Women in Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HabemusFrancis

Guest
Hi everyone.

I notice the Catholic Church allows women in churches to have their heads uncovered and to speak and use their voices, either as a lector, or as a cantor/ singer in church choir.

In one book of the new testament ( I cant recall which) there is a specific injunction against women using their voice in a church, and covering their heads as well as them " not permitted to teach or have authority over a man!"

Before Vatican II it seems the Church acknowledged this part of scripture, by having the chapel veils, and by not having women say any part of the scripture from the pulpit. Now it is changed.

My big question is why can the church change that? Did the new testament injunctinon was not to be taken “literally”? If not how then, should it have, and should be understood by faithful Catholics?
 
HabemusFrancis said:
Hi everyone.

I notice the Catholic Church allows women in churches to have their heads uncovered and to speak and use their voices, either as a lector, or as a cantor/ singer in church choir.

In one book of the new testament ( I cant recall which) there is a specific injunction against women using their voice in a church, and covering their heads as well as them " not permitted to teach or have authority over a man!"

Before Vatican II it seems the Church acknowledged this part of scripture, by having the chapel veils, and by not having women say any part of the scripture from the pulpit. Now it is changed.

My big question is why can the church change that? Did the new testament injunctinon was not to be taken “literally”? If not how then, should it have, and should be understood by faithful Catholics?
Click to expand...
Those things are matters of discipline, not doctrine. Disciplines can change, doctrines cannot.

That is why it can change.

Main difference to distinguish between the two (though generalized), doctrines are what we believe, disciplines are what we do.

It’s the same reason why before Vatican II that Latin was the main language used at Mass, but after, the cultural languages were used.
 
In the same section, St. Paul says that if a woman doesn’t want to wear a headcovering, “we have no such custom”. Custom. Different Rites in the Church celebrate the Mass in different customs.

Women can get jobs now, go to college, fill government postions and basically do a lot these days that, by custom and belief and attitude, was not done in the days of St. Paul.

That’s my take on it, anyway, that it is governed by custom, not theology.
 
Head covering is much dicussed here and recently discussed here There is a linked article that should give you an explanation.
In one book of the new testament ( I cant recall which) there is a specific injunction against women using their voice in a church, and covering their heads as well as them " not permitted to teach or have authority over a man!"
Click to expand...
This article may help you understand.
 
Some Independent Baptist Churches don’t allow women to speak or teach in church based on those scriptures. They believe the head covering is the women’s hair, so women are not allow to cut their hair. I think those churches are a bit extreme.
 
Remember_Me said:
Some Independent Baptist Churches don’t allow women to speak or teach in church based on those scriptures. They believe the head covering is the women’s hair, so women are not allow to cut their hair. I think those churches are a bit extreme.
Click to expand...
At my church, the pastor does not allow, woman to teach men or a mixed group. He allows them to teach other woman and children.
 
Women* want* what they want when they want it because they* want* it.

Just who is the Church and men to say no?

Feminism has ordained the wants of women to be just so.

The creeps! Just who does the church think they are!! :cool:
 
Nimzovik said:
Women* want* what they want when they want it because they* want* it.

Just who is the Church and men to say no?

Feminism has ordained the wants of women to be just so.

The creeps! Just who does the church think they are!! :cool:
Click to expand...
Did you read the thread? Or even the original post?

Because I want to know which of the things covered in this thread justified that rant? Was it that women aren’t wearing headcoverings enough? Because they sing or read at Mass? Which thing was it that set you off this time? You think women are uppity for trying to do those things?
 
Indeed? Really? Rant eh?

Uppity eh?

Interesting.

This time eh? Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

Because they sing eh? :rolleyes:

Hmmmmmmm… What are you seeing that I am not? :cool:🤷 the issue was about** covering** - yes? Not about singing - yes?
 
Nimzovik said:
Women* want* what they want when they want it because they* want* it.

Just who is the Church and men to say no?

Feminism has ordained the wants of women to be just so.

The creeps! Just who does the church think they are!! :cool:
Click to expand...
What?! :confused:

So the church is wrong for allowing women to read and sing at Mass and for not forcing women to cover their heads?

I’m sick and tired of this whole blame feminism argument that people try to start. Heaven forbid that a women does anything. :rolleyes:
 
bzkoss236 said:
Those things are matters of discipline, not doctrine. Disciplines can change, doctrines cannot.
Click to expand...
bsroufek said:
That’s my take on it, anyway, that it is governed by custom, not theology.
Click to expand...
Sounds right to me.

A woman’s hair, in many cultures, was considered sensual; her “crowning glory”. I suppose the idea was that in church, vanity was to be set aside as it was a place for worship and humility.

What’s curious to me though, is the reason why St. Paul would have felt the need to reiterate the head covering in the first place. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the women of his time *already *cover their hair whenever they were in public? If so, wouldn’t that make the suggestion redundant?🤷

Or was St. Paul living in Rome (where hair was not covered in public) at the time he said this?
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
What?! :confused:

So the church is wrong for allowing women to read and sing at Mass and for not forcing women to cover their heads?

I’m sick and tired of this whole blame feminism argument that people try to start. Heaven forbid that a women does anything. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Amazing…

The church is wrong to have women sing eh?

It amuses me to see the irrational extrapolations from things that were not said in the first place. :cool:
 
actually, women did sing in choirs before vaitcan 2 as far as i’m aware. the headcovering was dismissed in 1983 when new code of canon law was released. i also don’t think it was a universal custom everywhere either. as for women speaking of teaching over men; it has been explained to me that this is in the context of official speaking or teaching of an ordained priest. before vatican 2, only the ordained priests and deacons did any kind of speaking during mass. a few of those roles are now open to the laity to encourage more participation. the scriptures you are thinking of is paul’s first letter to the corinthins and also paul’s letter to timothy. in the letter to the corinthians, he does say that women prayed and prophesied in the assembly; just probably in an informal way.
 
lerapt78 said:
Sounds right to me.

A woman’s hair, in many cultures, was considered sensual; her “crowning glory”. I suppose the idea was that in church, vanity was to be set aside as it was a place for worship and humility.

What’s curious to me though, is the reason why St. Paul would have felt the need to reiterate the head covering in the first place. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the women of his time *already *cover their hair whenever they were in public? If so, wouldn’t that make the suggestion redundant?🤷

Or was St. Paul living in Rome (where hair was not covered in public) at the time he said this?
Click to expand...
The pagan women of the that time worshiped in the temples with their hair down and adorned with fine ornaments. He was calling the newly Christian women to set themselves apart from their pagan neighbors. Some of the women shaved their heads and offered their hair to pagan gods- hence his comment about hair being a crowning glory.
 
Nimzovik said:
Amazing…

The church is wrong to have women sing eh?

It amuses me to see the irrational extrapolations from things that were not said in the first place. :cool:
Click to expand...
Um…maybe you should read the OP again. :cool:
 
Jesus delegated His authority to the Apostles, who (among other things) determined that the Sabbath obligation would be transferred to the First Day of the week (the day of the Resurrection) instead of the Seventh and that Gentile converts to Christianity did not need to go through the process of conversion to Judaism (including circumcision) first. This authority to revise matters of discipline (practice) continues in the successors to the Apostles. Head-covering is a practice (as is, for a more significant example, priestly celibacy).

Matters of Faith, since they are Revealed Truth, cannot be revised because (duh) no one can change what is.

Sally
 
LightBound said:
The pagan women of the that time worshiped in the temples with their hair down and adorned with fine ornaments. He was calling the newly Christian women to set themselves apart from their pagan neighbors. Some of the women shaved their heads and offered their hair to pagan gods- hence his comment about hair being a crowning glory.
Click to expand...
Interesting - I didn’t think of it in terms of differentiating between pagans. I thought it just had to do with piety and humility.

Thanks for the info!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top