Michael Voris and the Blessed Sacrament
#1
Reply
#2
Those dang Arians! He must be reading FE  :)

Where's Nic...... and Jayne?
Reply
#3
Yeah, but his hair and that damn pencil...............never mind that he's hit the nail on the head again & again & again. He really ought to give it up and start selling used cars, then maybe he can really reach people........hahaha
Reply
#4
Hold on a second. The Eucharistic chapel wasn't based on the rationale of what was done "in a 4th century monastery somewhere". That was standard practice until the 13th or 14th century. It's worth pointing out that Saint Peter's Basilica itself doesn't have a tabernacle on or near the high altar, but in a chapel dedicated to the sacrament.

While emptying or getting rid of pre-existing tabernacles was a bad idea, there's a happy medium for any aspiring church architects: build a tabernacle in the reredos behind the high altar, yes. But build a better tabernacle in a chapel in another portion of the church, one that's prominent and finely furnished. That's what's done in my home parish, and it works well. The main church is closed at night, but the chapel remains open when Eucharistic adoration is scheduled.

:edited to add: While having a tabernacle and altar together in the same space is a good sign of the unity of Christ, it's led to a common architectural problem: the altar being merely the base of a fantastic reredos. But no matter what, it's the high altar that's the central focus of the church, even moreso than any tabernacle. The reservation of the sacrament isn't as important as the sacrifice of the Mass. That's why, in my opinion, an altar ought to be freestanding; liberated from being a fixture of a massive piece of artwork, as so many churches have it.
Reply
#5
All wanna be trads and conservative neo-caths in my community bellow on and on just like this guy. First, they have a persecution complex. Everybody hates the Catholic church... Whaaaaaa. They should try being a Christian in Lebanon or Egypt or Iraq right now.

Secondly, they don't know their history, just as HK always points out. Their idea of "tradition" is Catholicism in the American Midwest, 1950s. And before anybody thinks I'm putting down the 50s, I'm not.. but the Church is much bigger than that, of course..
Reply
#6
(01-12-2011, 03:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: All wanna be trads and conservative neo-caths in my community bellow on and on just like this guy. First, they have a persecution complex. Everybody hates the Catholic church... Whaaaaaa. They should try being a Christian in Lebanon or Egypt or Iraq right now.

Well, there are many Catholics in the Middle East, persecuted by Mohammedans, and the Church has many enemies in the modern world, the most dangerous of which belong to what we can call "Judeo-masonry."
Reply
#7
Yes, of course the church has many enemies, the most dangerous being from within as Voris points out. The liberals and progressives are the enemy of tradition to be sure. But I'm saying that not every change in the church (or anything foreign to our 1950s upbringing) is a liberal attack. Voris shows his ignorance about free standing altars and tabernacle chapels and the history of Eucharistic veneration.
Reply
#8
In reference to my previous post, this would be an example of an altar that got eaten up by its reredos.

As a counter-example, I offer the high altar of the National Basilica in Washington, D.C. as an ideal that churches should look to for inspiration. It's freestanding within the framework of a traditional style of architecture, and there's no question that it stands at the focal point of the church.
Reply
#9
(01-12-2011, 03:42 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: 1) this would be an example of an altar that got eaten up by its reredos.
(...)
2) the high altar of the National Basilica in Washington, D.C.

Actually, I like them both.
Reply
#10
Perhaps a theologian could weigh in this one, but how to make sense of Voris at 1:38—“to deny the Real Presence is to deny the Divinity of Christ”?

An Anglican will deny the real presence (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation notwithstanding), but he or she will also confess that Christ was both fully human and fully divine.  The two things don't seem as interdependent as M.V. likes to make them out.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)