Doesnt it say in the bible that women cant speak

[gtrguy155]

Doesnt it say in the bible that women cant speak During services?? My mom is a protestant and brought this up. She asks why us catholics would do something completely opposite the bible. I searched online and cant find an answer to this question. I would sure appreciate some help in explaining this cuz it is kind of worrying me me because it actually DOES say it.

 

[maurin]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you might disturb all the female lectors.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Doesnt it say in the bible that women cant speak During services?? My mom is a protestant and brought this up. She asks why us catholics would do something completely opposite the bible. I searched online and cant find an answer to this question. I would sure appreciate some help in explaining this cuz it is kind of worrying me me because it actually DOES say it.

It says it all right.

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

This might be the right moment to point out that even in the Apostolic Church there were failures to carry out the Lord’s commands. I am sure she can find a few of those in the Bible if she has found this passage. Under the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, women are unfortunately permitted to violate this rather clear provision made by St. Paul. It is an embarrassment when dealing with good Protestants like your Mom, but we have to fall back on the teaching of the Church which does not pretend to be impeccable in her practises. There are worse sins.

This is only a minor reason why traditional Catholics have such a hard time with the Ordinary Mass. I don’t envy you trying to explain this to your Mom. It is a scandal and a stumblingblock. One of beauties of the Extraordinary Form is that it gets rid of all the feminists. No altar girls, no female lectors and no discussion of women priests. It approaches worship in way that St. Paul would recognize and approve. Modern feminists hate it. Your Mom sounds like a good Protestant who is willing to conform to Scripture to the best of her lights. The women of St. Paul’s day wanted to speak and he said no. The women of Pope Paul’s day wanted to speak and he permitted it.

Cut your losses. You’ll get more respect admitting wrong than trying to cover it up. Tell Mom she’s right and that you are sorry for how the Catholic Church has failed in permitting this practise and tell her that some of us find it as outrageously contrary to the Apostolic teaching as she does. We’re getting this disaster turned around, but it is taking time.

 

[ProVobis]

1 Corinthians 14

{14:34} Mulieres in Ecclesiis taceant, non enim permittitur eis loqui, sed subditas esse, sicut et lex dicit.
{14:34} Women should be silent in the churches. For it is not permitted for them to speak; but instead, they should be subordinate, as the law also says.

{14:35} Si quid autem volunt discere, domi viros suos interrogent. Turpe est enim mulieri loqui in Ecclesia.
{14:35} And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I find it interesting to note that a Pastor of a Catholic Parish can own his own authority, say that he will not be permitting from now own any females as lectors, altar servers, of EMHCs. Of course, if you did all this, you should also look into female members of the choir. I have read a good interpretation of the quote from St. Paul. All of these “ministries” are actually liturgical offices. Since a woman cannot be ordained, then she should not hold any liturgical office.

Now, this is not necessarily my view, since I am still formulating my view. But I think it is interesting, and what Rory says is correct. We are technically, in violation of Tradition that St. Paul has laid down for us.

Pax!

p.s. here is a link to an interpretation of this:

 

[Melchior_1]

This is an interesting topic. If we’re in violation of this issue, then Canon Law is as well (see rtforum.org/lt/lt56.html for more information).

I’m interested in what others have to say about this.

 

[EphelDuath]

I don’t see what the problem is. The Gospel reading and the homily can only be done by those who have received holy orders (priests, deacons, bishops), and they can only be men.

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t see what the problem is. The Gospel reading and the homily can only be done by those who have received holy orders (priests, deacons, bishops), and they can only be men.

The problem is Saint Paul said that women should not speak within the Church, and he said that in his divinely inspired letter to the Corinthians. With the Catholic Church allowing female lectors, Protestants (and apparently some traditional Catholics) will say that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible. This is important, because there are some Protestant’s who feel that the Catholic Church is “unbiblical” and outright contradicting the Bible at times, which in the eyes of Scripture being the sole rule of Faith is important (in some cases even going so far to say that Catholics aren’t Christians). It’s also important in the eyes of some traditional Catholics, as some of them may see this as one more “modern invention” done by those who seek to deny (or walk away from) tradition.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the Church nor have authority to interpret Scripture? If the answer is “yes” then one must look at how the Church interpreted that passage in light of allowing female alter servers and female lectors. If someone could find that, it could answer a lot of questions, yes?

 

[choy]

having a “say” means having authority
it doesn’t mean women can’t speak at all. they just cannot have authority

 

[Melchior_1]

having a “say” means having authority
it doesn’t mean women can’t speak at all. they just cannot have authority

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Looking at the historical elements and the context behind St. Paul’s writing, it’s pretty clear that Corinth had severe issues (so much so that St. Clement followed up those two letters with ANOTHER letter). It is possible (I’m using the word “possible” here, so don’t pillory me for my speculation) that this was an issue unique to Corinth, and it was addressed to them specifically due to their women over-reaching their roles at the time and harsh words needed to be used.

 

[nickybr38]

I was taught the letter in question was addressing women who would speak during a ‘service’ asking their husband questions and/or just generally causing a ruckus. Women were told not to speak because they were being disrespectful in their interruptions.

I don’t remember everything the minister told me but I recall him saying that the synagogue used to seperate the men from women so if the wife had a question she’d yell across the building to her husband and yeah… I can see how that would have to be stopped.

But maybe this information is incorrect? Anyone know?

 

[Sirach2]

We are not speaking here about doctrine, revelation, or the sacred Deposit of Faith. St. Paul was issuing a “discipline” according to the culture of his time, and was not issuing a mandate to be adopted forever. Disciplines do change. Remember that in those days, and even in our own time, women were second-class inferiors. This is still the case in certain eastern cultures. Do you folks remember when American women were not allowed to vote? Yet the “discipline” was changed as our culture became more accepting of women as persons and the law was changed.

 

[bnbkaine]

How exactly, then, am I able to participate fully in the Mass? I would not be able to say anything like, “Amen,” or “Peace be with you,” or profess my faith, or say the Our Father, etc. That doesn’t make any sense.

I am not a feminist at all. I would be very happy if there were men that were moved enough to volunteer their time to fill all the roles that need to be filled at Mass. But, any Pope trumps St. Paul any day of the week.

From catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea4.asp "Christianity arose in an environment of female inequality. Greek philosophy, as well as Hebrew sources, are rife with misogynistic judgments. It is not surprising that the Church Fathers sometimes adopted these attitudes without critical reflection—and some academics have been quick to interpret passages in the least charitable light. John Paul II continues in his Letter to Women:
Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history that has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning that down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting (LW 3).
Just as Christian thinkers will sometimes uncritically adopt the scientific outlook of the day, so, too, in the social realm. Hence, Fathers of the Church and great scholastic doctors not only at times uncritically repeat the sexist truisms inherited from the secular culture of their day but sometimes interpret the theological tradition in light of those assumptions. The same attitudes and judgments can also inform the reading of Scripture.

Therefore, the theology of the Church sometimes stands in need of correction. If revelation is really from God, then nothing revealed can be false or lacking in justice or goodness. But the same does not hold true for any individual’s interpretation of revelation, even a saintly and learned individual. The development of doctrine leads to a greater understanding of revelation in part by sorting out what actually pertains to revelation from what only seems to."

I would think that St.Paul is referring to the speaking of the Gospel and the preaching thereof. It definitely supports the position of not allowing female ordination, but I wouldn’t say it precludes the use of women in other ministries.

 

[stevusmagnus]

I think the current rule is that only men can be official “lectors”.

I think the libs got around it with an exception that rendered the rule meaningless (as usual).

I can try to research it and remember where I saw this.

If anyone knows about this provision off hand feel free to post.

 

[Melchior_1]

If anyone knows about this provision off hand feel free to post.

I did already, it was at the link I posted earlier.

---

*Canon 230.2 reads as follows: “Lay persons (laici) by temporary deputation may fulfil the function of lector during liturgical services; likewise all lay persons (laici) may carry out the functions of commentator and cantor or other functions in accordance with the norm of law.”

    On 30 June 1992, the members of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts pronounced on the following question that had been raised: **"Whether, among the liturgical functions that lay persons, men or women, may exercise according to Canon 230.2 of the Code of Canon Law, may also be included service at the altar (servitium ad altare).**" The answer given was:*

** “Yes, and in accordance with instructions to be given by the Apostolic See.”
**
T*he answer of the Pontifical Council was confirmed on 11 July 1992 by Pope John Paul II, who also ordered its publication.

    Cardinal Javierre Ortas, in conveying this information, presents also the following instructions:

   1. Canon 230.2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: "laici ... `possunt´." ("lay persons ... `may´.") Hence the permission given in this regard by some bishops can in no way be considered as binding on other bishops. In fact, it is the competence of each bishop, in his diocese, after hearing the opinion of the episcopal conference, to make a prudential judgment on what to do, with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.

   2. The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230.2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has also led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.

   3. If in some diocese, on the basis of Canon 230.2, the bishop permits that, for particular reasons, women may also serve at the altar, this decision must be clearly explained to the faithful in the light of the above-mentioned norm. It shall also be made clear that the norm is already being widely applied, by the fact that women frequently serve as lectors in the liturgy and may also be called upon to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and to carry out other functions, according to the provisions of the same Canon 230.2.

   4. It must also be clearly understood that the liturgical services mentioned above are carried out by lay people "ex temporanea deputatione" ("by temporary deputation"), according to the judgment of the bishop, without lay people, be they men or women, having any right to exercise them.

        In communicating the above, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to carry out the mandate received from the Supreme Pontiff to provide directives to illustrate what is laid down in Canon 230.2 of the Code of Canon Law and its authentic interpretation, which will shortly be published.

        In this way the bishops will be better able to carry out their mission to be moderators and promoters of liturgical life in their own diocese, within the framework of the norms in force in the universal Church.*

 

[jmcrae]

Doesnt it say in the bible that women cant speak During services?? My mom is a protestant and brought this up. She asks why us catholics would do something completely opposite the bible. I searched online and cant find an answer to this question. I would sure appreciate some help in explaining this cuz it is kind of worrying me me because it actually DOES say it.

St. Paul was referring to women who were interrupting the Liturgy to ask questions in the middle of it. He told them, “Save your questions for later, and ask your husbands when you get home.”

Keep in mind, this was the first time in recorded history that women had ever been permitted to attend public liturgies of worship where they could see what was going on - up to that time, they had been restricted to the back or to a separate area, away from where the action was taking place. Also, women had not been taught anything about these things, since it was never expected that they would ever need to know about them. So, the women had a lot of questions about what was going on.

Today, we occasionally see small children getting up in the middle of Mass, pointing at things, and shouting out their questions, but even this is quite rare - and it’s still not permitted.

 

[MarkThompson]

How exactly, then, am I able to participate fully in the Mass? I would not be able to say anything like, “Amen,” or “Peace be with you,” or profess my faith, or say the Our Father, etc. That doesn’t make any sense.

That’s a surprisingly good point which I’ve never heard anyone make before.

 

[nickybr38]

St. Paul was referring to women who were interrupting the Liturgy to ask questions in the middle of it. He told them, “Save your questions for later, and ask your husbands when you get home.”

Keep in mind, this was the first time in recorded history that women had ever been permitted to attend public liturgies of worship where they could see what was going on - up to that time, they had been restricted to the back or to a separate area, away from where the action was taking place. Also, women had not been taught anything about these things, since it was never expected that they would ever need to know about them. So, the women had a lot of questions about what was going on.

Today, we occasionally see small children getting up in the middle of Mass, pointing at things, and shouting out their questions, but even this is quite rare - and it’s still not permitted.

That’s what I thought! I’m glad I’m not the only one who understood it this way.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The culture of past times was Christian. Christianity affirmed and continues to affirm the distinct differences between men and women while modern culture tends to blur those distinctions. Someone appealed to those bad 'ol days before women had the vote. I oppose universal suffrage. This was said almost as though we all are really happy about women voting. That’s a sweeping assumption. Even now, as bad as the culture is, only because of the female vote do the most anti-Catholic, anti-family, anti-life politicians get into office. I’d take away the vote from women in a heartbeat. I don’t see why a Christian would prefer movements which find their beginnings in the French Revolution or the Wilson Administration instead of Divine Revelation.

If St. Paul made a culturally conditioned mistake about this, and the Holy Ghost supposedly confirmed it, no wonder the world hates Christianity! If it took until 1913 for Americans to overturn the prejudices of St. Paul, and it took until 1970 for the Catholic Church to overcome his hateful attitudes, you have presented to me a religion which I don’t need or want.

I suppose this Protestant mother is closer to Catholic truth in her concern to have her ideas conform to clear mandates of New Testament Scripture than the Catholic who thinks a pope trumps Holy Scripture. A Church that so absorbs the spirit of the world around it that it is willing to deny its own Sacred Scripture isn’t very appealing to those who agree with Scripture about the perilous war we wage with the world, the flesh, and the devil in which the souls of men and women are won or lost. The world is wrong. St. Paul is right and so has been the Catholic Church in following him even if certain of Her 21st Century members are inclined to disagree.

 

[jmcrae]

The culture of past times was Christian. Christianity affirmed and continues to affirm the distinct differences between men and women while modern culture tends to blur those distinctions. I do not support universal suffrage. This is said almost as though we all are really happy about women voting. That’s a sweeping assumption. Even now, as bad as the culture is, only because of the woman vote do the most anti-Catholic, anti-family, anti-life politicians get into office. I’d take away the vote from women in a heartbeat. I don’t see why a Christian would prefer movements which find their beginnings in the French Revolution or the Wilson Administration instead of Divine Revelation.

If St. Paul made a culturally conditioned mistake about this, and the Holy Ghost supposedly confirmed it, no wonder the world hates Christianity! If it took until 1913 for Americans to overturn the prejudices of St. Paul, and it took until 1970 for the Catholic Church to overcome his hateful attitudes, you have presented to me a religion which I don’t need or want.

I suppose this Protestant mother is closer to Catholic truth in her concern to have her ideas conform to clear mandates of New Testament Scripture than the Catholic who thinks a pope trumps Holy Scripture. A Church that so absorbs the spirit of the world around it that it is willing to deny its own Sacred Scripture is

And I have no need of any religion that denies women the personhood given to her by God in Genesis 1:27. Women, too, are made in the image and likeness of God. Jesus also died for women - not only for the male of the species. It is Mary - a woman - who is the Crown of Creation. There is nothing Biblical or Christian about the attitude that women are defective persons, or lacking in human intelligence.