What's with all the anti women threads recently??

  • Thread starter Thread starter BingoBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, yes I did come in late and didn’t see the other posts you mentioned.

I have seen the document you linked to before. It is an very informative read. Still, Casti Connubii is a better point of reference for those who claim male headship is not a Catholic doctrine because it is a more authoritative statement. Pope Pius XI is making an ex cathedra statement.

Pax
 
Dan_Daly said:
Sorry, yes I did come in late and didn’t see the other posts you mentioned.

I have seen the document you linked to before. It is an very informative read. Still, Casti Connubii is a better point of reference for those who claim male headship is not a Catholic doctrine because it is a more authoritative statement. Pope Pius XI is making an ex cathedra statement.

Pax
Click to expand...
It’s okay, but I think we need a break from the male headship thing for a bit until tempers and attitudes chill out…it’s that sort of thing that’s getting shoved down throats with a pitchfork that’s got everyone’s knickers in a knot 😉 (not saying you did that with your recent post)
 
Dan_Daly said:
Sorry, yes I did come in late and didn’t see the other posts you mentioned.

I have seen the document you linked to before. It is an very informative read. Still, Casti Connubii is a better point of reference for those who claim male headship is not a Catholic doctrine because it is a more authoritative statement. Pope Pius XI is making an ex cathedra statement.

Pax
Click to expand...
This issue has already been brought up and is no longer a topic of this thread.

Post #129:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=686267&page=9
 
Dan Daly wrote: "I have seen the document you linked to before. It is an very informative read. Still, Casti Connubii is a better point of reference for those who claim male headship is not a Catholic doctrine because it is a more authoritative statement. Pope Pius XI is making an ex cathedra statement.

Pax "

**Bold Lettering mine: **

Hmmmmmmm U have a link to that?
 
I just posted it above.

What’s an ex cathedra statement? From Catholc Encyclopedia:
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
Click to expand...
Now the passage from Casti Connubii:
  1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]
Click to expand...
  1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
Click to expand...
  1. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
Click to expand...
Pope Pius XI, is discharging his office as Pope and speaking on a matter of faith and morals. He declares that the structure of the family, which he has just stated includes both the subjectio nof wife to husband and the duty of a husband to direct his family is:

"established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact"

It logically follows that statements along the lines of “the husband is not the head of the family” or “there is no head of the family” pop up from time to time in forums discussions like these are objectively dissent from infallible Church teaching.

Pax Christi
 
Nimzovik said:
Dan Daly wrote: "I have seen the document you linked to before. It is an very informative read. Still, Casti Connubii is a better point of reference for those who claim male headship is not a Catholic doctrine because it is a more authoritative statement. Pope Pius XI is making an ex cathedra statement.

Pax "

**Bold Lettering mine: **

Hmmmmmmm U have a link to that?
Click to expand...
Not sure if you misunderstood my point. I wasn’t saying Pope Pius XI was reference for those claiming male headship is not doctrine to use for their support. It’s a reference to refer them to so they can see that they are wrong. Hope that and my previous post clear my position up.

Pax
 
Catholicism for Dummies; Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD, Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD; Wiley Publishing Inc.; Indianapolis, Indiana; 2003
Click to expand...
“The only two ex cathedra pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).”
Click to expand...
 
Dan_Daly said:
Not sure if you misunderstood my point. I wasn’t saying Pope Pius XI was reference for those claiming male headship is not doctrine to use for their support. It’s a reference to refer them to so they can see that they are wrong. Hope that and my previous post clear my position up.

Pax
Click to expand...
Sorry, Your post to clarify your previous post left me twice as confused. 🤷😊
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
If the quote is accurate, then the Father is mistaken. Here’s some more detail from Catholic Encyclopedia.
The pope
Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
Click to expand...
•what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
•infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
◦The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
◦Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
◦Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.
Click to expand...
Pax
 
I’m thinking – Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD – are well aware of the details – of the Catholic Encyclopedia. So the one more likely mistaken – is you Dan Daly.
 
Dan_Daly said:
I just posted it above.

What’s an ex cathedra statement? From Catholc Encyclopedia:

Now the passage from Casti Connubii:

Pope Pius XI, is discharging his office as Pope and speaking on a matter of faith and morals. He declares that the structure of the family, which he has just stated includes both the subjectio nof wife to husband and the duty of a husband to direct his family is:

"established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact"

It logically follows that statements along the lines of “the husband is not the head of the family” or “there is no head of the family” pop up from time to time in forums discussions like these are objectively dissent from infallible Church teaching.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
Regarding this part:
nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.
Click to expand...
So… fair to say that Catholic teaching does *not *establish that women are minors or ingrates that need always to be under the “authority” of their male superiors? Fair to say that a wife is not to be treated as a child “under the authority” of her husband?
 
After reading this tread and others. I find that I am deeply disturbed by the feelings about women and “non” radical feminism from a lot of the male posters here. Truth be told if a lot of catholic men feel the way these posters do I really feel that marrying a protestant is a far better alternative to marrying another catholic.
 
ShanaA1984 said:
After reading this tread and others. I find that I am deeply disturbed by the feelings about women and “non” radical feminism from a lot of the male posters here. Truth be told if a lot of catholic men feel the way these posters do I really feel that marrying a protestant is a far better alternative to marrying another catholic.
Click to expand...
It is unsettling. Very unsettling. This, in my view, goes too far.

The anti-homosexual stuff (such that they are treated as “sub-humanl”), too far. The race/racial stuff, in my view, too far. The anti-science stuff, in my view, too far. The vagueness surrounding the marital embrace, as I’ve said on many occasions, way too far for me.

It is with great regret that I admit this forum has both 1) taught me much about the Church, but also 2) led me so far away from the Church. Last week was the first Sunday I have missed Mass in quite some time. In the past few months, I find myself having no more power to fight this. I will probably take a separation from the forum for some time, as I’ve always intended on doing. Perhaps that will reconcile me with the Church but I honestly don’t think so anymore.
 
Walking_Home said:
I’m thinking – Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD – are well aware of the details – of the Catholic Encyclopedia. So the one more likely mistaken – is you Dan Daly.
Click to expand...
So if I follow you correctly, you are arguing:

A) You are not bound by what Pope Pius XI said while speaking on a matter of faith and morals while officially exercising the teaching authority of his office.

and at least by implication

B) I am bound by what Fr. John Trigilio said.

It is an interesting line of argument.

If you want to dispute that the statement from Casti Connubii is not infallible, please point out where it does not meet the requirements for an infallible statement by the Pope.

Pax
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Regarding this part:

So… fair to say that Catholic teaching does *not *establish that women are minors or ingrates that need always to be under the “authority” of their male superiors? Fair to say that a wife is not to be treated as a child “under the authority” of her husband?
Click to expand...
You are putting several things together.

Is a wife a minor under the authority of her husband? No she is not. We agree.

Is a wife an ingrate under the authority of her husband? No she is not. We agree.

Is a wife a child under the authority of her husband? No she is not. We agree.

Is a wife a wife under the authority of her husband? Yes. She is.

If my comments here have contributed to your decision not to attend Mass, then I am sorry. I understand that sometimes I may say something in a manner that is perhaps not too diplomatic, and at other times in a manner where my meaning can be misconstrued. I can also sympathize with needing to take a break from the forums. I’ve done so myself several times. I pray that you are able to make it to confession and back to Mass soon. God bless.

Pax Christi
 
This thread reminds me of an atheist friend of mine. He keeps telling me I’m not really a believer - because, you see, he has his own prejudiced stereotype of what a believer is and I don’t fit it. I don’t think all science is the work of the devil, for instance, and I don’t keep telling him he’ll surely spend an eternity burning in Hell, so I’m not a believer. According to his definition.

Apparently, here, if I don’t hate men (I don’t) and if I don’t like abortion (I don’t) I can’t be a feminist (I am). We still don’t have a better word for a person who wants equal rights for both genders and critical consideration of stereotypical gender roles, which is good for both men and women, I believe. Many men are oppressed by these stereotypical expectations, too. I know my husband is often judged for not fulfilling a traditional role.

We’re not going to have real critical thought and real understanding and compassion if we keep living in a mythological world where there’s an Armageddon between man-hating, atheistic, abortion-loving feminists, and ultra-traditional abusers who keep women as chattel. And little else other than that.
 
Dan_Daly said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
I’m thinking – Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD – are well aware of the details – of the Catholic Encyclopedia. So the one more likely mistaken – is you Dan Daly.
Click to expand...
So if I follow you correctly, you are arguing:

A) You are not bound by what Pope Pius XI said while speaking on a matter of faith and morals while officially exercising the teaching authority of his office.

and at least by implication

B) I am bound by what Fr. John Trigilio said.

It is an interesting line of argument.

If you want to dispute that the statement from Casti Connubii is not infallible, please point out where it does not meet the requirements for an infallible statement by the Pope.

Pax
Click to expand...
I disputed your “pronouncement” that it was ex cathedra – by providing evidence from two (Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD)— who are in a better position than you --to know what has been pronounced as ex cathedra.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top