women's authority in the church

[nickybr38]

To be honest, all this talk of how women are supposed to be submissive reminds me of the Domestic Discipline Christians and the Goreans.

If all (or at least most) women are naturally submissive (a premise I personally don’t agree with) then our ancestors were right and only men should have the right to vote, own property in their own name, control where they live, etc.

How does having a submissive nature lead to ’ you shouldn’t be able to vote or think or live for yourself '? I believe you are seeing things only in extremes and this is coloring how you’re viewing this.

Being able to step back and let someone else take control of a situation (or because I LIKE it when someone else takes control) does not mean I am incapable of having an opinion, nor does it mean I shouldn’t be allowed to tell the one in control what I think (through a vote or otherwise).

At this time in my life I am fully independent. There is no man in my life to ‘submit’ to. I am perfectly capable of taking care of my business and working and all that other good stuff. If I were in a relationship I would allow my husband to be the ‘head’ of the household whenever difficult decisions were to be made. That doesn’t mean I would expect him to be the only one working, or anything of that nature. Nor does it mean I would remain silent in some corner just doing whatever he says.

Honestly I think you’re just not understanding what I’m saying and whether that’s my fault for not writing clearly or yours for looking at my words with your preconceptions is unclear.

 

[TrueLight]

To be honest, all this talk of how women are supposed to be submissive reminds me of the Domestic Discipline Christians and the Goreans.

D/S?

Which one do you think came first?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**How does having a submissive nature lead to ’ you shouldn’t be able to vote or think or live for yourself '? **I believe you are seeing things only in extremes and this is coloring how you’re viewing this.

Being able to step back and let someone else take control of a situation (or because I LIKE it when someone else takes control) does not mean I am incapable of having an opinion, nor does it mean I shouldn’t be allowed to tell the one in control what I think (through a vote or otherwise).

At this time in my life I am fully independent. There is no man in my life to ‘submit’ to. I am perfectly capable of taking care of my business and working and all that other good stuff. If I were in a relationship I would allow my husband to be the ‘head’ of the household whenever difficult decisions were to be made. That doesn’t mean I would expect him to be the only one working, or anything of that nature. Nor does it mean I would remain silent in some corner just doing whatever he says.

Honestly I think you’re just not understanding what I’m saying and whether that’s my fault for not writing clearly or yours for looking at my words with your preconceptions is unclear.

Because, if a whole group of people are naturally submissive, they will not get (or be able to retain if they somehow acquire) authority. And it would be futile to try to change.

 

[TrueLight]

Because, if a whole group of people are naturally submissive, they will not get (or be able to retain if they somehow acquire) authority. And it would be futile to try to change.

Well, I don’t have a submissive nature.

 

[Baelor]

Nope. I don’t do strawmen (another CAF favorite term).

My question was specifically to catholicmamajoy 's comments comparing Paul’s writings on submission to slavery.

Read your question and my response.

There is a need to have ONE as the ultimate leader when very difficult decisions that neither can agree on arise.

I question the premise of this statement, but let us assume that it is true. I see no reason to have a divinely mandated person who acts as ultimate leader perennially.

And if a situation arose where you possessed equal knowledge and there was no clear ‘better’ person to make the choice? How would you resolve then? Especially if the situation at hand was an extremely heated one?

Synthesis. Or waiting until both find a mutually agreeable solution.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

D/S?

Which one do you think came first?

What is D/S?

 

[TrueLight]

Read your question and my response.

You might want to do the same. If someone compares the Bible’s teaching on women’s submission to the Bible’s teaching on slavery and I ask how does loving submission compare to an injustice like slavery, where is the strawman?

If I was in the habit of using words like “strawman”, I would point to your comment below.

I do not think anyone was claiming that it is immoral for a wife to submit to her husband, but rather that it would be morally unacceptable to compel a wife to submit to her husband in the modern sense of the word.

No one is saying it is moral to “compel” anyone to be submissive. That is a strawman.

 

[Baelor]

You might want to do the same. If someone compares the Bible’s teaching on women’s submission to the Bible’s teaching on slavery and I ask how does loving submission compare to an injustice like slavery, where is the strawman?

Because “loving submission” is not the issue in question. The issue is whether wives are fundamentally compelled by moral law to submit to their husbands (in the modern conception of the term) and not the reverse.

No one is saying it is moral to “compel” anyone to be submissive. That is a strawman.

Then the issue because a non-issue, unless someone would like to argue that it is immoral to defer to others voluntarily, which no one in his right mind would.

 

[JReducation]

Let me ask this question. Why is it that on TC Forum one cannot bring anything up without it being compared to what Paul said or what Aquinas said?

Paul is part of the Canon of Scripture. He does not stand alone. None of the books in the bible stand along. To use any of them without cross referencing misses a great deal.

Aquinas, while he was a genius, was not the only Doctor of the Church and the Church does not subscribe to everything that he wrote. Much of what he wrote is referenced for the sake of academic discussion, not as dogma. He discusses dogma, but he also discusses many things that are not dogma and that other Doctors presented differently, Augustine being one of them.

I pose the question, because it feels that everything has to stand up to the scrutiny of Paul and Aquinas, which is not the way that we do theology in academic circles. We do theology in the context of an ongoing tradition. What Paul says is part of a tradition. What Aquinas says is part of a tradition.

For example, Paul says that women should shut up. That’s a command to a very specific group of people for a very specific reason, not part of on-going Revelation.

Aquinas says that Mary cannot be redeemed of Original Sin until after she has been conceived. That’s a theological hypothesis, for which he offers a very logical argument. Yet, the Church goes with Duns Scotus and the Fanciscan school on this one. Duns Scotus is not as well known as Aquionas, but he got this one right.

We’re trying to do Catholic theology, but narrowing ourselves down to one or two sources. You can’t do any science that way. Catholic theology is definitely a science with definite rules, just as the empirical sciences have rules. The basic rules of theology are to contextualize, classify, qualify, and juxtapose. You always need more than one source on any given subject. Otherwise, you can’t comply with the rules.

A great example of this, if you have not read them, are Pope Benedict’s two books on Jesus Christ. You can see him go through the method. He doesn’t quote one source without one or more other sources in order to contextualize, classify, qualify and juxtapose. When he has done this, then he makes his concluding statements on the subject at hand. From there he moves on to the next question and goes through it all over again. He does this page after page. Bl. John Newman used this method. Aquinas used it. De Sales and Alphonse Ligouri and almost every contemporary theologian who is worth being called a theologian.

We can’t just whip out Paul and say, “Here’s the definitive answer.” The entire Catholic Magisterium would shout a resounding, “NO”. The Church reads that statement as part of a long tradition that preceded it and that proceeded it. Tradition gave birth to scripture, not the other way around. We have to look at these statements in their context.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Br JR, we do need context, but we need context and other sources that help us explain something that is consistent with dogma, including what Scripture tells us.

Aquinas obviously can be wrong, but any explanation that has anything to do with marriage must be least be consistent with St. Paul, if not firmly based in his words.

Aquinas can be briefly referenced, or not, or even dismissed, depending upon the topic and the other sources.

But St. Paul wrote infallibly under the authority of the Holy Ghost. If something contradicts him, it’s wrong.

There’s more to dogma than St. Paul, and we can’t contradict any of it.

 

[TrueLight]

Let me ask this question. Why is it that on TC Forum one cannot bring anything up without it being compared to what Paul said or what Aquinas said?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

In this case it makes sense, because it is basically in Paul’s writings that women are told to submit to their husbands.

 

[nickybr38]

Let me ask this question. Why is it that on TC Forum one cannot bring anything up without it being compared to what Paul said or what Aquinas said?

Paul is part of the Canon of Scripture. He does not stand alone. None of the books in the bible stand along. To use any of them without cross referencing misses a great deal.

Aquinas, while he was a genius, was not the only Doctor of the Church and the Church does not subscribe to everything that he wrote. Much of what he wrote is referenced for the sake of academic discussion, not as dogma. He discusses dogma, but he also discusses many things that are not dogma and that other Doctors presented differently, Augustine being one of them.

I pose the question, because it feels that everything has to stand up to the scrutiny of Paul and Aquinas, which is not the way that we do theology in academic circles. We do theology in the context of an ongoing tradition. What Paul says is part of a tradition. What Aquinas says is part of a tradition.

For example, Paul says that women should shut up. That’s a command to a very specific group of people for a very specific reason, not part of on-going Revelation.

Aquinas says that Mary cannot be redeemed of Original Sin until after she has been conceived. That’s a theological hypothesis, for which he offers a very logical argument. Yet, the Church goes with Duns Scotus and the Fanciscan school on this one. Duns Scotus is not as well known as Aquionas, but he got this one right.

We’re trying to do Catholic theology, but narrowing ourselves down to one or two sources. You can’t do any science that way. Catholic theology is definitely a science with definite rules, just as the empirical sciences have rules. The basic rules of theology are to contextualize, classify, qualify, and juxtapose. You always need more than one source on any given subject. Otherwise, you can’t comply with the rules.

A great example of this, if you have not read them, are Pope Benedict’s two books on Jesus Christ. You can see him go through the method. He doesn’t quote one source without one or more other sources in order to contextualize, classify, qualify and juxtapose. When he has done this, then he makes his concluding statements on the subject at hand. From there he moves on to the next question and goes through it all over again. He does this page after page. Bl. John Newman used this method. Aquinas used it. De Sales and Alphonse Ligouri and almost every contemporary theologian who is worth being called a theologian.

We can’t just whip out Paul and say, “Here’s the definitive answer.” The entire Catholic Magisterium would shout a resounding, “NO”. The Church reads that statement as part of a long tradition that preceded it and that proceeded it. Tradition gave birth to scripture, not the other way around. We have to look at these statements in their context.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

Amen brother. As with any book or writer in the Bible we must weigh their teachings beside the teachings of the entirety of Scripture before we can come to any kind of proper understanding.

We must keep in mind that Paul was writing with all of the Old Testament in mind. He knew it well and didn’t think he needed to remind those he was teaching what the Old Testament taught.

The problem is, these days, many Christians don’t know the Old Testament and so they read Paul without coming from the angle he was coming from. It’s like they are viewing his painting from behind and thus not seeing what he intended them to see and instead seeing a distortion.

 

[LucyLight]

There is a need to have ONE as the ultimate leader when very difficult decisions that neither can agree on arise.

The two can work in harmony much of the time but even though your vows make you ‘one’ there will be times when very big life issues cause very big disagreements and unless one partner is willing to step back and let the other partner make the final decision (despite their misgivings) these big life decisions will only lead to strife.

I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. How often do big decisions really come up that cause a disagreement? Its a pretty unhealthy relationship if you cant work through stuff together. There are other ways to work things out like compromising. It might not happen right away but you work through it. Or one partner might in the end realize the other was right this would be called coming to an agreement. Or sometimes your partner just cares more about something and you let them have their way. No need to elect a leader it just takes a little maturity.

 

[nickybr38]

I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. How often do big decisions really come up that cause a disagreement? Its a pretty unhealthy relationship if you cant work through stuff together. There are other ways to work things out like compromising. It might not happen right away but you work through it. Or one partner might in the end realize the other was right this would be called coming to an agreement. Or sometimes your partner just cares more about something and you let them have their way. No need to elect a leader it just takes a little maturity.

Heh. I suppose because I’ve only ever seen immature relationships my view is a bit jaded.

 

[LucyLight]

In this case it makes sense, because it is basically in Paul’s writings that women are told to submit to their husbands.

I think that what JReducation is saying is that you** can** look to Paul but you should also look to other sources as well to fully understand Paul and to gain the perspective of others.

I’m glad I’m Catholic and have more than St. Paul to go on.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, we do need context, but we need context and other sources that help us explain something that is consistent with dogma, including what Scripture tells us.

Aquinas obviously can be wrong, but any explanation that has anything to do with marriage must be least be consistent with St. Paul, if not firmly based in his words.

Aquinas can be briefly referenced, or not, or even dismissed, depending upon the topic and the other sources.

But St. Paul wrote infallibly under the authority of the Holy Ghost. If something contradicts him, it’s wrong.

There’s more to dogma than St. Paul, and we can’t contradict any of it.

In this case it makes sense, because it is basically in Paul’s writings that women are told to submit to their husbands.

The Church has never said that everything that Paul wrote is infallible dogma. We separate dogma from discipline from commentary.

The case about women being submissive to spouses is not dogma. It is an attempt to explain a dogma. He would have used other words. Jesus did. Peter does too.

If we were to take that everything that Paul wrote is infallible dogma, we would still be telling women to sit down and shut up and we would still be condoning slavery.

The answer is that no everything does not have to be exactly as Paul says it, but as the Church understands it. The Church is the final authority in interpreting scripture and it is the Church that picks and chooses what is dogma and what is support material.

Every biblical writer wrote infallibly, not just Paul. For that reason, we have to look at everyone of those who writes on marriage to understand the tradition. That’s what the Church does. If you read the CCC’s explanation of marriage, it does not contain this expression; yet, it is very consistent with what has been revealed about marriage and covenant.

We can’t just pull out Paul and ignore the other writers in the Bible and ignore how the Church extrapolates from the scripture to formulate its doctrine on marriage. Ultimately, it is the Church’s formulation to which we are bound. Only the Church can infallibly interpret scripture.

Does this make it clearer, I hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[nickybr38]

Does this make it clearer, I hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think so! Thank you for this timely reminder. It occurs to me that I don’t actually know what other Biblical writers say about marriage. I was raised Protestant and so Paul was the sole authority…

It’s definitely something I will research more.

 

[TrueLight]

Every biblical writer wrote infallibly, not just Paul. For that reason, we have to look at everyone of those who writes on marriage to understand the tradition. That’s what the Church does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

True.

 

[adrift]

But St. Paul wrote infallibly under the authority of the Holy Ghost. If something contradicts him, it’s wrong.

There’s more to dogma than St. Paul, and we can’t contradict any of it.

Understanding what Paul meant is left to the infallible Church. Contrdictions are in the eye of the beholder. We are told to go to the Church for a final decision. What is authority? Authority in the Churck belongs to the priesthood. As others have pointed out, lectors, servers, and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are positions of service. They do not have nor do they exhibit any authority.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Let me ask this question. Why is it that on TC Forum one cannot bring anything up without it being compared to what Paul said or what Aquinas said?

Paul is part of the Canon of Scripture. He does not stand alone. None of the books in the bible stand along. To use any of them without cross referencing misses a great deal.

Aquinas, while he was a genius, was not the only Doctor of the Church and the Church does not subscribe to everything that he wrote. Much of what he wrote is referenced for the sake of academic discussion, not as dogma. He discusses dogma, but he also discusses many things that are not dogma and that other Doctors presented differently, Augustine being one of them.

I pose the question, because it feels that everything has to stand up to the scrutiny of Paul and Aquinas, which is not the way that we do theology in academic circles. We do theology in the context of an ongoing tradition. What Paul says is part of a tradition. What Aquinas says is part of a tradition.

For example, Paul says that women should shut up. That’s a command to a very specific group of people for a very specific reason, not part of on-going Revelation.

Aquinas says that Mary cannot be redeemed of Original Sin until after she has been conceived. That’s a theological hypothesis, for which he offers a very logical argument. Yet, the Church goes with Duns Scotus and the Fanciscan school on this one. Duns Scotus is not as well known as Aquionas, but he got this one right.

We’re trying to do Catholic theology, but narrowing ourselves down to one or two sources. You can’t do any science that way. Catholic theology is definitely a science with definite rules, just as the empirical sciences have rules. The basic rules of theology are to contextualize, classify, qualify, and juxtapose. You always need more than one source on any given subject. Otherwise, you can’t comply with the rules.

A great example of this, if you have not read them, are Pope Benedict’s two books on Jesus Christ. You can see him go through the method. He doesn’t quote one source without one or more other sources in order to contextualize, classify, qualify and juxtapose. When he has done this, then he makes his concluding statements on the subject at hand. From there he moves on to the next question and goes through it all over again. He does this page after page. Bl. John Newman used this method. Aquinas used it. De Sales and Alphonse Ligouri and almost every contemporary theologian who is worth being called a theologian.

We can’t just whip out Paul and say, “Here’s the definitive answer.” The entire Catholic Magisterium would shout a resounding, “NO”. The Church reads that statement as part of a long tradition that preceded it and that proceeded it. Tradition gave birth to scripture, not the other way around. We have to look at these statements in their context.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

I wonder how much weight Saint Paul’s words would have if the Protestant Reformation never took place.
Justified or not, one of the most common accusations Protestants leveled against Catholicism was that if was feminine and womanly (a deadly insult in pre-modern times).
And even at its worst, Catholicism has never achieved the level of misogyny that a lot of Protestant sects have.

One of the best examples of this is the Protestant reformer John Knox’s famous treatise The First Blast of the Trumphet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, which is essentially a long rant against Catholic queens and the idea of women having power of any kind (link to source: swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm).