"Women forbidden to speak in church"

[juliamajor]

Sacred Scripture is infallible Divine Revelation, and is relevant to every person and every generation. Therefore the following interpretations cannot be correct:

1. any interpretation which concludes that the verse is irrelevant today, as if Divine Revelation, in any part, has lost its meaning
2. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is an expression of the sinfulness of the human author, as if sin prevailed over inspiration to any extent
3. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is merely an expression of culture, or of the personal views of the author, as if every part were not divinely inspired.

However, I don’t think that the correct interpretation need be entirely literal. Women are to be silent in the sense of not taking certain roles given only to men within the Church, thus they are not to speak from a role of authority, leadership, or teaching that is given only to men. But they can certainly participate in the Mass by praying outloud and singing and speaking to one another at the sign of peace. So being mute is not the meaning of the verse.

Gee thanks- praying out loud! Oh boy I’m thrilled As far as your points go.1. Slavery- the way it was talked about by paul in his letter to Philemon- is irrelevent- he was not talking about spiritual slavery - but physical.2. sin doesn’t prevail over scripture but God Does let the writers human nature come through- God has more respect for his creations then using them merely as an’automatic’writer. God doesn’t use perfect humans to do his will-Jacob and Peter to name a few.3. Was expressions of culture just automatically pencilled out in scripture? Read Pilch and Malina-so many things that make no sense to us 21st c. folks made perfect sense to those alive at the time-Book of Revelation- primary example. But there are many others. The woman with the hemmorhage that lasted many years- was she seeking some kind of magic- or did what she did make sense in the culture of the time.?(women couldn’t touch men directly and having a issue of blood made her unclean and cut off from her community.Jesus’ pray shawl with it’s tassels was on him - - in Jewish thought the Tallit was an extension of that person- so by touching it she was really spiritually touching him. So by being healed she not only was cured of her illness but also was cured of being an outsider- she could now participate fully in Jewish life and be part of the community really more important in the long run>)

 

[Ron_Conte]

A verse in Sacred Scripture cannot be merely an expression of culture, nor merely an expression of a personal view of one of the human authors, because then that verse would not be inspired. All of Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and all of Sacred Scripture is useful for teaching. If any verse were merely a result of some cultural error or personal error, then it would not be inspired by God.

[2 Timothy]
{3:16} All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,
{3:17} so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work.
**
St. Gregory Nazianzen:** We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] tht it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practise or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity tht is is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

 

[juliamajor]

A verse in Sacred Scripture cannot be merely an expression of culture, nor merely an expression of a personal view of one of the human authors, because then that verse would not be inspired. All of Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and all of Sacred Scripture is useful for teaching. If any verse were merely a result of some cultural error or personal error, then it would not be inspired by God.

[2 Timothy]
{3:16} All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,
{3:17} so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work.
**
St. Gregory Nazianzen:** We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] tht it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practise or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity tht is is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

So your talking about-we can understand scripture without understanding time and place- social situation -political situation/
because if that were what Dei verbum meant we would all be looking locusts and the four horsemen to come literally into our world.

 

[TMC]

1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Hi all, we should not divorce chapter 15 from chapter 14, nor ignore the culture that the Corinthians were living in. Basically, in the mystry religions women were the seers who recieved the mystries of the goddesses and basically led the false worship thereof. I think both passages together in context, was simply trying to set the church at corinth apart from the practices in these mystry religions there. You do not see paul giving the same advice to other churches where there was not a problem with mystry religions of that nature. In Eph, Paul speaks about marriage to counter similar problems that the mystry religions would cause there. Basically, I think Paul is making a distinction between false worship of the mystry religions vs true worship in the church. Women did have some places of authority in the early church as deaconesses, and widows teaching the younger women. I think in threads like this we need to focus on a more complete picture of women in the early church.

Interesting thoughts. I agree with those that say we can’t really know. We do know that in other places Paul referred favorably to women who served in the early Church, such as Phoebe, who he refers to as a minister of the church (“diakonos”) (Romans 16) which is the same word he used to describe himself. We don’t know what that really means, either, but it is not really consistent with the idea that women mst always keep silent or that they cannot teach.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So your talking about-we can understand scripture without understanding time and place- social situation -political situation/
because if that were what Dei verbum meant we would all be looking locusts and the four horsemen to come literally into our world.

In interpreting Scripture, we can take into account figures of speech used to express truth, cultural influences on the way that a truth is expressed, personal influences (of the human authors) on the way that a truth is expressed, but we cannot hold that a falsehood was asserted by Scripture, because Scripture is inspired of God. We do not have to conclude that the figures of Revelation are literal. The four horsemen, for example, are figures representing sets of events. The locusts in Revelation are clearly not the common insect, but some type of affliction, perhaps one that is supernatural.

Concerning the treatment of women in Scripture, it is clear that God intends men and women to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men and women have equal dignity as human persons, but differences in roles. This is clear in the old and new Testaments, it is clear in Paul’s writings, but also in the way the Christ lived. He himself chose to give the role of Apostle only to men, not even including His holy mother as one of the Twelve, though they were each sinners and she is sinless.

These verses about women are the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us that men and women are to have different roles in the Church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

A verse in Sacred Scripture cannot be merely an expression of culture, nor merely an expression of a personal view of one of the human authors, because then that verse would not be inspired. All of Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and all of Sacred Scripture is useful for teaching. If any verse were merely a result of some cultural error or personal error, then it would not be inspired by God.

[2 Timothy]
{3:16} All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,
{3:17} so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work.
**
St. Gregory Nazianzen:** We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] tht it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practise or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity tht is is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

So what are you saying? That you adhere to a literalism in the bible? You might want to check out the thread on inerrency and Vatican II. It’s under scripture as well.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In interpreting Scripture, we can take into account figures of speech used to express truth, cultural influences on the way that a truth is expressed, personal influences (of the human authors) on the way that a truth is expressed, but we cannot hold that a falsehood was asserted by Scripture, because Scripture is inspired of God. We do not have to conclude that the figures of Revelation are literal. The four horsemen, for example, are figures representing sets of events. The locusts in Revelation are clearly not the common insect, but some type of affliction, perhaps one that is supernatural.

I cannot make heads or tails of what you see as “figures of speech, cultural influences of speech, personal influences on truth being expressed” means except what you want it to mean. We too are saying that cultural and personal influences did implact how a truth was expressed.

I am not asserting that there is any falsehood in scripture, only that some have interpreted it incorrectly, not taking sufficient account of culture, personal influences and figures of speech.

Concerning the treatment of women in Scripture, it is clear that God intends men and women to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men and women have equal dignity as human persons, but differences in roles. This is clear in the old and new Testaments, it is clear in Paul’s writings, but also in the way the Christ lived. He himself chose to give the role of Apostle only to men, not even including His holy mother as one of the Twelve, though they were each sinners and she is sinless.

I dont agree that God intends men and women to have different roles. I believe that that interpretation is flawed and that insufficient attention was paid to why certain things might have been said and not meant as they literally appear to say. I believe that the cultural setting explains a good deal of why Paul said certain things and they are not to be trusted as statements of what God intends, simply because Paul was not writing as in this vein knowingly. He was attempting it appears to fix a problem.

Again, a fair look at the Gospels doesn’t suggest except in the basics that Jesus did not uphold women, give them voice, make them a part of his group. Many would claim and with some good reason that Mary Magdalen for instance was in fact a disciple, and on a par with the apostles. It may be only that none of the writers was able to see her that way because of how they viewed tthe world. I believe God inspired all the writers to write accurately those theological lessons he wished us to understand.

These verses about women are the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us that men and women are to have different roles in the Church.

Equal but different sounds strangely like separate but equal. It sounds right, but we all know who remains top dog don’t we? I think better language should be attempted.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What does this refer to? It is just saying that Women may not be priest? Does this mean women may not do readings at mass?

Or is this supposed to be taken literally in which women cannot talk at all during mass?

I ask this question extremely carefully because I don’t want to appear to be sexist.

I find this passage quite strange.

Interpretation is complicated by the question of whether there is a reference to “the Law” (= the Torah) or whether nomos, the word translated “Law/law” means something else; as it often seems to in Paul.​

That apart, the reference is to “charismatic” utterance - such as prophecy. It has to be taken in context, otherwise all sorts of interpretations arise which are foreign to the Apostle’s meaning.

He is warning against the sort of behaviour which destroys the Church’s unity as a worshipping people - the sort of behaviour that exalts gifts other than love (chap. 13) over love. The Corinthians were very keen on their gifts - this was already leading to factions among them. Lydia in Acts 16 had been a prophetess - the warning in this context is against any tendency in the churches for women to set up as prophetesses & ecstatics of a similar kind. Jezebel in Rev. 2 may be just the sort of woman Paul wanted Christian women not to become.

Hope that helps.

I CORINTHIANS 15:5 is this verse:

• and that he appeared to Peter,and then to the Twelve.
  The reference you want is:
• 1Cr 14:23 …*f, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
• 1Cr 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,
• 1Cr 14:25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
• 1Cr 14:26 What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
• 1Cr 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
• 1Cr 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
• 1Cr 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
• 1Cr 14:30 If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.
• 1Cr 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged;
• 1Cr 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
• 1Cr 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
• 1Cor 14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
• 1Cr 14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
• 1Cr 14:36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached
• 1Cr 14:37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
• 1Cr 14:38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
• 1Cr 14:39 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;
• 1Cr 14:40 but all things should be done decently and in order.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii

It is not in accord with Church teaching to claim that Sacred Scripture’s teachings on the roles of men and women are merely the words of Paul in a particular past culture, as if these words were not inspired of God and applicable to every generation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii

It is not in accord with Church teaching to claim that Sacred Scripture’s teachings on the roles of men and women are merely the words of Paul in a particular past culture, as if these words were not inspired of God and applicable to every generation.

That passage is about a different issue.​

FWIW - something can be “inspired by God”, yet also “[not] applicable to every generation”. To take a third issue - the applicability of the Letter to Philemon to modern Western society is doubtful; in a society that allows slavery OTOH, it might well be of great relevance.

This opens up a can of worms - or seems to: for, the OT is also inspired by God. It allows for the execution of delinquent children. So: is the law which commands this still - in principle at least - applicable ?

I would hate to see the CC become like the Reconstructionists

 

[whatevergirl]

I had a priest years ago explain this passage to my husband and me, after a particular mass. He said that Paul truly believed that Jesus was coming, at any moment–in his lifetime…that he was cautioning for women to remain quiet, and ask their husbands about the faith, to save time. So, he wouldn’t have to keep repeating himself, and so that the message was clear to the men of the households. I always thought that was a very unique explanation…I don’t think it’s out of the question. But, I tend to believe the posters whose interpretations include that women were not to take places of authority within the Church. I look at Joyce Meyer Ministries, and other such ‘ministries’ started by women, and I wonder if that is what St Paul was referring to, really.

 

[juliamajor]

In interpreting Scripture, we can take into account figures of speech used to express truth, cultural influences on the way that a truth is expressed, personal influences (of the human authors) on the way that a truth is expressed, but we cannot hold that a falsehood was asserted by Scripture, because Scripture is inspired of God. We do not have to conclude that the figures of Revelation are literal. The four horsemen, for example, are figures representing sets of events. The locusts in Revelation are clearly not the common insect, but some type of affliction, perhaps one that is supernatural.

Concerning the treatment of women in Scripture, it is clear that God intends men and women to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men and women have equal dignity as human persons, but differences in roles. This is clear in the old and new Testaments, it is clear in Paul’s writings, but also in the way the Christ lived. He himself chose to give the role of Apostle only to men, not even including His holy mother as one of the Twelve, though they were each sinners and she is sinless.

These verses about women are the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us that men and women are to have different roles in the Church.

the trouble with the way you interpret scripture and the documents pertaining to it makes you contradictory- .If you are acting as a literalist- which you are doing- means you cannot pick and choose which part of scripture to take totally literal-. That’s the problem with literalism - it gives you no leeway to interpret - you can’t take anything in the bible with a grain of salt- you got to swallow it whole. Going in that direction paints you into a box which will be very sticky to get out of.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sacred Scripture is infallible Divine Revelation, and is relevant to every person and every generation. Therefore the following interpretations cannot be correct:

1. any interpretation which concludes that the verse is irrelevant today, as if Divine Revelation, in any part, has lost its meaning

Some of the text is corrupt - so in that sense it has lost meaning​

1. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is an expression of the sinfulness of the human author, as if sin prevailed over inspiration to any extent

If not - why not ? One can’t assert a position simply to exclude another position. And sin is a feature of human life.​

1. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is merely an expression of culture, or of the personal views of the author, as if every part were not divinely inspired.

But why not ? Why can there not be inspiration, &, present irrelevance ? Are the circumsances of the churches in Southern Uganda today really the same as those of 14th-century Paris or 3rd-century Rome or 1st-century Corinth ?​

However, I don’t think that the correct interpretation need be entirely literal. Women are to be silent in the sense of not taking certain roles given only to men within the Church, thus they are not to speak from a role of authority, leadership, or teaching that is given only to men. But they can certainly participate in the Mass by praying outloud and singing and speaking to one another at the sign of peace. So being mute is not the meaning of the verse.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, but Paul’s definitely was. Take a quick look through even apologetic commentaries and you will find every effort made to tone down what Paul’s meaning. This is commonly known in the scholarly community. If you don’t care for that kind of analysis, then you should probably refrain from reading it.

Yes God did create men and women. And you are giving me way too much credit. I’d never make such a statement on my own. I am relating the opinion of many many biblical scholars and exegetes. I just happen to agree. This is nothing new. Women have had difficulty with Paul’s letters from time immemorial. Step into most religious congregations today and you will learn this. I was in close contact with two congregations, the Sisters of St. Joseph and the Domnicans, and sisters in both expressed their dismay with Paul.

No one is discrediting the bible. Paul was writing letters to established churches who were dealing with specific problems. He chose a solution which is definitely misogynistic on its face. As I said before we are unclear whether Paul actually meant this or not. Perhaps there was imbedded code which said…“you are right but lighten up until Rome gets off our back.” We just don’t know. Paul had no idea his letters would later be determined to be scripture.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you are alluding to here.

It may be a blindspot on my part, but I do not believe St.Paul ever wrote one word that is unworthy of an Apostle & a Christian.​

He just does not strike me as the sort of man to compromise the Gospel. Especially in view of what he said earlier in the letter.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii

It is not in accord with Church teaching to claim that Sacred Scripture’s teachings on the roles of men and women are merely the words of Paul in a particular past culture, as if these words were not inspired of God and applicable to every generation.

I think it is. We are to interpret scripture. One of the ways of doing that is to determine why Paul wrote what he wrote because that tells us what he actually meant. Nobody today really argues that the letters were not in response to certain problems faced by an individual church. They have to be looked at in that vein. And from that we can at least glimpse what was actually going on in those churches. there is every reason to believe that Paul had not forgone his belief in equality of all in Christ, but that he asked certain groups to make sacrifices for the good of the community which was coming under fire from pagan Roman officialdom.

To maintain the claim that Paul meant to place women in some lesser position is most convenient for men, I admit, but I still do noth think it is a correct reading of the text.

 

[mikeledes]

What does this refer to? It is just saying that Women may not be priest? Does this mean women may not do readings at mass?

Or is this supposed to be taken literally in which women cannot talk at all during mass?

I ask this question extremely carefully because I don’t want to appear to be sexist.

I find this passage quite strange.

I’ve always understood this to mean that women cannot speak with teaching authority in church. Namely, they cannot be ordained priests.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I had a priest years ago explain this passage to my husband and me, after a particular mass. He said that Paul truly believed that Jesus was coming, at any moment–in his lifetime…that he was cautioning for women to remain quiet, and ask their husbands about the faith, to save time. So, he wouldn’t have to keep repeating himself, and so that the message was clear to the men of the households. I always thought that was a very unique explanation…I don’t think it’s out of the question. But, I tend to believe the posters whose interpretations include that women were not to take places of authority within the Church. I look at Joyce Meyer Ministries, and other such ‘ministries’ started by women, and I wonder if that is what St Paul was referring to, really.

It just always pains me so deeply when women uphold their own biblical subjugation. Their husbands in most cases were NOT Christians. It was usually women and the slaves of that household who converted. Why is it hard to believe that they were getting angry at their uppity wives and slaves who were declaring their Christian equality? Paul’s request for them to calm down would be most believable here as a means to protext the overall very new Church. Why do women grab onto an interpretation that gives credence to a continuation of men are in power and women are to follow? It just makes me so blessedly sad. I feel sometimes like a lifetime of struggle has been for naught. I got to law school only because women stood up against this tyranny and paved the way for me. I fulfilled my duty to the next generation by becoming a successful lawyer. Now we seem to be sinking back into the pit of being the nice little woman at home.

 

[juliamajor]

According to some folks out there I probably should not have a bible study,I should not be teaching about the Bible nor should my teachers have been women.If you take some of the logic(? )out there

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It may be a blindspot on my part, but I do not believe St.Paul ever wrote one word that is unworthy of an Apostle & a Christian.​

He just does not strike me as the sort of man to compromise the Gospel. Especially in view of what he said earlier in the letter.

Then if he is worthy to be an apostle and Christian, then it must not mean what it says on its face, since this is at least to me is clearly misogynistic. The question is indeed whether he compromised the Gospel to solve a problem. That still remains to be seen.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

According to some folks out there I probably should not have a bible study,I should not be teaching about the Bible nor should my teachers have been women.If you take some of the logic(? )out there

Sadly for some, it would mean exactly that. For those who think that Paul was simply announcing God’s decision that women were unfit to preach, then I would like to see how they handle other parts in Paul which reflect that women were preaching and teaching in the early church.

Why or why does this country which claims to be the bastion of democratic principles always appear so backward and continue to produce such deeply paternalistic men?