Tabernacle Consigned to Cry Room Organ, Piano Enshrined Front and Center

San Diego News Notes ^ | October 2003 | Robert Kumpel

[RonF]

Someone help me out here. Not being a Catholic, what's the difference between a tabernacle and an altar?

[Romulus]

It's not necessary that we know.

It's islam that posits God as unknowable, unapproachable, existentially other -- a Wizard-of-Oz whom no one ever sees. Christians believe that mystery while very real exists not to conceal but to draw men through faith, because faith is a key constituent of the personal relationship God wants with us. Moreover, Christianity teaches that man has because he bears God's image -- and for that reason it's entirely appropriate and even an act of faith in the Prototype whose end we are, that we confront the question of whether a loving God would send evil men into the heart of his beloved spouse to work evil in the world.

If our present griefs are a divine chastisement, then in what spirit are we to receive arienism, islam, protestantism, and other heresies. Please do not ask me to receive these as manifestations of divine providence.

[Land of the Irish]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the tabernacle: "...From the sixteenth century it became gradually, although slowly, more customary to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in a receptacle that rose above the altar table. This was the case above all at Rome, where the custom first came into use, and in Italy in general, influenced largely by the good example set by St. Charles Borromeo."

The tabernacle is an enclosed receptacle where the Blessed Sacrament is kept.

[JNB]

Hey if you want to defend the current state of the liturgy, be my guest, but do not be making any excuses for it by taking things out of context. Removing the side altar from a Cathedral that could be said to have taken away form the main altar is not the same as moving the tabernacle out of the nave, destroying a high altar, having questionable theology and bad quality in the liturgical music, and sloppy rubrics all around.

[RobbyS]

TIt is well-known that this "RC" bishop belongs in the ECUSA.

[RonF]

Ah! Thanks.

In my Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian parish, to my knowledge all consecrated hosts left over at the end of a Eucharist are consumed by the priest at the end of the service. There's no adoration, etc. They're not saved or preserved anywhere. There's one exception during Holy Week, where some are kept out for use on Good Friday or Holy Saturday (my memory fails me).

[Thorondir]

Besides, don't you Roman folks have Canon Laws concerning what is required in the Sanctuary?

Laws and orders from the Pope mean absolutely nothing to the modernist libs. In fact, it makes them feel better to thumb their noses at the Vicar of Christ.

[Catholicguy]

LOL Yes they did. Third Double, for example. But, facts don't matter to ideologues.

[Catholicguy]

Hey, if you want to misconstrue my specific point about side altars as a general defense of Liturgial anomie, don't let me stop ya.

[LadyDoc]

One of my patients relates the story about her church, the nearby "osage cathedral" built with a grant from the tribal oil money.

In the 1980's, a priest started to "renovate" the inside of the church, i.e. remove the statues etc. The tribe went to the priest and essentially told him they built the church and if he tried to change it, they'd cause trouble. So only minimal chages were done...

In PC Minnesota, however, you go into churces that are Gothic on the outside, but inside are whitewashed and ugly, thanks to renovators. From a purely artistic standpoint this is nonsense. WHen I saw Chicago's Soldier's field last week, I commented: Looks like it was designed by a Minneapolis church rennovator...

[Desdemona]

CG, part of the problem here isn't just the changes themselves, it's the tactics used as the congregation finds out about it. Almost exactly this same thing happened at my parents' parish and it left a rift between the liturgy committee and the rest of the parish that may never be healed. They were told this is the way it's going to be and that's it. No discussion, no one could say a word against it without somebody taking offense. There were some things that did need to happen plant wise (the furnace for one) but a lot of extras were thrown out because the parish couldn't afford it and that was after they wiped out the cash reserves.

Part of why a lot of us like the Catholic church and all of her entrapments is the entrapments. The centruries of development are blythely ignored when the puritans redo a church. The beauty starts to disappear. And really, acoustically, the choir and the intruments belong in the rear galleries. Plain and simple, the churches were built for that and it eliminates the need for the big sound systems - good thing, too when the power goes out say at 11:44 pm on Christmas Eve. And yes that has happened at churches where I've been.

[Maximilian]

To what purpose?

God's purpose. Our limited intellectual capacity is not able to understand it. St. Augustine compared it to trying to fit the ocean into a hole one has dug in the sand on the beach.

Prior to every other type of intellectual understanding, one must understand that all that happens, all that is created, all that remains in creation, all occur by and within God's will. This includes both the good and the bad. And while we can't know God's immediate purpose, we do know that His ultimate purpose is to desire our salvation. Therefore everything that occurs is part of God's overall plan for the salvation of souls.

Even in regard to sin, God does not will the malice of the sinner, but the action itself may very well be willed by him. So the hand that strikes you, if it was motivated by sin then God does not will the malice of the sinner, but He does will the striking of the hand as an action separate from the motive.

What a weird, Old Testament (and fundamentally an-ecclesial) understanding of God's dealing with his people you offer!

"Old Testament" should not be used as a perjorative term. It is an essential part of God's revelation to man. Reading the writings of the saints soon makes clear how totally they were steeped in the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, but all the other books as well.

A God hungering for excuses to damn sinners and not to save them would be unworthy of worship.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. The Old Testament never even clearly explains Heaven and Hell. That's why there was so much dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Even today Jews do not have a clearly defined doctrine. So "a God hungering for excuses to damn sinners" cannot possibly be an Old Testament understanding.

In the Gospels, in contrast, Jesus hardly ever speaks to the people without mentioning Heaven and Hell, with a strong emphasis on Hell. All of our conceptions of Hell come directly from the quoted words of Christ, none of it comes from the Old Testament. It was He was spoke repeatedly of the "fire that never stops burning," and of the fact that few will find the narrow road to Heaven but many will find the broad and easy path to Hell.

I recommend this inexpensive (as little as $3 in qty) book for further reference:
Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence

I know Polycarp is a fan of this particular book.

[RobbyS]

I think the complainst about an "Old Testament God" have to do with such incidents as the slaughter that attended Joshua's conquest of the Holy Land.

[dangus]

How are they distributed to the infirmed?

[JNB]

On line I remeber reading a story about a parish that was about to be "rennovated" near Millwaukee, whose conregation was mostly Italian. The priest wanted to rennovate it and remove a expensive marble communion rail, the parish opposed any rennovations. Of course being Milwaukee, the diocese would not stop the priest, but supposedly, some "friends" of the various Parishoners "requested" that the priest drop any plans to rennovate the parish or else they would be "unhappy". One thing about the Ethnic conregations, they do not take crap.

[RonF]

How are they distributed to the infirmed?

If the Eucharist is to be distributed to the infirm, sufficient hosts are consecrated to satisfy the need both within the congregation and for those absent who desire it. After the distribution, the requisite number of hosts and amount of consecrated wine are put in suitable containers and given to a deacon or eucharistic minister, who then are to immediately leave the church and bring them to the infirm person (that's in the Book of Common Prayer).

If the priest is going to do this at a later time, he or she can of course consecrate the hosts and wine on site, or carry the consecrated material themselves. But consecrated hosts and wine are not commonly left in the church from day to day. At least not in our parish. I don't have the ECUSA canons on this at hand.

[RonF]

This discussion reminds me that during Lent, I was going to church on Wednesday nights for choir rehearsal. I would show up early for the service, which included Holy Communion. There weren't too many people there, and I was the last one at the rail when the priest came around with the chalice. The priest miscalculated the amount of wine needed, and there was about 1/4 cup of wine left in the chalice. He knows me well, and all the consecrated wine had to be consumed. I looked in the chalice, bent my mouth down, and UP he tipped the chalice! Fortunately I hadn't sworn off alcohol for Lent.