Regarding the Tabernacle

[GloriousOrder]

Friends, as a convert to belief from total unbelief, I am confused about something.

Just recently I came to have faith that the Tabernacle is the holy sanctuary wherein God’s own real body, blood, soul and divinity are housed. He, the maker of time and space, of reality, of potentiality and actuality, is there. That font of all wisdom, that joyous spring of eternal, abundant life; that source of good - Goodness itself - is in the Tabernacle.

The one who was there when Moses ascended the mountains of prophecy, the one who descended upon Christ, the one who watched over the Thirty Years’ War and the First World War, and the one who hovered over the waters of chaos in the beginning, is before us! In the accidental bread and wine, so inconspicuous, is contained the very spirit of truth which the Blessed Lord talked about in the fourth chapter of St. John’s Gospel. We are standing before the chamber in which all power, glory, majesty, and beauty is contained. It’s even more grand than the fear before a root canal (if that’s possible)!

Why is He moved away from the center of so many Catholic churches? My Portuguese friend tells me that he sees no tabernacle in his local church, and pictures of German, French, Chinese, and American sanctuaries I’ve seen have no tabernacle in sight. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is there present, so why is it moved to the side? There is no guile in my question, nor sarcasm or cynicism: I want to know why.

What is the justification for moving Him to the side 90% of the time? I don’t get it. He is God. God made all things and is power itself, perfection itself. What justification is there for putting the Tabernacle in a side-chapel? Has anyone seen a “trad” parish with the Tabernacle anywhere but the altar? Is it permissible?

Always in love and moderation.

 

[FightingFat]

What is the justification for moving Him to the side 90% of the time? I don’t get it. He is God. God made all things and is power itself, perfection itself. What justification is there for putting the Tabernacle in a side-chapel? Has anyone seen a “trad” parish with the Tabernacle anywhere but the altar? Is it permissible?

Always in love and moderation.

There are a number of theories about the correct positioning of the Tabernacle. I think I am right in saying that in ancient times, the blessed Sacrament would repose in a separate chapel set aside for this particular purpose. There is concern about confusion of sign if the Tabernacle is directly behind the ambo and altar.

Canon 938 §2 of the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.

This article goes into the matter in some depth:

adoremus.org/98-01_elliott.htm

 

[Indyann]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=519611

 

[Barbkw]

40 years ago, when I was a child (cradle Catholic) there were essentially two alters. The alter in back was a table for the Tabernacle. The alter in front was for the celebration of the Eucharist. The laity never came close to the Tabernacle. In the front of the alter was a Communion rail, which we kneeled on to receive.

Around the time I was 12 or 15, the idea came out about laity involvment during Mass, Eucharist ministers, center aisle Communion and the Tabernacle was moved to a table left of center. (Somehow that was supposed to make all things better, in someone’s mind.)

Perhaps, in some Churches it does make Christ more available, particularly where Tabernacle placement is planned around the building of the Church and the movement and visablity to the congregation.

IMO, the problem never was with the position of the Tabernacle. The problem was the lack of appropriate childhood catechesis and adult faith formation.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

The Mass may be said without the tabernacle. The focus during the Mass should not be, therefore, the tabernacle.

 

[Barbkw]

The thing is, that Tabernacle (The Arc of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies) have roots in the Old Testament - instituted with Moses and the Isrealites as they walked through the desert to the promised land.

It was front and center to all worship in the First and Second Temple period.

Modern day, Church Tabernacles hold the Body of Christ, in preparation for our receiving Him into our bodies.

 

[Adeodatus]

Obviously the Tabernacle should be placed in the center, ideally upon a high altar.

This principle may offend revolutionary democrats.

 

[OraLabora]

Obviously the Tabernacle should be placed in the center, ideally upon a high altar.

This principle may offend revolutionary democrats.

This principle has nothing to do with traditionalism, churches without tabernacles in the centre of the high altar have been around since long before Vatican II. Suggest you research this topic a bit.

 

[Indyann]

Obviously the Tabernacle should be placed in the center, ideally upon a high altar.

This principle may offend revolutionary democrats.

This is a novel idea, espoused by certain people who know not of what they are speaking. Novel, not traditional.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Obviously the Tabernacle should be placed in the center, ideally upon a high altar.

This principle may offend revolutionary democrats.

So does that make the Trappist monks in my diocese “revolutionary democrats”?
They do not have a tabernacle, as the do not reserve any of the Eucharist.

If you join them for Mass, there is a small bowl of un-consecrated hosts by the entrance to the Chapel, if you are going to receive, you put one in the bowl, that way they only consecrate what is needed.

 

[laszlo]

This article goes into the matter in some depth:

adoremus.org/98-01_elliott.htm

With the conclusion

1. There are some churches with an irregular plan, where the lines of vision determine that the “distinguished” and “conspicuous” place may not be directly behind the main altar. But in most parish churches this is not so, and the preeminent position would be at the center of the sanctuary. In community chapels, which are usually one room, the obvious “distinguished place” is directly behind the altar.

In the reality the problem came from the 1964 decisions which (unsupported by the council still in session) ordered

1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.

adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html#anchor36495058

 

[malphono]

This principle has nothing to do with traditionalism, churches without tabernacles in the centre of the high altar have been around since long before Vatican II. Suggest you research this topic a bit.

Yes, indeed. Lots of good examples out there, one being the traditional high altar in S Patrick’s in NYC. (If memory serves, so too, the Cathédral Marie Reine du Monde in Montréal.) Plenty more, too. And that’s not to mention some small chapels and certain oratories where the Sacrament is not reserved, which of course means there is no tabernacle at all.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, indeed. Lots of good examples out there, one being the traditional high altar in S Patrick’s in NYC. (If memory serves, so too, the Cathédral Marie Reine du Monde in Montréal.) Plenty more, too. And that’s not to mention some small chapels and certain oratories where the Sacrament is not reserved, which of course means there is no tabernacle at all.

Marie Reine du Monde in Montreal is a reduced-scale copy of St Peter’s in Rome, a tidbit that some here may not be aware of. The arrangement of the altar is just like St Peter’s

 

[MarkThompson]

Let me just copy my recent answer from here, with an additional point:
I think part of the motivation was to correct the misconceptions that I have personally seen several people on these forums strenuously insist on: namely, that the tabernacle must be behind the altar and the priest must face it because the Mass is supposed to be oriented toward the worship of Christ in the tabernacle (the priest is “speaking to the Lord who is present right there,” etc.); that the priest must not turn around to face the people because he would commit the grave insult of showing his back to the tabernacle; and similar disordered notions with absolutely no basis in traditional theology or praxis.

Just like the Precious Blood used to be withheld to correct people’s mistake that it was necessary to receive under both kinds, it is not altogether unreasonable (in the sense you occasionally hear that “They moved the tabernacle because they hate Jesus and the Real Presence!”) to correct the error of thinking that the tabernacle is in any way important to the Mass. The Mass lacks absolutely nothing when it is celebrated in the absence of a tabernacle (e.g., in a side chapel, crypt chapel, school chapel, hospital chapel, the high altar of St. Peter’s, or any other place where the Sacrament is not habitually reserved), though to hear the way some people talk about it you’d think the tabernacle was the linchpin element. (The very idea of a centrally-located, pigeonhole-type tabernacle is actually a comparatively late, most baroque, innovation.)

There is also the fact that in larger churches – cathedrals, places of pilgrimage, and the like – it has always been standard to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a separate chapel so that adoration can take place without the distractions of the main nave, and other needful things can take place in the nave without offense to the Blessed Sacrament. This idea definitely got carried a bit too far in modern church constructions.
It’s unfortunate that this confusion over the alleged centrality of the tabernacle continues to exist. It was never seen as central during the many, many centuries in the the Sacrament either wasn’t reserved, or wasn’t reserved in a tabernacle. It was never seen as central in all the great Romanesque basilicas or Gothic cathedrals where the tabernacle wasn’t in the nave at all, and when tabernacles were more commonly established as pigeonholes behind the main altar, this was largely because it was the most convenient location from the priest’s standpoint. The tabernacle is simply of no relevance to Mass – and, as comments here often show, can actually serve as a distraction from the ultimate Sacrifice (you know, the Church’s supreme act of worship?) which takes place on the altar.

I think having a tabernacle front and center in a smaller church is excellent, as it allows everyone to pray before it and reminds people outside of Mass that the Blessed Sacrament is still at the focus of a parish’s life. But the fetishizing of it – incorrect historical and theological views of its importance, etc – if anything, just reinforces the arguments for moving it, much like mistaken conceptions about the need to receive under both Species bolstered the Church’s decision to permanently withhold the Chalice.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Well, said!!

Thank you, Mark!!

 

[malphono]

It’s unfortunate that this confusion over the alleged centrality of the tabernacle continues to exist. It was never seen as central during the many, many centuries in the the Sacrament either wasn’t reserved, or wasn’t reserved in a tabernacle. It was never seen as central in all the great Romanesque basilicas or Gothic cathedrals where the tabernacle wasn’t in the nave at all, and when tabernacles were more commonly established as pigeonholes behind the main altar, this was largely because it was the most convenient location from the priest’s standpoint. The tabernacle is simply of no relevance to Mass – and, as comments here often show, can actually serve as a distraction from the ultimate Sacrifice (you know, the Church’s supreme act of worship?) which takes place on the altar.

I think having a tabernacle front and center in a smaller church is excellent, as it allows everyone to pray before it and reminds people outside of Mass that the Blessed Sacrament is still at the focus of a parish’s life. But the fetishizing of it – incorrect historical and theological views of its importance, etc – if anything, just reinforces the arguments for moving it, much like mistaken conceptions about the need to receive under both Species bolstered the Church’s decision to permanently withhold the Chalice.

Your observations on this are very good. FWLIW, I approve and agree. (But I imagine you already knew that. )

 

[Adeodatus]

What is more central to the whole of Catholic life than our Lord truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?

Nor is a centrally-located Tabernacle a distraction in any way, except perhaps from antics.

 

[malphono]

What is more central to the whole of Catholic life than our Lord truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?

Nor is a centrally-located Tabernacle a distraction in any way, except perhaps from antics.

I cannot help but quote a another post that is very sound, both historically and theologically:

I think having a tabernacle front and center in a smaller church is excellent, as it allows everyone to pray before it and reminds people outside of Mass that the Blessed Sacrament is still at the focus of a parish’s life. But the fetishizing of it – incorrect historical and theological views of its importance, etc – if anything, just reinforces the arguments for moving it, much like mistaken conceptions about the need to receive under both Species bolstered the Church’s decision to permanently withhold the Chalice.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

***What is more central to the whole of Catholic life than our Lord truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?***Nor is a centrally-located Tabernacle a distraction in any way, except perhaps from antics.

How about acting like our Lord.

I am not saying or even implying that you are not, I just think you are a little misguided in your understanding of the importance of the tabernacle. Please re-read what Mark Thompson posted, as I think he hit the nail on the head!

And, I would still like an answer to my question. The Trappists in my diocese do not have a tabernacle, as they do not reserve the Eucharist. Does that make them “less Catholic”?

 

[Barbkw]

The Trappists in my diocese do not have a tabernacle, as they do not reserve the Eucharist. Does that make them “less Catholic”?

No, they’re not less Catholic, but they are Trappist Monks who all understand the Who, what, where and why of the Eucharist. And Tabernacles cost around $4,000.