Today’s reading from Ephesians: “Wives should be subordinate…”
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 284
    Did you hear the longer version that includes these snippets or the shorter version that bypasses them? Or did you hear either/or depending on the Mass?

    One of the things about the Lectionary that irks me is the options it provides. The shorter form provides a more “kosher” message (by today’s secular standards), yet the longer form is beautiful in its own right and isn’t a call for wives to be doormats.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    We had the full reading. And one reader said “wifes” multiple times, rather than “wives”. Lol
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 284
    Serviam, I’ve heard (and committed) many a faux pas at Mass, but nothing will top the one reader who proclaimed the reading from Isaiah at Palm Sunday Mass: “I will speak to the weary a word that will arouse them…”
    Thanked by 2Charging3296 tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 621
    My favorite (purple) is when "immorality" is read as "immortality" and the inverse.

    We got the full reading today and the homily focused on it as well. It seems to me very odd that the Church allows for that portion to be dodged, both on Sundays via the "shorter form" and at nuptial Masses via letting the couple choose their readings.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • DavidOLGCDavidOLGC
    Posts: 87
    We had the longer version.
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 440
    How many lay people, or priests for that matter, have sufficient scripture scholarship to really unpack Paul's statements in that letter?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    The Whole Thing! The pastor then launched into a sermon loosely connected after having repeated the "....be subordinate.....in all things" line.

    Were he a bit more experienced (older + wiser), he would have leaned over the mike and warned the husbands against side-glances with chuckles, and then asked 'Which of you husbands are going to love her as Christ loved the Church, being crucified for her?"

    Ah, but he missed the opportunity and he will probably get the nasty phone calls.....
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 268
    I have always thought that the longer form was horribly sexist -towards men. Women merely have to obey their husbands. Men have to love their wives as Christ loved his church. They are called to give their very lives for their wives’ existence. It sounds like a bad deal for men.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 621
    How many lay people, or priests for that matter, have sufficient scripture scholarship to really unpack Paul's statements in that letter?


    The implication here being that, since the laity and clergy are too ignorant to understand it, it should be skipped?
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    There is some precedent for skipping over topics that might be too complex or will just get people stirred up. St. Ignatius counseled the Jesuits to avoid preaching about predestination, lest the laity misunderstand and grow discouraged in their efforts to lead holy lives.
    Thanked by 4Liam PaxMelodious Heath Paul F. Ford
  • francis
    Posts: 10,818
    I was wondering how this thread was gonna turn out…

    anyone who doesn’t understand the part about “husbands love your wives as Christ also loves his church and delivered himself up for it” doesn’t understand what it means to be married. It’s not rocket science or brain surgery. A wife would gladly submit to a husband who is caring for his wife as Christ loved his church. There would be nothing but benefit for a wife in that position.

    Let us as husbands in Christ love our wives selflessly in every way.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen LauraKaz kevinf Viola hilluminar
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 205
    We left it up to presider's discretion. For what it's worth, three of four Masses did the long form, but the Mass lectored by a young woman getting married next year had her read the short form.
Add a Comment