Removal of Tabernacle

  • Thread starter Thread starter aicirt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aicirt

Guest
Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind removing the Tabernacle from the main altar to somewhere else in the church?

What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the confessionals and altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
 
Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind removing the Tabernacle from the main altar to somewhere else in the church?

What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the confessionals and altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
I don’t think there is a good explanation for it. Maybe our Eucharistic Lord got in the way of a more community oriented form of worship…i don’t know. There was one local church being “wreckovated” and of course they moved the Tabernacle to a small side chapel that was closed off from the rest of the church. When asked why, one parishoner said “well, it’s like you having your own bedroom”…really :rolleyes:
 
Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind removing the Tabernacle from the main altar to somewhere else in the church?

What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the confessionals and altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
IMHO, the only reason to move the tabernacle to a side chapel is where the Church is heavily trafficked for non-worship purposes during the day.

For example, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY or Notre Dame in Paris there will be huge numbers of tourists tramping through all day, many of whom will not know how to behave in the presence of Our Lord. To avoid the dis-respect, it is better that the Blessed Sacrament not be reserved in the body of the Cathedral.

Besides these cases, I think it is a terrible idea, and a sign of bad theology.

God Bless
 
Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind removing the Tabernacle from the main altar to somewhere else in the church?

What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the confessionals and altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
The reason why would not make sense to me if I knew it…I figure it would not make sense to you either.

What I do know is that these “sweeping changes” came about after Vatican Council II where there were (among other VIP’s) 6 protestant representatives present, lending their suggestions, recommendations and influence (without vote) to the proceedings.

All in the interest of “Ecumenism” or a future “smoothing over” for ecumenism.

Please pardon my bitterness.
 
IMHO, the only reason to move the tabernacle to a side chapel is where the Church is heavily trafficked for non-worship purposes during the day.

For example, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY or Notre Dame in Paris there will be huge numbers of tourists tramping through all day, many of whom will not know how to behave in the presence of Our Lord. To avoid the dis-respect, it is better that the Blessed Sacrament not be reserved in the body of the Cathedral.

Besides these cases, I think it is a terrible idea, and a sign of bad theology.

God Bless
I agree that it is a terrible idea and I do dislike it.

I don’t agree that because a church is a tourist attraction, the Blessed Sacrament should be removed. I grew up making visits to St. Pat’s. As a matter of fact, when ever you went out and about, you stopped in for a visit or crossed yourself if you passed. This was done because the Real Presence was there. It is a good thing for people to see Catholics genuflecting and kneeling to pray before the Tabernacle on the MAIN altar because it gives them the idea that this is not just a Sunday kind of thing. People have been visiting these churches and others like them for hundreds of years. I think God likes seeing all of us.

Back to my original question: who thought this up and why?
 
The reason why would not make sense to me if I knew it…I figure it would not make sense to you either.

What I do know is that these “sweeping changes” came about after Vatican Council II where there were (among other VIP’s) 6 protestant representatives present, lending their suggestions, recommendations and influence (without vote) to the proceedings.

All in the interest of “Ecumenism” or a future “smoothing over” for ecumenism.

Please pardon my bitterness.
I see no sense in this whatsoever. Didn’t understand it 50 years ago and don’t get it now. It is ridiculous to have done this for any reason. I asked years ago and was told it was because of Vatican II. Then I was told it was up to the individual bishop and/or the church’s pastor. Oddly enough, I’ve never been in a church since the 60s where the Tabernacle is on the main altar. Certainly, some must have wanted it there. It has never made any sense to me.

At the time of Vatican II, were there any priests fighting to keep it in the main altar? What about now. I think it is disgraceful.

Women talk about wearing head coverings. Why? For the Real Presence on the altar, yes. For a barren church, no. Years ago, you wouldn’t have thought about entering a church without something on your head even a Kleenex. And if you didn’t have anything, you stayed out.
 
The devil hard at work?
I’m not 100% sure. There are these occasions where we’ll get a dumb idea into our heads and then he doesn’t really need to do all that much … almost like we’re on autopilot.

There can be legitimate *grave cause *to move the Blessed Sacrament to a safer place according to the Code of Canon Law ; and the Catechism states:

1183 The tabernacle is to be situated “in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor.” The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.

This linked article on tabernacle placement covers most of the (excuse the accidental pun -) angles and quotes the pertinent Canons: ewtn.com/expert/answers/tabernacle_placement.htm.

Last time we changed pastors, the new one had restored the tabernacle high, front and center of the church whereas it had been to the side on a table in the back of the sanctuary previously. It wasn’t long before several “well meaning” souls told Father they didn’t think the tabernacle should be located front, high and center because then when he celebrates Mass he has his back to the Blessed Sacrament…🤷 (sometimes the pastor just can’t win).

I remember dropping Father a note telling him I thought it was more important for me not to turn my back on Our Lord after receiving Him in Holy Communion.
 
It wasn’t long before several “well meaning” souls told Father they didn’t think the tabernacle should be located front, high and center because then when he celebrates Mass he has his back to the Blessed Sacrament…🤷 (sometimes the pastor just can’t win).
Yes he can win! He can start facing the altar with the people when he says the mass. 🙂
 
(I’ll deal with your topics one at a time.)
What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the … altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
1794 - Pope Pius VI - Auctorem Fidei, 31:
31. The proposition of the synod enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each temple, and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom, – rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom nourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church.

1963 - Vatican II - Sacrosanctum Concilium, 128:
Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars …]. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.

1964 - Consilium for the implementation of Sac. Conc. - Inter Oecumenici, 93:
There are to be fewer minor altars and, where the design of the building permits, the best place for them is in chapels somewhat set apart from the body of the church.

2002 - General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 303:
In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.

Vatican II did not say that there should only be one altar. That said, the reason for the emphasis on a single altar – or, more properly, a distinct main altar – is that it is a sign of unity. However, as the late Bishop Fulton Sheen put it:
Picture then the High Priest Christ leaving the sacristy of heaven for the altar of Calvary. He has already put on the vestment of our human nature, the maniple of our suffering, the stole of priesthood, the chasuble of the Cross. Calvary is his cathedral; the rock of Calvary is the altar stone; the sun turning to red is the sanctuary lamp; Mary and John are the living side altars; the Host is His Body; the wine is His Blood. He is upright as Priest, yet He is prostrate as Victim. His Mass is about to begin. (Calvary and the Mass)
 
I think in some churches it was because of the wanting for a more “community” worship, but in others, it was because of possible legitimate reasons. For example, in my parish we have a Blessed Sacrament Chapel to the side of the altar and there is a huge window where you can see the tabernacle. Here is a small picture of it. You can see the window. The chapel is open from 7 am to 9 pm, but the rest of the church is locked due to security reasons. We have several donated stained glass windows that came from and OLD cathedral in Europe and some were broken during a break in so the church now stays locked but the little chapel is open.
http://www.stmarys.tn.org/images/RECESSIONALFROMMASS.jpg

Plus we are still told to show respect and genuflect towards the tabernacle.

So IMHO, I would rather the tabernacle be right on the altar, but I understand that there are some legitamate reasons for moving it. Now, on the other hand, I’ve been to some parishes where the tabernacle is kept in a room just off the narthex, and I’m not sure that I care too much for that.
 
Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind removing the Tabernacle from the main altar to somewhere else in the church?

What was the reasoning behind moving or removing the confessionals and altars to the BVM and St. Joseph?
Of course. First I will say that the reasons differ from venue to venue.

In my case my home parish is a pro-cathedral and a tourist attraction. At least 1,000 tourists/day walk through it. Most are extremely careful but they do have an impact on the church (both good and bad) and their presence just makes things a lot less intimate and to some degree less reverent. So the Blessed Sacrament is reposed in an adjacent chapel where people go to pray and adore Christ. It works out very well.

Our confessionals are gone too (thank goodness!) because we had the funds at some point to convert storage rooms over to confession rooms. It has worked out well because pews now sit where the confessionals once sat and you have the choice to go behind the screen or face to face in the confession rooms. It’s also far, far more comfortable of an arrangement (temperature, ventilation, etc.) for the priest based on what I have been told by priests who hear confessions.

Churches today should be built with ONE altar of sacrifice. Our focus should be in ONE place. No, that does not mean that older churches should be all hacked-n-slashed-up but it does mean that the relics should be removed from the side altars.

It also means that new churches should not be built with more than one altar. Why? Because priests may concelebrate Masses today – they could not for the most part prior to VC2. We no longer have a “main” Mass being celebrated while priests celebrate their “own” Masses off to the side. Come to think it it we also have far fewer priests today so most are celebrating Masses not only for themselves but for a assembly of some kind.
 
IMHO, the only reason to move the tabernacle to a side chapel is where the Church is heavily trafficked for non-worship purposes during the day.

For example, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY or Notre Dame in Paris there will be huge numbers of tourists tramping through all day, many of whom will not know how to behave in the presence of Our Lord. To avoid the dis-respect, it is better that the Blessed Sacrament not be reserved in the body of the Cathedral.

Besides these cases, I think it is a terrible idea, and a sign of bad theology.

God Bless
How so?
 
…you wouldn’t have thought about entering a church without something on your head even a Kleenex. And if you didn’t have anything, you stayed out.
And that did what exactly? Other than in some cases humiliate females and/or turn them away from the Church did it somehow do something good other than follow a Church rule that no longer exists?
 
And that did what exactly? Other than in some cases humiliate females and/or turn them away from the Church did it somehow do something good other than follow a Church rule that no longer exists?
It is called the virtue of modesty, and it is a virtue that never ceases to exist regardless of particular legislation. 🙂

Many people nowadays no longer comprehend it because of the cultural corruption, but it is always there. It is very important! 🙂
 
It is called the virtue of modesty, and it is a virtue that never ceases to exist regardless of particular legislation. 🙂

Many people nowadays no longer comprehend it because of the cultural corruption, but it is always there. It is very important! 🙂
It’s “modest” to wear a Kleenex on one’s head in church if they are a female? Sounds demeaning and attention-grabbing to me.

“Comprehend” what? While I appreciate that women were obedient to this rule from the Church when the rule was in place, I don’t see any other virtue to it. Some people will say “oh! it’s in the Bible!” Oh? In that case why don’t we also worry about the following:

**Exodus 13:16 ***“It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes; for by a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.” *

**Deu11:18 **“You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Why don’t Catholic men wear tefillin/phylacteries as directed in the Bible? How is this different than the Bible directing women to cover their heads? This is not an OT vs. NT issue or even an Old Covenant versus New Covenant issue.

This is about the Church requiring one (at least at one time) for some time and not the other (which is neither here nor there and not up to me to judge.) It is NOT about what the Bible says.

That’s why I find it so darned disengenuous when people point to the Bible to back-up their personal preference for women wearing mantillas or scarfs in church. (Notice it’s scarfs or mantillas and not hats.) If they are so Bible-driven as they would like to suggest on this matter where is their tefillin/phylacteries as good Catholic males? It’s because the Church (and not the Bible) never required Catholic males to wear tefillin/phylacteries.

“Cultural corruption?” Hardly…
 
… Now, on the other hand, I’ve been to some parishes where the tabernacle is kept in a room just off the narthex, and I’m not sure that I care too much for that.
I agree…hard to see anything positive in that…You know : “Out of sight- out of mind”…Ouch ! …:blackeye: [The prayer the Angel of Fatima taught the children comes to mind, doesn’t it ?]
It is called the virtue of modesty, and it is a virtue that never ceases to exist regardless of particular legislation. 🙂

Many people nowadays no longer comprehend it because of the cultural corruption, but it is always there. It is very important! 🙂
I think we could so easily draw a parallel to it (cultural corruption) as it would apply to an erosion of the sense of the sacred in the Church, so it is surely a valid point.
It’s “modest” to wear a Kleenex on one’s head in church if they are a female? Sounds demeaning and attention-grabbing to me.

“Comprehend” what? While I appreciate that women were obedient to this rule from the Church when the rule was in place, I don’t see any other virtue to it. …
.

What might help one see the virtue in it is the fact that a woman’s hair is something that was (still is actually) considered quite sensual. This is why St. Veronica is called a holy woman though she did quite an “impious, immodest” thing by removing her veil; so that Our Blessed Lord might wipe his holy face with it.

Today of course, it isn’t unheard of in some places that someone will go in to attend Mass wearing little more than a bathing suit … ***now that’s an ‘attention grabber’ ***(for me at least 😊).

There has certainly been an erosion of the sense of the sacred. We can’t deny it. Though I often have my face buried in my hands during Mass or at the end, I don’t recall seeing all that many people genuflect when they are leaving the Presence as they exit the church. Whether or not they genuflect, it raises the question : Are we less aware of Christ’s True Presence in the most holy Sacrament of the altar than in days gone by ? – quite in keeping with the OP’s topic it would seem.

Would your argument also apply to Jewish people who wear the yarmulke ? I like the yarmulke personally. The first thought that comes into my mind when I see a Jewish person wearing one is : " God "👍

🙂
 
Originally Posted by bilop
IMHO, the only reason to move the tabernacle to a side chapel is where the Church is heavily trafficked for non-worship purposes during the day.
For example, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY or Notre Dame in Paris there will be huge numbers of tourists tramping through all day, many of whom will not know how to behave in the presence of Our Lord. To avoid the dis-respect, it is better that the Blessed Sacrament not be reserved in the body of the Cathedral.
Besides these cases, I think it is a terrible idea, and a sign of bad theology.
God Bless
The bad theology is viewing the Mass as a “communal meal” as opposed to the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted. It’s the same bad theology that leads to the priest facing the people, instead of the altar.

The Mass is a sacrifice to God. It should be God oriented. The priest should be leading the congregation in prayer, to God, while presenting our sacrificial offering to God.

Therefore, having the tabernacle front and center, in/behind the altar makes perfect sense.
The priest and congregation are facing the reserved Body and Blood of Our Lord, as we pray to Him, and offer sacrifice to Him.

God Bless
 
And that did what exactly? Other than in some cases humiliate females and/or turn them away from the Church did it somehow do something good other than follow a Church rule that no longer exists?
I know of no females who were humiliated because they had to wear a head covering. Most women already had hats on their heads. Someone always had a tissue. And most carried pocket veils. It was not a big deal at all. And certainly no female left the Church because of that. The headcovering showed respect as the Real Presence was on the main altar. And men came in wearing hats and immediately removed them for the same reason.

Back in the 60s when the changes happened, the laity was not consulted. The biggest thing we wanted was to have one Mass on Sundays said in English. That was it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top