A Short History of Reservation of the Eucharist

[jwinch2]

adoremus.org/0313Folsom.html

With some of the discussions on here vis-a-vie the location of the tabernacle, I thought that perhaps this article might generate some interesting discussion. This article does a nice job of presenting some of the historical practices in terms of reserving the Eucharist.

For the purpose of trying to discern major shifts in the theory and practice of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, the history of the tabernacle can be divided into four sections: the patristic period until Carolingian times, the Carolingian period until the Council of Trent, the Council of Trent to Vatican II, and Vatican II to the present.

The Patristic Period until Carolingian Times1

The evidence from this early period deals with two kinds of reservation of the Blessed Sacrament: 1) the private reservation of the Eucharist in the homes of the faithful, and 2) the reservation of the Eucharist in the church for the sake of giving Communion to the sick or the dying.2

In the first category, the homes of the faithful, there is very little information about how or where the Eucharist was reserved, although some sources indicate that it was reverently wrapped in a piece of white linen, or placed in a special chest or container.3

In the case of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in churches, the Apostolic Constitutions, c.VIII, no. 13 indicate that the deacons should bring what was left over of the Eucharistic species consecrated during the Mass to a special room called the Pastoforio: in the Oriental churches, this was situated on the south side of the altar. In the West, it had the name secretarium or sacrarium.

The deacon had the keys, as the administration of the Eucharist was his special charge. In this room there was a special wardrobe or chest called a conditorium. An example of this can be seen in the fifth-century mosaics of the Galla Placidia mausoleum in Ravenna.4 In pre-Carolingian times, however, there is no evidence for the use of the altar as a place for the reservation of the Eucharist.5

From the ninth century onward, the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in the church becomes the norm, while the practice of keeping the Eucharist in the homes of the faithful disappears. This is a one of those fundamental shifts that merits greater attention.

Giambattista Rapisarda offers three reasons for such a significant change in Eucharistic practice: 1) the rise of major Eucharistic controversies about the nature of Christ’s presence, starting with Paschasius Radbertus (+859) and Ratramnus (+868); 2) the spread of a different spirituality reflected in the new genre of apologetic prayers, which manifested enormous respect for the Eucharist and a sense of profound unworthiness before so great a mystery; and 3) the conversion of barbarian peoples en masse with the danger of profanation of the Eucharist on the one hand and superstition on the other.6

The Carolingian Period until the Council of Trent

The six or seven centuries we are dealing with in this second period contain notable developments in Eucharistic theology and practice. Mention must be made of Berengarius (+1088) and the Eucharistic controversy that raged around him; the development of a new Eucharistic piety manifested in the desire to see the Host, with the resultant introduction of the elevation first of the Host, then of the Chalice at the Consecration of the Mass; the scholastic precisions about transubstantiation; the diffusion of the feast of Corpus Christi; the decline in the reception of Communion, and so on.

Some of these factors contribute to new ways of reserving the Eucharist (the Sacrament-towers, for example). At other times, the force of custom results in the retention of more traditional forms. Righetti distinguishes five basic ways of reserving the Blessed Sacrament during this period:7

1. Propitiatorium: a container or small chest that was placed on the altar; hence a kind of portable tabernacle. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215-1216) prescribed that it should be locked and kept secure. This system was rather widespread in Italy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

1. Sacristy: In many places, the Eucharist was kept in the sacristy, in some kind of special chest or cupboard. In many places, this practice continued until the Council of Trent.

1. Eucharistic dove: around the eleventh century this system was used: a metal dove (symbolizing the Holy Spirit), hollow, of modest proportions, which was suspended over the altar from the ciborium (if there was one), or on a small table next to the altar. This system was frequently used in France and England, but rarely in Italy.

1. Wall tabernacles: From the thirteenth century onward this was the system most commonly used, especially in Italy and Germany, because it was more practical and more secure. On the Gospel side of the altar, a tabernacle was built into the wall. A fine example of such a tabernacle can be seen in San Clemente in Rome (thirteenth century). From the seventeenth century onward, with the development of the tabernacle on the altar, these wall tabernacles were then used to reserve the sacred oils.

1. Sakramentshäuschen or Sacrament-towers: This was a specialty of northern Europe (Germany, Low Countries, and northern France) from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. It was usually in the shape of a tower, built close to the altar, the consecrated host kept in a glass container protected by a metal grate of some kind. This responded to the popular piety developing at the time: the desire to see the host. These “towers” were actually a kind of monstrance, with what amounted to permanent exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. One notes a great deal of variety according to time and place. At this time there is no standard practice for the universal Church.

Continued in next post…

 

[jwinch2]

…cont.

The Council of Trent to Vatican II

What changed Catholic practice radically in this third period was the Protestant denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the response of the Counter-Reformation to this challenge. While the Council of Trent affirms against the Reformers that the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved,8 the canon in question is not very specific, mentioning the place of reservation in passing as the sacrarium.

Popular piety and two bishops will play an important role in establishing a new form of Eucharistic reservation. In the sixteenth century, even before the Council of Trent, Bishop Gian Matteo Giberti of Verona (+1543) ordered that the Eucharist should be reserved in a tabernacle on the main altar: “The tabernacle should be placed on the main altar, and should be installed permanently (bene et firmiter) in such a way that it can by no means be carried off by sacrilegious hands.”9

This eventually caught on in the neighboring diocese of Milan, such that in 1565, at the First Provincial Synod of Milan, it was decreed that: “The bishop should diligently see to it that in the cathedral, in collegiate churches, in parishes and all other kind of churches, where the most holy Eucharist is usually reserved or where it should be reserved, it be placed on the main altar, unless it seems to him otherwise, on account of some necessary or serious reason.”10

In 1576, another synod of Milan prohibited wall tabernacles, and ordered their destruction. Saint Charles Borromeo lent this new custom the full weight of his moral and spiritual authority. In the duomo of Milan, he transferred the Blessed Sacrament from the sacristy, where it had been kept up until then, to the main altar of the church.

In 1577 Cardinal Borromeo’s book Instructionum Fabricae et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae Libri II was published,11 a work that was to have enormous influence in shaping church architecture and design in the centuries to come. Concerning the tabernacle he simply argues from authority, without providing any other justification. Since the provincial synod of Milan in 1565 decreed that the tabernacle should be on the main altar, if possible, Saint Charles assumes that this practice will be followed, and gives instructions concerning the materials to be used, style, decorative motifs, measurements, etc.

Because the Rituale Romanum of 1614 incorporated this practice into its “praenotanda” in the section of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (Titulus IV, c.1, par.6),12 the custom of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle on the altar became known as “the Roman custom.” The placement on the main altar was not absolute, however, since it was foreseen that another altar might be more worthy or more suitable. Because the Rituale was not obligatory, the “Roman custom” of placing the tabernacle on the main altar spread only gradually, while other European countries maintained their local customs, sometimes for centuries.13

But the section on the tabernacle of Charles Borromeo’s Instructions had more influence than perhaps any other section of that work, and by the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries, the altar tabernacle that is found almost everywhere is the tabernacle of Saint Charles Borromeo.14

The extremely important shift that took place after the Council of Trent can be explained by a number of factors: 1) the Protestant denial of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and the Church’s affirmation of her doctrine in the clearest possible way by placing the tabernacle in the center of the high altar; 2) the resultant increase in Eucharistic devotions such as adoration and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; 3) the flourishing of Baroque architecture, especially in Rome, manifesting a larger-than-life enthusiasm and pride in the Catholic faith in the Eucharistic Presence; 4) the standardization of liturgical books (in this case the Roman Ritual) and the gradual standardization of liturgical practice as a result.

Vatican II to the Present

The fifty years that have elapsed since the Second Vatican Council have been characterized by enormous changes in liturgical theology and practice. The placement of the tabernacle in relation to the altar has been a topic of heated debate. What was normative in the post-Tridentine period has been largely rejected in the post-Vatican II period. While there has been general consensus about where the tabernacle should not be (on the main altar), there has been little consensus about where it should be. Theological disagreement about these issues has led to a rather confusing and sometimes contradictory pastoral practice.

There were two main reasons for the enormous shift that has taken place. The theological motivation was to restore emphasis on the altar and the Eucharistic action of the Mass, as opposed to the adoration and worship of the reserved Sacrament (a kind of dichotomy between the Eucharist seen as sacrifice and the Eucharist seen as sacrament).

The result in practice has been a decline in Eucharistic devotion. The pastoral motivation was to promote active participation by placing the altar versus populum. In older churches a common solution has been to place a new altar in front of the old altar, thus creating a certain cognitive dissonance in the worshipper, at least at the subconscious level.

The dilemma of where to put the reserved Blessed Sacrament frequently has been resolved by creating a side chapel. While that has been the practice for centuries in great basilicas and cathedrals and is eminently suitable under those conditions, many modern renovations have been less than felicitous, and small and crowded Blessed Sacrament chapels can seem inadequate and even irreverent. The revised General Instruction of the 2002 Roman Missal attempts to resolve some of these dilemmas by proposing a new model.

Peace of Christ,

 

[commenter]

In my diocese, some churches moved the Blessed Sacrament to one side altar in the front, then moved the Bible to the other side, with equal prominence; some churches even have a vigil light in front of the Bible. I think this a mistake. Other churches removed the crucifix. Ideally the Blessed Sacrament should be the focal point of the church, with the crucifix and the altar all visible in one view, so we remember the connection between the (current) Sacrifice of the Mass, the crucifixion, and the ongoing Real Presence. In my former parish, they set up an Adoration chapel then they said it was better to remove the Blessed Sacrament from the church to the chapel, since it was distracting to have hosts consecrated at other times in the church. They wanted to put the emphasis on the congregation coming together right now, as the “real presence”. They focused on the action of this particular congregation, coming together this Sunday in this place. I disagreed with this, as the Eucharist unites us to all Catholic Masses, in all times and all places. By setting up an Adoration chapel as the only place for the Blessed Sacrament, they made the Blessed Sacrament kind of an option, like charismatic renewal, rather than a universal. What they needed was to have it in both places.

 

[Holly3278]

I prefer for the tabernacle to be in the sanctuary of the parish church and in right in the center so that it is the first thing you see when you walk in the door. That said, if the Magisterium decides otherwise I would, of course, go with what they say.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

I prefer for the tabernacle to be in the sanctuary of the parish church and in right in the center so that it is the first thing you see when you walk in the door. That said, if the Magisterium decides otherwise I would, of course, go with what they say.

I agree it should be in the center so we can pray to the lord and I fine when its in a side chapel is sort of been put to one side.

IIn nomine Patris, + et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Introibo ad altare Dei. R: Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.

 

[jwinch2]

I prefer for the tabernacle to be in the sanctuary of the parish church and in right in the center so that it is the first thing you see when you walk in the door. That said, if the Magisterium decides otherwise I would, of course, go with what they say.

I personally agree with your thinking and prefer the same thing. However, I recognize that there are traditions in the Church which have been maintained for 1500 years that are important to respect as well. For example, in the Benedictine tradition, a side chapel has traditionally been the location to find the tabernacle and where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. Per the article linked above, this maintains the tradition of the Church during the time of St. Benedict and early in the history of the order.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It totally depends on the church, who runs the parish, and the size of the church.

I think that, in most secular, diocesan church cases, a central tabernacle works best logistically and symbolically.

But in some other cases, a [truly noble, visible, beautiful and spacious] chapel works best.

What horribly fails in all cases is a tiny little water closet with one prie deux located at the end of a long hall of the parish offices. Or anything like that.

 

[jwinch2]

It totally depends on the church, who runs the parish, and the size of the church.

I think that, in most secular, diocesan church cases, a central tabernacle works best logistically and symbolically.

But in some other cases, a [truly noble, visible, beautiful and spacious] chapel works best.

What horribly fails in all cases is a tiny little water closet with one prie deux located at the end of a long hall of the parish offices. Or anything like that.

Agreed. Regardless of the location, a certain standard of reverence is required both in the manner of reservation as well as the location. Its only the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ after all.