Can a woman teach RCIA in light of 1 Timothy 2:12?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Can a woman teach RCIA in light of 1 Timothy 2:12?

(1 Timothy 2:12 RSV) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Thanks!
Holly

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi everyone. Can a woman teach RCIA in light of 1 Timothy 2:12?

(1 Timothy 2:12 RSV) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Thanks!
Holly

yes

 

[Primox]

You betcha.

 

[Holly3278]

Awesome! I am considering getting a catechetics degree or some sort of apologetics degree so I can teach RCIA or defend the faith better.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi everyone. Can a woman teach RCIA in light of 1 Timothy 2:12?

(1 Timothy 2:12 RSV) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Thanks!
Holly

I would think that St. Paul is referring to the teaching and authority of a Bishop or local Church leaders since he is writing to Timothy. Women were not to be Ordained leaders in the Church, they didn’t have lay Catechists back then.

 

[kabyr8]

I sure hope so. I have been doing it for a while. The laity is called to do what they can to build up the Church.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I would think that St. Paul is referring to the teaching and authority of a Bishop or local Church leaders since he is writing to Timothy. Women were not to be Ordained leaders in the Church, they didn’t have lay Catechists back then.

I agree that St Paul is talking about ordained leaders. However, I wonder if someone like Lydia would have been the equivalent of a lay catechist? Perhaps only talking about practical aspects of practicing the faith rather than actual instruction in doctrine.

Our DRE is a woman and the person who organizes our RCIA is a woman, but the majority of the sessions are taught by the priests. Of course our parish is blessed with 3 assigned priests.

 

[Primox]

I would think that St. Paul is referring to the teaching and authority of a Bishop or local Church leaders since he is writing to Timothy. Women were not to be Ordained leaders in the Church, they didn’t have lay Catechists back then.

This makes sense. If we exaggerate what some would interpret as not teaching at all, then we might imagine a son saying to his mother, “Mother, tell me about Jesus,” to which her reply would have to be, “Ahhh… 1 Timothy 2:12, but oh, I’ve said too much!”

 

[turtle18]

Considering the tons & tons of religious teaching orders that have existed throughout the years, I would say yes!

 

[DominicVobiscum]

My sister Alfreda from 1st grade answered that one for me. I would have no Catholic education foundation at all if it wasnt for the good Ursuline Sisters.

 

[JReducation]

Let us remember that we are reading an English translation of Paul’s writing. Teach and teacher in his time were titles reserved for Rabbis. When Paul goes to the Gentiles, they did not have the Rabbinical tradtion. The Rabbinical tradition was very new even to the Jews.

The Gentiles still had the temple priestess and vestile virgins who interpreted the messages of the gods and so forth. Paul comes from the Judeo-Christian school, where the rabbi and the deacon had the same function, to proclaim the word of God. Paul has to address the issue of these women priestesses who were converting to the Way. They could join the Way as Christianity was called in Paul’s day, but they had to give up their former role, because we did not have a female rabbi or female deacons. Remember, it was the deacons who took the place of the rabbis. The rabbis were teachers, they were not priests. The deacon is also a teacher or preacher. There is the continuity between the Judaic tradition and the Christian tradition.

Paul is speaking to the Greek tradition which has no equivalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it could not be carried over.

Today, the word teach and teacher have broader meanings and include a larger array of people. I know a lot of women who would be out of a job, if women could not teach.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

Let us remember that we are reading an English translation of Paul’s writing. Teach and teacher in his time were titles reserved for Rabbis. When Paul goes to the Gentiles, they did not have the Rabbinical tradtion. The Rabbinical tradition was very new even to the Jews.

The Gentiles still had the temple priestess and vestile virgins who interpreted the messages of the gods and so forth. Paul comes from the Judeo-Christian school, where the rabbi and the deacon had the same function, to proclaim the word of God. Paul has to address the issue of these women priestesses who were converting to the Way. They could join the Way as Christianity was called in Paul’s day, but they had to give up their former role, because we did not have a female rabbi or female deacons. Remember, it was the deacons who took the place of the rabbis. The rabbis were teachers, they were not priests. The deacon is also a teacher or preacher. There is the continuity between the Judaic tradition and the Christian tradition.

Paul is speaking to the Greek tradition which has no equivalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it could not be carried over.

Today, the word teach and teacher have broader meanings and include a larger array of people. I know a lot of women who would be out of a job, if women could not teach.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ah ok. Thank you Br. JR. Your post is very helpful. Thanks again!

 

[Geremia]

Let us remember that we are reading an English translation of Paul’s writing. Teach and teacher in his time were titles reserved for Rabbis. When Paul goes to the Gentiles, they did not have the Rabbinical tradtion. The Rabbinical tradition was very new even to the Jews.

The Gentiles still had the temple priestess and vestile virgins who interpreted the messages of the gods and so forth. Paul comes from the Judeo-Christian school, where the rabbi and the deacon had the same function, to proclaim the word of God. Paul has to address the issue of these women priestesses who were converting to the Way. They could join the Way as Christianity was called in Paul’s day, but they had to give up their former role, because we did not have a female rabbi or female deacons. Remember, it was the deacons who took the place of the rabbis. The rabbis were teachers, they were not priests. The deacon is also a teacher or preacher. There is the continuity between the Judaic tradition and the Christian tradition.

Paul is speaking to the Greek tradition which has no equivalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it could not be carried over.

Today, the word teach and teacher have broader meanings and include a larger array of people. I know a lot of women who would be out of a job, if women could not teach.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is a very confusing, historically relativistic explanation. God’s word is perennial; it is not locked up in a particular time era. Let us read from verse 8:

8 I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention. 9 In like manner, women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire: 10 But, as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

St. Paul here is talking about a woman’s proper role; he does not say “Do not teach, women!” since how could they teach their children? “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man;” therefore, they are not to teach men because it is not proper to their being women and upholding God’s command after the fall that the woman shall “be under [her] husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over [her]” (Gen. 3:16).

Also, a similar, simple explanation goes for 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, too.

 

[diggerdomer]

therefore, they are not to teach men

In the Catholic Church there are plenty of women who teach men: religious education, RCIA, seminaries, formation programs, and so on.

 

[JReducation]

This is a very confusing, historically relativistic explanation. God’s word is perennial; it is not locked up in a particular time era. Let us read from verse 8:St. Paul here is talking about a woman’s proper role; he does not say “Do not teach, women!” since how could they teach their children? “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man;” therefore, they are not to teach men because it is not proper to their being women and upholding God’s command after the fall that the woman shall “be under [her] husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over [her]” (Gen. 3:16).

Also, a similar, simple explanation goes for 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, too.

The issue is do you subscribe to your understanding of Paul or to the Church’s understanding of Paul?

The Church’s understanding of Paul is not the same sas your own. Therefore, you will be surprised to know that many of the canonists, liturgists, theologians, and other people who work in the Vatican and are on different commissions and congregations that govern the Church in the name of the Holy Father are women. They are theologians, canon lawyers, liturgists, doctors of religious education, doctors of ministry, doctors of divinity, church historians, and many other fields.

Right now, the head of the commission that was created to teach and correct religious in the USA is a woman religious. She has been given full authority to teach in the name of the Holy Father and to take religious to task as well. She has been assigned several bishops to work under her on her team. She is the head of the team. Why? Because the Church does not interpret Paul as you are.;

You have to choose. Either you take the Protestant approach of literal interpretation or you take the Church’s approach of historical consciousness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[puzzleannie]

if we all quit tomorrow there would be perhaps 5 parishes with DREs in the diocese. good luck, men, have at it.