I don't remember that many homilies years later....

[Fantine]

but today I heard one that I will.

The reading was "that" letter of St. Paul. To the Ephesians. Just looking at it five minutes before Mass put me into a bad mood. Then I saw that the chauvinistic part was "optional." I wondered whether the (female) lector would read it. She did.

Her husband is an excellent cook. She has him trained. I guess it didn't bother her.

But then I heard a wonderful homily from a conservative priest who said something about "that" letter I will always remember.

He said that the correct translation for "submissive" is actually "reverence." Reverence as in "honor and respect" not "submissive" as in "subordinating one's will to another's."

He said that wives must honor and respect their husbands, and that husbands must honor and respect them in return. Sounds good for me.

So, as long as the USCCB is interested in making translations more accurate, when will we be able to ax "submissive?"

From now on I will like St. Paul better, and when he gets a bad rap from other women, I will tell them it's the translator's fault. Apparently the Ephesians were real Neanderthals, and even telling wives they needed to "submit" was ten times more progressive than what they had to endure from their husbands.

 

[tadoflamb]

I guess. The long form of that reading starts out:

"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."

 

[Fantine]

You're right, it was "subordinate."

That definition's even worse than submissive.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

Reverence:

A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love;

 

[Davidnic]

Yeah, St. Paul mentions it as "out of reverence for Christ" It is a mutual submission and donation to each other, a mirror of Christ and the Church.

Here is a good view of it, that sounds like it might be in harmony with the homily you heard: link

We had a priest in marriage class speak of it much the same way it sounds like the priest you are talking about did.

 

[tadoflamb]

Subordinate to one another.

 

[Memento Mori]

The chauvinistic part?

 

[tadoflamb]

The chauvinistic part?

I guess this verse gets misinterpreted as the wife has to obey the husband since he's the head. But really, in sacramental marriage, it's more of a dance. No one's forcing one's will over the other. At least that's how it is in my marriage.

 

[Deo_Adiuvante]

Good grief. Every year this comes up, and every year you either have some machismo noodle head who thinks it means he can be a total turd to his wife or some radical feminist who scoffs at the idea of any man telling her anything…oh, that St. Paul, guy that was chosen by CHRIST to spread the Word to the gentiles…what a chauvinist.

Good freaking grief.

I’m not going to spend much time on this. Let Pope Leo XIII explain it to you in his encyclical Arcanum. And after that, let Pope Pius XI continue with his encyclical Casti Connubii. Since I STILL don’t have fifty posts, you’ll have to find it for yourself on the Vatican web site.

 

[tadoflamb]

Good grief. Every year this comes up, and every year you either have some machismo noodle head who thinks it means he can be a total turd to his wife or some radical feminist who scoffs at the idea of any man telling her anything…oh, that St. Paul, guy that was chosen by CHRIST to spread the Word to the gentiles…what a chauvinist.

I know, we were talking about this in our small faith group. How this scripture gets misread in the light of our current culture.

 

[Gwendolyn]

(Phew, OK, verified my info!)

Before you get your knickers in a twist, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom on this very subject (it is pulled from a book called On Living Simply: the Golden Voice of St. John Chrysostom):

When we speak of the wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders, and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband's needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

Does this make the passage any clearer?

 

[JoabAnias]

Before you get your knickers in a twist

Do feminists wear knickers?

 

[colleen]

Honestly, I always feel like the women get off easier in this passage. We are to submit to our husbands as the Church submits to God. But, our husbands have to be like Christ! Like David said there is nothing chauvinistic about the passage if the message is taken as a whole.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

(Phew, OK, verified my info!)

Before you get your knickers in a twist, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom on this very subject (it is pulled from a book called On Living Simply: the Golden Voice of St. John Chrysostom):

When we speak of the wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders, and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband's needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

Does this make the passage any clearer?

They don't call him the Golden-mouthed for nothing!

 

[Michie]

Good grief. Every year this comes up, and every year you either have some machismo noodle head who thinks it means he can be a total turd to his wife or some radical feminist who scoffs at the idea of any man telling her anything…oh, that St. Paul, guy that was chosen by CHRIST to spread the Word to the gentiles…what a chauvinist.

Good freaking grief.

I’m not going to spend much time on this. Let Pope Leo XIII explain it to you in his encyclical Arcanum. And after that, let Pope Pius XI continue with his encyclical Casti Connubii. Since I STILL don’t have fifty posts, you’ll have to find it for yourself on the Vatican web site.

Frustrating isn't it.

Good post btw.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

(Phew, OK, verified my info!)

Before you get your knickers in a twist, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom on this very subject (it is pulled from a book called On Living Simply: the Golden Voice of St. John Chrysostom):

When we speak of the wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders, and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband's needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

Does this make the passage any clearer?

Ja, it does. I always like St. John Chrysostum: he certainly has a way with words!

 

[wiselife]

Chrysostom has indeed a golden voice.

(Phew, OK, verified my info!)

Before you get your knickers in a twist, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom on this very subject (it is pulled from a book called On Living Simply: the Golden Voice of St. John Chrysostom):

When we speak of the wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders, and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband's needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

Does this make the passage any clearer?

 

[Mom2Alex]

I am not sure what is so upsetting about the Word of God. As all Scripture is God-breathed, if it offends us, we are most likely being offensive to God. Do husbands have it easy? Husbands are asked to give their lives for their wives as Christ did for the Church. Christ was tortured and murdered for the Church, willingly so. We are to be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Why do you think you have always been so upset by the passage? Does it upset you that Adam was created first and Eve from his rib?

We are each equal in the eyes of God, but different nonetheless.

 

[Fantine]

Why do you think you have always been so upset by the passage? Does it upset you that Adam was created first and Eve from his rib?

Does it upset you that the Creation story is allegorical?

I am glad that there is so much awareness that what St. Paul is really talking about is "mutual respect and each partner giving 100% to the other."

Living in the Bible Belt for ten years, I can assure you that the Baptists don't look at it that way. Yes, a new translation would help.

How much better it would be to change the word "subordinate" to "reverent" so that people didn't have to read through 100 year old encyclicals to hear the real deal.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Living in the Bible Belt for ten years, I can assure you that the Baptists don't look at it that way. Yes, a new translation would help.

Yeah, they look at it in terms of the "military/authoritarian" model that St. John Chrysostom preached against - husband gives orders, wife has to obey, whether she agrees or not. I have participated in many, many discussions about "submission" here on CF and on another Christian ladies' forum, and this one-sided submission thing is really pervasive in the evangelical mindset. It just makes me so sad - I encountered some ladies who were truly miserable because their husbands were demanding they do things, like attend events that literally made the ladies sick with anxiety, or the husbands were making financial decisions that the ladies just didn't agree with but they thought they couldn't say anything because they had to "submit" - like their opinion does not even matter.

That is not healthy, and I do not think that such a model was what Christ (and St. Paul) had in mind.

 

[Deo_Adiuvante]

Does it upset you that the Creation story is allegorical?

I am glad that there is so much awareness that what St. Paul is really talking about is "mutual respect and each partner giving 100% to the other."

Living in the Bible Belt for ten years, I can assure you that the Baptists don't look at it that way. Yes, a new translation would help.

How much better it would be to change the word "subordinate" to "reverent" so that people didn't have to read through 100 year old encyclicals to hear the real deal.

So we should dumb things down so you don't have to read 100 year old encyclicals? I hate to tell you, sister, but your not going to change a Baptists translation of the bible simply because we change our own translation. And because you can't figure out that selection out of the Bible because of a word, how else should we dumb down our faith? Pictures instead of words?

Now that I'm done being a jerk, here's an idea for you. Instead of looking threw the Websters dictionary to translate bible passages, read from the Saints and our Popes. Yeah, it's old stuff, and they write profoundly. But truth is truth. What they say, unlike the meanings of words in our imprecise language, won't change with time.