Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/16/2004 2:21:16 PM PDT by bonaventura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: bonaventura
This "submission" issue is a big deal with you.

You got an uppity wife or something?

2 posted on 06/16/2004 2:26:49 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Romulus; Marcellinus; sinkspur

In an unrelated thread, but on this topic, the following was posted about my claim that "mutual submission of spouses" was a liberal concept.-

"The apostle Paul himself calls for mutual subjection of spouses, and the Fathers of the Church have always accepted that marriage is a mutual undertaking and not a master/servant relationship. The obedience of a Christian wife is freely willed, grounded in her husband's complete dedication to her, a true icon of Christ's kenotic sacrifice. To reduce this to a juridical establishment of power relationships is to play right into the hands of secular feminism -- not to mention a satanic misrepresentation of all creation as master and slave, predator and prey."

That was not the only complaint that I received regarding this. But first I must address the above:

A. I don't recall ever going into anything about master and slave, or predator and prey, nor any of the other things of that sort implied here.

B. The teachings of Paul and of the Fathers, as can be seen in this article, do not support the idea of mutual subjection of spouses, as it was claimed in the above statement.

I would repeat my claim, then, that the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church has always been that the wife is to be subject to the husband, as the church is subject to Christ; and the husband should love the wife, as Christ loves the Church.


3 posted on 06/16/2004 2:36:46 PM PDT by bonaventura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bonaventura

I think that if the woman hasn't married a bum, or worse, and she herself is not a self centered feminist, that this commandment can be carried out exactly as it stands with completely mutual respect. I think this is true of all lasting marriages.

I say this today on the 35th anniversary of my wedding.

The woman, according to the Bible, was sent as a helper for man, I would add, to complete him. And if done right, the marriage is like a seamless garment, with no hint that 'submission' is an odious chore, but rather a whole cloth.

They do like to moan and make jokes about that passage on 'nudge sunday' though. "Nudge', because the husband and wife poke each other in the ribs when they hear it.


12 posted on 06/16/2004 3:25:36 PM PDT by Arguss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bonaventura

>>“Wives should be subordinate to your husbands” if that truth was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subordinate to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify one of the spouses as having to be in subjection to the other in the very next verse?<<

Because he was talking to women when he said that. Ya gotta repeat yourself a lot! :^) *duck and cover*

Seriously, Men are instructed that they must follow Christ's example, which is to sacrifice their lives for their wives. His life is sworn to the protection and providence of hers, and in that role, she needs to obey him, just as the President obeys the secret service. Since his life is forfeit to hers as a Christian, and since he IS also elsewhere told that they must submit to each other, he shall not use this authority in any purpose but for that which it is given.

On the other hand, Christianity would quickly be identified as a religion of "women and slaves," who had few rights in the Roman Empire. It was a liberation movement, but did not seek liberation through social agitation. Women and slaves were to convert their husbands and masters, not revolt against them. Women were instruted to submit not only in the instances where there was *mutual* submission (which was plainly commanded!) but also where they were married to pagan men who were retaining their worldly power.

When people struggled for basic necessities, the issue of spousal dominance was less: People did what they needed to survive, and those men who did abuse their power suffered as a natural consequence to the dysfunction in their home. However, most of society was nominally, but only meagerly, Christian. And in times of affluence, men wielded their authority unjustly, and the basic *external* social structure needed to evolve to maintain the eternal inate social structure.

What the Pope is asserting then, is a response to a society which has neither the natural pressures towards a functional division of familial authorities, nor a strong inherent legal bias against women.

He is not, however, negating the natural and ordained differences between man and women. If you read the theology of the body, he does draw distinct differences between men and women in the areas of socialization, sexuality, spirituality and providence, which are in perfect accord with the roles presented in the Pauline letters.

What the author has done is found a place where the Pope is dealing with mutual submission, which is in the bible, and falsely presented it as missing the rest of the teachings.


26 posted on 06/17/2004 8:23:31 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson