Women's Fashion

[severus68]

Though some men may feel this way I think this is a gross misrepresentation of how men of the Church feel… after all The Blessed Virgin is the most venerated human to ever live… and has the title co-redeemer… I hardly think that reflects a misogynistic Church.

It is not Christ’s Church, it is some Christians.

 

[cathlicconvert]

So by saying the bible and Sacred Tradition, you do not mean Christ? What Sacred Tradition please? Catholic Tradition

Each person should be responsible for his/her spirituality. So who does an unmarried woman submit to, in your opinion? Christ (just like a married woman)

You did say that by a woman submitting to her husband, she submits to Christ, so what does that mean? **That is what St. Paul called for in a marriage… so by following Church teaching, she is submitting to Christ by default… please don’t twist or misinterpret submissiveness into something bad or oppressive.
**
Christ is God, divine, a man is not. What about what John Paul II had to say about submission? Could you quote what in particular you are speaking of?

Even Paul had to say that in Christianity, it is different, all are equal. You are correct, and I never argued that… all are equal… the problem is though, that equal does not mean the same as many modern feminists would like to claim.

Answers in bold.

 

[cathlicconvert]

Mary is to be specially honoured but she is human. We do not need to go through her to God/Christ. Christ is our sole redeemer. We all submit and worship God, we do not worship Mary. This why many Protestants have a wrong idea about Catholics and Mary.

I never said that we worship her… and we can go to Christ… but why not ask his mom for some help as well?

My point was simply that the Catholic Church obviously does not have ill will towards women, as our most venerated saint is a woman.

 

[cathlicconvert]

It is not Christ’s Church, it is some Christians.

It is the Church that Jesus Christ founded… if you disagree with that, then please don’t refer to yourself as catholic… that is one of our core beliefs that Christ founded the catholic church, built on St. Peter and the Apostles.

 

[severus68]

Answers in bold.

I am not twisting your words. We should all submit to Christ. We have to submit to the authority of superiors to retain our jobs, we submit to laws and the authority of government leaders to make society run smoothly and work. A family unit is not an administrative or government body. A family has two leaders to their children until they are adult.

An extract from vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

“The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.”

 

[severus68]

It is the Church that Jesus Christ founded… if you disagree with that, then please don’t refer to yourself as catholic… that is one of our core beliefs that Christ founded the catholic church, built on St. Peter and the Apostles.

I was responding to your earlier post. Kindly refrain from telling anyone that he or she is not Catholic. Please also try to discuss rationally and do not respond by throwing barbs making personal remarks. That is lazy and using intimidation tactics.

 

[Portrait]

Being submissive does not mean being a doormat. Also, “marital obedience” means what, exactly? Please note that nowhere in Catholic wedding vows are the words “obey” found.

How about women who are not married? Must they be “submissive” to all men in their lives as well, according to you?

I think NOT!

A married woman can be assertive and still allow her husband to lead. A good woman will speak her mind; otherwise, she is a doormat.

Doormats get walked on.

Dear Catholic90,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend.

Forgive me, but you appear to be dominated by the thought of a woman becoming *feebly *submissive, when Catholic tradtion and Sacred Scripture only advocate the loving submission of the wife within the marriage bond. We do not have in view a mindlessly servile or ineffectual woman who would never say boo to a goose and who never dares to express an opinion. However, if a woman is joined in holy wedlock to a man, she has a duty before God to submit herself to the authority and leadership of her husband, unless of course he asks her to do something that is in direct conflict with Church teaching or the laws of the land.

As stated previously, the whole notion of obedience is to be found in the Pauline and Petrine passages (Eph. 5: 22-23; I Pet. 3: 1-6) and there is no *official *pronoucement from the Holy See modifying this timeless teaching.

Self-assertion is a very secular modern phenomenom that involves the aggressive promotion of oneself and one’s opinions and Catholics must needs be very wary of it, for it is is often nothing more than an excuse for prideful rebellion and, as far as femenism is concerned, a total declaration of independence from men.

Catholic women who refuse to be submissive and obedient to their husbands discredit our most holy religion and evince that that they have become imbued with the godless ideology of the secular world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

An extract from vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

“The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.”

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

 

[Portrait]

Why is it so hard for some to put their pride to the side and accept what 2000 years of sacred tradition, and the Bible have taught?

Both MEN & WOMEN should dress modestly so as to not lead anyone else (man, woman, heterosexual, or homosexual) to be drawn toward the sin of lust.

Both MEN & WOMEN should do everything in their power not to lust after others, and should practice chastity in their lives.

Why do we allow ourselves to get caught up in worldly desires for “independence”, “freedom”, etc. Why do so many feminists look down on women like my wife who has equal importance to myself in our marriage, but acknowledges that I am the head of our household, the spiritual leader, and make all final decisions except those affecting our children (which is her domain as a mother). She stays home and cares for our home and children. She dresses modestly always, wears a head covering to mass, has an opinion and will share it when appropriate, is polite, and beautiful… Yet modern feminism has vilified and looked down upon women who accept and embrace traditional gender roles.

In my experience loud mouthed, brash, and aggressive women, tend to have weak and timid husbands (perhaps not always, but in my experience).

We all need to get over ourselves and pride. I must subject myself to Christ, and give everything I have for/to my wife… even my life if so called. She must subject herself to Christ too (by being submissive to her husband as the Bible calls for… do not mistake this for an abusive or one sided relationship).

It is a challenge to dress more modestly… even for men in today’s age… but as Christ said the road to heaven is very narrow.

Dear Cathlicconvert,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. A warm welcome to the world of CAF.

Jolly well said, old chap, my sentiments entirely. That’s the spirit.

The pious Catholic women is not interested in pushy self-assertion and acting independently, but rather places her confidence in the graciousness, strength and integrity that comes from submission to her husband and her ardent pursuit of holiness. Moreover, she will demonstrate by her life that the best-dressed women wear dignity, strength, honour and quiet confidence in God as the unfading sources of true beauty and, according to St. Peter (I Pet. 3: 1-6), if she is married, her beauty comes in being dutifully submissive to her husband.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Catholic90]

The pious Catholic women is not interested in pushy self-assertion and acting independently, but rather places her confidence in the graciousness, strength and integrity that comes from submission to her husband and her ardent pursuit of holiness.

This has nothing at all to do with a single unmarried woman asking a man out on a date or expressing her interest or desire in someone or something.

A married woman can also be assertive and act independently in certain situations, especially if she is employed outside the home. Also, not all men are gracious.

 

[JoArtist]

This has nothing at all to do with a single unmarried woman asking a man out on a date or expressing her interest or desire in someone or something.

A married woman can also be assertive and act independently in certain situations, especially if she is employed outside the home. Also, not all men are gracious.

Amen to that. I find that many men who are outwardly “pious” tend to be self-righteous, selfish, and not gracious what-so-ever.

 

[Walking_Home]

Catholic90:

This has nothing at all to do with a single unmarried woman asking a man out on a date or expressing her interest or desire in someone or something.

A married woman can also be assertive and act independently in certain situations, especially if she is employed outside the home. Also, not all men are gracious.

Amen to that. I find that many men who are outwardly “pious” tend to be self-righteous, selfish, and not gracious what-so-ever.

---

I second the Amen.

 

[severus68]

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

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.

 

[Catholic90]

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.

I cannot accept that either.

My husband was not my ruler. He was my partner. He could not order that I do anything or force me do something as a ruler would. He could ask me, as I could of him.

 

[severus68]

I cannot accept that either.

My husband was not my ruler. He was my partner. He could not order that I do anything or force me do something as a ruler would. He could ask me, as I could of him.

Yours is/was a marriage to be emulated, an equal partnership formed by love and respect for each other.

 

[Walking_Home]

Husband (ruler)–wife (subject) --bah.

 

[severus68]

Husband (ruler)–wife (subject) --bah.

Yes bah.

 

[mitzicross]

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.

 

[severus68]

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.

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.

 

[Catholic90]

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.

Agree 100%.

Too many people act as if the saints were sinless. This, of course, is untrue.

Too many people want to force their views on others. This is not correct, nor does it work. One size does NOT fit all.