W
Walking_Home
Guest
You are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church via the CCC. You will not find – “headship” of the husband over the wife.
As to the authority of CCC.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
You are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church via the CCC. You will not find – “headship” of the husband over the wife.
As to the authority of CCC.
F
fpt
Guest
In my humble opinion:
If a man believes that the woman is, ontologically speaking, inferior to man, he is on the sinful way and he is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a husband believes that his wife is, ontologically speaking, inferior to him, he is on the sinful way and he is not a good husband, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a man believes that the woman is, ontologically speaking, inferior to man, he is on the sinful way and he is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a husband believes that his wife is, ontologically speaking, inferior to him, he is on the sinful way and he is not a good husband, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
S
severus68
Guest
\
has* given him that role*.Incorrect.
The wife is the heart!
And he is to serve–to sacrifice for the wife …as did Christ for the Church. Give his blood.
No human can ever be like Christ.
Y
es there is also mutual submission. But that is only part of the Teaching. One cannot pick only part.
JPII used the term “mutual subjection”. You can’t have the subjection of wives and mutual subjection.
[/QUOTE]
S
severus68
Guest
Agreed.In my humble opinion:
If a man believes that the woman is, ontologically speaking, inferior to man, he is on the sinful way and he is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a husband believes that his wife is, ontologically speaking, inferior to him, he is on the sinful way and he is not a good husband, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your understanding of the above quotes is mistaken. Pope Benedict XVI would agree that such an approach is not correct.You are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church via the CCC. You will not find – “headship” of the husband over the wife.
As to the authority of CCC.
Pope Benedict XVI
Five years later, on 15 August 1997, the Pope promulgated the editio typica of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae and confirmed its fundamental purpose “as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives and prays in her daily life”
The CCC is yes a “sure norm” -but it does not exhaust the entirety of the Teachings of the Catholic Church --it does not even quote all of the Sacred Scriptures! (even though there are alot of quotes from Scripture in the CCC - if one wanted to take it as you note one would have to drop a good deal of the Bible …)
And within its pages one will find the teaching regarding Sacred Scriptures as the inspired Word of God - and what I note is from both Sacred Scriptures and the Teachings of the Church since then. One may also refer works of Moral Theology, on Marriage, and even the nice overview I referred to above from Dr. Pitre.
F
fpt
Guest
In my humble opinion:
If a woman believes that the man is, ontologically speaking, inferior to woman, she is on the sinful way and she is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a wife believes that her husband is, ontologically speaking, inferior to her, she is on the sinful way and she is not a good wife, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a woman believes that the man is, ontologically speaking, inferior to woman, she is on the sinful way and she is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a wife believes that her husband is, ontologically speaking, inferior to her, she is on the sinful way and she is not a good wife, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your understanding of the above quotes is mistaken. Pope Benedict XVI would agree that such an approach is not correct.You are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church via the CCC. You will not find – “headship” of the husband over the wife.
As to the authority of CCC.
Pope Benedict XVI
Five years later, on 15 August 1997, the Pope promulgated the editio typica of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae and confirmed its fundamental purpose “as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives and prays in her daily life”
The CCC is yes a “sure norm” -but it does not exhaust the entirety of the Teachings of the Catholic Church --it does not even quote all of the Sacred Scriptures! (even though there are alot of quotes from Scripture in the CCC - if one wanted to take it as you note one would have to drop a good deal of the Bible …)
And within its pages one will find the teaching regarding Sacred Scriptures as the inspired Word of God - and what I note is from both Sacred Scriptures and the Teachings of the Church since then. One may also refer works of Moral Theology, on Marriage, and even the nice overview I referred to above from Dr. Pitre.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes you can.JPII used the term “mutual subjection”. You can’t have the subjection of wives and mutual subjection.
Paul states that we Christians are to be subject to each other.
And at the same time we are to be subject to say the Bishop! As he would say.
There is mutual submission happening all the time -yet there is still those whose role is it to be head.
Please go read the outline by Dr. Pitre -he gives a nice overview of all these things.
F
fpt
Guest
Portrait;12012573:
to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.Dear yellow8yellowM,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally
As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.
However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching 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 teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God 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 husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".
It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a 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. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.
A quiz about the dual humanity and about the marriage:
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male human and the female human? YES
Are there same rights for man and woman, and are there particular rights for each sex? YES
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse, between husband and wife? **YES
**
Are there same rights for husband and wife, and are there particular rights for each spouse? **YES
**
Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable *donation *of persons? YES
Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable *reception *of persons? YES
Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband? YES
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the family? **Are there different spheres? **YES ****Do we have to make difference between those spheres? YES
Equality and equity are the keys. The egalitarianism is wrong.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
If you remove the poetry, what does that leave us with? A heart does as commanded by the head? That’s the role?No a robot could not submit in the way Paul (and Sacred Scripture) refers…a robot cannot do so in love and as a Christian, as a sister, as a wife, in truth and virtue.
A heart - loves. As Pope Pius IX noted the wife “ought to claim for herself* the chief place in love*”
Look, there’s nothing wrong with someone who is a private in the military—or an entry-level worker. Many stay those things for their whole lives. But the one key difference is that a private may aspire and work to become an officer, and an entry-level worker may aspire to be an entrepreneur and work for that, whereas a wife will never be anything more than just a lowly wife, the “heart” that does as she’s told and learns to live with it.
So, to me, the captain/first mate analogy is severely lacking. At least in the case of the first mate, he was not born to be a subordinate. The wife is born lacking, born inferior—because she’s the wrong gender. Nothing about merit, nothing about character, no—she’s just the wrong gender.
I caution you again that these are the same types of arguments that were made by the owners of chattel slaves. There’s nothing wrong with persons of a certain skin color, they were just made that way, that’s their destiny as designed by God. Of course, when the institution was abolished here in the States for example, we learned that there’s nothing about skin color that makes one inherently inferior and, in fact, persons of the “wrong” skin color could be quite efficacious in any field that persons of the “right” one could be. Likewise, we have recently produced an enormous amount of evidence that suggests women are not, in fact, like children. That they have capabilities and that they have worth, just as a man does.
If you want me to believe that women are inferior to men by birth due to their gender, please don’t also pull this phoney baloney stuff about how wonderful women are and if I would only appreciate their “true” value all would be right in the world.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Nobody has tried to answer my hypotheticals as to what a wife should do when her husband wants her to cooperate in something which is obviously a bad, bad idea.
To recap:
I think that in these circumstances, submission should be exercised via manner of opposition (the refusal to cooperate should be made without disrespect), but that godliness does not require cooperating in schemes that will endanger family welfare.
To recap:
- What if the husband wants to go to Disneyland and the wife thinks there isn’t enough money available to pay for that and the family’s basic needs (food, shelter, and so forth)? Does she need to cheerfully acquiesce, or should she put her foot down?
- Or let’s say that the wife has just gotten a large inheritance and her husband wants her to immediately invest all of it in a new business that his ne’er-do-well brother has just dreamed up. Should she cheerfully sign over every dime to the ne’er-do-well brother-in-law (who has a record of substance abuse, bankruptcy, and being an all around deadbeat and nogoodnik) or should she stall for time?
I think that in these circumstances, submission should be exercised via manner of opposition (the refusal to cooperate should be made without disrespect), but that godliness does not require cooperating in schemes that will endanger family welfare.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Seconded.Nobody has tried to answer my hypotheticals as to what a wife should do when her husband wants her to cooperate in something which is obviously a bad, bad idea.
To recap:
There are many similar scenarios.
- What if the husband wants to go to Disneyland and the wife thinks there isn’t enough money available to pay for that and the family’s basic needs (food, shelter, and so forth)? Does she need to cheerfully acquiesce, or should she put her foot down?
- Or let’s say that the wife has just gotten a large inheritance and her husband wants her to immediately invest all of it in a new business that his ne’er-do-well brother has just dreamed up. Should she cheerfully sign over every dime to the ne’er-do-well brother-in-law (who has a record of substance abuse, bankruptcy, and being an all around deadbeat and nogoodnik) or should she stall for time?
I think that in these circumstances, submission should be exercised via manner of opposition (the refusal to cooperate should be made without disrespect), but that godliness does not require cooperating in schemes that will endanger family welfare.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Nope.If you remove the poetry, what does that leave us with? A heart does as commanded by the head? That’s the role?
Poetry relates the truth and the beauty of the role.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Poetry is also a handy way to get around tough questions. That’s why there are so many poets on CAF.Nope.
Poetry relates the truth and the beauty of the role.
But hey, no one should hold your feet to the fire on this one. It’s not like you’re claiming to be in possession of divine wisdom or anything.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Nope.Look, there’s nothing wrong with someone who is a private in the military—or an entry-level worker. Many stay those things for their whole lives. But the one key difference is that a private may aspire and work to become an officer, and an entry-level worker may aspire to be an entrepreneur and work for that, whereas a wife will never be anything more than just a lowly wife, the “heart” that does as she’s told and learns to live with it
Not my analogy. And not true simply.So, to me, the captain/first mate analogy is severely lacking. At least in the case of the first mate, he was not born to be a subordinate. The wife is born lacking, born inferior—because she’s the wrong gender. Nothing about merit, nothing about character, no—she’s just the wrong gender.
Nope. And I said actually to the contrary.I caution you again that these are the same types of arguments that were made by the owners of chattel slaves. There’s nothing wrong with persons of a certain skin color, they were just made that way, that’s their destiny as designed by God. Of course, when the institution was abolished here in the States for example, we learned that there’s nothing about skin color that makes one inherently inferior and, in fact, persons of the “wrong” skin color could be quite efficacious in any field that persons of the “right” one could be. Likewise, we have recently produced an enormous amount of evidence that suggests women are not, in fact, like children. That they have capabilities and that they have worth, just as a man does.
Nope.If you want me to believe that women are inferior to men by birth due to their gender, please don’t also pull this phoney baloney stuff about how wonderful women are and if I would only appreciate their “true” value all would be right in the world.
Straw man.
Please do not put any such words in my in keyboard.
No wonder there is misunderstanding on this question -for such is actually contrary to the Teaching of the Church (and thus to my posts…women are not inferior etc etc). Tis a misunderstanding of the Teaching of the Church.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Your understanding of the above quotes is mistaken. ** Pope Benedict XVI would agree that such an approach is not correct.**
The CCC is yes a “sure norm” -but it does not exhaust the entirety of the Teachings of the Catholic Church --it does not even quote all of the Sacred Scriptures! (even though there are alot of quotes from Scripture in the CCC - if one wanted to take it as you note one would have to drop a good deal of the Bible …)
And within its pages one will find the teaching regarding Sacred Scriptures as the inspired Word of God - and what I note is from both Sacred Scriptures and the Teachings of the Church since then. One may also refer works of Moral Theology, on Marriage, and even the nice overview I referred to above from Dr. Pitre.
It is up to the Magisterial authority of the Church to interpret the bible/scripture. As such – the Church has given us authoritative teachings in the CCC —which do not include “headship” of the husband. Another thing — I’d suggest for you not to put your words-- in Pope Benedict XVI mouth.
F
fpt
Guest
At least:
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? No
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? No.
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household [the family]? May be, not sure. In my humble opinion, the husband is not like a chief and a boss.* He is not the general of the family*
The final decision has to respect the morality, the moderation, the balance, the rights of each one and the reason. The rule of reason is a good rule!!!
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? No
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? No.
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household [the family]? May be, not sure. In my humble opinion, the husband is not like a chief and a boss.* He is not the general of the family*
The final decision has to respect the morality, the moderation, the balance, the rights of each one and the reason. The rule of reason is a good rule!!!
B
Bookcat
Guest
I have already answered.
It is up to the Magisterial authority of the Church to interpret the bible/scripture. As such – the Church has given us authoritative teachings in the CCC —which do not include “headship” of the husband.
And yes the Magisterium interprets the Bible/Scripture in both that aspects of mutual submission and the teaching regarding the headship of the Husband etc.
S
severus68
Guest
No, JPII referred explicitly to the mutual subjection of spouses.Yes you can.
Paul states that we Christians are to be subject to each other.
And at the same time we are to be subject to say the Bishop! As he would say.
There is mutual submission happening all the time -yet there is still those whose role is it to be head.
Please go read the outline by Dr. Pitre -he gives a nice overview of all these things.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Husband: If we disagree on any matter not pertaining to faith or morals, I’m right.Nope.
Not my analogy. And not true simply.
Nope. And I said actually to the contrary.
Nope.
Straw man.
Please do not put any such words in my in keyboard. No wonder there is misunderstanding on this question -for such is contrary to the Teaching of the Church (and thus to my posts…women are not inferior etc etc).
Wife: That sorta sounds like you’re saying I’m inferior to you.
Husband: No, no, darling. Not at all. You’re the “heart”! [Insert stanza here.]
Wife: Oh, OK, now it all makes sense! Gee, golly, I can’t believe it took me so long to understand that.
Husband: It’s OK honey, you’re just a woman, after all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.