The ancient world was very far from being politically correct, and as a result, the Bible contains passages that seem politically incorrect today.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, St. Paul seems to suggest that women should be totally silent in church.
Is this true?
If so, how do we square it with the practice of the Church today?
This is an interesting question.
Recently, a priest who is a member of the Secret Information Club wrote and said:
I would appreciate your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is difficult to address in front of a group of women.
I understand the difficulty.
Reading the Passage Itself
Let's begin by looking at what the passage says, with a bit of the immediate context:
1 Corinthians 14
[33b] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
[37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
[38] If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
The immediate context does not, in this case, make things easier. It actually seems to make them harder.
St. Paul appears to "up the ante" by saying that this is a commandment from the Lord, and that anyone who rejects this view should have his view rejected.
But perhaps the broader context of St. Paul's thought may put things in a different light.
And, in fact, it does. Even just a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul indicates that women do not have to remain literally silent in church . . .
What St. Paul Also Says About Women Speaking in Church
When he deals with the issue of head coverings in church, St. Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 11
[4] Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
[5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
The head covering requirement was a culture-specific way of expressing a particular truth, and because our culture is different, the Church does not see the head covering requirement as binding (see below).
The important part for our purposes, however, is St. Paul talking about a woman praying or prophesying, and the context is liturgical. St. Paul is dealing with what people do in church.
Otherwise he would be saying women should always wear head coverings and men should never wear head coverings, which has never been understood to be the case. Head coverings were used by both sexes on a regular basis in the ancient world, when people did not spend most of their time in climate-controlled environments and sun glasses had not been invented.
This means that St. Paul recognizes that women can publicly pray and prophesy in church--both activities involving speaking. Thus his later remarks about women remaining silent don't mean total silence.
Women can speak in church.
St. Paul must mean something else in the later passage.
Before we get to what he means, it's important to recognize something else about his thought . . .
Fundamental Equality
St. Paul believes that men and women are fundamental equal before God. Indeed, it is to him that we owe the following passionate statement about human equality:
Galatians 3
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
St. Paul did acknowledge differences between the sexes, but those differences are understood within the framework of fundamental equality before God in Christ.
Women Speaking in Church Today
Of course, like men, women speak in church in all kinds of ways today. But even today there is one form of speaking in church that women do not do, and the vast majority of men don't do it, either. It is giving the homily.
According to the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
The Church has seen fit that certain official teaching functions, such as the homily, should be reserved to those who have received the sacrament of holy orders. In the liturgy, the homily counts as one of these. Outside the liturgy, the acts of the Magisterium are also in this category, for only bishops can exercise the Church's Magisterium.
Women can today teach in other capacities in the Church. They can be anything from CCD teachers to theology professors.
And even in the first century women--including women Paul knew--could teach in non-liturgical, non-magisterial capacities. For example, Priscilla helped give the evangelist Apollos private instruction on the true role of Jesus (Acts 18:26). In fact, Priscilla seems to have taken the lead role, since she is mentioned before her husband, Aquilla, in the passage.
Might St. Paul's remarks about women not speaking in church have to do with this issue--not adopting teaching functions proper to the ordained?
That is, actually, how the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has understood the matter . . .
Inter Insigniores
In 1976 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction called Inter Insigniores on the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. In setting this issue in a larger context, the Congregation touched on some of the passages in which St. Paul discusses women. In particular, the Congregation wrote:
Another objection [to the Church's practice of not ordaining women] is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard.
But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly.
For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact.
Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28).
Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.
Pope Benedict on the Passage
The most recent magisterial statement on the passage that I am aware of is from one of Pope Benedict's general audiences in 2007.
He only dealt with the passage briefly, and he referred the matter to exegetes (Bible scholars) to articulate more fully, but he also understood the apparent prohibition in a conditioned way that does not require literal silence:
The Apostle accepts as normal the fact that a woman can "prophesy" in the Christian community (I Cor 11: 5), that is, speak openly under the influence of the Spirit, as long as it is for the edification of the community and done in a dignified manner.
Thus, the following well-known exhortation: "Women should keep silence in the Churches" (I Cor 14: 34) is instead to be considered relative.
Let us leave to the exegetes the consequent, much discussed problem of the relationship between the first phrase - women can prophesy in Churches - and the other - they are not permitted to speak; that is, the relationship between these two apparently contradictory instructions. This is not for discussion here [General Audience, Feb. 14, 2007].
St. Paul Can Be Hard to Understand
St. Paul's writings can be difficult to understand at times. This was noted by St. Peter himself, when he wrote:
2 Peter 3
[15b] So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
The precise way to square everything St. Paul says regarding the role of women in the Church may fall into the "hard to understand" category, but we can approach the text recognizing the fundamental equality of the sexes that St. Paul emphasizes and that the statement he makes regarding women being silent in church does not require what you might think if the passage were taken in isolation.
By the Way . . .
I mentioned that the priest who wrote in is a member of the Secret Information Club. That's a free service I offer by email in which I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Are Catholic women supposed to accept these “explanations” as to Pope Benedict’s interpretation of St. Paul’s doctrine of being silent in the church? It’s a wonder they still allow women to vote.
Christina -did you even read the article? Thank God for the Church - I’ve known many a fundamentalist who twists Paul’s words to deny the equal dignity of women.
Another great article, Jimmy! It’s good to remember that the Bible isn’t contradictory, but often needs to be explored more deeply and in its proper historical context when it seems like it might be.
Thanks for posting this!
Why would anyone need to twist Saul’s words when they are fairly self-explanatory? Do we not understand the individual words meaning or the subsequent combinations of said words? “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!”
Another excellent explanation. Thank you. I guess there will always be questions about these two subjects—but now I have something to back up a discussion.
I don’t know, there definitely seems to be some indirect context to take into account. The way the rule is followed by this - “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home” - seems to refer to a very specific problem the community was having. It sounds to me like there was a group of women who were interrupting the liturgy with their questions. It does not say that they should wait to pray until they are home with their husbands, or to wait to sing until they are home with their husbands. How often do Catholics today complain about people chattering through the liturgy, or making a rucus after mass when people would like to pray quietly? What is it that they are asking for? For silence! Not in the manner of “you are not worthy to speak”, but asking for reverence and respect within the church.
Maybe I’m way off the reservation - Jimmy, please correct me if this is so. But it seems like there’s a lot of cartwheeling over this passage, when it doesn’t look all that complicated to me.
Jimmy,
Paul says the same thing in I Timothy 2:11,12. It’s not a suggestion; it’s a command; it’s the word of God. It has nothing to do with culture. If you believe all scripture is inspired by God, as this same apostle tells us, then your only responsibility is obedience. Conforming the word of God to modern mores may win the approval of some, but why call Him Lord if you’re not going to obey Him?
The passage in I Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with public assemblies. Even in private, when a woman prays or prophesies (That’s not the same thing as preaching.), she is to remain covered.
I fear this explanation really ignores the spirit of the passage and good of it, in an attempt to make it more palatable for modern readers. It is in fact minimizing and setting aside rather than supportive and embracing of the passage.
And so too the off perspective statement on head coverings.
This is one of the dangers of approaching things from an apologetic point of view. A cultural blindness can result, and this is very sad as in fact these passages are part of the answers to the corruptions of male and female duties and responsibilities today.
Some things -aren’t- going to be acceptable from the default secular point of view, and require explaining from the ground up instead, so the good of a different way of life is seen.
Both head coverings and silence and submission -are- more than mere matters of discipline. And any statements implying they are merely this are misunderstood or not treating the whole at best.
Everett, but by that accord then a man should remain uncovered even when praying and prophesying in private. Of course, we are extolled to “pray unceasingly” which would thereby have women covering their heads at all times and men needing to be uncovered at all times. As Jimmy has pointed out this wasn’t the case then nor was it what St. Paul was advocating for.
As a woman who does cover at Mass, and who often wears scarves and other coverings even outside of Mass and who is not a lector (though I used to sing in our parish choir) I have to agree with Jimmy. Of course I tend to naturally take most of my instruction from husband in such matters. He’s a theologian as well.
I do not think women are in danger of Hell should they not cover their heads etc. But the Nuns on the bus—may be another story… (said in jest).
Another case of using nuance to obfuscate something into total ambiguity. The post-Conciliar church just loves all these ridiculous innovations like having women lectors and girl altar servers - all in the name of “equality” and “fairness”. Cry me a river. I’ll never be able to bear a child but you don’t see me protesting the fact. Get over yourselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with what set of genitals you happened to be born with but there are certain things each sex is called to do. I can’t stomach the “inclusiveness” BS at most Novus Order Masses these days. You suckers can have it. You’re nothing but frosting on a turd: once you get past the sugar-coated, saccharine-sweetness you find nothing but crap.
I have never been troubled by this passage. I have never taken it literally either and I guess that comes from being a life long Catholic. I have always understood that the passage was about behaving according to the cultural norms of the times. I think it will be interesting to see what The Church decides on the subject of women in the Deaconate. I am a Catechist AND a Dominican….I teach, as part of my ‘preaching charism’.
In Bible study I was told that this passage of St. Paul is to be understood in the context of the pagan idol worship at the temples in Corinth. It is my understanding that there were women pagan temple pro-stitut-es who wore their hair down, letting it be known that they were sexually available, and that bound hair was a sign of modesty and respectability. The pagan temples at Corinth were places of drunken orgies. I was also told that the wearing of hoods was associated with men engaging in pagan idol worship.
Leslie, women in the Deaconate? Really? How about woman priests? Why not, right? It’s just a social club anyway, right? We can make the rules up as we go along. Sure, why not?
Do yourself and the rest of us trying to maintain a semblance of Catholicity in the post-V2 ruins of the RCC and become an Episcopalian.
If what you’re suggesting ever comes to fruition then I’ll know the RCC is nothing but a man-made institution and that its entire raison d’etre is built on nothing but a big fat lie.
I’m a convert, and a female, and my lament is the same: why is obedience so hard? Why is complaining about unfairness to women so common? Has no one read the last couple chapters of Job? And in the hmmm department,why is it that men never lament not being able to become nuns? @Ugh took the user name I would have, should it have been available.
I should clarify: *it seems ‘obedience is so hard’ for some of y’all. Because We’re Catholic, That’s Why is an answer I like.
And finally: @ugh, don’t be too frustrated :) Of course the Church isn’t man made, nor is it a big fat lie. I’m sure you are just irritated, as am I frequently!!! Satan, in his arrogance, thinks he has a chance at victory and so works every angle he can. Don’t let him get to you… He loses in the end. In Christ, C.
I actually had the same initial impression as Colleen.
Women should never enter the sanctuary. No more women lectors. No altar girls. Head covering for women should be mandatory. Jimmy’s serving soft soap an I ain’t buying!
Colleen and Cherie, agree with your comments. I get so distracted at both men and women for talking in church before Mass and after Mass. I barely can pray other than Lord make them shut up and then apologizing to him.
I struggled more with Mt 15:22-28 than anything regarding the role of women: thinking that Jesus loves the Gentile me less than He does my Jewish brothers and sisters in Him upset me, and I didn’t care what Paul said about it later on! I wasn’t having it and pouted for some time over it, in fact.
Ultimately, I think it’s the humility that’s the toughest cross to bear. To not know or understand but love and obey regardless. Or to not pout, in my case. Chesterton said that ‘it is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride’, which makes me laugh. And besides pouting, that’s something else I like to do. ;) Should I make it to heaven when I die, Christ have Mercy, I like to think the argu-posts over exegesis and so forth will make us all titter, in our out-of-time hindsight.
Do we forget the goal, the ‘endgame’: we were created for God, to be with Him in heaven? In light of that, the 80 or so years we’re here on earth -quiet or not in church- seems, well. Hm. Not worth being overly opinionated about. But we are called to be obedient. So, while I personally don’t love the Novus Ordo, there it is, and there I am. (We have no other options at my parish) I don’t love female ‘Eucharistic ministers’ but there they are, and there I’m not. (I don’t act as an EM, not that I don’t take Communion. Though I confess I line hop if needed)
Anyway,the whole Jimmy’s point isn’t soft soap, but rather
‘speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.’ (2 Peter 3[16])
To that may we all respond in humility and joy-(laughter! the height of joy) that we have the Magesterium for that which is hard to understand, indeed.
I am so distressed at what’s happening in the church and lack of respect for the sanctuary. I’ve decided I will start wearing a veil and maybe it can be a sign that this is a place that should be respected. People yelling Woo Hoo in church, clapping every Sunday for everything, joke telling, makes this religious entertainment. Women let’s lead and start covering our heads as examples to everyone that we respect our holy place.
@Ugh…I think you caught on to the big conspiracy - the RCC is “MAN-made”...maybe the MEN should step back.
“The post-Conciliar church just loves all these ridiculous innovations like having women lectors and girl altar servers - all in the name of “equality” and “fairness”. Cry me a river. I’ll never be able to bear a child but you don’t see me protesting the fact. Get over yourselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with what set of genitals you happened to be born with but there are certain things each sex is called to do.” I agree with you completely, Ugh, - I am in fact relieved that you were born with male reproductive organs. Now quick, take out the trash while I do the dishes…..we must keep to our appointed “sex roles”.
*the whole OF Jimmy’s point isn’t soft soap but rather that it is “hard”:
haste makes waste, sorry.
Don’t mean to give in to levity but men have no problem taking their hats off in a church. There are Marian and theologically symbolic reason for women to wear a veil in church—not a hat, but a veil. The veil around the tabernacle symbolizes Our Lady and only women can unite with Mary in this “compassing” of the Eucharistic Lord.
@kelso, how are you giving into levity by talking about hats? Also, how do you know that “men” (encompassing many people you don’t know) have no problem taking their hats off in church? I’ve attended many Masses when the priest had to “remind” those of the male gender to remove their hat.
Jimmy dude you are brave to keep posting on the topic of understanding the role of women in the Church according to the Bible.
I wish you would ask and get an answer from your obviously voluminous knowledge of the Holy Father’s responses on this topic to the question of how certain of these biblical statements, in the words of Inter Insignores, ‘no longer have normative value’, when St Paul says, ‘for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS.’
I’m sorry but no matter how I twist and turn, I cannot understand how this reason [BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS] can fail to continue to imbue these politically incorrect teachings of St. Paul with normative value for the Church today. The angels simply do not change; therefore any doctrine of the Faith based on a disposition of the angels as revealed by God through Scripture must continue to be normative for the Church for all time [though not for eternity.] I would greatly appreciate your response to that thought.
Granted that we are not given to know what it is about the angels that makes these teachings necessary. Since St. Paul doesn’t say, it would seem that understanding the particular angelic disposition in this regard is not important for us to know about. In telling us BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS, St Paul seems to be saying, ‘and that’s all you need to know about it. And besides, if it were not beyond my power to explain it to you, it surely would be beyond your power to understand it even if I were to explain it.’ I.e., when you get to Heaven, the reasons for why women [on earth] need to keep their heads covered in relation to the existence of holy angels will become clear.
As if to put an end to all discussion on the matter, St. Paul concludes his argument with the words: ‘But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.’ Or in other words: ‘if you don’t like my arguments from angelology or anthropology, here is my argument from holy tradition, which I myself, an apostle of Jesus Christ appointed to reveal to you the Catholic faith, practice.’
I should like to point out that if St. Paul’s teachings on this matter were a product of the culture of his day, then why aren’t the Christians already going along with their culture? Is there something inherent in Christianity that makes women take off their head coverings so that St. Paul should have to correct Christians by telling them to defer to their cultural norms? I would aver not. Rather, the more rational explanation is that women of that time did whatever they wanted in this regard, and St Paul is telling them that, contrary to their lax cultural practice, women should cover their heads at worship. That is, St Paul was not culture-bound, but rather counter-cultural, in laying down these norms.
Full disclosure: I choose to attend, and prefer, the new mass to the ‘extraordinary form’. But my argument with this statement from Inter Insignores remains. Peace.
“Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Believest thou this?
@ Everett: yes I do believe that!
Do you believe that the Church’s magesterium authoritatively interprets and explains the meaning of the Word of God, so that we might live by it according to its true meaning?
Everett, yes, but unlike our Islamic cousins, we do not believe the scriptures are God’s words transcribed exactly. We believe there is divine INSPIRATION, which is why we tangle ourselves up in these questions of “but what does it really mean? Is it face value? Or is there more to it?”
As far as “are Americans breaking the normal tradition of women wearing veils,” I’ve visited some EXTREMELY orthodox Christian communities in the world where the head covering is optional. (I’m talking about women can’t enter a church during a certain week of the month when they are “unclean” conservative!) So between that, and the teaching of the Congregation, I’m comfortable believing it’s a normative command and is not a firm requirement.
To be honest, sometimes I would really LIKE to wear a veil, but in the context of my Northern Virginia parish, it would be much more an act of vanity than piety. (Lookatme! See how holy I am! See how feminine I am! See, see, see…) So I refrain, and my pretty middle-eastern scarves spend most of their time in the closet.
As for the original question about SPEAKING in church, I do see it being a stronger rule (“what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord”). But I just don’t think it’s as broad as some are asserting, looking at the context as I explained in my earlier comment.
yan and Collen,
There were errors in Church teaching even while the apostles were with us; almost every epistle addresses them. God does give us teachers; He has from the beginning. He did not give us a “magisterium.” That’s man’s invention. He never gave us an infallible anything, except Scripture.
Collen, you can explain it away or you can obey>
I’m not trying to “explain it away,” I’m trying to understand it. I have learned more about the faith and about Jesus by questioning things, looking for context and connections. I see things as a puzzle - one piece, one line, doesn’t make sense without the other pieces. Sometimes the other pieces are scripture, sometimes they are research into the history and traditions of the Chuch and her community. The epistles in PARTICULAR I look for a lot of context clues, because they were writing to a group of people who already KNEW the context, be it cultural or just what was going on amongst them. So the writers didn’t feel the need to explain it.
.
It would be like me writing to a friend about an issue to do with the upcoming election - I don’t feel the need to first explain that an election is a process of collecting votes from the people to select a person in a representative position, or that the presidential election is held every four years and candidates are limited in how many terms they can be elected, or that the election will be held in November, or who the Republicans and Democrats are. I know my friend already knows about those, so I’ll go straight to the issue I want to talk to her about. Now, if someone 2000 years from now reads my letter, and they are from another part of the world and don’t have any knowledge of the culture I’m living in, the odds are very low that they’re going to understand fully what I’ve written. They would need to do a little hunting - maybe read some other letters I’d written, or do some research into 21st century American election rituals.
.
I’m not saying that I don’t trust the scripture or don’t want to obey the commands laid down by the Lord. But I’m not going to jump into something without a somewhat formed understanding of it. First of all, I don’t want to end up doing something WRONG because I misunderstood something. Second, following the command will mean so much more to me if I understand it, instead of empty obedience due to fear. I look to the Holy Church to advise me on things that I don’t understand very well, and continue to seek more information as I can - frequently, due to prompting from the Holy Spirit - in hopes that it will reinforce what the Church has taught me. I have to say, most of the time it does, but sometimes it doesn’t match up entirely. But usually only on the window dressing. :~)
@Everett,
There were errors at the time of the apostles. The apostles taught the truth in order to counteract those errors. They had this power by virtue of the Holy Spirit which Christ gave them. This power is still with the Church today. If it is not, then after God gave us the apostles, He left us alone to fight out the meaning of the Scriptures until Christ comes again. If your belief is true then I want to ask, why did God show such favoritism towards the people that heard the apostles but abandon the Church and the world to have no authoritative response to the error that He knew would manifest itself again and again down through the ages?
You say that God gives us teachers but how do we know which teacher is approved by God? It seems to me that the magesterium is as much a moral necessity as revelation itself.
‘For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.’
If you want to understand why St. Paul instructed women to remain silent in church, take a look at the world around you today.
Colleen you are right on!!! and regarding veils….just like the church NEVER said we could take away the Altar Rails, (Cardinal Arinze makes it clear the church has no church documents to remove the Altar Rails.) and the church never changed Canon Law and went and said a woman should not cover her head. This site will explain the lies assuming the law had changed….so please SHOW US ONE DOCUMENT THAT Canon law said we do not need to wear a veil. Just like the Church never said that we couldn’t kneel (the traditional and preferred form) for Holy Communion. Here is a quote from a bishop that most everyone will surely know, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. From his book “Three to get married”
we read: St. Paul speaks of Christ as the invincible Head of the body, and this is because: “The head to which a
wife is united is her husband” (I Cor. II: 3). It is very likely that the Divine Prohibition against women appearing in church with
their heads uncovered is related to this idea.” http://www.christianfamilyoutreach.com/pamphlets/theveil.pdf
Why are these woman all veiled when the see the Pope???? Probably cuz the canon law was never changed…therefore woman are to wear veils still. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/07/of_women_the_po.html
“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
Said in 1976. Sounds like they had given up on the veil after the sexual revolution. Quite an understatement to say it was not the cultural norm anymore after all the second wave-feminists started going to church in miniskirts! (The first wawe was the ones that fought for womens right to vote you know.)My mum told me that at her confirmation the girls competed in who would dare having the shortest skirt. (Like they had seen the older teengirls/their rolemodels wearing.) Compared to all the uprising sexual sin the dissaparance of the veil in the churches was obviously seen as a minor importance.
The ironic thing is that the society in Corinth was very similar to todays western society. Few people knew that at the time Paul wrote to the corinthians their society was the one most known for sexual promiscuity in the world of that time. When people say the veil was a cultural thing in Corinth they are right. but that was not at Pauls time! At his time it was known for women walking the streets with glamorous clothes and hairdoes to get attention from men, sexual relationships outside of marriage and even contraceptions commonly used. It´s like talking about the west before the sexual revolution as the west of today.
I’ll have to agree with Colleen. It’s pretty clear from “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home” and the repeated comments about doing things in order that there was a set of women in that assembly that likely repeatedly interrupted the liturgy or homily with questions or comments. The women alone weren’t singled out, he also went after the prophets and people who spoke in tongues with a much harsher condemnation 1 Cor 14:36-38
It must have been interpreted as an isolated situation since I don’t remember reading a single Church Father that assumed that women are second class citizens in Church. Since Catholics do not just follow Sola-Scriptura, its reasonable to assume that if this was a universal rule that at least one Church Father or some canon law would have captured it.
BTW, it’s not just old problem. In some churches, people treat the liturgy as an excuse to chat or even give feedback during the homily. I’m sure St Paul would have something to say if he were around today.
Nice use of scripture, Jimmy.
Here’s how we JWs solve the day-to-day problem: Our women preach often, as you know from having your doorbell rung on Saturday mornings. That in turn matches a prophetic statement in Ps 68:14: “Jehovah himself gives the saying; The women telling the good news are a large army.” In fact, most JW ministers are women, worldwide.
In our meetings women don’t take the platform to teach directly to the congregation. They do pair up to do demonstrations, or skits if you will; one is the teacher, the other the student. BTW many of them, my wife especially, are very good at teaching this way. No sensible man would reject such a teaching because it came from the mouth of a woman. And, of course, men and women alike are required to teach from the scriptures.
About 20 years ago I knew a woman whose husband (now an elder) was a non-believer. She was part of a small congregation with no spiritually-qualified men at the time, so she was appointed the Congregation Overseer by the Watchtower Society. As such she did deliver parts from the platform to the audience wearing a head covering to show her respect for Jehovah’s provision of headship. Which brings us to a teaching ‘way preceding Paul:
Adam was created, then Eve, as a “complement” to him, not as a slave or servant to him. Adam had headship, which is why Paul makes him responsible for the first sin. “That is why, just as through one MAN sin entered into the world ...” In a perfect world- soon to come, by prophecies- men and women will be satisfied with any relative positions they are assigned. “You are opening your hand And satisfying the desire of every living thing.” Ps 145
On a lighter note:
Q. How do we know there will be no women in Heaven?
A. Rev 8:1. “a silence occurred in heaven for about a half hour.”
And everyone laughs. But when I change the Q to ‘no elders in Heaven’, the elders rarely laugh. :-)
Should Women Keep Silence in Church?—- YES ABSOLUTELY!
In a way, I wish the rule of women being silent was a standard in my church. The amount of loud, boisterous chatter before Mass, right up until the time the priest starts processing up to the altar is beyond distracting. And I have to say 95% of this is by my own gender, women. Announcements have been made before Mass to keep a reverent silence to no avail. Unfortunately, the priest does not intervene, even disallowing a Rosary before Mass except for once a month. Chaos!
I will say I have visited aTLM, and observed that no one was talking before Mass. Even the children were pretty quiet. If it wasn’t so far away, I would attend there more often. In the mean time, the easiest way my husband and I have found to deal with it is to pray at home and show up 5 minutes before Mass begins.
yan and Collen
God didn’t show favortism to that generation; we still have the apostles with us in Scripture. God gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. He didn’t give us a magisterium; you can’t even find the concept in Scripture. No office in the Church has an inherent authority. The character of the man gives it the authority. If a man teaches what the apostles taught and lives the way the apostles lived, it may be said he is suceeding the apostles; otherwise, he is not. In the second chapter of Revelation, Christ commended the church in Ephesus because they would not tolerate evil men and even examined men who called themselves apostles and were not. A magisterium exceeds what is written which we are forbiden to do (I Coorthinians 4:6) An infallible magisterium is egregious nonsense.
Collen, I don’t know of anything in the New Testament that needs to be understood in a cultural context. You just don’t like what Paul wrote because of your culture. His words are plain enough.
Such interesting comments you all have written! I can only agree with Everett and once again enlight the fact that Paul wrote to the society of that time that was most like our western society today. He felt he needed to remind the christians in Corinth of information about a christian lifestyle they had been given but forgotten due to their culture. He could might aswell have been writing the same things (and many more) to christians in the west today. I must say it is very important for ones spiritual growth to identify with christians regardless of time and place instead of identifying as someone “from the west”.
Also I just came to think about that in the chapter where Paul writes about the headship he also referes to the creational order- Adam and Eve. He talks about how the first woman came from man and not the other way around. (This makes me think about how one of womens chromosomes is the same as mens/ the female chromosome beside the male.) Wearing the veil ultimately symbolises the christian beliefs regarding creation and what woman was intended for. As I understand it a company and helper to the man, at his side/his equal with complementing characteristics, with the man as the leader. I once heard a woman say something wise about this; All men are natural leaders, but the question is where they lead you. Not all men are godly men suitable for leading women, offcourse. But it is my absolute conviction that every woman would feel better if she had a godly man as her leader, because I think it´s within womens nature to want to be taken care of just like taking care of children herself. Offcourse there are many feminists who rejects both the being under authority of a man and raising children, but as I see it they have gone far from their natural instincts because of the individualistic society they where socialised in.
As for teaching I think women are excellent teachers for children, but if a woman shold stand in front of an assembly of adults partly consisting of men and preach the word of God.. I think she should be accompanied by her husband or a (male) priest. If there is a woman who has important tings to say then offcourse the priest should let her come up and talk to the assembly. But doing this in a dignified manner is something completely different to all the women sitting and gossiping with eachothers in the benches. i think both men and women should offcourse try to look modest and act respectful when in church.
The latest (8/27/12, 45(13)) Remnant newspaper has an article on this exact argument, refering to womens submission to men as the Church to Christ. Women for 1900 years had head coverings to show submission and did not read Scripture in church. The covering and not reading during liturgical functions (ecclesiastical tradition) and a woman under the authority of man (Sacred Tradition)-all up to the 1970s.
Back when I was an Episcopalian, I read the following explanation in a book entitled “What St. Paul REALLY Said about Women”. The first Jewish converts to Christianity worshiped in the local synagogues, which were constructed so that the men were on the first floor and the women were in the balcony. When a woman couldn’t understand what was being said below, she might yell down to her husband to inquire about it. This would disrupt the worship and is the real reason St. Paul is admonishing women to be silent in church and to inquire of their husbands at home.
I was told once that the verb translated as “to speak” actual means more “to chatter”, which is in line with several complaints already posted here. Can anyone verify or disprove the translation for me, please?
Southcoast,
The word for “to speak” is not the word for “chatter.” It’s the same word used for speaking in tongues throughout the chapter.
In the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul tells us how to regulate our assemblies; no one does it. Until the third century, when the first church building was built, believers typically met in private homes, and the meetings were conducted very much like the synagogue. Men could speak, question a speaker,argue with a speaker, or read Scripture. Several times in Acts, we find Paul going into synagogues to reason or argue for the gospel. Women remained silent. That Jewish custom became apostolic teaching, and ,thus, binding on the Church for all time.
The issue of women covering her head when praying had nothing to do with the public assembly. In the apostolic church, there was no prayer in church. In obedience to Christ, prayer was in private. Nothing was said about wearing a veil.
It is written, “He who says,‘I know Him’, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” I John 2:4
@Everett,
We do not have the apostles with us the same way as when they were on earth. They were able to answer questions about the faith and scripture that arose as time went on and to participate in counsels of the Church which were authoritative for the entire church. See the book of Acts. Thus, if there is no entity to play a role today analogous to what they played, then that generation was a recipient of God’s favoritism of them over us.
That God gave us an office to fulfill the role of magesterium can be found in the new testament and the old, if you do not read the Bible without the context of history. If Jesus’ statement to Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, and that Peter was to be the rock upon which the church was to be built, does not imply a continuation of the office of Peter, then in what sense is Peter a rock upon which the church is founded? Do you think that the rock upon which the church was founded was no more than the 2 epistles Peter left us in scripture? Or that his leadership at that time has somehow given the church a charism that endows it with the power to prevent it from being overcome by the devil? That is far less plausible to my mind than that Peter’s office would continue to lead the church and would continue to prevent the power of the devil and the gates of hell from prevailing against it.
An infallible magesterium is not egregious nonsense; it is a moral necessity if we are to be able to properly understand and apply the faith in the many new contexts of life that have arisen for 2000 years so far and which will continue to arise until Christ returns.
You say that the character of the man gives him his authority. I agree, but I ask: who is in charge of judging the character of the man? We hold that it is the apostolic church as constituted by Christ in his appointing of the apostles and their successors with authority to teach, sanctify and govern. If their successors do not make the determination of who God has endowed with authority, then every man for himself makes that determination, to the injury of the unity of the body of Christ.
You quote approvingly the fact that the Ephesians rejected false apostles. But St. Paul also rebuked the Corinthians for accepting false apostles. In the event of the disagreement which as a matter of course must ensue over which apostles are true, and which false, who has the last word? The Corinthians? The Ephesians? Or the apostle Paul?
Just as it was necessary then for there to be a pre-existing body endowed with the authority to make these judgments, so it is necessary now. At that time the apostles made the judgment, so today their successors do the same. The failure to recognize their authority as a matter of practical necessity results in the division of the body of Christ.
Thanks for the discussion.
Yan,
I don’t believe Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Nowhere in Matthew 16 is Rome or apostolic succession mentioned. Nowhere in Scripture is apostolic succesion, as the RCC teaches it, mentioned. Nowhere in Scripture is Peter associated with Rome. You can’t prove from Church history that Peter founded the church in Rome. In the middle of the third century, Pope Steven I became the first person in Church history to claim supremancy over the entire Church based on Matthew 16; he was largely ignored. How was it missed for 200 years?
I don’t know who invented the magisterium. From what I understand, it didn’t evolve in its present form until the nineteenth century. To me, the concept of a magisterium is just another way Rome tries to control its members.
When the noble-minded Jews of Berea were confronted by Paul with his claim that Jesus was the Christ,(Acts 17) they didn’t seek the counsel of the priests or rabbis; they didn’t consult custom or tradition. They examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. They sought the truth eagerly and honestly, and they found it.
Yan, nothing has changed
Everett: Sure prayer was in private during the first centuries. Considering the fact that christians where very persecuted all over the Roman empire the meetings amongst them was offcourse held, not just in private, but in hiding from the society. With that said it was not private meetings like in family-only, but like in thrusted people only. Men and women who where not related came together and it´s pretty obvious that it´s this kind of “public” Paul was writing about in Chrinthians.
I also advice every single one to study the books that has been canon and that actually was excluded not because they where ever considered uninspired, but because of other reasons. One of them is Susanna and there is a small part about the practice of veiling in that book also. some people actuallt belive the veil was only used by prostitutes, even though there is plenty of examples it was the sign of godly women. prostitutes also used veils as to not be recognised. But the way they showed they where prostitutes was-just as today-where in the city they where waiting for costumers. During some eras the veil was prohibited for those women and only honorable women was premitted to use it.
Apart from that the first centuries was a time when LOADS of christians started up convents. Paul was advicing them not to marry and live only for God if they could, because of the times they lived in. Now contemplate the fact that nuns wear veils all the time. Now I have not only been studied the historical context in wich christian women started this lifestyle, but I have also talked to nuns who still today continues the practice of veiling all the time. They do this not only because of the invitation to be praying without ceasing, but rather because of the second part of that important verse. They was/are still trying to be in a state of giving thanks/glory to God in all circumstances.
Backgroundinformation,
Believers prayed in private because Christ commanded it(Matthew 6:5,6), not because of persecution. Paul said nothing about veils or convents. The monastic movement had little in common with the faith once that was once for all delivered to the saints.
please explain St. Michael
if humans are saints
and angels are heavenly beings.
how can a saint be an angel or an angel a saint.
Everett: Christ told belivers to pray in private instead of just praying as a show off/ to brag about how devoted they where in public. (as many of the jews did.) If one really has a sincere prayer and prays in public not caring about showing off to people it is offcourse also a valid prayer. You seriously stated that Paul said nothing about veils or convents??!! Before you state something about what he did or did not cover then study the greek or atleast read all of his writings from a direct-translation. Preferably the complete Jewish bible, because it´s probably the most detailed translation avaliable nowadays. Regarding the veil, read 1 Corinthians chapter 11. May I also add that the original word (the one he used) is katakalupto. Splitting it into parts that litterally means a long draping garment, going downwards from the head! The same garment that we can see Mary and all the other first christian women wore on the old paintings. As you can see Paul wrote about how none of the churches of that time had another practice.
Then onto the convents. I reccomend you read 1 Chorinthians 7, the whole chapter for an understanding of why those where formed. Again, these are Pauls words. I don´t think anyone before him has written this much and detailed about the spiritual symbolism of the veil OR about the spiritual benefit of the celibate. He is like the one who inspired all the later writers. May I also add that there is several Roman scriptures from the same time Paul wrote this about the “christian sect” with so many men and women going out to live isolatedd from the society-in celibate. How they where not contributing to the state? (Christianity was seen as a growing threat to the state because of this.)
kathy hayes: First of all; not all humans are saints. And there are fallen angels aswell as heavenly angels. The word saint is used for humans who have reached a high level of spiritual development in God. Angels are not referred to as saints, what I`ve heard of. But this made me think about the Latter day saints/ the Mormons. they belive that Christ was an angel and that the man they follow, Joseph Smith, was transformed into an heavenly angel after his death, if I remember their faith correctly.
@Everett:
I don’t know how you can deny that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built since Jesus specifically says that is the case.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Some Protestants have said that Jesus pointed to Himself when He said ‘this rock,’ but there is no evidence of that which I have seen. The context of the passage shows that Peter is the rock. If Peter is not the rock, then why does he get from Christ the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose?
And if Peter does get this power, what happens to that power after Peter’s earthly life ends? Does it just disappear or return to Christ? If so, why did it need to be given to Peter in the first place? He gave it to Christ, in order to pass on to his successors, until the end of time.
And why hasn’t anyone ever interpreted the passage to mean that Christ pointed to Himself until just recently? It is transparently an attempt to get around an obvious and uncomfortable truth for those that reject the office and authority of Peter.
It isn’t necessary to claim that Peter founded the church of Rome in order for him to be the first bishop of Rome. History clearly shows that he was indeed the first bishop of Rome. Whether he founded the Church there or not, I don’t know; and it doesn’t matter.
Saying that the Church ‘missed’ the authority of the Pope for 200 years is to misunderstand the process of how dogma comes to be defined in the Church. The Church didn’t define the Holy Trinity or the canon of Scripture until the 4th century; does that mean they ‘missed it’ for 300 years? When heretics or schismatics oppose the truth of the Church, the Church calls upon her supernatural resources to define and clarify the truth she has from Christ, infallibly.
Jimmy Akin has a good article on the ‘noble-minded Bereans’ which you should check out some time.
regards,
yan
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.