The role of women as wives and mothers

[CreedIsChrist]

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



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



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.



​

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.





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.

Ok, I agree to that, and much prefer it actually since my posts get too much ad-hominem replies or misinterpretations.

My view : The conjugal headship of husband and how scripture, tradition, ECF, saints, councils, summa theologica, and most of Church history support the position of hegemony in marriage and how its ingrained in the dogma of the Church, oral tradition, and Gods natural law. And that the egalitarian view is contrary to God's natural law in his ordinances regarding marriage and the fall ..

 

[Davidnic]

Ok, I agree to that, and much prefer it actually since my posts get too much ad-hominem replies or misinterpretations.

My view : The conjugal headship of husband and how scripture, tradition, ECF, saints, councils, summa theologica, and most of Church history support the position of hegemony in marriage and how its ingrained in the dogma of the Church, oral tradition, and Gods natural law. And that the egalitarian view is contrary to God's natural law in his ordinances regarding marriage and the fall ..

Ok. We can work together on a format and such. Like I said, unless the abilities of the system have changed a mod can set up a thread that only you and I can post in by making it moderated so a mod needs to approve the post. They can sticky the thread.

We can set a time frame in PMs and such and see if the mods will help.

I would prefer not to engage in it over Christmas because it is not a time for disagreement between us so either we can get it done soon if we can or start Jan10th. I prefer the latter, but we can work that all out.

My counterpoint would be that:

An egalitarian marriage (defined as one where partners are equal) can be done within the parameters of Church teaching as opposed to a way that promotes modernism and the guidance of the Church shows us how. The Truths of Human Dignity and the Common Good of Families are the central points of such a marriage.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There are debate threads for two memebrs still. Check with Members Service Center if you go that route.

 

[Davidnic]

There are debate threads for two memebrs still. Check with Members Service Center if you go that route.

Would it be in OBOB though, I don't really care to have it anywhere but here. I can go ask in member services.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Would it be in OBOB though, I don't really care to have it anywhere but here. I can go ask in member services.

Yes, ask them. I do not know with certainty.

If not, you could try a thread in OBOB so long as it is not a "call out" thread. But run that by MSC if they say we have nothing for OBOB specifically.

 

[Davidnic]

Yes, ask them. I do not know with certainty.

If not, you could try a thread in OBOB so long as it is not a "call out" thread. But run that by MSC if they say we have nothing for OBOB specifically.

I posted this in member services. I hope we can, it would be edifying and civil:

I have a question. Would it be possible to have a debate thread between two members in OBOB. A moderated thread where the format is agreed upon and only the two members can post.

An opening post each

Three rebuttals each in exchange

A closing Post each

Sticky the thread while it goes on and have a comment thread for members. There is a debate about headship that is just coming back all the time, relevant points lost.

If two members ask the mods for the above and set a timetable and work with staff, can it happen?
​

 

[isabella1]

Oh my gosh. LOL Way to funny!!!

 

[isabella1]

Ok, there are pages and pages I this thread, but I am not going to red them all, instead I will just add my two pennies.

In Mt 5:17 (Jesus comes to fulfill the law and the Prophets.)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

So then we can turn to Sirach 25 & 26 to see what was first written as a guide for women to conduct her behavior by within the marriage and family. And also we look at Ephesians in the continuation (fulfillment). Ephesians 5: 21-33. I am sure there are many more teachings, but this is what the Holy Spirit lead me to read.

In particular the scriptures I was called to read were Sirach 25: 22-23.
There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband. A dejected mind, a gloomy face, and a wounded heart are caused by an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees are caused by the wife who dies not make her husband happy.

Sirach 26: 1-4
Happy is the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled. A loyal wife rejoices her husband, and he will complete his years in peace. A good wife is a great blessing; she will be granted among the blessings of the man who fears the Lord. Whether rich or poor, his heart is glad, and at all times his face is cheerful.

13-27
A wife’s charm delights her husband, and her skill puts fat on his bones. A sensible and silent wife is a gift of the Lord, and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul. Like the sun raising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well ordered home. Like the shinning lamp on the holy lamp stand, so is a beautiful face on a stately figure. Like pillars of gold on a base of silver, so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart.

Ephesians 5; 21-33
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Ok, there are pages and pages I this thread, but I am not going to red them all, instead I will just add my two pennies.

In Mt 5:17 (Jesus comes to fulfill the law and the Prophets.)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

So then we can turn to Sirach 25 & 26 to see what was first written as a guide for women to conduct her behavior by within the marriage and family. And also we look at Ephesians in the continuation (fulfillment). Ephesians 5: 21-33. I am sure there are many more teachings, but this is what the Holy Spirit lead me to read.

In particular the scriptures I was called to read were Sirach 25: 22-23.
There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband. A dejected mind, a gloomy face, and a wounded heart are caused by an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees are caused by the wife who dies not make her husband happy.

Sirach 26: 1-4
Happy is the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled. A loyal wife rejoices her husband, and he will complete his years in peace. A good wife is a great blessing; she will be granted among the blessings of the man who fears the Lord. Whether rich or poor, his heart is glad, and at all times his face is cheerful.

13-27
A wife’s charm delights her husband, and her skill puts fat on his bones. A sensible and silent wife is a gift of the Lord, and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul. Like the sun raising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well ordered home. Like the shinning lamp on the holy lamp stand, so is a beautiful face on a stately figure. Like pillars of gold on a base of silver, so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart.

Ephesians 5; 21-33
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

wonderful post isabella!



I just wanna make note however to david. When we talk about 'equality' we mean it only in the context of authority, not actual dignity or worth..I think we both can agree that the word equality has been used and abused by many opponents of the faith in a way that detracts from actual context of the wording, especially with regards to things like Holy Orders.

I also ask that we both can use theological documents(within the bounds of the Church) and scriptural documents as support behind our explanations. For instance, our argument, and then a quote from scripture, ECF, pope, saint, doctor, synod, or a council document that supports or strengthens that position. It helps add weight to ones objections. Otherwise it just becomes a swashbuckling of who thinks they are more right than the other.

 

[Davidnic]

Staff has answered by question Creed. OBOB is not set up for moderated posts but we can have it in the formal debate section of the Theology area and have a comment thread with a link to it here.

That is fine by me. My concern about having it there was that a comment thread in that area would have snark directed at our Popes and I would feel obliged to leave the debate to defend them. And this is a Catholic perspective on the issue and should not have that happening.

But having a link to it from OBOB and having the comment thread in OBOB would be fine by me.

If that is fine by you then we can work out the details on form, time and the rest. The formal debate rules for the forum mention the following considerations for you and I to work out (my thoughts on those in the following post):

1) The topic and title of the debate.

2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.​

 

[Davidnic]

My thoughts:

The topic and title of the debate

Does not matter much to me as long as it reflects our points
​

The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

Creed and I and we have generally stated positions. We can refine them as we develop a common language​

The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

Three seems fine to me. An opening statement each, three posts alternating rebutting and addressing the issue in depth and then a closing statement each. Whoever has the first opening statement the other gets the last closing.​

Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

I favor alternating, it is more orderly.
​

Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

I say three days. This covers weekends and gives some time to formulate and allows some leeway for real life issues.​

The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

My thought is as much as one post can hold, if memory serves that is 10,000 characters. But basically, if it fits in one post it is fine. This issue is extensive.​

Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

Quotes allowed as copyright allows. Links to the remainder of quotes or whole document citations. Scripture, Council and any official Church document allowed, as well as documents and writings by theologians loyal to the Church who retain their authority to teach in or are taught in Catholic Seminaries. I think that gives us a wide range of sources and we will then not have to question their fidelity​

And, finally, the start date of the debate.

I favor Jan 10th. It is when our Christmas celebrations are over and my traveling will be done.​

 

[Davidnic]

I just wanna make note however to david. When we talk about 'equality' we mean it only in the context of authority, not actual dignity or worth..I think we both can agree that the word equality has been used and abused by many opponents of the faith in a way that detracts from actual context of the wording, especially with regards to things like Holy Orders.

I also ask that we both can use theological documents(within the bounds of the Church) and scriptural documents as support behind our explanations. For instance, our argument, and then a quote from scripture, ECF, pope, saint, doctor, synod, or a council document that supports or strengthens that position. It helps add weight to ones objections. Otherwise it just becomes a swashbuckling of who thinks they are more right than the other.

Of course we agree on the equal dignity of spouses as created in the Image of God. I do not argue for the feminist view but rather than the donation of spouses to each other allows for an equality of task oriented toward the common good that allows women to work outside the home, teach and do other things culturally that Early Chruch Fathers would have disapproved of due to headship. And not as an exception but as part of their creation as people. I have said in the thread that we are equal but different and equal does not mean the same.

I think our dispute comes over the expression of authority and how far is in line with the Church and the nature of Marriage. Essentially I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would argue that all forms and hints of an egalitarian marriage are opposed to the nature of Marriage and my argument is that the nature of Marriage itself can allow for some of that expression in a Catholic context and I will illustrate how the Church agrees.

Is that a fair summation of our views. To note I do not talk about the from of egalitarianism that calls for women priests and makes men and women the same with no natural gifts or differences. We are different by our gender and oriented with special gifts. I think where we differ is the magnitude and nature of personal gifts and how they can and should be exercised in light of headship.

 

[Davidnic]

I think we need to narrow down where we exactly disagree.