women's authority in the church

[Walking_Home]

floresco:

It would make more sense for the Order of Preachers to explain how they reconcile their practices with Scripture.

Actually…that conference I mentioned attended on Women in the Early Church brought up those verses…and in light of the what the Magisterium teaches on the roles of women, it was explained that those verses were as instruction for women to not be in the role of priest (consecrating the bread and wine and giving the homily). Otherwise, how do we explain the elevation of 3 female saints to “Doctor of the Church”. All things must be read and interpreted in the context of what the Magisterium teaches… otherwise, we end up like those sects of Protestant fundamentalist running around pulling verses out of context to justify their personal belief and interpretations.

---

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think that Saint Paul was inspired by God, not by problems with women. I leave it to the Church to say how the passage ought to be interpreted.

That may be how you interpret it.
But I do not feel compelled to see his actions in the most positive light:shrug:

 

[catholicmamajoy]

That may be how you interpret it.
But I do not feel compelled to see his actions in the most positive light:shrug:

And a lot of what St Paul said was “descriptive” of the area in which he was evangelizing in…not always “prescriptive”. Look at the women he worked with, his description of them, and then reread the verses where he states things that aren’t really pleasing to the female ear, while understanding that he’s describing what he saw going on and not what he was admonishing women to do. If he was telling them those things, it would be almost opposite of how he himself was behaving towards them.

 

[Baelor]

You are welcome to look up the context. I did give the reference.

I cannot simply look up the context, because the context extends beyond the Bible.

I think that Saint Paul was inspired by God, not by problems with women. I leave it to the Church to say how the passage ought to be interpreted.

As do I, and they have.

 

[TrueLight]

Br. Jr and Melchior, do you have references for the below?

You know I’m discerning, so things like this are important.

The secular orders that have male and female forbid submitting another person to you. Because that’s not love.

Br.JR, FFV

As an aside, I’m 99% certain this is the case for all secular orders. The Lay Dominicans have a similar stance.

I’m not sure if you both mean that a woman secular should not submit to a male secular or if you are speaking within the context of marriage.

Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Br. Jr and Melchior, do you have references for the below?

You know I’m discerning, so things like this are important.

I’m not sure if you both mean that a woman secular should not submit to a male secular or if you are speaking within the context of marriage.

Thanks.

It’s in the constitutions when it speaks about marriage and family and in their formation manual. Actually, their formation manual goes into more details. The constitution sort of paraphrases what’s in the CCC.

Within the order women have always had the right to hold office from day one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

Br. Jr and Melchior, do you have references for the below?

You know I’m discerning, so things like this are important.

I’m not sure if you both mean that a woman secular should not submit to a male secular or if you are speaking within the context of marriage.

Thanks.

We’re all called to submit to “the chain of command”, whether it be male or female. From the copy of the Rule I found, the Provincial Promoter can be either male or female, so you submit to them regardless of gender. And of course, we must submit to the Master of the Order.

Other than that, like both Brother JR and I mentioned it’s more about mutual respect and love. Say you and I are in the same chapter, both as seculars and both not in any leadership position. Should you, by default, submit to me? Of course not. If you have been appointed a leadership role, should I be obedient to your leadership? Of course I should.

Most of what Brother JR has said about the Secular Franciscans can be applied to the Third Order of St. Dominic. Dominic saw what Francis did, and loved the idea. And if it ain’t broke, why fix it? He mirrored his Third Order, and we all know the great respect the two had for one another.

 

[TrueLight]

We’re all called to submit to “the chain of command”, whether it be male or female. From the copy of the Rule I found, the Provincial Promoter can be either male or female, so you submit to them regardless of gender. And of course, we must submit to the Master of the Order.

Well okay. That makes sense. I’m not talking about within orders or at work. Why would I submit to any male just because he is male?

I’m speaking of marriage, an institution with roles.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s in the constitutions when it speaks about marriage and family and in their formation manual. Actually, their formation manual goes into more details.

The Dominican formation manual?

 

[TrueLight]

You know what? I may be mixing up two threads. For some reason I thought we were speaking about a woman’s role in marriage. Ha ha.

 

[Melchior_1]

You know what? I may be mixing up two threads. For some reason I thought we were speaking about a woman’s role in marriage. Ha ha.

I think that was brought up at some point in this thread actually. I didn’t touch on it because I thought you already knew the answer

Why would I submit to any male just because he is male?

In what will make me unpopular in some traditionalist circles; you shouldn’t. Just because someone’s got junk in their trunk doesn’t make you inherently submissive to them.

When a man and a woman become one flesh, they work together as one. In some cases the mind gives way to the heart, in other cases the heart gives way to the mind. Who takes on the role of the heart or head depends on the personalities and the situation involved.

My wife and I are equal partners. There are times she freely tells me what to do, and times that she clearly gives me specific instructions. There are also some times where she point blank will say “do this now”. From the beginning we wanted our marriage to be one where we both had active roles, both of us were leaders. Sure, some roles are different (she is much more careful than I am, maternal instincts, nurturing, misc etc), but at the end of the day she doesn’t submit just because I’m a dude.

All of that said, my wife used to be Protestant. There has been at least twice where she has said “I disagree with this, but you’re the spiritual head so we’ll go with you on this”. These were both incredibly tough and serious issues, which had potential to have serious impact on our marriage. This is a common thought among some non-doniminational types, and I used to find this incredibly awkward. To me, it seemed like a backwards step with the dynamics our marriage usually has. But then I realized that my wife was doing this because she needed me to take on a leadership role for that specific instance, not because I was a male but because she inherently needed someone to take the point, someone to provide direction.

It’s a common joke I heard that “the man is the head, and the woman is the neck which tells the man where to look”. I find that expression demeaning and grossly inaccurate. My comments about the head and heart remain, as does my stance that the man and the woman exchange those roles depending on the situation.

As far as among friends, usual social conventions apply. Cholerics will do what chloerics do for example; people with that personality type (man or woman) will likely take on a leadership/authority role within a group of friends. This has nothing to do with gender, and more to do with personalities.

 

[TrueLight]

I think that was brought up at some point in this thread actually. I didn’t touch on it because I thought you already knew the answer

In what will make me unpopular in some traditionalist circles; you shouldn’t. Just because someone’s got junk in their trunk doesn’t make you inherently submissive to them.

When a man and a woman become one flesh, they work together as one. In some cases the mind gives way to the heart, in other cases the heart gives way to the mind. Who takes on the role of the heart or head depends on the personalities and the situation involved.

My wife and I are equal partners. There are times she freely tells me what to do, and times that she clearly gives me specific instructions. There are also some times where she point blank will say “do this now”. From the beginning we wanted our marriage to be one where we both had active roles, both of us were leaders. Sure, some roles are different (she is much more careful than I am, maternal instincts, nurturing, misc etc), but at the end of the day she doesn’t submit just because I’m a dude.

All of that said, my wife used to be Protestant. There has been at least twice where she has said “I disagree with this, but you’re the spiritual head so we’ll go with you on this”. These were both incredibly tough and serious issues, which had potential to have serious impact on our marriage. This is a common thought among some non-doniminational types, and I used to find this incredibly awkward. To me, it seemed like a backwards step with the dynamics our marriage usually has. But then I realized that my wife was doing this because she needed me to take on a leadership role for that specific instance, not because I was a male but because she inherently needed someone to take the point, someone to provide direction.

It’s a common joke I heard that “the man is the head, and the woman is the neck which tells the man where to look”. I find that expression demeaning and grossly inaccurate. My comments about the head and heart remain, as does my stance that the man and the woman exchange those roles depending on the situation.

As far as among friends, usual social conventions apply. Cholerics will do what chloerics do for example; people with that personality type (man or woman) will likely take on a leadership/authority role within a group of friends. This has nothing to do with gender, and more to do with personalities.

Okay, if that works for you.

As much as I am a modern woman in terms of women’s rights, I prefer the husband to be the head of the household. Which of course doesn’t mean he bosses me around and if he is a fool, then we have a problem.

 

[Melchior_1]

Okay, if that works for you.

As much as I am a modern woman in terms of women’s rights, I **prefer **the husband to be the head of the household. Which of course doesn’t mean he bosses me around and if he is a fool, then we have a problem.

The key word is bolded; you prefer. It’s still an equal partnership because you have freely and logically thought to yourself “my preference is for him to take the point with some of these issues”. It’s not inherent for all, but rather inherent for you.

The Dominicans are not into generic “men over women submission”. How else would you explain the Patroness of the T.O.S.D?

 

[TrueLight]

The Dominicans are not into generic “men over women submission”. How else would you explain the Patroness of the T.O.S.D?

I will have to look into that as I have no knowledge. But I want to know if Dominicans speak against a wife being submissive to her husband ala St Paul’s Epistles.

As concerns women’s role in the liturgy, I am traditional in my viewpoints. Im praying for more traditional Dominican rite masses.

 

[floresco]

I will have to look into that as I have no knowledge. But I want to know if Dominicans speak against a wife being submissive to her husband ala St Paul’s Epistles.

My resident Dominican (my husband is a lay Dominican) says that if you’ve met one Dominican you’ve met one Dominican. According to him, one can make very few generalizations about Dominican beliefs.

(I have been avoiding mentioning that I have a Dominican of my own. I’m afraid that now everybody will want one. )

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well okay. That makes sense. I’m not talking about within orders or at work. Why would I submit to any male just because he is male?

I’m speaking of marriage, an institution with roles.

Because you believe men are the natural heads, leaders, etc.?

That’s not what I believe, but its an easy train of thought to follow.

 

[JReducation]

The Dominican formation manual?

I have never seen one. I can’t answer that question.

I will have to look into that as I have no knowledge. But I want to know if Dominicans speak against a wife being submissive to her husband ala** St Paul’s Epistles.** :

The one thing to keep in mind is that outside of dogma, moral law and natural law, Dominicans, Carmelites. Benedictines and Franciscans are not bible literalists. It’s not part of the Middle Ages tradition, from which we came. This particular statement by Paul is embedded in a much larger context about covenant relationships between Chrich and Church and husband and wife as sacraments of that covenant. These schools are going to pay attention to the theology that Paul is expounding rather than the discipline that he is putting forth as an expression of that theology.

It’s important to keep in mind that the Epistles contain both, theology and disciplines. In those days, the lines were not clearly stated, because the writers assumed that the reader understood, since these were things that they had already discussed.

We have the disadvantage of never having sat down with Paul to hear the rest of the story to to sit down with Peter to here is explanation of the theology, whic is different from that of Paul, while being theologically consistent Yet, Peter does not bring up the submission at all. He explains the same idea, but uses different disciplines to help people remember the doctrine. Then, if you look at John, James, Jude and the Gospels themselves, the idea of submmission is not mentioned at all. The focus remains the same, the covenant. The Gospels, as we know, are younger than some of the letters.

We can’t just focus on Paul. That’s what Dominicans, Benedictines, Carmelites and Franciscans discourage, focussing in on Paul and ignoring everything else that refers to marriage though the entire OT and NT. St. Anthony of Padua rejected that method as being “self-serving” for those who wanted to hang their hat on a single peg of scripture. He was just speaking about this passage, but about any passage. We can trust him. He is one of the most outstanding biblical scholars in Catholic history.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

(I have been avoiding mentioning that I have a Dominican of my own. I’m afraid that now everybody will want one. )

 

[TrueLight]

Because you believe men are the natural heads, leaders, etc.?

That’s not what I believe, but its an easy train of thought to follow.

No, because I believe in a marriage, there is going to be a head. Nothing is ever 50/50.

I think it’s a beautiful thing for the husband to be that head. . A man is the king of his castle. The king may not be the smartest, or most efficient, and that is why he relies on his advisors. But in the end, he makes the final decision. I am okay with that.

Unless we are going to discard St Paul’s teaching completely……

 

[TrueLight]

That’s what Dominicans, Benedictines, Carmelites and Franciscans discourage, focussing in on Paul and ignoring everything else that refers to marriage though the entire OT and NT.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Okay. Which parts of the OT and NT are contrary to Paul’s teaching?