Ascension Day Gospel Reading from Luke at Mass

[DIERM]

Did anyone find a theological conundrum? Much of the issue has to do with Greek to English translation and the omission of text in some ancient manuscripts, but not others…what makes it problematic is, it makes it hard to explain the justification for Marian beliefs held by Catholics.

Thoughts?

 

[po18guy]

Single verses or paragraphs do not a doctrine make. Sometimes, one must simply back up and look at the big picture.

Christ created His own mother. God told her, through Gabriel, that He was with her. She carried the King of kings and Lord of lords in her womb. She risked life and limb to bring Him to flesh. He was with her from virgin womb to virgin tomb. She inspired His first miracle. She received John as her son - even though John’s birth mother was present. She is either directly or allegorically the woman of Revelation 12.

There is much, much more and when taken in toto, she is clearly the most perfect human that God ever created. Adam and Eve? Forget it! They sinned and fell. Mary never did. Adam did not care for the Redeemer and Eve did not carry Him. In fact, they parented the first murderer!

OK, overkill, but you get the point.

 

[DIERM]

OK, overkill, but you get the point.

Sorry, I think we might have both missed the point…none of the issues you raised were in context to my point or the Mass Reading.

My point was the difference between Ascension and Assumption. Christ ascended under his own divine powers, Mary’s assumption was also through divine not her own personal power…and this is what many Protestants don’t understand…they think our Marian doctrine claims Mary had the same divine powers that God has.

 

[porthos11]

Did anyone find a theological conundrum? Much of the issue has to do with Greek to English translation and the omission of text in some ancient manuscripts, but not others…what makes it problematic is, it makes it hard to explain the justification for Marian beliefs held by Catholics.

Thoughts?

You have not even stated what your “conundrum” is.

 

[po18guy]

How about this: We do not need the bible to explain our beliefs. The bible is part of it, but the Catholic Church has the power of binding and loosing “whatever” on earth and in heaven.

If this is not responsive, could you please be more specific?

 

[DIERM]

You have not even stated what your “conundrum” is.

Sorry, I clarified in last post which crossed yours…the reason I didn’t state it was to find out if anyone even took notice of it…my guess is probably not, but that is not a bad thing.

 

[DIERM]

If this is not responsive, could you please be more specific?

Oh, we do need the bible, along with the teachings of the Church. To say we don’t, negates the importance of the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass. We might as well just say, all we need is faith, no scripture, not Church teachings.

 

[po18guy]

Ugh. Not saying that. It is just that we are constantly defending against “where is that in the bible?” - that is the (apparently wrong) impression that I got from your OP.

Biblical evidence for all doctrines is reformation-derived nonsense.

 

[Fauken]

Sorry, I clarified in last post which crossed yours…the reason I didn’t state it was to find out if anyone even took notice of it…my guess is probably not, but that is not a bad thing.

It’s not really conducive to discussion if you try to make people read between the lines of your OP and then not clarify when someone doesn’t understand what you’re getting at.

 

[Prodigal1984]

That’s what I’ve been saying.
People forget that before 393 there was no Bible as we know it.
In fact, many early Christians went to their graves thinking certain books were scripture that aren’t in the Bible today. And some in our Bibles were disputed.
We must trust the Holy Spirit led the Church to know what was right.
However i tell people that especially protestants and these quack quasi Christian groups. If they can’t trust the Church with everything else, why the hell do they accept the canon of scripture it came to know?

 

[po18guy]

One last, probably futile attempt:

The Ascension day Gospel reading:
Jesus said to his disciples:
“Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer
and rise from the dead on the third day
and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins,
would be preached in his name
to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.
And behold I am sending the promise of my Father upon you;
but stay in the city
until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Then he led them out as far as Bethany,
raised his hands, and blessed them.
As he blessed them he parted from them
and was taken up to heaven.
They did him homage
and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
and they were continually in the temple praising God.

What on earth does this have to do with Marian doctrine?

 

[DIERM]

and was taken up to heaven.

This is the point…

“and he was taken up to heaven”

Jesus, through his divine power, ascended into heaven.

The Blessed Virgin, who lacks divinity still went to heaven, but she did not ascend, rather she was taken.

It is an important distinction, and reason for great confusion and consternation by Protestants concerning Catholic beliefs about Mary. Protestant often claim we view Mary as divine, and use the confusion between her assumption and Christ’s ascension (among other things including the difference between veneration and worship, and intercessory prayer) as “proof” that Catholics practice idolatry.

Sorry for the confusion, the lack of clarity, or for upsetting you.

But, I did on the onset make it clear it was a theological conundrum, and not one of faith.

 

[BartholomewB]

Much of the issue has to do with Greek to English translation and the omission of text in some ancient manuscripts, but not others…

According to the Bible Hub website (link below) the word that Luke uses here is ἀνεφέρετο. You mentioned translation difficulties and discrepancies found in the manuscripts. Do some manuscripts omit this verse, or part of it? Are you suggesting there may be a scribal error here? And what would be your recommended alternative translation?

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-51.htm

 

[DIERM]

Do some manuscripts omit this verse, or part of it? Are you suggesting there may be a scribal error here? And what would be your recommended alternative translation?

Yes, some do omit the verse. I’m not so much concerned with scribal error (which indeed could be the fact) as the post scribal impact on theology.

The translation is what it is. I don’t see, theologically, where an alternate translation makes a difference, because my discussion point was not on the literal aspects of the passage, but the theological take away.

If people read it literally, as it appears in many bible or lectionary renderings, without considering theology (which is an academic, not religious, pursuit), it often takes on theological ramifications; to wit: Christ and Mary both ascended through their own divinity, instead of the fact that only Christ ascended, and Mary was taken by God to heaven.

 

[Gorgias]

People forget that before 393 there was no Bible as we know it.

No, but the Scriptural books did exist, and had been being used in Christian liturgies for 300+ years.

This is the point…

“and he was taken up to heaven”

Jesus, through his divine power, ascended into heaven.

The Blessed Virgin, who lacks divinity still went to heaven, but she did not ascend, rather she was taken.

Got it.

If people read it literally, as it appears in many bible or lectionary renderings, without considering theology (which is an academic, not religious, pursuit), it often takes on theological ramifications; to wit: Christ and Mary both ascended through their own divinity, instead of the fact that only Christ ascended, and Mary was taken by God to heaven.

Except that what the translation is attempting to do is to render a good account of a feature of Koine Greek grammar that isn’t present in English: middle voice. It’s even pretty hairy to describe to a modern native speaker of English, since it seems so foreign a concept. Sometimes, we can say that it expresses concepts similar to “reflexive” verbs, but even that’s an incomplete description. So, what we know theologically is expressed in words in a way that requires further explanation. If we changed that translation to an active verb, we’d be modifying what Scripture says, don’t you think? And that’s not a good approach, either.

 

[Prodigal1984]

No, but the Scriptural books did exist, and had been being used in Christian liturgies for 300+ years.

Yah they did use them in liturgy.
They also used 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas. Most new Christians were told to read the Shepherd of Hermas in certain areas. The Apocalypse of Peter was read in liturgy on Good Friday in Syria.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Holy Mystery in question is called “The Ascension” for Jesus and “The Assumption” for Mary. That should make it quite clear what the difference is. Bad translations can be set aside.