Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Cera on June 29, 2018, 02:06:16 PM
-
Ephesians 5:22-25
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-23.htm)Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-24.htm)Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-25.htm)Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it. . .
When seen in context, the Bible actually makes sense.
-
Yes, it makes sense. Beautiful.
-
Thank you, Cera.
-
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36303064_502841193492142_9120459926043361280_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=75e2a2c1e8a6abb29701142018190215&oe=5BA6C838)
* In marriage: The man's duty is to be masculine, and to make decisions. The woman's duty is to feminine, and to be cooperative.
The traditional husband encourages his wife to be feminine. He leads her. He takes care of her. He is her lover and protector.
Under his guardianship, his wife is calm. She can safely rely on him as a husband, and be a devoted mother and caring wife.
The traditional wife is an assistant to her husband. She encourages him to be masculine. She inspires and supports him regarding his affairs.
Furthermore, she believes in him and is proud of him, thereby helping him to be resolute and responsible.
-
Likewise, a man is not obligated to deliver himself up for a disobedient, wicked wife whose very actions reflect her lack of faith in her husband.
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.
-
Ephesians 5:22-25
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-23.htm)Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-24.htm)Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 (https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-25.htm)Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it. . .
When seen in context, the Bible actually makes sense.
An anti-Catholic troll is loose on these threads to thumbs down a Scripture passage. Sad soul needs prayers.
-
Likewise, a man is not obligated to deliver himself up for a disobedient, wicked wife whose very actions reflect her lack of faith in her husband.
Apparently, you didn't see this Bible verse in the correct whole context.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong.
And you have most definitely proved that it would not be prudent for you to marry until your error is corrected.
Christ delivered Himself up for souls..the husband and wife deliver themselves up for each other.
Both the husband and wife have a spiritual duty to get each ones soul to Heaven. It is a Life’s Mission in the Marriage State.
If one of the spouses fails and turns to a life of sin (or minor faults/overall weakness) it is the responsibility of the other spouse to obtain the grace on behalf of the failing one to merit their conversion back from error.
This is a very simple fact of Catholic Marriage, and for you Croix it is completely missing from your sense and understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Marriage State.
Prenuptial agreement and financial stability be damned, it is the soul of the spouse and their eternal destiny, that is what matters.
-
I sure am glad that Christ didn't expect us to sign a "pre-nup" before he climbed onto His Cross. He got on the Cross even though every single one of us didn't deserve it.
-
I sure am glad that Christ didn't expect us to sign a "pre-nup" before he climbed onto His Cross. He got on the Cross even though every single one of us didn't deserve it.
Yes! This is a relief to be sure.
-
Lame rhetorical nonsense. You think it's clever but it's a failure.
Jesus Christ's Sacrifice and Blood covers only Catholics baptized into Him with water and Spirit, and who die with no mortal sins on their souls. These faithful (water Baptism and adhere to the Faith) are the only true members of the Catholic Church - the only Ark of Salvation - to whom Christ is married. By their faith and works, they show their love, glorification and obedience to God. Jesus Christ didn't sacrifice Himself for anyone outside of His Church. Just as God gave the perfidious Jews a bill of divorce for rejecting, betraying and crucifying His Son, anyone outside of the Church is no spouse of Christ.
Likewise, no man is obligated to sacrifice himself for a disobedient wife who doesn't love him. Prenups protect the man from predatory women who would steal everything of which he built and earned. God gave us brains and prudence. Man should use them to protect himself from these pigs of Hades. Nothing wrong with prenups.
You have no real argument.
You fail in your reasoning, and miserably so.
You equate Christ saving souls who die in His grace to a wife who is still living but only away from you.
If you don’t see this gaping hole in your logic, I don’t think anyone can help you short of a miracle from Heaven.
-
Christ didn't deliver Himself up for apostates, heretics & schismatics. They're outside the Church and they're disobedient to the Church. He didn't deliver Himself up for unrepentant sinners.
A husband is only obligated to deliver himself up for a truly faithful, loyal & obedient wife, not the wicked pigs so ubiquitous in these latter days.
Not until death do you part.
-
Lame rhetorical nonsense. You think it's clever but it's a failure.
Jesus Christ's Sacrifice and Blood covers only Catholics baptized into Him with water and Spirit, and who die with no mortal sins on their souls. These faithful (water Baptism and adhere to the Faith) are the only true members of the Catholic Church - the only Ark of Salvation - to whom Christ is married. By their faith and works, they show their love, glorification and obedience to God. Jesus Christ didn't sacrifice Himself for anyone outside of His Church. Just as God gave the perfidious Jews a bill of divorce for rejecting, betraying and crucifying His Son, anyone outside of the Church is no spouse of Christ.
Likewise, no man is obligated to sacrifice himself for a disobedient wife who doesn't love him. Prenups protect the man from predatory women who would steal everything of which he built and earned. God gave us brains and prudence. Man should use them to protect himself from these pigs of Hades. Nothing wrong with prenups.
You have no real argument.
In other words, you are more concerned with worldly matters.
-
In other words, you are more concerned with worldly matters.
Lame narrative.
It seems you're more concerned with worldly matters because you want women to retain the power over men in their marriages through the threat of "divorce", a lack of a prenup, and the issuance of a state marriage license (worldly) thereby, garnering his life's work for herself.
-
And you are wrong. Christ died on the Cross to redeem ALL men...knowing full well that not everyone would believe in Him, knowing full well men would disobey Him anyway.
-
Lame narrative.
It seems you're more concerned with worldly matters because you want women to retain the power over men in their marriages through the threat of "divorce", a lack of a prenup, and the issuance of a state marriage license (worldly) thereby, garnering his life's work for herself.
I'm talking about Christ's selfless Sacrifice and you're the one obsessed with protecting your money and wealth.
-
Wrong. You're not even properly catechized in the Faith as a convert.
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." ~ Matthew 26:28
Christ didn't say "for all". The word "many" isn't the same as "all", nor does it mean a majority. It can mean a sizable minority, such as those who are Catholic. Being Catholic means you are a member of Christ's Mystical Body. A person is married to Him through the Church. However, as we know by His own words, few of these Catholics will be saved, while most of the others, due to lukewarmness & sin, will be cast into everlasting perdition, even those who call upon His Name at Judgement. Read Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 18:8; Matthew 7:14; Revelation 3:16.
His Sacrifice redeems ONLY the faithful who are without stain of mortal sin, and who are baptized with water & Spirit. This proves the Lord God has boundaries. His salvation is for only the elect - the Catholic faithful who die without mortal sin, which is why He gave us the Sacraments.
Man is permitted by God to have boundaries when dealing with a disobedient wife. Her disobedience shows a lack of love for him. One of these boundaries can be a prenup, if the unfortunate case arises that the wife turns against the husband through a "divorce".
You lose, again.
Council of Trent:
"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. "
He died for all, but not all will benefit. Christ knew beforehand that there would be those who will disobey and not love him.
You're still wrong Croix.
-
Prenuptial agreement and financial stability be damned, it is the soul of the spouse and their eternal destiny, that is what matters.
Well put. Croix has imbibed so much of the world that he's completely forgotten this Catholic perspective.
-
Prenuptial agreement and financial stability be damned, it is the soul of the spouse and their eternal destiny, that is what matters.
Your idealism is nice, but it has no practical application. Explain to me how a husband has ANY influence on his wife's salvation, if she is incentivized by the State to destroy the marriage, steal the children and get paid for it? Once she's gone, you have ZERO influence on her life and VERY LOW influence on your children's as well. All you're left with is prayer (which prayers, no matter how good, cannot affect free will, which your wife used to destroy the marriage). So all your spiritual sentiments sound lovely, but they are meaningless, practically speaking.
The purpose of the whole prenup debate is to ADD PRACTICAL, REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCES to DIS-INCENTIVIZE a wife from leaving. (The husband already has dis-incentives to leave, because he'll lose his children and most of his money). Without any consequences, all a husband can do is "hope and pray" his marriage doesn't end due to a frivolous or emotional reason by his wife. Prayer alone does not solve every problem.
-
Sorry, but you are dead wrong.
And you have most definitely proved that it would not be prudent for you to marry until your error is corrected.
Christ delivered Himself up for souls..the husband and wife deliver themselves up for each other.
Both the husband and wife have a spiritual duty to get each ones soul to Heaven. It is a Life’s Mission in the Marriage State.
If one of the spouses fails and turns to a life of sin (or minor faults/overall weakness) it is the responsibility of the other spouse to obtain the grace on behalf of the failing one to merit their conversion back from error.
This is a very simple fact of Catholic Marriage, and for you Croix it is completely missing from your sense and understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Marriage State.
Prenuptial agreement and financial stability be damned, it is the soul of the spouse and their eternal destiny, that is what matters.
.
It's because he's a teenage who thinks he knows everything.
-
Prayer alone does not solve every problem.
.
You need more Faith. Prayer CAN solve every problem.
-
Sounds all pious, brah, but the Lord God gave us physical works to be done on earth, too, to help build His Social Kingship. It's not all about the spiritual, but the temporal work is necessary, too. How can man contribute to building what God wants on earth when his tapeworm wife has "divorced" him and stolen his equity and life-savings? This is why a prenup is most prudent. You're opposing me out of some cognitive compensation because you've castrated yourself by not getting a prenup and not avoiding a state marriage license.
What a way to very cavalierly dismiss a CATHOLIC perspective on marriage.
I wasn't calling for your banning before, but at this point, you've become a full-blown Protestant.
Two things. A) submit to the Catholic teaching on marriage and B) stop using the word "brah" every three sentences like a child.
-
You need more Faith. Prayer CAN solve every problem.
Prayer ALONE does not always.
-
Prayer ALONE does not always.
It can... God can do all things.
-
God can do all things.
Except He will not (and cannot) violate a person’s free will. In the scenario we’re talking about, of a bad willed spouse, even prayers are limited by the person’s disposition. God can give grace but He cannot force a person to accept this grace. Look at Judas.
-
No, you're wrong. The Catholic Mass of Trent even says His Blood is shed for "many", not "all".
Unbeknownst to you, this comment only supports my argument that those people who reject Christ, even those in the Church, through lukewarmness & sin, and those outside the Church due to schism, unbelief & heresy, don't receive the award of Heaven. The award gained by Christ delivering Himself up doesn't extend to these people outside the Church and unrepentant sinners. By parallel, the awards of a man's sacrifices shouldn't extend to a faithless, unloving, disobedient wife. God has boundaries, and so man is permitted to have boundaries. A prenup can be such a boundary to a predatory, scheming, unloving wife who "divorces" him in order to steal what he owns and built.
You lose, again.
This is where you completely miss my original point. Christ delivered Himself up knowing full well that not all would believe and obey him...in fact if we are honest none of us remain faithful to Him. And yet He still got on the Cross.
When you demand a prenup because you want to protect yourself from a disobedient and unfaithful wife, you do not act as Christ acted. Christ acted selflessly, concerned about saving souls. You act out of selfish worldly concerns.
You need to grow up...in more ways than one.
-
Except He will not (and cannot) violate a person’s free will. In the scenario we’re talking about, of a bad willed spouse, even prayers are limited by the person’s disposition. God can give grace but He cannot force a person to accept this grace. Look at Judas.
.
True. But He can soften the heart of the bad willed person, He can make the bad willed person's life miserable. He has so many ways of handling things we cannot even begin to imagine His ways.
.
-
No, it's YOU who needs to stop listening to that bumbling pissant "Pastor" Dowell, and adopt the Catholic faith, Iron Cross.
I can assure you that it will do you good to stop heeding his advice.
If you're going to take the advice of a bumbling, rambling non-Christian pissant with the emotional maturity of a 30-year-old basement dweller who hasn't seen daylight or a girl since the Van Buren administration over centuries of Catholic doctrine, then shame on you! Go to the Hebrew Israelite church, then!
Find whoever introduced you to this bumbling, anti-Christian (if he's a Christian, so is Karl Marx) weasel and sock them in the mouth, please.
-
No, you miss the point. Continue below to see how...
When you demand there not be a prenuptial agreement, you act selfishly and for worldly interests, while you subject the man to potential ruin, if the time comes where you decide to turn your back on him by getting a "divorce" and using the courts to steal everything he built and earned by his own sweat.
You, also, act worldly in demanding a State marriage license which shows your lack of Faith in God's grace to help ensure a harmonious marriage conferred by the Church. You need your state marriage license for validation as if the Sacrament of Marriage isn't valid enough... and even more, the State marriage license gives you the power to use the courts to steal the man's home, assets, savings, etc, simply for deciding you want a "divorce" with no other reason given. The courts are heavily biased in favor of women regardless of reasons for "divorce". Why shouldn't a man protect himself by getting a prenup?
You need to grow a brain and become properly catechized in the Faith in more ways than one.
You can set double standards about worldly ways and selfishness, and you can move the goal post to make yourself appear right, but the truth is against you. You're a deceiver, and you know what I'm talking about...
The only one trying to deceive others here is you. You keep posting that we DEMAND no prenup and a state marriage license when that is a complete and utter lie.
I am sick of your childish, prideful comments.
-
The only one trying to deceive others here is you.
Negatory. Failed projection.
You keep posting that we DEMAND no prenup and a state marriage license when that is a complete and utter lie.
Why is the default on the side of female privilege? Understand? Why do you (women) demand that there be no prenup and demand a state marriage license? You have just as much selfishness as the man wanting a prenup and wanting to avoid a license. Does female privilege always get effected? I see you can't address my point about needing validation from the state which is an affront to God because you obviously don't think the Sacrament of Marriage conferred by the Church is enough...
I am sick of your childish, prideful comments.
Can any goy be as prideful as the stiff-necked Jew?
-
Negatory. Failed projection.
Why is the default on the side of female privilege? Understand? Why do you (women) demand that there be no prenup and demand a state marriage license? You have just as much selfishness as the man wanting a prenup and wantiing to avoid a license. Does female privilege always get effected? I see you can't address my point about needing validation from the state which is an affront to God because you obviously don't think the Sacrament of Marriage conferred by the Church is enough...
Can any goy be as prideful as the stiff-necked Jew?
Are you doubting her conversion? At that point, you've crossed the line.
-
2vermont is a Jєωιѕн convert, so it seemed like you were doubting her conversion.
-
If you're going to take the advice of a bumbling, rambling non-Christian pissant with the emotional maturity of a 30-year-old basement dweller who hasn't seen daylight or a girl since the Van Buren administration over centuries of Catholic doctrine, then shame on you! Go to the Hebrew Israelite church, then!
You're being rather harsh to "pastor" Dowell there. He's not stupid or immature, but he's also not Christian. You can't extract "practical" advice from someone whose view of the world is diametrically opposed to yours unless all you're looking for is gardening tips. (He's got an awesome garden, btw.)
.
If a Muslim vlogger suggested that marriage licenses were to be avoided, I might take the idea and research it myself, but, I'd certainly have to ask myself why I was watching the Muslim's videos to begin with. Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't use the original video as support for what my research concludes when presenting it to a group of Catholic peers for further discussion.
-
Why do you (women) demand that there be no prenup and demand a state marriage license?
Why don't you tell us who here has demanded a marriage license? I'd bet that 99% of the married women here were obedient to their soon-to-be-husband who sought out a marriage license at the direction of the cleric who married them.
-
You're being rather harsh to "pastor" Dowell there. He's not stupid or immature, but he's also not Christian. You can't extract "practical" advice from someone whose view of the world is diametrically opposed to yours unless all you're looking for is gardening tips. (He's got an awesome garden, btw.)
Yeah, pseudo-intellectuals like JezusDeKonig, who also LARP, like to thumb their noses at other people such as Dowell, albeit, he's a heretic, who still have way more brains than JDK, and will build far more than he ever will...
-
Iron Cross, if I came off as flippant and rude, then my bad. None of it is personal, it's attacking your approach to this.
But you gotta change how you think of things. Really.
-
Why don't you tell us who here has demanded a marriage license? I'd bet that 99% of the married women here were obedient to their husband who sought out a marriage license at the direction of the cleric who married them.
Nice try, but wrong analysis, for most, if not all, of the men were clueless about the despotic role of state marriage licenses, nor did they know they could have opted out. They were simply going through the motions.
-
Nice try, but wrong analysis, for most, if not all, of the men were clueless about the despotic role of state marriage licenses, nor did they know they could have opted out. They were simply going through the motions.
...and yet you accuse the women of motive? Is there some sort of women-only, mandatory class on subversion via marriage licenses that I'm not aware of?
-
Iron Cross, if I came off as flippant and rude, then my bad. None of it is personal, it's attacking your approach to this.
But you gotta change how you think of things. Really.
Really, you should stop LARP-ing. Your identity and stances on issues change a lot on this forum, and you try to come off as an intellectual and defender of the Faith, but all you did, which I pointed out on numerous threads, was display your ignorance about a number of issues, including Catholic terms; and you oppose somebody by illogically attacking something they don't even stand for...
-
Yeah, pseudo-intellectuals like JezusDeKonig, who also LARP, like to thumb their noses at other people such as Dowell, albeit, he's a heretic, who still have way more brains than JDK, and will build far more than he ever will...
Do not merely judge material things, but also things unseen.
By a Catholic's prayers they can save themselves and the souls of others, and loosen the chains of the faithful trapped in flames.
If Dowell does not convert to the Catholic faith, what would it matter if he built up the whole world? Acts of spiritual mercy are greater than those material. Besides, woe to Dowell, who is not only a heretic, but teaches others to become heretics.
-
...and yet you accuse the women of motive? Is there some sort of women-only, mandatory class on subversion via marriage licenses that I'm not aware of?
When there is an awaking to the despotism of state marriage licenses, it's women who still insist on getting it, while many men are leary of it. That shows you the mindset.
-
When there is an awaking to the despotism of state marriage licenses, it's women who still insist on getting it, while many men are leary of it. That shows you the mindset.
Please provide data to support your assertion. What percentage of Catholic fiances have reached your level awareness and still insisted on a license despite their husband-to-be's objections?
-
Please provide data to support your assertion. What percentage of Catholic fiances have reached your level awareness and still insisted on a license despite their husband-to-be's objections?
You're asking the wrong question. You're trying to shape reality to fit skewed perceptions of Catholics, and then base questions off of it.
If you want evidence, simply Google search "MGTOW" or related subjects, and you'll see the exponential numbers of men who aren't MGTOW, per se, themselves, but they still strongly support prenups and avoiding marriage licenses. They're not MGTOW because they still carefully plan on getting married. Also, in states with common law "marriages", they naturally insist on prenups to protect them.
The numbers of Catholics in such an awakening doesn't matter. What matters is the reality of the epidemic of "divorces" sought by women, and the courts favoring the women despite their reason or lack of reason for the "divorce". The women use the courts to steal what the man owns and built his entire life. What does matter is Catholics need to take notice. Observe, orient, decide & act.
Your fallacy is thinking trad Catholics are too righteous to succuмb to this epidemic, simply because they're trads. Trads are every bit as human as any other person, and they're "divorcing" each other and wrecking their own families. too. You even mentioned an example of some harlot who "divorced" her husband, left the Faith, all after having 10 kids with him, and getting the courts to make him pay for supporting the children while she's "married" to another man. You think it will stop there? You still maintain that trads as a whole are impervious to it. There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of true Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?
-
You're asking the wrong question. You're trying to shape reality to fit skewed perceptions of Catholics, and then base questions off of it.
If you want evidence, simply Google search "MGTOW" or related subjects, and you'll see the exponential numbers of men who aren't MGTOW, per se, themselves, but they still strongly support prenups and avoiding marriage licenses. They're not MGTOW because they still carefully plan on getting married. Also, in states with common law "marriages", they naturally insist on prenups to protect them.
The numbers of Catholics in such an awakening doesn't matter. What matters is the reality of the epidemic of "divorces" sought by women, and the courts favoring the women despite their reason or lack of reason for the "divorce". The women use the courts to steal what the man owns and built his entire life. What does matter is Catholics need to take notice. Observe, orient, decide & act.
Your fallacy is thinking trad Catholics are too righteous to succuмb to this epidemic, simply because they're trads. Trads are every bit as human as any other person, and they're "divorcing" each other and wrecking their own families. too. You even mentioned an example of some harlot who "divorced" her husband, left the Faith, all after having 10 kids with him, and getting the courts to make him pay for supporting the children while she's "married" to another man. You think it will stop there? You still maintain that trads as a whole are impervious to it. There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of true Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?
-
Your fallacy is thinking trad Catholics are too righteous to succuмb to this epidemic, simply because they're trads. Trads are every bit as human as any other person, and they're "divorcing" each other and wrecking their own families. too. You even mentioned an example of some harlot who "divorced" her husband, left the Faith, all after having 10 kids with him, and getting the courts to make him pay for supporting the children while she's "married" to another man. You think it will stop there? You still maintain that trads as a whole are impervious to it.
Those two things are contradictory and you already know which of them I said. The other I did not.
You're asking the wrong question. You're trying to shape reality to fit skewed perceptions of Catholics, and then base questions off of it.
I refer to Catholics when YOU refer to Catholics. You said, "Why do you (women) demand that there be no prenup and demand a state marriage license?" Everyone here is a Catholic and so you are talking about Catholics. If you weren't, you wouldn't have said "you". (or is this another example of your misuse or pronouns?)
The women use the courts to steal what the man owns and built his entire life.
You shoot yourself in the foot here again. 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.
.
Now, if you'd use precise language, you could point out here that sometimes an unjust levy is issued against the man where he has to provide for his ex-spouse a level of support that he can't even provide for himself. This is unjust and could be remedied with a proper agreement beforehand. There are other injustices that you also could have mentioned, but instead you chose to attack the very nature of married life with your un-Catholic attitude.
-
Those two things are contradictory and you already know which of them I said. The other I did not.
You still imply it in your arguments throughout these masterful threads.
I refer to Catholics when YOU refer to Catholics. You said, "Why do you (women) demand that there be no prenup and demand a state marriage license?" Everyone here is a Catholic and so you are talking about Catholics. If you weren't, you wouldn't have said "you". (or is this another example of your misuse or pronouns?)
I mean the women here AND the general public of women. Again, trad Catholic women and those posing as "trads", here, aren't immune to the dispositions of modern women. They harbor a lot of it already.
You shoot yourself in the foot here again. 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.
Tell that to the Catholic women "divorcing" their husbands and using the courts to steal most of what he owns. If these Catholic women truly believed and lived it, they wouldn't be engaging in court-sanctioned larceny against the husband. This is why a prenup is necessary. Also, the wife has no title to what the man earned and built before he married her. She, being his wife, naturally, must share in it, but if she "divorces" him, she should get none of it. The prenup should have this guaranteed protection. The assets, wealth, savings, etc they earn while they're married belong to both of them, equally, for the betterment of the family. The prenup is fair when it allows what they earned and built during their marriage to be divided according to each person's contribution to it, if the marriage ends in "divorce". 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. She only equally shares in whatever they both provide while they're faithfully married. However, whatever than man built & acquired on his own before the marriage, he keeps all of it, and the wife has no title to it.
Now, if you'd use precise language, you could point out here that sometimes an unjust levy is issued against the man where he has to provide for his ex-spouse a level of support that he can't even provide for himself.
More than sometimes. It's weaponized larceny against married men who get "divorced" by their wives.
This is unjust and could be remedied with a proper agreement beforehand. There are other injustices that you also could have mentioned, but instead you chose to attack the very nature of married life with your un-Catholic attitude.
I never attacked the nature of married life. I reckon marriage life is neat. Man just has to protect himself by getting a prenup and avoiding a state license.
In fact, I paid homage to REAL marriage, which is done through the Holy Sacrament of the Church, for that is the only marriage I recognize. It's the only marriage God sees, too, not "marriage" contracted by the state.
-
But He can soften the heart of the bad willed person,
Not a guarantee of change.
-
Iron Cross, if I came off as flippant and rude, then my bad. None of it is personal, it's attacking your approach to this.
But you gotta change how you think of things. Really.
He will.
He is young and will, hopefully, learn much as he grows and matures.
-
Not a guarantee of change.
God loves us and will take good care of us if we are of good will, no matter how others may treat us. This is the only guarantee you have of anything, except death, and the only guarantee you need.
.
Have more Faith.
-
Tell that to the Catholic women "divorcing" their husbands and using the courts to steal most of what he owns.
You continue on with all your false non-Catholic premises. You've spent too much time listening to the heretic.
"He" doesn't unilaterally own his income once he gets married and starts a family.
She is not "steal"-ing anything in insisting upon being able to continue supporting the children.
-
Why don't you tell us who here has demanded a marriage license?
And despite repeatedly accusing us of doing so, he can't seem to substantiate his claims.
-
You continue on with all your false non-Catholic premises. You've spent too much time listening to the heretic.
"He" doesn't unilaterally own his income once he gets married and starts a family.
She is not "steal"-ing anything in insisting upon being able to continue supporting the children.
.
You are correct.
.
Men sometimes fall into a "mid life crisis", divorce their wives, and start over. Which is why I have informed my husband that if he divorces me, he gets primary custody of our very large brood.
.
I will not deal with welfare, food stamps, a job, and try to continue to homeschool, if he divorces me and battles me in court. I can provide for myself, but not the children too.
.
This idea has stopped my husband from EVER considering divorce.
-
This idea has stopped my husband from EVER considering divorce.
My husband came with "factory settings" that he would never consider divorce. I have never had to do anything to discourage him from considering it because, as a Catholic, he believes that divorce is never an option. And I am he same.
This whole idea that we need to come up with ways to make divorce unappealing is very foreign to me.
-
Lame narrative.
It seems you're more concerned with worldly matters because you want women to retain the power over men in their marriages through the threat of "divorce", a lack of a prenup, and the issuance of a state marriage license (worldly) thereby, garnering his life's work for herself.
Please, Lord, keep good women far from CDF.
Amen.
-
You still imply it in your arguments throughout these masterful threads.
I mean the women here AND the general public of women. Again, trad Catholic women and those posing as "trads", here, aren't immune to the dispositions of modern women. They harbor a lot of it already.
Tell that to the Catholic women "divorcing" their husbands and using the courts to steal most of what he owns. If these Catholic women truly believed and lived it, they wouldn't be engaging in court-sanctioned larceny against the husband. This is why a prenup is necessary. Also, the wife has no title to what the man earned and built before he married her. She, being his wife, naturally, must share in it, but if she "divorces" him, she should get none of it. The prenup should have this guaranteed protection. The assets, wealth, savings, etc they earn while they're married belong to both of them, equally, for the betterment of the family. The prenup is fair when it allows what they earned and built during their marriage to be divided according to each person's contribution to it, if the marriage ends in "divorce". 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. She only equally shares in whatever they both provide while they're faithfully married. However, whatever than man built & acquired on his own before the marriage, he keeps all of it, and the wife has no title to it.
More than sometimes. It's weaponized larceny against married men who get "divorced" by their wives.
I never attacked the nature of married life. I reckon marriage life is neat. Man just has to protect himself by getting a prenup and avoiding a state license.
In fact, I paid homage to REAL marriage, which is done through the Holy Sacrament of the Church, for that is the only marriage I recognize. It's the only marriage God sees, too, not "marriage" contracted by the state.
How is a women supposed to contribute $ when she does not work and is not supposed to work?
-
Please, Lord, keep good women far from CDF.
Amen.
THIS^^^
-
Also, the wife has no title to what the man earned and built before he married her. She, being his wife, naturally, must share in it, but if she "divorces" him, she should get none of it.
False. Another non-Catholic principle based on secular thinking.
-
So, I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I love my husband to death, he’s my support system, prayer buddy, pretty much everything to me. But if he does something stupid, or if I feel he’s being a little happy go lucky with our money I’m going to say something. If I feel he is not holdin up his part in marriage I’m gonna tell that man to shape up. I work extremely hard to taking care of 3 kids under 5. Including a house, and errands to do. I could definitely say I have the easier part of this arrangement. He owns a business and has to deal with crazy people, he pays the bills, but we budget together. The only people I ever have to deal with our the kids, him, and my mom tribe. But I don’t think I’m stepping out of place by telling him, or bringing to mind how his actions are having a negative effect. Does that make me disobedient? No, we are a team. I have his back, and he has mine. If he doesn’t order me around, and I don’t order him. I don’t even see how marriage could work the way you’re saying it should :/
I’ve been married six years to my amazing man, and I’m not ashamed to say I am previously divorced. It was a huge mistake at 18 marrying a non Catholic in a non Catholic ceremony. My hubby, and I have not had an extremely easy marriage. We talked quits multiple times in the past. I can honestly say I never ever once thought of taking anything but the kids stuff, and mine when leaving. I walked as fast as I could away from my ex literally leaving with one outfit. So no not all women want to bleed a man dry during divorce.
-
If I feel he is not holdin up his part in marriage I’m gonna tell that man to shape up.
That attitude of telling him to "shape up" is disrespectful towards your husband ... not to mention referring to him as "that man". I understand what you're trying to say, but saying it this way is disrespectful. Nor should a devoted Catholic couple ever "talk quits" ... unless it's to the point of being grave enough to legitimately justify separation.
-
That attitude of telling him to "shape up" is disrespectful towards your husband ... not to mention referring to him as "that man". I understand what you're trying to say, but saying it this way is disrespectful. Nor should a devoted Catholic couple ever "talk quits" ... unless it's to the point of being grave enough to legitimately justify separation.
Just in case anyone thinks Ladislaus is only saying this from a male perspective, I completely agree with him.
The husband is the head of the family. While a man and woman have equal dignity before God, a marriage is not a partnership of equals. If anyone does not understand this, please read the homily I posted earlier today: https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/a-homily-on-marriage-by-st-john-chrysostom/msg616869/?topicseen#msg616869 (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/a-homily-on-marriage-by-st-john-chrysostom/msg616869/?topicseen#msg616869)
Especially relevant:
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and He is the Saviour of the Body. There fore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be subject to their own husbands in everything. Notice that after saying the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, he immediately says that the Church is His Body, and He is Himself its Saviour. It is the head that upholds the well-being of the body. In his other epistles Paul has already laid the foundations of marital love, and has assigned to husband and wife each his proper place: to the husband one of leader and provider, and to the wife one of submission. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ–and the Church, remember, consists of both husbands and wives—so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands, as to God.
But this is only half of the teaching. St. John Chrysostom addresses husbands:
You have seen the amount of obedience necessary; now hear about the amount of love necessary. Do you want your wife to be obedient to you, as the Church is to Christ? Then be responsible for the same providential care of her, as Christ is for the Church. And even if it becomes necessary for you to give your life for her, yes, and even to endure and undergo suffering of any kind, do not refuse. Even though you undergo all this, you will never have done anything equal to what Christ has done. You are sacrificing yourself for someone to whom you are already joined, but He offered Himself up for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way, then, as He honored her by putting at His feet one who turned her back on Him, who hated, rejected, and disdained Him as tie accomplished this not with threats, or violence, or terror, or anything else like that, but through His untiring love; so also you should behave toward your wife.
-
Totally understand what you’re saying, and duly noted!
-
God loves us and will take good care of us if we are of good will,
TxTrad, a good willed person wouldn’t initiate divorce, steal children and destroy a family, would they? Obviously not!! So all your talk is irrelevant to the scenario! We’re not talking about someone with good will!
-
TxTrad, a good willed person wouldn’t initiate divorce, steal children and destroy a family, would they? Obviously not!! So all your talk is irrelevant to the scenario! We’re not talking about someone with good will!
Read it again. She's talking about the spouse who is of good will. It's certainly relevant that excessive concern about what trials may come your way in life is unnecessary. Everyone has them; for some, they take the shape of a bad-willed spouse.
-
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.
I'd like you to elaborate on how exactly you're going to determine this payout. But, I must disclose that my interest is for entertainment purposes only. :popcorn:
-
Yes, I misread because originally she was talking about how prayer can change anyone and that's true, except for free will. God does not intervene in human decisions, because He will not, and cannot, thwart free will. Her follow up post was "God will take care of good willed people." Ok? ? But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...
-
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.
Secondly, a wife USED TO bring a dowry to the marriage, in the form of $, as an understanding that this was her contribution to the marriage, considering that it's assumed the husband has a job and plan for living arrangements, as is his duty. It was a recognition that a woman cannot expect to be taken care of, for life, if she didn't contribute more than her good looks and charming personality. But in our modern world, the idea of a dowry is anti-feministic, and "outdated" even though, from a catholic perspective it was considered JUST and FAIR for CENTURIES. The reasons for a dowry are many, but most simply, it is a recognition that marriage, in its most basic order, is a social contract whereby two individuals agree to raise a family, for the good of society/church and their mutual good as well. Inherent in the idea of ALL contracts is the basic legal requirement that individuals 1) make an agreement, 2) for a set amount of time, and 3) in exchange for "consideration" (i.e. a legal term which means: assets, promises, obligations).
Just because marriage is a religious contract does not negate the social and legal aspects of the contract. The social aspect is the responsibility of the couple to raise good children who have a duty to love their country, take care of their extended relatives and help make their state/nation a better place. It's also, foundationally, to grow the human race.
The legal aspect is related to the exchange of "consideration" (i.e. what do the spouses get from the marriage?). Consideration is not some vague, religious, spiritual or sentimental concept of love, because such things cannot be quantified legally. Consideration must be a concrete exchange of value, which is why a dowry was (and still should be) part of marriage. (One can argue that the idea of the wife's family paying for the wedding is small remnant of the dowry concept, but it still falls short of its intended, and just, purpose).
Nowadays, things are so crazy and feminized that women will come into marriage with tons of school debt, little to no savings, and expect their husbands to be in perfect financial shape so they can buy their dream home "...together" (i.e. so her husband will buy it for her, because she has no ability to...the false Disney-feminist-romantic dream sold to most little girls). This is another reason why catholic women who think they have a vocation to marriage, should NOT go to college, because it's a waste of $ and is not, in any way, a preparation of her future family (which she has a financial obligation to, whether she realizes it or not). And many trad women have very little culinary, domestic or housekeeping skills - a further issue which makes married life more difficult and is not in keeping with her future vocation. Finally (though there's much more to be said), the avg woman (and most people, really) are not taught to be thrifty, even if they have a job, but are marketed towards by businesses to buy things which aren't necessary, thus they often have poor spending habits when entering marriage and little to no understanding of the financial sacrifices which must be made when children come along. This is a FURTHER stress on a young family.
Many of these problems affect women more than men, because women are, by nature, more easily corrupted AND (more importantly) society is focusing all their efforts on her corruption. Women today have many, many enemies (both spiritual and temporal)! The typical "defense" of a single woman is her family, and mostly her father/brothers, who are naturally more rational and wise to corruption. But our western world has so infected everyone with feminism that even men can't see the dangers that lurk nor can they see the long term consequences of seemingly inconsequential decisions. So women are encouraged to move out of the house and get an apartment, to go to college, to get a job, to spend like the rest of the US consumer spends (i.e. frivolously and stupidly, only thinking of the short term), with NO thought to what happens when marriage comes, or what her duties are, and what skills she would need.
Again, without a dowry, what is the typical, modern woman contributing to the marriage, except school debt, a small savings account and a pretty face? Where is the TRUE preparation for marriage, AS A VOCATION, by women? Where is the preparation for marriage, even on a non-spiritual level (learning domestic skills, cooking, cleaning, etc)? Where is there ANY financial preparation? ...Most importantly...why aren't catholic parents teaching their children to look at life this way? If a man thinks he has a priestly vocation, he studies/prepares for 6-7 years. If a woman thinks she has a vocation to marriage, she hardly prepares at all. She just spends her money on looking good, and maybe some spiritual preparation too, so that when Mr Right comes along, she'll learn the "house stuff" AFTER marriage. THIS IS INSANE! But it's the world we live in. And it's just another (in a long list of problems) that feminism poses for men, as well as the young couple who gets married. For these problems will cause stress, they will REQUIRE an adjustment period for the woman, and it will, overall, reduce her happiness (at least for a while) because being a 'stay at home' mother (if she chooses the ideal) will be a shock to her system, due to a lack of preparation.
(Certainly, much of this can apply to men too. Many do not prepare for marriage adequately either. But living by oneself, having a job and financial responsibility is a natural state for men to be in, and to experience. None of these situations corrupt men for marriage; on the contrary, they are necessary for him to learn independence, autonomy and decision making, which is why those young men who live with their parents in their 20s-30s is a subversion, just like it is subversive for women to NOT live with their parents. ...But my comments were mainly focused on women and feminism...)
-
Pax you gave several poor examples of young girls with no proper upbringing as being the only likely option out there for marriage. Really?
I mean gosh, sounds like just a bunch of dumb bunnies out there might as well pack up and go home boys nothins’ left!
:fryingpan:
Why don’t we instead encourage our brothers in Christ to pray for a suitable Catholic wife and let God handle the rest.
And if and when she does show up, the road they take together in sickness and in health, for better or worse, with all of its crosses, is meant for the Sanctification of those souls living in that Marriage State.
But, if she never materializes, then serving the Church in Chaste Virginity is a valid and higher calling anyways.
So really all this constant talk of retaining earned assets in cases of extreme gold-digging divorce and government theft, is only serving the modernist mindset of heavy concerns for financial stability.
Didn’t the Holy Family live in poverty their entire time here on earth?
Do we have anywhere written a Saintly Couple with a record of this sort of marriage planning and divorce prep as an example for us modern, er I mean, Traditional Catholic pre-canas?
(Yes I know it is 2018 )
Everyone should read the book of Job, whether for the first time, or again as a reminder.
He is a good example to all of us.
Many times we should say with heartfelt gratitude:
‘The Lord giveth, and The Lord taketh away.’
-
I'd like you to elaborate on how exactly you're going to determine this payout. But, I must disclose that my interest is for entertainment purposes only. :popcorn:
The payout is determined by what is dictated in the prenup that is obviously agreed to, and signed by, both man & wife before getting married.
Duh.
-
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.
To further elaborate on this wrong analysis, 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.
-
You continue on with all your false non-Catholic premises. You've spent too much time listening to the heretic.
"He" doesn't unilaterally own his income once he gets married and starts a family.
She is not "steal"-ing anything in insisting upon being able to continue supporting the children.
Says the Emasculated One who, also, says "God isn't a Catholic God".
See my comment to MaterDominici just prior to this response to you.
Using the courts to take almost everything from the man that he built and saved prior to the marriage, and even during the marriage, after a "divorce" filed by the woman isn't necessary to adequately support the children. Your thinking is absurd.
False. Another non-Catholic principle based on secular thinking.
Wrong. It's simply a defensive principle based on practical thinking and the inalienable right (which is Catholic since it comes from God) to self-preservation.
Please provide the Catholic sources that say it's "non-Catholic". Provide the canon or Catholic teaching that the man must give almost everything he built and saved to the wife when she "divorces" him under the pretext of "supporting the children".
-
I still get what you are saying, but I was under the impression that anything you bought before marriage always remained yours in a divorce? It was everything after that was up for debate.
The girls you are talking about are easy to weed out just by simple courting, asking the right questions, and by careful thinking. No one changes that much after marriage, and If they are wicked painted city women before they will be wicked after.
Personally, I think you need to spend some time with happily married people. Just so you can see it’s not as bad as you think. I obviously have a ton to learn about marriage roles, but the picture you paint is slightly unsettling.
-
I still get what you are saying, but I was under the impression that anything you bought before marriage always remained yours in a divorce? It was everything after that was up for debate.
The girls you are talking about are easy to weed out just by simple courting, asking the right questions, and by careful thinking. No one changes that much after marriage, and If they are wicked painted city women before they will be wicked after.
Personally, I think you need to spend some time with happily married people. Just so you can see it’s not as bad as you think. I obviously have a ton to learn about marriage roles, but the picture you paint is slightly unsettling.
.
You are absolutely right. The problem most young men have, traditional included, is they look for exactly the girls they should NOT marry. Either they don't know what to look for or they don't heed their parent's advice.
.
My eldest daughter is having a hard time finding a decent young man because she makes too much money and all the traditional young men who want to court her turn out to be gold diggers. She wants to get married, have a family, homeschool, cook, clean, etc. She must wait for the Lord's direction.
.
I understand the fears men may have. Some women have the exact same fears. And women also have fears of marrying an abuser.
.
What it boils down to, that I see, is that both men and women must put trust in the Lord, learn to tune in to His frequency, and do what He wants. He will never let you down.
.
Have Faith that God will take care of you. Consider the lillies...
-
.
You are absolutely right. The problem most young men have, traditional included, is they look for exactly the girls they should NOT marry. Either they don't know what to look for or they don't heed their parent's advice.
.
My eldest daughter is having a hard time finding a decent young man because she makes too much money and all the traditional young men who want to court her turn out to be gold diggers. She wants to get married, have a family, homeschool, cook, clean, etc. She must wait for the Lord's direction.
.
I understand the fears men may have. Some women have the exact same fears. And women also have fears of marrying an abuser.
.
What it boils down to, that I see, is that both men and women must put trust in the Lord, learn to tune in to His frequency, and do what He wants. He will never let you down.
.
Have Faith that God will take care of you. Consider the lillies...
I think a lot of men want to “tame” modernist girls, and it’s a shame because so many good read women get pushed aside while these men try to figure it out the hard way. Marriage can be quite scarey these days, but that’s were trust comes in. If you don’t trust the women you love enough not to rob you blind, or be frivolous with money no pre-nup is gonna save you.
-
There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of the true Catholic Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?
Rockin' out Catholic truth and logic about "divorce" and the aftermath for men. Rockin' it out like no other...
-
You should totally protect yourself, but your reasoning is off in the way you portray women. I would never have signed a pre-nup. Why? Because I would have felt that he was already looking for a way out, and that hurts. Marriage is until death do you part. So why are you worrying about a divorce? If the woman you found is a true catholic woman she will be loyal until the end. You just haven’t found a loyal supportive woman.
-
Because I would have felt that he was already looking for a way out, and that hurts.
illogical thinking
Marriage is until death do you part. So why are you worrying about a divorce?
Tell that to the women, even Catholic women, "divorcing" their husbands and using the courts to steal everything he owns and built.
If the woman you found is a true catholic woman she will be loyal until the end. You just haven’t found a loyal supportive woman.
You mustn't have read this:
"There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of the true Catholic Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?"
-
i know what you are saying happens. I just watched it happen to my brother, but what I’m saying is. You are already thinking you’re future wife/wife is turning on you when it comes across as if you haven’t even met her yet. I’m telling you true loyal women don’t do what you’re talking about, and if the marriage does end a real grown up woman won’t bleed a man dry. She’ll just want out. She will leave your things alone.. I also believe all marriages can be saved. (Providing no physical, emotional, or verbal abuse).
Marriage isn’t 50/50. It’s 100/100, and sometimes 80/20. When your spouse isn’t at their best you gotta pick up that 80/20 go with it because your spouse needs you to be there for them, and the marriage. If your wife is having a hard time in your marriage maybe you need to see what’s going on not wave a pre-nup in her face, because your scared of full commitment.
-
You are already thinking you’re future wife/wife is turning on you when it comes across as if you haven’t even met her yet.
Wrong. I support mitigation and preventative measures in the form of a prenuptial agreement, just in case a woman betrays her husband and "divorces" him. IF a woman takes such action, the man has the prenup to protect him. Also, avoiding a state marriage license is a dandy of a maneuver.
If you get car insurance, are you expecting to get in a car accident?
I’m telling you true loyal women don’t do what you’re talking about, and if the marriage does end a real grown up woman won’t bleed a man dry. She’ll just want out. She will leave your things alone.. I also believe all marriages can be saved. (Providing no physical, emotional, or verbal abuse).
You don't understand the human condition. Once again, you either didn't read or you can't comprehend my comment:
"There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of the true Catholic Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?"
-
No, actually I can comprehend quite well thank you. You’re hiding behind bad reasoning. What happened in Vatican II isn’t what would happen in marriage. I will say this people don’t turn on one another for I reason. What exactly are you doing for a woman to want to rob you blind?
-
Pax you gave several poor examples of young girls with no proper upbringing as being the only likely option out there for marriage. Really?
My comments are directed at society at large, which concerns about 80-90% of women. Feminism has infected/destroyed that % of women, and even moreso the current millenials, who are worse off and more screwed up than the baby boomer generation (who had their depression era/WWI parents pass on common sense and the roles of a traditional family). If you don't see the problem, you don't get out much (which I can't blame you for not wanting to).
Why don’t we instead encourage our brothers in Christ to pray for a suitable Catholic wife and let God handle the rest.
In one sense, you're praying for something that doesn't exist and or is so rare that to be invaluable. Most men, even if they find a good Trad girl to marry, must still recognize feminism because IT'S EVERYWHERE and has infected almost all women (again, especially those of the current youth).
Trad Catholics need to recognize this problem so they can fight its errors, so they can teach the truth and help the young folk straighten up. This is not an "ism" like protestantism or communism, which is held by people whom you can't influence or change. No! Feminism infects the human psyche at its core and subverts males/females in their most foundational ideas - that of gender roles and the purpose of marriage - which, because these issues are so basic to human nature, will more easily AND QUICKLY subvert and destroy society.
The good news is, humans naturally recognize the NATURAL LAW and human nature, so feminism is like a deadly virus which strikes quickly, kills many people, but has a short life span. So, I believe feminism will also have a short life span because it's so contrary to the natural order that its evil effects will be seen very quickly and violently, therefore its errors will be rejected sooner rather than later. Yet, Protestantism has been around for 500 years, so how long will feminism last - 100-200? That's short for human history but covers 3-4 generations, which is a lot of people.
My point is, you need to be on guard, educate yourself and fight this disease. Prayer alone will not fix a false philosophy, nor will it teach your family the true roles of gender and marriage.
-
No, actually I can comprehend quite well thank you.
No, you don't.
You’re hiding behind bad reasoning.
My reasoning is sound and Catholic.
You're hiding behind selfish reasoning, which is why you don't want a prenup, because that will allow you the option to steal all that the man built and saved, if you were to "divorce" him for ANY reason. The courts are heavily biased in favor of women, regardless of who is at fault for the "divorce" or the "reasoning" of the woman.
What happened in Vatican II isn’t what would happen in marriage. I will say this people don’t turn on one another for I reason. What exactly are you doing for a woman to want to rob you blind?
You're blind and you can't see the parallel. Most of the illogical women on these threads have based their fallacious argument off of "Christ is married to the Church, so man must be like Christ and always support his wife no matter what, even if she steals everything from him because there is no prenuptial agreement", however, my comment below, again, completely decimates this flawed logic which is, actually, selfish reasoning:
"There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of the true Catholic Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?"
-
and if the marriage does end a real grown up woman won’t bleed a man dry. She’ll just want out. She will leave your things alone.
You've missed the other 5-6 threads where this false argument has been covered. In the case of divorce, the man is most worried about the court system, not his former wife. The wife asks for a divorce (which happens more than most of you think) and the courts TAKE IT FROM THERE. Once this process starts, the wife has less control than she imagines. The courts add up the assets, add up the monthly income, put it into a calculation and BOOM, this is what the man owes to his wife and for child support. The minimum a man pays is 50% of everything; it's usually closer to 70%. And yes, it includes ALL assets, even those the husband/wife had before marriage (unless a prenup exists).
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.
-
My comments are directed at society at large, which concerns about 80-90% of women. Feminism has infected/destroyed that % of women, and even moreso the current millenials, who are worse off and more screwed up than the baby boomer generation (who had their depression era/WWI parents pass on common sense and the roles of a traditional family). If you don't see the problem, you don't get out much (which I can't blame you for not wanting to).
In one sense, you're praying for something that doesn't exist and or is so rare that to be invaluable. Most men, even if they find a good Trad girl to marry, must still recognize feminism because IT'S EVERYWHERE and has infected almost all women (again, especially those of the current youth).
Trad Catholics need to recognize this problem so they can fight its errors, so they can teach the truth and help the young folk straighten up. This is not an "ism" like protestantism or communism, which is held by people whom you can't influence or change. No! Feminism infects the human psyche at its core and subverts males/females in their most foundational ideas - that of gender roles and the purpose of marriage - which, because these issues are so basic to human nature, will more easily AND QUICKLY subvert and destroy society.
The good news is, humans naturally recognize the NATURAL LAW and human nature, so feminism is like a deadly virus which strikes quickly, kills many people, but has a short life span. So, I believe feminism will also have a short life span because it's so contrary to the natural order that its evil effects will be seen very quickly and violently, therefore its errors will be rejected sooner rather than later. Yet, Protestantism has been around for 500 years, so how long will feminism last - 100-200? That's short for human history but covers 3-4 generations, which is a lot of people.
My point is, you need to be on guard, educate yourself and fight this disease. Prayer alone will not fix a false philosophy, nor will it teach your family the true roles of gender and marriage.
I agree with what Pax Vobis is saying here. He has been taking some unpopular positions in recent threads, so I'm concerned that this point might get lost. But it's important.
We can't assume that we are immune to feminism just because we are trads. It is something we still need to be on guard against. Especially we women need to learn how to recognize it and fight it within ourselves.
-
I still get what you are saying, but I was under the impression that anything you bought before marriage always remained yours in a divorce? It was everything after that was up for debate.
Nope.
If you don’t trust the women you love enough not to rob you blind, or be frivolous with money no pre-nup is gonna save you.
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).
If the woman you found is a true catholic woman she will be loyal until the end. You just haven’t found a loyal supportive woman.
i know what you are saying happens. I just watched it happen to my brother, but what I’m saying is.
Vintagewife3,
I'm not sure if it's possible to reconcile your above 2 statements. They seem TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY.
So you just watched your brother's wife leave him by divorce, but you say that a true, catholic woman wouldn't do that. So here are some questions:
1. Did you recognize that your brother's former wife was a bad catholic, and unloyal BEFORE THE MARRIAGE?
2. Did you recognize that she wasn't loyal and supportive BEFORE MARRIAGE?
3. If you didn't, then how could he have recognized this?
4. If neither of you recognized it, then your "trust" you had in her was wrong, right?
5. And if you were both wrong, then others who are dating could be wrong too, right?
6. So, the point is, one can't really know if the person they are marrying is trustworthy, loyal to the end (because you're not at the end yet), and supportive.
7. Ergo, men could be wrong about who they marry, or their wives can change and be tempted to evil, therefore a prenup is necessary.
-
Nope.
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).
Vintagewife3,
I'm not sure if it's possible to reconcile your above 2 statements. They seem TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY.
So you just watched your brother's wife leave him by divorce, but you say that a true, catholic woman wouldn't do that. So here are some questions:
1. Did you recognize that your brother's former wife was a bad catholic, and unloyal BEFORE THE MARRIAGE?
2. Did you recognize that she wasn't loyal and supportive BEFORE MARRIAGE?
3. If you didn't, then how could he have recognized this?
4. If neither of you recognized it, then your "trust" you had in her was wrong, right?
5. And if you were both wrong, then others who are dating could be wrong too, right?
6. So, the point is, one can't really know if the person they are marrying is trustworthy, loyal to the end (because you're not at the end yet), and supportive.
7. Ergo, men could be wrong about who they marry, or their wives can change and be tempted to evil, therefore a prenup is necessary.
They were never married, and she is a newly baptized lutheran. My brother won’t even talk about God without blasphemy. Yes, I told him straight up not to trust her. She wold humiliate him in front of family, and I told him not to keep going with it. Then we got the call she was pregnant.
-
He has been taking some unpopular positions in recent threads,
If the main objections to the points that Croix and I have raised were related to JUST the prenup, I can understand that. But most people are objecting to the current society's errors (acting as if they didn't exist, or "aren't that bad"), which means they are either 1) sheltered and out of touch, 2) naive, or 3) infected with these bad ideals themselves.
To date, including all of the threads on these topics, the % of women who have admitted that feminism is a major problem and has/will affect spouses (and them) is what, 5%? Admitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery. We are FAR, FAR away from the first step, even among trads.
-
They were never married, and she is a newly baptized lutheran.
Ok, then your example is irrelevant to the discussion.
-
Admitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery.
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.
-
If the main objections to the points that Croix and I have raised were related to JUST the prenup, I can understand that. But most people are objecting to the current society's errors (acting as if they didn't exist, or "aren't that bad"), which means they are either 1) sheltered and out of touch, 2) naive, or 3) infected with these bad ideals themselves.
To date, including all of the threads on these topics, the % of women who have admitted that feminism is a major problem and has/will affect spouses (and them) is what, 5%? Admitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery. We are FAR, FAR away from the first step, even among trads.
Personally, I have been skeptical of your claims about the value of prenups while agreeing with your underlying assumptions about feminism. I did not think my position was that unusual.
I am going to start a new thread to specifically consider this question.
-
Personally, I have been skeptical of your claims about the value of prenups while agreeing with your underlying assumptions about feminism.
1. Fact: Feminism is everywhere and has infected 90% of women and probably 99% of women under 50.
2. Fact: Divorce courts are freemasonic, anti-catholic and pro-divorce. Their goal is to subvert the family order and destroy marriage.
If you do not see the value of prenups based on the above facts, then you have no solution to the problem. A prenup doesn't solve the problem fully, but it does solve SOME problems. It's better than nothing.
-
Ok, then your example is irrelevant to the discussion.
I only brought it up because I was saying I understand that some women do this, but not all. I would say very, very few women, but still....
I’m still learning here. I’m coming here to learn more about my faith that I have had a very hard time with, and how to be better Catholic in all aspects. If my opinions or thoughts seen worldly I really am just trying to sift through what’s right and wrong.
the recent threads on marriage have me question if is even set up the way it should, or if we have fallen into worldly norm.
-
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.
-
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.
-
: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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Yes, dear.
-
Yes, dear.
.
Teens of his caliber don't deserve that much respect, even tongue in cheek.
.
https://youtu.be/qB8JDTiNHQs
-
Now, you're sizing up teenage boys after you've stalked me for weeks. You have no intention on changing, despite admitting you need help.
No, son.
Taking people's words out of context will only mess you up further.
We all need help, you included.
Pray for it and He will answer your prayers if you are of good will.
-
You've stalked me for weeks, and you've projected your attraction to teenage males.
Don't make light of your guilt by lumping everyone into the "help needed" category.
CDF,
Since you are a teen, you may still be living in your parents household. If so, are your parents aware of exactly what you are writing here?
-
CDF,
Since you are a teen, you may still be living in your parents household. If so, are your parents aware of exactly what you are writing here?
Meg, you haven't been reading the threads, or you lack reading comprehension, or you naively take people's comments about me at face value.
Either way, you've arrived at a wrong analysis.
This is a disturbing trend of many...
-
Meg, you haven't been reading the threads, or you lack reading comprehension, or you naively take people's comments about me at face value.
Either way, you've arrived at a wrong analysis.
This is a disturbing trend of many...
I haven't read the entire thread or threads, that's true. But the question still stands. If you have addressed the questions previously, then please let me know where you have already done so. Until then, I'll wait for you to answer the questions. Mainly, are your parents aware of exactly what you are writing here? There shouldn't be any reason not to answer honestly.
-
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.
There is also the issue that a Catholic man would not want or expect to "get out of" the responsibility (before God) of supporting his children.
Now he might want to support them under his own roof, rather than paying his wife (and some strange man) to start a entire 2nd household to accomplish this task, but I digress.
On some worldly, non-Catholic forums full of anti-feminists and such, some of the men talk as if they would love to get out of paying any child support whatsoever -- for their own children! That is too much.
-
I haven't read the entire thread or threads, that's true. But the question still stands. If you have addressed the questions previously, then please let me know where you have already done so. Until then, I'll wait for you to answer the questions. Mainly, are your parents aware of exactly what you are writing here? There shouldn't be any reason not to answer honestly.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36580402_1449599605185301_915898103674961920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=1b4306e80ba9bf522d755343522e9598&oe=5BE66AAF)
-
Meg, act like an adult and read the threads before you post. Don’t be like a child who wanders into a movie theater and has to ask “What’s playing?”
-
I haven't read the entire thread or threads, that's true. But the question still stands. If you have addressed the questions previously, then please let me know where you have already done so. Until then, I'll wait for you to answer the questions. Mainly, are your parents aware of exactly what you are writing here? There shouldn't be any reason not to answer honestly.
Some people have been claiming that Croix de Fer is a teenager as a way to insult him. I find it highly unlikely that their claim is true. According to his forum profile, he registered in 2011. Unless he were 12 years old or younger at that time, he would not be a teenager now.
There is no reason that he should have to respond to absurd accusations and interrogations and no reason to assume that he is actually under his parents' authority.
-
Some people have been claiming that Croix de Fer is a teenager as a way to insult him. I find it highly unlikely that their claim is true. According to his forum profile, he registered in 2011. Unless he were 12 years old or younger at that time, he would not be a teenager now.
There is no reason that he should have to respond to absurd accusations and interrogations and no reason to assume that he is actually under his parents authority.
He didn't deny that he is under his parents authority. But if he is, his parents are not doing a very good job of parenting.
That being said, you're right in that he doesn't have to respond. That's fine. I have to wonder, though, how he treats the women in his family - especially his mother. You will, of course be appalled that I would say such a thing, as you are so often appalled by what I write. But whatever.
-
He didn't deny that he is under his parents authority. But if he is, his parents are not doing a very good job of parenting.
That being said, you're right in that he doesn't have to respond. That's fine. I have to wonder, though, how he treats the women in his family - especially his mother. You will, of course be appalled that I would say such a thing, as you are so often appalled by what I write. But whatever.
It is not significant that he has not denied being under his parents' authority. There is no reason that he should dignify baseless accusations with a denial.
And yes, I am appalled. You are one of the worst offenders on this forum for turning debates on ideas into personal attacks and making about baseless stories concerning people you disagree with. But this is bad even for you. Attacking a person's family is hitting below the belt. I would normally object to this and it is an even more sensitive topic for me lately because my parents recently died. Please try to learn to discuss ideas without so much rash judgment and lack of charity.
-
It is not significant that he has not denied being under his parents' authority. There is no reason that he should dignify baseless accusations with a denial.
And yes, I am appalled. You are one of the worst offenders on this forum for turning debates on ideas into personal attacks and making about baseless stories concerning people you disagree with. But this is bad even for you. Attacking a person's family is hitting below the belt. I would normally object to this and it is an even more sensitive topic for me lately because my parents recently died. Please try to learn to discuss ideas without so much rash judgment and lack of charity.
I'm sorry that your parents recently died. But why make this about you? Or me?
-
But why make this about you? Or me?
You make virtually every forum disagreement you have about the person you are debating instead of the ideas under discussion. Every bit of personal information, real or imagined, is something that you use as a weapon.
You jumped into a discussion that you had not even been following and started in with personal attacks and rash judgments.
-
You make virtually every forum disagreement you have about the person you are debating instead of the ideas under discussion. Every bit of personal information, real or imagined, is something that you use as a weapon. You are appalling.
You might want to put me on ignore, Jayne. It might lesson your stress a bit. :)
-
I can see why people are reacting harshly to Croix de fer, and he can come across rather harshly. That being said the accusations should stop against him. It just makes the whole thing childish. You all have to admit his views, and points have stirred quite a bit of thought provoking discussions. I’ve spent the better part of the last two days talking to my husband about his opinion, and what he thought of us. It’s opening doors for us.
-
I'm really not sure what you're debating here.
You suggested that dowry's don't exist today and my point was that they do often occur despite not being called a dowry. When I married, I had money for a down payment on a house, a newish, paid-for vehicle, furniture & household items. I had a small student loan, but I also had the money to pay it off and just chose not to due to the interest being so low. This all sounds like I worked for a long time, but I had only worked 2.5 years and married only 9 months after meeting Matthew.
.
I'm not the only female I know who owned more than their spouse before they married.
.
What your potential spouse has been doing with their time past high school is part of choosing a good partner. If they've chosen poorly in this area, that's a good indication of their overall ability to make good decisions in life. I certainly didn't fault Matthew for not owning much of anything when I knew that he'd spent his time and what money he'd previously earned on exploring a vocation. That's more valuable than all the stuff I had!
.
Looking for dowry from your potential wife is pretty good idea, just don't suggest that this doesn't already happen in many cases ... or that it's inherently the most desirable asset she could bring to the marriage. If she's spent a few years in a convent and decided that she'd rather be raising a family, that's probably going to be much more valuable than any money should could have made during that time.
-
Yes, and we're still driving that very practical vehicle today, even though we've been married for 13 years. Just think of all the money that saved us when we were starting out: a monthly car payment (principal & interest), plus we could downgrade to liability insurance rather than "full coverage" which the bank demands if they still own your vehicle.
And note that my wife chose a very practical vehicle, it's considered a small SUV -- a PT Cruiser, if you must know -- with a nice big backseat that fits 3 kids. We used that for our family vehicle for years.
I would like to repeat that it's important for single people to be PRACTICAL during their single years -- don't just blow and party away all your single person money. Think ahead, start a household, live on your own, save up, get a nice car paid off -- there are useful things you can do while looking for that suitable spouse.
And you should look for such practicality in your future spouse. It's a sign of maturity, and what you can expect from them once you're married. If they are careless with money before marriage, guess how they will be after marriage? People don't change much.
If you marry a girl (or guy) because they're cute, because they're fun -- don't complain when they are lousy at providing, or lousy at keeping the household running financially.
Think of all the women that gravitate to the "bad boy" who drives a motorcycle, rebels against authority, etc. Is that motorcycle enthusiast really going to be a better husband, spiritual leader of the family, father, and provider than the bookworm who excels only at white collar tasks? I seriously doubt it. It's almost a scientific fact that many women are attracted to scoundrels and jerks, at least on a base carnal level. That is to say, despite themselves. Just like many men are attracted to helpless, dumb airheads and women who have nothing going for them other than their looks -- again, despite themselves.
If both men AND women don't rise above these base attractions, and let their Catholic head do the thinking, rather than baser parts of the body -- the marriage will be a disaster.
I bet almost 100% of "bad marriages" were completely consensual -- no shotgun or coersion was involved. One or both of the couple was simply blind, didn't know what to look for -- and chose very poorly.
-
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36544842_1449721441839784_5572487803318566912_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=372909cc60b2cd39f9222322c2172d1b&oe=5BE14F85)
He didn't deny that he is under his parents authority. But if he is, his parents are not doing a very good job of parenting.
That being said, you're right in that he doesn't have to respond. That's fine. I have to wonder, though, how he treats the women in his family - especially his mother. You will, of course be appalled that I would say such a thing, as you are so often appalled by what I write. But whatever.
-
I suppose in our day and age the dowry could come directly from the wife, based on her having worked and saved, but historically, the dowry came from THE WIFE'S PARENTS, as her share of the inheritance, so to speak. With the economy being what it is, and most folks barely scraping by for the last 60-70 years, I can understand why dowrys went away here in the US. But, that's not to say that they aren't financially do-able. I know a few families of wives, who told the engaged couple, "Ok, I'm contributing x to the wedding. Do you want to spend it all on the party (which they were advised not to), or do you want to use some for the honeymoon and some to buy a house." In this way, the money was sort of a dowry and not wasted on the wedding reception. And the couple's eyes were opened as to how much a reception cost.
Basically, if the wife worked before marriage, she should have $ saved up. This shouldn't replace the dowry, which is an obligation from the wife's parents (historically).
-
I suppose in our day and age the dowry could come directly from the wife, based on her having worked and saved, but historically, the dowry came from THE WIFE'S PARENTS, as her share of the inheritance, so to speak.
Considering I have 6 girls, and I'm not rich, I hope my future sons-in-law are looking for a good old fashioned backyard type reception...hahaha
Seriously though -- no one needs to rent a DJ to play suggestive and worldly music. Nor do they need to pay for overpriced catering. And why would anyone step into a whole different economic bracket for a wedding reception? For example, a fancy dinner proper for rich people, when the family is middle class? Or a middle class catered meal when the family is poor?
That's just stupid. No one is comfortable, and money is wasted.
And coming back to what I said earlier -- if you know someone with land (like the bride's parents, for example), you can host the reception there and save a lot of money. Depending on the land, it could actually be quite beautiful, natural, special, etc.!
We could have a bonfire for example, light fireworks, do a hayride around the yard, etc.
That's the other thing: doing a more old-fashioned reception on private land accommodates children, which should be a consideration for most families. What percent of couples are barren. Can we agree that it's not the majority? (if we're talking about Traditional Catholics at least) How artificial is it to send your kids to a babysitter, so you can go celebrate with "parts of" the extended family because someone is getting married? Why not celebrate with the WHOLE family, if a celebration is called for?
I would actually prefer fried chicken (about $7) to most expensive dinners I've seen/had.
-
The most enjoyable weddings/graduation parties i've ever been to were thrown at someone's house, who had some land. The party was able to be both intimate and spread out. Plenty of room for games and activities. It's always a blast!
I agree, food is food. You eat it, it's over with. No one talks about a meal they had 10 years ago (unless they're an extreme foodie), but you remember the people you ate it with and the experience and the fun atmosphere.
-
I suppose in our day and age the dowry could come directly from the wife, based on her having worked and saved, but historically, the dowry came from THE WIFE'S PARENTS, as her share of the inheritance, so to speak. With the economy being what it is, and most folks barely scraping by for the last 60-70 years, I can understand why dowrys went away here in the US. But, that's not to say that they aren't financially do-able. I know a few families of wives, who told the engaged couple, "Ok, I'm contributing x to the wedding. Do you want to spend it all on the party (which they were advised not to), or do you want to use some for the honeymoon and some to buy a house." In this way, the money was sort of a dowry and not wasted on the wedding reception. And the couple's eyes were opened as to how much a reception cost.
Basically, if the wife worked before marriage, she should have $ saved up. This shouldn't replace the dowry, which is an obligation from the wife's parents (historically).
It's a nice ideal, but now you've made a difficult task (finding a good wife who agrees with your POV) into a nearly impossible task (finding a good wife who agrees with your POV ... who also has an extended family that agree with your POV and has the funds to live up to it). Those back yard weddings would max us out, no way we'd have any more than that whether we agreed with your ideals or not.
.
When you're looking for a dowry from your in-laws, you'd also better be ready to convince them that you're a good pick for their daughter. I don't know many men interested in doing that.
-
Another question, what if neither the future wife, or wife’s family could afford such a thing at all? I came from an extremely poor background, and worked part time min-wage to afford necessities for me.
-
Also, to all those single guys who like to have their cake and eat it too, you don't get to have American-style independence ("I don't have to ask no man permission for his daughter's hand in marriage!") and old-world style dowrys at the same time.
When dowrys were customary, it was also required to ask a man's permission to court/marry his daughter. They go together. They are a package deal.
Some people just want all the good parts and none of the bad parts. That's called being selfish and irresponsible.
I'd like the free time of an unemployed man, the energy and health of a 20 year old man, the resources of a rich man, and the stress of a retired man. What would someone tell me? "Keep dreaming!"
-
Quote from: (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=49290.msg617430#msg617430) MaterDomenici on Wed Jul 04 2018 05:34:48 GMT+1000 (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
I'm not the only female I know who owned more than their spouse before they married.
There's no need to feel alone in this, Mater.
Quote from: Matthew
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=49290.msg617430#msg617430)a good old fashioned backyard type reception...hahaha
Ours was in the back room at my parent's home.
-
Considering I have 6 girls, and I'm not rich, I hope my future sons-in-law are looking for a good old fashioned backyard type reception...hahaha
Seriously though -- no one needs to rent a DJ to play suggestive and worldly music. Nor do they need to pay for overpriced catering. And why would anyone step into a whole different economic bracket for a wedding reception? For example, a fancy dinner proper for rich people, when the family is middle class? Or a middle class catered meal when the family is poor?
That's just stupid. No one is comfortable, and money is wasted.
And coming back to what I said earlier -- if you know someone with land (like the bride's parents, for example), you can host the reception there and save a lot of money. Depending on the land, it could actually be quite beautiful, natural, special, etc.!
We could have a bonfire for example, light fireworks, do a hayride around the yard, etc.
That's the other thing: doing a more old-fashioned reception on private land accommodates children, which should be a consideration for most families. What percent of couples are barren. Can we agree that it's not the majority? (if we're talking about Traditional Catholics at least) How artificial is it to send your kids to a babysitter, so you can go celebrate with "parts of" the extended family because someone is getting married? Why not celebrate with the WHOLE family, if a celebration is called for?
I would actually prefer fried chicken (about $7) to most expensive dinners I've seen/had.
We did a wedding much like this for our second daughter. We even did the meal as a pot luck, so we weren't providing all the food. Everyone had a wonderful time.
-
There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of the true Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?
Rockin' out Catholic truth and logic about "divorce" and the aftermath for men. Rockin' it out like no other...
-
We did a wedding much like this for our second daughter. We even did the meal as a pot luck, so we weren't providing all the food. Everyone had a wonderful time.
I could not imagine doing a pot luck wedding and still expect gifts for the newlyweds.
-
I could not imagine doing a pot luck wedding and still expect gifts for the newlyweds.
They did the pot luck instead of gifts. The were in circuмstances where they did not need household items.
I've started a "hope chest" (that's what it used to be called) for my youngest daughter, collecting dishes, etc. for her, so they will be available when she starts a household of her own.
-
They did the pot luck instead of gifts. The were in circuмstances where they did not need household items.
I've started a "hope chest" (that's what it used to be called) for my youngest daughter, collecting dishes, etc. for her, so they will be available when she starts a household of her own.
Now that's an idea...
-
When you're looking for a dowry from your in-laws
I never said I would advise anyone to get/force a prenup nor advise them to expect a dowry. The days of a dowry are gone mainly because our catholic culture (what little America had) is dead. Until catholicism returns (which it will, eventually), a dowry is never expected.
I don’t know how a prenup would work, I’m mainly interested in the theory and anti-feminism. I would advise a man interested in dating to at least bring the topic up to see the reaction. As the topic here has shown, there’s a lot of closet feminists out there, masquerading as Trads! Everyone needs to get their mindset in order and purge modernism! If one marries a spouse with a clear thinking, catholic mind, that’s worth all the money in the world. But it takes some digging and controversial topics to find that out.
-
We did a wedding much like this for our second daughter. We even did the meal as a pot luck, so we weren't providing all the food. Everyone had a wonderful time.
We don't have "pot luck" where I come from, we have "bring a plate". and that's what we did too. Still people brought gifts and everyone had a wonderful time. I couldn't bear the thought of wasting so much money on one day. This was how many people did it, say, 80 years back. It's got completely out of hand.
-
I can see why people are reacting harshly to Croix de fer, and he can come across rather harshly. That being said the accusations should stop against him. It just makes the whole thing childish. You all have to admit his views, and points have stirred quite a bit of thought provoking discussions. I’ve spent the better part of the last two days talking to my husband about his opinion, and what he thought of us. It’s opening doors for us.
I guess you missed this:
Croix de Fer has been banned (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/croix-de-fer-has-been-banned/msg617691/#msg617691)
Croix de Fer called someone "brothel tenant", "whore", "stalker", "cow", and many other foul names here on this fine Catholic forum. He's just not worth it.
Croix de Fer jumped the shark, and that's all there is to it. He used to have about 100 downvotes or less (vs. 2000 upvotes) -- and that was last month! But now he has more downvotes than upvotes! If that isn't "jumping the shark", I don't know what is. What happened to the guy? Pray for him.
-
Pope Leo XIII re-affirming the teachings of St. Paul:
From his encyclical Arcanus Divinae:
11. Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”
-
What’s your point?
-
What’s your point?
I think he agreed with the OP.
-
You're asking the wrong question. You're trying to shape reality to fit skewed perceptions of Catholics, and then base questions off of it.
If you want evidence, simply Google search "MGTOW" or related subjects, and you'll see the exponential numbers of men who aren't MGTOW, per se, themselves, but they still strongly support prenups and avoiding marriage licenses. They're not MGTOW because they still carefully plan on getting married. Also, in states with common law "marriages", they naturally insist on prenups to protect them.
The numbers of Catholics in such an awakening doesn't matter. What matters is the reality of the epidemic of "divorces" sought by women, and the courts favoring the women despite their reason or lack of reason for the "divorce". The women use the courts to steal what the man owns and built his entire life. What does matter is Catholics need to take notice. Observe, orient, decide & act.
Your fallacy is thinking trad Catholics are too righteous to succuмb to this epidemic, simply because they're trads. Trads are every bit as human as any other person, and they're "divorcing" each other and wrecking their own families. too. You even mentioned an example of some harlot who "divorced" her husband, left the Faith, all after having 10 kids with him, and getting the courts to make him pay for supporting the children while she's "married" to another man. You think it will stop there? You still maintain that trads as a whole are impervious to it. There was once a time when the Church was living Holy Tradition, but Vatican II happened. If Vatican II can happen to the Bride of Christ, then trad Catholic women can be infected with the world, thus turn on her husband and try to take everything he built and earned. Didn't Newchurch, through Vatican II, take most, if not all, of true Church's property and wealth? Yes, it did. Individual women are more easily corrupted than the Church. So why shouldn't a man get a prenup and avoid a marriage license to protect himself?
(https://gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/007/764/609/original/6d2b1c73337605ba.jpg?1564881837)
-
(https://gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/007/764/609/original/6d2b1c73337605ba.jpg?1564881837)
No bull !