C
catharina
Guest
This title recognizes the virtues of a life lived.
No one person appointed these holy women as teachers - Christ did so.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
No one person appointed these holy women as teachers - Christ did so.
D
drforjc
Guest
One thing that needs clarity is that, in the LOTH, the Common of Doctors of the Church is a subsection of the Common of Pastors (“everything as in the common of pastors except”) which is not really appropriate for females. Perhaps it should have its own stand alone Commons that would be approriate for either, or else have a Common of Doctors attached to each other Common that might conceivably contain a Doctor.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Perhaps having a female doctor of the Church is not against the teaching of St. Paul, and if it were the Popes would not have named them?Actually that was about Cafeteria Catholicism.
I still hold the opinion I posted in the other thread. No one has made a case to the contrary, and half the posts have stated the obvious fact that women have been named doctors of the Church.
As we have discovered that the word doctor means teacher, can someone please explain to me how naming a woman doctor of the Church jibes with Paul’s proscription of having a woman placed in a teaching role found in 1 Tim 2:12?
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM
However, the Apostle’s forbidding of women “to speak” in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.
C
catharina
Guest
As always, bless you, Mary Gail.Perhaps having a female doctor of the Church is not against the teaching of St. Paul, and if it were the Popes would not have named them?
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Thank you, and Bless you as well.As always, bless you, Mary Gail.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your method of argument here seems misplaced. I do not think that the application of the title of Doctor to various people is necessarily one which contains Magisterial authority. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. It isn’t a matter of faith or morals for one, but of scholasticism or something like that.Perhaps having a female doctor of the Church is not against the teaching of St. Paul, and if it were the Popes would not have named them?
C
catharina
Guest
Declaration of sainthood is indeed infallible.I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your method of argument here seems misplaced. I do not think that the application of the title of Doctor to various people is necessarily one which contains Magisterial authority. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. It isn’t a matter of faith or morals for one, but of scholasticism or something like that.
So too, one should imagine are all titles and honors related to the sainthood.
How could anyone be bothered by the idea of female Doctors of the Church.
W
white_sheep
Guest
No, the two aren’t comparable, not remotely.Declaration of sainthood is indeed infallible.
So too, one should imagine are all titles and honors related to the sainthood.
I don’t see how anyone could be bothered either way on it.How could anyone be bothered by the idea of female Doctors of the Church.
L
Lazarette
Guest
I can’t believe anyone even asked this question. Time to look up the original thread.In another thread it was brought up that women should not be named Doctors of the Church. Perhaps a poll is in order!
So thus; should women be allowed to be considered Doctors of the Church?
S
Spirithound
Guest
I was thinking this same thing! Perhaps their antiphons could come from the Commons of Virgins or of Holy Women?One thing that needs clarity is that, in the LOTH, the Common of Doctors of the Church is a subsection of the Common of Pastors (“everything as in the common of pastors except”) which is not really appropriate for females. Perhaps it should have its own stand alone Commons that would be approriate for either, or else have a Common of Doctors attached to each other Common that might conceivably contain a Doctor.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.