L
Logic101
Guest
I have a big problem with it! It is disrespectful.
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
In our abbey the tabernacle is in a very beautiful and peaceful side chapel, sparsely but beautifully decorated in the Benedictine tradition.
It is set up with a small number of chairs with kneelers and a small altar in front of it where a very early morning Mass is said for those monks whose work will prevent them from attending the conventual Mass at 11h00.
I always try to arrive at Mass at least 30 min. before Mass so I can spend some time there in the presence of our Lord. Both the side chapel and the church itself are very quiet and reverent before Mass.
It is set up with a small number of chairs with kneelers and a small altar in front of it where a very early morning Mass is said for those monks whose work will prevent them from attending the conventual Mass at 11h00.
I always try to arrive at Mass at least 30 min. before Mass so I can spend some time there in the presence of our Lord. Both the side chapel and the church itself are very quiet and reverent before Mass.
There are very valid reasons for it in many churches; one of which is, in fact, to avoid disrespect to our Lord when there may be the presence of a large number of people who may or many not be attentive to His presence. I was at an abbey church in Monsterrat, Spain, last October and that church is a local shrine where a 12th century Black Madonna is on display with much traffic through the church as a result. It would be difficult to pray reverently before our Lord in such a church and the tabernacle is therefore kept in a side chapel that is quite suitable.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is the reason that we submit to the Church, not to our own whims or visceral feelings. It is quite “traditional” for the Tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament to be reserved elsewhere than front and center in the church. It has been practiced for centuries, esp. in the Cathedrals of Europe (and, I daresay, in your once very Catholic country of Canada). One of those places in Europe, for example, is St. Peter’s Basilica (and that was the situation long before the council, to forestall any mention of VII).
Your declaration of “it is disrespectful!” is only an opinion and is at odds with what the Church has practiced. You need to read Church history, in all its aspects.
L
laszlo
Guest
As for the history, in the the first millennium the Christ presence was recognized primarily through His mystical Body the Church. The tabernacle represented mostly necessity, to keep the Eucharist for the purpose of viaticum. Above that, the curch buildings were often used as forth, which also warranted the tabernacle away from the main room.
The Eucharist became the center on the turn of the 13th Century, with adoration, processes, frequent benedictions. This was represented by the churches where the tabernacle became the center on the front on the main altar. The old form in the ancient basilicas was preserved, but that was considered exception, not the rule.
It seems to be natural, that the churches which became tourist attractions remove the tabernacle from the central point, and this is something approved by the General Instruction of the Roman Mass too (315 b). However those churches are the minority, and cannot be set as standards. The majority of the Churches in the US, and also still in Europe are, or at least should be the houses of God, under the perfect insignia of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is His real presence. It is not accidental that the General Instructions requires the tabernacle to be set into visible central place
The Eucharist became the center on the turn of the 13th Century, with adoration, processes, frequent benedictions. This was represented by the churches where the tabernacle became the center on the front on the main altar. The old form in the ancient basilicas was preserved, but that was considered exception, not the rule.
It seems to be natural, that the churches which became tourist attractions remove the tabernacle from the central point, and this is something approved by the General Instruction of the Roman Mass too (315 b). However those churches are the minority, and cannot be set as standards. The majority of the Churches in the US, and also still in Europe are, or at least should be the houses of God, under the perfect insignia of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is His real presence. It is not accidental that the General Instructions requires the tabernacle to be set into visible central place
- 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.
L
Logic101
Guest
God is above Church!
A
Aramis
Guest
No more so than your apparent presumption that you know better than the Popes of the last 10 centuries. Every one of whom has permitted 2 distinct placements for the Tabernacle in the Roman Church, and in Rome itself:
- On the High Altar (Even when not the norm for the Romans, the Byzantine Rite parishes under Rome continued to have the tabernacle on the Altar Table.)
- on an altar in a side chapel.
- on a side altar on the same dais as the high altar
I know of 3 with side altars (including a Cathedral); I’ve seen 1 with the tabernacle on the high altar with a separate altar of sacrifice, and 1 with the tabernacle on the altar of sacrifice. One has the tabernacle on an altar in an adoration chapel behind the altar, separated by a wall of glass from the main altar.
(Of course, Every Byzantine Rite parish I’ve been to has a tabernacle on the altar table.)
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Absolutely nothing in what you have quoted requires that it be CENTERED behind the Altar. It has to be prominent and easily located, etc., but side chapels, chapels expecially devoted to the Blessed Sacrament Itself, are not out of line with the GIRM nor are they “disprespectful,” as has been asserted.
V
Vince1022
Guest
I don’t understand your reference to Caesar. To my knowledge, Catholic teaching on the real presence of Christ has nothing to do with Caesar. Can you clarify? Thank you.
V
Vince1022
Guest
I posted a reference from the U.S. Bishops in #5. Hope that helps.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Excellent point. And of course, we need to remember that for many hundreds of years in the Christian tradition there was no Tabernacle with the reserved Blessed Sacrament.
C
carmelitenovice
Guest
Thank you Vince. The link you posted did indeed have the quote I was looking for:
"The Code of Canon Law directs that the Eucharist be reserved “in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated and suitable for prayer.”
The churches I mentioned earlier, in my humble opinion, did most certainly NOT follow this directive: Again, one was in a renovated cry room, BEHIND the congregation, in a corner of the building. To my way of thinking this was not prominent or conspicuous (if I have to spend five minutes trying to find it to pay my respects, it is not prominent or conspicuous).
The other was in a former courtyard off the social hall/extra seating area for the worship space – down a narrow hallway, to boot.
I wish there was something I could have said in either instance. But
"The Code of Canon Law directs that the Eucharist be reserved “in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated and suitable for prayer.”
The churches I mentioned earlier, in my humble opinion, did most certainly NOT follow this directive: Again, one was in a renovated cry room, BEHIND the congregation, in a corner of the building. To my way of thinking this was not prominent or conspicuous (if I have to spend five minutes trying to find it to pay my respects, it is not prominent or conspicuous).
The other was in a former courtyard off the social hall/extra seating area for the worship space – down a narrow hallway, to boot.
I wish there was something I could have said in either instance. But
- These were not my parishes.
- I was too upset by this and other innovations at these particular parishes – they were many. Anything I would have said would not have been charitable.
B
Ben_F
Guest
I´m not going to genuflect to anything. I only genuflect to God. When I go into one of these Churches where the presence of God is unknown, then I simply won´t genuflect. God bless:thumbsup:
L
laszlo
Guest
The GIRM requires the readily visible attribute.
We Catholics gather in the Name of our Lord. The Roman Governor, Pilate in Jesus time used the insignia of the Caesar, under his banners, to gather in the name of the Ceasar; so we shall gather under the perfect banner of our Lord, His real presence, the Eucharist.
Exceptions for serious reason are always accepted. To make an exception to promote the clubhouse aspect of the church building is what disrespectful. It is like when the grandparents are restricted to their room, when important guest are coming. The question is, who is more important?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m not asserting that we can get away or should get a away with placing the Tabernacle in some of the places that have been cited as examples. I’m simply saying that It does not have to be front and center. It has to be conspicuous, highly visible, and beautifully decorated as befits Its dignity. And that CAN still mean off to one side or in a seperate chapel.
I
Indyann
Guest
But you still bow to the altar, correct?I´m not going to genuflect to anything. I only genuflect to God. When I go into one of these Churches where the presence of God is unknown, then I simply won´t genuflect. God bless:thumbsup:
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
This is one thing that I’m wondering about the more modern arrangements of the Tabernacle!
Many people in this thread have said that for “hundreds of years” the Tabernacle has been off in a side chapel. I don’t know whether this is true, since I am not sufficiently educated; however, there must be some implications for the Mass if it is true. Since the Mass was celebrated entirely towards the apse of the church before Vatican II, what exactly did the celebrant genuflect toward if the Tabernacle was in a side altar? So many liturgical directives in the Tridentine Mass demand a genuflection, so does that mean pre-Ordinary Form priests genuflected to an empty altar if the Tabernacle was in a side chapel?
Doesn’t the very rite of the pre-1962 Mass seem to imply that the Lord is present upon the altar, not in a side chapel? I am only asking to establish if the anecdote about the Tabernacle being reserved in a chapel “hundreds of years back” is true.
A
Aramis
Guest
The genuflections, when said at a side altar, were still to the altar one said mass at. So obviously, it was not an issue. Side Chapels for the Tabernacle have been in use since the 1100’s, if ot before.
See 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Tabernacle for history.
Further, genuflection is not of antiquity; it is a late medieval tradition of the west.
See 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Genfulection - A gesture of Reverence
It isn’t rubrical to genuflect until the 1500’s…
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
Your post seems everywhere to stress the idea that antiquity is preferable to organic development. Sorry if that’s not your point, but that’s the impression I get. Do you believe that the antique quality of something in the faith makes it more worthwhile? Perhaps the faith did not adequately worship God in the deepest humility until genuflection was introduced? What does it matter that genuflection is only 400 years old? It’s still “meet and just”.
A
Aramis
Guest
I think those who push certain elements forward as the “heart of Catholic praxis” often lack the understanding that those elements they push forward are not always what they think they are. The appeals have been made that it’s ancient capital-T tradition… which it clearly isn’tYour post seems everywhere to stress the idea that antiquity is preferable to organic development. Sorry if that’s not your point, but that’s the impression I get. Do you believe that the antique quality of something in the faith makes it more worthwhile? Perhaps the faith did not adequately worship God in the deepest humility until genuflection was introduced? What does it matter that genuflection is only 400 years old? It’s still “meet and just”.
the key points:* The celebrant reverences the altar he celebrates upon with or without a tabernacle.
- The tabernacle on the main altar isn’t the capital-T tradition of the church.
- The tabernacle on the main altar has never been the sole approved position
- The genuflection in the Trent missal was an innovation, and thus proves little.
I think, quite strongly, that the traditionalists tend to put WAY too much emphasis on trivial externals. Yes, I just said trivial, and I mean it. Whether the priest faces the congregation or not is trivial. Whether the tabernacle is on the high altar or not is trivial. Whichever of genuflects, bows, or prostrates at the words of institution the priest does is trivial, so long as it is rubrical. What is important is that the priest uses the liturgy or liturgies his bishop has prescribed, per the rubrics inscribed in the books, with Christ inscribed on his heart.
O
OraLabora
Guest
- Status