• Editorial - Op Ed
• Bulletin Board, Announcements, Calendar
• Welcome and Website Protocol
• Article Archive

Print this page

Article Categories

• Book Reviews
• Open Letter
• Editorials
• Notes, Quotes & Comments
• Pastor's Study
• Project Millstones
• Sidebar Comments
• Weekly Message

Links

AMERICA Magazine
A balanced Catholic weekly magazine published by the jesuits of the United States for an intelligent Catholic readership. Go online to subscribe.

Liturgy
This link will keep 'parishioners-at-large' in touch with current creative liturgy sources and resources that respect a variety of 'traditions' within the Church.

Voice of the Faithful
A 'movement' of lay Catholics 'inspired' by the abuse scandal calling for greater accountability of bishops to 'Catholics in the Pew.'

Survivos' Network for those Abused by Priests or Religious
A National Network of self-help support groups for people abused by clergy or religious.

Bishop Accountability
Vital information about the disclosure of sexual abuse and related issues affecting Catholics in the pew and the manner in which Bishops continue to exempt themselves from accountability

National Catholic Reporter
A national Catholic lay newspaper covering events not usually covered or presented with a clerical bias in the local diocesan press or but of concern and interest to Catholics.

COMMONWEAL Magazine
A 'lay' Catholic weekly publication with an accent on an intelligent analysis and commentary on curent issues, trends and concerns of interest to Catholics.

Search

Daily Scripture

+ 5th Week in Ordinary Time

It still has meaning.

1 Kings 8:1-7, 9-13 Psalm 132:6-7, 8-10 Mark 6:53-56

The priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place beneath the wings of the cherubim in the sanctuary, the holy of holies of the temple. There was nothing in the ark but the two stone tablets which Moses had put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel. [1 Kings 8:6, 8]
_
In recent years there has been much discussion in liturgical circles about the proper location of the tabernacle in the worship space. The directives implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy by the Second Vatican Council prescribed that the tabernacle be located in prominent location in the church or chapel, preferably in a chapel dedicated to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and appropriate for veneration. In any case, it was not to be located on the altar table used for the celebration of the Eucharist. As a result in many churches renovations, the tabernacle was moved to the ‘side altar’ previously used for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin or St. Joseph and in some churches, it was placed on the old altar previously used for Mass. In situations the old altar was replaced with a permanent pedestal on which the tabernacle was placed.

In liturgical matters, nothing is simple. Those of a more conservative disposition insisted that the location of the Tabernacle on the side altar reduced the status of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist thereby diminishing its meaning in the devotional life of the faithful. Others of a more liberal persuasion opined that in fact, the location in a separate chapel within the church assigned to the sacrament greater prominence thereby increasing the devotional aspect. Moreover, in as much as an emphasis of the ‘action’ of the Mass as the repetition of the “Lord’s Supper” was promoted by the Council, it seemed to liturgists that the location of the tabernacle in the main sanctuary behind the free standing Eucharist table would compete with the ‘action’ of the Mass as a sacred meal.

The most recent prescriptions in the United States provide that the tabernacle be located in the main sanctuary on suitably ornate pedestal. It is ironic that in the major basilicas including the basilica of St. Peter in Rome, the tabernacle is located on a side altar that is not very prominent.

Whatever the location, it should not be a bone of contention worthy of a liturgical battle. The public and private devotion to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is rooted in the long tradition of the Church and should not be disparaged. In the same way in which the tablets of stone on which the Ten Commandments was symbolic of God’s presence in the temple, so too, the reservation of the Eucharist Bread has been one of the longest-standing practices of the devotional life of Catholics. It is intended to extend the meaning and the effects of the Eucharistic celebration into the life of the faithful who continue to spend time in prayerful meditation on the mysteries of the life of Jesus not the least of which is his faithfulness unto death on the cross for the salvation of the world. The two aspects of Eucharist need not be in competition. The ‘Mass’ continues to be considered a “sacrificial” meal. But we need to be clear that its connection with the passion and death of Christ even as the lamb of God is not to suggest that his death was mandated to satisfy and angry God. That in my opinion is not an appropriate application of Old Testament sacrifices. No, Jesus sacrificial death was the completion of his entire sacrificial life of unqualified and indiscriminate love in the same way as the sacrificial love of partners in marriage offer their sacrificial love to one another or in the manner that Mother Teresa offered her live in sacrificial service to victims of poverty in the streets of Calctta. It is in this sense that devotion to the Eucharist in the tabernacle takes its extended meaning.

During the celebration of the Eucharist, we become what we eat. Through our devotion to the Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle, we are reminded that the Eucharistic presence in our mind, heart and soul extends into all the good works of our lives with the hope that we too will always think and act with the same sacrificial love as did Jesus in his earthly life.

Seventeenth Sunday in Ordinary Time 'A'

Sunday July 27, 2008

Traditional, not traditionaists.

There are more ‘both/ands’ in this world and in our church than ‘either/ors.’

Lutheran theologian, Karl Barth, said that a wise preacher holds the Bible in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other. The point is clear and consistent with Catholic tradition. Although God has revealed himself through the Scriptures, it is also true that God continues to be revealed in the ever-expanding universe as well as through individual and collective life experiences.

Consequently, just as it is not sufficient to read the Scriptures without knowing the historical context in which they were written, people of faith need to read the ancient biblical texts through the lens of their rich human experiences – individual and collective, personal and communal. The Church has been doing this from the beginning.

Although there was no formal written biblical tradition in Solomon’s time, there was an oral tradition containing stories that preserved the memory of what was perceived to be God’s intervention into the lives of our Jewish ancestors—interventions they believed, demonstrated God’s faithfulness.

These oral stories upheld Israel its struggle for survival. They were eventually written down and became the historical books of the Old Testament. They are what we call ‘faith history’ as distinguished from documentary history. We can also find strains of the same stories in other forms of midrashic biblical writings such as the prophets, psalms, and wisdom literature. They are just snippets of how God relentlessly broke through the turmoil of discord, division and defeat to assure our Jewish ancestors that they were never out of God’s embrace. The Jews viewed themselves as having a special relationship with God—a chosen people—but there are ample texts in which God made it clear to the Jewish people that God’s love was inclusive. God played no favorites.

On his succession as the King of Israel, Solomon, son of David, aware of his frailty and fallibility, acknowledged God’s faithfulness and then prayed not for silver or gold, power or prestige but for wisdom. Solomon believed in God’s faithfulness and he proclaimed his own unworthiness. Consequently, God gave him all he needed to lead his people.

In effect, God empowered Solomon to prudence—the ability to accept the demands of his office: to listen carefully before speaking, to see clearly and to judge wisely; to testify to God’s abiding goodness and love.

The author of the first Book of Kings exaggerated Solomon’s greatness, and despite his personal unworthiness and eventual unfaithfulness, God continued to uphold the people of Israel not just for their sake but for the sake of every nation.

Was Solomon’s prayer in the mind of Matthew as he recast the three parables that conclude his recording of Jesus’ sermon of parables? God’s wisdom is worth more than any treasure or pearl or multi-million dollar lottery!

Jesus used simple analogies and allegories, but Matthew was also writing for believers of a later period – people who lived well after the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was addressing divisions among the Jews and early Christian converts, divisions that would eventually lead to the expulsion of early Christians from the temple. As a wise sage, he applied ancient wisdom to new situationa.

We live in a world of turmoil and discord but as people od faith we search not only for explanations but also for meaning. Why does God allow such disparate diversity not only among world nations but also within our own borders? Why does God allow divisions within religions and even within our Church despite its claims to infallibility in matters of faith and morals?

In this very congregation surely there is not a clearly defined unanimity of thought and conviction. People of faith listen to the same Scriptural texts but hear the stories differently. They pray the same words in the Eucharist narrative but speak the words with varied meanings and applications depending on their ethnic origin, social and educational background and political persuasion. I suspect that all are not democrats. In fact, there may even be some republicans, independents and libertarians in this assembly!

Saint Paul had a remarkable flexibility in dealing with the divisions in the communities he established and he did his utmost to identify with all of them without forsaking the essential unity that bonded them in Christ—agreement on the essentials, respect for differences but in all things charity. At the end of the day, there are three things that count: faith hope and love but the greatest of these is flexibility!

In our own time, there are strong movements for Church reform from the left and from the right. Opus Dei, Legatus, Catholics United for the Faith, and other similar lay movements to the right lay claim to orthodoxy while members of Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful and other groups on the left lobby for reform in order to preserve what they consider foundational orthodoxy rooted in the Gospel and in the early practice of the Church.

I have friends and friendly foes among both and most are really nice people whose company I enjoy. I have friends to go to Medjagory and friends who are great devotees of Mary Magdalene in pursuit of a greater recognition of women’s role in Church ministry.

Before his untimely death, Cardinal Bernardin with the able assistance of the National Pastoral Life Center in New York headed by the much beloved Father Philip Murnion established a forum for dialogue called the “Common Ground Initiative.” Although the object of criticism from the left and right, they insisted on the need for genuine dialogue among people of faith and good will in an atmosphere of trust and transparency. Only in such an environment can the Spirit breathe freely and enable participants to discover a new truth that expands on the old bringing forth new insights into our rich Catholic and universal tradition that move us beyond pharisaic rigidity to a life more in keeping with the spirit of the gospel.

Ordination to the priesthood or to the episcopacy is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Neither does membership in Opus Dei, Legatus or Voice of the Faithful. No one is exempt for the hard work of study, prayer and discernment and dialogue. Church leaders have yet to learn the skill. Try it this week. Listen with the ears of your mind and the ears of your heart. Then repeat what you heard the other person say to make sure you understood accurately. Then allow what that other person said to sink in and ask yourself if that data might change your own perception of truth. Our leaders have yet to learn the art of true dialogue.

The last words from the lips and the heart of Phil Murnion as he breathed his last at Calvary Hospital in New York were these: “Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.”

In the words of Thomas Merton: “Life is made up of encounters. A true encounter stimulates questions and answers. When you meet an interesting stranger you find yourself alert and curious. Who is this person? You seek to discover something of the mystery of his identity and of his history. At the same time if he inspires confidence, if he seems to be a person of unusual depth and experience, you begin to open up to him and share with him the secret of your own life. In this way, a true personal encounter brings us not only knowledge of another, fellowship with another, but also a deeper comprehension of our own inner self.” [Monastic Journey by Thomas Merton]

“Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like he head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.” [Matt 13:52]

As I stated earlier, there are more ‘both / ands’ in this world and in this church than ‘either / ors.’