Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Croix de Fer on June 28, 2018, 05:55:21 AM
-
This man is wrong saying "nowhere in the Bible does it teach 'women love your husbands'". In reality, Titus 2:4 teaches women to love their husbands. It says those exact words. With an exception of this aforementioned error, he's basically right about everything else he says.
Again, if a woman is not obedient to her prospective husband in signing a prenuptial agreement and avoiding a state marriage license, then she doesn't truly love him, and she will continue to be disobedient to him after marriage. Indeed, a woman's love for man is defined by her obedience to him.
-
I tried to listen to him last night, but I could not put up with it for more than 1 minute. I do not understand what you see in him. I might as well go to my high school football coach for marriage advise. "You got to be mobile, agile, and hostile".
-
if a woman is not obedient to her prospective husband in signing a prenuptial agreement and avoiding a state marriage license, then she doesn't truly love him
I disagree.
-
I tried to listen to him last night, but I could not put up with it for more than 1 minute. I do not understand what you see in him. I might as well go to my high school football coach for marriage advise. "You got to be mobile, agile, and hostile".
Lousy argument. If you're not going to hear what he's saying, you have no real counter to it, nor are you justified in criticizing him. You can't claim to know what he's saying, if you didn't go beyond a minute.
-
Lousy argument. If you're not going to hear what he's saying, you have no real counter to it, nor are you justified in criticizing him. You can't claim to know what he's saying, if you didn't go beyond a minute.
If I gave more time to people like him, I would not have had time to learn anything from the truly wise.
Conversations like this remind me of why I avoid CI, it takes up valuable time. I think I'll disappear for a few months till I catch a cold or break a leg or something that gets me stuck in the house.
-
Indeed, many women are agents of Antichrist.
The top brass of the Antichrist female dynamic are Jєω women, for they were the prototypes to be followed and emulated by deceived, selfish, fallen shiksas.
-
Again, if a woman is not obedient to her prospective husband in signing a prenuptial agreement and avoiding a state marriage license, then she doesn't truly love him, and she will continue to be disobedient to him after marriage. Indeed, a woman's love for man is defined by her obedience to him.
A woman is obliged to obey her husband. She is not obliged to obey a prospective husband, a boyfriend, or random men she happens to meet.
As a general rule, when a man other than one's husband says anything starting with "If you really loved me, you would ..." it is warning sign. It tends to be part of manipulating a woman into something she should not do.
-
A woman is obliged to obey her husband. She is not obliged to obey a prospective husband, a boyfriend, or random men she happens to meet.
As a general rule, when a man other than one's husband says anything starting with "If you really loved me, you would ..." it is warning sign. It tends to be part of manipulating a woman into something she should not do.
Wrong analysis. If a woman truly loves the man who loves her and is considering marrying her, she will obey his request to get a prenuptial agreement. It's that simple. If she rejects it, she's disobedient and she doesn't really love him. She's selfish, lacks faith in the man, and she's insidious. She's hiding an ulterior motive to get married.
-
This man is wrong saying "nowhere in the Bible does it teach 'women love your husbands'". In reality, Titus 2:4 teaches women to love their husbands. It says those exact words. With an exception of this aforementioned error,
... and that pesky little Micheas quote taken out of context once again.
he's basically right about everything else he says.
I think he struck out numerous times in this video. And, as he once again didn't mention anything about prenups, I wonder why it is you posted this.
-
... and that pesky little Micheas quote taken out of context once again.
How is it taken out of context? He even clarified that man should love his wife, even when man shouldn't entrust everything to his wife. He said that just because you don't entrust everything to her, doesn't mean you don't love her. To not entrust everything to her is an aegis to whatever the wife might bring against the husband, if she were to turn against him like most women do against their husbands in these latter days.
I think he struck out numerous times in this video. And, as he once again didn't mention anything about prenups, I wonder why it is you posted this.
No, he hit another homerun. The point of me posting it is to fortify the points made in the other videos about the need for man to get a prenuptial agreement and avoid a state marriage license. He dissects the nature of most women in this video.
-
How is it taken out of context? He even clarified that man should love his wife, even when man shouldn't entrust everything to his wife. He said that just because you don't entrust everything to her, doesn't mean you don't love her. To not entrust everything to her is an aegis to whatever the wife might bring against the husband, if she were to turn against him like most women do against their husbands in these latter days.
The prophet was lamenting how things were at the time & place where he was. He had lost all hope in anything holy remaining among the people: "now shall be their destruction."
Consequently, no was was to be trusted. Not man-wife, father-son, nor mother-daughter.
Now, if you believe that we are now as bad as they were then, the logical conclusion would be to not marry at all. Entertaining the idea of marriage suggests that there is the possibility of finding holiness among the people of this place and time. And, therefore, the suggestion to, as a rule, not trust even those within your household would not apply.
-
No, he hit another homerun. The point of me posting it is to fortify the points made in the other videos about the need for man to get a prenuptial agreement and avoid a state marriage license. He dissects the nature of most women in this video.
While he was much more specific in the other video, he alluded here, again, to putting out his wife due to a lack of obedience. That is not a Church-approved reason for separation. In the other video, he went further to say that he'd be replacing her if she wasn't obedient. Also, obviously, not Catholic teaching.
.
Most of the videos you've posted from this fellow have not provided any new ideas in line with Church teaching. I'll take your word for it that he talks about marriage licenses in one of these as it's not one I've seen. In most cases, the videos instead include an assortment of heresies. So, why bother?
.
If you were really concerned about promoting Catholic marriage ideals, you'd be able to discuss the value of a pre-marriage agreement or avoiding a marriage license (two ideas worthy of discussion) without leaning on a heretic to make your case. He's added very little of value to the conversation.
-
While he was much more specific in the other video, he alluded here, again, to putting out his wife due to a lack of obedience. That is not a Church-approved reason for separation. In the other video, he went further to say that he'd be replacing her if she wasn't obedient. Also, obviously, not Catholic teaching.
.
Most of the videos you've posted from this fellow have not provided any new ideas in line with Church teaching. I'll take your word for it that he talks about marriage licenses in one of these as it's not one I've seen. In most cases, the videos instead include an assortment of heresies. So, why bother?
.
If you were really concerned about promoting Catholic marriage ideals, you'd be able to discuss the value of a pre-marriage agreement or avoiding a marriage license (two ideas worthy of discussion) without leaning on a heretic to make your case. He's added very little of value to the conversation.
Well, in other videos, he does talk about the importance of avoiding a State marriage license and getting a prenuptial agreement that looks out for both man and woman, although he focuses more on the man being protected because of the current system being rigged against man.
If love between man and woman is all that truly matters (and it does), and a true marriage can only be conferred by the Church (true marriage is only between man, woman and God), thus, a true marriage is seen in the Eyes of God, why does the woman insist on a State marriage license as a form of validation?
-
why does the woman insist on a State marriage license as a form of validation?
.
I am not convinced they do.
I believe it is automatic, that the priest submits the paperwork to the state, and the Catholic woman has no say in the matter, nor does it even cross her mind...
-
.
I am not convinced they do.
I believe it is automatic, that the priest submits the paperwork to the state, and the Catholic woman has no say in the matter, nor does it even cross her mind...
Wrong. Couples can opt out of the "automatic state license process" by demanding the priest not submit anything to the state . Also, in many states, it's a separate process. In my state, a couple can even get a state marriage license without going through any religious ritual conferring marriage.
-
Wrong. Couples can opt out of the "automatic state license process" by demanding the priest not submit anything to the state . Also, in many states, it's a separate process. In my state, a couple can get a state marriage license without going through a religious ritual conferring marriage.
The way it works where I am is that a couple can get a state marriage license without a religious ceremony, but it is not possible to have a Catholic wedding without it automatically including a state license. No priest would accede to demands not to submit anything to the state because he would then lose his ability to perform marriages that include a license. Even if one found a priest willing to do that, I doubt his bishop would allow it.
Even if both man and woman wanted a Catholic wedding without a state license, in many (most?) jurisdictions they could not do it. I suspect any claims about women insisting on a state license are based on the "pastor's" experience with non-Catholics. I strongly doubt it applies to Catholics. I have never heard of this being an issue for Catholic couples.
-
No priest would accede to demands not to submit anything to the state because he would then lose his ability to perform marriages that include a license.
Wrong.
Even if one found a priest willing to do that, I doubt his bishop would allow it.
Wrong.
Even if both man and woman wanted a Catholic wedding without a state license, in many (most?) jurisdictions they could not do it.
Wrong.
I strongly doubt it applies to Catholics. I have never heard of this being an issue for Catholic couples.
Wrong, but even if it were true, I'm going to change that lack of awareness.
-
Wrong. Couples can opt out of the "automatic state license process" by demanding the priest not submit anything to the state . Also, in many states, it's a separate process. In my state, a couple can even get a state marriage license without going through any religious ritual conferring marriage.
I suspect most couples getting married in a Catholic Church do not know they have that option, hence it would not cross either future spouse or future wife mind. Nor have I ever heard it to be an option.
.
Of course the couple can get married by the state directly. Is a "religious ritual" not needed in your opinion?
-
Quote from: Jaynek on Today at 12:39:55 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/woman's-love-defined-by-obedience-to-man/msg616485/#msg616485)
No priest would accede to demands not to submit anything to the state because he would then lose his ability to perform marriages that include a license.
Wrong.
That is definitely how it works here because we tried to do it and that is why the priest told us he wouldn't.
-
That is definitely how it works here because we tried to do it and that is why the priest told us he wouldn't.
That's what I have heard as well ... from a couple of priests in my state.
-
Wrong analysis. If a woman truly loves the man who loves her and is considering marrying her, she will obey his request to get a prenuptial agreement. It's that simple.
No, you're wrong. "Obedience" isn't the right term. You could argue ... and I would disagree ... but you could argue that she should "accede" to his wishes if she loves him. But a state of "obedience" doesn't exist before marriage. I could see a woman being reasonably suspicious of a man's motives and attitudes with regard to such a request: "What, is he making plans for bailing out on the marriage?" or "Does he not trust me?" I know my own wife and know that she would NEVER leave me without just cause (i.e., Catholic grounds for separation). If you don't know someone well enough to be able to know these things, then you probably shouldn't get married. Can someone take a turn unexpectedly? Sure, that can happen. But it's rare. Usually the signs are there right from the beginning ... if you're any judge of people.
-
I suspect most couples getting married in a Catholic Church do not know they have that option, hence it would not cross either future spouse or future wife mind. Nor have I ever heard it to be an option.
The SSPX Priests obey the civil laws that ask couples apply for a marriage license. The only Priests that will cooperate with a couple that wants to refuse the license are some resistance or independant Priests (perhaps some sede not sure)
I know a resistance Priest that married some friends of mine and they did not want a marriage license. The Priest was fine with it. However, now that they have children, taxes have been a challenge for them because she is a stay at home mom with no income. Plus medical insurance has also been a problem for them.
I can’t say they regret their decision because I haven’t asked, but they have expressed to me many difficulties with not having one.
-
But a state of "obedience" doesn't exist before marriage.
Yes, it does. If a woman truly loves a man, she will be obedient to his direction even before they get married, as long as his directions aren't sinful nor put her in positive danger. I don't see Blessed Mary being disobedient to St. Joseph's directions before they were married.
I could see a woman being reasonably suspicious of a man's motives and attitudes with regard to such a request: "What, is he making plans for bailing out on the marriage?" or "Does he not trust me?"
That's because you've been heavily indoctrinated with feminism. You can't see it. It's deep. You need to deprogram yourself.
I know my own wife and know that she would NEVER leave me without just cause (i.e., Catholic grounds for separation).
Oh, foolish one. You know nothing. The disciple Peter was MOST CERTAIN he would stand by Christ all the way through his apprehension, interrogation, beating & Crucifixion. Peter cowered despite his knowing, and he pretended to not be a follower of Christ in order to escape harm by the Jєωs.
Can someone take a turn unexpectedly? Sure, that can happen. But it's rare.
:laugh1: This is blatant dishonesty to add weight to your argument. Even if it were true (which it's not), your point actually fortifies my argument that women put on a facade before they're married, and once the marriage occurs, their true wicked nature is revealed. The evidence is in the high occurrence of divorce in these latter days, and the man being robbed of almost everything he owns. This is why a prenuptial agreement is necessary to protect the man.
-
With all of the great traditional Catholic sermons concerning marriage one can easily find on the internet, I find it disturbing that a Catholic would seek religious counsel from "Pastor Dowell" of Youtube.
-
With all of the great traditional Catholic sermons concerning marriage one can easily find on the internet, I find it disturbing that a Catholic would seek religious counsel from "Pastor Dowell" of Youtube.
Well, Pastor Dowell has been gracing our forum for days now. :P
-
I don't see Blessed Mary being disobedient to St. Joseph's directions before they were married.
women put on a facade before they're married, and once the marriage occurs, their true wicked nature is revealed. The evidence is in the high occurrence of divorce in these latter days, and the man being robbed of almost everything he owns.
.
1. I don't remember st. Joseph telling the Blessed Mother to do anything before they were married.
.
2. Men put on a facade, too, and, once married, their true nature comes out. Would a sane woman marry a man if she knows he will abuse her? No.
.
3. It seems to me men frequently divorce to "trade in for a newer model". Hence the term "mid life crisis". This instance is solely the fault of the man.
.
4. I have not seen that the "man is robbed of almost everything he owns". I have seen negotiations and splitting of assets, no matter whose fault the divorce is.
.
What it boils down to is that Satan is everywhere and will attack any time. This is the reason for the highest divorce rate of all time.
.
We must always pray and be on guard. We must love and support one another, especially in marriage, understanding one another's faults and still loving the person.
.
Most importantly we must remember that God takes care of all of us, even when we fall to satan, as long as we pick ourselves up, have remorse, and try again.
-
With all of the great traditional Catholic sermons concerning marriage one can easily find on the internet, I find it disturbing that a Catholic would seek religious counsel from "Pastor Dowell" of Youtube.
.
You are spot on.
-
women put on a facade before they're married, and once the marriage occurs, their true wicked nature is revealed. The evidence is in the high occurrence of divorce in these latter days, and the man being robbed of almost everything he owns. This is why a prenuptial agreement is necessary to protect the man.
Anyone who is a good judge of character and knows the woman enough to marry her can see through facades very easily. So the high divorce rate is evidence of the wickedness of women? How utterly preposterous. So there's never been a man at fault in a divorce. No, I am not a feminist ... except in the eyes of an overt misogynist such as yourself. I hope that you don't intend to marry ... because it's not going to end well. I'd put money in it right now that if (or, rather, when) your marriage ultimately breaks down, your misogynist attitudes manifesting themselves will have been to blame.
Women by nature WANT TO AND ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THEIR HUSBANDS. And they WILL follow their husbands unless the husband fails in leadership. You see, the husband is the head and the leader in a marriage, and therefore the buck stops with him, and he's ultimately responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. That kind of authority cuts both ways. True leaders take responsibility for the failures of their organization (in this case family) and don't blame their underlings. If you were working as a business leader in a company, and your group fails, your boss isn't going to listen to you whining about how your subordinates failed. It is YOU who failed and it is YOU who will be held accountable. Your boss won't fire your subordinates. He'll fire you. Similarly, if a man's marriage breaks down, HE is the one accountable for it before God. If you don't accept this, then it is you who are unmanly and a feminist. You will be mocked and scorned by your superiors if you effeminately point the finger at your subordinates. Man up and assume the responsibility (and consequences) for YOUR FAILED LEADERSHIP.
I love it how you insist on the benefits of leadership, i.e. being able to boss people around and subject them to your will, but refuse to accept the responsibilities and accountability that come with it. YOU as the husband are accountable for the success or failure of your family, and a true man will take ownership of this. If anyone needs to man up, it's you. If a woman leaves you, then it is YOUR failure, whether in having chosen poorly or having failed to lead and to love as you needed to in order to keep your family intact. That is the attitude of a true leader and a true man, little boy.
-
God didn't let Adam off the hook on account of "it's the woman's fault".
-
The SSPX Priests obey the civil laws that ask couples apply for a marriage license. The only Priests that will cooperate with a couple that wants to refuse the license are some resistance or independant Priests (perhaps some sede not sure)
I know a resistance Priest that married some friends of mine and they did not want a marriage license. The Priest was fine with it. However, now that they have children, taxes have been a challenge for them because she is a stay at home mom with no income. Plus medical insurance has also been a problem for them.
I can’t say they regret their decision because I haven’t asked, but they have expressed to me many difficulties with not having one.
This. Not getting a marriage license (or as in another thread, birth certificate and SSN for any future children) greatly complicates everything. Do not make things infinitely more difficult because an apostate pastor who thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread told you to.
Croix, please do not get married right now. You have the most puerile attitudes about women that I've ever seen.
That, and in recent years, we've progressed as a society and made child marriage illegal.
-
Women by nature WANT TO AND ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THEIR HUSBANDS. And they WILL follow their husbands unless the husband fails in leadership. You see, the husband is the head and the leader in a marriage, and therefore the buck stops with him, and he's ultimately responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. That kind of authority cuts both ways. True leaders take responsibility for the failures of their organization (in this case family) and don't blame their underlings. If you were working as a business leader in a company, and your group fails, your boss isn't going to listen to you whining about how your subordinates failed. It is YOU who failed and it is YOU who will be held accountable. Your boss won't fire your subordinates. He'll fire you. Similarly, if a man's marriage breaks down, HE is the one accountable for it before God. If you don't accept this, then it is you who are unmanly and a feminist. You will be mocked and scorned by your superiors if you effeminately point the finger at your subordinates. Man up and assume the responsibility (and consequences) for YOUR FAILED LEADERSHIP.
I love it how you insist on the benefits of leadership, i.e. being able to boss people around and subject them to your will, but refuse to accept the responsibilities and accountability that come with it. YOU as the husband are accountable for the success or failure of your family, and a true man will take ownership of this. If anyone needs to man up, it's you. If a woman leaves you, then it is YOUR failure, whether in having chosen poorly or having failed to lead and to love as you needed to in order to keep your family intact. That is the attitude of a true leader and a true man, little boy.
^^^^ This.
-
With all of the great traditional Catholic sermons concerning marriage one can easily find on the internet, I find it disturbing that a Catholic would seek religious counsel from "Pastor Dowell" of Youtube.
By the way, there are great Catholic resources on this website (https://finerfem.com/my-book-list/) about Marriage and particularly, about womanhood, for the few ladies out there who strive to be more like Mary and less like Eve.
-
^^^^ This.
1000%. Köszönöm, Ladislaus. There's actually Catholic advice on this thread.
-
1000%. Köszönöm, Ladislaus. There's actually Catholic advice on this thread.
Szivesen.
But don't thank me. Any Catholic thought I have ever had comes from God, to Him Alone is the thanks. And that's the thing about authority in general, since that is under discussion here. Authority is not given for the authority-holders to exult in and lord it over others with. God gives authority as something with which to serve others. That is the entire meaning of Our Lord's discourse at The Last Supper. We are to serve and not to be served. Priests are not ordained priests for their own glory, since no man deserves such glory; they are ordained priests so they can serve the flock, feed the sheep, and bring them grace ... and especially the Sacraments. Wives serve their husbands through their obedience, their submission, and their love. Husbands serve their wives through their authority and their love. Both husband and wife in turn serve their children with their authority. When we bid our children do something, we are serving them by making them do what's not only good in general but good for them as well. At least that's what I've tried to tell the children; they don't always buy it as this age, but they'll understand this either later in life or in the next life. When I command my 5-year-old not to run out into the street, it's not because I am trying to deprive her of fun and happiness, but because I want her to stay alive. So I am thereby serving her. Right now she doesn't get that. But she will.
-
In all my years of marriage (going on 18 now), I have given my wife only one single command where I explicitly invoked my authority. I commanded that she say the Rosary every day. I did it obviously because I love her and for her own good. In all other things, I've never had to explicitly ask her to do anything; she just knows what I want and prefer, and she does it. And the Rosary she just fell away from for a little while being busy with 6 children and getting next-to-no sleep. And then I told her that if she needs me to watch the kids while she says the Rosary, then she should just ask.
-
What woman wouldn't want to submit to a husband who loves her as Christ loves the Church?
-
What woman wouldn't want to submit to a husband who loves her as Christ loves the Church?
I discovered traditional Catholicism quite late in my life, so I did not know anything about Catholic teaching on the wife's obedience in the early years of my marriage. I just knew about Novus Ordo teaching on "mutual submission of husband and wife". I also had a childhood non-Catholic formation involving feminism.
Even in my situation of complete ignorance of traditional teaching and a personal tendency toward rebellion, I was able to figure out that I ought to obey my husband. It just became more and more clear that he deserved to be obeyed. I could see that things went better when I followed his lead and that he was simply wiser than me.
That is how powerful it is when a man loves his wife as Christ loved the Church.
-
With all of the great traditional Catholic sermons concerning marriage one can easily find on the internet, I find it disturbing that a Catholic would seek religious counsel from "Pastor Dowell" of Youtube.
Strawman. The impetus of posting Dowell's videos on this forum isn't for religious council. It's for practical advise to men on getting prenups and avoiding state marriage licenses as a means to protect their life's work from predatory women who "divorce" them.
None of you have a true argument against this fact, so you use the strawman (seeking religious guidance from a heretic) to divert attention away from the real issue at hand.
You've all been dishonest and/or lack critical thinking.
-
Strawman. The impetus of posting Dowell's videos on this forum isn't for religious council. It's for practical advise to men on getting prenups and avoiding state marriage licenses as a means to protect their life's work from predatory women who "divorce" them.
His practical advice is based on religious assumptions that are contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, he is teaching men to divorce a wife who is disobedient and then the man is free to marry again.
Of course, a man who advises divorce and remarriage also advises a prenup about what to do in the event of a divorce. This is no indication that it is a good idea for Catholics since we do not accept divorce and remarriage.
It is not possible to treat religious and practical issues as completely separate from each other.
-
His practical advice is based on religious assumptions that are contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, he is teaching men to divorce a wife who is disobedient and then the man is free to marry again.
Of course, a man who advises divorce and remarriage also advises a prenup about what to do in the event of a divorce. This is no indication that it is a good idea for Catholics since we do not accept divorce and remarriage.
It is not possible to treat religious and practical issues as completely separate from each other.
Dishonest argument. I've clarified exponential times that the point of the posted videos is for men to get the practical advice on prenups and avoiding state marriage licenses, and the reasons - predatory & flaky disposition of most women in these latter days - for such legal action & inaction, respectively. Ignore the other stuff. He only touches on those heresies briefly. It's a given that Catholic men should avoid his comments about "divorcing" his wife and "marrying other women".
-
I've clarified exponential times that the point of the posted videos is for men to get the practical advice on prenups and avoiding state marriage licenses, and the reasons - predatory & flaky disposition of most women in these latter days - for such legal action & inaction, respectively. Ignore the other stuff. He only touches on those heresies briefly. It's a given that Catholic men should avoid his comments about "divorcing" his wife and "marrying other women".
From what I can tell, few, if any, of those videos were practical advice about to formulate a prenup. Some (most?) of the videos do not even mention prenups or avoiding licences. Rather they are rants about how untrustworthy and predatory women are that you use to justify prenups, etc.
Telling his audience about how horrible women are is not practical at all. The videos are emotional and heretical and virtually useless for Catholics.
-
From what I can tell, few, if any, of those videos were practical advice about to formulate a prenup.
That's because of your bias as a woman.
Some (most?) of the videos do not even mention prenups or avoiding licences.
As I told the female moderator, those particular vids are to fortify his argument in favor of getting prenups and avoiding state marriage licenses. Predation comes in various forms. You better have various means of protection against it.
Rather they are rants about how untrustworthy and predatory women are that you use to justify prenups, etc.
Not rants but wisdom. Let men be prudent in their dealings with women.
Telling his audience about how horrible women are is not practical at all.
Please point out were he says "women are horrible" in any of the posted videos.
The videos are emotional and heretical and virtually useless for Catholics.
Says the biased, emotional woman who injects the barely touched upon heresies in some of the vids, as if that discredits his advice for men to protect themselves and their life work from thieving women and the courts. That's an ad hominem fallacy.
-
The SSPX Priests obey the civil laws that ask couples apply for a marriage license.
A marriage license is NOT required by any law - local, state or federal. So, your statement about "obeying a law" shows you don't know your rights as a US citizen.
I know a resistance Priest that married some friends of mine and they did not want a marriage license. The Priest was fine with it. However, now that they have children, taxes have been a challenge for them because she is a stay at home mom with no income. Plus medical insurance has also been a problem for them.
I can’t say they regret their decision because I haven’t asked, but they have expressed to me many difficulties with not having one.
The govt wants you in the system, so they do make things easier on you and give you "benefits", however you can get the same benefits (which are actually rights) if you jump through a few hoops. If one opts out of the system without a plan, yes, there will be many difficulties. But they can be overcome.
-
Let men be prudent in their dealings with women.
You would do well to avoid any dealings with them whatsoever.
-
That's because of your bias as a woman.
.
Then take it to the men's forum.
-
Anyone who is a good judge of character and knows the woman enough to marry her can see through facades very easily.
Women can, and often do, change to become wicked after marriage. It's one of the signs of the times.
So there's never been a man at fault in a divorce.
Strawman argument.
No, I am not a feminist ... except in the eyes of an overt misogynist such as yourself.
Typical uttering of an emasculated, domesticated, indoctrinated "man" pretending to uphold what is "right".
-
Women by nature WANT TO AND ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THEIR HUSBANDS. And they WILL follow their husbands unless the husband fails in leadership. You see, the husband is the head and the leader in a marriage, and therefore the buck stops with him, and he's ultimately responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. That kind of authority cuts both ways. True leaders take responsibility for the failures of their organization (in this case family) and don't blame their underlings. If you were working as a business leader in a company, and your group fails, your boss isn't going to listen to you whining about how your subordinates failed. It is YOU who failed and it is YOU who will be held accountable. Your boss won't fire your subordinates. He'll fire you. Similarly, if a man's marriage breaks down, HE is the one accountable for it before God. If you don't accept this, then it is you who are unmanly and a feminist. You will be mocked and scorned by your superiors if you effeminately point the finger at your subordinates. Man up and assume the responsibility (and consequences) for YOUR FAILED LEADERSHIP.
I love it how you insist on the benefits of leadership, i.e. being able to boss people around and subject them to your will, but refuse to accept the responsibilities and accountability that come with it. YOU as the husband are accountable for the success or failure of your family, and a true man will take ownership of this. If anyone needs to man up, it's you. If a woman leaves you, then it is YOUR failure, whether in having chosen poorly or having failed to lead and to love as you needed to in order to keep your family intact. That is the attitude of a true leader and a true man, little boy.
Do you know what you did here?
Your "logic" argued that God failed for the revolt in Heaven and one-third of the angels being damned for eternity. Your "logic" says God failed as a leader, as a father, as head of His household - Heaven. Your "logic" says God is to blame for the pride of Lucifer and his resulting schizophrenia in thinking he was, or wanting to be, equal to God. Your "logic" is saying God is to blame for the pure evil of Lucifer and one-third of the angels, and God is to blame for the division of Heaven and ultimately casting these angels into hell for eternity.
That's the "logic" of a sissy who is LARP-ing as a learned man.
-
Women can, and often do, change to become wicked after marriage. It's one of the signs of the times.
.
Men do, too.
.
Bottom line, do the best you can, leave the rest to God and have Faith that He will take care of you.
-
.
Men do, too.
.
Bottom line, do the best you can, leave the rest to God and have Faith that He will take care of you.
Sounds all pious, but Jesus Christ says, "Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves."
A prenuptial agreement is being wise as serpents; and loving your wife and living a Catholic life during marriage is being simple as doves.
By the way, don't lock your doors at night, God will take care of you.
-
What woman wouldn't want to submit to a husband who loves her as Christ loves the Church?
This is typical glossy and "pious" rhetoric from a type of converts, and it doesn't address the real the problem at hand, rather it's merely designed to win brownie points. However, it fails miserably because the true answer is less than one percent of the global population of women.
-
By the way, don't lock your doors at night, God will take care of you.
Great point! Prayer and Trust in God will solve all things (so is the spiritual fantasy, which ignores the virtue of prudence and human practicality).
There's no need for car insurance because God will protect you from an accident.
House insurance? No need, because no trad's house has ever burned down (ha ha, I personally know of 2 families this happened to). How could God let that happen? (hint: Don't question God).
Life insurance is proof you don't love God because how could He let you die and leave your spouse poor?
Health insurance is necessary? What!? I use herbs and eat well. Why would I need to go to the hospital?
There's no need for a prenup because a divorce would never happen and to get one means you don't trust God or your future spouse.
On the OTHER HAND, let's list a few examples (of millions) where prayer AND ACTION are REQUIRED for success:
You pray to God to pass a test in school, yet you still have to study hard.
You pray to God to find a spouse, but you still have to meet/date people.
You pray to God to find a job, but you still have to get a resume and go through interviews.
You pray to God for food, water, shelter - but you still have to go to the grocery, pay the water bill and rent an apartment.
etc, etc, etc.
Humans are both spiritual and material beings, therefore the answer to most problems (but not all) requires pray AND ACTION. To deny or minimize one or the other is an error.
-
By the way, don't lock your doors at night, God will take care of you.
I don't.
.
-
No offense, but how would you know whether or not she locks her doors at night? Those of us in the country don't. Our family personally always leave our doors unlocked--even when we leave for the day, or week. Locks only keep honest people out, anyway.
Really, you shouldn't be calling names, Croix. It detracts from your natural dignity as a man.
-
No offense, but how would you know whether or not she locks her doors at night?
She's proven herself to be pathological by her stalking. I'm sure her pathology manifests in her speech, too, as it's done to make her look "correct".
Those of us in the country don't. Our family personally always leave our doors unlocked--even when we leave for the day, or week.
Most rural folk still lock their doors these days, especially when being gone for more than 30 minutes from their home. This isn't the 1940s. Gullible, naive people with normalcy bias leave their homes unlocked. That doesn't nullify my argument that God-fearing, faithful people still lock their doors at night, and when they're away, as an aegis against the enemy, just as it's right for a man to insist on a prenuptial agreement as an aegis against a predatory woman and the court system.
Really, you shouldn't be calling names, Croix. It detracts from your natural dignity as a man.
Learn to think before you ask questions and comment. We really know your questions & comment aren't truly about your concern for the natural dignity of men, rather it's a reflection of your inner contentiousness towards men who uphold the natural order. Your contentiousness is of the feminist spirit.
-
:laugh2:
You're right. You know all, O wise one.
:laugh2:
-
:laugh2:
You're right. You know all, O wise one.
:laugh2:
.
Some teens can't be reasoned with...
.
https://youtu.be/qB8JDTiNHQs
-
You need help.
.
Yes, I do need help. We all do. And I ask for it every day from Our Lord.
.
I recommend you do the same, son.
-
Prenup? What a scam. For a 2 in 1 flesh institution not even God can divide? Bring the lawyers in from the beginning for a 3 in 1? This has got to be a joke. Suggesting it shows a deep ignorance and disregard for the Sacrament of marriage.
-
I am sorry for you, son.
Adults have failed you, you have grown bitter, you believe it is alright to speak in such a way to your elders, you believe you know everything and have all the answers, and you believe you can read people's minds.
.
You sound like a typical worldly teenager.
.
I will pray the hand of God touches you so you may heal and begin His journey for you.
-
Wait - CDF is a teenager??
He should not be allowed to post here.
What an absurdity.
Ban this fool and ban Pastor Dowell videos.
-
Wait - CDF is a teenager??
He should not be allowed to post here.
What an absurdity.
Ban this fool and ban Pastor Dowell videos.
Wrong analysis, Smelly.
-
Croix de Fer,
You will refrain from making gratuitous, baseless accusations about the faults of others whom you don't even know. That is slander and rash judgment.
Your recent posts to TxTrad do not qualify as "discussion", not by anyone's yardstick.
-
Croix de Fer,
You will refrain from making gratuitous, baseless accusations about the faults of others whom you don't even know. That is slander and rash judgment.
Your recent posts to TxTrad do not qualify as "discussion", not by anyone's yardstick.
Will you let her baseless accusations and slander go unchecked?
This proves the weak mindset and emotional state of these women on the recent threads. They report me when they think they're being treated bad, even when it's in response to what they initiated, but I never reported any of their initial attacks on me.
-
Will you let her baseless accusations and slander go unchecked?
This proves the weak mindset and emotional state of these women on the recent threads. They report me when they think they're being treated bad, even when it's in response to what they initiated, but I never reported any of their initial attacks on me.
He's got a point. He has been the subject of a lot of personal attacks and name-calling.
-
Will you let her baseless accusations and slander go unchecked?
This proves the weak mindset and emotional state of these women on the recent threads. They report me when they think they're being treated bad, even when it's in response to what they initiated, but I never reported any of their initial attacks on me.
For the record, I have never reported you for your attacks.
But your recent threads show your emotional mindset. I pray God wakes you up soon.
-
Wait - CDF is a teenager??
He should not be allowed to post here.
What an absurdity.
Ban this fool and ban Pastor Dowell videos.
Matthew has already banned anymore Dowell videos. Maybe now he will ban Pierce videos. Nay, any video CDF chooses to post...
-
For the record, I have never reported you for your attacks.
Why do you feel the need to clarify you didn't report me? I never mentioned you specifically that reported me.
But your recent threads show your emotional mindset.
Poor inversion of reality. You're a basket case as indicated by your stalking, and I can only conclude your married life is a joke. Why else would you put so much effort into stalking an anonymous person on the internet, rather than focusing on being a homemaker?
I pray God wakes you up soon.
No, you don't.
-
He's got a point. He has been the subject of a lot of personal attacks and name-calling.
Nothing that he himself hasn't provoked. He calls Smedley "Smelly" and called me "Tubby" (even though he's never seen me and I'm not overweight) and has unleashed one puerile insult after another of this manner. He slings these childish terms around, so he's got to be big enough to take them back.
-
Nothing that he himself hasn't provoked. He calls Smedley "Smelly" and called me "Tubby" (even though he's never seen me and I'm not overweight) and has unleashed one puerile insult after another of this manner. He slings these childish terms around, so he's got to be big enough to take them back.
At this point, I don't know who started it and I'm not sure it matters. This sort of thing just escalates until somebody is big enough to stop.
-
Nothing that he himself hasn't provoked. He calls Smedley "Smelly" and called me "Tubby" (even though he's never seen me and I'm not overweight)
Wrong. I reacted to Smelly after he called me a "punk" and said other things about me. I called you a "Tubby" a while back ago AFTER you said something along the lines of me being "stupid" over a thread about diet.
If you're not going to speak the facts, then don't speak at all.
-
Women by nature WANT TO AND ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THEIR HUSBANDS. And they WILL follow their husbands unless the husband fails in leadership. You see, the husband is the head and the leader in a marriage, and therefore the buck stops with him, and he's ultimately responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. That kind of authority cuts both ways. True leaders take responsibility for the failures of their organization (in this case family) and don't blame their underlings. If you were working as a business leader in a company, and your group fails, your boss isn't going to listen to you whining about how your subordinates failed. It is YOU who failed and it is YOU who will be held accountable. Your boss won't fire your subordinates. He'll fire you. Similarly, if a man's marriage breaks down, HE is the one accountable for it before God. If you don't accept this, then it is you who are unmanly and a feminist. You will be mocked and scorned by your superiors if you effeminately point the finger at your subordinates. Man up and assume the responsibility (and consequences) for YOUR FAILED LEADERSHIP.
I love it how you insist on the benefits of leadership, i.e. being able to boss people around and subject them to your will, but refuse to accept the responsibilities and accountability that come with it. YOU as the husband are accountable for the success or failure of your family, and a true man will take ownership of this. If anyone needs to man up, it's you. If a woman leaves you, then it is YOUR failure, whether in having chosen poorly or having failed to lead and to love as you needed to in order to keep your family intact. That is the attitude of a true leader and a true man, little boy.
Do you know what you did here?
Your "logic" argued that God failed for the revolt in Heaven and one-third of the angels being damned for eternity. Your "logic" says God failed as a leader, as a father, as head of His household - Heaven. Your "logic" says God is to blame for the pride of Lucifer and his resulting schizophrenia in thinking he was, or wanted to be, equal to God. Your "logic" is saying God is to blame for the pure evil of Lucifer and one-third of the angels, and God is to blame for the division in Heaven and ultimately casting these angels into hell for eternity.
You lose.
-
Ladislaus, don't run, boy. What's your response to my above ^ response to you (the post just above this one)?
-
Ladislaus, don't run, boy. What's your response to my above ^ response to you (the post just above this one)?
boy? At least you're an equal opportunity insulter...
-
Just as I thought, Ladislaus. You run because you have no response, and the reason you have no response is because the truth is on my side. And you know it.
This Ladislaus is the same knucklehead who said "God isn't a Catholic God" quite some time ago.
-
Just as I thought, Ladislaus. You run because you have no response, and the reason you have no response is because the truth is on my side. And you know it.
This Ladislaus is the same knucklehead who said "God isn't a Catholic God" quite some time ago.
Dude, you really need to grow up. When someone doesn't answer you within minutes, you try to turn that into "running".
-
Dude, you really need to grow up. When someone doesn't answer you within minutes, you try to turn that into "running".
I posted the same response to you earlier in this thread, but you didn't respond to it. It's over a day old.
-
There's a difference between accountability and blame. Men take accountability for the organizations that they head up. This is true even in non-Catholic secular society.
If I am the bishop of a diocese, and there's a huge pedophile scandal that breaks out in my diocese. As bishop, I resign because I am accountable for what happens in my diocese. Only God will determine my actual blame and degree of guilt. He knows whether or not I could have done more to prevent it, been more vigilant about it, etc. ... or whether it may have been completely out of my control and not even St. Pius X could have stopped it. Not even YOU know your own degree of guilt and responsibility, and so in the external forum you assume responsibility for your organization and take accountability for it.
But, despite how you act sometimes, you're not God. So in your analogy you liken yourself to God, eh? That's incredibly revealing.
In any case, in civil society and in the EXTERNAL forum, leaders have accountability for their organization, and in this case fathers for the state of their family. In the internal forum, God alone will ultimately determine my blame. So as much as YOU would love to exonerate yourself and put yourself on the level of God vis-a-vis the fallen angels, that's an epic fail. Nor is it true that the woman can be likened to the devil. In very few, if any, cases does the fault lie ENTIRELY on one side. In the vast majority of cases, the husband has some fault in how everything transpired. God will ultimately be the judge the extent of it. But, in the meantime, on this earth, a true leader takes RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY for the failure of his organization. If I'm President of the United States, and my Secretary of State and several of my cabinet members turn out to be traitors and criminals, do I get to wash my hands of this by whining and pointing the finger at them? No. I accept responsibility because at the very least I PICKED THESE MEN in the first place. Similarly, the husband is responsible and accountable because, at the very least, he chose the woman to marry.
So you act like the effeminate little "soy boy" that you ACTUALLY are by trying to point the finger at the "wicked" wife ... instead of assuming responsibility for the state of your family like a real man would. You know, Croix, in my experience, the more a many openly thumps his chest and tries to assert his masculinity and his "machismo", ironically, those are some of the least manly men that I've ever met. True men lead in action and in truth and have need to bluster. Usually the machismo blustering reveals a man who is actually insecure about his own masculinity.
-
I posted the same response to you earlier in this thread, but you didn't respond to it. It's over a day old.
Well, good for you. I didn't see it. I don't run from anybody.
-
the same knucklehead who said "God isn't a Catholic God" quite some time ago.
What I said was that there's a sense in which this is true. God is not Catholic. By no definition of "Catholic" is God a Catholic. So the phrase "Catholic God" can be understood in its literal sense or else as meaning "God of Catholics" or the "God believed in by Catholics." But it is most certainly true that God is not Catholic. But, then, we know that you struggle with logical distinctions. My point was simply that Bergoglio used a totally ambiguous phrase that can have any number of meanings.
-
There's a difference between accountability and blame. Men take accountability for the organizations that they head up. This is true even in non-Catholic secular society.
If I am the bishop of a diocese, and there's a huge pedophile scandal that breaks out in my diocese. As bishop, I resign because I am accountable for what happens in my diocese. Only God will determine my actual blame and degree of guilt. He knows whether or not I could have done more to prevent it, been more vigilant about it, etc. ... or whether it may have been completely out of my control and not even St. Pius X could have stopped it. Not even YOU know your own degree of guilt and responsibility, and so in the external forum you assume responsibility for your organization and take accountability for it.
But, despite how you act sometimes, you're not God. So in your analogy you liken yourself to God, eh? That's incredibly revealing.
In any case, in civil society and in the EXTERNAL forum, leaders have accountability for their organization, and in this case fathers for the state of their family. In the internal forum, God alone will ultimately determine my blame. So as much as YOU would love to exonerate yourself and put yourself on the level of God vis-a-vis the fallen angels, that's an epic fail. Nor is it true that the woman can be likened to the devil. In very few, if any, cases does the fault lie ENTIRELY on one side. In the vast majority of cases, the husband has some fault in how everything transpired. God will ultimately be the judge the extent of it. But, in the meantime, on this earth, a true leader takes RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY for the failure of his organization. If I'm President of the United States, and my Secretary of State and several of my cabinet members turn out to be traitors and criminals, do I get to wash my hands of this by whining and pointing the finger at them? No. I accept responsibility because at the very least I PICKED THESE MEN in the first place. Similarly, the husband is responsible and accountable because, at the very least, he chose the woman to marry.
So you act like the effeminate little "soy boy" that you ACTUALLY are by trying to point the finger at the "wicked" wife ... instead of assuming responsibility for the state of your family like a real man would. You know, Croix, in my experience, the more a many openly thumps his chest and tries to assert his masculinity and his "machismo", ironically, those are some of the least manly men that I've ever met. True men lead in action and in truth and have need to bluster. Usually the machismo blustering reveals a man who is actually insecure about his own masculinity.
You try to use semantics of "accountability" and "blame" but it's a failure.
We all know that no human is perfect, and whenever there is a conflict within a relationship, however it is manifested, even the righteous person has at least some degree of accountability for it, but the guilt still lies entirely with the transgressor, such as the woman who "divorces" her husband simply because she doesn't love him anymore, and she uses the courts to steal what the man built and earned. The man, despite some accountability, shouldn't have to be responsible for the material support of the woman after she "divorces" him. In the case of children, the man can and should provide material (as well as emotional & mental) support for them outside of the harlot woman being a conduit of his resources to the children, and he certainly doesn't have to lose his house, savings account, car and assets to the woman to provide adequate support to the kids.
Just as guilt of the revolt in Heaven lies entirely with Lucifer, the Lord God wasn't responsible for soothing (material support) Lucifer for his tantrums for not being equal to God. He didn't pat Lucifer on the back and give him multiple opportunities to calm down so he could be happy again, and be at peace, which only God provides. No, God in His Truth expelled Lucifer and his followers into hell for eternity where he was deprived of all peace & happiness (material support) for eternity. And we also know God wasn't accountable for the revolt in Heaven, so your strawman that I'm equating man with God is erroneous. The point is a husband can be righteous, not perfect, but still righteous, and evil can find its way to him through the wife by "divorcing" him and taking everything from him. That's the revolt of the wife against her husband. It's systemic in these latter days. You live in a bubble if you can't see it.
-
What I said was that there's a sense in which this is true. God is not Catholic. By no definition of "Catholic" is God a Catholic. So the phrase "Catholic God" can be understood in its literal sense or else as meaning "God of Catholics" or the "God believed in by Catholics." But it is most certainly true that God is not Catholic. But, then, we know that you struggle with logical distinctions. My point was simply that Bergoglio used a totally ambiguous phrase that can have any number of meanings.
Obstinate in your heresy, pride and stupidity.
Isaiah 29:14 and 1 Corinthians 1:19 describes you very well.
-
edit