Should women read at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter civilwar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

civilwar

Guest
As the title states, should women be reading the bible readings at Mass? Obviously i don’t mean the gospel.

I ask because i recently read 1 Corinthians 13:34 which says-

‘As in all the churches of the saints,
34the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.’
 
Not sure if i agree with the second post.
I accept that the church allows it, but I’m wondering are there any other perspectives on that bible verse?
 
civilwar said:
Not sure if i agree with the second post.
I accept that the church allows it, but I’m wondering are there any other perspectives on that bible verse?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are. There were other posts in that thread.
 
civilwar said:
As the title states, should women be reading the bible readings at Mass? Obviously i don’t mean the gospel.

I ask because i recently read 1 Corinthians 13:34 which says-

‘As in all the churches of the saints,
34the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.’
Click to expand...
That’s the fourteenth chapter, not the thirteenth. There is no 1 Corinthians 13:34. Chapter 13 is the famous, “Love is patient, love is kind, love is not arrogant or rude” section.

Paul was addressing very serious and very specific problems when he wrote his letters to the Church in Corinth - factions and divisions, gluttony, immorality, etc. Paul addresses the issue of disorder in the Church in chapter 14.

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. (1 Corinthians 14:27)

Disorder was the problem. Everyone was speaking at the same time and there was great chaos.

So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:39-40)

The lesson we should take away is that Church activities, especially the liturgy, should be orderly and not chaotic. One person should speak at a time and most should keep silent and just listen. Order vs. chaos is the lesson we should take away.

Paul did not intend to address the role of women in the Church. The role of women isn’t his subject. It’s an historical fact that women were more subservient to men in those days and we need to accept that and move past it. The Corinthian women were disorderly too. Paul is just using the social standing of women at the time to instruct the congregation on orderly worship. It has nothing to do with the role of women in the Church.

Paul’s teaching on the dignity of women is beautiful, especially 1 Timothy 5 where he says all women should be treated like mothers and sisters and their purity should be honored. Most especially Ephesians 5 which exhorts husbands to be willing to die for their wives as Christ died for the Church. Paul always upheld the great dignity of women.

-Tim-
 
There are questions about whether it was Paul who penned those words about women keeping silent in the assembly.

Because…earlier he admonished them that women should wear a head covering while they were praying or prophesying in the assembly – which contradicts the subject of this thread.

Maybe we need to think outside the box about this subject, in a couple ways.

I**t’s not so clear to me what Paul was prohibiting. If he was referring to women not speaking in the Jewish synagogue (inasmuch as the early Christians used to gather at the synagogue or temple, until they were resolutely expelled), then he may simply be stating a rule to Gentiles that they were not familiar with, regarding Jewish customs.

But, he may not have been referring AT ALL (I just don’t know) to whether women could speak at the early version of what we now call the Mass.**

The evaluation of this idea would require a careful analysis of the original Greek, just for starters.

I was in a parish-level bible study of 1 Corinthians and we discussed this matter, with most of the women present expressing offense at what Paul had said.

But, my preceding thought had not occurred to me during that discussion, and I throw it out now as a possible rational explanation of what Paul meant.

One thing I read in a Protestant study bible was that Paul gives, in this location, a theological rationale for this prohibition. That precludes a direct ad hominem against Paul, at least theoretically.

From a practical standpoint, I would observe that neither do most men speak in the assembly (MASS) today, either.
 
This is simple.
  1. The Church is the proper interpreter of scripture.
  2. The Church allows women readers.
  3. So any interpretation that implies otherwise is incorrect.
    Done
 
Paul was talking about order in the Church, not about the role of women.

***…let each of them keep silence…

…let the first be silent.

…the women should keep silence…***

Paul tells many people to shut up, not just women. That’s because there was disorder, people talking all over the place and no one would shut up. Disorder is the subject, not the role of women int he Church.

-Tim-
 
sirach2v4 said:
The evaluation of this idea would require a careful analysis of the original Greek, just for starters.
Click to expand...
I think this approach is helpful. Here’s one commentary with such an approach.
The Greek tense behind “should remain silent” is a present imperative, which generally commands the continuation of an existing condition, thus “keep on remaining silent” (Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, W.H. Davis, p. 168). This indicates that the women in Corinth, as well as all other churches, were already silent. This was not a new command; they were merely being confirmed in what they were already doing.
Click to expand...
It should be remembered that Paul himself had founded the church in Corinth. He stayed with them about two years, teaching and making disciples. He orally, in person, had already instructed them about the proper roles for men and women within the church. They knew, before he ever penned his letter to them, exactly what he had taught about women addressing the gathered church.
…
(more)
Click to expand...
ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=16
 
I just wish that lectors, readers, acolytes, servers, cantors, and EMHCs all wore a Surplice or Alb 😃
 
TimothyH said:
Paul was addressing very serious and very specific problems when he wrote his letters to the Church in Corinth - factions and divisions, gluttony, immorality, etc. Paul addresses the issue of disorder in the Church in chapter 14.

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. (1 Corinthians 14:27)

Disorder was the problem. Everyone was speaking at the same time and there was great chaos.

So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:39-40)

The lesson we should take away is that Church activities, especially the liturgy, should be orderly and not chaotic. One person should speak at a time and most should keep silent and just listen. Order vs. chaos is the lesson we should take away.

Paul did not intend to address the role of women in the Church. The role of women isn’t his subject. It’s an historical fact that women were more subservient to men in those days and we need to accept that and move past it. The Corinthian women were disorderly too. Paul is just using the social standing of women at the time to instruct the congregation on orderly worship. It has nothing to do with the role of women in the Church.

Paul’s teaching on the dignity of women is beautiful, especially 1 Timothy 5 where he says all women should be treated like mothers and sisters and their purity should be honored. Most especially Ephesians 5 which exhorts husbands to be willing to die for their wives as Christ died for the Church. Paul always upheld the great dignity of women.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
This sounds a lot like part of Jerome’s Biblical commentaries, where it stresses the prophecy is more important than the gift (of tongues). Is it? Just curious.
 
ProVobis said:
I think this approach is helpful. Here’s one commentary with such an approach.

ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=16

Walking_Home;11772539 said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are using a fundamentalist Baptist “interpretation”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Walking_Home is exactly correct because NTRF is not Catholic. It is run by Stephen Atkerson here in Atlanta. Atkerson is a graduate of the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary but in recent years has gained some notoriety here as part of the home church movement. His exegisis is highly unsound.

I have come across Atkerson’s people. One of his followers used to run a home Church the next town over from where I live. I sat with the guy a few times at the Caribou Coffee shop on weekday mornings.

ntrf.org/about-us/index.php

simplechurch.com/profile/SteveAtkerson

I wouldn’t go by anything Atkerson says.

-Tim-
 
ProVobis said:
This sounds a lot like part of Jerome’s Biblical commentaries, where it stresses the prophecy is more important than the gift (of tongues). Is it? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Jeff Cavins in his study of the Book of Acts of the Apostles.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I wouldn’t go by anything Atkerson says.
Click to expand...
I used him as a source since he does delve into the Greek, similar to the way the late Rev James Boice used to do in his radio sermons. I agreed with sirach2v4 in one respect, that we should look at something closer to the original. But since I didn’t wish to offend, I deleted my post.
 
civilwar said:
As the title states, should women be reading the bible readings at Mass? Obviously i don’t mean the gospel.

I ask because i recently read 1 Corinthians 13:34 which says-

‘As in all the churches of the saints,
34the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.’
Click to expand...
No, they should remain in the kitchen where they belong. lol I’m joking, :rotfl:

Of course they should be allowed to read. I read a great quote yesterday from another poster that you might like.

The woman came from a man’s rib. Not from his feet to be walked on. Not from his head to be superior, but from his side to be equal. Under his arm to be protected, and next to his heart to be loved.

As for the verse, I don’t know how the Church explains it, but I do know that St Peter tells us that alot of what St Paul teaches us is hard to understand and that many have twisted his words to their own condemnation, I also know that St Paul was a pharisee before hand and it would make sense for him to still have such views when it comes to women, something which Jesus never had given his mother Mary who is considered greater even than the disciples.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Father Serpa, CAF apologist, was correct in his statement linked to in post #2.

Clearly, this was taken from Canon Law, which states:
  1. §2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law. [This would include women.]
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top