Placement of the tabernacle: the view from 1905

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkThompson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarkThompson

Guest
I have been occasionally reading through old issues of the American Ecclesiastical Review, a sacerdotal journal which published on a wide variety of topics of priestly interest, including history, rubrics, theology, practical pastoring, and so on. It also carried a regular section in which priests (who could not exactly Google things back then, and, in rural areas, often did not have access to comprehensive libraries) could ask the Review for information and clarification about specific issues.

I though this item from the June 1905 issue would be of interest to people who never actually knew what the official rules for tabernacle placement were in those days.
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION AT A SIDE ALTAR.

Qu. Anent the very valuable articles which have appeared in The Ecclesiastical Review concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, permit me to ask a few questions of considerable practical import.
  1. What is prescribed by the Church concerning the location of the tabernacle?
  2. Is it positively forbidden to place tabernacles in cathedral or larger parish churches on the main altar, where pontifical and other principal functions take place?
  3. If the tabernacle be placed on a side altar, and the Blessed Sacrament be reserved therein, may this be done in a side chapel, where the altar and tabernacle are necessarily hidden from the view of the bulk of the people who hear Mass from their pews on Sundays, etc.?
  4. In case the Blessed Sacrament be reserved in such an inconspicuous side chapel, which is too small to accommodate a large number of people, may the Blessed Sacrament be carried—on days when there is a large concourse of people, and Mass must be said on the main altar — from the tabernacle to the main altar, at Communion of the Mass, and the prayers “Ecce Agnus Dei, etc.,” recited, and Holy Communion distributed by the celebrant, either alone or assisted by others; then after Communion the ciborium with the remaining particles be carried to the main altar, covered, and brought back to the tabernacle,—if it be necessary, on the way to and from the tabernacle, to pass through the sacristies and an intervening small hall before reaching the respective altars?
Is such an arrangement a violation of rubrics?

By answering the above in the Review, you will oblige some of your subscribers.

Resp. — 1. In parochial and other churches the tabernacle ought to be regularly placed on the high altar (S. C. Episc. and Reg., November 28, 1594, and Rituale Rom., Tit. IV, Cap. I, de SS. Euch. Sacramento, No. 6), but not necessarily (S. R. C., May 18, 1878, n. 3,449 ad I).
  1. In cathedrals and very large parish churches it should (valde opportunum est) be placed in a side chapel, so as not to interfere with the pontifical or other solemn ceremonies (Caeremoniale Episc., Lib. I, Cap. XII, no. 8). If the tabernacle is placed on the high altar, the Blessed Sacrament is to be removed to another altar before the pontifical or other solemn services begin (ibidem).
It is for this reason that the Ceremonials usually prescribe for the celebrant only a bow to the altar. If the Blessed Sacrament is kept in the tabernacle of the altar, the celebrant (bishop or priest) genuflects, e. g., when passing the middle of the altar during the incensation.
  1. The Blessed Sacrament is to be reserved on a side altar in the sanctuary, or in a side chapel, even though the bulk of the people attending Mass may not see the altar. All that seems to be required is that the chapel should open into the church. The decrees or rubrics do not define the side altar more specifically.
  2. The celebrant of the Mass may not, it seems, ordinarily bring to the high altar, or carry back, the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle altar, if he is obliged to pass through the sacristies and an intervening hall (S. R. C., December 19, 1829, n. 2672, ad I). Under the circumstances it would seem that the particles ought to be consecrated during the Mass on the high altar.
There is no prohibition against distributing Holy Communion at a side altar, during a novena, triduum, or on a special feast, and for this purpose bringing the Blessed Sacrament from the high altar (S. R. C, 3,576, ad VI, and 3,728 ad I).

It would be proper to give Communion at the side altar, and hence to improvise a Communion rail (S. R. C., 3,525, ad IV).
 
“anent” what an interesting and useful word!

Sent me to the dictionary.
 
Will_S said:
Interesting, but I don’t see anything surprising.
Click to expand...
The most surprising thing, I thought, was that for cathedrals putting the tabernacle in a side chapel was not just tolerated or allowed, but in fact strongly recommended. Sometimes people say, “Oh, that’s just at churches like St. Peter’s.”
Warrenton said:
“anent” what an interesting and useful word!

Sent me to the dictionary.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a man who does not do very many crosswords. 😉
 
Warrenton said:
“anent” what an interesting and useful word!

Sent me to the dictionary.
Click to expand...
A barbaric dictionary perhaps? 🙂
anent (prep.)
“concerning, about,” early 13c., onont “on level with,” also “in the company of, fronting against,” from O.E. on efn “near to, close by,” originally “on even (ground) with;” the parasitic -t added 12c. A northern form (in Midlands, anenst, with adverbial genitive), affected by English writers in Scottish sense of “in respect or reference to.” Cf. Ger. neben “near to, by the side of,” short for in eben, from O.H.G. ebani “equality.”
Click to expand...
 
MarkThompson said:
Spoken like a man who does not do very many crosswords. 😉
Click to expand...
Quite true - the crossword time is now spent here. I used to work the Washington Post puzzle (the whole office did - nothing except emergency stuff got done before about 1030!!!).

As you know, puzzlers tend to throw the same words at you, over time. Anent was a new one to me.

Do you use it in your written work? I have never seen it on these posts, and as you and Timothysis prove, CAF is chock full of literary types.

Your post made me try to recall the layout of the cathedrals I visited in England. The transepts contained large chapels that did have access to the apse. Some of them were more or less empty, like Winchester, others remained decked out - Chester. I wonder if this is where the tabernacle would have been found in the old days.

I recall reading that in Europe, the main altar was usually used by the cathedral chapter - whose stalls were placed there. On non feast days, most people attended mass, or vespers at a side altar. The absence of seating probably made this easier. I think that somewhere, JReducation explained that in some detail.
 
Tabernacle Placement:

**Canon Law
  1. Each pastor may wish to look at the location of the tabernacle in his church and ask himself whether this is really “a distinguished place … conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”. He may also put this question to his people who use the church.
  2. In resolving any matter which affects the spiritual life of many people, we should be guided by the Second Vatican Council and the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. We should listen with great sensitivity to the “sensus fidei” of the faithful. A pastoral understanding of the faith of the Catholic people reveals the need to rethink this question seriously. Devotion to Our Lord in the Eucharist is embedded in the religious psyche of our people. It is not an optional extra for devout souls. This devotion remains essential to the continuity of the living tradition not only of our Rite but of the Faith itself. That perception was captured in the words of Pope Paul VI when he described the tabernacle as “the living heart of each of our churches”.7
  3. To avoid the arid effects of ((“liturgical rationalism”)) and to promote prayer and reverence, let the Eucharist be restored to the truly preeminent position in every church. Where this has happened, the response of the faithful has been a resurgence of devotion to our Eucharistic Lord. Through our incarnational, human way of affirming priorities through signs and symbols, let Jesus be seen to be who He is * the center of our faith and love, the “summit and source” of the life of the Church.**
 
centurionguard said:
Tabernacle Placement:

**Canon Law
  1. Each pastor may wish to look at the location of the tabernacle in his church and ask himself whether this is really “a distinguished place … conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”. He may also put this question to his people who use the church.
  2. In resolving any matter which affects the spiritual life of many people, we should be guided by the Second Vatican Council and the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. We should listen with great sensitivity to the “sensus fidei” of the faithful. A pastoral understanding of the faith of the Catholic people reveals the need to rethink this question seriously. Devotion to Our Lord in the Eucharist is embedded in the religious psyche of our people. It is not an optional extra for devout souls. This devotion remains essential to the continuity of the living tradition not only of our Rite but of the Faith itself. That perception was captured in the words of Pope Paul VI when he described the tabernacle as “the living heart of each of our churches”.7
  3. To avoid the arid effects of ((“liturgical rationalism”)) and to promote prayer and reverence, let the Eucharist be restored to the truly preeminent position in every church. Where this has happened, the response of the faithful has been a resurgence of devotion to our Eucharistic Lord. Through our incarnational, human way of affirming priorities through signs and symbols, let Jesus be seen to be who He is * the center of our faith and love, the “summit and source” of the life of the Church.**
Click to expand...
I’m unclear on why you decided to copy the last portion of this article from Adoremus and falsely replace the heading “Conclusion” with “Canon Law.” What you have posted here is quite certainly not canon law. (If anybody would like to read the real Canons 889 - 891, which are about the sacrament of Confirmation, he may do so here.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top