Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[Bookcat]

No, JPII referred explicitly to the mutual subjection of spouses.

He noted this aspect yes -but the Churches Teachings on the matter are not limited to the Teachings of St. Pope John Paul II.

 

[Portrait]

\

Incorrect.

Such is not what God tells us. Nor the Church.

Yes the husband is the head.

The husband is the head of the wife. Ephesians 5:23 As Christ is the head of the Church. The Husband does not claim being head for himself-- God has* given him that role*.

The wife is the heart!

And he is to serve–to sacrifice for the wife …as did Christ for the Church. Give his blood.

Yes there is also mutual submission. But that is only part of the Teaching. One cannot pick only part.

Dear Bookcat,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear, jolly well put.

Let us hear what Pope Leo XIII says the Encyclical Arcanum, 1880, which remains standing Church teaching and from which the faithful cannot dissent:

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour not dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be,* both in him who commands and in her who obeys, *a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands in all things” (para. 18, added emphasis mine)

This is the authoritative teaching of Holy Mother Church and as such it must be humbly received by the faithful. Moreover, this Encyclical teaching has not gone mouldy with the passage of time and neither has it been abrogated by the Magisterium. Indeed, this will never happen since it treats of immutable and timeless truth which is always perpetually valid, notwithstanding false views of equality.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Bookcat]

Husband: If we disagree on any matter not pertaining to faith or morals, I’m right.

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.

Strawman (or strawwoman if you prefer).

 

[severus68]

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.

Why would Benedict XVI state something clearly and not mean it.
Yes, explanations can be obtained from further reading but the fundamental concepts are there.

 

[severus68]

He noted this aspect yes -but the Churches Teachings on the matter are not limited to the Teachings of St. Pope John Paul II.

It is the very issue.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Strawman (or strawwoman if you prefer).

Tell me which part is misrepresented.

This is the crux of the issue:

If we disagree on any matter not pertaining to faith or morals, I’m right.

Or, at the very least, the husband could be wrong but ought to be followed anyway on such an issue (for no apparent reason).

This is not misrepresented:

Husband: No, no, darling. Not at all. You’re the “heart”! [Insert stanza here.]

As you have intentionally avoided the discussion of poetry as a supporting device to your conclusions.

 

[The_Bucket]

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?

In as nice and loving way as possible… she should tell him that he’s being an idiot.

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?

In as nice and loving way as possible… she should tell him that he’s being an idiot.

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.

Going along with such ideas would be detrimental to the family and therefore detrimental to the husband. Not putting one’s foot down would be a disservice to the spouse and, in my book, a violation of the promise to love, care and honor the spouse.

 

[MacQ]

We all know the passage from Ephesians 5 and elsewhere that a wife should be subject/submissive to her husband. But what does this mean in practical terms? Let’s please try to limit this discussion to practical examples. For example:

If my wife wants to go to Disneyworld for the 2nd time in the last month, and I say no due to financial difficulties, should she submit to my decision not to go?

If I try to institute a weekly family rosary, should she agree?

Obviously, the line is drawn when the husband asks the wife to violate God’s law or violates her dignity (part of God’s law), the wife should not submit, but there is a lot gray area in between.

If your wife tried to institute a family rosary, should YOU agree?

As for Disney trips, the two of you should make financial decisions together. I suggest you involve your wife in the family finances so she is aware of the state of them. If she’s not, that’s your fault. And seek counseling. You’re obviously not communicating very effectively.

I suggest you don’t go looking to St Paul for faux justification for manipulating your wife.Start respecting her and treating her like a partner.

 

[Walking_Home]

I have already answered.

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.

---

No matter how one tries to “spin” — it has already been demonstrated – there is no “headship” of the husband. There is only one head in a marriage —God.

 

[fpt]

In catholicism, there is the concept of organic development!!!

 

[Bookcat]

Why would Benedict XVI state something clearly and not mean it.
Yes, explanations can be obtained from further reading but the fundamental concepts are there.

Yes He was quoting St. John Paul II there.

If you read my posts here at CA you know that I am very “Benedictine” --I quote him constantly - (and the Compendium!) Pope Benedict XVI is my favorite Pope (after Peter).

He was not saying that it is exhaustive! Heck if one were to take only the CCC for say moral theology -as great as that section is -one would leave out a good deal.

(see again my post above-- about Scripture)

Also read his book “Introduction to the Catechism” (Ignatius Press).

“This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.””

 

[Bookcat]

---

there is no “headship” of the husband.

Yes there is -Sacred Scripture and the Church teach.

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

 

[fpt]

The conjugal faith being a natural thing, the husband or the wife cannot impose strict disciplines** to the other and / or to the family**, that are stronger than the natural moral law. The husband or the wife does not have this natural power.

**The marriage is not a seminary. The couple is not seminary. The family is not seminary. **

The use of force by the husband or the wife is always morally wrong. The true moralism, the true culpabilism, and the true scrupulism in order to get some stuff, even spiritual things, are not very sane: it is very unfair.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Practical ways for a wife to treat her husband? She should follow her marriage vows,

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. -

And she should pray for him, even when she doesn’t want to.

A lovely example of what marital love should entail comes from the O’Henry short story,
“The Gift of the Magi” It features a poor newly wed couple at Christmas time. He sells his favorite possession, his pocket watch, to purchase a set of combs for his wife’s hair. She sells her hair in order to purchase a chain for his pocket watch.

 

[Sarcelle]

\

Incorrect.

Such is not what God tells us. Nor the Church.

Yes the husband is the head.

The husband is the head of the wife. Ephesians 5:23 As Christ is the head of the Church. The Husband does not claim being head for himself-- God has* given him that role*.

The wife is the heart!

And he is to serve–to sacrifice for the wife …as did Christ for the Church. Give his blood.

Yes there is also mutual submission. But that is only part of the Teaching. One cannot pick only part.

I agree about the husband being the head of the wife.

But what does being the heart mean? It seems like a consolation prize, a giveaway. It’s almost condescending to say that.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree about the husband being the head of the wife.

But what does being the heart mean? It seems like a consolation prize, a giveaway. It’s almost condescending to say that.

Without my heart I would be* quite dead*.

 

[Xantippe]

MacQ said:

“As for Disney trips, the two of you should make financial decisions together. I suggest you involve your wife in the family finances so she is aware of the state of them. If she’s not, that’s your fault. And seek counseling. You’re obviously not communicating very effectively.”

I was assuming (or hoping) that those were hypothetical examples from yellow8yellowM, but yeah, I think that you are correct that that issue should not even arise if the couple has a well-functioning budgeting process going where both are fully engaged. In a family with a well-functioning budgeting process, the husband says, “OK, honey. Here’s our budget for this month. What are you going to cut back in order to afford Disneyland?”

Of course, as I mentioned way, way upthread, if the family lives nearby and they are annual pass holders, they could easily go to Disneyland or Disneyworld twice in a month without financial strain.

 

[AnnArbor]

I have been reading this thread with absolute fascination. The idea that maleness conveys some sort of ‘headship’ or spiritual authority in the family is bizarre to me. I didn’t know anyone interpreted Ephesians 5 literally, any more than I assumed people were literally interpreting Ephesians 6 in order to determine how to treat their slaves.

 

[Bookcat]

But what does being the heart mean?

A heart - loves.

As Pope Pius IX noted the wife “ought to claim for herself the chief place in love”

The list of the gifts and aspects of the vocation of the wife and mother I imagine are very long…one cannot recount them all in a forum (or perhaps in even in ones lifetime).

Yes there is an order in love…an order in family…but at the very heart of a family …is the Wife the Mother! Her love!

Who was “submissive” as a wife in the most perfect way? Mary

Immaculate Heart of Mary …pray for us.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes there is -Sacred Scripture and the Church teach.

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

---

Your are stepping into fundamentalist protestant territory. The Catholic Church has interpreted scripture – as the mutual subjection of the spouses – in reverence to God. This equality of subjection – husband subject to the wife/wife subject to the husband – does not give “headship” to the husband.