The go-to program to fight cultural degeneracy. Stop teaching kids to be gay. Hosted by @JendersII
Joined September 2022
- Tweets634
- Following672
- Followers1.4K
- Likes547
Red Top Report retweeted
Will, you are wrong. Here's why:
You’re treating preference as if it were a separate source of law. It isn’t. It’s what remains when a household matter admits more than one lawful course and someone has to impose one. That someone is the husband.
The question is not whether she likes the course. No one can command an interior liking. The question is exterior: when a real alternative in the home must be settled, and neither course is against the law of God, may she refuse the act because she would have chosen the other? No. Her disagreement does not cancel a precept that belongs to his office.
Aquinas is clear that inferiors are not the ordinary judges of a superior’s command, and that after the Fall she may have to obey even against her own will. Headship itself is prelapsarian. What the Fall adds is the burden, not the office.
Trent already states the scope: she is to yield in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, with a willing and ready obedience. “Willing and ready” is the mode. “Not inconsistent with Christian piety” is the limit on the object. Piety is not a synonym for “only the uniquely correct prudential option,” and it is not a wife’s power to reclassify a decision as “mere preference” and walk away.
Pius XI does not repeal that. He specifies it. “Not every wish” excludes caprice and commands with no domestic object. Companion, not servant, and not a minor, exclude child-rule and servant-status. None of those clauses create a veto over a lawful household fork. If two houses, two budgets, two residences, or two legitimate ways of ordering the home are in play, settling the fork is government.
That the husband also prefers one of the options does not empty the precept. That she prefers the other does not empty his office.That is why your graphic does not hold. Once a lawful household choice exists, you already admit he may bind her when she would have chosen otherwise. Calling that “prudence” rather than “preference” does not change the exterior obligation. The act binds because he settled a matter of the home, not because the option was uniquely rational and empty of preference. In the cases that actually constitute headship, “Error A” and “Catholic teaching” name the same thing: his decision binds unless it is against the law of God.
The supposed third box only survives if you treat as the test case a wish with no household object. That is not the definition of marital authority. It is an edge example used to make a real last word look like a blank cheque.
Therefore, on the object of the office—the government of the home—the distinction is without a difference.
No, it's not a distinction without a difference.
You've defined the conclusion into the premise.
“Male headship over preference and prudence is in accord with right reason and the dignity due to a wife” only if this preference is an act of prudence.
That's the whole question.
Prudence is right reason about what to do.
A husband’s office is to judge the common good, NOT define every preference as prudence merely by holding the office.
“She was made to be a subject companion” cuts both ways. Companion blocks Error A. Leo XIII and Pius XI use it against treating her as a servant.
A subject companion is under a head in the governance of the home, but she isn't raw material for his preferences. “Subject” doesn't mean “whatever he prefers is fitting.” And “companion” doesn't mean “she decides whether his judgment counts.”
If Error A and the Catholic position were the same, Casti Connubii §27 would indeed be padding. Pius XI wouldn't have bothered to say that subjection doesn't bid her obey every request out of harmony with right reason or the dignity due to a wife and doesn't put her on the level of a minor.
Again, the examples:
“We cannot afford that purchase this month” is headship as prudence.
“Call me master and kiss my shoes when I enter” is headship as preference.
Both can be non-sinful, but only the former is a fitting direction of a companion toward the common good.
If those two commands are the same kind of thing, then “right reason” and “dignity” mean nothing except “he said it.”
The difference is real:
Error A: the fact that he prefers it, and it's not a sin, makes it binding.
Catholic teaching: he may bind her in his proper sphere when the command is a prudent act of governance, but mere preference isn't that act.
Because she is a subject companion, she obeys a real head AND isn't bound by servitude.
Red Top Report retweeted
This is a great technical response from one of my friends to another, on the superlatively important patriarchy issue
Will, you are wrong. Here's why:
You’re treating preference as if it were a separate source of law. It isn’t. It’s what remains when a household matter admits more than one lawful course and someone has to impose one. That someone is the husband.
The question is not whether she likes the course. No one can command an interior liking. The question is exterior: when a real alternative in the home must be settled, and neither course is against the law of God, may she refuse the act because she would have chosen the other? No. Her disagreement does not cancel a precept that belongs to his office.
Aquinas is clear that inferiors are not the ordinary judges of a superior’s command, and that after the Fall she may have to obey even against her own will. Headship itself is prelapsarian. What the Fall adds is the burden, not the office.
Trent already states the scope: she is to yield in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, with a willing and ready obedience. “Willing and ready” is the mode. “Not inconsistent with Christian piety” is the limit on the object. Piety is not a synonym for “only the uniquely correct prudential option,” and it is not a wife’s power to reclassify a decision as “mere preference” and walk away.
Pius XI does not repeal that. He specifies it. “Not every wish” excludes caprice and commands with no domestic object. Companion, not servant, and not a minor, exclude child-rule and servant-status. None of those clauses create a veto over a lawful household fork. If two houses, two budgets, two residences, or two legitimate ways of ordering the home are in play, settling the fork is government.
That the husband also prefers one of the options does not empty the precept. That she prefers the other does not empty his office.That is why your graphic does not hold. Once a lawful household choice exists, you already admit he may bind her when she would have chosen otherwise. Calling that “prudence” rather than “preference” does not change the exterior obligation. The act binds because he settled a matter of the home, not because the option was uniquely rational and empty of preference. In the cases that actually constitute headship, “Error A” and “Catholic teaching” name the same thing: his decision binds unless it is against the law of God.
The supposed third box only survives if you treat as the test case a wish with no household object. That is not the definition of marital authority. It is an edge example used to make a real last word look like a blank cheque.
Therefore, on the object of the office—the government of the home—the distinction is without a difference.
Red Top Report retweeted
WATCH:
@JendersII and @goldpilledshow react to the almost impossibly naive decision to drop violent African migrants into the heart of Belfast, given the city's historical volatility only 30 years ago.
"Straight out of a dark age edit."
Red Top Report retweeted
WATCH
Joe Enders (@jendersii) shows how Catholic philosophy integrated the civilizing wisdom of Plato and Aristotle into the foundation of European greatness.
We look at the intellectual contributions of Augustine & Aquinas to reveal the bedrock of White identity.
Red Top Report retweeted
Trump's pissed at Bibi. So why are we still bombing Iran? (with @JendersII of Red Top Report)
Red Top Report retweeted
This is a great depiction of Genesis 3:15.
A lot of protestants complain about us Catholics using "she" when we discuss the crushing of the snake's head, because it says "He (Jesus) will."
But Catholics use "she" correctly, and it is because through Mary's "yes" the serpent's fate is sealed.
In this image you see Jesus AND Mary doing it together, and this is precisely what the Bible communicates.
The seed of the woman will crush the head. He applies the force, and She, in her boundless humility, allows Him to.
The New Adam (Jesus), and the New Eve (Mary) together smash the same serpent who cast humanity into darkness at the beginning of creation.
Such a beautiful piece of art.
Red Top Report retweeted
Command Co-founder Joe Enders (@jendersII) is torching the feminized expression of the gospel.
In a Wednesday tweet, he reminded Catholics of what is missing from the Catholic pulpits.
It comes shortly after Pope Leo's strong condemnation of those using God to justify sin.
Red Top Report retweeted
READ THIS IN IT'S ENTIRETY!
DAILY WIRE IS CLAIMING CAN CATHOLICS CAN BELIEVE IN HERESY!
Red Top Report retweeted
I am officially, in unison with the entire @CommandMediaTV team, calling on @MattWalshBlog and @michaeljknowles to condemn the heretical claim in this DW article.
It claims God upholds an enduring covenant (referring to the Old) with the Jews, referring to them as God's chosen.
Red Top Report retweeted
I'm really just a Wholsome Chungus @counseloftrent.
I promise.
"Mean" vs. "Nice" Christians--which one are you?
Responding to @Trent_Horn going after Tim, @JendersII , @NickJFuentes, @paleochristcon, and @jaydyer
xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1vAxRQQjg…
Red Top Report retweeted
We can never stop fighting for Jesus Christ and his Church.
Out identity, purpose, and well-being are inextricably tied to it. This cannot be separated from American identity.
Never forget WHO WE ARE.
Red Top Report retweeted
My Venezuela Thread:
I am taking the middle road on this attack, as I feel it's a basic geopolitical victory if it's not followed by further action.
1. It was REALLY COOL to flex on our enemies abroad by capturing Maduro at his own house ALIVE. Undeniable American aura.
Red Top Report retweeted
Both @timotheeology and I debating @pearlythingz on whether married men should be getting divorces, and how to keep marriages together.
Red Top Report retweeted
Female enfranchisement is wrong in principle, not just in practice. Joe breaks it down.