Obeying The Pope

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 5 2004, 01:17 AM'] In his comments on Ephesians the present Pope has said nothing shocking, nor has he taught anything in opposition to the previous teaching of the Papal Magisterium. No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ, because to say that would be to fall into a form of idolatry. Christ is God, and so the Church owes Him absolute submission, but a wife's submission to her husband is relative, because he is merely a created being, and to say otherwise is idolatrous. Moreover, the section of Ephesians on submission begins with the verse which says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," [Eph. 5:21] and so it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands. The text goes on to point out the nature of the submission given, i.e., that wives are subject to their husbands because man is the head of woman, but text continues by saying that husbands must love their wives and must die for them as Christ died for the Church. Now, to die for someone is also a form of subjection, and in fact it is the ultimate form of subjection that one person can give to another person. [cf. St. Ignatius, Trallians, chap. 11] The problem with the socalled "traditionalists" is that they fail to take into account the integral nature of Catholic tradition; instead, they try to isolate individual elements of the tradition and in the process they fall into a form of Protestant reductionism. No Catholic would ever try to pit the teaching of one Pope against another. The Papal Magisterium is a diachronic reality, and so in a mysterious way the Popes (all 264 of them and however many more are yet to come) are a single corporate person acting as the visible head of the Church until Christ's Parousia. [/quote]
If that is what he meant by subjection, why didn't he make a note to St. Ignatius to make it clear that that is what he was talking about? It seems very clear to me that the discussion of submissiveness is dealing with AUTHORITY, not dying for another person. Yes, both are subject to one another in charity, which the highest form is death for another, but that does not change the fact that this is a discussion on authority, which Popes of the past have quoted that passage to mean.

Moreover, "it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands." None of the other Popes said any of that. Yes, submissive in charity, but, as I said, the previous Popes have said this deals with authority.

"No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ"

The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:22 PM'] If that is what he meant by subjection, why didn't he make a note to St. Ignatius to make it clear that that is what he was talking about? It seems very clear to me that the discussion of submissiveness is dealing with AUTHORITY, not dying for another person. Yes, both are subject to one another in charity, which the highest form is death for another, but that does not change the fact that this is a discussion on authority, which Popes of the past have quoted that passage to mean.

Moreover, "it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands." None of the other Popes said any of that. Yes, submissive in charity, but, as I said, the previous Popes have said this deals with authority.

"No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ"

The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated. [/quote]
You'd have to ask the Pope why he didn't give the reference to St. Ignatius. But regardless, your position makes the relative submission of a wife to her husband into a form of idolatry, and no Pope, not Leo XIII, or any other, would have ever argued that a wife's submission is identical to that given by the Church to Christ.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:22 PM'] The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated. [/quote]
So, it is your opinion that the Popes of the past were recommending a form of idolatry, now that is interesting. But I see this as another of the forms of anti-intellectual reductions common among the "traditionalists." Don't forget that analogies by definition include dissimilarity as well as similarity.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated.[/quote]

That is precisely correct, and it is precisely what they taught, but it is not what you seem to be asserting. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI spoke on the similarity of the relationship, what you seem to be trying to do is make the two coincident with each other.

Moreover, John Paul II's writings don't in any way compromise the authority of the man over the women, but instead merely assert that the position of authority that he has necessitates a subordination of himself below all.

Also, it seems to me that the fundamental claim that you quoted in the book is a flagrant misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the issue. I will quote it again:

[quote]it is impossibnle to see how authority could exist any more in the family than in the Church if there were a 'mutual subjection' and o ruller-subject realtion between the two spouses. The whole notion of mutual subjection" is a conundrum, since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have to heads."[/quote]

The Pope is known as "The Servant of the Servants of God." Now, either the people writing the book are making the claim that this is simply a name and is untrue in any other sense, or they must acknowledge that the Holy Father is really and truly a servant of others in all things, and that this does not compromise his authority, but rather, his authority furthers his service.

If the latter is true, then there is no issue whatsoever, for this is in perfect conformity with the teachings of all the Pope's including John Paul II, Leo XIII, and Pius XI.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

Authority is service.

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen!

[Donna]

To all who actually discussed the subject, thank you.

But I have not read the latest exchanges yet between Hartford and Appo, so won't be commenting on that Duh... .

IMO, it is no apologia to suggest "dissent" when one has a legitimate question. It might even be [b]you[/b] one day asking something in good will...and not only not being given light and discussion, but being accused.

Why is it that (for example) Brother Adam can still struggle with Church teaching, but Hartford Whalers cannot?

I agree, Hartford, that the texts are different. However (if anyone can believe it), I am thankful for JPII speaking of the man's subjection to Christ, imitating Him (who lays down His life for His bride). There are too many trads -others', too, I reckon- who contemptuously treat their wives as if they were their daughters. It's sick.

Yes, we see St. Joseph, the most unworthy (so to speak) of the Holy Family being made head of it. I'm sure Joseph treated Our Lady as the Seat of Wisdom that she is. Or mostly anyway, allowing for the differences in their intellects, for hers was never darkened.

I've other comments but I don't think they pertain.

But I will say, Hartford, not having read the book, but familiar maybe w/ its contents, that it probably makes other points. But, look to the fruit of people's lives as well.

[PedroX]

donna,

You are so cool. I think your perspective here is very accurate, expecially when one takes the time to contemplate the Holy Family.

ps did you get my email?

Hartford,

I don't understand really what the fundemental question is. Is it a question on the role of the papacy in our lives, or a question on teachings regarding the family. I ask this in all seriousness and with all due respect.

To others:

Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?

peace...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Sep 5 2004, 06:34 AM'] To others:

Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?

peace... [/quote]
I can only speak for myself, but since my conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism in 1988 I haven't had any difficulty assenting to the teaching of the Magisterium. Perhaps my time as a Protestant was a good thing, because it helped me to see the need for obedience to the Magisterium.

I rarely see questions as a form of dissent, but the problem today is that many people are desperately looking to find inconsistencies between the teachings of the various pontiffs over time. I personally think this attitude is destructive to the faith. The Papacy is a living institution, and like the Church herself it is a single corporate personality stretching throughout time, and as a consequence the teachings of the present Pope should not be pitted against the teachings of previous Popes, and anyone who tries to do this shows a failure to grasp the nature of the teaching of Vatican 1 on Papal authority.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?[/quote]

I have stuggled quite a bit with teachings here and there, though by the Grace of God I have always come to understand why the Church is correct. Hartford, if you feel like I've been placing you in the "dissenters" category, then I desperately want to appologize. If I have offended you or been condescending, then I also want to apologize. My posts have only been attempts to help you understand the teachings of the Magisterium and the Holy Fathers, and if they have been poor attempts then I would like to appologize again.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[XIX]

Dude, the Pope isn't perfect.

Neither is a brain surgeon. But I sure as heck would rather trust him with my life than some teenage student who think he knows what he is doing.

[Socrates]

For a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the arguments made in [i]The Great Facade[/i], please read the [i]Wanderer[/i] articles suggested earlier by Dave, particularly [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm[/url], which includes the issue about the husband and wife, and [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url], which deals with the ecumenism issue. Yes, it's long, but it's a more thorough rebuttal than there is room for here. (The Wanderer is a very conservative, orthodox, Catholic paper, by the way.)

It is shown that Pope John Paul II has said absolutely nothing which contradicts prior Church teaching. The authors of that book offer twisted sophistical misinterpretations of words in order to "prove" that the current Pope is a heretic.

Again I ask, who should Catholics follow, the Vicar of Christ, or a couple self-styled "trads" with a negative agenda? I, for one, prefer to stay on board the Bark of St. Peter!

[cmotherofpirl]

As a Catholic, one starts with the understanding that the Church is the Bride of Christ, and any apparent error is in OUR own understanding, not in the Church.
Our task is to educate ourselves to either overcome our flawed understanding of a particular topic, wait until the Holy Spirit enlightens us, or simply accept in obedience that the Church knows more than we do, and let it go at that.

God will not test on our thelogy, only on our love.

Edited September 6, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Guest JeffCR07]

The articles there are phenomenal. Hartford, if you do not have time to read them in their entirety (which I strongly encourage all to do) then I suggest at least reading the following, which I have taken from the article, as it pertains directly to the issue at hand:

[quote]On page 52 the following claim is made after a long list of so-called novelties adopted by the Church and our Pope:


  The preconciliar Popes, following the teaching of St. Paul, taught that the wife was subject to the authority of the husband and must obey him as the Church obeys Christ (assuming the husband’s commands are just and moral), but John Paul II has taught that St. Paul meant that this subjection was mutual and that he was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time.


  This statement with the following three pages is perhaps the most egregious example of the authors’ blind zeal to find error in everything, a zeal that causes them to create error where there has never been any. The authors claim that Pope John Paul II "flatly contradicts" Pope Leo XIII by asserting that subjection is not required on the part of the wife for it is only required on the part of the Church to Christ. To come to this conclusion is to read contradiction into the text.

  Mulieris dignitatem, the text that pits John Paul II against the teaching of St. Paul and the preconciliar Popes, appears on page 53 of The Great Façade, after a portion of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Arcanum, and reads in the authors’ text:


  "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’ (Eph. 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). . . . 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."


  On page 54 the authors then comment:




  To all appearances, this meditation on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII, who emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5:22-23 — which is to say, God Himself — teaches that subjection is required not "only on the part of the Church" to Christ, as John Paul II asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicitly in the above-quoted passage. It is significant that John Paul II quotes only the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians — "For the husband is the head of the wife" — while omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is the head of the Church."


  Now that as much context has been given, I must express how astounded I was to read the authors’ accusation. This accusation is an example of either a complete breakdown in logic or a wholly sinister attempt to sully the name of the Pope.

  The Holy Father writes that the one-sided subjection in the relationship between Christ and the Church is to be distinguished from the relation between husband and wife where "the subjection is not one-sided but mutual." This notion of mutual subjection disturbs the authors. They write, "This whole notion of ‘mutual subjection’ is a conundrum since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads." While the authors may think it telling that the Pope omitted the second half of what they consider "the key sentence from Ephesians," they may need to be reminded of the words of the Apostle at the very beginning of this catena. 3 These words are quoted by John Paul II, and they color the entirety of his "meditation." In fact one could argue that since these words of St. Paul appear at the beginning of the catena they color the entirety of the biblical text in question. These words are, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ."

  One wonders how the notion of mutual subjection could be such a "conundrum" for our authors when it is clear that St. Paul calls for just this at the very start of his words on marriage. In the footnote on page 55 they admit that "there is certainly a sense in which husband and wife, unlike Christ and the Church, are subject to each other — in the order of charity. But the precise teaching of St. Paul in Ephesians relates to the order of authority, as Leo XIII and Pius XI made clear." Before we turn to the words of the preconciliar Popes, let us turn to the Holy Father’s original text from Mulieris dignitatem.  The authors admit that in the order of charity husband and wife are to subject themselves to one another. Do the words of John Paul II reflect that this is his understanding here? In point of fact they do. In paragraph 23 of Mulieris the Pope writes that Ephesians expresses the truth of Genesis where we find the first scriptural teaching on marriage. The two are called to a love that unites them. The Pope writes, "The Letter to the Ephesians once again confirms this truth, while at the same time comparing the spousal character of the love between man and woman to the mystery of Christ and of the Church" (emphasis mine). After this sentence the word "love" appears 12 times and "compassion" three more in paragraph 23 alone. The entire context of this meditation on Ephesians is the similarity and difference between the love God has for His people, the love Christ has for His Church, and the love that a couple has for each other.

  The authors quote from paragraph 24. In quoting the Holy Father they omit the following, "This is especially true because the husband is called the ‘head’ of his wife as Christ is 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." One is immediately reminded of the words of our Lord when He says that there is no greater love than to give one’s self up for one’s friends (John 15:13). It is stupendously clear that the order within which the Holy Father is speaking regarding this subjection between man and wife is the order of charity not authority. This order of charity is pointed out in the Pauline text itself (5:21, 25, 28-29). The Holy Father in no way denies that in the order of authority the wife is only subject to the husband, because he is not concerning himself with the order of authority in this document. If the authors think he ought to, that is one thing. It is quite another to state that the current Pope "flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII" and "apparently contradicts Pius XI on the same point." Let us turn to the teaching of these Popes.

  When one turns to the pertinent texts from Arcanum and Casti connubii one does not find the contradiction that the authors are so eager to discover. The authors quote from section 11 in Arcanum, ignoring the first two sentences which read, "Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help." In the words of John Paul II this mutual subjection through unfailing and unselfish help is to be distinguished from the relationship between Christ and the Church, for Christ is never subject to the Church. Further, Leo XIII addresses the order of authority in paragraph 11 only after spending paragraphs nine and ten on the nature of the order of love that makes the order of authority possible. The subjection in authority according to Leo XIII is only possible through the "very great mutual love" that exists there in marriage.

  When we turn to Casti connubii we find that Pius XI has taught that the order of authority, which the authors feel is the primary understanding for verses 22 and 23, is understandable first in the order of charity, for this order of authority is an "order of love." We read:


  25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband" [1 Cor. 7:3], express not only a law of justice but of charity.

  26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church" [Eph. 5:22-23].


  The authoritative order is understandable only in the context of charity. We read in the following paragraph in Casti:


  But it [the subjection] forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. 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.


  Once again, this subjection in the order of authority is not to overshadow the mutual subjection which the two are to have toward one another. In both Leo XIII and Pius XI the order of charity comes before the order of authority. The latter is possible only through the reality of the former. In the Pauline text itself, the first words are in favor of that mutual subjection John Paul II speaks of. There is no reason to doubt that the Holy Father would agree that in the order of authority the subjection in a marriage is one-sided. Still, as the text from Eph. 5:21 — that is God Himself — states, the couple is called to mutual subjection, and this is the overriding theme for the larger catena. The meaning of the catena must include both senses. The authors’ apparent lack of careful reading and reckless accusation against John Paul II on this matter is inexcusable.

  The authors’ statement that the Pope claims that St. Paul "was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time" is simply false. The word "merely" does not appear in the Pope’s text. And would the authors deny that St. Paul’s words were "rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time"? Did the Apostle write this epistle in French? If St. Paul did not speak in the customs and religious traditions of his time he would have been a poor Apostle. The Holy Father is not saying that because these words of St. Paul are rooted in customs and traditions that they are to be dismissed or are now inaccessible but to experts in historical archaeology. Rather, the Holy Father suggests that St. Paul’s contemporaries would have easily accepted the notion that the husband is head of the wife and that St. Paul is attempting to take this commonly held view and add to it a specifically Christian understanding.

  In Christian marriage the wife is to obey the husband (a commonly held idea), but the two are to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" as well (a specifically Christian idea)! The husband is the head (a common opinion), but he is to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" (a Christian opinion)! She must subject herself to him (commonly held), but he is to be willing to "hand himself over for her" (held by Christians)! St. Paul is consciously taking the commonly held position of the time regarding marriage, a position "so rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time," and adding onto it the Christian understanding of love, of charity, of the agape selfless-love that Christ embodied.

  This is what the Pope means in Mulieris dignitatem when he writes: "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)" (emphasis mine). The authors twist and obfuscate the Pope’s words in order to paint him into a corner and score rhetorical points with the "casual reader." The sinister nature of their project comes out too clearly here.

  They even go so far in their criticism of the Pope as to say that the religious tradition of the time of St. Paul was Christianity.4 This is a marvelous revelation. I imagined that the reason St. Paul found it necessary to be the Apostle to the Gentiles was because the religious traditions of the Gentiles were decidedly not Christian. Though certainly St. Paul was writing to a Christian community, this community could not have been older than five or so years, and it certainly would have existed demurely within the wider pagan and Jewish-Greek world. A tradition of the reader may have been Christianity, but the greater traditions of the readers at the time were not Christian.[/quote]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 5 2004, 02:48 PM'] For a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the arguments made in [i]The Great Facade[/i], please read the [i]Wanderer[/i] articles suggested earlier by Dave, particularly [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm[/url], which includes the issue about the husband and wife, and [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url], which deals with the ecumenism issue. Yes, it's long, but it's a more thorough rebuttal than there is room for here. (The Wanderer is a very conservative, orthodox, Catholic paper, by the way.)

It is shown that Pope John Paul II has said absolutely nothing which contradicts prior Church teaching. The authors of that book offer twisted sophistical misinterpretations of words in order to "prove" that the current Pope is a heretic.

Again I ask, who should Catholics follow, the Vicar of Christ, or a couple self-styled "trads" with a negative agenda? I, for one, prefer to stay on board the Bark of St. Peter! [/quote]
OK it seems clear no one here is willing to change on the issue of the wife's necessity of being submissive, so I will address a much larger and more clear contradiction, what I noted above: "How about his position on being able to read at a protestant service. Pius XI said that NO CATHOLIC could attend, let alone participate, in the services of non-Catholics and that the Church has NEVER allowed any Catholic to do so. So, then, I would say he has contradicted right there over 350 Popes."