My gripe...

[vz71]

I am glad the CA Forums are back.
I wished they were there a couple of weeks ago. But the incident still stuck in my craw and I figured I would write it out and see if I am the only one that feels this way…

During the Mass on August 27th, we had the following readings…
First Reading:Joshua 24:1-2, 15-18
Psalmsalm 34:2-3, 16-21
Second Reading:Ephesians 5:21-32 or 5:2, 25-32
Gospel:John 6:60-69
I have always liked the 6th chapter of John. Particularly the last few verses when Christ turns to his disciples and asks if they are going to leave too. I can picture the scene, people griping about what was said, people complaining about the teaching, and the disciples themselves having problems with what has been told. Then Christ looks at them.
Do you have a problem with this?
Are you going to leave too???

God doesn’t mince words.
If you have a problem with God’s words, tough. God is not going to change to suit you. You had better change for God.

So it was with a sense of great irony that in the same Mass in which this particular Gospel reading is read that we also find Paul’s letter to the Ephesians chopped and mangled.
I have seen other instances of readings being shortened, but this cannot be the case. Not only were four verses cut, but half (yes, only half) of another verse was inserted in.
The second reading was mutilated.
The feeling amplified even more given the Gospel we listened to shortly thereafter.
God doesn’t mince words, but apparently the American Bishops do.

Am I wrong here?
Is my feeling that the reading was mutilated and distorted off base?
Am I alone in feeling the need to retch at what I believe is a gross distortion of what was written?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I am glad the CA Forums are back.
I wished they were there a couple of weeks ago. But the incident still stuck in my craw and I figured I would write it out and see if I am the only one that feels this way…

During the Mass on August 27th, we had the following readings…
First Reading:Joshua 24:1-2, 15-18
Psalmsalm 34:2-3, 16-21
Second Reading:Ephesians 5:21-32 or 5:2, 25-32
Gospel:John 6:60-69
I have always liked the 6th chapter of John. Particularly the last few verses when Christ turns to his disciples and asks if they are going to leave too. I can picture the scene, people griping about what was said, people complaining about the teaching, and the disciples themselves having problems with what has been told. Then Christ looks at them.
Do you have a problem with this?
Are you going to leave too???

God doesn’t mince words.
If you have a problem with God’s words, tough. God is not going to change to suit you. You had better change for God.

So it was with a sense of great irony that in the same Mass in which this particular Gospel reading is read that we also find Paul’s letter to the Ephesians chopped and mangled.
I have seen other instances of readings being shortened, but this cannot be the case. Not only were four verses cut, but half (yes, only half) of another verse was inserted in.
The second reading was mutilated.
The feeling amplified even more given the Gospel we listened to shortly thereafter.
God doesn’t mince words, but apparently the American Bishops do.

Am I wrong here?
Is my feeling that the reading was mutilated and distorted off base?
Am I alone in feeling the need to retch at what I believe is a gross distortion of what was written?

I hear you there. I cant stand why they give the “include bracketed text ]” as an option in the readings. When the text in ] is left out the reading becomes very hard to follow if not nonesense. In your specific case I think it was when Paul said in the Eph5 quote “wives submit to your husbands” that some liberals found “uncomfortable”
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

 

[vz71]

I hear you there. I cant stand why they give the “include bracketed text ]” as an option in the readings. When the text in ] is left out the reading becomes very hard to follow if not nonesense. In your specific case I think it was when Paul said in the Eph5 quote “wives submit to your husbands” that some liberals found "uncomfortable"22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Agreed.
My big problem is that without the context, meaning is lost.
And in this instance, the meaning of the entire passage is changed to suit the whim of those that do not want to stomach the meaning.

A magnificent juxtaposition with the gospel reading.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Agreed.
My big problem is that without the context, meaning is lost.
And in this instance, the meaning of the entire passage is changed to suit the whim of those that do not want to stomach the meaning.

A magnificent juxtaposition with the gospel reading.

I agree with you! All three readings (with the omitted part) were about obedience to God. They go together well and make sense. Without that part they just become three separate readings, the unity is lost. The second becoming only about how Christ loves the Church. We are called to be obedient to God even if we don’t fully understand.

I spoke to Father after Mass and told him I was disappointed that the first part of the second reading was omitted. He said, "What was the second reading’? . He agreed with me that it shouldn’t have been omitted. When I asked him why he didn’t speak about those verses (he focused on the Eucharist) he said that he wanted to “feel out” the parish before he got into the "heavy " teaching (he’s been ordained just over a year and is new to our parish since August).

I know our liturgy coordinator/music director usually gets to read the homily or at least gets a hint of what the homily will be about so she can plan the music etc. Maybe since she knew Father wasn’t going to focus on those verses she told the lector to omit them.

 

[Sabda]

Hi,

I remember those readings. In our parish the complete reading was read. I can see how it would mess with the reading to leave part of it out. Why they do it that way I have no idea. Any one have an idea why it’s done that way? Rest assured that not all parish’s are chopping the readings up.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

After years of being in parishes where the second option for the reading was the norm, I was delighted to find that in my current parish the FIRST option was used! And the world did NOT come to an end, and all the husbands in the congregation did NOT thump their chests, and none of the women rolled their eyes, got up and left in a huff, or complained.

You ‘feminists’ of a certain agenda, take note. . .men are NOT the enemy and women are NOT the victims in a ‘patriarchical, male-dominated, women-hating church’.

Rather, if this passage is read in full, men and women are called to be (if married) loving partners, with distinct roles which have nothing to do with human ‘power’ but everything to do with humble service to each other and to the Lord.

 

[Manfred]

Hi,

I remember those readings. In our parish the complete reading was read. I can see how it would mess with the reading to leave part of it out. Why they do it that way I have no idea. Any one have an idea why it’s done that way? Rest assured that not all parish’s are chopping the readings up.

Simple, really. The AMERICAN bishops think it is “pastorally effective” to omit them, since, then the homilist doesn’t have to venture into the topic of husbands and wives deferring to one another.

The gripe in this thread is perfectly legitimate; thanks for raising it! My parish also took the “pastorally effective” route.

 

[vz71]

The gripe in this thread is perfectly legitimate; thanks for raising it! My parish also took the “pastorally effective” route.

Pastorally ineffective is a better term for it.

I am writing to my pastor to let him know how I feel.
I have let a few weeks slide to allow time for my emotions to cool down. Perhaps something can be done…

 

[lak611]

I have found that the epistles in general tend to be too short, even when read in their entirety, especially any of the Pauline epistles (which the majority are). 2 or 3 verses from Romans does not really provide any context. I usually go back to my Bible and read the entire chapter of the epistle so I can understand the context of it, especially since the priest usually gives his homily based on the 1st reading (usually Old Testament) and the Gospel and ignores the epistle completely.

 

[Lrning]

I was pleasantly surprised this year that the long version of the second reading was done. And the deacon hit the topic head on in his homily. He provided some great background knowledge about the Ephesians to whom Paul was writing. It’s a reading I’ve always struggled with, but made a lot more sense after hearing his homily. It’s time for all pastors to realize that nothing good can come out of sticking your head in the sand. Hearing these tough lessons can make us better Catholics and bring us closer to God.