Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[severus68]

severus68 said:

“However, in this case, the husband and wife refuse to accept that headship and submission are right, correct or required by Christ.”

Presumably, the husband and wife believe that “headship and submission” means something oppressive, imprudent, destructive and evil. And while it’s possible to have a more positive notion of headship and submission, why should we want a couple to engage in a practice they believe to be morally wrong? It’s unlikely that the couple in our example could have a healthy version of “headship and submission” if it’s so contrary to their moral intuitions.

Bear in mind, our hypothetical couple probably has a reasonably happy marriage and you might actually find a certain amount of headship and submission going on under their roof, it’s just that that isn’t their terminology of choice.

If the couple isn’t happy or if there’s some sort of disagreement going on, that’s quite a different thing, but if they’re happy, why should we fuss them?

Sorry but you are trying to find headship and submission where there isn’t as both husband and wife detest those terms in whatever form they come in, whether they are supposed to be non-oppressive, wanted by God etc.
This couple love, respect each other and will sacrifice for each other. Call it mutual submission but it is not a one sided submission.

Thank you very much for responding in the way you do.

 

[thewanderer]

I assue you meant post not email. Did you combine two of my postsa

Yes, I accept that you said a wife does not always have to obey but you have not reconciled that with headship/submission.

My question to you and others was simple and I will rephrase - According to what you mean by headship and submission of the wife, would a couple sin by refusing to accept headship and submission? I am not making any claim. I am asking all who make their claim and say it is Church teachings to please answer.

Sorry, I’m on my phone and autocorrect changed that for me.

If a couple insists that the Church’s official teaching is wrong, then it seems to me there is something wrong there. Catholics don’t really get the option o picking and choosing which Church teachings they are willing to accept. So the rejection of an official church teaching could be sinful.

As for whether the rejection of my view of headship and submission would be sinful, I am going to have to decline to answer that until you give me reason to believe you will actually accept that my view of headship, despite your claims, does not mean the husband automatically has the authority to have last say over the wife. Unless you are willing to accept that me answering your confusion will simply lead to mother occasion of us misunderstanding and talking past each other.

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry but you are trying to find headship and submission where there isn’t as both husband and wife detest those terms in whatever form they come in, whether they are supposed to be non-oppressive, wanted by God etc.
This couple love, respect each other and will sacrifice for each other. Call it mutual submission but it is not a one sided submission.

Thank you very much for responding in the way you do.

Such a couple sounds very much as though they are following in practice what I consider to be the head/heart relationship in a legitimate way. Mutual submission is not incompatible with headship/submission. Both are Church teachings and so both must be accepted.

 

[severus68]

Sorry, I’m on my phone and autocorrect changed that for me.

If a couple insists that the Church’s official teaching is wrong, then it seems to me there is something wrong there. Catholics don’t really get the option o picking and choosing which Church teachings they are willing to accept. So the rejection of an official church teaching could be sinful.

As for whether the rejection of my view of headship and submission would be sinful, I am going to have to decline to answer that until you give me reason to believe you will actually accept that my view of headship, despite your claims, does not mean the husband automatically has the authority to have last say over the wife. Unless you are willing to accept that me answering your confusion will simply lead to mother occasion of us misunderstanding and talking past each other.

 

[severus68]

Such a couple sounds very much as though they are following in practice what I consider to be the head/heart relationship in a legitimate way. Mutual submission is not incompatible with headship/submission. Both are Church teachings and so both must be accepted.

Why imput something that is untrue? This hypothetical couple detests the idea of headship and does not agree that God requires it.

 

[severus68]

Sorry, I’m on my phone and autocorrect changed that for me.

If a couple insists that the Church’s official teaching is wrong, then it seems to me there is something wrong there. Catholics don’t really get the option o picking and choosing which Church teachings they are willing to accept. So the rejection of an official church teaching could be sinful.

As for whether the rejection of my view of headship and submission would be sinful, I am going to have to decline to answer that until you give me reason to believe you will actually accept that my view of headship, despite your claims, does not mean the husband automatically has the authority to have last say over the wife. Unless you are willing to accept that me answering your confusion will simply lead to mother occasion of us misunderstanding and talking past each other.

So, a couple must accept the practice of headsip and wifely submission in a marriage.and the husband must be the head or they sin.

Why would or must I accept the idea of headship however it is set out as when I have made my views on this very clear?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Please don’t tell me what I am saying.

So if a couple refuse to follow headship and submission according to the Biblical meaning, are they sinning pleas?

If a Catholic couple believes that God became man and saved us from our sins, died and rose again, healed people and raised them to life, and caused the Holy Spirit to descend on the apostle Paul, whereupon Paul wrote the Epistles, which are the inspired Word of God – if a Catholic couple believes all this, and refuses to act according to what Paul says, then yes, I think they are sinning.

As I’ve said, this leaves open what “headship” means. It does not mean being CEO of a marriage, though, that’s for sure.

 

[severus68]

If a Catholic couple believes that God became man and saved us from our sins, died and rose again, healed people and raised them to life, and caused the Holy Spirit to descend on the apostle Paul, whereupon Paul wrote the Epistles, which are the inspired Word of God – if a Catholic couple believes all this, and refuses to act according to what Paul says, then yes, I think they are sinning.

As I’ve said, this leaves open what “headship” means. It does not mean being CEO of a marriage, though, that’s for sure.

Paul was not God, he was a man of his times and culture have and anyway we do not take everything in the Bible literally.

So now, Catholic couples are forced to live their marriages with the wife submitting to her husband and both acknowledging him as the head? That is utterly ridiculous

 

[fpt]

The radical feminism is morally wrong; The radical masculism is morally wrong.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong; The misogynism is is morally wrong; The misandrism is morally wrong;

The refusal of the equality and of the equity between females and males is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between wife and spouse is morally wrong; The war of sexes is morally wrong;

The doxa of the superiority of man on the woman is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of husband on the wife is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of woman on the man is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of wife on the husband is morally wrong;

The negation of the physical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the psychical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the affective sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the spiritual sexuation is is morally wrong;
The doxa of the un-sexuation is morally wrong;

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable donation of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable reception of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies is morally wrong;

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human is morally wrong; The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse is morally wrong; The refusal of the equity and equality in the couple is morally wrong;

The fact of thinking that the wife is inferior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the wife is superior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is superior to the wife is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is inferior to the wife is morally wrong;

For a father, the fact of wanting to be mother is morally wrong; For a mother, the fact of wanting to be father is morally wrong; For a husband the fact being of a dictator, a tyrant and a master of his wife and his family is morally wrong;

The fact of refusing the natural rights of wife is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of husband is morally wrong;

The conjugal victorianism is morally wrong; The conjugal puritanism is morally wrong; The conjugal jansenism is morally wrong; The conjugal catharism is morally wrong; The conjugal quiverfullism is morally wrong; The conjugal prudism is morally wrong; The conjugal theoretical providentialism is morally wrong;

 

[fpt]

Are you a follower of Colleen Hammond’s view on the notion of submission of wife???
Are you a follower of Raylan Alleman’s view about the notion of submission of wife ???
Are you a follower of Ronald Conte Jr’s view on the notion of submission of wife ???

If by exemple, you are on the same page than these three persons about the notion of submission of wife, you can be uneasy and should be uneasy, in my humble opinion.

Their views are unacceptable, in my humble opinion. They are very touched by many intellectual diseases (diseases of the intelligence, philosophically speaking).
**
FAITH AND REASON, REASON AND FAITH.** We are held by the OLD TESTAMENT, PER SE. We are Muslim, we are not christians, we are Roman Catholics.

 

[fpt]

are you a follower of colleen hammond’s view on the notion of submission of wife???
Are you a follower of raylan alleman’s view about the notion of submission of wife ???
Are you a follower of ronald conte jr’s view on the notion of submission of wife ???

If by exemple, you are on the same page than these three persons about the notion of submission of wife, you can be uneasy and should be uneasy, in my humble opinion.

Their views are unacceptable, in my humble opinion. They are very touched by many intellectual diseases (diseases of the intelligence, philosophically speaking).
**
faith and reason, reason and faith.** we are not held by the old testament, per se. we are not muslim, we are not christians, we are roman catholics.

equity and equality

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Paul was not God, he was a man of his times and culture

So apparently he couldn’t same anything timelessly true?

and anyway we do not take everything in the Bible literally.

OK. Can you tell me how we can take this passage as anything other than an explicit instruction to us?

Is there some Christological or anagogical reading of this passage I’m not aware of? (See catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6525 for different ways we might read the Bible non-literally). It’s true the Bible isn’t always literal, but we’re not allowed to just throw out Scriptures we don’t like without interpreting them at all.

 

[Xantippe]

severus68 said:

“Sorry but you are trying to find headship and submission where there isn’t as both husband and wife detest those terms in whatever form they come in, whether they are supposed to be non-oppressive, wanted by God etc.
This couple love, respect each other and will sacrifice for each other. Call it mutual submission but it is not a one sided submission.”

Not at all. A couple could reject the terms “headship” and “submission” (because they believe the terms to be representing something sinful) while actually practicing headship and submission.

That could easily happen, particularly as, as I’ve mentioned a time or two, “submission” and “laying one’s life down” are in practice very difficult to distinguish. I believe it is essentially the same activity, which is why there’s no necessary contradiction between headship/submission and mutual submission.

 

[Xantippe]

To continue, would anybody who disagrees care to explain the difference between “submission” and “laying one’s life down”?

To me, they sound like fairly close synonyms.

 

[fpt]

The radical feminism is morally wrong; The radical masculism is morally wrong.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong; The misogynism is is morally wrong; The misandrism is morally wrong;

The refusal of the equality and of the equity between females and males is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between wife and spouse is morally wrong; The war of sexes is morally wrong;

The doxa of the superiority of man on the woman is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of husband on the wife is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of woman on the man is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of wife on the husband is morally wrong;

The negation of the physical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the psychical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the affective sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the spiritual sexuation is is morally wrong;
The doxa of the un-sexuation is morally wrong;

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable donation of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable reception of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies is morally wrong;

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human is morally wrong; The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse is morally wrong; The refusal of the equity and equality in the couple is morally wrong;

The fact of thinking that the wife is inferior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the wife is superior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is superior to the wife is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is inferior to the wife is morally wrong;

For a father, the fact of wanting to be mother is morally wrong; For a mother, the fact of wanting to be father is morally wrong; For a husband the fact being of a dictator, a tyran and a master of his wife and his family is morally wrong; For a wife the fact being of a dictator, a tyran and a master of her wife and her family is morally wrong;

The fact of refusing the natural rights of wife is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of husband is morally wrong;

The conjugal victorianism is morally wrong; The conjugal puritanism is morally wrong; The conjugal jansenism is morally wrong; The conjugal catharism is morally wrong; The conjugal quiverfullism is morally wrong; The conjugal prudism is morally wrong; The conjugal theoretical providentialism is morally wrong;

The civil laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between women and men are morally wrong. The civil laws instituting a “true discrimination” between husbands and wives are morally wrong.

Morally speaking, a husband can not use **the civil laws of State that do not respect the equity and the equality **for imposing something to his wife. The unfair laws have to be denounced by a catholic husband and not to apply by the catholic husband.

The absolute positivism of the laws of State is not very catholic.

 

[fpt]

The civil laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between women and men are morally wrong. The civil laws instituting a “true discrimination” between husbands and wives are morally wrong.

Morally speaking, a husband can not use **the civil laws of State that do not respect the equity and the equality **for imposing something to his wife. The unfair laws have to be denounced by a catholic husband and not to apply by the catholic husband.

The absolute positivism of the laws of State is not very catholic.

A correction

The radical feminism is morally wrong; The radical masculism is morally wrong.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong; The misogynism is is morally wrong; The misandrism is morally wrong;

The refusal of the equality and of the equity between females and males is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between wife and spouse is morally wrong; The war of sexes is morally wrong;

The doxa of the superiority of man on the woman is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of husband on the wife is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of woman on the man is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of wife on the husband is morally wrong;

The negation of the physical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the psychical sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the affective sexuation is is morally wrong; The negation of the spiritual sexuation is is morally wrong;
The doxa of the un-sexuation is morally wrong;

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable donation of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable reception of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies is morally wrong;

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human is morally wrong; The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse is morally wrong; The refusal of the equity and equality in the couple is morally wrong;

The fact of thinking that the wife is inferior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the wife is superior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is superior to the wife is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is inferior to the wife is morally wrong;

For a father, the fact of wanting to be mother is morally wrong; For a mother, the fact of wanting to be father is morally wrong; For a husband the fact being of a dictator, a tyran and a master of his wife and his family is morally wrong; For a wife the fact being of a dictator, a tyran and a master of her husband and her family is morally wrong;

The fact of refusing the natural rights of wife is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of husband is morally wrong;

The conjugal victorianism is morally wrong; The conjugal puritanism is morally wrong; The conjugal jansenism is morally wrong; The conjugal catharism is morally wrong; The conjugal quiverfullism is morally wrong; The conjugal prudism is morally wrong; The conjugal theoretical providentialism is morally wrong;

 

[Rico_S]

To continue, would anybody who disagrees care to explain the difference between “submission” and “laying one’s life down”?

To me, they sound like fairly close synonyms.

Submission is the act of yielding to another’s authority or will. “Laying ones life down” is simply a sacrifice…it doesn’t necessarily mean yielding to another’s will. Not really close to the same thing IMO.

But from what I have read in this thread, the “catholic” definitions of submission, head, etc seem to have evolved to a point as to have little resemblance to the actual words definitions. Which is sort of funny since the biblical translations still use those words. One would think that if the intention of the verse wasn’t “submission” as defined by the English language, then “submission” shouldn’t be used.

 

[thewanderer]

Why imput something that is untrue? This hypothetical couple detests the idea of headship and does not agree that God requires it.

What did I write that is untrue?

 

[thewanderer]

So, a couple must accept the practice of headsip and wifely submission in a marriage.and the husband must be the head or they sin.

Why would or must I accept the idea of headship however it is set out as when I have made my views on this very clear?

I am not, in this post, telling you to accept that headship is a good thing. I am telling you that if you want to have a discussion with me about what my view of headship is you have to actually listen to what I tell you my view of headship is. You can’t continue to insist my view of headship is something it isn’t even after I have clarified this for you and still expect to be able to have a real discussion about it. Basically, if you are going to insist that I am lying about my view of submission/headship and that you know better than me why my view of headship/submission is then it would simply be pointless for me to discuss my view of headship with you.

 

[Xantippe]

RicoS said:

“Submission is the act of yielding to another’s authority or will. “Laying ones life down” is simply a sacrifice…it doesn’t necessarily mean yielding to another’s will. Not really close to the same thing IMO.”

I think the relationship between the two is that “submission” is a subset or a variety of “laying one’s life down.” Submission is a kind of laying down one’s life–there can’t be submission without sacrifice.