Removal of Tabernacle

[OhMalley]

First you said:

The Tabernacle and every religious article should have been removed from the church before it was turned over to the new owners. I’ve been in too many antique/junk shops where religious statues, too big for home use, are being sold. **They should have been destroyed and never put up for sale unless to Catholics. **

And you were mistaken. They should not have been destroyed. While it is proper to burn or bury a blessed item that is past its useful life one should not destroy useful religious items whether or not they have been blessed.

Now you tone it down to:

…I was in a very nice gift shop the other day. The shop has an area for antique jewlery. In the case were five or six old crystal rosaries going for $35. Now, IMO, they should have been given to the church to put in its shop so the church could sell them or give them to Catholics. I was left wondering if they would be broken down and the crystals used for crafts.

Giving them to a parish so they could be given away or sold to raise funds (fine things indeed) is a world away from destroying the rosaries.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I remember “borrowing” rosaries several times, in order to pray with others - before I got into the habit of always carrying one (often I carry 2 in case someone else has to borrow as well) and even if the beads belonged to someone else, they still felt like a powerful weapon in my hands.

There are diverse blessings for rosary beads. The simplest form from found in the new Liber Benedictionum of 1984 (LB 506):

May this Rosary and the one who uses it be blessed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. R/ Amen.

So it is totally in keeping with that particular blessing even if another “borrows” the beads.

 

[aicirt]

First you said:

And you were mistaken. They should not have been destroyed. While it is proper to burn or bury a blessed item that is past its useful life one should not destroy useful religious items whether or not they have been blessed.

Now you tone it down to:

Giving them to a parish so they could be given away or sold to raise funds (fine things indeed) is a world away from destroying the rosaries.

You’re right. The proper way is to burn which is a way of destroying the item. I was thinking of the statues in the church we were talking about. I would give the rosaries away or off to the church gift shop. No need to put them in a gift shop.

I don’t know who would leave a tabernacle in a church that was sold and then find the tabernacle now housing some sound system. If the priests don’t think it is important why should I be surprised to find rosaries in gift shops and statues in “antique” shops?

 

[jeanannemarie]

My thought about the Tabernacle location is this: Not having it located on the main altar makes it difficult for a priest to celebrate a Latin Mass. If you should happen to have a priest who can say the Latin Mass visit, or pass through your parish, it would be a great opportunitiy for people to assist at a Latin Mass. Our Pope has said the Latin Mass is to be available for all, but even so, many of us will never be forturnate to have that option close by. With the rising interest in the Latin Mass in the young seminarians, it is certainly a great possibility that you may find a priest passing through your parish who could say the Latin Mass. And then it all ends up so difficult. Seems like a great loss to me.

 

[OhMalley]

My thought about the Tabernacle location is this: Not having it located on the main altar makes it difficult for a priest to celebrate a Latin Mass. If you should happen to have a priest who can say the Latin Mass visit, or pass through your parish, it would be a great opportunitiy for people to assist at a Latin Mass. Our Pope has said the Latin Mass is to be available for all, but even so, many of us will never be forturnate to have that option close by. With the rising interest in the Latin Mass in the young seminarians, it is certainly a great possibility that you may find a priest passing through your parish who could say the Latin Mass. And then it all ends up so difficult. Seems like a great loss to me.

The tabernacle need not be located at the rear centerline of the sanctuary in order to celebrate the Extraordinary Mass.

Years ago many foolishly moved tabernacles due to current (at that time) liturgical trends. To these people any change was a good change. That view was and is extremely, inaccurate and wasteful.

I think the same labels can be accurately applied to those who believe tabernacles belong on the rear centerline of the sanctuary and no place else no matter what. Just another extreme viewpoint.

 

[aicirt]

My thought about the Tabernacle location is this: Not having it located on the main altar makes it difficult for a priest to celebrate a Latin Mass. If you should happen to have a priest who can say the Latin Mass visit, or pass through your parish, it would be a great opportunitiy for people to assist at a Latin Mass. Our Pope has said the Latin Mass is to be available for all, but even so, many of us will never be forturnate to have that option close by. With the rising interest in the Latin Mass in the young seminarians, it is certainly a great possibility that you may find a priest passing through your parish who could say the Latin Mass. And then it all ends up so difficult. Seems like a great loss to me.

If it wasn’t Vatican II responsible for all the changes, who changed the instruction for the seminarians? I would have thought all would have been instructed on how to celebrate a Latin Mass if it was to be allowed through the saction of the local pastor. If you stop teaching how to perform a Latin Mass, it is a moot point if the local pastor condons it because no one would know how to celebrate one.

Do seminarians even study Latin anymore?

Are certain orders of priests more liberal than others?

 

[jeanannemarie]

I don’t know the answers to all those questions, so perhaps I am not welcome in this discussion as I don’t have time to footnote every statement I make. I was under the impression that vocations leaning toward the Latin Mass are on the rise and my thought is that the Churches could be set up to accomodate both ordinary and extraordinary Masses. There seems to be a very strong view here on not having the tabernacle on the front altar and I was merely throwing in my two cents.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…Do seminarians even study Latin anymore?

…

I know two (one is already ordained a year ago) who studied/are studying Latin. In their type of formation the study of Latin is not mandatory. However they both thought it would be an extremely useful tool in understanding sacred scripture.

 

[aicirt]

I don’t know the answers to all those questions, so perhaps I am not welcome in this discussion as I don’t have time to footnote every statement I make. I was under the impression that vocations leaning toward the Latin Mass are on the rise and my thought is that the Churches could be set up to accomodate both ordinary and extraordinary Masses. There seems to be a very strong view here on not having the tabernacle on the front altar and I was merely throwing in my two cents.

Wasn’t trying to put you on the spot. I think the tabernacle should be on the main altar. I was the OP. I too think the Churches should be set up to accomodate both.

 

[FK04US]

I know two (one is already ordained a year ago) who studied/are studying Latin. In their type of formation the study of Latin is not mandatory. However they both thought it would be an extremely useful tool in understanding sacred scripture.

The quote inb blue is not quite right. Hebrew and Greek are useful for Bible Studies, not Latin. Latin is useful for Medieval/Modern time Church Literature and current, official documents of the Church.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

The quote inb blue is not quite right. Hebrew and Greek are useful for Bible Studies, not Latin. Latin is useful for Medieval/Modern time Church Literature and current, official documents of the Church.

The Vulgate?..

 

[jeanannemarie]

Doesn’t seem to be much going on with this thread, so hope I am not going too far off subject. The information here made me wonder. What IS necessary to celebrate the Latin Mass in the particular church building? I am in quite a bit of confusion and wondered if I was even correct about the tabernacle being needed in the center. I was going on what I thought I knew. Now I want to know more about it all. Anybody know?

 

[NeedImprovement]

The quote inb blue is not quite right. Hebrew and Greek are useful for Bible Studies, not Latin. Latin is useful for Medieval/Modern time Church Literature and current, official documents of the Church.

I don’t know if he is alphabet literate in aramaic (the second one) .It’s quite possible I misquoted him but he’s being ordained about 2 hours from now. I don’t have time to ask him beforehand.

I’ve found the vernacular (when not badly butchered) almost as useful in helping me with scripture. As one author I read put it: “It isn’t the passages of sacred scripture I do not understand which give me the most trouble, it’s the passages I understand.”

In any case, if none of the above is satisfactory, please see my username

 

[Polycarp78]

Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles

Ugh… What a hideous edifice that joint is.

Doesn’t seem to be much going on with this thread, so hope I am not going too far off subject. The information here made me wonder. What IS necessary to celebrate the Latin Mass in the particular church building? I am in quite a bit of confusion and wondered if I was even correct about the tabernacle being needed in the center. I was going on what I thought I knew. Now I want to know more about it all. Anybody know?

With my, albeit elementary, understanding, an EF mass could be celebrated just about anywhere, in any set-up. Some would say you absolutely need alter rails. I I say kneeling on the first step of the altar would suffice. Other than altar rails, I can’t think of a single thing your typical new church in the round wouldn’t provide that would preclude it from allowing an EF mass to be said. In fact, I very much would like to attend an EF in a new church, just for proof that it can be done. Then we can start work on getting high altars back in vogue.

As an aside, the church I attended as a child, St. Edward the Confessor in Granville OH, built a new church. I was so proud when I saw the pictures. A cruciform building, traditional layout, choir loft(!)… And the architecture itself almost serves as a high altar. Take a look. No EF masses are said here, but I hope that changes.

saintedwards.org/photos.cfm

 

[jeanannemarie]

Dear Polycarp78, The church is beautiful. My favorite part is the lovely bell. I love the bells and we don’t have one! It just needs a Latin Mass and I could go! It is about an hour for me to drive there. Thanks for sharing those pictures. I had no idea!

 

[AJV]

Ugh… What a hideous edifice that joint is.

With my, albeit elementary, understanding, an EF mass could be celebrated just about anywhere, in any set-up. Some would say you absolutely need alter rails. I I say kneeling on the first step of the altar would suffice. Other than altar rails, I can’t think of a single thing your typical new church in the round wouldn’t provide that would preclude it from allowing an EF mass to be said. In fact, I very much would like to attend an EF in a new church, just for proof that it can be done. Then we can start work on getting high altars back in vogue.

As an aside, the church I attended as a child, St. Edward the Confessor in Granville OH, built a new church. I was so proud when I saw the pictures. A cruciform building, traditional layout, choir loft(!)… And the architecture itself almost serves as a high . altar. Take a look. No EF masses are said here, but I hope that changes.

saintedwards.org/photos.cfm

Theoretically, wouldn’t need altar rails even. You could demarcate an area and people could kneel there to receive communion

A tabernacle is also not required on the altar. One requirement though is the altar be raised one step (at least).

 

[keepitreal]

Read about this fascinating case that happened in San Diego from San Diego New Notes:

Bait and Switch
Diocese Middle-Woman Thumbs Nose at Laity
By Robert Kumpel

In the July/August 2001 edition of News Notes, a story entitled “More Genuflect” documented how parishioners compromised with the diocese to keep the tabernacle central and visible in the renovation of St. Mary’s Church in Escondido. The agreement has since been revoked by the diocese. In a letter dated September 17, Mary Ann Fallon, director of liturgy and spirituality for the diocese of San Diego, instructed St. Mary’s pastor, Father Peter Navarra, that the the church renovation is “clearly in violation of diocesan policy.” The violation, according to Fallon, is that “the altar is completely overpowered by the tabernacle.”

Attached to the letter was a copy of Bishop Brom’s 1999 statement to San Diego priests. In the letter, Fallon reminded Navarra that the first two sentences of Brom’s instruction clearly state that: a. The altar of sacrifice should be the primary focal point in every church; b. The priority of the Eucharist celebrated is recognized over the Eucharist reserved; c. Eucharistic devotion should be seen as flowing from and back to the Mass, while never in competition with it. Fallon goes on to say that Brom’s statement is substantiated by “Church law, including that of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Built of Living Stones.”

Continue the story here: sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2002/0302rk.htm

 

[Robert_Burke]

Several years ago, my parish priest asked me to research the proper placement of the Tabernacle in parish churches (keep in mind that different rules apply to Cathedrals and Basilicas).

I treated the assignment as if I were researching and writing a legal brief. These are my conclusions based on my research:

1). There can only be one tabernacle in a church (Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 1). 

2) The tabernacle must be located in the church, not in a separate chapel located outside the main church building (Eucharisticum Mysterium, sections 53-54; Inaestimabile Donum, section 24; Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1183, 1379).

3) The tabernacle must be located in a prominent (e.g. readily noticeable) place in the church (Inter Oecumenici, section 95; Inaestimabile Donum, section 24; Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 2).

4) The tabernacle must be located in a truly noble position in the church (Inaestimabile Donum, section 24). 

5) The tabernacle must be located in a conspicuous (i.e. obvious) position in the church (Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 2).

6) The tabernacle must be located in a part of the church that has been beautifully decorated (Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 2).

7) The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved must be immovable (Code of Canon Law, section 938, subsection 3).

8) The tabernacle must be located in a most worthy place with the greatest honor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1183, 1379).

While the tabernacle does not have to be located on main altar there is nothing in the documents of the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar documents that prohibit it. On the contrary, several documents specifically mention the main altar as an appropriate site for the tabernacle. It is difficult to imagine a place for the tabernacle that could have more prominence, is more conspicuous, has greater honor, or has more nobility than the main altar.

 

[Shin]

While the tabernacle does not have to be located on main altar there is nothing in the documents of the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar documents that prohibit it. On the contrary, several documents specifically mention the main altar as an appropriate site for the tabernacle. It is difficult to imagine a place for the tabernacle that could have more prominence, is more conspicuous, has greater honor, or has more nobility than the main altar.

Isn’t it though? Yet it doesn’t say ‘has to be on the main altar’… Ambiguity… ain’t it splendid.

 

[Robert_Burke]

Read about this fascinating case that happened in San Diego from San Diego New Notes:

Bait and Switch
Diocese Middle-Woman Thumbs Nose at Laity
By Robert Kumpel

In the July/August 2001 edition of News Notes, a story entitled “More Genuflect” documented how parishioners compromised with the diocese to keep the tabernacle central and visible in the renovation of St. Mary’s Church in Escondido. The agreement has since been revoked by the diocese. In a letter dated September 17, Mary Ann Fallon, director of liturgy and spirituality for the diocese of San Diego, instructed St. Mary’s pastor, Father Peter Navarra, that the the church renovation is “clearly in violation of diocesan policy.” The violation, according to Fallon, is that “the altar is completely overpowered by the tabernacle.”

Attached to the letter was a copy of Bishop Brom’s 1999 statement to San Diego priests. In the letter, Fallon reminded Navarra that the first two sentences of Brom’s instruction clearly state that: a. The altar of sacrifice should be the primary focal point in every church; b. The priority of the Eucharist celebrated is recognized over the Eucharist reserved; c. Eucharistic devotion should be seen as flowing from and back to the Mass, while never in competition with it. Fallon goes on to say that Brom’s statement is substantiated by “Church law, including that of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Built of Living Stones.”

Continue the story here:
sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2002/0302rk.htm

“Built of Living Stones” was published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (now known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). This document states that it is a replacement for Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (EACW). However, “Built of Living Stones” is not an official document and therefore is not legally binding on Catholics, despite having been published by the American Catholic Bishops

Code of Canon Law, section 455, lays out the requirements for a conference of bishops to issue general decrees.  It requires a two-thirds vote by all the members of the conference.  It also states that "...such degrees do not have binding force, unless they have been legitimately promulgated, after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See."

“Built of Living Stones” was not submitted for a two-thirds vote of all the American Catholic Bishops.  Instead, it was submitted for a majority vote of the bishops in attendance at their November 2000 meeting.  The document was approved by a voice vote, without a counting of the yeas and nays.  To the best of my knowledge, it has never been submitted to the Holy See for approval.

The Preface of Built of Living Stones describes the document as a set of "guidelines that can serve as the basis for the diocesan bishops to issue further guidelines and directives for their dioceses.  The Preface goes on to state:

“Where the document quotes or reiterates norms from liturgical books and the Code of Canon Law, those prescriptions are binding on local communities and dioceses."
Therefore, by its own wording, Built of Living Stones is only binding on American Catholics when it quotes from official, authoritative sources such as Canon Law or liturgical books approved by the Magisterium.