclusively the Psalms of David! But egotistical “hymns” of praise to himself! Not Jesus! Not even JHVH! And who does he make to sing these chants? Women! All of which seemed to many Catholics of that day and age to be scandalous and heretical!

https://www.sonusantiqva.org/i/S/Sarband/1997FallenWomen.html:

Now, one of the cardinal arguments in favor of the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is that the mere fact that none of the early orthodoxical believing professing Christian Churches allowed a given practice constitutes a strong presumptive evidence that the practice is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Well, the fact is that it was the heretics that were the first among professed Christians to permit women and/or girls to sing in church choirs, as well as preach and teach in Church.

Also, Isidore of Pelusium enacted in Canon 90, a certain decree against women singing in church. Here it is:

Canon 90. The Apostles of our Lord, in order to exterminate all frivolous loquacity in the Churches, and in the capacity of teachers of decency and order, wisely allowed women to sing therein. Yet, contrary to all the divine laws on this point, this led in too many cases to laxity and many occasions for sin, because the women were not moved to due compunction and diffidence with the divine hymns, but on the contrary, misused the charm of singing to provoke undue lusts, for no other motive than that they considered the singing to be merely an improved form of the theatrical choruses. It is therefore expedient, if only because the pleasure of God requires it, to forbid it, since we wish that the singing should be conducive to the edification of all; and because their misuse of singing is little better than selling away Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and transmogrifying divine grace into calamity for the sake of wages, let them not sing in church, but let them return to the city.

Later I will analyze this decree in more detail.

 

ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM’S DECREE AGAINST WOMEN SINGING IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.

§1: Canon 90. The Apostles of our Lord, in order to exterminate all frivolous loquacity in the Churches, and in the capacity of teachers of decency and order, wisely allowed women to sing therein. Yet, contrary to all the divine laws on this point, this led in too many cases to laxity and many occasions for sin, because the women were not moved to due compunction and diffidence with the divine hymns, but on the contrary, misused the charm of singing to provoke undue lusts, for no other motive than that they considered the singing to be merely an improved form of the theatrical choruses. It is therefore expedient, if only because the pleasure of God requires it, to forbid it, since we wish that the singing should be conducive to the edification of all; and because their misuse of singing is little better than selling away Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and transmogrifying divine grace into calamity for the sake of wages, let them not sing in church, but let them return to the city.

§2: Analysis of the first part.

"The Apostles of our Lord, in order to exterminate all frivolous loquacity in the Churches..."????!? But this ignores the following fact: the Greek verb lalein, which Paul the Apostle uses is not limited to just idle chatter, but is used in all of 1 Corinthians 14 to include prophesying, speaking in tongues, preaching, teaching, exhorting, and all other forms of publicly addressing an assembly.

"... And in the capacity of teachers of decency and order, wisely allowed women to sing therein." But this ignores another fact: in Ephesians 5:19, lalein (which is used to name the act expressly forbidden for women to do in Church) is also applied to singing, and that if this verb ex vi termini (i.e. by virtue of the meaning of the word) is of such a nature as to exempt congregational singing from the prohibition incumbent upon lalein, then the same must be true for singing solos and singing in the choir. If 1 Corinthians 14:34, when considered independently of the reason - namely, that the divine and natural law prescribes the due subjection of women in the ecclesiastical estate - that Paul the Apostle adduces for its ruling, does not forbid women from participating in the congregational singing, neither does it forbid them from singing solo, nor from singing in the choir!

It also ignores yet another fact, that it is precisely on account of the following facts (a), (b), (c),..., that such is the sense of lalein, that provided only that 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 be considered independently of the reason (namely, the due subjection of women in the ecclesiastical estate) that Paul the Apostle gives for this precept: "such is the plain and common sense of them [viz. the particular key words used for SILENCE and SPEAK in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35], that you must first perswade me contrary to natural Sence and Reason, that Womens vocal, audible singing of matter of Praise and Doctrine [in the form of solos and choirs], which thing the Scripture calls teaching, and speaking [Col. 3.16, Eph. 5.19] is neither of them, but is a keeping Silence, learning in Silence, and is being in Silence, before I can [EVER] believe that women are permitted vocally to sing [in the form of solos and choirs] in the Worship of God in his Church": (a) the fact that the more GENERIC term lalein is used. If Paul the Apostle desired to limit his precept to just publicly addressing the assembly as opposed to devotional liturgical responses whether sung or spoken by the whole congregation, or made by individuals as candidates for Baptism, Matrimony, Confirmation, etc., a due sense of honor and punctiliousness, as well as accuracy and precision, would have indeed REQUIRED the use of the more SPECIFIC terms agoreuo or demegoreo, both of which can ONLY mean publicly addressing the assembly or talking in any sense which can ONLY put oneself on a level with those who have the acknowledged function of publicly addressing a public assembly, but St. Paul only uses the more GENERIC term; (b) Ephesians 5:19 includes even the singing of hymns as a subspecies of lalein ; (c) before Paul the Apostle names anything else as definitive of the context in which the precept found in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is delivered, he names the singing of psalms.

The Church Fathers, ignoring this last fact about how lalein is used in Ephesians 5:19, did, in their mistaken liberality, concede to women the liberty of singing in church as least congregationally. But what has been the reward of such mistaken liberality?? Precisely the following, as stated in §3.3.

§3: Analysis of the second part.

"Yet, contrary to all the divine laws on this point, this led in too many cases to laxity and many occasions for sin, because the women were not moved to due compunction and diffidence with the divine hymns, but on the contrary, misused the charm of singing to provoke undue lusts, for no other motive than that they considered the singing to be merely an improved form of the theatrical choruses."

The Divine Law teaches that the public assembly of worship is the House of Prayer, and must therefore CONFORM to the law of prayer. Whoever desires to conform to the law of prayer must be of a repentant, contrite, and diffident (i.e. humble, unassuming, distrusting in one's self or one's own strength, modest and reserved) frame of mind. But these women had failed or refused to be repentant, contrite, diffident, modest, and reserved; and this is because the music and methodology of the theater and dance is calculated to DESTROY these Christian virtues.

§4: Analysis of the third and final part.

"It is therefore expedient, if only because the pleasure of God requires it, to forbid it, since we wish that the singing should be conducive to the edification of all; and because their misuse of singing is little better than selling away Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and transmogrifying divine grace into calamity for the sake of wages, let them not sing in church, but let them return to the city."

"It is therefore expedient, if only because the pleasure of God requires it, to forbid it" - EXPEDIENT? Expendiency is all right and good, but not when it calls for the compromise of divinely revealed dogmas on faith and morals.

"Since we wish that the singing should be conducive to the edification of all" - which is exactly what Paul the Apostle teaches in 1 Corinthians 14:26.

"And because their misuse of singing is little better than selling away Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and transmogrifying divine grace into calamity for the sake of wages" - but this is exactly what is happening in a lot of so-called Contemporary Christian Music today! Abuses of this sort have ALWAYS been condemned by the orthodoxically believing historical ecclesiastical authorities.

"Let them not sing in church, but let them return to the city." - This is the truth of the matter unless it turns out that this form of vocal participation in church is NOT a violation of the reason Paul the Apostle adduces for the precept: and that reason is, again, the due subordination of the female sex in the ecclesiastical estate.

§5: A suggested revision.

Canon 90 - Revised. The accepted conventional wisdom of the greater part of the Church is that the Apostles of our Lord, in order to exterminate all acts of women publicly addressing the assembly, together with their acts of preaching, teaching, and usurping authority over men, and also in the capacity of teachers of decency and order, wisely allowed women to sing therein. Yet what reward have the Apostles, and those who profess to obey the teachings and precepts of the said Apostles, received? Alas! contrary to all the divine laws on this point, this led in too many cases to laxity and many occasions for sin, because the women were not moved to due compunction and diffidence with the divine hymns, but on the contrary, misused the charm of singing to provoke undue lusts, for no other motive than that they considered the singing to be merely an improved form of the theatrical choruses. It is therefore right and meet, if only because the pleasure of God requires it, to acknowledge the truth of the matter, that this thing is just as forbidden to women as preaching and teaching in church except that it happen that the singing in church is not contrary to the reason the Apostle has given for the divine precept, and that reason is that the divine law demands that women should abide in due subjection in the ecclesiastical estate; and besides the fact that their misuse of singing is little better than selling away Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and transmogrifying divine grace into calamity for the sake of wages, We therefore BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that it is not lawful for women to sing in church unless the act of singing is not contrary to the due subjection of women in the ecclesiastical sphere; and finally, I strongly advise and counsel that the women should be sent back to the city.

 

In other words, this fellow taught the women to sing hymns of praise to him rather than to glorify God. Eusebius did not aver that the problem was women singing, but that it was praising a mortal man.

BTW, the sonusantiqva.org link does not work. I don't think we can evaluate its integrity or the correctness of its claims. If it is not the work of, or quoting, an early church writer, then whatever it says is conclusory opinion.

As for the quote from Isidore, apparently he didn't agree with the Apostles' decision to allow females to sing. But that is almost 400 years after the precedent set by the Apostles, so why shouldn't we follow what the Apostles said rather than what Isidore opined?

I think we are arriving at the same conclusion.

 

THE TESTIMONY OF ST. JEROME AGAINST PELAGIUS.

Here is the testimony of St. Jerome (Eastern Orthodox and/or "Roman Catholic") against the Pelagian/Syriac innovation of female choirs:

Verum tu tantae es liberalitatis, ut favorem tibi apud Amazonas tuas concilies, ut in alio loco scripseris, Scientiam legis etiam feminas habere debere: cum Apostolus doceat esse tacendum mulieribus in Ecclesia; et si quid ignorant, domi viros suos debere consulere (I Cor. XIV). Nec sufficit tibi dedisse agmini tuo scientiam Scripturarum, nisi earum voce et canticis delecteris. Jungis enim et ponis in titulo, Quod et feminae Deo psallere debeant. Quis enim ignorat psallendum esse feminis in cubiculis suis, et absque virorum frequentia et congregatione turbarum? Verum tu donas quod non licet; ut quod verecunde facere debeant, et absque ullo arbitro, magistri auctoritate proclament.

English: The truth of the matter is that your Jacobinical liberalism is so great, that in order to appease the wrath of your Amazons, you have written in another place, That even the Ladies Ought to Have a Knowledge of the Law of God, yet the Apostle teaches that women ought to be silent in Church, and if they know nothing, they can always petition their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14). But you are not satisfied just that your retinue of women would have a knowledge of Scripture, but you also desire to delight yourself with their voices and chantings! Therefore you have placed another title: That Even the Ladies Ought to Sing Psalms unto God. Who is there among us that does not know that this women’s psalmody ought to be in the privacy of their homes, and far away from the public promiscuous assemblies of men and/or the great congregation? The truth of the matter is that you allow what is unlawful; namely that the very thing which should be done modestly and without any witnesses, should by the authority of their teacher be vociferated out loud!! (Adversus Pelagianos.)

http://www.piney.com/DocOrdePrin.html:

 

The Testimony of the "Dictionary of the English Church, Ancient and Modern":

Dictionary of the English Church, Ancient and Modern - Thomas Moore - Google Books:

See once again how these fustian self-righteous "Anglo-Catholics", rejecting Sola Scriptura, think that the mere FACT that a given practice is "the long-established usage of the Church" (provided that it be not contrary to the Bible), is automatically sufficient and actually efficient to render it binding on the conscience! If I had to be an Anglican, I would sympathize with the Low-Church rather than the High-Church. The High-Church, since the days of the Tractarian movement, has inclined more and more towards Popery. For this reason I have attached a PDF file showing that Ritualism is Doctrine not merely Dress or Adornment, but DOCTRINE contrary to the teachings of the 39 Articles of Religion!

 

Funny question.

I am a Catholic.

And in all my life I have never heard that women should not sing in church choirs.


How can anybody get such an idea?


Maybe from reading too much of Saint Paul's letters?

 

Popery?

Isn't that a word from times when denominations hated each other?

I had hoped that those times were long gone.

 

Here are some genuine historical "Roman Catholic" sources to testify that the "Roman Catholic" Church has never ordinarily allowed women to sing in church choirs during solemn liturgical functions, except in chapels of nuns and girls' parish schools:

Pius X: Motu Proprio (Tra le Sollecitudini), Section 5, Canon 13.

Canon XII of the Church Music Regulations for the Province of Rome, from the Cardinal Vicar Pietro on February 2, 1912:

850 AD, Synod of Rome:

In English: All songs and choirs consisting of the voices of women and girls in Church or even in the graveyard thereof are absolutely FORBIDDEN! This very decree is the DEFINITIVE PROOF that the proposed distinction between “liturgical chancel choirs” and the “select congregational choirs” in the nave or in a balcony just above the Narthex of a church building is contrary to the uniform, universal, and perpetual tradition of the “Roman Catholic” church.

Here is the testimony of St. Jerome (an approved saint of the "Roman Catholic" Church) against the Pelagian/Syriac innovation of female choirs:

Verum tu tantae es liberalitatis, ut favorem tibi apud Amazonas tuas concilies, ut in alio loco scripseris, Scientiam legis etiam feminas habere debere: cum Apostolus doceat esse tacendum mulieribus in Ecclesia; et si quid ignorant, domi viros suos debere consulere (I Cor. XIV). Nec sufficit tibi dedisse agmini tuo scientiam Scripturarum, nisi earum voce et canticis delecteris. Jungis enim et ponis in titulo, Quod et feminae Deo psallere debeant. Quis enim ignorat psallendum esse feminis in cubiculis suis, et absque virorum frequentia et congregatione turbarum? Verum tu donas quod non licet; ut quod verecunde facere debeant, et absque ullo arbitro, magistri auctoritate proclament.

English: The truth of the matter is that your Jacobinical liberalism is so great, that in order to appease the wrath of your Amazons, you have written in another place, That even the Ladies Ought to Have a Knowledge of the Law of God, yet the Apostle teaches that women ought to be silent in Church, and if they know nothing, they can always petition their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14). But you are not satisfied just that your retinue of women would have a knowledge of Scripture, but you also desire to delight yourself with their voices and chantings! Therefore you have placed another title: That Even the Ladies Ought to Sing Psalms unto God. Who is there among us that does not know that this women’s psalmody ought to be in the privacy of their homes, and far away from the public promiscuous assemblies of men and/or the great congregation? The truth of the matter is that you allow what is unlawful; namely that the very thing which should be done modestly and without any witnesses, should by the authority of their teacher be vociferated out loud!! (Adversus Pelagianos.)

But on December 25, 1955, Pope Pius XII in Canon 74 of his encyclical Musicae Sacrae, stated that if it is impossible to get enough man/boy laics to sing in the church choirs, it is allowed for the Ordinary to grant an indult for ladies, girls, and women to sing in (select congregational) choirs provided only that they keep themselves separated from the men/boys and special care is taken to prevent all unseemliness; the Ordinary is BOUND in conscience in this matter. (As it turns out, on January 17, 1908, the Sacred Congregation of Rites ruled that wherever it concerns the question of an officially recognized choir especially in cathedrals, the exclusive singing of women alone - as a select congregational choir - is not lawful except for sufficiently grave reasons duly acknowledged by the Ordinary, and even then, special care must be taken to avoid all unseemliness!)

But if no such valid dispensation by the Ordinary is granted, then it was still unlawful for women and girls to sing in church choirs during solemn liturgical functions. It was not until some time AFTER the Vatican II council that women and girls were finally allowed to sing in church choirs at Mass.

 

Why do you say "the Apostle" - when you mean that mean Paul?

 

Well of course it means Paul and nobody else. The sources I have quoted are either GENUINE or else they are anti-Catholic FORGERIES! Neutrality has NO legal rights the Church is bound to respect!

 

It has been over a month since anybody else has replied to my last comment.