Lent 2013

Today was Ash Wednesday, and another Lent begins. Another opportunity to change or ways, turn away from what is bad in our lives, and begin again to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

And we had weather for it. We had been promised snow, the tail of that huge snow storm which a few days ago struck Eastern America and Canada. So when we awoke this morning there was indeed a couple of inches of snow lying and lots more falling from the sky, and which continued to fall until about lunchtime.
Then, as forecast, it began to turn to rain. Now, at 9pm it is still raining, and much of the snow has gone. And soon we will be dry, with temperatures rising to about 9C with even some sunshine. Isn't weather fascinating.

I was looking at the photos showing the double lightning strike on St. Peter's Dome in Rome. Of course many folk saw something supernatural in that event, given the stunning statement from The Holy Father. And it was the Feast Day of Our Lady of Lourdes. But the best comment I saw went something like this..."Lightning strikes tall building! What a surprise! "

I will be out teaching on Thursday and Friday, and possibly all next week too. Schools are finding it difficult to get supply teachers since the payment system was changed. Now, unless you are there for more than 5 days, you are paid at the level of a new teacher, which for me, with no tax relief, means coming out with about £50 at the end of a full day in a class with all the associated paperwork and marking. Take away travelling expenses and lunch, and you can see why many teachers do not think it worthwhile to do 2 or 3 days, just in case they miss a longer, more lucrative employment.

Yesterday my wife had business at the offices of the Glasgow Archdiocese. after her meeting, we popped in to the Cathedral for a visit. We had not been in since the building had been renovated. My reaction to the work? I thought I was in an Anglican building, or an assembly room.
The altar is bare, unadorned. Behind it a plain dull wall. The Tabernacle was gone. We eventually saw it in a side altar. The archbishop's chair now sits at the central location on the altar. There was no sign of a Crucifix above the altar, just a portable one at the side.
A huge painting of St John Ogilvie towers over the Tabernacle. To me this is not appropriate. I am sure St John Ogilvie would not be pleased to see his painting in this position dwarfing  the tabernacle.
The holy water font sits in the central aisle quarter way down the building, so huge I thought it was the Baptismal Font.

It may well be from an architectual or artistic viewpoint with gold leaf and pastel colours at the tops of the pillars, that it is remarkable. But for me it seems that God has been side tracked. It is a monument to the skills of man, not for the worship of God. I am sure others will see it very differently. I am only recounting my reaction and feelings.

I have been reading up what Vatican II said about placement of the Tabernacle, and I attach a commentary here.

The Vatican II document which addresses this issue is "Sacrosanctum Concilium" (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Issued December 4th 1963, it emphasizes the nobility of the tabernacle in determining its place in a church. 128. Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred images, embellishments, and vestments. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking. According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; ings and vestments. After the Council the body entrusted with implementing this conciliar decree issued the following guidance, which emphasizes the respect and honor due to the Eucharist, especially as the sacrament of the Lord's presence in the midst of His issue closely linked to that of the altar is the tabernacle. We can hardly give here prescriptions of a general and uniform character. An attentive study needs to be made in each case, with due attention to the material and spiritual circumstances proper to each place. Artists will little by little suggest the best solution. But it is the business of priests to advise them and call attention to the principles that must safeguard the respect and honor due to the Eucharist. It is important to contribute to the development of Eucharistic worship, which should continue under all those genuine forms recognized by the Church as embodying true Christian piety. Particularly in larger churches, a chapel specially set aside for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist is advisable and might well be used for the Eucharistic celebration during the week, when there are fewer of the faithful participating. Whatever the solution chosen .... the greatest care should be devoted to the dignity of the tabernacle. If the local Ordinary agrees to its location away from the altar, the place should be truly worthy and prominent, so that the tabernacle is readily visible and is not hidden by the priest during the celebration of the Mass. In a word, the location should make it possible for the tabernacle to serve unmistakably as a sign and to give a sense of the savior's presence in the midst of his people. (my emphasis) [Letter of Cardinal Lecaro to the Bishops, 30 June 1965, Concilium for Implementing the Decree on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council) In 1969, revised in 1975, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) said the following: 276. It is highly recommended that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a chapel suitable for private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church or local custom, it should be kept on an altar or some other place in the church that is prominent and properly decorated. 277. The Eucharist is to be kept in a solid, unbreakable tabernacle, and ordinarily there should be only one tabernacle in a church.   The Code of Canon Law codified these developments in 1983. Canon 938 º1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved regularly in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory. º2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer. º3. The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided. º4. For a grave cause, it is licit to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in another safer and becoming place especially during the night. º5. The person who has charge of the church or oratory is to see to it that the key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is safeguarded most diligently. Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: 1183   The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor." The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. One evident difficulty seems to arise in connection with 1) having a chapel of reservation and 2) complying with canon 938, 1.  In some places it seems there is a tendency to read these in an absolutist sense not found elsewhere. By that I mean, if anywhere within the external walls of the church building there is a chapel of reservation then the law is satisfied and furthermore there cannot be a tabernacle in the main church. It is my experience that this interpretation does not prevail in other places, least of all Rome. When the chapel of reservation is at the front end of a side aisle of a church, or prominently off of a side aisle (i.e. so that it is truly prominent and conspicuous from the main body of the church) then it will contain the only tabernacle in the church building. It is also thereby convenient for prayer and for retrieving and reserving the Eucharist at the time of Mass. However, when there is a Eucharistic chapel that is not so prominent and conspicuous from the main body of the church, even though it be in the same church building, there will also be a tabernacle in the main body of the church serving as a sign of the Lord's Presence there. This can certainly be verified by a visit to Rome's many churches. Ultimately, complying with the mind of the Church on the placement of the tabernacle rests with the bishop. As the Concilium letter noted, it is impossible to make universal law for all the particular circumstances of construction that may occur. Even though it is within the authority of the bishop, the laity certainly have a right to make their desires known to him. Considering the loss of faith in the Real Presence that is evidenced by recent polls of Catholics and the obligation to foster adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, it would seem opportune to suggest to our pastors that the time has come to return the Tabernacle to a truly prominent place of honor in the main body of the Church. Some bishops have already concluded this and are doing it. Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Apologetics - Doctrine - Canon Law - Eastern Churches - General - History - Liturgy - Moral NFP - Philosophy - Pro-Life - Scripture - Spiritual