FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A possibly naive question: how accurate is this?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I saw this on OnePeterFive a moment ago:

" Felix_Culpa6 days ago

It's a hard truth to say these days, but women exist to serve men, not the other way around. (1 Cor 11:8-9: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”) In particular, women exist to allow men to reproduce (Summa Theologia, 1st part, question 92: "I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.") Women, in humility, should accept that this is the limit of their place in the universe."


I know that Eve was created to be the helper and companion for Adam. But there's just something about how this is phrased that I find disturbing. "...this is the limit of their place in the universe." It sounds like, "Women should know their place" couched in pious language. I have no problems whatsoever with accepting my place in the universe, but this sounds like women are all slaves to men. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It has no upvotes, so it's not exactly a supported view, at least among the 1P5 readers who have looked at the combox thoroughly.

St. Joan of Arc led an army after having angelic visions and didn't waver, even when the clergy of her own Faith set her ablaze. God the Father changed Sarai's name to Sarah, or "Princess." The Church is feminine, the spotless Bride of Christ. Christ shed His Precious Blood for Her. Our Lady...I mean...yes, she's the handmaid of the Lord, but she's also the Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Universe, Queen of Angels, etc. She has a reign.

This post just makes it sound like it confirms liberals' views of what the Church thinks about women, that we're all broodmares that should be barefoot and pregnant for their men. Am I missing something? I have absolutely no qualms being submissive to my future husband (I actually very much support and approve of that), but something in this, like I said, disturbs me. I'm no liberal when it comes to the view of women in the Church. I was annoyed recently because one of our local Catholic Women's League members (I believe she's part of CWL, or at least she read at one of the CWL-supported Masses) added "and daughtership" after the words "adoption to sonship" (so, "adoption to son and daughtership," ugh) in the Mass readings, apparently not understanding that women are part of "sonship" just like we're part of "mankind." But I also don't like being viewed like the "little woman" who needs to "know my place."

Help, please?
Unfortunately, there have always been people in Christianity who thought like this. And it was even the mainstream view in some ages. But it has almost never been the view of the saints.

I think a way to turn this argument on its head is to think like this: Jesus is the new Adam whom women have to duty to “help”, following the example of Mary, the new Eve. Women who had Christ as their bride (especially nuns) always had remarkable influence in the Church (St. Teresa of Avila, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Catherine of Siena). And being married to a man doesn’t change the fact that they are brides of Christ, as every human soul is. Mary was married to Joseph and was always obedient to him. But this didn’t change the fact that she played a huge role in forming the Church, even before her death. For an example of a more recent female married saint, see the life of St. Catherine of Genoa.
(08-08-2017, 08:16 AM)JosefSilouan Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, there have always been people in Christianity who thought like this. And it was even the mainstream view in some ages. But it has almost never been the view of the saints.

I think a way to turn this argument on its head is to think like this: Jesus is the new Adam whom women have to duty to “help”, following the example of Mary, the new Eve. Women who had Christ as their bride (especially nuns) always had remarkable influence in the Church (St. Teresa of Avila, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Catherine of Siena). And being married to a man doesn’t change the fact that they are brides of Christ, as every human soul is. Mary was married to Joseph and was always obedient to him. But this didn’t change the fact that she played a huge role in forming the Church, even before her death. For an example of a more recent female married saint, see the life of St. Catherine of Genoa.

Thank you very much. This makes a whole lot of sense. I mean, we have female Doctors of the Church, which sounds like a much more dignified role than simply existing to help men pass along the species; that, again, sounds like a pious way of saying we're tools.

I will look up articles about St. Catherine of Genoa.
If the question is in regard to how wives and husbands should treat each other, consider Ephesians 5: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it."  Husbands, love your wife to the point you'd die for her.  Considering the horrific death Christ endured out of love for his Church, that's a stiff bill to foot.  Man & woman compliment each other.
(08-08-2017, 08:23 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]If the question is in regard to how wives and husbands should treat each other, consider Ephesians 5: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it."  Husbands, love your wife to the point you'd die for her.  Considering the horrific death Christ endured out of love for his Church, that's a stiff bill to foot.  Man & woman compliment each other.

Thank you for the feedback, Jeeter. :)
I think there is just too much emphasis on sexuality and gender and making 'issues' of them both. I think that the fact is that each gender has a different outlook on life and that this difference is what God uses to mold and guide His Church. Each brings their own take on a subject and each gives their view and it is a cooperative effect on our Church in the end. Female saints had great effect on the shaping of the Church as much or even more so, than the men. In subtle and gentile ways, the women had their effects and they were as valid and vital to the formation and regulation of the Church as the more obvious moves of the male members.

As ol' Waylon says; "Women sure no how to carry on", (in spite of all the woes).

BTW: My son reminded me a while back about something he heard during a lecture while he was in Pharmacy School. A professor was lecturing on human biochemical physiology. The professor said that he, as a Christian, often pondered over how Woman could come from Man; Eve from Adam. Well, he said, estrogen comes from testosterone, so there had to be a man first, to produce the testosterone, for the estrogen to come from. Interesting. Kinda solves the chicken or the egg conundrum too.
(08-08-2017, 08:28 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-08-2017, 08:23 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]If the question is in regard to how wives and husbands should treat each other, consider Ephesians 5: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it."  Husbands, love your wife to the point you'd die for her.  Considering the horrific death Christ endured out of love for his Church, that's a stiff bill to foot.  Man & woman compliment each other.

Thank you for the feedback, Jeeter. :)

Of course.  It's my serious post of the day.  And now back to my normal humorous/sarcastic drivel. :rolleyes: :D

(08-08-2017, 08:57 AM)Zedta Wrote: [ -> ]BTW: My son reminded me a while back about something he heard during a lecture while he was in Pharmacy School. A professor was lecturing on human biochemical physiology. The professor said that he, as a Christian, often pondered over how Woman could come from Man; Eve from Adam. Well, he said, estrogen comes from testosterone, so there had to be a man first, to produce the testosterone, for the estrogen to come from. Interesting. Kinda solves the chicken or the egg conundrum too.

Now that's an interesting thought!
(08-08-2017, 08:57 AM)Zedta Wrote: [ -> ]I think there is just too much emphasis on sexuality and gender and making 'issues' of them both.
This.
Yes women are subservient to men, that has been that way since the beginning of time and this recent feminism of women and men being equal is a novel invention. However the Church clarified women's role in the world, before women were seen as either chattel breeders, slaves, or equals with lesser rights than men. In ancient China, women were properties of men, in Babylonia they were viewed as property of husbands, in Sumeria they had basic rights and could be priestesses. In barbaric lands women also had limited roles.

The Church clarified the roles of men and women when She spoke of Matrimony. Women were to submit to their husbands as they were to submit to the Lord, and men were to submit to the Lord, by submitting to their Confessors and the Church. Men were then required to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ scarified for the Church, and thus men were required to do the same. It was this reason that if a man had to take a second job to provide for his wife and family, he would do so. To require his wife to work was shameful.

Why was all this necessary? To imprison women? No, because you are gonna have kids and somebody has to raise them. Women had the responsibility of properly rearing the children to become future husbands and wives and more importantly saints. Sorry, to break the bad news, but life is not for people to live it selfishly the way they want...they can try, but they will pay in the end with a messed up kid who either hates the ground they tread, or lives in such a pathetic shameful manner that one ponders if it would have been better they'd never been born.

People exist in this life for one reason, to win the battle and spend eternity glorified with our Heavenly Father, you get married to have children so they can fight their own battle and you assist them by doing your duty to rear the children in a deeply faithful home, so they can pray for you when you die and are suffering in Purgatory, instead of hitting up the clubs seeing how many STD's they can rake in in a night.

Women also need to realize that since Feminism, have things gotten better for women?

Women are treated a sex objects and jokes are made how they will be replaced by robots, women are dying in droves due to heart attacks compared to 50 years ago, women suffer more depression and stress than ever before, femininity is dead as it's seen as weak, lesbianism is at an all-time high, transgenderism is on the rise and ruining women's athletics as men are taking away female championships, abortion is at an all-time high because women are A) nothing more than sex objects, B) Women are now required to support themselves and cannot support a child, and C) Men are not marrying women because feminism has killed matrimony and men now see women just as sex objects....I can go on, but we all have eyes and brains...the world is crap now. When a ship sinks, men beat up women to get on the lifeboats first and the captain is long-gone, men go dutch every-time....folks Newton...Isaac Newton "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." We do not live in a vacuum, when we mess with society we shouldn't be surprised of the problems that arise.
"Yes women are subservient to men, that has been that way since the beginning of time and this recent feminism of women and men being equal is a novel invention."

We're equal in dignity, according to the Church. St. Paul says that there is no longer male and female, that we are one in Christ. And I disagree that all women are subservient to all men, full stop. A woman is submissive to her husband, not necessarily to the guy on the street who's catcalling her or the guy at the grocery store bagging her food.
Pages: 1 2 3