What is the general survey, of pre-Vatican 2 Catholic tradition, for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 in a cultural/time bound manner?

Back in 1874, the American Protestant theologian, John W. Haley wrote one of the definitive works which defended the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. In his book, he argued: > ...with fitting deference, we may ask whether after all the texts from > Corinthians and Timothy may not have been intended for a local and > specific, rather than a general, application...(Haley, Alleged > Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 310) When the Apostle Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man . . ." (1 Tim. 2:12), he is using the present active indicative form of the verb "permit" (ἐπιτρέπω). Scholars point out that it could be translated, "I am not permitting . . . ." So, the question is how to take the verb "I do not permit..." Should it be translated either as a temporal present ("I do not presently permit") or as a timeless present ("I am never permitting")? Only the context of 1 Timothy and the Pauline corpus and the church tradition can determine which the Apostle intends. If it is a temporal present, than the Apostle Paul is not laying down the law for the whole church forever by not permitting women here to teach or have authority over men. Tertullian (d. 225) was an ecclesiastic writer who became a Montanist. The movement, as pointed out here , had women involved in every aspect of leadership. He wrote concerning women: > It is not permitted for woman to speak in the church, nor is it > permitted for her to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer [the > eucharist], nor claim for herself a share in any masculine function -- > not to mention any priestly office. (On the Veiling of Women, chapter 9) On the surface, the above quote appears to be a drag down knock out illustration from the early church that demonstrates a solid tradition against women's ordination. But, what defines a masculine function? It is only in the last century that we have allowed changes to be made in our understanding. For example, as recently as 1910, almost no college would permit a woman to study medicine, law, engineering, accounting, upper level math or science. These disciplines were considered “unfeminine.” Women also could not sue in court, serve on juries, vote in national elections, or run for elected office. Likewise, Origen (ca. 185-250) writes on 1 Timothy 2: > The women should keep silence in the churches...If the daughters of > Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for > we do not find this fact in evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, much > less the Old Testament... (Fragments on 1 Corinthians) However, one could make the case that Tertullian and Origen were simply making theological applications to accommodate and reflect the culture of their day. Plutarch, in his essay “Advice to Bride and Groom” speaking of the virtuous woman says that: > ... her speech...ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be > modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, > since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her > feelings, character and disposition. Pheidias made the Aphrodite of > the Eleans with one foot on a tortoise, to typify for womankind > keeping at home and keeping silence. For a woman ought to do her > talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should > not feel aggrieved if, like a flute-player, she makes a more > impressive sound through a tongue not her own. Also Livy, in recreating a speech for Marcus Cato for a late first century B.C. audience, has Cato state: > If each man of us, fellow citizens, had established that the right and > authority of the husband should be held over the mother of his own > family, we should have less difficulty with women in general; now at > home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is > bruised and trampled upon...What kind of behavior is this? Running > around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s > husbands! Could you not have asked your husband the same thing at > home? (Livy 34:2,9) One might argue that the Apostle Paul had a desire to be culturally current to the fallen nature of the society around him – *i.e.* *to be all things to all people*. The reality of the first century world being that because of the fall, there is a curse upon women. Perhaps it was not necessary for Paul to demand women’s emancipation because that would go against God’s order of preservation following the curse of the fall? However, if a culture, such as ours, has already changed towards allowing women equality, than it might be fine to adapt to the changing culture around us. In this view, the curse that fell upon women as the result of the fall is reflected in Aristotle’s natural observation that “the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female [is] subject [to him]” (Pol. 1254.b.13–15). Aristotle also writes that “the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female” (Pol. 1259.b.2–3, b.10).  If this is true, than the order of creation related by Paul, in his letter to Timothy might be done in order to highlight the consequences of the curse upon females as an aspect of the order of the fall. For example, in the Genesis account, there are two descriptive facts which, when combined, combine as an issue in God's decree. Paul's comments should be read in the context of this post-fall statement: *I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.* (Gen. 3:16b). In examining early Reformation church tradition, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther’s friend, Matthias Flacius (1520-1575), thought that men rather than women should preach and minister, but considered this a human arrangement rather than divine command. He thought that order was at least partly to be based on the attitude of the whole community so long as there was fear of God in what was done. Also, the popular Lutheran theologian, Johann Gerhard (1621-1668), saw 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 as a rejection of the matriarchal ways of some sects, rather than as an absolute rule. (See "Ordination of Women" LCUSA, p. 33) Despite this exegetical view, a common view among traditional Lutherans is to not ordain women. This also appears to be the case with Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the late Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote: > I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in > favor of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments > urged on the other side now appear to me a great deal less conclusive > than they did twenty years ago. > > What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as > essentially an open question. Let us not imagine that in this area > everything is clarified and finally settled; for manifestly it is not, > either for us Orthodox or for other Christians. One point deserves to > be underlined at the outset. On the subject of women and the > priesthood, there exists as yet no pan-Orthodox statement, possessing > definitive Ecumenical authority." - Bishop Kallistos Ware in "Women > and the Priesthood" edited by Thomas Hopko" (1999, St Vlad's Press, p. > 7). Is women's ordination a "closed" question in Catholicism, in a way that is more locked up than in Eastern Orthodoxy or traditional Lutheranism? What is the general survey, of pre-Vatican 2 Catholic tradition, for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 in a cultural/time bound manner that would be similar to the views expressed by Johann Gerhard (1621-1668), Matthias Flacius (1520-1575) & the inerrantist theologian John Haley (late 19th century)?