Log Out | Topics | Search

Women in Church Music Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Luther Quest Discussion Group » General Discussions » Women in Church Music « Previous Next »

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post

Archive through March 05, 2021 Joe Krohn (Jekster) 30 1 3-05-21 10:08 am
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message

Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 10:22 am:

Juan Jeanniton CHURCH MUSIC ACCORDING TO THE DIVINELY PRESCRIBED ECCLESIASTICAL SPHERE OF WOMEN
(Casusconscientiae)
Member This thread makes the following foundational a-priori assumptions:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 63 1: That 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are still in full force today exactly as written and exactly as it reads at face-value; and that it absolutely forbids women to PUBLICLY
Registered: 2-2021 ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING,
SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or put forth questions in a voice LOUD and PUBLIC ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY; and that this precept is a universal and
perpetual divine law;

2: That neither CONGREGATIONAL SINGING nor DEVOTIONAL RESPONSES are included in the prohibition;

3: That the REASONS for these prohibitions are universal and of natural moral equity, based on the divine order of creation of the sexes, according to which, the man is the head of the woman;

4: That the Lutheran Confessions of Faith are to be suscribed according to a quia and not merely a quatenus sense;

5: That C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of the supremacy of the voters' assembly within the local congregation is the only church polity which agrees with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran
Confessions on church government.

To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione:

Mr. Gorman said, "The fact that, historically, in many churches, women have not been subordinate but have drawn ungodly attention to themselves merely proves that these churches were never
churches of the saints:" and then quoted 1 Corinthians 14:33/35 and 1 Corinthians 11:8/10 in the EHV version. But the question involved in singing solo is the question of whether the very idea of
women singing solo in church at all is ipso facto an act of drawing ungodly attention to herself, and therefore a violation of the Divine Order of Creation. Mr. Gorman and Mr. Krohn both contend
that it IS so. I wrote Thesis 4 specifically to attempt to vindicate the very idea of women singing solo in church from such a grievous accusation.

Mr. Gorman said, "The Church of England is a feminist denomination. Throughout much of its history, the heterodox Church of England has been governed by a female usurper, a Queen who puts
herself on conspicuous display at religious coronations". Yes, the church of England has TODAY been TAKEN OVER by the rabid feminists. But historically the Church of England herself has
OPPOSED these feminist infiltrations. The Church of England historically, has NEVER allowed women to preach or teach or publicly address the assemblies in the Anglican divine liturgy; nor has
she allowed these things mere laymen who have NOT been ordained to Holy Orders (i.e. the clergy, the specialized ceremonial and official ministry of the Word and Sacraments). Nay, but one of
her articles of religion is:

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation.

It is not lawful for any man [any more than the females themselves, see 1 Cor. 14:34/35, 1 Tim 2:11/15] to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the
Congregation [ESPECIALLY during the Divine Liturgy!!!], before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and
called [and hopefully, ritually and ceremonially invested and inaugurated] to this work by men [i.e. adult males only!] who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send
Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

...

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

The [Reigning/Regent] King's [/Queen's] Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his [/her] Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm,
whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's [/Queen's]
Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes
the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do
most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and
degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

For the first 400 years (to the best of my memory) of the Church of England's history, women were NEVER allowed to preach or teach or publicly address the assemblies in the Anglican divine
liturgy (until Maude Royden came along around the 1920s becoming the FIRST woman to preach in the Anglican Church without even being ordained to Holy Orders), and until about the 1920s, all
the rubrics of the Church of England prescribed that the bride shall swear to love, honor, and OBEY the bridegroom in his capacity as her lawfully wedded husband. But the question of female
preaching & teaching in church or publicly addressing assemblies in the Anglican Divine Liturgy is not the question involved. I was talking about the confirmation service, the
infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service, as they have been historically prescribed in the Book of
Common Prayer for the first 400 years of Anglican church history, before the Church of England ever got taken over by the
feminists and women's ordinationists who sought to make null and void the divine order of creation of the sexes. Now for the first 400 of
years of Anglican Church history, in the confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service, even the female candidates were under strict rubrical
obligation to AUDIBLY make the responses prescribed in the rubrics. Will Mr. Gorman and/or Mr. Krohn NOW contend that even this role that every such female candidate thus played in the
confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service in making their audible responses is just as ungodly and gynaecocratical drawing attention to
herself as if she had been preaching and teaching in church?

The point of my Thesis 4 is precisely that there is no greater public and conspicuous display of herself when a woman sings a solo in church anymore than when any female candidate in the
confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service, stands in the position she does before the minister and in front of the whole congregation and
AUDIBLY makes the responses prescribed in the rubrics: provided that they wear some kind of hat, bonnet, or other headcovering on their head. I wonder, does the Rev. Cascione at his Redeemer
Lutheran Church require and prescribe the women members of his congregation to keep their heads covered when attending church?

In summary, whoever accuses the very idea of a woman/girl singing a solo in church of being an ungodly and immodest display of herself must also accuse the practice of every female candidate
in the confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service, standing in the position she does before the minister and in front of the whole
congregation and AUDIBLY making the responses prescribed in the rubrics of being an ungodly and immodest display of herself even if she DOES have her head covered, and that is the REAL
point of my Thesis 4. I won't condone - but on the contrary, I reject and anathematize all the abominations, idolatries, and tyrannies of the ANTICHRIST PAPISTICAL "MASS" and all "solemn
liturgical functions" of the Latin Ultramontane papist "Church" calling herself "Roman Catholic"! Yet even this ANTICHRIST PAPIST CHURCH has historically REQUIRED all and singular of the
women who go to "Roman Catholic" Mass to wear headcoverings. TO BE CONTINUED

Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 12:14 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Wait a minute! I made a slight technical error in my last post, http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=13&post=311043#POST311043! I accidentally made the mistake of
Username: Casusconscientiae needlessly re-posting the following:
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2021
quote:

This thread makes the following foundational a-priori assumptions:

1: That 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are still in full force today exactly as written and exactly as it reads at face-value; and that it absolutely forbids women to
PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC
PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or put forth questions in a voice LOUD and PUBLIC ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the
ASSEMBLY; and that this precept is a universal and perpetual divine law;

2: That neither CONGREGATIONAL SINGING nor DEVOTIONAL RESPONSES are included in the prohibition;

3: That the REASONS for these prohibitions are universal and of natural moral equity, based on the divine order of creation of the sexes, according to which, the man is the head
of the woman;

4: That the Lutheran Confessions of Faith are to be suscribed according to a quia and not merely a quatenus sense;

5: That C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of the supremacy of the voters' assembly within the local congregation is the only church polity which agrees with the teachings of the Bible
and Lutheran Confessions on church government.

And now, it is too late to delete the technical error.

Again, the above teachings of the Bible which I quoted in Thesis 5 deals already with the question of "conspicuous display". Thesis 6 shows from the Bible yet another reason WHY the foundational
principle unique to the CCM movement is a HERESY: The sedes doctrinae in 1 Corinthians 11:17 and the remaining following verses of the chapter shows plainly that even though food and drink
may be ADIAPHORA (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14), yet even the Papists themselves know that to eat and drink in the divine liturgy except as specifically prescribed in the Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist is a desecration of the divine liturgy. So if anybody hungers for common food and drink, he should have eaten them at home instead of in the divine liturgy: thus NOT ALL RIGHT THINGS
are RIGHT IN DIVINE WORSHIP. And I followed this up with 14 theses on Church Music according to the 4 marks of the church, compared with the 3 most precious virtues of Christian femininity.

Mr. Gorman said: "It would be surprising if the Confirmation, Matrimony, and Baptismal services of the Church of England and its many offspring were not heterodox with respect to the scriptural
Order of Creation. Warning: Episcopal baptisms made in the name of feminist idols rather than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are invalid.

Even if we concede that an oral response may be a case of necessity, why must the female’s head be uncovered contrary to the Order of Creation (1 Cor 11:5)?" Now, the Episcopal liturgies
TODAY are indeed overrun with rabid and hysterical feminism, but in 1801, absolutely NO church officer of the Protestant Episcopal Church nor the Church of England would ever have allowed
these feminist innovations to prevail in the divine liturgy. In 1801, absolutely NO Anglican Clergyman would ever DREAM of baptizing people in the name of feminist idols nor in any other name but
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

DOGMA: "Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, amen" (English: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen.)

HERESY: Baptizing any baptizand in the name of Allah, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Moses, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, St. Catherine, St. Lucy, or any other Popish
"saint", etc.

Again these Hispanic Papists have a Quinceanyera service at Mass, but about 100 years ago, the so-called "Roman Catholic Church", whether of the Latin Rite, or the Greek Rite, would have
REQUIRED that Quinceanyeras no less than the other women guests at the "religious" Quinceanyera Mass, attend this "religious" service with their heads covered. Yes! Even the so-called
"Roman Catholic Church", the accursed Whore of Babylon (yemach shemo vezichro), would have REQUIRED even as few as 100 years ago, that these Quinceanyeras should dress more
modestly than the average Quinceanyera does nowadays. But after the religious service is over, these same Hispanic "papists" have a custom of a formal banquet followed by a public ballroom
dance! Oh, but then, if God wills it, I will make another thread, showing from the Bible that public ballroom dancing is wrong and unchristian. Now, C. F. W. Walther himself wouldn't EXACTLY
condemn dancing in the abstract, however, according to the Lutheran Cyclopedia,

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=D&word=D ANCE:

quote:

Christian chs. in the 19th and 20th cents. often opposed certain types of dancing. C. F. W. Walther* and other Luths. in Am. opposed dancing that included close embrace,
suggestive gestures and acts, and accompanying music that tended to inflame passions. The dance of the daughter of Herodias was often cited as sensuous (Mk 6:22). Such
warnings of Scripture as 2 Sm 11:2–4; Pr 5:20–21; Jer 17:9; Mt 5:28; 15:19; 1 Co 10:12; 2 Ti 2:22; Ja 1:14–15 were applied.

But nowadays, the popular ballroom dances that prevailed even during the Victorian era had precisely these sorts of "close embrace, suggestive gestures and acts, and accompanying music that
tended to inflame passions", and have gotten ever more and more so, even to this very day. But suppose now that the Quinceanyera had been modestly dressed and had her head covered in the
religious service and there was no dancing at the dinner given in her honor. Would this now be an ungodly display of herself contrary to the divine order of creation which ordains that the head of
the WOMAN is the MAN?? My strategy now is in every possible part of worship, or attendant circumstance in worship, and among all possible cases into which the part of worship / attendant
circumstance in worship is divided, to proceed with that such case which has the greatest possible modesty and greatest possible diffidence and humility, and therefore constitutes the case which
seems most naturally eligible to receive the benefit of the doubt. If even this case is condemned, then all other cases of greater audacity and greater self-assertiveness are also AUTOMATICALLY
condemned. Indeed both Mr. Gorman and Mr. Krohn are right to CONDEMN the case of the QUINCEANYERA in the Quinceanyera religious service dressing immodestly and with her head
uncovered as being too bold and too daring to receive the benefit of the doubt; and also to CONDEMN the case of the reigning queen in the religious coronation service as dressing too gaudily and
with her head uncovered at Westminster Abbey, also as too audacious, too presumptuous, and too immodest to lawfully receive the benefit of the doubt; and so should the Rev. Cascione. Thus I
will for the future eliminate those excessively proud and daring cases from receiving the benefit of the doubt. But if the Queen Elizabeth II had at her coronation service, dressed more modestly,
and with her head covered with some veil or bonnet that can accommodate her Crown on top of it, and never ever claimed even ONCE in her LIFE to be the supreme governor (let alone
SUPREME HEAD!!!!) of the church of England, but granted religious liberty to all and singular of her loving subjects, and especially to the so-called Church of England, and yet in all other respects
continued to play the same role she did at her ACTUAL coronation, would that STILL have been a violation of the divine order of creation? TO BE CONTINUED
Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 4:16 pm:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: “You said, "The men presiding over churches (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops) must ensure that any female singing is a case of necessity." I cannot accept this claim of
Senior Member yours, for it is repugnant to the faith of those who trust in Divine Providence to meet their needs. The argument from "necessity" is like this: "I KNOW that God ordained that only ADULT MALES
Username: Heinrich
shall sing in church choirs and in solos, but I'll just permit the women and girls as well just in case God, though able to provide enough adult males to sing well, is not willing to provide them", but it
Post Number: 4485 DENIES the doctrine of Divine Providence. Again, you said, "The men presiding over churches (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops) must ensure that any child singing is a case of necessity".
Registered: 11-2004 This too is unacceptable, because the argument from necessity in this case is that "I KNOW that God ordained that only ADULT males shall sing in church choirs and in solos, but I'll just permit the
CHILDREN as well just in case God, though able to provide enough ADULT males to sing well, is not willing to provide them", but it DENIES the doctrine of Divine Providence. As for part singing,
admitting that the system of part singing makes it necessary or especially favorable for women to sing the leading part, the argument from necessity is that "I KNOW that God ordained that only
ADULT males should take the leading part in public worship, but I'll just admit part singing in cases of necessity even though I know that it causes women to take the leading part rather than adult
males." This too, is not only repugnant to divine providence, but also ignores the fact that the necessity for part singing could have been avoided entirely with just unison singing. This mere FACT
that this "necessity" could have been easily avoided shows that the proposed plea of necessity is null and void.”

“Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops” gives an example of a case of necessity:

“Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the
catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.”

Divine Providence has decreed that the word must be preached. Baptism must be administered. Absolution must be pronounced. When no Christian man is available, even a Christian woman
becomes a preacher, a baptizer, and an absolver of a man in a case of necessity. Christ said, if people were to remain silent, the stones would cry out:

“As he was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to praise God joyfully, with a loud voice, for all the miracles they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King
who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” He replied, “I tell you, if these
people would be silent, the stones would cry out.”” Luke 19:37-40, EHV

I suppose a male cantor could attempt a solo of Mary’s Song (Luke 1:46-55). But would the Word strike the ear and the eye in order to move a man’s heart?

“And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in
order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart.” Apology, XIII

.
Posted on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 5:03 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr. Gorman REJECTS my argument that the plea of "necessity" contradicts the doctrine of Divine Providence. He appeals to "Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops":
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 66 "Divine Providence has decreed that the word must be preached. Baptism must be administered. Absolution must be pronounced. When no Christian man is available, even a Christian woman
Registered: 2-2021 becomes a preacher, a baptizer, and an absolver of a man in a case of necessity. Christ said, if people were to remain silent, the stones would cry out:

“As he was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to praise God joyfully, with a loud voice, for all the miracles they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King
who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” He replied, “I tell you, if these
people would be silent, the stones would cry out.”” Luke 19:37-40, EHV

I suppose a male cantor could attempt a solo of Mary’s Song (Luke 1:46-55). But would the Word strike the ear and the eye in order to move a man’s heart?

“And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in
order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart.” Apology, XIII"

Now, in reply to Mr. Gorman, I would like to state that another important point which I would like to make, just in case I have not made this point already, is that in the case of solos, choirs, and part-
singing, NONE of these things are de jure divino obligatory, and since they are nowhere commanded or forbidden in the Bible and Lutheran Confession, we can - without violating the Christian faith
or the divine moral law - safely give up our "rights" to enjoy them. The "necessity" of all these things in the case of lack of adult males to sing in the choirs and solos could have been avoided with
using just unison congregational singing. On Page 486 of the Lutheran Church Review, Volume 18 we find that, "Dr. Loy, in speaking of this Scriptural principle [viz. the Divine Order of Creation of
the Sexes, according to which the head of the woman is the man], says: 'If some practical difficulties occur under this divine ordination, they must be solved in reverent submission to its provisions,
not in an irreverent attempt to nullify or evade them'." All unnecessary or avoidable exceptions to the ordinary and prevailing terms and provisions of a divine moral law are unlawful. That is the
point I was trying to make when I argued AGAINST Mr. Gorman's plea of "necessity". TO BE CONTINUED

Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 5:47 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: “For the first 400 years (to the best of my memory) of the Church of England's history, women were NEVER allowed to preach or teach or publicly address the assemblies in the
Senior Member Anglican divine liturgy (until Maude Royden came along around the 1920s becoming the FIRST woman to preach in the Anglican Church without even being ordained to Holy Orders), and until
Username: Heinrich about the 1920s, all the rubrics of the Church of England prescribed that the bride shall swear to love, honor, and OBEY the bridegroom in his capacity as her lawfully wedded husband.”
Post Number: 4486
Registered: 11-2004 According to http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.ht ml, Queen Elizabeth I established the 39 Articles as the doctrinal foundation of the Church of England and herself as its chief
Ecclesiastical power:

“Mary Tudor suppressed the 42 Articles when she returned England to the Catholic faith; however, Cranmer's work became the source of the 39 Articles which Elizabeth I established as the
doctrinal foundations of the Church of England. . .

Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil,
in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either
of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify; but only that prerogative, which we see to have been given
always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal,
and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.”

The Church of England was heterodox for its first 400 years. It obeyed holy scripture by limiting Holy Orders to men but it disobeyed scripture by conferring Ecclesiastical headship on a woman.
Now, the feminist “Church” of England is devolving into outright apostasy and heresy.

Juan Jeanniton: “Now for the first 400 of years of Anglican Church history, in the confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service, even the
female candidates were under strict rubrical obligation to AUDIBLY make the responses prescribed in the rubrics. Will Mr. Gorman and/or Mr. Krohn NOW contend that even this role that every
such female candidate thus played in the confirmation service, the infant baptismal service, the adult baptismal service, the marriage service in making their audible responses is just as ungodly
and gynaecocratical drawing attention to herself as if she had been preaching and teaching in church?”

I am not that familiar with the rites and sacraments of the Anglican Church. However, in general, I accept audible responses as a cases of necessity provided the women have a head covering. In
the case of an infant baptism, a Christian man should speak for the child if one is available.

Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 8:45 am:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr. Gorman replied that "The Church of England was heterodox for its first 400 years. It obeyed holy scripture by limiting Holy Orders to men but it disobeyed scripture by conferring Ecclesiastical
Username: Casusconscientiae headship on a woman. Now, the feminist “Church” of England is devolving into outright apostasy and heresy."
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2021 Just now, I have discovered a letter called the "Last Chronicle" in which H. R. M Queen Elizabeth II attempts to vindicate the doctrine of Royal Supremacy from the charge of being contrary to the
Divine Order of Creation of the Sexes: http://trushare.com/0172Sept2009/39%20last_chronic le.htm: "We very much fear that your Convention has misunderstood the Polity of the Church of
England. Whilst it is true that we are Supreme Governor, it is not in any personal capacity. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the Crown in Parliament, who acts on the
advice of her ministers." Therefore, H R M Queen Elizabeth II pleads that it is not an act of government or headship or a usurpation of authority over men to hold the nominal title of Supreme
Governor of the Church of England, therefore it is no violation of the Divine Order of Creation (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-10, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-13), provided only that all the ministers
who advise the Reigning Queen are all males. Is that plea of hers in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions? Or it is no less heterodox than women's ordination to the
"Clergy" (i.e. the official liturgical ministry of Word and Sacraments)?

Yet in that same church, women were not allowed in cathedral choirs until 1991! Why so late, even after 400 years of allowing women to join in the congregational singing with the men?

And when women were FINALLY welcomed to cathedral choirs in 1991 in the Church of England, this actually turned out to be the beginning of the END its fine and UNIQUE musical heritage. See
https://web.archive.org/web/20180902164549/http:// ctcc.org.uk/intro.htm, https://web.archive.org/web/20170222084755/http:// ctcc.org.uk/position.htm,
https://web.archive.org/web/20180915002224/http:// www.ctcc.org.uk/chorister_at_war.htm,https://web.a rchive.org/web/20170222070547/http://ctcc.org.uk/a rchive/articles/ichabod.htm,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170222035348/http:// ctcc.org.uk/archive/articles/dischord.htm, https://web.archive.org/web/20170222103152/http:// ctcc.org.uk/archive/articles/psalm49.htm.
ICHABOD! The glory of England's UNIQUE cathedral music heritage is in grave danger of departing forever.

As it turns out, the old tradition of man/boy only choirs in the Church of England survived most likely in Cathedrals, Collegiate Churches, and those Parish Churches which have a sufficient choral
endowment. But in many village parish churches as early as the early 18th century, which were too poor to afford these resources, they often resorted to allowing women and girls to sing in the
church choir.

Why didn't the Anglican CATHEDRALS let women into THEIR church choirs until 1991? Why did women have to wait SO LONG for the admission of females into cathedral choirs? Why couldn't
the Anglican Cathedrals in England just admit women earlier, as did even the Lutheran Church local parishes? How does one explain these facts on the basis of Lutheran and Scriptural theology
and not just merely historical or cultural circumstances? TO BE CONTINUED

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 12:55 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "Just now, I have discovered a letter called the "Last Chronicle" in which H. R. M Queen Elizabeth II attempts to vindicate the doctrine of Royal Supremacy from the charge of being
Senior Member contrary to the Divine Order of Creation of the Sexes: http://trushare.com/0172Sept2009/39%20last_chronic le.htm: "We very much fear that your Convention has misunderstood the Polity of the
Username: Heinrich Church of England. Whilst it is true that we are Supreme Governor, it is not in any personal capacity. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the Crown in Parliament, who acts on the
Post Number: 4487 advice of her ministers." Therefore, H R M Queen Elizabeth II pleads that it is not an act of government or headship or a usurpation of authority over men to hold the nominal title of Supreme
Registered: 11-2004 Governor of the Church of England, therefore it is no violation of the Divine Order of Creation (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-10, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-13), provided only that all the ministers
who advise the Reigning Queen are all males.

Before 1688, British Queens were unquestionably the chief Ecclesiastical power. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, British Monarchs became mere employees of Parliament.

Monarchs are hired or fired at the whim of a parliamentary majority. Parliament has even changed the Order of Succession contrary to the Order of Creation in order to favor a first-born princess
over a second-born prince.

British Queens remain the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but they must do Parliament’s bidding. In these latter days, the feminist British Parliament is exerting enormous pressure on
the “Church” of England to cancel the order of Creation, to celebrate sexual perversion, and to deny “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Athanasian Creed).

Juan Jeanniton: "Is that plea of hers in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions?"

No. She holds an Ecclesiastical office which requires her to do Parliament's blasphemous and idolatrous bidding. A true “Defender of the Faith” would rather abdicate than usurp the headship of
men.

Juan Jeanniton: "Or it is no less heterodox than women's ordination to the "Clergy" (i.e. the official liturgical ministry of Word and Sacraments)?"

The "Church" of England ordains no one. A congregation of saints ordains ministers not female usurpers:

"Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists." Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops

Juan Jeanniton: “Why didn't the Anglican CATHEDRALS let women into THEIR church choirs until 1991? Why did women have to wait SO LONG for the admission of females into cathedral
choirs? Why couldn't the Anglican Cathedrals in England just admit women earlier, as did even the Lutheran Church local parishes? How does one explain these facts on the basis of Lutheran and
Scriptural theology and not just merely historical or cultural circumstances?”

My guess: The Anglican Cathedrals had the tradition of boy choirs which satisfied the necessity of high register voices. On the other hand, the Lutherans had Bach passion works which
necessitated female solos and choirs.

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 1:36 am:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Mr. Gorman said, "Monarchs are hired or fired at the whim of a parliamentary majority. Parliament has even changed the Order of Succession contrary to the Order of Creation in order to favor a
Username: Casusconscientiae
first-born princess over a second-born prince." Does that mean that even the mere act of inheriting the title of reigning queen when her father the king has
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2021 no sons is ipso facto a violation of the Divine Order of Creation even if the male - though younger - is preferred before the female - though
older - in the same line and in the same generation? Even in the inheritance of mere real estate and mere houses in England, Scotland,
Ireland, and Wales, the male - though younger - used to be preferred before the female - though older - in the same line and in the same
generation. Would it STILL have been a violation of the divine order of creation to prefer the OLDER
female to the YOUNGER male in the same line and generation when it comes to the inheritance of
lands, houses, and real estate ONLY, instead of hereditary offices like that of reigning monarch?
Mr. Gorman also said, "British Queens remain the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but they must do Parliament’s bidding. In these latter days, the feminist British Parliament is exerting
enormous pressure on the “Church” of England to cancel the order of Creation, to celebrate sexual perversion, and to deny “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Athanasian Creed)." Now, I am
glad that he refers to the now NOTORIOUS fact that the British parliament today is blatantly heterodox (and now adheres to radical feminism), but that is not REALLY the vital question in the
My question is, even if the British Parliament had NOT favored such rabid radical
inquiries that I am making.

feminist agendas, would it STILL have been a violation of the Divine Order of Creation for a British
Queen to hold the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" even if she only acts on the
advice of her ministers and only adult MALES are allowed to be ministers to advise the reigning
monarch and only adult MALES are allowed to be members of parliament, and holders of public
office in the affairs of state?
But to get back to the REAL topic of this thread, which is Church Music according to the Divine Order of the Sexes, Mr. Gorman finally said, "The Anglican Cathedrals had the tradition of boy choirs
which satisfied the necessity of high register voices. On the other hand, the Lutherans had Bach passion works which necessitated female solos and choirs." But that reply of his doesn't really go
deep enough.

The Rev. John Macquarrie, an Anglo-Catholic clergyman of the Church of England, says that:

https://www.stmvirgin.org/benediction:

"[All Anglican liturgicians] would say – and they would be right about this – that one cannot justify an act of worship on the grounds of
personal preference or what it has meant in one’s personal history, and that one cannot even justify it in terms of general psychological needs
or of esthetic excellence. In the long run, the only justification can be to show that this particular act of worship has a sound theological basis."

What sound theological basis, especially from the Bible, and which would apply just as well to the New
Testament as well as the Old Testament, can the Anglican Cathedrals produce for using only boys to sing
the high register voices in the choir, and excluding women and girls?
TO BE CONTINUED
Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 8:56 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) I'm not that familiar with the British system but I would suggest three obvious errors that the English Parliament made with respect to male headship when representative government became the
Senior Member power ordained of God in 1688:
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4488 1. Failure to permanently establish a male only Constitutional monarchy.
Registered: 11-2004 2. Failure to permanently require all supervisory governmental officers to be men.
3. Failure to establish a male only voting system.

The U.S. Constitution (the power ordained of God in America) was similarly defective. Government officers and voters were not explicitly required to be male.

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 9:45 am:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member To Mr. Gorman:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 70 You said,

Registered: 2-2021
quote:

I'm not that familiar with the British system but I would suggest three obvious errors that the English Parliament made with respect to male headship when representative
government became the power ordained of God in 1688:

1. Failure to permanently establish a male only Constitutional monarchy.

2. Failure to permanently require all supervisory governmental officers to be men.
3. Failure to establish a male only voting system.

The U.S. Constitution (the power ordained of God in America) was similarly defective. Government officers and voters were not explicitly required to be male.

Very interesting, but you still have NOT answered my question, because the points you raised are not really the vital interests involved in the question which I posed. My inquiry is:

Firstly: Even in the inheritance of mere real estate and mere houses in England, Scotland, Ireland, and
Wales, the male - though younger - used to be preferred before the female - though older - in the same
line and in the same generation. Would it STILL have been a violation of the divine order of creation
to prefer the OLDER female to the YOUNGER male in the same line and generation when it comes
to the inheritance of lands, houses, and real estate ONLY???

Secondly: In order to get back to the subject matter in this thread on Church Music, what sound
theological basis, especially from the Bible, and which would apply just as well to the New Testament as
well as the Old Testament, can the Anglican Cathedrals produce for using only boys to sing the high
register voices in the choir, and excluding women and girls???
TO BE CONTINUED
Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 11:23 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) 1. An interesting question. In general, property owners should be permitted to pass their assets to their heirs (7th Commandment, SC).
Senior Member
Username: Heinrich
2. Asked and answered. A congregation of saints fulfills the necessity for high register voices by boys, girls, and/or women.
Post Number: 4489
Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 12:32 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member I have just received from Mr. Gorman, the following 2 answers to my inquiries:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 73 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
1. An interesting question. In general, property owners should be permitted to pass their assets to their heirs (7th Commandment, SC).

2. Asked and answered. A congregation of saints fulfills the necessity for high register voices by boys, girls, and/or women.

Now about his second answer. But that second answer still doesn't go deep enough. I would like to know from the Anglican Cathedrals themselves what it is about women and girls that makes
them intrinsically unfit and unsuitable to sing in cathedral choirs. What is their theology of the choir? This is not just a question of aesthetics or tradition for tradition sake, much less of mere
pragmatism. This is a question of the proper and divinely constituted relationship of the choir towards the congregation and the so-called "clergy" (and by "clergy" I mean that body of adult males
each of which has been lawfully called, and ritually and ceremonially ordained to publicly and officially exercise the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the Divine Liturgy in front of the WHOLE
congregation). This is a question of Church Music according to the divine order of creation of the sexes. Every local congregation that desires to preserve the divine order of creation of the sexes in
the divine liturgy desperately needs a correct theology of the choir: for if the local congregation admits women and girls to the choir, the role and conduct of these women and girls there either
agrees with the divine order of creation of the sexes or else it disagrees. If the congregation's theology of the choir disagrees with the divine order of creation of the sexes, well then it cannot be the
true and accurate theology of the choir. IT IS NEVER RIGHT TO DO WRONG IN ORDER TO DO RIGHT!

An Anglican, named Stephen Smalley, said (https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/080-0 2_095.pdf, https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/080/Cman_ 080_2_Smalley.pdf):

quote:

Anglicans also need a correct theology of the choir. Almost without exception the "traditional" Anglican church houses its choir, dressed up to look like amateur clergymen, in front
of the congregation, and (if there is one) in the chancel.

Yes, the average "Traditional" Anglican church choir, especially the Cathedral Choirs, has man/boy laics dressed up as if they had been clergymen. Now, to dress up WOMEN and GIRLS like that
in the church choir is already an IPSO FACTO violation of the Divine Order of Creation, because it objectively and forensically promulgates the tacit message that the "clergy" (even if these women
and girls in the choir do not actually INTEND to enter the "clergy" (i.e. public official ceremonial ministry of the Word and Sacraments) is a desirable potential vocation for females, but this is
contrary to the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions!

Another reason WHY I would not recommend women and girls in the church choir to dress up in surplices, cassocks, and cottas in the choir is because in the mid 19th century, a Protestant
Episcopal diocesan bishop, the Rev. Bp. McIlvaine of Ohio, took a courageous stand AGAINST processional singing of choirs (even of boys and men only) in SURPLICES! He actually PROVED (in
the late 1860s just after the end of the Civil War / the so-called War Between the States / the so-called War of Northern Aggression) from the Book of Common Prayer and the Canon Laws of the
Episcopal Church that it was UNLAWFUL and UNCANONICAL for even the MALE choristers in ANY church to wear the kind of Surplices and Cossacks commonly worn as ecclesiastical
vestments! And he published his findings in the Journal of the Proceedings of the 51st Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Ohio (June 3 – 5, 1868, see
https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQQAAAAIAAJ&pg= PA25&dq=%22A+case+has+occurred,+in+a+congregation+ of+the+Diocese,+of+what+I+regard+as+unlawful+innov
ation+%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TWTEVIKSFoGGgwS5j4GwCA&ved =0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22A%20case%20has%20occur
red%2C%20in%20a%20congregation%20of%20the%20Dioces e%2C%20of%20what%20I%20regard%20as%20unlawful%20in novation%20%22&f=false). A summary of his reasons is that: (i) -
dressing up even lay readers as amateur clergymen is a violation of at least ONE of the historical canons of Protestant Episcopal Church, namely, that lay readers shall "shall not use the dress nor
the stations which are appropriate to clergymen ministering in the congregation", but shall confine their dress only to such apparel as is appropriate to lay readers; (ii) - the reason for this is
uniformity, decency, and order: decency and order DEMANDS that we dress in conformity to our differing proper spheres in church respectively as the Ordained and the Unordained (and especially
our differing spheres according to the divine order of creation of the sexes); (iii) - the Rev. Bp. of the Episcopalian Diocese of Ohio shows that the innovation of dressing up the choristers like
amateur clergymen sets a process in motion which eventually results in precisely the exaltation of the priesthood over the laics that C. F. W. Walther and the Old German Missouri Synod stood so
valiantly AGAINST!

https://books.google.com/books?jtp=30&id=76EpAAAAY AAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false:

quote:

8. The next. Restore the Rubric as it was in the Book of 1552. "Then shall the Minister first receive and then proceed to deliver the same to the other Ministers (that they may help
the chief Minister) and after that, etc.," the clause in brackets showing that no exaltation of the clergy was intended; and that it is necessary to restore this clause is evident, as in
some Churches they already administer the Communion to the choir before the congregation, because the surpliced choir are considered assistants of the priesthood, and
therefore a superior caste to the laity.

The Ritualistic policy from the beginning was to do everything by degrees, and one of their first moves was in building new or restoring old churches to do away with the organ loft
and bring the choir into the chancel, and many Evangelicals unwittingly followed their example. The next, when the people were sufficiently educated was to weed out the
women, leaving only men and boys. The male choir were then robed in surplices when they became at once assistants to the priesthood. It
must be remembered that the great aim of Ritualism is the Elevation of the Priesthood!
Yes, exactly the very Elevation of the Priesthood which CFW Walther and the layman Carl Vehse stood AGAINST in opposition to that tyrannical dictator Stephan in the Missouri Synod!! TO BE
CONTINUED
Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 12:45 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Here is a direct word-for-word quotation of all the key points the Rev. Bp. McIlvaine of Ohio made against the innovation of processional singing of surpliced choirs in parish churches:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 74 On page 25, he gave an ominous warning to his diocesan Synod: "A case has occurred, in a congregation of the Diocese, of what I regard as unlawful innovation on our established worship, by the
Registered: 2-2021 introduction of a ceremonial which has never appeared in this Diocese before. It seemed my duty to address to the Rector, and through him to the Vestry, a communication on the subject,
containing my views of the matter, under the laws and usages of our Church. I am happy and thankful to say that, so far as I know, it is the first instance in this Diocese of any addition to the
appointed and customary order of our Morning and Evening Prayer which has seemed to need any interference on my part. But in the present remarkable fondness of a class of minds in our
General Church for ritualistic novelties, there is no knowing what a seed of this sort, unheeded, may speedily grow to. I think it well, therefore, to state to this Convention, and through it to the whole
Diocese, the ground I have taken, and my reasons therefore, premising, however, that, as I have no desire to draw attention to the particular parish referred to, I shall treat the subject in as much
abstraction therefrom as possible. Indeed I should have preferred to avoid even this very general reference, had it not been necessary as a reason for introducing to the Convention what I am
going to say; and I wish very emphatically to forbid, at the outset, the thought that, in any portion of what I shall say, any reflection is intended upon the motives or intentions of those most nearly
concerned in originating the case referred to. It is not to arraign them before the Convention that I speak of it. What may be very innocent on the part of those who institute it, may be very injurious
and quite unlawful in itself or its consequences."

On pages 29 - 38, he stated that such dangerous and subversive innovations include: "3. The [CHORISTERS] in surplices. In Canon 3, Title I., §2, on Candidates for Orders officiating as Lay
Readers, it is enacted that a candidate, licensed by the Bishop to officiate as lay reader, "shall not assume the dress appropriate to clergymen ministering in the congregation." From this it appears
that there is a dress recognized in our laws as "appropriate to clergymen ministering in the congregation;" which means, of course, a dress distinctive of the office of clergymen, so officiating. And it
appears also that laymen, though Candidates for Orders, and officiating in the service under the Bishop's license, are forbidden the use of such dress, on the ground that, being the distinctive dress
of clergymen, it is not appropriate to laymen. In Canon X. of this Diocese, on the subject of Lay Readers, it is required that, before any one shall be authorized to officiate as a lay reader, he shall
be licensed by the Bishop, and shall in all cases comply with the requisition of the Canon of the General Convention, just quoted, as to not wearing the dress appropriate to clergymen.

Thus it appears, that, though a layman be a Candidate for Orders, and perhaps within a week of becoming a clergyman, and though he has received the license of the Bishop to conduct the
service of the Church, he must not put on the surplice (for that, of course, is the dress referred to), and for the single reason that, being not a clergyman, that dress is not proper for him.

The history of the Canon of the General Convention makes the prohibition still more impressive. The first legislation on the subject was in the General Convention of 1804. The Canon, then
enacted, left it to the Bishop to confine the Candidate for Orders, officiating as a lay reader, "to such dress and such stations in the Church as are appropriate only to lay readers." Non-conformity
on the part of the candidate was made "in all cases a disqualification for Orders." In 1808 we find the Canon amended. Instead of leaving the dress and stations in the Church to the prescription of
the Bishops of the several Dioceses, thus giving room for a diversity of practice, the Canon was altered to read: "He shall not use the dress nor the stations which are appropriate to clergymen."
Before, you will observe, the words were: "It shall be the duty of the Bishop to confine every such candidate to such dress and such stations as are appropriate only to lay readers." But that was felt
to be too indeterminate; for what was "the dress appropriate only to lay readers"? The amendment expressed the intention more precisely. Taking the matter out of the hands of the several
Bishops, and prescribing a law for all the Dioceses alike, it said, "he shall not use the dress nor the stations which are appropriate to clergymen ministering in the congregation." The disqualification
for Orders, in case of non-compliance, was continued.

...

In 1822, we find the severe penalty of non-compliance omitted, but the prohibition continued as before; and so it has continued to this time. Thus is illustrated the more clearly the ground of the
prohibition, namely, that the surplice, being a distinctive dress of the officiating clergy, is in no case proper for laymen, even though they be licensed to conduct the public worship of
the congregation. What, then, shall be said of the propriety of a company of boys and men, whose only distinction from the rest of the congregation is that they lead the singing of the
congregation, being arrayed in the dress pronounced in our laws to be so the appropriate dress of clergymen ministering in the congregation, that for any licensed lay reader to assume it would be
considered a palpable impropriety and illegality, and for many years of our legislation would have disqualified a candidate for Orders from being received to the ministry? Has a layman, merely
because under the Rector's sanction he leads in the singing, a privilege in that respect which is forbidden to one who leads in the whole worship, under the license of the Bishop?
What makes the clergyman's dress appropriate to a singing boy, while it is inappropriate to any man or woman of the congregation who takes part in the singing? If it be that the boy
is appointed to a particular function in that part of the worship, why not then a surpliced organist, and why not surpliced church wardens, especially when ministering in the
congregation, as receivers of the alms and oblations of the communicants?" TO BE CONTINUED

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 12:47 pm:

Juan Jeanniton To all my fellow LutherQuest members, especially the Rev. Cascione (CONTINUED):
(Casusconscientiae)
Member Lastly, I adduce another witness: Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews - and in this book, he makes the point that certain Levites who were members of the official liturgical choir in the Temple tried to
Username: Casusconscientiae
wear certain linen garments that had been characteristic of the Priesthood, and for some of those who had been assigned to minister in the Temple, to learn the Psalms of David and join the choir.
Post Number: 75 Now, if the sin of these Levites against the Deity had not involved meddling with ideas that were not the lawful prerogatives of their respective vocations in the Levitical Ministry, Josephus would
Registered: 2-2021 have been a MALICIOUS LIAR for saying that all this was a transgression of the Liturgical Laws of his country, and whenever these laws were broken, the people have never been able to exempt
themselves from the just and righteous penalties of breaking those laws.

‘6. Now as many of the Levites,[1] which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the
priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for
the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they
desired; and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for. Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which,
whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.’ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter IX.

Footnote: ‘This insolent petition of some of the Levites, to wear the sacerdotal garments when they sung hymns to God in the temple, was very probably owing to the great depression and
contempt the haughty high priests had now brought their brethren the priests into; of which see ch. 8. sect. 8, and ch. 9, sect. 2.’

Alfred Edersheim testifies: ‘As for the Levites, they had no clerical dress at all, but only wore the white linen (2 Chron 5:12), till they obtained from Agrippa II permission to wear priestly garments--
as Josephus rightly remarks, 'contrary to the laws of our country' (Ant. xx. 9, 6).’ Aspiring to priestly prerogatives without being duly called thereunto is the very sin which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
committed! These Levitical singers of hymns in the Temple during the reign of Agrippa II were guilty of the SAME crime. Therefore in light of all these weighty reasons, I simply CANNOT allow
women and girls as members of the church choir to dress in surplices, cassocks, and cottas! These choristers are not the lawful official administrators of the Word and Sacraments! Choristers have
NO right to dress up like amateur clergymen, because they are not clerics.

And thus, it is on the basis of all these facts about the correct theology of the choir we must consider the question of why the Church of England has never historically permitted women and girls
ordinarily to be members of cathedral choirs until 1991.

FINIS
Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2021 - 1:30 pm:

Juan Jeanniton In my last post, there is something I forgot to mention: Let me revert to a former point that I had made previously. I had said that dressing up female choristers in the robes of surplice, cassock, and
(Casusconscientiae) cotta tends to violate the divine order of creation, and the reason WHY. Incidentally, the thing I forgot to mention is that even the Papists themselves have acknowledged the truth of what I am
Member saying:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 76 https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/970035/p osts:

Registered: 2-2021
"It seems that the true motivation for this constant practice of excluding women from the altar ... is the link which was understood to unite the lesser ministries to the priesthood itself, to the point
where they had become the normal stages leading to the priesthood. This link is already present in the perspective of St. Cyprian [he died as a martyr in 258]. 9

This idea of altar service as basically a stage along the road to the priesthood is still reflected not only visually by the fact that altar servers dress like priests, in cassock and surplice, but also
linguistically in the terminology used in some languages. In Spanish, for example, an altar boy is called a monaguillo, which etymologically means "a little monk." And in Italian the word for altar boy
is chierichetto - a "little cleric,"".

So guess what the Italian word for altar girls is. It turns out to be DONNE CHIERICHETTE, which means LITTLE FEMALE CLERICS - thus showing how serving as altar servers teaches and
apprentices children serving in this position to consider the priesthood as a desirable and worthy vocation for them when they grow up: thus when girls are put in this position, their mere act of
serving as an altar girl tends to tacitly promulgate the idea that they consider the priesthood a worthy vocation for women when they grow up, even if she doesn't actually INTEND to enter the
priesthood itself - but these Papists themselves already KNOW that the very idea of LITTLE FEMALE CLERICS has ALWAYS been HERETICAL and HETERODOX against the teachings of the
Bible, especially in the New Testament. Indeed the teaching of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions is that the entire female sex is INELIGIBLE to enter the formal and ceremonial ministry of the
Word and Sacraments.
Posted on Monday, March 08, 2021 - 7:12 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Juan Jeanniton: "Yes, the average "Traditional" Anglican church choir, especially the Cathedral Choirs, has man/boy laics dressed up as if they had been clergymen. Now, to dress up WOMEN and
Senior Member GIRLS like that in the church choir is already an IPSO FACTO violation of the Divine Order of Creation, because it objectively and forensically promulgates the tacit message that the "clergy" (even
Username: Heinrich
if these women and girls in the choir do not actually INTEND to enter the "clergy" (i.e. public official ceremonial ministry of the Word and Sacraments) is a desirable potential vocation for females,
Post Number: 4490 but this is contrary to the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions!"
Registered: 11-2004
In the average "traditional" Lutheran church, what choir members wear is not an issue. The choir is never seen by the congregation. They are either hidden in a choir loft (preferred) or in the back
of the nave out of sight of worshippers unless they take a backward glance.

Like disembodied voices from heaven, choirs (and soloists) should be heard and not seen. Seeing choir members creates the kind of quandary that "traditional" Anglican churches must deal with:
Are singers laymen or clergy?

A case can be made that singers (at least soloists and choir leaders) who are heard and seen are ministers:

"Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the
Sacraments unless he be regularly called." AC, XIV

Singers certainly do teach. But, do they "publicly" teach? If the answer is "yes", soloists and lead singers would require a "regular call" (i.e. "Holy Orders"). This would automatically disqualify all the
boys, girls, and women and would require the men to take Holy Orders (SC; Table of Duties, For Bishops, Pastors, and Preachers).

A personnel aside: I grew up in churches where singers were basicly entertainers. I attended my first Lutheran service as an adult. When I first heard disembodied soprano voices emanating from
above and behind me, I knew I was amid angels and archangels and all the company of heaven.
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 3:50 pm:

Juan Jeanniton My Personal Experiences on the "Grace Centered - Online Christian Magazine" forum concerning Church Music - Part One.
(Casusconscientiae)
Member About three years ago, I became a member of the "Grace Centered - Online Christian Magazine" and began a thread on Church Music, saying on Fri Mar 23, 2018 - at time 12:00:23:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 90 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
Welcome! This Topic is about Church Music and of all the laws God has revealed in His Holy Word on the subject. Music is a gift of God and was first used in Heaven for the
praise and glory of the Deity. But like all good things, Lucifer, who soon became Satan, because of his pride and arrogance, after the Fall of Mankind, dared to pervert the art of
Music itself to the glorification of men's vices, and most of all, to the worship of false idolatrous "gods", yea, to the high displeasure and wrath of God. But God never left Himself
without a people peculiarly, nay, uniquely dedicated to the worship of Him. This people, calling themselves Israel, knew of no better music than religious music dedicated solely to
the worship and praise of JEHOVAH. Such music reached her greatest excellency through the efforts and royal decrees of King David. In the New Testament, the direct
regulations are very few and simple: so most of the regulations on Church Music will follow naturally from more general moral precepts which God has plainly revealed throughout
the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately in virtually every age after the death of St. John the Theologian, there were those professed Christians who had the audacity to make
the music of the church sound more like the world, yea, more congenial to the sinful lusts of the world. Abuses of this kind have always been promptly CONDEMNED by every
church council, whether Papist, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. But today, these abuses are increasing in frequency, intensity, and audacity. After this welcome message, I shall
post a statement of affirmations and denials, and (if God wills it) show that the Old and New Testaments are sufficient and perspicuous enough to furnish a moral code, nay, but
also a systematic theology of sacred music, and prove that it has the force of binding universal and perpetual divine precept: therefore its strict and sincere observance is binding
upon all.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

That is what I hoped to do THEN and that is what I still hope to do NOW, if God wills it. Unfortunately, the majority of the other members of that web forum did not agree with my views on Church
Music. In fact, the first reply I received is from chosenone, on Fri Mar 23, 2018 - 12:14:02:

quote:

So who decides what is 'sacred' worship music and what is 'worldly' worship music???

"For you will go out with joy And be led forth with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their
hands.

I have a challenge for all of you confessing Lutherans on this LutherQuest webforum. The Rev. Cascione is currently not here with us at the moment, but will hopefully be back in about a few
weeks. "So who decides what is 'sacred' worship music and what is 'worldly' worship music???" Try to answer this question using the Bible and Lutheran Confessions. The truth is, you already
know the answer. It is the Bible and Lutheran Confessions which give us the doctrines necessary, sufficient, and actually efficient to enable us to rightfully distinguish between "what is 'sacred'
worship music and what is 'worldly' worship music". The question is, what are the foundational general characteristics that 'sacred' worship music must have in order to be lawful for use in the
divine liturgy? Solve that question if you can, providing a detailed proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions. And by the way, I congratulate the Rev. Cascione for his valiant defense of the
sanctity of Church Music against the increasing encroachments of worldly music. See http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/th000001.htm,
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00276.htm, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00280.htm, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00302.htm,
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00303.htm.

After chosenone's impudent and feigned question "So who decides what is 'sacred' worship music and what is 'worldly' worship music", "MeMyself" answered - « Reply #3 on: Fri Mar 23, 2018 -
12:25:47 »:

quote:

Quote from: jjeanniton on Fri Mar 23, 2018 - 12:00:23

quote:

Unfortunately in virtually every age after the death of St. John the Theologian, there were those professed Christians who had the audacity to make the music of the
church sound more like the world, yea, more congenial to the sinful lusts of the world.

Oy.

What does this even mean? I can help but grow so weary of the lists of rules people are constantly trying to impose upon God's people...and the accusations of evil as well.

There is something I must say about MeMyself's reply, whoever he/she may be:

Cranmer's Law: It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a [LEFTIST or JACOBINIST
calling himself by the specious name of liberal] is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).

Cranmer's Law of Church Music: it has been found by experience, that however just, righteous, reasonable, or hermeneutically SOUND and doctrinally orthodox the Scripture-proofs or natural
law proofs may be for any given rule or regulation of church music requiring strict sanctity, nobility, gravity, and demureness of style (and even more importantly, strict separation from the world's
style of music), If any person shall persist for a sufficiently long duration of time (or longer) in making or accepting such arguments or obeying and enforcing such a rule or regulation, the probability
that he will get accused of being judgmental, uncharitable, legalistic, and/or robbing the opponents of their Christian liberty can be made as close to 100% as one pleases!

I have yet ANOTHER challenge for you confessional Lutherans: the user calling himself/herself "MeMyself" said, "What does this even mean? I can help but grow so weary of the lists of rules
people are constantly trying to impose upon God's people...and the accusations of evil as well", and he raises this as an objection against my thesis that "in virtually every age after the death of St.
John the Theologian, there were those professed Christians who had the audacity to make the music of the church sound more like the world, yea, more congenial to the sinful lusts of the world".
Can the objection that "MeMyself" raised against me be a valid excuse according to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions for using what is called Contemporary Christian Music, or Christian Rock,
or Christian Rap Music, or Christian Hip-Hop during the divine liturgy, or singing Christian lyrics to the popular secular tunes, especially opera tunes, dance-hall tunes, ballroom dance tunes of the
day during the formal worship services of the Church? And I expect you to answer using sound proofs from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username: Posting Information:

This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:

Options: Enable HTML code in message

Automatically activate URLs in message

Action: Preview/Post Message