Location of the Tabernacle in the Churches...

[SMHW]

Our tabernacle is in a separate chapel.

Our church is round and has seating 360 degrees around the altar so there is no clear “behind the altar”.

 

[catholictiger]

at both my seminary Church which is actually a Monastic Church a very beutiful one and my home parish church it located on the side to the right of the altar facing the altar from the people side.

For my home parish I think they did it so they could have a small side chapel that is still part of the large Church.

The monastic reasoning behind it is actually very interesting the Church was designed very purposefully. Now I may be slightly off behind the reasoning but the Altar the Ambo and the Baptismal fount are all in a straight line along with the abbots Cathedra. I believe the way it was designed was to represent the Christian life. You walk into the Church and you find the baptismal fount, represents baptism of course. Then you have the congregation’s pews, you walk up into the monastic choir, it is slightly set off from the pews there are two walls on each side of the choir where the Altar for the Eucharist is and the Altar for Mary are. You walk up some steps (3 or 4 of them) and you enter the Monastic area, there are 4 sets of choir stalls where all the monks sit and some seminarians. In the middle between the two sets of choir stalls closet to the altar is the ambo. Now I can’t remember what this represents but probably has to do with the Word of God and how we hear the word of God or something. Then you have the Altar again in line with the baptismal fount and ambo. Again can’t remember what this represents. Lastly you have the cathedra of the abbot, well its actually the main celebrants chair but because they have an abbot it is considered a cathedra I think.

So again the tabernacle actually covered in a cloth is off to the right side of church facing the alter, even though I think its best to have Christ behind the altar (the tabernacle) having it where it is in the Monastic Church makes sense based on the way they designed the Church. Plus a lot of times Monastic theology and spirituality is alot different then diocesan spirituality so while for a parish Church the style may not fit great with good parish spirituality it may work perfect with monastic spirituality. The monks at my seminary are very pius and orthodox so I don’t question the design of the Church one bit.

 

[catholictiger]

What was the reasoning behind moving the Tabernacle from behind the altar to other parts of the Church?I know this occurred post VII.

my home parish is the Cathedral I think the reasoning behind moving it to the side is so they could but the cathedra there. The Cathedra is directly behind the altar at my Cathedral. So no place to put the tabernacle behind the Altar must go in a side chapel which is a part of the main Church. There are a couple of churches in my diocese which the tabernacle is disconnected from the main Church and I mean in a separate room, but at-least they have window so you can see it from the Church.

and as I explained by the monastic Church my seminary is connected to there is a very theological reason the tabernacle is where it is I just can’t remember the full explanation. Probably some practical reasons to but lots of theology went into building that Church.

 

[clem456]

Our tabernacle is in a separate chapel.
Someone correct me cause I’m sure this is incomplete…

The way I understand it, there is plenty of tradition for tabernacles in a chapel. The tabernacle was put front and center at the time of the counter-reformation, to emphasize the real presence. Before that it was common to have the tabernacle in a chapel. And going way back to the early Church, kept in homes.

 

[Sunbreak]

Front and center on the old altar behind the newer altar.

 

[CaptFun]

What was the reasoning behind moving the Tabernacle from behind the altar to other parts of the Church?I know this occurred post VII.

When I’ve asked about it I was told (by a Monsignor, who was a bit pained trying to explain what HE’D been told) that moving the tabernacle solved the “confusing duality” that “detracted” from the “action of the altar” in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And this was about the BEST (done for a “positive reason” one could explain)
thing I’d heard. Paraphrasing the intent: “since Jesus was already present,” per the Eucharist in the tabernacle denoted by the red sanctuary light - the sacrifice of the Mass was (theoretically) diminished or something*. < I put it this way because I could not agree with that – at the time (when the change(s) was/were first made) I’d gone to mass all my life and had never been fuzzy on the concept, confused, or conflicted by the traditional placement of the “front and center” tabernacle. Nor known anyone else who voiced the “problem”.

Per the “duality” explanation … didn’t Jesus’ whole Eucharistic teaching risk that?

When He said “This is my body,” while calling their attention to what looked like bread,
none of the apostles jumped up confused and complained …

“Hey … you’re confusing us with this duality. Could you go and leave your other bodyI***** or stay and maybe not give us this “confusing” teaching of “eat your flesh”? Last time you alluded to this you lost most of your disciples - and confused us to no end!”

***** (like He later DID at Emmaus).

I had heard that precedent for this had been set per some Cathedrals (which many visitors came to, many non-Catholic, to view the art, etc. and so might unintentionally profane the sacredness of the Church with the Eucharist present) – so the Sacrament was (sometimes? all the time?) reserved in side chapels so that the devout could worship in the presence of the Eucharist without the distraction of tourists, etc.

There probably wasn’t even a tabernacle handy at the Last Supper for the unconsumed Eucharist to be reserved in. AND that first mass had no tabernacle behind Jesus. But very early on reserving the Eucharist was done, and Tarcisius, a young Christian martyr of 12 died protecting the reserved Eucharist he was smuggling to Christians condemned to die in Rome.

In the Catholic Churches of my youth (and young adulthood and not so young adulthood) the centrally located immediately visible tabernacle and Eucharist made the house of the Lord (upon entering) instantly holy - and one blessed oneself with holy water and genuflected toward Our Lord reserved in the sacrament. Catholic Churches were ***different from others ***in this way.

Another rationale for the change might be “making investigating Protestants feel more comfortable”? It may have been an outreach to “other Christians” to change such things as culturally (not doctrinally) could be changed to make “conversions” to Catholicism a less extreme change for some.

Mass in the vernacular (versus worldwide unity per the Latin Mass), the integration of familiar, non-contradictory Protestant hymns, and a gradual phase out or reduction in certain “Catholic” things like bells, incense, processions, stained glass windows, altar rails, genuflections, altar boys, etc. MAY have been with “outreach for conversions” in mind. With the side effects being? < (I see some but won’t address these now).

Yours is quite a good question. Sorry to answer with what might be (just honestly reported) hearsay and speculation. Maybe someone else has a link that more fully answers or explains the rationale for the change(s).

The arbitrary moving of tabernacles has been critiqued quite strongly in some quarters (notably by Mother Angelica and others on EWTN) – and some Churches have, after a time, moved them BACK to their “traditional position”. So the “alleviation of confusion” motive – seems to have had its counter-dilemmas.

I found the looking for the tabernacle (to genuflect toward upon entering the Church as I’d always done) MORE confusing when it is moved QUITE far and camouflaged like “Where’s Waldo?” And during the “Holy, Holy Holy” of the Mass (recalling heavenly worship and prior to the Consecration) I felt uncomfortable when the tabernacle with Jesus present was then in an area I couldn’t even glance toward. It is HE we address in the prayer, no?

Children raised never having known a centrally placed Eucharist do not enter the church with a genuflection of worship. Why, and where to? Churches that are NOT great Cathedrals with the “problem” of tourists’ accidental profaning of a holy place - nonetheless move their tabernacles (quite radically too sometimes). Priests who once bowed in the common direction of the altar and the tabernacle (Eucharist) now confuse us in the priority of bowing to an empty altar (a holy place with Jesus not - yet or anymore present) and not toward the tabernacle (where the Lord IS) at all!

Usually when I mention my observations (and preference for a centrally located tabernacle), some get offended. Or get defensive. Or act as though I’m disturbing the peace or something.

But those who made that initial decision may have not vetted the consequences well.

The move had the side effect of some saying things like " … they’ve cast the Eucharist aside (or behind)!" or “Some theologians don’t believe in the old idea of the true presence in the Eucharist anymore.” The first case just looks bad … the second case (it’s usually true somewhere that some believe errors) is an idea too serious not to try to rectify (IMO).

Notwithstanding that we should make potential converts feel as comfortable “as possible” in our Churches.

 

[Brendan]

The way I understand it, there is plenty of tradition for tabernacles in a chapel…

Sort of.

It was common in Cathedrals and large basilicas.

For the vast majority of Church history, a priest was prohibited by the rubrics from leaving the Sanctuary during Mass.

So for a Mass on the main altar, the priest would have to count on the presence of a Deacon, or another priest who would act as a Deacon to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. This was not a problem for a Cathedral or even a major parish.

But for a priest’s personal Mass, or for a morning low Mass with just a priest, the priest could then use the side chapel, and would thus not have a need to require a deacon to be present.

So even in a Cathedral, the tabernacle was ‘front and center’ at the altar where the majority of the Masses were said, and always within a sanctuary where Mass was said. It just was most likely not on the main altar.

For smaller parishes, the tabernacle would be ‘front and center’ so the single priest to retrieve the needed ciboria and reserve the Blessed Sacrament .

And this was true well before the Counter-Reformation. If you happen to check out a Byzantine Catholic, or even Orthodox church, you will see the same thing for the same reason (the clergy remain in, or very near to, the Sanctuary at all times.

And they are not products of the Counter Reformation, but carry with the pre-1054 traditions. traditions that were common throughout all of the Church at the time, East or West.