|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 9, Number 7/8
 July-August 1998 
|
|
|
Tabernacles in Side Chapels?
Q: Someone is telling me that in Europe some of the big cathedrals have the tabernacle in a side chapel and so this is the preferred arrangement. Is this true?
A: The tabernacle is placed in a side chapel in some European cathedrals because they have many tourists who might fail to properly reverence Christ in the Eucharist if the tabernacle were on the main altar, because tourist traffic could disturb the prayer of those adoring Christ in the Eucharist, and to allow priests easier access to the tabernacle. The situation of historic, European cathedral churches does not reflect the preferred arrangement for ordinary parish churches.
History’s preferred arrangement, and the cathedral exception, is summed up in canon 1268 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which states:
"§1. The most holy Eucharist cannot be kept continually, that is, habitually, except on only one altar of the church.
"§2. It shall be kept in the most excellent and the most noble place of the church and therefore regularly on the major altar unless it seems that the veneration and cult of such a sacrament is more convenient and decent elsewhere, observing the prescriptions of liturgical law, which pertain to the final days of the great week.
"§3. But in cathedral churches or in collegial or conventual ones in which choral functions are conducted at the main altar, lest ecclesiastical officials be impeded, it is opportune that the most holy Eucharist not regularly be kept at the major altar but in another chapel or altar.
"§4. Let rectors of churches take care that the altar in which the most holy Sacrament is reserved be decorated above all the others so that by this appearance the faithful be moved to greater piety and devotion."
As §§ 2–3 make clear, the considerations that lead to a side chapel placement of the tabernacle are the "more convenient and decent" veneration of the sacrament and the impeding of ecclesiastical officials needing to access the tabernacle. These are not presumed for an ordinary parish and, more importantly, a side chapel is not the preferred placement under this regulation. The main altar is (§2).
It is a historically flawed argument to claim that the fact the arrangement of some European cathedrals reflects the preferred placement of the tabernacle. As the former Code of Canon Law illustrates, the placement of the tabernacle in these cathedrals was the exception, not the rule, and not the preference.
The 1983 Code allows more flexibility in placement but in no way establishes a preference for side chapel placement. It simply states: "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" (CIC [1983] 938 §2).
James Akin
Q: Isn’t it true that Jesus was an Ascended Master who came to show us our own divinity by breaking with traditional Jewish conceptions of a "transcendent" God?
A: Jesus is very far from the popular modern conception of a Eastern guru who wanted to show us our innate divinity. An Eastern guru trying to awaken us to our godhood does not remind us we are sinful as Jesus did (Matt. 7:11). An Eastern guru does not immerse himself in Moses, the Prophets and the whole Jewish tradition as Jesus did (Luke 16:31). An Eastern guru does not stress our difference from God as Jesus did (Matt. 16:23). An Eastern guru does not tell us that God is Lord and Judge of Creation as Jesus did (Matt. 25). In short, the core of Jesus Christ’s teaching is that the universe is not God and God is not the universe and that we are not God. Jesus’ emphasis of God’s transcendence is thoroughly Jewish.
Mark P. Shea
Q: A friend asked what the value of the book of Esther is. There does not appear to be a sacred message contained in it. Aside from depending on blind faith, how are we to know that that book is inspired? A woman becomes the king’s wife because she wins a beauty contest. She then assists her kinsmen in the slaughter of the people whose country they had eyed for revolution. What is it all about? What is in that message for Catholics?
A: It would be easy to point out that your friend’s summary of Esther is hardly accurate or fair. First, the Catholic text of Esther includes deuterocanonical portions that illuminate the facts of the story from the vantage point of faith. Even without these passages, it is clear that the book of Esther is a story of God’s loving providence and protection of his people.
One might question where your friend got the notion that the value of a book or passage of Scripture is necessarily bound up in its having an overt theological message. Some books have such messages, but others are more subtle. This is true of literature in general and of sacred Scripture in particular. As the Word of God written in the words of men, it comprehends all sorts of literary genres, and the raison d’etre of each book is as diverse as the literature itself.
Rather than asking for an overt message from each book, it would be better to ask what the value of the work might be for people—why someone would write or read a story like this. This question, although here asked in a context of faith, is not just religious but is an ordinary exegetical question such as one would have to bring to bear in reading any literary work from The Iliad to Huckleberry Finn. Many books have overt "sacred messages" without being divinely inspired (e.g., the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch). The overtly religious messages of these books do not make them inspired—or even more likely to be inspired.
I might even go so far as to say that if your friend cannot in the end discern any value in the book of Esther—any reason why it might have been written—then the "message" for him may be that he should not expect to understand everything God does. Because Scripture is divine revelation, it is meant to communicate to us, but that does not necessarily mean "communicate propositional truths in an intellectually accessible fashion." In fact, Augustine suggested that sometimes God allows some mysteries of Scripture to remain unsolved precisely in order to induce us to struggle with them and, in struggling, to come to know his Word better.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: A Fundamentalist Baptist friend wants to know how the Catholic Church views the curtain being torn in half as Christ expires. He says he (and his church) views this occurrence as proof that it is no longer necessary for God’s people to be under an institutional church or clergy.
A: Christ’s sacrifice and the tearing of the curtain symbolize several things, but none of them imply that there will no longer be a clergy or an established Church (as evidenced by the fact Jesus proceeded after the Resurrection to establish a Church). Among the things symbolized are: 1. The Jewish economy (the Law of Moses/the Old Covenant) has been done away with. 2. Our high priest (Jesus) has the right to enter the heavenly tabernacle. 3. We approach God through Jesus and the Christian economy rather than through the Jewish, Mosaic economy. 4. Heaven has now been opened to receive the saints, who were previously kept at Abraham’s bosom.
None of these things—the destruction of the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant way of approaching God—imply the demise of all rituals (or else we would not have baptism and the Eucharist) or that there will be no priests in the Law of Christ/New Covenant way of approaching God. They simply signify the passing away of the Jewish economy.
James Akin
Q: I’ve heard so much convoluted reasoning about Jesus’ "brethren" being cousins or step-brothers or whatever, but isn’t the simplest and most straightforward explanation still that they were his real brothers, other sons of Mary?
A: Explaining just who Jesus brethren were can get a little complicated; but it is very easy to show that they were not other sons of Mary. All three Synoptic Gospels report a woman, present at the crucifixion and the empty grave, called "Mary the mother of James [the Less] and Joses [or Joseph]," or even "the other Mary" (Matt. 27:56–28:1, Mark 15:40–16:1, Luke 23:55–24:10). This "other Mary" is someone other than the mother of Jesus, whom the Gospels never identify in any way other than as Jesus’ mother (Matt. 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3:31, Luke 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14; cf. John 2:1–5, 19:25–26).
Yet clearly this other Mary’s sons James and Joses were Jesus’ brothers of those names (cf. Mark 6:3). Otherwise we must suppose two women named Mary gave their sons the same two names in the same birth order! (Wherever both names appear, either in relation to the other Mary or to Jesus, James is always first and Joses always second.)
Therefore, whoever James and Joses were, they were sons of the "other Mary" and not of the mother of Jesus. Precisely how they were related to Jesus remains open to speculation; how they were not related is quite clear.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: Two Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door and discussed some Scripture verses with me from the New World Translation of the Bible. I’ve never heard of that version before. What can you tell me about it?
A: The New World Translation is produced by the Watch Tower Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New Testament (or Christian Greek Scriptures, as they call it) was first produced in 1950, followed by the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), produced progressively in five volumes from 1953 to 1960. Recent versions of the NWT contain the entire Bible in one volume.
The NWT translation is a travesty of Scripture, for two main reasons:
First, of the five men who comprised the translation committee—Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel—Franz is the only one who had any knowledge at all of the biblical languages. Franz studied Greek for only two years (not biblical Greek, though), and he was allegedly self-taught in Hebrew. The other four men completely lacked any credentials that would qualify them as biblical scholars.
Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1 reads that the Word was "a god" (rather than "God") because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. In Colossians 1:15–20, the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Matthew 26:26 reads "this means my body" (rather than "this is my body") because JWs deny the Real Presence.
The NWT is rejected by reputable Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike as being biased, unreliable, and unscholarly. People who open their doors to the JWs ought to be warned that the NWT is not a safe or reliable translation of God’s Word.
Joel S. Peters
Q: Are all Catholic priests required to learn Latin?
A: There was a time when they were, and not that long ago. Your question recalled for me an essay written by Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) on the importance of Latin to Western civilization in general and to Christianity in particular and his plan for having Latin widely taught throughout Europe and North America: utilize parish priests as teachers. Such was Belloc's confidence in the Latinity of the average priest during our grandfathers' youth, not to mention his perception of how much time these priests must have had on their hands.
Currently, canon 249 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires of all those in priestly formation not only mastery of their native language but "careful schooling in the Latin language" as well as training in any other languages deemed necessary or useful to the aposolate.
While some success can be demonstrated in regard to finding (or training) seminarians in the use of multiple modern languages, the call of canon 249 in regard to Latin as the universal ecclesiastical tongue is more honored in the breach than in the observance. The Eastern Code of Canon Law, by the way, makes no provision regarding seminary training in Latin or any other languages.
For those interested in acquiring a foundation in Latin as used by the Church (as opposed to Latin in the form more familiar to Cicero and Caesar) let me warmly recommend John Collins, A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (Washinton: Catholic University of America Press, 1988).
Edward Peters
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
