www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vatican stops women's ordinations in Catholic church

Alexis,

Do you think poor village churches could afford marble altars? This was very common. In a lot of cases they wouldn't even marble-ize them and it was quite obvious they were made of painted wood. Of course they had an altar stone to technically meet the requirement of being of stone. In fact where I grew up most of the churches had them. Many of them were ornately carved and had Gothic reredoses and the like.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Wooden altars are not surprising, since, as you say, they had altar stones.

Using them for "storage space" is surprising and sacrilegious.

Alexis

Nonetheless, Father Serge saw it done regularly, and has written about it.

How is storing things behind them sacrilegious?

Stuart mentioned them being hollow and, directly after, mentioned them being used for storage space, so I took that to mean things were stored inside the altar itself.

Alexis

Some were; often used for altar linens and other liturgical "architectural dress." Almost all have a box in the base for the reliquary, as well.

The Canons related to the altar refer to both a fixed or a movable altar. CCC Can. 1235 §2. only says it is desirable to have a fixed altar inside the church but not that it needs to be the one for the celebration. If you can refer me to an official document that's more forceful and direct I'd welcome the reference.


Given this, to digress further from the OP, the local Catholic University "renovated" their chapel this past spring. The minute I heard that word I knew what was coming. They have already over the 3 years I've had periodic classes there removed the crucifixes from every classroom. It was already a very modern chapel with already a freestanding altar, in addition to the fixed high altar on which the tabernacle was fixed. Sure enough, when the "renovations" were completed it turned out carpet had been installed, the high alter moved away from the wall, the tabernacle removed to a side chapel. So now they have two free standing altars and no fixed high altar, and no tabernacle in the main chapel. I felt both sad and angry. It does now look pretty much just like a protestant chapel, although there is still a very beautiful large crucifix you can see from some locations once inside the chapel, and a statue of Mary and of Joseph.

I and others also noted that the tabernacle, now off in a small side chapel, was closed and locked, so presumably the Holy Eucharist was inside, but the candle had burned out. It was lit the next time we were there again.

Will they make note of this improvement in their chapel in the materials they gather for the Apostolic Visitation of Institutes of Women Religious in the United States?
Yes, I am venting...

We don't have a fixed altar anywhere in our parish church. The main worship area has a moveable altar table, the
Day Chapel has a moveable altar table, and the Reservation Chapel has a moveable altar table with a tabernacle that can be lifted off and moved about at will. So even if it's "desirable," we don't have one.

But, again, we're moving off topic.

BOB

We used to have *two* Orthodox parishes using our church.

Hmm, one was Syrian or Asyrian; it was, by diocese, in or out of Communion with Rome (I'm not sure about Communion with Eastern Orthodox) (This group was not in Communion with Rome).

This was with the approval and encouragement of both our bishop and the local Latin bishop.


The Latin church up the street had a much better solution. They built a huge building for hall and Church, but the consecrated area was only part of it. The altar "faced" the opposite corner of the building, but there were only pews along that wall, with a movable wall. Actually, a few movable walls..

hawk

Yep--it was very common. My church growing up still had the old altar, which was very large, but wood and plaster, with some of it painted to look like marble. In the back of it there were sliding doors, and vases, extra candlesticks, and even the statue of the Dead Christ for the grave were stored inside back there. I doubt that beyond the altar servers, the priest, the nuns, and the people who decorated and cared for the altars, none of the faithful knew it, so no one was scandalized.

I highly doubt that when the archbishop allowed the Lutherans to use the cathedral he meant to agree with their doctrine or practice, he was being charitable, and had only the best intentions. I'm sure that no mockery was intended.

I guess that the only question that I have: Is God scandalized that they used the building and the altar?

Sometimes even bodies get stored in the back of the altar. We had at least one priest interred in a compartment in the back of an altar in Chicago, but I don't know what happened when the church was torn down about 40 years ago.

As for the original argument, I'd be extremely offended if my church was used by any religious group that was not Catholic.

John,

Intention (and conjecturing at intention) is one thing; what is actually done is another thing entirely. Faithful are scandalized by these things. It is confusing to send these mixed signals to the faithful. And, above all, simulations of actual Sacraments in a holy place dedicated to the undertaking of the actual, real Sacraments is mockery.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it should be controversial on an Apostolic Christian forum to say that the aping of Sacraments in holy places is offensive, hurtful, and confusing to the People of God.

Alexis

So, how do you feel about Orthodox parishes that use Catholic churches, or for that matter, Orthodox Divine Liturgies taking place in a Catholic basilica?

Just asking, because I'm guilty of aiding and abetting both of those--even acted as altar server at them.

(Of course, if you want to concede that the Orthodox are Catholic, too, I would not object).

I wouldn't like it, and I believe most Orthodox Christians would likewise be offended if a Catholic mass was said in there church.

Alexis--

I am sorry that you are offended by Achbp. Whealon's actions in letting the Lutherans use the Cathedral. He was a man of deep contradictions, allowing the old mass liberally and even celebrating it himself for a latin mass society here, and at the same time setting up a brand new parish (in my town), that had a priest, deacon, and lay woman as a collaborative team ministry. Getting rid of the honorific title of "monsignor" and at the same time not allowing priests to wear shoes for mass that were not "tie" shoes. He was stand-offish and seemingly cool, but very pastoral and cared deeply that ALL his flock were cared for. He was in the forefront of the ecumenical movement as well, involved in dialogue on the national level. That may be his reasoning in allowing the Lutherans to use the cathedral here, one time.

Quite honestly though, most Catholics I know would not be scandalized by this, but would think it's a pastoral thing to do. Using words like aping and simulation and mockery is just the opposite. I am scandalized that anyone, especially a Catholic, would be so uncharitable, even if that person believed their rites to be those things.