Removal of Tabernacle

[NeedImprovement]

… It’s a little east of dead center, but definitely in the heart of town. I’ve visited there many tmes

---

:doh2: Er, that would be a little west of dead center (…have to stop posting so late into the evening).

The Grand Seminaire is right at the base of Mount Royal … this is where Montreal gets its name: Montreal is a variation of Mount Royal (or Mont Royal in french). Here’s the clincher: The most central and oldest of all boroughs in the city here is called Ville Marie (City of Mary). This is what Montreal was called back at the very beginning - Ville Marie (City of Mary)… named after/for Our Blessed Mother.

I wonder if the person who suggested/decided to change the name to Montreal suffered from a disease similar to the one that makes people think removing the tabernacle is a good idea…

 

[aicirt]

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.

Back to the OP, if the readers have concluded that the reason for the removal of the Tabernacle and other changes has been for ecumenical considerations, do you think the Catholic Church has benefited? Think there’s been more converts?

 

[Jimzz12]

Originally Posted by centurionguard forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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…

Let’s please germain to the subject at hand. What I have read here is tacitly dismissive.

We were talking about tabernacle placement. Michael S. Rose is an architect, and it was in this aspect that his name was introduced. And, tabernacle placement is something considered by the original architect of a church edifice. I believe Michael Rose is someone who can contribute to the matter at hand; indeed, he already has. He is published by the Softia Institute Press, which is selective in who they print. Their authors include Dietrich Von Hildebrand and Romano Guardini – might good company; a couple of Catholic powerhouses, and the Hildebrands are arguably the most influential couple of the entire 20th century.

It wasn’t so much that he isn’t a “serious journalist”, as it was in my noticing that we should pay attention to what others are trying to say here in the forums. For the record, Michael Rose is a writer for the New York times, that is journalist; maybe not serious, but he is a contributor for the New Oxford Review, and that is serious journalism. It is worthy to not that he tends to focus on his expertise of architecture.

Please see dellachiesa.com for his architectural standpoint.

I will go back to casually observing.

 

[centurionguard]

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.

Hi NeedImprovement; My apologies for the typo location mistake of Grand Seminaire.
Yes it is in downtown centreville Montreal, rue Sherbrooke Quest. I was thinking of another site.

 

[weepixie71]

i asked a priest about the altars. he said they were removed because they were a distraction from the main altar of the holy sacrifice. to be honest i find the choir much more distracting than the altars ever did.

as far as the tabernacle… i believe the people who allow this at their novus ordo churches make so much room for making their parish a community that Christ just go pushed out of the way. an example…isnt it so much easier to talk to to your friends before and after mass, when Christ isnt front and center to remind right away why you are there to begin with. or how about do you think about the Lord being present throughout the whole mass when the tabernacle is off to the side and the sins you have committed and how unworthy we are to receive Him and yet… no they are purposely changing your mind set when they put the tabernacle off to the side. i think it is terrible when you walk into a church and you have to actually look for the tabernacle. also, where i attend mass, they do not have a crucifx over the altar… instead they have a resurrected Jesus, and yes no cross. this i find tragic. i remember being a little girl seeing this lifesize crucifix of Jesus in all of His suffering. i remember being in awe that i have a God that loved me THAT much. it inspired me to love Him and serve Him. children today havent crucifixes, saints, tabernacles front and center, humility in monthly confessions… i pray for their souls.

 

[Gertabelle]

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

The parish I attended in college had the tabernacle in a “chapel of repose” off the narthex. The tabernacle was made of wood and looked like a middle school wood-working project. It was dreadful, and everyone coming and going and hanging out in the narthex before and after mass made it nearly impossible to genuflect when passing the chapel.

Thankfully, a new tabernacle has been placed back in the main sanctuary, right behind the altar.

Honestly, I can’t think of a single church I’ve been to in this area that doesn’t have the tabernacle right behind the altar. Should I thank God for Archbishop Chaput? Or was this Cardinal Stafford’s work? I don’t know, but I’m so very thankful

Gertie

 

[NeedImprovement]

Hi NeedImprovement; My apologies for the typo location mistake of Grand Seminaire.
Yes it is in downtown centreville Montreal, rue Sherbrooke Quest. I was thinking of another site.

No apologies necessary centurionguard. There are a veritable ton of sites for sure both in the province and especially in and around the city. Remember that Mark Twain quote?..:

When Mark Twain visited Montréal in 1881, he joked that there were so many churches, “you couldn’t throw a brick without breaking a church window”! It’s still like that, you just need a stronger pitching arm now (or smaller bricks).

Besides, I made a typo myself saying east instead of west (of course John Oxenham penned a hymn entitled IN CHRIST THERE IS NO EAST OR WEST …doesn’t get me off the hook though ).

God Bless

 

[aicirt]

i asked a priest about the altars. he said they were removed because they were a distraction from the main altar of the holy sacrifice. to be honest i find the choir much more distracting than the altars ever did.

as far as the tabernacle… i believe the people who allow this at their novus ordo churches make so much room for making their parish a community that Christ just go pushed out of the way. an example…isnt it so much easier to talk to to your friends before and after mass, when Christ isnt front and center to remind right away why you are there to begin with. or how about do you think about the Lord being present throughout the whole mass when the tabernacle is off to the side and the sins you have committed and how unworthy we are to receive Him and yet… no they are purposely changing your mind set when they put the tabernacle off to the side. i think it is terrible when you walk into a church and you have to actually look for the tabernacle. also, where i attend mass, they do not have a crucifx over the altar… instead they have a resurrected Jesus, and yes no cross. this i find tragic. i remember being a little girl seeing this lifesize crucifix of Jesus in all of His suffering. i remember being in awe that i have a God that loved me THAT much. it inspired me to love Him and serve Him. children today havent crucifixes, saints, tabernacles front and center, humility in monthly confessions… i pray for their souls.

Your description fits my church, unfortunately.

You refer to “they are purposely changing your mind set when they put the tabernacle off to the side”. The only “they” would be the priests. No one else, to my knowledge, has the authority to do these things. Why would priests want to deminish all the things they vowed to honor?

 

[aicirt]

Originally Posted by centurionguard forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Anyone ever read the book UGLY AS SIN by Michael S. Rose Sophia Press…

Let’s please germain to the subject at hand. What I have read here is tacitly dismissive.

We were talking about tabernacle placement. Michael S. Rose is an architect, and it was in this aspect that his name was introduced. And, tabernacle placement is something considered by the original architect of a church edifice. I believe Michael Rose is someone who can contribute to the matter at hand; indeed, he already has. He is published by the Softia Institute Press, which is selective in who they print. Their authors include Dietrich Von Hildebrand and Romano Guardini – might good company; a couple of Catholic powerhouses, and the Hildebrands are arguably the most influential couple of the entire 20th century.

It wasn’t so much that he isn’t a “serious journalist”, as it was in my noticing that we should pay attention to what others are trying to say here in the forums. For the record, Michael Rose is a writer for the New York times, that is journalist; maybe not serious, but he is a contributor for the New Oxford Review, and that is serious journalism. It is worthy to not that he tends to focus on his expertise of architecture.

Please see dellachiesa.com for his architectural standpoint.

I will go back to casually observing.

I went to the site you suggested. Haven’t read all of the articles. One stated it wasn’t Vatican II that initiated the architectual changes. (Have to buy the book to read the rest).

Another article reported on the changes to a cathedral in Rochester, NY, home of Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Now this is sad. Some of his things have gone missing. The church has been changed so much that it looks like a stage setting. Seven thousand have petitioned against the changes. Rather late for that, I would think. Which begs the question: why would you spend money on this and compromise the architecture of the church? No one was complaining. The laity was never asked. And certainly the money would have been better used to provide scholarships so kids could get a good Catholic education, or to people in need of medical help. Are the priests so out of touch with their parishioners that they don’t know what is important to them?

 

[OhMalley]

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.

So? Multiple Masses or not they need not be celebrated on side altars.

A private Mass is not the “highest form of the Mass.”

 

[OhMalley]

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.

The tabernacle does not belong on the “main altar”:

GIRM 315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.

 

[OhMalley]

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

Yeah, that is sorta sad…

 

[OhMalley]

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.

I don’t really care too much for the tabernacle in that cathedral but that chapel itself is remarkable. The use of natural light coming in from a 5 story tall light shaft (as used in ancient times) covered in alabaster is truly stunning. Plenty of chairs with built-in kneelers in which to spend time in adoration.

Yes, the sanctuary is sans tabernacle, yet one sees the Blessed Sacrament Chapel before entering the nave of the Church so it is in no way hidden.

 

[OhMalley]

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. **

Back to the OP, if the readers have concluded that the reason for the removal of the Tabernacle and other changes has been for ecumenical considerations, do you think the Catholic Church has benefited? Think there’s been more converts?

No way. They should have been sent to the missions as a last resort.

 

[OhMalley]

Originally Posted by centurionguard forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Anyone ever read the book UGLY AS SIN by Michael S. Rose Sophia Press…

Let’s please germain to the subject at hand. What I have read here is tacitly dismissive.

We were talking about tabernacle placement. Michael S. Rose is an architect, and it was in this aspect that his name was introduced. And, tabernacle placement is something considered by the original architect of a church edifice. I believe Michael Rose is someone who can contribute to the matter at hand; indeed, he already has. He is published by the Softia Institute Press, which is selective in who they print. Their authors include Dietrich Von Hildebrand and Romano Guardini – might good company; a couple of Catholic powerhouses, and the Hildebrands are arguably the most influential couple of the entire 20th century.

It wasn’t so much that he isn’t a “serious journalist”, as it was in my noticing that we should pay attention to what others are trying to say here in the forums. For the record, Michael Rose is a writer for the New York times, that is journalist; maybe not serious, but he is a contributor for the New Oxford Review, and that is serious journalism. It is worthy to not that he tends to focus on his expertise of architecture.

Please see dellachiesa.com for his architectural standpoint.

I will go back to casually observing.

Check that fact. He’s got a degree in business.

 

[aicirt]

The tabernacle does not belong on the “main altar”:

GIRM 315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that is where it most certainly belongs. It is the Real Presence which was always in the tabernacle on the main altar before Vatican II.

It serves no purpose for people to enter a church to play “Find the Tabernacle”.

In keeping with the meaning of what sign?

Mind if I ask you if you were born before or after Vatican II?

 

[aicirt]

No way. They should have been sent to the missions as a last resort.

Good idea if you have the $$ for shipping.

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.

 

[OhMalley]

The parish I attended in college had the tabernacle in a “chapel of repose” off the narthex. The tabernacle was made of wood and looked like a middle school wood-working project. It was dreadful, and everyone coming and going and hanging out in the narthex before and after mass made it nearly impossible to genuflect when passing the chapel.

Thankfully, a new tabernacle has been placed back in the main sanctuary, right behind the altar.

Honestly, I can’t think of a single church I’ve been to in this area that doesn’t have the tabernacle right behind the altar. Should I thank God for Archbishop Chaput? Or was this Cardinal Stafford’s work? I don’t know, but I’m so very thankful

Gertie

If you ever get to Saint Peter’s in the Vatican City you’ll note that the tabernacle is not in the center of the sanctuary, right behind the altar.

While that location is often optimal it’s not always optimal. I think those that would like to suggest it is – almost as if there is a magical quality about that location actually hurt the drive to keep/replace tabernacles in just that position.

 

[OhMalley]

That is your opinion. My opinion is that is where it most certainly belongs. It is the Real Presence which was always in the tabernacle on the main altar before Vatican II.

It serves no purpose for people to enter a church to play “Find the Tabernacle”.

In keeping with the meaning of what sign?

Mind if I ask you if you were born before or after Vatican II?

No, it’s not “my opinion.” Let me offer the quote a second time:

GIRM 315.* It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.*

NB: “GIRM” = General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It isn’t really seen as a good thing to “sell” an item which has already been blessed. It would seem better to donate the item and then have it blessed (sometimes called re-dedicated or re-consacrated) again; if possible.

angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=685