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

[whatevergirl]

*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? 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.

 

[katy]

It wasn’t read at our parish, either, and we usually have everything read. I don’t know, but I also wondered about that. (and sort of sniggered) Maybe because the first part was so overemphasized by some in the past, perhaps.

 

[whatevergirl]

It wasn’t read at our parish, either, and we usually have everything read. I don’t know, but I also wondered about that. (and sort of sniggered) Maybe because the first part was so overemphasized by some in the past, perhaps.

I didn’t like it, you know? I mean, that is the ENTIRE reading. Why are we only listening to the part about what husbands need to do? I knnow that the passage makes some feel uncomfortable, and the term ‘submission’ so many people don’t fully appreciate the meaning. It’s important for wives to surrender to their husbands, treating their husbands as the spiritual head of the household. It is not a demeaning thing, like I know it can get misinterpreted as. I so wish the reading was read completely, because it would have been nice to see the priest address it…and make sense out of an often misunderstood passage.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It was read at my parish --and I was actually at the Life Teen Mass (my first) today. (Couldn’t make the Vigil yesterday and had to work today). Father made the point that both men and women were called to work together. “Subordinate” and “submissive” might seem like upsetting words to women of today, but think about your average man whose eyes ‘glaze over’ or who can barely get out the “L” word being told straight out, “Husbands, love your wives!” They’re as uncomfortable hearing this as women are hearing “be subordinate to your husbands”. . .and of course, it is qualified even further as 'as the Church is subordinate to Christ".

We are such a prideful people. We’re so full of pride and vanity that we don’t think we have any. We think we are the most egalitarian, tolerant, smart bunch of humans that ever walked the earth. And so, oh boy, nobody ain’t gonna tell us (wonderful us) that we need to be ‘subordinate’ to anybody. Nobody is supposed to be ‘better’ than anybody else! And nobody ain’t gonna tell us (tolerant us) about loving. We know all about loving. We’re so loving that we won’t tell people anything that might ‘hurt’ them and be seen as ‘unloving’. . .even if it kills them. Cause nothing’s worse than being an old meanie is it?

I am loving my parish more and more every week.

 

[takers]

Our parish heard the entire verse(s), so it sounds like something within the individual parish caused verses to be skipped. Perhaps ask your Priest why? He might have a thought-provoking reason.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m ashamed to admit it, but back in my younger days (16 and thought I knew it ALL), I told Father that I did not want to read this passage about being “submissive.” He explained it to me then as not being an attack on women but rather that both passages (submission and love) were related to fundamental understanding of both men and women.

Men are not (by nature) demonstrative. Telling them that their wives were to be loved 'as though they were the man’s own flesh" raised the status of women from chattel to equal. . .another human being, to be treated AS a human being.

And as for the submission, it didn’t mean being a doormat but rather having the trust that one’s husband DID view one as another human being. Even in the most equal partnership, at any given moment, one person will ‘put in’ a little more; there has to be a ‘decision maker’ else one is constantly in a state of flux. Women usually do know more about decisions, details etc. so it is a big trust issue for them to trust the husband to make decisions in the Lord.

So you see, the passage addresses concerns of BOTH men and women, and it points out the real benefits to BOTH sexes. . .the man to see the woman as his equal to be loved, the woman to trust the man as being the one to make the right decisions in the Lord.

It really helped then --and now.

 

[surritter]

In the Lectionary, there are a choice of two readings for this Second Reading. Either choice is valid – so there’s no reason to look for a snake under every rock.

That being said, I think it’s best to do the reading with the “submission” stuff, for the very reason that the priest can then explain during his homily why it’s NOT misogynistic, and how it actually calls the husband to lay down his life for his wife.

I’m guessing that any woman would have no problem being submissive to a husband that truly lived up to the ideal set forth by St. Paul!

 

[Bob4BVM]

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

 

[DOShea]

…the priest can then explain during his homily why it’s NOT misogynistic, and how it actually calls the husband to lay down his life for his wife.

That’s exactly the words our priest used in his homily.

 

[OnFire4Christ]

The whole thing was read in my parish, and on top of that it was repeated a million times in the homily and explained very well. It was great, I had a deeper understanding of what marriage and love is all about. I’d ask your priest why, it made a difference for me so I feel bad that your fellow parishioners didn’t get to benefit from it.

 

[RedSoxWife]

We read the long form and then our priest talked about what it means during the homily.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

*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? 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.

we read it all, i was waiting to hear some response, but everyone was quiet, last year a woman got up and walked out during when a priest made a pro-life statement. i was happy to hear bot things, we arent going to save a soul by mitigating the truth just to keep people happy.

 

[GratefulDad]

we read it all, i was waiting to hear some response, but everyone was quiet, last year a woman got up and walked out during when a priest made a pro-life statement. i was happy to hear bot things, we arent going to save a soul by mitigating the truth just to keep people happy.

Well said Warp.

Great question Whatevergirl. We read the long version at the Life-teen Mass this evening too. It could be happen chance or it could be political correctness?

 

[sbaum]

we had the long version read as well.

in addition to the points already well made in the homilies yall heard, ours had one that particularly stuck out to me: he said that marriage was a sacrament above holy orders, so he should be able to look at all the husbands and learn from the their example of how to love like Christ loves the church. from the wives, he should be able to learn how to love as we are called to love Christ. a priest talking about learning from us?? it was (initially) startling, an honor and humbling at the same time… (i won’t even go into what i can learn from my priest!). furthermore, we are all given a call to be submissive to each other out of love.

the readings, in light of this interpretation, cannot be seen at all as misogynistic but rather absolutely beautiful and powerful. saint paul is a personal favorite

 

[JReducation]

The explanation is simple. The scriptures for the day give you an option as to how much you want to read. In the lectionary that is used on the podium there are instructions how what must be read and what is optional.

These passages are optional, because they are meant to be read within the context the Church’s relationship to her spouse Jesus Christ. If you are going to preach about the sacrament of marriage in that light, the readinig is am absolute must. But if you’re going to speak about the obligations of spouses toward each other, then the reading not going to work in the manner that it was mean when it was written. It is a theological writings on ecclessiology and sacraments, not a social commentary on the relationship between men and women.

Many deacons and priests who are not well trained in ecclesiology often go off onto a tangent about the roles of men and women irelation to each other than in relation to Christ and his Church.

The laity has to be a little more trusting about such matters and remember that it is the Church who gave us the scripture, not the otehr way around. Therefore, the Church has the right to accommodate the readings to fit her purposes. Afterall, the Church did put together the bible to fit her needs and to represent her faith.

See where this is coming from?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ailina]

*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? 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.

The whole thing was read in my parish. I think it needs to be said in it’s entirety for it to make sense (which it does); otherwise, the message can get quite skewed and taken out of context.

 

[cheeto1]

Our church left that part out. I was so surprised, I had to look it up in the
missalette.

O.k., I thought, well, maybe it’s because it usually gets all the focus, and now
they want to talk about the other side. But they didn’t. All he said was that when
he gets asked to do a wedding, the wife won’t accept that part. Then he went on
to the gospel…

My thoughts? I think it requires a lot of explanation, and has been “stepped around”
for all these years. I’ve always wanted concrete real life examples of what it really
means, not just in general. And now another year just goes by without it…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I posted this on another thread on this topic. I have no idea why you haven’t heard it recently. Remember that the Sunday lectionary is in a 3 year cycle, so this exact reading only shows up every 3 years. There are lots of other passages on marriage though.

There are many instances even in the US when an abbreviated reading could be appropriate–Masses or communion services at a nursing home come to mind.

As Fr David said [in the thread on the Liturgy forum] there are many instances when the readings in the lectionary skip verses or contain only part of what you might consider a whole passage. Because there aren’t options for those days, we don’t always notice.

We should also be careful to realize that if a shorter form is offered in the lectionary, it is a perfectly legitimate option. The priest is not ‘changing’ the reading or ‘skipping’ or ‘taking the easy way out’ if he chooses that version. Sometimes there is an entirely different focus that he wants to bring out and so chooses the shorter reading for clarity. For example, this Sunday was the culmination of John 6. A priest may have chosen the shorter Epistle so that the congregation wouldn’t be distracted by that reading and not focused on his other message.

There are many other readings about marriage and other times that our responsibilities to each other can be brought out.

Ps-At my parish the entire reading was said, but the homily did not mention it. The homily was good though!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In the Lectionary, there are a choice of two readings for this Second Reading. Either choice is valid – so there’s no reason to look for a snake under every rock.

Amen! The priest can chose either reading and it is valid. Some Sundays there are options for more than just one reading. But if the choice is there either is valid.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Thank you Brother JR. This is very helpful.

The explanation is simple. The scriptures for the day give you an option as to how much you want to read. In the lectionary that is used on the podium there are instructions how what must be read and what is optional.

These passages are optional, because they are meant to be read within the context the Church’s relationship to her spouse Jesus Christ. If you are going to preach about the sacrament of marriage in that light, the readinig is am absolute must. But if you’re going to speak about the obligations of spouses toward each other, then the reading not going to work in the manner that it was mean when it was written. It is a theological writings on ecclessiology and sacraments, not a social commentary on the relationship between men and women.

Many deacons and priests who are not well trained in ecclesiology often go off onto a tangent about the roles of men and women irelation to each other than in relation to Christ and his Church.

The laity has to be a little more trusting about such matters and remember that it is the Church who gave us the scripture, not the otehr way around. Therefore, the Church has the right to accommodate the readings to fit her purposes. Afterall, the Church did put together the bible to fit her needs and to represent her faith.

See where this is coming from?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF