Women In The Bible

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837620' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:04 PM']I was unaware that the Church could ever be called "modern." She is eternal.[/quote]
Whether people like it or not what is called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal was issued in 1969, and that is pretty modern.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837629' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:14 PM']Whether people like it or not what is called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal was issued in 1969, and that is pretty modern.[/quote]

So you are saying that since Vatican II, the Roman Rite no longer believes in angels being present at the Mass? Are you against Vatican II or something?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837635' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:19 PM']So you are saying that since Vatican II, the Roman Rite no longer believes in angels being present at the Mass? Are you against Vatican II or something?[/quote]
I have not said anything like that, but you bring up a good point.

It is a divinely revealed truth that women are to wear a head covering during the liturgy because the holy angels are present.

Why then do women who attend liturgies according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite no longer wear a head covering? Are the angels not present at that form of liturgical celebration?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837642' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:23 PM']I have not said anything like that, but you bring up a good point.

It is a divinely revealed truth that women are to wear a head covering during the liturgy because the holy angels are present.

Why then do women who attend liturgies according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite no longer wear a head covering? Are the angels not present at that form of liturgical celebration?[/quote]

This is perfectly explained in the other thread. However, since you are so knowledgeable, I would like to hear what your opinions are regarding the topic of this thread. I just find it interesting that many focus on head coverings to be mandatory because they are mentioned in the Bible, and yet many things mentioned in the Bible which were once custom and tradition are no longer mandatory. Thoughts?

[quote]1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home.[/quote]
[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837651' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:30 PM']This is perfectly explained in the other thread.[/quote]
I haven't seen it "perfectly explained"; instead, I have seen people bring up the Latin Church's [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], which was never universally binding upon the whole Church (i.e., 22 [i]sui juris[/i] Catholic Churches never followed it as a norm), while ignoring the revealed truth found in 1 Corinthians.

St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that women are to wear head coverings because the holy angels are present at the liturgy, are the holy angels present at the Ordinary Form celebrations of the Roman Rite or not? And if they are present, why are women dishonoring their heads by not wearing coverings in the presence of the holy angels?

Edited April 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

Well let's try not to take arguments from one thread to another. HCF, Lilllabettt is my sister, I'll let her know you'd like her to try to address some of the other scriptures you posted

[HisChildForever]

I am sorry to have made reference to the head covering thread. I am not about to have this become Part 2.

If anyone has any knowledge concerning the passages I have posted, please feel free to contribute.

Edited April 16, 2009 by HisChildForever

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1837664' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:39 PM']Well let's try not to take arguments from one thread to another. HCF, Lilllabettt is my sister, I'll let her know you'd like her to try to address some of the other scriptures you posted [/quote]

Thank you.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837654' date='Apr 16 2009, 05:33 PM']I haven't seen it "perfectly explained"; instead, I have seen people bring up the Latin Church's [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], which was never universally binding upon the whole Church (i.e., 22 [i]sui juris[/i] Catholic Churches never followed it as a norm), while ignoring the revealed truth found in 1 Corinthians.

St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that women are to wear head coverings because the holy angels are present at the liturgy, are the holy angels present at the Ordinary Form celebrations of the Roman Rite or not? And if they are present, why are women dishonoring their heads by not wearing coverings in the presence of the holy angels?[/quote]
the only people being dishonored by women not wearing veils are people who live by the letter of the law, people like you, who have no respect for others and where they are in their journey with God.

we can't all be omniscient like you, apo. nor or most people as well-educated and refined in their thoughts about the Church or God...

St. Paul also mentions single people should not marry and instead be anxious on the things of the Lord. I wish you can see how Eastern Rite priests violate this opinion of St. Paul by taking a wife. Who wants a minister who won't be concentrating only on God, but has to worry about their wives and children??

You see, your logic can work against you, too....you can keep repeating and repeating your points, but mine have value and make more sense...I may not know all the big words you use, but I sure know the heart of the law and it makes more sense to be charitable in your dealings with your neighbors rather than impugn on them a heavier yoke...

I'm not sure how this topic got started on this here thread, but I'm leaving before you call me a gnostic again!

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[b]please keep it on topic!! [/b]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1837685' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:46 PM']+J.M.J.+
[b]please keep it on topic!! [/b][/quote]

I may have started the problem (via Post #11) but I certainly didn't intend for it to go crazy.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837620' date='Apr 16 2009, 05:04 PM']I was unaware that the Church could ever be called "modern." She is eternal.[/quote]
i totally agree with this comment...

[Lil Red]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837691' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:49 PM']I may have started the problem (via Post #11) but I certainly didn't intend for it to go crazy. [/quote]
+J.M.J.+
i know. just a friendly reminder

[Lilllabettt]

[quote][b][u]Leviticus 27:6[/u] A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."[/b][/quote]


This law refers to when a parent wants to "consecrate" a child to the Lord. Not consecrate the way we think of consecration, (setting that person apart) but donating what the "monetary value" of the child.

This has nothing to do with subjective value. The "value" assigned is strictly mercenary, whatever the person could be expected to add to the family's overhead. That amount would be returned to the Lord. In the previous verses of chapter 27, older children were assigned higher values; not because an older child is better cherished, but because a young adult "produces" more than a young child.

Nowadays people try to assign a dollar number to the work that housewives and mothers do; but in ancient Israel there was no such estimation. Women were not typically found in the marketplace. They simply did not make as much "money."

When a woman married, she left her father's house and joined her husband's family. In recognition for the loss of labor that taking a woman from her family means, the husbands family would give the bride's family a dowry. (Interesting that this is inverted of the traditional European idea of dowry.) But the fact of the matter is, all of the children born from their union would belong to the husband's family. And children were the Israelites #1 resource. Many sons = growth for the family, while many daughters=shrinking family.

In terms of money, plain and simple, women were worth less.

[HisChildForever]

Again, you have a lot of knowledge and are explaining it real well. Do you happen to have a link or a book recommendation that covers this in full?

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837600' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:43 PM']So a woman covering her head because of the presence of the holy angels in the liturgy is a historically conditioned thing?

Interesting. In the Byzantine tradition it is still believed that the holy angels are present when the divine liturgy is celebrated, but perhaps that belief no longer exists in the modern Roman Rite.[/quote]
No, we Romans still hold that belief! The Saints are also there!

Sadly it wasn't being stressed as maybe it should have!

Gladly it is coming back, give us time Apotheoun! We are getting back on track!

Edited April 17, 2009 by princessgianna

[StColette]

I need to find my Biblical Studies notes. I have some great ones on a Biblical lecture about woman being the Jewel of Creation.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1838566' date='Apr 17 2009, 02:25 PM']Again, you have a lot of knowledge and are explaining it real well. Do you happen to have a link or a book recommendation that covers this in full?[/quote]


For reading I would recommend Roland de Vaux. He wrote a number of history books about the ancient Israelites, which I understand are considered classic. I had to read his books when I was in the convent. Really fascinating. He doesn't take a strictly religious approach, but is very respectful.

I don't know if I would say he covers this area "in full," because he really doesn't address too much Scripture. He talks about what role women played in that society, which for me made the laws that society produced make more sense.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837595' date='Apr 16 2009, 03:41 PM']Which makes me think about the thread regarding head coverings - back then it was historical and cultural.[/quote]

There are many instances in the Bible of historical/cultural practices and they should not be construed as ahistorical just because they appear in the Bible. I could easily see how this could also be the case for head coverings.

[tinytherese]

When scrolling through amazon I found a "Women in the Bible for Dummies" and it's written by Dr. Scott Hahn last time I checked.