Here is a great opportunity of interest to all liturgical churches - our first liturgical commentary. I'm still holding out for our first reception history commentary ... The Gospel of Mark: A Liturgical Reading by Charles A. Bobertz
I’ve pre-ordered. Looks like it’s moving along quickly.
Thanks for this recommendation. It looks great.
Already pre-ordered - am looking forward to it [Y]
Like many situations, some research may be prudent to decide if what Prof. Bobertz discusses is of your liking. For example, he has written in support of the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, a teaching that is contrary to dogmatic Catholic Church teaching, divinely revealed by Christ. There is more.
While this is not a concern in the Lutheran or Anglican world, it is certainly contrary to the teachings of popes and the Church. For example Saint John Paul II wrote that the Church did not have the authority to change the practice of Jesus in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"; Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, wrote that all the faithful are to give full assent to Church doctrine on this topic and what JP II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which is taught infallibly. Other popes supported this teaching in their writings.
This commentary could be a book of interest to those of any faith who disagree with the beliefs and teachings Prof. Bobertz supports in his writing, if they have an interest in seeing an argument from "across the aisle." Just be aware of what you are buying, and decide prudently.
Don, IIRC the issue of ordination does not occur in this volume. Do you recommend some other liturgical commentary on Mark?
MJ I have not read the whole commentary but there is enough overtone I thought it prudent to offer an opinion to exercise caution, both for what may be in this commentary as well as in consideration of other sources that paint a picture of what the author believes. His writing to me just seems to be pushing an agenda, whether or not he explicitly calls for ordination of women. Here is one example in this entry from the Mark commentary he authored and which is in discussion here:
"One reading of the Gospel of Mark is that it is fundamentally a presentation in narrative form of a theological rationale, in a time of communal crisis evoked by persecution, for Gentile and female inclusion in the defined ritual space of the Lord's Supper of the house churches."
He says the fundamental message of the Gospel is that it is an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles and women in liturgy. I would venture that most would say that is not the fundamental Good News of the Gospel message, or anywhere close to it.
My concern is also that if the author disregards Church dogma so blatantly in one area, there is a good chance it is disregarded on other topics. Again I say some may not care, some may like his perspective, others may like reading opinions and views opposed to their own. I am not judging whether it's an acceptable commentary, but to help others make an informed opinion especially if consistency with Catholic Church teaching is a concern to them.
Following along in this thread, I went ahead and signed up. I guess I'm almost exactly 180 degrees opposite 'liturgical' (not speaking to Catholic, etc). But, the concept seems logical ... that's what religious people do ... ceremony backwards to narritive. Gentiles and women in Mark seem odd as a point. I suspect the criticality for the 12 and even Paul was 'jewish' ... guys as a norm.
"One reading of the Gospel of Mark is that it is fundamentally a presentation in narrative form of a theological rationale, in a time of communal crisis evoked by persecution, for Gentile and female inclusion in the defined ritual space of the Lord's Supper of the house churches." He says the fundamental message of the Gospel is that it is an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles and women in liturgy. I would venture that most would say that is not the fundamental Good News of the Gospel message, or anywhere close to it.
Thanks for your explanation Don. I see your point. However, I read it quite differently and did not assume that Gentile/female inclusion was outside the known roles of women in the early church. I took it as a contrast to 2nd temple synagogue practice of segregating women. I do see how it can be read as you took it.
