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

[VeritasLuxMea]

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.

Is a wife obligated to love her husband?

If my comments here have contributed to your decision not to attend Mass, then I am sorry.

Don’t be sorry. It wasn’t to guilt trip people. I just don’t have enough money for a therapist right now. LOL.

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

 

[Dan_Daly]

Is a wife obligated to love her husband?

Don’t be sorry. It wasn’t to guilt trip people. I just don’t have enough money for a therapist right now. LOL.

We are all obligated to love everyone.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

We are all obligated to love everyone.

OK then, more directly: is a wife obligated to love her husband as Christ loves the Church?

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

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.

Well there is an assumption you’re making that the two fathers are in a better position to know then I am. That may or may not be true. But, I don’t see how you would know, since you don’t know me.

In any case, I presented a list of requirements from the Catholic Encyclopedia for a papal statement to be infallible. You have not disputed the list of requirements. I believe the statements I cited from Casti Connubii meets these requirements. My understanding is that you do not. Is that correct? If that’s what you think, can you point to what specifically causes the statement from Casti Connubii to fall short of the requirements?

Pax Christi.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well there is an assumption you’re making that the two fathers are in a better position to know then I am. That may or may not be true. But, I don’t see how you would know, since you don’t know me.

In any case, I presented a list of requirements from the Catholic Encyclopedia for a papal statement to be infallible. You have not disputed the list of requirements. I believe the statements I cited from Casti Connubii meets these requirements. My understanding is that you do not. Is that correct? If that’s what you think, can you point to what specifically causes the statement from Casti Connubii to fall short of the requirements?

Pax Christi.

---

If you believe – you are in a better position to know what has been pronounced as ex cathedra — take it up with Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD.

 

[Dan_Daly]

OK then, more directly: is a wife obligated to love her husband as Christ loves the Church?

Wives are obliged to love their husbands, but not in the same manner as husbands are obliged to love their wives.

Likewise, husbands are called to submission in marriage, as Bl. John Paul II pointed out, but not the same manner of submission that wives are obliged to have towards their husbands.

The same word can be used in multiple ways. Love and submission are two such words. St. Thomas Aquinas points this out specifically with regards to submission in the Summa Theologica. Answering the objection that wifely submission to her husband could not be part of the original and good plan of God, because submission was a consequence of original sin, St. Thomas replied, that there was more than one sense of submission. Submission as disorder and domination was indeed a consequence of the fall. Submission as a good aimed at the proper order of the family and its alignment with God, existed prior to the fall.

Likewise, when Bl. John Paul II speaks of mutual submission between husband and wife, he is using the term submission in a different sense than Pope Pius XI used it in Casti Connubii. Yes, a husband must sacrafice for his wife and children. He must put aside what he wants for the good of the family.

Let’s say that a husband and wife reach an impasse on a decision- finances, vacation, jobs, whatever. Neither the position the husband nor the wife has is sinful. The final decision rests with the husband. The right thing for the husband to do, may very well be for him to decide that the best thing would be to set aside his own idea and go with the wife’s idea. It is still his decision to do that.

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

Wives are obliged to love their husbands, but not in the same manner as husbands are obliged to love their wives.

Likewise, husbands are called to submission in marriage, as Bl. John Paul II pointed out, but not the same manner of submission that wives are obliged to have towards their husbands.

The same word can be used in multiple ways. Love and submission are two such words. St. Thomas Aquinas points this out specifically with regards to submission in the Summa Theologica. Answering the objection that wifely submission to her husband could not be part of the original and good plan of God, because submission was a consequence of original sin, St. Thomas replied, that there was more than one sense of submission. Submission as disorder and domination was indeed a consequence of the fall. Submission as a good aimed at the proper order of the family and its alignment with God, existed prior to the fall.

Likewise, when Bl. John Paul II speaks of mutual submission between husband and wife, he is using the term submission in a different sense than Pope Pius XI used it in Casti Connubii. Yes, a husband must sacrafice for his wife and children. He must put aside what he wants for the good of the family.

Let’s say that a husband and wife reach an impasse on a decision- finances, vacation, jobs, whatever. Neither the position the husband nor the wife has is sinful. The final decision rests with the husband. The right thing for the husband to do, may very well be for him to decide that the best thing would be to set aside his own idea and go with the wife’s idea. It is still his decision to do that.

Pax

I’m just curious why you necessarily interpret Castii Conubi as saying this is what is necessary for the submission it talks about to occur? This is not something that the document itself says, and so, I believe is open for debate. (this is without having solved the question of whether or not it is actually an Ex Cathedra statement)

[EDIT: Also… You really think that the love within a marriage is supposed to be lopsided??? That women are not supposed to love their husbands as much as their husbands love them? ]

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

I you believe – you are in a better position to know what has been pronounced as ex cathedra — take it up with Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD.

I have not claimed one way or another who is a better position to know about the topic between me or the good Fathers. I don’t know either of them.

I have presented a list of criteria for infallible papal statements. I have presented a papal statement. I believe the papal statement meets the requirements for infallibility.

It would not appear to be very difficult to simply read the list of criteria and point out which one(s) Pope Pius XI’s statement does not meet.

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.

Casti Connubii is a papal encyclical addressed to: “TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS,
PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.”

I believe this requirement is met. Do you agree or disagree?

**◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible **
I believe that the sacrament of marriage is a matter of faith and morals. Do you agree or disagree?

**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. **

Speaking of the headship of the husband in marriage, Pius XI said: “But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .” I believe that this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

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. See above. Pius XI statement was to bind, “always and everywhere”. I believe this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

**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. ** Casti Connubii was issued personally by Pope Pius XI. I believe this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

Pax Christi

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Wives are obliged to love their husbands, but not in the same manner as husbands are obliged to love their wives.

Likewise, husbands are called to submission in marriage, as Bl. John Paul II pointed out, but not the same manner of submission that wives are obliged to have towards their husbands.

The same word can be used in multiple ways. Love and submission are two such words. St. Thomas Aquinas points this out specifically with regards to submission in the Summa Theologica. Answering the objection that wifely submission to her husband could not be part of the original and good plan of God, because submission was a consequence of original sin, St. Thomas replied, that there was more than one sense of submission. Submission as disorder and domination was indeed a consequence of the fall. Submission as a good aimed at the proper order of the family and its alignment with God, existed prior to the fall.

Likewise, when Bl. John Paul II speaks of mutual submission between husband and wife, he is using the term submission in a different sense than Pope Pius XI used it in Casti Connubii. Yes, a husband must sacrafice for his wife and children. He must put aside what he wants for the good of the family.

Let’s say that a husband and wife reach an impasse on a decision- finances, vacation, jobs, whatever. Neither the position the husband nor the wife has is sinful. The final decision rests with the husband. The right thing for the husband to do, may very well be for him to decide that the best thing would be to set aside his own idea and go with the wife’s idea. ** It is still his decision to do that.
**
Pax

Which is ultimately the point here, is it not? Women are less intelligent, less capable, less effectual. In short, they are “less” in dignity.

I would like to understand why this is not the necessary conclusion to those premises.

Saying a husband should submit to his wife on decisions from time to time is like saying a police officer should, from time to time, submit to a random citizen on the street. You can say it all you like, but it’s kinda silly, because in the end, you’re only giving one of them a gun. I think we all know how that’s going to work out.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’m just curious why you necessarily interpret Castii Conubi as saying this is what is necessary for the submission it talks about to occur? This is not something that the document itself says, and so, I believe is open for debate. (this is without having solved the question of whether or not it is actually an Ex Cathedra statement)

[EDIT: Also… You really think that the love within a marriage is supposed to be lopsided??? That women are not supposed to love their husbands as much as their husbands love them? ]

My position on a husband having the final responsiblity for family decisions does not rest soley on Casti Connubii. It’s far from the only time, the topic of the order of marriage has been discussed by the Church. As Pope Pius XI said, the degree and manner of a wife’s subjection may vary with different persons, places, and times. Every married couple is different, and how they work through decision is different. Yet, on a fundamental level, the order of marriage is unchangeable, and the ultimatle responsibility and duty for directing the family lies with the husband.

I never said that women are not supposed to love their husband as much as their husbands love them. I said they are supposed to love each other differently. Love is by definition total. If you don’t love someone completely, you don’t love them. Our Holy Father has spoken very beautifully on this topic. To give but one example, a wife can love her husband by carrying his child inside of her. A husband can’t do that. Likewise, both spouses are called to make sacrifices for each other and their family, but they do not sacrifice in exactly the same manner. That does not mean one sacrifices “more” or “less” the simply sacrifice differently.

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

I have not claimed one way or another who is a better position to know about the topic between me or the good Fathers. I don’t know either of them.

I have presented a list of criteria for infallible papal statements. I have presented a papal statement. I believe the papal statement meets the requirements for infallibility.

It would not appear to be very difficult to simply read the list of criteria and point out which one(s) Pope Pius XI’s statement does not meet.

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.

Casti Connubii is a papal encyclical addressed to: “TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS,
PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.”

I believe this requirement is met. Do you agree or disagree?

**◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible **
I believe that the sacrament of marriage is a matter of faith and morals. Do you agree or disagree?

**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. **

Speaking of the headship of the husband in marriage, Pius XI said: “But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .” I believe that this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

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. See above. Pius XI statement was to bind, “always and everywhere”. I believe this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

**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. ** Casti Connubii was issued personally by Pope Pius XI. I believe this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

Pax Christi

---

You “pronounced” it as ex cathedra – in a prior post-- and continued to say the Fathers were in error. So why don’t you take it up – with the Fathers – you say are in error.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Which is ultimately the point here, is it not? Women are less intelligent, less capable, less effectual. In short, they are “less” in dignity.

I would like to understand why this is not the necessary conclusion to those premises.

As a priest I know says “hey, I’m in sales, not management”.

Why do the ultimate decisions for a diocese rest with a Bishop? Is he smarter, more capable, more effective than his flock? Or is it because God has put him in a position of responsibility? Has the Bishop earned his position by means of being a great guy? Or is he called to serve by the grace of God?

Being in a position of authority does not mean that someone is “better” than those they are responsible to lead.

Pax Christi

 

[Kaninchen]

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.

A lot of threads on CAF do seem to be ‘lit crit’ )) discussion of a work of fantasy fiction (your ‘mythological world’) and seem to miss the point that people (in this case women) stopped listening ages ago.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The best example is Our Lord. Neither St. Joseph nor Our Lady was smarter, more capable, or more effective than God. Yet, God subjected Himself to their authority.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

You “pronounced” it as ex cathedra – in a prior post-- and continued to say the Fathers were in error. So why don’t you take it up – with the Fathers – you say are in error.

I didn’t ask the Fathers what they thought. I asked you what you thought. You are the one in this conversation with me. Are you unable to offer to an answer to the simple yes or no questions I asked?

Let’s look at another statement from a papal encyclical, from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae:

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Is that an infallible statement? Can the Church “change its mind” on contraception? Many people think so, and inflict unnecessary torment on themselves by longing for the impossible.

If you believe the statement from Humanae Vitae is infallible but the one from Casti Connubii is not, can you please explain to me why? Thank you.

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

I didn’t ask the Fathers what they thought. I asked you what you thought. You are the one in this conversation with me. Are you unable to offer to an answer to the simple yes or no questions I asked?

Let’s look at another statement from a papal encyclical, from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae:

Is that an infallible statement? Can the Church “change its mind” on contraception? Many people think so, and inflict unnecessary torment on themselves by longing for the impossible.

If you believe the statement from Humanae Vitae is infallible but the one from Casti Connubii is not, can you please explain to me why? Thank you.

Pax

---

Hey – I’m not the one “pronouncing” the ex cathedra. All I did was provide evidence by two Fathers – that does not include your “pronouncement”. So as I said – take it up with the Fathers.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I didn’t pronounce anything either. Pope Pius XI did.

So, setting the words “ex cathedra” aside, since it seems to bother you. Is Pope Pius XI’s statement that the structure of the family, including the headship of the husband, must always and everywhere remain intact, infallible?

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

I realize this wasn’t specifically addressed to me, but I will give you my quick take on this anyway.

(snip)
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.

Speaking of the headship of the husband in marriage, Pius XI said: “But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .” I believe that this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?

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. See above. Pius XI statement was to bind, “always and everywhere”. I believe this requirement has been met. Do you agree or disagree?
(Snip)

I am, in particular, unsure of these two criteria.

The first because I do not know what is necessary to make it “sufficiently evident” that he is teaching with the fullness of his authority.

The second because I am not sure whether the document is binding under pain of spiritual shipwreck.

Understanding the subtleties of these distinctions requires much more study than I have put into them and I am not going to assume that they are met simply because some guy on the internet told me that, in his opinion, they are met. So for now I will not assume either way as to whether or not they are ex cathedra. I will still hold them as Church teaching, and do my utmost to understand, accept, and follow such teachings, but I will neither accept nor claim that these are in fact ex cathedra statements without a much more in depth study of this issue and I would advise everyone to do the same.

 

[thewanderer]

My position on a husband having the final responsiblity for family decisions does not rest soley on Casti Connubii. It’s far from the only time, the topic of the order of marriage has been discussed by the Church. As Pope Pius XI said, the degree and manner of a wife’s subjection may vary with different persons, places, and times. Every married couple is different, and how they work through decision is different. Yet, on a fundamental level, the order of marriage is unchangeable, and the ultimatle responsibility and duty for directing the family lies with the husband.

Then, even assuming that Casti Connubii is infallible, you cannot claim that this is infallibly binding.

I never said that women are not supposed to love their husband as much as their husbands love them. I said they are supposed to love each other differently. Love is by definition total. If you don’t love someone completely, you don’t love them. Our Holy Father has spoken very beautifully on this topic. To give but one example, a wife can love her husband by carrying his child inside of her. A husband can’t do that. Likewise, both spouses are called to make sacrifices for each other and their family, but they do not sacrifice in exactly the same manner. That does not mean one sacrifices “more” or “less” the simply sacrifice differently.

Pax

I’m sorry I misread what you wrote.

 

[Walking_Home]

I didn’t pronounce anything either. Pope Pius XI did.

So, setting the words “ex cathedra” aside, since it seems to bother you. Is Pope Pius XI’s statement that the structure of the family, including the headship of the husband, must always and everywhere remain intact, infallible?

Pax

---

Actually you did. You are the one that “pronounced”/made the claim – that it was ex cathera.