Women teaching.

[pianistclare]

Context is everything. That’s why literal meanings don’t always make sense to the 21st century ear.
In that era, only men held these positions. They were the Church, the Synagogue.
The authority come from the Church. The church assigns, approves, and delegates who can do what. That has not changed.
Today, the Church has promoted and advanced the education of women in the teaching of the faith. The sheer numbers of faithful who need instruction is daunting. Of course we permit women in some capacities that are not reserved for the ordained.
The basic truth taught in these passages is: Go to a valid teacher of the faith for your information. Someone who has been properly formed. It’s less about women vs. men, and more about those wo are qualified to teach.
God bless.

 

[jilly4ski]

Interesting interpretation. I don’t believe in Paul’s time, tho, they had a liturgical celebration of ‘the Mass.’ So there would be no preaching, per se. They had table fellowships and they had synagogue teachings (and of course teaching in the public square, as it were) but nothing like a modern day Mass. That didn’t come until much later.

So where did Paul’s restrictions for women come in?

What makes you think they didn’t have a liturgical Mass, in Saint Paul’s time? I am sure it looked different than it does now, in fact I believe it looked a lot like a Jewish liturgy with the sharing of the Body and Blood. Not to mention teaching is a part of preaching, those two words are pretty difficult to parse.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

What makes you think they didn’t have a liturgical Mass, in Saint Paul’s time? I am sure it looked different than it does now, in fact I believe it looked a lot like a Jewish liturgy with the sharing of the Body and Blood. Not to mention teaching is a part of preaching, those two words are pretty difficult to parse.

Well, they DIDN’T have a liturgical Mass in St Paul’s time. The Jews went to Synagogue or participated in Temple rites. Those who could, gathered for house meals around the table. I don’t believe the Eucharist, per se, developed until much later.

Scholar and liturgist Paul Bradshaw writes:

The earliest Christian community life centered on regular shared meals, just as it did for other associations of people in the ancient world, but the forms of these meals that would evolve into the later Eucharistic rites seem to have been quite diverse…

 

[jilly4ski]

Well, they DIDN’T have a liturgical Mass in St Paul’s time. The Jews went to Synagogue or participated in Temple rites. Those who could, gathered for house meals around the table. I don’t believe the Eucharist, per se, developed until much later.

Scholar and liturgist Paul Bradshaw writes:

So why would Saint Paul even have to write instructions to the church in Corinth, earlier in the chapter he writes

26* So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up.h

It sure seems like they have some form of worship that they follow (the church in Corinth focuses a lot on speaking in tongues), ie liturgy. And Acts, shows there was some form of sharing the Body and Blood.

 

[phil19034]

Well, they DIDN’T have a liturgical Mass in St Paul’s time. The Jews went to Synagogue or participated in Temple rites. Those who could, gathered for house meals around the table. I don’t believe the Eucharist, per se, developed until much later.

Scholar and liturgist Paul Bradshaw writes:

This is wrong. They actually did have Divine Liturgy in St. Paul’s time and they were already 100% consecrating the Eucharist by the time of St. Paul’s conversion.

St. Paul is said to have died around the year 67 AD.

Here were two of the Liturgies used by that decade:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

You can find these and other documents by the Church Father here:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/

NOTE: the term “Mass” is only used in the Latin Church and most likely didn’t come about until later. By the Mass is simply Latin term used for what the East calls the “Divine Liturgy.” And we had Divine Liturgy from the very beginning.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This is wrong. They actually did have Divine Liturgy in St. Paul’s time and they were already 100% consecrating the Eucharist by the time of St. Paul’s conversion.

St. Paul is said to have died around the year 67 AD.

Here were two of the Liturgies used by that decade:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

You can find these and other documents by the Church Father here:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/
.

These are ancient liturgies, of course, but they did not spring from any time close to 60 ce. Mossman says end of second century, but others say that is pushing it. See ‘History of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.’ It’s old but well respected. See also the writings of Dom Gregory Dix and Paul Bradshaw (more contemporary).

The Liturgies may have the name of the Apostles, but it was only by attribution.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

It sure seems like they have some form of worship that they follow (the church in Corinth focuses a lot on speaking in tongues), ie liturgy. And Acts, shows there was some form of sharing the Body and Blood.

Of course people gathered for worship and prayer. They mostly borrowed the order of prayers and scripture readings from the Synagogue service, which was held on Friday evenings and Saturday. And when they assembled for meals in homes, which was Saturday nights, generally, they ate and then they had the cup and bread at the end - the Thanksgiving offering and, to us, the consecration. But it was all in homes around the dinner table.

The early Christians had two different times/occasions to pray and two different intents.

But a formal Liturgy? It just didn’t happen for decades after Paul.

 

[LightBound]

Women do teach. We teach eg children… and as I said, even in Maynooth…We teach compassion in our daily lives. Does it HAVE to be in public with a huge self congratulatory fanfare… As Jesus says, then you have been rewarded in public. Many of us prefer to be rewarded in secret by Our Father in Heaven

Women also teach at the university and graduate level. There are actually female professors at some of the larger Catholic seminaries. Nothing wrong with women choosing to teach only children and nothing wrong with women teaching at the adult level, either.

 

[phil19034]

Of course people gathered for worship and prayer. They mostly borrowed the order of prayers and scripture readings from the Synagogue service, which was held on Friday evenings and Saturday. And when they assembled for meals in homes, which was Saturday nights, generally, they ate and then they had the cup and bread at the end - the Thanksgiving offering and, to us, the consecration. But it was all in homes around the dinner table.

The early Christians had two different times/occasions to pray and two different intents.

But a formal Liturgy? It just didn’t happen for decades after Paul.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that today’s Jews have a formal liturgy for Passover? Or no? Because I can tell you that they 100% do. Now, that doesn’t mean that everyone follows it (aka liturgical abuse), but they do 100% have a formal liturgy.

The meal (as you call it) that the early Christians shared was the Eucharist. There was a priest present who lead everyone in the celebration of the Eucharist.

The Celebration of the Eucharist is the most essential part of the Divine Liturgy. Basically, of all the Liturgies of the Church, the Liturgy of the Eucharist is the very essence of the Divine Liturgy.

The Liturgy used by the Neocatechumenal Way is very similar to the way the first Christians would have celebrated the Divine Liturgy.

pictures

Church has always had MANY different Rites and Liturgies. But the one thing central to every single Liturgy was the Celebration of the Eucharist. All Divine Liturgies have the Words of Institution (even the Church of the East who does not speak them out loud) and even though the exact Words of Institution are different per Liturgy.

Regardless of whether the Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated in a Church or in a house, it’s still the Sacrifice of the Mass (aka Divine Liturgy). And regardless if lay people are standing/kneeling 100 feet away from the Altar or 10 inches, it’s still the what we Latin Catholic call the Mass.

So yes, there was a Liturgy during St. Paul’s time because we have always celebrated the Eucharist.

 

[phil19034]

These are ancient liturgies, of course, but they did not spring from any time close to 60 ce. Mossman says end of second century, but others say that is pushing it. See ‘History of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.’ It’s old but well respected. See also the writings of Dom Gregory Dix and Paul Bradshaw (more contemporary).

The Liturgies may have the name of the Apostles, but it was only by attribution.

The two I provided are dated to the 60s A.D.

BTW - as a Catholic Christian, I refuse to use CE and will always use A.D.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that today’s Jews have a formal liturgy for Passover? Or no? Because I can tell you that they 100% do. Now, that doesn’t mean that everyone follows it (aka liturgical abuse), but they do 100% have a formal liturgy.

The meal (as you call it) that the early Christians shared was the Eucharist. There was a priest present who lead everyone in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Regardless of whether the Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated in a Church or in a house, it’s still the Sacrifice of the Mass (aka Divine Liturgy). And regardless if lay people are standing/kneeling 100 feet away from the Altar or 10 inches, it’s still the what we Latin Catholic call the Mass.

So yes, there was a Liturgy during St. Paul’s time because we have always celebrated the Eucharist.

I think you are assuming way too much. The Assemblies were meals, sometimes with prayers over the cup and bread, and sometimes not. As we see in Corinthians, many people left after the food because they were too drunk and had no interest in the ending ritual. Priests did not exist. There was no altar. You are way, way ahead of yourself. It took centuries to get to where you are.

Here is what Orthodox scholar Hew Wybrew says about those early days:

In the New Testament there is no order within the Church explicitly referred to as priestly. Christ himself is ‘our great high priest’ who has offered the sacrifice of himself on the cross, and how eternally present in heaven…. Paul indeed speaks of his ministry as an apostle using the language of the priesthood and sacrifice. But it will be some time yet before any order in the Church will be explicitly called priestly, and then it will be the Bishops. But the comparison between bishop and high priest in Clement of Rome already presages future development…

For the first generations the earthly meal of the Eucharist was in image of that heavily banquet in terms of which Jesus had often spoken of the Kingdom of his Father; and when the first eucharistic text appears in the East towards the end of the fourth century is seen to be offered by a Church still mindful of the second coming of the Chirst…

amazon.com/Orthodox-Liturgy-Development-Eucharistic-Byzantine/dp/0881411000/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470929950&sr=1-1&keywords=9780881411003

I understand that you want the early Church to be familiar - to have the Mass, altars, priests, Liturgy, scripture - but that just wasn’t the case. It took time for all that to emerge. Please read the scholars on this.

 

[phil19034]

I think you are assuming way too much. The Assemblies were meals, sometimes with prayers over the cup and bread, and sometimes not. As we see in Corinthians, many people left after the food because they were too drunk and had no interest in the ending ritual. Priests did not exist. There was no altar. You are way, way ahead of yourself. It took centuries to get to where you are.

Here is what Orthodox scholar Hew Wybrew says about those early days:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Liturgy-Development-Eucharistic-Byzantine/dp/0881411000/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470929950&sr=1-1&keywords=9780881411003

I understand that you want the early Church to be familiar - to have the Mass, altars, priests, Liturgy, scripture - but that just wasn’t the case. It took time for all that to emerge. Please read the scholars on this.

I don’t know Hew Wybrew, but some of the other scholars you have posted in the past have skeptical credentials.

I prefer to trust the research of Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Dr. Edward Sri, Dr. Tim Gray, Dr. Brant Pitre, Dr. Michael Barber, Dr. John Bergsma, Dr. Mary Healy, Dr. Allen Hunt, Dr. Thomas Madden, Dr. Bob McDonald, Dr. Mark Miravalle, Dr. Steven Smith, all the professors at the Augustine Institute, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Catholic University, The Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, etc.

Some of the so called Catholic scholars you have previously mentioned, like one from Notre Dame are very questionable. I have a very hard time believing a so called “Catholic Liturgy expert” who never attended a Catholic graduate school.

 

[jmcrae]

I think you are assuming way too much. The Assemblies were meals, sometimes with prayers over the cup and bread, and sometimes not. As we see in Corinthians, many people left after the food because they were too drunk and had no interest in the ending ritual. Priests did not exist. There was no altar. You are way, way ahead of yourself. It took centuries to get to where you are.

Here is what Orthodox scholar Hew Wybrew says about those early days:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Liturgy-Development-Eucharistic-Byzantine/dp/0881411000/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470929950&sr=1-1&keywords=9780881411003

I understand that you want the early Church to be familiar - to have the Mass, altars, priests, Liturgy, scripture - but that just wasn’t the case. It took time for all that to emerge. Please read the scholars on this.

Be careful of your historical timing. Remember, the people of the First Century were not cave people, pilgrims, settlers of the North American West, or survivors of the bubonic plague. They were more civilized and more ritualized than we are today; not less. The rituals of Christianity represented a simplification of what was already going on - even a “simple dinner” back in those days would have entailed way more ritual than we see even in the Mass today. Keep in mind that it would have been totally unheard of to sit down to any meal without invoking the gods and goddesses and without ritual words being said between each of the courses.

The description of the Mass given in St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology is the same in its important details as the Mass today, and that was written less than 60 years after the death of the last Apostle. So yes, there was liturgy back then - probably a more complex liturgy than we have today.