The Orphan Feast?
Do others share my impression that for many Catholics Ascension is the neglected feast, falling, scarcely noticed, between Easter alleluias and Pentecost pyrotechnics?
And that Jesus’ Ascension, when pondered at all, appears to represent the Lord’s leaving, embarking, perhaps, on a well-earned sabbatical, until “he comes again in glory.”
The New Testament suggests a radically different perspective. Mark’s Gospel ends, speaking of the ascended Lord “working with” those he sends forth to proclaim the Good News everywhere.
The Letter to the Ephesians insists that, by his Ascension, Jesus rules as head of his body the Church, “which is the fulness of him who fills all in every way” (Eph 1:23). There is mystery here to be sure, but hardly inactivity.
What does the ascended Lord do, what action is unique to him? He pours out the Holy Spirit to all who believe and call upon his name. As Peter proclaims on Pentecost: “Exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, Jesus has poured out what you see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
We do, indeed, need a “Spirit Christology,” if we are truly to realize who Christ is and who we, as Church, are called to be. But it must be a robust, not a palid or sentimental “Spirit Christology;” and its theological point of departure is neither Jesus’ conception nor baptism, but his Ascension.
Ascension: not an “orphan feast,” but the Feast of feasts, whereby humanity is taken into the very bosom of the Father, and we are not left orphans, but raised up as daughters and sons in the Son.
While I agree that Ascension Thursday is much neglected, to call it the “Feast of feasts” seems hyperbolic. Easter remains the Feast of feasts for Christians.
Any Spirit Christology must begin with the Risen Christ lest, as St. Paul reminds us, Christian preaching be in vain.
I’ve always liked the connection between the Ascension and Pentecost that Robert points to–and that Luke puts in Peter’s mouth in Acts 2. But let’s extend that connection just a bit. If in Jesus’ Ascension “humanity is taken into the very bosom of the Father” (Col 3:1-3; Eph 2:-46), it is through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that the apostles (and, by extension, we) are ushered into the experience of this privileged position (Rom 8:15-16; John 14:20; 1 Cor 2:9-10). So while the Ascension establishes our new relationship with the Father–indeed with the Trinity–it is at Pentecost that the objective reality takes on a more subjective, transforming dimension.
So yes, the Ascension is often neglected (and the recent mobility of the feast’s celebration may be evidence of its demotion), but the same could be said about Pentecost as well. . . and probably for similar reasons. “Pentecost pyrotechnics”? Not in any Whitsunday liturgies I’ve attended.
One more thing: A robust “Spirit christology” would be great. Perhaps we could call for a more robust Spirit spirituality as well.
This reminds me of what some say is the forgotten person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. What it says to me is that the theology of the Trinity is really primitive. Yet we know that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God–apart from all the theorizing.
As for the ascension I am not sure.
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1959/v16-1-article2.htm
But we can’t fault Luke as he champions both. I presume that Robert is tying the Resurrection into his Ascension which is viewed as the climax.
The proclamation manytimes falls on non-responsive ears. Is it because the proclaimers frequently do not portray the Spirit of God? But somehow Jesus always makes it through despite his proclaimers. This is why the bishops and pastors may be ignored but never Jesus. And the more they insist on being the representatives of Christ on earth or Alter Christus, the more they sully the message because they can’t measure up to it.
Finally, Benedict stopped the arrogance with his order on Maciel. Now how will he change the bishops? Is it any wonder people who are still drawn to Jesus do not find him in the bishops?
If people do not find Jesus or the Spirit in bishops, perhaps they are looking at the wrong ones. Martyrs like Romero and Gerardi demonstrate what a robust Spirituality looks like: the post-Pentecost Apostles gave testimony (martureo).
The flesh taken up at Ascension still bore the nail wounds of crucifixion. Many of today’s bishops are more interested in being Princes of the Church than martyrs for the Gospel.
I see nothing wrong with criticizing the bishops as a group as well as reactionary bishops such as Burke in St. Louis, Bruskewitz in Lincoln, NE; Rigali in Philadelphia, Finn in Kansas City, in particular.
Yes, Romero certainly stood above many of his contemporaries.
Nonetheless, I am not aware of a single bishop who has stepped down because of his role in the clergy sex abuse matter. And JPII, of course, may be known for years to come for appointing “law and order” bishops who don’t seem to gravitate toward the renewal espoused by many/most of their predecessors at Vatican II (and to realize that most if not all of them had been elevated to the episcopacy by Pius XII!).