The role of women as wives and mothers

[WarriorAngel]

For great evils are hence produced, and great benefits, both to families and to states. For there is nothing which so welds our life together as the love of man and wife. For this many will lay aside even their arms, for this they will give up life itself. And Paul would never without a reason and without an object have spent so much pains on this subject, as when he says here, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. And why so? Because when they are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion. And just as when the generals of an army are at peace one with another, all things are in due subordination, whereas on the other hand, if they are at variance, everything is turned upside down; so, I say, is it also here. Wherefore, says he, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Yet how strange! For how then is it, that it is said elsewhere, If one bid not farewell both to wife and to husband, he cannot follow me? Luke 14:26 For if it is their duty to be in subjection as unto the Lord, how says He that they must depart from them for the Lord's sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounden duty. But the word as is not necessarily and universally expressive of exact equality. He either means this, 'as' knowing that you are servants to the Lord; (which, by the way, is what he says elsewhere, that, even though they do it not for the husband's sake, yet must they primarily for the Lord's sake or else he means, when you obey your husband, do so as serving the Lord. For if he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, withstands the ordinance of God Romans 13:2, much more does she who submits not herself to her husband. Such was God's will from the beginning.
Let us take as our fundamental position then that the husband occupies the place of the head, and the wife the place of the body.
Ver. 23, 24. Then, he proceeds with arguments and says that the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church, being Himself the Saviour of the body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything.
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.
Ver. 25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.
You have heard how great the submission; you have extolled and marvelled at Paul, how, like an admirable and spiritual man, he welds together our whole life. Thou did well. But now hear what he also requires at your hands; for again he employs the same example.
Husbands, says he, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.
You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever—refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hatedhated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.
Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 20 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

I figured you liked Chrysostom and posted a brief quote from him...so i am just adding in more on the topic.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” - John Chrysostom


First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2.


This part essentially sums up what I try to keep saying. Essentially women who resist this ordinance resist the ordinances of God from the beginning. This is the goal of the egalitarian mindset. And this is the reason why divorce and family turmoil is so high right now because it is twisting an ordinance from God that is the bulwark of families. As the saint tells us, it should be not forced with fear, but rather followed because it is an ordinance of God. However for people unwilling to follow this ordinance is not ready for marriage. Most people hate the authority. The authority of the Church. Less alone of the husband. It is rooted in the hatred of authority and rebellion.

I really would like Helen to answer this quote.

 

[WarriorAngel]

“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” - John Chrysostom


First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2.


This part essentially sums up what I try to keep saying. Essentially women who resist this ordinance resist the ordinances of God from the beginning. This is the goal of the egalitarian mindset. And this is the reason why divorce and family turmoil is so high right now because it is twisting an ordinance from God that is the bulwark of families.

I really would like Helen to answer this quote.

AND equally i would like you to answer this quote from Chrysostom...whom i dearly love reading.

You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever—refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ver. 26. And gave Himself up, he says, for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it.
So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife you shall take, yet shall you never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from you as the Church was from Christ. And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Would you hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul says, For you were once darkness. Ephesians 5:8 Did you see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, living, says he, in malice and envy. Titus 3:3 Look again at her impurity; disobedient, foolish. But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, For scarcely for a righteous man will one die Romans 5:7; and again, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

AND equally i would like you to answer this quote from Chrysostom...whom i dearly love reading.

You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever—refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.

“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace


“False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.” - Pope Pius XI


Well, we see Chrysostom relating to the differences between slave and wife. A wife is not to be treated as a slave as the husband and wife reciprocate towards each other. A godly woman who knows God's ordinances already knows she should be submissive to her husband because it is a law of God. If tactics like intimidation and fear are used then there is dysfunction on both ends. For the husband using callous means, and for the wife rebelling against authority. Thats why I always said that a woman should not marry if she has a hatred for authority.

My wife never trembles at me nor due I use fear tactics. I married a woman who already knew and followed the traditional roles between man and woman. If anything those antics are more common in the modern families where the wife and husband argue 24/7 because the wife is rebellious and refuses to deter to her husbands words and the husband is a deadbeat. But like the ending of what Chrysostom said, you do not upbraid her, or put her on some goddess pedestal, as that is contrary to Christ.

Clearly, the gospel call for the husband to be an authority figure, balancing complete submission to the will of his creator and perfect reverence for his spouse, is not an easy one, and one that comes with much responsibility and accountability. After years of having their authority usurped by feminism, this is a role many men will have difficulty at best in fulfilling.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ver. 28. Even so ought husbands to love their own wives, says he, as their own bodies.
What, again, means this? To how much greater a similitude, and stronger example has he come; and not only so, but also to one how much nearer and clearer, and to a fresh obligation. For that other one was of no very constraining force, for He was Christ, and was God, and gave Himself. He now manages his argument on a different ground, saying, so ought men; because the thing is not a favor, but a debt. Then, as their own bodies. And why?
Ver. 29. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.
That is, tends it with exceeding care. And how is she his flesh? Hearken; This now is bone of my bones, says Adam, and flesh of my flesh. Genesis 2:23 For she is made of matter taken from us. And not only so, but also, they shall be, says God, one flesh. Genesis 2:24
Even as Christ also the Church. Here he returns to the former example.
Ver. 30. Because we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
Ver. 31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begot him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that the three are one flesh. Thus then are we in relation to Christ; we become one flesh by participation, and we much more than the child. And why and how so? Because so it has been from the beginning.
Tell me not that such and such things are so. Do you see not that we have in our own flesh itself many defects? For one man, for instance, is lame, another has his feet distorted, another his hands withered, another some other member weak; and yet nevertheless he does not grieve at it, nor cut it off, but oftentimes prefers it even to the other. Naturally enough; for it is part of himself. As great love as each entertains towards himself, so great he would have us entertain towards a wife. Not because we partake of the same nature; no, this ground of duty towards a wife is far greater than that; it is that there are not two bodies but one; he the head, she the body. And how says he elsewhere and the Head of Christ is God? 1 Corinthians 11:3 This I too say, that as we are one body, so also are Christ and the Father One. And thus then is the Father also found to be our Head. He sets down two examples, that of the natural body and that of Christ's body. And hence he further adds,
Ver. 32. This is great mystery: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church.
Why does he call it a great mystery? That it was something great and wonderful, the blessed Moses, or rather God, intimated. For the present, however, says he, I speak regarding Christ, that having left the Father, He came down, and came to the Bride, and became one Spirit. For he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:17 And well says he, it is a great mystery. And then as though he were saying, But still nevertheless the allegory does not destroy affection, he adds,
Ver. 33. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband.
For indeed, in very deed, a mystery it is, yea, a great mystery, that a man should leave him that gave him being, him that begot him, and that brought him up, and her that travailed with him and had sorrow, those that have bestowed upon him so many and great benefits, those with whom he has been in familiar intercourse, and be joined to one who was never even seen by him and who has nothing in common with him, and should honor her before all others. A mystery it is indeed. And yet are parents not distressed when these events take place, but rather, when they do not take place; and are delighted when their wealth is spent and lavished upon it.— A great mystery indeed! And one that contains some hidden wisdom. Such Moses prophetically showed it to be from the very first; such now also Paul proclaims it, where he says, concerning Christ and the Church.
However not for the husband's sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife's sake also, that he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church, and, that the wife fear her husband. He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? That she fear her husband. The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.
And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preëminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. And this is universally the case with matters referring to the body, inasmuch as when men are spiritual, there will be peace. There were five thousand souls, and not one of them said, that anything of the things which he possessed was his own Acts 4:32, but they were subject one to another; an indication this of wisdom, and of the fear of God. The principle of love, however, he explains; that of fear he does not. And mark, how on that of love he enlarges, stating the arguments relating to Christ and those relating to one's own flesh, the words, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother. Ephesians 5:31 Whereas upon those drawn from fear he forbears to enlarge. And why so? Because he would rather that this principle prevail, this, namely, of love; for where this exists, everything else follows of course, but where the other exists, not necessarily. For the man who loves his wife, even though she be not a very obedient one, still will bear with everything. So difficult and impracticable is unanimity, where persons are not bound together by that love which is founded in supreme authority; at all events, fear will not necessarily effect this. Accordingly, he dwells the more upon this, which is the strong tie. And the wife though seeming to be the loser in that she was charged to fear, is the gainer, because the principal duty, love, is charged upon the husband. But what, one may say, if a wife reverence me not? Never mind, you are to love, fulfill your own duty. For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ. And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ver. 28. Even so ought husbands to love their own wives, says he, as their own bodies.
What, again, means this? To how much greater a similitude, and stronger example has he come; and not only so, but also to one how much nearer and clearer, and to a fresh obligation. For that other one was of no very constraining force, for He was Christ, and was God, and gave Himself. He now manages his argument on a different ground, saying, so ought men; because the thing is not a favor, but a debt. Then, as their own bodies. And why?
Ver. 29. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.
That is, tends it with exceeding care. And how is she his flesh? Hearken; This now is bone of my bones, says Adam, and flesh of my flesh. Genesis 2:23 For she is made of matter taken from us. And not only so, but also, they shall be, says God, one flesh. Genesis 2:24
Even as Christ also the Church. Here he returns to the former example.
Ver. 30. Because we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
Ver. 31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begot him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that the three are one flesh. Thus then are we in relation to Christ; we become one flesh by participation, and we much more than the child. And why and how so? Because so it has been from the beginning.
Tell me not that such and such things are so. Do you see not that we have in our own flesh itself many defects? For one man, for instance, is lame, another has his feet distorted, another his hands withered, another some other member weak; and yet nevertheless he does not grieve at it, nor cut it off, but oftentimes prefers it even to the other. Naturally enough; for it is part of himself. As great love as each entertains towards himself, so great he would have us entertain towards a wife. Not because we partake of the same nature; no, this ground of duty towards a wife is far greater than that; it is that there are not two bodies but one; he the head, she the body. And how says he elsewhere and the Head of Christ is God? 1 Corinthians 11:3 This I too say, that as we are one body, so also are Christ and the Father One. And thus then is the Father also found to be our Head. He sets down two examples, that of the natural body and that of Christ's body. And hence he further adds,
Ver. 32. This is great mystery: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church.
Why does he call it a great mystery? That it was something great and wonderful, the blessed Moses, or rather God, intimated. For the present, however, says he, I speak regarding Christ, that having left the Father, He came down, and came to the Bride, and became one Spirit. For he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:17 And well says he, it is a great mystery. And then as though he were saying, But still nevertheless the allegory does not destroy affection, he adds,
Ver. 33. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband.
For indeed, in very deed, a mystery it is, yea, a great mystery, that a man should leave him that gave him being, him that begot him, and that brought him up, and her that travailed with him and had sorrow, those that have bestowed upon him so many and great benefits, those with whom he has been in familiar intercourse, and be joined to one who was never even seen by him and who has nothing in common with him, and should honor her before all others. A mystery it is indeed. And yet are parents not distressed when these events take place, but rather, when they do not take place; and are delighted when their wealth is spent and lavished upon it.— A great mystery indeed! And one that contains some hidden wisdom. Such Moses prophetically showed it to be from the very first; such now also Paul proclaims it, where he says, concerning Christ and the Church.
However not for the husband's sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife's sake also, that he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church, and, that the wife fear her husband. He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? That she fear her husband. The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.
And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preëminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. And this is universally the case with matters referring to the body, inasmuch as when men are spiritual, there will be peace. There were five thousand souls, and not one of them said, that anything of the things which he possessed was his own Acts 4:32, but they were subject one to another; an indication this of wisdom, and of the fear of God. The principle of love, however, he explains; that of fear he does not. And mark, how on that of love he enlarges, stating the arguments relating to Christ and those relating to one's own flesh, the words, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother. Ephesians 5:31 Whereas upon those drawn from fear he forbears to enlarge. And why so? Because he would rather that this principle prevail, this, namely, of love; for where this exists, everything else follows of course, but where the other exists, not necessarily. For the man who loves his wife, even though she be not a very obedient one, still will bear with everything. So difficult and impracticable is unanimity, where persons are not bound together by that love which is founded in supreme authority; at all events, fear will not necessarily effect this. Accordingly, he dwells the more upon this, which is the strong tie. And the wife though seeming to be the loser in that she was charged to fear, is the gainer, because the principal duty, love, is charged upon the husband. But what, one may say, if a wife reverence me not? Never mind, you are to love, fulfill your own duty. For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ. And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.

 

[WarriorAngel]

“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace


“False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.” - Pope Pius XI


Well, we see Chrysostom relating to the differences between slave and wife. A wife is not to be treated as a slave as the husband and wife reciprocate towards each other. A godly woman who knows God's ordinances already knows she should be submissive to her husband because it is a law of God. If tactics like intimidation and fear are used then there is dysfunction on both ends. For the husband using callous means, and for the wife rebelling against authority. Thats why I always said that a woman should not marry if she has a hatred for authority.

My wife never trembles at me nor due I use fear tactics. I married a woman who already knew and followed the traditional roles between man and woman. If anything those antics are more common in the modern families where the wife and husband argue 24/7 because the wife is rebellious and refuses to deter to her husbands words and the husband is a deadbeat. But like the ending of what Chrysostom said, you do not upbraid her, or put her on some goddess pedestal, as that is contrary to Christ.

Clearly, the gospel call for the husband to be an authority figure, balancing complete submission to the will of his creator and perfect reverence for his spouse, is not an easy one, and one that comes with much responsibility and accountability. After years of having their authority usurped by feminism, this is a role many men will have difficulty at best in fulfilling.

Though you think i am feminist because i wear pants - and just as the Apostles did not wear pants, that argument is irrelevant.
I am far from feminist.
BUT i loathe a man demanding submission as though a slave to a husband - and not a person who is free of God.
It makes women loath being married because men - though i am not certain they realize they do this - are NOT loving their wives when they demand submission...because love does not insist on its own way.
Therefore, how is that love?
Insistence?
Well, it is known that we ought to submit, and we do so for the Lord... because it pleases him.
But for a man to wave a magic wand and suggest or judge all women as rebellous is uncharitable.

You are not seeming to get it Creed.
You are omitting the love a husband must do if - if he wants a submissive wife.
From your posts i am ascertaining a demand on the part of the man...

Which is where you lose the message to wives... it's harsh and unkind, not because we loath to submit, but by brutal demands, wives are seemingly looked as though possessions that cater to every whim. Nearly slavery.

Chrysostom says love is the more - because from that all things come.
IE - love, the true love of a husband will be so kind, so undemanding [AS St Paul said love does not insist on its own way] that a wife will melt like butter to her husband.
That's the natural course of things. Demanding submissiveness is not love. For Paul tells the wives to do this...NOT the husbands to lord it over them, nor demand it...for that is contrary to love. And it makes a woman resent her husband...and even to bring to her sin - thereby the husband has failed by causing the wife to sin and become bitter and rebellious...which you have said women are rebellious. Though St Chrysostom says not to worry if the wife does not submit, still love her. Love is kindness...it is patience.




Wherefore, says he, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. Yet how strange! For how then is it, that it is said elsewhere, If one bid not farewell both to wife and to husband, he cannot follow me? Luke 14:26 For if it is their duty to be in subjection as unto the Lord, how says He that they must depart from them for the Lord's sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounden duty. But the word as is not necessarily and universally expressive of exact equality. He either means this, 'as' knowing that you are servants to the Lord; (which, by the way, is what he says elsewhere, that, even though they do it not for the husband's sake, yet must they primarily for the Lord's sake;) or else he means,when you obey your husband, do so as serving the Lord. For if he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, withstands the ordinance of God Romans 13:2, much more does she who submits not herself to her husband. Such was God's will from the beginning.



If a man causes bitterness in the wife - then he is not protecting her, he is not laying down his life for her soul. He is pushing her towards rebellion.

What is love Creed?
Paul told us, so it is no mystery.
Patient, kind, doesnt rejoice in error, does not insist on it's own way...
BUT bolding and high lighting what you have high lighted shows a clear lording over.

NOW - if what Jesus said is correct, that the first shall be last and the last shall be first... and women are put last - if men insist they submit, then does this mean in all eternity, the submissive wive is first and her husband is last?

Look at Our Lady - she was lowly - a handmaiden. Yet so beloved by the Lord. He - though God - sought out her choice to do His will.
And though she did, and is blessed. She is also the Queen over all angels and Saints and she is - but a woman.

SO it is not far stretched to say that if a woman is made - forced - to submit - she may be eternally first if in life she was last.
This is another reason it is integral to not insist on things... but always treat others as though they are better than yourself and be humble.

Humble hearts are not prone to demands.
And before we go further, yes i have work in that department too.
Humility is not easy for anyone - but if our Lady is our role model, it is definitely something that can be done.

Night.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

when you redden quotes can you not break them? like you when bolded the wife as the "second authority". You kinda conveniently didn't bold the rest of what it said:

The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish


Notice where it says nor let her demand equality for she is under the head??

Kinda funny, since many of these egalitarian posts are 'demanding' "equality" in such a fashion totally contrary to Chrysostom words. kinda have to chuckle at that. Of course the posts later tried to say that it lessens the dignity of women which shows they do not have understanding of christian marriage

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical of Christian marriage, emphasizes that subjection does not detract from the honor and dignity rightly due the woman:

“The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays… Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”

Anyways, I think you should at least bold the whole sentence and not just part of it. Love is rooted in the conjugal roles, duties, and authorities between man and woman. No testing or demanding needed. It is already been set since the beginning.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Though you think i am feminist because i wear pants - and just as the Apostles did not wear pants, that argument is irrelevant.
I am far from feminist.
BUT i loathe a man demanding submission as though a slave to a husband - and not a person who is free of God.
It makes women loath being married because men - though i am not certain they realize they do this - are NOT loving their wives when they demand submission...because love does not insist on its own way.
Therefore, how is that love?
Insistence?
Well, it is known that we ought to submit, and we do so for the Lord... because it pleases him.
But for a man to wave a magic wand and suggest or judge all women as rebellous is uncharitable.

You are not seeming to get it Creed.
You are omitting the love a husband must do if - if he wants a submissive wife.
From your posts i am ascertaining a demand on the part of the man...

Which is where you lose the message to wives... it's harsh and unkind, not because we loath to submit, but by brutal demands, wives are seemingly looked as though possessions that cater to every whim. Nearly slavery.

Chrysostom says love is the more - because from that all things come.
IE - love, the true love of a husband will be so kind, so undemanding [AS St Paul said love does not insist on its own way] that a wife will melt like butter to her husband.
That's the natural course of things. Demanding submissiveness is not love. For Paul tells the wives to do this...NOT the husbands to lord it over them, nor demand it...for that is contrary to love. And it makes a woman resent her husband...and even to bring to her sin - thereby the husband has failed by causing the wife to sin and become bitter and rebellious...which you have said women are rebellious. Though St Chrysostom says not to worry if the wife does not submit, still love her. Love is kindness...it is patience.




Wherefore, says he, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. Yet how strange! For how then is it, that it is said elsewhere, If one bid not farewell both to wife and to husband, he cannot follow me? Luke 14:26 For if it is their duty to be in subjection as unto the Lord, how says He that they must depart from them for the Lord's sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounden duty. But the word as is not necessarily and universally expressive of exact equality. He either means this, 'as' knowing that you are servants to the Lord; (which, by the way, is what he says elsewhere, that, even though they do it not for the husband's sake, yet must they primarily for the Lord's sake;) or else he means,when you obey your husband, do so as serving the Lord. For if he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, withstands the ordinance of God Romans 13:2, much more does she who submits not herself to her husband. Such was God's will from the beginning.



If a man causes bitterness in the wife - then he is not protecting her, he is not laying down his life for her soul. He is pushing her towards rebellion.

What is love Creed?
Paul told us, so it is no mystery.
Patient, kind, doesnt rejoice in error, does not insist on it's own way...
BUT bolding and high lighting what you have high lighted shows a clear lording over.

NOW - if what Jesus said is correct, that the first shall be last and the last shall be first... and women are put last - if men insist they submit, then does this mean in all eternity, the submissive wive is first and her husband is last?

Look at Our Lady - she was lowly - a handmaiden. Yet so beloved by the Lord. He - though God - sought out her choice to do His will.
And though she did, and is blessed. She is also the Queen over all angels and Saints and she is - but a woman.

SO it is not far stretched to say that if a woman is made - forced - to submit - she may be eternally first if in life she was last.
This is another reason it is integral to not insist on things... but always treat others as though they are better than yourself and be humble.

Humble hearts are not prone to demands.
And before we go further, yes i have work in that department too.
Humility is not easy for anyone - but if our Lady is our role model, it is definitely something that can be done.

Night.

and here you go again trying to use semantics in the issues of love. Did the words of Saint Chrysostom have no effect? Maybe it seems you do not get it

The bible says the rebellious bitter woman is poison to a mans bones.

You act as if the submissiveness of the wife is earned by the husband. That is a horrid uncharitable mindset. that is like asking for a poor man that he must "earn" charitable donations by trying to impress parishioners?? A wife is submissive for the sake of pleasing God and charity that starts right at the beginning of marriage. This is convoyed back by the love of the husband and the protection and supporting of her, both emotionally and physically. As the epistle of Peter says the wives submissiveness wins over her husbands affection and belief even..

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives - 1 Peter 3:1

Scripture says love does not insist on its OWN way. Yet you and helen are insisting that marriage be a way contrary to the ordinances of GOd. The submissiveness of the wife in marriage is not someones own way. It is a way of God clearly shown to us in scripture.

Did I say anywhere where a man demands submission? No. God demands it. Straight from the beginning of Genesis 3:16. If the husband has to demand something like that then obviously he is not marrying the right woman because she does not understand the ordinances of God in marriage. Same with a wife who wants to be under the authority of her husband but is with a man who won't take leadership. Just as you cannot force a man to take leadership you cannot force a woman to be submissive. That is all relevant on finding the right person in marriage. Demanding a wife be submissive is the same as demanding someone to love you. What you are demanding is essentially a good thing. But due to the opposing party it is not possible, and like you said, against free-will. Just as you cannot make a donkey drink water, even though water in itself is a good thing. I never condoned the forcing of someone to submit. However I have no qualms saying that the egalitarian view of marriage is rooted in the hatred of authority and the ordinances of God and have contributed to the horrid failure rate of marriage in the west.

Conjugal love is ROOTED in the ordinances of God regarding marriage. A woman who is not submisisve to her husband is not showing the love and to her husband that is due by God's ordinance. Love proceeds from God. hence God's ordinances are rooted in love. If a woman is not submissive to her husband she rebels and breaks the ordinance of God and does not understand the issues of conjugal love.

 

[Davidnic]

Creed, since you insist on bringing this thread back, please answer:

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.

Let me comment on Akin's 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.

Please state what you think Dogma is. Everything said by an ECF or Pope is not Dogma. Dogmas are defined and have grades in Church teaching. What in this discussion are Dogmas in your opinion and what grade (from De fide to Bene Funda) since the gradation of Dogmas has great bearing on many things.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Creed, you never said anything about those 'egalitarian' marriages that are very successful and produce Godly children. I am a product of such a marriage. My parents are not divorced. My father was my mother's only boyfriend. They've made it through severe hardships, with distance and long absences due to work, sometimes intense financial crises (near-bankruptcy), and over 30 years of marriage. I sincerely do not understand how my parents' relationship is an abomination because they work together instead of the marriage model you advocate. They raised three decent children. I loved my faith so much that I went to university to get a BA in theology. Then I decided I still loved the faith so much that I'm applying for a master's in theology. And I've never been rebellious at all. I'm a modest dresser, though I know you think I am not because I wear pants (though NOT skin-tight, low-rise ones). I didn't have a boyfriend until I was 22. That boyfriend dumped me because I refused to compromise my chastity (he misrepresented himself as someone who accepted and encouraged chastity).

Where is the evil in that? By all accounts, my parents' marriage is successful. They still love each other after all that has happened and wouldn't trade each other for the world. Surely if God hated such a marriage, He would punish us? And yet I have been so wonderfully blessed by my mother who is an incredible example of humility and self-giving...

 

[Davidnic]

Creed, your view of JPII's words on this?

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.
​

And

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?​

 

[Davidnic]

Creed, also your thoughts on these quotes from the letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and In the World by then Cardinal Ratzinger. He highlights how different but equal roles are viewed in Church teaching:

In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear.19 It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”,20 since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings.

They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence.
​

It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems. In this regard, it cannot be forgotten that the interrelationship between these two activities – family and work – has, for women, characteristics different from those in the case of men.

The harmonization of the organization of work and laws governing work with the demands stemming from the mission of women within the family is a challenge. The question is not only legal, economic and organizational; it is above all a question of mentality, culture, and respect. Indeed, a just valuing of the work of women within the family is required. In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one's own equilibrium and the harmony of the family.
​

That one sounds a lot like prudential judgment made in light of the skills and abilities of both the husband and wife to me rather than dogma.

He continues (bolding mine to emphasize a factor that is a consideration in a prudential judgment as opposed to an absolute division:

It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible.

It is only because women are more immediately attuned to these values that they are the reminder and the privileged sign of such values. But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. In this perspective, that which is called “femininity” is more than simply an attribute of the female sex. The word designates indeed the fundamental human capacity to live for the other and because of the other.

Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.
​

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Creed, your view of JPII's words on this?

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.
​

And

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?​

I never said subjection was one sided. Again as usual you are putting words in my mouth

Secondly all dogma should be read in light of the Church, that includes scripture. This includes the ECF, saints, doctors, popes, encyclicals like the one in my sig(which you haven't tackled either) etc. So the "ECF are not dogma" does not qualify. Dogma is never viewed in such a light cut and paste fashion. Especially when a number of those ECF are present during the promulgation of those dogmas.

Allthough, unlike you, I'm not gonna pit one Pope against another. And the earlier quotes which you seem so scared of must be read in light of every other popes saying. ANd if you truly wanna do strictly dogmatic with nothing else the Church has to offer, you basically have only the IC and Assumption of Mary. This is not true because the charism of infallibly has been involved many times in the Church in many councils that included the ponderings of the ECF and popes. Like the Canon of the Bible, the Creed, the Trinity. In fact people using your same arguments are using the exact same rigid examples on dogma to say "Ordinatio sacerdotalis" is not a dogma. This provides a great dead end for you..

However, I'm not gonna play this game with you davidc. Answer the quotes of the ECF and the earlier Popes..I already answered JPII letter. You have around 50-60 saint quotings, including the Summa Theologica, and 2 Popes to tackle already, 2 encyclicals, less alone the bible itself.. I find it quite interesting that none of the egalitarian supporters have even tackled one of them and I think it proves a very large point..

 

[Davidnic]

I never said subjection was one sided. Again as usual you are putting words in my mouth

I did not say you did or did not say subjection is one sided. I asked you to answer the quotes and to explain how you understand Dogma in light of the actual definition of it in domgatic theology. My view is that you are taking your view of an aspect of Moral Theology with aspects of prudential judgment and viewing it as Dogma. To refute that cite the Dogma that affirms your view on it in the dogmatic formulation that does so. Either that or stop referring to your own interpretation and prudential judgment as Dogma.

Secondly all dogma should be read in light of the Church, that includes scripture. This includes the ECF, saints, doctors, popes, etc. So the "ECF are not dogma" does not qualify. Dogma is never viewed in such a light cut and paste fashion. Especially when a number of those ECF are present during the promulgation of those dogmas.

Depends if it is Dogma or not. You are still having a problem with what is dogma and what is not. All ECF quotes are not Dogma, they can only back up and reinforce what is already true. So they need a dogmatic definition to reinforce...so again:

Which parts of the discussion are dogma? Provide grade and source with dogmatic notation if you insist your view is Dogma.

And example if you say:

Dogmatic Formulation: The Hypostatic Union of Christ's Human nature and Divine Logos took place at His conception.

Grade: De Fide

Source: Ott p. 150

Footnotes and Sources for Ott:
Denzinger (D 204)
Rom 1:3
Gal 4:4
Augustine De Trin. XIII 17,22
Cyril of Alexandria Ep. 39
​

You can even get jazzy with it and say...the teaching that life begins at conception, although not formal in dogmatic presentation is sententia ad fidem pertinens to this dogma and although not official in promulgation as such is guaranteed in truth by intrinsic connection with revealed truth expressed in this dogma and as maintained by the constant teaching of the Church through Her Magisterium.
​

Allthough, unlike you, I'm not gonna pit one Pope against another. And the earlier quotes which you seem so scared of must be read in light of every other popes saying.

Not pitting one pope against another. That can not logically be done, they can not contradict on matters of dogma so if it seems they do they it is in our understanding or the topic is not dogma. Popes speaking with authority within the Magisterium and not as private theologians can not contradict each other on such matters unless they are examining aspects of prudential judgment rather than dogma...then a wide range of guidance possible.

However, I'm not gonna play this game with you davidc. Answer the quotes of the ECF and the earlier Popes..I already answered JPII letter. You have around 50-60 saint quotings, including the Summa Theologica, and 2 Popes to tackle already, less alone the bible itself.. I find it quite interesting that none of the egalitarian supporters have even tackled one of them and I think it proves a very large point..

Not a game, it is a discussion. What quotes do you want addressed? And again. Give me what you say is dogma in the dogmatic formulation of the Church. If it is a Dogma it is easy to find in this day and age. All it takes is the understanding of what Dogma is.

So bottom line:

Either prove your points that they are dogma or sententia ad fidem pertinens to a formulated Dogma or admit that they are matters of prudential judgment and all we are doing is having a debate on how best to live an aspect of Christian life and no one is more or less Catholic as long as they have valid Church guidance in how they do it and are executing their prudential judgment in line with the Church. And She gives guidance on it broadly.

I am not arguing for Egalitarianism in a manner opposed to Church teaching Creed, rather for the view of Human Dignity and how that is lived in harmony with the totality of Church teaching as expressed by the Magisterium.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

1. Men and women are equal in God's eyes. They have equal dignity, and Christ died for both genders equally.

As usual authority has nothing to do with the lessening of dignity. Shall we protest our presidents and CEOS because they have greater authority?

2. Husbands and wives have an equal right to the goods of marriage and equal responsibility toward making the marriage work.

yes the responsibility is dependent on the union between man and woman and the reciprocating of the spouses.

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.

Obviously there are differences in genders. The forced "equality" with woman and man as the same is a perversion of natural law.

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.

this is dependent on intellect and upraising however. Throughout history general men have had greater capacity regarding labor and things like construction and building. Whereas women have greater aptitude towards nurturing, cooking, cleaning, and maintaining.

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.

I fully agree. Which is why naturally a woman complimenting a mans leadership and aggressiveness would be the exact opposite of that.

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).

I agree

8. In a few cases, the differences in roles is absolute: Only women can give birth; only men can be priests.

Yes. Other absolute roles is the headship of the husband in marriage. As the wives headship towards her children as shown in natural law.

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.

No, not always. Although because excel best at the roles they are designed for. There is no absolute division saying that a woman cannot be a labor construction worker, or in the Army. But the ending of this quote shows us that whoever is suited to the task is the best.

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.)

I really don't understand how this list help your position. Since this above quote is what I have be saying all along. I noticed later you did some "clean up" posting after you wrote this list though. I wonder why you did that

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.

of course, but this is an exception to a problem, which the tone of the quote clearly shows. If a man does not take lead, or has health problems, obviously the wife will have the take on the extra responsibilities. This is trying to cater to dysfunctional of ill health and in no way should be a guideline for healthy men and women.

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.

notice how it says ATYPICAL cases? the quote admits that these situations are atypical and not natural and in which the husband or wife must be changes due to dysfunction.

 

[Davidnic]

Are these the ones you want addressed:

I believe St. John Chrysostom said that women should always be humble/shamefaced in remberence for the sin of Eve. It was in his homily on the veiling of women I remember I believe. I don't think that is a bad thing since it teaches humility..

I think I will answer everyone with the wisdom of St. Augustine, and a large number of other Fathers..

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” - St. Augustine


St. John Chrysostom remarks:

“Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” And why so? Because when they are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion. And just as when the generals of an army are at peace one with another, all things are in due subordination, whereas on the other hand, if they are at variance, everything is turned upside down; so, I say, is it also here. Wherefore, saith he, “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”


If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9.) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16.) This had not been said to her before.

But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her hus436band”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14.); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation


Our text says, 'She gave it to her husband also, and they both ate it. Their eyes were opened.' Great was the man's indifference, too: even though like him she was human and his wife as well, still he should have kept God's law intact and given it preference before her improper greed, and not joined her as a partner in her fall nor deprived himself of such benefits on account of a brief pleasure, offending his benefactor who had also shown him so much loving kindness and had regaled him with a life so free of pain and relieved of all distress." - St John Chrysostom


“Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned.” Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII (c. A.D. 200).

“Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.” Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII) (c. A.D. 200).

“The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord.’ ” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8, (c. A.D. 200).


“First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14].” Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16 (c. A.D. 220).

“As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” Ambrosiaster, CSEL 81.3:117-118 (c. A.D. 380).

“And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.’ And again, ‘For man is not from the woman, but woman from man.’” Epiphanius, Panarion, 49, 3 (c. A.D. 380).

“Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260.

“For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does - she has man over her.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary, 15:261.

“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.” Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).

“Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304 (A.D. 404).

“Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304 (A.D. 404).

‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet" John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142 (A.D. 404).

“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, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22 (A.D. 404).


“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144 (A.D. 404).


“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty...” Augustine, Letters, CCXXXII (A.D. 410).

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267 (A.D. 419-420).


Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Pope Pius XI predicted this course of events in his encyclical, Casti Connubbi, in the year 1930:

“False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Christian Marriage, emphasizes that subjection does not detract from the honor and dignity rightly due the woman:

“The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays… Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”

Pope John Paul II continues this theme in Familiaris Consortio:


“Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: You are not her master…but her husband; she was not given you to be your slave, but your wife…Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love.”


“The woman who submits to her husband will share a oneness with him, a communion she never dreamed of, an emotional peace and security positively unattainable when she struggles with him for power in the home.”

Perhaps you can find solace in the words of Pope Pius XI: “For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence


Genesis 3:16(your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you).. If you deny such a basic biblical concept, with St. Paul giving very defivinive reasons for this, then you simply either do not believe the bible or any of the fathers. You may as well twist semantically other things in the bible you "dislike" too. The fact that WarriorAngel would completely discredit the Jewish law in order to make her egalitarian point seem justified , really made my jaw drop. You used the Gentiles to justify it? Who gave up children to molech? yea the horrid backwards jews..

I'm gonna leave a wording from St. Thomas Aquinas, since his words speak from authority regarding this.

“For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8.

“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4.

“The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2.

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.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I did not say you did or did not say subjection is one sided. I asked you to answer the quotes and to explain how you understand Dogma in light of the actual definition of it in domgatic theology. My view is that you are taking your view of an aspect of Moral Theology with aspects of prudential judgment and viewing it as Dogma. To refute that cite the Dogma that affirms your view on it in the dogmatic formulation that does so. Either that or stop referring to your own interpretation and prudential judgment as Dogma.



Depends if it is Dogma or not. You are still having a problem with what is dogma and what is not. All ECF quotes are not Dogma, they can only back up and reinforce what is already true. So they need a dogmatic definition to reinforce...so again:

Which parts of the discussion are dogma? Provide grade and source with dogmatic notation if you insist your view is Dogma.

And example if you say:

Dogmatic Formulation: The Hypostatic Union of Christ's Human nature and Divine Logos took place at His conception.

Grade: De Fide

Source: Ott p. 150

Footnotes and Sources for Ott:
Denzinger (D 204)
Rom 1:3
Gal 4:4
Augustine De Trin. XIII 17,22
Cyril of Alexandria Ep. 39
​

You can even get jazzy with it and say...the teaching that life begins at conception, although not formal in dogmatic presentation is sententia ad fidem pertinens to this dogma and although not official in promulgation as such is guaranteed in truth by intrinsic connection with revealed truth expressed in this dogma and as maintained by the constant teaching of the Church through Her Magisterium.
​

Not pitting one pope against another. That can not logically be done, they can not contradict on matters of dogma so if it seems they do they it is in our understanding or the topic is not dogma. Popes speaking with authority within the Magisterium and not as private theologians can not contradict each other on such matters unless they are examining aspects of prudential judgment rather than dogma...then a wide range of guidance possible.



Not a game, it is a discussion. What quotes do you want addressed? And again. Give me what you say is dogma in the dogmatic formulation of the Church. If it is a Dogma it is easy to find in this day and age. All it takes is the understanding of what Dogma is.

So bottom line:

Either prove your points that they are dogma or sententia ad fidem pertinens to a formulated Dogma or admit that they are matters of prudential judgment and all we are doing is having a debate on how best to live an aspect of Christian life and no one is more or less Catholic as long as they have valid Church guidance in how they do it and are executing their prudential judgment in line with the Church. And She gives guidance on it broadly.

I am not arguing for Egalitarianism in a manner opposed to Church teaching Creed, rather for the view of Human Dignity and how that is lived in harmony with the totality of Church teaching as expressed by the Magisterium.

Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God essentially through the magistarium. The dogma I bring up is esentually the dogma of God's natural law.

Not all truths are dogmata. The bible contains many sacred truths, which the faithful recognize and agree with, but which the Church has not defined as dogma. Most Church teachings are not dogma

I am using immediate divine revelation from scripture and tradition. And if you wanna throw that away down the drain because it is not dogma, or that dogma trumps tradition then that shows you don't understand Church teaching.

Like what Helen stated, that dogma devlopes over history. At the turn of the 20th century, a group of theologians called modernist, stated that dogmata are historical manifestations at a given time. Pope Pius X condemned this teaching as heresy

the teaching that life begins at conception, although not formal in dogmatic presentation is sententia ad fidem pertinens to this dogma and although not official in promulgation as such is guaranteed in truth by intrinsic connection with revealed truth expressed in this dogma and as maintained by the constant teaching of the Church through Her Magisterium.

what do you think I have been trying to say all along?? The encyclical Christian Marriage as stated by Pope Pius XI, for example, which clearly talks about gender roles has an intrinsic connection with God's natural law and scripture.


as far as the quotes. These ones:

“Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned.” Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII (c. A.D. 200).


“Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.” Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII) (c. A.D. 200).


“The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord.’” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8, (c. A.D. 200).


“First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14].” Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16 (c. A.D. 220).


“As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” Ambrosiaster, CSEL 81.3:117-118 (c. A.D. 380).


“And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.’ And again, ‘For man is not from the woman, but woman from man.’” Epiphanius, Panarion, 49, 3 (c. A.D. 380).


“Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260.


“For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does - she has man over her.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary, 15:261.


“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.” Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).


“Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304 (A.D. 404).


“Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304 (A.D. 404).


‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet" John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142 (A.D. 404).


“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, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22 (A.D. 404).


“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144 (A.D. 404).


“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty...” Augustine, Letters, CCXXXII (A.D. 410).


“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10 (A.D. 419-420).

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267 (A.D. 419-420).


“Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” Theodoret, Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A (A.D. 435).


“Man has the first place because of the order of creation.” Theodoret, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 234 (A.D. 435).

“For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8.


“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4.


“The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2.

 

[Davidnic]

Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God essentially through the magistarium. The dogma I bring up is esentually the dogma of God's natural law.

Not all truths are dogmata. The bible contains many sacred truths, which the faithful recognize and agree with, but which the Church has not defined as dogma. Most Church teachings are not dogma

Actually most teachings have a connection to Dogma that gives them weight.

I am using immediate divine revelation from scripture and tradition. And if you wanna throw that away down the drain because it is not dogma, or that dogma trumps tradition then that shows you don't understand Church teaching.

Not throwing it down the drain, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of it. I'll ignore the insult at the end there.

Like what Helen stated, that dogma devlopes over history. At the turn of the 20th century, a group of theologians called modernist, stated that dogmata are historical manifestations at a given time. Pope Pius X condemned this teaching as heresy

She was not talking about it in the sense of what Pius X condemned.

Helen was not saying it in the heretical fashion but in full agreement with how the Church see it. To quote Ott:

1. b) As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:
   1. 1) Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 : quantum ad explicationem crevt numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)
      2) Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.
      3) To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
      4) Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

The exposition of the dogmas in the given sense is prepared by theological science and promulgated by the Teaching Authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Ghost (John 14, 26). These new expositions of dogmatic truth are motivated, on the one hand, by the natural striving of man for deeper understanding of Revealed Truth, and on the other hand by external influences, such as the attacks arising from heresy and unbelief, theological controversies, advances in philosophical knowledge and historical research, development of the liturgy, and the general assertion of Faith expressed therein.

Even the Fathers stress the necessity of deeper research into the truths of Revelation, of clearing up obscurities, and of developing the teachings of Revelation. Cf. the classical testimony of St. Vincent Lerin († before 450). "But perhaps someone says: Will there then be no progress in the religion of Christ? Certainly there should be, even a great and rich progress . . . only, it must in truth be a progress in Faith and not an alteration of Faith. For progress it is necessary that something should increase of itself, for alteration, however, that something should change from one thing to the other." (Commonitorium 23.) Cf. D 1800.

1. 1. 5) There may be also a progress in the confession of faith of the individual believer through the extension and deepening of his theological knowledge. The basis for the possibility of this progress lies in the depth of the truths of Faith on the one hand, and on the other in the varying capacity for perfection of the human reason.

Conditions making for a true progress in the knowledge of Faith by individual persons are, according to the declaration of the Vatican Council, zeal, reverence and moderation: cum sedule, pie et sobrie quaerit. 1) 1796.



​

what do you think I have been trying to say all along?? The encyclical Christian Marriage as stated by Pope Pius XI, for example, which clearly talks about gender roles has an intrinsic connection with God's natural law and scripture.

and I do not disagree with that I disagree with you mandating an expression of it that goes against the Magisterium of the Church as She talks about how to live that in today's realities in union with eternal truth.

as far as the quotes. These ones:

“Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned.” Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII (c. A.D. 200).


“Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.” Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII) (c. A.D. 200).


“The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord.’” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8, (c. A.D. 200).


“First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14].” Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16 (c. A.D. 220).


“As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” Ambrosiaster, CSEL 81.3:117-118 (c. A.D. 380).


“And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.’ And again, ‘For man is not from the woman, but woman from man.’” Epiphanius, Panarion, 49, 3 (c. A.D. 380).


“Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260.


“For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does - she has man over her.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary, 15:261.


“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.” Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).


“Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304 (A.D. 404).


“Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304 (A.D. 404).


‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet" John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142 (A.D. 404).


“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, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22 (A.D. 404).


“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144 (A.D. 404).


“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty...” Augustine, Letters, CCXXXII (A.D. 410).


“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10 (A.D. 419-420).

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267 (A.D. 419-420).


“Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” Theodoret, Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A (A.D. 435).


“Man has the first place because of the order of creation.” Theodoret, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 234 (A.D. 435).

“For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8.


“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4.


“The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2.

Ok, so to cut through all of what has passed in this thread. I have an honest and well intended friendly proposal for you.

This site has, from time to time, has a debate area. Although never in OBOB. But the ability exists.

I think this subject would be better addressed if, as brothers in Christ you and I had a formal debate on it.

We could have a mod change a thread to moderated thread. That means no posts can be made in it that are not approved. So only you and I can post in it. We each get an opening post and three rebuttals and each a closing statement.

No one posts in it but us, you and I as brothers set the rules and tone.

your view (feel free to correct me): The Dogma of Natural Law limits proper expression of the headship of men over women to the expression I will describe.

My view: Since the expression of headship is a matter of prudential judgment there can be many expressions, including ones that go beyond the opposing description as long as they remain faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium; which I will illustrate they do.

This way we could examine the full realm of the discussion in depth. In such cases there is also a comment thread running that all may contribute to.

We can tweek the formal statement of our positions in any way you want as long as they reflect succinctly our basic point...work together on it and set a date to start and rules.

Or we can continue here and let people weed through hundreds of posts, many lacking charity. In my opinion Creed this whole thing needs to be started on a better foot with some respect and charity between us so we can have a discussion as brothers speaking in logic and charity to each other in pursuit of truth and not as adversaries sniping at each other. We can chose to be an example of the best in each of us rather than let what has passed determine our actions toward each other in this discussion. My thought is it is best served in some structured manner.