One more thread about submission

[hesso12]

and its in the Bible.

**22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.Ephesians 5:22-33(by St Paul the apostle)

in the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives.1 Peter 3:1.(by St Peter apostle)**

 

[hesso12]

The catechism may not directly teach something,does not mean it’s to be ignored as when the bible clearly states.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Same article I previously gave the link to — and again the “distinctive headship” is a “liberty” – not found in the authentic Church teaching via the Catechism.

yes it is,The Catechism: “Sure Norm for Teaching the Faith”

uote:
The Catechism contains an index of citations, useful for looking to see how a particular verse is used by the Church in her teachings. Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians3: 18 (“wives be subject”) are not cited in support of any of the teachings found in the Catechism. Further, the Catechism gives 65 paragraphs on the Sacrament of Marriage, none of which indicates a “one way” obedience of the wife to her husband. The Church,
however, does use St. Paul’s exhortation of mutual subjection to teach about a Christ-centered marriage:

“Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony.” Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to”** be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”** and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the
wedding feast of the Lamb. (no. 1642)

---

I know The Catechism is the sure norm . What you have posted says nothing of “headship” of the husband – but of the mutual subjection in reverence for Christ.

Why in reverence for Christ — because God is the head – the one and only headship in the marriage.

 

[Walking_Home]

The catechism may not directly teach something,does not mean it’s to be ignored as when the bible clearly states.

---

Seriously – you yourself said this :“The Catechism: “Sure Norm for Teaching the Faith.”

We are not protestant fundamentalists.

 

[hesso12]

---

Seriously – you yourself said this :“The Catechism: “Sure Norm for Teaching the Faith.”

We are not protestant fundamentalists.

am not either,Mutual submission does not dismiss the roles of Husband and Wife.

 

[hesso12]

They can submit to each other but in different ways.

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”** 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.**

 

[hesso12]

A man must not act like a women,and a women must not act like a man,if they do then thats an insult to God.

 

[Walking_Home]

They can submit to each other but in different ways.

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”** 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.**​

hesso12 – you are going in circles . Below is the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On marriage – you will not find what is not there — a husbands “headship” over the wife. A marriage relies on the headship of God.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Walking_Home]

A man must not act like a women,and a women must not act like a man,if they do then thats an insult to God.

---

Again — read the Catechism.

 

[hesso12]

---

hesso12 – you are going in circles . Below is the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On marriage – you will not find what is not there — a husbands “headship” over the wife. A marriage relies on the headship of God.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Yes the headship of God above every family must be God,God is the absolute head of the family,but the husband is his follower his commission like the Pope,in the church there is a hierarchy so does the family,God supreme leader,then the husband leading the wife and kids,but the wife must be willing if she do then she is doing the the will of God.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

A man must not act like a women,and a women must not act like a man,if they do then thats an insult to God.

Yes… So women having advanced degrees and careers and being scientists and playing sports is an insult to God. Don’t women know that their only role is to be submissive housewives and homeschooling mummies?

As for the thread itself, here are a few points…

1. How exactly does a man by virtue of only his gender have qualities to lead a family that women don’t have? It seems that the only way that that works is if you believe the simplistic notions about women being docile and submissive angels and mummies that regularly comes out of Pope Francis’ mouth.
2. The notion of headship in a family is the same as the “divine right of kings.” The Church would argue that both the king and peasant have the same dignity but by virtue of birth the king was chosen to lead and the peasant to submit. Of course, the king was meant to exercise his leadership in the same way that Christ exercised it. This didn’t work very well, did it? Man is a fallen creature and when given power, he will abuse it. The same is true on the micro level of the family as on the macro level of a country.

 

[PolarGuy]

Gee Hesso, I thought you’d fled.

So, should the wife “follow” when the husband says “now that we’re married, turn over your life savings to me so I may spend it as I alone desire?”

How about when the husband demands that the kids be raised transgendered? Should she follow when he orders her to commit tax fraud? How about when he says that, to bring excitement into marriage, he wants to bring another woman into the marriage bed and wife is to participate also (this stuff happens, Hesso)?

Last time I asked these questions you didn’t really want to answer, then you took off. If you’re back, please let us know where you stand on these things. Is husband allowed to do these? Must wife submit?

 

[pensmama87]

Yes… So women having advanced degrees and careers and being scientists and playing sports is an insult to God. Don’t women know that their only role is to be submissive housewives and homeschooling mummies?

As for the thread itself, here are a few points…

1. How exactly does a man by virtue of only his gender have qualities to lead a family that women don’t have? It seems that the only way that that works is if you believe the simplistic notions about women being docile and submissive angels and mummies that regularly comes out of Pope Francis’ mouth.
2. The notion of headship in a family is the same as the “divine right of kings.” The Church would argue that both the king and peasant have the same dignity but by virtue of birth the king was chosen to lead and the peasant to submit. Of course, the king was meant to exercise his leadership in the same way that Christ exercised it. This didn’t work very well, did it? Man is a fallen creature and when given power, he will abuse it. The same is true on the micro level of the family as on the macro level of a country.

So every parent abuses their child? Every boss terrorizes their employees? Every police officer abuses regular citizens?

I’m not saying you couldn’t find examples of each of these, because abuse of authority does happen, but I question the implication that any authority figure or leader abuses that authority. Certainly nobody leads perfectly, but that doesn’t seem to be all that you’re saying.

 

[Markus2007]

One thing that reading this thread, which has so many really beautiful and serious responses on it, has made me start to consider is that authority in a husband - if he is a truly good, loving, sensitive and well-disposed man - can be the most incredible gift to his wife, and open up new kinds of security and peace for her.

I am really happy to hear that you find the thread useful. I agree that there have been some very interesting and thought-provoking responses, especially on the first 2 pages. I hope we will continue to get some more replies that are equally helpful to the people that read the thread. Surely this is not the simplest of topics, but I think it’s of great importance.

Now in the last 2 pages, things seem to have turned into a 2-person debate that goes in circles. Let’s see if we can find back to the core issues:

Stick to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – the mutual submission of husband and wife – in reverence to Christ. There is only one head in a marriage — God himself.

I would love for you to be correct, but considering the facts I have to at least doubt that you are.

As you know, scripture says “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”. So you say God is the only head in marriage, yet the bible says the husband is the head of the wife. How do you reconcile these two apparently contradicting statements?

The Catechism does not seem to mention a specific submission of the wife to her husband. But it also does not declare that God is the only head in a marriage.

There of course must be mutual submission in marriage, we know that both from the Bible and the Catechism. But why is submission of the wife specifically pointed out in Scripture, in addition to mutual submission? If the submission of the wife is simply a part of that mutual submission with no deeper meaning, why did St. Paul emphasize it? Why did he call the husbands the head of the wife (and not vice versa, or speak of a mutual headship, or give a different parable)?

I don’t know if you can simply disregard the submission of the wife just because there is also mutual submission. Even though personally I would at least sympathize with such an interpretation, but I don’t know if it’s valid.

 

[Markus2007]

Yes… So women having advanced degrees and careers and being scientists and playing sports is an insult to God. Don’t women know that their only role is to be submissive housewives and homeschooling mummies?

Gee Hesso, I thought you’d fled.
So, should the wife “follow” when the husband says “now that we’re married, turn over your life savings to me so I may spend it as I alone desire?”

How about when the husband demands that the kids be raised transgendered? Should she follow when he orders her to commit tax fraud? How about when he says that, to bring excitement into marriage, he wants to bring another woman into the marriage bed and wife is to participate also (this stuff happens, Hesso)?

Can I ask that we please be serious with our replies in the thread? Let’s not turn this into a slugfest of such absurd -statements and insults.

Of course the number one authority in every Catholic’s life is God, so even if a husband had authority over his wife (and we are still talking in this thread about if this is the case or what this actually means), he cannot ask of her something that God who has greater authority does not approve. And if he does, the wife’s duty would first be to obey God, not a wicked husband.

Romans 13 also indicates that we are to obey government - this does not mean that we must (or would even be allowed) to follow immoral orders from a government. If some government were to tell it’s citizens they are to murder one of their children for population control - obviously the citizens would have to disobey the government, and instead obey God. The same holds true if a husband were to demand a threesome, or any of the other examples you gave.

As for the thread itself, here are a few points…

1. How exactly does a man by virtue of only his gender have qualities to lead a family that women don’t have? It seems that the only way that that works is if you believe the simplistic notions about women being docile and submissive angels and mummies that regularly comes out of Pope Francis’ mouth.
2. The notion of headship in a family is the same as the “divine right of kings.” The Church would argue that both the king and peasant have the same dignity but by virtue of birth the king was chosen to lead and the peasant to submit. Of course, the king was meant to exercise his leadership in the same way that Christ exercised it. This didn’t work very well, did it? Man is a fallen creature and when given power, he will abuse it. The same is true on the micro level of the family as on the macro level of a country.

I agree that from a worldly perspective, none of this seems to make much sense. Yet this is a Catholic site, and most people here declare themselves Catholics. So from a Catholic perspective, you cannot simply disregard something because it is hard to grasp for our carnal minds.

If you believe the Bible is God’s word (which you do as a Catholic), you cannot simply declare certain passages from St. Paul or St. Peter as nonsense, or as “not having worked out so well”. Somehow we must reconcile the divine revelation given to us, with our human understanding and reason. This is in part why I made this thread.

I don’t know what intrinsic qualifications a man has to be a leader, that a woman does not (if any at all), so I cannot answer your question. But my question for you is, how can God inspire the biblical text in a way that indicates headship/leadership of the husband, then? I don’t truly understand it myself, and as I said in my starting post, I don’t even like it. No other passage was harder for me to understand or even accept in the entire bible. But that does not change the fact that it’s there.

Or is it all a misinterpretation, does the text in reality mean something different? Then I would be interested how you interpret those passages (like for example the quoted ones from Ephesians)? It would be great if you could share your thoughts.

 

[Kelfa28]

A man must not act like a women,and a women must not act like a man,if they do then thats an insult to God.

Specifically, what does that mean?

Can you give a specific example?

What is a woman doing if she is acting like a man?

Same question for a man acting like a woman.

Is this a specific behavior or a specific job or both?

Where in the Catechism or the bible can you find this statement?

I’d like to know exactly what kind of behavior or job is considered “acting” like a man or “acting” like a woman and also how does this pertain to marriage.

 

[Kelfa28]

Gee Hesso, I thought you’d fled.

So, should the wife “follow” when the husband says “now that we’re married, turn over your life savings to me so I may spend it as I alone desire?”

How about when the husband demands that the kids be raised transgendered? Should she follow when he orders her to commit tax fraud? How about when he says that, to bring excitement into marriage, he wants to bring another woman into the marriage bed and wife is to participate also (this stuff happens, Hesso)?

Another one, that is far more common and acceptable to the general population, would be if a husband leaves the Catholic faith and discovers another form of Christianity, another religion entirely or decides he is agnostic and/or atheist.

He could still refer to Ephesians 5 if he converted to another form of Christianity and request she convert as well.
If he converted to Islam…his wife is given something like 6 months to convert as well and if she doesn’t she risks him divorcing her.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Of course the number one authority in every Catholic’s life is God, so even if a husband had authority over his wife (and we are still talking in this thread about if this is the case or what this actually means), he cannot ask of her something that God who has greater authority does not approve. And if he does, the wife’s duty would first be to obey God, not a wicked husband.

I think only the most extremist subscribers to Christian Patriarchy would contend that a wife is obligated to follow her husband into sin and is given a free pass for it. I recall from prior topics that some do believe God will somehow miraculously keep wives out of having to do so, (and therefore, if He doesn’t, the husband must not actually be sinning) but again I think this is a fringe belief, certainly not a Catholic one.

However, I think the thornier question is, what is a husband makes a decision that is not actually a sin, but is very imprudent? For example, recall the movie Indecent Proposal. Now that couple was not a “traditional” one but if they had been, I’m sure most would agree that a wife is not off the hook for the sin of adultery just because the husband wanted her to do it. But even before this happens, the couple goes to Las Vegas hoping to strike it rich, which I think most would agree is not a smart way to get out of debt, but gambling itself is not a sin. If a husband tells a wife, “We’re going to Las Vegas to strike it rich to get out of debt”, is the wife obligated to follow his lead?

If you believe the Bible is God’s word (which you do as a Catholic), you cannot simply declare certain passages from St. Paul or St. Peter as nonsense, or as “not having worked out so well”. Somehow we must reconcile the divine revelation given to us, with our human understanding and reason. This is in part why I made this thread.

Catholics however do not make decisions based solely on the words of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not a Catholic belief.

I also have never been convinced by comparisons of the husband-wife relationship to other relationships such as parent-child, general-soldier, boss-employee, etc. It is difficult for me to state why but I suppose my concern is, what about the unity of the married couple? The other relationships may involve “headship” but does not include unity.

Also, AFAIK in Catholic marriage, the wife does not promise to “obey” the husband. So it is not quite right to compare the relationship to, say, a monk and his abbot.

 

[PolarGuy]

There’s nothing “unserious” about anything I’ve written. My point is that, logically, to the extent some want wives to submit, let’s examine what they are being expected to submit to. Further, my illustrations should just evoke an immediate “no.” The fact that some here think the answer to my questions are complex says a great deal about them. Further, IMHO it is relevant that, when I ask these questions, the defenders of “wives must submit” suddenly flee and won’t answer.

 

[Markus2007]

I think only the most extremist subscribers to Christian Patriarchy would contend that a wife is obligated to follow her husband into sin and is given a free pass for it.

I agree, I was only bringing this up because some crazy examples like this were given. I would hope most Catholics understand that nobody has the authority to order them to sin.

Catholics however do not make decisions based solely on the words of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not a Catholic belief.

Sure, but it is a Catholic belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. So we cannot ignore what it says, or belief something which contradict what it says.

Even our other sources of the Catholic faith cannot contradict the Bible, since we already know that the Bible is God’s word, and God does not contradict himself. Which is why I am curious as to how other Catholics interpret verses like the ones in Ephesians.

Sacred tradition and the Sacred Magisterium of course can help us to better understand and correctly interpret what the Bible says. Maybe some people can bring up some additional quotes from these sources regarding our topic?

I also have never been convinced by comparisons of the husband-wife relationship to other relationships such as parent-child, general-soldier, boss-employee, etc. It is difficult for me to state why but I suppose my concern is, what about the unity of the married couple? The other relationships may involve “headship” but does not include unity.

I agree, these comparisons only work to a certain degree, but are of course not totally identical. I think marriage has a very unique character which is different from any other human relationship.