Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

[Mickey]

You made the offensive comment stand by itself. “The Virgin Mary is of limited…”

That is complete nonsense, and absolutely offensive to any person who loves Our Lady. It makes no difference if you believe any of this, it was and is offensive to minimize Mary’s role in the lives of women today. Further, you completely distort the reason the Church views Mary’s contribution as being unique–it has nothing to do with modern science, it has to do with the fact that Mary did say yes to God, and she did conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as a virgin!

Your remark was/is highly offensive, and you should take it back or at least apologize because you are simply mistaken. Mary’s humble acceptance of her call by God remains critical for all people, and certainly for women (or would you say someone like Mother Teressa also was meaingless).

Yes it was highly offensive.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

The issue of woman’s ordination to the priesthood is, dear friend, an issue of major doctrinal importance and thus the Church must needs declare its postion plainly on such a matter.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Are you trying to say that whether or not women serve in the military is not an important issue?

 

[Mickey]

As I said, Saint Paul’s ministry is/was all about the spiritual, not the worldly. He speaks to Divine realities, not to worldly acceptance. The Gospel, the true Gospel as properly understood, is rarely ever understood by those who do not believe.

Amen.

 

[Mickey]

And wives also, if they are able to stay at home during the day (which St. John [Chrysostom] would certainly strongly urge in our day and age, if this is at all possible) can, in his opinion, use the quiet of the home to foster much spiritual growth for themselves and their families:

“But the woman who sits in her house as in some school of true wisdom, and collects her thoughts within herself, will be enabled to devote herself to prayers, and readings, and other heavenly wisdom.” (Homily LXI on St. John; PG 59.340C; NPNF 1, XIV, p. 225; Women and Men, p. 187

---

orthodox-stl.org/little_church.html

 

[Baelor]

As I said, Saint Paul’s ministry is/was all about the spiritual, not the worldly. He speaks to Divine realities, not to worldly acceptance. The Gospel, the true Gospel as properly understood, is rarely ever understood by those who do not believe.

That is not an answer to my question. In order for it to be, you would need to place the role of women etc. either in the spiritual or worldly realms, which you have not.

 

[irishpatrick]

Are you trying to say that whether or not women serve in the military is not an important issue?

In a secular culture women should have the legal right to serve. Now, whether that is wise is a different subject. I feel wisdom is a nearly lost trait. We, as a culture, nearly always ask, “can we do x?,” when what we should be asking is, “should we do x?”

 

[irishpatrick]

That is not an answer to my question. In order for it to be, you would need to place the role of women etc. either in the spiritual or worldly realms, which you have not.

Then, please ask a more specific question, because I felt I did answer you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You do not know what Paul was doing. he was NOT concerning himself about social justice, he really never was. He was attempting to make clear that nothing in this life compares to the next life, and that we need to keep our eye on Christ. He admonishes slaver owners to be kind to their slaves, while also admonishing slaves to remember that Jesus transcends everything in this life. I feel you are trying to compare the Biblical accounts of slavery to same variety the USA was guilty of before the Civil War, the two are not remotely close. Slavery was the norm in the days of the Romans, and Paul certainly understood what suffering was considering he was imprisoned, tutured, etc. at the hands of others. His ministry was NOT about trying to change the secular world, it was about trying to change and convert souls to Christ. Everything Saint Paul did was for the salvation of souls. Paul made it clear that the slaves were to serve their masters “according to the flesh,” which means that in all higher order matters, every person is to raise their minds and souls to Jesus.

Finally, Saint Paul makes it clear he does not support institjutionalize slavery in this passage:

Galatians 3:26-28 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is easy to grab passages here and there to try to make a point, yet one must really understand Scripture and the faith, in order to have any chance at proper exegesis. Be careful yanking passages in an attempt to win arguments…no first the full context of not only that passage, but how it folds into all of Sacred Revelation.

That exact same reasoning is used to justify letting women enter the priesthood by many people.

Moreover, the Pauline passages were used by Christians in the American South and other places to justify slavery for a long time. They certainly had no trouble taking the Scriptural passages at face value.

 

[Portrait]

How would you know?
What reason (if any) is there to believe that it was any more or less culturally conditioned than Saint Paul’s endorsement of slavery?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

The passage from Titus 2: 5, dear friend, is not culturally bound because it is a text that deals with timesless truths and requirements for Catholic women who profess religion. St. Paul’s postion on slavery was necessarily conditioned by the prevailing situation in the Roman Empire, which obviously would not endure indefinetly.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick
You made the offensive comment stand by itself. “The Virgin Mary is of limited…”

That is complete nonsense, and absolutely offensive to any person who loves Our Lady. It makes no difference if you believe any of this, it was and is offensive to minimize Mary’s role in the lives of women today. Further, you completely distort the reason the Church views Mary’s contribution as being unique–it has nothing to do with modern science, it has to do with the fact that Mary did say yes to God, and she did conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as a virgin!

Your remark was/is highly offensive, and you should take it back or at least apologize because you are simply mistaken. Mary’s humble acceptance of her call by God remains critical for all people, and certainly for women (or would you say someone like Mother Teressa also was meaingless).

Yes it was highly offensive.

I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me.
That didn’t last long

 

[Baelor]

Then, please ask a more specific question, because I felt I did answer you.

My follow-up was exactly the specification necessary.

Given your statement on the purpose and nature of Paul’s writings in the Bible, should his statements on slavery and the role of women be considered in the same way?

 

[akela135]

So what qualifies as “home-making” then? If you were to look to a small tribal village in a third world country you might see a family of 13 that includes, mom, dad, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, all sharing the same small shack with a dirt floor. The day in the life of this village might include the men and older boys going off hunting/gathering, the middle age children tending sheeps and goats in pastures, the younger kids doing odd chores or playing games in the village, while woman tend to clothes, make food, or repair homes. Are the woman here being home-makers? And if so does that mean “home-making” applies to a larger community than just the immediate residence?

In the past families lived closely together and they shared responsibilies. While woman might stay home they would be out with their neighbors, helping with all the children and building a sense of community. In today’s world the home seems to apply to only mom, dad, and children.

So maybe mom stays home but runs a small babysitting daycare for the neighbors who work. She makes money off of every kid she watches so she devotes equal time to all the kids whether or not they are her’s biologically. She is working, but she is in the home, so does this qualify as “home-making”? If this does when the does the line blur between home-making and working from home? If instead of watching kids she does laundry? What if she does sewing and altering of garments? What if she is a writer who submits online articles? What if the family owns a farm and she works full time on the farm? Perhaps the family barn is 10 minutes walk from the family house and she milks the cows every day and this takes her 3 hours, during which time the children are out of the house at school? When is a woman no longer “home-making” and a working mom?

 

[irishpatrick]

That exact same reasoning is used to justify letting women enter the priesthood by many people.

Moreover, the Pauline passages were used by Christians in the American South and other places to justify slavery for a long time. They certainly had no trouble taking the Scriptural passages at face value.

What many people think regarding women in the Priesthood is utterly meaingless. What God thinks, and what the Church holds as infallible, is all that really matters with that subject. It is a closed issue, and for a plethora of reasons.

You are correct, some in the south did use Bible passages to support slavery, and they were wrong to do so…that is my point, one must actually understand Scripture to be able properly apply its teachings.

 

[The_Patriarch]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick
You made the offensive comment stand by itself. “The Virgin Mary is of limited…”

That is complete nonsense, and absolutely offensive to any person who loves Our Lady. It makes no difference if you believe any of this, it was and is offensive to minimize Mary’s role in the lives of women today. Further, you completely distort the reason the Church views Mary’s contribution as being unique–it has nothing to do with modern science, it has to do with the fact that Mary did say yes to God, and she did conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as a virgin!

Your remark was/is highly offensive, and you should take it back or at least apologize because you are simply mistaken. Mary’s humble acceptance of her call by God remains critical for all people, and certainly for women (or would you say someone like Mother Teressa also was meaingless).

I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me.
That didn’t last long

Do you have a job You sure are on here a lot. Maybe a stay at home mom

 

[irishpatrick]

My follow-up was exactly the specification necessary.

Given your statement on the purpose and nature of Paul’s writings in the Bible, should his statements on slavery and the role of women be considered in the same way?

One can never make such a sweeping generalization about any passage in the Bible. Each case deserves due study. However, a generalization that can be accurately applied regarding Saint Paul, is that his ministry was all about salvation of souls and the next life, and how people should respond to that call to follow Christ.

 

[Baelor]

One can never make such a sweeping generalization about any passage in the Bible. Each case deserves due study. However, a generalization that can be accurately applied regarding Saint Paul, is that his ministry was all about salvation of souls and the next life, and how people should respond to that call to follow Christ.

So…you choose not to respond. Which is perfectly fine.

 

[irishpatrick]

So…you choose not to respond. Which is perfectly fine.

I am confused. I have responded twice, and I thought clearly. What am I missing? Seriously?

We have a disconnect somewhere…so help me know what that disconnect is so I can provide an answer you can accept.

 

[Baelor]

I am confused. I have responded twice, and I thought clearly. What am I missing? Seriously?

We have a disconnect somewhere…so help me know what that disconnect is so I can provide an answer you can accept.

I am still waiting for a yes or no to this question, which has been the only concern of mine since I first asked it:

Given your statement on the purpose and nature of Paul’s writings in the Bible, should his statements on slavery and the role of women be considered in the same way?

Please respond yes or no with as much explanation as you would like. If you feel unqualified to answer or simply do not wish to, that is fine as well.

 

[Portrait]

Patently (and obviously) false.
There are many female doctors today (and in the past there were many female nurses).
Moreover many female nurses and doctors have also been mothers.

Dear AngryAthesist,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

Women who are single, dear friend, can pursue a career as a doctor until and if they enter into wedlock, after which they should relinquish their jobs and devote their energies to being full-time housewives and mothers (Titus 2: 5).

The ultimate rule for life pleasing to God is: ‘Not my will, but Thine’. Self-pleasing, one of the supreme motivations of disordered humanity, is fatal in the long run for lasting happiness. In their desire to be ‘career women’, women must ask themselves what are their real motives for wanting to work and be a mother. Is it because they and their husbands are greedy of gain, rather than having insufficient funds to pay the power bill? Is it because they do not want to let go of their independence and their own income? Is it because they have embraced the godless and warped thinking of secular radical femensim and want to merge this with their Catholicism? Women need to do some serious self-examination and find out what it is that is driving them and why they cannot devote themselves exclusively to being homemakers.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Are you trying to say that whether or not women serve in the military is not an important issue?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Indeed, dear friend, it is an important issue, but not as important as the priesthood of the Catholic Church, as that affects its very essence and is clearly not a subordinate issue, at least not to Catholics at any rate.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax