Mutual submission


#1

I have a traditionalist acquaintance who claims that Pope John Paul II changed the Church teaching on the husband being head of the family by encouraging mutual submission, and he claims that the pope was a modernist because of that. Here’s an e-mail I received from him. How would you respond to his claims? By the way, the opening quote is from an article in “The Wanderer” that I’d provided for him earlier.

The Holy Father in no way denies that in the order of authority the
wife
is only subject to the husband, because he is not concerning himself
with
the order of authority in this document.>>

Well once again the “neo-conservatives” have done it. You guys supply
us
with all the ammunition we need.

The quote that I just pulled from below, summarizes nicely the
pontificate
of John Paul 2 and all other post-Vatican 2 Popes (up to this point).
You
see, some will say that the Holy Father (John Paul 2) has never
"denied"
pre-Conciliar teachings, but then again, dead-silence on an issue
sometimes
speaks louder than words. The very fact that the Holy Father (John
Paul 2)
in this encylical completely sides-stepped the issue is to me a
indication
of a Modernist (worldly point-of-view) Pope. This has always bothered
me
about His Holiness. I’ve also read his encyclical “The Role of the
Christian Marriage in the Modern World”. In fact, I’ve read it a few
times
and again, no where is this issue (of authority, just simple authority.
Not
the virtue of charity. That goes without saying. We must do all
things in
charity. OK??? That’s beside the point. The fact is Pope John Paul 2
completely (yet again) side-stepped the issue. In my opinion, because
he
was afraid. Maybe he felt that the world wasn’t ready for him to
repeat the
constant traditional Teaching of the Church. But to that I say, that is
(was) his job. For me, I would rather have a Pope that is
despised/hated by
the world, as opposed to someone who is (was) beloved by it. To me, it
sends a subltle message. The Church has been bending over backwards
since
Vatican 2 to show how “new and worldly-friendly” She is (as opposed to
the
terrible, mean-spirited-homophobic-all male-dominated Church). And
quite
frankly, I’m sick of seeing the Church trying to curry favor with one
of Her
supernatural enemies (the world itself). That is a clear distinction
(also)
between traditionalists and other Catholics. Most Catholics today look
at
(and view) the world as a “friend” whereas we realize that we must live
in
the world, but that the world is not our friend because it was never
Christ’s.

And lastly, I am fed up with traditionalist’s being labled "out-of
touch,
schismatics, heretics, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc. etc.) WE ARE
NOT
AND NEITHER IS THE SSPX!!! NO ONE, NOT JOHN PAUL 2, NO ANY OTHER
CHURCH
OFFICE HAS FORMALLY DECLARED THE SSPX SOCIETY TO BE IN SCHISM!!! GET
YOUR
FACTS STRAIGHT!! I do not mind arguing/debating issues. But I don’t
throw
around ad-hominum attacks and neither should you. I will debate the
issue(s), not the person.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

Stephen


#2

Oh, c’mon, surely someone can help me out here!


#3

You may want to bring up Bishop Bishop Bruszewski decree for his diocese that was upheld by Rome when appealed by certain groups (not SSPX). Second, the argument from silence is a dangerous one to make. Your friend is trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Just becuase your friend did not see John Paul II put the mutual submission how he would have liked it to be doesn’t mean the post-Vatican II changed Church doctrine. Thanks and God Bless.


#4

Also, ask the gent how he came to read minds/souls to know that John Paull II was afraid. And secondly, why did SSPX ordain 4 bishops when an accord had been worked out for one??? Where’s the “necessity” in that??? Thanks and God Bless.


#5

envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1030


closed #6

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.