Part of today's mass reading left out

[whatevergirl]

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 I’m curious if that verse is outdated nowadays.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 If so, I’d like to know how soon Col 3:19 will be outdated (the one which requires husbands to love their wives) so I can start mistreating my wife.

See, this is where it would have been a good idea for our priest to bring this up, because it doesn’t mean that wives are ‘under’ their husbands…or beneath them…or whatever. It really serves to show that marriage is sacrificial, and that the wife should defer to her husband and not compete with him. Same holds true for men to respect and love their wives. Let’s face it, if a woman’s husband refuses to work, mistreats her and the kids, is never home…etc…it would stand to reason that that wife shouldn’t defer to her husband, because he is not living as the leader of the home. I think it’s a passage that is designed to be a two way street, really. One can’t exist without the other–women are to be submissive to their husbands, but the husbands have a responsibility to love their wives, as Christ loved the Church.

Just my two cents.

 

[japhy]

See, this is where it would have been a good idea for our priest to bring this up, because it doesn’t mean that wives are ‘under’ their husbands…or beneath them…or whatever.

In my parish, we did hear the complete reading, and the priest explained that the Greek word used for the relation of a wife to her husband is NOT the same as the Greek word used a couple of verses later to describe the relationship of a slave to his master.

And of course, Col 3:18-19 needs to be read in the context of Eph 5:21-33, where Paul explains how the relationship of one husband to one wife must be rooted in the relationship of Christ to his Church. 1 Peter 3:1-7 is helpful in this regard as well.

It really serves to show that marriage is sacrificial, and that the wife should defer to her husband and not compete with him. Same holds true for men to respect and love their wives.

See, if people would only read Scripture and not condemn it as old-fashioned and the product of a different time that doesn’t (and can’t!) apply to today, they might come to the same conclusion as you.

I think it’s a passage that is designed to be a two way street, really. One can’t exist without the other–women are to be submissive to their husbands, but the husbands have a responsibility to love their wives, as Christ loved the Church.

Because Christ does what is best for his Church, and the Church would do well to pay heed to him; a husband should behave likewise to his wife, which would make the wife’s submission an honor rather than a burden.

 

[whatevergirl]

In my parish, we did hear the complete reading, and the priest explained that the Greek word used for the relation of a wife to her husband is NOT the same as the Greek word used a couple of verses later to describe the relationship of a slave to his master.

And of course, Col 3:18-19 needs to be read in the context of Eph 5:21-33, where Paul explains how the relationship of one husband to one wife must be rooted in the relationship of Christ to his Church. 1 Peter 3:1-7 is helpful in this regard as well.

See, if people would only read Scripture and not condemn it as old-fashioned and the product of a different time that doesn’t (and can’t!) apply to today, they might come to the same conclusion as you.

Because Christ does what is best for his Church, and the Church would do well to pay heed to him; a husband should behave likewise to his wife, which would make the wife’s submission an honor rather than a burden.

You should email your priest, and see if he will add this to his homily this Sunday. Yes? No?

Needless to say, I agree with your post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Even though the “short form” is a licit option, omitting the last paragraph, I can’t help but wonder what direction we’re going when we so casually omit parts of Sacred Scripture which don’t appeal on the surface to modern sensibilities. I think it’s a slippery slope that we are descending when decide that our priorities, and our way of looking at the world is given precedence over the Word of God. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? If Christ had avoided saying anything that might have contradicted the conventions of His own time, would we even have Christianity?

 

[whatevergirl]

Even though the “short form” is a licit option, omitting the last paragraph, I can’t help but wonder what direction we’re going when we so casually omit parts of Sacred Scripture which don’t appeal on the surface to modern sensibilities. I think it’s a slippery slope that we are descending when decide that our priorities, and our way of looking at the world is given precedence over the Word of God. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? If Christ had avoided saying anything that might have contradicted the conventions of His own time, would we even have Christianity?

Yes Father, I so agree with you. That’s what I’m trying to say. Also, in my parish, there are no kneelers. Where are we going with all of this ‘omission’ of ritual, and Scripture? It is more than ironic that such a passage was left out…The Catholic Church has stood tall and strong for centuries, not by bending to modern opinion.

 

[James0235]

Even though the “short form” is a licit option, omitting the last paragraph, I can’t help but wonder what direction we’re going when we so casually omit parts of Sacred Scripture which don’t appeal on the surface to modern sensibilities. I think it’s a slippery slope that we are descending when decide that our priorities, and our way of looking at the world is given precedence over the Word of God. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? If Christ had avoided saying anything that might have contradicted the conventions of His own time, would we even have Christianity?

Well said, Father. :clapping:

James

 

[JReducation]

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.

The same rule is followed in the USA.

JR

 

[RitaM]

They cut the reading at my parish, too, but father gave a homily about good family relationships which included the whole text, including the duties of wives, husbands, parents, children, and siblings.