Relocate the congregation to a side chapel
If, as the liberal Catholics say, Jesus is really and truly present in the congregation at Mass, and if, as the liberal Catholics also say, we need to put the really and truly present Jesus of the Blessed Sacrament off to the side and away from Mass...
...Then shouldn't we also put the whole congregation off to the side, too?
And should we put the Gospel in a side chapel too, for the same reason?
I'm just looking for a little consistency from the liberal Catholics, here.
Any comments?
...Then shouldn't we also put the whole congregation off to the side, too?
And should we put the Gospel in a side chapel too, for the same reason?
I'm just looking for a little consistency from the liberal Catholics, here.
Any comments?
posted by Quintero at 12:27 AM
28 Comments:
It's not liberal Catholics who say that Jesus makes himself really and truly present in the assembly at Mass--it is the Catholic Church who says so, based upon the words of Jesus himself.
It's not liberal Catholics who say that Blessed Sacrament chapels are appropriate--it is the Catholic Church who recommends it, noting that we reserve the Eucharist for bringing Communion to the sick and Viaticum to the dying, as well as for the rpivate adoration of the faithful. (The focal point of the worship space in the church is the altar on which takes place the Sacrifice of the Mass.)
PQ: Good point; too bad "anonymous" missed it. It's inscrutable why liberal Catholics flee from being called liberal Catholics.
Quintero's point (he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that the leftist middle management have been tampering with the liturgy for 40 years, and one of their pet projects has been to blur the -- here it comes -- the DISTINCTION between Jesus's singularly unique Real Presence in the holy Eucharist and his spiritual presence a) among the assembly "gathered faithfully together;" b) in the Word of God proclaimed; c) the face of a cute baby; and let's throw in d) alienated homosexuals and transgendered persons.
One upshot of this project has been a general lowering of reverence for Jesus in the tabernacle. No one is saying an adjacent chapel is evil or inappropriate. But nowadays, it's no longer the exception to walk into a Catholic church and find yourself having to pray to St. Anthony just to find Jesus. Quintero is turning this priority on its head, suggesting the "really really real" presence of Jesus (the sacred band of God's Special Holy People Gathered) should also chuck itself off to the side in like manner.
But now I'm explaining a joke!
Patrick Coffin
http://seizethedei.blogspot.com
PS Let's have a moment of silence for those who, despite 12 Step groups and rehab, just can't quit the habit of hiding behind "anonymous."
Dear Patrick,
I got Q's attempt at wry humor but opted to reply with the official position of the Catholic Church.
The church building's primary end (remember the traditional identification of primary, secondary and even tertiary ends in scholasticism?) is to serve as the gathering space for the assembly when it celebrates the Sacred Mysteries. Hence the focal point of any Catholic church is not the tabernacle but the altar upon which the Sacrifice of the Mass occurs.
Adoration of the reserved Blessed Sacrament is a secondary end. (We reserve the Blessed Sacrament for adoration of the faithful, as well as for bringing Holy Communion to the sick and as Viaticum to the dying.) The reason Eucharistic Reservation Chapels are recommended is so that what goes on in the worship space and what goes on in the Reservation Chapel do not cause any confusion.
By confusion, we mean sacramental and symbolic confusion. During the Mass, the Body and Blood of Jesus are being made present, but if the tabernacle is right there, we have the Body and Blood of Christ already sacramentally and substantially present. (Symbolically, it is better to have the Body and Blood of the Lord sacramentally and substantially becoming present separate from the Body and Blood of the Lord already sacramentally and substantially present in the reserved Sacrament.)
While we speak of Jesus as really and truly present during the Mass in the priest acting in persona Christi, in the Word, and in the assembly, it is only in the Eucharist that we speak of Jesus really and truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, sacramentally and substantially under the accidents of bread and wine. There is no attempt to "downgrade" the Real Presence Par Excellence in the Eucharist. It, rather, accentuates the reality that Jesus makes himself really and truly present in different modes of presence.
Dear Anonymous 3:16 a.m. and 12:56 p.m.,
The late Father John Hardon, S.J., said of Cardinal Mahony's "Gather Faithfully Together":
"What is the overriding impression of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist which this document leaves on an enlightened Catholic reader?
"My answer is: The impression which this pastoral letter leaves is of a Real Presence which Pope Paul VI declared would undermine the liturgical renewal envisioned by the Second Vatican Council...
"Throughout the pastoral letter, the stress is on identifying the Eucharist as the gathering of all the faithful."
The rest of Father Hardon's analysis is in the archives at:
www.therealpresence.org
Dear Anonymous 3:16 a.m.,
The late Father John Hardon, S.J., in the analysis I just quoted from and supplied the link to, also wrote this:
"Given the length of Gathering Faithfully Together, it is impossible to give here a full analysis of its theological orientation. One thing, however, may be said. This pastoral letter is misleading."
It is misleading for anyone to emphasize the presence of Jesus in the congregation, because that emphasis ends up being at the expense of the Blessed Sacrament.
Also, remember the instruction that we are to reserve the Blessed Sacrament prominently. Screens, out-of-the-nave chapels and most side chapels fail that test.
Dear Anonymous,
Funny that only in the last 40 years or so have we seen claims that the proximity of altar and tabernacle cause "confusion."
The obvious solution is to bring back the Latin Mass, in which the priest faces...the tabernacle! and the altar fronts...the tabernacle!
Your position must be that all Catholics everywhere for 1,500 years were confused!
Dear Patrick,
You are so right about liberals blurring distinctions.
They are in the business of blurring distinctions. That is their bread and butter.
Thank you for your able posting!
We have to restore understanding of, belief in and reverence for Jesus' Real Presence. That people talk loudly, cackle and bray in church proves SOMETHING has lessened or even extinguished their faith in the last 40 years.
What is that something? Not the proximity of altar and tabernacle!
Dear Anonymous 12:56 p.m.,
Thank you for your thorough explanations. But the "confusion" you describe -- and I have NEVER heard ANY Catholic EVER express any such confusion -- is of mere recent and artificial origin.
No confusion arose or could arise during the 1,500 years of the Mass of the Ages, with the priest saying the Latin Mass and facing altar and tabernacle TOGETHER.
If you really want to eliminate any possibility of "confusion," forget the separate chapels and the free-standing lonesome altars, and bring back ad orientem.
When the priest says Mass that way, by the way, he is NOT "facing away from" the congregation, he is LEADING them in worship.
Anon: As I've said, liberals (like their semi-Pelagian forefathers) are exceptionally good at sounding orthodox when in a rhetorical corner. I'm afraid your missive on the "ends" of church buildings didn't add a drop to the point at hand; and your theory that the faithful are somehow confused by the architectural centrality given to the Blessed Sacrament adjacent the altar is, I regret to say, just silly. By your principle, the farther away the better, as the nerf-brained faithful might implode from sheer confusion. Why not build "Reservation Chapels" on Pluto just in case someone might mix up the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence in the reserved Host? Someone call NASA.
"Worship space." Ah, can there BE a better term that sums up the outcome objectives of spirit-of-Vatican-II Church Architecture 101?
The final proof is in the catechetical pudding, Anon. No one playing with a full deck believes that Catholics in 1960 (or 1950 or 1940 or 1930...) were MORE ignorant of the basic truths of the Faith, especially those relating to the Real Presence, that Catholics of today.
I'm officially out of this thread. Great job, PQ. Charitable, too.
Dear Q,
I'm sorry that Patrick gave up on this thread--I don't agree with him but he reasons and argues well with a minimum of ad hominems (I take umbrage at being called liberal but that's hardly a major faux pas on Patrick's part.)
Question for you, Q--are you denying that Jesus makes himself really and truly present in the priest who acts in persona Christi, in the Word, and in the assembly during Mass? Or are you just unhappy that the Church's theology, by your reckoning, somehow takes away from the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
Personally, I am quite comfortable with the Church's teaching especially since it sets the Eucharist apart by calling the substantial and sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist "Real Presence par excellence".
Anonymous,
I haven't read the WHOLE string between you and the other guy, but I was a bit struck by your attempt to justify your reasoning by "official" Church directives, as in the Church's RECOMMENDING that the Blessed Sacrament be reserved in a side chapel, as the main worship space of the church be reserved for Mass. Here is the Church's latest directive on the matter:
"Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the diocesan bishop,
"a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration;
"b. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer and origninally connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful."
First, the Church's offering the side chapel as one of two "preferable" places where the Blessed Sacrament may be reserved is different from RECOMMENDING it exclusively for the service of Viaticum and adoration, as your words read.
That being said, it is a rare side chapel which is 1) suitable for the faithful's adoration, 2) originally connected to the Church, AND 3) readily visible to the Christian faithful. (Anyone who's ever visited LA's Cathedral could vouch that the optical illusion created by the walls on the inside combined with the fact that one pretty much has to go into what appears to be the sanctuary and then turn at a back angle toward one of its side walls to see the narrow hallway with the refrigerator-shaped tabernacle, makes for a "side chapel" which is quite difficult to find.)
BTW, I forgot to include the reference to the above citation: General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 315.
Dear Richard,
Thanks for the quotes from GIRM.
If we can be practical, the reality is that anyone entering the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels can easily find the Blessed Sacrament Chapel—it enjoys the very prominent position it deserves, the first side chapel off the ambulatory upon entering the cathedral. If one has difficulty finding it, there are always ushers and docents, conspiciously garbed in maroon, who will glady point the way, or even escort someone to the Blessed Sacrament Chapel.
Every time I vist the cathedral, there are always people adoring the Body and Blood of Christ reserved in the tabernacle that even I don't like. But to me, it's what's in the tabernacle that matters, not the artistic merit of the tabernacle itself. (Which brings up another annoyance—people who will not receive Holy Communion from a non-ordained minister. It's Jesus' Body and Blood that matters, not who ministers them to us!)
I wonder how many people know exactly where to find the tabernacle in St. Peter's Basilica without consulting a floor plan or asking someone who knows. In the many years I have been going to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, the location of the tabernacle has changed several times. I remember it being at the Altar of the Sacred Heart, then on a large table near the Sacred Heart altar and I think now it's in the Lady Chapel. (No one in the worship space—the nave—can see into the Lady Chapel except for the tops of the stained glass windows which are visible above the choir screen.)
Nothing in the quotes from GIRM, by the way, negates or denies the reasons for which we reserve the Blessed Sacrament: to bring communion to the sick and Viaticum to the dying, and for the private adoration of the faithful. To my mind, a Blessed Sacrament Reservation Chapel facilitates these, not hinders them. (The "old high altar" placement is also quite practical when a reservation chapel is not feasible.)
I forgot to mention that one of the reasons I prefer the reservation chapel to the "old high altar" placement is one of proximity. In a Blessed Sacrament Chapel one can usually be close to the tabernacle whereas "old high altars' tend to be a good distance even from the "old altar rail" or the first pew. In St. Patrick's, for example. the "old high altar" is about 30 yards (that's three first downs!) from the altar rail.
Anon:
I didn't drop out of the thread. I got worn down by your unremitting flip-flopping. At first it seemed as though you weren't reading my replies at all, just restating your views. Then it seemed as though you weren't reading your OWN posts since you kept backing off from former positions when confronted with orthodox arguments. And by the way, my comment that you come off as a liberal is hardly an ad hominem. It's just descriptive, and points up my remark that liberals almost always flee from being called liberals.
The fact is, your earlier positions DO conflate the various "presences" of Jesus, in my humble opinion, and do so at the expense of the Presence par excellence on the Eucharist. Your inability to catch the legitimate insight behind Q's wry comment about chucking the congregation off to the side, your use of the snark term "ilk" (it may be "shorthand" but it's still a term of contempt -- imagine if I said, "Anon, let's talk about your wife and her ilk" I suspect you'd take umbrage and wonder why your wife was being subtly...?...denigrated) and your continued defense of the "human beings are sacred!" theory with NO nuance or qualification all add up to someone with whom there is no point in ongoing debate. Nowhere left o go on the topic.
I'm sure you're a good man. But a good and brave man would drop the anon mask.
- Patrick
Dear Patrick,
The reason I take umbrage at being called a liberal is that, to many, this means "less than orthodox" and I am as orthodox as you. I always hold to the teaching of the Magisterium. So to me, "liberal" is an ad hominem.
(The irony in all this to me is that I once wrote a weekly column for a Catholic newspaper and was unceremoniously dumped, in part, for being "too conservative"!)
Patrick, I pose the same question to you that I posed to Q, but he didn't answer: do you deny the Church's teaching that Jesus makes himself really and truly present at Mass in the priest who acts in persona Christi; in the Word; in the assembly who are the Body of Christ; and in the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ, real presence par excellence?
If you do not deny these, but are just uncomfortable with the language because you feel it detracts from the uniqueness of Eucharistic presence (which is what I suspect is the case from you last post--I just want you to be more explicit) then we have no disagreement theologically but merely semantically.
Getting back to Q's "let's relegate the congregation to a side chapel" witticism—the flaw there is that the primary end of the church building is to be a gathering place for the local church to worship. The focal point is the Altar of Sacrifice, not the tabernacle. Q seems to want the tabernacle to be the focal point; indeed, the idea of putting the assembly in a side chapel is witty only if you're coming from the position that the focal point (the tabernacle) has been misplaced. The worship space is for the public prayer of the Church; it may or may not contain the tabernacle since the tabernacle is not the focal point.
If my using "Anonymous" really bothers you that much, I'll pick a name. Call me Liam.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for quoting the GIRM.
Too many liturgists should but do not remember this: "When all else fails, consult the owner's manual."
And thanks for pointing out those probelems in the Cathedral.
Dear "Liam:"
Lurking behind Anonymous "really bothers me" for the same reason that needless confusion really bothers me. It's impossible to follow a thread when every Tom Dick and Harry sign on behind Anon. Most bloggers and com box participants find this annoying. Its not my weird pet peeve. Your closing remark suggests that you're now switching masks from Anon to Liam. Which is kinda sad, but better than more Anon.
Before I answer your questions, I think you have it backwards as to what a liberal is. A liberal is not someone less orthodox than someone else, but more, ie, liberals tend to ADD in their own set of orthodoxies on top of the Magisterium. So, liberals agree that men should be ordained as priests, but also that women should be as well. They agree that the Pope is infallible, but they also see their dissent as infallible as well. They agree that abortion is wrong, but it's only one item amid a host of Other Terrible Evils, so they spend their waking hours pushing leftist political agendas focusing typically on "social justice" -- the world most nebulous entity. And so on. That describes a more militant or committed liberal. There are degrees of liberalism. For instance, less liberal liberals agree with the official doctrine about the preeminent presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they also find that the nuanced distinctions made by the Magisterium about the various levels of that presence are unhelpful, that the faithful will somehow be confused by a too-close proximity of the Tabernacle to the altar, and that human beings are inherently sacred. To give a few examples.
BTW, I am also not a strict "conservative" in my approach to certain things. I think, for instance, that the Catholic Church has done a very poor job in articulating her teaching on homosexual behavior. Countless people with same-sex attractions encounter one of three things, all of which are ecclesial failures or worse: they hear silence from the pulpit about the whole topic; they hear (or most likely read) that sodomy is a mortal sin and "gays" who die unrepentant go to hell forever, period, no nuance, no room for psychological woundedness and a possible reduction of culpability, etc; or (much more common here in Los Angeles) they hear that God has made them gay and it's all good.
There is precious little attention paid to groups like Courage or solid Catholic doctors and scholars who have tried to understand this vexing phenomenon and offer paths to healing, repentance and restoration.
One more example. Many traditional-minded Catholics, in my view, approach non-Catholic Christians with The Truth of the True Church instead of beginning with affirming the truth of the gospel they do accept, validating it, and then leading them closer to the Tiber's edge.
That's a long way of saying that sincere Catholics can disagree as to the prudence of this or that issue or crisis, or can stress different aspects of the same Faith.
You ask: "do you deny the Church's teaching that Jesus makes himself really and truly present at Mass in the priest who acts in persona Christi; in the Word; in the assembly who are the Body of Christ; and in the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ, real presence par excellence?"
I answer: I do not deny it. I just marvel at your inability to catch the legitimate insight in Q's funny comment about relegating the congregation off to the side. Do YOU deny that there is a widespread lack of understanding among most US Catholics about the Real Presence, and that the majority of modern church designs incorporate ideas that tend to deemphasize the divine nature of the Liturgy and instead treat "God's People" as the point of it all, instead of God himself?
I'm not sure how theologically far apart we are Mr (Miss?) Liam. But all I ask is that you consider just chuckling over Q's famous wit instead of replying with deadly serious arguments about scholastic ends.
And stop reading so much LA Catholic at the expense of visiting http://seizethedei.blogspot.com.
M'kay?
- Patrick
Dear Liam,
I'm back. Wasn't that I "didn't answer" your question; it's just that pressing deadlines and such have kept me away.
Of course I don't deny any doctrines of the Church. I'll leave that to the liberals.
Also, "doctrines" is a much more solid word to use than "teachings" for the Church's truths.
The clear problem is that liberal Catholics have spoken of "really and truly" presences as if they are exactly the same.
That confuses the faithful, who are poorly catechized nowadays anyway, and it weakens the faith and understanding of some.
Coupling the "all the presences" talk with sending Jesus away and saying it was wrong to have Him there creates...confusion.
You don't want to do that, do you?
Also: In a world that Jesus Christ redeemed, in the True Church that Jesus Christ founded, and in our churches in which He so kindly, lovingly and humbly waits for us, it is sad and absurd to say Jesus is not a focal point.
With tabernacle and altar together through the many centuries, there was no confusion. Were all those Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and lay people "denying official Church teaching?"
Dear Liam,
The primary purpose of a church is to "be a gathering place for the faithful" to worship Whom?
The answer is Jesus, Who happens to reside in our tabernacles.
Dear Patrick,
Thanks for saying ole Q's post was funny! Glad you like it.
Dear P and Q,
First of all, according to your description of "liberal," I do not qualify...I quit the Democrat Party over abortion and registered as an independent (I want to go to heaven too much to be a Republican); I will not vote for a pro-abort candidate no matter how much he or she might score points on other issues...I am an ardent believer in the theology of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and I accept it as infallible...I know the difference between infallible and non-infallible teachings and have always felt that "liberals" are far more dogmatic than "conservatives"...etc.
Another thing with which I absolutely agree is the need for distinctions especially in understanding the Church's official teaching (I use "teaching" here, Q, because I mean both dogma and doctrine) When we discuss "Real Presence of Christ" it is good to know that there are several modes of "Real Presence". I know of no one who is theologically astute who confuses the modes of Real Presence in the Word or in the assembly with the mode of Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
Patrick, you asked if most Catholics misunderstand the Church's teaching on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, to which I reply, "Yes." Some Catholics do not believe enough, thinking the presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be merely a spiritual presence or a symbolic presence while other Catholics believe too much, asserting that Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.
You're right when you say that Catholics are not adequately catechized to understand that sacramental and substantial presence is the mode of presence we predicate of the Eucharistic Lord. Jesus is really and truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the form of the physical accidents of bread and wine.
Too few Catholics have ever heard of The Categories of Aristotle which are essential to understanding the philosophical underpinnings and theological language the Church uses about the Real Presence par excellence in the Eucharist.
I think the biggest problem in the everyday understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexuality is the misuse of the word "disordered." Gay people who think the Church is persecuting them will say, "See? The Catholic Church is saying we are sick, that we have some kind of disorder." And, of course, this false claim is bolstered by Catholics who brow-beat homosexuals by using the term "disordered" and meaning exactly what the complaining gays say they mean.
The Church, however, uses "disordered" to distinguish between sexual appetites that are correctly aimed at the unitive and procreartive ends of human sexuality ("ordered") and those not so properly aimed ("disordered"). Again, knowledge of the correct use of Scholastic language and terminology is the key.
Pastorally, I think Cardinal Mahony and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' approach to ministry with homosexual Catholics is excellent. It is very Christ-like in accepting and loving gay Catholics where they are but challenging them to grow as Christians in the spiritual life, striving for the chastity the Gospel expects of all of Jesus' disciples.
(Sometimes Catholics forget that EVERY follower of Jesus is expected to strive for chastity which means faithful monogamy for the married and abstinence from genital sexual expression for the unmarried.)
As for the genesis of homosexuality, that remains a mystery. People who say it is chosen are no more right than those who say it is genetic and therefore beyond control...and both camps are wrong. People discover that they attracted to memebers of the opposite sex or to members of their own sex (or both)—they do not choose. Having said that, however, genital sexual expression is a matter of choosing and, cooperating with God's grace, all are capable of choosing well.
Dear Liam,
Glad to hear about your orthodox bona fides. Also glad to hear you won't vote for pro-aborts. (But will you vote for anti-aborts?)
Sorry that paper axed you for being "too conservative."
You have said that Jesus is sacramentally and subtstantially present only in the Eucharist -- and you must mean by that, Jesus present not just during Mass but also reserved in the Blessed Sacrament -- so you ought to agree that EVERY mention of "the four presences" HAS to include the qualifier that Jesus is present sacramentally and substantially ONLY in the Sacred Species.
That simple and easy-to-make clarification is absolutely essential for anyone who does not want to undermine listeners' faith intentionally or inadvertently.
Few of everybody, not just Catholics, know Scholasticism or Aristotle's Categories, and that is all the more reason to make the essential distinction about the Blessed Sacrament.
My post and this thread are about Jesus and the tabernacle. As for what else Patrick and you have brought up, and especially the comment about Christ "loving people where they are," every one of us must remember that Jesus tells us: "Go and sin no more."
Dear Q,
I no more assume that gay people have sinned or are sinning sexually than I assume that married people have committed or are committing adultery. But if they have, the message from Jesus is indeed, "I do not condemn you but go and sin no more."
I always try to clarify the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist by stating that the Body and Blood of Christ are present sacramentally and substantially.
And I vote for anti-aborts even if they do not embrace the consistent ethic of life.
Dear Anonymous,
Your comment says "gays" need to "grow as Christians" and refers to "striving for chastity," so I was going on that wording.
Also, people who self-identify publicly as "gay" are not trying hard to dispel the impression that they do what "gays" do, no?
Here is your quote:
"It is very Christ-like in accepting and loving gay Catholics where they are but challenging them to grow as Christians in the spiritual life, striving for the chastity the Gospel expects of all of Jesus' disciples."
Dear Anonymous,
Glad to hear you say that you "always try to clarify the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist by stating that the Body and Blood of Christ are present sacramentally and substantially."
But you did not say that in your first comment in this thread; and your comment could have used that clarification, especially in light of your saying, "really and truly present in the assembly at Mass."
Dear Q,
I didn't mention the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist AT ALL in the first message of this thread...if I had, based upon my constant practice, I would have specified the sacramental and substantial mode of real presence in the Eucharist.
My first post in this thread merely asserted, as the Church does, that Jesus makes himself really and truly present in the assembly at Mass, based upon the Lord's own words.
Dear Liam,
Yes, I know. When we mention just the Eucharist, we do not have to say, "sacramentally and substantially" to other Catholics.
It is when someone mentions "the four presences" that we need to make the "sacramentally and substantially" distinction about the Blessed Sacrament.
Post a Comment
<< Home