Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

[Baelor]

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

That is a non sequitur.

 

[ballin]

That is a non sequitur.

A non sequitur applies to an argument. I did not state an argument. I stated an explanation or a definition.

Do you understand what non-sequitur means?

Perhaps what lead to your confusion was my use of the word “Therefore”. If that was the reason, you can take what I said as simply the ‘difference of gender’. Theologically speaking, order of creation implies a difference in roles. What I said above would be a non-sequitor if you reject the theological idea of the importance of man coming before woman and woman being made for man and not vice versa.

 

[Walking_Home]

A non sequitur applies to an argument. I did not state an argument. I stated an explanation or a definition.

Do you understand what non-sequitur means?

Perhaps what lead to your confusion was my use of the word “Therefore”. If that was the reason, you can take what I said as simply the ‘difference of gender’. Theologically speaking, order of creation implies a difference in roles. What I said above would be a non-sequitor if you reject the theological idea of the importance of man coming before woman and woman being made for man and not vice versa.

---

Lets see what the Church says to that – shall we. Man is created/exists for woman – woman is created/exists for man. It is a mutual for–man for woman – woman for man---- and Not the one sided – “woman being made for man”

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

…

Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others. ****“In the ‘unity of the two’, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ‘side by side’ or ‘together’, but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other’… The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call. But it is not the only one. The whole of human history unfolds within the context of this call.** In this history, on the basis of the principle of mutually being ‘for’ the other in interpersonal ‘communion’, there develops in humanity itself, in accordance with God’s will, the integration of what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’”**.9…

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect

• Angelo Amato, SDB
  Titular Archbishop of Sila
  Secretary

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

So are you saying – unless a woman bears a child – she will not be saved.

 

[severus68]

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 keep on about the “natural order”. Man as in men and women were created in the image of God. Both are equal before God. The domination of women by men is the result of sin. We can always pick and choose bits from Scripture and give our own interpretation to suit what we want to believe.

This thread is about veiling in church but you chose to bring your own agenda into the discussion.

 

[ballin]

---

Lets see what the Church says to that – shall we. Man is created/exists for woman – woman is created/exists for man. It is a mutual for–man for woman – woman for man---- and Not the one sided – “woman being made for man”

This is irrelevant to the question asked of you.

The question is “Does man have a precedence over woman in the natural order?”

The answer is a “Yes” or a “No”. But you keep posting anything but.

 

[ballin]

You keep on about the “natural order”. Man as in men and women were created in the image of God. Both are equal before God. The domination of women by men is the result of sin. We can always pick and choose bits from Scripture and give our own interpretation to suit what we want to believe.

This thread is about veiling in church but you chose to bring your own agenda into the discussion.

Actually I am very much within topic. The veiling was a disciplinary measure which stemmed from the need to safe guard the natural order of precedence between man and woman.

Unfortunately, you seem to be unaware of these things and the only thing you seem to be aware about is the teaching of John Paul II on marriage. Perhaps out of some fear that accepting a natural order of precedence will lead to abuse of power, you seem to deny the existence of something the church has taught.

The question to you, just like to the other poster, is whether you agree that there is a precedence of man over woman in the natural order? If your answer is no, regardless of who else you might want to quote, you would be holding something contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

[Walking_Home]

This is irrelevant to the question asked of you.

The question is “Does man have a precedence over woman in the natural order?”

The answer is a “Yes” or a “No”. But you keep posting anything but that.

---

And I answered that— I believe twice. And as you can see by what the Church says – it is a mutual for – man for woman/woman for man and Not the one sided – “woman for man”. This and man/woman --each created in the image and likeness of God – in essense means --it makes no difference as to who was created first.

 

[ballin]

---

And I answered that— I believe twice.

So will it hurt you to perhaps refer to the post? Or simply say I answered it as “YES”/“NO” twice?

Your behavior is making it seem like you have something to hide or honestly don’t know enough to answer the question.

 

[ballin]

---

And I answered that— I believe twice. And as you can see by what the Church says – it is a mutual for – man for woman/woman for man and Not the one sided – “woman for man”. This and man/woman --each created in the image and likeness of God – in essense means --it makes no difference as to who was created first.

So if you are denying that there is no natural precedence for man over woman, then you are unfortunately in error. You are trying to get rid of a teaching of the Church, handed down by St. Paul himself by an irrelevant teaching on human dignity.

Men and Women are equal in Dignity. There is no debate on this issue here. So to keep claiming that they are equal in dignity is really a bit pointless, right? The topic here concerns the fact that they are not equal in the natural order. St. Paul mentions how Angels will be the ones who we will have to fear when we speak or act to the contrary and even provides it as the reason for his disciplinary measure on the Veil.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

And I answered that— I believe twice.

So will it hurt you to perhaps refer to the post? Or simply say I answered it as “YES”/“NO” twice?

Your behavior is making it seem like you have something to hide or honestly don’t know enough to answer the question.

---

See my addition to prior post.

 

[ballin]

---

See my addition to prior post.

I did. Please see my 2nd reply to it.

 

[Walking_Home]

So if you are denying that there is no natural precedence for man over woman, then you are unfortunately in error. You are trying to get rid of a teaching of the Church, handed down by St. Paul himself by an irrelevant teaching on human dignity.

Men and Women are equal in Dignity. There is no debate on this issue here. So to keep claiming that they are equal in dignity is really a bit pointless, right? The topic here concerns the fact that they are not equal in the natural order. St. Paul mentions how Angels will be the ones who we will have to fear when we speak or act to the contrary and even provides it as the reason for his disciplinary measure on the Veil.

---

Since the Church Herself does not require women to veil — your interpretation is at odds with the Church.

 

[ballin]

---

Since the Church Herself does not require women to veil — your interpretation is at odds with the Church.

That is a pretty random comment. If you followed my posts so far, you would know that I am not even saying that the veil is REQUIRED.

My point was that the original disciplinary measure for the veil was meant to enforce the doctrinal difference in the natural order between the sexes. Though the disciplinary measure is no longer enforced, the truth remains.

So I am afraid you are the one at odds with church teaching good sir.

 

[Walking_Home]

That is a pretty random comment. If you followed my posts so far, you would know that I am not even saying that the veil is REQUIRED.

My point was that the original disciplinary measure for the veil was meant to enforce the doctrinal difference in the natural order between the sexes. Though the disciplinary measure is no longer enforced, the truth remains.

So I am afraid you are the one at odds with church teaching good sir.

---

Again – your interpretation has been shown to be at odds with the Church – as has been shown – that man and woman are created/exist one for the other—and Not the one sided “woman for man”-- because the man was created first.

 

[ballin]

---

Again – your interpretation has been shown to be at odds with the Church – as has been shown – that man and woman are created/exist one for the other—and Not the one sided “woman for man”-- because the man was created first.

So let me understand you properly, St. Paul has been contradicted and ruled as false by John Paul II according to your interpretation (that alone should be the cue for you to realize you are wrong but lets move on a bit…).

The proof you provide is John Paul II’s statements on equality in dignity. St. Paul is talking about the natural order. You realize that you are comparing Apples and Oranges here?

 

[Walking_Home]

So let me understand you properly, St. Paul has been contradicted and ruled as false by John Paul II according to your interpretation (that alone should be the cue for you to realize you are wrong but lets move on a bit…).

The proof you provide is John Paul II’s statements on equality in dignity. St. Paul is talking about the natural order. You realize that you are comparing Apples and Oranges here?

---

“Nice” try – but no. I am not saying Pope John Paul II contradicted St. Paul or that Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI contradicted St. Paul. Remember – the Church is the authority on the interpretation of Scripture – so If your interpretation is at odds – it is you.

 

[ballin]

---

“Nice” try – but no. I am not saying Pope John Paul II contradicted St. Paul or that Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI contradicted St. Paul. Remember – the Church is the authority on the interpretation of Scripture – so If your interpretation is at odds – it is you.

Well unfortunate for you, my interpretation is not at odds with the church. I am acknowledging all three, JPII, BXVI and St. Paul. I am also wise enough to realize that JP II and Pope BXVI are referring to human dignity while St. Paul is referring to Natural Order of things.

But it seems from your posts that you have no grasp on the distinction on what the church has said through each writer. So am I the one at odds with the church here?

 

[Walking_Home]

Well unfortunate for you, my interpretation is not at odds with the church. I am acknowledging all three, JPII, BXVI and St. Paul. I am also wise enough to realize that JP II and Pope BXVI are referring to human dignity while St. Paul is referring to Natural Order of things.

But it seems from your posts that you have no grasp on the distinction. So am I the one at odds with the church here?

---

Deny it as you want – but it does not change – that your interpretation – does not coincide with the Church. That has been shown.

 

[ballin]

---

Deny it as you want – but it does not change – that your interpretation – does not coincide with the Church. That has been shown.

Hahaha, I think you are just been stubborn now. I think that is fine but I am sure you get what I am saying.

In case you don’t, I will mention it one last time to you.

Bl. JPII, Pope BXVI => Speaks about the equal dignity of man and woman
St. Paul => Speaks about the difference in the natural order between man and woman

There is no contradiction here or interpretation issue. Both are speaking of different things.

But you seem to have an agenda here to try and get rid of the existence of a difference in the natural order. So you try to use the statements by Bl. JP II and Pope BXVI on human dignity to somehow imply they are also speaking about the natural order. That is a misrepresentation of their words on your part.

But anyway, ultimately you will have to answer to the angels who maintain the natural order. I will step aside and let them decide what to do regarding your false advancements.