Questions about women and Biblical teachings

[georgemiller]

Recently, I have been reading the first book of corinthians. The foolowing is out of
1 Cor 14:34-35.

“As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church”.
My question is when did this Biblical instruction from ST Paul get rescinded? I don’t much care one way or another if women speak in church but I would not want them to do so if it violated Holy Scripture teachings. So, what is the proper answer to these issues? Thank you.

 

[hgfdhtyd]

OMGhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[kepha1]

It’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine. And should be understood in context with Ephesians and Galatians.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Commentary in Navarre Bible:

The Apostle now gives a very clear ruling (which he repeats in 1 Tim 2:11-14): “women should keep silence in the churches.” He is not opposed to women prophesying (cf. 1 Cor 11:5): "the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For St. Paul, this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24). …] Nor should it be forgotten that we owe St. Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental quality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28): (ibid., 4)

The variety of roles to be found in the Church - including the fact the ministerial priesthood is restricted to men chosen by God - is compatible with the essential quality of men and women: “the priesthood does not form one of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church. …] It therefore remains for us to mediate more deeply on the nature of the real equality of the baptized, which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity: equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual has his or her role. The roles are distinct and must not be confused; they do not favor the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others, no do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (1 Cor 12-13). The greatest in the kingdom of heaven are not the ministers but the saints” (ibid., 6)

books.google.com/books?id=OCkA8TbY-bsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=navarre+bible+corinthians&ei=lek2SvnPEJf2MOGZ7cQJ#PPA108,M1

Explanation from Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was dealing with a specific problem in the Corinthian Church but was also establishing a norm based upon the doctrinal economy taught by Christ. St. Paul was not saying that women could not speak. In fact he recognizes women speaking in the form of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11:5. This passage in 1 Cor 14 is referring to women in the role as official teachers in the liturgy. This is made a little more clear in St. Paul’s teaching to Timothy (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12) in which he says that “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men…” In both instances St. Paul is talking about the Church assembly, the liturgy. Thus, his teaching is not a blanket teaching that woman cannot teach or have authority outside of the liturgy and Church hierarchy. It is okay, then, for women to be captains of industry with authority over men, bosses, managers, teachers in universities, teachers in seminaries, etc. The prohibition is teaching in the liturgy (e.g., the homily) and authority in the Church hierarchy (the charism of governance the belongs to the bishops).

Now to the specific issue of readers in the Mass. Technically, “lectors” are men. Those authorized to read are first clergy and then those “installed in the office of Lector.” The Installed offices of Lector and Acolyte must be men (either clergy or lay).

If there are insufficient numbers of clergy or installed officers to fulfill the function of Lector, then regular laity may do so on a temporary basis. Since women are members of the laity, that includes them.

Traditionally, the office of Lector was one of the minor orders of a man preparing for priesthood. Vatican II suppressed the minor orders in favor of the three main orders of deacon, priest, and bishop with what use to be the minor orders of acolyte and lectors given the status of “installed offices.” Since then many times bishops would appoint to these “installed offices” young men studying for the priesthood, but in actuality these offices may be held by any Catholic lay man in good standing and who is otherwise qualified.

If bishops appointed sufficient numbers of men to be lectors and acolytes, there would be no need for the extraordinary ministers from the pews. The extraordinary AGAIN have become the same as ordinary.

Extraordinary non-installed lectors are suppose to be used only when needed and only on a temporary basis. Canon Law recognizes that in some parishes there may be lacking sufficient numbers of clergy and installed officers. Thus, these roles must be filled by somebody. The laity may be temporarily deputed to fill that need. But this is to be temporary, not ordinary. The bishops need to be appointing installed officers.

I suspect that the reason bishop’s do not appoint installed officers is that the people would be in an uproar since they would no longer be able to participate as readers and altar servers (or more specifically, the women would up in an uproar).

Canonically, however, whenever these roles of reader and altar server are open to regular laity and not just to clergy and installed officers, then women may be included because they, too, are laity.

It was the same canonical technicality that allowed women and girls to be altar servers. But, as I said, if the bishops appointed sufficient numbers of installed officers (who must be men) then there would be no reason for women (or men) from the pews to serve as readers or altar servers (with the exception of boys as altar servers which Pope John Paul II said is a tradition that is to be maintained).

Anyway, that is how women can be readers.

This role of reader, for men or for women, however, is not a teaching role or a role of authority. It is merely reading the Scripture. Thus St. Paul’s comments, which refer to teaching and authority, do not apply to the role of reading.

saint-mike.org/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=599

 

[BrJuniper]

Recently, I have been reading the first book of corinthians. The foolowing is out of
1 Cor 14:34-35.

“As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church”.
My question is when did this Biblical instruction from ST Paul get rescinded? I don’t much care one way or another if women speak in church but I would not want them to do so if it violated Holy Scripture teachings. So, what is the proper answer to these issues? Thank you.

First, let us not confuse a societal norm with Dogma.

Paul was writing to Corinth, a port town full of sailors and the attending entertainment. An uncovered head on a woman was indicative of behaviors Paul opposed because the Romans liked the behaviors. The idea that women can not speak violates the theological construct, and Dogma, of comediatrix.

The Church need not rescind that which is never promulgated.

Hats were very common till late 20th century. They covered dirty hair and kept lice and fleas away from others. Not religious.

 

[georgemiller]

So , not everything Paul teaches is doctrine. I guess one has to differentiate what is a cultural tradition as opposed to a doctrine within the Gospel of Jesus. I for one will leave those differentiations up to the proper authority of the Church. Still, thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

.

 

[BrJuniper]

So , not everything Paul teaches is doctrine. I guess one has to differentiate what is a cultural tradition as opposed to a doctrine within the Gospel of Jesus. I for one will leave those differentiations up to the proper authority of the Church. Still, thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

.

So do I…hence I have never seen anyone shake the dirt of a house off their feet, or seen a crucifixion. The magisterium is not going to opine on those things found in the approved commentaries on Scripture, nor on Jewish Law.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If something in the Bible doesn’t make sense to me, I try interpreting it allegorically, which of course is not deterministic but changes from one time to the next.

We are all one Body, so it makes sense he is not talking about male and female human beings, but roles. Mary exemplifies receptivity, which is a symbol for female. She lets it be done unto her. She doesn’t need to preach; she simply accepts.

I say the Mary in each of us should be receptive and not talking. We should be listening with open, open, open minds and hearts and be willing for our lives to change at any time based on what we hear. That’s what Mary did, and when the Bride, the Church, is speaking, we should listen with total receptivity (like the icon of woman) and not trying to second guess everything.

Another way to say it is we can hear receptively only if we get our loudmouth (male) egos out of the way.

I don’t get too hung up on the woman v. man thing, because Jesus talked to all and used the differences between women and men as examples of roles each of us play, and how those roles interact. The role of the listener should be to listen and not to speak. That’s all I see for now in this passage. Nothing to justify the millions of people who get all bent out of shape over stuff like this.

Alan