Jesus' ascension on Ascension Thursday, but like the space shuttle, He'll have to return in the Flesh to do it again on the miracle of the 7th Sunday of Easter becoming Ascension Thursday!
Jesus is befuddled about ascending to heaven twice in one week and is also befuddled by the miracle of the 7th Sunday of Easter becoming Ascension Thursday, but only in some places!
The Solemnity of the Ascension
Please note that in our part of the country, Macon, Georgia, the Solemnity of
the Ascension has been transferred from the traditional 40 days after Easter, which would be this Thursday, to the following Sunday. So this Thursday is not Ascension Thursday, unless you live somewhere where it is Ascension Thursday. Next Sunday is not the 7th Sunday of Easter, but rather Ascension Thursday unless you live in a place which does not have the miracle of the 7th Sunday of Easter becoming Ascension Thursday.
So the continuing conundrum our bishops have created in their disunity is the following: If you travel to the northeast this Thursday where it is still Ascension Thursday, and you intentionally miss Mass on that day, you commit a mortal sin, but not if you had stayed in good old Macon, because here it is not Ascension Thursday. Now if you live in the northeast and attend Mass on Ascension Thursday, but then travel to Macon for next Sunday’s Mass, you’ll be celebrating Ascension Thursday again with us next Sunday, thus the miracle of the 7th Sunday of Easter becoming Ascension Thursday and you getting a double dose of the solemnity only by the grace of God, or should I say, the disunity of our American bishops, whichever you prefer.
But if you live in the northeast and travel here on Ascension Thursday, it won’t be Ascension Thursday and if you go back to the northeast for Sunday Mass, it won’t be Ascension Thursday on Sunday but the 7th Sunday of Easter. So you would have missed Ascension Thursday altogether through no fault of your own, but through the fault of our bishops. It’s fun being Catholic, isn’t it?
Why couldn't the bishops in those parts of the country who felt it was just such a terrible burden for priests and laity to celebrate Ascension Thursday and thus have to attend Mass under the penalty of mortal sin and to have multiple Masses, simply to remove the "obligation" to attend and leave it on Ascension Thursday, 40 days after Easter, rather than make a useless miracle of the 7th Sunday of Easter becoming Ascension Thursday for expediency's sake? Seems to me to go against natural law making Sunday a Thursday, after all Sunday is suppose to be the Lord's Day, not Ascension Thursday!
19 comments:
Where'd ya' get that first picture of the Post Vat II Jesus? He looks a little bit like Harvey Keitel.
"...who felt it was just such a terrible burden for priests and laity to celebrate Ascension Thursday and thus have to attend Mass under the penalty of mortal sin..."
First, I agree with you that the transfer of Holy Days has been poorly reasoned and poorly executed. My solution: leave ALL the Holy Days where they belong and remove "obligation" and the concomitant threat of mortal sin. Those who attend on weekday Holy Days are going to keep attending - those who do not could care less about the "obligation" and penalties.
Second, I think if you read what the bishops actually gave as their primary reason for The Ascension Switch (and others) you would find that it is not a matter of "burden" but an entirely laudable desire that more of the faithful have every opportunity to celebrate the primary feasts of the Church calendar.
If 5% of Catholics joined in the celebration of the Ascension when it was celebrated on Thursday, but 30% were there when it is celebrated on Sunday, it is preferable to have the 30% participate in the feast.
I understood the reason for the transfer partly as allowing more people to experience it. But I think it is flawed logic and makes Sunday the only Holy Day in the minds of people. I'm in favor of removing the "obligatory" aspect and making it a "strongly" encouraged to attend Holy Day of Opportunity!
If we follow the logic of more people attending then we should move the Annunciation from March 25 to the following Sunday and thus move Christmas to exactly 9 months to date day on a Sunday--not good. Keep things as they are and make it a "Holy Day of Opportunity" with strong encouragement to attend. Ash Wednesday isn't Holy Day of Obligation and look at all the people who turn out!
Leave the obligation. Trust that Christ in His mercy will cut us slack for transgressions of the Holy Church's austerity. This country and this people need all the threats of mortal sin and eternal judgement the Church can provide! (Pardon my Calvinism rearing its head.)
I will have to respectfully disagree with both of you Fathers.
The desire to ease the burden of the Faithful over the past 40 years has been behind all manner of mischief that resulted in a lessening of the faith and confusion among the faithful. It's the same type of flawed logic that makes Bishop Trautman fight the new translation of the mass on the grounds that the words are too hard for the laity to understand. We are the Children of God, and like our own children here on Earth what we need is to be challenged in our faith, not coddled and spoiled. Please make it harder.
The road is wide but the gate is narrow. Let the Church Militant suffer a little on it's journey through Life. In our house many of the former obligations are enforced, and making the Children sacrifice time with their friends, or explain to their Coaches and Teachers that an event must be missed for Mass helps them place the proper Priority on their Faith; Bear Witness to friends and faculty; and Challenges them to accept sacrifice in the name of God.
And the more I think about it, maybe we should extend the Lenten Season by making sure that after Palm Sunday, we transfer Holy Thursday to the following Sunday, then Good Friday to the next Sunday and then Holy Saturday to the next Sunday and then Easter Sunday after that. And of course we could make Lent even longer by transferring Ash Wednesday to the Sunday before. And each day of Holy Week before Holy Thursday could get its own Sunday!
Am I the only member of the laity who is a bit perturbed at the Church's constant need to dumb things down or make things "easier" for the laity?
We lay people can't be bothered to go to Mass twice in one week... and once on a weekday... what about our other obligations... surely they come before God.
We lay people can't handle a Mass that is focused on giving worship to God... we need it presented to US in a way we can understand... this whole being Catholic thing really is about US after all... if I can't understand it, I might as well not go... I might not get anything out of the Mass if I don't understand it (of course, even if it is in English, I can still play around on my cell phone and read the bulletin anyway).
As Pater Ignotus said, "it is not a matter of 'burden' but... desire that more of the faithful have every opportunity to celebrate." I'm sorry, Pater, as one of the faithful (or at least trying to be, with God's grace), I think I can handle coming to Mass twice in one week.
Perhaps if the Church stopped pandering to the laity and making things so "simple" and "convenient", we might have a stronger Catholic laity in the world.
I'm no theologian or liturgist, but I have studied enough to know that Christ's teachings are anything but simple and convenient.
Unfortunately with the moving of the Holy Days to Sundays, we've had a forced laziness.
My solution: EF Mass on Ascension THursday (this way you can actually celebrate Ascension on Ascension)
Fr. McDonald @ 9:59 am May 8:
One explanation for this stuff is that the bishops are largely controlled by the bloated USSCB staff, in that the Conference is set up so that they generally rubber-stamp whatever agenda is placed before them, craziness and all, like when they voted for the norm of communion on the hand while standing only under the assurance (just before the vote) that the norm was "descriptive rather than prescriptive", then with the odiously American-adapted GIRM in place it was generally interpreted as prescriptive rather than descriptive.
At any rate, I understand that many believed the internet rumor a few years ago that the agenda for an upcoming USCCB meeting contained a motion that "The celebration of Holy Thursday be transferred to the following Sunday". (Period, with no further elaboration.)
Hmm ... My word verification sequence is "truinga" (tru in ga?) I've always assumed these were randomly generated.
Having worked with members of the USCCB Staff on a somewhat regular basis, Henry's comment that the staff is "bloated" could not be more inaccurate. In the last 3 years the staff in, I think, every office has been reduced as budgets tightened for all of us.
Having worked intimately with bishops in their diocesan curias, Henry's suggestion that bishops merely "rubber stamp" whatever agenda is put before them has not been my experience. The bishops I served have been attentive to the work they do through the Conference.
Pater Ignotus,
Apparently one person's bloat is another's treasure.
I remember when the whole state of Tennessee comprised a single diocese, and the entire chancery staff consisted of the bishop, his personal secretary, and a priest who did the financial books. Since then, the state has been divided into the three dioceses of Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville, each of which has ... well, let's just say ... an ample staff. I don't know anyone who would argue that this comparative "ample" administration result has yielded a corresponding improvement in our Catholic life generally.
At any rate, I have looked with a flinty eye at those budgets you mention, and think that still further reductions will yield increased efficiency, to which let us look forward.
I agree that most individual bishops do an attentive and conscientious job with their Conference work. The evident problems with the USCCB lie with its structure rather than with the bishops themselves, a structure that some bishops I've spoken with feel impedes their acting with individual episcopal responsibility. Anyone who watches the USCCB meetings attentively can form his own opinion as to whether whether most final actions are predetermined. My opinion is that this is a case where the whole is somewhat less than the sum of its parts.
Henry, I couldn't agree with you more on bloated diocesan staffs! It is a scandal. Pope John XXIII was right on when asked how many people worked in the Vatican, he responded, "about half!" About a fraction would describe diocesan staffs!
Bureaucracy tends to be self-augmenting, whether religious or secular, liberal or conservative. "for God so loved the world that he did not send a committee."
Good Father, would you care to name the person or persons working at 601 East Liberty Street in Savannah who are examples of the "bloat" you say exists in diocesan staffs?
If not, would you name the person or persons working in other diocesan offices who are examples of "bloat?"
Without naming names, I think we all know who they are; it is common knowledge. Those who live in Savannah may have a different perspective, but outside of Savannah, as you will soon learn, you'll have a totally different perspective!
Good Father, I certainly don't know who "they" are, and I would not agree that the Savannah curial staff is "bloated." Don't hide behind such 3rd grade arguments as "I think we all know who they are. It is common knowledge."
Why, after making such a serious charge against the people who work in the Savannah chancery are you unwilling to show some integrity and name them? What are you afraid of?
Remember, I am copying these posts.
What do you mean you are copying these posts? Is this some kind of threat? And, if so, just what is your problem, really? And stop referring to Fr. as "Good Father," which is filled with sarcasm and disrespect, given your attitude toward him in general. How disgusting...I have never wanted to punch a Priest before.
Fr. McDonald,
Great zinger nailing Pater Ignotus! Who reminds us that bloat and sycophancy go hand in hand.
But might we not give thanks for all that bloat and sloth in chanceries? Considering that so much damage to the U.S. Church has come "top down", do we really want those folks doing their mischief any more diligently?
Look at it this way. At one time, the rules of the RC religion were followed by the faithful without question. This included the commercial world as well. The rules of religion came first and all other things fell in line after that. As thinking changed later in the 20th Century religion had to be convenient to most schedules or the "faithful" were forced to or found a reason to justify non-observance. Lessening the burden on an already stressed religious following is a good thing. Seriously, I doubt that many can still recite the Apostles' Creed from memory but they believe every word of it.
Post a Comment