Yet, were the Church to encourage such constant and continued deference to the Eucharistic presence,

n a message dated 7/11/00 1:28:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
litenv@... writes:

<< We need to understand the multivalency of the liturgical symbol
structure, and cannot destroy or remove any one part of it without it
failing to work as it ought: word, minister, people, meal, sacrifice,
gesture, movement, vesture, environment, etc.

And I too think that dropping the hyberbole and sobriquets would make
for a more cordial and scholarly discussion.

Don: I do not understand your point that

> The location of the reserved Eucharist is a legitimate concern when
the "spotlight" is on Christ present in the Word or the mystery of
consecration of our humble bread and wine.

Assuming that the tabernacle is correctly constructed per Canon law
(and not one of these odious and illegal glass tabernacles such as
the one that won a recent award from Faith and Form), the very act
and expression of "veiling" implicit in the tabernacle form (the
tent)
obviates this concern. What is the problem with a tabernacled
Eucharist in the sanctuary? Do you not appreciate the vast difference
(in liturgical symbology and in human perception) between the exposed
sacrament in the monstrance and the reserved species in the
tabernacle? Do you see the tabernacle primarily as a locus of
adoration? If not, I do not see what the legitiamte concern is. I
would appreciate your clarification here.
>>

Steve,

Perhaps inarticulately, I was trying to point to the issue--one that I see as
genuine and not "bogus"--of the location of the tabernacle and reverance due
to the Real Presence even veiled in the tabernacle in contrast to the high
drama of the liturgy. In "the old days" it was easy to bow or genuflect and
cover all bases, as it were. one physical motion acknowledged Christ present
in the reserved Eucharist, in the symbolism of the altar, in the book of the
Word that was running from side to side of the altar, in the imagry of the
crucifix, and in the backside of the celebrant. Contrary to the assertions
of some on this forum, I contend that the average Catholic in the rush of a
Sunday gave little thought to any of these epiphanies, but was haunted by
parochial training that "when the sancturary lamp is lit, you must
genuflect." (I knew Catholic kids who unconsciously genuflected when they
entered a movie theater!)

When we unpack the diverse symbols and physically and temporally separate
them for consideration and meditation,


we are confronted with the fact that
the Eucharist is THE OVERWHELMING REALITY included in an array of lesser
(ugh! I'm sorry, but I can't come up with a more appropriate word) signs and
symbols.



 Even though we think we can keep God is a box, veiled from our
presence, we know that this explanation is part of our ignorant human
limitation and not a constraint of the Divine presence.



 Nonetheless, as we
progress through the liturgical drama and encounter Christ present in each
modality, awe ought to inspire us to constant mystical communion with the
sacred species.


Yet, were the Church to encourage such constant and continued
deference to the Eucharistic presence,


 the other "sacramental" presences
would, I think, be obscured and their value diminished.



Given that we could
return to the 15 minute Mass of my youth and not be bothered with the rich
opportunity these other experiences of Christ present bring as grace to our
continuing conversion.

Good liturgy, in my experience, makes the most of each of the modalities of
Christ present and climaxes with the communing of the Body of Christ on the
Body of Christ.




Having experienced the lessons of our conversion,
experienced the mystery of our salvation, been nourished of the Divine food,
we are sent forth to love and serve the Lord (and invited back for regular
repetition of the same drama).




The placement of the tabernacle should not
hinder the liturgical progression.


The "presence" of the Lord should not
obscure His "coming" again and again.


Worship of the reserved Divine species
should not overshadow the celebration of the sacrifice/meal which our Saviour
has commanded us to do.

For these reasons, I personally prefer an easily
accessible, yet physically distinct location for reservation of the
Eucharist. However, I also agree with many here, that there is no pat, easy
architectural or liturgical solution to the problem.

Additionally, I think it a "legitimate" problem needing honest discussion and
not a "bogus" problem that is part of some alleged "heretical agenda."

In this thread we have also recently considered a misquotation of Pius XII in
Mediator Dei.


Though the encyclical does not include the reactionary
language regarding the location of the tabernacle that Garvan originally
asserted, it does include some very instructive things about the Mystical
Body of Christ.



 It also includes reference to Pius XII's preference for the
traditional as in the preservation of black vestments for funerals.
Reflection on it should remind us that this Pius, wonderful as he was, must
be read and judged in his time, just as all his predecessors and successors
must. He did not have the benefit of the Second Vatican Council, but,
despite his perchant for the tiara, sedia gestatoria, and ostrich feather
fans, he did help to set the stage for an examination of the timeless
essentials of our faith.

Peace,
Don Kilburg