WHY were tabernacles actually moved in the 1970s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aran_Houlihan said:
its really sad that alters was destroyed instead of moving them
Click to expand...
Or simply preserving them ‘as is’ the way it was done in many other parishes. The sanctuaries, with few exceptions, were large enough to accommodate both the high altar and the new table style altar.
 
I have seen that in some churches. my parish had the alter moved into the centre of the sanctuary instead of some modem alter
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
So the Sacred Congregation of Rites on May 25, 1967 said the Blessed Sacrament should not be on the altar in repose from the very beginning of the Mass. I presume they were talking about “high altars” which typically had tabernacles located as part of their design and not just tabernacles sitting on top of table-like mensas? Yet the tabernacles were still moved outside of the sanctuary in many cases. Confusing the sanctuary for the “altar” doesn’t seem to apply in this case.

So why the movement of the tabernacles out of the sanctuary? Simply to separate them from high altars, even though in many cases, said altars were by this time doing service as de facto credence tables?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think they meant the high altar, they meant the altar on which the Mass was going to be celebrated. In many cases the parishes that retained the high altars also made use of the Tabernacle it contained.
 
Phemie said:
No, I don’t think they meant the high altar, they meant the altar on which the Mass was going to be celebrated. In many cases the parishes that retained the high altars also made use of the Tabernacle it contained.
Click to expand...
OK, so back in 1967, almost all churches still used “high altars” and the Church wanted tabernacles to be removed from them? It was specifically this sort of configuration that was no longer wanted:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
The document referred to was the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharist Mystery (Eucharisticum Mysterium), a post-conciliar document, issued by the Vatican following the Council. After recommending that the Blessed Sacrament ought to be reserved in a truly prominent location and one suitable for private prayer and devotion, the instruction states, “It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” (53).
Click to expand...
The highlighted passage suggests to me that moving the Blessed Sacrament out of the sanctuary of Catholic churches to an adoration chapel was a well-meaning attempt to insure that the Blessed Sacrament received proper reverence, reverence that, apparently, was often lacking during weddings, funerals and tourist visits at Catholic churches, by, I suppose, poorly catechized Catholics and by non-Catholics who did not understand about the Real Presence.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
40.png
Phemie:
No, I don’t think they meant the high altar, they meant the altar on which the Mass was going to be celebrated. In many cases the parishes that retained the high altars also made use of the Tabernacle it contained.
Click to expand...
OK, so back in 1967, almost all churches still used “high altars” and the Church wanted tabernacles to be removed from them? It was specifically this sort of configuration that was no longer wanted:
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood your question. All the churches around where I lived went to stand alone altars almost immediately. Sadly, most smashed their high altars and got rid of them, but some retained them and used the Tabernacle within it as a Tabernacle.
 
Duesenberg said:
Or was it as misguided attempt to make Jesus appear “more human”?
Click to expand...
Dear Duesenberg,

II think you may perhaps be meaning a loss of respect and awe before Him.
I don’t see a conflict, because Jesus is fully divine and fully human.
He is in no way divided, both divine Person of the Blessed Trinity
I know you know that.
It doesn’t make Him less divine, less worthy of our highest love, praise and worship, to be aware of His fullness of humanity in all things but sin, God Incarnate.

The greatest joy of my life is to be in His Eucharist Presence, of our God Incarnate, but I’m one who goes as close in the Church as respectfully possible, because if I could see Him, no way in the world could I stand at the back, it is against my nature not to be near as possible to our divine and human Jesus who is the Love of our lives, and our divine and human Savior. Without His humanity, He could not have died on the Cross to save as.
As a mere man, He could not have saved us. As God Incarnate, fully God, fully human, He did.
He is who He is, and I love and adore Him.
 
So why is there no current debate to have a centrealized location across the board for the Tabernacle, instead of letting Bishops or Priests decide where it is to be located. Why just leave things up for grabs and where the Tabernacle is, so be it. Is it really that expensive to pick up the Tabernacle, and place it on top of a stand behind the Altar ? Why does there even need to be a discussion ? I know of a Cathedral where the tabernacle is off to the side, and the chairs for the bishop and priest are directly behind the Altar.

But if one wants to talk about where one should be looking, that isn’t even a fair discussion to have considering one would have to take a survey to see exactly what people are doing during mass, paying attention and participating, or are just there doing what ever. An then one has to figure the sacrafice takes place no matter where one is looking, so. there is that too. and if one chooses not to look but to focus some where else, what is that person really missing out on and why should anyone punish someone for looking else where.
 
I’m not sure ,but sometimes visiting a church to pray when I’m travelling around I have to hunt for the tabernacle.Good question
 
superblue said:
So why is there no current debate to have a centrealized location across the board for the Tabernacle, instead of letting Bishops or Priests decide where it is to be located. Why just leave things up for grabs and where the Tabernacle is, so be it. Is it really that expensive to pick up the Tabernacle, and place it on top of a stand behind the Altar ?
Click to expand...
Well, in the case of my parish church it would require a redesign of the entire church since there is no “behind the Altar”. The altar is in the exact middle of the octagonal building on a raised sanctuary platform that is just large enough to walk around.

I realize my parish church is atypical, but it is certainly not one-of-a-kind. Because there are (and have always been) church buildings with exceptional circumstances, it is necessary for the local Ordinary (at least) to have authority over the placement of the tabernacle.
 
Last edited:
I do realize that redesigns would be in the cards of problems but in the instance where it isn’t feasible to just pick the altar up, move it forward by a foot or two to make a minimum amount of space for a stand for the Tabernacle, then one would have to debate is it really necessary to have the Tabernacle behind the altar or for that matter even visable to the congregation, not sure but what i thought i remember hearing is that at St.Peter, Basilica the tabernacle is off to a side an not even viewable.

An then what makes the sanctuary holy, when the actual process of concecrating is taking place, or is the sanctuary holy because of the process and the Tabernacle being behind the altar or just because of the tabernacle, or what.

But if there is to be a standard look to a Church and if the placement of the Tabernacle actually matters for what ever reason, then how ever much it would cost to have things proper would be worth the hassle and money.
 
Last edited:
Well there you go, one Bishop from Wisconsin doing what is probably the right thing.
 
Could you imagine if Priests were allowed to face the original way, entire congregations would be lost and wondering what is going on. Literally.
 
If not a Masonic thing…then certainly a Protestant thing I would assume.
 
Debbie_Kono said:
If not a Masonic thing…then certainly a Protestant thing I would assume.
Click to expand...
The celebration of the Mass ad populum at Saint Peter’s Basilica long antedates the Reformation and Freemasonry.
 
Last edited:
In a parish, if the faithful were properly catechized about both ad orientum and ad populum orientations. Then again if you just sprung it on many parishes including my own, many would be upset due to ignorance – with a few upset because it would make them feel that the Church was “going backwards.”

Good catechesis is very, very important…
 
Debbie_Kono said:
I had to look up ad populum to be sure what you meant. I think you meant versus populum?
Click to expand...
Ad populum and versus populum are pretty much the same thing to me. Versus populum certainly works and is far more commonly used for this matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top