"Wives submit to your husbands" and Catechism?

[LittleDeb]

And in answer to the “Christ figure” in marriage, it most certainly **is **the man who is *symbolic *as the Christ figure, and woman is *symbolic *as the Church figure, in marriage. That is a matter of doctrine. That is part of what the concept of an all male priesthood is founded on. Those roles are not interchangeable. The priest is married to his bride, the Church. The priest *must *be masculine and his bride *must *be feminine.

Yes, I can be a “Christ figure” for my children. I can be a Christ figure for any random person on the street. By virtue of my baptism, I am a “little Christ.” My marriage though, is a **true **symbol. I am the symbol of the Church, my husband, the symbol of Christ.

Wiki defines symbol as “something such as a particular mark that represents some piece of information.” My role as feminine is a mark of the Church. His role as masculine is a mark of Christ. That doesn’t mean because he is *male *he is more “Christ-like.” That means his masculine role in marriage is as a *symbol *of Christ.

In our marriage, he is the “Christ figure.” My husband will argue though, that by behavior, I am more “Christ-like.” We are all called to be like Christ. But the actual *symbol *is found in marriage. And the priesthood takes it one step further when the priests stands, “in persona Christi.” He must first be *masculine *to even attempt to be The Bridegroom.

 

[severus68]

I had hoped that my previous post had answered this question. I am sorry that I have not been clearer in my explanation. I don’t disagree with you that Eph 5 is about mutual submission. It is totally and completely about mutual submission. But the major point that Blessed John Paul was making, was that the type and way that men and women submit to each other is completely different and are not interchangeable at all.

The submission for the man is of a dying to himself, and the submission of a woman is to accept that sacrifice. We can go through it line by line in the book “Man and Woman, He Created Them.” translated by Dr. Michael Waldstein. One of the major themes of Theology of the Body is that the roles of men and women are distinct and are not interchangeable. When a man is nurturing he does so only, as a man. He cannot, nor should he, attempt to nurture as a woman does. When a woman protects, she does so entirely in a feminine manner. She does not protect in the same manner that a man does.

In TOB, Blessed John Paul stresses the point that how we were, “before the Fall” is the goal of marriage and ultimately the goal of heaven. It is referred to “The Fall of Adam” because he did not fulfill his sacrificial role. Eve disobeyed our Lord first. Adam was supposed to offer himself in her place. He didn’t. He didn’t love his bride enough to die for her. The New Adam was necessary to actually be willing to die for His bride, the Church.

I tried to get to the nuts and bolts of how these roles play out in our daily lives, but you rejected the examples by claiming that “many women tower over their husbands,” and other such exceptions. Really Severus? You can look at the very basic surroundings worldwide and still deny that God made men physically stronger than women? The point of mutual submission is Eph 5 is in a large sense an explicit *prohibition *of abuse. By claiming those roles are interchangeable, you deny that truth. By saying that man needs to die to his own desires, and that woman must submit to that offer, I am bolstering the point of mutual submission.

In a nutshell: a wife’s submission to her husband is her willingness to let him die for her. As a wife, I can tell you that is not an easy submission to make! You will probably go into a big counter to that by saying, “oh, but my wife would die for me.” Of course we would. I would *want *to die for my husband, but that is *not *my role. The fact that our current culture has abandoned the idea of “women and children first” shows our lack of fidelity to those teachings of The Church (and is a direct result of radical feminism.)

Here is another nuts and bolts example you might again reject: In a crisis, my husband would see to it that his family is safe first, and then hold himself back to deal with the crisis. It would be his job, his role, as husband and protector of the family to send me away with the children. It would not make sense for him to go away with the children! He is an amazing father, yes. But his role as protector supersedes his role as a nurturer. That is the role of dying to himself that Eph 5 makes clear. His wishes to protect his own desires are placed in submission to the greater good of his wife. And she, in submission to his role as protector, has to let him! The submissions are equal, and they are equally difficult, but they are not interchangeable.

I did consider not responding to this post. I know of more than one who have stopped posting as they think they sometimes end up being uncharitable maybe in response.
Firstly, please be clear that I am not here to score points. Secondly maybe I was not clear myself.
I wanted to insert extracts from TOB and MULIERIS DIGNITATEM but had to delete as my post was too long. I would rather go to the source than use someones commentary/interpretation.

You gave the analogy of a man being taller than a woman if I recall. Many American women would be taller than the average East Asian men and what about Masai women?

Yes women generally with less muscle and more body fat are weaker than men. There are always exceptions. A fit woman trained in martial arts versus many untrained men.
Yes men and women are different physiologically, made to fit and complement each other for procreation. I have always celebrated the difference.

If the wife is weaker physically and there are children, it makes sense for the wife and children to escape and the husband to stop a murderer going after them. It would be best if he could go with them.

A man cannot breast feed but other than that why is his nurturing role different? What is aprotecting in a feminine way please? If someone breaks into a home, and the husband is away, is the wife going to wring her hands and wait for her husband to return to save them or jump up and do everything to protect her children as a mother grizzly would?

I am all for chivalry and courtesy. The women and children first has always been for a practical purpose. Children are to be protected always. Women with children are usually given priority. When the Titanic hit an iceberg, while it was supposed to be women and children first , not all followed. Further the 3rd class passangers were locked downstairs for some time.It would appear that some broke out but the percentage of total passanger survivors for ist class was the highest with 3rd class the lowest. I would agree that in any disaster, the children, the aged, the disabled, the sick, women with small children be rescued first. Why would other fully able women not want to stay and help?

Its a very different world today for women. A woman can be in the army, can be an engineer. The most important I think is the ability of a woman to be financially self sufficient.

So lets agree that we agree that there is to be mutual submission of husband and wife in marriage,

 

[severus68]

And in answer to the “Christ figure” in marriage, it most certainly **is **the man who is *symbolic *as the Christ figure, and woman is *symbolic *as the Church figure, in marriage. That is a matter of doctrine. That is part of what the concept of an all male priesthood is founded on. Those roles are not interchangeable. The priest is married to his bride, the Church. The priest *must *be masculine and his bride *must *be feminine.

Yes, I can be a “Christ figure” for my children. I can be a Christ figure for any random person on the street. By virtue of my baptism, I am a “little Christ.” My marriage though, is a **true **symbol. I am the symbol of the Church, my husband, the symbol of Christ.

Wiki defines symbol as “something such as a particular mark that represents some piece of information.” My role as feminine is a mark of the Church. His role as masculine is a mark of Christ. That doesn’t mean because he is *male *he is more “Christ-like.” That means his masculine role in marriage is as a *symbol *of Christ.

In our marriage, he is the “Christ figure.” My husband will argue though, that by behavior, I am more “Christ-like.” We are all called to be like Christ. But the actual *symbol *is found in marriage. And the priesthood takes it one step further when the priests stands, “in persona Christi.” He must first be *masculine *to even attempt to be The Bridegroom.

Symbols are doctrine? I have never the fought position on no ordination of women but the reasoning I know off is not quite what you say.

You say the words but sorry I still do not get why the man is the Christ figure and the woman the Church figure. Simple logic - Christ is God, the Church submits to Christ so how does what you say not mean the wife submits to the husband?

Its ok, you do not have to. Thank you for your endeavours, sincerly.

 

[Barukh1132]

It says precisely what it means: wives are to obey their husbands and submit themselves to their husbands in all things as unto the Lord.

Mature adults whose minds and hearts are unclouded by modernist materialism and radical feminism and who have a sound understanding of human weakness and God’s wisdom readily embrace wifely obedience just as they do a husband’s providing, protecting, caring for his wife, loving her as Christ loves his Church, loving her as his own flesh, and avoiding all bitterness toward her.

You hear a lot about lip service wifely obedience - it’s applauded. You hear little about lip service husbandly sacrificial love: no, that means what it says, so the common argument goes. You hear little about lip service husbandly protecting providing and caring for: no, those mean what they say, so the common argument goes.

If you want easy things, that is, things that have no lasting value; if you want to impress upon your husband your own shallowness and perfidy and your desire to be a coward and defraud him from day one of your married life; if you accept that ignoring your duty to be obedient and submissive is denying the sacrament of marriage - when you accept the sacrament you accept all it implies and states in Scripture - then sure, kid yourself that wives don’t need to be obedient just as husbands don’t need to bother with their duties, either.

Peter and Paul, the two greatest Church fathers, were absolutely clear on this. Ignore them at your peril. See Genesis 3:16, I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9, I Corinthians 14:34–35, Ephesians 5:22–24, Colossians 3:18, I Timothy 2:11–12, Titus 2:3–5, I Peter 3:1–6. There’s even Psalm 45:10–11 and the last chapter of Proverbs.

Grow up or avoid marriage.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[TrueLight]

If you want easy things, that is, things that have no lasting value; if you want to impress upon your husband your own shallowness and perfidy and your desire to be a coward and defraud him from day one of your married life; if you accept that ignoring your duty to be obedient and submissive is denying the sacrament of marriage - when you accept the sacrament you accept all it implies and states in Scripture - then sure, kid yourself that wives don’t need to be obedient just as husbands don’t need to bother with their duties, either.

Although I actually believe that the husband is the head of the home, your post affirms why some women are dead set against the word ‘submission’.

You sound like you have a lot of hatred towards women .

Either that, or after you got married, you didn’t get to play King Barukh1132 as you had planned.

 

[SilverCamellia]

I realise this is a recently revived thread, but I happened to be reading it before Mass, and what was read out at Mass today, but this:

Ephesians

5:21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord,

23 since, as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife;

24 and as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.

25 Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her

26 to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words,

27 so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless.

28 In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself.

29 A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats the Church,

30 because we are parts of his Body.

31 This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh.

32 This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church.

33 To sum up: you also, each one of you, must love his wife as he loves himself; and let every wife respect her husband.

(New Jerusalem Bible catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=56&bible_chapter=5)

 

[LightBound]

It says precisely what it means: wives are to obey their husbands and submit themselves to their husbands in all things as unto the Lord.

Mature adults whose minds and hearts are unclouded by modernist materialism and radical feminism and who have a sound understanding of human weakness and God’s wisdom readily embrace wifely obedience just as they do a husband’s providing, protecting, caring for his wife, loving her as Christ loves his Church, loving her as his own flesh, and avoiding all bitterness toward her.

You hear a lot about lip service wifely obedience - it’s applauded. You hear little about lip service husbandly sacrificial love: no, that means what it says, so the common argument goes. You hear little about lip service husbandly protecting providing and caring for: no, those mean what they say, so the common argument goes.

If you want easy things, that is, things that have no lasting value; if you want to impress upon your husband your own shallowness and perfidy and your desire to be a coward and defraud him from day one of your married life; if you accept that ignoring your duty to be obedient and submissive is denying the sacrament of marriage - when you accept the sacrament you accept all it implies and states in Scripture - then sure, kid yourself that wives don’t need to be obedient just as husbands don’t need to bother with their duties, either.

Peter and Paul, the two greatest Church fathers, were absolutely clear on this. Ignore them at your peril. See Genesis 3:16, I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9, I Corinthians 14:34–35, Ephesians 5:22–24, Colossians 3:18, I Timothy 2:11–12, Titus 2:3–5, I Peter 3:1–6. There’s even Psalm 45:10–11 and the last chapter of Proverbs.

Grow up or avoid marriage.

Pax vobiscum.

I see that you are new…It’s against forum rules to resurrect old threads. If one has been dormant for at least 6 months or more, you are requested to start a new thread if you think you need to post something about the topic. This thread was over a year-old. Another rule is that we are to post with charity and kindness towards others…even if we disagree or have an issue with someone or something…

 

[mommamaree]

Casti Connubii has a nice summary of the situation.
27. 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.

This was so beautiful that it brought tears to my eyes. This is why I thank God He made me a Catholic. Such a beautiful vision for marriage and for humanity.