Removal of Tabernacle

[Sarabande]

When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, the majority of the churches built after Vatican II had the tabernacles to the side. The older churches also had the tabernacles removed from the center and to the sides as well. It was rare you saw them front and center. The only parish I remember which still housed it in the middle was this little, country farming parish I attended often as a child at our second home.

Although the tabernacle at my childhood parish, where I also attended school, was to the side, we were still taught to genuflect to the middle and not to the tabernacle. We were always genuflecting towards the priest because they had placed the thrones behind the altar underneath the crucifix. In all honesty, none of us knew what we were actually genuflecting towards. As a child, I thought I was genuflecting towards the crucifix and to the priest. I never asked my parents because I just thought I was learning what I was supposed to at school, and on Sundays we always sat on the side towards the front, so when we genuflected we’d never really be towards either the center or on the side the tabernacle was housed.

The cathedral in my diocese, which is now my parish, had a beautiful tabernacle to the side of the main altar still within the sanctuary which is separated by an altar rail. So no one can ever go past the altar rail. At that point, I knew where and why I genuflect. In that place it was still in a prominent position and it was built in the 19th century. Although before it had renovations/expansion back in the 1950s (which kept the integrity of the architecture) it looked like that the old main altar had the tabernacle in the middle and they must have turned one of the side altars within the sanctuary the place where the tabernacle was kept.

When the current bishop came to our diocese, there was a change. He had a tabernacle created at the main altar in the middle and many of the parishes in the area (especially the older ones) all had their tabernacles put back to where they originally were. Even many of the newer parishes had this done. On top of that, the thrones which used to be in center were now placed to the side. The change was subtle and I barely noticed until I went up to genuflect.

I will say, in other dioceses when I’ve traveled and attended mass, we sometimes have a difficult time finding the tabernacle they have it so well-hidden. Yet, you still see people genuflecting the center/front of the church and never noticing the tabernacle. So, I don’t know what is going on there.

 

[FanChan]

I will say, in other dioceses when I’ve traveled and attended mass, we sometimes have a difficult time finding the tabernacle they have it so well-hidden. Yet, you still see people genuflecting the center/front of the church and never noticing the tabernacle. So, I don’t know what is going on there.

I wanted to interject here and say that when one does not genuflect to the Eucharist (such as during the Triduum when the Eucharist is reposed somewhere else) it is still appropriate to genuflect - show reverance - to the altar. One thing these modernists have right is that the altar is, in fact, important. It is the place of sacrifice, where bread and wine are ever transubstantiated into Christ.

That said, I can’t believe that the altar is more important than the tabernacle save for during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. When the transubstantiation is not taking place, the tabernacle is the most important feature of the church, because it houses God.

I can understand the desire for tourist-ridden churches to want to repose Christ somewhere where He won’t be profaned or disrespected, but I think it should be a last resort. Yes, having a great many tourists come through can be troubling, especially when they’re as rowdy as some have related them to be. But I think that could be solved by having volunteers present to hush them or instruct them to please show some respect. If people can remain quiet in a library, why not a church? Libraries don’t move all of the reading and study areas somewhere else because people are noisy, they have librarians who hush those noisy people. Yes, every now and then there might be people that won’t listen or who will make a fuss, but this is private property and it is completely within the rights of the people in the church to ask a rowdy person to leave if they won’t comply.

I, for one, am very grateful to have never belonged to a terribly progressive parish. The little church on the military base in Japan had a traditional, albeit simple, layout. And while the parish we were members of in Baltimore was rather liberal - one of the first parishes in the country to have a female pastoral life director in charge rather than a priest - they at least kept the tabernacle behind the altar, and a crucifix hanging over the sanctuary (with a risen Christ on a giant cross off to the side). I’m currently a member of a very traditional parish in Steubenville, in a beautiful baroque church from the 1800s, where we hold a Tridentine Mass once a month at least. The atmosphere in this church is incredibly more reverent, more respectful, and more peaceful than any other non-cathedral parish I’ve visited (and I’ve visited quite a few thanks to the work my parents do).

It breaks my heart to hear of parishes that are ripped apart for the sake of modernism, and I often find myself cringing at ‘modern’ churches. I showed a picture of a few cathedrals to some friends, and they couldn’t even guess as to what they were. How little consideration the power of one’s environment is given these days. Truly a shame.

 

[Sarabande]

I wanted to interject here and say that when one does not genuflect to the Eucharist (such as during the Triduum when the Eucharist is reposed somewhere else) it is still appropriate to genuflect - show reverance - to the altar. One thing these modernists have right is that the altar is, in fact, important. It is the place of sacrifice, where bread and wine are ever transubstantiated into Christ.

I agree, one should show reverence to the altar. When I started to understand better my faith and why we did things at mass, one of the things the priests and spiritual people I got know taught me was that that one should bow to the altar if the tabernacle is to the side, not genuflect. Genuflection should be reserved for Eucharist. My husband was an altar server and he was taught the same thing. When our tabernacle at the Cathedral was on the side in the sanctuary, the “regulars” (not tourists or visitors - well sometimes they would do it as well) would genuflect when they came upon the tabernacle, but bowed when they crossed over and passed the altar.

I agree with you in terms of tourists in Cathedrals. Our cathedral is not as trafficked as St. Patrick’s where they have to have security guards, etc. Fortunately, we’ve rarely had rowdy tourists/visitors come in during weddings/funerals/masses. They are actually very reverent and quiet. The sextons who work there will immediately seek out a rowdy person and ask them to either be quiet or escort them out if that happens and I’ve seen it occur, but it is rare. That said, they don’t have to contend the multitudes like some cathedrals have to deal with so it is easier in that regard.

 

[FanChan]

I agree, one should show reverence to the altar. When I started to understand better my faith and why we did things at mass, one of the things the priests and spiritual people I got know taught me was that that one should bow to the altar if the tabernacle is to the side, not genuflect. Genuflection should be reserved for Eucharist. My husband was an altar server and he was taught the same thing. When our tabernacle at the Cathedral was on the side in the sanctuary, the “regulars” (not tourists or visitors - well sometimes they would do it as well) would genuflect when they came upon the tabernacle, but bowed when they crossed over and passed the altar.

I agree with you in terms of tourists in Cathedrals. Our cathedral is not as trafficked as St. Patrick’s where they have to have security guards, etc. Fortunately, we’ve rarely had rowdy tourists/visitors come in during weddings/funerals/masses. They are actually very reverent and quiet. The sextons who work there will immediately seek out a rowdy person and ask them to either be quiet or escort them out if that happens and I’ve seen it occur, but it is rare. That said, they don’t have to contend the multitudes like some cathedrals have to deal with so it is easier in that regard.

The bowing does make sense, so I’ll concede on that point.

At my church here, there’s a Brother always around when things are going on. After a wedding one day, when I was there for choir practice, the guests were still in the nave, getting pictures, and were being quite noisy, up around the sanctuary. Brother came out and gave them a stern warning to either keep quiet for the sake of the Eucharist or to get out. They kept quiet within the nave, but got quite animated in the narthex, yelling at him and the like. Luckily a bunch of us were there to give him moral support afterwards, and he just seemed relieved that they’d stopped yelling and carrying on in the nave.

 

[PJM]

=aicirt;5313176]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?

***First neither was a requirement or even a suggestion from the Church Fathers of Vatican II.

The excuse given by America’s bishops ad-hoc Sub- Committe on the Liturgy, in a widely used as Vatican II MANDATES, but were not, entitled Environemnt abd Art In Catholic Worship* was an issue they invented called the ***“Conflict of the Active and Static Presence” *** This “MANDATE” was never presented to the entire Body of Bishops for approval, nor was it ever submitted to Rome for approval. But here in America it became “the MANDATES of VATICAN II” and had forced and I do mean FORCED compliance.

The premis out forth is that the revervation Tabernacle * was actually a destraction to the Mass, as people could not contemplate both an Active Presence [The Transubstanuation] and an Inactive Presence of Christ in the Reservered Tabernacle, which was normally located in the middle of the High [and ONLY] altar [excluding side altars], at the same time.

Somehow, despite the greatest growth period in Church History, provable by the number of Catholics, number of priest and vocations, Catholic Schools Ect, Ect. Change, not approved by Rome was underway.

What was being claimed was that Jesus Christ [who if memory serves is an all good, and all perfect God] by His very Presence was hurting the Faith of His Flock.

The real reason, was “out of sight, out of mind.” hey and guess what they were right

The 1970 Pew Report claimed that about 75% of professed Catholics were regularly fulfilling Sunday and Holyday Mass Obligations, and a slightly lower numer were using the Sacrament of Confession regularly.

In 2007 those numbers had decreased to about 25% attending Mass and about 10% going to Confession. In 2008 those numbers decreased again. Just goes to show what can be accomplished by careful planning.

Never in the history of the Church has their been such an out-going Exdous. The second largest group of “Christians in America” is fallen away Catholics.

Removing tabernacles was not the only cause og the Out-Exodus, but along with removal of the Communion rails, the influx of the "preistly laity [mostly female], the entire Theology of our Liturgy was changed from a vertical. God Centered Worship, to the present Horizonial, we are THE CHURCH, so we are the Focus of Liturgy. And we wonder why the Out-Exodus:blush:

As for the Confessionals, perhaps you will recall the introduction of the [invalid BUT very user friendly] General Absolutations to repalce the no longer needed Confessionals. [John 20: 21-22; and 1 John 5: 16-18] Dear God help us!

Sorry about venting, but you asked for it ***

 

[aicirt]

***First neither was a requirement or even a suggestion from the Church Fathers of Vatican II.

The excuse given by America’s bishops ad-hoc Sub- Committe on the Liturgy, in a widely used as Vatican II MANDATES, but were not, entitled Environemnt abd Art In Catholic Worship*** was an issue they invented called the ***“Conflict of the Active and Static Presence” *** This “MANDATE” was never presented to the entire Body of Bishops for approval, nor was it ever submitted to Rome for approval. But here in America it became “the MANDATES of VATICAN II” and had forced and I do mean FORCED compliance.

The premis out forth is that the revervation Tabernacle * was actually a destraction to the Mass, as people could not contemplate both an Active Presence [The Transubstanuation] and an Inactive Presence of Christ in the Reservered Tabernacle, which was normally located in the middle of the High [and ONLY] altar [excluding side altars], at the same time.

Somehow, despite the greatest growth period in Church History, provable by the number of Catholics, number of priest and vocations, Catholic Schools Ect, Ect. Change, not approved by Rome was underway.

What was being claimed was that Jesus Christ [who if memory serves is an all good, and all perfect God] by His very Presence was hurting the Faith of His Flock.

The real reason, was “out of sight, out of mind.” hey and guess what they were right

The 1970 Pew Report claimed that about 75% of professed Catholics were regularly fulfilling Sunday and Holyday Mass Obligations, and a slightly lower numer were using the Sacrament of Confession regularly.

In 2007 those numbers had decreased to about 25% attending Mass and about 10% going to Confession. In 2008 those numbers decreased again. Just goes to show what can be accomplished by careful planning.

Never in the history of the Church has their been such an out-going Exdous. The second largest group of “Christians in America” is fallen away Catholics.

Removing tabernacles was not the only cause og the Out-Exodus, but along with removal of the Communion rails, the influx of the "preistly laity [mostly female], the entire Theology of our Liturgy was changed from a vertical. God Centered Worship, to the present Horizonial, we are THE CHURCH, so we are the Focus of Liturgy. And we wonder why the Out-Exodus:blush:

As for the Confessionals, perhaps you will recall the introduction of the [invalid BUT very user friendly] General Absolutations to repalce the no longer needed Confessionals. [John 20: 21-22; and 1 John 5: 16-18] Dear God help us!

Sorry about venting, but you asked for it *

Who were these bishops? Was the same going on in Europe? If this was going to far, why didn’t the Pope just say, “You’ve gone to far but it back along with the altar rails etc.”
Certainly, the Vatican has been aware of the Catholic Church in the US and the numbers that have changed. Why wait 40 years?

I just finished watching EWTN and the coverage of the Bishops’ Conference. The discussion on Notre Dame was closed. Only statement was re. their backing of Bishop D’Arcy. The priest being interviewed on The World Over said the statement was anemic. The Bishops want dialogue. Dialogue on abortion? This immediately indicates some must favor it because there is nothing to dialogue about. It is an intrinsic evil. WHAT can be discussed??? (Notice: I can vent too).

The connection I guess I’m trying to make is why, if the Pope is in charge (the Catholic Church is not a democracy), than take hold and set things right! All this does is make more Catholics back away wondering if they know what they are talking about.

 

[JReducation]

My dearest brothers and sisters, sometimes we have to understand that what seems like a good idea, may not work out at the time of execution. In no way does this signify that there is a conspiracy against the Lord or the Church.

In the 13th century it was St. Francis of Assisi who introduced the tabernacle on the main altar, when he was rebuilding chapels. Until that time the tabernacle was usually in a separate space. This had to do with monastery churches and the way that they were built. The monastery churches were built in choral form, with the monks and nuns facing each other, and the altar being to their side. There were three focal points in the Church: 1) the main altar, 2) the superior’s throne, which was always in the sanctuary, and 3) the ambo from where the readings were read during mass and the liturgy of the hours was led during the Divine Office.

As the idea of a church with a central altar and tabernacle grew and become universal the other model, the side altar with tabernacle became solely a monastic practice.

After Vatican II, some people had what they thought was a good idea. They wanted to recover the simplicity of the church and sanctuary that was part of the Cluniac movement. If you think about the Cluniac movement, their idea made sense.

1. The tabernacle is for the purpose of preserving the Eucharist for those who can’t receive communion at mass and for adoration outside of mass…
2. During the mass the altar is the cross upon which Christ offers his life and invites his people to the Eucharistic banquet. Therefore, the altar is the most important piece of furniture during the mass. It is the cross on Calvary and the table at the Lord’s Supper. The altar should have a place of prominence.
3. The Eucharist consecrated during the mass should be the focus of worship and prayer. The reserved Eucharist in the tabernacle and the Eucharist on the altar should not constitute two poles, because it is the one Lord Jesus Christ.
4. The podium or ambo is the other point of reference in the sanctuary, because it is the table of the Word, which is Jesus Christ.
5. The presidential chair was the chair that the abbots used in the monasteries and the bishops used in the cathedrals. That was kept.

All this being said, the idea was to return the Cluniac simplicity because it was believed (in the 1960s) that it would invoke a deeper reverence and attention during mass.

Well . . . . Not every idea works the way that it is planned. I believe that this idea has not worked in some communities because the architectural design of the church did not resemble that of the Cluniac abbeys that had a side chapel, that was completely open and visible from all parts of the main nave. In other places the tabernacle was placed on the side of the sanctuary, but it was difficult to find. In other places it was left on the center altar, but the priest stands between it and the altar, which I don’t think is such a good idea either. In other places it did not work, because people did not have an appropriate catechesis, maybe a little Church history may have helped many parishes. Finally, in some places they got it right.

Not every idea is going to work as planned. The best thing is for all involved to simply admit that something is not working well and figure how to make it work. If it doesn’t work, fix it. If it works, leave it alone. If you can’t fix it, live with it. We have to learn to be gentle and to be reasonable in dealing with these problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PJM]

=aicirt;5375791]Who were these bishops? Was the same going on in Europe? If this was going to far, why didn’t the Pope just say, “You’ve gone to far but it back along with the altar rails etc.”
Certainly, the Vatican has been aware of the Catholic Church in the US and the numbers that have changed. Why wait 40 years?

I just finished watching EWTN and the coverage of the Bishops’ Conference. The discussion on Notre Dame was closed. Only statement was re. their backing of Bishop D’Arcy. The priest being interviewed on The World Over said the statement was anemic. The Bishops want dialogue. Dialogue on abortion? This immediately indicates some must favor it because there is nothing to dialogue about. It is an intrinsic evil. WHAT can be discussed??? (Notice: I can vent too).

The connection I guess I’m trying to make is why, if the Pope is in charge (the Catholic Church is not a democracy), than take hold and set things right! All this does is make more Catholics back away wondering if they know what they are talking about.

******You raise some valid points along the same line of thought I had many years ago when I became enmeshed in this NO Mass and it’s effects.

I cannot in charity give names, dates and places, even though I do know a bit about it. Nothing is to be gained at this AFTER THE FACT DATE by sharing such.

There are a couple of books on the subject that are worth reading: “Mass Confusion” by James Akin, and Michael Rose’s “The Renovation Manipulation”. I would expect that they both be still in print? ****

The new Theology evolved around "The idea of the “Seamless Garment.”

As to why Rome did not take immediate and decisive action. There were a number of valid reasons. They were DOOPED. By the time this took place the super majority of America’s Bishops were hand picked and the “deck was stacked” to be part of the problem.

Pitiful evidence of this fact is that after 10-15 years of the EACW illicit “MANDATES” tons a layfolk got involved and became a highly vocal and visible and even some priest a good Bishops began to publicly decry what was taking place. So EACW was determined not to be binding or licit AFTER THE DAMAGE HAD ALREADY BEEN ACOMPLISHED, and the then National Conference of Catholic Bishops to the USCCB [US Conference of Bishops]. Around the same time their was sufficient distrust of the EWAC document that Cardinal Francis George of Chicago and some other Bishops and priest pushed for a remake of the Church remodel and new Church design manual to replace EWAC.

The working name of the new document, that cardinal George had a great deal of (name removed by moderator)ut on was "Dominus Dei, which translates to “God’s House.” After the body of Bishops finished chopping it up, it came out with [if memory serves over 100 changes all for the worst in my opinion] and the new name instead of “God’s House” became “BUILT OF LIVING STONES”

This acknowledged the reason for all the changes. No longer God centered worship, now we meet to be in community. No longer a focus on Sacrifice, now its a family meal.

The Pope was caught off guard. If he mandated change; every likelihood of it being ignored, as were the real Vatican II instructions, seemed likely. Fearing a schism larger than the Protestant revolution, it was decided to take the time necessary to slowly weed out the dissidents, rather than force a show down.

Pope john Paul wrote often about what was right and was continually ignored by the super majority of America’s bishops.

That is why for example, only about 20% to 25% of our Bishops speak out publicly on abortion issues. This same percent spoke out on the recent Notre Dame, Obama invite. Further evidence is that a shocking 50% of more professed Catholics have voted for KNOWN abortion advocates in the fact three presidential elections. With no sign of improvement, and worse NO OUTCRY!.**

 

[Nickelous]

Perhaps Iconoclasm is alive and well in the Western Church.Thus the frequent removal of devotional items.N’est ce pas?
God Bless

 

[PJM]

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

So what the bishop says in defiance to Rome is more important than saving ones soul. Go figure And one wponders why fallen away catholics are the second largest christian denominations? [small c on purpose].

 

[JReducation]

So what the bishop says in defiance to Rome is more important than saving ones soul. Go figure And one wponders why fallen away catholics are the second largest christian denominations? [small c on purpose].

No one’s soul is at risk here, because no one is being asked to commit a sin. Whether the tabernacle overshadows the altar is a matter for those who have seen it.

I have never seen it, so I have no opinion on the matter. But I do not see sin in the request or the letter. We have to be careful not to invoke sin where there is none.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaMystica]

Has anyone else read the new norms regarding placement of the tabernacle in the diocese of Ft. Wayne/South Bend? Here’s a link to the pdf file at the diocesan web site. Way to go, Bishop D’Arcy!:tiphat:

diocesefwsb.org/WORSHIP/pdf%20files/tabernacletext.pdf

 

[aicirt]

Has anyone else read the new norms regarding placement of the tabernacle in the diocese of Ft. Wayne/South Bend? Here’s a link to the pdf file at the diocesan web site. Way to go, Bishop D’Arcy!:tiphat:

diocesefwsb.org/WORSHIP/pdf%20files/tabernacletext.pdf

Obviously blessed with common sense! Hope others do same.