Where should the gold box be

[triumphguy]

thank you for all the replies. It seems that the only documents stated say that either is expectable so long as the tabernacle is not ON the Actual alter of sacrifice. I must admit I have never seen this. The story I was given was that the tabernacle was forbidden from being on the wall directly behind the alter at the mid point of the sanctuary. you know as a visual centre piece.

just a few questions define EF please. and what EXACTLY is the GRIMM. is this a local US document. or a global papal rule. When was this particular instruction given.

it went well the first time perhaps we could pass this around once more and pick it apart a bit.

thanks for all the imput.

I think the Grimm was in Harry Potter

 

[malphono]

In Latin, I believe it is abbreviated IGRM.

It’s actually IGMR.

 

[JRKH]

thank you for all the replies. It seems that the only documents stated say that either is expectable so long as the tabernacle is not ON the Actual alter of sacrifice. I must admit I have never seen this. The story I was given was that the tabernacle was forbidden from being on the wall directly behind the alter at the mid point of the sanctuary. you know as a visual centre piece.

just a few questions define EF please. and what EXACTLY is the GRIMM. is this a local US document. or a global papal rule. When was this particular instruction given.

it went well the first time perhaps we could pass this around once more and pick it apart a bit.

thanks for all the imput.

GIRM has been covered…EF stands for “Extraordinary Form” and is a common reference to the Latin Mass…Also known as the “Traditional Latin Mass” or “TLM”.

The mass that is most commonly used is called the “OF” or “Ordinary Form”.

Peace
James

 

[ringil]

FYI, the placement of the tabernacle away from the altar only occurred in places where a deacon or another priest could be assured during a Mass at the main altar.

This was because the priest was prohibited from leaving the Sanctuary during Mass. Thus to reserve the Blessed Sacrament after Mass would require a Deacon, or a priest acting in the role of a Deacon to repose the Sacrament.

A smaller Mass was said in the chaple itself, so at the tabernacle was placed centrally for those Masses.

Thus this ‘older practice’ that you mention only occurred in Cathedrals and, perhaps, parishes were the assistance of multiple priests could be assured.

I am no liturgical historian. I am only echoing back the statements I have read in VII documents and the little which I have picked up from Bishops.

I see benefit in either place for the tabernacle- behind the altar or in it’s own chapel.

One thing I don’t like to read is when folks say that the Blessed Sacrament is being de-emphasize when it is placed in it’s own chapel. That simply isn’t the case nor was that ever a goal. It’s disingenuous to imply.

I hate when folks make a fight where no fight is needed.

 

[down_under]

there is at least some times when the moving of the tabernacle is done for this express reason. I have witnessed here in Australia where a room so far from the sanctuary was used it took several minutes to bring the sacrament to the alter. when I asked they said they did it because the church was really a multi function room used for other purposes. knowing the new hall was going to be completed I asked if the church would be allowed to become a full time church. he commented negatively. In fact he was visually upset that I came up with the question. Of course this is the same parish where they have “intermission” during Easter mass. where the priest stops mid mass and goes and takes a seat in the rear for 5 minutes. (pass the popcorn?)

I don’t really know what to make of all this but it definitely gives me the downplaying the sacrament blues. it seems to me this is at least sometimes exactly why it is done. the more protestant the better. It just makes me upset, but I’m just 1 guy maybe I’m wrong anyone have another idea about it I would like to here it.

 

[ringil]

there is at least some times when the moving of the tabernacle is done for this express reason. I have witnessed here in Australia where a room so far from the sanctuary was used it took several minutes to bring the sacrament to the alter. when I asked they said they did it because the church was really a multi function room used for other purposes. knowing the new hall was going to be completed I asked if the church would be allowed to become a full time church. he commented negatively. In fact he was visually upset that I came up with the question. Of course this is the same parish where they have “intermission” during Easter mass. where the priest stops mid mass and goes and takes a seat in the rear for 5 minutes. (pass the popcorn?)

I don’t really know what to make of all this but it definitely gives me the downplaying the sacrament blues. it seems to me this is at least sometimes exactly why it is done. the more protestant the better. It just makes me upset, but I’m just 1 guy maybe I’m wrong anyone have another idea about it I would like to here it.

There is nothing protestant about the documents or thinking of VII. That the Blessed Sacrament be “de-emphasized” is not nor has never been a goal of the Church.

Maybe some folks with bad theology or even priests may have picked up this idea but that doesn’t mean the advice given in the GRIM is towards that goal

That is conspiracy thinking.

 

[Daizies]

When I attend Mass at the Cathedral (my usual parish), the Tabernacle is in a sort of separate chapel off to the Left (I say sort of as it is not walled off from the main part of the Church, but it is set up to allow for adoration). There is a smaller parish I occasionally attend, and the Tabernacle is in the sanctuary, behind and a little to the side of the altar, but not on the altar itself.

 

[OraLabora]

One thing I don’t like to read is when folks say that the Blessed Sacrament is being de-emphasize when it is placed in it’s own chapel. That simply isn’t the case nor was that ever a goal. It’s disingenuous to imply.

I hate when folks make a fight where no fight is needed.

Indeed, a side-chapel for the tabernacle is in fact pretty much the norm in Benedictine monasteries. And even in St. Peters in Rome. And this isn’t after Vatican II either.

 

[ringil]

When I attend Mass at the Cathedral (my usual parish), the Tabernacle is in a sort of separate chapel off to the Left (I say sort of as it is not walled off from the main part of the Church, but it is set up to allow for adoration). There is a smaller parish I occasionally attend, and the Tabernacle is in the sanctuary, behind and a little to the side of the altar, but not on the altar itself.

The same is done in the Cathedral in Richmond, VA., where I grew up. It is in the Sacred Heart Chapel, which I understand is common.

 

[JRKH]

There is nothing protestant about the documents or thinking of VII. That the Blessed Sacrament be “de-emphasized” is not nor has never been a goal of the Church.

Maybe some folks with bad theology or even priests may have picked up this idea but that doesn’t mean the advice given in the GRIM is towards that goal

That is conspiracy thinking.

I agree with this that there is no intention on the part of the Church to de-emphasize the Eucharist.
If I were to suggest a reason for the move in many new churches or remodeling projects…I would suggest a “feeling” in the minds of many priests that, due to the common placement in many smaller churches pre-VatII, when the priest was turned to face the people - it had the effect of turning his back on the Lord in the Tabernacle.
Thus moving the Tabernacle would actually be more respectful - not less.

Just a thought.

Peace
James

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am no liturgical historian. I am only echoing back the statements I have read in VII documents and the little which I have picked up from Bishops.

I see benefit in either place for the tabernacle- behind the altar or in it’s own chapel.

One thing I don’t like to read is when folks say that the Blessed Sacrament is being de-emphasize when it is placed in it’s own chapel. That simply isn’t the case nor was that ever a goal. It’s disingenuous to imply.

I hate when folks make a fight where no fight is needed.

I agree that having a chapel is not automatically bad, but I do believe either location can be done for bad reasons or can end up executed extremely poorly. For example, to shove the tabernacle off into some ugly closet down a long hallway with barely room for two people to fit for prayer is, I’d say, disrespectful or careless. Admittedly, this isn’t common, but it has been done.

If you look at the tabernacle at St. Peter’s, it is in a chapel, but it is sublimely decorated and there is sufficient space for people to come pray. It is also quite accessible from the body of the church.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I perfectly understand the theological rationale for keeping the tabernacle separate from the altar, but personally, I would have preferred the the tabernacle to be on the altar itself, even in cathedrals where they have never been so. It seems to complete the picture of the Altar as being (amongst other things) the perpetual Throne of God. That being said, I believe the Church has good reasons for giving this instruction, and I defer to their authority.

 

[ringil]

I agree that having a chapel is not automatically bad, but I do believe either location can be done for bad reasons or can end up executed extremely poorly. For example, to shove the tabernacle off into some ugly closet down a long hallway with barely room for two people to fit for prayer is, I’d say, disrespectful or careless. Admittedly, this isn’t common, but it has been done.

If you look at the tabernacle at St. Peter’s, it is in a chapel, but it is sublimely decorated and there is sufficient space for people to come pray. It is also quite accessible from the body of the church.

Yes, I have seen the separate chapel done poorly also. It’s unfortunate.

The blessed Sacrament chapel in St. Peters is, of course, sublime. The National Shrine also has a really nice one.

 

[mymamamary]

The same is done in the Cathedral in Richmond, VA., where I grew up. It is in the Sacred Heart Chapel, which I understand is common.

Yes it is common. In St.Peters Cathedral in my Home Diocese, the Tabernacle has a little side chapel/Altar for private adoration of the Faithful, as it should be. However, I still feel, that the Tabernacle should be dead center in other Churches. My Parish Church is quite small, and the Priest kept Our LORD in the middle of the Sanctuary. It is actually nicer as we can go and adore on the Steps.

 

[Brendan]

I

I hate when folks make a fight where no fight is needed.

No fight, honest I was just providing some historical context

The rubrics of the EF prevent the priest from leaving the Sanctuary. Thus the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a place where the priest could make use of the Tabernacle as needed.

In the case of a larger parish or Cathedral, daily Mass was very rarely said on the High Altar, but in a side chapel, so the Blessed Sacrament was reserved there. The single priest would not have to worry about having to leave the chapel Sanctuary.

In a Mass at the High Altar, a Deacon (or a priest acting in the role of a Deacon) could leave the Sanctuary and either retrieve the necessary ciboria prior to Holy Communion, or reserve any surplus Hosts in the Tabernacle.

But under Trindentine rubrics, that could ONLY be done by a priest or deacon. Thus the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in side chapels were only used in Cathedrals or very large parishes, where the service of a Deacon or an additional priest could be assured.

 

[ringil]

No fight, honest I was just providing some historical context

The rubrics of the EF prevent the priest from leaving the Sanctuary. Thus the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a place where the priest could make use of the Tabernacle as needed.

In the case of a larger parish or Cathedral, daily Mass was very rarely said on the High Altar, but in a side chapel, so the Blessed Sacrament was reserved there. The single priest would not have to worry about having to leave the chapel Sanctuary.

In a Mass at the High Altar, a Deacon (or a priest acting in the role of a Deacon) could leave the Sanctuary and either retrieve the necessary ciboria prior to Holy Communion, or reserve any surplus Hosts in the Tabernacle.

But under Trindentine rubrics, that could ONLY be done by a priest or deacon. Thus the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in side chapels were only used in Cathedrals or very large parishes, where the service of a Deacon or an additional priest could be assured.

Oh no, I wasn’t talking about your post. I appreciate the historical context.

 

[down_under]

well thank you for the opinions and the history lesson. I only wish this were the case here. some of the parishs that practice this are very small indeed. I know for certain there is only 1 priest at the one parish. course it is not the only thing done to make the church more protestant like. I have never heard of a mass with an intermission either but there you go. Brisbane seems to think that there is a “liberal” Catholicism and that its okay to not subscribe to certain church teachings if you are among this group. moving the tabernacle, no bells, no incense unless absolutely necessary, shortest masses possible, the seminary in Brisbane archdiocese actually had a 0 intake year 10 years ago. mean while the tiny diocese of waga waga farily consistently outperforms bribane seminary who are now celebrating there 5 seminarian intake year. (they are quite excited. perhaps the new bishop made some changes)

It is nice to here that this is not really a major issue as I thought it was. I always thought that in the average parish the tabernacle needs to be in the sanctuary. Perhaps I just personally find it more uplifting if this is the case.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Please stop assuming that everything you don’t like is done to be ‘protestant’. That is very disrespectful of the priests and others making decisions.

As for the “intermission”. There are a few times during Mass when we are meant to have time for relection. This would be especially true during an Easter vigil when there are many rites (baptisms, etc.) during the course of the Mass.

If the priest sits for quiet reflection between readings, after the homily, or after the baptisms and confirmations, that is perfectly acceptable.

There are also more things to be done during the Easter Mass that aren’t the responsibility of the priest. If he sits while the altar servers bring forward or take away things like the baptism towels or chrism oils, while the newly baptised chnage clothes, or while they prepare the altar, that is OK too.

No matter what the priest’s motivation is, you can use that time for prayer and quiet reflection instead of looking for things to complain about.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

What you are probably talking about is a document called “Built of Living Stones,” which was approved by the US Bishops’ conference in, I think, the 80s. It never required anybody to move any tabernacles, however. It was a set of guidelines for the building of new churches, and even then, the tabernacle could still be placed in the middle. The problem is that many “liturgical consultants” (many of whom have no actual architectural or theological training or license) interpreted some of these guidelines in a very particular way. I have had experience in terms of hearing people claim “requirements” along the lines of what the OP described, however.

Many bishops and priests around the country have been actively placing tabernacles back into the center of sanctuaries, per Catholic tradition.

 

[down_under]

Please stop assuming that everything you don’t like is done to be ‘protestant’. That is very disrespectful of the priests and others making decisions.

As for the “intermission”. There are a few times during Mass when we are meant to have time for relection. This would be especially true during an Easter vigil when there are many rites (baptisms, etc.) during the course of the Mass.

If the priest sits for quiet reflection between readings, after the homily, or after the baptisms and confirmations, that is perfectly acceptable.

There are also more things to be done during the Easter Mass that aren’t the responsibility of the priest. If he sits while the altar servers bring forward or take away things like the baptism towels or chrism oils, while the newly baptised chnage clothes, or while they prepare the altar, that is OK too.

No matter what the priest’s motivation is, you can use that time for prayer and quiet reflection instead of looking for things to complain about.

gosh did you read my earlier post maybe I am not being clear the priest said we will now have a brief intermission, came down from the alter sanctuary area and started glad handing and talking to the people in the back of the church. It was the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen.

At my parish right now we have a protestant who reads reading and receives communion from his first cousin who he is living in sin with. You CANNOT make this stuff up. I have heard people say “we would not want to be too catholic” would not want to offend. The only reason this parish is not even further off the rails liturgically like a few of the others I have seen in Brisbane is because the congregation is mainly immigrants from countries who know what the faith is, and object when strange things happen (like the gay rights protesters who were given of forum ON THE PULPIT DURING MASS 4 Christmases ago) I’m sorry if you don’t believe me but we got real problems hear in Australia. Steubenville it ain’t.

Forgive me if I get a bit animated. But this is a serious problem. and the things I’m talking about are really happening.