Essentially, a man must be willing to treat her as God himself would, and lead her and love her and protect her, so that "submitting" to him should ultimately not be something she should fear at all. Essentially she is handing herself over to be loved as God himself would love her. And like God, the man too being willing to die unto her and for her
This is so true❤️. Unfortunately many women today are being fooled by the feminist movement as something that would liberate and enforce them, when it’s the opposite. They end up unhappy, alone and have a hard time to receive love from a man.😓
As a woman, that embrace example is so truee. In my daydreams, the guy I like kisses me, not the other way around. I always fantasize that I'm the one receiving the kiss/embrace. I also think women proposing is super weird like it expresses masculinity and a little bit of desperation.
I agree. Never once have I daydreamed about a woman holding me or taking me in her arms and kissing me. It seems to be a natural order that this is what men do and we love to hold women and kiss them. As for the proposal of marriage......I'm not so convinced a man should get down on his knee and ask a woman for her hand in marriage. First of all that's making another human being an idol of sorts, we are only to bow to God. I think the worldly view of marriage proposal is something that Christians should reject and I feel marriage should be a discussion between a man and woman, not one person asking the other but both discussing the issue together.
I can confirm this, as a man. My girlfriend (soon to be wife) loves being the one kissed or held, not the one doing either to me. Women as a whole tend to want (positive) things to happen TO them, they’re the main character of their story. Men want to DO positive things or change their life with direct charge. A man must lead, but that does not mean to be a tyrant. In fact only a weak man *needs* to be a tyrant.
Women want to be submissive to strong caring Godly men. When women make a man work to show he is willing to take care of her, and also wait until marriage... it gets things off to a great start!
I think the main problem with how it's thought about, is that submission sounds horrible in the context of the modern language. Between PMO, the slave trade, and corporations pushing people harder than they should, people just don't think of submission as something that could possibly have a good context.
I loved this entire video, and agree with every word said, especially your reflections, or insights Matt. What was said in this video, does represent what I want as a lady. Thank you Matt. God bless. 🙏
An example of submission that comes to my mind is when I dance with my wife. If she leads, which she does occasionally, it just doesn't work, the balance and timing are off. However, when she lets me lead, everything clicks and I can spin her around much faster, for example. I would be interested to know if anyone else has experienced this. Absolutely love your show, Antony
I learned from the Lord, after breaking off an engagement, that we are wrongly understanding and applying the message from Ephesians when we say that men are supposed to die TO their wives! NO!!! We die to Christ alone and FOR our wives as needed, and the "as needed" is with regards to our sins and selfishness. If it weren't that way then we would become bitter and resentful, as we lose ourselves and our identity, by sacrificing principles instead of preferences. We die to sin, as our Lord did by never committing one, but we don't die to every aspect of who we are as a unique person in Christ in order to make our wives happy by being HOLY! In Christ, Andrew
The passage doesn't say anything about sin, so the example some have given of a poor man marrying a rich woman (or otherwise doing something vaguely associated with submission) is a false dilemma. For a poor man to marry a wealthy woman can be mildly less fitting and more prone to conflict than the reverse, and yet still not be sinful. Submitting is an action, and failing to act in that way might be sinful, but the reason that act is expected of wives in the same way it's expected of sons, vassals, etc. is because of a whole continuum of behavior far more complex than a binary distinction between sin and not-sin. Of course, we're talking about normative behavior, which has traditionally been thought of as a reflection of the natural law and the divine law (but you're free to think of it as an emergent adaptation, in the style of evolutionary psychology, or even as a social construct, in the absurd framework of tabula rasa). The way a man ought to behave, the way a son ought to behave, the way a vassal ought to behave, and so on, are very complex things that can be expressed differently in different contexts, but they reflect some deeper, objective truths - in this case, the nature of man and the nature of woman. I think that the ancients would have understood "submission" in very, _very_ broad terms compared to how we egalitarian 21st-century westerners are likely to understand it, but I'm sure we can all agree their understanding would almost certainly include restraining oneself to respect and honor her husband, and particularly his final sovereignty over his household. For example, we can see plenty of historical cases to illustrate the understanding that a virtuous wife would not criticize or disagree with her husband except in private, holding her peace until the matter could be discussed privately, and never challenging her husband's authority in front of his peers (adult men). In various times, that has definitely been tied up in other social norms, so even in the same time and place it has been treated differently, for example, by the nobility versus the peasantry. We can also see how that kind of situation was occasionally complicated by the conflict between interpersonal sovereignty and real political sovereignty, as when the wife was queen regnant and the husband of lesser status. But despite its fluidity and variability, so seriously was this normative standard taken that, at least in early medieval Anglo-Saxon society, a widow remarrying would transfer basically all of her legal rights to her husband, not as a matter of course but in the sense that none of her rights could be used against him in court unless she could prove fault for divorce. It's very difficult to separate which aspects of sex norms, rights, and responsibilities are reflections of the divine law, and which are manifestations of man's oppressive nature. I would expect that, if the Bible did not explicitly (but briefly and somewhat vaguely) advocate for maintaining different norms, rights, and responsibilities for men as for women, today most Christians would follow the world in declaring them _all_ unfair impositions on women by the patriarchy. We would probably reject _any_ distinction in sex norms as purely sexist, because the pressure to do so is overwhelming. But the Bible doesn't give us that latitude, so we are forced to make little caveats like those offered by other commenters, carving out _some little_ space for sacred scripture in an overwhelmingly postmodern framework for so-called "gender relations." How big that space is will vary depending on who you ask, how enamored they are with liberation ideology, and/or how much pressure they feel to conform to the world. Nobody wants to be called bigoted or sexist. Honestly, in most places in America and western Europe, nobody even wants to be called "conservative," especially young people. So it's quite tempting to bend ourselves to the world on this one, especially if we already view the men of history as ignorant, prescientific, barbarian fools who oppressed women for their own gain and could not possibly have understood something about sex relations that eludes us. Of course, some people are beginning to warm up again to ancient wisdom, owing to the almost total collapse of sex relations in much of the world, coinciding with the general moral decay that is currently motivating a renaissance of traditional thought and religion. The dwindling interaction between young men and young women, the skyrocketing divorce and child-out-of-wedlock rates, the high rates of alienation and hostility between the sexes reported in surveys. There are so many signs that whatever we're doing, it ain't working. So, on the other hand, it's tempting to retreat back to the relative safety and comfort of tried and true tradition. Nobody knows for sure whether that's gonna solve problems or create more of them. But what can be known for sure is that these passages in the Bible describing sex norms aren't just hollow words. You can't just reduce them down to behaviors that both partners should show to each other. "Submission" is something uniquely required of the wife towards the husband. So to say "submission" merely means "respect and honor" is to completely hollow out the passage. Everyone should respect and honor each other - spouses most of all, irrespective of their sex. But the passage uses sexed language for a reason. Its intention is obviously to advocate for sex norms that any women's studies department in any western college would call sexist. If you have a problem with that, then you should ask yourself whether your purpose in life is to please the world, or to please God. Again, I'm not saying that this advice is good advice. I'm just saying it's the advice the Bible gives. You're free to ignore it, you're free to research it sociologically and even to argue that it's _bad_ advice, but let's please not twist it into a completely meaningless statement that advocates merely for the kindness we ought to show to everybody.
Exactly. People are also just ignoring the fact that Christianity is patriarchal. It opposes feminism, all of it. Its built of an hierarchal understanding of humans, everyone being granted different degrees of virtues/skills, each sex having different roles and functions in society.
Dear Matt - if you read the comments. I've thought about this particular clip again. I had ZERO issues when I listened to the full podcast in my car, but I had severe issues with this particular clip on RU-vid. First, the 'catch' thumbnail is of an extremely attractive woman with a particular gaze that is not anyone's wife and is meant to portray a sexual nature. Second, you both look very casual and I would compare it to male Congressmen or male doctors discussing women as 'experts' without any women in the room. Third, you put 'SUBMIT' in huge caps. The big negative difference is the visual done here for RU-vid. I highly highly suggest for a topic like this you invite on so many of the accomplish female Catholic authors and podcast/EWTN personalities who have been hurt terrible by men in the past and how they overcame it and what 'submit' means to them in the Catholic faith instead of relying on clickbait thumbnails to attract incel men to watch. There are SO many great women out there who would could have explained and portrayed what you mean in a much better way without pissing off your female listeners. Again, the visuals done in this podcast turned a good talk negative and instead almost ultra masculine....look at the majority of the comments! Catholic women are rightly pissed off about this video, and the men are using it to support their ultra Trad/almost intel-like desires. Yes, I totally get there are a number of Catholic men below who agree with the proper definition, and thank you all, but overall I would heavily suggest you re-edit this, from the thumbnail clip, to perhaps adding in a female perspective on this rather than two chummy males and taking away the all-caps and perhaps thinking of a rephrasing the 'catch all' better. It's honestly a turn off for your female listeners.
the clickbait title is just because it attracts men with the picture and women with the title. inviting women to talk as an authority for men about women submitting doesnt fit with the submission principle that they were discussing in the first place. catholic women are only annoyed in western countries because they have a liberal influence their whole lives and get an emotional reaction to it. its engineered. a male talking about it is irrelevant, although it amplifies the reaction because it is primarily one that is anti male. ultra masculinity is not a negative. moot point. let the men talk about the biblical principles for female marital submission. also to annoy women more i just suggest they read what aquinas wrote about womens intellects
@@jstevo1349 Well aquinas was wrong about womens intellect and also it is triggering to anyone to be told that they have to the lower position solely because of factor they cant control
If we change the term "submit" to "volunteers to support", I think the intent is much easier to understand. It's hard to talk about this as a man because it's so easy to criticise from our modernist feminist language and culture. Because submission is viewed with extreme negativity, even though it's something we do on a day to day basis. Is not going to work to earn a living submitting to your boss? I think part of the problem is that Paul phrases it in a way that we would view as negative, when if he were addressing a modern audience, he might say something more akin to "hey, if you want the best wife, you're going to find the most meaning in your life loving your wives to the point of sacrificing your life for hers, and ladies, if you want to be happier in your marriage and get the most out of it, respect your husband's wishes and desires." It's as much about reminding each partner to do the things that will make their partner happiest and therefore our relationships the strongest. It's not about a power grab. It's about satisfying the desires of your partner and therefore strengthening your marriage and extracting the most goodness out of the institution. Now, how to put that onto a protest sign...
I don't think we should surrender the proper meaning of words. We should rather deconstruct the current understanding and re-present the meaning we always gave it. As far as protest signs go: Angels submit differently than Demons
@@intedominesperavi6036 I don't disagree with you. Language is important. The question is do we help people move forward towards the truth by reframing to assist understanding our do we continue to use the word that is the stumbling block for the indoctrinated. But perhaps that's my protestant conditioning...
@@StephensCrazyHour I think both has it's place. But since these words are so to speak "set in stone" in the Holy Scriptures, any effort at help in understanding should lead to a renewed understanding of the word for our interlocutors, or it will remain a stumbling block. God bless!
If you think “Volunteer to Support” is more accurate, then you’re not living a Christian marriage to the fullest. Submission is radical, but so is the theology of marriage established by Christ. Embrace every part of the grace and mission He gives you in marriage. Of course “in sickness and in health” are understood. But how about respecting your marriage enough to not contracept (incl. pulling out)? How about fighting tooth and nail to provide and secure for your wife and your offspring? How about fulfilling the marital debt with complete charity when one or both of you need it? How about loving someone enough to be willing to lose small arguments with charity because your marriage is the higher truth? How about accepting every suffering you will receive together with openness? Sacrifice for husbands; the household priest; akin to Christ. Submission for wives; the heart of the household; akin to the Church. Just like Christ sacrifices himself at every Mass, Wives and the Church are obligated to SUBMIT to Him/him with all our hearts, minds, and soul.
@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 I'm talking about using different language for people to understand the concept better. I'm not talking about changing theology. The truth is that in today's society a lot of people stumble on the word "submit" because of the compulsion association. But in a Christian marriage, submission is always voluntary. We can always rebel. But the best life, the one aimed at becoming like Jesus is one where we volunteer to set aside our pride.
I wanted a man who would: Love me Honor me Guide me Protect me And help me grow in holiness. Like the deep loving virtue friendship Aristotle talks about. When I bring this up power hungry bitch women (radical feminists) get so angry. I get so sad they hate it so much. I feel robbed I had to live in a world these women created and will never experience the joy of having a man who truly loves me because these women taught men not to be truly men.
Lol if men can be “taught by women” then they’re not being men. They’re little boys who want to blame women. As if women need to give them permission to be confident leaders. There are PLENTY of real men out there exactly as you describe. They’re not wasting their time blaming women or waiting for permission. They’re too busy working on themselves and loving their wives. Look for the men who don’t blame women, and instead take responsibility. You’ll find your prince
ojalá encuentre un día un hombre que piense así, que no le de miedo tomar la iniciativa. Y que tenga confianza en sí mismo, al verse como un regalo de Dios para mí.
I think the biggest part of getting buy in for submission is the fact that those verses have been used to dominate women in a very non Christ like way. It's been used by churches, Catholic and Protestant both. With no push back from clergy to show that it's not a lording it over women and demeaning them as less than. In no way are women to be made less than. If submission was properly taught as what it really should be there would be a better understanding by both men and women.
Ahh, but it's also grossly misused by women who say I don't "feel" like submitting because my husband is not completely Holy and beyond making mistakes. It also often gets misused by women who want to misread and misapply it to mean that the husband should do everything the wife wants. The husband is supposed to die to his own sins and help his wife and family by doing the same. Submitting to godly character and principles while not giving up on all preferences that make him who he is. Women have ALOT to learn on that in those areas. In Christ, Andrew
> In no way are women to be made less than submission implies an order. an order means one thing is above another. women submitting to men means men are above women in authority. this isnt just an arbitrary thing either, else men would simply be above women in authority without reason beyond divine command. there must be some thing that makes man belong in the seat of authority over a woman (and yes i mean over, because you cannot rule with a woman since you are ruling her). i would not agree that men are in all ways equal to women like you suggest, but there are ways they are equal too. however i think everyone knows the ways already because its pushed tirelessly throughout the church to appease the modern era, so theres no point going over the exact ways they are identical in value.
I think most importantly, St. Paul is concerned that we love one another, since it is our measure of love by which we will be judged in the final analysis. So, if we're asking ourselves who submits first to who and to what extent, we're already failing to love. That's not, I think, what St. Paul was going for. And if you really don't know how to love your spouse, your significant other, your neighbor, your enemy, you've got bigger problems than Ephesians 5. You don't have to worry about said submission if you abondon yourself to God and are literally pursuing sainthood. Pax vobiscum
@@Irisgomesjmjfaith No, and thats okay. At least you voiced your opinion instead of us just listening to two men tell everyone why we should continue enjoying having a power priviledge over you women. I hope more women would be given a platform to voice their opinion weather against it or for it. Women issues are better if spoken by women.
Hate to say it, but my priest for our marriage sessions for our convalidation of marriage explained this so much more eloquently and so much more lovingly that done here. For us women listening, I get the meaning and intent from Matt, but this is done in a super masculine way that is not always healthy. We did the FOCCUS premarital inventory even though we'd already been married a number of years and it really helped us come to an understanding. There are SO many comments here from men that are hard core Trad with their 'all women should be stay at home wives/moms' failing utterly to take into account that not every married couple is financially in that spot to do so. I think it has a LOT to do with pride from men in general that they need to take care of the family financially - and that pride is such a sin. I see a lot of that pride in the comments and many of the men commenting needs to take a HUGE step back and contemplate their egos and prides. What about other situations? Perhaps the husband was laid off or lost their job or on medical leave/disability, or even dies....then what?
I would be careful to simply accuse men of being prideful and having big egos. The need that men feel to take care of our families financially is a huge component of our self-worth. If we feel that we are unable to do so or are failing, we often feel like we are failing in one of the main duties of being a husband and father. That can do a lot of psychological and emotional damage (which we tend to internalize and not talk about because, well, we're men). Is believing that we have a God-given role and purpose pride? Maybe you need to take a step back.
@@paulus1027 Hi Paul. I invite you to question why you base your self worth in providing for someone else? The problem might be that you are conditioned to this mysoginistic social construct that men are supposed to be the ones that provide for their family. At the end of the day what matters is peace, happiness, and God in our families. Cheers.
Yh, no one denies that a mother hypothetically can get some job if and only if there is some emergency situation. Like the income from the husband not being enough to enjoy some basic necessities. But it should be the case that the guy provides and has to work harder. A woman must stay at home even if u could garnish some extra luxury from working. Man must toil, and a woman must suffer through the pangs of childbirth. Why suffer through both
Also, a woman has the right to demand that a man gets a job and she can stay at home. Its in the catechism. Understandably, this government system discriminates against men making it hard to find work. This is true
@@JohnCenaFan6298 Women aren't puppies that we should tell what to do or not to do. They are human beings with dreams and aspirstions just like you and I. We are nobody to crush or limit their goals. Just because they give birth doesnt mean that is all they are good for my friend.
“Mutual Submission This Scripture passage is often viewed with suspicion by women since it tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. But the first line of the passage, which tells both spouses to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” is often overlooked. The following lines are John Paul II’s Theology of the Body • 9 devoted to explaining how that mutual submission is lived in marriage. John Paul II makes it very clear that the wife’s “being subject” to the husband does not mean that she is dominated by him. It might even be argued that the husband’s task is harder. He is the one who is commanded to die for his wife as Christ died for the Church. “The mutual relations of husband and wife should flow from their common relationship with Christ.” (TOB Aug. 11, 1982) p. 309 “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination. Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband... It is certain that when the husband and wife are subject to one another ‘out of re v e rence for C h r i s t ’ , a just b a l a n c e will be established, such as to correspond to their Christian vocation in the mystery of Christ.” (TOB August 11, 1982) p. 310 “Christ manifests the love with which he has loved her [the Church] by giving himself for her. That love is an image and above all a model of the love which the husband should show to his wife in marriage, when the two are subject to each other ‘out of reverence for Christ.’” (TOB Aug. 25, 1982) p. 316 “The husband is above all, he who loves and the wife, on the other hand is she who is loved. One could even hazard the idea that the wife’s submission to her husband, understood in the context of the entire passage of Ephesians, signifies above all the “experiencing of love.” This is all the more so since this submission is related to the image of the submission of the Church to Christ, which certainly consists in experiencing his love.” (TOB Sept. 1, 1982) p. 320” www.jp2.info/Theology_of_the_Body.pdf
It's fascinating how this is clip of two dudes talking about women wanting to submit to men! I can not say I have heard women say this. What they say amongst their friends may be different. Unless you can claim to have heard a women say they want to submit to a man you are talking from a position of ignorance. The Paul talks about man and women surrendering to each other. Let's keep it balanced folks.
Everything said here depends on how you understand the word "submission". Submission to Christ is different than to the emperor. Angels submit differently than demons. Demons become demons by not wanting to submit like angels. My Grandmother submitted to my grandfather and she's probably the strongest woman I know - because my grandfather tried his very best to make his strength hers as well. She would say stuff like that.
men are not submitting to the woman in the same way that men are. however the bigger issue seems to be your need to point this out as if its a problem. its very telling of your attachment and upbringing in the modern social norms, with a great emphasis on the power and individuality of the sexes (which always means women are identical to men, with people believing this in differing degrees). its the same as the tired old idea that women and men are equal in all ways, and have the exact same natural purposes so they can do the exact same things. these arent christian ideas of course nor natural ones. they are heavily manufactured and break society. its a shame to see it in the church as well
I don’t understand why it would be “weird” for a woman to desire to hold her man. Relationship dynamics can be different from couple to couple. Some men or women may not be comfortable with that idea but some love it. I feel like you are trying to put everyone in the same box, which is unfortunate because God made us all have unique desires, passions, and talents. I agree with submission, however, I think St. Paul was not talking about it on a physical level but a spiritual one. Comparing it to physicality truly isn’t fair in my opinion. I think you were a little judgmental on this one.
100% agree with you. It’s conversations like these that make boys feel like they’re not “man enough” because they experience things this video condemns. What society needs to do is to expand societal expectations for what men do/feel. I see their point but to say that’s how all men should be irks me. Sure there’s some generality to it on physical terms, but St. Paul most likely refers to the spiritual aspect of this.
I think they're spot on. This is the problem though with so much of society, there's no absolute authority. I mean there is: The word of God. But people reject or twist what it says clearly in the scriptures to suit their own lifestyle and preferences. Paul said the wife should submit to her husband yet you're trying to make it non absolute by using the "we all have different needs" argument. This just creates confusion and does not submit to the absolute authority. When you introduce a nebulous concept like, we all have different physical and spiritual needs, that moves away from God and Into a worldly mindset
I think the word in today’s context is a pejorative unfortunately. I think when a woman feels loved and respected the submission is less likely to be an issue
Bravo! I love how you guys tackled this sensitive topic - with love and open hearts! I have to say though, when I read the title of this video, I instantly felt irritated. It’s because of the word “submit”. This word, to me, evokes the type of relationship where the man takes the power, feels superior, orders the woman around and expects complete servitude. And that is completely opposite from what God wants for us, which is a relationship of love, COLLABORATION, complementarity, trust. Feminism, on the other hand, is another extreme, which strives to erase all the wonderful, feminine, God given gifts that women have, in the name of so called progress.
If you do, sometimes you'll find that woman steps on you for laying down, then drags you through the mud and makes herself out to be a victim. Ask me how I know. I am telling you this, dear reader, as someone who did this and paid the price. I got railed. I was used and absurd by a selfish person who couldn't manage to give me the dignity of being anything more than an ugly piece of furniture in her life that eventually didn't fit in the mosaic of lies she was building and now me and our kids will suffer for it for years to come. It was the dumbest thing Ive ever done, I had plenty of red flags and signs the relationship was a dumpster fire that I intentionally ignored for years giving her countless chances and taking countless blows and never giving up on a commitment to a lifetime of misery or reconciliation until SHE eventually ran away. And I'd do I again. It's the right thing to do. Nothing risked is nothing gained, you can't provide an opportunity for true Love if you're protecting yourself. You have to be open to taking the L on the other side of the very real What If. If you're married, do it. Go for broke. Throw the kitchen sink at your marriage, give up everything including your sanity and happiness if you have to, because it's your job. It's your role. It is how a real God honoring, miraculous lifetime of deep knowing and Love can truly flourish. You have to bare your breast to a dangerous creature: a person. The risk is real. You should do it.
God bless you, brother. Yes, life is risky - in fact, it's life threatening. I think the resurrection put's all these things into a most beautiful light. Your wounds will still be there. Loss and hurt is real. But there will also be glory. May God protect you and your children and may He grant you perseverance till the end!
God made man and woman for a reason. We are not to blur those lines or act like each other. Most women want to follow a confident and inspiring man. Not a tyrant, but not a confused weakling either.
There isn't "before that happens." It's at the same time. A husband could say, "I'm not living a holy life until you submit to me!" in the same vain. Relationships aren't transactional, they are sacrificial - both need to happen at the same time, even if the other one isn't, to the best of each's ability.
Nope, the Bible says "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord". Is your submission to Christ conditional on something he must do to merit your submission? When Jesus said to love God with all your mind, soul and heart, did he say "only if He does X, Y and Z beforehand"? The only biblical reason a wife ought not to submit to her husband is if that submission would cause her to sin or cause another person to stumble. Other than that, the wife ought to fully and completely to submit to her husband in all things... "as to the Lord"
Another thing, it means that if husband and wife disagree on something, the husband has the final say but as I said before, you would want to be in a state of grace and plenty of prayer to make the right decision to lead the family/relationship in the right direction! People listen to Jesus because he is Holy and before he makes a big decision he prays for direction from the Father!
@@DG-nc1jc Jesus listened to the authorities of this world even when they were wrong. Obedience to the natural of order of things is it’s own virtue, even when the person you’re supposed to obey is wrong. Jesus was telling us how we are naturally oriented in Ephesians 5 - what is best for us. It is not a call for either spouse to “earn” their spot in the natural order, but to do their best to fall into its place.
I agree that this is a good representation of traditional Catholic thought. BUT I respectfully propose that there is a broader spectrum of interactions between the two sexes.
@@eoinMB3949 yes, that's certainly a risk, but I think have excessively specific prescriptions for gender-based behaviors would also be too suffocating. There is a happy medium. A lot of things discussed in the video such as who asks whom out, or how people hug are social constructs, not divine mandates. So there is room for flexibility.
@@AntonAchondoa this is talk of principles, not specifics. the specifics given were just to give examples to outline the principles. of course i would still say that if a woman proposed under ordinary circumstances it would fall under a defective principle. social constructs were constructed precisely because they fit the principle well. with the submission principle, all things can be tested to that measure to see if they break it.
Interesting. I like Matt, but I think this particular take on the submission issue was slightly shallow, in terms of the examples. It was either Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles at the Daily Wire who explained the concept of the husband being the head of the family, because a family can't have two heads. In the case of an impasse, a difficult decision that can affect the family, someone has to make the final decision. So, the wife will give way to the husband's decision, but he has a huge responsibility then. He doesn't make a decision to "win" or to be the boss, but to take the weight of that decision, and the consequences, on his shoulders. He has to have good judgement, to weigh the "love and honor your wife" command in the decision process. In other words, he has to demonstrate good leadership to give his wife the confidence in him to submit to his decisions. Anyway, this was the gist of the concept, something much larger than mere physicality, or who's doing the hugging and who's being hugged, etc.
it kind of misses the point to pit the knowles idea against fradds. they both are saying the same thing, fradd just says it by showing its what women inherently want and knowles tries to make it a pragmatic choice. of course you cant have one without the other, since with knowles idea he hasnt given much strong justification for it specifically being the man who leads rather than the woman.
@@carolinpurayidom4570 yeah why cant the bishops just work mutually together or the citizenry just work mutually together? why do we need a head of state, or a universal head of the church? because this is the natural order. any other way leaves great room for turmoil with no way of resolving it
I think this is why it's important to read the Bible in context and realize there are parts that are man-made in the sense that they reflect the culture of the time, and then cite God's authority to bolster their points. Somethings are natural law, others are social constructs. I think in this case, these two are taking social constructs too seriously.
@@AntonAchondoa this is because the social constructs are created for the purpose of conforming to the natural principles. they arent just arbitrary and to deviate from them because "individuality" or "let people do what they want" is a steep hill that doesnt lead to a natural outcome, but an engineered one where women pretend they are men because they are told they can. the social constructs are to help people realise their natural purposes and fulfill them easier and more clearly. getting rid of them sets us up for confusion, and then manipulation by the world who wants the complete opposite of what nature aims at
So for those who are starting wars in the comments lol Here is a video made by Jackie from Ascension Presents: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X6vYCmApyrA.html
I would agree that wives should submit to their husbands, but submission must first be defined. I personally don’t think it has anything to do with financial submission. If so, then it would be a sin for a poor man to marry a wealthy woman, which it obviously isn’t. Submission has to transcend life circumstances and situations. I think it more has to do with a woman seeking guidance from her husband, even if he isn’t always correct. It’s about respecting and honoring him as a man.
@@JohnCenaFan6298 I don’t think there’s a verse that says a woman must give all of her money to her husband. That would also invite the possibility of abuse.
@@JohnCenaFan6298 Proverbs 31 would disagree. Women are to be wise and support the husband but also to be a good steward of the household. That doesn't imply giving all her money to a husband. Where you get that idea from I surely don't know.
@@batman5224 agreed. My parents have this system where my Dad’s money is used to primarily take care of our needs but my Mom’s money is for backup. It’s a very good strategy cause God knows we’ve needed it given our government’s “policies” 😅😅
If the bible says slaves should obey their masters then that's what it says. It also says that slave masters should treat slaves very well. Why should we avoid the word of God rather than face it and learn from it?
@@chaldeang7687 it's important to realize the Bible is divinely inspired, not divinely written. There's a lot of human made parts in it that ought not be taken literally.
@@Johnny-mu9bs I'm not okay with slavery, it's just something that was around during the time of the apostles and so the instructions were to treat slaves nicely. How in the world would you even take a commandment like that figuratively and not literally? What would Paul's words even mean at that point? You can't get around it, there's a hierarchy in the family the same way that we have a hierarchy in the Church. Just because I must submit to my bishop does that mean I'm inferior to him? Of course not, it just means he has more authority, same thing with families. The children submit to the parents, the wife submits to the husband, but the husband must also love his wife and listen to her.
@@AntonAchondoa If Paul made any commandments in his epistles then we must submit to it, how would you say we are to distinguish from which commands we should follow and which ones we shouldn't? It becomes arbitrary rather than something concrete. Also, if it's to be taken figuratively and not literally, then what in the world would the command "submit to your husbands" even mean at that point?
Well you definitely need to be someone she can respect. The formula I teach my son is to be confident, physically strong and competent because that's what will attract women, combined with kindness and consideration (but not being clingy or desperate) Masculinity and strength of character and personality combined with care and concern of others. That will attract the right women.
Some women can be so arrogant and ignorant and overall vain and disobedient when it comes to Ephesians, St. Paul literally addresses that husbands have an even bigger responsibility to love their wives like Christ loves His Church and that we are to suffer a silent martyrdom in our marriages by dying to ourselves so that our wives can be purified. I love my wife and children and will give up what I want so that they can gain what they need. Christ Himself!
same here. never known a woman to agree with the verse either. what would be the point marrying and sacrificing yourself for a woman who doesnt want to submit?
You gentlemen seem to miss the point completely. In any relationship, the people concerned may have different rôles, and, if they’re lucky, they’ll be happy in their different rôles. In relationships between men and women, it may well be that, in practice, men tend to occupy one particular rôle and women another. And there’s lots of room for discussion about why this should be the case: basic biology, cultural conditioning, or what? But why do you leap to the conclusion that men OUGHT to adopt one particular rôle in relationships and that women OUGHT to occupy another? Bear in mind that simply to say ‘it’s in our sacred book’ or ‘it’s what our church teaches’ won’t satisfy most of us.
those of you who arent satisfied by "its tradition" or "its biblical" are watching the wrong video. this isnt for you. God is real, Jesus rose from the dead and the book is true and we can talk about that instead of this issue, because it seems more fundamental than "roles of the sexes" for someone unsaved.
@@jstevo1349 In one sense that’s a fair reply. What you say is based on certain assumptions. If you encounter someone who doesn’t share these assumptions, then you have a choice. You might take on the job of explaining and justifying your assumptions, but if you’re not able or not willing to do that, then the only honest response is to say that no discussion of the subject is possible.
@@teresad7102 no thanks Edited to add: Actually I'd love to read this but I'm not paying thirty dollars for it. You're welcome to ship me a copy and I promise to read it then. It sounds astonishing.
Good thoughts, but AS USUAL the FEMINISM lives strong the background. All Catholic dating/marriage advice is about how the male is not good enough, while refusing to touch upon the duties of women. Women are thus taught that they are perfect and don't have to bring anything to the table. The Bible says wives submit multiple times and this whole talk dodged that!!!1 Notice how asking the wife to submit in the plain English sense of not opposing your husband as head of home, was completely dodged. The submission has now been turned into this purely romantic thing rather than reversing the curse of the fall, in which Genesis 3 says the woman would be resisting submission in marriage. The genders are in tension due to Original Sin and grace helps correct that. I'm saying this out of frustration and fraternal correction. Read the Saints about submission if the romantic submission is really the meaning.
The catechism of Trent says: The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
Ephesians 5:24 As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Titus 2:3-5 Older women are to exhibit behavior fitting those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good. In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited. 1 Peter 3:5-6 For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.
So this assertion assumes that men are always correct and wives should submit. But we know that is not the case. A system of checks and balances is a good idea between partners. We have to realize the Bible divinely inspired, but not divinely written. There are ideas derived from the cultural context of the time. Yes, men and women are biological different and their personalities have different tendencies. BUT these differences are descriptive, not presecriptive.
@@AntonAchondoa the larger point is that whenever dating/relationship/marriage talks are given on most Catholic shows, there is a *severe imbalance* when it comes to telling men what they need to do versus telling women what they need to do. It typically always ends up making it sound like men aren't doing enough, aren't doing the right things, need to improve, etc, while little to no such criticism/encouragement is directed towards women.
This is appalling. Draconian, misogynistic, stereotypical thinking that fails to appreciate the diversity of human sexual interaction. Yet another reason I could never be a Catholic.
I largely agree with your assessment here. But I do hope you're able to find some wisdom and rich insight in other parts of Catholic thought, regardless of whether or not you convert/are a religious person in general.
@@Johnny-mu9bs totally agree. I think reforming the church must come from within. The world is complex, and we can't keep forcing a monolithic perspective to fit.
Whenever i hear this kind of message i just think of my wife, and no, she doesn't and won't submit to me if she thinks i've got something wrong or has a different view. This is just a Christian talking point which is fine ... but it's hardly "marriage advice" on any level.
Agreed. Husband and Wife should be equal.. this just seems to be a power trip some Christian men like to do when they're struggling in other areas of life
@@Burt1038 yeah I think this is all word games - the video seems to suggest that submission is like being hugged … your comparison is nonsense because she is being paid - it’s a trade - this topic is almost click bait
