Ephesians 5:22....revisited

[Dan_Daly]

Please let me know where in The Bible Lucifer and his fallen angels are quoted as saying, “non serviam.”

On another note, I have no problem serving my husband. He has no problem serving me. Obedience is quite another can of worms.

To tell you the truth, if the Catholic Church really taught that women must be obedient to their husbands in a non-reciprocal capacity, I would leave it. Luckily, this is the first place I’ve heard or read such rubbish : )

Hello Mary Helene

Please look back through the thread for many references, both in the Bible and official Church documents explaining the duties of husbands and wives, including a wife’s duty to obey her husband and husband’s duty to love his wife.

If you conclude that all those sources are “rubbish” as well, then I would ask you to prayerfully consider the nature of the Church’s teaching authority.

The fallen angels aren’t quoted as saying “non serviam” in the Bible. As a Catholic, I don’t base my life on a doctrine of Sola Scriptura (neither do Protestants but that’s another topic for another thread). That Lucifer’s battle cry was “non serviam” is a tradition.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

I have full confidence that the many people who say something along the lines of “I’ve been Catholic for many years and have never heard anything like this before” are telling the truth.

It’s a very sad situation.

From the 1960’s on, many in the Church, either passively allowed others to believe that the Church had radically changed, or actively promoted such a view. What once was Sacred was now bad, and what once was heresy was now Truth, or so was believed. The truth of course is that the Church did not radically change, and Truth cannot change.

Many Catholics go their whole life without ever hearing that contraception is wrong. Many don’t know that women priests aren’t simply not allowed, but are impossible. Many have no clue that missing Mass on Sundays or other days obligation is a grave sin, or that penance is required once a year under pain of mortal sin. Almost no one knows that women were required under Canon Law to veil at Mass until 1987.

Ignorance of the faith is rampant, and I include myself among the ranks of the ignorant.

When we hear the Truth, there is a natural inclination to respond “Hey! That’s not what I’ve been told all along. You’re lying!” and stick to what we have mistakenly believed. Or to say “Hey I was sold a bill of goods” and get fed up and leave the Faith all together.

The 3rd option is to submit ourselves to the authority of the Church, forgive those who misled us, repent of our own failings, and conform to the Truth.

Pax Christi

 

[severus68]

This gets to the heart of the problem again. So if obedience is for dogs, then the Catholic Church has officially taught that women are to be treated as dogs. The Church can not teach error on matters of faith and morals. If you believe that Church teaching can be wrong, how does one know that “current” teaching is correct? The answer is that there is no seperation between “past” and “current” teaching nor any contradiction.

It’s good to remember that the rebellion of Lucifer all started over obedience. “Non Serviam” or “I will not serve” was the battle cry of the fallen angels.

**Severus, I have showed you in this thread and others that the CCC explicitly endorses the Catechism of Trent. ** You continue to argue that I favor the latter over the former, but I have never said that. I rely on both and don’t see any contradictions between them on matters of faith and morals.

Now your turn to answer a question I’ve asked a few times. What date did the Catechism of Trent go from being a universal catechism of the Church to an irrelevant historical relic? Was it good up until the CCC came out? If so, why would the CCC endorse it? It seems there would obviously be some Church document recording a momentus event like the Catechism of Trent being discarded. So please show me where it is.

If there is no document, please explain why you have the authority to reject it on your own. Please answer another one of my questions: how long are the CCC and John Paul II’s writings good for before they become irrelevant?

Pax Christi

All I will say where did you?( Your words I bolded) I asked you twice on this thread and you conveniently ignored it. So once again, quote the specific part of the Catechism which says that we have to go to the Catechism of Trent to find our faith.

 

[Art321]

All I will say where did you?( Your words I bolded) I asked you twice on this thread and you conveniently ignored it. So once again, quote the specific part of the Catechism which says that we have to go to the Catechism of Trent to find our faith.

You don’t have to use the Catechism of the Council of Trent if you don’t want to. But this catechism is just as valid as the one the Church made under Pope John Paul’s leadership.

 

[severus68]

I am often arrogant and self righteous. You’ll get no excuse from me on those points. I have plenty of other faults as well.

On the other hand, if only perfect people were allowed to spread the Gospel, then we would have very few evangelists.

If a man is walking down the street yelling “Jesus Christ is not God!”, guess what? Me, lowly old me, am qualified to declare the man is shouting heresy.

In addition, me, lowly old me, am qualified to speak infallibly on certain matters. Watch:

…Our Lord Jesus Christ died and rose again on the third day…

Infallible.

See, the key in both the ability to speak the Truth and to identify falsehoods (heresy) is adherence to the Teachings of the Church. Why is that? Because the Church does not teach error. This is not through any merit of the people in the Church, but by the protection fo the Holy Ghost.

I have made no judgement of your heart. I can judge actions and words though, and I expect others will and should judge my actions and words. That is why I said you are a *material *heretic. It simply means you are in opposition to some Teachings of the Faith. There are an awful lot of material heretics these days, mainly through ignorance in large part due to the horrible state of catechesis. A formal heretic on the other hand, knows the truth, and willfully rejects it.

Pax Christi

Kindly do not even try to justify what you said and do not do that "I have my faults, lowly me’ thing with me.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Actually, I looked up the definition for myself and confirmed to myself that it was what I thought it was and I posted it to show you that as far as I am concerned the current Catechism covers all doctrine. I have not seen anyone show otherwise.

This factually incorrect. If somehow the CCC were to contain every doctrine of the Church, it would be a much larger book. It is a summary and guide to Church teaching.

I’d recommend picking up a book like Denzinger’s* Sources of Catholic Dogma* or Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I make no claim that either one of those is exhaustive either, but you will see that there are many binding teachings which are not explicitly stated in the CCC. I don’t have my copies of the books in front of me, but googling, I don’t think the prohibition on Catholics being Masons or believing in polygenism are mentioned in the CCC just to offer a couple of examples.

Perhaps, the simplest way to show the CCC does not contain all Church teaching is that it doesn’t include an entire Bible.

Sola CCC would be as much an error as Sola Scriptura, and if one did believe the CCC contained all Church teachings, well then they wouldn’t be able to reference Blessed John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem.

Pax Christi

Pax Christi

 

[severus68]

MaryHelene;8895453:

I too married a man with goals and values like my own and we seldom disagree
My husband has never demanded that I obey him. He is a very easygoing guy. He comes from a very male dominated cultural background and loathes the use of “male authority” as a disguise for selfishness as he has often seen within his own family. He does not reject the idea that he is responsible for his family in a unique way, however. There are a few times when our compromise on an issue has been my deferring to him out of respect for his authority, and many more times that I should have submitted but let my pride get in the way. He has always had my best interests (and that of our children) at heart.

When I was pregnant with our first, I was working full time and going to school at night for a
professional certification. At the end of pregnancy, I had severe swelling and fatigue. He wanted me to go ahead and begin my maternity leave and rest. I am a workaholic and refused. He strongly suggested I cut my hours down but again I refused. I ended up with gestational hypertension in the hospital to be induced. I should have submitted to him even though I thought I could handle it all. I agree that no is a good default on small daily things of you cant agree. However in larger matters, inaction is not always what’s best for the family.

That would be a lack of common sense on your part whether your husband told you to rest or not.

 

[severus68]

You don’t have to use the Catechism of the Council of Trent if you don’t want to. But this catechism is just as valid as the one the Church made under Pope John Paul’s leadership.

I was asking Dan Daly for the third to quote something he said.

 

[severus68]

This factually incorrect. If somehow the CCC were to contain every doctrine of the Church, it would be a much larger book. It is a summary and guide to Church teaching.

I’d recommend picking up a book like Denzinger’s* Sources of Catholic Dogma* or Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I make no claim that either one of those is exhaustive either, but you will see that there are many binding teachings which are not explicitly stated in the CCC. I don’t have my copies of the books in front of me, but googling, I don’t think the prohibition on Catholics being Masons or believing in polygenism are mentioned in the CCC just to offer a couple of examples.

Perhaps, the simplest way to show the CCC does not contain all Church teaching is that it doesn’t include an entire Bible.

Sola CCC would be as much an error as Sola Scriptura, and if one did believe the CCC contained all Church teachings, well then they wouldn’t be able to reference Blessed John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem.

Pax Christi

Pax Christi

Please stop with your recommendations and I ask you for the fourth time to quote that part of the Catechism which tells us to go to the Catechism of Trent to find our faith.

 

[Art321]

I was asking Dan Daly for the third to quote something he said.

Gotcha!

 

[Dan_Daly]

Please stop with your recommendations and I ask you for the fourth time to quote that part of the Catechism which tells us to go to the Catechism of Trent to find our faith.

9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. the Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching."The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.

• From the CCC. You can read it here, paragraph 9:

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/prologue.shtml

I showed you this passage on 08/05/11 in post #109 of a CAF thread titled “Need Ladies (name removed by moderator)ut”.

Pax Christi

 

[Art321]

• From the CCC. You can read it here, paragraph 9:

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/prologue.shtml

I showed you this passage on 08/05/11 in post #109 of a CAF thread titled “Need Ladies (name removed by moderator)ut”.

Pax Christi

You sure did!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8208736&postcount=109

 

[Dan_Daly]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is also cited numerous times throughout the CCC as “Roman Cathecism” if you check the index of footnotes, i think there are about 20 directing the reader to the Catechism of Trent.

I hope that satisifies your question.

Will you now explain to me why this “work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching” is irrelevant to our discussion?

More generally, how long are Councils, Catechisms, and Encyclicals good for before they are no longer relevant to the faithful?

Pax Christi

 

[Walking_Home]

Dan Daly:

I am often arrogant and self righteous. You’ll get no excuse from me on those points. I have plenty of other faults as well.

On the other hand, if only perfect people were allowed to spread the Gospel, then we would have very few evangelists.

If a man is walking down the street yelling “Jesus Christ is not God!”, guess what? Me, lowly old me, am qualified to declare the man is shouting heresy.

In addition, me, lowly old me, am qualified to speak infallibly on certain matters. Watch:

…Our Lord Jesus Christ died and rose again on the third day…

Infallible.

See, the key in both the ability to speak the Truth and to identify falsehoods (heresy) is adherence to the Teachings of the Church. Why is that? Because the Church does not teach error. This is not through any merit of the people in the Church, but by the protection fo the Holy Ghost.

I have made no judgement of your heart. I can judge actions and words though, and I expect others will and should judge my actions and words. That is why I said you are a material heretic. It simply means you are in opposition to some Teachings of the Faith. There are an awful lot of material heretics these days, mainly through ignorance in large part due to the horrible state of catechesis. A formal heretic on the other hand, knows the truth, and willfully rejects it.

Pax Christi

Kindly do not even try to justify what you said and do not do that "I have my faults, lowly me’ thing with me.

---

severus68 – since this thread has degenerated – to where accusations of material heresy are flying --maybe it’s better to leave it— and not touch it with a ten foot pole. Hopefully the moderator will take note of this.

 

[Art321]

There really seems to much confusion when it comes to this topic. I would encourage the series known as The Domestic Church, which gives the Church’s teaching very clearly so once you see it there will be no more confusion. It is on the ewtn religious catalogue and here is the link:

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/THE+DOMESTIC+CHURCH±DVD/shop.axd/ProductDetails?keywords=marriage&page_no=2&edp_no=16420

In case this thread is deleted or closed, please see this! I recommend this series so much! Dr. Joseph Atkinson does a good job of explaining the Church teaching on this subject!

 

[Dan_Daly]

Kindly do not even try to justify what you said and do not do that "I have my faults, lowly me’ thing with me.

Justifying or defending what I’ve said is of utmost importance. This gets to the heart of the matter. We can all have our opinions, that is true. But it is also true,* that not all opinions are equally valid.*

That is why it’s good to produce evidence for one’s position.

People say all sorts of stuff, especially on the internet. I don’t want anyone to change their mind because I said something. I want to convince others and myself of the importance of total obedience to the Church and reliance on Her teaching.

Myself and others in the thread have shown numerous pieces of evidence from Genesis, to the New Testament, through the Council of Trent and papal writings up to Blessed John Paul II supporting a consistent Church teaching that the husband is the head of the family.

No one has shown any Church document that says “there is no head of the family”. It is a position put forward without justification, without evidence.

On the matter of the inability of the Church to teach error on matters and faith and morals, and the consistency of Church Teaching, I have shown you that the CCC does not replace the Catechism of Trent, but both are parts of the same whole of Church Teaching.

Pax Christi

 

[severus68]

---

severus68 – since this thread has degenerated – to where accusations of material heresy are flying --maybe it’s better to leave it— and not touch it with a ten foot pole. Hopefully the moderator will take note of this.

I agree WH, I am out. Thank you.

 

[L_piperatus]

It has nothing to do with superiority. It has to do with a role. For example, my boss is not superior to me in any way, but our roles at the workplace differ. My husband is not superior to me, but we have different roles in marriage. Some of our past Popes have not been wonderful people, but their office, their position, was still the head of the Church. Our Blessed Mother was certainly superior to St. Joseph, being free from sin, and yet God spoke to Joseph to take his wife and child to Egypt, and Mary followed him, even though I’m sure she wondered if it was the right thing to do.

These are some great examples, especially the example of the Holy Family.

Our Blessed Mother is the Queen of Angels and Saints, surpassing in grace and glory every single created human being including St. Joseph, she is infinitely more exalted than the Cherubim, incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim (this is what we sing about Mary in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom composed 16 centuries ago, a DL currently still in use in the Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches) - yet she obeyed her husband St. Joseph. In addition we have the child Jesus, who is God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity, who is the creator of the whole universe, and Jesus obeyed his own creatures, he obeyed his earthly parents St. Joseph and Mary.

If anyone in this forum despises the structures of authority (husband over wife; parents over children) established by God, if they despise obedience to higher authority as taught by the Catholic Church, let them at least look at the personal examples of obedience set by our Blessed Mother and Jesus Christ. There was peace, love, and harmony in the Holy Family, and both Mary and Jesus obeyed the headship of St. Joseph, not because he was greater (holier, smarter, more intelligent, etc) than Jesus and Mary, but because they understood and obeyed the will of God the Father, who set earthly husbands and fathers as heads of their families, in a position of authority over their wives and children.

 

[L_piperatus]

I’m reading about Captain Schettino and the recent cruise ship disaster, how he left his sinking ship before his passengers got out, how he didn’t bother with saving “women and children first”.

Captain Schettino is ahead of the curve. There will be no more Titanic-style gallantry, no more “save women and children first” in a new world that no longer regards husbands and fathers as heads of their families. The new rule will be “survival of the fittest”, rather than “save women and children first”.

I wonder about the ladies here who say that their husbands are not the heads of their families - what if they go on a family backpacking trip, and a grizzly bear attacks them? I guess these ladies fully expect to become grizzly food together with their children, *women and children first *, because they cannot expect their husbands to protect them and you know, men can usually run away faster than women and children!

 

[mini_me640]

mini_me640;8896172:

That would be a lack of common sense on your part whether your husband told you to rest or not.

My common sense told me to earn money while I could and save my maternity leave for after baby’s birth.