Women in The Church

[_Abyssinia]

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

Navarre Bible commentary

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)

Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM answers question about 1 Corinthians 14:34 by someone else

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

 

[triumphguy]

I dunno - just putting this “out there” - but should women even be allowed to post on CAF?

 

[LightBound]

I dunno - just putting this “out there” - but should women even be allowed to post on CAF?

Now don’t you go starting up something We’ll end up with jolly good responses from self-proclaimed “theologians” whose responses are not in keeping with the Magisterium

I think there are a couple of RadTrad sites out there who require proof of being male before one is allowed to post

Thankfully, CAF, being in allegiance to the Church, welcomes women to post here.

 

[triumphguy]

Now don’t you go starting up something We’ll end up with jolly good responses from self-proclaimed “theologians” whose responses are not in keeping with the Magisterium

I think there are a couple of RadTrad sites out there who require proof of being male before one is allowed to post

Thankfully, CAF, being in allegiance to the Church, welcomes women to post here.

Maybe they should only post if wearing a mantilla

 

[LightBound]

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.

I’m sorry if you feel I’m mischaracterizing your point. In fact, what exactly is your point? The topic of women in church, along with women’s modesty, women’s veiling, and anything that requires use of a brain instead of just a uterus when it comes to women has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and is almost always closed down due to a few folks who haven’t moved out of the Old Testament or Dark Ages when it comes to their view of women. In fact, most of the moderators have starting closing threads early and referring inquirers and participants to look through the archives for answers to their questions as to keep it civil.

Are you just dissatisfied as a Catholic and want to talk out things you take issue with?

 

[LightBound]

Maybe they should only post if wearing a mantilla

White lace if they are single, black for married But only with explicit verbal and written permission from their husband or father and notarized by the Bishop!

And by all means they must wear a skirt if they are to post here!

 

[triumphguy]

White lace if they are single, black for married But only with explicit verbal and written permission from their husband or father and notarized by the Bishop!

And by all means they must wear a skirt if they are to post here!

We’re laying the bait, but no-one’s biting!

 

[1ke]

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.

Certainly if you cannot trust Jesus and his Church you have much bigger problems than trying to noodle out what St Paul meant 2000 years ago. We have Church teaching and 2000 years of the living Church to tell us this.

I see more and more each day how destructive the heresy of sola scriptura is because it denies that the Church is a living entity, guided by the Holy Spirit to do God’s work and preach God’s Word. Jesus did not establish a book, he established a Church. If one does not trust Jesus and the Church implicitly it is a sad exisistence indeed.

 

[Sarcelle]

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

What limits or guidelines do you place on not speaking in mass?

Are women allowed to sing?

Are women allowed to respond “And with your spirit” when the priest says “The Lord be with You.”

Or are women supposed to be totally silent?

If that is the case, what about Paul’s writing on women praying or prophesying?

In my previous church, a Church of Christ, women were allowed to sing but not to pass out the collection baskets, pass out the bread and wine or to do announcements. We were however allowed to sing. We also had a panel of elders who were all men.

 

[triumphguy]

Here’s some Papal thoughts on the role of women.

APOSTOLIC LETTER, MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II ON THE DIGNITY AND VOCATION OF WOMEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARIAN YEAR
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

It is universally admitted - even by people with a critical attitude towards the Christian message - that in the eyes of his contemporaries Christ became a promotor of women’s true dignity and of the vocation corresponding to this dignity. At times this caused wonder, surprise, often to the point of scandal: “They marvelled that he was talking with a woman” (Jn 4:27), because this behaviour differed from that of his contemporaries. Even Christ’s own disciples “marvelled”. The Pharisee to whose house the sinful woman went to anoint Jesus’ feet with perfumed oil “said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner’” (Lk 7:39). Even greater dismay, or even “holy indignation”, must have filled the self-satisfied hearers of Christ’s words: “the tax collectors and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you” (Mt 21:31).

LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO WOMEN
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

But I am convinced that the secret of making speedy progress in achieving full respect for women and their identity involves more than simply the condemnation of discrimination and injustices, necessary though this may be. Such respect must first and foremost be won through an effective and intelligent campaign for the promotion of women, concentrating on all areas of women’s life and beginning with a universal recognition of the dignity of women. Our ability to recognize this dignity, in spite of historical conditioning, comes from the use of reason itself, which is able to understand the law of God written in the heart of every human being. More than anything else, the word of God enables us to grasp clearly the ultimate anthropological basis of the dignity of women, making it evident as a part of God’s plan for humanity.

 

[Fan_of_Francis]

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.

I could not locate the show. Could you provide the link?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Both things are true. Paul had a literal meaning specific to the situation, and the Church also has the authority to say how the principle he taught applies to the present day.

These areas where he planted churches were saturated with Goddess worship. The women served as priestesses and the men enganged in intimate relations with them as part of the worship. It was very difficult t introduce a new religion that operated very differently. It was against the culture and religions of the area for women to be silent and submissive.

In the modern world, esp. in the US, there are not these kinds of cultural and religious problems that the young church faced, and the principle is applied differently.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Perhaps you will consider changing your affiliation so that you do not create a public scandal by identifying yourself as something you are not?

People coming to the forum might look at your posts, and think that one can reject the doctrines of the faith, and still be Catholic. This is not the case.

If you were, at one time, Catholic, you have lost your Catholicity, perhaps becoming Protestant but not realizing it?

 

[Diana_Catherine]

“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.

The best way to understand this is in following what the Catholic church is teaching and allows for us. The apostle Paul also states that no scripture is for private interpretation. We need the Church to help us understand what these scriptures mean. I think most on here have understood it to mean a woman can read the letters and Old Testament but the Gospel and homilies are left to the priest or deacon and IMHO I believe they are right.

When a woman is not allowed to do something and that something is reserved for someone else does not mean she is being treated unfairly or that she is assumed not to have a brain as someone else implied. It just means it is not her job. It is not her role.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m sorry if you feel I’m mischaracterizing your point. In fact, what exactly is your point? The topic of women in church, along with women’s modesty, women’s veiling, and anything that requires use of a brain instead of just a uterus when it comes to women has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and is almost always closed down due to a few folks who haven’t moved out of the Old Testament or Dark Ages when it comes to their view of women. In fact, most of the moderators have starting closing threads early and referring inquirers and participants to look through the archives for answers to their questions as to keep it civil.

Are you just dissatisfied as a Catholic and want to talk out things you take issue with?

I have no desire to return to the “Dark Ages.” Actually, it is exactly the opposite of that. I think it’s a fair point to make. The Catholic Church doesn’t seem to be holding true to its own tradition on this and I wanted the official Catholic response on it. I have heard many interesting responses, but I have yet to see the official Catholic position. If I have missed something, I apologize.

 

[jinc1019]

Perhaps you will consider changing your affiliation so that you do not create a public scandal by identifying yourself as something you are not?

People coming to the forum might look at your posts, and think that one can reject the doctrines of the faith, and still be Catholic. This is not the case.

If you were, at one time, Catholic, you have lost your Catholicity, perhaps becoming Protestant but not realizing it?

I didn’t realize that identifying myself as a “Catholic” in an online forum constituted a “public scandal.” I apologize for not holding the same views as you do on the proper role of the Catholic Church, but I do believe Jesus instructed us all not to judge one another, yet, hear you are judging me for not being “Catholic enough” for your tastes. I am quite amazed at how often Catholics on this forum are willing to mistreat people who disagree with them. It is no wonder our church is dying in America. If you think you can win a point by acting this way, you are dead wrong.

I accept the VAST MAJORITY of Catholic doctrines, but I do reject a select few big ones…But it isn’t your position to judge whether I qualify for being Catholic or not.

 

[jinc1019]

The best way to understand this is in following what the Catholic church is teaching and allows for us. The apostle Paul also states that no scripture is for private interpretation. We need the Church to help us understand what these scriptures mean. I think most on here have understood it to mean a woman can read the letters and Old Testament but the Gospel and homilies are left to the priest or deacon and IMHO I believe they are right.

When a woman is not allowed to do something and that something is reserved for someone else does not mean she is being treated unfairly or that she is assumed not to have a brain as someone else implied. It just means it is not her job. It is not her role.

I appreciate the response. But I just can’t understand how anyone can come to that conclusion from reading the scriptures. It doesn’t even come close to saying it. If you want to argue that it comes from tradition instead or that the infallibility of the Church is the source of your opinion, that at least makes sense. But it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to interpret that passage, barring the previous two exceptions I just made, in any other way.

 

[guanophore]

I didn't realize that identifying myself as a "Catholic" in an online forum constituted a "public scandal."

It doesnt.

What causes scandal is people claiming to be Catholic who reject the Catholic faith.

 I apologize for not holding the same views as you do on the proper role of the Catholic Church, but I do believe Jesus instructed us all not to judge one another, yet, hear you are judging me for not being "Catholic enough" for your tastes.

No, it has nothing to do with my opinion, or my judgements. It has to do with what the Church believes and teaches, which is beyond my opinions and judgments as well as you “views”. You are certainly free to reject the infallible teachings of the Church, but to characterize yourself as Catholic while doing so presents a public scandal.

I am quite amazed at how often Catholics on this forum are willing to mistreat people who disagree with them.

I am not mistreating you. I asked you if you would be willing to conform your affiliation to your position, since it has become clear that you reject the Catholic one.

And again, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with any of the members on this Board. The Cathoic faith is not defined by the members of CAF, or by you. It is defined by the Teaching of Jesus, through the Apostles. This teaching has been handed down to us infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. You are not compulsed to accept this One Faith, but it seems that it might reflect more integrity on your part if you do not publicly claim that you do, when you dont.

It is no wonder our church is dying in America. If you think you can win a point by acting this way, you are dead wrong.

And if you think that the doctrine of the faith is a matter of “winning” or “losing” you are dead wrong. Yes, there are many dying Catholics in America. This results from rejecting the life giving faith entrusted to the One Church by Jesus.

Matt 7:13-14

13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Jesus told us that few would find and follow the narrow way. The Truth is not determined by the number of people who espouse a certain “view”, even if they constitute a majority.

I accept the VAST MAJORITY of Catholic doctrines, but I do reject a select few big ones...But it isn't your position to judge whether I qualify for being Catholic or not.

the faith is ONE. It is not possible for us to pick and choose which parts we accept or reject. Rejecting any part of it causes the seamless garment to become unravelled.

You are right, it is not my position to judge whether you “qualify”. Members of this board can only judge your posts, and realize that what you have stated in them is not consistent with Catholic faith. It may be that you did not lose your Catholicity in this matter. It may be that you never had it. Regardless, you have espoused a position that places you at enmity with the Church founded by Christ.

 

[jinc1019]

You are right on numerous points here, as well as horrifically wrong on others. But for the sake of NOT wanting this thread to turn into something it shouldn’t be (which is a discussion on whether I should identify myself as a “Catholic” or not), I will refrain from continuing the argument.

 

[guanophore]

You are right on numerous points here, as well as horrifically wrong on others. But for the sake of NOT wanting this thread to turn into something it shouldn’t be (which is a discussion on whether I should identify myself as a “Catholic” or not), I will refrain from continuing the argument.

The role of women in the Church is a major one where many modern Americans lose their Catholicity. There is a secular idea that the role of women should be the same as that of men. But equality in dignity and value does not necesarily mean equality of function and role. Although the modern culture of death promotes this view, it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and therefore, to the Catholic faith.

When people publicly proclaim they are Catholic, when they reject the Catholic faith, it causes confusion and scandal. Especially here, where most people come for “Catholic Answers”, when they see someone who claims to be Catholic making anti-Catholic statements it causes a stumbling block for all of us.