"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.
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 don’t think you have any idea what some husbands consider “head of the family”.
How about if he says, “As head of the family, we will no longer be Catholic”
(or go to church!)

What DOES the church dogmatically state? Are You in accordance? :confused:
 
This question about “what does the Church dogmatically state?” is becoming an almost obsessive preocupation of many Catholics on these forums. While there are many doctrines and dogmas taught by the Church, there are also many things that the Church teaches that are not easily classified as either doctrine or dogma, but they remain Church teachings and must be followed. These come from the Church’s authority to teach.

I understand that there are many people who are afraid of doing the wrong thing or following the wrong road and I can sympathize with that. But I also must express concern for the spiritual health of all Catholics. Spiritual health can be very compromised by anxiety. At some point, good sprituality calls for trust in the Church and trust in her leader’s judgment, above all, trust in God’s mercy.

God is not going to damn someone to hell because they followed a teaching of the Church that may have been wrong, but was followed in good faith. We were invited by Christ to trust the Apostles and their successors. They are human and they make mistakes. They have made many mistakes through the centuries. But despite their errors, the Church has a good record of saints who followed the teaching and leadership of these fallible leaders, even when they were wrong.

Take a simple example. The Church supported slavery as a social good at one time. Saints followed that line of thought. They never veered from it, because this is what the authority of the Church taught. Today, we have a better understanding of Paul’s teaching on slavery as well as the Church’s teachings on human dignity. We understand that slavery as Paul described it and the early Fathers of the Church subscribed to it is not the same as we saw in later centuries. Nonetheless, the saints that followed didn’t know this. They went with trust.

Another good example is has to do with obedience. There was a time when obedience was blind and the more blind the obedience, the more virtuous. Saints taught this to their followers, especially those who founded religious and secular institutes. Many men and women followed this thinking and became saints. Today we realize that many of these leaders commanded and expected obedience in areas that were harsh and unnecessary, sometimes not even virtuous. But the virtue was in the obedience, not in the actual content of the teaching.

You see, God in his mercy, allows us to follow the Church, her leadership and her teachings, doctrinal, dogmatic and prudential and judges us with love and mercy for our humility and our assent to authority. It is only when the content is objectively sinful that we are morally responsible. If there is no objective sin, there is no culpability imputed to the faithful.

Therefore, we can relax in our journey toward holiness, resting in the knowledge that God knows our desire to do what is right and to honor him by honoring those whom he has set above us to govern and sanctify. We can never allow ourselves to forget one of the roles of autority in the Church is to govern, not just sanctify. We tend to look too much toward that “sanctify” part at the risk of losing sight of the governing part.

I always like to explain it in terms of loving parents. Loving parents govern as well as sanctify their families. More often they govern and the sanctifying is more by an act of grace than an act of human will, since we are fallible creatures.

Let’s relax and join with the angels and saints in a life of contemplation and silence. Let us put aside some of our worries abotu getting everything right and get right what is within our reach. God will show the way for the rest. Trust me. I’ve been there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I don’t think you have any idea what some husbands consider “head of the family”.
How about if he says, “As head of the family, we will no longer be Catholic”
(or go to church!)

What DOES the church dogmatically state? Are You in accordance? :confused:
Recall some of the earlier discussions in this thread about the meaning of St. Paul’s words. The husband is head of his wife (notice it doesn’t say head of the family). She is to be subordinate to him, while he is to love her as Christ loved the Church, even to the point of dying for her. Tell him it’s a two-way street.

So if hubby wants to exert his authority about “no longer going to church” then he needs a reminder about his end of the pact!

Also: even a legitimate authority should be ignored when giving instructions that are contrary to God’s laws.
 
As far as how a husband should treat his wife. Read the scripture. The same as Christ would treat his Church. There you have it.

Would Jesus be demanding? No he would not

Would Jesus disrespect his Church? No he would not

Jesus is the Church. Jesus said you must love your wife as your love yourself. He made us one. Just like he is one with the Church.

The same goes with the wife. Its all about giving to eachother. Loving eachother. Just like Jesus gave and loved us. No more no less.

If a husband loves his wife and repects her and does for her she can be nothing but happy, How does she show this happiness easy she gives the same back to her husband. Any marriage that works you will see follows that pattern.

When you see a couple that loves eachother they don’t try to outdo eachother in hate, anger, they try to outdo eachother in love. They cannot do enough for eachother. That is the key EACHOTHER.

Trust me if you put yourself on the back burner and your spouse first, and he follows suit you will have a wonderful happy marriage. Its give and take. You give he takes, He gives you take. When you work it out, it can be almost as perfect as Jesus and his Church.
 
Yes, it’s a two part command from Christ. Not…husbands…you can treat your wives any old way you please, but wives…you must submit. No, it is not what He meant, and it’s so sad that some couples mistaken Christ’s words to justify abuse, or any and all behaviors. Personally, I would not listen to my husband if he said…‘we are not going to mass anymore…or we are not going to be Catholic.’ I would have to consider the marriage, if we were that separate in our faith views, frankly. I don’t ever advocate divorce…but I wouldn’t stay with my husband if he treated me like garbage, or expected me to ‘obey’ him as he leads the kids and me down a dark path, spiritually. We are to honor Christ FIRST before our husbands…we don’t place our husbands before God. In marriage, we are to honor God first, then our husbands. So, I don’t imagine God would expect us to follow our husbands (as wives) if they were leading us away from Him! :o
 
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 seems like a lot of Protestants don’t purposefully reject John 6, but mostly they just don’t notice it somehow. I know I didn’t when I was away from the Church (mostly attending Presbyterian churches).

But part of the point of the lectionary is so that we get to hear ALL the bits of God’s word, not just the ones that we like. I think if more women accepted the Bible’s words about the relationships between husbands and wives, they would take a LOT more care when choosing a husband, which would be all to the good, right?

And while I agree that the passage teaches us something about ecclesiology, I believe we have to actually look at what it says, as “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas)

Anyway, as the longer version is optional, certainly the pastor can cause it to be left out. That doesn’t mean it is the best pastoral decision. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it is on the same day with “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
It never occurred to me that a parish could take liberties with the Creed. :eek:
It CAN’T. As I recall, the American bishops petitioned Rome to allow the alteration, and Rome refused because it would take away the parallelism between “for us men and our salvation” and “He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” I think these days it depends on the bishop whether the priests in the diocese are faithful in that regard. We are very lucky in our bishop here, but I’ve heard stories from other places.

As far as I’m concerned, if I can deal with the ugly “incusive language” version of the Scriptures because it is the translation approved by the Church, other people can recite the Creed with the word “men” in it, as it is approved by the Church. (And yes, I’m a woman, but I’m also a person who likes to see words used well.) Obedience is meaningless if we only obey when we totally agree. You know, one of the greatest shocks I received when I returned to the Church was realising that maybe, when I disagree with the Church, it is me who is wrong. :newidea:
 
I noticed John 6 plenty. I probably read the Gospel of John 25 to 30 times between the ages of 10 and 30 (John and Hebrews are my favorite books) and I was always told Jesus was using hyperbole to stress His point. “It couldn’t really mean to EAT Him.” However, when it came to things like “call no man father” we were literal enough then. I grew up in the Assemblies of God but also attended Missionary, Congregational, Baptist, Reformed and Non-denominational Evangelical churches until coming into the Church this year. John 6 was taken MUCH LESS literally than the book of Revelation. (And I’m not using hyperbole to stress my point.) 😉
 
One time at mass the priest read the entire passage, then after reading it he said that it isn’t so. I was very upset about this, and it is lucky that it was not my regular parish, or I would have considered joining another parish. I spend much time on the Bible, and I found this dismissal for what I believe to be the word of God disturbing.
It is possible that part of the passage is left out for such a reason, because the reader doesn’t agree, though personally I would not be suspicious, since they have a ligitimate choice of reading it either way. It isn’t good to be upset duirng your worship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top