Nice to see you back and in good form, Dale.
I see that vacationing in the Saginaw diocese has, ah, invigorated you. 
peace,
Silly me, I thought the homily was for Explaining The Gospel (or, at least preaching it). I'd empathize with your pain, Dale, but we got the long form of the Ephesians reading and a decent homily on it to boot, so I'm too busy with my happy dance. 
I dislike being out of town and away from my home parish for this reason as well. I always seem to be out of town on Sundays when people are using some edited version of the readings. Ugh. At least we didn't have an "introduction", they just used the short form.
I was sitting with some people who didn't know me very well, and got some odd sideways glances at my obvious annoyance at the "short reading". They couldn't imagine how a 30 y/o could actually prefer the long form with that terrible "submit" word. Made me wish I'd had that reading in my wedding.
My friend is a lector at our parish. He asked our priest whether to use the long form or the short. The latter hemmed and hawed for several minutes and then recommended the short one with an aside: "Of course someone will call the rectory claiming they were denied the opportunity to hear the long one."
Speaking of pet peeves- why do we need lecture/discussion groups to preview the Sunday readings? As if to get a sneek peak like a promo for a new fall series? Aren't we supposed to digest the Word when it's served piping hot to us?
My but that was entertaining, Dale. I have to admit, I've never been subjected to pre-reading introductions and I can only hope it stays that way. The idea of an introduction is bad enough, but then to get one that borders on heretical is just too much to take. My head may have exploded right there...
FWIW, we had the long reading this weekend although the homily was mostly about how we're supposed to love as Christ loves. Normally that wouldn't be a terribly bad homily. But we've had the same thing for weeks now. I guess that's what happens when your diocese is short of priests and one of yours has to leave for an extended period of time. I could complain further, but I'm reminded of St. Francis's statement that, "these are the hands that bring me Jesus". I guess that makes this... 'nuff said.
No disclaimer before, the readings, but a disappointing beginning to his homily by the deacon. He started out talking about the culture that Paul was writing in, etc. He further asserted that the epistle is not really telling wives to submit to their husbands, but actually telling wives AND husbands to submit to each other, as Christ submitted himself to die on the cross.
But then he somewhat salvaged the homily by shifting course, noting that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that everything in it is true, even if we don't always like what is has to say. Said the deacon, it's hard to do what the Bible tells us to do, especially when it comes to submission, and we don't always like doing it.
Which provided the deacon a nice segue into the Gospel. (Paraphrasing) "Jesus' disciples didn't always like what Jesus had to say, either, and many of His teachings were hard for them to follow. Like in today's Gospel where Jesus had some things to say that were hard for many of His disciples to accept. They were hard teachings, but they were true. And many of His disciples didn't like what he had to say and decided to depart from Him. etc."
Shaky start, but he pulled it out in the end.
Of course there's a simple way to deal with the reading...stay single !
Wow, that would REALLY tick me off. It makes me mad just thinking about it.
Since I'm not Catholic, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem that there are a lot of people in Dale's Church who would be happier as Unitarians.
Why do they bother to hang around an institution like the RC Church, which is obviously never really going to accomodate their desires?
And if I -was- going to be a believer (Catholic or otherwise) I'd want the real thing, not a watered-down version hung up on not offending the zeitgeist.
You'd expect a good deal of numinous awe (and severe demands) from a religion that was really true, after all.
I've always enjoyed this reading in Mass.
I especially enjoy spying the laser eyes directed to the sides of the heads of husbands, tight squeezes to the hand and eye rolls when the dread word "submit" is uttered. These small physical responses as if to say to their husbands, "You'd better not even THINK I'm gonna be one of those Submitters!!"
This is curious to me, because, as I understand it, my husband is to sacrifice himself as Christ -- lay down his life. This means not JUST if a ne'erdowell comes through my front door to wipe out the family, but also those even more trying moments (at least for my husband) like turning off the hockey game to listen to one of the children having a tough time. Now, MY job is to say, "Yes" to this and support him in doing these things.
I'm thinking I've got the easier end of this deal. Am I wrong?
Teresa, I think you're on a very profitable pathway of thinking. God doesn't ask anything of us that we can't do; He doesn't place any burden on us that isn't "light" when borne with Him.
When I look at the crucifix and realize that that's what Paul is calling my husband to do, "submit" hardly fazes me at all.
We got the long form at Mass, but heaven knows what the homily said about it, as Monsignor always turns his hearing aid up too high and even the little altar servers behind him can't make out a word of it. OTOH, this is always at the early morning Mass, where most of the congregation is similarly hearing-impaired (or nodding off), so I'm not sure much is lost. God bless Monsignor and his many years of faithful service to the Church; and I hope he doesn't mind that I pray my rosary during his homilies.
I've never even imagined an introduction to the readings, much less heard one. Yikes!
"Snockered on Jagerbultmann"
Priceless, Dale. Just priceless.
You're in top form, as usual. The Augean cleanup job in former UntenerLand will be a long one.
You think this is all they are cutting out? There's a lot more. Your church is CENSORING the BIBLE, and there's a reason for that. I started reading the Bible while Catholic, and got saved even through the bad translation of the NAB...[there was enough to be found in there for me to start asking questions]
"Your church is CENSORING the BIBLE"
Close Wilma. Our Church wrote the New Testament. Actually it was Protestant "Reformers" in the Sixteenth Century who tossed whole books out of the Bible in the Old Testament. Martin Luther, if he had been able to, would have tossed out the epistle of Saint James, which he dismissed as an epistle of straw, since he believed that Saint James differed from him in regard to salvation through faith alone.
From Luther's preface to the epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude:
"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [_treiben_] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (__ibid__).
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], "Humble yourselves under he had of God" [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], "The Spirit lusteth against envy." A
The epistle of straw comment comes from his preface to the New Testament in 1522:
"Saint John's gospel and St. Paul's epistles, especially that to the Romans, and St. Peter's first epistle are the true pit and marrow of all the books. They should justly be the first books, and every Christian should be advised to read them first and most, and by daily reading to make them as familiar to himself as his daily bread.
In them you do not find described many works and miracles of Christ; but you do find depicted in a masterly manner how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the Gospel …
These books show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salutary for you to known even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James epistle is really an epistle of straw compared to them, for it lacks this evangelical character."
Honestly, how many Catholics -- even conservative Catholics -- actually believe the long version? In my experience, not many.
GregK
I do.
A parallel:
"Take up your cross and follow me."
"For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
. . .
This is marriage: the exact joyful burden befitting each partner.
And Paul's even deeper exposition of God's salvific love for us in a brilliant analogy in human marital love is priceless and should be left unadulterated -- pun intended.
angelic doctor:
Greg believes in it, too--click on his blog link. I agree with him that not many Catholics hold to it.
Change the term "Catholic" to "Christian," so as to include all three major branches and I would still be willing to bet the majority are unbelievers on this matter.
Nobody seems to be answering my comment - if people followed St. Paul's advice and stayed single, nobody would have to worry about it at all....
DML -- and in 70 years there would be nobody to worry.
Donna,
That would be the same St. Paul who also said "it is better to marry than to burn", yes?
peace,
Greg - But Jerome would be happy!
Commenting by HaloScan
