Placement of the Monstrance

[malphono]

Then why would Fr. Serpa say this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2107784

Touching the base of the ostensorium when it is carried in procession is one thing, (I’m not going to comment on lay people freely entering the sanctuary to touch it when it’s on the altar), but moving it about is quite something else.

 

[surritter]

I highly discourage following Luger’s advice. This would simply be saying “I know what’s best for everyone here.”

The pastor is the person in charge at the parish, so rather than starting a tit-for-tat battle, please make your thoughts known to him, including all the good points others have brought up here. The comments made in this thread should provide ample theological and practical evidence which should convince any reasonable priest to move the monstrance to the main altar.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Touching the base of the ostensorium when it is carried in procession is one thing, (I’m not going to comment on lay people freely entering the sanctuary to touch it when it’s on the altar), but moving it about is quite something else.

Ok I see. Thank you very much for that. At the risk of taking this thread off topic (and I apologize) if you could just answer me a couple questions. Is there anyplace where it officially specifies who can touch the Monstrance and how or where it can be touched? Just curious.

Also I notice you call a monstrance by another name, is that a regional thing, I’ve only ever heard it called a monstrance.

Peace

 

[malphono]

Ok I see. Thank you very much for that. At the risk of taking this thread off topic (and I apologize) if you could just answer me a couple questions. Is there anyplace where it officially specifies who can touch the Monstrance and how or where it can be touched? Just curious.

The general norms for Eucharistic Exposition can be found here ( in particular item III). Touching the base of the ostensorium in procession is more of a regional custom: this is often traditionally done in Mediterranean lands (and perhaps elsewhere as well).

Also I notice you call a monstrance by another name, is that a regional thing, I’ve only ever heard it called a monstrance.

Yes, I generally prefer to use the older name, but in any case both are synonymous.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… It is he who is insisting that the Monstrance be palced on the tabernacle, rather than on the main altar. We’ve just taken delivery of a new parish priest and a new curate. One evening, the curate did put the Monstrance on the main altar, in his blessed innocence/ignorance, but last night, the PP put the Monstrance on the tabernacle …

From the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass”:
“93. … The ciborium or monstrance should be placed upon the table of the altar which is covered with a cloth. If exposition with the monstrance is to extend over a long period, a throne in an elevated position may be used, but this should not be too lofty or distant. [footnote 10: See SC Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, 25 May 1967, n. 62]”.

The footnote:
“ARRANGEMENT OF THE RITE OF EXPOSITION
62. For brief exposition, the ciborium or monstrance should be placed on the altar table; for a longer exposition a throne can be used and set in a prominent, but not too elevated or distant position.”

What is meant by “throne” here? Is it an alternative to an altar? Searching google.com for “monstrance, throne, exposition” lead me to the book, in Google Books: “Churches - Their Plan and Furnishing” By Peter F. Anson (copyright 1948, The Bruce Publishing Company, USA), page 98, which includes: “A throne is required for solemn exposition. It may be placed on or over the tabernacle. [footnote 42: SRC 4268, ad 4.]” (books.google.com.au/books?id=UUWUN5ljwo0C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=exposition+throne+monstrance&source=bl&ots=emALBpyH50&sig=LWh6OxoeijGLDTVEQYyVcq8gEoc&hl=en&ei=0WyNTJq-JojJcaz67KME&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=exposition%20throne%20monstrance&f=false )

What is “SRC 4268, ad 4”? It seems to be some sort of regulations on liturgy. At newadvent.org/cathen/03696b.htm on Chrism it has “(Cf. Decr. S.R.C., ed., Gardellini, n. 2475.)”. At en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloisio_Gardellini there is an article about “Gardellini”, confirming that he made collections of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites.

So at some stage there seems to have been an official decree permitting the placement of the monstrance above the tabernacle, on a throne. The current liturgical book does not explain this option well, but it does seem to leave it as an option.

 

[Luger]

No. A layman is not to touch, much less move, an ostensorium while it is in use, humility and respect notwithstanding. This is a serious abuse which is simply not allowed.

I’m sorry but you’re wrong.

It’s not a “serious abuse.” Under certain circumstances a layperson may indeed touch/move a monstance holding a luna that holds the Blessed Sacrament. But that’s not my point. And maybe I should have been clearer.

If the Blessed Sacrament was exposed in a truly deficient manner (and not simply one that did not meet my personal taste) by a layperson I might well move it myself with the greatest of reverence. Let (in this case the sacristan) get upset about it. It might bring the issue to a boil. My conscience would be at rest doing that and I feel very comfortable knowing that the Lord our God would know my intentions were genuine and well placed.

This is not a matter of legal technicalities. This is a matter of taking action at least once with the hope that the pastor would realize just how important it is to the people. If he didn’t or if he told me not to do it again, I would follow his directive – but I would not follow the directive of a sacristan if there truly was an issue of not showing the greatest of respect for God.