You've met every single one of them I presume?Feminists simply will not delve deeply into dogma and scripture. Their theological knowledge is horrible because they are not looking for the truth, just an argument to make.
CreedIsChrist said:Or eglatarians who say the Nicene creed is "underdeveloped", have no understanding of dogma, and has no concept of the communion of saints?..lol
OK Creed. I'm guessing that since you are always talking about Armenia that you speak English as a second language, and you may be having difficulty with my use of the term "undeveloped." Trust me when I say, I don't mean what you think I mean when I say it. Let's move on.
1. I am a cradle Catholic. I didn't need RCIA.
2. I understand plenty. I understand the majesty and grandeur of the faith. I appreciate Scripture, Tradition and Reason. I know that Truth doesn't change. I also know that the Church has developed Her understanding of many things over the past 2000 years.
3. What I think that you fail to understand is that we are no longer living in 312 - or 1949 for that matter. Church teaching on the role and dignity of women has developed since Aquinas.
4. Therefore, if we are comparing documents from 1700 years ago to documents from 15 years ago on a teaching which has developed, it stands to reason that the most recent documents are the ones which reflect *current* Church teachings, and to which we should give greater credence.
Please give me details of any DOGMA related to women and their place (excluding Our Blessed Mother).
Exactly where have I suggested anything I was arguing was dogma and that it had changed?
I'm taking a line from Inigo Montoya. "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Will it truly make you happy Creed? Will you get to call me a heretic and an uppity woman if I go through them all and disagree?
I cut my teeth on CF in GT. You've got nothing on them.
You've met every single one of them I presume?
And HoB wrote "undeveloped", not "underdeveloped". That must be your male bias, to sneak the German masculine article in.
FWIW - as i was ignored previously - is that Paul never made the Gentiles adhere to the standards of the Jews.You skimmed through an ENORMOUS amount of writings from the ECF and Popes. I address what PJII said, why don't you address what they have said now. Instead of just writing them off..
And oh really? was St. Paul's words on women "undeveloped" too?? Maybe in reality, considering the horrid failure of marriage in the US with its 50% divorce rate, maybe the egalitarian one is the undeveloped one?
As I told you before authority has nothing to do with dignity. The headship of the husband is a BASIC biblical concept.
taking one quote out context is called quote mining. Or trying to take Saint Gianna Molla out of context
Not to mention you are trying to pit one pope against a few 20-30 ECFS and 2-3 other Popes.
I'll myself will take what everyone says in context. Not take one quote out of context.
I for one dont mind the headship in the man - if the marriage is evenly yoked and the man is God fearing Catholic. WHO will treat his wife with equal measures and not insist on his own way...
The authority comes from the wife giving it to him - as it pleases God.
Its not demanded.
By your suggestion then - that every Catholic woman married to a non Catholic - should give up faith and not raise the children Catholic?No the authority is given by God to man after the fall in the garden. Eve clearly being the helpmeet of Adam. A helpmeet cannot give authority to the headship.
I recall Paul saying to do this because it is pleasing to God and he gave them the reason why...And it is demanded. It is demanded by God. Right from the beginning of Genesis 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. A women who usurps a mans authority is perverting her household and defying the words of God. This is one of the main reasons why the divorce rate is so high in the western world. Since this simply natural rule cannot be followed, perversion of the family surfaces, which in turn causes the problems we have today..
But you dont see the problem with ignoring the context and the rest of scriptures?If the wife has a problem with it, she has a problem with God's law and natural law.
Ok, you want to go back to Eve... as the fathers have done - and yes women should willingly submit to please God - [wheres the men submitting argument?]The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will.
"The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.
The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease , and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation,that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.
What exactly does that mean? St. Gianna Molla was a doctor. She worked outside the home, doing a "man's" job. How is that out of context?. Or trying to take Saint Gianna Molla out of context
.
By your suggestion then - that every Catholic woman married to a non Catholic - should give up faith and not raise the children Catholic?
Yet Paul said 'Do not put away the unbeliever..'
Now what Creed?
I recall Paul saying to do this because it is pleasing to God and he gave them the reason why...
BUT - Paul turned to the men and said love your wives.
NOW either Paul was double speaking when he defined what love is and said love does NOT insist on its own way - or he what he meant was that a wife give headship to the husband who if he loves his wife cannot be demanding of his authority - or the scriptures dont make sense.
In order for the authority to be present the wives are asked - not the husbands to make them submissive mind you - but the wives personally are asked to submit to their husbands because it is pleasing to God.
But you dont see the problem with ignoring the context and the rest of scriptures?
And as i said - Paul was speaking to those who were in the Church already - he wasnt speaking to the heretics to make their wives submit to their own brand of faith..
Was he?
And he certainly said not to leave the unbeliever.
How about Ephesians...??
You havent addressed submission of the husband as of yet.
Ok, you want to go back to Eve... as the fathers have done - and yes women should willingly submit to please God - [wheres the men submitting argument?]
Lets face it - if love does not insist on its own way - then we know GOD desires women to willingly do this - as He is the greatest LOVE of all.
SO far Creed - you are NOT getting the whole free will thing, and the fact love doesnt insist on its way and so far you are being very insistent.
ALL that Paul said - was being said to who - Creed?
To the wives...
Show me where Paul told the husbands to demand the wives be submissive.
I will wait.
Nothing like sweeping generalisations to advance a discussion.I'm sorry but Thomas Aquinas and Augustine had more theological knowledge of the Church and dogma than probably all the feminists combined in earth today. Feminists simply will not delve deeply into dogma and scripture. Their theological knowledge is horrible because they are not looking for the truth, just an argument to make. I mean look at people like Joan Chrittiser.
Then my apologies to Assisi.
No the authority is given by God to man after the fall in the garden. Eve clearly being the helpmeet of Adam. A helpmeet cannot give authority to the headship
And it is demanded. It is demanded by God. Right from the beginning of Genesis 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. A women who usurps a mans authority is perverting her household and defying the words of God. This is one of the main reasons why the divorce rate is so high in the western world. Since this simply natural rule cannot be followed, perversion of the family surfaces, which in turn causes the problems we have today..
If the wife has a problem with it, she has a problem with God's law and natural law.
The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will.
And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation.
It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.
"The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.
Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man.
In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that "Adam was not deceived," it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.
The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease , and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation,that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.
Please don't try to play semantics with me. Underdeveloped(or undeveloped) means just that. Not developed. Or lacking in development. Not in fullness. For you to say that the Nicene Creed is underdeveloped is outright heresy and blasphemy..
The exercise of the charism of infallibility often occurs during an ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. The articles of the creed are true and certain, and to deny any or part of them is heresy. These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals "must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith"
Again the Nicene Creed is not underdeveloped. It is an infallible declaration.
that is why I questioned if you have ever been to RCIA. Since the Creed is a binding doctrine that was considered to have been written by the Holy Spirit itself. But then again you would need to understand the differences between the sacred magestarium and the ordinary magestarium to understand the issues of infallibility within creeds or doctrines.
Sadly the only thing that is cut is your shredding of past Church doctrine and misunderstanding of the communion of saints. I cannot believe you would honestly think the pnast 2009 years of Church history has no bearing. I think you need to take a RCIA course. The Church past teachings are not some "old" out of date teachings. They are bearing on Christian life. And if you know what the communion of saints were you would know that. But obviously you don't know that concept.
The Churches view on women has always been the same. They cannot be priests and have offices of authority, like bishop or Pope. The Church understands the differences and roles between man and woman. The ECF and the saints conclude this. Popes have. The doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas have. Your argument has no leg to stand on except a SECULAR view on marriage that has a 50% divorce rate success, lol. And in my opinion that is just sad.
1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."155
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 7
2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."118 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."119
....
2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment
you have clearly made a comment that clearly shows you don't understand at all the teachings of the Church. Future Popes don't "outdo" other Popes. Everything the Church has stated ex-cathedra is a doctrine that has ultimate bearing on christian life. And the statements of the saints, patristics, councils, and the ECFs have added bearing on the fullness of the understanding of things like scripture, tradition, and the christian life.
I'm up for that Global - but I'm off on the school run now. I might be on later when my kids are in bed.Rebekka, don't get too upset. Let's just stop arguing with Creed. He needs prayers, not human argument.
Why not get back to the interesting first post? We are still not doing justice to HelenofBritain and her good questions about that passage from Mulieris Dignitatem. (yes, let's cut the suspense! it's John Paul II)
The only question I don't like, HoB, is where you ask whether work at home is more valuable than work outside. It cannot be answered as you put it - and JP2 does not go there at all. "Work at home" is an absolute - it has value over everything else. The question is not whether you should choose between it and "work outside" - that would be no question at all. The question is twofold: (1) do you WANT to work outside (whether because you need to for financial reasons, or you want to because you have a professional vocation)? (2) If you want to work outside, can you still organise your life so that the children are well taken care of? If you can answer "yes" to both, then you will naturally go work outside the home and never feel that you have chosen the one over the other.
I think you may be on to something there, Rebekka.My prediction is that he will rather do the opposite and focus on more equality, considering how he further developed JPII's ideas on good stewardship, environmentalism and the treatment of animals. Humans (including women) are worth more than animals, and even the animals are worth protecting, have dignity.
(Matthew 10:29-31: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.)
Just my prediction. But the Vatican's policy to put more and more women on high positions supports that.
Here I would like to highlight the recommendations of the Synod concerning the role of women in relation to the word of God. Today, more than in the past, the “feminine genius”,[288] to use the words of John Paul II, has contributed greatly to the understanding of Scripture and to the whole life of the Church, and this is now also the case with biblical studies. The Synod paid special attention to the indispensable role played by women in the family, education, catechesis and the communication of values. “They have an ability to lead people to hear God’s word, to enjoy a personal relationship with God, and to show the meaning of forgiveness and of evangelical sharing”.[289] They are likewise messengers of love, models of mercy and peacemakers; they communicate warmth and humanity in a world which all too often judges people according to the ruthless criteria of exploitation and profit.
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini
Which is what I've been saying all along. I don't know why that's so scary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?