Another take on the placement of the Tabernacle

[malphono]

In my territorial church the tabernacle (from glass to emphasize that is is the place where our Lord is present permanently) is at the West end of the church and the altar in the East end, so people sit turning their back to the tabernacle. This is wrong, and nothing can justify that.

Brother JR, aren’t you mixing apples and oranges there? The situation described was that the the tabernacle is positioned in such a way that the congregation faces away from it. That’s far different from the common versus populum celebration arrangement that concerns the ministers only.

Many people complain about moving the tabernacle from “front-and-center” to a side chapel or to a “front-and-off-center” niche, yet in light of the versus populum thing, it seems that there is a method to that madness, so-to-speak. It is indeed odd that the ministers have their collective back to the tabernacle. However, when the tabernacle is located off-center (not in the rear of the church, as described), it does eliminate that oddity.

OK, so it’s no secret that I am not, and never have been, a fan of versus populum celebration. For one thing, by its very nature, it seems to me that versus populum has the effect of blurring the focus. As far as I’m concerned versus populum is the single most serious problem with post-conciliar liturgy in practice, if not in principle. With ad orientem celebration, the position of the tabernacle is actually irrelevant (assuming, of course, that it’s not in the back of the building), so whether it’s front-and-center or front-off-center or in a separate chapel, there’s no question as to the focus of the Mass.

Just my unsolicited :twocents:

 

[laszlo]

The instructions say that the tabernacle should be either at the center of the sanctuary on on the side, reverently placed where it can be seen by the faithful. It does not say that it is the focal point during the mass.

We are Christians, so Jesus Christ should be the focal point of our life. Any time. Even during the Mass. Above that we are Catholics, and it is our strong faith, that Jesus Christ, is present in the tabernacle. The conclusion is obvious without explicitly telling that

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, aren’t you mixing apples and oranges there? The situation described was that the the tabernacle is positioned in such a way that the congregation faces away from it. That’s far different from the common versus populum celebration arrangement that concerns the ministers only.

I think that you may not have noticed that I said above that this is a very inconvenient arrangement to say the least and the rules are very specific. The tabernacle should be at the center of the main wall of the sanctuary or on a side altar where it can bee seen from every part of the church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

We are Christians, so Jesus Christ should be the focal point of our life. Any time. Even during the Mass. Above that we are Catholics, and it is our strong faith, that Jesus Christ, is present in the tabernacle. The conclusion is obvious without explicitly telling that

There is no disagreement on this point. However, the rules are what they are. The tabernacle is not the focal point of the mass.

No one is denying the great truth about the Blessed Sacrament. No one is denying that the Blessed Sacrament should be adored.

During the mass Jesus is the focal point in the proclamation of the Gospel and in the sacrifice during the two parts of the liturgy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

I think that you may not have noticed that I said above that this is a very inconvenient arrangement to say the least and the rules are very specific. The tabernacle should be at the center of the main wall of the sanctuary or on a side altar where it can bee seen from every part of the church.

Just to clarify, yes, I realize that, although I inadvertently deleted the reference from the quote. In any case, my first comment was on your embolism which, it seems to me, was a bit incongruous. The rest of my remarks were my 2c on the matter in general.

 

[Judge_Mental]

Brick by brick tradition is removed (and occasionally with a sledgehammer), so brick by brick it must be restored. Go back to ad-orientem, move the tabernacle back and then we can get on with the serious business of seeking holiness.

It’s a lot easier to think pious thoughts in a well-ordered Church than in an architectural experiment.

 

[William2415]

There are several points here. Let’s break them down.

1. Lay people may not open the tabernacle unless there is a good reason.
2. If there is no deacon to rectrieve the consecrated hosts from the tabernacle, there is no other choice than for the priest to go retrieve it. That’s why the rules say that the tabernacle should be either on the sanctuary or to the side so that it’s not far from the altar of sacrifice. It is not a disrespectful act to walk over to get the consecrated hosts. It simply is not the ideal situation.
3. We can’t really use this as proof to support the tabernacle on the altar and people facing the tabernacle for one simple reason. This is not the way that St. Francis established it. Remember, this is an ancient custom, probably from the East. Francis adopted it for his friars. But if you look closely, the tabernacle is not on the altar of sacrifice itself. It was on a smaller “altar”, more like a pedestal. The one on EWTN is a perfect example of what Francis set up. In the old chapel used by the friars and the new shrine used by the nuns, the tabernacle is on a separate surface, not on the altar of sacrifice. That is the original Franciscan tradition.

As I said, this was done because of lack of space. In the East they hung it over the altar inside a dove. I’m not sure what that looked like. I have never seen one. I’ve only read about it. In monasteries, it is not in the church at all. There is a separate chapel that the monks use for prayer. The church is used for mass. Today, because of financial reasons and changes in architecture, modern monasteries do not have multiple spaces as the old monasteries have. The mass and the tabernacle is sometimes found in the same space.

The ideal is that the tabernacle be on the sanctuary, not on the altar or just to the side, where the priest does not have to stray far from the consecrated speceis on the altar. Having to go to a far off chapel is not the ideal. It’s not disrespectful, because none is intended. But it is dangerous, because there is always some nutjob who can do harm to the sacrament on the altar. In those cases, it would be better to ask a EMHC to get the consecrated hosts from the tabernacle.

But Father is right. This is not what the laity is supposed to do. The indult to use EMHC convers the distribution of Holy Communion, nothing else. In the past and in religious orders of men, there are many permanent acolytes. The acolytes make this run if there is no deacon. I don’t know many dioceses that have permanent acolytes. All of the permanent acolytes that I know are religious brothers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Are you sure you were responding to the correct post?

With regard to your point number 1: I never said or implied anything about lay people opening the tabernacle so I don’t understand why you even brought that up.

Your point number two also doesn’t really apply. If the tabernacle is kept in the sanctuary
there is no need for either the priest or a deacon to leave the sancuary to retrieve the consecrated hosts.

Your point number 4 (should be #3): I never said the tabernacle should be on the altar itself. I was refering to it being in the center-back of the sanctuary. Much like what you say about a small altar or pedestal.

Also, you say “It’s not disrespectful, because none is intended”. Disrespect is not always a matter of intent, you can be disrespectful without intending to be so.

Your points don’t really address what I said and so my original staement stands.

William

 

[JReducation]

Are you sure you were responding to the correct post?

Actually, I was trying to respond to the general direction in which the thread is going, but it didn’t come out as clear as I hoped. Sorry if I confused you.

With regard to your point number 1: I never said or implied anything about lay people opening the tabernacle so I don’t understand why you even brought that up.

Someone mentioned how their priest had to leave the altar to go to the tabernacle that apparently is far from the sanctuary.

Your point number two also doesn’t really apply. If the tabernacle is kept in the sanctuary
there is no need for either the priest or a deacon to leave the sancuary to retrieve the consecrated hosts.

But tabernacles are not always in the sanctuary, The law says that they can be on the side. If you’re in a monastery church it does not have to be in the church at all, because it’s not part of Catholic monastic tradition.

Your point number 4 (should be #3): I never said the tabernacle should be on the altar itself. I was refering to it being in the center-back of the sanctuary. Much like what you say about a small altar or pedestal.

Other people were saying this.

Also, you say “It’s not disrespectful, because none is intended”. Disrespect is not always a matter of intent, you can be disrespectful without intending to be so.
William

It is not disrepectful if the Church says that it’s not. Case in point, monks and friars have been doing it for centuries. Many of the Oriental Churches celebrate the Divine Liturgy with their back to the tabernacle. If the Church believed that this is a diserspectful thing to do, it would never allow it, just as it does not allow you to do other things that are disrespectful. Do you see what I’m saying?

When our friars stand between the altar and tabernacle, they are doing what our Father Francis did in the 13th century. He used to preach to the brothers from that place. That’s why the early Franciscan chapels did not have the altar to the wall. The tabernacle was front and center, because Francis put it there. It was not the Catholic thing to do. It became popular with the mendicants.

We have ancient narratives about hangind doves where the Blessed Sacrament was kept. These seem to have been in the East. In the West, the custom seems to have been to have a tabernacle for the Viaticum. That’s why it was not in the main body of the churches. There was a very special chapel, usually adjacent to the sanctuary.

We know why Francis put it front and center. Our first chapels were very small, because we’re not monks. We’re friars. We do not have monasteries with several prayer spaces as do monks. If you attend mass at a monastery, the tabernacle would be in either an adjacent chapel or a separate chapel altogether. Some of the newer constructions are building larger sanctuaries instead of a smaller one with an adjacent chapel. This allows for the tabernacle to be placed to one side of the sanctuary, but remain in the same sanctuary as the altar of sacrifice.

If you look at the chapel on EWTN, that’s a typical monastery chapel. The nuns used to pray on the other side of that partition. They could not see the tabernacle, because the tabernacle is on the opposite side of the partition. It’s nearby, but not in the same space where they were. In the new chapel, they are facing the sanctuary from the side. That’s more consistent with the old conventual tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[fall_fox]

Please do not apologize. If you could hear my confessions, you would never address me, not even on the internet. It was a simple thing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If I remember correctly, to fulfill the obligation for Sunday or Holy days you had to be present for the Gospel, Consecration, and Communion.

It could be where the bad habit of leaving right after Communion originated.

 

[fall_fox]

I understand that. However, I was responding to the person who said that the priest’s focus during the mass should be the tabernacle on the altar, which has never been the case in our 2000 year history. Whether he faces east or north, the point I was making is that the tabernacle is not is focal point during the mass, because the mass is not supposed to be adoration of the reserved sacrament. That’s a whole other rite in itself. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches focus on the tabernacle during mass. We all focus on the altar of sacrifice and face the cross.
If the cross is above the priest or behind him, that’s a little more difficult, but he is still focussed on the altar of sacrifice. That was my point.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF

I love the Gospel of John ch.6. The Eucharist is a difficult Mystery of our Faith, Jesus even had some of his Disciples leave him because of this. I think it’s hard to get ones mind around he fact that Jesus can be reserved in the Tabernacle but yet at the same instant the Priest in Persona Christi, is consecrating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is here, Christ is there, what do we do with this. For me I just take it as my unexplainable Faith, I figure in due time I will understand.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Isn’t it possible, however, that the Tabernacle, being on the center stage, along with the Crucifix, could actually enhance both the communal as well as private devotion at the same time? After all, we’ve learned to live with a whole ton of (other) distractions.

I agree, and appreciate your expressing this as you have.
Kathryn Ann:harp::heaven:

 

[JReducation]

But that’s not what the Church has ever wanted us to do. The Church has always wanted us to focus on the altar of sacrifice.

That’s why the early Fathers hung the Blessed Sacrament in a dove overhead. This way, it could be reserved and adored, but be out of the way during the mass. Later, monks would build side chapels for the Blessed Sacrament.

Today, communities such as the Poor Clares, who practice perpetual adoration, cover the Blessed Sacrament during to the mass to keep the focus on the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.

I guess we come from different worlds. In the religious life, these are non issues to us. We just passively accept the fact that monks have the Blessed Sacrament in side chapels or side altars. Carthusians have it in the chapel, but draw a drape over it during mass. Poor Clares have 24/7 exposition, but place a cover over the monstrance during mass. Franciscan friars stand between the tabernacle and the altar.

To us, they’re just different traditions and all are good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Alfonsus]

Remember also that in extraordinary form, whenever pontifical mass is celebrated, the tabernacle where the pontifical mass to be celebrated will be emptied.
The sacrament will be transferred to different tabernacle, and can be far removed from the altar where the Mass is celebrated.

 

[ProVobis]

Remember also that in extraordinary form, whenever pontifical mass is celebrated, the tabernacle where the pontifical mass to be celebrated will be emptied.
The sacrament will be transferred to different tabernacle, and can be far removed from the altar where the Mass is celebrated.

Maybe but the tabernacle has Old Testament roots and has theological value whether the sacrament is placed there or not. For example, on Good Friday when the tabernacle is emptied.

 

[domandcarols]

I’d agree more with what he’s saying if he were less obnoxious.
Someone needs to slap him.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe but the tabernacle has Old Testament roots and has theological value whether the sacrament is placed there or not. For example, on Good Friday when the tabernacle is emptied.

Not exactly. Don’t forget that the tabernacle does not make its way to the main altar until the 13th century when Francis put it there and the Franciscan carried this tradition around the world.

The tabernacle in the OT was always in a separate space, not the space of worship. For this reason, monks never kept it in the sanctuary.

What happened was that the Franciscan way of building chapels and churches caught on and that’s what most Catholics know, but mistakenly believe that this is the Catholic way of doing things. It is not. It is the Franciscan way of doing it, which was adopted by the Latin Church. The other Catholic Churches did not adopt this arrangement. They have their own arrangements. However, they are just as Catholic and just a rooted in the scriptures as the Latin Church.

We have to learn to think beyond out experience. Unless we think beyond our experience, we will never understand by other Catholics do things differently or how we got from there to here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

I suppose if we really want to get technical and split hairs over this, it might be a good place to start at the very beginning, when God Himself instructed Moses how to construct and furnish the meeting tent.

Exodus 26:33 shows that the Holy of Holies was separated by a veil, and was removed from the Altar of Sacrifice. This drawing depicts the Holy of Holies in #1, and the Altar in #6. Note the distance between them. Also note that the Holy of Holies was located by the “westernmost” part of the Temple, which could be an argument *against *the insistence that priests must face East when celebrating the Mass.

 

[Alfonsus]

Maybe but the tabernacle has Old Testament roots and has theological value whether the sacrament is placed there or not. For example, on Good Friday when the tabernacle is emptied.

My point is that during Mass, the Sacrament kept in the tabernacle is not the focus. It is kept somewhere else. If the Bishop celebrate, either the Altar is without a tabernacle or if there is, it has to be vacated.

We know the Pontifical high mass it the ideal of Mass. Other poster said that the reserved sacrament should be the focus of our attention. If this logic is true, then Pontifical high mass in extraordinary form is basically dong things “wrongly” or perhaps showing irreverent attitude toward the blessed sacrament.

So basically there is a merit, logic of having the tabernacle separate from the main altar or axis of the church. Because it is attested by tradition. Even in extraordinary form, where most altar was build with tabernacle attached to it, it maintains the ideal celebration of Mass (Pontifical high mass) where the sacrament must be kept in other place.

 

[ProVobis]

We know the Pontifical high mass it the ideal of Mass. Other poster said that the reserved sacrament should be the focus of our attention. If this logic is true, then Pontifical high mass in extraordinary form is basically dong things “wrongly” or perhaps showing irreverent attitude toward the blessed sacrament.

Although much of the EF is visual (candles, flowers, cards, cherubims, Gothic architecture, etc.) the focus is usually on the actions of the priest or in the readings in your handmissal. Movement usually draws more attention so I don’t know the practicality of trying to focus on the tabernacle during Mass. Maybe during communion or after Mass but not during Mass.

 

[JReducation]

We have to be careful not to disrespect the Blessed Sacrament by making its placement a point of contention. The Blessed Sacrament is not an object over which we should argue as it were a piece of property.

Whatever the Church advises is what we should do and let it go at that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1: