Tabernacle In The Church

[down_under]

Perhaps this thread should now be locked since it has been officially hijacked by TLM supporters (the TLM having NOTHING to do with the OP’s reason for the thread).

You mean perhaps this thread should now be locked because you are so hoplessly outnumbered by people who obviously no you MO you will never “win” the argument. no need to close this thread on account of people who have a lot of useful things to say.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

During the Offertory and the Eucharistic Prayer our focus should be on the ALTAR where the sacrifice is taking place…not on the reserved Sacrament in the tabernacle. In fact, during the entire Mass our focus is not to be on the tabernacle. There is pleanty of time before and after mass to put your focus there.

:yup: :clapping: :yup:

 

[Eilish_Maura]

so you feel that God is not really present in the tabernacle?
What a shame.

Please don’t start bearing false witness here – there is enough of that going on.

 

[Kevirish01]

For all and especially the OP.

I found this in Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. Please note what is highlighted and italicized in paragraph 77.

CEREMONIES OF THE MODERN ROMAN RITE
Chapter 1 The Setting for the Liturgy

The Tabernacle

1. Each church is to have ordinarily one immovable tabernacle, made of solid and nontransparent material.33 It is fixed permanently on an altar, or on a pillar, or incorporated into a eucharistic tower, shrine or niche, or it may be set into a wall in the form of an aumbry. The Eucharist must be locked in the tabernacle to avoid any danger of profanation.34 A priest, deacon or designated person has the custody of the key, which is kept in a safe place. This key should be a noble object. The door must not be transparent, as this would constitute permanent exposition. The tabernacle must be kept clean and dry. It is customary to place a small corporal within it and to line the inner walls with fine fabric or gold. A ledge or table in front of the tabernacle is useful if it is not located on or close to an altar.
2. Whatever form the tabernacle takes, it should be veiled as the primary sign of the Real Presence.35 The veil may be white or preferably the color of the day or season, but never black. The veil represents the holy tent of the Lord, especially in the form of the conopaeum which covers a freestanding tabernacle. It is thus a paradoxical sign of mystery, revealing by concealing the sacred Presence of Emmanuel who “tabernacles” among us.
3. The lamp (or lamps) perpetually burning before the Eucharistic Lord36 should be a living flame fed by oil or wax, but obviously not a volatile fuel. A natural flame is preferable because it signifies an offering as well as light. However, the bishop may allow an electric lamp for practical reasons.
4. Always visually related to the tabernacle, the lamp may be set on a wall bracket or on a stand, or it may take the dignified traditional form of a hanging lamp. However, as with other objects, the lamp should not stand directly on the tabernacle or immediately in front of the door. Roman practice prescribed a clear glass for the lamp, but this has been widely superseded by the red glass which is familiar to our people. In some places, permanent electric illumination is also directed onto or around the tabernacle itself. This practice has much to commend it, although it is no substitute for the eucharistic lamp or lamps.
5. ***According to the Code, the Blessed Sacrament must be reserved “in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”.37 This place is to be “very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated”,38 whether the tabernacle be located in a Blessed Sacrament chapel or at the center of the sanctuary of the church or in a shrine near the sanctuary.***Therefore it is a grave abuse to relegate the tabernacle to a room or to an area at the back of a church or to place it behind seats for the people. The place of reservation cannot be said to be “very prominent” or “distinguished” if the faithful cannot see it from the body of the church or if they cannot find it easily.
6. The mind of the Church was expressed well by Pope Paul VI, who described the tabernacle as “the living heart of each of our churches”.39 Therefore the area around or before the tabernacle should be conducive to private adoration and prayer. Seats, kneeling desks, the Scriptures and spiritual literature should be available to help our people to adore the Lord.40

 

[Eilish_Maura]

SEVERAL OF US ALREADY POSTED THIS AND/OR SIMILAR INFORMATION.

PLEASE NOTE WHICH OPTION IS LISTED FIRST IN #77:

For all and especially the OP.

I found this in Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. Please note what is highlighted and italicized in paragraph 77.

CEREMONIES OF THE MODERN ROMAN RITE
Chapter 1 The Setting for the Liturgy

The Tabernacle

1. According to the Code, the Blessed Sacrament must be reserved “in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”.37 This place is to be “very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated”,38 whether the tabernacle be located in a Blessed Sacrament chapel or at the center of the sanctuary of the church or in a shrine near the sanctuary.Therefore it is a grave abuse to relegate the tabernacle to a room or to an area at the back of a church or to place it behind seats for the people. The place of reservation cannot be said to be “very prominent” or “distinguished” if the faithful cannot see it from the body of the church or if they cannot find it easily.
2. The mind of the Church was expressed well by Pope Paul VI, who described the tabernacle as “the living heart of each of our churches”.39 Therefore the area around or before the tabernacle should be conducive to private adoration and prayer. Seats, kneeling desks, the Scriptures and spiritual literature should be available to help our people to adore the Lord.40

 

[Eilish_Maura]

After reading several of your comments, it seems you (and others) went off on a tangent quite early on. The original questioner never stated anything about Mass; merely questioning where the Tabernacle should be located physically in the church…period.

You are partly right BUT it happened initially in post #2 (not my post btw) where the Mass was introduce as part of the reason for determining location of the tabernacle. My second post was #4 where I referenced:

***From the Ask an Apologist area:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ght=tabernacle***

 

[Bovillus]

Complex subject, I am not totally informed as to how to say this:

But with trends and then those trying to adhere to trends;

I’ve found the best place for me, is in a Church run by the order founded by St. Francis. This may well pertain to other long time established orders as well.

We have the Tabernacle in sort of a small Chapel right behind the main Altar. It is not easy to describe.

There can also be a weariness of getting too dramatic in Church as well.

Respect and reverence Yes.

 

[Bovillus]

Rightfully, I can read what those people are saying about not wanting the Tabernacle moved to an unseen place.

On the other hand, in the past few decades it seems that Eucharistic adoration Chapels have opened up in many Churches especially in my area.

I don’t think these were as common in the past.

 

[Kevirish01]

“SEVERAL OF US ALREADY POSTED THIS AND/OR SIMILAR INFORMATION”

Why are you yelling?

While it is true to say similar info has been posted, the paragraphs from the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite have not.

“PLEASE NOTE WHICH OPTION IS LISTED FIRST IN #77:”

Just because it is listed first suddenly makes it primary?

A parallel: Is this to say then that since Mother Church says that the norm to receive Holy Communion on the tongue – but an option (in America anyway) may be to receive in the hand – that the first option is primary?

You have posted in your opinion the tabernacle should not be in the sanctuary. Obviously this goes against one of the options given by Mother Church.

This is why I posted it. Yes, the info is nothing new per se. But it seems very clear that Mother Church has given parish churches three options for the placement of the tabernacle. You seem to want to make it two.

 

[Bovillus]

But there were many less Perpetual Adoration Chapels back then as well, a typical and another instance of abuse by those who are so critical and righteous.

YEP. That’s pretty much her M.O. in MANY threads. Best to just ignore. As you said, you’ve made your point.

IMO., the fact that the Tabernacle isn’t required to be on the main altar, doesn’t mean it **shouldn’t **be…except in Churches where tours are often given. The Basillica in St. Louis, is a good example of this, as is the Church within the Vatican. They are certainly not the norm, though.

As far as I’m concerned, when the Sacrifice of the Mass was demoted to a “communal supper” & a table replaced the altar, there was simply no place to put the Tabernacle. Thus, today, we find it in crying rooms, the sacristy…MANY Tabernacles were sent to the Sacristy during the time when so many Churches were demolished, & a good portion of them remain there.

BTW., the Church I now attend (I changed parishes because of the TLM. & I’ve never been happier or felt more at home), does not have the money to build an adoration chapel. We are too committed to the education given by our school & another chapel doesn’t stand a chance against new computers. But then, this parish didn’t have the money (or the will)to tear the Church apart after the council either. The result, we still have the Tabernacle on the main altar, the Communion rail still exists. Even before the Motu Proprio, I’m told that the Novus Ordo was celebrated at this Church, as Vatican II required it to be celebrated…with some Latin, beautiful Gregorian Chant from the choir & one could receive kneeling at the Communion rail or standing.

The documents of Vatican II were not very definitive re the gutting of our Churches, but the following line is included in the instructions given to the Bishops:

I don’t know about you, Down Under, but no one “dialogued” with me, my husband or ANY of my fellow parishioners before my previous parish church was wreckovated, high altar ripped out…communion rail, confessionals, stations of the cross were all removed…yet 10 yrs. ago, they spent millions of dollars trying to put it back like it was. They tried & it’s close…but not there.

Hope you’ll take a look at the fist Latin Mass offered in my city in 37 YEARS & the reception that followed. You can find them on our Pastor’s blog. He isn’t yet 40 yrs. old, but received from our revered Bishop Finn, permission to study with the good priests of the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest & he is doing a wonderful thing for our city. Please include him & our parish in your prayers. :

Scroll down to see our Tabernacle. It’s never left it’s home:
kcpriest.blogspot.com/

 

[Eilish_Maura]

While it is true to say similar info has been posted, the paragraphs from the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite have not.

"PLEASE NOTE WHICH OPTION IS LISTED FIRST IN #77:"

You have posted in your opinion the tabernacle should not be in the sanctuary. Obviously this goes against one of the options given by Mother Church.

This is why I posted it. Yes, the info is nothing new per se. But it seems very clear that Mother Church has given parish churches three options for the placement of the tabernacle. You seem to want to make it two.

1. Since your source relies on (and refers back to) other sources already quoted exactly what did it add to the discussion?
2. Nothing I have posted goes against the Church in any way, shape or form.
3. What is the 3rd option? We have seen listed in the assorted official information creation of a chapel and location within the sanctuary.

 

[Kevirish01]

Eilish,

Thank you for responding to me with out yelling at me.

You say:

“1) Since your source relies on (and refers back to) other sources already quoted exactly what did it add to the discussion?”

I answer: I posted it mostly for the OP. A lot of posters/lurkers do not wade through all threads – sometimes they go to the last few pages. Thus, I posted the info for the newer posters and so forth. Besides, I thought the info was good, was it not?

You say:

“2) Nothing I have posted goes against the Church in any way, shape or form.”

I answer: You say at the bottom of post #110 – “SINCE the reasons for reserving the Blessed Sacrament are for bringing to the ill/homebound/dying and to be available for private prayer/adoration I think all churches should have a separate chapel for the tabernacle and NOT in the sanctuary.”

I answer: Since a legitimate option given by Mother Church is that the placement of the tabernacle may be in the sanctuary – your opinion seems to go against the mind of the Church in light of what was posted below from #77 of the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. Or did I mis-read you? :

***According to the Code, the Blessed Sacrament must be reserved “in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”.37 This place is to be “very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated”,38 whether the tabernacle be located in a Blessed Sacrament chapel or at the center of the sanctuary of the church or in a shrine near the sanctuary. ***

You say:

“3) What is the 3rd option? We have seen listed in the assorted official information creation of a chapel and location within the sanctuary.”

I answer: According to the above - the options are, 1. “in a Blessed Sacrament chapel,” 2. "the sanctuary, 3. “in a shrine near the sanctuary.”

That looks like three to me, does it not?

It seems to me Mother Church has given parishes/oratories etc. the option of having the tabernacle in one of those places. The OP, and every other church/oratory being built needs to know this (and the parish priests, guardians, parish councils, building commisions, etc. etc.).

If, as indicated by the majority of folks on this thread, the parishioners/congregation want the tabernacle in the sanctuary, it should be made known to them this is a perfectly fine location for it.

Are you okay with this?

Peace to you,
Kev

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If, as indicated by the majority of folks on this thread, the parishioners/congregation want the tabernacle in the sanctuary, it should be made known to them this is a perfectly fine location for it.

Are you okay with this?

Peace to you,
Kev

Guess so –

btw - when did the Church become a democracy and the majority rules?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish,

You say:

“2) Nothing I have posted goes against the Church in any way, shape or form.”

I answer: You say at the bottom of post #110 – “SINCE the reasons for reserving the Blessed Sacrament are for bringing to the ill/homebound/dying and to be available for private prayer/adoration I think all churches should have a separate chapel for the tabernacle and NOT in the sanctuary.”

I answer: Since a legitimate option given by Mother Church is that the placement of the tabernacle may be in the sanctuary – your opinion seems to go against the mind of the Church in light of what was posted below from #77 of the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. Or did I mis-read you? :

***According to the Code, the Blessed Sacrament must be reserved “in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer”.37 This place is to be “very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated”,38 whether the tabernacle be located in a Blessed Sacrament chapel or at the center of the sanctuary of the church or in a shrine near the sanctuary. ***

Seems you misread something that is for sure as my personal preference is for one of the choices specified by the Church.

Two of the “3” options in your source information imply not having the tabernacle in the sanctuary. That third one is not referenced in any of the other sources that have been quoted and I am not convinced a ‘shrine’ would be that distinct from an adoration chapel - is there a reason you have taken this source and its definition as being more representative of the Church’s view than the others used?

What is your reason for saying that opting for one of the Church’s options sets me ‘against’ the mind of the Church?

 

[NotWorthy]

                 Originally Posted by **kidderdoc**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3654027#post3654027)                 
             After reading several of your comments, it seems you (and others) went off on a tangent quite early on.

You are partly right BUT it happened initially in post #2 (not my post btw) where the Mass was introduce as part of the reason for determining location of the tabernacle. My second post was #4 where I referenced:

As the author of the “off on a tangent” post #2, [Edited]

My thoughts are related to the phrase I hear, “As you worship, is as you believe”.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Seems you misread something that is for sure as my personal preference is for one of the choices specified by the Church.

Two of the “3” options in your source information imply not having the tabernacle in the sanctuary. That third one is not referenced in any of the other sources that have been quoted and I am not convinced a ‘shrine’ would be that distinct from an adoration chapel - is there a reason you have taken this source and its definition as being more representative of the Church’s view than the others used?

What is your reason for saying that opting for one of the Church’s options sets me ‘against’ the mind of the Church?

Just one more attempt and then I’m through (I hope).

Your idea was for a “seperate chapel” that you described as being out of view as not to distract during mass… I think this is correct… if not exact than pretty close… so how does this relate to the end of para. 77 that reads this:

Therefore it is a grave abuse to relegate the tabernacle to a room or to an area at the back of a church or to place it behind seats for the people. The place of reservation cannot be said to be “very prominent” or “distinguished” if the faithful cannot see it from the body of the church or if they cannot find it easily.

your suggested placement would then go against these criteria… would they not? I think it’s very clear that Mother Church prefers to have it towards the front of the Church no matter how you try to word it…

SD

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Just one more attempt and then I’m through (I hope).

Your idea was for a “seperate chapel” that you described as being out of view as not to distract during mass… I think this is correct… if not exact than pretty close… so how does this relate to the end of para. 77 that reads this:

Therefore it is a grave abuse to relegate the tabernacle to a room or to an area at the back of a church or to place it behind seats for the people. The place of reservation cannot be said to be “very prominent” or “distinguished” if the faithful cannot see it from the body of the church or if they cannot find it easily.

your suggested placement would then go against these criteria… would they not? I think it’s very clear that Mother Church prefers to have it towards the front of the Church no matter how you try to word it…

SD

No my suggested placement would not go against these criteria.

Please show where the church indicates anything re the ‘front’ of the church in any of the quotes given regarding a private chapel/shrine. TIA.

 

[NotWorthy]

As the author of the “off on a tangent” post #2, I’d like to ask you Eilish, …

I hope this doesn’t de-rail the thread, but I would like to offer Eilish, my sincerest apologies. We all have differing opinions and I should be more respectful of all of you and your opinions!

Forgive me, please!

John

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I hope this doesn’t de-rail the thread, but I would like to offer Eilish, my sincerest apologies. We all have differing opinions and I should be more respectful of all of you and your opinions!

Forgive me, please!

John

TY

 

[SD_Catholic]

No my suggested placement would not go against these criteria.

Please show where the church indicates anything re the ‘front’ of the church in any of the quotes given regarding a private chapel/shrine. TIA.

What??? didn’t you read the bold of #77… please slow down and read it again…***Therefore it is a grave abuse to relegate the tabernacle to a room or to an area at the back of a church or to place it behind seats for the people. ***

Sorry… I can’t do much better than that… your refusal to except it is mind boggling… the Christian in you can honestly sit there and say that this writing doesn’t support the idea of the tabernacle being placed towards the front of the faithful’s Church more so than in a seperate chapel???

It is fine for you to state your opinion of wanting it to be in a seperate chapel, but to say that these writings support it more than being in the front is absurd… and I believe you realize that but have hit that point of no return with this thread…

SD