Marriage Question

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677457' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:34 PM']Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?[/quote]
Theologically, it's because Eve came from Adam's side. Because he was her "source," he has authority over her. This was the way it was always viewed. Christianity reinforces this by calling Christ the "Bridegroom" and the Church the "Bride." The Bride is saved through the Bridegroom by submitting to Him in humble obedience. Whether in sex or in theology, the Bride comes from the Groom and the two are united once again. In theology, that loving union of the Church with Christ is ultimately what we call heaven. So we can see an image of that in the natural world; the union of man and woman is a good and beautiful thing, the ultimate meaning and reality of marriage. Marriage should reflect the Church's relationship with God.

"It is not good for man to be alone." The original unity of man is insufficient, but the unity of man and wife is a unity that is at the same time a bond of love between two. It's a diversity in unity instead of a straight-up unity. That's why the unity of marriage is so very important and so much more than the unity of a single person.

Because woman originates from man, one could theologically say that when a woman becomes one with her husband, she "returns" to him what is missing in him. This obviously is felt both ways, but let's not get too literal. In any event, she is "based on" her husband and he is her head (this is not in any way to say that she has less dignity or is incomplete without him).

The unity of marriage goes beyond the marriage bed and must go into practical living. In all things, the husband has the ultimate duty to make sure that the unity remains (but he also can't force unity, both a husband's authority and a wife's obedience are necessary for that), but most husbands would only make a point out of exercising this authority in extreme cases, where disagreement would break apart the family or cause severe strain to unity.

A wife must submit to her husband because he is the head of the family, he is her "head." Eve came from Adam, not Adam from Eve. At the same time, as JPII said, Eve came from Adam's side to be loved, not from his head to rule over him or his feet to be ruled by him. The submission of marriage is a mutual submission; on the husband's part, a submission of will to die to himself for the good of his wife, to choose what is good for her and the family and not just for himself; on the wife's part, a submission of humble obedience to respect the authority of the husband out of love. If either submission is missing, this situation gets twisted into something it was never intended to be.

[b]Note:[/b] this does not guarantee that the man's logic or reasoning or decision-making skills will be correct, but it does place the obligation of leadership on the man. The man has authority over his wife, but also bears the ultimate responsibility for those choices. It is all the more important, then, that a man love his wife truly and deeply. The need for a wife to submit to her husband is a call for greater love and devotion from the husband, not a call for laxity and selfishness on the part of the husband.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1677405' date='Oct 14 2008, 05:43 PM']Yeah, I thought I was really clever quoting My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Until I saw that CrossCut already posted it.




FAIL.[/quote]



If you're going to do something, please do it right

like this.....

[img]http://b.mektroid.net/fail_cat.jpg[/img]

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677457' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:34 PM']So if there really isn't a huge difference between husband and wife (I'm acknowledging that there's a difference), then why is it blown out of proportion sometimes? Or, I should ask, why is this little difference nitpicked and pulled apart so that it eventually turns into something it's not, which leads to argument? I mean this generally.

Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?[/quote]

?

The Bible is a product of it's times.

It isin't into women's lib for the same reason it doesn't evidence any knoledge of the physical universe or geography or anything beyond what it's constituent believers would have known at the time the various books were written.

I think that is the most fair answer anyway

[picchick]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1678300' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:57 PM']It's the man who has the final say because he is meant to be an image of Christ himself whose bride is the church and she lovingly submits to Him.


What with secular feminists that are gaining momentum this is a really hard thing for them to accept. I know because I go to a secular women's college! My history professor went as far as to say that the church saw women as either

1. sympathetically: Women are stupid and are like minors who can't take care of themselves.

2. misoginist: Women are agents of the devil because of what Eve did by cooperating with him and leading Adam into sin.

(Both takes are simply not true about how the church ever has or ever will view women.)

Have some men abused patriarchy in the name of faith. Yes, the bible can easily be twisted and taken out of context to suit other people's corrupt desires. Yet, not every man in church history or contemporary catholic men do this. It's the small percentage of the bad guys that get the attention unfortunately.[/quote]

It is true that not every man has done this within the church. However, women were seen as stupid and they were seen as second class. I believe that this stemmed from the secular world seeing them as such. In acient times, women were not seen as equals to men. Even in recent history, women were not allowed to vote. It is not feminists who are making this up. It is what has happened. You cannot tell me that the Church did not hold this view as history played out. Of course the Church acknowledges many great women saints. However, they so under the clause "extraordinary".

[Hassan]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1678300' date='Oct 15 2008, 01:57 PM']It's the man who has the final say because he is meant to be an image of Christ himself whose bride is the church and she lovingly submits to Him.


What with secular feminists that are gaining momentum this is a really hard thing for them to accept. I know because I go to a secular women's college! My history professor went as far as to say that the church saw women as either

1. sympathetically: Women are stupid and are like minors who can't take care of themselves.

2. misoginist: Women are agents of the devil because of what Eve did by cooperating with him and leading Adam into sin.

(Both takes are simply not true about how the church ever has or ever will view women.)

Have some men abused patriarchy in the name of faith. Yes, the bible can easily be twisted and taken out of context to suit other people's corrupt desires. Yet, not every man in church history or contemporary catholic men do this. It's the small percentage of the bad guys that get the attention unfortunately.[/quote]

it's not twisting the context to suffust that the Bible depicts men as superior to women. One can make a distinction between spiritual and legal inequality however I think at least the OT is clearly patriarchial. The NT seems to be better though. It does state that no women is to have authority over a man, I think that is clear even if Paul does claim that men and women are one before Christ.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1678333' date='Oct 15 2008, 04:32 PM']Theologically, it's because Eve came from Adam's side. Because he was her "source," he has authority over her. This was the way it was always viewed. Christianity reinforces this by calling Christ the "Bridegroom" and the Church the "Bride." The Bride is saved through the Bridegroom by submitting to Him in humble obedience. Whether in sex or in theology, the Bride comes from the Groom and the two are united once again. In theology, that loving union of the Church with Christ is ultimately what we call heaven. So we can see an image of that in the natural world; the union of man and woman is a good and beautiful thing, the ultimate meaning and reality of marriage. Marriage should reflect the Church's relationship with God.

"It is not good for man to be alone." The original unity of man is insufficient, but the unity of man and wife is a unity that is at the same time a bond of love between two. It's a diversity in unity instead of a straight-up unity. That's why the unity of marriage is so very important and so much more than the unity of a single person.

Because woman originates from man, one could theologically say that when a woman becomes one with her husband, she "returns" to him what is missing in him. This obviously is felt both ways, but let's not get too literal. In any event, she is "based on" her husband and he is her head (this is not in any way to say that she has less dignity or is incomplete without him).

The unity of marriage goes beyond the marriage bed and must go into practical living. In all things, the husband has the ultimate duty to make sure that the unity remains (but he also can't force unity, both a husband's authority and a wife's obedience are necessary for that), but most husbands would only make a point out of exercising this authority in extreme cases, where disagreement would break apart the family or cause severe strain to unity.

A wife must submit to her husband because he is the head of the family, he is her "head." Eve came from Adam, not Adam from Eve. At the same time, as JPII said, Eve came from Adam's side to be loved, not from his head to rule over him or his feet to be ruled by him. The submission of marriage is a mutual submission; on the husband's part, a submission of will to die to himself for the good of his wife, to choose what is good for her and the family and not just for himself; on the wife's part, a submission of humble obedience to respect the authority of the husband out of love. If either submission is missing, this situation gets twisted into something it was never intended to be.

[b]Note:[/b] this does not guarantee that the man's logic or reasoning or decision-making skills will be correct, but it does place the obligation of leadership on the man. The man has authority over his wife, but also bears the ultimate responsibility for those choices. It is all the more important, then, that a man love his wife truly and deeply. The need for a wife to submit to her husband is a call for greater love and devotion from the husband, not a call for laxity and selfishness on the part of the husband.[/quote]

[puellapaschalis]

This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1681382' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:21 PM']This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?[/quote]

Now that you mention it - I always thought Catholics were to see Genesis as symbolic rather than literal.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1681386' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:30 PM']Now that you mention it - I always thought Catholics were to see Genesis as symbolic rather than literal.[/quote]

That's true--i.e., the world wasn't created in six literal days. However, I think it would be safe to assume that Eve did come after, and possibly from, Adam. But that's just my view of the whole thing.

[i]Sorry to anyone who caught me in the middle of editing that mess.[/i]

Edited October 19, 2008 by MissyP89

[Hassan]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1681382' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:21 PM']This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?[/quote]

I believe Pope John Paul the Great settled this by saying that while physical ancestors may have preceded Adam he was the first "human" with an immortal soul.

The rational still breaks down because then Eve would not have come from Adam in a physical sense I don't don't see how that can be corrected by assigning that to a spiritual derivation.

I think there is a history of the Church not accecpting a literal account of Genesis, for example St. Augustine's "Confessions" however the Church seems to have still taken it literally for a long time as a body, which may be why some of these explinations no longer fit.

I ono

[Slappo]

Genesis isn't merely symbolic or merely literal. It is both. It gives us both symbolism, and also factual information.

Symbolism is seen in the creation story of 6 days. The 4th day rules over the 1st, the 5th over the 2nd and the 6th over the 3rd. Look at the breakdown of the days, it's actually really cool. It builds into a pyramid.
7
3 6
2 5
1 4

What is the story showing? The 7th day as the climax. It is a writing style used to emphasize a certain part.

At the same time you have the creation story of Adam and Eve (there are two creation stories in Genesis that if both taken literally contradict each other). Adam is created and God tells Adam to till and keep the garden, or a stronger translation of the text would be something more like to minister to and guard the garden. The garden can then be symbolic of Eve. The garden is fruitful, woman is fruitful, the "womb" of the garden bears the fruit (the tree of life), and the womb of Eve is to bear fruit. Adam is then meant to MINISTER to and GUARD the "garden" or Eve, his wife.

The fall of Eve is just as much a fall of Adam because why? Adam failed even before Eve did in that he failed to GUARD her from the serpent. This puts both the responsibility of mankind on Adam in that he is the one commanded by God to guard, but also the fault on Adam in that he failed.

Men are then to minister to and guard their wives. This means to love them with complete self gift (by ministering to them), but also calling the plays in that it is his job, his responsibility to guard her, and therefore her responsibility to LET him guard her. If the wife is supposed to help perfect the role of man, and man the role of wife, and if mans role is to guard, it is woman's role to be guarded, to receive his protection.




Now, another point that has yet to be brought up, part of what it means to be the head is to DELEGATE responsibilities. If a wife is obviously better at finances then the man... it would be his responsibility to step aside and have her balance the checkbook and manage finances. He is still in charge in the sense that he has set himself aside and HUMBLED himself (men have a huge ego and pride) by asking his wife to manage the finances. He both grows in virtue through humility, AND grows in manliness through leading the family. It is extremely beautiful how the relationship between a man and woman works.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1681382' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:21 PM']This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?[/quote]
I assume monogenesis because the Church assumes monogenesis.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." -Humani Generis 37

Overall, the creation account is to be read as a story with a deeper theological truth, not as a science text. However, the fact that we have two original first parents is such an important theological truth that we cannot possibly let go of it. Pope Pius XII made many concessions to modern Biblical scholarship; this was not one of them.

I invite you to read the tract on this at Catholic Answers: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp[/url].

God bless,

Micah

[tinytherese]

[quote name='picchick' post='1680804' date='Oct 18 2008, 08:19 PM']It is true that not every man has done this within the church. However, women were seen as stupid and they were seen as second class. I believe that this stemmed from the secular world seeing them as such. In acient times, women were not seen as equals to men. Even in recent history, women were not allowed to vote. It is not feminists who are making this up. It is what has happened. You cannot tell me that the Church did not hold this view as history played out. Of course the Church acknowledges many great women saints. However, they so under the clause "extraordinary".[/quote]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been wrong.

[scardella]

Men = pants
Women = barefoot and pregnant

Any questions?

[jeffpugh]

Watch yourself. You might get pwn'd for that.