Although I have been supporting HE Bishop Williamson regarding his treatment by the SSPX leadership and his positions on the agreement with conciliar Rome, I would like to express respectfully a very different view concerning the role of women, and especially the role of women in the Middle Ages in contrast to the one presented by HE Bishop Williamson in the above conference.

Studying primary sources, French medievalist historian and archivist (conservator at the Museum of Rheims and then at the National Archives), Régine Pernoud shows that during the feudal era in the Middle Ages, around 1100-1300 AD, women were intelligent, capable, and highly influential citizens, involved in all areas of life, including medical, professional, education, political and administration. Never again have women had such influential roles in their society. As the Renaissance began to grip Europe, and the University of Paris barring women and the resurgence of classical Roman law, the role of women completely diminished.

The following is an extract from the study Women at the Days of Cathedrals, written by Régine pernoud. It demonstrate that women could be and were in position of authority and superiors:

“The Order of Fontevrault

“On August 31, 1119, the abbey of Notre-Dame de Fontevrault received the most illustrious of visitors: Pope Calixtus II. In the presence of a crowd of prelates, barons, churchmen and common people, he came in person to consecrate the new abbey’s main altar…
“Greeting the pope at the church entrance was a young, twenty-six-year-old woman called Petronilla of Chemillé, the abbess of Fontevrault.
In the year of 1119, she had already been four years at the head of the order of Fontevrault founded by the very famous Robert d’Arbrissel… It was a double order, which included both monks and nuns, and so two series of buildings were erected in the midst of which the abbey church… was the only place where men and women met, for prayer and the liturgical offices. The rule was strict on this point. No monk could enter into the part reserved for nuns and vice versa….

“Around the years 1140-1150, the abbot of Saint-Denis estimated that the order included five thousand members. An at their head was an abbess, not an abbot. The monks who entered the order owed their obedience and made their profession with their hands in hers…

“Petronilla of Chemillé had died on April 4, 1149, after directing the double monastery for thirty-five years…. In 1149, after Petronilla of Chemillé, she [Matilda of Anjou] was elected abbess at the age of thirty-four (she was also a widow and not a virgin to fulfil one of the conditions imposed by the founder, Robert d’Arbrissel, to direct the double monastery: that of being a widow not a virgin).”

Source: Régine Pernoud, Women at the Days of Cathedrals, Ignatius Press, 1998, pp. 113, 128, 131. And from the same author: Those Terrible Middle Ages, Ignatius Press, 2000, chapter 6, Women Without Souls, pp. 107.

In all, there has been 36 abbesses at the head of this double monastery from 1115 to 1792 (On 17 August 1792, a Revolutionary decree ordered evacuation of all monasteries, to be completed by 1 October 1792. The abbey later became a prison from 1804 to 1963, in which year it was given to the French Ministry of Culture.)

Other sources:
Weir, Alison (1999), Eleanor of Aquitaine, a Life. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-345-40540-4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontevraud_Abbey:

“Philippa of Toulouse persuaded her husband William IX, Duke of Aquitaine to grant Robert of Abrissel land in Northern Poitou to establish a religious community dedicated to the Virgin Mary.[2] The abbey was founded in 1100 and became a double monastery, with both monks and nuns on the same site. An international success, the order established several "Fontevrist" abbeys set up in England. Robert of Arbrissel declared that the leader of the order should always be a woman and appointed Petronille de Chemillé as the first abbess. She was succeeded by Matilda of Anjou, the aunt of Henry II of England. This was the start of a position that attracted many rich and noble abbesses over the years, including members of the French Bourbon royal family. It also became a refuge for battered women and penitent prostitutes, and housed a leper hospital and a home for aged religious.[3]”

The situation of the Fontevrault Abbey is only an example amongst many instances in which women were in a position of authority until the Renaissance with the resurgence of classical Roman law.

One key thing you're leaving out is that Bishop Williamson said that there were exceptions, that should not be mentioned because "we want to establish the RULE." Sure, there were exceptions, and I would say that they were RELIGIOUS that -were- those exceptions.

The claim that men in general are the reason for the rise of feminism is a lot like blaming Adam for Eve succuмbing to temptation first.  It's a concession thrown to the women to make things seem more even-handed.

Feminism is about women and their ambitions, pride, and lust.  That's the root cause of it.  Not the misbehavior of men.  The weakness of men, and the evil plots of some men have allowed it to come about, but men philandering didn't cause feminism.  The "double-standard" didn't cause feminism.  That's a feminist way of thinking.

Lust???  Men lust, women don't.  Yes, feminism is about amibition and pride ... but yes actually, if men had remained at the head the women would not have sought to fill the gap.  Men philandering did ultimately cause feminism ... men wanted to have their cake and eat it, wanting both a mistress and a wife!  By not seeking and looking to God, they abused their position and then expected women to carry on managing everything.  Look around you today ... boys don't want responsibility, commitment, serious thinking, rather they want to play games all day!

My son has recently put away his games.  A gentle talk on 'a boy can't grown up to be a man if he spends his time playing games'...  He has an important role to play, as Priest or husband, he must lead and keep his eyes on Our Lord.

Society pushes women out to work.  Many women do not want to work but are left with little or no choice, especially if the man is not around.  There is no respect for women bringing up children and making a home, and very few men appreciate the tireless daily effort...

Quote from: parentsfortruth

The priest here is trying to force the congregation to sing at high masses. He says that Pius X had his whole congregation singing, and I frankly asked the question, "Did Pius X say that women should not sing in church?" And he answered my question by asking, and then answering the question in the video, "Why did Pius X say that women shouldn't sing in church?"

The entire reason I asked the question, was to illustrate that the priest at my Church now, is a liar, saying that Pius X wanted congregational singing, which totally contradicts what Pius X said in his own writing in 1903. That singing in Church is a "real liturgical office," and "therefore women are excluded" from singing.

If you don't have women singing in a choir, certainly you're not going to have them commingled in the congregation singing right alongside the men.

Popes Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII on congregational singing:

Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times. (Tra le sollecitudini, Pius X, 1903)

In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies, or when pious sodalities take part with the clergy in a procession, they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the Liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed. If this is done, then it will no longer happen that the people either make no answer at all to the public prayers -- whether in the language of the Liturgy or in the vernacular -- or at best utter the responses in a low and subdued manner. (Divini Cultus, Pius XI, 1928)

Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done [...] in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant. (Mediator Dei, Pius XII, 1947)

It is the duty of all those to whom Christ the Lord has entrusted the task of guarding and dispensing the Church's riches to preserve this precious treasure of Gregorian chant diligently and to impart it generously to the Christian people. [...] May it thus come about that the Christian people begin even on this earth to sing that song of praise it will sing forever in heaven. (Musicae Sacrae, Pius XII, 1955)

In solemn Mass there are three degrees of the participation of the faithful: a) First, the congregation can sing the liturgical responses. These are: Amen; Et cuм spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi, Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias. Every effort must be made that the faithful of the entire world learn to sing these responses. b) Secondly, the congregation can sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing the easier ones: Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei; the choir, then, can sing the Gloria, and Credo. In connection with this, the following Gregorian melodies, because of their simplicity, should be learned by the faithful throughout the world: the Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei of Mass XVI from the Roman Gradual; the Gloria in excelsis Deo, and Ite, missa est-Deo gratias of Mass XV; and either Credo I or Credo III. In this way it will be possible to achieve that most highly desirable goal of having the Christian faithful throughout the world manifest their common faith by active participation in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and by common and joyful song. c) Thirdly, if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant, they can sing the parts of the Proper of the Mass. This form of participation should be carried out particularly in religious congregations and seminaries. (De Musica Sacra, Sacred Congregation for Rites (during Pius XII), 1958)

Tra Le Solicitudine, (same one you just cited.)

12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music. (LEVITES = MEN)

By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.

13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

Divini Cultus (SAME docuмent you cited)

In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it.

According to Pius X, it does not belong to women to sing in Church.

The passage you cited in Mediator Dei, the people already do following along in the missal. It said nothing about "out loud" and it said nothing about women singing also. Traditionally, and strictly speaking, Pius X said that women should not sing in church at all. They're "excluded."

You cite Musicae Sacre, where Pius XII says in no uncertain terms in 1955:

74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that "a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter."[26]

He makes an exception, and again. "WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE." So, as Bishop Williamson said, "If all you have is dishrags of men, you're going to have women singing." Totally consistent with Pius XII's "exception."

The last one you cited was a docuмent given as an "instruction" by the "congregation of rites" ONE MONTH before Pius XII died of exhaustion, and was already very ill. It was one of the docuмents that broke with tradition before Vatican II to prepare for "dialogue masses" and stuff. Did you read the part about the 'commentator?'

a) The role of commentator should properly be carried out by a priest or at least a cleric. If none is available, a layman of good Christian character, and well instructed in his duties may fill the role. Women, however, may never act as commentator; in case of necessity, a woman would be permitted only to lead the prayers, and singing of the congregation.

Oh look! An exception for a woman! If you're going to accept the ambiguity and break with tradition in THIS docuмent, then you have to accept the unsavory parts of it, like this one, too.

The claim that men in general are the reason for the rise of feminism is a lot like blaming Adam for Eve succuмbing to temptation first.  It's a concession thrown to the women to make things seem more even-handed.

Feminism is about women and their ambitions, pride, and lust.  That's the root cause of it.  Not the misbehavior of men.  The weakness of men, and the evil plots of some men have allowed it to come about, but men philandering didn't cause feminism.  The "double-standard" didn't cause feminism.  That's a feminist way of thinking.

Philandering was certainly not the cause of feminism but everyone formerly understood that women naturally take advantage and abuse power if allowed to do so by men. "And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." Men were fooled by liberalism to abdicate their rule over women and the predictable chaotic results ensued. However, the effect was made immeasurably worse by the male-dominated, ʝʊdɛօmasonic pincer movement of marxist liberation and corporate consumerism. Men implemented women's suffrage, the welfare state, and the marriage 2.0 divorce laws that rendered marriage functionally obsolete for a large, fast-growing, and soon-majority segment of the population.

gαy marriage is disturbing but far less harmful to family values than the welfare state and divorce and custody laws implemented in the Sixties and Seventies. However, the seeds for this destruction were sown back in the liberal Nineteenth century when default custody over children from marriage was transferred to the woman. From time immemorial, children inside marriage had been considered property of the man while children outside of marriage were property of the woman and there was no shared custody or responsibility.

This wise and just traditional custom provided effective incentives for keeping sex within the bounds of marriage and keeping families together. The liberal men who wrecked this fine system sentenced their progeny to more that a century of social chaos and destruction. Only after men admit their own abdication, will they be able to reassert their rightful and necessary headship.

Quote from: Columba

However, the seeds for this destruction were sown back in the liberal Nineteenth century when default custody over children from marriage was transferred to the woman. From time immemorial, children inside marriage had been considered property of the man while children outside of marriage were property of the woman and there was no shared custody or responsibility.

This wise and just traditional custom provided effective incentives for keeping sex within the bounds of marriage and keeping families together.

So under this system a husband/ father who is a drunk and a child abuser would have property rights over the children if he chose to leave the mother?

And how would this system provide any incentive for keeping sex within the bounds of marriage on the man's part? What disincentive would there be for the man to cheat at will under this system?

What disincentive would there be? You write as thought we do not already have thousands of year experience under this system. Yes, I am suggesting we "turn the clock back" and "wipe out 200 years of progress." Family problems would still occur, but not at the civilization-destroying level that we face today.

Today it is standard practice for philandering or child and/or substance abusing wives to initiate divorce, obtain full custody of the kids plus ruinous child support and alimony. If the victimized husband looses his job and is unable to pay, he is thrown into prison to endure ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rape. Meanwhile, there is almost zero enforcement of father visitation rights and the woman need only allege abuse without proof to stop visitation altogether.

There is a war being waged against Christian families but many Christians have been fooled into supporting the wrong side.

Columba,

You never answered my questions. I'm not sure how what you propose would end in the results you are looking for.

And how would this system provide any incentive for keeping sex within the bounds of marriage on the man's part? What disincentive would there be for the man to cheat at will under this system?

Keep in mind that it takes two to tango, if women were not out there on the hunt, the married men would have no one to cheat with. Just a thought.

Read The Trash Generation, it is precisely on this subject of the change from the Patriarchical family of the Old Testament Jews, continued by the Catholic Church, and the modern Matriarchical sytem of today, where women get custody and everything in a divorce. Very interesting reading. The matriarchical system is more primitive, and also primitive, still practiced among the black Africans, and other primitive cultures like the American Indians.