1 Timothy 2: 11-15

[JP2Iloveyou]

Friends, I need your help. My heterodox New Testament class will be talking about 1 Timothy tomorrow and I am almost certain that my professor will bring up Chapter 2, verses 11-15. I don't have time to sort through all the apologetics stuff online and EWTN didn't have anything that I could find. Somebody, PLEASE, give me a Catholic explanation to this.

Also, the newest thing in this class is that Paul did not write: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. My Catholic Bible, which has both an imprimatur and a nihil obstat, doesn't confirm this, but it also says there are plausible theories out there that say that Paul really was not the author of these books. Can some Scripture scholar shed some light on this?

This class is so very frustrating. I don't really care that she is teaching what she is, I know my faith and there is nothing she can do to change that. I am worried about the other students though who do not know their faith well enough to defend this garbage. I have been keeping track of everything she says contrary to the faith though and I think the archbishop will receive a letter from me at the end of the semester.

Anyway, thanks for the help.

I'm adding this on to my original post. Everything I predicted about this class is coming true. His first premise is that the Christian Church as we know it today developed by chance because the "proto-orthodox" won the most converts, and could therefore determine doctrine. This undermines the authority of the Church, hence we have grounds to say that there was no clergy, no specific Creed, no set canon of Scripture...etc. This also leaves open to debate who actually wrote the books of the Bible. According to my textbook, we have no idea who wrote the four Gospels, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, James, and Revelation (so far). I'm sure he will try and say we don't know who wrote 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as well.

I am in such a great seminary also! My rector is PO'd for lack of a better term about this class and other "theology" classes taught at our university. The philosophy is second to none here and the Catholic Studies department is outstanding. Theology is a joke though.

Sorry for venting. Seriously though. I don't know what to do about 1 Timothy. It is driving me crazy.

[thatmanjose]

JP2ILoveU
You seem to have your head on straight about picking your battles. It's unfortunate that a "Bible class" would seek to undermine Scripture. I mean, it is the only weapon "Paul" offered us in the armor of God. Your instructor seems to be yanking on one of the three legs we have to stand on (and the other two, the Magisterium and Tradition seem to be wobbly at best).
I can only offer my prayers.
pax et bonum,
joey

[Paphnutius]

What seminary are you going to?

And perhaps I am out of the loop on the Timothy question, but what would be to objection or problem raised?

[phatcatholic]

well, here are the verses in question:

1 Tim 2:11-15
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

i'm guessing that, since the teacher is so resistant to the authority of the Church, he will try to undermine Paul's words here and defend a woman's "right" to be a priest. he could possibly do this by claiming that Paul's words here are culture-specific, meant for a certain church at a certain time in history when males dominated society. personally, i think these verses are still relevant today, but maybe that's just me. the point is that the Church's stance on a male-only priesthood does not rest on this verse, and its rare that you will ever see a catholic apologist use these verses to defend our doctrine on this point. instead, our belief and practice rests on what Jesus--the most counter-cultural figure in the Bible--mandated for his Church. he prayed to the Father specifically about the apostles he received. when he came down from the mountain he chose 12 men. sorry feminists, that's just the fact of the matter. from here one would move into what it means to truly act "in persona Christi," how a male priesthood properly reflects the male-female relationship between Jesus and the Church, and how the priesthood is not a "right" that any person, male or female, deserves.

so, tell your professor he can have that verse.....

[JP2Iloveyou]

Phat, thanks for the reply but my prof never mentions the Church. Today she started to lean that way by claiming that Paul refers to women as Apostles in Romans and that he mentions Phoebe as a deacon, the only deacon he names in Scripture. Do you have any refutations for these?

My concern with 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 is the almost negative outlook it has on women. Even in the Catholic Church we allow women to be theology professors or give witness talks, etc. Just because they can't be priests doesn't mean that they can't instruct in the faith. How does that square with those verses?

The real crux of her argument is that Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Tim, Titus, and 2 Thess, were not written by Paul at all. This may or may not be true. I don't really think that it is important whether they were written by Paul or one of his disciples. What is important is that she tries to make the claim that Romans and James contradict each other as do 1 Corinthians and 1 Tim. Today, when I tried to explain Ephesians 5 and how "submission" really comes from the Latin sub-missio, under the mission, and that the man's mission is to get to Heaven, she would have none of it.

It's sad, I am as solid in my faith as anyone. I know Christ built his Church on solid rock, but taking this course and reading this textbook has really made me question parts of the faith. (I don't buy any of the carp from this class of course, it just makes me question.) I feel aweful for students who are not as well grounded in their faith that have to endure this and might possibly lose their faith in the process. Our Lord had very harsh words of warning for those who would lead his little ones astray.

Thanks a lot for all of your help. I used to consider myself a good apologist. This is just depressing. It shows how much I have to learn.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

It is insane to think about how the Catholic Church is labeled as sexist... The Catholic Church gives the most honor to a Woman "THE Woman" Mary. (Other than Jesus of course) Let me quote our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

"[b]It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity.[/b] Through Mary, and the other holy women, the feminine element stand at the heart of the Christian religion. And this is not in competition with Christ. To think of Christ and Mary as being in competition means ignoring the essential distinctions between these two figures. . . . That is not a competition, but a more profound kind of intimacy. The Mother and Virgin forms an essential part of the Christian picture of man."

And they say Catholic's are Sexist...

Also, Priest's marry Mother Church... It is not possible for a Woman to marry Mother Church in the same way Priests doo.

Also, the Priest takes on the Body of Christ during the Consecretion...The Priest supplies the Matter (His Body) and Christ supplies the Form (His Soul and Divinity)... Now we all know that apples are not oranges. Women are different than men. Period. Thus a woman at the Altar is not supplying the matter for the Sacrament...because a woman does not posses the matter. That doesn't make women less important, or less holy. Just different.

"Seasame Street" put it best "One of these things is not like the other." Men are Men. Women are Women. Women demanding to be Priest's is like Men demanding to have babies... It isn't possible.

Totus Tuus,
Andrew Joseph

[Myles Domini]

I cant remember all the references but I know for a fact that Deaconesses are authentic BUT a deaconess was never ordained. This is a fact of Church history. Deaconnesses had a title but they recieved no office, they were akin to nuns and when real communities of nuns appeared the deaconesses were superseded as no longer required. I'm sure if you ask the experts at EWTN or check the Catholic Encylcopedia you'll find stuff on it. Plus William Most deals with this question too I think in the Most Theological archive on 'catholic culture.org'