THIS is why I call this Anonymous blowhard a cretin.  So, Jaynek, do you really think this buffoon is not capable of abusing his wife?  He's already calling for a "good flogging" for someone who disagrees with him on a theological point.  Heaven help the poor woman who burns his toast.

I had assumed it was a rhetorical flourish.  If he meant it literally, I suppose it is possible this person could be abusive.

It was merely not a handful of theologians.  This is what was taught in the manuals for priests and in canon law. This was the official teaching. This was also was the common understanding of most people.  I am not aware of any evidence of any Catholic, theologian or not, thinking anything else.  

I don't recall Anonymous providing any source regarding the issue being taught in manuals, or in canon law. Earlier in the thread, he said he couldn't remember exactly where the information was, so maybe it was found later. 

I'll go through the thread and get back to you later.

I was being entirely honest and logical in reminding you of your past liberal views. Just because you don't want to be reminded doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or that it's dishonest. That is uncharitable of you. 

It was merely not a handful of theologians.  This is what was taught in the manuals for priests and in canon law. This was the official teaching. This was also was the common understanding of most people.  I am not aware of any evidence of any Catholic, theologian or not, thinking anything else.  
I do not see how anyone on this forum has the authority to say they were wrong.  I have repeatedly explained why your argument is logically flawed and unconvincing.  If you actually believe that women are being threatened by people's beliefs on this subject, focus on the  arguments that have some hope of convincing people.

Theology manuals are STILL NOT CHURCH TEACHING.  Period.  Common understanding is NOT CHURCH TEACHING.  Period.  Probably appeared in the manuals because they merely echoed St. Thomas without questioning.  Similarly, a lot of theologians echoed St. Augustine for about 700 years until the scholastics began questioning some of his positions ... and overturned them.  This too will be overturned.  We need not have "authority" to question something that's short of Magisterial.

No, you have never explained why the argument is logically flawed.  Closest you came was trying to pretend that "to honor" and "to render honor" were two distinct things.

Really the only thing that you're accomplishing is encouraging those men who use this position to abuse their wives and to disrespect them and to treat them like garbage.  And, yes, they DO exist.  I know quite a few of them.

Really the only thing that you're accomplishing is encouraging those men who use this position to abuse their wives and to disrespect them and to treat them like garbage.  And, yes, they DO exist.  I know quite a few of them.

As I have pointed out, if such men exist, your contributions to the thread are probably encouraging them even more than mine.

We are just saying the same things to each other over and over again.  If this is really such a dangerous thread, we should just let it die.

Ah, yes, we are subjected to lectures on manliness from someone who's too much of a coward to decloak from Anonymity.

His motive has been made clear by himself. We don't need to expose it. He simply rejects the Church's teaching no matter how much evidence is presented. Because he doesn't like it. Ignorance is no longer an excuse for him

Way too many Traditional Catholics have an incredibly warped notion of what constitutes "Church teaching".  Some nutjob SVs go so far as to promote even a "negative infallibility" so that if an opinion has appeared in some imprimatured book then it can be considered infallible for all intents and purposes because the Church is incapable of even passively allowing error on a small scale.  Then, on the other hand, you have R&R who believe that we can sift out anything short of solemn pronouncements based on our own assessment of what's Traditional and what isn't.  As with most things, the truth is in between.

Hey, Anonymous, you don't happen to be Nado, do you?

I am not going to be posting at all on Sunday, so please do not read any significance into any lack of posts from me in this thread tomorrow.

You only want to decloak so you can poison the well with ad hominem arguments. THAT is what is cowardly.

Don't be jealous because I am simply prudent.

No, you're a coward.  You know that this position will make people think ill of you, so you're afraid to decloak.  Nice try attempting to make this into a virtue.