Ephesians 5:22....revisited

[Dan_Daly]

---

Same old – same old trick---- “mudding” the discussion by bringing in "contraception – “porn” --etc. etc.

No mudding at all. To see the connection between the numerous attacks on the family and the widespread failure to follow the Church’s teachings on the family simply common sense.

Confusing equality of dignity with equality of roles as is going on a good bit in this thread is directly related to contraception. It’s one of the sins primary justifications: how can a woman achieve “eqaulity” if she’s “enslaved” to her own biology and the sexual urges of her husband? She must achieve control over her fertility in order to get ahead. Contraception in turn is directly related to pornography. Hugh Heffner was a big donor for the legal campaigns to get anti-contraception laws off the books. How can pornographic “actors and actresses” to use the terms loosely do their “work” if all the women keep getting pregneant? Contraception is what enables pornography to operate on a massive scale.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Walking Home, if you don’t want to go down this avenue of discussion, perhaps you can take up the challenge I offered to Severus. Please provide some evidence of Church teaching that states a husband is not the head of the family.

Pax Christi

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home, if you don’t want to go down this avenue of discussion, perhaps you can take up the challenge I offered to Severus. Please provide some evidence of Church teaching that states a husband is not the head of the family.

Pax Christi

---

It has been provided prior — mutual subjection – one spouse is not over the other.

"However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. **However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. **Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?"

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

It has been provided prior — mutual subjection – one spouse is not over the other.

Nowhere in your citation does it say that a husband is not the head of a family. Please try again.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Actually, if you back up to the portion of mulieris dgnitatem just before where you quoted:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

You will see that John Paul II states that the husband is the head of the wife. He also rightly points out that there is no contradiction between headship and sacrificial love. Rather, they go together.

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Actually, if you back up to the portion of mulieris dgnitatem just before where you quoted:

Quote:
The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time

---

And Pope John Paul follows with ---- that way of speaking is profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time – and addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same way of thinking and acting. What was at that time – was transformed by Christ - to mutual subjection of the spouses – and not just the wife to the husband.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

**The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. **The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?"

 

[Dan_Daly]

What makes John Paul’s writing special? Why is it to be considered in isolation and seperate from the rest of the magesterium? That is the biggest issue in how you interpret it. So can you provide me some evidence explaining how the Church missed how Christ transformed marriage for almost 2000 years, and preached abuse and domination in its official teachings until finally figuring it out late in the 20th century?

Pax

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

• From the Oath Against Modernism

 

[severus68]

As I have pointed out before Severus, if you reject the Catechism of Trent as outmoded, outdated, and teaching errors in faith and morals, then you reject the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well. The CCC not only quotes the Catechism of Trent (cited as the Roman Catechism) 20 times, it explicitly endorses it as a most sure guide to the Christian faith. Furthermore, the Catechism of Trent is actually a more authoritative Catechism than the CCC because it was the product of a full council of the Church.

All I will say is that we can all pick and choose and find material to support our views and then say they are what God says.

 

[severus68]

I will also dispute the notion that the 20th century was a long awaited era of unprecedented feminine freedom.

Actually, nothing has been more damaging to the rights of women in the western world than feminism, whose fruits include:

-Widespread divorce. When a man can leave his wife whenever he wants, the position of all women suffers, as do their children.

-Widespread contraception which enables pornography, prostitution, adultery, fornication, and abortion, all of which do great harm to women.

-Widespread immodesty which along with contraception promotes the viewing of women as sexual objects rather than divinely created persons.

Pax Christi

Yes, we can blame all sins on women who want equality and men who support that.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Yes, we can blame all sins on women who want equality and men who support that.

Where did I blame anything on women? I blamed things on feminism, which is an idea that can be held by men or women. I blamed things on contraception and divorce and immodesty. I don’t see any problem with blaming those things.

I also have not said I have a problem with any teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a universal Catechism. If you can find where it says “a husband is not the head of his family” in there please let me know. I accept the teachings of the CCC and the Catechism of Trent. You reject Trent and much else of the magesterium, because it was written before women drove cars.

You refuse to explain your position that the Church taught error for almost 2000 years. Please do so.

And yes you are a material heretic.

Pax

 

[severus68]

I don’t think what I said is insulting to men or women. In one of the sociology classes I took in college, I read a book about the stabilizing effect of marriage on men and on society and the negative impacts of the breakdown of marriage and lessening responsibilities for men. ** It’s roots are simple biology really. Biologically, males of most any species instinctively want to breed as much as possible; to sow their seed. Females can’t breed as often and want to choose the best genes, and the mate that will be able to protect her and her offspring**

Biology can not be given as excuses for irresponsibility. What you are physically does not determine what you are as a person. I also do not like men and women being put into little boxes, men are like this and women are like that.
The point is not what men do with their ‘right to lead’ in a marriage but the existence of that right at all.

 

[severus68]

---

And Pope John Paul follows with ---- that way of speaking is profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time – and addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same way of thinking and acting. What was at that time – was transformed by Christ - to mutual subjection of the spouses – and not just the wife to the husband.

WH,

I see in Dan Daly’s next post he cannot again say JPII said this or that so he goes back again to the old, why was JP II right when this contradicts earlier popes. I have gone through all this more than once with him.

LightBound, where are you please?

As a general statement, I am happy to discuss and I mean discuss with anyone who wants to do so. You do not have to agree with me and vice versa and we can still be civil. I do not want to be preached at and I take great exception to being called a heretic

 

[Dan_Daly]

WH,

I see in Dan Daly’s next post he cannot again say JPII said this or that so he goes back again to the old, why was JP II right when this contradicts earlier popes. I have gone through all this more than once with him.

LightBound, where are you please?

As a general statement, I am happy to discuss and I mean discuss with anyone who wants to do so. You do not have to agree with me and vice versa and we can still be civil. I do not want to be preached at and I take great exception to being called a heretic

I have shown you that John Paul II said men were the head of the family, and it does not contradict what he terms “mutual subjection”. You were unresponsive to that argument so I continued with another: that Church teaching does not come with a “best if used by date” afterwhich it becomes irrelevant and goes bad. You seem to be unresponsive to this line of reasoning as well. Can you point me to the date where the teachings of the Council of Trent, or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius XI went bad? It would have to be some time after the CCC, as it says the Catechism of Trent is a most sure guide. How long do we have until what John Paul II said no longer matters?

You may take exception with being called a heretic if you wish. I don’t say it to offend you. I say it because it is true. You’ve been unresponsive to more subtle reasoning, so perhaps the blunt truth will register. You’re demonstrating a clear case of what is commonly called “cafeteria Catholicism” in which one can pick and choose Church teachings. As your operating premise appears to be that older teachings are irrelevant and new ones are good, your heresy is the heresy of modernism. It is very prevalent in the Church today.

I am far from perfect and a grievous sinner. If you or anyone else can demonstrate where I am out of line with Church Teaching, I will conform to the Church teaching. You do not appear to be so. You simply decide which Church teachings are binding and which are not. The Church did not teleport from Pentecost Sunday to the 2nd Vatican Council. If you ignore everything inbetween then you are gutting the faith. Again, how long will it be before some future internet poster can say “well that’s what JPII said, that’s irrelevant. It was written before people flew around in hover cars.”

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Repeating a wrong over many years does not make it right. Some can refer to a sixteenth century Catechism etc. II refer to our current Catechism and to the beloved John Paul II.

Divinely ordained authority of a husband over his wife? I know Christ said “On this rock I build my Church” regarding Peter and his successors.Christ did not tap l his apostles on the shoulder and give them authority over all women.

This is the particular post that I think most accurately and succinctly captures your error Severus. Yout state that “repeating a wrong over many years does not make it right.” The “wrong” you were referring to is the Church teaching on the duties of husbands and wives. As I understand you, you believe the Church taught wrongly, that is in error, about the authority of a husband in the family for most of its history, and that as of Blessed John Paul II has finally figured it out.

Is that a fair summary of your view?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This is the particular post that I think most accurately and succinctly captures your error Severus. Yout state that “repeating a wrong over many years does not make it right.” The “wrong” you were referring to is the Church teaching on the duties of husbands and wives. As I understand you, you believe the Church taught wrongly, that is in error, about the authority of a husband in the family for most of its history, and that as of Blessed John Paul II has finally figured it out.

Why would that be so surprising? The Church has modified and re-interpreted its view on other things. As mentioned, the Church no longer recognizes slavery as legitimate, though for thousands of years between St. Paul and the Spaniards, it allowed for it. And the reason I’m harping on slavery again, is because it is right there in Ephesians as well.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Why would that be so surprising? The Church has modified and re-interpreted its view on other things. As mentioned, the Church no longer recognizes slavery as legitimate, though for thousands of years between St. Paul and the Spaniards, it allowed for it. And the reason I’m harping on slavery again, is because it is right there in Ephesians as well.

You are repeating an often stated falsehood. The Church can change matters of discipline. When she does so, she says what she has changed. The Church does not and can not change its teachings on matters of faith and morals.

Here is an article explaining why the often repeated line, “The Church used to support slavery and now it doesn’t” is false.

thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/slavery.html

 

[Dan_Daly]

Closely related to the heresy of modernism is the heresy of Americanism. Here’s part of what Pope Leo XIII had to say about it that is especially relevant to our discussion:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” —Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

Pax

Here’s the whole letter of the Pope:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM

He wrote it in 1899, yet it reads like it was penned for 2012. Isn’t interesting that most American Catholics have no idea there is a heresy named for their country? Perhaps that why it is still going strong.

Pax again.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I don’t know why having equal dignity is so often twisted into having the same “rights.” Are our marriages about our “rights” or are they about helping on another to heaven. Our vocations are who we are called to serve. We are helping one another towards heaven. Think of Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and her small sacrifices, giving way to other’s when she knew that she was “right”, and making that a sacrifice to God, a small step to grow in holiness.

Sometimes, a husband and a wife will be at an impasse, when, discuss as they might, they cannot reach an agreement. Someone has to make the decision. And it’s times like this that the husband should be able to lead his home as Christ leads his bride the Church.

So, let’s say my husband and I need to make a decision about moving cross country. Let’s say we’ve discussed it until we’re blue in the face, but we just can’t agree. Someone will have to make the final decision. Who should it be? Should we just fight it out until our relationship is destroyed? Is it possible that Saint Paul could have taught something that would be relevant and helpful to this situation? Because he did. He left us with an order, that’s quite beautiful. Think about it. Christ loves His Church. But he also is clearly the leader.

Is that easy? Especially in a world where the idea of submitting to anything other than our own will isn’t exactly wildly popular? No. Of course it’s not. But is demanding that we’re right all the time the best way to move closer to sainthood? Absolutely not. And we’re talking about a husband that is honestly doing what he believes is best for his family, as Dan has said again and again.

We should pray for our spouse. We should do all that we can to help them towards heaven. And it helps to remember that our equal dignity does not mean that we are the same, although our goals, reaching heaven, most certainly should be.

I know, I know, this isn’t popular. We should all be allowed to be right all the time and have our own way. Because that’s going to lead us in great direction, right?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is that easy? Especially in a world where the idea of submitting to anything other than our own will isn’t exactly wildly popular? No. Of course it’s not. But is demanding that we’re right all the time the best way to move closer to sainthood? Absolutely not.

Is this only addressed to females?

I know, I know, this isn’t popular. We should all be allowed to be right all the time and have our own way. Because that’s going to lead us in great direction, right?

Is this only addressed to females?

 

[severus68]

I have shown you that John Paul II said men were the head of the family, and it does not contradict what he terms “mutual subjection”. You were unresponsive to that argument so I continued with another: that Church teaching does not come with a “best if used by date” afterwhich it becomes irrelevant and goes bad. You seem to be unresponsive to this line of reasoning as well. Can you point me to the date where the teachings of the Council of Trent, or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius XI went bad? It would have to be some time after the CCC, as it says the Catechism of Trent is a most sure guide. How long do we have until what John Paul II said no longer matters?

You may take exception with being called a heretic if you wish. I don’t say it to offend you. I say it because it is true. You’ve been unresponsive to more subtle reasoning, so perhaps the blunt truth will register. You’re demonstrating a clear case of what is commonly called “cafeteria Catholicism” in which one can pick and choose Church teachings. As your operating premise appears to be that older teachings are irrelevant and new ones are good, your heresy is the heresy of modernism. It is very prevalent in the Church today.

I am far from perfect and a grievous sinner. If you or anyone else can demonstrate where I am out of line with Church Teaching, I will conform to the Church teaching. You do not appear to be so. You simply decide which Church teachings are binding and which are not. The Church did not teleport from Pentecost Sunday to the 2nd Vatican Council. If you ignore everything inbetween then you are gutting the faith. Again, how long will it be before some future internet poster can say “well that’s what JPII said, that’s irrelevant. It was written before people flew around in hover cars.”

Pax Christi

I have no interest in having any 'discussion" with you. I have noticed and this is not the first time, that you ignore questions you do not want to answer like where in the current Catechism does it say the Catechism is the best way to our faith.

You are arrogant and self righteous. Since you have made personal deragatory comments to and about me, let me say one thing. I say everyone is entitled to the marriage they want because we have free choice. That does not mean at all that I necessarily think well of any particular marriage. You have volunteered information about your management of your family and ‘your’ women. I find that so very controlling and so unChrist like.