How and why did the Tabernacle get put to the side?

[MikeDunphy]

if it were, then St. Peters at Rome would be the chief villain - and the only ignorance here is thinking such things.

In St. Peter’s Basilica, moving the tabernacle is justified because of the hoards of tourists who do not act like they are in church. An ordinary parish church should not have that problem, and so should be able to keep our Lord front and center in the place of greatest honor.

 

[JReducation]

How and why did post VII parishes start placing the Tabernacles to the side of the altar, and is it technically against Canon Law?

It’s not Canon Law, it’s the GIRM. The rule is that the tabernacle should be either in the center or on the side as long as it is in a place that is reverent and easily accessible and visible. In churches where you have a lot of people traffic, it should be in a separate chapel.

The question about Vatican II is a rather interesting one, because it was not a Catholic tradition to have a tabernacle on the sanctuary. There are ancient writings about the Eastern Catholics having a dove hanging from the ceiling with the consecrated host in it. But that’s all that we know for a fact.

In the Latin Church tabernacles were always in a chapel to the side of the sanctuary. In the 1200s, our Holy Francis Francis began to rebuild abandoned chapels. They were very tiny. He had great devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. He wanted it in our chapels. However, we’re not monks. We did not have the large churches that monasteries do. Our chapels were tiny. Francis put the tabernacle on a pedestal behind the main altar. It was often referred to an altar. You can see the model on EWTN. The Friars’ chapel and the nuns shrine both have the tabernacle on a pedestal behind the altar. That was the Franciscan custom.

By 1223 there were 5,000 friars. About 500 of them were priests. Francis sent them out all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. They built very small houses with small churches. The tabernacle was behind the altar.

This custom caught on. Eventually, other missionaries were doing the same thing. The cathedrals and the monks continued to have the tabernacle on the side or in a separate chapel. Eventually, it became part of the architecture. Altars were built with a niche into which you fit a permanently fixed tabernacle.

As you can see, it was not really a Catholic custom. It was a Franciscan custom that became Roman Catholic. In Eastern Catholicism the tabernacles are placed differently according to their liturgical rite and their ethnic customs.

After Vatican II, permission was given to use the monastic custom, which was to have the tabernacle on a side chapel adjacent to the main sanctuary or in a separate space for prayer. The monks have two spaces. They celebrate mass in one space and adore the Blessed Sacrament in another. They do not blend the two. They never have for almost 1800 years. Vatican II gave permission to recover this noble and ancient custom.

However, many architects failed to look at the layout of monastic worship spaces. Those who did fail to look got it all wrong. Some places ended up with the tabernacle in a chapel at the rear of the church or a separate building. That is not how the monks do it. They have it in a chapel next to the sanctuary or a side altar next to the sanctuary that usually faces in a different direction. This way, when the monks are celebrating mass, they are not facing the tabernacle, because the tabernacle is either in this side chapel that is off to their periphery or on a side altar that is angled. During mass they face the altar and cross. During adoration they go to the other side.

Friars have the tabernacle either behind the altar on a separate pedestal or in the main sanctuary, but the pedestal is on the side of the sanctuary.

The rule has not changed. It’s the same rule as the monks had. The tabernacle has to be in a place that is appropriate and visible. What it need not be is part of the mass, because it’s not used during the mass, unless you’re going to get more consecrated hosts for communion.

Someday, modern architecture will get it right. I’m already seeing some newer churches are built correctly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

I really don’t know but I don’t like it when the Tabernacle is not front and center. I am considering switching my membership to a new parish partly because of this actually. However, I am not sure. The parish I attend is actually a very good parish but the Tabernacle is permanently installed to the side of the wall. Thankfully, though, the Eucharist inside is still venerated as it should be.

 

[JReducation]

I really don’t know but I don’t like it when the Tabernacle is not front and center. I am considering switching my membership to a new parish partly because of this actually. However, I am not sure. The parish I attend is actually a very good parish but the Tabernacle is permanently installed to the side of the wall. Thankfully, though, the Eucharist inside is still venerated as it should be.

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to change. You know what you have, but not what you’re going to find. Think about it.

If the tabernacle is on the side, but in a visible place, safe place and the Sacrament is properly venerated, the parish is keeping with the Church’s rules. Is your parish run by secular clergy or regular?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julian0404]

Tabernacles off in its own room is a good idea for parishes that has regular adoration.

YES, but not at the expense of removing JESUS from the main church or altar. Adoration is a separate chaple or room, in addition to the presence of JESUS in the church.

 

[Julian0404]

Your opinion is nonsense. As ConstantineTG said, "Tabernacles off in its own room is a good idea for parishes that has regular adoration. " Adoration has been growing in many parishes. It is a GOOD thing.

The opinion is not nonsense and your insensitivity to the explaination delineates a lack of knowing the significance of the TRUE PRESENCE in Adoration and on the alter. It is a good thing, but it should not be an either/or scenario. Removing the tabernacle does indeed remove JESUS from HIS altar and removes the sacredness of the church. It is no longer the place where JESUS dwells, it is now a “meeting room”. To lose the TRUE PRESENCE of JESUS in our churches is to begin losing our faith, by allowing it to fade into commoness, similarity with those who “protest” HIS TRUE PRESENCE.

 

[Julian0404]

True. It was St. Francis who, while restoring chapels, put the tabernacle either on or above the altar because there was no other place to put it. Because of the success and spreading of the Franciscan order the placement of the tabernacle found its way to be on or above the altar throughout Europe. During the previous centuries, the tabernacle was placed in a side chapel for prayer and adoration. St. Francis put the tabernacle where he did because of lack of space and nothing else. There is no nefarious reason for putting the tabernacle in a side chapel (regardless of those here who think Jesus is being cast aside). As stated already, the great cathedrals have the tabernacle in side chapels, too.

"Adoration is a very weak excuse to “move” JESUS from HIS altar and place HIM below the level of the priest. That is not adortion, that is abuse through ignorance and denial. "

This is nothing but personal passion, devoid of knowledge about the subject at hand. It certainly is NOT an abuse - if it were, then St. Peters at Rome would be the chief villain - and the only ignorance here is thinking such things.

You are correct it is a personal passion, but you are wrong to declare it is “…devoid of knowledge…” for it is full of knowledge and love for our SAVIOR and LORD. And full of tradition, which is one of the three pillars upon which or faith rests.

Your are very rude and insensitivity in your repsonses.

 

[JReducation]

To say that moving the tabernacle from the main altar to a side altar, a pedestal behind the altar or to a chapel adjacent to the main sanctuary is a sign of a loss of faith in the Real Presence is inappropriate. Such a statement judges and condemns the millions of men and women who belong to religious orders and to other Catholic Churches that do not have this custom and believe in the Real Presence. That’s not fair to them.

To say that the tabernacle on the main altar is part of tradition is not precisely true either. It was St. Francis who did this. It was not the Church. It was not part of the Church’s Tradition.

As I said above, there are historical indications that there were previous Christian communities that kept the Blessed Sacrament reserved inside the figure of a dove that was suspended over the sanctuary. However, that tradition died out long before the Middle Ages.

The historical truth is that the practice of placing the tabernacle on the main altar had a very inconsistent beginning until the Franciscans carried it around Europe.

In addition, we cannot legitimately say that taking the tabernacle out of the main sanctuary and placing it on a side altar or an adjacent chapel turns a chapel or church into a meting room. That is a very offensive statement to Carthusians, many Benedictines, Trappists and Camaldolese whose monastery churches do not have tabernacles. The Blessed Sacrament chapel is adjacent to the church. However, the church is the center of the monastery and of monastic life, because it’s the place where they celebrate the Eucharist. Observe how offensive this statement is to these holy men and women.

One can say that one prefers to see the tabernacle on the main sanctuary. One can say that one is used to it, because we grew up with that custom; therefore, it’s become part of our tradition. To say that it’s part of Tradition with an upper case T or that it makes a church less sacred is incorrect and offensive to religious orders who have never had this custom and to some of the Eastern Churches who have never had this custom.

That’s why these are rules regarding the placement of the tabernacle and not doctrines or moral laws. If they were doctrines or moral laws, they would bind the entire Church, East and West, religious and secular. It does not. The rule to place the tabernacle where it is is for a very specific group: Roman Catholic churches run by secular priests. Roman Catholic churches that belong to religious orders follow the tradition of their order. The Eastern Catholics follow their customs. Let’s not say that to do diferently is a sign of loos of faith or that it turns a church into a meeting hall. That’s just not true.

We have to be very careful that our passion does not blind us or make us less charitable to other traditions that are equally Catholic and equally orthodox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shin]

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?”

Pope Pius XII

 

[Phemie]

This is what the GIRM says:

The Place for the Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist

1. In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.125

The one tabernacle should be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent, and be locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is prevented to the greatest extent possible.126 Moreover, it is appropriate that, before it is put into liturgical use, it be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.127

1. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.128

Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,

1. 
   *]Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
   *]Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.

 

[MikeDunphy]

This is what the GIRM says:

The Place for the Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist

Footnote 125 references Pope Paul’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei (English)(Latin):
And they should not forget about paying a visit during the day to the Most Blessed Sacrament in the very special place of honor where it is reserved in churches in keeping with the liturgical laws, since this is a proof of gratitude and a pledge of love and a display of the adoration that is owed to Christ the Lord who is present there.

When Mysterium Fidei was promulgated in 1965, “in nobilissimo loco” was translated more strongly by the Catholic Truth Society of England and Wales as “the most distinguished position” rather than “the very special place of honor”. In my eyes, there is a decline in piety going from “the most distinguished position” to “the very special place of honor” to “a part of the church that is truly noble”. (FWIW, google translator renders “in nobilissimo loco” as “in the most excellent place”).

The footnote also references Inter Oecumenici #95, published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1964:
The eucharist is to be reserved in a solid and secure tabernacle, placed in the middle of the main altar or on a minor, but truly worthy altar, or, in accord with lawful custom and in particular cases approved by the local Ordinary, also in another, special, and properly adorned part of the church.

N.B. Except for particular cases approved by the local ordinary, the general rule is that the tabernacle is to be part of the altar.

 

[MikeDunphy]

1. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.128

Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,

1. 
   *]Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
   *]Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.

1. 
   Footnote 128 references Eucharisticum mysterium, published by the Congregation of Rites in 1967. The footnote references #55, but if we look up at #54, we read:
   
   “The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.”
   
   Sound familiar? Eucharisticum mysterium reiterates the general rule that the tabernacle is to be part of the altar. It is dishonest for the authors of the GIRM to imply that Eucharisticum mysterium calls for the tabernacle to be separated from the altar, when the opposite is true.
   
   “To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.”
   [Pope Pius XII in an address to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy (22 September 1956)]
   
   [No criticism intended towards Phemie, whose post added to the discussion].

 

[Phemie]

Footnote 128 references Eucharisticum mysterium, published by the Congregation of Rites in 1967. The footnote references #55, but if we look up at #54, we read:

“The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.”

Sound familiar? Eucharisticum mysterium reiterates the general rule that the tabernacle is to be part of the altar. It is dishonest for the authors of the GIRM to imply that Eucharisticum mysterium calls for the tabernacle to be separated from the altar, when the opposite is true.

“To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.”
[Pope Pius XII in an address to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy (22 September 1956)]

[No criticism intended towards Phemie, whose post added to the discussion].

You mention Eucharisticum Mysterium # 55, but purposely chose to ignore what it says, choosing to read # 54 instead.

**Tabernacle on an Altar Where Mass is Celebrated With a Congregation

**55. In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of Christ’s presence to his Church [116] emerge clearly one after the other: first he is seen to be present in the assembly of the faithful gathered in his name; then in his word, with the reading and explanation of Scripture; also in the person of the minister; finally, in a singular way under the eucharistic elements. Consequently, 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.

This article is reiterated in “EUCHARISTIAE SACRAMENTUM” (Promulgating the editio typica of rites for holy communion and worship of the eucharist outside Mass, 21 June 1973.)

1. In the celebration of Mass the chief ways in which Christ is present in his Church emerge clearly one after the other. First, he is present in the very assembly of the faithful, gathered together in his name; next, he is present in his word, with the reading and explanation of Scripture in the church; also in the person of the minister; finally, and above all, in the eucharistic elements. In a way that is completely unique, the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially and permanently present in the sacrament. This presence of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine “is called real, not to exclude the other kinds of presence as though they were not real, but because it is real par excellence.”[7]
   Consequently, 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.[8]

 

[JReducation]

Footnote 128 references Eucharisticum mysterium, published by the Congregation of Rites in 1967. The footnote references #55, but if we look up at #54, we read:

“The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.”

Sound familiar? Eucharisticum mysterium reiterates the general rule that the tabernacle is to be part of the altar. It is dishonest for the authors of the GIRM to imply that Eucharisticum mysterium calls for the tabernacle to be separated from the altar, when the opposite is true.

“To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.”
[Pope Pius XII in an address to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy (22 September 1956)]

[No criticism intended towards Phemie, whose post added to the discussion].

Your forgetting one important point. The Girm was approved by Pope John Paul II and it comes after Eucharisticum Mysterium. Pope John Paul and the authers of the GIRM were trying to get a statement that would serve the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Eucharisticum Mysterium was limited in that it did not address all of the traditions in the Latin Church.

In addition, you and other keep insisting that the tabernacle belongs on the altar and that it’s less orthodox not to have it there. Do you realize how many religious traditions you’re insulting, that’s just Roman Rite. Then you’re insulting 22 Eastern Churches that do not have tabernacles on their altars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Your forgetting one important point. The Girm was approved by Pope John Paul II and it comes after Eucharisticum Mysterium. Pope John Paul and the authers of the GIRM were trying to get a statement that would serve the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Eucharisticum Mysterium was limited in that it did not address all of the traditions in the Latin Church.

In addition, you and other keep insisting that the tabernacle belongs on the altar and that it’s less orthodox not to have it there. Do you realize how many religious traditions you’re insulting, that’s just Roman Rite. Then you’re insulting 22 Eastern Churches that do not have tabernacles on their altars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Eastern Catholic Churches have tabernacles on their altar’s; traditionally they’re in the shape of a church and look like this. There’s also a discussion from a few months ago on Eastern Catholic Tabernacles

 

[JReducation]

The Eastern Catholic Churches have tabernacles on their altar’s; traditionally they’re in the shape of a church and look like this. There’s also a discussion from a few months ago on Eastern Catholic Tabernacles

Thank you for that. I stand corrected.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

Regardless whether a decision is legal or illegal, ultimately the ends, the results qualifies the things.

My experience is that removing the tabernacle from the central, well visible position results in the churches turned to clubhouses: loud conversations before, after, and even during the mass, centering on the human success instead of Jesus Christ.

I was shopping for reverent Mass a few years ago, visited almost all the nearby parishes, and found straight correlation between the visibility of the tabernacle and the reverence. This is natural. Even young kids calm down when the parent / grandparent points to the tabernacle: Jesus is there, behave.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Thank you for that. I stand corrected.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You’re welcome. I loved your posts on the history behind Tabernacle placement! I had no idea that Tabernacles started out away from the Altar in parish churches. I would have assumed such for monasteries, especially ones that weren’t strictly cloistered, so that laity that attended mass at the monastery could have proximity to the Tabernacle.

 

[Phemie]

Regardless whether a decision is legal or illegal, ultimately the ends, the results qualifies the things.

My experience is that removing the tabernacle from the central, well visible position results in the churches turned to clubhouses: loud conversations before, after, and even during the mass, centering on the human success instead of Jesus Christ.

I was shopping for reverent Mass a few years ago, visited almost all the nearby parishes, and found straight correlation between the visibility of the tabernacle and the reverence. This is natural. Even young kids calm down when the parent / grandparent points to the tabernacle: Jesus is there, behave.

Assuming that the parents or grandparents do that. The Tabernacle is front and centre in my parish and most people ignore its presence completely.

 

[JReducation]

Regardless whether a decision is legal or illegal, ultimately the ends, the results qualifies the things.

My experience is that removing the tabernacle from the central, well visible position results in the churches turned to clubhouses:.

But Laszlo, look at this sentence that I snipped out of your post. Let’s say that tomorrow the local bishop handed the administration of your parish over to one of the ancient religious orders that do not have this as their custom. They come in and design the sanctuary according to their tradition. Are you seriously going to tell these men, who have a tradition that goes back for centuries, that they are wrong and you’re right?

They certainly would not tell you that you’re wrong. They would tell you that there are more than one customs on this matter that are approved by the Church.

You’re welcome. I loved your posts on the history behind Tabernacle placement! I had no idea that Tabernacles started out away from the Altar in parish churches. I would have assumed such for monasteries, especially ones that weren’t strictly cloistered, so that laity that attended mass at the monastery could have proximity to the Tabernacle.

I’m a little confused about the tabernacle placement in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Do all of them have the tabernacle on the altar? I’m asking because we have an EC parish that has the altar and the tabernacle, but not together.

It’s not that important. When you’re celebrating the mass you’re not focusing on the tabernacle in any of our rites. It’s just my curiosity.

The history of the placement of the tabernacle in the Latin Church is a rather confusing one. My take on what I have read is that until Francis came on the scene, there Blessed Sacrament on the altar was not a consistent practice. There are references to tabernacles in the ancient Church. There are also references to the figure of a dove over what may have been the altar of sacrifice, then we have the Middle Ages. There were two kinds of churches, monastery churches and cathedrals. The parish church, as we know it today, is an innovation. Most monasteries have chapels on the outskirts of towns. A monk or a secular priest would be sent out there to celebrate the mass, usually on holy days. Many were abandoned. That’s how St. Francis comes across St. Mary of the Angels and San Damiano.

What we know, looking at ancient architecture is that the Blessed Sacrament was not on the main altar and not on the sanctuary proper. It was on a side altar or an adjacent chapel that could be easily reached from the sanctuary, but not visible from the pews. A lot depended on the religious order that owned the church.

The monks had several worship spaces. They prayed the Liturgy of the Hours in one place. They celebrated the mass in another space. And they had oratories for private prayer.

As I’m pointing to Laszlo, these spaces are considered sacred. These men and women would be very offended if you tell them that their church, without the Blessed Sacrament, is a town hall. We should all be upset at that thought. These traditions are ancient. They predate the church with tabernacle in the center. They sustained the faith through some of the darkest periods in church history.

I believe that we can take the same approach as St. Francis. He needed the tabernacle in his chapels. He did the best he could to place it in place of reverence and safety. He loved it. However, he also spoke and treated the other traditions with great humility and respect and he taught us (his sons and daughters) to do the same.

Observe the different use of space in a typical monastery church, which was more common before the Franciscan movement was born.

View attachment 10196 In the chapter, you have an altar, but not tabernacle

View attachment 10197 In the choir, which doubles as a church for this particular house, you have a tabernacle that is exposed.

View attachment 10198 However, when the choir is converted to a church for the celebration of the mass, observe the covering over the tabernacle that was not there in the picture above.

None of these looks like a meeting hall. That’s my only objection to the way that this is being presented, as if the tabernacle on the altar was always the case and as if those that do not have it are doing something wrong.

Francis did not have this kind of rhetoric in mind when he placed the tabernacle on the altar. All he wanted was to have Jesus present for his brothers to pray outside of mass. Eventually, the brothers built churches that followed the same architecture. It was very simple.

The elaborate altars that followed were a product of different architectural schools.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF