Movement of the Tabernacle to the Hinterlands?

[otjm]

A very interesting article to be sure. A long held belief in my diocese (going back to at least the late 1960s) by those in charge, which was not mentioned in your article, was that the faithful were “confused” by the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in repose inside the tabernacle while also being present upon the altar of sacrifice following the miraculous transformation that takes place during celebration of the Mass. I have always found this belief to be highly problematic.

There are not a few liturgists - as in, those who actually have advanced degrees in liturgy, not the individuals on a parish liturgy committee - who hold that the faithful were presented with a diminution of the emphasis of the Liturgy of the Eucharist due to the presence in front of them of the reserved Eucharist. “Confused”, I would agree, might not be an accurate statement. And having been born after World War 2, and the long experience of the centered tabernacle, and the subsequent change of placing the tabernacle in a side chapel, I certainly can understand the matter, as have others my age who have experienced both.

Are all my age of the same mind? Absolutely not; a goodly number have been very resentful, to put it politely, as they wanted Jesus to be physically present in the tabernacle all through Mass.

Which makes the point.

 

[otjm]

I agree. None at all.

One thing I would have liked to express in my article, but I did not is the sign value (specifically in my parish church) of moving the tabernacle. At certain angles one can see both the sanctuary and the niche where the tabernacle is now located. I think if anyone without any knowledge of the Catholic faith were shown pictures of the before/after location, they would logically surmise that the tabernacle and its contents lost significance or importance and were thus “moved out of the way.”

Because it was a history article and not a commentary I couldn’t really go into that, but I just might one day in the future.

There are differing opinions on the matter; others feel that the sign value is enhanced. Again, I belong to a parish which has had Perpetual Adoration for better than two decades, and a tabernacle which was placed in the chapel.

 

[Solomonson]

There are differing opinions on the matter; others feel that the sign value is enhanced. Again, I belong to a parish which has had Perpetual Adoration for better than two decades, and a tabernacle which was placed in the chapel.

I’d like to see that belief actually defended. I really would. The best we can do here locally is “the faithful were confused” which simply doesn’t pass the smell test. I actually find that proffered “reason” to be offensive. Not only do I believe it to be untrue, I believe it’s used as an excuse to evade the actual reasons behind tabernacle movements in some cases.

I don’t want to get hung-up on the rear center of the sanctuary being the only suitable place for the tabernacle. There are other suitable places, but they need to be places of honor and not simply ne that satisfies a “real” liturgist’s personal desires.

For what it’s worth, the earliest tabernacles (often in the shape of doves) were suspended from ceilings of churches with chains/ropes.

 

[Solomonson]

There are not a few liturgists - as in, those who actually have advanced degrees in liturgy, not the individuals on a parish liturgy committee - who hold that the faithful were presented with a diminution of the emphasis of the Liturgy of the Eucharist due to the presence in front of them of the reserved Eucharist. “Confused”, I would agree, might not be an accurate statement. And having been born after World War 2, and the long experience of the centered tabernacle, and the subsequent change of placing the tabernacle in a side chapel, I certainly can understand the matter, as have others my age who have experienced both.

Are all my age of the same mind? Absolutely not; a goodly number have been very resentful, to put it politely, as they wanted Jesus to be physically present in the tabernacle all through Mass.

Which makes the point.

So you are saying that there are several liturgists who personally believe the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary? Is that what you are saying? What were their beliefs based upon in all sincerity? Sounds like utter hubris to me.

There’s one thing you definitely got wrong in my opinion. I don’t know a single person that yearns for “Jesus to be physically present in the tabernacle all through Mass.” Not a single one. I do know however a great many that deeply resent the movement of Jesus’s temporal home from a place of honor, to one often of banishment. They resent the cost associated with such changes and many times the aesthetic impact to their churches.

Most of all I think people resent such changes because they are not explained or they are given an explanation like the one above. People don’t enjoy being insulted.

 

[Solomonson]

xyz

 

[Chatter163]

From the first post on this thread:

Yes, but the same post refers to an interview of the former pastor in 1996. That made it a bit confusing, as if the article may have been written twenty years ago, but published recently.

 

[felsguy]

There are differing opinions on the matter; others feel that the sign value is enhanced.

I’d like to see that belief actually defended. I really would. The best we can do here locally is “the faithful were confused” which simply doesn’t pass the smell test. I actually find that proffered “reason” to be offensive. Not only do I believe it to be untrue, I believe it’s used as an excuse to evade the actual reasons behind tabernacle movements in some cases.

I don’t want to get hung-up on the rear center of the sanctuary being the only suitable place for the tabernacle. There are other suitable places, but they need to be places of honor and not simply ne that satisfies a “real” liturgist’s personal desires.

For what it’s worth, the earliest tabernacles (often in the shape of doves) were suspended from ceilings of churches with chains/ropes.

So you are saying that there are several liturgists who personally believe the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary? Is that what you are saying? What were their beliefs based upon in all sincerity? Sounds like utter hubris to me.

There’s one thing you definitely got wrong in my opinion. I don’t know a single person that yearns for “Jesus to be physically present in the tabernacle all through Mass.” Not a single one. I do know however a great many that deeply resent the movement of Jesus’s temporal home from a place of honor, to one often of banishment. They resent the cost associated with such changes and many times the aesthetic impact to their churches.

Most of all I think people resent such changes because they are not explained or they are given an explanation like the one above. People don’t enjoy being insulted.

Acknowledging that in online discussions revolving more around opinions and conjectures rather than factual information what “anonymous” posters like myself have to offer usually doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, let me share another wild guess here.

If the sentiments expressed in your most recent posts, which were not so clearly evident previously, were reflected in the tone of your article, even subconsciously, I myself would not be shocked if your pastor found this irritating, especially given that there was no discussion with him prior to publication.

 

[otjm]

So you are saying that there are several liturgists who personally believe the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary? Is that what you are saying? What were their beliefs based upon in all sincerity? Sounds like utter hubris to me.

There’s one thing you definitely got wrong in my opinion. I don’t know a single person that yearns for “Jesus to be physically present in the tabernacle all through Mass.” Not a single one. I do know however a great many that deeply resent the movement of Jesus’s temporal home from a place of honor, to one often of banishment. They resent the cost associated with such changes and many times the aesthetic impact to their churches.

Most of all I think people resent such changes because they are not explained or they are given an explanation like the one above. People don’t enjoy being insulted.

I am not going to argue liturgy with you. It is clear that you have an emotional investment in your opinion, and I am not going to say you are bad, or wrong.

It is not “several” liturgists", and the fact that you do not agree with them is not indicative that they are wrong, either, nor are they insulting anyone’s intelligence.

Nor did I say anything about “yearning”.

I too know people who are upset about the move of the tabernacle. That does not make them right;’ it makes them emotionally invested in their opinion. Just as the word “banishment” is an emotional word.

You are emotionally invested in the placement of the tabernacle. I have no question whatsoever, that you have a great love for Jesus. Nor do I have any question but that you are a firm and faithful Catholic.

This is an emotional topic, as your response to me demonstrates. I do not have any desire to “poke you with a sharp stick” or get into an emotional debate with you.

It does not surprise me in the least that you have met a large number of people who are upset about the placement of the tabernacle as it often ends up that emotions run high about the matter.

You have made it clear as to how you feel, I do not wish to get into an exchange with you over the matter, nor do I say your feelings are wrong. Six to eight hundred years of a common practice does not need to be denigrated any more than your feelings need to be denigrated; nor do the motives and intelligence of liturgists need to be impugned.

I hope that any meeting you may have with the pastor goes well, and that God blesses you both.

Nor do I think that a historical article for a publication other than an official Catholic one needs vetting with the pastor prior to being written.

God bless.

 

[Solomonson]

I am not going to argue liturgy with you. It is clear that you have an emotional investment in your opinion, and I am not going to say you are bad, or wrong.

It is not “several” liturgists", and the fact that you do not agree with them is not indicative that they are wrong, either, nor are they insulting anyone’s intelligence.

Nor did I say anything about “yearning”.

I too know people who are upset about the move of the tabernacle. That does not make them right;’ it makes them emotionally invested in their opinion. Just as the word “banishment” is an emotional word.

You are emotionally invested in the placement of the tabernacle. I have no question whatsoever, that you have a great love for Jesus. Nor do I have any question but that you are a firm and faithful Catholic.

This is an emotional topic, as your response to me demonstrates. I do not have any desire to “poke you with a sharp stick” or get into an emotional debate with you.

It does not surprise me in the least that you have met a large number of people who are upset about the placement of the tabernacle as it often ends up that emotions run high about the matter.

You have made it clear as to how you feel, I do not wish to get into an exchange with you over the matter, nor do I say your feelings are wrong. Six to eight hundred years of a common practice does not need to be denigrated any more than your feelings need to be denigrated; nor do the motives and intelligence of liturgists need to be impugned.

I hope that any meeting you may have with the pastor goes well, and that God blesses you both.

Nor do I think that a historical article for a publication other than an official Catholic one needs vetting with the pastor prior to being written.

God bless.

You bob-and-weave with a lot of words, but you fail to defend (or even explain) that which you posted. To suggest the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary is deeply offensive. At least to me.

Some will find offense in such a suggestion because they view it as nothing more than an excuse to move the Blessed Sacrament to less reverent places in churches. It also makes them wonder about the real reason(s) behind the move?

Others will take exception to such a belief because anyone actually offering it as justification for a move cannot possibly respect the intelligence and development of those they are offering it to. This is sometimes compounded by attempting to support such a belief with comments regarding liturgical education or lack thereof.

In any event this is far, far off topic.

 

[Solomonson]

Acknowledging that in online discussions revolving more around opinions and conjectures rather than factual information what “anonymous” posters like myself have to offer usually doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, let me share another wild guess here.

If the sentiments expressed in your most recent posts, which were not so clearly evident previously, were reflected in the tone of your article, even subconsciously, I myself would not be shocked if your pastor found this irritating, especially given that there was no discussion with him prior to publication.

No, it’s a historical article. It wasn’t a commentary.

 

[felsguy]

No, it’s a historical article. It wasn’t a commentary.

Well then, let me simply withdraw and say sincerely that I hope your meeting with your pastors goes well for both of you.

 

[edwest2]

Considering the source, I find the article - interesting…

Rightful place based on what? What the Church has done for a couple of centuries? What the church ahs done for more centuries?

For the first 9 centuries, there basically were no tabernacles.

And after that, for centuries, tabernacles were off to the side, or in a chapel, as anyone who has toured cathedrals in Europe has likely experienced.

Which leaves the tabernacle centered on the altar as a recent innovation, given the 20 centuries the Church has been around.

However, most people, having absolutely no knowledge of the matter, are likely to say (per the centered tabernacle) “That is the way we have always done it.” - “always” being the operative word of emotion, not fact.

And as to the comments in the article about the tabernacle being elsewhere rather than on the main altar (or directly behind it), my parish had the tabernacle in the chapel - where we also had Perpetual Adoration, basically 23/7/362+. We also have had 2 women who are now professed sisters, 2 deacons, and at least 4 priests during that period; so I disagree that moving the tabernacle is a diminishing of either reverence or belief.

But then, the issue is one driven largely by emotion, not logic. Where the tabernacle is, is far, far less important than how the parish worships, and Adoration is part of that worship life of the community if it is practiced.

The bishop in Wisconsin most certainly has the authority to say where the tabernacle will go. Authority and expertise are not necessarily the same; I would rather see him all out promoting regular, and where possible, Perpetual Adoration.

The article was quite clear. The Eucharist, and the Lord’s presence in it, is central. Even if you’ve seen tabernacles in other places, I don’t see the point. Churches had statues, altar/Communion rails and even paintings removed for absolutely no reason during the 1960s. There is a great desire to restore all of to its proper place. Those things that have, by their presence, spiritual significance and remind us we are in the House of Prayer, the House of God.

When I went for Eucharistic Adoration, I saw the priest put a large, beautiful Monstrance on the altar.

Ed

 

[otjm]

The article was quite clear. The Eucharist, and the Lord’s presence in it, is central. Even if you’ve seen tabernacles in other places, I don’t see the point. Churches had statues, altar/Communion rails and even paintings removed for absolutely no reason during the 1960’s. There is a great desire to restore all of to its proper place. Those things that have, by their presence, spiritual significance and remind us we are in the House of Prayer, the House of God.

When I went for Eucharistic Adoration, I saw the priest put a large, beautiful Monstrance on the altar.

Ed

I thought my post was reasonably clear; apparently not.

4 archbishops ago, our cathedral underwent a major renovation, and like cathedrals in Europe, had a room made off to the left of the sanctuary which houses the tabernacle. The archbishop who oversaw the renovation later was elevated to Cardinal and served under Pope Benedict, so I hardly think he would be cast as a flaming liberal. Apparently he saw a reason to move the tabernacle there. So the discussion of “proper place” might be a return to what was a far, far longer period of history of the Church (placing it off to the side, or in a chapel) than the more recent innovation of placing it on the main altar.

 

[Solomonson]

The article was quite clear. The Eucharist, and the Lord’s presence in it, is central. Even if you’ve seen tabernacles in other places, I don’t see the point. Churches had statues, altar/Communion rails and even paintings removed for absolutely no reason during the 1960s. There is a great desire to restore all of to its proper place. Those things that have, by their presence, spiritual significance and remind us we are in the House of Prayer, the House of God.

When I went for Eucharistic Adoration, I saw the priest put a large, beautiful Monstrance on the altar.

Ed

Indeed. Again though where in the heck does the belief of some come from that the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary? Or that it somehow “confuses” the faithful?

Further, exactly how would a degree(s) in liturgy somehow make that belief valid or even more valid? That’s mind-numbing hubris to me. Do people with such degrees actually believe they better understand matters like this and then take it upon themselves to speak for those in the pews?

 

[Solomonson]

I thought my post was reasonably clear; apparently not.

4 archbishops ago, our cathedral underwent a major renovation,

Why? I would think cathedrals are meant to be preserved rather than renovated? Were there structural issues or other facility issues that mandated the renovations?

and like cathedrals in Europe, had a room made off to the left of the sanctuary which houses the tabernacle.

Why? Also, why do you mention “Europe”? Is that meant to lend credence to the renovation?

The archbishop who oversaw the renovation later was elevated to Cardinal and served under Pope Benedict, so I hardly think he would be cast as a flaming liberal.

Who said anything about “flaming liberals” (or moderates or conservatives)?

Apparently he saw a reason to move the tabernacle there.

Did he ever explain the reason(s) why?

So the discussion of “proper place” might be a return to what was a far, far longer period of history of the Church (placing it off to the side, or in a chapel) than the more recent innovation of placing it on the main altar.

Wow, really? You’re saying a bishop would actually spend money and destroy history (no matter how short it might be in your opinion) just to return to a former practice with no practical advantages? More hubris.

 

[otjm]

Indeed. Again though where in the heck does the belief of some come from that the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is somehow deemphasized by the visual presence of the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary? Or that it somehow “confuses” the faithful?

Further, exactly how would a degree(s) in liturgy somehow make that belief valid or even more valid? That’s mind-numbing hubris to me. Do people with such degrees actually believe they better understand matters like this and then take it upon themselves to speak for those in the pews?

Well, at least as long as I have been around - 71 years now - it has been my observation that the Church, headed by the Pope (and that puts me back to Pius 12th) has relied on those with (a) degree(s) in liturgy to guide them in the decisions they have made. Pius 12th made changes to the liturgy; John 23rd moved that farther along; Paul 6th carried forward the vision of aggiornamento of John 23rd overseeing the remainder of Vatican 2; and if I recall correctly ( of course, I was only a high school student when it started, and a freshman in college seminary when it completed), Paul 6th relied on Cardinals, bishops and archbishops, and “those with (a) degree(s) in liturgy” to guide the decisions which the Pope promulgated.

So it would appear to me that the Church has relied heavily on "those with (a) degree(s) in Liturgy in making changes. I presume that some could find this to be hubris to a lesser or greater extent; and some of those same liturgists have been the ones proposing (some time ago, not the last few years) the move of the tabernacle from the main altar.

 

[Brendan]

And after that, for centuries, tabernacles were off to the side, or in a chapel, as anyone who has toured cathedrals in Europe has likely experienced…

FYi, there was a reason for that.

TheEucharist was reserved in achapel,because that is therethe priest would celebrate Mass most often without the assistance of a*deacon ( daily Mass). The Blessed Sacrament would be immediately present for him at those times.

For a High Mass on the main altar, a Deacon (more often, another priest acting in the role the Deacon), would be available to repose the*Blessed Sacrament.

So the primary purpose of the Eucharist being in a side chapel is simply because that was there Mass was celebrated mostoften and where the priest couldthus have immediate access to the Blessed Sacrament at times of Mass.

The placementof the Blessed Sacrament, ifwe use the architecture of the cathedrals that you mention as a guide, should be within the sanctuary of the place where Mass is most often celebrated.

 

[tafan]

Rightful place based on what? What the Church has done for a couple of centuries? What the church ahs done for more centuries?

For the first 9 centuries, there basically were no tabernacles.

And after that, for centuries, tabernacles were off to the side, or in a chapel, as anyone who has toured cathedrals in Europe has likely experienced.
…
.

I have toured both cathedrals and very old churches in Europe and I do not buy this. Yes, the very large cathedrals will have a different chapel with the tabernacle. Even so, these chapels were not generally separated by walls from the main sanctuary. But as for most old churches, the tabernacle was always in the center of the altar, or right behind the altar.
As one church architecture book puts it: it is absurd to say that what makes sense for St Peter’s Basilica makes sense for the average parish church (paraphrasing).

 

[Solomonson]

I finally have an answer to my original question. It’s not at all what I expected it to be. After morning Mass on Wednesday (my pastor was not the celebrant), I was approached by a very respected, senior lay member of the parish and the parish council. We have been close acquaintances for years. He said the pastor has some “grave concerns” about the article I had written. He said there were “factual mistakes” (there are not) in my article and that I had misrepresented myself as a member of the parish staff.

I cut him off and asked if he had actually read the article? He had not, so we walked to my truck in silence and I lent him a copy. He called me last night and sincerely apologized. I asked him to return the copy of the journal this coming Sunday at Mass and left it at that. I was so disgusted at that point that I didn’t dare respond to the email from my pastor or comment here.

I was then asked to drop by the office of the historical society after work today. Both the executive director and the journal editor had also received emails from my pastor back when I did. Both responded to him by email seeking more information. In response they were also told that my article contained “factual mistakes” and that I had misrepresented myself as a member of the parish staff. After the two conferred, the editor who was in charge of the project asked for specifics through yet another email.

My pastor responded by saying he should have been asked to write the article. He made it clear he has a degree in journalism (he does) and that as pastor he has the most intimate knowledge of the church building and its history. He does not, not by a long shot. He was also upset that the journal noted that “Solomonson is also a lifetime member of Saint XYZ Parish” which he felt inferred I was a staff member and that I had his blessing to write the article. That one really stung.

The journal editor sent one final email asking for specifics on the “factual mistakes” contained in my article and has thus far not received a response. Both the ED and the editor have said they will stand by me and my article and consider the matter closed as do I. I’m now very thankful that I never responded to his email. This whole experience was embarrassing for all three of us. Thanks to those here who provided counsel.

 

[goout]

I have toured both cathedrals and very old churches in Europe and I do not buy this. Yes, the very large cathedrals will have a different chapel with the tabernacle. Even so, these chapels were not generally separated by walls from the main sanctuary. But as for most old churches, the tabernacle was always in the center of the altar, or right behind the altar.
As one church architecture book puts it: it is absurd to say that what makes sense for St Peter’s Basilica makes sense for the average parish church (paraphrasing).

The Church simply responds to the needs of the times it lives through. It’s disciplines and practices change and adapt to the needs of the souls at a particular time.

We live in a time that could pretty accurately be described as gnostic, and so the movement in some places to put the Real Presence front and center seems wise to me, even while it is not some sort of theological absolute.