Another take on the placement of the Tabernacle

[Canto]

So I guess Michael Voris is not encouraging the people not to go to St. Peter’s or any of the other great cathedrals of the world where the tabernacle is not front and center. Maybe he should tell the Pope that he is Protestant for not placing Jesus where he belongs.

Where did this guy study theology anyway? Does he remind anyone else of Bill O’Reilly?

Do you know that Real Catholic TV is not a one man show?
Have you seen only the vortexes (targeted to a specific audience) or many of the other things that RCTV produces?

Voris, obviously, was referring to your ordinary parish. It was a vortex continuing with the current theme of the vortexes of late on dissent in the Church.

Belief in the real presence is less than 50% in the USA.

In an apostolic exhortation following a synod of Bishops meeting Pope Benedict said unless there is a chapel the tabernacle should be on the old altar (in old churches) and in the centre or where equally conspicuous (in new churches).

If the tabernacle is not in the centre it may be conspicuous, but is it equally conspicuous?

Canon Law (1983) states Canon 938 §2 The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.

How is the above possible when the tabernacle is put in a cupboard or in a corner like at my old parish (until the new Bishop ordered it to be put behind the altar) or my new parish where it was shoved to the side (due to a disbelief [we were administed not by a priest] in the real presence, from what my new priest who put it back in the centre has said).

Sacramentum Caritatis: The location of the tabernacle
69. In considering the importance of eucharistic reservation and adoration, and reverence for the sacrament of Christ’s sacrifice, the Synod of Bishops also discussed the question of the proper placement of the tabernacle in our churches. (196) The correct positioning of the tabernacle contributes to the recognition of Christ’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle, which must always be cared for, also from an artistic standpoint. Obviously it is necessary to follow the provisions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in this regard. (197) In any event, final judgment on these matters belongs to the Diocesan Bishop.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Br. JR thanks for the great response!

That Francis of Assisi, he really left his mark, eh?

 

[ProVobis]

Someone mentioned that they attend mass at a monastery and there is no tabernacle. This is correct. Most monastic orders do not keep a tabernacle in the same place where they worship. The tabernacle is in a separate chapel or a side chapel.

JR, a couple of things here. In most parishes, the Tabernacle becomes a part of the Mass in the sense that the ciboria that hold the consecrated hosts inside the Tabernacle are accessed at communion time. The Eucharistic minister(s) probably wouldn’t want the Tabernacle too far away from the main altar for that reason. On the other hand, the new Church thinking after Vatican II was that all hosts received during Mass should be consecrated at that Mass; in that case, yes, the setting of the Mass is separate from the Tabernacle and this is perhaps where you have plenty of mixed thoughts as to the placement of the Tabernacle.

I guess it depends on the community on what works best. But I find statements that the Tabernacle is a distraction from Mass to be most unfounded.

 

[melchesidechpio]

Maybe I can help here, since it was the founder of my order who started this mess in the first place.

The tabernacle was first placed on the main altar by St. Francis of Assisi. Prior to his arrival on the scene, the tabernacle was never in the main church. We have to remember during the 13th century, parishes were really monastery churches or cathedrals. They were not what we know them today, especially in the Americas. Even in Europe, they still are very different from our notion of a parish in the Americas.

Someone mentioned that they attend mass at a monastery and there is no tabernacle. This is correct. Most monastic orders do not keep a tabernacle in the same place where they worship. The tabernacle is in a separate chapel or a side chapel.

Because the Franciscans did not have the large buildings that the monks did, we did not have several spaces available. The mass, the Liturgy of the Hours and private prayer all took place in one space. Francis of Assisi, who was very devoted to the Eucharist, very much wanted the Blessed Sacrament present in the chapel. As was the custom of the time, the tabernacle was very ornate and beautiful, except that it was always in a separate space.

Since the friars did not have the luxury of space, the tabernacle was placed in the front center of the sanctuary. It was usually on a pedestal directly behind the main altar. Franciscan altars were not attached to the back wall. That’s a Roman thing, not a Franciscan custom. In those churches built by the Roman clergy and later handed over to the friars, the altars were built into the wall. That was not the case with our chapels and is still not the case. If you look at the altars at both chapels on EWTN, the friars’ chapel and the nun’s chapel at the shrine, the tabernacle sits on a pedestal behind the main altar.

When the mass was celebrated facing ad orientem, you faced the tabernacle. When the option came to face the people, we did not have to move our tabernacles or our altars. They were never attached. The friar-priest simply slips between the tabernacle and the altar.

Because our order spread so quickly and so far, the custom of the tabernacle at the center of the sanctuary also spread through Europe and later through the Franciscan missions. Other religious communities and diocesan bishops adopted the custom and it eventually became the norm for parishes. That’s how the tabernacle came to be on the main altar. It was never intentional. It was one of those things that happened out of a great devotion to the Eucharist and a lack of space. The tabernacle and the mass had to share the same space. It was never the intention of St. Francis or the friars to make the tabernacle part of the mass. That’s why it was never a problem for the friar-priest to slip between the tabernacle and the altar, turning his back on the tabernacle during the mass. As I said, the tabernacle was not part of the mass nor has it ever been so.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with having it front and center. The norm is that it should be prominent, beautiful and reverently displayed. That was always the case, even in the monasteries where they kept it in a separate space. It is also the rule that the tabernacle not be where there is a lot of traffic. That’s why you do not find it in most cathedrals and basilicas such as St. Peter’s or the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. It’s in a side chapel. You don’t want tours walking past the Most Blessed Sacrament.

The Poor Clares keep it front and center because the shrine is dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament. It makes perfect sense and people know that they come there to adore the Sacrament. St. Peter’s has a different purpose and so does the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception.

In closing, many theologians believed that since the focus of the mass is the altar of sacrifice and the pulpit, the tabernacle in the front and center of the sanctuary encouraged private Eucharistic devotion during the mass, when the focus should be on the Word, Sacrifice and Communion. The truth is that we can neither substantiate their belief nor disprove it. One would have to be in everyone’s head to know what people are thinking and where they are focusing during the mass. That’s impossible. All that the theologians could offer was an opinion, not a law, because it could not be proven or disproven. I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

wonderful information. I learn more about Catholicism and St. Francis more and more every day thanks to wonderful people like you

 

[JReducation]

JR, a couple of things here. In most parishes, the Tabernacle becomes a part of the Mass in the sense that the ciboria that hold the consecrated hosts inside the Tabernacle are accessed at communion time. The Eucharistic minister(s) probably wouldn’t want the Tabernacle too far away from the main altar for that reason. On the other hand, the new Church thinking after Vatican II was that all hosts received during Mass should be consecrated at that Mass; in that case, yes, the setting of the Mass is separate from the Tabernacle and this is perhaps where you have plenty of mixed thoughts as to the placement of the Tabernacle.

I guess it depends on the community on what works best. But I find statements that the Tabernacle is a distraction from Mass to be most unfounded.

Let me start with your concluding statement. Remember what I said. The thoughts of the theologians are only opinions. They are not laws. While you may think they are unfounded, the truth is that there is absolutely no way of proving one or the other. Therefore, I only think of what happens with me and not what happens with everyone else. I encourage everyone else to do the same. As St. Clare always said, “if you focus on you and your life of prayer, don’t worry about everyone else’s life of prayer, you’ll have greater peace, you will pray better and you will gain more graces. She who focuses on the others’ life of prayer makes herself their spiritual direector or their abbess.”

As to the accessibility of the tabernacle. The hosts to be used should be consecrated at the mass that’s being celebrated. The hosts in the tabernacle should be in case your run short or for replacement purposes. That’s why the Church does not bring up this issue in its laws. If you observe in places such as the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, when they have a mass with 3,000 people, they consecrate X number of hosts. The deacons then go to the chapel, which is a good 1,000 meters away from the sanctuary, to get the ciboria. This can be done very smoothly.

The parish where I help out has the tabernacle front and side. The deacon goes over to get the ciboria. They have this down to an art form so that you don’t notice it. You may need the ciboria, especially if you have many in the tabernacle. They need to be exchanged for fresh ones in a timely fashion. The idea is that you not have that many in a tabernacle of an ordinary parish, because you should havae a fair idea of how many you need for each mass, since you’re doing the same population every week, unllike a mass at a Basilica or a special gathering.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

If you observe in places such as the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, when they have a mass with 3,000 people, they consecrate X number of hosts. The deacons then go to the chapel, which is a good 1,000 meters away from the sanctuary, to get the ciboria. This can be done very smoothly.

Maybe I missed something or maybe I’m just having a bad day, but a 1000 meters? That’s over half a mile, isn’t it? I haven’t been there (or in DC at all) for many years, but I recall the Blessed Sacrament Chapel is to the left of the chancel. It’s a bit of a hike but I don’t think it’s that far.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe I missed something or maybe I’m just having a bad day, but a 1000 meters? That’s over half a mile, isn’t it? I haven’t been there (or in DC at all) for many years, but I recall the Blessed Sacrament Chapel is to the left of the chancel. It’s a bit of a hike but I don’t think it’s that far.

Sorry, I didn’t do the conversion correctly from meters to feet. But you got the idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

But I find statements that the Tabernacle is a distraction from Mass to be most unfounded.

Here are a few statements that appeared in this thread, my emphasis added.

I prefer that the Tabernacle be front and center. I´ve been to both types of Masses. With Christ right there where I can see Him; my mind drifts less. Either way we should not let the form of the Mass or the design of the Church be an obstacle in worshipping our Lord. I also feel a little irreverant when my Lord is not front and center.

It seems to me that our hearts, minds, and even bodies should be constantly focused on the Blessed Sacrament even during Mass, because it is the fruit of the Sacrifice of the Altar, the height and summit of Christian life, and the very reason we’re present at Mass to begin with. Much better than having our minds wander to mere earthly concerns, abuses taking place at Mass, and so on.

Many times when I’m forced to go to Mass in another parish, there is no tabernacle and I have no idea where Jesus actually is. In that case, I simply bow to the altar and tell Jesus, “I have no idea where you are, but here I am anyway!”

As for me, I just feel better and am closer to God when his body is close to me and I can see where it is.

Now, while I think that Fr. McBrien was a little over the top in his article that was linked in post # 13, I, after reading some of these statements, and hearing what Michael Vorhis had to say, can almost understand why Fr. Mc Brien said what he said. **Jesus is present during the Mass, in the Word and in the Eucharist, regardless of where or if there is a tabernacle. ***
It seems to me that there really is almost a “superstitious” view of the Blessed Sacrament in some cases, especially when I hear phrases like, “I feel irreverent when my Lord is not front & center”. *

Our Lord is always “front & center” at any Mass, whether the tabernacle is at the main altar, a side altar, or in another room altogether!

 

[Joannm]

Here are a few statements that appeared in this thread, my emphasis added.

Now, while I think that Fr. McBrien was a little over the top in his article that was linked in post # 13, I, after reading some of these statements, and hearing what Michael Vorhis had to say, can almost understand why Fr. Mc Brien said what he said. **Jesus is present during the Mass, in the Word and in the Eucharist, regardless of where or if there is a tabernacle. ***
It seems to me that there really is almost a “superstitious” view of the Blessed Sacrament in some cases, especially when I hear phrases like, “I feel irreverent when my Lord is not front & center”. *

Our Lord is always “front & center” at any Mass, whether the tabernacle is at the main altar, a side altar, or in another room altogether!

 

[The_Old_Medic]

We just dedicated a brand new church. Our tabernacle is in our Reservation Chapel, just off the main church. The Reservation Chapel has glass doors, so the tabernacle is in plain view from about 85% of the church (only when you are way down front, on one extreme side of the Church, can you not see it).

Our Bishop knelt in the Reservation Chapel, after placing the Blessed Sacrament there after our dedication Mass. He said it was one of the most reverential such facilities he had ever encountered.

Adoration takes place on a regular basis, both in the main church, AND in the Reservation Chapel. There is absolutely no reason at all why a tabernacle MUST be either on the alter (it would interfere with Mass if it was), or directly behind the alter. It should however be plainly known exactly where it is located, and their should be provision for adoration for anyone that wishes to do so.

 

[Corki]

. ***Jesus is present during the Mass, in the Word and in the Eucharist, regardless of where or if there is a tabernacle. ***

This is the kind of thinking that sets my teeth on edge. I teach CCE and we are constantly reinforcing the truth that the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is unique. It’s NOT the same as “God is everywhere”.

If the Tabernacle is not present in the Sanctuary, the Sacramental presence of Jesus is not there until after the Consecration. Jesus is always present but the Liturgy of the Word does not contain the Real Presence. It just seems to make sence that Catholics would prefer to have the Real Presence during the entire Mass whenever possible. It’s not always possible but that’s the ideal.

 

[ProVobis]

Based on this commentary, why wouldn’t we want to have the Tabernacle front and center?

Commentary on Exodus 25:1-9
(Read Exodus 25:1-9)

God chose the people of Israel to be a peculiar people to himself, above all people, and he himself would be their King. He ordered a royal palace to be set up among them for himself, called a sanctuary, or holy place, or habitation. There he showed his presence among them. And because in the wilderness they dwelt in tents, this royal palace was ordered to be a tabernacle, that it might move with them. The people were to furnish Moses with the materials, by their own free will. The best use we can make of our worldly wealth, is to honour God with it in works of piety and charity. We should ask, not only, What must we do? but, What may we do for God? Whatever they gave, they must give it cheerfully, not grudgingly, for God loves a cheerful giver, 2 Corinthians 9:7. What is laid out in the service of God, we must reckon well bestowed; and whatsoever is done in God’s service, must be done by his direction.

Commentary on Exodus 25:10-22
(Read Exodus 25:10-22)

The ark was a chest, overlaid with gold, in which the two tables of the law were to be kept. These tables are called the testimony; God in them testified his will. This law was a testimony to the Israelites, to direct them in their duty, and would be a testimony against them, if they transgressed. This ark was placed in the holy of holies; the blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled, and the incense burned, before it, by the high priest; and above it appeared the visible glory, which was the symbol of the Divine presence. This was a type of Christ in his sinless nature, which saw no corruption, in personal union with his Divine nature, atoning for our sins against it, by his death. The cherubim of gold looked one towards another, and both looked downward toward the ark. It denotes the angels’ attendance on the Redeemer, their readiness to do his will, their presence in the assemblies of saints, and their desire to look into the mysteries of the gospel. It was covered with a covering of gold, called the mercy-seat. God is said to dwell, or sit between the cherubim, on the mercy-seat. There he would give his law, and hear supplicants, as a prince on his throne.

Commentary on Exodus 25:23-30
(Read Exodus 25:23-30)

A table was to be made of wood, overlaid with gold, to stand in the outer tabernacle, to be always furnished with the shew-bread. This table, with the articles on it, and its use, seems to typify the communion which the Lord holds with his redeemed people in his ordinances, the provisions of his house, the feasts they are favoured with. Also the food for their souls, which they always find when they hunger after it; and the delight he takes in their persons and services, as presented before him in Christ.

Commentary on Exodus 25:31-40
(Read Exodus 25:31-40)

The candlestick represents the light of God’s word and Spirit, in and through Christ Jesus, afforded in this dark world to his believing people, to direct their worship and obedience, and to afford them consolations. The church is still dark, as the tabernacle was, in comparison with what it will be in heaven; but the word of God is a light shining in a dark place, 2 Peter 1:19, and a dark place indeed the world would be without it. In verse 40 is an express caution to Moses. Nothing was left to his own fancy, or to that of the workmen, or the people; but the will of God must be observed in every particular. Christ’s instruction to his disciples, Matthew 28:20, is like this, Observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Let us remember that we are the temples of the Holy Ghost, that we have the law of God in our hearts, that we are to live a life of communion with God, feast on his ordinances, and are the light of the world, if indeed we are followers of Christ. May the Lord help us to try ourselves by this view of religion, and to walk according thereto.

christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=2&c=25&com=mhc

 

[Oneofthewomen]

***This is the kind of thinking that sets my teeth on edge. I teach CCE and we are constantly reinforcing the truth that the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is unique. It’s NOT the same as “God is everywhere”. ***
If the Tabernacle is not present in the Sanctuary, the Sacramental presence of Jesus is not there until after the Consecration. Jesus is always present but the Liturgy of the Word does not contain the Real Presence. It just seems to make sence that Catholics would prefer to have the Real Presence during the entire Mass whenever possible. It’s not always possible but that’s the ideal.

I did not say that “God is everywhere”.
I am not trying to diminish the belief in the “Real Presence” at all.
I agree that, in your typical parish church in the the US, the tabernacle, ideally would be front & center. What I am trying to say is, that based on what I have read & heard in this thread, no one should ever discount the presence of Jesus during the Mass whether the tabernacle is visible or not.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Based on this commentary, why wouldn’t we want to have the Tabernacle front and center?

christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=2&c=25&com=mhc

The commentary was interesting. I don’t think the commentary sets aside why the Church permits the placement of the Tabernacle in places other than geographical front and center. You seem to want to persuade other people that they SHOULD believe that the Tabernacle should be front and center. I doubt very seriously that any Catholic who posts to these fora would actually OBJECT to the placement of the Tabernacle in the front and center of the Church, though I’m fairly sure that some (of us) disagree with Voris’ assessment. I personally, when at Mass, direct my attention to what is occuring at the Altar. When I pray privately in church, my focus is on the Tabernacle, wherever it is, front side, separate chapel, or on the Blessed Sacrament exposed on the Altar (in the local chapels that have Perpetual Adoration). Are Catholics who are indifferent on the question bad or not-as-good-Catholics? How much do we have to militate for the renovation of older churches so that the Tabernacle is front and center before we’re good Catholics again? How much do we agitate the local ordinary when a new church is being built before we are once again in good odor? Because in the end, priests and bishops are going to make the decision. I’m fairly certain that some of them, who place the Tabernacle off to the side or in Its Own chapel are good and holy men.

 

[JReducation]

Based on this commentary, why wouldn’t we want to have the Tabernacle front and center?

christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=2&c=25&com=mhc

These are good commentaries, but you have to remember that these scriptures have never been used to guide liturgical law. Liturgical law is guided by the Tradition of each Catholic Church.

While I don’t believe that anyone would be upset if the tabernacle was front and center in every church, we must also keep in mind how the custom began and when it began. There was no such custom for 1200 years.

As a Franciscan, I’m very proud of our contribution to liturgy. That’s not the point. However, I also understand that there are other customs in the Church and other religious families that have made important contributions to the liturgical life of the Church. For example, the idea of a separate Blessed Sacrament Chapel is a monastic one that was born during the Cluniac reform. The monastic families certainly have a voice and something of value to contribute to this dialogue, not just the Franciscans.

The tabernacle, front and center is a Franciscan tradition that spread over most of the Roman Church, but it was never meant to abrogate the Cluniac tradition of a Blessed Sacrament chapel aside from the mian church. Both traditions have great value, if they are properly observed.

The tabernacle front and center in a place where there is a lot of people traffice is not what Francis of Assisi had in mind. The tabernacle in a chapel that people have accessing problems is not what the Cluniac Reform had in mind either. The idea was two separate worship spaces for different kinds of worship. The Fathers of the Cluniac Reform were very concerned about the importance of keeping the focus on the celebration of the mass in front of you, not on the tabernacle. It’s not that they had anything against the tabernacle. It’s that they had concerns about superstitions creeping into spirituality. It is from the Cluniac movement that we borrow such terms as, “the table of the Word”. They impressed upon the Church that Christ is truly present in the Word, because he is the Word, even though he is not physically present until the moment of the consecration. They were looking for a balance in our attention to Christ as Word of God and Christ as victim and food during the liturgy. I do believe that this spirituality is very important and must be preserved, whether the tabernacle is front and center, in an adjacent chapel or front and side.

There seems to be some confusion in the mind of some people that the proclamation of the Word is less important to the liturgy than the consecration. The fact is that the liturgy must be embraced as a whole. We must desire to be in the presence of Christ the Word and Christ Incarnate.

When I read the Cluniac reform and the writings of some of the early Francisans and how they incorporated the Cluniac reform into their situation, since they did not have the space for two separate spaces, I’m inspired by the fact that they were able to focus on each part of the liturgy as it progressed and I am inspired by how they taught the young brothers to focus on one part at a time. It’s a harmonious movement that begins withe the Word, rises to the Sacrifice and closes with the Communion rite. The mysticism behind it is almost like a symphony of movements. I believe that we are losing this idea of movement and focussing too much on either the meal or the consecration or the preaching. Either way you cut it, when you focus too much on one to the detriment of the other, you throw your liturgical life off balance.

I’ll share with everyone how I can tell that we have become unbalanced. When people speak of liturgy on these fora, very few people make the connection between the Mass and the Divine Office and very few people speak as the one flowing from and leading to the other.

We need to keep a balance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Br. JR,
Thanks for another wonderfully informative post!!

I love what you said about finding “balance”, I truly believe that being able to find this balance is the key to a happy and spiritual life!

Peace be with you!

 

[laszlo]

There seems to be some confusion in the mind of some people that the proclamation of the Word is less important to the liturgy than the consecration. The fact is that the liturgy must be embraced as a whole. We must desire to be in the presence of Christ the Word and Christ Incarnate.

One’s body is a whole. Still the the brain is more important than the hand, or the tongue.

Until Vatican II the presence fulfilling the Sunday and Holy Day obligation was required only from the Offertory to the Communion of the Priest, both inclusive.

This changed as a discipline, but this does not mean that the reading and homily would become equal to the Eucharist.

God is everywhere present, God’s word may be preached everywhere, only the Eucharist means distinct physical presence.

 

[JReducation]

One’s body is a whole. Still the the brain is more important than the hand, or the tongue.

Until Vatican II the presence fulfilling the Sunday and Holy Day obligation was required only from the Offertory to the Communion of the Priest, both inclusive.

This changed as a discipline, but this does not mean that the reading and homily would become equal to the Eucharist.

God is everywhere present, God’s word may be preached everywhere, only the Eucharist means distinct physical presence.

The change in the discipline does not indicate a change in the theology. The rule before Vatican II may have been as you say. But the theology of the mass concerning the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist dates back to the Fathers. If you want to see it observed in its purest form, attend a Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy or mass at a Benedictine Abbey. You will see the balance in attention to detail and reverence to both parts of the liturgy.

The discipline changed with Vatican II to conform to the Tradition. The reason for the older discipline had to do with travel problems that do not exist in the 20th century. There is no reason why people in our century should not be present for the Liturgy of the Word.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The change in the discipline does not indicate a change in the theology. The rule before Vatican II may have been as you say. But the theology of the mass concerning the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist dates back to the Fathers. If you want to see it observed in its purest form, attend a Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy or mass at a Benedictine Abbey. You will see the balance in attention to detail and reverence to both parts of the liturgy.

The discipline changed with Vatican II to conform to the Tradition. The reason for the older discipline had to do with travel problems that do not exist in the 20th century. There is no reason why people in our century should not be present for the Liturgy of the Word.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m a little confused here. Did someone say it wasn’t required to attend full Mass in the pre-Vatican II days? My nuns would have had a seizures if someone told them that. Seriously if you missed any part of the Mass, you needed to stay at least part of the next one to avoid all sin. But then Masses were usually scheduled on the hour every hour in many parishes to make this easy to do.

 

[JReducation]

I’m a little confused here. Did someone say it wasn’t required to attend full Mass in the pre-Vatican II days? My nuns would have had a seizures if someone told them that. Seriously if you missed any part of the Mass, you needed to stay at least part of the next one to avoid all sin. But then Masses were usually scheduled on the hour every hour in many parishes to make this easy to do.

Read what Lazlo says in post 37. Actually, it’s me responding to Lazlo.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF