Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

[ballin]

You should also read what JPII has to say about mutual submission in marriage.

Among other things you said this:

“This is the fact that women are 2nd in the order of creation to man and therefore should lovingly submit to their husbands. The denial of this natural order is IMMORAL and the Angels who are in-charge of maintaining the natural order will find it repulsive and act.”

Where does the Church say this? The Church shows us what is doctrine.

This is part of what JPII said in his MULIERIS DIGNITATEM :

“Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them.”

But nothing you said above shows what I said is false. There is a natural order which exists due to the fact that woman came after man. That is part of Church Scripture. No council or encyclical will ever attempt to change that.

MULIERIS DIGNITATEM merely talks about the equality in dignity of both sexes. If you understood what I wrote, and more importantly, what St. Paul writes in scripture, the matter is no regarding human dignity. There is a natural precedence of man with respect to a woman.

This is why in Ephesians you have the following:-

“Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.” (Colossians 3:18)

So while both sexes are equal in dignity, there is also a difference which if we disregard, will have to face the wrath of the Angels who are the enforcers of the natural order. That is what St. Paul warns against.

It would have been better for you to ask me for clarification than attack me as “Rubbish” and giving my “view” of things. No need to take things personally here since we are all Catholics.

 

[Walking_Home]

But nothing you said above shows what I said is false. There is a natural order which exists due to the fact that woman came after man. That is part of Church Scripture. No council or encyclical will ever attempt to change that.

MULIERIS DIGNITATEM merely talks about the equality in dignity of both sexes. If you understood what I wrote, and more importantly, what St. Paul writes in scripture, the matter is no regarding human dignity.

It would have been better for you to ask me for clarification than attack me as “Rubbish” and giving my “view” of things. No need to take things personally here since we are all Catholics.

---

MULIERIS DIGNITATEM

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life.** However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual**.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both "out of reverence for Christ". The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.

 

[ballin]

---

As I said before, they are both equal in dignity as that quote proves. But it does not, and indeed cannot, disprove the natural precedence of Man over Woman. The Church can’t and doesn’t contradict Scripture which would be to contradict it-self anyway.

 

[Walking_Home]

As I said before, they are both equal in dignity as that quote proves.** But it does not, and indeed cannot, disprove the natural precedence of Man over Woman.** The Church can’t and doesn’t contradict Scripture which would be to contradict it-self anyway.

---

The fact that both – man and woman – are created in the image and likeness of God – disproves that there is a “precedence” as you interpret—of one sex (male) over the other (woman). It does not make the male in any form “superior”.

 

[ballin]

---

The fact that both – man and woman – are created in the image and likeness of God – disproves that there is a “precedence” as you interpret—of one sex (male) over the other (woman). It does not make the male in any form “superior”.

I am not sure why you want one side to be superior. I am merely saying there is a natural precedence of man over woman. Woman was created for man, not man for woman.

The mutual subjection comes as a result of man, like Christ, being called to give him-self up for his spouse.

You are confusing the end result with the natural order. The fact that Christ gives himself up for you or “served” the apostles at the last supper does not mean that in the natural order Christ and man are equal. It is a similar thing here. Just because man and women are subject to each other in marriage, it does not mean that there is no natural precedence of man over woman.

And what do you suggest we do? Rewrite the Bible excluding St. Paul’s words on the precedence of man over woman?

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not sure why you want one side to be superior. I merely saying there is a natural precedence of man over woman. Woman was created for man, not man for woman.

The mutual subjection comes as a result of man, like Christ, being called to give him-self up for his spouse.

You are confusing the end result with the natural order. The fact that Christ gives himself up for you or “served” the apostles at the last supper does not mean that in the natural order Christ and man are equal.

And what do you suggest we do? Rewrite the Bible excluding St. Paul’s words on the precedence of man over woman?

---

I am not the one – giving one side superiority-- you are.

 

[ballin]

---

I am not the one – giving one side superiority-- you are.

I am acknowledging the fact that man has natural precedence over a woman. That is stated in Scripture i.e. taught by the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am acknowledging the fact that man has natural precedence over a woman. That is stated in Scripture i.e. taught by the Church.

---

You “acknowledge” – your own interpretation of “precedence” – of man “over” woman.

 

[ballin]

---

You “acknowledge” – your own interpretation of “precedence” – of man “over” woman.

Well, lets make this easier for both of us. Do you or do you not acknowledge that there is a natural precedence of man over woman?

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, lets make this easier for both of us. Do you or do you not acknowledge that there is a natural precedence of man over woman?

---

Where the sex of one – in any way/form gives superiority/precedence" over the other sex ----No.

 

[ballin]

---

Where the sex of one – in any way/form gives superiority/precedence" over the other sex ----No.

I am not sure about superiority since it is a subjective term. I am merely asking, is there a precedence in the natural order or not?

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not sure about superiority since it is a subjective term. I am merely asking, is there a precedence in the natural order or not?

---

You made it into an issue of “superiority” – when you use “precedence” to place the woman below the man.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

---

You made it into an issue of “superiority” – when you use “precedence” to place the woman below the man.

Friend, ballin is trying to make it very clear that “superiority” is not the same as “precedence.” You need to hear this distinction if the discussion is to go forward.

ballin: why don’t you post what passages of Scripture you are thinking of?

For example: [BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:11-15[/BIBLEDRB].

In that passage it seems St. Paul is showing that there is a precedence based in the order of creation, and this has practical consequences as to how women and men should behave?

 

[ballin]

---

You made it into an issue of “superiority” – when you use “precedence” to place the woman below the man.

But you are the one who keeps bringing in this superiority criteria.

I am merely asking you a question whether you admit that man has precedence over woman in the natural order of things. The issue here is not whether its existence implies superiority. The issue here is whether you admit its existence.

As **newyorkcatholic **said in his post, the implication of this is not superiority but ‘practical consequences as to how women and men should behave’.

 

[Walking_Home]

Friend, ballin is trying to make it very clear that “superiority” is not the same as “precedence.” You need to hear this distinction if the discussion is to go forward.

ballin: why don’t you post what passages of Scripture you are thinking of?

For example: [BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:11-15[/BIBLEDRB].

1 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.

---

There is already a thread – covering the issue of women “not teaching/having authority over men”. Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Lack of childbearing – does not impede a woman from salvation.

 

[Walking_Home]

But you are the one who keeps bringing in this superiority criteria.

I am merely asking you a question whether you admit that man has precedence over woman in the natural order of things. The issue here is not whether its existence implies superiority. The issue here is whether you admit its existence.

As **newyorkcatholic **said in his post, the implication of this is not superiority but ‘practical consequences as to how women and men should behave’.

---

As I said prior – Not when “precedence” places woman below man.

 

[ballin]

---

As I said prior – Not when “precedence” places woman below man.

“Below”, “Above”, “Superior” are social constructs. You can define those things anyway you want. People can say that the fact that women bear children makes them inferior. But we know that women are not inferior. However, that does not OBVIOUSLY imply that women don’t bear children.

So you are avoiding the direct question here. Is there a natural precedence of man over woman or not?

The truth about its existence has nothing to do with its implications or possible incorrect social constructs around it.

 

[Baelor]

As I said before, they are both equal in dignity as that quote proves. But it does not, and indeed cannot, disprove the natural precedence of Man over Woman. The Church can’t and doesn’t contradict Scripture which would be to contradict it-self anyway.

Define “precedence in the natural order.”

 

[newyorkcatholic]

---

There is already a thread – covering the issue of women “not teaching/having authority over men”. Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Lack of childbearing – does not impede a woman from salvation.

I get you might have a different view of St. Paul’s words than I, but do you acknowledge them at all?

What do they mean to you? Or do you interpret them as meaningless?

Clearly Adam and Eve both sinned, but St. Paul sees that sin differently, and from this he says something about men and women as being different.

St. Augustine, in the Confessions, also talks about the equality of men and women and praises women but at the same time sees an order in creation in which men precede women and women should be subject.

I’m not sure how to put it all together, but simply denying what you don’t like isn’t that helpful.

Here’s a summary of my problem: if I accept what you say without any explanation, just as you say it, I feel I have to disregard Scripture, which as a Catholic I cannot do.

 

[ballin]

Define “precedence in the natural order.”

Man came before woman. Therefore, men and women are different in their roles.