Interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[Gethsemane]

Earlier I was watching The Place for Miracles which is an hour length television ministry of Oral Roberts. It’s okay; I tolerate it much more than a lot of televised Protestant ministries. Anyways, Pastor Richard Roberts’ wife (I didn’t catch her name) did a bit on tongues. I realise this is a Pentecostal ministry and so the intepretation of tongues from 1 Corinthians 14 was in line with that particular theological understanding. I later read the whole Epistle myself afterwards and had it confirmed to me that St. Paul was actually talking about literal spoken languages and not some mystical unknown language of God.

Anyways, I came across verses 34 and 35 and it bothered me, as it always does. Yes, I’ve come across it before and I understand that it’s actually saying women should not be priests which I absolutely affirm. I guess it bothers me because the First Epistle to the Corinthians appears to be a general letter and not one which is specifically instructional to the administration of the Church as the Epistles of Timothy and Titus are.

So my question is, how have verses 34 and 35 come to mean women can not be priests when verse 35 specifically refers to these same women having husbands?

 

[Spencerian]

Earlier I was watching The Place for Miracles which is an hour length television ministry of Oral Roberts. It’s okay; I tolerate it much more than a lot of televised Protestant ministries. Anyways, Pastor Richard Roberts’ wife (I didn’t catch her name) did a bit on tongues. I realise this is a Pentecostal ministry and so the intepretation of tongues from 1 Corinthians 14 was in line with that particular theological understanding. I later read the whole Epistle myself afterwards and had it confirmed to me that St. Paul was actually talking about literal spoken languages and not some mystical unknown language of God.

Anyways, I came across verses 34 and 35 and it bothered me, as it always does. Yes, I’ve come across it before and I understand that it’s actually saying women should not be priests which I absolutely affirm. I guess it bothers me because the First Epistle to the Corinthians appears to be a general letter and not one which is specifically instructional to the administration of the Church as the Epistles of Timothy and Titus are.

So my question is, how have verses 34 and 35 come to mean women can not be priests when verse 35 specifically refers to these same women having husbands?

Hi.

This is very common question on CAF.

You will find a thread with some interpretations and links to several other threads on the same topic at this link.

 

[jbarbaretta]

So my question is, how have verses 34 and 35 come to mean women can not be priests when verse 35 specifically refers to these same women having husbands?

Lots of women have husbands? I know for a fact that my wife does. I’m not sure that I understand the question. 35 re-emphasizes 34.

34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 35 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

Douay-Rheims

Women are not to be “speaking” in church. That has been interpreted specifically as leading a service by some protestants and celebrating Mass by Catholics. Their role in the Church is different, not better, not worse, just different. So, it is really a question of how you define speaking. A broader definition would not only prevent women from being priests, but would not allow them to lecture or even respond in mass. I think the tighter definition of not “speaking” the Word of God (Gospel, also, Words of consecration, etc) honors the Gospel and allows women to participate in Church.

Also, you have to remember that this reading does not prove or disprove women priests in a vacuum. The Catholic way of interpreting scripture in holistic. We do not look for proof texts (as many protestants find out when trying to discuss the Bible with Catholics - we are really bad at the proof-text thing). We interpret the scripture as a whole. If one part seemingly conflicts with another part, then it isn’t a problem with scripture, it is a problem with your interpretation of scripture. Sorry, I digress. My point is that there are other passages that reinforce the concept of male priests. Including the fact that Jesus only appointed male apostles, when he certainly could have appointed female apostles - if he wanted to.

 

[Gethsemane]

Hi.

This is very common question on CAF.

You will find a thread with some interpretations and links to several other threads on the same topic at this link.

Yes, thank you. I confess I struggled with getting the search function to be fruitful so I gave up and created a new thread. Thank you for your patience as I’m sure repeat questions must surely be annoying after a time.

Lots of women have husbands? I know for a fact that my wife does. I’m not sure that I understand the question.

Well, I assumed that the priests at this point in salvation history would have been single. And since the law of marriage is binding until death surely the women would not be able to be priests. They can’t do both. So it seemed strange to me.

 

[Spencerian]

Yes, thank you. I confess I struggled with getting the search function to be fruitful so I gave up and created a new thread. Thank you for your patience as I’m sure repeat questions must surely be annoying after a time.

Not a problem! Just because one owns a computer doesn’t imply a mastery in using it. Asking questions and getting help is the reason why CAF exists.

Well, I assumed that the priests at this point in salvation history would have been single. And since the law of marriage is binding until death surely the women would not be able to be priests. They can’t do both. So it seemed strange to me.

As Matthew 8:14 illustrates, Peter himself was married, at least for a time.

The practice of a married clergy is a discipline (policy) of the Latin Rite for all clergy. That is, while Scripture (in the words of Christ and St. Paul) note the higher good of an unmarried priest, history and policy have made exceptions to married priests (bishops in neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches can be married), such as priests from the Anglican Communion who become Catholic priests under the new ordinariate. Men who are married can become permanent deacons and remain married. Widowed deacons and unmarried deacons cannot (re)marry once ordained.

As a previous discussion notes, Scripture implies that other Apostles may have been married, but do not elaborate further on the matter.

 

[Gethsemane]

As Matthew 8:14 illustrates, Peter himself was married, at least for a time.

The practice of a married clergy is a discipline (policy) of the Latin Rite for all clergy. That is, while Scripture (in the words of Christ and St. Paul) note the higher good of an unmarried priest, history and policy have made exceptions to married priests (bishops in neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches can be married), such as priests from the Anglican Communion who become Catholic priests under the new ordinariate. Men who are married can become permanent deacons and remain married. Widowed deacons and unmarried deacons cannot (re)marry once ordained.

As a previous discussion notes, Scripture implies that other Apostles may have been married, but do not elaborate further on the matter.

So, I’m a little confused. I thought deacons were separate from priests. Are they the same but just with different expressions?