Why would this be omitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dans0622
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dans0622

Guest
Looking at the readings for the Ascension, I noticed that Ephesians 4: 1-13 is an option. Great. Within that option, it is possible to omit a portion of the reading. Not so great. The passage that can be omitted is this:
Therefore, it says:
He ascended on high and took prisoners captive;
he gave gifts to men.
What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended
into the lower regions of the earth?
The one who descended is also the one who ascended
far above all the heavens,
that he might fill all things.
usccb.org/bible/readings/051715-ascension.cfm
Click to expand...
As the youngsters say, “FAIL.” This makes the reading pertinent to the Ascension. Without it, the reading could “fit” on any day of the year. Who would ever think that it makes sense to even allow this part of the reading to be omitted?

Dan
 
Let’s be honest here Dan. You are a canon lawyer and you already know who thought it makes sense.

I don’t think your question was serious but rhetorical, meant to support a complaint.

-Tim-
 
Well, we can really only speculate as to the reasons why certain readings on certain days have a shortened option.

You definitely have a point that the omitted portion is what makes the reading more obviously relevant to the feast being celebrated. Why omit that portion? I could only guess. But I try not to be cynical about it. 🙂
 
Joe_5859 said:
… Why omit that portion? I could only guess. But I try not to be cynical about it. 🙂
Click to expand...
I will admit that there is at least a touch of cynicism (or something) in my question. But, if there is a reasonable answer, I’d be happy to hear it. I can’t think of one.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
I will admit that there is at least a touch of cynicism (or something) in my question. But, if there is a reasonable answer, I’d be happy to hear it. I can’t think of one.

Dan
Click to expand...
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the portion that is omitted seems like somewhat of a non-sequitur in the context of the whole passage. The RSV actually puts most of those verses in parentheses to indicate that it’s kind of a side note.

It seems like I often see these omissions in cases where the shortened form articulates a more stream-lined, easy-to-follow message. My guess is that this is what is going on in this case.

Really, even if I try to think about it cynically, I cannot think of why it would be omitted. It’s not like the omitted portion is saying something controversial that a priest wouldn’t want to preach on. 😛
 
dans0622 said:
Looking at the readings for the Ascension, I noticed that Ephesians 4: 1-13 is an option. Great. Within that option, it is possible to omit a portion of the reading. Not so great. The passage that can be omitted is this:

As the youngsters say, “FAIL.” This makes the reading pertinent to the Ascension. Without it, the reading could “fit” on any day of the year. Who would ever think that it makes sense to even allow this part of the reading to be omitted?

Dan
Click to expand...
I don’t know. In a lot of worship there is a minimalistic mindset, I don’t know if that has anything to do with it. But I say a prayer nearly every day that is derived from that passage – it is very beautiful and really expresses what the ascension is all about, including the descent to hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top