Part of today's mass reading left out

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatevergirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whatevergirl

Guest
At mass tonight, during the first reading, the part that speaks of women being subordinate to their husbands…children listening to their parents, etc…was completely left out by our parish/lector. I have a 2008 Advent mass reading book…and so, I saw what was left out. (for the record–The mass readings are not available in our missalettes found in the pews)

Did your parish do the same today? If so–what can we make of that? I don’t understand why a reading in my mass book wasn’t read to completion during mass?

Your insight is appreciated…in advance.
 
This happened, too, at our parish, but apparently that part was optional - according to our missalettes.

What good are missalettes if they don’t have the readings in them??
 
In my St. Joseph’s Missal, the Feast of the Holy Family (Year B) were the following:

Genesis 15:1-6 (Sarah boring Abraham a son)
Hebrews 11:8, 11-12, 17-19
St. Luke 2:22-40

It also says those readings are optional (except for Gospel) and year A readings may be used in place of those which would have been:

Sirach 3:2-7 (Duties toward parents)
Col 3:12-21 (Wifes subordinate to husbands)

I hope this answers your question!
 
Those readings were optional and there was a long and a short version of the Gospel too. Our parish used the longer version of the Gospel at the last mass of the morning, because there were no people waiting for the next mass. We did use those readings, but our missalette had them organized in a very obvious manner so that you could see the options.

I guess it depends on the publisher. Some publishers are more organized than others. I’ve been to places with missalettes that I can’t follow.

JR 🙂
 
Thanks for the quick replies. I wonder if it was intentional…because of the subordination passage relating to how wives should view their husbands/marriages. I think it would have been appropriate to include that, and have the priest to share his insight on that. I find that while I adore the priest who runs this parish, his homilies are on the “light” side. Priests should dare(?) to discuss these passages, and explain them…instead of leaving parts out, and not addressing them. I mean, the words were written for a purpose to begin with, right? 🤷
 
That section was left out at my mass too, but in looking back, I don’t think it would have jived with the rest of the homily. It would have opened up a whole new can of worms, and the homily had enough content to it as it was.
 
Interesting thread . . . I was just talking about this tonight with someone. We slept in today and didn’t get up to make our usual Mass at our parish, so we went to a later Mass at another parish. The reading from Collosians was read and it was discussed in the homily. The priest did a great job with it too. I have read other writings on the subject online also and I now have a much better understanding of the passages.

Knowing that these passages were optional, I can guess with confidence that they were not likely read at our home parish. I guess the Holy Spirit was guiding us to sleep in so we could attend the other parish. 👍
 
Our family was on family life and family spirituality. The wife statement would have made no difference to the homily.

In homiletics there is a rule. You don’t preach on the readings in isolation. You tie them into the liturgy of the day. Today’s liturgy was on the Holy Family. It really wasn’t about the relationship between spouses. It would have been off topic to throw that into the mix today, unless you tie in the spouses to the family, which is what our preacher did. Then he tied the family to Christ as its centre.

JR 🙂
 
Derwin_James said:
That section was left out at my mass too, but in looking back, I don’t think it would have jived with the rest of the homily. It would have opened up a whole new can of worms, and the homily had enough content to it as it was.
Click to expand...
I agree…our priest’s homily was very good, it usually is ‘good.’ I don’t think that passages should be left out though…even if the priest doesn’t address it during that mass, it shouldn’t be cut. It struck me as ironic (in our seemingly radical feminist culture) that that part was cut out. :o Realistically, women being ‘subordinate or submissive’ to their husbands has a deeper meaning than meets the eye, and I think that a priest teaching about sacrificing in a marriage would have been a good thing. Just my two cents.
 
JReducation said:
Our family was on family life and family spirituality. The wife statement would have made no difference to the homily.

In homiletics there is a rule. You don’t preach on the readings in isolation. You tie them into the liturgy of the day. Today’s liturgy was on the Holy Family. It really wasn’t about the relationship between spouses. It would have been off topic to throw that into the mix today, unless you tie in the spouses to the family, which is what our preacher did. Then he tied the family to Christ as its centre.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
isn’t the wife and husband the ‘heads’ of the family…? The husband the spiritual leader? See, that’s the problem I see here…is that it seems ‘easier’ to just leave it out, and not address the whole topic of spiritual leadership in the home. Just my two cents…AGAIN. 😛 😉
 
OOPS…I replied to you JR, too quickly…I see you mention that your priest tied that in…the wife and husband being the central part of family. I jumped the gun, sorry. :manvspc:
 
whatevergirl said:
isn’t the wife and husband the ‘heads’ of the family…? The husband the spiritual leader? See, that’s the problem I see here…is that it seems ‘easier’ to just leave it out, and not address the whole topic of spiritual leadership in the home. Just my two cents…AGAIN. 😛 😉
Click to expand...
The wife and the husband are at the head of the family, but they are also a sacrament. That’s the focus that our priest preached on. Married couples are not just couples, they are a walking sacrament. He went on to explain how so and how that sacrament is a way through which life and grace enter into the family.

The question about the husband being the spiritual head of a family cannot be extrapolated from Peter’s letter. In the Jewish construct of family, the mother is the keeper and transmitter of the faith and the father is the protector. These anthropologic images come through very clearly in the relationship that Joseph and Mary have with Jesus. Joseph is always the protector. Mary is the woman of faith.

The Jews did not have the same demarcations that Christians of the 21st century have. Peter is writing from a Jewish anthropology and Christian ecclesiology. He’s trying to preserve the Jewish construct and introduce the scacrament of marriage as the the sign and symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. There are layers in Peter’s writing.

This is almost too much to get into a seven-minute homily that should be on the Holy Family.

But I agree with you that it is a very interesting subject. 👍

JR 🙂
 
uwwhitewater84 said:
In my St. Joseph’s Missal, the Feast of the Holy Family (Year B) were the following:

Genesis 15:1-6 (Sarah boring Abraham a son)
Hebrews 11:8, 11-12, 17-19
St. Luke 2:22-40

It also says those readings are optional (except for Gospel) and year A readings may be used in place of those which would have been:

Sirach 3:2-7 (Duties toward parents)
Col 3:12-21 (Wifes subordinate to husbands)

I hope this answers your question!
Click to expand...
That would explain why I was confused today! Thanks! 🙂
 
I also use the St Joseph’s Missal at Mass.

I was all prepared to hear Year B readings, but Year A was used for the first 2 readings. AND that part about the wives being summisive was also not read. I showed it to my husband.

THEN, the priest read the gospel from YEAR B. So, I was all kinds of confused today. I didn’t know it was optional to use Year A instead of Year B.
 
I wonder if part of the problem is that some of the publishers of missals have not caught up with changes in the liturgical calendar. I don’t own a St. Joseph missal, so I can’t say unless I see it.

But there have been some changes in the liturgical calendar. For example, today I ran into someone on CA who said that Christmas was an eight-day holiday. He was looking at his missal which is several years old. But the liturgical calendar extends Christmas to the Feast of the Presentation.

The feast of the Holy Family was outside of the Season of Christmas and has been moved for several years now, but the missals may not have caught up that the Christmas liturgies have more flexibility. My breviary has the Epiphany on January 6. But that’s not when we celibrate it in the USA. My Ordo for the Liturgy of the Hours is out of sync with the US liturgical calendar.

There can be several reasons why there was confusion today, along with badly printed missalettes.

JR 🙂
 
It seems like I have seen a topic about this same reading before, and it was determined that that verse is one of those that may be omitted. But I really have no evidence at hand
 
SenorSalsa said:
It seems like I have seen a topic about this same reading before, and it was determined that that verse is one of those that may be omitted. But I really have no evidence at hand
Click to expand...
I don’t remember seeing in our missalette that you could omit the verse. Maye you can. What I saw was that you could use Year A or Year B. We just went with the reading of the day.

I have seen where you can omit this verse at wedding masses and wedding ceremonies. That’s in the Lectionary.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I wonder if part of the problem is that some of the publishers of missals have not caught up with changes in the liturgical calendar. I don’t own a St. Joseph missal, so I can’t say unless I see it.

But there have been some changes in the liturgical calendar. For example, today I ran into someone on CA who said that Christmas was an eight-day holiday. He was looking at his missal which is several years old. But the liturgical calendar extends Christmas to the Feast of the Presentation.

The feast of the Holy Family was outside of the Season of Christmas and has been moved for several years now, but the missals may not have caught up that the Christmas liturgies have more flexibility. My breviary has the Epiphany on January 6. But that’s not when we celibrate it in the USA. My Ordo for the Liturgy of the Hours is out of sync with the US liturgical calendar.

There can be several reasons why there was confusion today, along with badly printed missalettes.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
No, it’s not that the Missal hasn’t caught up, it’s that we had a choice of readings today and with that reading from Paul we had the option of the long or short version.

I hate that Epiphany in Canada is not celebrated on the day, but on the first Sunday after Jan. 1.

The Christmas season ends with the Baptism of the Lord (officially January 13 but now celebrated on the Sunday - or Monday - after Epiphany) and has since 1960 when it was added to the calendar.
 
As has been stated, the reading from Colossians has a short and a long form. The long form includes verses about wives submitting to their husbands and husbands loving their wives and not treating them harshly.

Col 3:18 reads “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” I’m curious if that verse is outdated nowadays. Is it no longer fitting in the Lord for a wife to be subject to her husband? If so, I’d like to know how soon Col 3:19 will be outdated (the one which requires husbands to love their wives) so I can start mistreating my wife. :rolleyes:
 
For feast of the Holy Family, Sun. Dec. 28 this year, there were two options for the first and second readings, feast and year B Sunday, Gospel was the same for both options (presentation of our Lord in the temple and testimony of Simeon and Anna). Some of the readings had brackets, indicated a shortened form was optional as well. some missalettes show all options, some do not, so if you noticed a disparity, that was why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top