Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

  • Thread starter Thread starter judcargile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thewanderer said:
The probem Mickey is that what Portrait means by saying that legitimate exceptions are not normative. This could be interpreted in several different ways. It could mean that they should not effect an actual rule to be put in place as an absolute rule, or it could mean that the rule is actually only a general rule to be followed, not something that can be applied to everyone. Which is why I am asking Portrait to give a clear responce to my question. It really shouldn’t be that difficult, if this is all a mistake and the people on this thread are misunderstanding him, then he can easily clear that up by answering my question.
Click to expand...
I thought his response was clear and sufficient…but I’ll let him clarify further if he wishes.
 
Mickey said:
I think you would be better served following the advice of an apostle from Sacred Scripture rather than an opinion from a pope.
Are you sure about that?
Do you know what St Paul means by this?
**Actually, he sounds like a solid traditional Catholic.
**
He does not mock you…why must you mock him?
Click to expand...
As someone who has actually been a Protestant, I can say with authority that Portrait does in fact sound like one (of the more fundamentalist kind).
 
thewanderer said:
Mickey, just so you know, many on this thread are disagreeing with Portrait not because they don’t believe there is a difference between men and women, but because we believe Portrait is taking generalities and turning them into absolutes. I have asked him about this, explaining what the two options are, (ie the rules are general because there are exceptions or the rules are absolute, no exceptions allowed) and he did not give a direct response, so I have asked him again. Hopefully he will have the intellectual integrity to explain to us exactly what his position actually is. I am very confident that if he is willing to admit that the rules cannot be applied as *absolute *rules, but instead must be understood as general rules he will find much less oposition on this thread. The problem is that he has come across as though he wishes to apply these rules as absolutes. The fact that he has not been willing to say that this is not what he means makes it appear even more as though it actually is what he means. I hope this helps to explain the reaction against Portrait in this thread.
Click to expand...
Portrait has not even bothered to answer my repeated question of what legal and political rights (if any) women would have if his ideas were implemented.
Frankly I am beginning to suspect that that is because women would have few (if any) rights in his ideal world and he doesn’t want to admit it:shrug:
 
Mickey said:
He is charitable and respectful in every one of his posts.
You could learn much from him.
Click to expand...
No, Portrait merely uses polite and pseudo-friendly language.
That is not the same thing.
 
Mickey said:
I don’t think that’s it at all. I think he has already answered you aptly and respectfully. He has explained that we respond to these issues with a properly formed conscience…and the exceptions are not the norm.

It saddens me to see so much opposition to his edifying posts.
Click to expand...
Actually Portrait has refused to even answer the question of whether or not in his ideal world women would get an education (since it would be easier to relegate women to the domestic sphere if they were ignorant and illiterate).
 
Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea
Respectfully, no. Not with regards to gender roles.
Mickey said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
What do you think we have been arguing about for* this whole thread*!

Its the heart of this debate.
 
Litcrit said:
I may have misunderstood, but all I got from Angry Atheist 8 was the notion that the Virgin Mary is not an example most human beings are likely to be able to follow in *literal *terms, as we can’t and shouldn’t *literally *be doing what She did. It is therefore not quite productive to give Her example in little literal details of life (She wasn’t employed, She didn’t use a cellphone, She didn’t give birth in a hospital, She always covered Her head, etc.)

English is not my native language, so I may have misunderstood, as I said. But I didn’t see anything offensive - intentionally or otherwise - in AngryAtheist’s post.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think he was speaking about using Our Lady as an example to justify certain things like a married woman should not work an Mary did not.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
As someone who has actually been a Protestant, I can say with authority that Portrait does in fact sound like one (of the more fundamentalist kind).
Click to expand...
No, you can say so with an opinion, but considering the dozens of protestant sects, I doubt you have any authority to speak for any of them and even if you did, it would still only be an opinion that he sounds more like one of them than a traditional Catholic.
 
severus68 said:
Do you have an issue with JPII?
Click to expand...
No. I thought he was a rather good pope.
severus68 said:
We can respect saints but they are not perfect or infallible.
Click to expand...
Popes are not perfect…far from it…and the doctrine of infallibility can only been invoked ex-cathedra in concordance with all the bishops. This has been done once…maybe twice?

Other than that, the pope of Rome usually reiterates what has been passed down through Sacred Tradition from those saints and Church Fathers that we respect. 😉
 
Originally Posted by severus68
Well Portrait has made it clear in his posts that he is for everything pre Vatican II.
Mickey said:
As should all good Latin Catholics. 🙂

Surely you don’t think your Church began at Vatican II. :eek:
Click to expand...
I think the implication was supposed to be that you’re *against everything *post Vatican II:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top