Author Topic: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel (Read 16754 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #90 on:** July 02, 2018, 01:09:28 PM »

Your example was not worldly, it just wasn't an example of a marriage/divorce, which is what we're talking about. A breakup between boyfriend/girlfriend is not the same as a divorce. That's all I meant. I wasn't commenting on your status as a catholic or your efforts to learn, which are a good thing.

Matthew · « **Reply #91 on:** July 02, 2018, 02:22:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2018, 09:06:30 AM

This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Your obligations to her do not cease because she has failed on her end. You're sounding exactly like that heretical "pastor" you keep promoting, that it's OK to jettison a disobedient wife. That is not a Catholic principle.

:applause:

Only one thing -- the pastor in question is not just a heretic. He's more of a pagan infidel Jew. He is completely old testament. What does he think of Jesus Christ and His New Testament? I don't what to know...

Protestant heretics at least give lip service to loving Jesus Christ and many acknowledge that He is God. The same can't be said for this Judaizing "pastor"!

The ONLY thing going for this "pastor" is that he maintains a certain modicuм of truth via the Natural Law. But the same can be said of many non-Catholics, protestant heretics, etc. Muslims, Amish, even the Mormons who are quite crazy have a lot of natural law intact. And even atheists and agnostics often have a lot of natural law truth. There are many atheists/agnostics in the Homeschooling, Back to the Land, natural childbirth, anti-vax, anti-NWO, anti-Illuminati, and other good movements. Kevin Flaherty of "Cryptogon.com" fame for example is not religious at all, but he lives on acreage, seems manly in most ways, he believes in self-sufficiency, responsibility, homeschooling, and generally has a lot of common sense. When it comes to worldly stuff, he seems to have all his ducks in a row.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #92 on:** July 02, 2018, 02:27:18 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 02, 2018, 02:22:02 PM

:applause:

Only one thing -- the pastor in question is not just a heretic. He's more of a pagan infidel Jew. He is completely old testament. What does he think of Jesus Christ and His New Testament? I don't what to know...

Protestant heretics at least give lip service to loving Jesus Christ and many acknowledge that He is God. The same can't be said for this Judaizing "pastor"!

This "pastor" Dowell believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He's essentially another version of a Protestant while his semantics and rhetoric are anti-Protestant (and anti everyone who uses the word "Christian" to identify their religious beliefs).

Matthew · « **Reply #93 on:** July 02, 2018, 02:29:27 PM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer on July 02, 2018, 02:27:18 PM

This "pastor" Dowell believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He's essentially another version of a Protestant while his semantics and rhetoric are anti-Protestant (and anti everyone who uses the word "Christian" to identify their religious beliefs).

How can he pay lip service to Jesus being the Messiah, if he rejects Christ's whole New Testament founded in His very Blood? He renders the whole Passion and Death of Jesus Christ null and void. Does he think Jesus was just "on vacation" when he was here on Earth? What does he think Jesus was here for -- He went through the trouble of suffering and dying for us -- what, so everything could stay the same, as if He had never come?

Give me a break! Foolishness to the Nth degree!

If a Texan went North for a month in July or August, or a northerner went South for a month in January or Feburary -- such a person would leave his "summer" or "winter home" pretty much unchanged from how it was before they arrived. They would make no lasting dent on the state they visited.

But that is NOT how Our Lord came to earth. He came here for a purpose, and He fulfilled that purpose perfectly. All the Scriptures were fulfilled in Him.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #94 on:** July 02, 2018, 02:33:45 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 02, 2018, 02:29:27 PM

How can he pay lip service to Jesus being the Messiah, if he rejects Christ's whole New Testament founded in His very Blood? He renders the whole Passion and Death of Jesus Christ null and void. Does he think Jesus was just "on vacation" when he was here on Earth? What does he think Jesus was here for -- He went through the trouble of suffering and dying for us -- what, so everything could stay the same?

Give me a break! Foolishness to the Nth degree!

Ask him.

I'm just saying he worships Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. Those are the facts.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #95 on:** July 02, 2018, 03:24:49 PM »

The more I listen to Mr Dowell, the more I realize his religious interpretations of the Bible are truly messed up. But so are most Protestants; he is just is an eccentric example of extreme misinterpretations.

But just because a person is a spiritual nut doesn’t mean they are stupid in all areas of life. His observations and experiences with human nature, in the area of marriage, cannot be ignored or minimized.

Some of the smartest and wisest people (in the natural sense) are the Jews, who have the MOST unholy, false and erroneous spiritual viewpoint (aside from pagans or atheists). One can be a genius and an Oracle on the natural level, aside from their spiritual errors. Mr Dowell is not a genius but he has enough natural wisdom, coming from real-life experience, where his views on gender relations are trustworthy, to a large extent.

Nadir · « **Reply #96 on:** July 02, 2018, 04:29:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 02, 2018, 10:14:50 AM

A woman admitting that she's infected with feminism is like a man admitting that he's been infected by pornography. Both are so PERVASIVE in our world that one cannot get away from it, no matter where you live. And even if you live in a convent/monastery, these evils will haunt you for the rest of your life, because they attack THE CORE PSYCHOLOGY of both sexes. They tempt both sexes TO CORRUPT THEIR BASIC NATURE.

Women, after the Fall, are tempted to control men, just as Eve's first sin was to tempt and control Adam. God's punishment was that the husband would rule over the wife and she would have a stronger desire for marriage than he, therefore her temptation for control would be minimized. Feminism is like the garden of eden all over again. This is why a wife is compared to the Church in relation to Christ. The Church must receive EVERYTHING from Christ, must obey, trust and RESPECT Him in all things.

Men, after the Fall, are tempted to an ease of life, avoiding work and pleasure. Just as Adam sinned because of his false trust in Eve and his wanting of pleasure (the apple), so God's punishment for Adam was a life of hard labor, and the responsibility of ruling over his family and CONTROLLING his wife (which deep down, a man doesn't want to do because 1) he would rather that marriage be fun and easy, but it's not. 2) keeping a marriage happy takes a lot of hard work from the man's perspective and he is adverse to hard work, due to the Fall). A life of hard labor minimizes the man's desire for fun, leisure and pleasure so his inherent temptations are minimized. A man no longer can blindly trust his wife because human nature tells him that women are more easily corruptible (as the Nuptial Blessing explicitly states) and must be ruled over, just as Christ rules over the Church, and just as He provides, guards and protects Her through trials and suffering.

Good post which bears repeating!

MaterDominici · « **Reply #97 on:** July 03, 2018, 12:59:12 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 02, 2018, 09:44:50 AM

Again, the court system is who steals $ from the husband, not the wife (per se). She might want an equitable separation but the courts have the final decision. Once a divorce starts, the process is out of your control (in many aspects).

This isn't a given. My parents parted ways without any kind of fighting about who gets what. They decided between themselves how things would be divided and the court only signed off on their agreement. I don't know who decided how much child support would be, but you're not going to get away from child support no matter what you do.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #98 on:** July 03, 2018, 01:13:59 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 02, 2018, 09:24:07 AM

If a wife still brought a dowry to the marriage then the couple would start on fair, equitable terms. But this no longer happens, so the man is screwed during a divorce.

It might not be called a dowry, but when you're talking about the population at large, a woman is almost as likely to have more than the man before they marry. Even among Trads, there are those who think a young lady should busy herself with domestic skill-building while waiting for a husband and also those who think she should work toward supporting herself in the event that she never marries. And, on the other side of that equation... some Trad men try out a vocation for a time rather than moving right into a career.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #99 on:** July 03, 2018, 01:29:31 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 01, 2018, 10:05:01 PM

Quote
I'd like you to elaborate on how exactly you're going to determine this payout.
I don't have a detailed prenup in front of me, so I can't answer that. My point is, if one of the spouses is screwed during divorce, the assets they "brought to the table" should be somehow protected from the unjust courts. If you want to be fair, only the assets which the spouses purchased, worked or built TOGETHER should be shared.

That's fine and well, but Croix wasn't talking about what the couple brought into the marriage, he said that the assets they generated DURING marriage should be divided according to who saved what. At least, that's how I read it:

Quote

If the husband saves $200,000 and the wife saves 1/4 of that at $50,000, during their marriage, and then "divorce" occurs, the wife shouldn't get $75,000 of what the man contributed as to effect an equal payout. The prenup should protect the man against this unjust redistribution.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #100 on:** July 03, 2018, 03:31:08 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on July 03, 2018, 01:29:31 AM

I don't have a detailed prenup in front of me, so I can't answer that. My point is, if one of the spouses is screwed during divorce, the assets they "brought to the table" should be somehow protected from the unjust courts. If you want to be fair, only the assets which the spouses purchased, worked or built TOGETHER should be shared.

That's fine and well, but Croix wasn't talking about what the couple brought into the marriage, he said that the assets they generated DURING marriage should be divided according to who saved what. At least, that's how I read it:

And I, also, said, "The payout is determined by what is dictated in the prenup that is obviously agreed to, and signed by, both man & woman before getting married".

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #101 on:** July 03, 2018, 03:33:56 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on July 03, 2018, 01:29:31 AM

Married Catholics do not have ownership apart from their spouse. They join their assets together in marriage and work & earn together during their married life. Everything they both do is for the family, not for themselves.

The husband is the head of the household. Only he should determine what is equitable within the family. It's not the wife's decision.

You're subtly trying use "Catholic piety" to infuse feminism and "equality" into the marriage.

jvk · « **Reply #102 on:** July 03, 2018, 06:02:23 AM »

And yet...it's the woman who does the shopping and manages the household (typically). In planning the food budget a man would be wise to seek his wife's input.

And by the way, Mater stated "everything they both do is for the family, not for themselves". You stated that to determine what is equitable is not the wife's decision. "To determine what is equitable": what does that mean, exactly? That we each get 50% of our labors? I'm confused here. It SOUNDS as if you're saying that the husband has the right to decide, for example, that if his wife cooks a meal, he's the one who decides who gets how much and what. Or are you just speaking of monetary income?

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #103 on:** July 03, 2018, 06:47:25 AM »

Quote from: jvk on July 03, 2018, 06:02:23 AM

And yet...it's the woman who does the shopping and manages the household (typically). In planning the food budget a man would be wise to seek his wife's input.

And by the way, Mater stated "everything they both do is for the family, not for themselves". You stated that to determine what is equitable is not the wife's decision. "To determine what is equitable": what does that mean, exactly? That we each get 50% of our labors? I'm confused here. It SOUNDS as if you're saying that the husband has the right to decide, for example, that if his wife cooks a meal, he's the one who decides who gets how much and what. Or are you just speaking of monetary income?

It is of the creeping feminist spirit to get technical and litigious-like on how money and other assets are distributed in the household.

The husband decides the money matters. It's simple. Leave it alone.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #104 on:** July 03, 2018, 07:06:23 AM »

Quote

It might not be called a dowry, but when you're talking about the population at large, a woman is almost as likely to have more than the man before they marry.

Based on all the married couples I know, the man had more financial assets, by far. I know that's not applicable everywhere, but the point is, even men AND women don't properly financially prepare for a married vocation. Whether they're trad or totally pagan. When they get married, whatever they need, they get a loan (outside of a home, this is horribly stupid).

Quote

Even among Trads, there are those who think a young lady should busy herself with domestic skill-building while waiting for a husband

She should, even if she decides to work too. You can do both, not one or the other.

Quote

and also those who think she should work toward supporting herself in the event that she never marries.

If people treated marriage prep properly, then they would go on a retreat or something to pray to know what their vocation is. When God enlightens them towards marriage (and He will enlighten them), then they would prep accordingly. Again, one can work and still prep for domestic duties, though work should not be a priority and money should be spent wisely, with the idea of a future home in mind.

Quote

And, on the other side of that equation... some Trad men try out a vocation for a time rather than moving right into a career.

That's what they should be doing. That is within their purpose and duty as a man.

I'm really not sure what you're debating here. Are you saying that dowrys are un-catholic? They've been around for CENTURIES. The entire reason we have the idea of Santa Claus comes from St Nicholas of Bari in the 300s, who saved 3 poor girls from slavery/prostitution by throwing bags of money into their rooms at night, so they could have a dowry to get married. The father was so poor that he couldn't afford a dowry, so he was being tempted to sell them as slaves and St Nicholas wanted to protect their purity.

The dowry is a catholic idea (and even a socio-economic foundation) because only in our modern world (last 100 years) have we allowed women to 1) work outside the home, 2) go to college, 3) live alone. This idea of independence was NEVER part of the history of the world for the last 3-4,000 years! It's just. not. normal. for women to do these things. And, in times past, it wasn't safe either. But the main reason was because it was (and still is) contrary to their nature.

Author Topic: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel (Read 16754 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Matthew

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Croix de Fer

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Matthew

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Croix de Fer

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Pax Vobis

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Nadir

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

MaterDominici

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

MaterDominici

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

MaterDominici

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Croix de Fer

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Croix de Fer

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

jvk

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Croix de Fer

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel

Pax Vobis

Re: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himsel