The role of women as wives and mothers

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Feminists simply will not delve deeply into dogma and scripture. Their theological knowledge is horrible because they are not looking for the truth, just an argument to make.
You've met every single one of them I presume?



CreedIsChrist said:
Or eglatarians who say the Nicene creed is "underdeveloped", have no understanding of dogma, and has no concept of the communion of saints?..lol

And HoB wrote "undeveloped", not "underdeveloped". That must be your male bias, to sneak the German masculine article in. ;)
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
OK Creed. I'm guessing that since you are always talking about Armenia that you speak English as a second language, and you may be having difficulty with my use of the term "undeveloped." Trust me when I say, I don't mean what you think I mean when I say it. Let's move on.



1. I am a cradle Catholic. I didn't need RCIA.
2. I understand plenty. I understand the majesty and grandeur of the faith. I appreciate Scripture, Tradition and Reason. I know that Truth doesn't change. I also know that the Church has developed Her understanding of many things over the past 2000 years.
3. What I think that you fail to understand is that we are no longer living in 312 - or 1949 for that matter. Church teaching on the role and dignity of women has developed since Aquinas.
4. Therefore, if we are comparing documents from 1700 years ago to documents from 15 years ago on a teaching which has developed, it stands to reason that the most recent documents are the ones which reflect *current* Church teachings, and to which we should give greater credence.





Please give me details of any DOGMA related to women and their place (excluding Our Blessed Mother).

Exactly where have I suggested anything I was arguing was dogma and that it had changed?



I'm taking a line from Inigo Montoya. "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."




Will it truly make you happy Creed? Will you get to call me a heretic and an uppity woman if I go through them all and disagree?

I cut my teeth on CF in GT. You've got nothing on them.


Please don't try to play semantics with me. Underdeveloped(or undeveloped) means just that. Not developed. Or lacking in development. Not in fullness. For you to say that the Nicene Creed is underdeveloped is outright heresy and blasphemy..


The exercise of the charism of infallibility often occurs during an ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. The articles of the creed are true and certain, and to deny any or part of them is heresy. These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals "must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith"

Again the Nicene Creed is not underdeveloped. It is an infallible declaration.


that is why I questioned if you have ever been to RCIA. Since the Creed is a binding doctrine that was considered to have been written by the Holy Spirit itself. But then again you would need to understand the differences between the sacred magestarium and the ordinary magestarium to understand the issues of infallibility within creeds or doctrines.

Sadly the only thing that is cut is your shredding of past Church doctrine and misunderstanding of the communion of saints. I cannot believe you would honestly think the past 2009 years of Church history has no bearing. I think you need to take a RCIA course. The Church past teachings are not some "old" out of date teachings. They are bearing on Christian life. And if you know what the communion of saints were you would know that. But obviously you don't know that concept.

The Churches view on women has always been the same. They cannot be priests and have offices of authority, like bishop or Pope. The Church understands the differences and roles between man and woman. The ECF and the saints conclude this. Popes have. The doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas have. Your argument has no leg to stand on except a SECULAR view on marriage that has a 50% divorce rate success, lol. And in my opinion that is just sad.

you have clearly made a comment that clearly shows you don't understand at all the teachings of the Church. Future Popes don't "outdo" other Popes. Everything the Church has stated ex-cathedra is a doctrine that has ultimate bearing on christian life. And the statements of the saints, patristics, councils, and the ECFs have added bearing on the fullness of the understanding of things like scripture, tradition, and the christian life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You've met every single one of them I presume?





And HoB wrote "undeveloped", not "underdeveloped". That must be your male bias, to sneak the German masculine article in. ;)


I have studied many of them. Their arguments are just sectarian egalitarian doctrine packaged up under (equal rights). Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, Sanguer, Ruth Ginsburg, Naomi Wolf, organizations like NOW and NARAL. Joan Chittister's horrid column at NCR, which is a joke.

No I have yet to see a feminist today that has any theological understanding of the Church or the bible. Which is why they don't understand it. Like many atheists who use surface arguments.

Whenever I see someone try to look at past teaching or doctrine as just "old news" or outdated, then I already know they come from a bad theological background, less alone, if any..And are simply trying to cherrypick away things they do not like under the justification of it being "old news". As if the early saints were dumb backwards people. Sorry I don't view them in such a arrogant prideful way and I view their intellect as having just as much bearing as the know-it-alls of today. I have yet to see any of these liberals write a book like the Summa Theologica or the City of God. Hence their views are questionable and mostly influenced by post-modern bias.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You skimmed through an ENORMOUS amount of writings from the ECF and Popes. I address what PJII said, why don't you address what they have said now. Instead of just writing them off..

And oh really? was St. Paul's words on women "undeveloped" too?? Maybe in reality, considering the horrid failure of marriage in the US with its 50% divorce rate, maybe the egalitarian one is the undeveloped one?
FWIW - as i was ignored previously - is that Paul never made the Gentiles adhere to the standards of the Jews.
It is in the Jewish customs that women were not allowed to take care of finances.

As i asked you previously, WOULD you take in your widowed mom, and unwed sisters and care for them til they died?
Would you be their bread and butter?

Culturally, women couldnt do anything.

But in the gentile nation - women were treated differently.
Archeological determinations of their stories found written - showed gentile women with authority and choices and equality.

Thats not to say submissiveness is not the better quality Paul understood it to be... for it is because it stems from humility.
And all are called to humility....not just women.

BUT Paul also says that husbands submit to their wives - Ephesians.

Addressing this is about taking in the fullness of scriptures.
Paul understood and told us that LOVE does not insist on its own way.
Corinthians.

The natural understanding comes to choices of humility that pleases God.
If a man must love his wife - he is not going to insist on his own way.

How do you get around that?

Authority is not something to be envied - because more is expected of the man... in that regard.
And adhering to all the scriptures is part of that.


As I told you before authority has nothing to do with dignity. The headship of the husband is a BASIC biblical concept.


taking one quote out context is called quote mining. Or trying to take Saint Gianna Molla out of context

Not to mention you are trying to pit one pope against a few 20-30 ECFS and 2-3 other Popes.

I'll myself will take what everyone says in context. Not take one quote out of context.

I for one dont mind the headship in the man - if the marriage is evenly yoked and the man is God fearing Catholic. WHO will treat his wife with equal measures and not insist on his own way...

The authority comes from the wife giving it to him - as it pleases God.

Its not demanded.
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I for one dont mind the headship in the man - if the marriage is evenly yoked and the man is God fearing Catholic. WHO will treat his wife with equal measures and not insist on his own way...

The authority comes from the wife giving it to him - as it pleases God.

Its not demanded.

No the authority is given by God to man after the fall in the garden. Eve clearly being the helpmeet of Adam. A helpmeet cannot give authority to the headship

And it is demanded. It is demanded by God. Right from the beginning of Genesis 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. A women who usurps a mans authority is perverting her household and defying the words of God. This is one of the main reasons why the divorce rate is so high in the western world. Since this simply natural rule cannot be followed, perversion of the family surfaces, which in turn causes the problems we have today..

If the wife has a problem with it, she has a problem with God's law and natural law.

The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will.

And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation.

It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

"The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man.

In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that "Adam was not deceived," it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.


The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease , and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation,that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
No the authority is given by God to man after the fall in the garden. Eve clearly being the helpmeet of Adam. A helpmeet cannot give authority to the headship.
By your suggestion then - that every Catholic woman married to a non Catholic - should give up faith and not raise the children Catholic?

Yet Paul said 'Do not put away the unbeliever..'

Now what Creed?
And it is demanded. It is demanded by God. Right from the beginning of Genesis 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. A women who usurps a mans authority is perverting her household and defying the words of God. This is one of the main reasons why the divorce rate is so high in the western world. Since this simply natural rule cannot be followed, perversion of the family surfaces, which in turn causes the problems we have today..
I recall Paul saying to do this because it is pleasing to God and he gave them the reason why...

BUT - Paul turned to the men and said love your wives.

NOW either Paul was double speaking when he defined what love is and said love does NOT insist on its own way - or he what he meant was that a wife give headship to the husband who if he loves his wife cannot be demanding of his authority - or the scriptures dont make sense.

In order for the authority to be present the wives are asked - not the husbands to make them submissive mind you - but the wives personally are asked to submit to their husbands because it is pleasing to God.


If the wife has a problem with it, she has a problem with God's law and natural law.
But you dont see the problem with ignoring the context and the rest of scriptures?

And as i said - Paul was speaking to those who were in the Church already - he wasnt speaking to the heretics to make their wives submit to their own brand of faith..
Was he?
And he certainly said not to leave the unbeliever.

How about Ephesians...??
You havent addressed submission of the husband as of yet.
The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will.
Ok, you want to go back to Eve... as the fathers have done - and yes women should willingly submit to please God - [wheres the men submitting argument?]

Lets face it - if love does not insist on its own way - then we know GOD desires women to willingly do this - as He is the greatest LOVE of all.

"The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.


The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease , and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation,that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.

SO far Creed - you are NOT getting the whole free will thing, and the fact love doesnt insist on its way and so far you are being very insistent.

ALL that Paul said - was being said to who - Creed?
To the wives...

Show me where Paul told the husbands to demand the wives be submissive.

I will wait.
 
Upvote 0
S

_Shannon_

Guest
. Or trying to take Saint Gianna Molla out of context

.
What exactly does that mean? St. Gianna Molla was a doctor. She worked outside the home, doing a "man's" job. How is that out of context? :scratch: I don't understand how that's irrelevant to the erhm .. discussion...at hand.

How does one make peace with your view of women and their roles, and the fact that the Church canonized her? People aren't canonized for one action, bit for the entirety of their lives in Christ. So how is her sanctity assured if she broke all of your "rules"?
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
By your suggestion then - that every Catholic woman married to a non Catholic - should give up faith and not raise the children Catholic?

Yet Paul said 'Do not put away the unbeliever..'

Now what Creed?

I recall Paul saying to do this because it is pleasing to God and he gave them the reason why...

BUT - Paul turned to the men and said love your wives.

NOW either Paul was double speaking when he defined what love is and said love does NOT insist on its own way - or he what he meant was that a wife give headship to the husband who if he loves his wife cannot be demanding of his authority - or the scriptures dont make sense.

In order for the authority to be present the wives are asked - not the husbands to make them submissive mind you - but the wives personally are asked to submit to their husbands because it is pleasing to God.



But you dont see the problem with ignoring the context and the rest of scriptures?

And as i said - Paul was speaking to those who were in the Church already - he wasnt speaking to the heretics to make their wives submit to their own brand of faith..
Was he?
And he certainly said not to leave the unbeliever.

How about Ephesians...??
You havent addressed submission of the husband as of yet.

Ok, you want to go back to Eve... as the fathers have done - and yes women should willingly submit to please God - [wheres the men submitting argument?]

Lets face it - if love does not insist on its own way - then we know GOD desires women to willingly do this - as He is the greatest LOVE of all.



SO far Creed - you are NOT getting the whole free will thing, and the fact love doesnt insist on its way and so far you are being very insistent.

ALL that Paul said - was being said to who - Creed?
To the wives...

Show me where Paul told the husbands to demand the wives be submissive.

I will wait.

submit to your husbands, AS UNTO THE LORD - Ephesians 5:22

do you know what it means when he says "as unto the lord"?

The husbands don't have to demand anything. It is demanded by God. If the wife is a good pious woman, she already knows.

the woman doesn't give any authority. She either consents to natural law, or doesn't. The authority comes down from God from natural law, due to the Fall.

Secondly. If the wife is a true christian, the husband does not have to bring up the issue at all. She already knows what God's natural law. The fact is that a husband should not even have to bring it up.

If he has to bring it up, then it is the wife who is not following God's natural law or the code of love.

If the woman does not want to follow it, then she has no business in a christian marriage. Or marriage at all, for that matter..

A woman who tries to "test" her husband about his headship is already in the wrong mindset. Or says that he "insists on it" is playing semantics since she is already proceeding from an unbiblical mindset of authority in marriage, She should want to be submissive to her husband because that is God's law.

A woman who has a problem with it does not belong in marriage and probably was not correctly brought up by her father. Since she is rebellious and a rebellious woman always starts with the father usually.

Yes Paul said love your wives. But that has nothing to do with the authority God gave to man in the marriage. A man loving his wife is protecting and sacrificing for her.
 
Upvote 0
S

_Shannon_

Guest
I'm sorry but Thomas Aquinas and Augustine had more theological knowledge of the Church and dogma than probably all the feminists combined in earth today. Feminists simply will not delve deeply into dogma and scripture. Their theological knowledge is horrible because they are not looking for the truth, just an argument to make. I mean look at people like Joan Chrittiser.
Nothing like sweeping generalisations to advance a discussion. :thumbsup:

Isn't it possible that some really smart and people seeking to do good, and live God's will in their lives have just simply come to different conclusions than you? And not out of ignorance? But through much study and prayer? You want a word which gets tossed around without any sort of cohesive meaning--it's feminist. For sure.

For goodness sakes--women were freaking property. They had no voice, no rights. There are still places in the world where this is true. I thank God that there are people who have come before me and who live now who are willing to work tirelessly to break the cycle of bondage, so that women are free to realise their full dignity in Christ. The only one we ought to be a slave to is Christ through Mary in love.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gwendolyn

back in black
Jan 28, 2005
12,340
1,647
Canada
✟20,680.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Creed, I believe Helen was talking about the development of doctrine, which is a thoroughly Catholic concept. She simply means that our understanding of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has deepened and become more thorough over the centuries, to the point where now it is dogma.

She wasn't saying that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was just pulled out of thin air.
 
Upvote 0

Globalnomad

Senior Veteran
Apr 2, 2005
5,390
660
71
Change countries every three years
✟16,257.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Rebekka, don't get too upset. Let's just stop arguing with Creed. He needs prayers, not human argument.

Why not get back to the interesting first post? We are still not doing justice to HelenofBritain and her good questions about that passage from Mulieris Dignitatem. (yes, let's cut the suspense! it's John Paul II)

The only question I don't like, HoB, is where you ask whether work at home is more valuable than work outside. It cannot be answered as you put it - and JP2 does not go there at all. "Work at home" is an absolute - it has value over everything else. The question is not whether you should choose between it and "work outside" - that would be no question at all. The question is twofold: (1) do you WANT to work outside (whether because you need to for financial reasons, or you want to because you have a professional vocation)? (2) If you want to work outside, can you still organise your life so that the children are well taken care of? If you can answer "yes" to both, then you will naturally go work outside the home and never feel that you have chosen the one over the other.
 
Upvote 0

Assisi

not a sissy
Sep 7, 2006
4,155
463
Sydney
✟14,280.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then my apologies to Assisi. :)

Don't sweat it :D HoB is a good friend IRL and she knows the angst I've had this past year trying to find the best situation for my family. Detroit sounds good to me (except for being over the other side of the world!) But try convincing DH of that!^_^;)

Hrmm. Perhaps this is pertinent to this discussion.:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Assisi

not a sissy
Sep 7, 2006
4,155
463
Sydney
✟14,280.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Creed, do you have any philosophical waxings with regard to the role of the husband?

Globalnomad I agree with your two points. Except that we as a society (at least here in Australia) are supporting a cost of living which means many women who have always dreamed of being a sahm are forced back into the workforce in order to pay the bills. This is especially true of (and here comes a big generalisation) many Catholic women. The trend here is leaning more and more to starting a family in your mid-thirties because you will have had ten years of two incomes to save your deposit and get a loan for housing. I feel like I keep banging on about housing hahaha, but it is a big deal! Catholic women tend to want to marry earlier, and also tend to have more children and earlier.

We are on a (imo) very good wage. But at the moment our family of four is living in a one bedroom flat an hour from the CBD because that's all we can afford. We have been lucky in our extended family circumstances and have been able to buy a 50 year old 3x1 house a bit further out :)clap: Thank you Lord), but we are in so much debt from this mortgage that if it weren't for our outrageous good luck I would have to go back to work just to service the mortgage (and eventually I will - we're just lucky we can put it off for a few more years). I desperately want to keep my children out of daycare, but most people in our circumstance do not have this choice.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It might benefit some to perhaps know that with Augustine, it was "all or nothing" when he was speaking against heresies and he would often go to the extreme end of the spectrum to make his points.

he did what I like to call, "bend but not break" theology when debating heretics.

Context is everything when you read that dude.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

helenofbritain

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us
Oct 24, 2006
10,294
700
Canberra
✟21,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No the authority is given by God to man after the fall in the garden. Eve clearly being the helpmeet of Adam. A helpmeet cannot give authority to the headship

And it is demanded. It is demanded by God. Right from the beginning of Genesis 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. A women who usurps a mans authority is perverting her household and defying the words of God. This is one of the main reasons why the divorce rate is so high in the western world. Since this simply natural rule cannot be followed, perversion of the family surfaces, which in turn causes the problems we have today..

If the wife has a problem with it, she has a problem with God's law and natural law.

I believe you wrote this ^ Creed.

But as for the rest, you are a plagiarist. Unable to make your own arguments, you've used someone else's without attribution. Mainly someone called Barnes, with a little bit of Kell and Delizsch thrown in at the end for good measure.

This bit

The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will.

... is from here Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation.

It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

"The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man.

In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that "Adam was not deceived," it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

...is from here 1[bless and do not curse]Timothy - Chapter 2 - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament on StudyLight.org

This bit:

The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease , and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation,that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.

...can be found here: Genesis 3 Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't pass off someone else's hard work as your own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rebekka
Upvote 0

helenofbritain

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us
Oct 24, 2006
10,294
700
Canberra
✟21,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Please don't try to play semantics with me. Underdeveloped(or undeveloped) means just that. Not developed. Or lacking in development. Not in fullness. For you to say that the Nicene Creed is underdeveloped is outright heresy and blasphemy..

Undeveloped. adj. not having developed or been developed. - Oxford English Dictionary.

In my usage, this is a synonym for unchanged. As in, the Nicene Creed has been unchanged for 1700 years.

Don't change the subject.


The exercise of the charism of infallibility often occurs during an ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. The articles of the creed are true and certain, and to deny any or part of them is heresy. These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals "must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith"

Again the Nicene Creed is not underdeveloped. It is an infallible declaration.

Underdeveloped and undeveloped do not mean the same thing. Do not confuse them. Don't change the subject.


that is why I questioned if you have ever been to RCIA. Since the Creed is a binding doctrine that was considered to have been written by the Holy Spirit itself. But then again you would need to understand the differences between the sacred magestarium and the ordinary magestarium to understand the issues of infallibility within creeds or doctrines.

Again, you are changing the subject. And making an enormous assumption based on your inability to comprehend the meaning of the word 'undeveloped'. How you get from my saying 'the Nicene Creed hasn't changed for 1700 years' to 'she doesn't understand the Magisterium' is beyond me.

Sadly the only thing that is cut is your shredding of past Church doctrine and misunderstanding of the communion of saints. I cannot believe you would honestly think the pnast 2009 years of Church history has no bearing. I think you need to take a RCIA course. The Church past teachings are not some "old" out of date teachings. They are bearing on Christian life. And if you know what the communion of saints were you would know that. But obviously you don't know that concept.

Excuse me? Show me where I have said that everything the Church has said since last week is outdated and wrong. Some teachings have developed (that means they were changed/broadened/enhanced/refined) over time. Other teachings, such as belief in the Resurrection have been unchanged (undeveloped) since Christ rose from the dead.

Exactly what do you mean by "misunderstanding the communion of saints?"

The Churches view on women has always been the same. They cannot be priests and have offices of authority, like bishop or Pope. The Church understands the differences and roles between man and woman. The ECF and the saints conclude this. Popes have. The doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas have. Your argument has no leg to stand on except a SECULAR view on marriage that has a 50% divorce rate success, lol. And in my opinion that is just sad.

Am I arguing for the ordination of women? No.

What is my argument again? That women and men are equal in dignity.

The Church backs me up:

1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."155

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 7

2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."118 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."119

....

2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment


you have clearly made a comment that clearly shows you don't understand at all the teachings of the Church. Future Popes don't "outdo" other Popes. Everything the Church has stated ex-cathedra is a doctrine that has ultimate bearing on christian life. And the statements of the saints, patristics, councils, and the ECFs have added bearing on the fullness of the understanding of things like scripture, tradition, and the christian life.

Everything the Church has said ex cathedra is:
1. the Immaculate Conception.
2. the Assumption.

I agree with you that there are many important things which have been said by many holy people throughout the history of the Church. I also contend that the recent writings of John Paul II are building on their work, and form part of the ordinary magisterium. Since Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the second edition of the CCC which I just quoted, I can only assume that Benedict agrees with John Paul, that women and men are equal in dignity.

Which is what I've been saying all along. I don't know why that's so scary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

helenofbritain

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us
Oct 24, 2006
10,294
700
Canberra
✟21,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Rebekka, don't get too upset. Let's just stop arguing with Creed. He needs prayers, not human argument.

Why not get back to the interesting first post? We are still not doing justice to HelenofBritain and her good questions about that passage from Mulieris Dignitatem. (yes, let's cut the suspense! it's John Paul II)

The only question I don't like, HoB, is where you ask whether work at home is more valuable than work outside. It cannot be answered as you put it - and JP2 does not go there at all. "Work at home" is an absolute - it has value over everything else. The question is not whether you should choose between it and "work outside" - that would be no question at all. The question is twofold: (1) do you WANT to work outside (whether because you need to for financial reasons, or you want to because you have a professional vocation)? (2) If you want to work outside, can you still organise your life so that the children are well taken care of? If you can answer "yes" to both, then you will naturally go work outside the home and never feel that you have chosen the one over the other.
I'm up for that Global - but I'm off on the school run now. I might be on later when my kids are in bed. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

helenofbritain

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us
Oct 24, 2006
10,294
700
Canberra
✟21,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My prediction is that he will rather do the opposite and focus on more equality, considering how he further developed JPII's ideas on good stewardship, environmentalism and the treatment of animals. Humans (including women) are worth more than animals, and even the animals are worth protecting, have dignity.


(Matthew 10:29-31: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.)



Just my prediction. But the Vatican's policy to put more and more women on high positions supports that. ;)
I think you may be on to something there, Rebekka.

The reason I said it like that was to illustrate to Creed that I believe that teachings develop in a linear fashion - with those coming after building on the work of those who went before. Obviously Benedict has come after John Paul II, so the onus is on him to continue opening up our beautiful faith in whatever way the Holy Spirit sees fit.

But I think he's on the 'women have something to offer' bandwagon:

Here I would like to highlight the recommendations of the Synod concerning the role of women in relation to the word of God. Today, more than in the past, the “feminine genius”,[288] to use the words of John Paul II, has contributed greatly to the understanding of Scripture and to the whole life of the Church, and this is now also the case with biblical studies. The Synod paid special attention to the indispensable role played by women in the family, education, catechesis and the communication of values. “They have an ability to lead people to hear God’s word, to enjoy a personal relationship with God, and to show the meaning of forgiveness and of evangelical sharing”.[289] They are likewise messengers of love, models of mercy and peacemakers; they communicate warmth and humanity in a world which all too often judges people according to the ruthless criteria of exploitation and profit.
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini

:thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebekka
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums