W
Walking_Home
Guest
The only thing you’ve been doing – is trying to “justify” you non-compliance from the teaching of the Church.
- Status
The only thing you’ve been doing – is trying to “justify” you non-compliance from the teaching of the Church.
H
holy_face
Guest
Then you have not read all of my posts, maybe read what i am actually saying, I clearly said multiple times that wives should not follow their husbands to the ruin of their family, and the the leadership is benevolent.
We do also not have a homogenous culture, feminism for example may be practiced to large extent in our modern society but many people still don’t subscribe to it, I don’t consider it a part of my culture at all or Christian culture for that matter.
H
holy_face
Guest
T
thewanderer
Guest
Seeing as in my above post I very clearly stated that the fact that the husband is the head is an immutable fact I do not understand why you respond as though I am claiming the opposite.
So, let me ask, do you agree that a marriage in the West today it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to have a relationship in which the husband does not as a rule “get the last say” because the degree and manner of submission is altered given the culture? Or do you disagree with this?
H
holy_face
Guest
You don’t understand yet but you are actually the one not in compliance with the Church,since you only accept the CCC as the authority. The doctrine and authority come from other sources including the Pope, Sacred Scripture, Church Councils, Sacred Tradition,etc. The CCC is a book published by the church which summarizes all of these things.
H
holy_face
Guest
Totally disagree because that would completely conflict with the wife being submissive to her husband.
Degree and manner would refer to how much of an extent she was submissive. In some cultures a husband is very masculine and dominating and the wife doesn’t have much say at all, in others the wife has much more (name removed by moderator)ut and freedom to discuss matters and disagree.
But at the end of the day the husband still had the final authority, otherwise he is then not the head of the family and the scripture means nothing.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Yes, but I am talking about more than just wives being allowed to go against their husbands decision if following his decision will lead to the ruin of the family. I absolutely understand that you are talking about a benevolent leadership in which there are certain exceptions to the wife following the husbands orders, but I believe I disagree on the extent to which “following orders” is necessary, and my disagreement is based on Casti Connubii itself (and not just the quote in CC about submission changing depending on place and time,)
S
severus68
Guest
The thread is about submission.
The fact is that that it is not doctrine that wives must submit to and obey their husbands.
You cannot force men and women to live their married lives the way you want and insisit on wifely submission.
H
holy_face
Guest
Degree and manner could be different but at the end of the day the husband still has the authority. Some cultures are ultra macho and the man dictates everything and in other cultures the man and wife discuss things more openly and only when there needs to be a final decision the man should gently lead the way.
If you and you husband decide to things differently then that is your choice but it is in conflict with what is taught for a Christian marriage if the wife has the authority in the household.
H
holy_face
Guest
It is doctrine, we have already established that
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Walking_Home:
“Confused” – really. It’s simple – Church teaching is – a married couple – is subject to one another (mutual subjection/submission) in reverence to Christ. The husband subjects/submits to the wife-- the wife subjects/submits to the husband – in reverence to Christ the one and only true head/leader of the marriage.
H
holy_face
Guest
Yes all of that is part of the same teaching from St. Paul. Wives and husbands are subject to each other.
You are mistaking it for overall authority, St. Paul clearly states For the husband is the head
You are subject to each other but the husband is the head, it does not conflict. Both are part of Church doctrine.
H
holy_face
Guest
A man’s wife does have authority over her husband. There is certain behavior and daily living practices that she can expect of him. She can expect that he not go play poker every Saturday and Sunday to the neglect of their family. Just as the husband can expect his wife not to go to bars drinking with her friends.
But the husband is the head of the family, where there is a clear decision to be made he has the authority. Does this make sense?
But the husband is the head of the family, where there is a clear decision to be made he has the authority. Does this make sense?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
As per the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Catholic Church in the CCC – you will not find “head” given to the husband. To continue to use scripture to derogate from the teaching of the Church – is protestant territory.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear holy face,
Hello again.
Unfortunately, it is a common fallacy for some contemporary Catholics to forcefully assert that *all *standing Church teaching is to be found only within the pages of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a narrow and novel opinion and is usually employed for polemical purposes, such as upholding particular modern viewpoints that cannot be reasonably squared with older Church teaching. The topic currently under review is a case in point. To contend that the entire deposit of faith is only to be found in the contents of the Catechism simply cannot be sustained. This not only falls into the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past error, so deplored by our former Pope, but also cuts one adrift from the whole sweep of Catholic teaching and Tradition throughout the ages. Moreover, it is to actually adopt a sort of ‘sola catechism’, which is as grave an error as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura. It tends to be embraced by ‘Tiber crossers’ to Catholicism, who, owing to their rigorous Protestant backgrounds, are often reactionary with respect to any old and unpopular teaching. It likes to think that Catholicism is more progressive in its thinking and has given its approval, for example, to radical and un-Catholic views respecting the equality of men and women.
We must, dear friend, listen attentively to ALL the teaching of the Popes throughout the ages, since the unbroken succession from St. Peter to Pope Francis is one of the central components of the apostolic nature of Holy Mother Church. So called dissent from papal Encyclicals is modernism and no part of the credo of a Catholic. Our current Catechism may well be a “sure norm for teaching the faith”, but it is plainly wrong to say that it is the only valid source of teaching.
This, dear friend, is why I think so many contemporary Catholics err on a whole range of topics today - they limit themselves exclusively to the current Church Catechism as regards standing teaching.
God bless and goodbye. Thankyou for your splendid posts, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
T
thewanderer
Guest
Let me bring up another quote from Casti Connubii which has led me to believe the above is acceptable.
From this passage it is clear that CC is laying down two principles.
- A wife has no obligation to follow her husband in anything contrary to right reason
- If your understanding or view of a wifes submission is based on the idea that she is less capable of understanding, reasoning, or judging correctly than her husband based solely on the fact that she is a woman your understanding of submission is incorrect.
Since she does not have an obligation to follow her husbands decisions if they are not in accord with right reason (ie, if he is wrong and it is better to stay) you cannot automatically assume she has an obligation to give in and move. If her husband is wrong and she is right then she has no obligation to move. (given principle #1). And, since, according to principle #2 we cannot dismiss this problem by assuming the man will reason correctly more often and so should be given the edge, we are left with the conclusion that the wife, according to Casti Connubii itself, does not have an obligation to follow her husband when he is wrong. There are exceptions to this, which is brought up in a later part of CC but this makes it clear that the idea that the submission must be understood as the man always having the last say is actually contrary to the Church’s idea of submission as explained in Casti Connubii
H
holy_face
Guest
The CCC is not the entire authoritative teaching of the Catholic Catholic Church, it is a summary with many different sources which in combination represent the docrine of the Church.
I won’t address this anymore with you. Please seek out the guidance of someone with authority in the Church to guide you.
T
thewanderer
Guest
If by this you mean that his wife must follow him even if his decision is wrong then you are mistaken and what you suggest is contrary to Official Church teaching.
H
holy_face
Guest
What is the point of his authority if he actually does not have it in practice? I already said if he was making a grave immoral mistake then the wife obviously is not obliged to follow.
S
severus68
Guest
Your repeating it does not make it doctrine.
- Status