Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord

[ChristIsTheWay]

I say move back a verse where it says for spouses to “submit to one another”, basically there is a submission 100 percent form both spouses, not a one way street.

That is what some people ignore. Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:21 that we to submit to one another, not just wife to husband. He then goes on to describe his idea in more detail, but the command remains none-the-less.

 

[Cathryn]

Yes, that is the modern definition and context of the English word. However, Paul didn’t write this in modern English, with our contexts in mind. I think much can be said of trying to understand this in the ancient language and contexts in which it was written. I still don’t think you’ve made your case that wives are of a secondary rank. My reading of Scripture tells me that we are supposed to submit to another, as we do to Christ. Paul stated this in Ephesians. I could be wrong. I believe only the Church has the authority to definitely state what Scripture teaches.

Pope John Paul II clarifies this relationship of husbands and wives in his teachings on Theology of the Body.

 

[Cathryn]

I say move back a verse where it says for spouses to “submit to one another”, basically there is a submission 100 percent form both spouses, not a one way street.

The verse before is not talking about spouses in marriage.

Be Imitators of God
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light 9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. 14 For this reason it says,
“Awake, sleeper,
And arise from the dead,
And Christ will shine on you.”
**15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil. 17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. **

Marriage Like Christ and the Church

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

---

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Pope John Paul II clarifies this relationship of husbands and wives in his teachings on Theology of the Body.

Can you give me some specific references? Where can I find this teaching about the secondary rank of wives in Theology of the Body? Does he specifically state what you have told us here? That only wives must submit and they are of a secondary rank?

Cathryn:

The verse before is not talking about spouses in marriage.

That’s right, it is talking about everyone. And it never says getting married changes it.

 

[Cathryn]

The word subordinate means a rank below. St. Paul teaches that marriage does change the common relationships we have each other as Christians. Theology of the Body which is John Paul II teachings, teaches that marriage also changes the relationship we have to our spouse. The husband is the head as Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. I suppose you are saying that the head and the body have the same rank, but that is not true. Marriage needs a head, as the Church needs a head. Spouses are equal in human dignity. Husband and wives are equal in human dignity and become One. The husband is not Christ himself, but he represents Christ in the marriage. The two become One as Christ becomes One with his Church. EWTN has a wonderful series on Theology of the Body. I can recommend and refer you to this series if you would like to examine it. I also believe there are books that have explored John Paul II’s teachings on this matter.

 

[Cathryn]

There is also the teachings of Archbishop Fulton Sheen that gives Church teachings in a very orthodox manner. He was the national director of the Society For the Propagation of the Faith. He has the book, Three To Get Married which is available usually on Amazon.com.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I know what the word subordinate means. Can you give the Greek word that Paul used? While it might very translate as “subordinate,” I know enough about foreign languages to know that does not mean it is an exact match for our English word. That is what I am trying to say.

Thank for the suggested information, I will examine this issue carefully.

I suppose you are saying that the head and the body have the same rank, but that is not true.

Depends on what you mean. St. Paul obviously does not mean that the husband’s status is exactly like Christ’s and the wife’s status is exactly like that of the Church. I think what he meant was the headship of the husband should be one that loves his wife with the self-sacrificing love of Christ.

And I never said husband and wife were equal in all regards. I disagree with your idea that only the wife is to submit and her rank is secondary. As for mere human beings and our relationships, without a body, the head is nothing.

 

[Manfred]

The first “we” means all of us. The second “we” means those of us (bishops, priests, deacons, liturgists, lectors, etc) who have a hand in planning Masses. This second “we” is the group that does the most damage when it decides to “tinker” with the liturgy and carve it to their collective liking.

I was a lector at the 12:30 PM Mass in my parish Sunday and was told before Mass began to “use the shorter reading”. My wife had attended the 4:00 PM on Saturday and also got the shorter reading. The lector has no say. Bishops, priests, and deacons shouldn’t have any say, in that the option of a shorter, politically-pleasing reading shouldn’t even be allowed.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I need to get this off my chest: one Christmas, I had rehearsed the readings for the “Mass During the Day” (the one whose 2nd Reading is from Hebrews 1, and whose Gospel is John 1:1-18), but was over-ridden by the priest who wanted to use the readings from the Mass at Midnight so he could read the Nativity account of Luke 2. Again, the option for the celebrant to use whatever combination of readings he likes should not be allowed!

 

[Manfred]

This is an interesting passage and there are several more passages in Scripture that are almost identical to it. Reading all these passages together gives me the impression of a mutual submission. We are all to love and submit to one another as we do Christ. I think Paul explains this rather well. Wives are to submit to their husbands as they would Christ. I think that means to love him and be loyal to him. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves us, by caring for them and sacrificing for them. I find that last part especially interesting. In the ancient world, marriage wasn’t really based on love. By calling on husbands to love their wives, I think that turned the misogyny of the ancient world upside down.

I am curious though, how does all this establish the wife as being of a lower rank?

The Adoremus Bulletin of November 2000 had an article entitled “Infelicities in the New Lectionary for Mass” by Father Ralph Wright, OSB, wherein this very thought on “subordination” is discussed. Chalk up yet another unfortunate day in the life of one who has to listen to the Word from the RNAB Lectionary. Here is the excerpt:

The word hypotassomai in Greek, which is here translated “be subordinate”, can be translated in numerous ways: “be subject”, “be submissive”, “be obedient”. In whatever way it is translated in our day, the language is going to need exegesis in the homily accompanying the Mass. After all, in the same breath, Paul has told husbands that they are to lay down their lives for their wives imitating the sacrificial self-giving agapé love that Jesus showed when He laid down His life for each one of us.

The word “subordinate” for me, and perhaps I am not alone, has all the overtones of army life and is about as unfortunate a translation as one could imagine while still being a version of the Greek. Inevitably, it brings to mind the whole notion of “insubordination”. With “obedience” we are brought back to the whole mystery of God’s great love for us; our disobedience and the wonderful obedience of Jesus through which we have been brought back into a listening mode before God.

My large but old Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon gives one word, “obey”, as the New Testament meaning of hypotassomai, which is the word in question. This has not been its normal translation. But with “being submissive”, “being subordinate” and “being subject” as the alternate options, I’d be for bringing “obedience” back and interpreting it as Paul clearly wants us to in the light of imitating Jesus’ obedience. This translation would lead naturally to the concept of mutual obedience. Whatever the translation used it has to be compatible with the husband’s loving his wife “as Christ has loved the Church”. You can have mutual “obedience” in a way in which you can never have mutual “subordination”.

 

[benedictgal]

I was a lector at the 12:30 PM Mass in my parish Sunday and was told before Mass began to “use the shorter reading”. My wife had attended the 4:00 PM on Saturday and also got the shorter reading. The lector has no say. Bishops, priests, and deacons shouldn’t have any say, in that the option of a shorter, politically-pleasing reading shouldn’t even be allowed.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I need to get this off my chest: one Christmas, I had rehearsed the readings for the “Mass During the Day” (the one whose 2nd Reading is from Hebrews 1, and whose Gospel is John 1:1-18), but was over-ridden by the priest who wanted to use the readings from the Mass at Midnight so he could read the Nativity account of Luke 2. Again, the option for the celebrant to use whatever combination of readings he likes should not be allowed!

I hear you. That’s why I am most grateful to the Lord that my PV was celebrating Mass when I went Sunday evening. I also seem to remember that the Mexican lectionary (from which we proclaim the readings for the Spanish Mass) did not have the option to shorten the reading (although OCP, in its infinite wisdom ) put the short form in its Spanish portion. Nonetheless, I went ahead and just read it straight through in Spanish.

I do think that way too much tinkering has cropped up in the Mass. The Epistle should not have been shortened. After all, it’s much shorter than even the shortest version of the Passion. It’s only about under 60 seconds longer than the shorter option. Furthermore, as I said earlier on in the thread, the latter portion of the Epistle really serves to unite the whole theme of the Feast of the Holy Family.

I wonder if the feminists would be wailing and gnashing their teeth regarding the psalm’s description of the wife being “like a fruitful vine in the recesses of the home.” In biblical times, to have a “fruitflu wife” was a blessing for the family.

 

[Manfred]

I wonder if the feminists would be wailing and gnashing their teeth regarding the psalm’s description of the wife being “like a fruitful vine in the recesses of the home.” In biblical times, to have a “fruitful wife” was a blessing for the family.

Wait a minute: you mean in your parish you actually used the Responsorial Psalm that harmonized with the Readings, instead of some lame “seasonal refrain” with which the people are more familiar?

 

[benedictgal]

Wait a minute: you mean in your parish you actually used the Responsorial Psalm that harmonized with the Readings, instead of some lame “seasonal refrain” with which the people are more familiar?

Yep, both the Cathedral and my parish used the Responsorial Psalm that was proper to the feast!

In fact, I was rather touched that the Cathedral’s organist used the Responsorial Psalm that I left behind. I never thought I would hear it again until he played the familiar notes and I belted it out with gusto. Oddly enough, it was written by our former organist at my former parish in Austin, and he’s Methodist. However, he did not change the wording to make it politically correct and was faithful to the text. In fact, it sounded rather Gregorian. From what I understand, our Cathedral organist still uses that Responsorial Psalm for weddings. Even though his English is limited, he likes it because the notes are not complicated and the text is faithful to what the Church currently uses.

 

[eric3141]

The reading given at the start of this thread mirrors the passage in Ephesians 5. There a husband is called to selflessly love his wife even to the point of death. The wife is called to submit to his authority. I looked-up the Greek word being transalated as ‘submit’ and it turns out that it means “obey” which is not really surprising when one considers that until about the 1970’s women took marriage vows that included the word “obey”. I got curious to see what the Church has always taught on this issue and found popes in the last century teaching on marriage and saying that wives must obey their husbands. And then I found quotes from and teachings from saints that said the same. The modern understanding of the wife’s role is that she does not have to obey her husband and that everything is made by joint decision. Nowhere is this found in the tradition of the Church. One poster above even said that decisions were to be made jointly but if a mistake is made then it’s mostly the man’s fault. (???).

My point is this: a cursory search of what the Church has always taught on this issue until the 1960’s or so will easily show that the Church (via Popes and saints alike) taught that wives must obey their husbands. In the last 40 years or so, however, there has been not a peep out of the Vatican about this.

I have no deep rooted fascination about whether women do or do not have to obey. What does concern me is that I am Catholic because the Catholic church claims that its doctrine does not change fundamentally though may be clarified over time. However, more and more I see that it has changed and I am considering leaving as a result. The stance on the role of wives is but one example. Before the 1960’s or 1970’s wives were to obey their husbands. Today the husband has no special authority – or at least the Vatican has been silent about this while priests and bishops go around saying that the husband has no special authority and everything is by joint decision.

This thread isn’t about annullments but that’s another example. My grandmother got married at age 17 because she was pregnant. It was a “shotgun” wedding of sorts. Had she later sought a divorce and asked for an annullment on those grounds it would not have been granted. I have been told by my own spiritual advisor (who is in all regards a faithful priest) that today it would be as it would be seen that her will was not “free”. Of course I think she was free to accept the consequences of her actions and incur shame if she did not want to get married but the Church doesn’t see it that way. My point: in the 1930’s getting married because you were pregnant did not invalidate a marriage. Today is does… yet the Church knowingly marries pregnant 17 years old even now… but if they later seek an annullment it will be granted because the marriage was invalid…

I have no “axe” to grind with the Church. I just see more and more that it now teaches something that it formerly taught something very different. If one is going to belong to a church that changes its teachings then there are others I’d prefer to be a member of.

 

[Manfred]

Yep, both the Cathedral and my parish used the Responsorial Psalm that was proper to the feast!

In fact, I was rather touched that the Cathedral’s organist used the Responsorial Psalm that I left behind. I never thought I would hear it again until he played the familiar notes and I belted it out with gusto. Oddly enough, it was written by our former organist at my former parish in Austin, and he’s Methodist. However, he did not change the wording to make it politically correct and was faithful to the text. In fact, it sounded rather Gregorian. From what I understand, our Cathedral organist still uses that Responsorial Psalm for weddings. Even though his English is limited, he likes it because the notes are not complicated and the text is faithful to what the Church currently uses.

How lucky can you get!

As I understand it, our music director alternates between use of the Responsorial Psalm and use of a seasonal refrain during Advent/Christmas, Lent/Easter. The “legacy” of her predecessor lives on.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

From the Epistle reading for this last Sunday:

Any thoughts?

I read Paul from a historical critical point of view. The household was the first bastion of Roman power in the empire. Households were typically in the Roman world, as well as certainly the Greek world, run by the male head. Women and slaves obeyed that male head.

We know that Paul’s letters were sent to quell problems that were being encountered in a particular church. Often, and as I understand it usually, converts to this new Chritianity were the women and slaves and freed workers for the household. If anyone didn’t convert, it typically was the male head of household.

Now these new converts took very seriously Paul’s statements that all were equal before God in this new Chritianity. There was no more male/female, slave/free, alien/citizen. All were of equal standing. When converts started to act equal, this not only disturbed the individual male in the household, but also the govt of Rome.

Paul’s apparent mysogynist language is, I would argue to be read as proscriptive rather than description. He was asking members to respect and follow the Roman practice of kyriocentric power within their household and within the Church. This was we think not the way Paul really felt, but was an attempt by him to forstall persecution of the Church by not upsetting the home setting.

Anyone who knows either Roman or Greek history knows that it was extremely paternalistic in its organizaiton. Greece, touted as the first real democracy did not of course extend any rights to women or slaves at all. They were not equals, and not invited to participate in govt. Thus the Christian movement,. with its special emphasis on equality of its members was quite threatening. We believe Paul recognized this threat and dealt with it in the fashion alluded to in scripture.

These texts have historically been difficult for women and other marginalized persons for good reason. They seem to suggest that Paul was carrying on the long tradition of domination so well known in Rome and the outlying regions. The questioni is was Paul justified in this or did he compromise Chrisitian principles for a good end? I’m not sure we will ever know.

I believe completely that Jesus’ message was and is one of equality for all.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The reading given at the start of this thread mirrors the passage in Ephesians 5. There a husband is called to selflessly love his wife even to the point of death. The wife is called to submit to his authority. I looked-up the Greek word being transalated as ‘submit’ and it turns out that it means “obey” which is not really surprising when one considers that until about the 1970’s women took marriage vows that included the word “obey”. I got curious to see what the Church has always taught on this issue and found popes in the last century teaching on marriage and saying that wives must obey their husbands. And then I found quotes from and teachings from saints that said the same. The modern understanding of the wife’s role is that she does not have to obey her husband and that everything is made by joint decision. Nowhere is this found in the tradition of the Church. One poster above even said that decisions were to be made jointly but if a mistake is made then it’s mostly the man’s fault. (???).

My point is this: a cursory search of what the Church has always taught on this issue until the 1960’s or so will easily show that the Church (via Popes and saints alike) taught that wives must obey their husbands. In the last 40 years or so, however, there has been not a peep out of the Vatican about this.

I have no deep rooted fascination about whether women do or do not have to obey. What does concern me is that I am Catholic because the Catholic church claims that its doctrine does not change fundamentally though may be clarified over time. However, more and more I see that it has changed and I am considering leaving as a result. The stance on the role of wives is but one example. Before the 1960’s or 1970’s wives were to obey their husbands. Today the husband has no special authority – or at least the Vatican has been silent about this while priests and bishops go around saying that the husband has no special authority and everything is by joint decision.

This thread isn’t about annullments but that’s another example. My grandmother got married at age 17 because she was pregnant. It was a “shotgun” wedding of sorts. Had she later sought a divorce and asked for an annullment on those grounds it would not have been granted. I have been told by my own spiritual advisor (who is in all regards a faithful priest) that today it would be as it would be seen that her will was not “free”. Of course I think she was free to accept the consequences of her actions and incur shame if she did not want to get married but the Church doesn’t see it that way. My point: in the 1930’s getting married because you were pregnant did not invalidate a marriage. Today is does… yet the Church knowingly marries pregnant 17 years old even now… but if they later seek an annullment it will be granted because the marriage was invalid…

I have no “axe” to grind with the Church. I just see more and more that it now teaches something that it formerly taught something very different. If one is going to belong to a church that changes its teachings then there are others I’d prefer to be a member of.

I would hope you would conclude that over time we do come to a fuller understanding of God’s will and thus the Church adjusts to claim that will. Of course the Holy Spirit I believe insures that the Church does not fundamentally err, but of course, It may well use people to accomplish that correction and it may take some time.