marriage

Saul would have been tried for crimes against humanity. :wink: As it is, he’s one of the best examples we have of the power of reconciliation, and we have to keep that in mind. And maybe I’d agree with him more if he had been interpreted and translated differently over those 2,000 years.

Or, more likely, blown off the road to Damascus by an unmanned drone. :smiley:

on_the_hill,

I watched a film about the life of Saint Paul after the cruxification of jesus.I was wondering do you think there was anything going on with rubins wife and paul? She looked very much close to Paul and lied to her husband Rubin about were Paul was in damascus!
Rubin’s wife said she did not love him,and she had a close attatchment with Paul!
What you think??:shrug:

Saint Paul was a Jewish preist then right?

and

Rubin was a Jewish preist also.They were freinds.

Rubin did make remark in film that Paul wanted her as his wife!:shrug:

But Jewish preist’s were allowed to marry so i suppose no harm.:shrug:

catholicsaint,

I have no idea. Didn’t see the film, don’t know the story. :shrug:

[quote="Reuben J]Paul outlines these roles very clearly in Ephsians 5.

24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

[/quote]

I can understand how you feel about this but I have explained to you what Eph 5 means in context. Verse 24 must be read and understood with verses 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27, and not to be taken in isolation.

The subordination of the wife to the husband in everything is insofar the husband loves her as Jesus loves the Church. When the husband becomes like Christ in her life, the subordination is mutual. They would be subjected to each other out of respect. Thus Paul likens it to the Church’s relationship with Jesus. We subordinate to Jesus in that he wants us to because His law is upright, truth and love.

Obviously a wife cannot be submissive or obey the husband in everything. If the husband asks her to murder, for example, which lead to mortal sin, a wife cannot be submissive to that because that is not how Jesus loves the Church.

The important principle in this relationship is to put God as the Lord of our marriage.

I have to disagree with you again, that St. Paul as in Eph 5 is obsolete. The word of God is everlasting and for all ages. That piece of advice still rings true today.

Basically the role of a husband as is taught in Eph 5 is for the husband to serve (the wife) as Jesus does to His Church - ‘The greatest among you is a servant to all’. He also loves the wife and is willing to lay his life for her. He will love his wife’s body as his own and who would not take care of your own body? He will be her leader and nurture her spiritually so that when he presents her to the Church to himself,*** she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and spotless*** (5:27). That’s how a husband’s love for his wife should be.

In return a wife is to be submissive to him in all things that are taught and approved by Christ. There is no lording of the husband over the wife. That is from secular mentality and culture.

We as Church is also apostolic. We are built on the teachings of the apostles and are exhorted to listen to them. If our fore-parents in the faith were anything to go by, our practice today is not much different.

Acts 2:42 -They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer

I did not say obsolete, I said less relevant as are the following:
“Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” (Psalm 137:9)
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.” (1 Peter 2:18)
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Why the heavy reliance on Paul, though? Why not use the writings/teachings of the others? (I want to hear from the apostles I might agree with! :stuck_out_tongue: )

During a recent homily, a priest praised a woman who had been ordained (or nearly ordained) in a Protestant faith and she subsequently converted to Catholicism. She is now a professor at a Catholic seminary. Things that make you go, “Hmmm…”

On the hill…

That is just messed up??

She wants one thing but yet seeks another!!

There is catholic preist’s that have different opinons about these things. But with falling numbers of people going to mass it is a catch 22 situation. Think of the damage he could of done by saying that and think of damage he might not have done. More people might come to mass for his opnion and more people might not becasue of his opnion. I remember hearing a statment once someone said like this: just because majority of people think something is right does not make it right.:thumbsup:

With all truth and honesty i think priest’s in general should not give secular cultural opinons that can, 1.Stop there advancement in there job, 2.divide the church in 2 for the sake of arugment.

Some people could think why should i go to the catholic church if iam to hear this because after all i go for spirtual strength and my loyalty to Jesus and the church.

Catholic preist’s should be warriors of God and not let there opinons take control.
Like in any job you do what you are told.
If i had a job and i was told to do something and i did not do it, most def i would be fired.

During a recent homily, a priest praised a woman who had been ordained (or nearly ordained) in a Protestant faith and she subsequently converted to Catholicism. She is now a professor at a Catholic seminary. Things that make you go, “Hmmm…”

I may be missing something here, but I don’t see anything in the homily that could be viewed as controversial. I’m going on a limb and assuming that “Things that make you go, Hmmm” was inserted by** on the hill** and not part of the homily. There is no mention of her as a priest. Sounds like a priest, praising a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and is now teaching at a Catholic seminary. Do you read more in the post?

Maybe i got it wrong. Its not too clear for me to understand. Anyway if iam wrong iam wrong sorry.:o

Maybe my bad!!!:p;)

Fair enough. I agree they were less relevant now certainly. I would not go over the verses quoted in detail, but surely the message from these are still relevant though today. Yes, we do not have any slavery, but those days slavery was a system quite close to a contract and an employer/employee relationship. A good slave obeyed his master and his master should be fair to him. In fact the master could even treat him like a relative, a part of the household (ref. letter to Philemon). Of course this is all from Christian’s perspective.

About prohibiting women to teach is probably more controversial and I will not touch on that. A thing to note though, very often this verse is being used against Catholicism.

What I want to say is the Bible is to be looked at for the message it brings. You are right in that people’s activities then may be different than now but the message, the value, are not. What amazed me all the time, the ancient wisdom in the Bible is still very much applied today and how people behaved then still very much what people behave today though in a different practical situation.

God bless.

Not to worry, there is much on all forums that is unclear or misunderstood. That’s why we’re here, to get different perspectives on ideas. You did right to post your thoughts. :slight_smile:

Probably because the bulk of the New Testaments composed of Paul’s writing. In the area of marriage and the state of a person’s life, among others, his writing is more comprehensive on these. This may be seen as an elaboration to what Jesus says in Mathew 19. Marriage is a very important aspect of Christian living. We are blessed that this subject is addressed in the Bible in the life of the people of the New Covenant.

My point originally is that the apostles’ teaching should be regarded as inspired where they apply. The epistles of the New Testaments were instruction and pastoral guidance to the early Christians in various cities (churches) then, are considered to be true Church’s teaching and canonized to be incorporated in the Bible. So, basically, we are left with no choice to choose from.

On the lighter side, how true it is when I wished I could follow the teaching of the apostles of my choice. :wink: But then again, we are warned by the Lord himself that it will be going to be a narrow path, long and winding that we must tread through.

God bless.:slight_smile:

Thank you! This one still puzzles and amuses me “Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” (Psalm 137:9) :shrug:

Good observation.

It is important to know who was addressed in v.9. It was to the Babylonians who destroyed the Kingdom of God’s people. This is their (the Israelites) cry, a prayer for God to set justice on their enemy, the Babylonians. The alluding to the crashing of the infants to the rock was what the King of Aram (2Kg 8) did to the Israelites then. They wanted the same punishment meted to the Babylonians. A complete read of Psalm 137 would perhaps make more sense.

You are right in the sense that the laws and punishment then (in the OT) were certainly harsh and not the standard of what Jesus tells us today. But this is another topic.

I believe the message was that she had studied her Protestant faith extensively and gave up her Protestant faith and ordination when she found what she was looking for in Catholicism.

The editorializing was on my part.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.