HomeЛюди и блогиRelated VideosMore From: Breaking In The Habit

Did God Create Women Inferior to Men?

584 ratings | 10900 views
For much of Christian (and world) history, women were viewed as inferior to men. Some have even pointed to the Bible as justification. Is this really the case? LINK TO ARTICLE ON EPHESIANS 5: https://goo.gl/8sks3H SOCIAL MEDIA: Blog: https://goo.gl/QuB4ra Facebook: https://goo.gl/UoeKWy Twitter: https://goo.gl/oQs6ck Instagram: https://goo.gl/ShMbhH Podcast: https://goo.gl/xqkssG INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR? Holy Name Province: https://goo.gl/MXKb2R Find your Vocation Director: https://goo.gl/2Jc52z SUPPORT THE MISSION Order my book: https://goo.gl/dwT8Pq Donate Monthly: https://goo.gl/UrrwNC One-time gifts: https://goo.gl/eKnFJN
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (275)
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Yes, I know that "Strength" has a g in it... thanks everyone. Third typo in so many weeks. I think at this point I'm just going to start calling them "Easter Eggs" so that people will think that I meant to do it...
In Alaska (21 days ago)
I literally cried this is such a reasoned response!! Another pastor also pointed out that the first person Jesus appear to after the resurrection was a woman and he told her to go and spread the good news. It would really work if women weren't allowed to share the gospel to men.
Diego Moreno (4 months ago)
@cathjuche yeah but God gave the womb to eve and not adam. Why did god built eve that way?
Alfred Thomas (4 months ago)
The bottom line is that the Hebrew Bible is patriarchal. Consider the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, David and Bathsheba, where women are presented as morally flawed. That is the legacy of Scripture to modernity.
Diego Moreno (6 months ago)
Also the bible mentions mary and she has the womb from which god manifested in the form of jesus. For some reason god picked mary, a woman to give birth to jesus, not a man. Am i getting it right ?
Nikita Chirich (15 days ago)
Thank you Casey you are a scholar we need in today’s political sphere as we reintroduce Christian thought back to America
Mr Davis (18 days ago)
It would be nice if he named her Evelyn
Gerard Climis (20 days ago)
wait, in your evolution vs creation video you stated that genesis is a poem , an allegory, that cannot be taken literally, and now you are citing that "poem" literally to make a point? Remember that video where you "explained" a theist evolution? that by the way is not supported by evolutionist and it is not biblical at all? was the Fall historical? or is it part of your allegory? if so, how can you you use genesis as allegorical to support theistic evolution and historical or factual to support this video? the Catholic church in history treated woman as subordinate to man and not they change ... again..
Breaking In The Habit (19 days ago)
Gerard Climis I get that you think that... but I think that’s because you are misquoting what I’ve said in other comments.
Gerard Climis (19 days ago)
@Breaking In The Habit and I think you are contradicting yourself. But it is ok. My curiosity about the Catholic Church is satisfied. Thanks
Breaking In The Habit (20 days ago)
I think you are misquoting what I said and mixing a few points together.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
Thank you very much Sir. These texts can be very hard to swallow when you are the type of strong woman that I am. I regard myself as a feminist, not the militant type but still one. So because of Paul's texts, I was planning to leave Christianity but clarifying it like you have has been amazing. I didn't even realise that Paul was even implying that a woman was not created in the image of God. Many thanks.
Jinu (30 days ago)
Good information
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
+Luis Melara..Thank You so much for your comments! I am so glad that you have such a Good Place to Study and Learn about our Savior. I very much agree with your ideas. As far as..homosexuality goes. I am a very straight woman who LOVES Men..so I have No Understanding of this.. I then..Always go the the Great Law. "Be Considerate of one another.". that is certainly easy to do. I refrain judging something I have No understanding of. That Woud be Gods Deal again! When I discovered the Matthew 6:33 verse..I then went to Jesus and asked Him to Help me read the bible. He brought me the bible He wanted me to read..it is called "The Living Bible." I asked Him to Show me what was relevant and important for me to Know. I did not read one word without His Help..and i read it cover to cover..And I marked all that He Showed me. You would be surprised how much of my bible is unmarked..but that which is marked is invaluable to me! It is the TRUE Jesus to me. And Matthew 5 6 7 is Very important. It keeps me on course and I Seek Him and He Helps me Everyday Live of my Life. He is Everything to me. I will continue to correct..as Jesus prompts me. I so much appreciate your response and knowing someone out there is on the same path! There is a lot of crazy ideas out there!
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
+Luis Melara..BUT..I thought some more! I still agree with what you said..but this is the problem I see..that I try to correct. My text is not just Matthew 6:33. I believe Matthew 5 6 7..IS Jesus Gospel and the Foundation for everything we should be Teaching and Doing. The trouble with men..like Paul..and churches..is that they start making up their own commandments..then they teach the people those commandments and OverLook Gods commandments. I experienced this. I belonged to a church with Many commandments and my husband followed them faithfully..but he found a rich fancy Barbie lady..so he divorced me and left his five children because of his Love of Church and money. She follows church rules perfectly too. But what about Gods commandments? To be faithful to who God Gives you..to be content with what God Gives you..to put God First..Before the love of money and church. I was a Good Faithful wife who Loved God and Followed HIS commandments. But my xhusband believes he will be Exalted in Gods Kingdom because he was faithful to his church..and I will go someplace else. I question very much this whole church thing..that forgets to focus on teaching the Real commandments of God. And Paul made up his own commandments too. Women submit to their husband..should not speak..cover their heads..men are better off celibate. This has Nothing to Do with Gods Commandments! Yet churches make it Gods commandments. People say everything in the bible is God-breathed..even when God never said such a thing! They are believing the opinions of men..and making them into commandments. So..Do you think I should just let everyone go their Merry way and not say anything? I AM beginning to believe it is a waste of breath.
Luis Melara (1 month ago)
kathleen Wharton So because of the arguments you have raised, I retract one thing that I said before... perhaps I’m not trying to “save” other Christians because that’s not my job, but certainly I encourage you to try to present your arguments as you have.
Luis Melara (1 month ago)
Believe me, I understand what you’re saying entirely... people are very easily misguided by their western-influenced, man-made ideas about Jesus and live out these judgmental, plastic Christian lifestyles... they put law and doctrine above love and compassion which is totally the opposite of Christ’s mission... it’s one thing that pushed me away from church for many years... I’ve been raised to study the true meaning of scripture with critical thought and reason, so I’ve always clashed with this. Before reading any Biblical wisdoms outside of the direct teachings of Christ, I often review what I have studied about His life and pray that would God allow me to read the scripture through a Christ-like perspective... I believe there are truths hidden in controversial and complicated passages, so long as you try to read through Christ’s lens and not our own... the most compassionate interpretation is usually the most truthful....God is about love, so any human interpretation of scripture which contradicts this notion is simply untrue. We also have to look into how many translations of the Bible have existed, which have diluted the meanings of their original counterparts. We also need to remind ourselves ALWAYS that Old Testament law represents the OLD covenant with God, and that the New Covenant of God frees us from the original sin that binds us to the old outdated law. A good example of this: The flawed human Paul does flat out call Homosexuals an abomination in his writings, and Leviticus outright outlaws homosexuality. Many modern Christians use this to justify hatred, but how many Christians have studied the original Hebrew (or Jewish culture) to know that the old law was meant to promote biological procreation because the Hebrew people were once small in number? How do we know the Hebrew word for homosexuality was translated correctly, as this same Hebrew word has also been generally used in the original text to describe things that are against natural sexual design, but not explicitly homosexuality? Also, why are we to worry about this, when we now live free from the law in God’s new covenant, full of grace? Unfortunately our faith lacks critical thinking, and it is full of hypocrites. But this was something Jesus knew would come to be the case. It’s in our human nature to be this way. The only reason I returned to church was because I found a beautiful community of Church-going Christians among Aerospace Engineering, Astronomy, and Physics students at my university. These science-brained geniuses, ranging from undergraduate students to Doctoral candidates, approach the Bible with such thought, care, and study that together we continue to challenge each other in understanding the truths of Christian theology from an almost academic perspective. What we have always concluded in our discourse, without a reasonable doubt, is that without love, empathy, and compassion, Christendom is meaningless. We throw out the old empty traditions and embrace love and spirituality in our discourse even more intensely than in a traditional church setting, and it has brought me so much peace. It is beautiful. You should speak exactly what God calls you to speak! He loves you for seeking the truth in any discussion! I feel we should all do this by being prepared to defend our beliefs, and recognize when our own human resentment towards various schools of thought might be clouding our own judgement. Challenging each other in what we believe is how we grow as a people... It’s certainly how we destroy the patriarchal institutions of enslavement disguised as religion that plague the world... I believe you already feel this way, and I want you to know that I don’t disagree with you in any way! My argument is simply that I welcome the diversity of thought and the discourse it brings as the true Christian institution that will save us. This means also welcoming those who think they’re going to heaven simply because they follow certain rules....
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
+Luis Melara..you are right..Matthew 6:33.."Seek ye First the kingdom of God and His Righteousness." Luke 17:20-21.. "The kingdom of God Cometh Not with observation; Neither shall they say Lo here! Or, Lo there! For, behold the kingdom of God is Within you." this is my text and this is what Jesus has Taught me. But I really so Appreciate your comment and I so agree with you. I Loved your last statements about God and God and the mountain..it so touched me..as to bring tears. Thank you for that! I so see your point.. that everyone has their own way of worshipping God. I Love you for this! Thank you so much! I was born in a church with the Heirarchy of titled men and it was so miserable trying to live to their commandments..Jesus did Save me from churches..but I love the point you made..it is so True. This is Gods Deal..not mine. It was beautiful! Thank you!
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
+Breaking in the Habit..I know what you are saying is the Accepted thing. But Jesus Said.."Seek Me and My Righteousness." He did not say..seek a "church" with a Hierachy of titled men to tell you what I want you to do. That is putting men and their opinions between a personal relationship with our Savior. I do not believe Jesus ever meant for Paul's version of a church. Paul just carried on the Pharisee way. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ because of direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. That is Jesus church. Revelation to each and everyone of us..who Seek Him and His Righteousness. Not putting men and and an organization between us and our Savior.
Luis Melara (1 month ago)
kathleen Wharton If you do not mind, I’d like to present an alternative argument, for the sake of building our faith, character, and reasoning in Christ. If you are referring to Jesus’s words in Matthew 6:33, “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you”, I would like to politely argue that to a Catholic (or a Christian of any denomination for that matter), the various practices of his or her faith ARE his or her way of seeking the kingdom of God. Arguing that a system devised by man is getting in the way of his or her “faith” is blinding yourself off to another individual’s cultural perspective. We all try to seek God in our own small, mortal, HUMAN ways, and our commitment to those ways is what we call our “faith”. Even if one argues they seek Christ through love alone, our love is small and significantly limited next to our incomprehensible creator. Our various ways of reaching God are simply not enough for God, and the assertion that “my faith more of what Christ intended than what your faith is” is to say you are as knowing as God Himself, therefore it’s blasphemy. Still, one can argue that they “just know it in you’re heart” that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. That, my friend, is faith. The same faith that tells someone that if they pray the rosary, are baptized, and participate in communion, they’ll be saved. The difference is that you, based on your relationship with God, made up your own rules, and they weren’t handed to you by a centuries-old institution. Still, those rules are human rules, based on human interpretations of scripture. Humanity alone is not enough for God. It is my belief that any attempt of a small mortal being at reaching out to an infinitely loving and knowing God is silly and insufficient (a necessary struggle, but insufficient). The beauty of God is that we are saved by His overwhelming grace alone and not by our own doing, as demonstrated to us in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. On another topic of discussion, and with all do respect (I do not intend to offend you in any way, I’m simply offering an alternative perspective), the notion that Paul continued the practices of the Pharisees is absurd. Paul was Jewish (as was his Savior Jesus), so Paul naturally embraced his Jewish heritage and culture. But Paul was certainly more liberal about his Jewish practices than his ancestors. He did, after all, ascribe adherence to Pharisee law as “enslavement” and the pursuit of Christ’s love as being “freedom from slavery”. In Romans he presents the idea that God saw gentiles and Jews as equals, regardless of their rituals and laws. Paul’s teachings in his 8 to 13 New Testament books often reaffirm everything Jesus commanded of his disciples, that man can only be saved by faith in Christ’s sacrifice and nothing else. Of course, Paul was human, so I’m sure he had his flaws, but he was no Pharisee. Now, more along the vein of my original discussion, I’m not a Catholic and I pursue Christ’s love in my own personal relationship with Him, but I’m in no rush to “save” other Christians by presenting them with the flaws of their doctrine. As far as I’m concerned, Christ is the only one who can save those who pursue Him. I imagine God sits atop a mountain, and we try our absolute best to climb that mountain and reach him, but all our varied strategies for climbing that mountain fail. The beauty of our God is that He was willing to descend that mountain and come to us, even when we didn’t deserve Him.
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
Jesus meaning of "church" was personal direct revelation to each and every person who Seek HIM and His Righteousness. It is NOT Paul's church with its Heirarchy of titled men to tell you what to Do. Paul went back to the vomit of Pharisee ways. ALL of Paul's churches are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ. Christians shoud really be called Pauline's.
Breaking In The Habit (1 month ago)
There is a lot going on here. Let's see if I can iron some things out: 1) Jesus did not speak of a structure of Church because the Church hadn't really been founded yet. We can argue about whether he actually founded a church at all or if he simply gave the inspiration for it, but the fact is the structure wasn't (and couldn't have been) in place in his time. The fact that St. Paul suggests a structure is not wrong on Pauls' part. 2) That said, St. Paul did not create these structures. Rather, in his letters he is merely describing what the Church is already doing. It is descriptive rather the prescriptive. 3) St. Paul's writings are considered divine revelation by every Christian Church, and so I don't think we can say that he is in direct opposition to Jesus. He expands on it and offers suggestions that reflect his time and place.
kathleen Wharton (1 month ago)
+Rene Yeo.. Wife submission is an opinion of Paul..NOT a commandment of God! You need to distinguish between Gods commandments and Men's opinions.
Sherri Greeydelinarez (1 month ago)
So Why is "Women" not given more Positions of authority in the Catholic Church??
Keir Campbell (7 days ago)
The 8th Church many women were killed for Christ too. He had His reasons for it. We don’t need to guess but trust.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@Breaking In The Habit I sympathise with the idea of the church following Jesus' example of only choosing men as disciples because lets face it, it was a very dangerous job that ended with Jesus and the disciples killed so it may be He wanted to protect the women.
Breaking In The Habit (1 month ago)
The reason that the Church gives for male ordination doesn't have anything to do with the priest being an image of God. Any such language is a reflection on the already decided reality and more poetic than theological. The Church's reasoning is that Jesus chose men as his disciples and there is no evidence of women being ordained in the early Church. The Church, in a way, punts on the issue, feeling that it does not have the authority to change what Jesus established and the Church has maintained for centuries.
Rene Yeo (1 month ago)
All I hear is wives submit. If they don’t, men won’t love their wives. Sounds about right to me.
Babeena_Gt _ (1 month ago)
Why do people believe what humans wrote in a book over 1000 years ago .
Breaking In The Habit (1 month ago)
Because it has held meaning for people for over 1000 years. There is wisdom in what has been passed down for centuries.
Red Pill Religion (1 month ago)
Gross generalizations about "Wives submit" will ruin your marriage...
James Lovell (1 month ago)
The literal Word of God is Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel of St. John. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”. It is not Scripture, which is divinely inspired, but written by man. On the way women are to be treated or considered, we can look to the literal Word, who treated men and women in the same respect. He gave the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter, but revealed the glorious truth of his resurrection to St. Mary Magdalene, and instructed her to reveal this to his apostles. Can we really see the Mother of God as a second class citizen to her husband, St. Joseph? Or of lesser authority to the men of the early Church?
Lakshan Abeynaike (1 month ago)
Thank you SO much for the amazing work you do. Its life changing revelation. God bless you!
fairymairah (3 months ago)
Interesting ! ! ! !
skkksks (4 months ago)
You seem like a nice guy But I'd rather not be in a sexist religion
Breaking In The Habit (4 months ago)
Is it the religion that is sexist, or those leading it? I ask because I would hate for someone to deny Jesus because of the failing of his followers. Do we have some flaws as weak human beings? Absolutely. But our faith is not in sexist men who exclude women, it's in Jesus Christ, in whom there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, woman nor man. All are equal in Christ.
Aydan Moss (4 months ago)
Thanks so much for your thorough and clear explanations of the Catholic faith; it’s been instrumental on my journey of enlightenment..
Gby Atee (4 months ago)
Well, I wish to quote something I heard from a Franciscan brother of mine which greatly complements your views in regard to the equality of women. "Woman was but created from the side of Man, from the rib which was not replaced but only patched with flesh. This figuratively tells that women are equal with men: equal in honour, dignity and likeness with God. At the same time, she is that unique rib that can’t be replaced. Thus, a woman becomes not the supplementary sex but complementary one."- Br. Nirmal, OFM
Adque (5 months ago)
There are so many things that you said in this clip that I really think are great! I would add, as I believe it was St Augustine who interpreted this, that a deep significance of Eve being made of the rib of Adam comes from its closeness to his heart. In the divine plan of God, woman is made from the closest part to the heart of man. This the analogy is one of a deep sense of intimacy of the heart, co-purpose and shared destiny between the two. Respecting the 4 senses of scripture, there is an allegorical sense here which speaks to the piercing of Christ’s side on the Cross and His Sacred Heart being pierced for His Bride, the Church. And this brings me to the part which, respectfully, I think is problematic. You are absolutely correct that context is fundamental, but not uncommonly there are some pitfalls in trying to incorrectly contextualize the sense of things in the scriptures out of their intended meaning. The submission of the wives mentioned in Ephesians is not just a cultural statement and this is made manifest by...you guessed it, the context: St Paul is looking at the marital reality between men and women and making it an image (even more than that) of the marital bond between Jesus and His Bride. The role of leadership/headship and submission is integral to the nature of the relationship or else the we risk severely damaging the understanding of the relationship between Christ and His Church. As St John Chrysostome says, this is not a servile submission but one of companionship, and if I may add, it is joyful in the knowledge that both are participating in the elected imagery that God has planned to show the Love He has for His beloved Catholic Church. Anyway, here’s a great text for anyone interested from Casti Connubii, a much praised encyclical by St John Paul II in particular. I would encourage everyone to read the full thing and not limit themselves to just this excerpt, it truly deserves a full and attentive reading. In this excerpt you will see that the submission is not only a culturally limited affair, something explicitly rejected by the Holy Father, but as the context of the scripture implies and the Pope makes clear, is actually describing a structure established by God which does not deny the “mutual partnership” (as Pope Pius calls it) between equals: “This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .” I know some of these words are hard to hear to a modern ear or to those of us who want to make the work of evangelization more appealing (certainly not an unworthy task!), but sometimes Jesus Christ says things that challenge our preconceived ideas and can make us feel uncomfortable. Our Lord promises us that it’s definitely worth it. As our Holy Father says, we have a God who is the God of surprises; those things of God which are sometimes hard to hear often reveal great and beautiful surprises in His Divine and admittedly mysterious plan. Thanks Brother Casey, glad you’re out there!
Steve Johnson (5 months ago)
I’m not catholic, but I really enjoy your post. This is the second post I just disagree in the logic that is being used. Essentially, I don’t think you can say on one hand that, “scripture is the will of humanity for a given age” and then say on the other hand that things like homosexuality to wrong is not life giving.
Joy-Giovanni matabishi (5 months ago)
I still believe that we are not equal but we are complementary to each other. you talked about the old testament and the new testament, yet you kinda ignored the link between both "JESUS". What was the relation of Jesus with women??he called his apostles (all men) and he had the other group of women who were always with them and who really helped the apostles. Watching the comedy "mens are from mars and womens are from venus" offers a nice perspective of understanding each other needs, But St Paul summarized it very well:"husband love your wife and wife respect your husband"....
Joy-Giovanni matabishi (5 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit first of all i hope you spend a good Xmas break and I wish you a happy new year. Thanks for your reply which I think will converge us to a common understandin and i also think that your point is explaining what I meant: that Jesus deeply respected women and gave them a special place in his entourage,yet we can not deny from almost all the scriptures that the authority is given to Men and if not abused would be well perceived. All these reminds me of the famous quote by Matthew Henry:"Women were created from the rib of man to be beside him, not from his head to top him, nor from his feet to be trampled by him, but from under his arm to be protected by him, near to his heart to be loved by him."
Breaking In The Habit (5 months ago)
Joy-Giovanni matabishi I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion. Jesus also appeared to women first (the original Church, then, the people who knew about the resurrection, was all women.) He treated women with more respect and dignity than others in his time, not once making a distinction between men and women. Besides the fact that his disciples were men, nothing he ever said treated women differently from men.
barefootinroann (5 months ago)
Alas, I smell a little bit of seminary coming through in this video... "Godsself" instead of Himself - no one outside of academic circles says that. And i'd be careful what you lay at the feet of fundamentalist Christians: many of the teachings that you say are adhered to by them were teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic theologian before 1950 who would in anyway say that the man is not the head of the household.
barefootinroann (5 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit I'm not going to push back. We simply don't agree. I respect you and your work too much to get into a tit-for-tat argument citing this verse or that Father or this Council or that dogma. A reading of church fathers who predate Vatican II would be an eye-opener for you.
Breaking In The Habit (5 months ago)
I mean... I'm sorry to push this, but I don't think this is a matter of disagreement, and as a teacher and shepherd I feel a need to respectfully correct you. The doctrine of the Church is fairly clear that God is neither male nor female and that any language to describe God is meant analogously. The limitations of our language have led us to often use the masculine pronoun to describe God, but as I have said, there are just as many images of God in the feminine as God in the masculine. The images of God as masculine are no more true or inherent to God's nature than the feminine ones, and I think it says more about our male-driven culture created God in our own image than it does about God's essence. I would be very careful how far we push our flawed language and take it literally. The Church does not make the distinction that you are making between "imagery" and "doctrine" as it related to God's gender. Our words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are conventional and practical, and in some ways irreformable, but they are not the only words to describe God and they are not doctrinal statements about God's nature.
barefootinroann (5 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit we're going to have to disagree on this. While God is neither male nor female, He is revealed to us in the masculine. The imagery you cite from the Bible is true, but it is simply that - imagery, not doctrine. To say that Mohammed Ali "floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" doesn't make him an insect. It's the same with the descriptive vs. doctrinal passages of the Bible. Again, disagreeing doesn't reduce my admiration of you, your apostolate and your youthful approach to faith.
Breaking In The Habit (5 months ago)
I think that this is a fairly narrow reading of Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, God is described as a mother that protects her young (bear, eagle) and nurses them at her breast, and Wisdom incarnate is a woman. There are plenty of images of God all throughout the Bible using feminine language. But besides this, it is very dangerous to take any analogous statement about God (Father, Son, Lord, King, warrior, etc.) and absolutize them. These are images that help us get close to God but they cannot define God. Whether we use masculine or feminine words (and the Bible most certainly uses both), neither are fully correct: God is neither male nor female.
barefootinroann (5 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit I'm all for inclusive language except when it comes to God - through Scripture and tradition, God is clearly revealed in the masculine - Jesus Christ is/was a man; God is His Father (with BVM His mother); and even though some would claim that "Paraclete" stems from a non-masculine gender, it is certainly not feminine. I think that the Franciscan spirit is one of truth and simple honesty. To be true and honest with your audience members who have "gender neutral issues," it seems to me that Francis might have nudged them to the truth - God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My inference about "seminary" has to do with what I have observed (with ample evidence) that not a single doctor of the Church would have even thought of God in today's context of "gender neutral" before 1950. I think many seminaries - Catholic and Protestant - are determined to reshape the revealed understanding of God held for centuries; the whole gender thing is just the tip of the iceberg. This notwithstanding, I still very much appreciate your tenor, topics, humor and insights on your channel.
James Martinelli (6 months ago)
God, angels, man, animals, vegetation, minerals. This is the hierarchy taught to Catholics. Hierarchy. If God makes man superior to woman It's His decision. It's His creation.   By the way,  God made a human, Mary, queen of Angels and the bad ones hate being subject to an inferior human being _ gender not withstanding.   (please don't use this as a rational to 'whiteknight' females).
Captain Thumper (6 months ago)
Men need women to ensure survival of the species and vice versa. So if one cannot exist without the other then logic tends to say based on that configuration equality is a given. The vast differences between the sexes and what is an obvious size and strength advantage of the man leads credence to thinking the male superior, he can overrule her good idea in favor of his idea enforced ultimately by force in some cases. This does not make superiority because ruling by force never has enjoyed longevity. The problem is how men perceive and women interpret our differences. Studies are conclusive in demonstrating that men bring certain strengths to a relationship and women are stronger in areas men are likely to be weak. Each role should be celebrated especially the role of wife mother and homemaker. It's tough, it's unrelenting and if you think about it, it's a job that comes with no true vacation time. The women who is a wife mother and cherished friend has a very tough job and I believe the most important job on the planet. We need to get to a point where we stop competing against each other and come to support each other and raise all of us up in the process.
Vintage Red Rose (6 months ago)
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE SUPPORT YOU'VE GIVEN ME ON MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL
KA Fleury (6 months ago)
An unstated point in the video is the matter of authority. As you noted, the Scriptures use the same word "ezer" to describe God, and He certainly isn't subordinate.... He has all authority, which He gives to His Son, Who gives it to the Church through the Pope and the Magisterium. And it doesn't stop there -- it continues into the domestic church. I was expecting the verse from Ephesians to continue, "...the man is the head of his wife, as Christ is the Head of His Church." In this verse, "head" doesn't mean "domineering, lording it over others as the pagans do" (to borrow from another verse). It means "authority," but in the sense of "relationship," where Christ has profound concern for the well-being of His Bride, the Church -- it's a love like no other. We can't fathom how God loves, we can only reflect a glimmer of His love for us in our love for one another for His sake (that is, because He created everyone, so out of love and respect for Him, we love our brothers and sisters). It might be interesting to ask your parents how they've managed to make decisions without coming to a deadlock over certain things. There are actually modern secular psychological studies showing that men in general have the inborn trait to back off from women who take charge and control the shots. We recognize that it's unhealthy for one partner in a relationship to call all the shots, but there's an instinct that isn't shaped by upbringing where most people have an aversion to relationships (even observed) where women control the household decisions, but a reaction ranging from distaste to "smh" when a man controls the domicile (and the reaction is equal among men and women alike). I recognize what St. Paul was saying in the findings of non-religious psychology studies. It comes back again to relationship, based on love, and love is "willing the good of the other as other." But in every relationship where people are bound together for life, making decisions that affect one another, there has to be an authority who makes the final decision, or things fall apart. And since I'm a woman, I could agree to accepting my husband's authority if I'm confident in his judgement, wisdom, and prudence -- but it would be a lot harder if he has a history of making really dumb decisions. In that case, we have many saints who are patronesses of difficult domestic relations.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
Why do you people want men to have authority over you, what kind of a marriage is that? There is no relationship in that kind of environment. Its a slave/master or child/father situation.
Anne Wilber (6 months ago)
This is excellent Br Casey! I hope some time youll add the teaching about women priests, ....that though women cant be priests it doesnt make them inferior in minisrltry or discipleship.....it feels painful to many, it would help to better understand God's heart on this
Appletree (6 months ago)
It's strange how there is no physical proof women came from men, but there is physical proof men come from women.
ThePainkiller9995 (1 month ago)
That makes no sense at all. do you know how evolution works?
splashpont (6 months ago)
PART ONE: While society made women second class citizens, the Church "struggled" with this notion as it allowed women (usually religious sisters) to control their Orders (especially superiors like Abbesses), hospitals, and schools... leading, hiring, budgeting, etc. PART TWO, in 2018: Here is the church, here is the steeple, open the doors and see all the WOMEN. Where are all the men (aside from those on the other side of the altar)?
Orry O Donoghue (6 months ago)
not everything in scripture is the literal divine word! the Bible is the Divine word of God what part did you miss training to be a priest !
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
I'm sorry, but this is really not a discussion worth having anymore. I'm sorry that the distinction that I am making seems like word games to you and that you insist on conflating the two issues into one. I will not be responding to any more comments on this thread.
von Stetten (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit When I re-read what you say I see you are almost playing word games.. 'What I have said is that not everything is literally true, that not all of it is universally binding, and that not everything is factually correct. There is a difference between truth and facts, and I do not ever say that something in the Bible is false.' So you are saying that not everything in the bible is factually correct? THIS IS THE ISSUE and it's not set in stone that it's the accurate way of understanding Dei Verbum which you need to be aware of and retract.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
And please stop calling my humility into question and making subtle attacks on my character. Besides being in poor argumentative taste, it is not the issue at hand. The issue is that you are not understanding what I’m saying and are using straw men arguments, putting false arguments in my mouth.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Leo Stetten I’m sorry, but you’re really missing the point here. I’m not sure exactly how to say it in another way. Catholics believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God (an issue that you have raised that I do not disagree with. Your articles point to some discussion on this). But Catholics do not believe that every word is a literal fact. That is fundamentalist Christian and undermines the way the Church has read scripture since the Patristic period. Your articles say nothing about this, and your comments are ignoring this distinction. You are arguing with yourself here because I am not saying anything that your articles refute.
von Stetten (6 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit 'not everything is factually correct' is the crux of the matter here and what was originally objected to by OP. The articles I provided show that this is disputed and most likely incorrect. Please reconsider and retract that it's an undesputed fact of Church teaching. But I understand reconsidering and saying that will take a lot of humility and perhaps also garner scorn towards yourself by the weaker brothers of your order
101Checks (6 months ago)
This is terrible. Literally a non answer to the question.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@101Checks Sexist PIG
101Checks (6 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit ok, yeah, in a strict narrow sense yes, your answer makes sense, God does not intend women to be subordinated as second class citizens to men. Absolutely not. But I would’ve liked you to have continued the discussion, because there is clearly a type of subordination going on. What kind of subordination? Why? What are the principles behind it? When and why is it in effect? We are starved for the truth of the Catholic faith in the modern age, we want orthodox truth. Flesh it out for us, brother. What are orthodox Catholic gender roles? Etc.
101Checks (6 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit The best explanation I’ve heard of why wives should be submissive to husbands and why women cannot have leadership positions in the Church is that in a fallen world plagued by original sin it becomes necessary for the stronger sex, men, to be strong leaders as representatives of Christ, and that women should willingly submit to worthy male leaders as a symbol of their obedience and humility to Christ. Clearly more needs to be fleshed out there, was seeking further understanding.
101Checks (6 months ago)
Breaking In The Habit ok. I saw that. But people ask this question because the New Testament clearly does talk about wives subordinating to husbands. Yes, it also says husbands should subordinate to wives, but there is also the command of women not teaching, and women veiling, clearly signs of further subordination that aren’t demanded of men. This is mentioned in the video, but isn’t analyzed thoroughly in comparison to the genesis stories and in light of St. Paul saying “... for woman came from man not man from woman ...” Further, we have the modern day discipline of diaconate only being open to men, and the sacrament of holy orders only being able to be conferred upon men, implying a further subordination. None of this gets discussed, and it’s just the obvious stuff. The video finishes by saying “the Bible was written in a certain context and some of that context doesn’t apply”. Literally heresy. It’s actually heretical to say the Bible is not applicable for faith and morals for all ages. The context may be different, yes, of course, that’s obvious. But the theological principles that St. Paul has hidden to us but is still relying upon are not different then and now. The Catholic faith does not change. We are not Protestants. Understanding unfolds, but the faith is unchanging. I would’ve appreciated a further discussion of obvious biblical exhortations to submissiveness and modern disciplines of the Church that confer a leadership role to men not given to women.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Did you not watch until the last paragraph? I "literally" answered the question: "So, does God intend that women be subordinate to men as second class citizens? Absolutely not."
Alex R (6 months ago)
You are one of many reasons why I am leaving Atheism.
john riordan (19 days ago)
@Adque The weakest premise in Leibnitz's argument based on contingency is the premise "if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." You can't include your conclusion in the premise to establish a valid syllogism. Also, there are alternate possibilities for the explanation of the universe. One obvious example is that the universe always existed. Aquinas proffered arguments for God's existence but no proof. In fact, to this day no one has presented proof that god or gods exist.
john riordan (19 days ago)
@Manu Sorry I missed your post. I just saw it now. The inherent fallacy in the argument from motion is in the premise. "All things have a mover." It undermines and contradicts the conclusion that there must be an unmoved mover. Try giving me another one.
Gerard Climis (19 days ago)
@john riordan exactly! but dont waist your time.. they will never acknowledge
The Archivist (1 month ago)
Thanks be to God, welcome to the road to home. Let's get there together, following our Good Shepard.
Davion Hodge (2 months ago)
Great chase God and he will bless you
Jackson Targarios (6 months ago)
Women aren't 2nd class citizens, yet they are much like children, and should be treated as such. When they are given equal authority and standing to men in every way (which is not something they earned, but were given) say "bye-bye" to that society.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
Just remember that you come from a woman. The Bible is very clear that although man was created first, man comes from woman.
James Martinelli (6 months ago)
Jackson Targarios "Empowered women destroy civilization " _ Aristotle
Jackson Targarios (6 months ago)
@splashpont Some women have given much to the world through their productivity and work. However, these are exceptions, not the rule. I'm not against women working, but when they are given power and authority, it does not bode well for the well-being of a society.
splashpont (6 months ago)
What about all those religious women who founded and staffed hospitals and schools? Did Sister Mary Principal have a man's job dealing with hiring, budgets, parents, as well as children?
Dave unbelievable (6 months ago)
Saint Paul wasn't a sexist! He didn't say women were lesser or second class citizens (see Galatians 3:28), he simply said they have different roles in the church and in marriage. The different roles we are given are not because we are unequal but because the relationship between the husband and his wife is meant to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and his church. So just as Christ is the head of his church, the husband is the head of his wife (see Ephesians 5:22-32). Unlike most of your videos this video was poor, you made a horrible misrepresentation of Saint Paul's message by claiming he said women were second class citizens. And then what did after you do dragging Saint Paul's name through the mud?, you rejected his writings as contrary to the intentions of God without asking yourself if you had read it properly. No, I don't think every book is literal but I do read the text wanting to be guided by it, unlike you I don't want to guide the text.
Brad B (6 months ago)
just think what America could achieve if over half of us weren't staggeringly stupid, agregious medieval stupidity 👍😎
hj M (6 months ago)
(if) "men hate women and women hate men not because they are men and women, but because they are sinners" Stanley Marrow sj class notes, 1983
Jack (6 months ago)
Bro. Casey--if the NT verses that talk about women being submissive to men do not ultimately come from God, then why does the RC church teach that women cannot be priests? And how does one identify in a reliable manner which verses are from God and which are not? Is it just the verses that contradict modern values?
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Jack, the issue is not of authority, but about whether the instructions are conditional or not. St. Paul enjoined the priority of the _pater familias_ using the themes of creation because neither he nor God intended to bring about a radical egalitarian project immediately. The tension that I mentioned lies in the intent of the Apostle to make concessions to the culture of his day, although he himself believed that sex differences were rendered irrelevant by baptism. To truly understand Paul's effort, I'd once again recommend Boyarin's book.
Jack (6 months ago)
Thank you again. I find it hard to reconcile what you said about the Apostles never contradicting the 'Divine will' whilst also teaching things that are 'in tension' with propositions founded upon core Christian teachings. I don't see how you can have one with the other. St Paul clearly thought he taught authoritatively on the topic of wives submitted to their husbands, as he wrapped his theology of the church around it. Even St Paul's teaching on women being silent comes with a theological tone, with his references to Eve being deceived first. If these teachings can be practically ignored for cultural reasons, then I see no logical reason why Jesus' headship of the Church and the basic Genesis narrative shouldn't also be treated with suspicion too. And for the record--I do believe that male and female are equal. But I don't believe that St Paul's teachings contradicts this.
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Jack I had missed your other two questions. As for the first, it is not that one draws a distinction between what is from God and what isn't -- all of the Bible is inspired by God, and whatever the Apostles wrote was intended by God -- they didn't go against the Divine will. What one needs to distinguish between is the unconditioned and the conditional. How do we discern the former from the latter? Well, for one, Christianity has an internal logic, so to speak. The core doctrines of the faith form a set of coherent propositions, and whatever is in tension with these may be understood to be conditional. As I pointed out in another comment, the fact that Christ our God suffered for all mankind and has redeemed both men and women entails that men and women share the same essence and are therefore equal. What about Paul's injunctions on submission? When we study the context underlying his writings, both the historical background and Paul's worldview, we understand why he said what he said. A very good book in this regard is the NT scholar Daniel Boyarin's _A Radical Jew_ which is available for free online, and I recommend it to anyone who wishes to understand Paul's teachings on women. What is interesting is that while Boyarin is Jewish, he acknowledges that the Christian tradition opened doors to women which Judaism closed. Further, the equality of the sexes is *not* a modern idea -- numerous Fathers taught this, including St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. When we affirm gender equality, we stand on the shoulders of these great men.
Jack (6 months ago)
Sri Nahar thanks for the reply. I got the impression bro. Casey would also say that the verses about women not teaching men in the NT are also not from god. If so, then I do think it has a baring on the question of women priests. Would be interested in hearing his thoughts!
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
The reason there are no women priests is that neither Christ nor the Apostles appointed any. Since there is no precedent, the Church does not think it prudent to ordain women. The verses on submission were intended to apply to wives, so they would be irrelevant to (hypothetical) ordained women.
gwmkiwi (6 months ago)
Who was there to write down the two different Creation Reports?
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
The creation stories were obviously not written at the time of creation but thousands (or really, millions) of years later. They are what we call in the religious world "myths," grand stories that explain the nature of things, establish relationships, set moral codes, and ultimately define a people. They are the result of many generations reflecting on their existence (and in our case, listening to the Holy Spirit), until they wrote down a story that best captures the truth of their reality. I'll look at myths in a future episode.
Paul Michael Worthen (6 months ago)
Odd that those parts in the Bible that effect a majority (like this one about women) are "not meant to be taken literally", or " are meant to be taken in the context of that time". Those that effect a minority ( like the six references to homosexuality) are taken quite literally and quite seriously....to the point that doctrines have been formed to condemn that minority. Very transparent. Speaking of gays, I know of a bishop and others who have speculated that St Paul was probably a self loathing gay man, a product of his times.
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit there was no such thing as _homosexuality_ in the ancient world -- only homosexual acts. Said acts were forbidden in the Old Testament to for the same reason why nocturnal emissions were considered ritually impure: they involved the failure of proper functioning. But the Church's stance on the equality of the sexes is built on the same ground as her stance on the immorality of homosexual acts -- her commitment to essentialism about human nature and its proper functioning. That can be set aside, but only at the cost of rendering the Incarnation (and original sin) unintelligible. Further, the Church in denying the sacraments to active, unrepentant homosexuals is not "oppressing" them, because oppression involves taking away someone's rights. Since nobody, not even the Holy Father, has a _right_ to the sacraments, given that they are (quite literally) grace, and therefore are a privilege, the question of oppression doesn't arise.
Paul Michael Worthen (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit "God created man and woman, blessed their union...never once blesses a union between a same sex couple." If homosexuality was considered only lustful by biblical authors, then of course they woudn't have written that God blesses their union. I still believe it's simply a matter of the majority oppressing the minority. I don't in any way agree with Church teaching on this issue. All the explanations I've heard are extremely flawed and unacceptable. Here's the bigger question I have for you : I'm a baptized Catholic, attend Mass and take Communion every Sunday. Since I don't accept Church teaching on this one issue ( but do accept all others) should I leave the Catholic Church, or can I remain Catholic and use my conscience as a final say in the matter?
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
What you describe is two very different issues, but interestingly enough, have the same hermeneutic problems. Most (if not all) of the lines about homosexuality in the Bible are flawed, and I would argue are not enough in themselves to build a moral code. Why? Because the ancient world did not understand homosexuality like we do today. For them, "homosexuality" meant straight men so filled with lust that they were promiscuous with other men. There was nothing normal or natural about it, nothing innate, just lust. When St. Paul denounces it, that is what he is denouncing. In this way, there is very little (if not nothing) about homosexuality in the Bible. Like the hermeneutic that has been shown in this video regarding women, one has to take a larger approach to see what God intended rather than what humanity has distorted. In this way, and not in the 2-3 explicit lines, does the Church base its morality about sex: God created man and woman and blessed their union, never once blesses a union between two people of the same sexes, gives the command to be fertile and multiply (rather than be happy together, live together, love one another, etc.), and appears to order creation around this complementarity. So, no, this is not an issue about the majority taking away the rights of the minority. In fact, the whole point of this video is that the minority (men) have taken a way the rights of women (majority) in the name of God, which is wrong. This is not a double standard, this is the same hermeneutic. And as for St. Paul being gay? There is literally no evidence for that. People can speculate, but that's really just imaginations run wild. Really. Judging a man's sexuality based on a few letters written in a culture 2000 years ago? No. It's wishful thinking.
john riordan (6 months ago)
I think I will believe this Friar Casey interpretation when I see a woman treated equally in the Catholic church and addressed as Bishop Susan or as a priest saying mass and hearing confession. Until then the Catholic church is simply a male-dominated and a paternalistic society in the sexist image of Saul of Tarsus. Words have to be followed up with actions or they remain just words.
john riordan (6 months ago)
@James Martinelli I am not sure I understand your counterpoint to my statement. I do know the churches in the west are losing membership and have been for decades. However, in Africa and South America, they are still growing.
James Martinelli (6 months ago)
john riordan The Episcopal Church is dying. Yet the Conciliar Church wants to dialogue with it. I have never found this word in scripture: dialogue.
john riordan (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Today at Bush's funeral, the Episcopal clergy included male and female members: the Most Rev. Michael Bruce Curry, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church; the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, bishop of the Washington diocese; and the Very Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, the dean of Washington National Cathedral. The minister of ceremonies was the Rev. Canon Rosemarie Logan Duncan of the cathedral and the intercessor was the Rev. Canon Jan Naylor Cope, the provost of the cathedral. They set an example for their mother church, the Roman Catholics, to follow.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
What I'm saying is simply what the Church has said: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
john riordan (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit When you say "the Church does not feel that it has the authority" you mean to say that a male pope says that women cannot share equal power in its decisions. All power in the Catholic church rests in a male clergy. Until that changes women can never be equal in it.
TheCynedd (6 months ago)
Bless you, Br. Casey, you continue to inspire me with each of your videos. Your ordination as a priest in 2019 will be a blessing to The Church.
Ashwith Rego (6 months ago)
There's actually a really nice talk by Dr. Brant Pitre that explains Ephesians 5 based on the tradition of the church which I found really beautiful.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
Do you have a link to Ephesian 5 by Dr. Brant Pitre for me please? Would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance.
Betsy (6 months ago)
A few months ago, I read a book called Jesus Feminist by Sarah Besse, who is a protestant author . She talked and stated the same things that you just stated Br. Casey.
Diego Preciado (6 months ago)
I don't always agree with what you have to say, but I enjoy watching your videos anyway. This has to be the first video of yours I actually hit the dislike button on. I feel like at the end of the day this was just a way of trying to rationalize holy scripture to make it fit the culture. Not making the culture conform to our faith.
Nick Esposito (6 months ago)
@Diego Preciado "To me that seems like an issue of morality that will help the family unit cohere to the natural law that God intended it to work." Yes, you said it well here. This has always been part of church’s understanding of the obligations and roles of men and women in marriage. Faith and reason, natural law and divine law are not opposed to each other, since of all these things, God is their author. Christ elevated the natural law institution of marriage to a holy sacrament and a powerful symbol of divine love.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Well, it seems like it might be an issue to think about critically then. Don't ignore feelings of discomfort as it can be the Holy Spirit speaking. The reason for believing that these sorts of statements were more a result of culture than the Holy Spirit is because they are almost exact copies of the Roman household codes. St. Paul did not make these up. In fact, for the most part (outside of the idea of being subordinate to one another and maybe husbands loving their wives as their own bodies), what we see is what every other Roman citizen would have done. The bigger issues come when we see biblical writers advocating genocide in God's name (book of Joshua), bashing babies heads against stones (Psalm 137), having unlimited numbers of wives, rules for divorce, and so on. Was Moses right for allowing divorce? Jesus didn't seem to think so. But the Bible said so. Yes, and we can conclude the same thing as we do for Paul: there is truth to what he said (justice and fairness involved in the law), but it may not be 100% divine truth. Some of it was cultural.
Diego Preciado (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Sorry for being annoying and replying for a third time. But this is eating at me a little more than something normally does. Normally if there is something I'll disagree with I'll just move on, or if I actually care ill try to do some more research. It really pains me and seems odd that the values the church traditionally holds like on this all of a sudden are wrong, and the culture around us gets it right, so now everything gets reinterpreted. Not to blanket that you personally conform everything to the world. I'm talking about a larger cultural trend amongst many Catholics laity and clergy alike. I realised I avoided your challenge you made at the end of your comment. I'll look into your arguments more thoroughly, because at the end of the day a ten minute video doesn't really change anyone's mind. And I promise I'm done ranting on now.
Diego Preciado (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit By the way it makes me more uncomfortable to hold the posistion I do. It goes against everything I was taught growing up. I just want to conform to God as best as I can, and I believe in my heart that this is what was intended.
Diego Preciado (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit I'll start out by saying I'm not the brightest man in the world, and you're posistion is most definitely more well thought out than mine. I'm not in any stating (at least intentionally) that you personally don't want to conform the world to the church. However, I don't believe that the authors of scripture inspired by the holy spirit will say things like women must be subordinate to there husbands due to the cultural context. To me that seems like an issue of morality that will help the family unit cohere to the natural law that God intended it to work. By women obeying their husbands it puts that ultimate authority in one person that way when there is a dispute over how the family should be governed. Instead of an endless quarrel the decision can be made, and the family can put more time into getting things done. This isn't to say that women get no input, and decisions shouldn't ever be mutual, but life isnt perfect, and not everything can be agreed upon. Sorry about the bad grammar.
Angela Simpson (6 months ago)
Br. Casey, I'm new to your video and would like to saygreat video i learned a lot but I'd like to add something. If you look at the text for Ephesians, the words can also be woman need to submit to their husbands. This means to be under their husbands mission, which is to love, honor, and protect the woman. Once I realized this it made me fall all the more in love with the passage.
1JAMINben (6 months ago)
St. Paul didn't say that women weren't made in equal dignity or that they weren't made the image of God or that they were second class citizens. It was the word of God that women should wear head coverings for them, not the word of man. Wives are to be submissive (not opressed by) to their husbands, that is abundantly clear. You really cannot say that not all of Scripture is divine revelation, that is condemned by the Church on multiple occasions. Pope Pius XII said this belief was an error: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, ‘Syllabus of Errors,’ n. 11). Pope Leo XIII: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
97pe (1 month ago)
@1JAMINben beautiful words I'll pray for your vocation
King On The Rise (1 month ago)
1JAMINben . Thank you for upholding the authority of the Church and Sacred Scripture.
1JAMINben (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Also I took St. Paul's words to prayer last night. When I asked God what St. Paul meant, what instantly came to my mind was St. Paul staying there is not male or female. Therefore, he cannot be saying women absolutely do not have the image of God. He does compare marriage to Christ and the Church. So Christ is the image of the Father, and the Church is the image of Christ. Does that mean the Church is not the image of God? Certainly not (as St. Paul would exclaim)! It is the same with man and women. God predestined to reveal Himself in Christ and the Church. He also does so analogously with man and women. One is more of an immediate image, but their dignity as humans is the same and ultimately they are both the image of God but in different roles. That seems that be what St. Paul is saying. Heard youre being ordained in my diocese! God bless! I'm a Seminarian myself, so maybe in 9 years we'll both be priests.
1JAMINben (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Actually, brother, that is a misunderstanding of the Vatican II teaching. The original schema was going to write something more to that effect, but they decided to omit that way of writing, because it might make people think the Scriptures were limited in inerrancy. Here is a good quotation from Unam Sanctam Catholicam which cutes a Cardinal who testifies that they did not intend for this to be understood in the way you have espoused we read it: " If Dei Verbum 11 is problematic, then this Synodal passage is downright useless. With such qualifying statements as "might" and "only", we are left wondering if there is any way to tell what is inspired and what isn't. Clearly, the Synod was leaning more towards the liberal intepretation of Dei Verbum (thankfully this document never turned into an encyclical). This should serve as a sober reminder of how widespread this narrow view of inspiration is in the Church.   While I have already dealt elsewhere with the proper understanding of the "for the sake of our salvation" passage, it remains to be explained what the Council Fathers were thinking exactly when they chose this phrase, "for the sake of our salvation." To get an insight into this, we can turn to the memoirs of Augustine Cardinal Bea, primary author of Dei Verbum. Regarding the drafting of the document, he says: An earlier schema (the third in succession) said that the sacred books teach 'truth without error'. The following schema, the fourth, inspired by words of St. Augustine, added the adjective 'saving', so that the text asserted that the Scriptures taught 'firmly, faithfully, wholly and without error the saving truth.' In the voting which followed one hundred and eighty-four council fathers asked for the adjective 'saving' to be removed, because they feared it might lead to misunderstandings, as if the inerrancy of Scripture referred only to matters of faith and morality, whereas there might be error in the treatment of other matters. The Holy Father, to a certain extent sharing this anxiety, decided to ask the Commission to consider whether it would not be better to omit the adjective, as it might lead to some misunderstanding. [3] Bea then proceeds to raise the question: "Does the inerrancy asserted in this document cover also the account of these historical events?", which he answers: "For my own part I think that this question must be answered affirmatively, that is, that these 'background' events also are described without error. In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms.... This thought, which re-occurs in various forms in the recent documents of the Magisterium of the Church is here clearly understood in a sense which excludes the possibility of the Scriptures containing any statement contrary to the reality of the facts. In particular, these documents of the Magisterium require us to recognize that Scripture gives a true account of events, naturally not in the sense that it always offers a complete and scientifically studied account, but in the sense that what is asserted in Scripture - even if it does not offer a complete picture - never contradicts the reality of the fact. If therefore the Council had wished to introduce here a new conception, different from that presented in these recent documents of the supreme teaching authority, which reflects the beliefs of the early fathers, it would have had to state this clearly and explicitly. Let us now ask whether there may be any indications to suggest such a restricted interpretation of inerrancy. The answer is decidedly negative. There is not the slightest sign of any such indication. On the contrary everything points against a restrictive interpretation." [4]" [3] Augustin Cardinal Bea, The Word of God and Mankind (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), 188. [4] ibid., 189-190
Concerned Citizen (6 months ago)
Thanks Bro Casey for the video. As a flashback to a previous video, can we really look at the book of Genesis as "a myth"? Certainly for me there is something going on that is way more than one would find in Aesop's fables. Granted I, too, struggle with a literal seven day creation interpretation but at least, casting aside the notion of a myth, makes Genesis more pithy and realistic. Here's something that I would like to consider regarding women's subordination to men. As you know, Eve fessed to eating the apple. In response, looking at Genesis 3:15 To the woman he (God) said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” For me, in looking at the first portion of the verse, I take it that God's plans for women were to bear painless births. In other words, the exact opposite of what was written in Gen 3:15. Is the same interpretation approach should be considered in the second part of the verse? Was God's ultimate intention was perhaps, women to be a sort of a "queen bee" where her desires can be with any male and she was to rule over men? Yikes!?! Even for me being a guy, I find hard to wrap my mind around and repulsive. Therefore I decided to use "repulsiveness" as my guiding light and not use such the aforementioned interpretative approach in the second half of the verse. (Whew) (Sorry ladies) Blessings
Concerned Citizen (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit How cool!! Meanwhile, back at the Abbey......
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
I plan to do a video on myth because what you ask is a common misconception. A myth is much more than a story or "fable" with a good message, but an explanation on the relationship with God that actually defines a people. They are incredibly important to culture and religion for the truth that they contain.
Delfina Spm (6 months ago)
well I like this video much. I can learn more about women in Bible in many thought. as a religious women I need this to enrich my life as a woman of God created. thank you very much brother Casey. I would like to listening to another thing's about Mary as our models of religious women in world's nowadays. thank you. God bless you brother Casey.
DavisBenjaminA (6 months ago)
You do have to admit, Br, what reaction were you expecting from this one. Guaranteed to get lots of attention. But yes, the hanging question really quickly becomes are the same “culture at the time” rules teachings also applicable to the later sacraments.... or is ordination rightfully really restricted to one gender. The story of Lilith does seem to up, and it does honestly seem to be a very later addition of popular mythology to the scripture.
Dark Beats (6 months ago)
Love your videos!
Daily Dose of E85 (6 months ago)
You are the best brother casey
Marietta Ljiljić (6 months ago)
Thank you brother Casey for the best explanation of this matter that I've ever heard. I will link this video to every woman who thinks that women are less than in catholic church. I never met a priest in my life who made me feel inferior because I'm a woman (they encouraged me to finish my studies, prayed that I pass exams :)), but, unfortunately, I met many uneducated, bitter laymen who cited those parts of Bible to prove their dominance.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@Breaking In The Habit I really appreciate your video. What do you then make of the verse that says the head of Christ is God, the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man? This verse is making me lose sleep. Please help!
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Yes, and that is sometimes the problem: it is those who do not understand that end up doing the most damage. I'm happy to hear that you have never been made to feel inferior. You aren't!
Mr. Troy Collazo (6 months ago)
Can you do a video on original sin and the fall and how we are supposed to understand these phenomenon in light of contemporary theology.
Mary Pinakat (6 months ago)
As usual I have never heard more acceptable and satisfying insights as those that come from Br Casey. To know that such individuals are still very much there in our Church is great reminder and most eloquent testimony of God's Kingdom and Jesus' faithfulness to his Church especially in these times when multiple sources keep on highlighting all kinds of negative remarks about the Church.
Mike Sturm (6 months ago)
Would be very interested in seeing this kind of scriptural analysis based on textual, cultural, and historical arguements applied to the far more controversial topic of Paul’s stance on homosexuality.
Brother Jerome (6 months ago)
Brother Casey, you are say that sometimes the bible is not the word of God, but "the word of humanity for a given age" This is not only a heresy that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X, but it also contradicts the bible. "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. " 2 Peter 1:21
97pe (1 month ago)
1JAMINben already refuted Casey in this topic in a previous thread. The conciliar father already stated that they didn't meant to limit the inerrancy of the Bible with Dei Verbum
Nathan Johnston (4 months ago)
@Brother Jerome in Matt 19:6 Jesus is very clear "They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide." It appears very obvious that Gods intention was to make man and woman separate but equal parts of one body (marriage). St Pauls letters often contradict the four Gospels and leaves the average reader confused. It is important to understand the context in which Paul was writing those letters. You have to take into consideration the cultural context, the time in History, and also who his audience was. Paul wrote very different letters to the Romans in comparison to the Corinthians. Both groups of people had very different issues and problems to overcome. If you take all of that into consideration it is clear Paul's words are truthful. All brother Casey is saying is dont read the bible like an evangelical fundamentalist Christian and read it like a Catholic.
Brother Jerome (6 months ago)
Also, the First Epistle to Timothy, which is the book that this video is about is not part of the Old Testament, but of the New Testament.
Brother Jerome (6 months ago)
@La Ley Del Amor You musn't be a catholic if you are saying all that. No part of the bible is "outdated" the bible is the word of God.
David Dunst (6 months ago)
Did you just simply dismiss the basis of the Theology of the Body? "Naked without shame...not a thing"??? The whole point is that there was human relationship prior to sin, and without sin, there was no sense of shame, as there was no guilt for which to be ashamed. So, yes, something radical did happen, it's called sin and it universally tainted the experience of the sexes, especially in relationship. All of Scripture, then, is written with that experience of shame as a context, giving every sexist or misogynist ammunition to claim a Biblically-based superiority. I certainly hope I misunderstood you on this point.
David Dunst (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Ok, thanks for clarifying for me.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
It would appear that you did misunderstand me. The point is that what we see at the beginning (man and women being equal, people living without shame, man leaving parents to be with wife) are not what we find to be natural in our world today. Because of this, we find people pointing to "the way things are" as evidence, but the fact of the matter is that God never intended it to be that way: God does not intend us to be in shame, and he doesn't intend the man to dominate his wife.
JacobMcDaid (6 months ago)
Usually love your stuff mate but this seems a bit like progressive garbage to me.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@JacobMcDaid Heaven help the woman in your life! The submission that the apostle Paul talks about is not what most of you misogynists think it is. Breaking in The Habit is right that the word used for HELPER to describe the woman is the same one used for God as the HELPER of Yisrael. So basing on this understanding, the submission that Paul speaks about comes from this very position of POWER. The woman is the EZER, the GOD LIKE POWERFUL HELPER who then comes from that position to help someone who is RECKLESS, the byword for the male of the species. The apostle Paul makes it very clear when he says that wives whose husbands are unbelievers will HELP bring their unbelieving husbands to Christ by submitting to them. Clearly this agrees with the fact that women come from a POSITION OF GOD LIKE POWER as the EZER when we submit. Its infact a giving and Christ like, sacrificial act of SAVING THE RECKLESS MALE. We are not as reckless as men and can help them become wholesome CHRIST LIKE people. So this submission has nothing to do with male superiority or anything of the sort but infact speaks of GOD LIKENESS/CHRIST LIKENESS of women. Women are co-workers with Christ in SAVING the reckless male.
Diego Moreno (6 months ago)
@JacobMcDaid maybe because you were the subordinate of women now to want to reasert yourself. It happened to me
JacobMcDaid (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Thanks for the reply Br. Casey. I'm sorry for coming off harshly. Yes I think your exegesis is wrong. No I don't think you've made any mistake with the Hebrew, however using the translation "earth" for the substance from which Eve was made when that (correct me if I'm wrong) is not the typical translation in the Ignatius or New Jerusalem seems a little like cherry picking to suit your thesis. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but the heart of your exegesis is that Paul's insistence on husbands being the head of their wifes etc was something only relevant to the period? Well consider that such has been the norm really up until the mid 20th century. Yes our current culture rejects that, but today's culture also engages in all manner of degenerate and out right evil behaviour such as polyamory and abortion. Divorce rates are around 50% and depression is an epidemic, especially in regards to women. Gender roles have been rejected and we now see the fruits of that in the destruction of the family, promiscuity and the lack of moral character. Studies strongly suggests that traditional gender roles are best for the happiness of both men and women, the healthy development of children and the longevity of marriages. Does any of that suggest that women are lesser? No of course not, gender roles are complimentary to each other. I think you are strawmaning St Paul a little bit here. Women didn't used to have a vote because they didn't have to face the draft. I won't go on but I'll just add that your assumption about the way I was brought up is wrong. I was raised by a boomer atheist feminist single mother and I used to be a degenerate progressive. It is through challenging my preconceived views that I started listening to people like you and Fr. Mike Schmitt and am now a catechumen and generally conservative. I agree with most everything you say but I'll stick to St Paul's advice and the studies I've seen on this one. Peace ☮️
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
Dear Brother, There's a concept I think that you are lacking in your knowledge. The Church holds that Adam was responsible for the Fall From Grace. It is not because that he ate the first fruit, for Eve held that fault and the fault of listening to the snake, it is because Adam, who was the head of that household as appointed by G_D, was at fault for not correcting Eve and for not telling G_D the truth. For when HE walk through the garden and asked what had happened who did HE address? It was Adam. Are women slaves to men? No. The Church has never taught that. Our women inferior to men? No. The Church has never taught that. Are wives to be subordinate to the spiritual head of the household? Yes! On the flip side men have the divinely appointed Duty, and heavy burden, of the spiritual health of the family. That is the lesson. Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit My dear brother, Thank you for your comment and compliment about my intelligence however untrue. I am quite aware of my faults in my writing style, for I am not the most eloquent of writers, and I do realize that it can come off as gruff or condescending. For this I have, in the recent past, apologize to those that I have offended and have sought with a penitent, yet joyful heart, atonement in the beautiful and rightly mandatory sacrament of confession. This is a fault that must continue to be worked on and hopefully is not a struggle that'll last long. I also do not claim to be an expert in the catechism of the church, far from it, and I do not claim do you have a degree or great schooling that I can wave in front of other's faces or trumpet for all to hear as some may do. I surprisingly hold a bit of Umbridge with the idea at a degree or a set amount of schooling puts one above others when it comes to knowledge of the faith. For it is quite interesting that we take some of our greatest theological and moral lessons from a man who was a poor fisherman who followed another man who came from a Backwater town and was the son of a carpenter. Who was unrecognized as a son of G_D and received a similar dismissal. Lastly, I wish to thank you for your reminder of humility. This wonderful virtue is something that both you and I need to constantly work on and strive for. For we are teachers of the faith and we must not only die to ourselves, but be faithful and humble towards magisterium, and seek no glory in our actions. This is a wonderful reminder for not only you and I, but for all Catholics! Finally, I wish to rethank you for your comments. It was a much longer version of a famous Roman proverb, "Remember thou art but mortal". A good lesson. Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Damien, it seems from your comments over the past few weeks that you certainly has some form of catechesis. Your language and confidence in speech implies that you are an intelligent person. That said, I find that many of your comments are not actually correct, and that they carry with them a bit of condescension. I would recommend, in the future, commenting with a little more humility as you may not have the grasp of Catholic theology that you let on.
ابو محمد طرده (6 months ago)
Beutiful
republiccooper (6 months ago)
Building on this interpretation, why them are there no female priests in the Catholic Church? Substance for a part II.
republiccooper (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit thank you, Bro Casey. Take your time. Whenever you are ready to touch upon that topic, I'll be here listening. Blessings!
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Amazing that it took so long for a comment about Women's ordination! Definitely a controversial (and difficult) topic. Not sure if I'm going to address it immediately... but maybe some day.
Barnaby (6 months ago)
I was hoping you'd say "yes".
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@Barnaby I think most people have misunderstood the Scriptures and chosen to see what they want to see. The "roles" that you speak of actually do not in anyway shape or form make a woman inferior to a man. If anything, I dare say, understood correctly, these Scriptures puts a woman in a GOD LIKE POWERFUL position when she submits. You see, the gentleman in this video RIGHTLY observed that the Bible uses the same Hebrew word EZER (Helper) for God and the woman! So what you THINK makes her inferior to you, submitting to you, is actually her being LIKE GOD as your EZER, helper!. You see, when a woman submits to her husband, she is coming from a GOD LIKE POSITION OF POWER. Her submission is infact a GOD LIKE SAVING ACT of a reckless male of the species to help him become like God/Christ. So her submission is infact POWER and not inferiority. She is a co-worker with Christ in her submission to you to help SAVE YOU from your male recklessness. Its no weakness at all. Hopefully you will get it one day and stop deluding thyself thinking you are superior. LOL
Barnaby (23 days ago)
@The 8th Church Well some people need more space than others, that doesn't change the fact that male/female roles exist, those roles can be changed but they exist.
The 8th Church (23 days ago)
@Barnaby Not having a man in my life means I don't have anyone breathing down my neck bitching about this and the other. In any case, not everyone can get married. You seem to think that marriage is for all. smh
Barnaby (23 days ago)
@The 8th Church What have you gained?
ImAlive 4U (6 months ago)
That is correct there are two creation stories which gives rise to another story in which Jewish scribes had wrote to branch the two stories together which of course is largely disregarded now. I'm talking about the story of Adam and Lilith as the first story indicated that both man and woman were created equally which lead to the story that Adam's first wife was not Eve but rather a woman named Lilith in which the relationship between them didn't work out and Lilith left Adam and because she refused to return to Adam she was cursed which is where the legend of the succubus originated from. Which lead God to decide to make Eve from Adam's rib in which she would be subordinate to him. Obviously the story of Adam and Lilith was around since the time of St. Paul but it's St. Paul that states women should be subordinate to their husbands. The leadership role in the Church as well within society itself had come from men in which the man was the head of his household and it was the men that fought the wars and built their nations. As for women they were historically not permitted to fight in wars even St. Joan of Arc had to hide the fact she was a woman when she joined and latter on lead the French army. This also explains why Christ chosen the 12 Apostles to be men to build His Church and why since then men had been chosen to succeed the offices of St. Peter and the Apostles in which Christ Himself had appointed these offices to men. Look at the mess modern Feminism has caused within society in which both parents have to work to provide for their families leaving their children to be cared for by nannies and daycare providers instead of mothers being with their children. And now men being marginalized by society and within the courts which had lead to groups like MGTOW. When God's plan is unbalanced like it has become there arises problems. The genders are suppose to compliment each other as each has their own roles in the Church as well as within society as God intended. Man means Earth as Woman comes from the Earth, Woman came from Man.
UnratedAwesomeness (6 months ago)
Errrm this video made me quite nervous when you started “disagreeing” with Paul. But it turned out to be very interesting. Agreed, we should look if Paul’s teachings were to apply to people at a specific time or to everyone. He was addressing specific people, but also clarifying church teaching. Therefore it could be either and it must be investigated. There’s also the element of complementary roles between man and woman which must be accounted for.
Alex crack 9000 (6 months ago)
So thats why in Tridentine Mass women wear veil?
Megan Greene (21 days ago)
Yes, it is because of I Corinthians that women cover their hair in church.
James Martinelli (6 months ago)
Alex crack 9000 And men are NOT to cover their heads...
Lynn Cw (6 months ago)
My word! In that painting of Adam and Eve, I am grateful that they started wearing fig leaves!! :))
(6 months ago)
only trust Jesus died n arose u r saved from hell n hate
C. August McMullen (6 months ago)
Well that makes much more sense than I expected. I'm not sure how I feel about original sin as doctrine yet but the idea that opinions on women is a result of it greatly appeals. Always look at the historical background of a text is good advice too.
ojiverdeconfleco (6 months ago)
Thank you! It saddens me deeply how sin got and gets in the way of us treating each other equally.
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
How the Fathers interpreted the relevant passages is what matters, ultimately. St. John Chrysostom in expounding on the submission texts applied it only in the context of the husband giving his wife spiritual instruction, and explicitly said that her subordination was not like that of a servant. Further, he acknowledged that a wise woman could also advise her husband. He also noted that since the very body of the husband belonged to the wife (as per 1 Corinthians) so did his property. And he also rightly noted that the "keep silent" text applied only to noisy women in the context St. Paul had in mind, and not all speech by women as such, yet nonetheless he wrote that it was better if women remained silent. Re: veiling, the biblical scholar Michael Heiser writes that this instruction was given because to the Greeks, female hair was an organ akin to the testicles of men, it had a reproductive function and for that reason was to be covered. It is in this context that the Fathers' injunctions of veiling being tied to modesty make sense. As for 1 Timothy 2.12, several Fathers praised women teachers, and applied this verse only to the prohibition of women holding episcopal office. Private instruction by women to men was licit. But then, tradition also records St. Paul explicitly allowing St. Thekla to teach, and that too without a veil. This is because in his (St. Paul's) view, someone in Christ was a new creation, and the old gender roles of the first creation didn't apply, so long as one lived spiritually. It was those who lived worldly lives who had to keep its rules, which is why St. Paul warned against circumcising Gentiles. But women who lived lives of celibacy were no longer "women" -- there is no more male and female, as St. Paul himself taught in Galatians 3.28, which is to say, the old gender roles don't apply if one has put sexuality behind, since it is sexuality which creates gender roles. This is why early Christianity had several women who were shown to transcend those roles (St. Thekla for one, but also St. Perpetua). In other words, St. Paul's injunctions on women don't apply to nuns, which is why we could restore the office of the deaconess, as the Alexandrian Patriarchate of the Eastern Orthodox Church has done recently. Nor is there any barrier to women's ordination to the episcopal office, save that there is no precedent in tradition for such a move. Ultimately, it is up to the magisterium to decide.
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Damien Paroski sure, but canon law can change or provide exceptions. Priestly celibacy in the Western Church is such an instance of the canon law, yet exceptions have been granted for the Anglican Ordinariate. Nothing prevents the Church from reinstating deaconesses, especially in the Eastern Rites.
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
@Sri Nahar Dear sibling in Christ, While it is true that the Council of Chalcedon (451) did mention deaconesses and did not forbid it they were talking about a heresy in the Syrian region. The later council of Orange and formal council of Loadica did do so. Decisions of these councils formed the basis of the current understanding of canon law. Here is a link to a wonderful history text about this entire discussion. It is a good read and the author or rightly concludes that deaconesses are not permitted in the church. https://www.amazon.com/Deaconesses-Historical-Aim%C3%A9-Georges-Martimort-ebook/dp/B0711G7TMJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543975058&sr=8-1&keywords=deaconess+history Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem.
john riordan (6 months ago)
What a waste of time and money for this commission which will study history and do nothing. "VATICAN CITY — The president of Pope Francis’ commission to study the history of women deacons in the Catholic Church says his group is not planning to advise the pontiff on whether to reinstitute the practice of ordaining women as deacons."
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Damien Paroski my point was that Chalcedon mentioned deaconesses but did not forbid that office. Nor did the early Fathers.
Roy English (6 months ago)
So Paul is not to be taken literally when it comes to women. Yet, literally when it comes to the process of salvation via an oral confession?
splashpont (6 months ago)
Historical context matters. Literary criticism matters. Academic sciences matter. Thus, we kind understand the full meaning of the text.
Ben Cafeo (6 months ago)
Also found in Matthew's Gospel when Jesus was speaking with Peter Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Brother Jerome (6 months ago)
The sentence "cafeteria catholic" comes to mind...
Teodoro Sicat (6 months ago)
Brother, the man is a little bit higher than the woman because our Lord God, took the woman from the ribs of the man, that is why man is a little bit higher. That is true. Question why did our Lord God, made the right hand stronger than the left hand, and only few are left handed? Why?. So that righteousness may be fulfil, that is the purpose of it.
Jesse J (6 months ago)
Thank you for these videos! You're doing a great job presenting Catholicism for the youtube crowd !
Joel Sam (6 months ago)
Wow this was so insightful. Greatly appreciated 🙏🏽🙏🏽
fun-with-nickline (6 months ago)
🙏.
Giuseppe (6 months ago)
Hey Casey,great video,I wanna tell you,that,you are inspiring me to become a minor friar,thanks for all, greetings from Brazil!
Nathan Danyal (6 months ago)
Prayers for you✌
Chris Tully (6 months ago)
Clicked on the title with some apprehension. In the end, very chuffed with this video! I'll remember its arguments for future reference
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
And now I've learned a new word! "Chuffed"
Dennis R Dowell OFS (6 months ago)
Good thoughts!. I especially like the concept that the strange customs that we reject are as a result of sin. That little problem really messed up a lot of God's plan, didn't it? Thank God for Jesus!! Oh, BTW. "STRENTH" is correctly spelled "STRENGTH."
alfredo_5auce (6 months ago)
Lol, some epic mental Gymnastics here 😆
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Damien Paroski (1) I don't see where the Church blames only Adam. Rather, both are blamed. And in turn, Christ is contrasted with Adam, and the Most-Holy Theotokos is contrasted with Eve, which is why both are praised for causing our salvation (although in different ways). (2) Even if gender roles mandating subordination are grounded in creation, the baptized Christian is a new creation, one of a body in whom there is no longer male and female. And those who fully embrace this by taking up celibacy leave their gender roles behind, which is why St. Paul allowed St. Thekla to preach and teach.
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit Dear brother, Your response to brother alfredo talked about the misinterpretation of the first century writers. First century means first 100. Therefore it means 100 years. Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
@Sri Nahar Dear sibling in Christ, If both men and women equal in the Church's eyes then, therefore, there is a problem inherent to our faith. For the Church holds Adam solely responsible for the Fall From Grace. It is Adam who was the head of the household. It was Adam who G_D spoke to about what had transpired. In talking to Adam HE cast both of them out. If men and women are equal then why would the Church hold Adam responsible for the fall? Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem
Sri Nahar (6 months ago)
@Damien Paroski no worries.
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Damien Paroski I still truly do not have any idea what you are referring to when you say “100 years. 100 years after what? Regardless, the point remains: not everything that scripture says is the inerrant word of God. St. Paul is allowed to be incorrect and misinterpret scripture when he tries to apply it to justify the Roman code he was describing.
Marie Just Marie (5 months ago)
The church is the Bride of Christ. Does she rise up against Christ? No. Christ loves His church. You are looking at this from a worldly point of view. Woman was made from the rib of man. There was a reason for this. Look at Mary. She said she was the handmade of the Lord. She does the will of God. Did she argue with the Angel? No! It is all a mystery. A beautiful mystery.
Kami Tenchi (5 months ago)
Lol ok
Marie Just Marie (6 months ago)
@Karina Mandarina She is an example for men and women. She is first the new Eve. Adam cannot be Eve. She is the "woman" foretold in scripture. When I say argue I don't mean it in that way. My language is limited in how I can Express what I truly want to say. She said "yes" and gave us Jesus. Zachary wasn't stubborn. He had no faith.
Karina Mandarina (6 months ago)
@Marie Just Marie yes to all that you said. However ... She's in general (to all men and women) the greatest example of obedience and humility of a human creature of God. If you say that she's just an example to women and never men, then you'll refuse a great example for men to follow. Mary, at the moment of the annunciation, didn't argue the angel. However, six months earlier, Zachary did and was punished being muted, and so many stuborn men in the bible. So she is an example to men as well. Other wise, men wouldn't have such a veneration to Mary throughout centuries.
Marie Just Marie (5 months ago)
@Karina Mandarina Mary is the greatest example of womanhood. Christ is the Groom and His church is His bride. She is obedient in teaching His ways. Christ loves her and protects her. The church is not run as a democracy. God is the Supreme Head of all things.
Karina Mandarina (6 months ago)
she's not obedient because of being a woman, she's obedient because she's the most humble creature of mankind. There are other parts of the Bible where some women are not obedient. Mary is not acting on behalf of all woman in the world, but her words are individually spoken. She says "I", not "we women". Then after she says "For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed". What you fixate on is the second history of Genesis and forget the undeniable truth on the first explanation: "God created them at his own image" and the second explanation: man is earth and so is woman. The fact that women are equal to man is undeniable. The fact that God asks us women to be obedient to man THAT is the mistery. And me as a woman, I'm okay with it, for man has a more heavy responsibility: to love (and protect, and give his life for) women as Christ loves his Church. So as long as a man is willing to give his life for me I don't mind being obedient, I'll trust his decisions will be the best for me.
Reece Murray (6 months ago)
Proofs it
Reece Murray (6 months ago)
I love being A traditional Catholic and woman are suppose to be submissive to there husbands Titus 2:4-5 And so train the young women to love their husbands and children to be self controlled, pure, working at home, kind and submissive to their own husbands, that the Word of God may not be reviled. Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands as it is fitting in the Lord, Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing in pain you shall bring forth children your desire shall be fot your husband, and he shall rule over you, and more woman have there wifely duties what they are suppose to do and the great Holy Bible proofe it
Oh Yeah Yeah (4 months ago)
@john riordan Feminism has left the chat lol
Damien Paroski (6 months ago)
@john riordan Dear Brother, Be kind in your words especially to faithful women! Would you talk to our blessed lady that way? No. I believe an apology is in order. Your Brother in Christ, Damien Paroski Pugna contra omne malum est per orationem.
john riordan (6 months ago)
Wake up, woman. You are asleep in the dark ages.
newstart 19 (6 months ago)
The best way to bypass all those problems is to accept these verses in metaphoric meanings or just as a result of personal spiritual and social experiences of the author of each gospel or book.
Anthony Viriya (6 months ago)
Doesn't "Adam" translated as "Human" and earth is Eretz?
Jesus Acuna (6 months ago)
Adama is the other word for earth. Eretz is more like land, and adama is more like the ground.
alfredo_5auce (6 months ago)
Correct
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
The name Adam is a wordplay that is connected to both of the words humanity and earth/ground: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/adam/
Michicun GD (6 months ago)
Yes, God did.
Michicun GD (6 months ago)
@Breaking In The Habit lol i was only joking
Breaking In The Habit (6 months ago)
Someone didn't watch the video!
Noel Jose Martin (6 months ago)
Good thoughts , thank you Bro.Casey . May God bless your ministries.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.