L
Lokadottir
Guest
Jesus nothing! I’d pay money to see him face the virgin Mary
- Status
S
Sarcelle
Guest
That too.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
First, the Encyclical, *Casti Connubii *1930, unequivocally and unmistakably affirms the natural hierarchy within the home and even cites with approval a previous Encyclical, namely the Arcanum 1880 on Christian marriage:
**
"With great wisdom our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which we have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honour or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church” (CC, para. 29).
Therefore, dear friends, if we are to be obedient to standing Church teaching then we must receive the truth with docility that the man is head and “ruler” of his family, notwithstanding that this is at variance with the false egalitarianism of our age, that is to say heretical modernism. Moreover, it admits of no serious doubt that Holy Mother Church does teach a one-sided arrangement within the domestic church, for the Catholic Church plainly teaches that “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” and that the woman must be subject to her husband “as to the Lord” (CC. para. 26). Thus, contrary to what some contemporary Catholics erroneously contend, a ruler-subject relationship does exist between spouses and no amount of specious argumentation can circumvent this truth. It is manifestly self-evident that a man as ruler and head of his family would be utterly pointless if he could not exercise any authority or be leader within his household. That is wildly absurd and illogical, but most importantly it is contrary to standing Church teaching both in Arcanum and Casti Connubii. Sadly, many modern Catholics (including some who are theologically conservative) expend no amount of time and energy attempting to either deny this truth or, at least, to rationalize it and rob it of all meaning. Ever since the Sixties and the emergence of radical feminism, multitudes of women (including not a few Catholics) have embraced false views of equality and have sought liberation from the traditional family model, where the husband is head and ruler in the home. This is anathema their heretical ideology or worldview and so it is hardly surprising that they vehemently attack it and seek to explain it away. The urgent need of the hour is for the Catholic faithful (both men and women) to recover afresh the Church and biblical vision for marriage and the family.
Sometimes, dear friends, appeal is made to the so called ‘limitations’ of the Encyclical Casti Connubii as if these somehow destabilize or undercut the unequivocal teaching of that document that the man is head and ruler of his household. This, to my mind, is jolly disingenuous and is often done for polemical purposes to nullify the unambiguous teaching, thus rendering it devoid of any real force and meaning. However, let us honestly look at these qualifications to the Church teaching the natural hierarchy within the domestic church.
The subjection of the wife to her husband, dear friends, is indeed within the framework of the “order of love” (CC, para. 26), yet the Encyclical expressly states that "This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let the women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, and Christ is head of the Church”. The “order of love” merely forbids either despotism or craven fear, which within a pious Catholic family would seldom, if indeed ever, be an issue. A God-fearing husband will never seek to rule his household in an impervious manner and will always treat his beloved spouse with the respect that is due to her as the “weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3: 7). All jolly elementary stuff, really.
Now what are we to say respecting paragraph 27 of the Casti Connubii Encyclical? First, what does admit of no doubt is that whatever is said here cannot nullify or water down the fundamental truth that the husband is head and ruler of his wife. The teaching is inviolable and the Catholic faithful are not at liberty to dissent from it, for to do so betrays a mindset associated with liberal Protestantism, which is for ever rejecting any truth that it happens to find unpalatable in religion. It is an ‘a la carte’ approach to our most holy Faith and has no place among us.
Con’t/
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
First, the Encyclical, *Casti Connubii *1930, unequivocally and unmistakably affirms the natural hierarchy within the home and even cites with approval a previous Encyclical, namely the Arcanum 1880 on Christian marriage:
**
"With great wisdom our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which we have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honour or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church” (CC, para. 29).
Therefore, dear friends, if we are to be obedient to standing Church teaching then we must receive the truth with docility that the man is head and “ruler” of his family, notwithstanding that this is at variance with the false egalitarianism of our age, that is to say heretical modernism. Moreover, it admits of no serious doubt that Holy Mother Church does teach a one-sided arrangement within the domestic church, for the Catholic Church plainly teaches that “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” and that the woman must be subject to her husband “as to the Lord” (CC. para. 26). Thus, contrary to what some contemporary Catholics erroneously contend, a ruler-subject relationship does exist between spouses and no amount of specious argumentation can circumvent this truth. It is manifestly self-evident that a man as ruler and head of his family would be utterly pointless if he could not exercise any authority or be leader within his household. That is wildly absurd and illogical, but most importantly it is contrary to standing Church teaching both in Arcanum and Casti Connubii. Sadly, many modern Catholics (including some who are theologically conservative) expend no amount of time and energy attempting to either deny this truth or, at least, to rationalize it and rob it of all meaning. Ever since the Sixties and the emergence of radical feminism, multitudes of women (including not a few Catholics) have embraced false views of equality and have sought liberation from the traditional family model, where the husband is head and ruler in the home. This is anathema their heretical ideology or worldview and so it is hardly surprising that they vehemently attack it and seek to explain it away. The urgent need of the hour is for the Catholic faithful (both men and women) to recover afresh the Church and biblical vision for marriage and the family.
Sometimes, dear friends, appeal is made to the so called ‘limitations’ of the Encyclical Casti Connubii as if these somehow destabilize or undercut the unequivocal teaching of that document that the man is head and ruler of his household. This, to my mind, is jolly disingenuous and is often done for polemical purposes to nullify the unambiguous teaching, thus rendering it devoid of any real force and meaning. However, let us honestly look at these qualifications to the Church teaching the natural hierarchy within the domestic church.
The subjection of the wife to her husband, dear friends, is indeed within the framework of the “order of love” (CC, para. 26), yet the Encyclical expressly states that "This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let the women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, and Christ is head of the Church”. The “order of love” merely forbids either despotism or craven fear, which within a pious Catholic family would seldom, if indeed ever, be an issue. A God-fearing husband will never seek to rule his household in an impervious manner and will always treat his beloved spouse with the respect that is due to her as the “weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3: 7). All jolly elementary stuff, really.
Now what are we to say respecting paragraph 27 of the Casti Connubii Encyclical? First, what does admit of no doubt is that whatever is said here cannot nullify or water down the fundamental truth that the husband is head and ruler of his wife. The teaching is inviolable and the Catholic faithful are not at liberty to dissent from it, for to do so betrays a mindset associated with liberal Protestantism, which is for ever rejecting any truth that it happens to find unpalatable in religion. It is an ‘a la carte’ approach to our most holy Faith and has no place among us.
Con’t/
P
Portrait
Guest
Con’t/
Of course a wife should not have to “obey her husband’s every request if it is not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity that is due (to her)”. However, in a pious Catholic family this will seldom, if ever, be an issue since the husband in such a family will not be the habit of making demands not in accord “with right reason”. Certainly a wife is not forbidden to use her powers of reasoning and must do so if she is to ascertain whether or not something is reasonable or unreasonable. Nevertheless, this exception does not afford her liberty to challenge or disobey her husband whenever she so pleases, for that would be a repudiation of the husband as head of the household, who “occupies the chief place in ruling” (CC para. 27). Now for the husband’s rule in the home to be effective and have any real meaning at all he must needs be the final authority. Having said that, when a disagreement arises between spouses they can often resolve matters by talking things through, but, if they reach an impasse, the ultimate decision making must rest with the husband as rightful head of the household. This is the unambiguous teaching of the Church both in the Arcanum and *Casti Connubii *Encyclical’s and is a non-negotiable truth. Yes, “divine charity” must “be the constant guide of their mutual relations”, but that does not negate the truth that the husband rules and his wife obeys (CC, para. 29), with the caveat that the husbands demands are “not in harmony with right reason”. This may not chime with modern and spurious egalitarian views, but it is authentic Catholic teaching, notwithstanding, and that is all that should concern us.
The whole notion of the husband being the final authority within the home is intensely disliked by feminists and progressives alike because of their erroneous views respecting the equality of the sexes. Whilst Holy Baptism “confers equality on all individuals from the point of view of religion…in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it with the love of the Church for Christ, the head.” (*A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, *1953, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Commentary on Ephesians 5: 22, p. 1124). If the husband is the head of the home then he must be the final authority, otherwise the headship is in name only and is little more than a titular position. This is the position held by many contemporary Catholics who have sought to harmonise their egalitarian beliefs with Church teaching, making the latter conform with those beliefs so as to make them acceptable to the modern age. In short it is modernism and should be given a wide berth by the Catholic faithful. Moreover, it does not work in practice because it precludes decision making. For example, what if the husband believes that his children should not be viewing certain television programmes/films because he deems them to be unwholesome but is wife strongly disagrees with him? After discussing the matter calmly/charitably they are still unable to agree and the wife thinks her husband guilty of ‘overscrupulosity’. In this instance a decision must be made and that decision, according to Church teaching, must rest with the man as ruler of the household, for “the order of love…includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children” (CC, para 26). However, in a pious Catholic family, that takes seriously the pursuit of holiness, there is little likelihood of this or a similar situation arising, since there will be a consensus regarding such matters. Incidently, this underscores the importance of entering into holy wedlock with a suitable spouse who’s desire is to “keep themselves unstained by the world” and protect their offspring from its corrupting influences.
No devout Catholic husband would treat his wife as a minor who must slavishly take orders and who is not permitted to think for herself. In a fallen world such as ours, dear friends, I would not stop to deny that such men exist, even within Catholic households. However, I rather think that they would prove the exception rather than the rule. They are a grotesque caricature of the God-fearing Catholic husband and such a despotic man is a disgrace to his sex and finds no support from official Church teaching.
Finally, dear friends, what are we to say in regards to paragraph 28 of Casti Connubii: “Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to different conditions of persons, place and time…”. Sometimes appeal is made to this passage as if it completely undercuts authoritative Church teaching respecting the husband as head and ruler of his household. This is the modus operandi of those who are in the habit of taking a text out of context and turning it into a pretext for the sake of upholding a particular polemical theory. However, all this passage says is that the nature of subjection is not static and necessarily does change with the passage of time. All spouses are different and how they arrive at decision may well be different, yet on a fundamental level, the order of marriage is immutable and the ultimate responsibility and duty for directing the family rests with the husband. He is the Head and ruler and thus it is he who must be the locus of authority within the home - “The structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere remain in tact” (para. 28, added emphasis mine).
Con’t/
Of course a wife should not have to “obey her husband’s every request if it is not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity that is due (to her)”. However, in a pious Catholic family this will seldom, if ever, be an issue since the husband in such a family will not be the habit of making demands not in accord “with right reason”. Certainly a wife is not forbidden to use her powers of reasoning and must do so if she is to ascertain whether or not something is reasonable or unreasonable. Nevertheless, this exception does not afford her liberty to challenge or disobey her husband whenever she so pleases, for that would be a repudiation of the husband as head of the household, who “occupies the chief place in ruling” (CC para. 27). Now for the husband’s rule in the home to be effective and have any real meaning at all he must needs be the final authority. Having said that, when a disagreement arises between spouses they can often resolve matters by talking things through, but, if they reach an impasse, the ultimate decision making must rest with the husband as rightful head of the household. This is the unambiguous teaching of the Church both in the Arcanum and *Casti Connubii *Encyclical’s and is a non-negotiable truth. Yes, “divine charity” must “be the constant guide of their mutual relations”, but that does not negate the truth that the husband rules and his wife obeys (CC, para. 29), with the caveat that the husbands demands are “not in harmony with right reason”. This may not chime with modern and spurious egalitarian views, but it is authentic Catholic teaching, notwithstanding, and that is all that should concern us.
The whole notion of the husband being the final authority within the home is intensely disliked by feminists and progressives alike because of their erroneous views respecting the equality of the sexes. Whilst Holy Baptism “confers equality on all individuals from the point of view of religion…in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it with the love of the Church for Christ, the head.” (*A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, *1953, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Commentary on Ephesians 5: 22, p. 1124). If the husband is the head of the home then he must be the final authority, otherwise the headship is in name only and is little more than a titular position. This is the position held by many contemporary Catholics who have sought to harmonise their egalitarian beliefs with Church teaching, making the latter conform with those beliefs so as to make them acceptable to the modern age. In short it is modernism and should be given a wide berth by the Catholic faithful. Moreover, it does not work in practice because it precludes decision making. For example, what if the husband believes that his children should not be viewing certain television programmes/films because he deems them to be unwholesome but is wife strongly disagrees with him? After discussing the matter calmly/charitably they are still unable to agree and the wife thinks her husband guilty of ‘overscrupulosity’. In this instance a decision must be made and that decision, according to Church teaching, must rest with the man as ruler of the household, for “the order of love…includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children” (CC, para 26). However, in a pious Catholic family, that takes seriously the pursuit of holiness, there is little likelihood of this or a similar situation arising, since there will be a consensus regarding such matters. Incidently, this underscores the importance of entering into holy wedlock with a suitable spouse who’s desire is to “keep themselves unstained by the world” and protect their offspring from its corrupting influences.
No devout Catholic husband would treat his wife as a minor who must slavishly take orders and who is not permitted to think for herself. In a fallen world such as ours, dear friends, I would not stop to deny that such men exist, even within Catholic households. However, I rather think that they would prove the exception rather than the rule. They are a grotesque caricature of the God-fearing Catholic husband and such a despotic man is a disgrace to his sex and finds no support from official Church teaching.
Finally, dear friends, what are we to say in regards to paragraph 28 of Casti Connubii: “Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to different conditions of persons, place and time…”. Sometimes appeal is made to this passage as if it completely undercuts authoritative Church teaching respecting the husband as head and ruler of his household. This is the modus operandi of those who are in the habit of taking a text out of context and turning it into a pretext for the sake of upholding a particular polemical theory. However, all this passage says is that the nature of subjection is not static and necessarily does change with the passage of time. All spouses are different and how they arrive at decision may well be different, yet on a fundamental level, the order of marriage is immutable and the ultimate responsibility and duty for directing the family rests with the husband. He is the Head and ruler and thus it is he who must be the locus of authority within the home - “The structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere remain in tact” (para. 28, added emphasis mine).
Con’t/
P
Portrait
Guest
Con’t/
Finally, dear friends, it is sometimes argued that the notion of ‘mutual submission’ demolishes the official Church teaching of a natural hierarchy within the family, the husband being “the chief of the family and the head of the wife” (*Arcanum *1880, para. 11). However, this just cannot stand up to scrutiny and is, in point of fact, based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). This text has been lifted from its context to support a false egalitarianism that is subversive of authoritative Church teaching that the husband is the head and ruler within the home. This passage has reference to the community of faith in a *general *sense and encourages Christians to subject themselves to one another (cf. St. John 13: 1-17). Beginning at verse 22 St. Paul enjoins the kind of submission that is required in particular relationships, that is to say husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is undeniable that in all these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set up in which one party commands and the other obeys - no ‘mutual submission’. If we superimpose ‘mutual submission’ upon these relationships then we effectively nullify the authority of the one who commands, that is the husband, parent or master, rendering it utterly meaningless. There can be no more ‘mutual submission’ between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master and servant. Sadly, the distinction between the *general *subjection of Christian brethren and particular relationships has been ignored in the interests of polemics and to promote false views of equality. There are many who are deeply embarrassed and uncomfortable with official Catholic teaching and who feel that to attract men and women (especially the latter) to the Church its older teaching must be virtually explained away. There is this attempt to make it palatable to the modern age.
In response to this some make their appeal to *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988 to support this theory of mutual submission. Let me say first that whatever the teaching contained in this document it cannot invalidate or set aside the Encyclical teaching of *Arcanum *or Casti Connubii. The teaching of those Encyclicals remains standing Church teaching today and must be received by the faithful as such.
It should be observed, dear friends, that JPII presents his teaching in Mulieris as a “personal meditation” written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation” (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive Church teaching which no man is at liberty to question. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *1880 emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say Sacred Scripture itself - teaches that subjection is required not only on the part of the Church to Christ, as JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught in Arcanum.. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from the Ephesian Epistle: “For the husband is the head of the wife” - whilst omitting the conclusion - "as Christ is head of the Church".
Many people, myself included, struggle jolly hard to see how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. ‘Mutual subjection’ within the domestic church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads. That is just a recipe for chaos and the eventual ruin of both.
The whole debate will probably continue ad infinitum because the irreligious times in which are lot is cast have long abandoned the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the natural hierarchy within the home. A false and dangerous egalitarianism, which has its origin in radical feminism, now prevails in the Western world. This pernicious ideology has deeply impacted our society and has even blurred the God-given distinctions between men and women. Alas, multitudes of Catholics, especially among the youth, have embraced this subversive teaching and seek to impose false equality dogma upon Holy Mother Church. Their mission is to liberate us all from supposedly ‘gender stereotypes’, which they vehemently loathe. This is why, dear friends, the present age urgently needs to recover the Church and biblical vision for marriage and the family, before it is too late.
This will be my final contribution to the discussion as there is nothing further that I can add, but I sincerely hope that I have given plenty of food for thought. Thankyou for taking time to read my lengthy posts.
Let me say in closing that many pious Catholic women continue to joyfully and obediently receive the official Church teaching concerning the husband being head and ruler of his family and gladly subject themselves to him. Indeed, I know this to be true, Bless God, because I am married to such a pious women and I can tell you that we are so very happy together.
God bless and may you all have a jolly splendid and very relaxing weekend. Goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
Finally, dear friends, it is sometimes argued that the notion of ‘mutual submission’ demolishes the official Church teaching of a natural hierarchy within the family, the husband being “the chief of the family and the head of the wife” (*Arcanum *1880, para. 11). However, this just cannot stand up to scrutiny and is, in point of fact, based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). This text has been lifted from its context to support a false egalitarianism that is subversive of authoritative Church teaching that the husband is the head and ruler within the home. This passage has reference to the community of faith in a *general *sense and encourages Christians to subject themselves to one another (cf. St. John 13: 1-17). Beginning at verse 22 St. Paul enjoins the kind of submission that is required in particular relationships, that is to say husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is undeniable that in all these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set up in which one party commands and the other obeys - no ‘mutual submission’. If we superimpose ‘mutual submission’ upon these relationships then we effectively nullify the authority of the one who commands, that is the husband, parent or master, rendering it utterly meaningless. There can be no more ‘mutual submission’ between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master and servant. Sadly, the distinction between the *general *subjection of Christian brethren and particular relationships has been ignored in the interests of polemics and to promote false views of equality. There are many who are deeply embarrassed and uncomfortable with official Catholic teaching and who feel that to attract men and women (especially the latter) to the Church its older teaching must be virtually explained away. There is this attempt to make it palatable to the modern age.
In response to this some make their appeal to *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988 to support this theory of mutual submission. Let me say first that whatever the teaching contained in this document it cannot invalidate or set aside the Encyclical teaching of *Arcanum *or Casti Connubii. The teaching of those Encyclicals remains standing Church teaching today and must be received by the faithful as such.
It should be observed, dear friends, that JPII presents his teaching in Mulieris as a “personal meditation” written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation” (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive Church teaching which no man is at liberty to question. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *1880 emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say Sacred Scripture itself - teaches that subjection is required not only on the part of the Church to Christ, as JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught in Arcanum.. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from the Ephesian Epistle: “For the husband is the head of the wife” - whilst omitting the conclusion - "as Christ is head of the Church".
Many people, myself included, struggle jolly hard to see how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. ‘Mutual subjection’ within the domestic church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads. That is just a recipe for chaos and the eventual ruin of both.
The whole debate will probably continue ad infinitum because the irreligious times in which are lot is cast have long abandoned the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the natural hierarchy within the home. A false and dangerous egalitarianism, which has its origin in radical feminism, now prevails in the Western world. This pernicious ideology has deeply impacted our society and has even blurred the God-given distinctions between men and women. Alas, multitudes of Catholics, especially among the youth, have embraced this subversive teaching and seek to impose false equality dogma upon Holy Mother Church. Their mission is to liberate us all from supposedly ‘gender stereotypes’, which they vehemently loathe. This is why, dear friends, the present age urgently needs to recover the Church and biblical vision for marriage and the family, before it is too late.
This will be my final contribution to the discussion as there is nothing further that I can add, but I sincerely hope that I have given plenty of food for thought. Thankyou for taking time to read my lengthy posts.
Let me say in closing that many pious Catholic women continue to joyfully and obediently receive the official Church teaching concerning the husband being head and ruler of his family and gladly subject themselves to him. Indeed, I know this to be true, Bless God, because I am married to such a pious women and I can tell you that we are so very happy together.
God bless and may you all have a jolly splendid and very relaxing weekend. Goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
T
thewanderer
Guest
Portrait, I am very sorry to see that you continue to use a combination of 1) rhetoric to undermine those who disagree with you, 2) ignoring the arguments and reasoning of those who disagree with you, and 3) making assertions about Church teaching without backing them up as I do not believe this is a fitting mode of discourse for people who are honestly interested in seeking the truth but is more fitted to those who wish to sway others to their own opinion no matter what. And, just to be clear, I am in no way saying that you are not interested in the truth, merely that your mode of discussion is ill-fitted for that task.
First, I would like to point out that I would be among the first to agree that it is very important to acknowledge that Church teaching makes it very clear that the order of love, as it is called, must always exist. I have never once questioned this assertion as Church teaching makes this abundantly clear. However, of all your assertions, this is the only one that you have given any sort of backing up for. Instead of addressing my points from Casti Connubii which lead me to conclude that it is anti-Catholic to say the man always gets the last say, you simply assert that it is obvious that Casti Connubii claims the man must always have the last say. I have provided evidence directly from Casti Connubii to support my claim, your argument rests solely on your authority, and, since you are (as is each of us) merely an unknown person on the internet that does not give a very strong reason for anyone to accept your interpretation over mine. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. I am in this to discover the truth and to help others on their quest to discover the truth, so if I am wrong and misinterpreting Casti Connubii I want to know and be corrected. However, having said that, from my careful and honest search for the truth of what the Church teaches on this matter I am pretty convinced that my interpretation is correct seeing as I cannot possibly see how else to make sense of those passages from Casti Connubii, and, in all my research on this topic have not yet seen any other convincing interpretation of these passages.
First, I would like to point out that I would be among the first to agree that it is very important to acknowledge that Church teaching makes it very clear that the order of love, as it is called, must always exist. I have never once questioned this assertion as Church teaching makes this abundantly clear. However, of all your assertions, this is the only one that you have given any sort of backing up for. Instead of addressing my points from Casti Connubii which lead me to conclude that it is anti-Catholic to say the man always gets the last say, you simply assert that it is obvious that Casti Connubii claims the man must always have the last say. I have provided evidence directly from Casti Connubii to support my claim, your argument rests solely on your authority, and, since you are (as is each of us) merely an unknown person on the internet that does not give a very strong reason for anyone to accept your interpretation over mine. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. I am in this to discover the truth and to help others on their quest to discover the truth, so if I am wrong and misinterpreting Casti Connubii I want to know and be corrected. However, having said that, from my careful and honest search for the truth of what the Church teaches on this matter I am pretty convinced that my interpretation is correct seeing as I cannot possibly see how else to make sense of those passages from Casti Connubii, and, in all my research on this topic have not yet seen any other convincing interpretation of these passages.
- Status