• 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.

Thwenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time 'B'

Sunday August 23, 2009

Their story is our story.

The readings this weekend re-ignited in me the memory of the weekly rallies conducted by the revered evangelist Billy Graham during which thousands of searchers and seekers were challenged to make their decision for Christ. In fact, Billy Graham’s televised rallies were aptly titled, “Hour of Decision.”

Although his message was more than emotional rhetoric and surely contained doctrinal information of one kind or another, the tone of his exhortation was strong and emotions ran high in the vast assembly. Moreover, the volume of his delivery combined with the volume of the response of the crowds created a synergism that occasioned even the most hardened unbeliever to consent and conversion. I was deeply moved by the procession of thousands as they moved from their seats to the center of the arena, hands held high with tears flowing freely from their hearts as well as from their eyes to the strains of that great hymn, “_Just As I Am_.”

There seemed to be no doubt about their need to be ‘saved’ and their desire to be ‘born again.’

I am not aware of any statistics that testify to the quality of those ‘decisions for Christ’ and it would serve no purpose to speculate. However, one could make a case if not on empirical evidence at least on psychological theory that decisions based on pure emotion do not long endure without a concomitant commitment to engage in complementary activities such as prayer, study, worship and service all of which are needed to sustain that graced moment of conversion. Nevertheless, this ‘hour of decision’ may well have been the most significant for those who were graced and ready. I would like to think that their lives were never the same despite the setbacks and personal failures that may have pressed them to compromise.

I don’t think it outrageous to suggest that Joshua employed the tools of a successful evangelist as he addressed the Israelites and the unbelieving slaves among them who had escaped the horrors of Pharaoh and who were now mixed with Amorites at Shechem.

It was truly their hour of decision. Would they follow the gods their ancestors served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country they were now dwelling. Would they follow the true God who led them, indeed, who carried them through the sea and the desert, feeding them and quenching their thirst lest they grow faint or starve along the way. Of course in the style of a melodramatic epic the author of the Book of Joshua is telling it not ‘like it was’ but as it should have been. But life is frail and there are no guarantees of total success or happiness in this life.

Nevertheless, the people responded to Joshua: “For it was the Lord, our God, who brought us and our ancestors up out of the land of Egypt, out of a state of slavery. He performed those great wonders before our very eyes and protected us along our entire journey and among the peoples through whom we passed. Therefore we also will serve the Lord, for he is our God.”

They made their “leap of faith.” Their decision was firm and final — well, firm but not really final. And their story is our story.

Joshua’s address was selected as an introduction to the Gospel lesson of John that concludes his great dissertation on the Eucharist introduced several weeks ago.

This week we are challenged to decide whether or not we will accept the full implications of that teaching. “Many of those who were listening said, ‘This is hard; who can accept it?’”

What was the hard saying? Eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood or accepting the whole Christ and all for which he stood — sacrificial love, justice, integrity, hard nosed compassion, forgiveness and unrelenting attention to the poor?

I have come to the conclusion that we have been getting a good dose of John’s Eucharistic theology and that is why one Sunday would never be enough to cover the lesson or exhaust the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Church—in the life of the Christian. No, this is not about cannibalism or anything close to it. This is about the challenge to become so identified with the living Christ that with Saint Paul we can say, “I live now no longer I but Christ lives in me,”— the Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith. They are indeed the same but the historical Jesus was only the beginning. It is the risen Christ that comes to us at this banquet through the power of the inspired word and the sacramental elements of bread and wine.

John has made some outrageous statements over the past four weeks all of them very challenging to Jesus’ disciples and now to us. “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” Then turning to ‘the Twelve’ Jesus asks them if they will abandon him. Peter responds, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.” It was the same Peter who testified his love for Jesus in his response to Jesus threefold question, “Peter, do you love me more than these…” Peter responding impatiently, “Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you!” and then on the night of Jesus’ arrest denied him three times. And Peter’s story is our story.

So here we are once more at the Lord’s table, still not fully comprehending the reality, still grappling with the mystery, still struggling with the implications of the invitation to live in Christ, still confused about the relationship of the sinful Church as an institution and the Church as the bride and the Body of Christ.

But we all have our own stories that parallel the stories of the ancient Israelites as they lived under the oppression of Pharaoh and as they lived in fear of drowning in the Red Sea and has they hungered in the dessert. And we all have our memories of how God has saved us in the past. We are all survivors of one kind or another or we wouldn’t be here today!

This is our ‘hour of decision’ — again — and yet one more opportunity to say to the Lord, “Master, to whom shall we go? We have come to believe that you are the Holy One of God.”