Women in The Church

[jinc1019]

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1 Cor. 14:33b-34, ESV)”

Why did the Catholic Church change its position on this issue and how does it justify doing so considering it is very clear that in the early Church, it was discouraged?

I don’t support keeping women silent by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches about this.

 

[guanophore]

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1 Cor. 14:33b-34, ESV)”

Why did the Catholic Church change its position on this issue and how does it justify doing so considering it is very clear that in the early Church, it was discouraged?

I don’t support keeping women silent by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches about this.

I don’t think it has changed. The task of reading the Gospel and preaching at liturgy is confined to the ordained members of the clergy (priests and deacons).

 

[pablope]

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1 Cor. 14:33b-34, ESV)”

Why did the Catholic Church change its position on this issue and how does it justify doing so considering it is very clear that in the early Church, it was discouraged?

I don’t support keeping women silent by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches about this.

You have to also study and take a look at the culture of the time to understand truly what Paul is writing about here. In essence, Paul is saying women should not instruct the conregation in an official capacity as a pastor or homilist.

 

[Fan_of_Francis]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa explained this statement in response to an email he receive on his show Open Line. I will see if I can find it and submit a link.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t think it has changed. The task of reading the Gospel and preaching at liturgy is confined to the ordained members of the clergy (priests and deacons).

Really? In my Catholic Church, women often read the Holy Scriptures. I don’t think you are right about this. Obviously PREACHING isn’t allowed for women, but that’s not what the passage says; it says women should be silent in church. How does the Catholic Church deal with this?

 

[jinc1019]

You have to also study and take a look at the culture of the time to understand truly what Paul is writing about here. In essence, Paul is saying women should not instruct the conregation in an official capacity as a pastor or homilist.

I think this is a stretch. It says they shouldn’t speak, to infer that he is talking about teaching is fabricating something you can’t really prove or show.

 

[jinc1019]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa explained this statement in response to an email he receive on his show Open Line. I will see if I can find it and submit a link.

That would be great if you could come up with it!

 

[OraLabora]

Really? In my Catholic Church, women often read the Holy Scriptures.

But not, at Mass, the Gospel. The proclamation of the Gospel is part of the deacon’s ministry and if there is no deacon, the priest’s.

 

[jinc1019]

But not, at Mass, the Gospel. The proclamation of the Gospel is part of the deacon’s ministry and if there is no deacon, the priest’s.

Correct. Thank you for the clarification…But does Paul say women have to be silent ONLY when at Mass during the reading of the gospel? Does he say or even infer that women should be allowed to read from the Old Testament, for instance? This is my point.

 

[LightBound]

I think this is a stretch. It says they shouldn’t speak, to infer that he is talking about teaching is fabricating something you can’t really prove or show.

Well, you’re removing St Paul from his time and culture. If you are going strictly on the word “speak”, and going with the idea that the very word is translated to mean what it does today, then you are saying women are not allowed to even redirect/correct their children if they misbehave while in Church or whisper a word to the baby in their arms, or recite the Creed or say “Amen”?

As others have told you, the Church’s teaching on this means preaching the homily or reading the Gospel at Mass.

Here’s what the CAF apologists have to say about your issue with that passage:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=108112&highlight=women+silent+church#post108112

 

[JerryZ]

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1 Cor. 14:33b-34, ESV)”

Why did the Catholic Church change its position on this issue and how does it justify doing so considering it is very clear that in the early Church, it was discouraged?

I don’t support keeping women silent by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches about this.

Fr. Pacwa explained this recently on EWTN and what he was saying is that at the time it seems that the women attending the mass at this particular church where chatting so loudly they were disrupting the service. Hence St.Paul clearly admonishes them about this.
Of course that does not mean women cannot respond to the mass in the proper way or as somebody else said they can’t “quietly” confort a small child.
Sometimes when the child is disrupting the mass people will step outside, which is the proper thing to do.

 

[1ke]

Correct. Thank you for the clarification…But does Paul say women have to be silent ONLY when at Mass during the reading of the gospel? Does he say or even infer that women should be allowed to read from the Old Testament, for instance? This is my point.

Well, fortunately we do not have to wonder what Paul meant and what is proper. The Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Therefore we follow the Church in what it allows and does not allow.

 

[guanophore]

Really? In my Catholic Church, women often read the Holy Scriptures. I don’t think you are right about this. Obviously PREACHING isn’t allowed for women, but that’s not what the passage says; it says women should be silent in church. How does the Catholic Church deal with this?

The GIRM allows for women to read the Scriptures, and lead the Psalm response, but the Gospel and the homily are reserved for the ordained. You are right that there are many parishes in violation of the GIRM in this matter, but this is a liturgical abuse and represents disobedience.

The CC understands this passage to be a reference to the fact that the ordained members of the clergy are acting in the place and will of the Bishop, whose duty it is to preach the Gospel and shepherd the flock

I think this is a stretch. It says they shouldn’t speak, to infer that he is talking about teaching is fabricating something you can’t really prove or show.

The CC is not a “bible based” Church, so we have no need to “really prove or show” Ianything from the Scriptures. The New Testament is a reflection of the fatih of the Church, not the source of it. Jesus is the Source of the CC, and the teachings that came to us through the Apostles are what is documented in the Scripture. It has been an unbroken practice of all Churches started by the Apostles, East and West, that only males are ordained, and only the ordained read the Gospel at Mass and preach during the liturgy.

Correct. Thank you for the clarification…But does Paul say women have to be silent ONLY when at Mass during the reading of the gospel? Does he say or even infer that women should be allowed to read from the Old Testament, for instance? This is my point.

The Church has the authority to decide how the Apostolic instruction is to be applied. The Novus Ordo allows for women to read during the liturgy of the Word, and lead the Psalms and intercessions. The reading of the Gospel and the Homily is reserved for the ordained. Traditionally in the Eastern Churches, only males are called to serve at the altar as acolytes and other roles.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Fr. Pacwa explained this recently on EWTN and what he was saying is that at the time it seems that the women attending the mass at this particular church where chatting so loudly they were disrupting the service. Hence St.Paul clearly admonishes them about this.
Of course that does not mean women cannot respond to the mass in the proper way or as somebody else said they can’t “quietly” confort a small child.
Sometimes when the child is disrupting the mass people will step outside, which is the proper thing to do.

St Paul does not appear to mention anything about this particular issue, so I find this explanation a bit hard to grasp. I highly doubt chatting in the church was something exclusive to the female gender, and even if it were, he surely would have taken the opportunity to emphasise the need for all to be silent in church, lest the men think that they have the permission to chat! I think the explanation that women are not permitted to be in a teaching (ie, ordained) capacity makes more sense.

 

[jinc1019]

Well, you’re removing St Paul from his time and culture. If you are going strictly on the word “speak”, and going with the idea that the very word is translated to mean what it does today, then you are saying women are not allowed to even redirect/correct their children if they misbehave while in Church or whisper a word to the baby in their arms, or recite the Creed or say “Amen”?

As others have told you, the Church’s teaching on this means preaching the homily or reading the Gospel at Mass.

Here’s what the CAF apologists have to say about your issue with that passage:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=108112&highlight=women+silent+church#post108112

Thank you for the link, it was very helpful.

But you are mischaracterizing my point. I am not at all taking him out of context. You, as well as the CAF apologists, are assuming a context exists when you (and they) don’t know whether it did or not. Paul may have meant EXACTLY what he said in a very literal sense. Or, perhaps Paul meant that women are should be silent in terms of being involved in the actual mass, not necessarily sitting in the pews, but that would include many jobs the Church allows women to have.

To say that the Church’s interpretation on this is correct is to say the Church knows exactly what Paul meant when there is absolutely no factual reason to believe that at all. Given the context of the time, it is very likely he meant exactly what he said, because Israel was obviously a very patriarchal society at that time.

 

[jinc1019]

Fr. Pacwa explained this recently on EWTN and what he was saying is that at the time it seems that the women attending the mass at this particular church where chatting so loudly they were disrupting the service. Hence St.Paul clearly admonishes them about this.
Of course that does not mean women cannot respond to the mass in the proper way or as somebody else said they can’t “quietly” confort a small child.
Sometimes when the child is disrupting the mass people will step outside, which is the proper thing to do.

That makes sense, but doesn’t it then hold that women shouldn’t speak in mass now based on St. Paul’s letter?

 

[jinc1019]

Well, fortunately we do not have to wonder what Paul meant and what is proper. The Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Therefore we follow the Church in what it allows and does not allow.

This is the best answer by far. If the Church is infallible, you are right that it doesn’t matter what we think Paul meant.

 

[jinc1019]

The GIRM allows for women to read the Scriptures, and lead the Psalm response, but the Gospel and the homily are reserved for the ordained. You are right that there are many parishes in violation of the GIRM in this matter, but this is a liturgical abuse and represents disobedience.

The CC understands this passage to be a reference to the fact that the ordained members of the clergy are acting in the place and will of the Bishop, whose duty it is to preach the Gospel and shepherd the flock

The CC is not a “bible based” Church, so we have no need to “really prove or show” Ianything from the Scriptures. The New Testament is a reflection of the fatih of the Church, not the source of it. Jesus is the Source of the CC, and the teachings that came to us through the Apostles are what is documented in the Scripture. It has been an unbroken practice of all Churches started by the Apostles, East and West, that only males are ordained, and only the ordained read the Gospel at Mass and preach during the liturgy.

The Church has the authority to decide how the Apostolic instruction is to be applied. The Novus Ordo allows for women to read during the liturgy of the Word, and lead the Psalms and intercessions. The reading of the Gospel and the Homily is reserved for the ordained. Traditionally in the Eastern Churches, only males are called to serve at the altar as acolytes and other roles.

All also very good points, assuming again that infallibility is true.

 

[jinc1019]

St Paul does not appear to mention anything about this particular issue, so I find this explanation a bit hard to grasp. I highly doubt chatting in the church was something exclusive to the female gender, and even if it were, he surely would have taken the opportunity to emphasise the need for all to be silent in church, lest the men think that they have the permission to chat! I think the explanation that women are not permitted to be in a teaching (ie, ordained) capacity makes more sense.

I don’t, for the very same reasons you just mentioned. He doesn’t say anything about teaching and even if he did, he doesn’t say women are allowed to read from the Old Testament but can’t read from the Gospel, or any other qualification either.

 

[jinc1019]

Personally, the only way to justify this interpretation is to say that the Catholic Church is infallible and accept it on that basis, any interpretation based on reason cannot give you an assurance of the claim many of you are making. But, again, I suppose if you accept infallibility, then it doesn’t really matter. Of course I don’t accept infallibility, as I have made clear in many previous posts, so this is probably why I struggle with this. Not to mention, I don’t believe it should be adhered to at all, in any capacity.