The role of women as wives and mothers
- Thread starter helenofbritain
- Start date
Actually, it's Familiaris Consortio - John Paul II - Apostolic Exhortation (November 22, 1981)
I had to go back and check what I wrote, it was so long ago! I think you mean this question:
I like the way you ask it better.
Ben wants the computer for a bit, so I'm submitting and letting him have a turn. I'll be back with more thoughts later
Upvote
0
Next you'll be wanting to vote
It's compulsory here! And I thank the suffragettes for all their hard work. My vote is something I treasure.
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Look at equality and let's see what we get. Equal in dignity as made in the image of God. I do not think Creed disagrees at all there. So at least we have that.
Now where we are getting issues is the exercise of that dignity as is proper in God's plan. In my opinion Creed, you are taking some things too far. Saying none of the women who followed Christ ever preached the Gospel (you said that of Magdalen). That is just untrue in what the Church holds true. In addition to women from apostolic times we have women saints who preached the Gospel. Not from a pulpit but spread and proclaimed on the faith. St. Theresa of Avila is one. Catherine of Sienna another. So obviously the level of subjugation to a man's will you are talking about is not supported by the Church and is a cultural thing.
If God has given a woman gifts that can work for the common good of society both in and out of the home...why is that not supported by Catholic teaching that calls for us to use all our skills and talents given by God in the work of the Church.
Gender matters. We are made who we are made for a reason, but that includes all our skills and talents incorporated into our gender not the gift of gender overriding other gifts. All play a part in the identity of the Human Person as crafted by God. Part of Human dignity is the freedom to exercise your gifts in God's Plan in accordance with His will. It is unjust to prevent someone from doing that.
The Church does not deny Women the opportunity to exercise those gifts and a loving husband support those gifts. In addition a husband truly concerned with the common good of the family as best as can be accomplished will not deny a wife to exercise skills and carry out tasks that she is better suited for with her God given abilities.
The common good of the family involves love and respect for the dignity of each member. It involves the exercise of tasks by the one best equipped to achieve the greatest good for the family in all aspects (Spiritual, Physical, Economic).
All of this needs to be focused on God's plan as revealed to His Church and living the Gospel in the world.
There was question sent to Jimmy Akin from a wife whose husband was not Catholic and what was taught about spiritual headship. That question does not bear too much on this but to answer he lists the natural law and foundation of Church teaching as a base to address questions in this realm (he writes):
This is a sensitive subject, and I hesitate to comment on it without having the space to explore the subject thoroughly and make sure that what I am and am not saying is clear. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer as best I can. First, some basic principles:
1. Men and women are equal in God's eyes. They have equal dignity, and Christ died for both genders equally.
2. Husbands and wives have an equal right to the goods of marriage and equal responsibility toward making the marriage work.
3. There are differences in the genders. For example, men tend to be larger and stronger than women, while women have longer life-spans and more agility.
4. These differences manifest particularly on the level of statistical averages, and the remarks I am about to make are to be understood in this light. The average trends do not always hold on the level of individuals (e.g., some men are physically smaller than some women, some women are physically stronger than some men).
5. Some differences between men and women are non-physical. For example, though the genders are of approximately equal intelligence, women have greater verbal aptitude than men, and men have greater spatial aptitude than women.
6. One of the differences between the genders is that men are designed for physical competition and combat in a way that women are not (it goes along with being larger and stronger). They are correspondingly configured mentally and emotionally. Put negatively: Men are more aggressive, more competitive, and less risk-averse on average than women are. Put positively: Men tend to have a stronger leadership drive than women.
7. The differences between the genders translate into a corresponding differentiation of roles. For example, men are generally better suited to roles that require greater physical strength (e.g., being a weight lifter); women are generally better suited to roles requiring greater agility (e.g., being a gymnast).
8. In a few cases, the differences in roles is absolute: Only women can give birth; only men can be priests.
9. In most cases, however, the differences do not lead to an absolute division of roles, and in any given marriage whichever partner is better suited for a task is usually the appropriate one to do it.
10. In general, men are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary leader/protector of the family, while women are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary nurturer/caregiver. (Though it is to be immediately pointed out that men also need to nurture and care for the children. Both parents have equal responsibility to make sure the children get what they need as they grow and develop. Men are by nature configured to be the secondary nurturer/caregiver for the family, just as women are configured to be the secondary leader/protector.)
11. Apart from the siring and bearing of children, however, the distinction in roles within marriage is not absolute. Many spouses are in situations where one spouse refuses to, is ill-suited to, or is incapable of fulfilling the typical roles just described. For example, some women have husbands who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a leader/protector--or, the husband may refuse to fulfill these roles, or he may simply be less suited to them than his wife. In the same way, some husbands may have wives who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a nurturer/caregiver--or, the wife may refuse to fulfill these roles, or she may be less suited to them than her husband.
12. In such atypical cases, the good of the family must be provided for, and this frequently means that one spouse may need to fulfill an atypical role for his or her gender. E.g., a woman with an alcoholic husband may need to exercise the primary leadership he is incapable of exercising responsibly; a man with an alcoholic wife may need to provide the primary care for the children that she is incapable of providing responsibly.
The above points form the natural law foundation needed to answer your question.
(Source)
What are your thoughts on those? In particular that differences in gender do not lead to an absolute division of roles and circumstance and individual talents and gifts play a role.
Now where we are getting issues is the exercise of that dignity as is proper in God's plan. In my opinion Creed, you are taking some things too far. Saying none of the women who followed Christ ever preached the Gospel (you said that of Magdalen). That is just untrue in what the Church holds true. In addition to women from apostolic times we have women saints who preached the Gospel. Not from a pulpit but spread and proclaimed on the faith. St. Theresa of Avila is one. Catherine of Sienna another. So obviously the level of subjugation to a man's will you are talking about is not supported by the Church and is a cultural thing.
If God has given a woman gifts that can work for the common good of society both in and out of the home...why is that not supported by Catholic teaching that calls for us to use all our skills and talents given by God in the work of the Church.
Gender matters. We are made who we are made for a reason, but that includes all our skills and talents incorporated into our gender not the gift of gender overriding other gifts. All play a part in the identity of the Human Person as crafted by God. Part of Human dignity is the freedom to exercise your gifts in God's Plan in accordance with His will. It is unjust to prevent someone from doing that.
The Church does not deny Women the opportunity to exercise those gifts and a loving husband support those gifts. In addition a husband truly concerned with the common good of the family as best as can be accomplished will not deny a wife to exercise skills and carry out tasks that she is better suited for with her God given abilities.
The common good of the family involves love and respect for the dignity of each member. It involves the exercise of tasks by the one best equipped to achieve the greatest good for the family in all aspects (Spiritual, Physical, Economic).
All of this needs to be focused on God's plan as revealed to His Church and living the Gospel in the world.
There was question sent to Jimmy Akin from a wife whose husband was not Catholic and what was taught about spiritual headship. That question does not bear too much on this but to answer he lists the natural law and foundation of Church teaching as a base to address questions in this realm (he writes):
This is a sensitive subject, and I hesitate to comment on it without having the space to explore the subject thoroughly and make sure that what I am and am not saying is clear. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer as best I can. First, some basic principles:
1. Men and women are equal in God's eyes. They have equal dignity, and Christ died for both genders equally.
2. Husbands and wives have an equal right to the goods of marriage and equal responsibility toward making the marriage work.
3. There are differences in the genders. For example, men tend to be larger and stronger than women, while women have longer life-spans and more agility.
4. These differences manifest particularly on the level of statistical averages, and the remarks I am about to make are to be understood in this light. The average trends do not always hold on the level of individuals (e.g., some men are physically smaller than some women, some women are physically stronger than some men).
5. Some differences between men and women are non-physical. For example, though the genders are of approximately equal intelligence, women have greater verbal aptitude than men, and men have greater spatial aptitude than women.
6. One of the differences between the genders is that men are designed for physical competition and combat in a way that women are not (it goes along with being larger and stronger). They are correspondingly configured mentally and emotionally. Put negatively: Men are more aggressive, more competitive, and less risk-averse on average than women are. Put positively: Men tend to have a stronger leadership drive than women.
7. The differences between the genders translate into a corresponding differentiation of roles. For example, men are generally better suited to roles that require greater physical strength (e.g., being a weight lifter); women are generally better suited to roles requiring greater agility (e.g., being a gymnast).
8. In a few cases, the differences in roles is absolute: Only women can give birth; only men can be priests.
9. In most cases, however, the differences do not lead to an absolute division of roles, and in any given marriage whichever partner is better suited for a task is usually the appropriate one to do it.
10. In general, men are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary leader/protector of the family, while women are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary nurturer/caregiver. (Though it is to be immediately pointed out that men also need to nurture and care for the children. Both parents have equal responsibility to make sure the children get what they need as they grow and develop. Men are by nature configured to be the secondary nurturer/caregiver for the family, just as women are configured to be the secondary leader/protector.)
11. Apart from the siring and bearing of children, however, the distinction in roles within marriage is not absolute. Many spouses are in situations where one spouse refuses to, is ill-suited to, or is incapable of fulfilling the typical roles just described. For example, some women have husbands who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a leader/protector--or, the husband may refuse to fulfill these roles, or he may simply be less suited to them than his wife. In the same way, some husbands may have wives who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a nurturer/caregiver--or, the wife may refuse to fulfill these roles, or she may be less suited to them than her husband.
12. In such atypical cases, the good of the family must be provided for, and this frequently means that one spouse may need to fulfill an atypical role for his or her gender. E.g., a woman with an alcoholic husband may need to exercise the primary leadership he is incapable of exercising responsibly; a man with an alcoholic wife may need to provide the primary care for the children that she is incapable of providing responsibly.
The above points form the natural law foundation needed to answer your question.
(Source)
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Let me comment on Akin list. I think it is important that he talks about how men and women are naturally conditioned and that these are not absolute. Some men are further down the nurture end and some women further up the protector one.
Also primary and secondary do not equate always to best and second best. Look at the fierceness of any good mother in protecting her children and one could not realistically term that a secondary or not natural response. So the natural conditioning goes only so far in determining the roles of each parent for the common good of the family.
Akin points out some hypothetical situations with alcoholic spouses because it is a situation most people can grasp to some extent as mitigating. But he also mentions, lest people ignore it, just less suited.
Now being less suited for a role is not to be less a man or less a woman and that is where the extreme view takes us. It is accurate to say that generally the genders have created dispositions in natural law from God. This can be inadequately but basically summed up as the Protector vs Nurture dynamic. But those are not to be associated with male and female so rigidly that it breaks the common good of a family or attacks the dignity and equality of a spouse where they are viewed as "less of a man/woman"
It is in that interplay that the common good of the family, the personal good of spouses in God's plan and the turning of God given gifts to the living of the Gospel come into form. And in that women can and should exercise all their personal gifts for the glory of God. That may mean doing a job outside the house. That may mean the husband stays at home.
The logic, teaching and Truth the Church teaches on Dignity, sexuality and family must be applied with love, thought and respect to each different situation. Not as an absolute cookie cutter. This does not make the Truth variable because the Truth taught by the Church does not teach that the distinction in the relationship is absolute. You have to look to the Teaching and not to the cultural and temporal disciplinary expressions.
Short hand of that is that there are dogmas and none of them deal with headship in the context we are discussing. That is not the realm of dogmatic theology (What is True), so there is not dogma to cite. If someone thinks there is please get Ott and show it.
What we are discussing is moral theology (how to live the teachings of the Church, Natural and Revealed Law and Truths of Dogma in our lives. How to live as we ought). And the Church defines no absolute expression of that, she guides. She says it needs to be carried out in line with Dogma and Teaching but leaves the particular expression to us. Again an issue of Prudential Judgment.
The problem Creed, is that you are looking at an expression as dogma. The Dogma that is being taught here is the one on Human Dignity and Created in the Image of God as John Paul II highlights. That is then related to human sexuality and how that is expressed in the family roles as it relates to natural law and the common good.
How it works is that we take Dogma (Truth) and apply it with Moral Theology (how we live the Truth) in accordance with the teaching of the Church.
And that teaching, on this issue, allows for varied expressions where different spouses work outside the home and take on roles best suited to their natural disposition and God given skills.
You are taking an expression as dogma. You did the same thing in the other thread when you compared the Immaculate Conception to instructed norms that are prudential judgment as if the instructed norm were sententia ad fidem pertinens and just not formally promulgated. But to be sententia ad fidem pertinens (a teaching pertaining to faith that the teaching authority has not yet declared specifically infallible) it needs to be in the dogmatic realm and not a prudential judgment. Just because Scripture and Saints have commented to things in relation to the expression does not mean the expression is the core dogmatic truth.
The Church allows return to sources and bringing up to date; that means JPII is going back to the original sources and taking the Truth that is absolute and teaching with his authority and guiding how to live them today without changing them. That is what his letters on the Human Family and the Dignity of Women are.
Also primary and secondary do not equate always to best and second best. Look at the fierceness of any good mother in protecting her children and one could not realistically term that a secondary or not natural response. So the natural conditioning goes only so far in determining the roles of each parent for the common good of the family.
Akin points out some hypothetical situations with alcoholic spouses because it is a situation most people can grasp to some extent as mitigating. But he also mentions, lest people ignore it, just less suited.
Now being less suited for a role is not to be less a man or less a woman and that is where the extreme view takes us. It is accurate to say that generally the genders have created dispositions in natural law from God. This can be inadequately but basically summed up as the Protector vs Nurture dynamic. But those are not to be associated with male and female so rigidly that it breaks the common good of a family or attacks the dignity and equality of a spouse where they are viewed as "less of a man/woman"
It is in that interplay that the common good of the family, the personal good of spouses in God's plan and the turning of God given gifts to the living of the Gospel come into form. And in that women can and should exercise all their personal gifts for the glory of God. That may mean doing a job outside the house. That may mean the husband stays at home.
The logic, teaching and Truth the Church teaches on Dignity, sexuality and family must be applied with love, thought and respect to each different situation. Not as an absolute cookie cutter. This does not make the Truth variable because the Truth taught by the Church does not teach that the distinction in the relationship is absolute. You have to look to the Teaching and not to the cultural and temporal disciplinary expressions.
Short hand of that is that there are dogmas and none of them deal with headship in the context we are discussing. That is not the realm of dogmatic theology (What is True), so there is not dogma to cite. If someone thinks there is please get Ott and show it.
What we are discussing is moral theology (how to live the teachings of the Church, Natural and Revealed Law and Truths of Dogma in our lives. How to live as we ought). And the Church defines no absolute expression of that, she guides. She says it needs to be carried out in line with Dogma and Teaching but leaves the particular expression to us. Again an issue of Prudential Judgment.
The problem Creed, is that you are looking at an expression as dogma. The Dogma that is being taught here is the one on Human Dignity and Created in the Image of God as John Paul II highlights. That is then related to human sexuality and how that is expressed in the family roles as it relates to natural law and the common good.
How it works is that we take Dogma (Truth) and apply it with Moral Theology (how we live the Truth) in accordance with the teaching of the Church.
And that teaching, on this issue, allows for varied expressions where different spouses work outside the home and take on roles best suited to their natural disposition and God given skills.
You are taking an expression as dogma. You did the same thing in the other thread when you compared the Immaculate Conception to instructed norms that are prudential judgment as if the instructed norm were sententia ad fidem pertinens and just not formally promulgated. But to be sententia ad fidem pertinens (a teaching pertaining to faith that the teaching authority has not yet declared specifically infallible) it needs to be in the dogmatic realm and not a prudential judgment. Just because Scripture and Saints have commented to things in relation to the expression does not mean the expression is the core dogmatic truth.
The Church allows return to sources and bringing up to date; that means JPII is going back to the original sources and taking the Truth that is absolute and teaching with his authority and guiding how to live them today without changing them. That is what his letters on the Human Family and the Dignity of Women are.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
What's that?
You'll be wanting to go to college to learn about that next
The demands never cease.
Upvote
0
Rebekka
meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that for a while Dave, first I'd need to learn how to read and write. And I don't think I have the mental capacities for that.You'll be wanting to go to college to learn about that next
Seriously, when my mother was a young girl she wasn't allowed to go to the highest level of secondary school (see the Teacher thread about the Dutch school system - based on intelligence and other capacities, kids get sent to a certain school type) because the highest level (that prepares for university) was only available for boys.
Upvote
0
Globalnomad
Senior Veteran
- Apr 2, 2005
- 5,390
- 660
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
LOL! (Not about the story about your mother, Rebekka.... that one horrified me...)
Great post, David! Your explanation on Dogma and Moral Theology was eye-opening. As well as very cleanly and clearly expressed. A keeper. Thanks!
Great post, David! Your explanation on Dogma and Moral Theology was eye-opening. As well as very cleanly and clearly expressed. A keeper. Thanks!
Upvote
0
Not that I'm arguing with you, but why do you think work at home has value over everything else?
I will answer your excellent questions from my personal experience.
1. Next year, three days after my baby girl turns 1, I will be returning to work (although in a new job to the one I left when I went on maternity leave). I am starting a job in a graduate program in the public service. We are moving interstate for it. This job pays more than my current one, has excellent potential for promotion (unlike my current one) and will utilise my degree (also mostly unlike my current one). Having finished university studies, my earning capacity is higher than my husband's.
2. He is going to be a stay at home Dad, and continue studying for his theology degree. He will do the school run, and play with the baby and help with the homework and welcome me home to slow-cooked meals
That is what is going to work for us. In theory. I will let you know about the practicalities later.
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
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,827
- 9,362
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Then you are indeed under the impression the filioque is error?
How did they but know at the time of the council that a heresy would rise up to challenge that Jesus was not equal to God the Father in the spiration of the Holy Spirit and that we ought profess that as the scriptures in John suggest - He will send the Spirit - through Him from the Father?
That is an example of how further explanation becomes necessary to combat error of heretics in the era they arrive.
The Church does not expand on the teaching unless or until a heresy challenges it. And until that time comes, what is taught is understood sufficient for the cause.
ALL Dogma that has come down to us - defined - and inarguable - has been wrought through misunderstandings that need clarified.
The Dogma's are not created - they are defined according to the arisen heresy that challenges it.
Not at all. Where does it state God demands this?
No, Paul says 'wives...' ie - he is speaking to wives, not the husbands...
'Submit to your husbands which is pleasing to God...'
I don't see a demand in there.
Because God gave free will, and as David clarified, different gifts for individuals.
BY YOUR OWN determination - you believe i should give up my faith, resist being Catholic and allow my children to be non Catholic?
I had to take on the role of headship in regards to faith in my family... and the Church demanded i do so.
I pity your wife.
You seem so insistent - having it your way.
A true Christian man puts his wife first in all things... pleasing her.
And she will do likewise.
You forget the rest of scriptures.
I direct you rather to David's post.
There are too many variables to make a blanket statement on how a marriage MUST work.
What do YOU think headship means?
A man who has issues with treating his wife above himself probably should avoid marrying a woman and causing deep resentment by his demands.
Wives are not owned property...but dignified human beings.
Upvote
0
Globalnomad
Senior Veteran
- Apr 2, 2005
- 5,390
- 660
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Not that I'm arguing with you, but why do you think work at home has value over everything else?
I will answer your excellent questions from my personal experience.
1. Next year, three days after my baby girl turns 1, I will be returning to work (although in a new job to the one I left when I went on maternity leave). I am starting a job in a graduate program in the public service. We are moving interstate for it. This job pays more than my current one, has excellent potential for promotion (unlike my current one) and will utilise my degree (also mostly unlike my current one). Having finished university studies, my earning capacity is higher than my husband's.
2. He is going to be a stay at home Dad, and continue studying for his theology degree. He will do the school run, and play with the baby and help with the homework and welcome me home to slow-cooked meals
That is what is going to work for us. In theory. I will let you know about the practicalities later.
Wow, HoB, that's wonderful news! Congratulations and good luck to both of you!
Why do I think that work at home has value above everything else? Because I took the expression as a proxy for "the mother's daily duties vis-a-vis her children" - I thought, from the context of your message, that YOU were using it that way.
Of course, the expression can be deconstructed. It includes simple housekeeping - and heck, THAT job has no "special" value at all - it has no more and no less value than the wages you would pay to a hired housekeeper. It includes making the home pleasant and cosy for your husband (the "fresh flowers, hot dinner and warm slippers" part) - THAT job does have a special value, but it is not an obligation to do it on a daily basis, as long as you have a good reason, and you don't stop doing it completely. Taking good care of the children is the one absolute-value component, which gives the whole expression its absolute value.
In our case - I do very little housekeeping , I have hired help for that. I take care of the "hot dinner and warm slippers" part only sporadically, since currently ours is a long-distance marriage because of our jobs. When we spend a weekend together - either at his home or mine - I always cook for him, and bring him fresh coffee/tea/drinks wherever he is sitting. A symbolic little attention, much like that of the gentlemen who open doors for us, but I think it conveys the message.
As for the kids - the issue is past, since they are out of the house now - but when they needed me, I opted out of a beloved profession for years (I can still feel the pain it gave me, and the fear that I would never be able to get back to it!) because I realised that the children's needs came first. So, I think I have "walked the talk".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks Global - we're excited about it. It's going to be a big change.
I think motherhood is the most important job that I will ever have. Fatherhood is the most important job my husband will ever have. As long as someone is doing it when the other one is at (paid) work, I think paid work should be highly esteemed, as that puts food on table, roof overhead, clothes on bodies, etc, which is also a very important part of being a parent.
Does that make sense?
Upvote
0
Globalnomad
Senior Veteran
- Apr 2, 2005
- 5,390
- 660
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Absolutely. It's obvious really. No family can live without work-outside-the-home (meaning money-earning). In that sense, it is as absolute-value as childrearing. What I am trying to say is that the natural division of duties is that the man is the primary responsible for bringing in the money ("with the sweat of thy brow thou shalt earn thy bread") while the woman has the primary responsibility of daily care of the children. But "primary responsibility" doesn't mean it can't be shared, delegated, or the two roles switched - it depends on the circumstances and good judgement of the couple.
So, why does it even still make sense to speak of "primary responsibility" of a mother to take care of the children? Well, because we are "in charge" of it, aren't we, even if we don't actually do it ourselves. We may delegate the task to Daddy or to others, but in the end, it is our responsibility to make sure it is done well... and if we see it is not, we are the doer of last resort, who has to drop everything to make sure the children are well taken care of. While the father has to drop everything else if necessary (even leave the home and become a migrant labourer), to fulfil his Biblical task of providing financially for his family.
So, why does it even still make sense to speak of "primary responsibility" of a mother to take care of the children? Well, because we are "in charge" of it, aren't we, even if we don't actually do it ourselves. We may delegate the task to Daddy or to others, but in the end, it is our responsibility to make sure it is done well... and if we see it is not, we are the doer of last resort, who has to drop everything to make sure the children are well taken care of. While the father has to drop everything else if necessary (even leave the home and become a migrant labourer), to fulfil his Biblical task of providing financially for his family.
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
Globalnomad
Senior Veteran
- Apr 2, 2005
- 5,390
- 660
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
oops... yes.... I had forgotten that little detail!Because we make the milk!!
And also for those other reasons
(It's been a LOOOOONG time...)
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
its so sad the feminist ideal has infiltrated so many homes in the west. Truly sad. John Paul II once stated he felt Satan entering the Church.Notice how none of my posts even had to do anything with the dignity of women or equality. It had to with with patriarchal authority given by God within relation to marriage. And like most feminist rhetoric, they tried to equate authority with the lessening of dignity. A clear misunderstanding and uneducated assumption.
And as usual Helen did not answer ONE early Church father quote, or the 2 other Popes I quoted to her. There around around 30-40 that support my position. And I won't even bring up holy scripture. First get through those ECF quotes, and then start with Genesis 3:16 if you truly want to take the challenege if you think Christianity supports you.
And no helen, your not gonna get away with your earlier post. You claimed that future Popes override the other popes dogmatically. No creeds are "undeveloped". They are only defined in a more clear fashion due to heresy later on. The core meaning of dogma is unchangeable. The definitions relating to heresy does not make any of the dogmas undeveloped.
So helen, if you really wanna make an argument, answer the quotes of the saints and the ECF. And don't do the usual "oh it was different back then".
And no the IC and the Assumption were not the only doctrines defined ex-cathedra! lol.. many councils invoke the charism of infallibleness regarding doctrine..
And as I said before. You don't have any concept of what the communion of saints are if you view dogma and doctrine in such a chop-and paste fashion, taking PJII out of context and then ignoring the 3 other Popes and 20-30 theologians and saints. I suggest you try to read doctrine and dogma within the whole body of Christians(saints, doctors, ECF, martyrs, popes, councils) and in a universal context. Read it through that context, not a secular egalitarian context.
Unfortunately you shall not test God and his commands. And neither should you try to test your husband. Satan tried to test Jesus. Do you wanna follow in the footsteps of testing people? less alone your husband. I would pity a man who's wife constantly tried to test and guilt his position. It was the main reason why I married outside my country. Marriages cannot function when morals are so degraded already.
and actually a christian man puts God above all things and Gods laws. A husband being insistent that God's laws are followed is actually a good thing. This quote is another common mistake that many self-centered western women have, thinking that they are a goddess that should be pleased whenever. What a hedonistic selfish mindset. A wife should be concerned with God, sacrifice and charity.. not with her own self happiness 24/7. Such wives become consumed by their own prideful hedonism.
And as usual Helen did not answer ONE early Church father quote, or the 2 other Popes I quoted to her. There around around 30-40 that support my position. And I won't even bring up holy scripture. First get through those ECF quotes, and then start with Genesis 3:16 if you truly want to take the challenege if you think Christianity supports you.
And no helen, your not gonna get away with your earlier post. You claimed that future Popes override the other popes dogmatically. No creeds are "undeveloped". They are only defined in a more clear fashion due to heresy later on. The core meaning of dogma is unchangeable. The definitions relating to heresy does not make any of the dogmas undeveloped.
So helen, if you really wanna make an argument, answer the quotes of the saints and the ECF. And don't do the usual "oh it was different back then".
And no the IC and the Assumption were not the only doctrines defined ex-cathedra! lol.. many councils invoke the charism of infallibleness regarding doctrine..
And as I said before. You don't have any concept of what the communion of saints are if you view dogma and doctrine in such a chop-and paste fashion, taking PJII out of context and then ignoring the 3 other Popes and 20-30 theologians and saints. I suggest you try to read doctrine and dogma within the whole body of Christians(saints, doctors, ECF, martyrs, popes, councils) and in a universal context. Read it through that context, not a secular egalitarian context.
In the western part of the world, most of the time that is untrue as the western woman is brainwashed by egalitarian heresy. hence in most cases she will not do likewise.or uses the usual typical responses similar to yours in order to try to nullify his position as a husband? this is a very common tactic in western marriages. It seems maybe you are quite adept at it.
Unfortunately you shall not test God and his commands. And neither should you try to test your husband. Satan tried to test Jesus. Do you wanna follow in the footsteps of testing people? less alone your husband. I would pity a man who's wife constantly tried to test and guilt his position. It was the main reason why I married outside my country. Marriages cannot function when morals are so degraded already.
and actually a christian man puts God above all things and Gods laws. A husband being insistent that God's laws are followed is actually a good thing. This quote is another common mistake that many self-centered western women have, thinking that they are a goddess that should be pleased whenever. What a hedonistic selfish mindset. A wife should be concerned with God, sacrifice and charity.. not with her own self happiness 24/7. Such wives become consumed by their own prideful hedonism.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
“Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.” John Chrysostom
basically, the opposite of what you said. Love causes the woman to become the essential "helpmeet" to the husband. Through the submissiveness of his wife the husband respects and loves the dignity of his wife. The epistle of Peter brings up such also..
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
Similar threads
