• 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.

Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time 'C'

Sunday July 18, 2010

Let the rendevous continue.

There are few people who do not enjoy eating. For some people every meal is a special occasion, a social event. That may be why some folks find it so difficult to eat alone. Eating is more than the ingestion and digestion of food. It’s an act of social intimacy during which the soul is nourished as well as the body. It’s a sacred ritual. I suppose that is why a meal is so often connected with the celebration of significant life-events. Beyond that, it is often an opportunity for strangers to become friends and the occasion for the reconciliation of broken relationships.

Whatever the circumstances, a good meal—even a spontaneous meal — doesn’t just happen. It takes much preparation a great deal of care in serving the food especially when guests are present. We must be careful to avoid distractions that detract from ‘table conversation’. Whenever I offer the prayer of invocation and blessing at a wedding, I usually include a cautious petition for the musicians: “May the music be loud enough to have fun and soft enough for us to converse!” How often has it happened that family and friends have traveled miles to be with each other in celebration and conversation only to become frustrated in their attempt to compete with the din of a dancing band or DJ? I offered such a blessing a few weeks ago; the DJ gave me a cold stare but the “banquet congregation” responded with applause.

At any rate, Abraham and Sarah welcomed the “three” strangers and prepared a sumptuous meal. In so doing, they experienced a rendezvous with God. It was in that encounter that the promise made by God to Abraham and Sarah would be fulfilled, namely that they would be the parents of many descendents and Abraham the father of many nations. Notice the dynamics of this encounter: first the setting “by the Oak of Mamre” –a place of great significance because it was the location at which Abraham had encountered God on numerous occasions. The environment is not neutral. Then Abraham recognized the visitors: “My Lord if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant.” Recognition is important because it is a mark of respect. Next came the welcome and invitation to a meal: “Rest yourselves… let me bring a little bread that you may refresh yourselves.” An open heart and acceptance predisposes both the host and the guest to what follows. There followed a full meal: “Then he took the cures and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.” The engagement is culminated in the eating of the meal. It was only at the conclusion of the meal that the purpose of the visitation was revealed — the fulfillment of the promise that Abraham would bear a son. However, the full realization of what took place during that visitation was not be appreciated until years later as the story was told and retold and finally recorded by the author of Genesis during the Babylonian exile.

The narration of this extraordinary event was inserted in today’s lectionary in order to prepare us for the narration of another spontaneous visitation and meal described by Luke. As with the visitation to Abraham and Sarah, a lot more is going on in this story than what meets the eye, namely, who has indeed chosen the better part, Martha or Mary?

It would appear that Jesus is chastising Martha for her petulance and pettiness in complaining about her sister Mary’s inattentiveness to the details of preparation. It is quite possible that Luke is making the point that a woman’s attentiveness to Jesus was equal to that of his immediate disciples who seem to be mostly male. Luke does appear to have a more inclusive attitude toward women than the other gospel writers.

At the same time, though divinely inspired, Luke seems to have given into the temptation to be “politically correct” rather than consent to the need of the “Marthas” of his time for greater recognition of their active role as disciples.

John’s Gospel, the last of the four written around 90 AD, casts Martha in a very different light in the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. In that account, Martha is obviously the more dominant and responsible of the two sisters taking the initiative to approach Jesus with the news about her deceased brother.

When we come this table, we need to incorporate the qualities of Martha and Mary. We need to be active participants, preparing ourselves for the feast of God’s word long before we arrive. It’s not enough to roll out of bed “to get Mass in” – and after we have arrived, to be attentive listeners at the feet of Jesus. There is much more happening here what meets the eye!

There is a progression of thinking in both the Old and New Testaments; there is a progression of thinking in the tradition of the Church. There are many implications for the life of the Church today as we look at our world and our church through the lens of a changing cosmology.

The homilist is charged with the responsibility to open us up to what may lie hidden beneath the ancient texts and obscure rituals. In many cases, the homilist may only affirm what we already believe. I hope that happens more often than not. On other occasions, the homilist may challenge us to be more open to the realities hidden beneath the text and rituals. In both cases, the message may not be understood until long after we depart — in our conversations at our table at home or in our private reflections on the road or even in the midst of our daily work.

In this sense, the meal is never over and our faith must be nurtured and nourished daily at our own tables and at least weekly at this table because we never know when the Lord may be revealed through an unexpected visit.