Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

Hahaha, I think you are just been stubborn now. I think that is fine but I am sure you get what I am saying.

In case you don’t, I will mention it one last time to you.

Bl. JPII, Pope BXVI => Speaks about the equal dignity of man and woman
St. Paul => Speaks about the difference in the natural order between man and woman

There is no contradiction here or interpretation issue. Both are speaking of different things.

But you seem to have an agenda here to try and get rid of the existence of a difference in the natural order. So you try to use the statements by Bl. JP II and Pope BXVI on human dignity to somehow imply they are also speaking about the natural order. That is a misrepresentation of their words on your part.

But anyway, ultimately you will have to answer to the angels who maintain the natural order. I will step aside and let them decide what to do regarding your false advancements.

Nobody, including St. Paul, is talking about something one sided. The passage in I Cor 11 actually mentions the mutuality of the sexes.

[6]For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. [7] The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [9] For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. [10] Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. [11] But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

St. Paul writes of the natural order among the sexes in the earlier verses of the passage, but, in verse 11 and 12, also writes of their reciprocity in the Lord. These two aspects of the relationship between the sexes do not contradict each other.

Again – you speak of a one sided “submission” and woman created for man. The Church speaks of mutual submission and man created/exists for woman/woman created/exists for man. The Church interprets scripture – in relation to other sections of scripture-- to determine – how it is to be understood. So if something looks to be at “odds” – it is not the Popes – but the way you are using scripture.

Below Br. JR – clarifies the “submission” issue and St. Paul.


This is just funny. I keep showing why you are comparing apples to oranges and making this in to a contradiction. Then you go on again on how I must be wrong because I contradict :shrug:.

I honestly think you have had a pretty bad personal experience and have a real fear of what this difference in the natural order might mean. Well I have good news. It does not mean that you are not equal in dignity. St. Paul does not refute that. As the poster after me showed you, he affirms that too.

So I think you really need to stop worrying. It is not wrong to acknowledge what really exists. You can’t hide behind quotes on an entirely different topic.

A woman submits to her husband out of the natural order of precedence. The husband is also called to submit to his wife out of love and give his life for her. You are confusing this to somehow mean superiority and you seem to be afraid. It does not.

I understand that you are driven by fear but you are also spreading error. So I am not sure if you are doing a good thing here.

Is it not safe to say that you are really not understanding the distinction between “Equal dignity” and “difference in the natural order”? Because I don’t think there is any shame in that and that is really what is happening.

Let us review, so that your error may be shown to you:

Man came before woman. Therefore, men and women are different in their roles.

“Therefore” makes the post an argument, regardless of how you intended it. That is why we use “therefore:” it introduces logical consequence. If the consequence does not follow from the premise(s), it is a non sequitur.

Therefore, you are wrong. See? That statement follows from my argument.

Do you understand what non-sequitur means?

Clearly better than you do.

Perhaps what lead to your confusion was my use of the word “Therefore”. If that was the reason, you can take what I said as simply the ‘difference of gender’.

So, I was right, and you were wrong. If you meant something other than what you said, that is fine. But the error lies decidedly with you.

Theologically speaking, order of creation implies a difference in roles. What I said above would be a non-sequitor if you reject the theological idea of the importance of man coming before woman and woman being made for man and not vice versa.

First, for someone who is outright claiming that I do not know about what I am speaking, you could at least spell the term of which I am allegedly ignorant correctly.

Second, the statement “theologically speaking, order of creation implies a differnece in roles” is a further demonstration that the original statement was logically fallacious because this crucial premise was lacking.

Third, I ask why order of creation implies a difference in roles.

I thought that ballin was simply recreating St. Paul’s argument rather than formulating a syllogism of his own. It is probably true that St. Paul does not make all of his premises explicit. He expects them to be understood by his audience. However, I don’t think that it is reasonable to describe either ballin or St. Paul as making fallacious statements.

In my experience, the idea of ordered creation tends to be foreign to the modern mind. I suspect that this is the source of some of the misunderstanding taking place in this thread.

I am not advocating any viewpoint, and there is no misunderstanding on my part.

Making the audience assume premises is certainly logically fallacious because the statement does not stand on its own. What are the “premises to be understood by his audience?” Please, tell me.

As I said before, if you want to get entirely logical here, your error with thinking St. Paul fallacious is that you implicitly assume a Theological premise of “difference in order of creation = different roles” to be false.

If that is the case, the conclusion does not follow from the argument. But as far as St. Paul is concerned, the natural order exists and it does mean something. So St. Paul in that passage does not explain WHY it means something but he does explain how it exists.

So there is good reason to believe that “difference in order of creation = different roles” is true (not by logical inference but simply because it is a revealed truth). Therefore, the charge you lay that the conclusion does not follow from the premise is incorrect.

As an aside though, you asked me for a definition. So I merely reiterated what St. Paul states. Then you said I am stating a logical fallacy. For your information, logical fallacy does not apply for a definition anyway. If I say “I define a square as an Apple”, there is no logical fallacy.

If there is no logical rules of inference involved, there is no fallacy. So when I restated St. Paul, for you to say its a logical fallacy would be something you need to take up with St. Paul. Not me.

I’m not talking about making the audience assume premises. I’m saying that when there are shared assumptions, a person might not explicitly state them in his argument. For example,

You dropped the ball. Therefore it fell.

Note that I am not explicitly stating that dropped objects fall. I can do this because we all know it. St. Paul is writing to an audience that shares an understanding of ordered creation as we share an understanding of gravity.

Walking Home did respond with a clear no but you obviously refuse to accept anything that contradicts your views.

Yes yes, tell me more about this contradiction that does not exist :slight_smile:

You give your own interpretation to biblical passages to fit in with your views and agenda. If you think what you say is right and true, why even ask anyone? I see that you even disagree with Bro JR in the thread on women’s authority in the church so its all about you and what you want to believe.

Do you have an issue/problem with Blessed JPII and what he had to say btw?

I think any position can be logically analyzed, including that of Bro. JR.

I have already analyzed you and your friends position. You are both comparing Apples to Oranges. You are trying to refute the existence of a difference in the natural order by use of the statements of the church on equal dignity. Either the two of you don’t realize the difference in the two or you two are in denial.

Trust me, this is not an existential crisis where I am finding it hard to trust anyone else. It simply has to do with you two not presenting a position that is… well in this case… relevant. I am talking about Apples and you are giving me church statements on Oranges :shrug:

Nope, as I have repeatedly said, I am 100% in agreement with him. I am also 100% in agreement with St. Paul. Why? Because they are both speaking of TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! :smiley:

The sad part here is that you seem to think they are talking about the same issue.

Is there some rule that people are not allowed to disagree with Bro JR? I’m pretty sure that I have disagreed with him at some point. Does that mean that everything I write is wrong?

The interpretation that ballin has adopted is the standard traditional understanding of these biblical passages. He is not saying anything that contradicts Catholic teaching.

So the angels do not do as God commands and now follow you? That seems to be a threat to Walking Home.

The natural order is enforced by Angels since it is from God. Are you sure you understand this topic very well?

He said nothing like what you have attributed to him. There was nothing at all threatening about what he said.

The fact is that Ballins only agrees with himself and his disagreement with Bro JR just goes to prove the point.

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.