If you imitate Paul as he imitated Christ, then you will be imitating Christ as he represented God.

It is normal that we should imitate those whom God has set over us as teachers. For if they imitate God, why should we not imitate them? For just as God the Father sent Christ as the teacher and author of life, so Christ sent the apostles to be our teachers, so that we should imitate them, for we are unable to imitate him directly.

If, indeed, the goal of Christianity is the imitation of Christ according to the measure of his incarnation, insofar as is conformable with the vocation of each individual, they who are entrusted with the guidance of many others are obliged to animate those still weaker than themselves, by their assistance, to the imitation of Christ.

This is the rule of the most perfect Christianity, a landmark exactly laid down, the point that stands highest of all. Nothing can make a person like Christ more than caring for one’s neighbors.

Having attacked their morals and behavior, Paul now goes on to correct their traditions.

The Corinthian women used to pray and to prophesy (for in those days women also prophesied) with their heads bare. Meanwhile the men, who had spent a long time in philosophy, wore their hair long and covered their heads when praying, which was a Greek custom. Paul had already admonished them about these things. It seems that some had listened to him but that others disobeyed. Here he praises the obedient before going on to correct the others.

To what kind of a crown, I ask, did Christ Jesus submit for the salvation of both sexes? What crown has he who is the head of man and the glory of the woman and the husband of the church? It was made from thorns and thistles.

Scripture states: And the two shall be but one flesh,^[1] so that what was once one may become one again. . . . The head matches its own limbs and the limbs their own head, a natural bond uniting both in complete harmony, lest the closeness of the divine covenant be shattered by some sort of discord arising from the division of members. . . . Husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church, and wives are to love their husbands as the church loves Christ.

The Head suffered in the place of the skull. O great and prophetic appellation! The very name all but reminds you to think not of the crucified as a mere man. He is the head of every principality and power. The Head which was crucified is the Head of all power.

The man is head of the woman in the natural order but not in Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female. Nevertheless, Paul wanted women to be subject to their husbands. God is the head of Christ’s humanity, because the divinity which was in the human Jesus controlled his doings.

God is the head of Christ because he begat him; Christ is the head of the man because he created him, and the man is the head of the woman because she was taken from his side.^[1] Thus one expression has different meanings, according to the difference of person and substantive relationship.

The word head is used in two different senses here, since otherwise absurdity would result. The distance between Christ and man is far greater than between man and woman, on the one hand, or between Christ and God on the other, and is of a different kind. Christ and God are equal in substance but different in relationship, and the same applies to man and woman. But between God and Christ the Son on the one hand and man [and woman] on the other, there is a vast difference of substance as well as of relationship.

This is a warning that no one ought to rely on oneself. She who was made as a helper needs the protection of the stronger. In this sense the head of the woman is the man. Yet while he believed that he would have the assistance of his wife, he fell because of her. Hence no one ought to entrust himself lightly to another unless he has first put that person’s virtue to the test. Neither should he claim for himself in the role of protector one whom he believes is lesser to his strength. Rather, each one should share his special grace with the other. Especially is this true of the man, who is in the position of greater strength, who plays the part of protector.

For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.

Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only [the relation of] submission. The nature of God and Christ is the same. Similarly the nature of man and woman is the same.

Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, “we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,” as the Psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of the joy that is in heaven.

[T]he “man is the head of the woman” [1 Cor 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, “He shall rule over you” [Gn 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted [women] to teach, how will anyone allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ.

Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication.

There is a difference between ancient and recent prophets, as follows. The ancients prophesied about the redemption of Israel, the calling of the Gentiles and the incarnation of Christ, whereas recent prophets prophesy about particular things or people, as Peter prophesied about Ananias, for example.^[1]

What is the meaning of the expression every woman except women of every age, every rank and every circumstance? No one is excepted.

Could not the holy Mary, mother of God, have written books under her own name? But she did not, that she might not bring shame on her head by exercising authority over men.

A woman does not acquire a man’s dignity by having her head uncovered but rather loses her own. Her shame and reproach thus derive from her desire to be like a man as well as from her actions.

Although man and woman are of the same substance, the man has relational priority because he is the head of the woman. He is greater than she is by cause and order, but not by substance. Woman is the glory of man, but there is an enormous distance between that and being the glory of God.

No governor should come before the king without the symbols of his office. Such a person would never dare to approach the royal throne without his military girdle and cloak, and in the same way, a man who approaches the throne of God should wear the symbols of his office, which in this case is represented by having one’s head uncovered.

This image made to the image of God is not equal to and coeternal with him whose image he is, and it would not be, even if it had not sinned at all. The meaning of the words of God when he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness must be understood. They were not spoken in the singular but in the plural. For man was not made in the image of the Father alone, or of the Son alone, or of the Holy Spirit alone, but in the image of the Trinity.

It is not as though one part of humanity belongs to God as its author and another to darkness, as some claim. Rather the part that has the power of ruling and the part that is ruled are both from God.

Thus the apostle says, A man certainly should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but a woman is the glory of man.^[1]

[The Manichaeans say]: The devil should not have been allowed to approach the woman. On the contrary, she should not have allowed the devil to approach her. She was made so that, if she were unwilling, she could have prevented his approach. Then they say: Maybe the woman should not even have been made. This would be to admit that something good should not have been made. For there can be no doubt that the woman is good—so good that the apostle says that she is the glory of man and that all things are from God.

From this we learn that man is not the image of God because of his soul or because of his body. If that were the case, woman would be the image of God in exactly the same way as man, because she too has a soul and a body. What we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship. For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does—she has man over her.

For even if women among them [the Montanists] are appointed to the office of bishop and presbyter by appealing to Eve, they hear the Lord saying: Your resort shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.^[1] And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.^[2] And again, For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

Man has the first place because of the order of creation.

This is all that is needed to demonstrate the primacy of the man, for the woman was created to serve him, not the other way round.

It is on account of the angels, he says, that the woman’s head is to be covered, because the angels revolted from God on account of the daughters of men.

The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops.

Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. It induces the woman to be humble and preserve her virtue, for the virtue and honor of the governed is to dwell in obedience.

Having talked about the glory of the man, Paul now reestablishes the balance so as not to exalt the man beyond what is his due nor to oppress the woman. In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. . . . Each one of the two is the cause of the other, God being the cause of all.

Paul adds that all things are from God so that the woman will not be upset because of her dependent condition nor will the man be proud of his responsible position.

Yet whatever excellencies belong to man, they belong ultimately to God. We should therefore obey him and not complain about it.

Concerning the male and female sexes, what has the son of perdition^[1] to say? That the two sexes are not from God but from the devil? What has the vessel of election^[2] to say about this? For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman—but all things are from God. What does the devil say through the mouths of the Manichaeans about the flesh? That it is an evil substance, a creature not of God but of the enemy.

Here then we see the just judgment of God’s providence, that diversity of conduct is taken into account and that each is treated according to the deserts of his departure and defection from goodness.

This was the church’s tradition, but since the Corinthians were ignoring it, Paul made his appeal to nature.

Paul has a habit of referring to ordinary everyday things in order to shame his hearers. After all, if even barbarians know these things, what is wrong with them? Can they not see the obvious?

If you demand a divine law, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, written on the tablets of nature, to which also St. Paul is accustomed to appeal. Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: Does not nature teach you this? Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law.

This is in line with Leviticus [19:27], which prohibits a man from having long hair.

One act is becoming to a man, another to a woman. . . . How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman!

What is the reason, I wonder, why men wear their hair long contrary to the precept of the apostle? Is it to furnish greater leisure to the barbers? Or is it because they wish to imitate the birds of the gospel? Maybe they fear being plucked so that they might be unable to fly? I refrain from saying more concerning this habit, because of certain long-haired brothers whom, in almost all other respects, we hold in high esteem. But in proportion as we love them the more in Christ, to that degree do we advise them the more earnestly.

It is unholy and deceptive for a woman to wear a wig. If the man is the head of the woman, is it not impious for her to deceive him with all that extra hair and at the same time offend the Lord by dressing like a harlot, when her own natural hair is so beautiful?

To oppose this teaching is contentiousness, which is irrational. The Corinthians might object, but if they do so, they are going against the practice of the universal church.

Paul recognized that the Corinthians, instead of growing closer to God, were falling into the habits of the world, and so they needed a rebuke from him, in order that they might return to their former state.

Paul tempers his criticism by saying that he only partly believes what he has been told [of their factions] because he wants to encourage them to return to the right state of affairs.

In this way the faithful are approved and the faithless are detected.

Paul did not want heresies or choose them, but he foresaw the future and knew that they would come.

In speaking here of factions, Paul did not have doctrinal heresies in mind, though it would apply to them as well. Christ himself said that occasions of stumbling would have to come (Mt 18:7). He did not thereby destroy man’s free will or decree any necessity or compulsion over human life, but he foretold what would be the inevitable result of the evil in the human mind. Divisions did not come about because Christ foretold them; rather he foretold them because they were inevitable.

People become heretics, even though they would still have held wrong opinions if they had remained within the church. Now that they are outside, they do us more good, not by teaching the truth, for they do not know it, but by provoking carnal Christians to seek the truth and spiritual Christians to expound it. In the church there are innumerable people who are approved by God, but they do not become manifest among us as long as we are content with the darkness of our ignorance and prefer to sleep rather than to behold the light of truth.

Paul is not talking here about doctrinal error but about moral failures. ^[1] WHY SCHISMATICS ARE NOT INSTANTLY ROOTED OUT. VINCENT OF LÉRINS: It is as if the apostle meant that the authors of heresies are not instantly rooted out by God, in order to make manifest those who are approved, that is, in order to make evident to what degree each one is a steadfast, faithful and firm lover of the orthodox faith. ^[1]

The Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of the Lord. Everyone participates equally in it, whether they are poor or rich, slaves or lords, rulers or ruled. Common tables must at all costs be truly common so as to imitate the table of the Lord, which is open to all equally.

If a person is wealthy and eats without restraint or is insatiable, he disgraces himself in a special way and does wrong on two accounts. First, he adds to the burden of those who do not have, and second, he lays his own intemperance bare in front of those who do have.

The Corinthians were disgracing themselves by turning the Lord’s Supper into a private meal and thus depriving it of its greatest prerogative. The Lord’s Supper ought to be common to all, because it is the Master’s, whose property does not belong to one servant or to another but ought to be shared by all together.

The false apostles had sown divisions among them so that they were possessive of their offerings. Although they were all blessed with one and the same prayer, those who had not offered or who had nothing to offer were covered with shame and did not take part. Furthermore, it all happened so quickly that those who came later found nothing left to eat.