Removal of Tabernacle

[paperwight]

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

So are you saying that you believe God is at the extreme East end of the church but not in the nave?

Who was it complaining about bad theology a moment ago? We are not offering the Holy Sacrifice to Our Lord in the tabernacle, remember.

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

You are correct.

There are some Catholic churches that have kept the Tabernacle in the middle. I’ve been to a couple here in N.C. that are like that and let me tell ya…it’s a breath of fresh air to see that some Bishops are holding to these important elements.

 

[Jimzz12]

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

There has been an explicit order handed down against moving a tabernacle into a side chapel.

They may institute a permanent chapel within a greater church edifice, but that side chapel requires a tabernacle of its own. Both tabernacles must retain the Eucharist with an eternal flame and an altar.

The Mass must be said frequently and with regularity at the side chapel just as it is said in the main church edifice.

 

[Jimzz12]

Of course. First I will say that the reasons differ from venue to venue.

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.

There are feasts on the liturgical calender granting priests the "priveledge of celebrating three Masses in one day: One for all the poor souls, one for the benefit of the Holy Father, and a third that is a Mass of private intentions of the priest.

The third Mass is typically said in a private setting and if available at an altar dedicated to a particular saint, or whathaveyou, of the priest’s choosing if there is more than one altar.

Theogically the purpose of a private Mass at a side-altar is that although he is alone he is with the rest of the faithful when he says “Our Father”. The private Mass is the highest form of the Mass.

Lastly, priests cannot be denied the rights given to them to choose how to say the third Mass. To provide an obstacle to their right in choosing where and how to say Mass, by say not constructing side altars, is violation of their dignity.

 

[centurionguard]

Anyone ever read the book UGLY AS SIN by Michael S. Rose Sophia Press.

Since the dawn of Vatican II in the early 1960’s everything from soups to nuts from the Catholic liturgy to the architecture of majestic Gothic Catholic Churches are being disseminated for the sake of ecumenism as one other person said in this thread.

One priest from the Grand Seminaire just outside Montreal gsdm.qc.ca/gsm_gsm.php has been very close friend of mine for 35 years whom I worked for as a Sacristan.

He related to me after being a priest for ten years from 1955 until 1965 when many Catholic Churches were being torn apart inside to accommodate the Novus Ordo Mass. Beautiful majestic nine foot statues of Jesus, the BVM, and Saints lassoued with heavy ropes and brought down by a group of men shattered in pieces and hauled into the trash heap. Gorgeous center Alters and Tabernacles that graced the sanctuary completely demolished. Needless to say this priest was terribly heartbroken as were so many other priest around the world back in the 1960’s. Few Catholic Churches around North America have survived and retained the architectural splendor of beautiful Catholic Churches.

Increasing as seen in many dioceses today there are some ultra-modern Catholic Churches that some would question if they were actually stepping into a Catholic Church at all. In fact I’ve been in some Anglican and United Churches that looked more like a house of prayer than some modern Catholic Churches.

One Catholic Church in my diocese has the tabernacle removed from the Sanctuary.
It’s an awful shame.

 

[OhMalley]

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

I don’t think moving the tabernacle from the rear centerline of the sanctuary induces one to view ‘the Mass as a “communal meal” as opposed to the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted.’
That’s simply a red herring.

 

[OhMalley]

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.

Being made to wear a Kleenex is demeaning – I’ve been told that by women who went through the ordeal in school.

I’ll bet that the mantilla wearers of today would not bobbypin a Kleenex to their heads if they happened to forget their beloved mantillas. I take that back, a small number probably would because it would bring even more attention to them than their mantillas do.

You claim “certainly no female left the Church because of that.” yet you actually have no idea.

It’s a Church rule that has been rescinded. A woman covering her head might indeed make here feel good – and there is nothing wrong with that, but I see those mantillas more as crowns of pride for the most part today than anything else.

 

[Shin]

I don’t think moving the tabernacle from the rear centerline of the sanctuary induces one to view ‘the Mass as a “communal meal” as opposed to the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted.’
That’s simply a red herring.

Yes of course, moving God Himself off to the side and out of the way is perfectly inconsequential. Why, so is He… it is the priest and the people the mass should be celebrating… God is in them…

According to the new revisionists…

But which god exactly MIGHT it be that is in them…

 

[aicirt]

You are correct.

There are some Catholic churches that have kept the Tabernacle in the middle. I’ve been to a couple here in N.C. that are like that and let me tell ya…it’s a breath of fresh air to see that some Bishops are holding to these important elements.

I haven’t seen a Tabernacle on the main altar since the 60s.

The majority of cardinals at Vatican II had to have been in their 60s. The ones who wanted the changes were born before 1900 thru 1920s. The changes weren’t something that just popped into their heads. There had to be something going on within the church early in the 20th century.

I can’t believe the priests in the parishes weren’t surprised and didn’t issue some type of complaint.

 

[OhMalley]

Yes of course, moving God Himself off to the side and out of the way is perfectly inconsequential. Why, so is He… it is the priest and the people the mass should be celebrating… God is in them…

According to the new revisionists…

But which god exactly MIGHT it be that is in them…

Your snide sarcasm aside, in my parish’s case the tabernacle has been moved from a tourist-ridden church to a gorgeous and reverent chapel – very reminicent of the tabernacle in the OT. The picture you paint is not of all parishes – in fact all you have offered is a stereotype.

 

[OhMalley]

Anyone ever read the book UGLY AS SIN by Michael S. Rose Sophia Press…

I don’t view Rose as a serious journalist. I view him as a guy with a degree in bookeeping who writes books geared to a certain audience. He’s not in the same league as a Jimmy Akin for instance…

 

[aicirt]

Your snide sarcasm aside, in my parish’s case the tabernacle has been moved from a tourist-ridden church to a gorgeous and reverent chapel – very reminicent of the tabernacle in the OT. The picture you paint is not of all parishes – in fact all you have offered is a stereotype.

95% of the churches aren’t tourist-ridden (and I don’t see what difference it would make. No one is going up on the altar touching the Tabernacle). So why is it that the Tabernacle had to be moved in all the other churches?

 

[Shin]

Pardon me, since when were the tourists more important than God?

Since when should they not be instructed before entering how to behave in His house, rather than having Him shuffled out of the way so they could look at the pretty windows instead?

 

[OhMalley]

95% of the churches aren’t tourist-ridden (and I don’t see what difference it would make. No one is going up on the altar touching the Tabernacle). So why is it that the Tabernacle had to be moved in all the other churches?

And not every Blessed Sacrament Chapel is a converted broom closet as some would like to suggest. As I said the one at my parish reminds me of the description of the OT tabernacle. A most fitting place for the repose of the Blessed Sacrament.

Locating the tabernacle on the rear centerline of the sanctuary is simply not always the best option. Look at St. Peter’s for example…

Over 1,000 people/day wander in and out of my parish. More than half wander right by the sanctuary. I’m glad Jesus is not reposed there. Those in the know look for the chapel and enter it. Sublime situation.

Yes, we could limit access to the church likes others do. That would limit one of our prime evangelization resources if we did that.

 

[OhMalley]

Pardon me, since when were the tourists more important than God?

Since when should they not be instructed before entering how to behave in His house, rather than having Him shuffled out of the way so they could look at the pretty windows instead?

Excellent! I was waiting for that one! Keeping our church open from 7am to 6pm allows MANY people to be exposed to the Church who otherwise would not. It’s an important way of evangelization. It would be far easier to just lock the place up like many do.

In the end I reject your silly false dichotomy.

Just how are you going to instruct non-Catholic tourists that they MUST reverence the Blessed Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle? That too is silly.

The Blessed Sacrament was not “shuffled out of the way” (my goodness that’s offensive!) He was given a Blessed Sacrament Chapel well suited to the King of Kings. And we don’t have any stained glass.

 

[aicirt]

Being made to wear a Kleenex is demeaning – I’ve been told that by women who went through the ordeal in school.

I’ll bet that the mantilla wearers of today would not bobbypin a Kleenex to their heads if they happened to forget their beloved mantillas. I take that back, a small number probably would because it would bring even more attention to them than their mantillas do.

You claim “certainly no female left the Church because of that.” yet you actually have no idea.

It’s a Church rule that has been rescinded. A woman covering her head might indeed make here feel good – and there is nothing wrong with that, but I see those mantillas more as crowns of pride for the most part today than anything else.

Remember: my main post was about putting the Tabernacle on the main altar and for that I would want to cover my head just as I would like to kneel when receiving communion.

Now back to Kleenex and all. If there had not been a Vatican II, I would have gone on wearing hat, mantilla, chapel veil, beenie with uniform, and the aforementioned tissue with bobby pin. But never the infamous babushka, the bane of the nuns. Where I come from, I do not know of any woman who left the church because she was humiliated wearing a tissue. She more than likely wished that she hadn’t forgotten her chapel veil and was annoyed but nothing that amounted to abandoning her faith.

Forty-five years later, do I look when I see a woman with her head covered? Yes. What use to be commonplace in my youth is now an oddity. Am I surprised at the new length of the mantillas? Yes. I like hats. You, and I, might see it as over zealous piety. I don’t like Catholics wearing tichels which is a covering used by orthodox Jewish women. I just don’t think it is appropriate because it is a dress associated with another group.

 

[palmas85]

Being made to wear a Kleenex is demeaning – I’ve been told that by women who went through the ordeal in school.

I’ll bet that the mantilla wearers of today would not bobbypin a Kleenex to their heads if they happened to forget their beloved mantillas. I take that back, a small number probably would because it would bring even more attention to them than their mantillas do.

You claim “certainly no female left the Church because of that.” yet you actually have no idea.

It’s a Church rule that has been rescinded. A woman covering her head might indeed make here feel good – and there is nothing wrong with that, but I see those mantillas more as crowns of pride for the most part today than anything else.

Wow!! I learned something today:thumbsup:. My grandmothers, great grandmothers, mother, sisters, aunts, cousins and nieces were probably all demeaned at one time or another and those that are still alive wear their mantillas mainly to draw attention to themselves.:bigyikes:

I never would have guessed. Thanks for the keen insight into female psychology.

How is it that you know my family better than I do?

But then again maybe you don’t and you’re just trying to start something with all of these off track remarks.

Who knows? It has happened before.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…One priest from the Grand Seminaire just outside Montreal gsdm.qc.ca/gsm_gsm.php has been very close friend of mine for 35 years whom I worked for as a Sacristan.

Hi centurionguard .Some of the churches have closed here, and a worse thing happened in one case. They were interviewing the owner of a resto-bar on a late nightlocal news channel several years back. The resto-bar had previously been a church. The church closed. Someone bought the church and turned it into a resto-bar. I remember the owner snickering as she showed the controls for the sound system - housed in the tabernacle.

I apologize centurionguard, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from: The Grand Seminaire is not outside Montreal, it’s in the heart of downtown. It’s a little east of dead center, but definitely in the heart of town. I’ve visited there many tmes

---

To concede a point to OhMalley, St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal is a large tourist attraction (2 tabernacles incidentally - one in the Crypt church and one in the Bascillica).
There are signs posted everywhere asking tourists to speak lowly in this “house of prayer”…unfortunately more tourists than I thought don’t know how to read )).

When they come in it can be like zoo traffic and with 7 daily Masses celebrated there (used to be 10 daily Masses) they’re almost sure to disturb a celebration. I’ve never been able to figure out how the majority of tourists to Montreal who simply make the Oratory one of their “stops” stay so numb to all the proceedings during Mass and continue to snap pictures and talk - even while people are kneeling.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…

One priest from the Grand Seminaire just outside Montreal gsdm.qc.ca/gsm_gsm.php has been very close friend of mine for 35 years whom I worked for as a Sacristan…

Hi centurionguard .Some of the churches have closed here, and a worse thing happened in one case. They were interviewing the owner of a resto-bar on a late night local news channel several years back. The resto-bar had previously been a church. The church closed. Someone bought the church and turned it into a resto-bar. I remember the owner snickering as she showed the controls for the sound system - housed in the tabernacle.

I apologize centurionguard, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from: The Grand Seminaire is not outside Montreal, it’s in the heart of downtown. It’s a little east of dead center, but definitely in the heart of town. I’ve visited there many tmes

---

To concede a point to OhMalley, St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal is a large tourist attraction (2 tabernacles incidentally - one in the Crypt church and one in the Bascillica).
There are signs posted everywhere asking tourists to speak lowly in this “house of prayer”…unfortunately more tourists than I thought don’t know how to read )).

When they come in it can be like zoo traffic and with 7 daily Masses celebrated there (used to be 10 daily Masses) they’re almost sure to disturb a celebration. I’ve never been able to figure out how the majority of tourists to Montreal who simply make the Oratory one of their “stops” stay so numb to all the proceedings during Mass and continue to snap pictures and talk - even while people are kneeling.

 

[blaskoman]

Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles (the second largest city in the U.S.) has a Blessed Sacrament Room hidden off to the side, completely out of view from any pew in the church.

The main Altar is without the Tabernacle.