Women's Fashion

[mitzicross]

So all the sin in the world is caused by those men who do not want to rule over their wives and women who have their own minds and do not want to be ruled over men? Obedience is owed firstly to God, to your parents while a child. You submit to the authority of your confessor on certain matters as an ordained priest who has acquired knowledge of your religion. Sometimes even priests can be wrong. Priests and husbands are also human.

I see how St Paul and other saints become God like for some. The Bible was inspired by God. Saints were human too.

You choose not to acquire your own knowledge of your religion but prefer to ask a man to tell you.

I am glad you have a happy marriage. Live life and your marriage the way you want. Please do not try to force your views down anyone’s throat.

I am sorry you feel I am forcing my views, etc. I did not force anyone to come into this forum and read my understanding of Catholic teaching, and I certainly don’t want you reading them if they offend you to that degree. I am not here for that. I just wanted answers but so many views have been presented that I now have more questions. I do, however, have my own views, as well.

Also, if you reread my post, you will see that I clearly did not say that all the sin in the world was caused by anything other than disobedience. Disobedience of God, and of those in authority. Please don’t confuse that with men and women who chose to live their lives according to a different understand of this issue. I would never say all the sin in the world was caused by anyone, or group, personally.

I don’t know what I may have said that led you to believe I didn’t know St. Paul, as well as all the other saints, were human, with human struggles and weaknesses in the area of sin, as we are. So, I am unsure what you meant by that comment. Same goes for priests. However, I trust that God will honor my faith when I am obedient to them on issues of great importance. I do feel the bible was inspired by God, by the Holy Spirit, specifically, because it was He who came into the world to instruct us since Christ said that before He returned to His Father. So, I do believe the basic truths that are provided to us there.

As for not acquiring my own knowledge of religion, again, I don’t see how I gave that impression, since I pray and meditate often and believe the Lord is guiding me and directing me in many things. Hence, how I came to question the role of women’s dress on the morality of our society and men’s intentions at mass. My husband is Hispanic and likes when women wear low cut tight fitting clothes. Would he ever demand that I wear something like that, no I don’t believe he would. Because I don’t believe God would allow him too. Because I trust God to care for me and protect me through my husband. Which may be why I feel as though my marriage is happy. But, when I have a huge decision to make and can’t hear God because my emotions are in the way, I turn to the above for His will for me.

I am concerned about the words rule and submission, first of all. Who started using those terms. They are not at all what the bible states. They are not terms I would ever use because they are misleading. God, the Church, my confessor, the President of the USA (Sad really), as well as my husband are like a king and his people. Jesus gives us a perfect example of what a Good King is and tells those in authority to emulate Him. A good king loves his people. He provides for them, and cares about their needs. He puts them first on his priority list…and he is willing to die for them. His life is a sacrifice for them, he will go to war to protect them, he will marry someone that he doesn’t love to make a better country that is safer and more prosperous for his people. He makes laws that will keep them safe and happy. If they obey them, they will be at peace and well fed and can revel in the warmth of his love. This is the kind of King Jesus Christ is and the kind he wants us to have looking out for us while He is yet away in His Father’s house, until His return.

A ruler sounds like someone who is more of a dictator. If your husband is a dictator, or not willing to care for you to the point of laying down his life for you, you must pray for him, pray for God to give him the grace to be the King you deserve as the Queen…

If you disagree with me, you have every right to that. I don’t think you are a bad person, or that you are ignorant…or anything negative at all. You are my sister and I want you to be happy. I just ask that if you disagree, pray about it. Be open to asking God what His will is for you in all of this. He may speak differently to you, than He has to me. You are His child, He will answer you. Ask Him to confirm what He has said to you through others. Talk to your husband about it. See what he says… I am not an authority on anything. I have just come to a point in my life where I have been on both sides of this. I was never happy before. Never filled with peace and joy, like I am now. It is a whole new world to be open to God through the authority in my life. I just want to offer you that. But, if you decide that isn’t for you…God bless you, you are still my sister. Peace to you.

 

[DAAVEED1590]

Sorry, buddy, but a woman asking a man out on a date is in no way “unladylike”.

Women are not some helpless creatures waiting to be rescued by the male. If they are interested, there is nothing wrong with them pursuing.
I am 47, and I can figure that out.

*Oh, wait, I forgot…you are 16…you have entered the age where you know all of life’s answers! * Give it a few years…most teenagers grow out of it.

First off I never implied that women were helpless maidens. Secon off, as to a woman asking a man out, all I can do is fall back on the words of Jason Evert, a renound catholic chastity speaker and co-author of the book, “Theology of the Body for Teens”,

“Resist the temptation to take matters into your own hands or to make excuses for why he hasn’t asked you out yet. There are two reasons for this. First, do you really want to date a guy who is scared to pursue you? Second, I can speak for all men when I say that we are drawn to women who have a sense of mystery about them. We need to wonder what you’re thinking. We need to feel that asking you out is a risk. When you pour out all your feelings, it may temporarily flatter a guy, but he’ll feel as if he’s missing out on the thrill of winning you. Teen girl magazines may think that such advice is sexist, but the fact remains that men love the thrill of the chase, and women are worth the pursuit.”

He puts it much better than I ever could.

 

[DAAVEED1590]

It is not a Church doctrine that women must be passive and submissive. Insecure men avoid strong women with a sense of self. Secure men are happy to have women with thoughts of their own who use their brains and abilities, as their wives, in a marriage of equality, with give and take and mutual respect.

First off, Catholic tradition does not say women must be passive and submissive, so nither do we. In fact, all are called to be soldiers of Christ. Your putting words in our mouths. Women in catholic marriage must be obedient to their husbands, not ack like spinless dormats, there is a big difference. Traditional Catholic understanding of marriage dosent imply women must be weak and passive. Stop trying to say that, as it is just not true, and it shows a poor understanding of theology. It also shows you are arguing from emotion.

And for hundreds of years, the Immaculate Conception was not a Church doctrine either, does that mean it was not worthy of belief then?

 

[DAAVEED1590]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear sister.

The Church has always taught, following the teaching of St. Paul, that the wife was subject to the authority of the husband and must obey him as the Church obeys Christ, assuming, as I have already said, the husband’s commands are just and moral (see Arcanum by Leo XIII and Casti Connubii by Pius XI).

In his encyclical Arcanum, on Christian Marriage, Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional teaching:

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour nor dignity. * Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife *represents the Church, let there always be, both *in him who commands and in her who *obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also le wives be to their husbands in all things".

It should be observed, firstly, that John Paul II presents his teaching in Mulieris Dignitatem as a personal “meditation” written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style and character of a meditation” (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level of authority and binding nature of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man may question.

Secondly, Pope LeoXIII emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say, God Himself - teaches that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicity in the above cited passage. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the the husband is the head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is the head of the Church".

Indeed, it is impossible to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a “mutual subjection” and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. This whole notion of “mutual subjection” is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, not a ruler without a subject and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

Thirdly, JPII suggests that St Paul’s teaching is but “a way of speaking” arising from “the customs and religious tradition of the time”. In the first place, the “religious tradition of the time” was Christianity. Moreover, does not St. Paul mean exactly what his words signify, and what both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI both affirmed they signify, namely, that the wife is subject to the husband as the Church is subject to Christ? Is not God Himself the author of those words, which were written “wholly and entirely, with all their parts, *at the dictation of the *Holy Ghost”, to recall the teaching of Pope Leo in Providentissimus Deus? Are the Catholic faithful to conclude, then, that God dictated His revelation of the Divinely ordained constitution of the family in language that was culturally determined and required “unpacking” by historico-critical exegesis, and that Pope Leo, Pope Pius and all their predecessors misinterpreted the Epistle to the Ephesians by reading it too literally? Sorry but that is a sort thing that one associates with liberal Protestantism. What then of St. Paul’s teaching on homosexuality, and all the other “hard sayings” of the New Testament? Were these similarly “ways of speaking” that should now be understood in some different sense? That, I am quite certain, is not what the late John Paul II intended and neither should we intend such, but it is important, as DAAVEED1590 and I have said, to take the whole sweep of Catholic tradition to get an authentically balanced perspective of Catholic doctrine.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Amen Amen Amen. You have an exclent grasp of theology!

The link posted shows not only a paragraph taken out of context, but also taken from a personal reflection, not an infaliable teaching. This is an example of ignorance regarding what documents comprise teaching and doctrines of the church, and which are just opinions or basic summaries. Many people make this same mistake.

 

[severus68]

I am sorry you feel I am forcing my views, etc. I did not force anyone to come into this forum and read my understanding of Catholic teaching, and I certainly don’t want you reading them if they offend you to that degree. I am not here for that. I just wanted answers but so many views have been presented that I now have more questions. I do, however, have my own views, as well.

Also, if you reread my post, you will see that I clearly did not say that all the sin in the world was caused by anything other than disobedience. Disobedience of God, and of those in authority. Please don’t confuse that with men and women who chose to live their lives according to a different understand of this issue. I would never say all the sin in the world was caused by anyone, or group, personally.

I don’t know what I may have said that led you to believe I didn’t know St. Paul, as well as all the other saints, were human, with human struggles and weaknesses in the area of sin, as we are. So, I am unsure what you meant by that comment. Same goes for priests. However, I trust that God will honor my faith when I am obedient to them on issues of great importance. ]

As for not acquiring my own knowledge of religion, again, I don’t see how I gave that impression, since I pray and meditate often and believe the Lord is guiding me and directing me in many things. Hence, how I came to question the role of women’s dress on the morality of our society and men’s intentions at mass. My husband is Hispanic and likes when women wear low cut tight fitting clothes. Would he ever demand that I wear something like that, no I don’t believe he would. Because I don’t believe God would allow him too. Because I trust God to care for me and protect me through my husband. Which may be why I feel as though my marriage is happy. But, when I have a huge decision to make and can’t hear God because my emotions are in the way, I turn to the above for His will for me.

I am concerned about the words rule and submission, first of all. Who started using those terms. They are not at all what the bible states. They are not terms I would ever use because they are misleading. God, the Church, my confessor, the President of the USA (Sad really), as well as my husband are like a king and his people. Jesus gives us a perfect example of what a Good King is and tells those in authority to emulate Him. A good king loves his people. He provides for them, and cares about their needs. He puts them first on his priority list…and he is willing to die for them. His life is a sacrifice for them, he will go to war to protect them, he will marry someone that he doesn’t love to make a better country that is safer and more prosperous for his people. He makes laws that will keep them safe and happy. If they obey them, they will be at peace and well fed and can revel in the warmth of his love. This is the kind of King Jesus Christ is and the kind he wants us to have looking out for us while He is yet away in His Father’s house, until His return.

A ruler sounds like someone who is more of a dictator. If your husband is a dictator, or not willing to care for you to the point of laying down his life for you, you must pray for him, pray for God to give him the grace to be the King you deserve as the Queen…

If you disagree with me, you have every right to that. I don’t think you are a bad person, or that you are ignorant…or anything negative at all. You are my sister and I want you to be happy. I just ask that if you disagree, pray about it. Be open to asking God what His will is for you in all of this. He may speak differently to you, than He has to me. You are His child, He will answer you. Ask Him to confirm what He has said to you through others. Talk to your husband about it. See what he says… I am not an authority on anything. I have just come to a point in my life where I have been on both sides of this. I was never happy before. Never filled with peace and joy, like I am now. It is a whole new world to be open to God through the authority in my life. I just want to offer you that. But, if you decide that isn’t for you…God bless you, you are still my sister. Peace to you.

If I misread you and you are not trying to push your views on marriage on anyone, then my apologies. As I have said, you have the right to live your marriage and life the way you want.

You linked disobedience to husbands to disobedience to God and then stated that all sin was caused by disobedience. So I do not think I was wrong to say that you link sin to disobedience to husbands.

You did say you would go to your confessor or your husband to tell you what to do.

I do not think a woman needs to go through a man to God and certainly can obtain God’s grace and guidance directly.

I do take exeption to kings, presidents, any human being put on the same level as God. Most monarchs today are constitutional monarchs with no real power. Historically, rulers were the most powerful when might was all important and not much law or adherence to law. Today we submit to the authority of laws, leaders to facilitate order and peace. One human being is not as a person, better than another however wealthy, influential he/she is and whatever position held. I am not referring to dictarships which I consider wrong and immoral. I am sorry but I cannot understand a marriage where the husband is like a king, who can make laws, even a good king.

You are making assumptions about me, a “husband” and my life and giving me non relevant and not needed advice. I am certainly no “Queen”.

I disagree with your views but I appreciate your courtesy and your trying to be charitable. I am glad you have peace and joy in your life. God bless you too.

 

[severus68]

First off, Catholic tradition does not say women must be passive and submissive, so nither do we. In fact, all are called to be soldiers of Christ. Your putting words in our mouths. Women in catholic marriage must be obedient to their husbands, not ack like spinless dormats, there is a big difference. Traditional Catholic understanding of marriage dosent imply women must be weak and passive. Stop trying to say that, as it is just not true, and it shows a poor understanding of theology. It also shows you are arguing from emotion.

And for hundreds of years, the Immaculate Conception was not a Church doctrine either, does that mean it was not worthy of belief then?

Who are the “we” and “our” you are referring to. I am not putting words into your or anbody else’s mouth.

I am mad, have a poor understanding of theology and arguing emotionally? Lol. I know even a 16 year old genius, sorry, male genius does not have emotional maturity. Tell me, how many years have you studied theology and what is the Catholic tradition and understanding that you are throwing about. Please explain clearly to this emotional person.

BTW what has the reference to the Immaculate Conception to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Portrait]

I am amazed that so many people don’t understand the gift of obedience. No wonder the world is in the shape it is in. You know what the first sin was? Rebellion against obedience.

I thank God all the time for it. If I want to know His will for me, all I have to do is look to the rules of the Church, ask my actual confessor, or ask my husband. I know that God will speak through them as He provided them their authority over me and gives them the grace to guide me. It is Him working through them as our faith should tell us.

The bible says it. Most of you are able to quote it word for word. So, we are trying to convince ourselves now that God used to give our husbands the grace to be the heads of households because that was the custom when the bible was written? I don’t think of God as someone who is short sighted enough not to see that the bible might be in use 2000 years after that era.

I am certain that if He gave authority to Pilate because all authority comes from God, that He has also given it to anyone in authority over me, if I have faith. If I trust. And, if my husband is wrong, God will still bless me because He knows I am acting in faith. I only ask when it is an issue I am uncertain about and it is an important matter. I want to know God’s will for me. Imagine Him giving us a way to know for certain. Wow. That is gift, not a burden.

And ladies, please know that, yes, some men are not of God… That is why we are supposed to marry wisely. We are supposed to choose someone who is obedient to God, someone who lives in accordance with Church teaching, and not just someone who trips our trigger… But, even if we make mistakes in that area. We can still trust God to speak through our guys. God can speak through the mouths of babes, from the place we least expect…so of course if we believe what the Church has taught for centuries, and we trust God, He will take care to honor our faith and allow us to use our husbands as guides to help us follow His will.

If my husband is a man who puts me first in every decision, offers to do all the hard duties and make all the hard decisions, and take responsibility for me and my children in everything…who loves me more than his pride and ego, then what wouldn’t I do in return?

We must teach our daughters to choose wisely. We must set an example of what a true marriage relationship is, so that if ours doesn’t work, they can see what they need to do to make sure to have a happy marriage by choosing a mate wisely and to include God in the decision. If we have a happy, working marriage where we are free to be obedient, then our daughters will want that too, and settle for nothing less. This is not my opinion. It is the way it was meant to be.

Dear mitzicross,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear sister. Thankyou for submitting the above.

Your entire post is pervaded with sound wisdom and insightful comments, but I especially like the observation respecting Sacred Scripture and God having the foresight to see that the bible would be used by Christians as a sure teaching norm for faith and morals, throughout the Christian era. Culturally conditioned teaching on timeless truth, especially in the New Testament, would be of very little use for the purposes of guidance and instruction.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture respecting modesty in apparel is of perpetual validity, simply because the requirement to dress in seemly and decent attire is always binding upon the faithful. As regards changing fashions in clothing, this is wholly irrelevant from the Catholic’s standpoint, because the Catholic does not, or at least should not, take his cue from prevailing tastes in fashions, especially if contemporary tastes in fashions are seductive and hence immodest. This is decidedly the case in our present age with mini-skirts, low-cut tops revealing cleavage and tightly-fitting jeans and other garments that do not leave much to the imagination. Moreover, “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing (and it) inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressure of prevailing ideologies” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 2522, 2523, parenthetical addition mine). As regards clothing choices, we Catholics do not set our watches by the town clock, rather we dare to be different by resisting the allurements of indecent fashions that transgress the boundaries of propriety.

We pride ourselves today on living in an age of enlightenment which has discarded so called Victorian inhibitions, enabling us to be healthly frank in representing and appreciating the beauty of human beings in the natural state of nudity. Well, the good Lord did indeed design our bodies, male and female. Notwithstanding, it is no accident that historically our genitalia have been termed our ‘private parts’. Some time ago I remember reading of a lady who had written a forceful protest to the editor of a women’s journal which was making its first daring venture into pictorial representation of near-nudity. She did not say, “This is disgusting and ought not to be allowed” or even “I am outraged”. She simply said, “Please leave something for my bedroom”. That was surely an excellent point and this is what many men and women, including some modern day Catholics, are not doing. Indeed, many women brazenly wear a bikini on public beaches, thus exposing themselves in a semi-nude state to the gaze of others, including the very young. Would any self-respecting Catholic women wear her under-garments in public? In this sphere we have lost the distinction between the public and private. It is, alas, just one more of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the godless post-Christian mindset.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I am amazed that so many people don’t understand the gift of obedience. No wonder the world is in the shape it is in. You know what the first sin was? Rebellion against obedience.

I thank God all the time for it. If I want to know His will for me, all I have to do is look to the rules of the Church, ask my actual confessor, or ask my husband. I know that God will speak through them as He provided them their authority over me and gives them the grace to guide me. It is Him working through them as our faith should tell us.

The bible says it. Most of you are able to quote it word for word. So, we are trying to convince ourselves now that God used to give our husbands the grace to be the heads of households because that was the custom when the bible was written? I don’t think of God as someone who is short sighted enough not to see that the bible might be in use 2000 years after that era.

I am certain that if He gave authority to Pilate because all authority comes from God, that He has also given it to anyone in authority over me, if I have faith. If I trust. And, if my husband is wrong, God will still bless me because He knows I am acting in faith. I only ask when it is an issue I am uncertain about and it is an important matter. I want to know God’s will for me. Imagine Him giving us a way to know for certain. Wow. That is gift, not a burden.

And ladies, please know that, yes, some men are not of God… That is why we are supposed to marry wisely. We are supposed to choose someone who is obedient to God, someone who lives in accordance with Church teaching, and not just someone who trips our trigger… But, even if we make mistakes in that area. We can still trust God to speak through our guys. God can speak through the mouths of babes, from the place we least expect…so of course if we believe what the Church has taught for centuries, and we trust God, He will take care to honor our faith and allow us to use our husbands as guides to help us follow His will.

If my husband is a man who puts me first in every decision, offers to do all the hard duties and make all the hard decisions, and take responsibility for me and my children in everything…who loves me more than his pride and ego, then what wouldn’t I do in return?

We must teach our daughters to choose wisely. We must set an example of what a true marriage relationship is, so that if ours doesn’t work, they can see what they need to do to make sure to have a happy marriage by choosing a mate wisely and to include God in the decision. If we have a happy, working marriage where we are free to be obedient, then our daughters will want that too, and settle for nothing less. This is not my opinion. It is the way it was meant to be.

Dear mitzicross,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear sister. Thankyou for submitting the above.

Your entire post is pervaded with sound wisdom and insightful comments, but I especially like the observation respecting Sacred Scripture and God having the foresight to see that the bible would be used by Christians as a sure teaching norm for faith and morals, throughout the Christian era. Culturally conditioned teaching on timeless truth, especially in the New Testament, would be of very little use for the purposes of guidance and instruction.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture respecting modesty in apparel is of perpetual validity, simply because the requirement to dress in seemly and decent attire is always binding upon the faithful. As regards changing fashions in clothing, this is wholly irrelevant from the Catholic’s standpoint, because the Catholic does not, or at least should not, take his cue from prevailing tastes in fashions, especially if contemporary tastes in fashions are seductive and hence immodest. This is decidedly the case in our present age with mini-skirts, low-cut tops revealing cleavage and tightly-fitting jeans and other garments that do not leave much to the imagination. Moreover, “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing (and it) inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressure of prevailing ideologies” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 2522, 2523, parenthetical addition mine). As regards clothing choices, we Catholics do not set our watches by the town clock, rather we dare to be different by resisting the allurements of indecent fashions that transgress the boundaries of propriety.

We pride ourselves today on living in an age of enlightenment which has discarded so called Victorian inhibitions, enabling us to be healthly frank in representing and appreciating the beauty of human beings in the natural state of nudity. Well, the good Lord did indeed design our bodies, male and female. Notwithstanding, it is no accident that historically our genitalia have been termed our ‘private parts’. Some time ago I remember reading of a lady who had written a forceful protest to the editor of a women’s journal which was making its first daring venture into pictorial representation of near-nudity. She did not say, “This is disgusting and ought not to be allowed” or even “I am outraged”. She simply said, “Please leave something for my bedroom”. That was surely an excellent point and this is what many men and women, including some modern day Catholics, are not doing. Indeed, many women brazenly wear a bikini on public beaches, thus exposing themselves in a semi-nude state to the gaze of others, including the very young. Would any self-respecting Catholic women wear her under-garments in public? In this sphere we have lost the distinction between the public and private. It is, alas, just one more of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the godless post-Christian mindset.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Amen Amen Amen. You have an exclent grasp of theology!

The link posted shows not only a paragraph taken out of context, but also taken from a personal reflection, not an infaliable teaching. This is an example of ignorance regarding what documents comprise teaching and doctrines of the church, and which are just opinions or basic summaries. Many people make this same mistake.

Dear DAAVEED,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou for the above.

It also demonstrates the sheer prejudice of many modern day Catholics against preconciliar Catholic tradition, especially if does not happen to chime with their own pre-conceived liberal fancies or trendy theories on a particular issue. “Pass not beyond the ancient bounds which thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22: 28).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I am concerned about the words rule and submission, first of all. Who started using those terms. They are not at all what the bible states. They are not terms I would ever use because they are misleading. God, the Church, my confessor, the President of the USA (Sad really), as well as my husband are like a king and his people. Jesus gives us a perfect example of what a Good King is and tells those in authority to emulate Him. A good king loves his people. He provides for them, and cares about their needs. He puts them first on his priority list…and he is willing to die for them. His life is a sacrifice for them, he will go to war to protect them, he will marry someone that he doesn’t love to make a better country that is safer and more prosperous for his people. He makes laws that will keep them safe and happy. If they obey them, they will be at peace and well fed and can revel in the warmth of his love. This is the kind of King Jesus Christ is and the kind he wants us to have looking out for us while He is yet away in His Father’s house, until His return.

A ruler sounds like someone who is more of a dictator. If your husband is a dictator, or not willing to care for you to the point of laying down his life for you, you must pray for him, pray for God to give him the grace to be the King you deserve as the Queen…

Dear mitzicross,

Hello again, dear sister. It was me that used the terms ‘ruler’ and ‘submission’ and I would make no apologies for doing so since they are both biblical concepts. Unfortunately, owing to the impact of secular militant femenism, they have aquired, quite unjustly, a negative connotation that associates such language with ‘control freakery’ (to use the modern parlance) and the ‘sexist’ oppression of women. This is only maintained by the those who are desirous to uphhold a controversial femenist agenda and who wish to expunge every vestige of the Judaeo-Christian tradition repecting the role of women . However, this warped, anti-Christian understanding is, I hasten to add, utterly foreign to what Sacred Scripture denotes by such terms.

In the Book of Genesis (Gen. 3: 16, one of the renowned ‘3: 16’s’ of Sacred Scripture) we are distinctly told by God as part of His curse upon mankind, following the Fall: “To the women he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (added emphasis mine). This was the sentence that was passed upon Eve for her sin. You will notice that she is condemned to a state of sorrow and a state of subjection, fitting punishment of a sin in which she had gratified both her pleasure and pride. It is incontrovertible that God Himself puts her under the dominion of her husband and she is not sui juris, or at her own disposal or a free agent within the marriage bond. This Dominical sentence harmonizes with the N.T. teaching regarding wives being in subjection to their husbands (see Eph. 5: 21-24). The entrance of sin into the world, on account of the Fall, has made the duty of subjection a punishment, which otherwise it would never have been. Clearly, if man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love and, had Eve not sinned, she would have always obeyed with humility and meekness. In that case the dominion would have been no grievance to her, but, alas, her own sin and folly rendered the burden of being ruled exceedingly heavy, which is why non-christian women have always been wont to reject it and revolt against it - increasingly with the rise of militant femenism. Sinful women have always wanted to assert their autonomy and have longed to be emanciptated from the onerous dominion of men. However, this is a prideful revolt against the Divine order of things and a presumptious challenge of the Dominical sentence imposed by their Creator.

It Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit herself and then tempted her husband to partake of it, she would never have complained about having to be in subjection. The lesson here is that the women has no right to complain about having to obey and be in subjection to her husband, even though this subjection is quite harsh. If anything ought to be complained about at all, then it is the tragic sin which led to this unhappy state of affairs in the first place. Those modern wives who not only despise their husbands rule over them, but also disobey them and even attempt to domineer them, need to consider that they not only violate the Divine order, but thwart the Divine sentence also.

Do trust that helped to clarify matters, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dear mitzicross,

Hello again, dear sister. It was me that used the terms ‘ruler’ and ‘submission’ and I would make no apologies for doing so since they are both biblical concepts. Unfortunately, owing to the impact of secular militant femenism, they have aquired, quite unjustly, a negative connotation that associates such language with ‘control freakery’ (to use the modern parlance) and the ‘sexist’ oppression of women. This is only maintained by the those who are desirous to uphhold a controversial femenist agenda and who wish to expunge every vestige of the Judaeo-Christian tradition repecting the role of women . However, this warped, anti-Christian understanding is, I hasten to add, utterly foreign to what Sacred Scripture denotes by such terms.

In the Book of Genesis (Gen. 3: 16, one of the renowned ‘3: 16’s’ of Sacred Scripture) we are distinctly told by God as part of His curse upon mankind, following the Fall: “To the women he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (added emphasis mine). This was the sentence that was passed upon Eve for her sin. You will notice that she is condemned to a state of sorrow and a state of subjection, fitting punishment of a sin in which she had gratified both her pleasure and pride. It is incontrovertible that God Himself puts her under the dominion of her husband and she is not sui juris, or at her own disposal or a free agent within the marriage bond. This Dominical sentence harmonizes with the N.T. teaching regarding wives being in subjection to their husbands (see Eph. 5: 21-24). The entrance of sin into the world, on account of the Fall, has made the duty of subjection a punishment, which otherwise it would never have been. Clearly, if man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love and, had Eve not sinned, she would have always obeyed with humility and meekness. In that case the dominion would have been no grievance to her, but, alas, her own sin and folly rendered the burden of being ruled exceedingly heavy, which is why non-christian women have always been wont to reject it and revolt against it - increasingly with the rise of militant femenism. Sinful women have always wanted to assert their autonomy and have longed to be emanciptated from the onerous dominion of men. However, this is a prideful revolt against the Divine order of things and a presumptious challenge of the Dominical sentence imposed by their Creator.

It Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit herself and then tempted her husband to partake of it, she would never have complained about having to be in subjection. The lesson here is that the women has no right to complain about having to obey and be in subjection to her husband, even though this subjection is quite harsh. If anything ought to be complained about at all, then it is the tragic sin which led to this unhappy state of affairs in the first place. Those modern wives who not only despise their husbands rule over them, but also disobey them and even attempt to domineer them, need to consider that they not only violate the Divine order, but thwart the Divine sentence also.

Do trust that helped to clarify matters, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

You quote the OT. Christ changed everything. John Paul II says it so well. An extract.

“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?”

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

You have made your position on similar issues very clear on the basis of your unhappiness with Vatican II and the changes it brought, John Paul II having given it somewhat to the culture of today and now John Paul II’s “personal meditation” on inter alia marriage.

The Muslims believe that the Quran in Arabic was dictated by God to Mohammed. The Bible was inspired by God so I do not understand your reference to ’ written at dictation of the Holy Ghost".

So a wife is the subject of her husband who is her ruler? - using your own words.

I will say that I for one and others would never be able to accept your assertions.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear sister. Thankyou for the above response.

Authority cannot co-exist with this notion of “mutual subjection” and an absence of the ruler-subject relation be betweem the spouses. That is surely a simple matter of logic. Clearly, there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither the Church not the family can have two heads.

There is certainly, I would concede, a sense in which husband and wife, unlike Christ and the Church, are subject to each other - in the order of charity. However, the precise teaching of St. Paul in the Ephesians Epistle relates to the order of authority, as Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI made abundantly clear. In the order of authority there cannot be “mutual subjection” without authority itself being vitiated.

The reference, written “wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost”, are not my words but those of Pope Leo in *Providentissimus Deus *.

Please see my post (# 144) to mitzicross above for a discussion of the ruler-subection issue.

Perhaps, dear sister, you find the teaching of Sacred Scripture and Catholic tradition on male headship/woman subjection problematic, because you have, even unwittingly, assimilated the biased propaganda of militant femenism or the liberal ‘revisionists’ opinions respecting the biblical exegesis.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

severus68:
Dear severus68,

Hello again.

The teaching of the Old Testament respecting the postion of male headship/woman subjection has not been rescinded with the advent of the Gospel age, for that teaching is re-affirmed by both SS. Paul and Peter (Eph. 5: 21-25; I Pet. 3: 1-6). The teaching, for example, of St. Paul that “the husband is the head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of his sentence, namely that “Christ is the head of the Church” (Eph 5: 23). That is a very closely knit argument and both parts must true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, one cannot selectively take what one deems acceptable in Sacred Scripture whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us because they do not fit in with our own pre-conceived ideas. That is to embrace a sort of ‘a la carte’ Catholicism.

Whilst it is perfectly true that St. Paul shows (Gal. 3: 28) that women now enjoy equal status with men as regards redemption, he also insists that our union in the Gospel does not obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (I Tim. 2: 13). Moreover, the immutable principle of male headship makes the man the ruling spouse in the marriage relationship, an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. Hence, Catholic wives must understand that equ**ality in the sphere of grace (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not abrogate the God-given order for marriage. Nevertheless, as I have stated previously, there is a common sense limit to the obedience that a wife is expected to render to her husband. Clearly, wives are only subject to their husbands in what pertains to their legitimate authority as husbandsor, if you please, everything that is not contrary to God or our most holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[catholicmamajoy]

How on earth did we go from fashions to the current topic? Oh wait, this is CAF and threads here are derailed faster than an Amtrak…especially when one sees an opportunity to promote their agenda…even if it has nothing to do with the OP! It’s about time for a thread closure.

 

[Portrait]

How on earth did we go from fashions to the current topic? Oh wait, this is CAF and threads here are derailed faster than an Amtrak…especially when one sees an opportunity to promote their agenda…even if it has nothing to do with the OP! It’s about time for a thread closure.

Dear catholicmamajoy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Jolly good point and I must plead guilty for deviating somewhat from the topic currently under review. Let us return forthwith to the issue of women’s fashion and modest attire.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

How on earth did we go from fashions to the current topic? Oh wait, this is CAF and threads here are derailed faster than an Amtrak…especially when one sees an opportunity to promote their agenda…even if it has nothing to do with the OP! It’s about time for a thread closure.

The same persons who come up with their own rules on how women should dress appear to also subscribe to the view that a wive is subject to her husband and to some even that all women are under the authority of a man.

 

[Catholic90]

The same persons who come up with their own rules on how women should dress appear to also subscribe to the view that a wive is subject to her husband and to some even that all women are under the authority of a man.

Threads always seem to get derailed!

For fashion…today I am wearing a bright pink tank top with a pair of black shorts that have a 7 inch inseam with my flip flops. I did not ask any man if wearing that was OK, so I made the decision all by myself (what a big girl thing to do!). My plans are to go to a park and go on a hike with one of my sons today as soon as he wakes up, then grocery shopping on the way home, then probably do some work in my yard.

 

[severus68]

Threads always seem to get derailed!

For fashion…today I am wearing a bright pink tank top with a pair of black shorts that have a 7 inch inseam with my flip flops. I did not ask any man if wearing that was OK, so I made the decision all by myself (what a big girl thing to do!). My plans are to go to a park and go on a hike with one of my sons today as soon as he wakes up, then grocery shopping on the way home, then probably do some work in my yard.

Enjoy your hike with your son.

 

[Catholic90]

Enjoy your hike with your son.

Thanks - we will. He is 16, and to have a 16 year old boy ASK his mother to accompany him on something is pretty cool, I think!

Now I just need to wait for him to get out of bed…