National Catholic Reporter and the Liturgy/churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand_Al_Thor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rand_Al_Thor

Guest
Pax vobiscum!

I have just read a horribly written article from the NCR that appeared in '99. It is on an online journal article site so it is timed, so I can’t post it, but I’ll highlight some of the absolute rubbish that appeared in it.

They say:

“A lot of that post-Tridentine stuff was cutsy and fluffy ‘good night sweet Jesus’ kind of junk.” - Benedictine Fr. Adrian Kavanagh

Wow. The TLM, which was the Mass for over 1,000 years is “junk”. And what is he even talking about with THAT Mass being “cutsy and fluffy”…what about the liberal liturgists and their “we’re all together” Mass?

Bishops and theologians who advocate for central placement of the tabernacle are slammed throughout the article as not know-nothings: “People who say those things are just ignorant of liturgical history” says Fr. Kavanagh.

Oh, so THEY’RE ignorant of liturgical history? This is coming from the people who say that devotion to the Eucharist (adoration) began with TRENT! Yeah, I’m pretty sure that Corpus Christi dates from just a little earlier than that. Even my Episcopal minister history professor has stated repeatedly that Eucharistic adoration was present in the Middle Ages much earlier than the Reformation and Trent (the article tries to claim that Eucharistic devotion and central placement of the tabernacle emerged ONLY as a response to Protestant denial of the Real Presence) and the tabernacle was in a central location (on the altar), except for some of the large cathedrals and the basilicas, well before the Reformation and Trent. If it weren’t, then how could the Protestants have taken the tabernacle off of the altars?

The article also praises the “noble simplicity” of church design and how great it is that statues and icons are in short supply these days. Funny, I thought that VII said that the LITURGY should have a “noble simplicity”…I don’t recall ever reading that with regards to church architecture. Also, highlighting things that are unique to Catholicism evidently is “so contrary to the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II.” More importance is given to Christ’s presence in everything else but the tabernacle. Go figure.

There’s the NCR for you…:rolleyes:

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
I have just read a horribly written article from the NCR that appeared in '99. It is on an online journal article site so it is timed, so I can’t post it,
Click to expand...
I’m confused about how it is that you can read the article, but we won’t be able to do so.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

They say:

“A lot of that post-Tridentine stuff was cutsy and fluffy ‘good night sweet Jesus’ kind of junk.” - Benedictine Fr. Adrian Kavanagh

Bishops and theologians who advocate for central placement of the tabernacle are slammed throughout the article as not know-nothings: “People who say those things are just ignorant of liturgical history” says Fr. Kavanagh.
Click to expand...
I would have to say that Adrian Kavanagh was looking for a fight. This is a shame, because we should be tolerant of other Church member’s points of view and not attack them for having a difference of opinion. For this his credibility is questionable.

On the history of the tabernacle, when we all meet in heaven on the last day will it matter much where the tabernacle was located? Perhaps it might if the Church loses sight of the presence of Christ in the consecrated hosts.

We know, however, that where two or more are gathered in His name Christ is present. We know that once turned from bread to the Body of Christ certain protections must be taken. I know people worry that the Church will lose something of this reverence if the tabernacle is moved, but I have not seen this in my experience.
 
Digitonomy said:
I’m confused about how it is that you can read the article, but we won’t be able to do so.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

I e-mailed myself the link to another article from that site, but later when I went to open it, it wouldn’t let me and I had to search for the article again.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Fr. Kavanaugh did not say Eucharistic Devotion came after Trent, he said
Because the early church celebrated the Eucharist only on Sunday, retaining consecrated hosts met the practical need to minister to the sick and dying during the week. Devotion to the host arose later, and the custom of placing the tabernacle on the main altar dates only from the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Church law did not require the tabernacle to be fixed on the altar until the 19th century.
Click to expand...
He said that the Tabernacle was moved to the Altar during Trent.

I am still looking for where the tabernacle was before Trent. Not easy to sift through the extreme left and right positions.
 
Pax vobiscum!

I guess I misread that part. My fault. But how could the Protestants have removed the tabernacles from the altars if the tabernacles were only placed on the altars after Trent? And the Eastern Church? They also have the tabernacle on the altar, and the split was well before Trent.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
But how could the Protestants have removed the tabernacles from the altars if the tabernacles were only placed on the altars after Trent? And the Eastern Church? They also have the tabernacle on the altar, and the split was well before TrentIn ChristRand
Click to expand...
I don’t see where in the article it states that Protestants removed the tabernacles from the altars. As always, a good source on this is the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
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 change came very slowly in France, where even in the eighteenth century it was still customary in many cathedrals to suspend the Blessed Sacrament over the altar, and also in Belgium and Germany, where the custom of using the Sacrament-House was maintained in many places until after the middle of the nineteenth century
Click to expand...
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

I guess I misread that part. My fault. But how could the Protestants have removed the tabernacles from the altars if the tabernacles were only placed on the altars after Trent? And the Eastern Church? They also have the tabernacle on the altar, and the split was well before Trent.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
From what little information I can gather, I think a trip to a seminary library is in order, the placement of the Tabernacle on the Altar was becoming the norm, but was not totally the norm by Trent. It seems that there was a lapsing belief in the Real Presence happening at the time and the placement if the Tabernacle was a way to refocus people.

Personally, just as it stated in the article, the priest could wear it around his neck and people wouldn’t believe in the Real Presence. This is evident in the fact that most of the protestant disenters argued against the Real Prence before Trent even was convened. In addition, we can see that the majority of protestant faiths formed after Trent, during the time of the TLM and the centrally placed Tabernacle. I think this has to do with catechises and not the liturgy. I am still forming my thoughts on that theory.
 
Digitonomy said:
I don’t see where in the article it states that Protestants removed the tabernacles from the altars. As always, a good source on this is the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Click to expand...
Doh, leave it to me to forget the CE even while I was ranting about how most questions could be answered if people would just spend sometime reading.
 
Because the early church celebrated the Eucharist only on Sunday, retaining consecrated hosts met the practical need to minister to the sick and dying during the week. Devotion to the host arose later, and the custom of placing the tabernacle on the main altar dates only from the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Church law did not require the tabernacle to be fixed on the altar until the 19th century.

Rome’s major basilicas store the tabernacle in a separate chapel rather than on the main altar.

The council fathers wanted to focus on the presence of Christ on the altar and in the people – the so-called “active” presence of Christ – as well as his “static” presence in consecrated hosts. The Eucharist, they felt, should be seen as the fruit of the consecration in the Mass.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

The rest of the quote supplied by the OP:
“That’s rubbish,” said Benedictine Fr. Aidan Kavanagh, a liturgist at St. Meinrad’s Seminary in Indiana and a pioneer in post-Vatican II liturgical renewal. “People who say those things are just ignorant of liturgical history.”

“Sacredness and awe are in the eyes of the beholder,” Kavanagh said. “I think Vatican II did a pretty good job of reinstilling awesomeness to the service. A lot of that post-Tridentine stuff was cutesy and fluffy, ‘good night sweet Jesus’ kinds of junk,” he said, referring to customs that developed after the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

“If you start gooping up churches again, it’ll end up looking like a mob scene out of ‘Carmen,’ ” Kavanagh said. “The main liturgical symbol is not supposed to be a plaster angel; it’s the altar.”
Kavanagh said he wasn’t defending poorly designed church interiors that “look like somebody’s living room.” But he insisted that a design that properly reflects the council’s call for noble simplicity can “take your breath away.”
Click to expand...
And a good sound byte:
“If the Mass is being celebrated so poorly that people aren’t aware of how Christ becomes present in the Eucharist, the priest can wear the tabernacle around on his head and it’s not going to make any difference,” he [David Philippart] said.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top