Brother J.R.
With all due respect; do you think the central High Altar and Tabernacle seen in the Latin Mass should have been set up like that in a Monastery?
Even during the Traditional Latin Mass prior to the mid 1960’s before the Novus Ordo was implemented their were formerly three Tabernacles in my present parish.
The central High-Altar and two Repository’s off to the far left and right of the Sanctuary so priests could quietly enter and bring Holy Viaticum to the sick on Solemnities.
Even in a Monastery the Tabernacle is resemblance more as a side altar Repository similar as seen where the consecrated hosts is reserved from Maundy Thursday until after Good Friday.
It’s strange how furnishings have changed in the church over the last 46 years.
No uniformity from going church to church. Some Catholic Churches you go to where the Novus Ordo is said still have a central High Tabernacle behind the Altar.
Other Novus Ordo churches had their High Altars and Tabernacles ripped from their walls as superfluous garbage after the Novus Ordo was instituted.
Now today we have small little trinket boxes either recessed in walls or sitting on a small credence-like table. Hardly anything resemblance in the least as edifying.
And of course now in many western Catholic Churches we see the Tabernacle removed entirely from the Sanctuary.
I feel that you’re pointing to a number of important details. I’ll add a disclaimer before I address them. My areas of theological expertise are Asectical and Mystical Theology and Franciscan Theology. I’m not an architect or an artist. However, I do believe that art and architecture are often expressions of faith, even for non-Christians. Look at the Greeks and Egyptians.
I believe that it would be inappropriate for monasteries to have the same kind of altar and sanctuary that you would find in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, if that monastery and its tradition predates that particular form of art and architecture or if is prohibitted by the founder. The voice of Christ comes through the founder. For example, the Carthusian tradition looks very Protestant to us. There is little or no color, not statues, candles, stations of the cross and other religious objects that you would find in a post Gothic Catholic Church. So they should not have them. It’s not Carthusian.
The Franciscans should have the tabernacle on the main sanctuary, because it’s part of our tradition. Our Holy Father put it there. He did not put it on the altar. He placed it on a smaller table that resembled a large pedestal, sometimes called the Blessed Sacrament altar. It can be in the center or on the side as long as it’s in the sanctuary, because that’s where Francis put it. He did not put it there to make a statement. Let’s keep that in mind. I’ve already said why he put it there.
There were older churches that had three tabenacles. They were often used on Holy Thursday night, but sometimes, they were also used for the sick. Liturgically, they were not necessary. You don’t need a tabernacle to celebrate mass. The original intent of having more than one altar was for places where you had more than one priest celebrating. Remember, some religious orders prohibit this. If you have more than one priest, only once can say mass. They take turns. There is no such thing as a private mass in some religious communities. In diocesan parishes, the priests are not religious. They have no community and no superior. They can celebrate mass whenever they want to do so and where ever they want to do so. In some monasteries they do allow all of their priests to celebrate mass. The need the extra altars. I know one that had a crypt with many altars around the wall. It looked a little strange, I have to admit. I had never seen more than three altars and this place had at least 10.
Taking the tabernacle out of the sanctuary to place it in a chapel is also permitted by the Church. The Church will not prohibit what has always been allowed. In other words, if it’s not a sin for monks and cloistered nuns to do this, then it cannot be a sin for the local parish.
That reduces the question to one of prudence and necessity. Is it necessary and prudent? That is going do depend on the parish and how the church is built, security, etc. I can’t answer that for every single parish. I do know one parish near where I live where they have a separate chapel for one simple reason, economics. You can turn off the heat and the AC in the big church. The chapel is very small. However, the chapel is adjacent to the sanctuary. It has two doors, one to the street and one to the church.
As far as tearing things down, I believe this was a mistake. Some of these altars were beautiful and still in good shape. I have seen some churches that kept the old altar and simply build a detached altar that blends in with its surroundings. I know another Church in VA that actually severed the altar from the wall. They pushed the altar forward and finished all the wall. When you look at it, everything blends. Unless someone tells you, you believe that it was built that way. If you have good craftsmen or women and you’re clever, you can remodel a sanctuary without destroying it. Destroying history is wrong. If the altar has termites and it was a matter of time before it had to come down, that’s another story.
This brings us back to the tabernacle. The customs are different from one family to another. Those parishes that have diocesan priests either inherited a custom from a religious family and if not, they should follow the GIRM. The GIRM is very clear where the tabernacle can be placed and how it should be displayed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
