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

[JReducation]

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…

The concrete example is the relationship between the Church and Christ. I believe that people want it to be taken to relationship between husbands and wives. The problem here is that some people who are not married may not generalize it to include them. The faith of the early Church, who wrote this passage, included everyone, not just married people.

For example, I’m a religious, obviously celibate. But this passage includes me too in a very concrete manner. I too have an obligation to respond to Christ as part of the Church, in orther words, as part of his bride. The language in which this passage was written was feminine, because in the original Greek, there was not neuter. Everything was feminine and masculine, pretty much as it is in the Latin languages: Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Rumanian.

When you read this same scripture passage in those languages you do not come away feeling that it’s talking only to married women. You realize that it’s speaking about married people being a sacrament of the covenant between Christ and Church. The language is inclusive. For example, the translations into the Latin languages that I mentioned above do not include the word “wife” or “wives”. The word used is the ancient word for woman, which was the same ancient word used in the Aramaic by Christ when he spoke to Mary at Cana, Woman. It is a proper noun. It means “she who is the New Eve.” But who is the new Eve? The Church of course., not the wife. There are many wives who are far from being the New Eve as there are many husbands far from being the New Adam.

Everything in scripture is personal, because it speaks to the individual. But not everything has a one-on-one application. Much of it speaks to us as members of a people… Sometimes, I believe that it is a very Protestant mindset to seek a daily or concrete application just for me. It is not the same, but can come very close to bordering on private revelation; in other words, this was meant for me.

The scriptures are meant for each of us, but within the context of charity. That means that whatever is meant in the scripture must have as its fruit charity toward the entire body, not just those who are married, as would be the case in this passage.

When this passage speaks about “wives submitting to their husbands,” it means tthat those who ener into the married state must be a living example to the rest of the Christian community of how we must rise to the level of Mary (the New Eve) and be the perfect spouses of the Holy Spirit. If one fails to do so, then one is in violation of the marriage vows. Wives are not called to submit to their husbands, they are called to be models for all Christians on how to be the New Eve (Mary and the Church).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

The analogy is to the relationship between Christ and his Church. The Christian must be obedient to Christ. But what is required of Christ? To lay down his life for his Church. Love, to be love, must be sacrificial.

 

[rinnie]

*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.

It does if you read it. It says that husbands should love their wives the way Christ loves the Church. But if you read the first line its say we should be subordinite to EACHOTHER.

I love that reading. Everytime it talks about how the husband should treat the wife I nudge the ole ball and Chain

I told him in the car hold on now, is that the way Christ would treat his CHurch. You are supposed to cherish me. God said. He said what about you subordinite to me? I said, Oh I must have missed that part I was too busy learning how a husband should treat his wife. I told him I will have to wait till next year to catch that part.

 

[whatevergirl]

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…

Oh, that’s awful…I really wish that it was not left out yesterday…because our priest is so eloquent…I know he could have explained this passage. It’s such a misunderstood passage, as though many of today’s women (and men?) feel that it infers that women are beneath men…not at all! I just think it is a shame that it was left out, and frankly, it surprised me, because I belong to a very traditional parish, where the average is probably 55/60…I am 40 and one of the younger parishioners…so, it’s not like the parish would have an issue with it…UNLESS it was eliminated Diocese-wide. That could be.

 

[whatevergirl]

You’re in Pittsburgh? My family and I lived there for many years, and loved that city…whatta Catholic city, it is!

I agree with what you say here, yes, it shouldn’t be dwelt upon…BUT…I took issue with it being abbreviated. *

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

*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 phrase is part of the text, so it should be read. To miss it out, changes the meaning. Or is the Church so terrified of feminists that it dare not contradict them ? It is cowardice, nothing else, to tamper with the Bible so as not to offend people. It’s a very offensive set of books.​

To monkey with the text like this is to muffle what the Biblical text says, as though it were a purely human work; would those who muzzle God, muzzle their own politicians ? They wouldn’t dare - which proves how lacking in grace & courage the creatures (to call them “men” would be a lie) responsible for this omission are: they fear men, but do not fear God.

What will be abolished next - Hell ? The threat of damnation for false teachers ? The fury of God’s wrath that will be poured out on the wicked ? God himself, maybe ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Please, don’t off-load Catholic rubbish onto Protestants - why should they have to be used as a rubbish-tip for Catholic trash ? (This works both ways, of course.)​

 

[JReducation]

I fail to understand that lack of charity on this subject. The lectionary gives you a short and long form of the reading. There is nothing political about it. If the preacher wants to use it the entire reading, he can do so. If he chooses not to do so, he can omit.

Please don’t use the Catholic and oneness argument. It does not work. The Easter Vigil is the highest holy day of the Christian calendar. It has many readins that you can omit. The Gospel for Palm Sunday and Good Friday has parts that can be omitted.

If you belong to certain religious orders of men there are readings and entire holy days that you can omit or add on to the liturgical calendar, because you folllow the calendar of your order.

If anyone has not been paying attention, there are days on EWTN when the mass readings are different from what you would find in your missal. Because they are Franciscans, their lectionary takes presedence, except over universal solemnities. On those days when their is a Franciscan solemnity and a universal feast day, the Franciscan reading takes precedence. This does not make us any less one Church. It’s part of the beauty of one Church with many gifts.

We have to be kinder and less suspiscious about everything or we will all end up sick.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

Paul apparently took the “subordination” idea from Genesis, where women were told that a husband would have dominion over her, even though she desired him. This was a consequence of sin, and not in the natural order of thlngs. God was not decreeing this punishment, but making an observation that it would happen.
For Paul to say that God was the head of the man, and the man was the head of the woman, is demeaning to women. Women are also made in the image of God, and have a right to have God be their head also, and not a mere human male.

 

[JReducation]

Paul apparently took the “subordination” idea from Genesis, where women were told that a husband would have dominion over her, even though she desired him. This was a consequence of sin, and not in the natural order of thlngs. God was not decreeing this punishment, but making an observation that it would happen.
For Paul to say that God was the head of the man, and the man was the head of the woman, is demeaning to women. Women are also made in the image of God, and have a right to have God be their head also, and not a mere human male.

But slow down here, because you’ll going to run the risk of taking this out of the realm of ecclesiology and sacramentology. This is not just about the genders. It is about a bigger reality. Don’t let the gender issue get involved here. Focus on the real issue. Who is Christ, who is the Church, what is the sacrament?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LeslieBryson]

I think this reading is more about the relationship between the Church (us - both men and women) and Jesus. Marriage is used as a metaphor. The first part of the metaphor tells us to be submissive to the way Jesus asks us to live our lives. The second part tells us that Jesus gave and continues to give himself to us completely. It is a two way street - like marriage.

When a parish decides to leave out the first part for political correctness, they leave out half the metaphor and as you can see it is a very important part. We must put away our own human inclinations and instead be submissive to the ways of God. In return we receive salvation and everlasting life. That’s a good deal.

 

[cerad]

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.

 

[tiffinwood]

In my parish the missalette in the pew had the full reading and that was what I was expecting to read as I was lector at the mass. When I reached the altar and started the reading I realized that the official big red book had the short form. So I guess it’s not the priest deciding maybe it’s the diocese. In any case father covered the long form in his homily very well.

 

[whatevergirl]

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.

*ha, I don’t know about that. I plan to ask though…why the abbreviated version was chosen. *

 

[Father_Michael]

It helps if those who read and who preach can also read the Greek in which St Paul wrote. (Greek is a subject not much taught in many seminaries these days, or wasn’t when I had to stop teaching it.) St Paul uses the same word which he used in the previous line, for how Christians are supposed to behave toward one another, for the way in which wives are to conduct themselves toward their husbands. It literally means “to rank below,” hence the old Latin-based translation “subordinate,” from “sub-ordinare.” When St Paul gets to the behavior of husbands, however, he uses a Greek word, “agapan,” which indicates selfless, other-directed love. As opposed to “erotan” (passionate or erotic love) and “philein” (the affection one has for family members and close friends). “Agape” is also St John’s word for “love” and is the kind of self-emptying, other-centered love which led the Son of God to take up his cross and rescue us from the darkness into which our first parents had plunged the whole human family. That, says St Paul, is the kind of love which husbands are to have for their wives (and, by implication, pastors for people). A lot more scary, that, than to give precedence to another in good Christian fashion. Doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for machismo, either. In either case, however, the demands made of the believer do not sit well with the self-centered “independence” of contemporary society, and should make us all, men and women, sit and squirm whenever we listen to this passage from St Paul.

Father Michael

 

[MrsHall]

We had the whole thing read in our parish. Fr. addressed the issues head-on in his homily. People forget that it is harder to lay down your life for someone than it is to put yourself “under the mission” (i.e. submission) of someone willing to lay down his life for you!

I thought it was funny that it was put with the passage from John 6 where the disciples and Jews say “This is a hard saying” and Joshua’s “As for me and my house” passage.

 

[JimG]

Paul apparently took the “subordination” idea from Genesis, where women were told that a husband would have dominion over her, even though she desired him. This was a consequence of sin, and not in the natural order of thlngs. God was not decreeing this punishment, but making an observation that it would happen.
For Paul to say that God was the head of the man, and the man was the head of the woman, is demeaning to women. Women are also made in the image of God, and have a right to have God be their head also, and not a mere human male.

I think rather that he took the idea from Christ, who, though God, took “the form of a slave.” He compares husband wife relationship to that of Christ and his Church. The husband must be constantly willing to lay down his life for his wife, as Christ did for his Church.

The Genesis story is probably a topic for another thread, as I think your analysis is reasonable, though not what Paul had in mind.

 

[imacatlover]

The “full” version was read here, and the priest’s homily was on this reading. As was noted by other contributors, it’s legitimate to read either the short or long version. Our priest explained that sometimes the short version is used to avoid causing confusion about the submission passage. He explained the full context, as noted by another contributor, that husbands are called to lay down their lives for their wives, and also that the submission clause is an extension of the statement that we (all) ought to be submissive to others: wives being submissive to their husbands is a specific example of the general principle of what we, as Christians, are called to do.

 

[MrsHall]

Since I was a young protestant woman in Bible college I have been hearing the “Paul was a male chauvinist pig” argument when it comes to the marriage passages in his epistles. Here are St. Peter’s thoughts, our first Holy Father:

For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were going astray like sheep; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your won husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.
Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humbleminded: not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for **hereunto were ye called, that ye should inherit a blessing. **

This comes from the last part of I Peter 2 and the first part of I Peter 3. If you get rid of the chapter divisions, you see that the “In like manner, ye wives,” takes you back to the example of Jesus who left us an example. If you are a husband, love like Christ did. If you are a wife, submit like Christ did. He is our example—no matter our place in the world. Also, it is interesting that the point is we were called to this life so that God could bless us. He’s not out to “put us down” or make us “less than men.” Nonsense----God’s meaning is always love. It is our good He has in mind. We have to be willing to trust Him for it. God bless.

 

[Goose4GOD]

This is the description from the St. Joseph Sunday Missal preceding the Letter of St.Paul to the Ephesians about the Sacrament of Marriage. It does put it in perspective:

“Many a bride, choosing the readings for her Nuptial Mass, may object to this traditional reading. The idea that “wives should be subordinate to their husbands” seems contrary to the ideals of contemporary women. However, we should not forget that God’s word is necessarily conditioned by time and culture. Paul reasons from the patriarchal marriage setting of his time, which as such is not part of God’s revelation. We should pay attention to the core of the message, which focuses on love as most essential in marriage and as giving a different color to everything married people do.
Referring to Genesis 2:24 (“the two of them became one body”). Paul states that this text has a higher level of meaning and portrays Christ and the Church, from which we should understand the earthly reality of marriage. Keep in mind that love (mentioned in this reading) and faith (First reading and Gospel) are interrelated. There is no love without faith, and no faith without love. Both should be dealt with in the same way. (see Theme: the Risk of Faith)”

I have found by having purchased a Sunday Missal & Daily Missals that I am slowly getting a better understanding of the readings by their short and intuitive descriptions.
May the Lord our God bless you and keep close to his Love & grant you Grace.