A
a_priori
Guest
A husband who expects his wife to literally “obey” him is insecure and doesn’t get the concept.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
I will absolutely agree here because I have been in both situations. My first spouse (now annulled) was a fighter. My current spouse (and lifemate) refuses to fight. Considers it a waste of time. I highly recommend the latter opinion.
As to resolving conflicting wants that are basically equal, if nothing else agree to flip a coin.
In the earlier scenerio about camping v visitng relative there could be any number of factors to consider.
How often to these opportunities come up?
What is the stress level (like stressed out from work) and which would be the most relaxing?
Is there camping near the relative? (combine the two options)
If this is being really contentious, pehaps a little time apart would be good. (She goes visiting while he goes camping)
The point is that calm discussion, even though it might be tense for a while, is better than fighting OR “submission”. Each person understands the other and tries to be as accomodating as possible.
I would say that the ideal situation would be one where each wants to do what the other is asking for.
Her: I’d like to visit Cousin SoSo but you’ve been working so hard, lets go camping.
Him: I’d like to go camping, but you haven’t seen SoSo in such a long time, let’s go there.
It’s much easier to reach a good solution from this position than from a selfish, I want, position.
Peace
James
F
Feanaro_s_Wife
Guest
So how should that situation be solved?
**Obviously someone would have to give in. And I don’t think it should always be the wife (nor do i think it should always be the husband).
**
I’ve found that it is the woman who more often “gets her way” because she is more willing to argue with her husband about it. The husband often gives in to stop the fight- and that’s no way to solve it either.
For sure. Any time someone gives in because they have to it will only cause resentment. One should want to give their spouse what they want out of love. And that is what we should strive for in marriage.
That’s why obedience on the part of the woman is so important, I think, because it levels the playing field, so to speak.
**
I don’t necessarily agree. I agree that it CAN level the playing field…but only in the case where a woman is demanding and a husband isn’t on a power trip. All too often you’ll see a wife who gives in for the sake of peace and is then taken advantage of by a less than loving husband.**
My husband is more willing to give me what I want if I’m not expecting it at every turn. Perhaps seeing a woman willing to give in to him will make him want to give her what SHE wants? I dunno, just my thoughts…
makes perfect sense and it is how marriage should work.
D
DebChris
Guest
It comes back to the vows we give one another–to love, honor, and cherish. Actually I like the vows that were used in the movie The Patriot since love, honor, and comfort come closer to why I married my husband in the first place.
It is love and respect that allows for obeisance, for deference without resentment. It also means that we accept the gifts that each has to offer the other. Once, because of a virus, I could not go on a canoe trip with my husband. I insisted he go while he insisted he stay and care for me. I can be stubbornly independent. We were both “trying” to be unselfish. It was a male friend who told me to “let him know you need him.” Obedience requires setting aside our personal pride.
S
savienu
Guest
Oh I agree, and I had a feeling when I was writing my post as I was coming off as both parties just selfishly wanting. Perhaps I should have put “wants” in quotes, in those, it’s nice to have but not necessary type situations. I didn’t mean to say that in the sense of giving in to the other’s selfish wants.I will absolutely agree here because I have been in both situations. My first spouse (now annulled) was a fighter. My current spouse (and lifemate) refuses to fight. Considers it a waste of time. I highly recommend the latter opinion.
As to resolving conflicting wants that are basically equal, if nothing else agree to flip a coin.
In the earlier scenerio about camping v visitng relative there could be any number of factors to consider.
How often to these opportunities come up?
What is the stress level (like stressed out from work) and which would be the most relaxing?
Is there camping near the relative? (combine the two options)
If this is being really contentious, pehaps a little time apart would be good. (She goes visiting while he goes camping)
The point is that calm discussion, even though it might be tense for a while, is better than fighting OR “submission”. Each person understands the other and tries to be as accomodating as possible.
I would say that the ideal situation would be one where each wants to do what the other is asking for.
Her: I’d like to visit Cousin SoSo but you’ve been working so hard, lets go camping.
Him: I’d like to go camping, but you haven’t seen SoSo in such a long time, let’s go there.
It’s much easier to reach a good solution from this position than from a selfish, I want, position.
Peace
James
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I posted this a while back on these forums, but it is good for a repeat.
During one of my confessions last year, a most wonderful priest gave me great advice, and said…‘that when you marry, you and your husband are one. You no longer struggle for your own way, but you look for the way that best helps the marriage, and is in its best interest.’
I’ll never forget that. So, really, we shouldn’t be ‘giving in,’ or expecting our spouses to ‘give in,’ to things they or we don’t want to do. Marriage isn’t about taking turns giving in.
It’s about collectively doing what is best for the marriage…what will make it grow…and always seeking to put God’s will above our own wants. Doesn’t mean that you can’t choose where to go for dinner, and your spouse gets to choose next time–those are trivial day to day things, that spouses shouldn’t be arguing over. I’m talking about the bigger-picture issues, and if one spouse is always ‘giving in,’ then the marriage will weaken.
It’s probably the only math equation where we’ll see 1+1 = 1!
Marriage is about two becoming one…while remaining individuals, with individual needs, wants and dreams–bridging those differences with the other, for the good of the marriage.
Just my 2 cents.
During one of my confessions last year, a most wonderful priest gave me great advice, and said…‘that when you marry, you and your husband are one. You no longer struggle for your own way, but you look for the way that best helps the marriage, and is in its best interest.’
I’ll never forget that. So, really, we shouldn’t be ‘giving in,’ or expecting our spouses to ‘give in,’ to things they or we don’t want to do. Marriage isn’t about taking turns giving in.
It’s about collectively doing what is best for the marriage…what will make it grow…and always seeking to put God’s will above our own wants. Doesn’t mean that you can’t choose where to go for dinner, and your spouse gets to choose next time–those are trivial day to day things, that spouses shouldn’t be arguing over. I’m talking about the bigger-picture issues, and if one spouse is always ‘giving in,’ then the marriage will weaken.It’s probably the only math equation where we’ll see 1+1 = 1!
Marriage is about two becoming one…while remaining individuals, with individual needs, wants and dreams–bridging those differences with the other, for the good of the marriage.
Just my 2 cents.
D
DebChris
Guest
This is a good way to put it. I don’t want to stop seeing the man that I married. And I don’t want him to stop seeing the woman that I am.I posted this a while back on these forums, but it is good for a repeat.
During one of my confessions last year, a most wonderful priest gave me great advice, and said…‘that when you marry, you and your husband are one. You no longer struggle for your own way, but you look for the way that best helps the marriage, and is in its best interest.’
I’ll never forget that. So, really, we shouldn’t be ‘giving in,’ or expecting our spouses to ‘give in,’ to things they or we don’t want to do. Marriage isn’t about taking turns giving in.
It’s probably the only math equation where we’ll see 1+1 = 1!
Marriage is about two becoming one…while remaining individuals, with individual needs, wants and dreams–bridging those differences with the other, for the good of the marriage.
Just my 2 cents.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Right–exactly. As married people, we don’t change who we are in Christ, but we focus who we are in Christ for the good of our marriages, as opposed to being selfseeking.
K
KCT
Guest
Here’s what I would suggest . . . the one who does not ‘get their way’ does not act cranky, but goes along w/ it in a good natured way. That’s the mature thing to do.
However, when the decision is made, they agree that the next time, the other spouse gets to decide.
There’s grace in going along w/ what someone else wants. He might get the vacation he wants, but I get extra grace for going along w/ what he wants this time
.
D
DebChris
Guest
Obedience is not a requirement of love. It is a consequence. Obedience is an act of love.
D
DiannaK
Guest
This was a wonderfully written post.
Deference does not equal doormat, at least not in my book. I feel like it shows a high level of respect, and in my opinion, challenges your partner to do his best.
Too sleep deprived to think of any more coherent ideas …
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m going to second DiannaK on this. Very Well written post.
I hope that iCatholic takes these things to heart.
He should show this thread to his girlfriend and have a good discussion based on what everyone has written here.
Peace
James
A
Archus
Guest
Hehe that is a great quote, and a great movie
That’s absolutely beautiful.I posted this a while back on these forums, but it is good for a repeat.
During one of my confessions last year, a most wonderful priest gave me great advice, and said…‘that when you marry, you and your husband are one. You no longer struggle for your own way, but you look for the way that best helps the marriage, and is in its best interest.’
I’ll never forget that. So, really, we shouldn’t be ‘giving in,’ or expecting our spouses to ‘give in,’ to things they or we don’t want to do. Marriage isn’t about taking turns giving in.
It’s probably the only math equation where we’ll see 1+1 = 1!
Marriage is about two becoming one…while remaining individuals, with individual needs, wants and dreams–bridging those differences with the other, for the good of the marriage.
Just my 2 cents.
I’m not married, and some would say I’m too young to consider it. I’m not even in a relationship, and they’d be right. Yet I think I have some light to shed on this matter.
The whole of our faith consists of a give-and-take way of thinking. That is, it is not a one person show. Prayer, is a dialogue, not a monologue. We must listen as well as speak during prayer. It is after all the raising of one’s heart and mind to God, whether we speak or not is another matter entirely.
The Mass requires both a priest and his congregation. How can the Mass be fulfilled if noone is there to listen to the Word, or partake in the Eucharist? Our religion requires both God and us. He is not some omniscient force far off, He is here with us, and we are with Him.
Sin and redemption. It still requires two people, for a sin is only so when we have offended God. We also need God to grant us His mercy and love, and for us to do the best we can to make it up to Him.
The same here is true with Marriage. It requires two people, a man, and a woman. Both are needed to make the marriage happen, and in doing so they both become one. Genesis teaches us that man and woman are created equal. Christ shows us that a marriage is a sacred bond, because of the bond he shares with the Church.
A lot of English monarchs thought they had the idea of what ‘to rule’ means. They thought that they are somehow better than their subjects and distanced themselves off from them. They used and abused them for their own goals. They were wrong.
To rule is to serve. In order for one to be an effective ruler, one must serve his subjects. He must go to his people and help them. It is them, the subjects, that make the difference between a country and a nation. To rule is to serve, and if a husband is to be the head of the household, he must rule it. Therefore, he must serve it.
In order for such bonds to work, there must be a hierarchy. In all of our cases, God trumps them all. We are in a relationship with God, but He is the head. In prayer, in the sacraments, in our lives. In marriage, there has to be a head, it’s the way of the world. An ideal husband would always listen, honour, respect and love his wife, and in the marriage, he would come to her aid to protect her. Let us say that he has the final ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a situation. That answer must be from the result of wisdom, not his own merit or knowledge. If he knows his wife is right, he should say ‘yes’ to her. If his wife knows his husband is right, he should say ‘yes’ to him. To rule is to serve, and remember that Christ is the Servant King. He listens to us. Was it not an answer to a question that he taught us how to pray? When we ask him, do we not receive? The same is true in marriage. Truth, not false authority should be the deciding factor, because Truth is God, and God is love, and He trumps them all.
S
shannyk
Guest
said the wise man
A
ack
Guest
A priest can say Mass without a congregation present. In fact, the sacramentery contains a section called “Order of Mass Without a Congregation” which explains the changes and omissions that are made in such a circumstance.
A
Archus
Guest
yes, but what about the congregation? They need a priest. Yes, in dire circumstances they can celebrate Mass without a priest, but that is not the point. Mass, and more specifically the Eucharist, is the source and summit of our faith. My previous post was quite frankly bad form. If I could amend it I would. My argument was poorly structured, and the points made were badly executed.
A
ack
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. Actually, half of your point was correct to begin with…you were right, it is impossible to celebrate Mass without a Priest – you didn’t need to revise that part.
No matter what the circumstances, a Priest is required to celebrate Mass. It is possible to have a communion service where the Eucharist is received without a priest, under unusual circumstances. (Many communities around the world do not have regular access to priests, because they are very remote or Catholicism is very rare.)
No matter what the circumstances, a Priest is required to celebrate Mass. It is possible to have a communion service where the Eucharist is received without a priest, under unusual circumstances. (Many communities around the world do not have regular access to priests, because they are very remote or Catholicism is very rare.)
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Posters to another thread might enjoy reading the posts on this thread!
[oops … looks like it was taken down]
[oops … looks like it was taken down]
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
I always miss the good stuff.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Thanks for this discussion, although I think I may have missed most of it lol. But I’m responding because I’m not married yet myself, and I’ve had the same question as the OP.
Also, about this:
Thanks in advance for any replies!
Also, about this:
But this is an unworkable arrangement, don’t you think? In any group of 2-3 or more people, a leader will naturally emerge if he/she hasn’t already been officially appointed. The natural world around us and the history of human society will bear this out- having two perfectly equal leaders doesn’t work. Any instances where it has seem to be the rare exception, not the rule.
This sounds pretty reasonable in theory. My question is, what do you do when each of you truly believes that you are right? Isn’t that the root of most serious disagreements, this belief that we are right (or more right) than the other? How do you settle the issue then?
Thanks in advance for any replies!
- Status