"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands...'' this was left out at mass today, thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatevergirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am new to this forum but have been an avid reader for some time. Thank you for letting me be part of this.

In my opinion, leaving out the long version takes away from how we are to serve each other. It has often been said that marriage is 50/50 yet this reading tells us it is really 100/100. The wife is to give 100 percent and the husband is to do the same. The entire theme for Sunday scripture readings was about choosing and what God expects of us. Joshua was very clear - he and his house would serve the Lord. In Ephesians, St. Paul tells us to serve and he uses a great example of service as it equates to love. Wives are to serve their husbands. He tell husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church - gulp!! - big shoes to even try to fill! I often think we jump right to “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands…” and glaze over the Eph 5:21 - Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ… I think we should ponder this first.

Finally Jesus tells us about choices in the Gospel. When some hear about eating His body and drinking His blood, it is too much for them. Christ asks His disciples what they think and Simon Peter is clear about the choice they have made - they chose Him. We are to chose Him and to serve. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD!

Peace in Christ Jesus.
 
whatevergirl said:
*At our parish (and I remember last year at a different parish the same thing happening) the second ‘version’ leaving out the part about wives submitting to their husbands, was read today. Any thoughts as to why the ‘complete’ reading was not read from Ephesians, today? :confused: Why for the past two years, have I not heard the full reading, the part about wives’ responsibilities also? *

Reading II
Eph 5:21-32 or 5:2a, 25-32

Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

or

Brothers and sisters:
Live in love, as Christ loved us.
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
Click to expand...
I’d put my money on strident feminists in your parish. Some members in the parish council seem to think that they can mangle the liturgy as they please and the priest is either outnumbered or too liberal. It has happened in the parish close to my home which has caused me to go to another parish.

And before someone labels me a male chauvinistic swine, for the record I am female 😃
 
We had the full reading down here in New Zealand. Just thought I’d let you know.
In God we Trust.
Jacqueline
👍
 
  1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”
  2. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
  3. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
  4. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “**The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. **Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”
 
Also I know that there is still a shortage of Priests. I just thank God that they can give me the Eucharist and I can hear the word of God even if it is brief at times.

I don’t know how involved you guys are in your church but we try to help Father the best we can. And you have no idea what that man has to do on his own. Sometimes my Husband and I have a hard time doing what he asks of us. You have one Priest on call for a whole Parish. And actually soon he may have to take over 2.

The man is so busy he does not know if he is comming or going or went. Trust me I am there to see it. Half the time he cannot even finish a conversation with one person and 3 other are on him. Plus he must find ways to make money on dinners, etc because people don’t either have the money or are not giving enough on Sunday. Thats what he gets to do in his SPARE time.

So personally him doing a shorter version of a reading does not bother me. What bothers me is how we as human beings can be so demanding of one person. I wonder what would happen if we could all just say hey Father heres my number. Call if I can assist you in anyway. Bet if we did that he could give you 4 readings on Sunday.😃
 
…it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
Click to expand...
This quote from Casti Connubi is fantastic… this vying for “headship” is selfish and an “exaggerated liberty.” It is really an imagined liberty—no one is really his or her own boss, not as long as there is a God in the Heavens. There is an order in the home, just as in the Church and the workplace and everywhere else where anarchy doesn’t reign. The HEART of the home is no less important than the HEAD of the home. What is the problem with a woman “claiming for her self the chief place in love”? I’ll take it. :curtsey:
 
whatevergirl said:
*At our parish (and I remember last year at a different parish the same thing happening) the second ‘version’ leaving out the part about wives submitting to their husbands, was read today. Any thoughts as to why the ‘complete’ reading was not read from Ephesians, today? :confused: Why for the past two years, have I not heard the full reading, the part about wives’ responsibilities also? *
Click to expand...
The simple answer is found in the Gospel reading that follows:

"This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:60)

(The parish I was at did the full reading.)
 
I don’t think we need to immediately jump to sinister motives on the part of the priests who use the shorter form of the reading. Also, I can’t think of any bishop that would mandate the shorter form (or longer form) for his whole diocese. The decision is the pastor’s, and he could have many reasons for using the shorter form.

I think one of the main reasons that a priest might leave it out is simply because he doesn’t plan on addressing it in his homily. If he’d rather spend more time preaching about the Eucharist in the Gospel, he may not want to open up that can of worms. If he doesn’t plan on addressing it in his homily, he probably thinks it’s pastorally prudent not to distract people with the controversial parts of the reading that are omitted in the shorter form.

Of course, it could also be the result of confusion on the part of the reader. Perhaps he/she got up to the ambo and read the shorter form because they figured shorter is always better when it comes to the liturgy. :o
 
more watering down of the faith, it was a big reason for me leaving christianity altogether, today christianity stands for nothing and just appeases a society in direct opposition to its teachings. i can’t legitimize a faith that is so easily swayed by public opinion and the ebb and flow or societies norms.

realistically whatever your gripe, kink, vice is you can find a christian church that tells you it’s fine. removing the reading was to appease the militant feminist faction very powerful in the catholic church today and nothing else.
 
Babalu41 said:
more watering down of the faith, it was a big reason for me leaving christianity altogether, today christianity stands for nothing and just appeases a society in direct opposition to its teachings. i can’t legitimize a faith that is so easily swayed by public opinion and the ebb and flow or societies norms.

realistically whatever your gripe, kink, vice is you can find a christian church that tells you it’s fine. removing the reading was to appease the militant feminist faction very powerful in the catholic church today and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Not to be overly cynical, right? 😉
 
Babalu41 said:
more watering down of the faith, it was a big reason for me leaving christianity altogether, today christianity stands for nothing and just appeases a society in direct opposition to its teachings. i can’t legitimize a faith that is so easily swayed by public opinion and the ebb and flow or societies norms.

realistically whatever your gripe, kink, vice is you can find a christian church that tells you it’s fine. removing the reading was to appease the militant feminist faction very powerful in the catholic church today and nothing else.
Click to expand...
The reading was not “removed” as I understand it. A shortened version was an option. This is true of other readings. In our parish, the whole of the reading was proclaimed and taught on, as well as the important John 6 passage, and the OT reading as well. There are pockets of liberal Catholicism, but the Church’s official teachings do not get “watered down.” Which is why many, many people hate the Church—and why I love Her.

I cannot understand the thinking of “leaving Christianity” because of the “watering down of the faith.” I can understand being the righteous anger of watching people who know the truth keep it quiet to keep people happy—believe me, I have been there—but it makes me want to embrace the Faith more fully, not leave it behind. I would not leave the Faith because Jesus is the Heart of it. I can understand being upset but that would be like leaving my family because my kids aren’t behaving. Some days I might feel like it, but I would never, never do it. Love rightly ties us to things (or people) that don’t always deserve it.
 
Babalu41 said:
more watering down of the faith, it was a big reason for me leaving christianity altogether, today christianity stands for nothing and just appeases a society in direct opposition to its teachings. i can’t legitimize a faith that is so easily swayed by public opinion and the ebb and flow or societies norms.

realistically whatever your gripe, kink, vice is you can find a christian church that tells you it’s fine. removing the reading was to appease the militant feminist faction very powerful in the catholic church today and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Based on what you wrote, it seems you left christianity because of what some people said or did. It is not about them. It is about Christ. I can certainly understand your disillusionment with some of the perhaps misguided teachers. I get caught in this sometimes as I may hear or read of a teaching and know they are way off base. It is then I must decide (as noted in last weeks readings). Do I put my trust in men or in Christ? I chose Christ. Now I must say that I do believe in people. We all come to the table with imperfections and shortcomings. (I personally attest that I must too often have to pull the large wood plank out of my eye before I attempt to criticize my brother.) Corny as this sounds - we are in this together. God gave us the path to follow. It is up to us to chose. I pray that you look at Christianity again from a different view point. Each time I question my faith or hear misguided teachings, I look to the scripture of St. Paul to the Romans 8:35-39

*What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?

As it is written: “For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us.

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. *

Peace in Christ Jesus.
 
I was actually surprised by our parish. We got the entire reading and it is one of those that’s careful to be gender neutral about everything (i.e. “for us and our salvation…he came down from heaven and became a man” in the creed, and singing “we are family” instead of “brothers all are we”)

The troubling part of all this to me is how complicated the explanations are on this. For a faith that values the plain reading of the scripture (especially regarding John 6), it doesn’t serve us well to have to take such measures to disprove what many think the passage means on first look. Could we just say it means a husband is called to give up his life for his wife and that she is called to accept it?

LT
 
ltravis said:
I was actually surprised by our parish. We got the entire reading and it is one of those that’s careful to be gender neutral about everything (i.e. “for us and our salvation…he came down from heaven and became a man” in the creed, and singing “we are family” instead of “brothers all are we”)

The troubling part of all this to me is how complicated the explanations are on this. For a faith that values the plain reading of the scripture (especially regarding John 6), it doesn’t serve us well to have to take such measures to disprove what many think the passage means on first look. Could we just say it means a husband is called to give up his life for his wife and that she is called to accept it?

LT
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I mean, if I can accept “Eat y flesh, drink My blood,” why should I start the mental gymnastics to worm my way out of “Wives, submit in everything”? Part of our rejecting Protestantism came from the hypocrisy of saying we took the Bible literally… but never John 6.

It never occurred to me that a parish could take liberties with the Creed. :eek:
 
cerad said:
Ask to see the reports from your church’s customer management system. My guess is that in the past the reports showed a distinct drop in donations whenever the whole “wives being submissive” topic was raised.
Click to expand...
Hey, if a parish treats the congregation as “customers” then it has a lot more to worry about than choosing the short or long form of a reading!

I knew what you meant, though. 😉
 
Doesnt it also say that the wife is to submit to the husband, as the church submits to Chrsit

sounds like a direct parelell there…

Christ commands, dies for, listens to supplications, decides, etc…
church obeys, serves, makes supplications, etc…

am i missing something… seems to say that the roles an relationship between Christ and church, are to also be mirrored in the roles/relationship between husband/wife??? period?

sure, husbands and wifes ahve their faults, but that is never an excuse for one side, not to fulfill their obligations regardless of the other.

ultimately I must ask,- what has been dogmatically decreed by the Church on this particular subject… to go beyond that would be in danger of hell no? as we are to submit Christ/church?
 
SempirVeritas said:
sure, husbands and wifes ahve their faults, but that is never an excuse for one side, not to fulfill their obligations regardless of the other.
Click to expand...
Well, that might work if you are a husband, or if you are a wife who agrees with
her husband’s opinion on what is right in the eyes of God. Having a fault is one
thing, but demanding that another person do something that is wrong is another.
So what if a husband and a wife have 2 different opinions on what is right in the
eyes of God? Did you ever think of that?
 
cheeto1 said:
Well, that might work if you are a husband, or if you are a wife who agrees with
her husband’s opinion on what is right in the eyes of God. Having a fault is one
thing, but demanding that another person do something that is wrong is another.
So what if a husband and a wife have 2 different opinions on what is right in the
eyes of God? Did you ever think of that?
Click to expand...
well, How does the bride of Christ respond to her Lord?

again, in that imagery of paul, he mirrors the relation ship of Christ to His bride, with that of Husband to his wife…

what does the church dogmatically state? thats what matters… if your not in accordance with than i pray to God you arent taking communion-.
 
I think the hang up with the passage, is that many women interpret it to mean, that a woman will have to cease being a unique individual if she submits to her husband. NOT AT ALL! I heard a priest recently say that that is not what the passage indicates…rather, it means that we are to sacrifice for each other, in ways that God outlined for us as men and women. Doesn’t mean we lose our uniqueness or individuality…standing by our husband to tell us the next command or what thoughts to think…lol No, it means that we should submit as Christ submitted to the Church. He served the Church. He served us. He died for us. If He asks me to submit in marriage, gosh, I think I’m getting off easy! lol :o Following Christ is not always easy, but sometimes, we complicate His teachings more than need to be. 😉
 
Bob4BVM said:
It was all read in my parish too.

Ask your priest why.

The Mass should be the same everywhere, that is why we call our church ‘catholic’ !

If you want a politically correct sermon, go to a protestant service.

+Peace,
Bob
Click to expand...
Well, said !

I agree it should be read the same everywhere - the original way. As for interpreting it? I won’t go there. I’ve battled someone who takes that Gospel VERY literally, and it becomes hair pulling time !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top