my pastor and I have discussed this at length. He is in total agreement with the previous post about separating the altar of sacrifice from the altar of repose (tabernacle).
I quote Pope Pius XII in an address to people regarding the liturgical movement:
The Council of Trent has explained the disposition of soul required concerning the Blessed Sacrament: “If anyone says that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of
latria, including the external worship, and that the sacrament, therefore, is not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebrations nor solemnly carried from place to place in processions according to the praiseworthy universal rite and custom of the holy Church: or that the sacrament is not to be publicly exposed for the people’s adoration, and that those who adore it are idolators: let him be anathema.”
“If anyone says that it is not permissible to keep the sacred Eucharist in a holy place, but that it must necessarily be distributed immediately after the consecration to those who are present; or that it is not permissible to carry the Eucharist respectfully to the sick: let him be anathema.”
He who clings wholeheartedly to this teaching has no thought of formulating objections against the presence of the tabernacle on the altar.
In the instruction of the Holy Office,
De arte sacra, of June 30, 1952, the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point: “This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, #2, and 1269 #1 [of the 1917 Code of Canon Law] be faithfully observed: ‘The
Most Blessed Eucharist should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence
as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament … The Most Blessed Sacrament
must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.’”
There is question, not so much of the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar, as of a tendency to which We would like to call your attention, that of
a lessening of esteem for the presence and action of Christ in the tabernacle. The sacrifice of the altar is held sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplishes it is reduced.
Yet the person of our Lord must hold the central place in worship, for
it is His person that unifies the relations of the altar and the tabernacle and gives them their meaning.
It is through the sacrifice of the altar, first of all, that the Lord becomes present in the Eucharist, and He is in the tabernacle only as a
memoria sacrificii et passionis suae (memorial of his sacrifice and passion).
To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.
It is indeed peculiar to me that only 21 years later, in 1967, the Sacred Congregation of Rites said that “on the grounds of the sign value, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that, through reservation of the sacrament in the tabernacle, Christ not be present Eucharistically from the beginning on the altar where Mass is celebrated. That presence is the effect of the consecration and should appear as such.” (
Eucharisticum Mysterium, n. 55)
I think we will eventually see a return to the former and long-standing tradition of placing the tabernacle in the center of the back of the altar, or
directly behind the altar.
Is “the Eucharist” sitting in the tabernacle the source and summit of our worship? Or is it the reception of the Eucharist that is the source and summit, or is it the *consecration/sacrifice *of the Eucharsit the source and summit?
The Eucharist, formally, is the confected sacrament on the altar; when
we receive it, it is as Holy Communion. The Eucharist is a sacrament before anyone receives it; in this way, it is distinct from all other sacraments, and this is because
in this sacrament is the Author of graces Himself.
Is our
reception of the Eucharist
greater than the Eucharist itself? I don’t think the answer is yes. The
Eucharist itself is the source and summit of our worship and faith, which is why our participation
in it (as Holy Communion) is never the apex of our spiritual lives, but the way through which our lives
reach their apex. We can receive graces from the Eucharist
without receiving it sacramentally.
This view is supported by several Popes, including Leo XIII (
Mirae Caritatis of 1902) and Pope Pius XII (“Above all, try with your constant zeal to have all the faithful attend the Eucharistic sacrifice from which they may obtain abundant and salutary fruit; and carefully instruct them in all the legitimate ways we have described above so that they may devoutly participate in it. The Mass is the chief act of divine worship; it should also be the source and center of Christian piety.”
Mediator Dei, n. 201). Vatican II in
Lumen Gentium n. 11 said “Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It.”
Eucharisticum Mysterium echoes the sentiment: “Hence the Eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of all the Church’s worship and of the entire Christian life. The faithful participate more fully in this sacrifice of thanksgiving, expiation, petition, and praise not only when they wholeheartedly offer the sacred victim and in him offer themselves to the Father with the priest, but also when they receive the same victim in the sacrament.” (n. 3e)
I rest my case.
, and this is giving him back the same, but in a charitable way - stubbornly insisting on believing he had only the best of motives, in line with his fidelity to his high calling. And it also gives Matt and others the opportunity to express their opinion (which has certainly not been solicited, as it should have been). Its non-confrontatinal, friendly-spirited justice.
