1 Corinthians 11:9: Woman Made for Man, NOT Man for Woman?

[catholic1seeks]

@pacloc

Wow, just wow. As you said in the post before, you haven’t studied this issue much, so please think about that before you post such blasphemous things.

I cannot continue to entertain you everytime you call my posts “blasphemous.”

You are not acquainted with Catholic doctrine if you think I am saying anything new.

Catholics must profess that Scripture in its ENTIRETY is WITHOUT ERROR, but only once we RECOGNIZE WHAT IS BEING ASSERTED. Many things in the Scriptural texts are merely assumed, as part of the cultural environment the authors lived in ---- and yet not being ASSERTED as the truth they are conveying.

Example: When Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal Son, he is not asserting that there once lived a historical “Prodigal Son,” but he is ASSERTING the truth of God’s divine mercy. Similarly, we don’t just blindly accept something as literally true without first looking to context, genre, and so on.

As for Evolution and Adam, I believe it is you who are quite mistaken if you think even Eastern Orthodoxy requires literal belief in Genesis, as if it is telling us scientific detail.

As for some church fathers: Of course, many of them did believe in a literal Creation as expressed in Genesis. But can we blame them? They often had no reason to think otherwise. But these same Christians would be the first to say that all Truth is God’s Truth, so we cannot pit science and reason against faith. Besides, the literal position is not the only one from the church fathers:

Origen didn’t see Genesis as a literal, historical account of how God created the world. And St. Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written allegorically in his On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis. And in fact he chastises the Christians who scandalize others by appearing to look unscientific in their understanding of Genesis:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

 

[Spyridon]

But Adam was not “first” in the sense of God specially creating Adam’s body, and then literally forming Eve out of his side.)

I don’t think your idea is blasphemous - that’s going too far. I understand your desire to square the Biblical account with scientific understanding.

I disagree with you here, however.

I believe God created Adam from the dust of the earth miraculously, and that he then formed Eve from his side. ALL of the Church Fathers believed this, all the Popes believed it, and the Church always has and still does teach this.

He may have used prior hominids as a “blueprint” for the body of Adam, however

 

[catholic1seeks]

I believe God created Adam from the dust of the earth miraculously, and that he then formed Eve from his side.

He may have used prior hominids as a “blueprint” for the body of Adam, however.

I was mistaken, I thought you had accepted evolution.

I do not think it is true that the Church teaches we must believe Eve came from Adam’s side.
Besides, this would seem to be an arbitrary point to maintain if we say that the rest of the story uses “figurative language,” as the Catechism says.

 

[Spyridon]

was mistaken, I thought you had accepted evolution.

I do not think it is true that the Church teaches we must believe Eve came from Adam’s side.

I do accept evolution - I accept theistic evolution.

I believe God intervened in the creative process at a few different times - at the beginning when he formed the Earth, then when he created the first life on earth, then when he created plant and animal life, then when he created hominids and finally when he created Adam and Eve.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But regardless, as long as we recognize that a Catholic CAN believe that our first parents’ bodies developed via evolution, then OK

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. –Humani Generis 36

As for Patristics, I’m not sure about if all fathers believed that Eve came from Adam’s side. Again, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be the dominant view, since there was no reason to think otherwise. This goes for literal creationism in general.

But we do know that fathers did take a more allegorical approach to Genesis.

 

[pacloc]

After all, hardly any knowledgeable Catholic thinks that Paul’s words on women head coverings literally apply in every age. Or even his comments on women being silent in church: NO Catholic church takes that as literally true; women pray, read, sing, lead all the time in Catholic contexts – even in liturgy.

This is also very wrong. I doubt you know what knowledgeable Catholics think or don’t think because this is just mere speculation. I hope you are aware that all Christians for 1900 years have believed Paul’s words literally about women covering their heads at least in Church. It is modernism that has convinced you and others that it was just a societal norm.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So anyway. How this all relates back to my answer on Paul:

1. As Catholics we must believe that Scripture is free from ALL error — with regard to what is being asserted as true.
2. What is asserted as true is not simply what is said. The authors assume much, thanks to their cultural surroundings, personalities, and experiences. For example, just because slavery is mentioned or assumed does not mean God approves slavery, or is ASSERTING that slavery is true.
3. Whether or not Genesis is literal, whether or not evolution happened, does not seem to affect the ASSERTION of Paul in this text, since Paul is probably assuming what his culture had taught him: The narrative in Genesis. (There was no reason to question the specific details, since scientific, anthropological, and historical knowledge was not then what it is today).
4. The fact that we cannot simply EQUATE Paul’s words to what he is ASSERTING is evident in something nearly ALL CHRISTIANS on this thread would admit: That women do not have to be silent in church, and that head coverings and hair length are not divine ordinances. These are cultural aspects that we gladly admit.
5. So we must look to what Paul is asserting. That’s the bottom line. For Catholics, what is being asserted by the Author is what is being asserted by the Holy Spirit.
6. This is why we look beyond one text to the Tradition of the Church. And in addition to the Tradition, to the LIVING voice of God’s teachers, the bishops in union with the Pope. From this teaching office, we KNOW that to be a faithful Christian, one can accept various understandings of Genesis and the scientific record.

And it is from this same Tradition and Teaching office that we know that God is NOT sexist, that the Bible in its assertions is NOT sexist, and that the Church’s teaching itself is NOT sexist.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This is also very wrong. I doubt you know what knowledgeable Catholics think or don’t think because this is just mere speculation. I hope you are aware that all Christians for 1900 years have believed Paul’s words literally about women covering their heads at least in Church. It is modernism that has convinced you and others that it was just a societal norm.

Do Orthodox Churches officially teach women must cover their heads? Better whip out the evidence, because I need to tell my friend before she officially converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism this Saturday evening. I wouldn’t want her to be sinning

Regardless, I am talking about the consistency of Catholic thought. No knowledgeable Catholic will tell you that women have to go around covering their heads as a matter of Divine Law or in order to faithfully follow the Bible. Ask Pope Francis. Or any Catholic bishop. Or theologian.

@pacloc, do you think women must be silent in church? Does Orthodoxy think women must not speak, or pray aloud, or sing at liturgy? If you think they can, then already you are admitting that we do not follow Paul 100% word for word: BUT that we instead have to look to what he is ASSERTING as true.

@pacloc — saying over and over again that I’m “VERY WRONG” gets redundant and tiresome. Next time, provide concrete evidence if you’re going to counter me. I have studied my faith for a long time, and I try hard to remain orthodox and faithful. I’m familiar with scripture, church fathers, and theology. I have many books. I’m probably not as ignorant as you take me.

 

[QContinuum]

I don’t think your idea is blasphemous - that’s going too far. I understand your desire to square the Biblical account with scientific understanding.

I disagree with you here, however.

I believe God created Adam from the dust of the earth miraculously, and that he then formed Eve from his side. ALL of the Church Fathers believed this, all the Popes believed it, and the Church always has and still does teach this.

He may have used prior hominids as a “blueprint” for the body of Adam, however

It’s a tricky question for sure. I understand catholic1seek’s dilemma and why he goes for the literal understanding.

He’s correct that the scientific data contradicts the scenario of homo sapiens sapiens descending from only two specimens.

As someone who has struggled for agnosticism for years, I don’t worry so much about the historicity of the event as I do about the underlying themes or truths that may still be mined from A&E.

Even were it a myth, I still think that regardless of whether male or female came first, they still need each other to survive and to thrive. They save each other from a bleak existence.

 

[catholic1seeks]

He’s correct that the scientific data contradicts the scenario of homo sapiens sapiens descending from only two specimens.

I never said this. I believe that all humans descended from an original couple, an original couple that were the first to have body AND soul (spiritual component). This doesn’t mean that other human-like animals (hominids) didn’t exist before them or at the same time (they probably DID). But I do believe what the Church says: That it seems we must believe in an original pair, for the sake of Original Sin and Redemption.

I simply reject the view that Eve literally came from Adam’s side. Or rather, I reject that we as Catholics MUST believe this. The magisterial documents say we must believe in an original couple with body/soul — a soul that was infused by God at a moment in time. But the same documents say we can accept evolution as the means of the development of the human body.

 

[pacloc]

This is all wrong again. Have you read any of the Fathers of the Church? If so, please let me know what you are reading and I can hopefully help you understand that none of them teach these new inventions. Origen is not a Saint or Father of the Church, but that quote doesn’t even say anything, it seems like a few sentences were pulled out of some of his writings and attributed as a defense against literal interpretations that give new “Christians” problems.

@pacloc — saying over and over again that I’m “VERY WRONG” gets redundant and tiresome. Next time, provide concrete evidence if you’re going to counter me. I have studied my faith for a long time, and I try hard to remain orthodox and faithful. I’m familiar with scripture, church fathers, and theology. I have many books. I’m probably not as ignorant as you take me.

I am taking you as very against Church teaching, even RCC teaching before the 1950s or whenever this movement to modernism took place. Whether you have read the writings of the Fathers and completely ignored them or passed them off as not knowing any better because they were so inferior in their scientific and societal beliefs it matters not because you are opposed to very important teachings. I would like to speak to you in person instead of writing over this forum, because it feels that there is a huge disconnect. Why do you feel the need to fight against normal Christian teachings and yet have a huge problem with Orthodoxy claiming to have an ancient faith? Most Orthodox do not believe in evolution at all.

 

[QContinuum]

My apologies for misunderstanding, and thus, misrepresenting your position, sir. Thank you for clarifying.

I spoke from a purely scientific standpoint (that is, materialistic) when saying the species was not founded by only two individuals.

Claims regarding spirits and ensouled humans are of course not under the purview of science.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@pacloc

You aren’t answering my questions. Do you or do you not think it is OK for Orthodox women to speak, sing, or pray out loud in an Orthodox Liturgy. If you think it is OK, then how is this being consistent with Paul’s own words on women remaining silent in the church?

It’s laughable you keep telling me I’m not Catholic or I don’t know my own church, when I am only saying the things I have said to clear up misunderstandings on allowable Catholic positions.

If you think Catholics cannot faithfully accept evolution, then you are entirely misinformed my friend.

Also, a note. The Church Fathers are normative on Faith. But then didn’t know everything. They also didn’t know anything about the scientific evidence for evolution. This is why as a Church, we don’t just look to specific church fathers: We CONTINUE to be guided by the same Spirit who guided them, through the teaching office of the church — the bishops who were also alive in the 10th, and 16th, and 20th centuries… and who are alive TODAY. The bishops are just as authoritative as then. Catholics aren’t stuck in the past. There are different needs, different contexts, today. And this is why we need a living teaching authority, united in Rome, whom “all churches must agree with,” as Irenaeus said way back in the 2nd century.

 

[pacloc]

Are you even reading the Scriptures correctly? Can you please show me where the Fathers of the Church interpreted St. Paul’s words the way that you are trying to catch me in trap. Women do not teach at Church, only men that are ordained teach. Women singing and praying with the Church are not forms of teaching but worshipping. Most Orthodox women would never think about wanting to be a Priest. I know that there are women teachers that sometimes give lectures at retreats, but this is not the norm, and I don’t think this is what St. Paul was speaking about because it is outside of the Liturgical Service. Women will never give a talk during a Liturgical service. Silence is applied to the idea of women leading the men of the Church.

Also you are now calling an allowable catholic position what you initially called what most knowledgeable Catholics believe.

I know Catholics can believe in evolution, but the part about Eve is not so clearly taught that you can dismiss. These are all pretty new allowances and I don’t know if any authoritative statement has been made that really allows their belief.

The Orthodox Church will stick to not contradicting the Fathers, the RCC can do what it likes with the new views of society, but unity will only be pushed further away. I know that most traditional RC do not buy into a lot of the stuff you are advocating. I know most Latin Mass and traditional Catholic women I know wear head coverings and believe in the creation of Adam, and are opposed to female priests, and believe that Paul was speaking truthfully about headship.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think it’s very destructive for dialogue’s sake to (essentially) be calling me a heretic over the fact that I do not believe that Eve literally came from Adam’s side.

I believe in an orginal pair. I believe that God created the first humans by giving them a soul: The original humans were not accidental. The entire creation was not an accident, but willed good by God. I believe that the first human couple sinned. But I also accept the scientific data, knowing that the Fathers of the Church and the biblical authors were without access to the same scientific data we have. Truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore, I do EXACTLY what the Catholic Church allows me to do: To hold both biological evolution, including the evolution of the human body, and to believe that this is all within God’s providence.

As for women, Paul bluntly says that they are to remain silent in church:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --1 Cor 14:34-35.

If you interpret this in ANY OTHER WAY besides that women should be 100% silent — whether regard to teaching OR praying or singing or speaking — then you yourself are not following Paul word for word.

I simply express to show you that in order to follow the BIble, we do not follow it word by word but what is being ASSERTED as true.

It is strange for me to be telling an Eastern Orthodox this, since the allegorical and spiritual interpretation of the Bible has been a traditional component of Eastern Christianity since the days of the Alexandrian Fathers.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I know that most traditional RC do not buy into a lot of the stuff you are advocating.

Makes no difference. There is allowable diversity on certain matters in the Catholic Church, including how literally we take Genesis.

So you can counter me all you want: My perspective is an authentically orthodox and allowable Catholic perspective.

The Orthodox have diversity on this question too. I’m pretty sure my friend’s Orthodox priest accepts evolution. Type in “Orthodox and evolution” on Google and you will find plenty of different perspectives.

The question is not whether there is unity or diversity but rather, How do we know what can be authentic diversity? I maintain we need a unified voice united in Peter. Peace.

 

[pacloc]

Thank you for clarifying your belief, I thought you were calling the whole thing made up. I am aware that the RCC allows this teaching. I also know that most of the RCs that I knew that were faithful active members did not believe it, and were surprised when a Priest explained the allowed position. I don’t know where he and you got the information that this is an allowed belief, but I took it and just personally rejected it. To me, it creates more problems then solves, but it is your choice.

As for Paul’s words, I already explained that I follow the Fathers of the Church interpretations, not yours. I am not some evangelical Christian that thinks I should just interpret harder scripture by myself, I am Orthodox.

We do believe spiritual and allegorical interpretations are more important or just as important as the literalness, but when it is understood as being literal it is foolish to say it never happened, especially after 1900 years of believing otherwise.

I know you are entitled to believe the way you are writing, but you started off by calling Paul wrong and things, that I think would even offend a lot of Roman Catholics that do believe in headship and a literal creation.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I asked a renowned Catholic apologist from Catholic Answers about it via Facebook last night.

According to him, Catholics do not have to believe Eve literally came from Adam’s. He mentioned that, according to John Paul II, the image of coming from the side symbolically represents the equality of woman and man.

And @pacloc, again, the more I look, the more I find that even Eastern Orthodox have a legitimate variety of thought on Genesis, creation, and evolution. I asked my friend who is becoming Orthodox, and she indeed said that Orthodox tend to look at Genesis allegorically and that there is a variety of interpretations.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As for Paul’s words, I already explained that I follow the Fathers of the Church interpretations, not yours. I am not some evangelical Christian that thinks I should just interpret harder scripture by myself, I am Orthodox.

Again, my point is that NO ONE follows the Bible word-by-word. That is not how the Church has followed Scripture. That is certainly not how the ancient churches, Catholic or Orthodox, has approached Scripture. We are not Fundamentalists.

In order to know what God the Holy Spirit is saying through his written Word, we have to pay attention to the human author’s culture and writing style in order to realize his INTENT. For it is not merely what is said/assumed that is true: It is what is being ASSERTED.

And what is being ASSERTED is at the hands of every Christian. This is why there are so many denominations: What is ASSERTED is often not perfectly clear. Thankfully, this is why the church’s teaching office endures.

I admire your respect for the Fathers. I as a Catholic look to them too, since they represent the era when the Church was united West and East and often express the Apostolic Faith. But it seems you suggest Scripture and the Church Fathers are the only means of getting at Christian Faith. But we have a continual guide in the bishops. Even Orthodox bishops continue to develop understanding of the Faith.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I know you are entitled to believe the way you are writing, but you started off by calling Paul wrong and things, that I think would even offend a lot of Roman Catholics that do believe in headship and a literal creation.

If it turns out that the biological data shows that our human bodies evolved over time, then Paul would be wrong in his assumptions about how our bodies formed. This does NOT mean that Scripture is wrong or is not inspired by God; rather, it means we have to get at what is being asserted as true, and not merely what is being assumed.

The same could be said about how the sacred authors and church fathers assumed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. That was wrong, but they didn’t have evidence to believe otherwise.