The parable of the whore

The comments from one of Dalrock’s latest threads have interested me greatly. It’s where I got the inspiration to write respectful submission not submission. It’s also where I got the inspiration to write this.

In the line of comments near the end of the thread, we establish a couple things with John Nesteutes providing the blatant Abraham Sarah example that I forgot:

1. Wife lies about hiding Jews from the Nazis. Everyone here agrees.

2. Husband tells wife to lie about hiding Jews from the Nazi. Most of the women here are saying: “NO, lying is sin. We should obey God and tell the truth to the Nazis.”

3. 1 Kings 18 Obadiah hides 100 prophets of the Lord against the orderes of Jezebel who wants to kill them and provides them food and water. Obadiah also conspires to lie and give the run around to Ahab about Elijah’s whereabouts.

4. Esther submits herself to the harem and fornication with the king, obscuring her past, and manipulation in the situation with Haman and the King. Submit to the harem or die. Hide her past as opposed to be a bold witness. She could’ve chosen to die. But she didn’t in this case, and God was good.

The point is that a husband may have a righteous reason to tell his wife to “sin.” SD’s lying is very similar to that although probably more morally ambiguous because it’s not an extreme situation. It’s not cut and dry like women where seem to think.

+

Let’s not forget Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech. “She’s my sister.”

If your husband asks you tell a lie to keep you from getting killed / sold into sexual slavery in a harem, it might behoove you to obey him.

We already established that women think it’s OK to lie to the Nazis about harboring Jews to save lives. I agree with that. The Scriptures show that lying and rebellion are justifiable in certain circumstances. However, the circumstances cannot be arbitrarily judged as this makes wives arbiters of their marriage. Hence, the women place themselves in the position of judge of what is God’s law if they should obey their husbands or not in whatever circumstance they think they must.

In effect, they are whoring themselves out to the idol of false righteousness. Hence, the title of this post, and the often told “parable” usually quoted as from Winston Churchill:

A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:

She: What kind of woman do you think I am?

He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

1 Corinthians 14 brings up home to the final word on the matter. Namely, it is the husband’s decision on how to interpret teaching and the Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [n]improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 [o]Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

In particular, Abraham lies TWICE. First to Pharaoh then to Abimelech about Sarah being his sister. Sarah in 1 Peter 3 is held up as a paragon of being a submissive wife. Even when she goes along with Abraham’s lie twice.

Cane makes a sharp comment here. And Dalrock hits another home run:

What I would say from the discussion is it confirms again what I already strongly believed. The claim of “What if he tells me to sin?” isn’t about a real fear of being commanded to do evil. It is a smokescreen, or squid ink, to avoid what the Bible clearly says while pretending not to do so. I suspect it is clear to others following as well.

What this shows me through the Sarah example is the power of authority. As Sarah stays submission to Abraham’s authority as the head, she is totally covered even in the transgression. Because it is Abraham giving the order he bears the weight of responsibility if she goes along with it. This is born out in Genesis as both Pharaoh and Abimelech coming to Abraham about his lie and not blaming his wife. Nor does God call out Sarah for going along with the lie.

However, wives that step out from under their husband’s authority better have a good reason. Abigail was justified because she saved lives in 1 Samuel 25. However, are any other wives confident they have a good enough reason to disobey aside from saving lives? That’s a question I would take a long hard look at if I was a wife because it has far reaching consequences both toward God and toward their husband.

It’s very easy for them to whore themselves out to the idol of false righteousness.

edit: Cane’s followup post to this post showing that even in Abraham’s unrighteousness God protects Sarah in her righteous submission.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Advice to Christian women, Masculinity and women and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to The parable of the whore

  1. Jenny says:

    and don’t forget the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), which proves it is the heart behind the action and not the action itself that is important.

  2. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    I’m probably going to get a telling-off by some people (not sure who yet) for this, but here goes anyway.

    It seems to me that the motivation for the man asking the woman to “sin” makes a difference. For example, lying to the Nazis about harboring Jews had a righteous purpose. Lying to the police about harboring a wanted child-molester does not. Lying while obeying one’s husband in the first example is good. Lying while obeying in the second, I don’t see how that is good.

    For the record, I think this is why a woman should properly vet a man before marrying him to make sure she can commit to being in full submission to him. What I mean is to make sure he has a good head on his shoulders and has a heart for seeking after righteousness. Men like that can be trusted to not tell their wives to do truly sinful things.

  3. Pingback: The parable of the whore | Manosphere.com

  4. @ Feminine But Not Feminist

    Correct. Motives always matter as the heart and its intentions matter to God.

    Abraham’s intent was to protect Sarah. It appears that God honored that rather than bring down Abraham for his sin there.

    The main problem being that most wives don’t care about their husband’s intentions. They would rather do things their way without even asking or going the route of respectful submission. The very fact that we are “debating this” instead of wives asking their husbands to clarify and/or their intentions proves the point.

    And yes, vetting is important.

  5. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    The main problem being that most wives don’t care about their husband’s intentions. They would rather do things their way without even asking or going the route of respectful submission. The very fact that we are “debating this” instead of wives asking their husbands to clarify and/or their intentions proves the point.

    Makes sense. Like a lot of wives will use the “what if he tells me to sin?!” thing as an excuse to not be submissive under circumstances where it would NOT be sinful to submit. Just because they don’t want to have to submit, period.

    I just thought of a better analogy than the one I used in my last comment… Murder is a sin. So if a man breaks into the house in the middle of the night, and the husband hands his wife a gun and says “you stay here with the kids. If he kills me and comes further into the house, you shoot him. Protect the kids at all costs!” and goes to take down the intruder… should the wife say “but murder is a sin! I won’t do it!” or should she just do as she’s told? Contrast that with a situation where the husband says “this guy at work looked at me wrong today. So you and I are going to murder him in his sleep tonight.” Both involve the wife killing someone, but there’s an obvious difference in the reason for doing it. (In case I’m not making it clear, I’m trying to say that I agree that there may be times where an otherwise sinful act might be necessary to do the right thing, meaning I do agree that it likely isn’t a righteous thing to refuse to submit just because you don’t want to do it. Circumstances where it would be wrong to submit are going to be rare, unless you’re married to a cruel heathen man.)

  6. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Oh, and those questions of should or shouldn’t she were rhetorical. Just in case it’s not already obvious.

  7. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Contrast that with a situation where the husband says “this guy at work looked at me wrong today. So you and I are going to murder him in his sleep tonight.”

    Feminie But Not Feminist,
    What do you think she should literally do in that situation?

  8. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    I thought it was obvious what I think, but in that case I don’t think she should submit. As opposed to the other scenario where the husband tells her to kill the intruder if he gets through, where I think she should submit.

  9. donalgraeme says:

    Two things:

    First, all of this goes to demonstrate how essential it is to have a clear established authority which determines doctrine, and through that, what is and isn’t sin. Oh, and that authority needs to be universal, not something that acts in a disjointed, chaotic manner.

    Second, this:

    1 Corinthians 14 brings up home to the final word on the matter. Namely, it is the husband’s decision on how to interpret teaching and the Scriptures:

    …misunderstands the Scripture. Yes the husband teaches the wife… but he is teaching her what was interpreted and explained during the service that she didn’t understand. Basically she is to save her questions for at home. That way she doesn’t interrupt or cause a distraction when she has a question.

  10. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I don’t think she should submit.

    I understand that, I’m asking what she should literally do. What should she literally say to him, or do in response to what he has told her to do.

  11. @ Donal

    I think worded it poorly.

    Yes, the gist of the Scripture is not to interrupt or in other words disrupt.

    But it also places part of the explanation/interpretation on the shoulders of the husband. Though I suppose you could argue that the all of interpretation lies within the Church through proper teaching and discipleship. Hard to get though.

  12. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    I understand that, I’m asking what she should literally do. What should she literally say to him, or do in response to what he has told her to do.

    This post isn’t about how a wife should handle her husband’s sin (which I’m pretty sure has been written about on this blog before a time or two already). It’s about wives submitting (or not) to their husbands due to sinful (or not) orders. You’re trying to open up a can of worms that will go way off-topic. So no, I’m not going to entertain you seeking to give me crap. Nice try though.

  13. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Deep Strength
    That’s a question I would take a long hard look at if I was a wife because it has far reaching consequences both toward God and toward their husband.

    What I start contemplating in these “obviously you don’t submit” examples is “what if” – certainly I would say to my husband who wants me to go kill a man, “Baby, are you sure? Can we talk about this for a little while first?” And what if, due to my ability to not fly off disrespectfully in rebellion, he was able to hear God intervene. Wives will step right in front of God with the manner in which they rebel and lose that “won without a word” ability. So much time is spent in these hypothetical situations where rebellion is “obvious” and so little time spent contemplating what God could actually do when a wife remains calm, respectful, and obedient. It’s part of the mystery Paul mentions. It’s a pity our faith is so weak that these discussions refer to “righteous rebellion” and not miraculous wonders in the covenant of marriage.

  14. Looking Glass says:

    @SD:

    Human Logic over Godly Wisdom. It’s the singular failure of Christians for the last 200 years (at minimum). God is fully approachable with Logic, but Logic *ends* where Wisdom *begins*. We assume that God isn’t active involved and that Faith is partially about not getting in God’s way.

    And this really is the “classic” problem with the way we used Logic with Christianity. We assume we either can or have to produce a perfect understanding of the way God works. (Which is impossible) And we assume that the people making arguments for more “understanding” are being honest. Theological “questions” come from humility. That isn’t the issue with Wifely Submission. Sin is the issue that’s being discussed.

  15. @Deep Strength
    I really appreciate the grace and truthfulness you have shown in discussing this issue.

    And for what it’s worth, I completely agree with this:

    “However, wives that step out from under their husband’s authority better have a good reason. Abigail was justified because she saved lives in 1 Samuel 25. However, are any other wives confident they have a good enough reason to disobey aside from saving lives? That’s a question I would take a long hard look at if I was a wife because it has far reaching consequences both toward God and toward their husband.”

    I don’t expect I will ever have such a reason to step out from under my husband’s authority, and it’s certainly not a step I would take, let alone entertain, lightly.

  16. Sarah's Daughter says:

    We assume that God isn’t active involved

    This led me to an off topic thought, DS, I completely understand if you delete it.
    Doesn’t the conviction Christians have regarding marriage being between a man and a woman (and not possible for homosexuals) stem from the understanding that God is involved, ie the Covenant.? Malachi 2:15 “But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit?” Isn’t this the foundation to the acknowledgement that one can call whatever one wishes a marriage, it doesn’t make it so.

    How do we deny or ignore that there is more to a marriage than just the rules/laws/commandments, that there is something spiritual there? And that that is what makes it possible for us to accept the Words written in the Bible regarding marriage without exceptions/caveats – and without fear.

  17. Mrs. C says:

    As a Catholic wife, this issue is pretty simple due to the authority of the Church. Each individual Catholic has the duty to study and be informed in their faith. Being married doesn’t take away a wife’s autonomy in making decisions or judging the sinfulness of an action. My husband isn’t my conscience and I am not his. The Catechism states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

    When my husband makes a decision, I’m still responsible for my actions and if I really believe that what he is asking is a sin, then I must respectfully refuse. If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.

    In the extreme example of the intruder, the Church teaches that “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.”

    So we see that by faith and reason, even commandments such as “Thou shalt not kill” is not an absolute command but that in certain situations, there are other moral principles that would modify this. When the scripture says a wife is to be subject to her husband in everything, this does not include committing an action she believes is a sin. If there is a dispute, there is always the Catechism, a priest/bishop, or spiritual director to consult.

    My husband doesn’t interpret scripture for me. He is bound to hold his family to the authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

  18. Looking Glass says:

    @SD:

    On the “more than” issue, it’s pretty straight forward. Most people are, at best, culturally Christian. See my point about Logic replacing Godly Wisdom. If you can’t prove it via repeatable, controlled observation (i.e. the scientific method), then it’s to be ignore as hokum.

    Which makes it kind of funny when I believe there are 50+ well documented resurrections in the last 30 years or so. But “science” doesn’t like things that make “science” look limited and miniscule.

  19. dvdivx says:

    Considering I was asked once by a guy if I could bang his wife while he watched I’d say there are occasions where the wife saying no is justified. (It never went past the “you want be to do what?” stage and no I didn’t see what the wife looked like)
    Unless it is such an extreme example though a wife should defer to her husband but good luck finding such a woman,

  20. Sarah's Daughter says:

    If you can’t prove it via repeatable, controlled observation (i.e. the scientific method), then it’s to be ignore as hokum.

    Yep, there’s the stumbling block. One can not prove that God would intervene and there’s just too much of a risk if this one time He chooses to ignore the situation, thus “righteous rebellion” and “wifely discernment” must be the fallback.

    And yes, it’s only logical. (Never mind that it is only in these instances that women resort to “logic”.)

  21. Looking Glass says:

    @SD:

    And it’s not even logic. It’s the “devil you know”, both literally and figuratively. A direct 1st of the 10 Commandments violation: you put yourself above God. There’s a reason Genesis calls them “Daughters of Eve”. We’ve been taught to forget why. 🙂

    At the same time, when you’re wracked with Fear, unless you’re Faith is strong, you’re going to choose yourself every time. This is why the complete removal of proper expectations on Women has been so destructive. It takes courage to reject a culture that’s built the “Cult of You”. You’re a good one, SD. God be praised.

  22. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Thank you, Looking Glass.

  23. Pingback: Discerning Righteousness from Unrighteousness I | Things that We have Heard and Known

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    @Mrs. C

    When my husband makes a decision, I’m still responsible for my actions and if I really believe that what he is asking is a sin, then I must respectfully refuse.

    If the RCC teaches this then they are as wrong as any who say that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” forbids all taking of life.

    To my mind, it is very much in doubt that what I have quoted of you is in fact what the RCC teaches. Perhaps you meant to say that you might have to refuse to do whatever it is that you (in your fallible state) believe to be sin. That’s a very different thing, and you had better be right if you’re going to strike out for the Land of Holier Than Thou under the power of your own righteousness.

    If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.

    1 Peter 3 clearly says that the way a wife wins her husband is without a word, by herr pure and respectful conduct; which comes from her adorning the hidden person of her heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, and who call their husbands “lord”.

    Do you call your husband “lord”, Mrs. C? If no, then you are are not yet the Titus 2 woman for whom we are looking.

  25. Mrs. C says:

    @CC “If the RCC teaches this then they are as wrong as any who say that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” forbids all taking of life.

    Who says the Church is wrong? You? What (in your fallible state) gives you the authority to interpret scripture and to know that your interpretation is the correct one? I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church above. The CCC ” is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety.” As a Catholic, I’m bound to follow it’s teachings.

    You said “To my mind, it is very much in doubt that what I have quoted of you is in fact what the RCC teaches. Perhaps you meant to say that you might have to refuse to do whatever it is that you (in your fallible state) believe to be sin.”

    No, I meant to say what I said. If I believe, due to my knowing my faith, that what I’m being asked to do is a sin, then I must refuse. Of course, if my husband thinks I’m wrong, then as I said above, we would consult the CCC, a priest/bishop or spiritual director and get guidance. If by consulting those sources, I am given direction that the action would not be sinful then I can comply and my conscience would be clear. Due to the primacy of each person’s conscience, no one can coerce or force a person to commit an action that they believe is a sin. This would be a violation of their human dignity.

    Here’s the link, if you were interested in reading more.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

    On the other hand, if I have a doubt and suspect but am not sure if an action is sinful, I am required by conscience to seek out the proper sources to make an informed judgement. In that case, you could say I “might” rather than “must” refuse.

    You quoted me “If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.”

    and then said

    “1 Peter 3 clearly says that the way a wife wins her husband is without a word, by herr pure and respectful conduct; which comes from her adorning the hidden person of her heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, and who call their husbands “lord”.”

    Well, 1 Peter 3 speaks to being married to an unbelieving husband (unconverted Jews or pagans). My husband is a believer so therefore between two Christians, they are to uphold and admonish one another in the faith.

    Casti Conubii (on chaste wedlock) states – This mutual inward molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof (para 24).

    You said “Do you call your husband “lord”, Mrs. C? If no, then you are are not yet the Titus 2 woman for whom we are looking.”

    LOL….no I can honestly say I never called my husband “lord”. While that may have been culturally customary in the O.T. times, the Church recognizes that customs change from time and place. While not required to call my husband lord, I am called to act in the spirit of that custom which would be with charity and respect as a true lifetime companion to him.

    Not the Titus 2 woman for whom “we” are looking? Maybe not for non-Catholic Christians, but as a Catholic wife (which I made clear above that I am), I was sharing my faith for the benefit of the other Catholics who were also commenting here. I wasn’t aware this post was about applying for the job of Titus 2 woman to the readership of this blog.

  26. Sarah's Daughter says:

    LOL….

    The epitome of modern women’s reverence for their husbands.

    While not required to call my husband lord, I am called to act in the spirit of that custom which would be with charity and respect as a true lifetime companion to him.

    So clinical. “required to call…”, “called to act…”

    I always got the impression Sarah didn’t call Abraham “Lord” out of duty or custom, but that it flowed from her heart.

  27. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @SD

    “I always got the impression Sarah didn’t call Abraham “Lord” out of duty or custom, but that it flowed from her heart.”

    Word. She did. In pop culture terms, she was “ride or die” for her man. Nothing mechanical at all in how she got down.

  28. tz says:

    Let me see if I can clarify Mrs. C and the RCC

    The Husband is not the exclusive authority over the wife. He only has the authority because God (via scripture) commands the wife to obey. But the language is not “do whatever he says” – note this is what Mary tells the servants at the Wedding at Cana to do pointing at her son!. Everywhere else any obedience is conditional on such obedience not being a sin. There are other authorities, some civil, some in the church. We are all equally ordered to obey the Bishops and pastors (greek: episcopus, presbyters). If your local bishop or pastor is a heretic, do you obey him?

    I do have a problem in that many otherwise orthodox priests and bishops in the RCC have muddied the familial authority waters. Contraception is hard for them to preach authentically on. It is even harder to say, “No, the husband, wife, and kids all have one vote in the family democracy”. (“Let not many of you be teachers”). The husband is given both authority and responsibility. Whether he wants it or not. The wife is less responsible – she obeys. But the same is true of the Bishops or the Church (for protestants, their organization) – when they declare a principle, unless it is glaringly sinful to obey, you need to play the sheep since you are not the shepherd – or you can see if you want to take the full-with-over-time job of shepherd.

    To heal things, we need to be like the Centurion who said (Matt 8:8-9) “The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” – but the Centurion himself follows orders from the pro-counsel who derives his authority from Rome.

    No one talks about the authorities the husbands are subject to, and that obedience or disobedience given questionable commands is exactly the same in this case. However the husbands are given greater latitude because they are responsible to verify what they are being called to do. Yet the higher authorities are even more responsible to insure their teachings are right.

    That said, Mr. C has the duty to inform himself and get his conscience right in a way Mrs C doesn’t – There is a command to inform the conscience, but there is a continuum between simple information – believe what the church teaches and leave it to higher authorities – and becoming a philosopher and theologian. Yet Mrs. C’s first and most immediate higher authority is her husband, so it would be sinful to second-guess him, but not to point out if he is not properly informing his conscience when giving some command where it would be important to do so.

    She, herself noted the purpose of the spouse is to get the other to heaven (and to the highest place possible). This means the quiet, submissive wife might need to nudge the husband onto the throne of authority and wisdom where he can be the wise king. Even if he doesn’t really want it. It is his duty.

    Reposting partially what I did from Cane’s comment section:

    The simple way of drawing a line is the paradox: What if the husband orders the wife not to obey him? Does the wife obey the husband or God when it is clear she can only obey one or the other and not both.

    There is no authority for me to obey anyone except God and his commandments except for one of those commandments itself specifying I should obey a superior authority – some in civil matters, the church or pastor in ecclesiastical ones. A wife has no authority to obey her husband apart from God’s commandment to do so. Her job isn’t hard – it isn’t to agonize about what it the right thing, but merely to see if it is glaring neon sign sin. It is the husband’s job to agonize since he will be responsible if he asks the wife to do something sinful, even through negligence.

    How are the marriages where the husband orders “treat me as an equal” working out when the wife obeys completely?

  29. Looking Glass says:

    @SD:

    I remembered a bit of your back story, so I wanted to change the compliment a bit: be proud of the work you’ve done to be a “good one”, and may that work Glorify the Lord. The cost is always worth it, when truly done for the Lord.

  30. Mrs. C says:

    SD-“LOL….
    The epitome of modern women’s reverence for their husbands.”

    SD, you’re trying to stir up trouble and it’s actually quite an ugly move for someone who is a Christian. My LOL is not in reference to the idea of reverence for husbands. It’s obviously to actually using the term “my lord” when speaking to my husband due to the fact that I don’t live in O.T. Biblical times. I followed up with “While not required to call my husband lord, I am called to act in the spirit of that custom which would be with charity and respect as a true lifetime companion to him.”

    which you referred to as

    “So clinical. “required to call…”, “called to act…””

    There’s nothing clinical about being “required” and “called.” God does require and call me to treat my husband with charity and respect.

    That doesn’t mean that it can’t flow from true affection for him from the heart. It’s not an either/or but a both/and.

  31. Cane Caldo says:

    @Mrs. C

    Who says the Church is wrong?

    No one here has said such, but I can think of a couple popes who have.

    What (in your fallible state) gives you the authority to interpret scripture and to know that your interpretation is the correct one?

    The Holy Spirit.

    No, I meant to say what I said.

    Well, hey: I tried to give you an out.

    The language is clear, and repeated clearly. You have said that Peter’s words were meant for Christian wives of non-Christian husbands, but that is not true. It was clearly meant for all Christian wives. The mention of non-Christians is also clearly meant to keep Christian wives from being led astray by self-righteousness. From the Douay-Rheims (lest you too be led astray by similar pride)

    3 In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.
    2 Considering your chaste conversation with fear.
    3 Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel:
    4 But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God.
    5 For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:
    6 As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well, and not fearing any disturbance.

    If you were not wrong to say that the passage is speaking to Christian wives of non-Christian husbands and really should be reserved to such, then you also must say that it is not necessary for Christian wives to have chaste conversation (conduct); that it is good for them to focus on outward adornment; that the quiet and meek spirit of a Christian wife to a Christian husband is not rich in the sight of God; that they are not to be after the manner of holy women; that they should fear disturbances.

    The good news is that you are wrong, and that “your faith” you have shared here is is not true. The RCC is clear that the catechism is not–and is not intended to be received as a full and final explanation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism. You have selected a bit of text from the Catechism that was intended for general Christian instruction and misconstrued it for use as a teaching specific to husbands and wives in marriage. (Confused Protestants pull this same stunt, but with selective reading of the Bible instead of the catechism.) That is wrong.

    A catechism is a skeleton to a body of theology. Suppose a catechism of the human body. It might say, “Humans can walk.”, and it would be true. What you have written is that the foot and the shin must both contact the ground during the course of walking because walking means putting flesh on the ground, and the catechism says “Humans can walk”. No. The specific supersedes, and explains, the general.

    Due to the primacy of each person’s conscience, no one can coerce or force a person to commit an action that they believe is a sin. This would be a violation of their human dignity.

    Who, Mrs. C., has said anything about forcing a wife to commit an action? I see that you are trying to be scary, but it is pathetic.

  32. Mrs. C says:

    Perhaps a look at how the CCC explains the duties of civic authority and the duties of citizens will give some clarity of how this works in marriage (adding that marriage is much more than an authority/obedience relationship due to the unique, loving, one flesh union that you don’t find in any other relationship.) Note that these duties fall under the fourth commandment as stated here

    “2199 The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it.

    The family and society

    2207 The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.

    Duties of civil authorities

    2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.”41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.

    2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.42

    Duties of citizens

    2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.”44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

    2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49

  33. Mrs. C says:

    CC- It is very clear that the Church teaches that if an authority directs you to commit a sin that the one under authority is not obliged to follow.

    @CC ” You have selected a bit of text from the Catechism that was intended for general Christian instruction and misconstrued it for use as a teaching specific to husbands and wives in marriage.”

    General Christian instruction encompasses all facets of life, including marriage. Marriage doesn’t trump or exclude the Church’s teachings on conscience for the individual. The usccb website states “The largest portion of the Catechism treats the content of the faith (Book One), but the second largest treats the moral life (Book Three). The relationship between what one believes and consequently how one behaves on account of that belief is very clear and forceful in the Catechism. This is especially evident in the section on the Church’s social teachings. Faith, then, is presented as more than the systematic knowledge of doctrine. In this regard, it is important to remember that each section of the Catechism should be read in light of the whole”.

    “The RCC is clear that the catechism is not–and is not intended to be received as a full and final explanation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism. ”

    While the Catechism isn’t going to go into a full blown discussion of every nuance of every point about the faith, it DOES present the entirety of the faith.

    The CCC says 18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. “It is a complete and accurate exposition of Catholic doctrine. ” according to the USCCB.

    For the issue in question here about whether a wife is to commit a sin if commanded to by her husband because she is subject to him, the foundational explanations of conscience and authority that are given in the CCC, are sufficient to be able to answer “No, if a wife knows an action to be sinful and is asked/commanded by her husband to perform it, she is to obey God rather than man.

    As for 1 Peter 3. It is generally interpreted as instructions for wives with unbelieving husbands. Does that mean a wife with a believing husband can’t take away the principle that her respectful behavior will always be an inspiration to her husband in keeping up his own Christian walk? No, because it’s a good principle for all Christians to follow in relation to others.

    You brought up 1 Peter 3 in reference to this statement of mine “If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.”

    1 Peter 3, while good instruction, is not a command that a wife can’t speak to her husband ever about their living out the faith together. Especially if one is requesting the other to do something the other knows is a sin. Each baptized person has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and has a share in the priesthood of Christ. Wives are not excluded from this. While as a Catholic, I leave the interpretation of Scripture to the Church, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a role and responsibility to catechize others in the faith if necessary.

    CC, are you Catholic? If not, why are attempting to catechize me in the Catholic faith?

  34. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Mrs C

    SD, you’re trying to stir up trouble and it’s actually quite an ugly move for someone who is a Christian.

    She does this – you may as well not take the bait, but nip it in the bud by refusing to play (like I did up-thread).

    @ Cane

    The Holy Spirit

    That’s what every person with a different interpretation of the same thing says – that the Holy Spirit told them that THEY are right. Well, they can’t all be right; only one can. This is why there needs to be Church authority – to prevent there from being hundreds of different interpretations of things floating around.

  35. Sarah's Daughter says:

    SD, you’re trying to stir up trouble

    What you don’t see is how much trouble your comments stir up for a genuinely confused Christian wife. I’m glad you mentioned you are speaking only to Catholic wives. A household and therefore a wife not under Catholic rule does not have this other authority in which to hold her husband to account for what she perceives to be sinful orders. I don’t disrespect your religion. However your teaching can not assist a wife who has one resource available to her, her Bible. She has the Word alone. And the straightforward Words on the pages. The same Word that may have been the only resource she read that brought her to faith in Jesus Christ. She should know that if God, His Word, and the Holy Spirit is enough for her to believe John 3:16, it is enough for her to believe Ephesians 5:24.

    If I misinterpreted your “LOL…” as derision, my apologies. It wasn’t obvious to me.

    @Looking Glass
    I remembered a bit of your back story, so I wanted to change the compliment a bit: be proud of the work you’ve done to be a “good one”, and may that work Glorify the Lord. The cost is always worth it, when truly done for the Lord.

    Again, thank you. I told my husband how frustrating it is (enough for there to be times I am tempted to doubt) that there are so few women who will teach on “how to love” vs. the numbers of women whose focus remains “when to rebel”. That the message would be better for all involved if it would come from someone who doesn’t have a back story as mine (which I’ve known to be a stumbling block for women due to the natural inclination to dismiss what I say because of that story and because of how I say things). He shook his head and smiled, told me to rebuke the temptation to doubt, and encouraged me with Luke 19:40.

  36. Mrs. C says:

    @SD “What you don’t see is how much trouble your comments stir up for a genuinely confused Christian wife.”

    Why would my comments stir up trouble? I specifically began my first comment on this thread with the words “As a Catholic wife….” to eliminate any confusion as to where my thoughts were coming from for other Christian brothers and sisters who are not Catholic. I don’t expect other Christian denominations to follow Catholic teaching. Stating Catholic teaching and clearly showing that it is Catholic was to add to the different perspectives shared. It was not presented as instruction for all Christian wives.

  37. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Feminine but not Feminist,
    I asked that question regarding your hypothetical situation because I was hoping you had an answer for it. For a woman to say there are times when a wife should not submit to her husband and analyze his intentions behind his commands before submitting, it might also be helpful if you would speak about how one goes about this. It is not obvious. The overall condition of marriage today is not one where women know how/choose to be respectful to their husbands. Most are very sassy and indignant and do not know how to even ask their husbands for clarification in a respectful manner much less how to express that she believes what he is asking her to do would be sinful should she do it.

    If you have pulled other personal opinions about me into this thread, might I suggest those are yours to deal with. “She does this” bears false witness against me. You do not, actually, know my heart or my intentions. All you have available to you are the words I’ve written that can be read deliberately or subjectively with your own projection and poor opinion of me mixed in.

  38. Regular Guy says:

    Mrs. C said, “If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.”

    If this is an accurate statement of the RCC Catechism, then what we have here is the “Get out of submission free” card for Catholic wives. There’s a steep price to be paid for extra-biblical doctrine.

  39. As far as Lord/lord goes:

    G2962 — κύριος — kurios — koo'-ree-os

    From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): – God, Lord, master, Sir.

    Mr. and Sir are also respectful equivalents that we use today.

    ———————-

    @ Regular Guy

    Mrs. C said, “If it’s also my role to help my husband get to heaven (and the Church tells me it is), then I have a responsibility to show him how what he is requesting is a sinful action.”

    If this is an accurate statement of the RCC Catechism, then what we have here is the “Get out of submission free” card for Catholic wives. There’s a steep price to be paid for extra-biblical doctrine.

    There’s nothing wrong with extra-biblical concepts. Jesus didn’t lambast the Pharisees about them because they made extra biblical laws. He lambasted them because:

    Mark 7:8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”

    Indeed, men can create man-made laws and tradition that are useful and can be used righteously. The teaching of the disciples/apostles in the NT is referred to as “tradition” and we are taught to hold fast to it (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 1:13). The problem is holding them over or neglecting the commands of God which are specifically the teachings of Jesus.

    However, you are correct in this instance. Jesus tells us what Eternal Life is in John 17 in the first few verses. And it’s not about heaven or getting to heaven.

  40. Mrs. C says:

    @Regular Guy “If this is an accurate statement of the RCC Catechism, then what we have here is the “Get out of submission free” card for Catholic wives.”

    While I don’t see the connection between spouses helping each other grow in holiness/avoid sin and a “get out of submission free” card, it is indeed what the Church teaches about marriage. It is listed as follows

    1641 “By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God.”147 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they “help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children.”148

    1642 Christ is the source of this grace. “Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony.”149 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,”150 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    @Mrs. C.

    [I]f a wife knows an action to be sinful and is asked/commanded by her husband to perform it, she is to obey God rather than man.

    This is not what you said before, and it remains that it is always righteous for a wife to obey her husband.

    Otherwise, I leave you in the care of Mr. C.. May the Lord help him.

    @Regular Guy

    If this is an accurate statement of the RCC Catechism, then what we have here is the “Get out of submission free” card for Catholic wives. There’s a steep price to be paid for extra-biblical doctrine.

    Within RCC doctrine, as with most other denominations, I have found enough teaching for a wife to substantiate rebellion against her husband; at least legalistically, like a good conservative. Yet there is much more tradition there to recommend a wife who is seeking to be righteous. The fact that those are not the parts that Mrs. C. like to talk about, and that she likes to harp on senselessly about the independence of wives, says more about Mrs. C. than it does about the traditions of the RCC.

  42. Regular Guy says:

    @ DS

    In a fallen world that seems to grow heresies from the ground we walk on, I prefer to keep it simple. If it is not of the bible, it is suspect. Sola Scriptura.

  43. Mrs. C says:

    @CC “[I]f a wife knows an action to be sinful and is asked/commanded by her husband to perform it, she is to obey God rather than man. This is not what you said before, and it remains that it is always righteous for a wife to obey her husband.”

    Right, I used the word believes instead of know. The word believes would indicate that there is room for a person to be wrong in their belief and to know is confirmation of that belief. Either way, a wife has the responsibility to not perform an action if she thinks it may be a sin and to seek to find an answer to her doubts.

    It is righteous for a wife to obey her husband, but if it involves sin it would not be righteous. An example: If my husband wants to use birth control, which the Church forbids, and I go along with it, it would not be righteous for me to obey.

    @CC I have found enough teaching for a wife to substantiate rebellion against her husband;” “The fact that those are not the parts that Mrs. C. like to talk about, and that she likes to harp on senselessly about the independence of wives, says more about Mrs. C. than it does about the traditions of the RCC.”

    Pure speculation on your part. I think I presented the Catholic position quite well re: the issue of whether wives should obey a command/request to sin from their husbands rather than just “harp on senselessly about the independence of wives,” It’s quite clear independence of wives was not the topic. What you refer to as “substantiate rebellion”, is nothing of the kind. It is a matter of defining the parameters of where our obedience to authority ends when the authority is no longer in obedience to God. It’s not the rebellion of the one under obedience but the rebellion of the one who is the steward for God.

  44. Mrs. C says:

    Just to clarify, because I can hear it coming, ” obedience to authority ends when the authority is no longer in obedience to God. ” I do not mean that a husband has to be perfectly free from sin in order for the wife to submit. It is speaking of a wrongful use of authority which extends to command those under them to sin against God.

  45. thedeti says:

    This comment from Dalrock seems appropriate to the discussion between Cane and Mrs. C.:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/revisiting-the-question-of-a-troublesome-mother-in-law/#comment-179344

    “What I would say from the discussion is it confirms again what I already strongly believed. The claim of “What if he tells me to sin?” isn’t about a real fear of being commanded to do evil. It is a smokescreen, or squid ink, to avoid what the Bible clearly says while pretending not to do so. I suspect it is clear to others following as well.

    “Men in the modern world are no more brutish than the men of the ancient world. Yet whenever submission is discussed today we have the obligatory clamor of voices crying out in fear of brutish men forcing their wives into unspeakable sin, because the clarity and simplicity of the Bible surely no longer applies. You can’t teach that anymore! It is dangerous! The difference in focus on this topic between the Bible and the present isn’t due to a change in men, but due to our times being characterized by rampant feminist rebellion (with feminist rebellion now held as a high virtue).”
    ___________________

    Mrs. C.’s dissembling and equivocating here appears to me to be exactly this phenomenon: “I’ll submit, but there are all these instances when I cannot, or should not, or will not, submit. That’s because I need to be the ultimate arbiter of whether my husband’s “requests” or “commands” conform to Scripture or Catechism or whatever else I deem authoritative.”

    Submission, usually, except when I believe it’s “wrong” or “sinful”.

  46. feeriker says:

    For the record, I think this is why a woman should properly vet a man before marrying him to make sure she can commit to being in full submission to him. What I mean is to make sure he has a good head on his shoulders and has a heart for seeking after righteousness. Men like that can be trusted to not tell their wives to do truly sinful things..

    Yes. In fact, I would say that it works both ways. Men and women who carefully vet prospective spouses seem to have far fewer issues in this area. There’s no hard data that I know of to support this assertion, but anecdata seems to strongly suggest it’s true.

  47. Nonya says:

    My church teaches that all human authority is limited and shouldn’t be obeyed if it causes us to sin against God. There is a lot of concern here that women will use that as an excuse not to submit when they should. If someone is determined to do the wrong thing and use the Bible as justification they will find a way. American slavery, the Holocaust and a lot of other obviously sinful horrors were justified with misused scripture. That doesn’t mean that we should claim that those Bible verses mean something that they do not in an attempt to close any possible “loopholes.”

  48. Looking Glass says:

    I realized some years ago that the only proper way to open a Sermon on Wifely Submission is to talk about the Master/Slave passages in the New Testament. Aside from making the entire Church horrifically uncomfortable, it stages the proper stage for dealing with the passages: they mean what they say and God is quite clear on it. It just takes the Mind of a Modern to render it as confusing as we take it to be now.

  49. feeriker says:

    “Men in the modern world are no more brutish than the men of the ancient world.”

    Dare anyone ask if women in the modern world are any more rebellious those of the ancient world?

  50. Mrs. C says:

    @deti “Mrs. C.’s dissembling and equivocating here appears to me to be exactly this phenomenon:

    Deti, you’re full of it. I did no such thing as dissembling and equivocating. I stated facts (not my opinion) about Catholic Church teaching. When challenged, I gave more evidence. This post was specifically about the issue of wives submitting to sinful directives. It wasn’t about submission AND THEN the question of submitting to sin was added to it. It was the point of the post. So no, this isn’t a situation of “It is a smokescreen, or squid ink, to avoid what the Bible clearly says while pretending not to do so. ”

    @deti “I’ll submit, but there are all these instances when I cannot, or should not, or will not, submit. That’s because I need to be the ultimate arbiter of whether my husband’s “requests” or “commands” conform to Scripture or Catechism or whatever else I deem authoritative. Submission, usually, except when I believe it’s “wrong” or “sinful”.

    Again you are wrong. It’s not about “I need to be the ultimate arbiter of whether my husband’s “requests’ or “commands’ conform to Scripture or Catechism.” It’s about what the Catholic Church tells me is my responsibilities for my actions. I’m bound to follow that, not to make my husband the ultimate arbiter. He’s a steward of God’s authority. He’s not his own authority. I’m ultimately responsible for my actions, not my husband. “Because he told me to” won’t fly on judgement day. It didn’t work for Adam in the garden either.

    @deti “Men in the modern world are no more brutish than the men of the ancient world. Yet whenever submission is discussed today we have the obligatory clamor of voices crying out in fear of brutish men forcing their wives into unspeakable sin,

    The topic of discussion was not about the prevalence of brutish husbands requesting unspeakable sin but since you brought it up, I doubt there are that many. For the few that exist, the original topic is applicable.

  51. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    I talked with a Catholic man about this briefly yesterday, who confirmed that Church teaching is such that a wife is to obey her husband in everything, apart from things requiring her to commit Mortal Sins, specifically. For a description and examples of Mortal Sins, here is a link I dug up real quick: ( http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html ). Seems pretty cut and dry to me without much (if any) room for “interpretation” or loopholes. That should satisfy everybody.

    (Note: I just skimmed through it, I didn’t read the whole thing. But what I did read of it lines up with what I’ve learned so far. So if a more experienced Catholic sees something wrong with that list and wants to link to a different one, please do.)

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    Feminine but not Feminist,
    I asked that question regarding your hypothetical situation because I was hoping you had an answer for it. For a woman to say there are times when a wife should not submit to her husband and analyze his intentions behind his commands before submitting, it might also be helpful if you would speak about how one goes about this. It is not obvious. The overall condition of marriage today is not one where women know how/choose to be respectful to their husbands. Most are very sassy and indignant and do not know how to even ask their husbands for clarification in a respectful manner much less how to express that she believes what he is asking her to do would be sinful should she do it.

    I do have an answer for how I would do it (whether that answer is right or wrong), I just didn’t think it’s necessary to say on this particular thread because it would be like opening a can of worms to a different topic. I’ve been very bad about doing this in the past and I’m trying very hard to avoid doing so as much as possible now, because I know DS (and at least one or two other bloggers around here) doesn’t like it on his blog. If you think it’s so important to talk about in this particular thread, why don’t you just answer your own question?

    If you have pulled other personal opinions about me into this thread, might I suggest those are yours to deal with. “She does this” bears false witness against me. You do not, actually, know my heart or my intentions. All you have available to you are the words I’ve written that can be read deliberately or subjectively with your own projection and poor opinion of me mixed in.

    You’re right, I don’t know your intentions; I only know your actions that I’ve seen around these parts, and the experiences of my own interactions with you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you might not mean to come across the way you do. I’m not yet convinced that I’ve read you wrong though. Nor am I convinced that warning someone that you do tend to “stir up trouble” is “bearing false witness” against you when that is what you oftentimes do on the occasions I’ve read your comments. And especially when I’ve been warned of it myself by someone I trust and already saw it that way beforehand. As an example, why did you actually ask me that question before? I know you’re not asking me for advice, since I’m single and you’re already married (and older than me?). Why didn’t you just offer up the answer yourself? You must have one, since you think it’s so important to discuss. If you had been genuinely seeking an answer from me because you thought you could learn something new from me, that would be different. But you came across to me to be patronising at best, passive aggressive at worst. I hope that wasn’t your intention, but it was the result.

  52. Sarah's Daughter says:

    As an example, why did you actually ask me that question before? I know you’re not asking me for advice, since I’m single and you’re already married (and older than me?).

    I hadn’t remembered (or never knew) you weren’t married. I wouldn’t have asked you the question if I knew that. I was hoping you’d give a response with your husband in mind. It’s one thing to give lip service to when wives should rebel, a whole other thing to speak of how they should do so when they are considering their very own personal situation and the relationship dynamic that exists within their marriage.

    This is why I and many others immediately question the health of a marriage when we read wives write of the lines they have drawn for their husbands. When marriages are strong and in proper alignment, wives tend not to display such public disrespect for their husbands (announcing to strangers the length of his rope).

  53. Mrs. C says:

    @FBNF – Thanks for posting that list. Even us lifelong Catholics benefit from reading through them now and again. The only mortal sin that I saw wasn’t there and probably the one most Catholic marriages are prone to is the use of birth control.

    @SD – ” It’s one thing to give lip service to when wives should rebel, a whole other thing to speak of how they should do so when they are considering their very own personal situation and the relationship dynamic that exists within their marriage.”

    First, not all rebellion is unrighteous. There are righteous reasons for it as we are speaking about here. And you’re right that it’s not always as cut and dried when you’re in the situation. How to do that is going to depend on an individual marriage. We should always speak respectfully to our spouse in all situations. You can use words that say “I’m sorry that I can’t do what you are asking me to do.” and give an explanation. As I said in my first post, as a Catholic wife, this is easier for me because I have the backing of the teachings of the Church. I suppose other Christians would have the backing of their local pastor or faith community, especially if it’s a mainline Protestant denomination with a written set of beliefs or a type of catechism of their own. If not, maybe it would be a good exercise for a married couple to have a discussion or two about this topic and, after reading Scripture,decide what reasons there would be for righteous rebellion. ….or to come to the conclusion that there are no reasons and to live that out in their marriage.

    @SD – “This is why I and many others immediately question the health of a marriage when we read wives write of the lines they have drawn for their husbands. When marriages are strong and in proper alignment, wives tend not to display such public disrespect for their husbands (announcing to strangers the length of his rope).”

    How can you question the health of a marriage of some anonymous person online and why would it be your business to do so? Also, distinctions have to be made depending on the situation. If a wife or husband is speaking with full disclosure about his/her specific marriage and giving names publicly then that is public disrespect. If a spouse is speaking in general about marriage, (not specifically about their own) and a debating a certain principle pertaining to it and is anonymous, you know nothing about their marriage. Speaking about it could simply be an interest in the subject and the person enjoys the discussion about it.

    “announcing to strangers the length of his rope” – in the topic at question, it’s not the wife’s rope, it’s God’s.

  54. Sarah's Daughter says:

    How can you question the health of a marriage of some anonymous person online

    Quite easily, out of the heart the mouth speaks (or hands type). When I’m wrong, I retract and apologize. When I’m not wrong but am accused of being so, I will still retract and apologize and the measure of dishonesty in a woman’s heart is then left for her to consider on her own.

    Why would it be your business to do so

    It’s an interest in the subject and a discussion I enjoy. The manner in which I make it my business offends some, infuriates others, brings awareness to some, and based on the feedback I get, has brought some wives to their knees seeking Truth in how to love their husbands. It is for them that I’ve made it my business. I do so because I know from my own experience what it took for me and I know I am not the only hard headed, broken-hearted, ice cold wretch that would otherwise never be reached if the only Titus 2 women available were soft spoken, tender-hearts who word their messages delicately. I have tremendous respect for those women and often send women their way when I know that it is their teaching that would impact her – Lori Alexander, for example, or Stingray.

    ….or to come to the conclusion that there are no reasons and to live that out in their marriage.

    Thank you. Like I said to you before, I don’t disrespect your religion. I’m happy to see that in this sentence you have demonstrated that you don’t disrespect the manner in which my husband and countless others order their homes.

  55. Mrs. C says:

    @SD ”
    It’s an interest in the subject and a discussion I enjoy. The manner in which I make it my business offends some, infuriates others, brings awareness to some, and based on the feedback I get, has brought some wives to their knees seeking Truth in how to love their husbands.

    If the manner in which you are dealing with others is infuriating them, you may want to search your heart. We aren’t supposed to bring others to anger by the manner in which we treat them. We are to speak the truth and if that angers them, then that’s on them not us. But if you are going to be abrasive like when you tried to imply I was saying the idea of having reverence for husbands was laughable when it was obvious I was not, then you are being more unhelpful than helpful.

    @SD ” I’m happy to see that in this sentence you have demonstrated that you don’t disrespect the manner in which my husband and countless others order their homes.”

    You’re right. I don’t disrespect the way you order your home. Just be sure you are not telling other wive’s whose faith background may not call them to order their own homes in the same way to do it your way. You also don’t know what their husband or denomination thinks about submission and whether they agree with the the principle of “in all things but sin” or not. You seem to come across as judgmental of others whose marriages don’t follow the same principle as yours.

  56. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I don’t disrespect the way you order your home. Just be sure you are not telling other wive’s whose faith background may not call them to order their own homes in the same way to do it your way.

    See, it’s wording like this that challenges my ability to keep my mouth shut. Perhaps it is just a huge fundamental difference between Catholic’s belief regarding the role of a wife and “Sola Scriptura’s”?

    To be offended by my implying that your “LOL…” was out of derision is to deny the miserable state of marriage and absence of reverence for husbands. Most “LOL…’s” in response to a question like Cane posed are from haughty, rebellious, hearts. I’m surprised you haven’t witnessed this yourself. Again, I’m sorry that I misjudged your use of the LOL. If you did indeed laugh out loud at …. whatever it was you laughed out loud about that wasn’t derision to reverence of husbands, then I was wrong.

  57. Mrs. C says:

    @SD “To be offended by my implying that your “LOL…” was out of derision is to deny the miserable state of marriage and absence of reverence for husbands. ”

    Cane’s question “Do you call your husband “lord”? was ridiculous and was his way of implying that I’m a “rebellious wife”. It was not a serious question. He had no valid arguments against anything I stated about what I know my Church’s stance is on the question. If he has a problem with what the Catholic Church teaches, what good is it going to do to argue with someone who follows that Church that they are wrong.

    That aside, you jumped in with quoting my LOL and conveniently leaving the rest of the sentence that followed and used the term “modern woman” which around here is code for “feminist” which you knew would probably prompt others to join in and try to invalidate my position. It was a comment that added nothing useful to the discussion. It was meant to to stir up emotion. But, here I am getting sucked into an off-topic argument that I’m not going to continue.

  58. Re: “Why would it be your business to do so”

    1. If you volunteer information on the Internet you have made it everyone’s business.
    2. Christians are supposed to be their “brother’s keeper” though in kindness. It’s easy to be abrasive and it’s difficult to be kind.

  59. Looking Glass says:

    @DS:

    And kindness can be incredibly harsh, as the Truth causes Shame.

  60. Sarah's Daughter says:

    You’re right, DS. It’s something I will work on. You’ve been a gracious host, thank you.

  61. @ LG

    Depends. People who double down usually aren’t won by harshness but kindness.

    Harshness can work as an immediate shock IF the person’s eyes are open to their sin and their heart is open to humility. Problem being that most people have the latter dysfunction: a lack of humility rather than a lack of eyes open to sin.

  62. Mrs. C says:

    @DS – “1. If you volunteer information on the Internet you have made it everyone’s business.
    2. Christians are supposed to be their “brother’s keeper” though in kindness. It’s easy to be abrasive and it’s difficult to be kind.”

    You’re right. With number 1, if someone is volunteering information about their marriage, then they have made it other’s business. What I was getting at with SD is her basing judgement on other’s marriages based on what side of “a principle about marriage” they may be debating. Especially with this issue. Whether a marriage is “in everything” or “in everything but sin” doesn’t really indicate the state of that marriage. If I wasn’t Catholic and in her position, I’d probably direct them to their husband or their Church, not argue for “in everything” without knowing the husband or denomination.

    @SD “I don’t disrespect the way you order your home. Just be sure you are not telling other wive’s whose faith background may not call them to order their own homes in the same way to do it your way.”

    Your bias is showing. If you read my sentence carefully, instead of highlighting the word “wive’s” and then “order their own homes”, it would be “faith background” that should be highlighted that calls them to order their own homes.

  63. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Sarah’s Daughter
    I hadn’t remembered (or never knew) you weren’t married. I wouldn’t have asked you the question if I knew that. I was hoping you’d give a response with your husband in mind.

    Ok, that makes sense. You must not read the threads of the blogs that I tend to comment on much.

    It’s one thing to give lip service to when wives should rebel

    Uh, no. To give lip service is to be insincere in what one says; to say something contrary to what one believes and would do themselves. When I say that a wife should obey her husband in anything he says apart from things listed as Mortal Sins** whether she wants to or not, I am saying something that I will be committing to doing myself, should I be fortunate enough to marry. No lip service here.
    **(which are the most grievous of sins that if committed, will take one outside of God’s graces and send the person committing them straight to Hell if not repented and Confessed prior to death. These are very serious and not to be played around with. They are far more serious than Venial Sins, which lead to Purgatory, not Hell. At least, that is my understanding: if any Catholic sees that I’m wrong, please correct me.)

    Also, I’m not saying “when a wife should rebel,” I’m saying she shouldn’t rebel against God. (You clearly don’t like it when people don’t word things the way you like, so stop twisting what I’m trying to say!) You might say “if a wife disobeys her husband then she is rebelling against God” which is true. Disobeying one’s husband is a sin. But it’s not a Mortal Sin. There are levels of how bad sins are, and some are worse than others, as the Church teaches. So it would be more rebellious against God to commit a Mortal Sin at your husband’s order than it would be to commit a Venial Sin by refusing to obey your husband If he tells you to commit a Mortal Sin. And if he tells you to do anything else, it would be more sinful to disobey your husband than to obey, even if he’s telling you to commit a lighter sin than disobedience to one’s husband. (Again, if any Catholic sees a problem with my understanding of Church teaching, please correct me).

    ********************************

    Here’s a pertinent parable: My Dad was in the Navy years ago and would sometimes get conflicting orders from his superiors. When this happened, he would always follow the order that came from the highest ranking officer. When the lower ranking officer had a problem with that, my Dad would politely suggest that they talk to the higher ranking officer about it, and that if the higher ranking officer approved of my Dad following the lower’s order instead of his own, then my Dad would do it instead. In 100% of cases, the higher ranking officer’s order was followed. Was my Dad being rebellious, or wise?

  64. Sarah's Daughter says:

    You seem to come across as judgmental of others whose marriages don’t follow the same principle as yours.

    I believe the covenant of marriage is the most important human aspect of a woman’s life. I believe that women remain without the joy they could experience and, as a result, their husbands remain without the joy they could experience if only the wife would embrace complete obedience to God’s Word on marriage. I am not convinced that the manner in which I write has a negative effect on the marriage relationship. I don’t believe women choose to rebel more against God in the submission to their husbands as a result of what they read from me. The principle I follow is not mine. It is God’s.

    In asking a man who is a MGTOW what I can do to help “fix things” he had this to say:
    You do it by setting an example for other women to voluntarily follow. Setting an example showing that refusing the feminist script serves their own long-term interest better than following it. Show them that it’s possible to elicit the kind of male behavior they expect.

    You’re a woman living in a feminized society – a society structured around your wants, where men are only guests and life accessories. It’s your world – women’s world. You are the ones who have the power to shape it. – Hells Hound

    In my physical world, it is very easy to see the way I live and thus the example I set for my own daughters, neighbors, family and friends. Online this has included writing on submission and being vocal to unruly women about where their “lane” is. I am not judgmental so much as I am convicted. There are many things that strengthen my conviction, accounts like this included: http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-ifhe-intervenes.html

  65. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Mrs C

    @FBNF – Thanks for posting that list. Even us lifelong Catholics benefit from reading through them now and again. The only mortal sin that I saw wasn’t there and probably the one most Catholic marriages are prone to is the use of birth control.

    You’re welcome! And thank you also for pointing that last part out. I had skimmed through the link quickly and hadn’t noticed it not being there… 🙂

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    How can you question the health of a marriage of some anonymous person online

    Quite easily, out of the heart the mouth speaks (or hands type)…

    Allow me to quote you in response to this:

    You do not, actually, know my heart or my intentions. All you have available to you are the words I’ve written that can be read deliberately or subjectively with your own projection and poor opinion of me mixed in.

    If we are unable to come to accurate conclusions about you based on only the words we see on our screens, then neither can you about us. ‘Nuf said.

  66. Mrs. C says:

    @FBNF “So it would be more rebellious against God to commit a Mortal Sin at your husband’s order than it would be to commit a Venial Sin by refusing to obey your husband If he tells you to commit a Mortal Sin.”

    I’m running out the door so I don’t have time to look this up now but it’s an interesting idea that I want to explore better. My thinking at the moment is that if the request is a mortal sin and you refuse to obey there is no lesser sin against disobeying your husband (venial) because your obligation in obedience is to God first. The only reason for obedience to husband is because he is submitted to God through the Church and he has primary responsibility to oversee the obedience of his family to the Church and to God. The wife is a second authority. She isn’t without any. He is a steward of God’s Law and if he steps outside of that he steps outside of the bounds of his authority. Once he’s outside that, your obligation to obey doesn’t exist.

  67. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Mrs C

    He is a steward of God’s Law and if he steps outside of that he steps outside of the bounds of his authority. Once he’s outside that, your obligation to obey doesn’t exist.

    I could be misunderstanding you, but that doesn’t sound right at all. A husband doesn’t have to be perfectly lined up to retain his authority over his wife and all.

    What I was trying to say is that a husband’s authority is second to God’s authority. To rank the husband’s authority over his wife over God’s authority over her is to make the husband into an idol. Now, this is not a “get out of submission free card” since the wife should absolutely obey her husband in every way, whether she wants to or not, so long as she’s not separating herself from God and risking her salvation in order to do it.

  68. The vast majority of discussion in the comments is based on the false assumption that you can either say yes or no. This is false dilemma and a fallacy.

    I posted this to Dalrock’s thread a bit ago. It should help you understand that “assumptions” about what you should do based on “yes and no” false dilemmas are taking too narrow a vision of the Power of God to work in certain circumstances.

    On Moral Dilemmas: http://closureforjesus.com/?p=570

    […] Let’s put it another way. The idea of a “moral dilemma” rests on the assertion that one Commandment can be smashed against another. That is the core of Satan’s charge against God, and if it’s true the Great Controversy is lost.

    Someone might object that these theological ideas fall flat in the real world, asking, “What if you were hiding Jews in your basement when the Gestapo came? Wouldn’t you go ahead and bear false witness in order to save those innocent people? Or would be pharisaical enough to tell a truth that would kill them?”

    But such “What if” questions set up a false choice crafted by somebody’s imagination. In the real world more possibilities exist. One could reply to the Gestapo, “Come in and look,” or even, “That is not the kind of question I will answer.” Then what? The Jews might be found or not, either one. The homeowner might be spared or shot, either one. Some Gestapo men might wind up converted, or none might be. Lots of outcomes could follow, including miraculous ones. We cannot know what will happen in a given case.

    That is the key. The essential illusion in a supposed moral dilemma is that we are obligated to decide when to break a Commandment based on weighing future results of that decision. We aren’t. We couldn’t be. Roll a billiard ball against two cushions of a pool table; no amount of mathematical calculation can tell exactly where it will come to rest. Likewise, the final outcome of any decision is always unknowable by us beforehand. There’s even a name for this principle in general human experience: the Law of Unintended Consequences. […]

  69. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    So how would you apply that to what we’ve been discussing here? Specifically?

  70. donalgraeme says:

    Setting aside DS’s most recent point, I wanted to address this:

    The only reason for obedience to husband is because he is submitted to God through the Church and he has primary responsibility to oversee the obedience of his family to the Church and to God. The wife is a second authority. She isn’t without any. He is a steward of God’s Law and if he steps outside of that he steps outside of the bounds of his authority. Once he’s outside that, your obligation to obey doesn’t exist.

    No. This is refuted by 1 Peter 3. The husband’s authority comes from being a husband, which he receives from God, not the church. A wife submits to him because he is her husband, not because he is submitted through the Church to God. So even a non-Christian husband, who does not submit to Go, is to be obeyed, but again, so long as it doesn’t contravene God’s law. The Church come in by explaining God’s law. The woman (or the man, for that matter) doesn’t decide what His law is.

  71. @ FBNF

    Here is another example that I wrote from Dalrock’s post:

    We have a Christian husband and Christian wife. The Christian husband tells the wife to do something that is sin. Say lie about something. Maybe he realizes, maybe he doesn’t A wife should not go “No, I’m not going to lie about that because God said not to.” This is in effect “bashing commandments against one other: submit to husband or submit to God.

    Instead, the wife should bring it up in an attitude of respect: “Hey, I don’t know if you understood what you were saying fully but what you told me to do was tell a lie about something. Is there anything I can do to avoid sinning in this case?”

    99.99999% of the time a Christian husband won’t want his Christian wife to sin. Hence, he will typically respond with something like: “Oh, I’m sorry honey I didn’t realize that was going to make you sin.” Then he can tell you to do it a different way.

    The point is just yes or just no is a false dichotomy. Simply saying “no because God said so” is ignores the task or the intent of the task without consideration of the intent behind the husband’s decision. It is selfish to the core because it exploits getting out of it rather than seeing it something else can be done that doesn’t allow you sin.

    […]

    Right now when you advocate on just saying no that’s out of a disrespectful heart. A righteous respectful heart looks for ways to obey without sinning and saying no. It will involve saying “Hey, I can’t do that because it’s going to make me sin… IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO INSTEAD?”

    However, here are more examples. My previous post was on that subject:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/respectful-submission-not-submission/

    ~ A respectful heart searches for ways to obey in the fruits of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, and self control.
    ~ A disrespectful heart searches for ways to disobey, often without care for the concerns of the one in authority even if they ultimately obey.

    Another scenario:

    1. Respectfully point out that it may be a sin.
    2. Search/implore the husband for a way to obey that does not violate God and the conscience.

    Number 1 facilitates number 2. Proper respect is a lubricant that shows the person in authority that you want to obey. Then showing that you are willing to do what he/she wants but not that request specifically shows that you understand respect and submission properly.

    Philippeans 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

    What if women presented their request like they pray to God in this way? What man would not respond to a woman that is respectful, willing to obey, and thankful that he trusts her enough to do that?

    Men are not hardened brutes that they don’t respond to respect AND submission AND thankfulness. Unless said woman chose to marry a psychopath or dark triad man in which case that’s probably not the biggest of her worries.

  72. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    So talking about what specifically to say or do in response to a husband’s request for a wife to do something that would be sinful (as opposed to sticking to the topic of “should or shouldn’t she obey a sinful order?”) wouldn’t have been going too far off topic after all then? 😕

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    If DS says that it wouldn’t have been off topic to open that can of worms, then I apologize for getting on your case about trying to get me to go there.

  73. @ FBNF

    No, because it’s the same topic.

    My topic comment in the other post was specifically discussing what men should look for in wives. The women, mainly TPC, started bringing up women’s issues which was off topic.

  74. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Ooooh, ok. I see. I guess I was trying to take it a bit too literally then.

    In response to what to do about it when a husband says to do something that is sinful, you pretty much covered what I would’ve said to that. The only thought I would add to it is that a wife should be as gentle and kind about it as possible, including in her words, tone of voice, and facial expressions / body language. She should assume he means well towards her, particularly if he is a Christian, and not jump down his throat about it. Like I said upthread, if he is the type who is seeking after righteousness, he’s not going to ask her to sin. Not knowingly, at least.

  75. Mrs. C says:

    @FBNF -” I could be misunderstanding you, but that doesn’t sound right at all. A husband doesn’t have to be perfectly lined up to retain his authority over his wife and all.”

    Right, that’s not what I’m saying. In other words, God doesn’t give a husband the authority to tell his wife to commit a mortal sin. Here’s an example that sounds a little silly but will illustrate what I’m saying. If a Catholic husband says “Honey, I don’t want any more children. Make an appt and get on the pill. Oh and by the way, we’re going to 10 am Mass on Sunday.” She would not comply with the first command but would with the second. He doesn’t have the authority to give that command so it’s not a sin for her to not comply.

    @DG 1 Peter 3 doesn’t refute this. A Catholic wife married to a non-Catholic would be obligated to go to Sunday Mass even if her husband said he forbids it. This is covered when they get married by the bishop’s approval and he promises to raise his children Catholic.

  76. Mrs. C says:

    DG – wanted to add, so I’m not misunderstood. If non-Catholic husband says he would like family dinner to be at 6pm because that works best with everyone’s schedules – his authority is in place with his Catholic wife. Forbidding her to go to Mass is not within his authority.

    When I said above about stepping outside his authority, I didn’t mean totally. I mean in matters in which he has no authority to issue said directive.

  77. Mrs. C says:

    @FBNF “The only thought I would add to it is that a wife should be as gentle and kind about it as possible, including in her words, tone of voice, and facial expressions / body language. She should assume he means well towards her, particularly if he is a Christian, and not jump down his throat about it. Like I said upthread, if he is the type who is seeking after righteousness, he’s not going to ask her to sin. Not knowingly, at least.”

    Very nice and “assume he means well” is always the default attitude….

  78. Mrs. C says:

    @DG- “The husband’s authority comes from being a husband, which he receives from God, not the church.”

    Weeellll, (seriously I’m not picking on you), I just enjoy debating theology. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it is the Church that decides whether a marriage is valid and therefore, whether a husband is actually a valid husband so his God-given authority is affirmed by the Church. In the case of a Catholic wife/non-Catholic husband, the Church won’t confer on him his authority in matters of faith and morals where they don’t align with the Church. In other words, a husband’s authority as a husband comes from God. The Church, as God’s representative on Earth, has the God-given authority to decide the boundaries of that authority. In that sense, his God-given authority only extends to matters the Church says it does which is why there is no sin for a wife to disobey a directive her husband isn’t authorized to give in the first place.

    If I would write your sentence as I explained things above it would be

    The husband’s authority comes from being a husband, which he receives from God, through the approval of the Church and within the limits she sets. (Keys of the kingdom and all)

  79. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Mrs C

    Right, that’s not what I’m saying. In other words, God doesn’t give a husband the authority to tell his wife to commit a mortal sin. Here’s an example that sounds a little silly but will illustrate what I’m saying. If a Catholic husband says “Honey, I don’t want any more children. Make an appt and get on the pill. Oh and by the way, we’re going to 10 am Mass on Sunday.” She would not comply with the first command but would with the second. He doesn’t have the authority to give that command so it’s not a sin for her to not comply.

    Ok, thanks for clearing that up and correcting me. Considering its a Mortal Sin to use birth control (because it means not being open to creating new life, for anyone reading that doesn’t understand why) what you’re saying there matches what I was saying.

  80. thedeti says:

    Mrs. C, you’re a feminist. Plain and simple.

  81. Mrs. C says:

    @FBNF I was thinking about this some more this evening and how it could be better explained why it’s not even a venial sin for a wife to disobey her husband when he tells her to do something that is a mortal sin.

    God would not put us in a situation where in order to obey one of his commands we would have to be disobedient to another command and therefore sin, even if it’s a venial sin. Venial sin, although a lesser offence, is still an evil against God.

    God says via Scripture “Wives be obedient to your husbands in everything”

    God also says via Scripture that some sins are deadly (mortal) and do not commit them and gives authority to the Church (keys of the kingdom) to define what sins are deadly.

    Church reasons that “in everything” cannot be taken literally at face value because husband’s authority does not exceed God’s. Husband does not have authority to override God on what is sin. Church defines and clarifies what is sin and Catholics must obey. Therefore, “in everything but sin”.

    Husband decides not using birth control is too burdensome and reasons that the Church must surely be wrong and tells his wife to go on the pill.

    Wife knows that Church forbids use of the pill to regulate births. The only way she can comply with the Church on not using birth control is to respectfully refuse to do what her husband has said.

    Husband is also to submit to the Church on subject of birth control therefore his authority to declare otherwise, in this matter, doesn’t exist. If his authority to decide against on the Church on this doesn’t exist then his wife has no obligation to be obedient to him on this issue. Without the obligation to be obedient, her refusal to comply is not a sin. Not even a venial one. Her conscience is clear.

  82. Mrs. C says:

    Deti, if your definition of a feminist is a Catholic wife who is faithful to the Church and understands it’s teachings, then I guess I am according to you. Your comment is also off topic.

  83. donalgraeme says:

    The husband’s authority comes from being a husband, which he receives from God, through the approval of the Church and within the limits she sets. (Keys of the kingdom and all)

    Yes, that can work. Although it is not what you said before. A subtle distinction, but a meaningful one.

  84. Mrs. C says:

    @DG Although it is not what you said before. A subtle distinction, but a meaningful one.

    Indeed. As I said I was rushing out the door as I was typing that response. Never a good scenario. Probably should have left it until I got back.

    If I had to rewrite what I said “The only reason for obedience to husband is because he is submitted to God through the Church and he has primary responsibility to oversee the obedience of his family to the Church and to God.”

    A Catholic wife is obedient to her Catholic husband because he has God-given authority which he exercises within the bounds the Church has set. His primary responsibility is to oversee the obedience of his family to God through the teaching of the Church.

    Better?

  85. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Mrs. C, it has been enlightening reading about your religion with regards to when to obey husbands. I’m assuming this is correct Catholic doctrine as you haven’t been corrected much by other Catholics.

    As I’ve read your comments to my husband, he has agreed that what you have written is what he knows to be true of Catholic teaching. He’s also helped me understand that we follow a very different moral code and due to that will never come to an agreement on an issue like submission to our husbands. I can appreciate that and will ask a woman if she and her husband are Catholic before speaking to her directly about submission. I always ask if a woman is Christian but will clarify with them going forward.

  86. Mrs. C says:

    @SD – “I can appreciate that and will ask a woman if she and her husband are Catholic before speaking to her directly about submission.”

    That’s why I try to remember to identify myself as Catholic so readers will know the reasons behind what I’m saying. I also understand that non-Catholic Christians interpret Scripture differently and won’t necessarily agree. Most Catholics will just answer yes if they are asked if they are a Christian and may not add in that they are Catholic which is never helpful for reaching understanding. Actually, I was half expecting that DS was going to ask if us Catholics could step out of the conversation as it’s probably not very beneficial to other Christian followers so I thank him for his hospitality. God bless.

  87. “Actually, I was half expecting that DS was going to ask if us Catholics could step out of the conversation as it’s probably not very beneficial to other Christian followers so I thank him for his hospitality.”

    As far as I’m concerned I believe that unity in the body of Christ is more important than textual disagreements outside of the fundamentals of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Both 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus speak to things along these lines.

  88. Exfernal says:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/OOF130899.html – this quote comes to mind. Some orders are better NOT obeyed, even if coming from a legitimate authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s