Passage from catechism of trent

[MagdalenaRita]

Exactly. I seriously doubt it meant running down to the open market and picking up some fruit or cloth. I read it to mean something akin to leaving for a week to stay with a family member who is about to give birth or just has given birth. Or an ill relative needing some care. Or perhaps joining the equivalent of a women’s crafting guild that requires time away from the home on a daily or regular basis. Not permission to pick some herbs from the field or to visit the outside facilities to relieve oneself, or even permission to go across the street to visit a friend.

This is exactly what I see it to mean also. I don’t see it as the wife having to report every move she makes but rather a mutual understanding, through love and respect, for both the husband and wife.

It’s talking about not neglecting the household. “To to out” or “leave home” means to neglect the primary duties of the household with other pursuits. It might also mean travel.

Excellent point.

ok makes sense, i am trying to understand it properly, i want to know the correct interpretation, that’s why i am asking

Yes, the Catechism of Trent was created as a teaching aid for priests

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Catechism of Trent is an official Catechism.

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only universal Catechism of the Church. Even the widely used previous catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism, the Penny Catechism, and the Green Catechism were not universal catechisms.

It is fine for the priest to suggest that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is an edifying thing for Catholics to read. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest that if you want to be a good Catholic, you’ll read and follow a 500-year-old catechism rather than the one the Church has provided for our current use. It strongly suggests the priest distrusts the current Pope and Magisterium, and it is wrong to suggest that using an old Catechism makes you somehow holier than if you used a new one written and approved by the Church.

 

[c4csp]

It is fine for the priest to suggest that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is an edifying thing for Catholics to read. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest that if you want to be a good Catholic, you’ll read and follow a 500-year-old catechism rather than the one the Church has provided for our current use. It strongly suggests the priest distrusts the current Pope and Magisterium, and it is wrong to suggest that using an old Catechism makes you somehow holier than if you used a new one written and approved by the Church.

Trent offers unmatched clarity. However, for passages like the OP stated, one should go to CCC to find clarification. The principle didn’t change.

I agree that Catholics who are seeking deeper study of faith, should read Trent, but use the CCC side by side. One will find that there is no contradiction at all. The CCC is more confusing so using both is a good idea for Catholics to really understand the faith. I’m not sure why folks take issue with Trent. Much of the CCC is word for word from Trent.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only universal Catechism of the Church. Even the widely used previous catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism, the Penny Catechism, and the Green Catechism were not universal catechisms.

I agree with this in part. The Catechism of Trent is not now a universal catechism, though as best as it could be, that was the intention of the Church at the time.

I also, would not place the Roman Catechism that was ordered by the Father’s of the Council of Trent to counter the reformation and teach Catholic truths and instruct priests and was at the time the official catechism, promulgated by a pope, in the same category as such catechisms as the Penny Catechism created for children receiving their first communion or even the Baltimore catechism (which I like) though was created in North America, for children.

It is fine for the priest to suggest that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is an edifying thing for Catholics to read. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest that if you want to be a good Catholic, you’ll read and follow a 500-year-old catechism rather than the one the Church has provided for our current use. It strongly suggests the priest distrusts the current Pope and Magisterium, and it is wrong to suggest that using an old Catechism makes you somehow holier than if you used a new one written and approved by the Church.

So, I agree, though I am not sure that is what his priest said. Our local priest also suggested we read the Roman Catechism because it is an easy and clear read. As I said, the modern catechism is based off of the Catechism of Trent. I am not saying that one should not read the modern catechism but that doesn’t mean we can’t read other catechisms or documents the Church created and made official.

I realize it is something the Church made official hundreds of years ago but so is the Holy Bible.

 

[c4csp]

I’m not the OP and I’m lazy- can you give me the chapter and verse from the CCC that expands and clarifies the OP’s concern about the passage from Trent?

I do not know.

However, it is church teaching on marriage the duties of wives and husbands. Wives are to submit to their husbands, but the husband has the duty of completely sacrificing everything to provide for his wife. It is not saying the wife is a slave to the husband. It is saying the wife places herself under her husband but that is only true when the husband also is 100% sacrificing for his wife. And it is probably in the CCC because I’ve heard it taught in current RCIA classes based off the CCC.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Much of the CCC is word for word from Trent.

Except for the stuff about not coveting slaves, respecting civic leaders’ authority as coming from God, and women not leaving the house without their husband’s permission, little things like that which tend to confuse and upset people even more than the current CCC does.

 

[c4csp]

But at what point is the husband controlling and micromanaging, versus overseeing his wife’s safety? That’s what the whole hullabaloo is about each time this topic about Trent gets posted on. Can she visit the privvy without permisson? Go to the marketplace? Or does it have to do with extended time away from home, such as helping with a newborn babe of family member for a week or two or an ill relative?

I do not know.

I believe that the principle though is very much applicable. Women were meant to be mother’s which is the most important job there is. It is where women find their happiness. Women were not meant to go out and compete in workplace.

We see this rupture today. Many women are competing with men in workplace and have attained much success. Many of these women then are seeking men who are providers so the men better make more money to provide. These things are innate and women naturally seek this out in spouse. . . .

 

[Montrose]

I believe that the principle though is very much applicable. Women were meant to be mother’s which is the most important job there is. It is where women find their happiness. Women were not meant to go out and compete in workplace.

I am a man but that is a dreadful comment you have made. You owe all women an apology.

 

[angell1]

there isn’t such a thing in the current ccc

 

[angell1]

i’ll say it again, women who work aren’t competing with men

 

[angell1]

fair enough, i wish we knew more clearly the context of when these things were written, would help a lot, but i guess people who lived in that time would have had a better understanding since they knew the specific situations going on

 

[c4csp]

i’ll say it again, women who work aren’t competing with men

Well they are taking jobs men could take. A female doctor is most likely not going to consider marrying a man who works at Walmart. The pool of eligible men for women has been greatly reduced due to this. We hear it all the time from women, “there are no quality good men for them.” Yes, because they are seeking providers that can provide more than they could provide for themselves.

 

[angell1]

that’s exacgtly the point, the wording does not make it clear what was meant, exactly. but if you go with the stricter interpretation, it logically really seems absurd

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And this what you wrote is exactly why the Church seeks to write and revise Catechisms that address the situations of people today, not people 500 years ago in Europe, or people 100 years ago in Italy.

 

[Montrose]

Well they are taking jobs men could take. A female doctor is most likely not going to consider marrying a man who works at Walmart. The pool of eligible men for women has been greatly reduced due to this. We hear it all the time from women, “there are no quality good men for them.” Yes, because they are seeking providers that can provide more than they could provide for themselves.

I repeat my earlier comment. You owe all women an apology for such an attitude.

 

[angell1]

no, they’re not taking jobs from men, not all men are qualified fir every kind of job, men are not out of jobs because of women taking them, that’s simply just not in the statistics. also, i guet people giving me the same argument because i am a disabled person with a job, that i’m taking work away from abled body people. unless you agree with that kind of thinking too

 

[c4csp]

I repeat my earlier comment. You owe all women an apology for such an attitude.

It was not meant in any disrespect. You are not understanding my point. It is not to say a woman cannot do a job, but rather to imply that being a mother is better than any job for a woman. We are seeing the consequences of feminism today. This feminism idea is what has empowered women to seek after this workplace success, but they do not find happiness no matter what their job success. Feminism has twisted it that attaining success is good and being a mother is not that great. That is a lie. Motherhood should be held in the highest esteem.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Women were meant to be mother’s which is the most important job there is. It is where women find their happiness. Women were not meant to go out and compete in workplace.

Montrose:

I am a man but that is a dreadful comment you have made. You owe all women an apology

Woe, slow down. I totally and completely disagree with you @Montrose . I am a woman and there is absolutely no apology needed here and I know many other women who would be upset if they head you say they needed to receive an apology from c4csp…

I don’t know about you (whether you’re male or female), but I sure wouldn’t want some male nurse helping me latch a newborn on my breast or to be checking my stitches and changing my pad after giving birth. Also would feel very weird to have another male in the room with my male doctor doing an exam. Kind of odd to be asking that male salesman to grab me another size bra to try on.

Completely agree with this.

God didn’t make women capable of only staying at home and cooking meals and raising children. Otherwise, he would have designed it so the female brain stops growing and developing at around age 12 or so

Are you saying that it only takes the intelligence of a 12 year old to raise a family, or run a home? because if so that is sooo not true. I think that is insulting.

Think about what you say…it’s kind of insulting to all women,

and the above is not???

Women have seasons in their lives and when their family is young that should be their first priority and their home should always be their top priority.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I repeat my earlier comment. You owe all women an apology for such an attitude.

I agree. Comments such as the ones we’re discussing are plainly and flatly misogynistic, especially when we have saints like St Gianna Beretta Molla, a doctor, and are cheering at the nomination of a pro-life Catholic Justice of the US Supreme Court who also happens to be a wife and mother.

It is sad that Catholic women on this forum have to be exposed to such rude and intolerant comments. Imagine if someone posted that Blacks or Jewish people should not have certain jobs. Why is it okay to say these things about women? I can only hope and pray that the people who say these things are not raising children, especially daughters.

 

[felsguy]

Well they are taking jobs men could take. A female doctor is most likely not going to consider marrying a man who works at Walmart. The pool of eligible men for women has been greatly reduced due to this. We hear it all the time from women, “there are no quality good men for them.” Yes, because they are seeking providers that can provide more than they could provide for themselves.

Hmmm…so what you are saying is that the less a women earns, or better yet, earns nothing, the better her chances of finding a husband?