WHY were tabernacles actually moved in the 1970s?

[Duesenberg]

WHY exactly were tabernacles actually moved from church sanctuaries in the 1970s? The only explanation I have ever heard that is that having Jesus Christ in repose in the tabernacles in the same “sight line” as the mensa of the altar, “confused” the faithful. That it took their focus away from the sacrifice taking place a top the altar. That’s always sounded like a load of malarkey to me.

Sure I understand in limited cases where the relocation of the tabernacle to an adjacent chapel makes sense. But most relocated tabernacles I have personally seen are no more than 10 or 15’ outside the sanctuary. Often in places of very little honor within the church.

It makes me wonder, were tabernacles intentionally moved in some parishes as a visual way to dismiss the real presence? Or was it as misguided attempt to make Jesus appear “more human”?

 

[Hereiam]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

I don’t like the idea of the tabernacle been moved to a side chapel , surely the blessed sacrament should be the of our life and should be be in the behind the alter .The celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass is the center and focal point of the Church’s life to which all other aspects, including those intimately bound up with celebration itself, must take second place.
Thus, the liturgical norms direct that when the tabernacle is present in the sanctuary a genuflection of adoration is made at the beginning of Mass before the priest kisses the altar and at the end after kissing the altar before leaving the sanctuary. But no genuflections are made to the tabernacle during the celebration of Mass itself except when the priest reserves consecrated hosts left over after Communion. Thus, full attention must be given to the celebration itself in each of its parts.
The same logic is behind the relatively new rule that the tabernacle should not be on the altar itself although for several centuries it had been placed at the center of the high or principal altar of the Church. This practice arose after the Council of Trent as a means of emphasizing the Church’s doctrine on the Real Presence.
It appears that it was first promoted by Bishop Matteo Giberti of Verona from 1524 to 1543, who first placed the tabernacle on the high altar of his cathedral. This initiative was taken up by St. Charles Borromeo and by Pope Paul IV. In 1614 it was officially introduced into the Roman Ritual by Pope Paul V, after which it became the normal manner of reserving the Eucharist until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

my parish still haves the tabernacle behind the alter

 

[exnihilo]

It makes me wonder, were tabernacles intentionally moved in some parishes as a visual way to dismiss the real presence? Or was it as misguided attempt to make Jesus appear “more human”?

How can we know the mind of another? And even if we could there isn’t a single answer. Better to focus on why the tabernacle should be central, when possible.

 

[JamalChristophr]

The reason for moving the tabernacle in some churches probably stems from recommendations made in a post-conciliar document but not in Vatican II itself…

**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). **

**It goes on to say, “The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped” (54). **

**The Code of Canon Law states, “The tabernacle in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer” (CIC 938:2). **

Many church renovations are undertaken under the “authority” of a document titled Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. This document, promoted widely by “liturgical experts,” was passed by the American bishops’ committee on the liturgy in 1977, but it was never brought before the entire body of bishops for a vote, presumably because its backers realized that it would be voted down.

It has been published anyway in book form, giving many the idea that its recommendations are of binding authority; in fact, it has no authority at all and can be ignored.

Did Vatican II require that the tabernacle be placed in a side chapel? | Catholic Answers Q&A

I rarely see the tabernacle moved from the main altar where I’m at, but when I do, it is very off-putting. I don’t like it at all. It’s nice to have a little adoration chapel, but at the same time, it seems to me and to most of the faithful, I’m sure, that the tabernacle should stay on the main altar. (Or whatever you call that “altar” just behind the main altar.)

I recently went to a Cathedral that did not have the Tabernacle in the main part of the sanctuary. Which for me, made for a rather stark setting in spite of the beautiful stained glass that was present in the church.

I would venture to say, that it seems to me, the real presence of Christ in the Tabernacle has been somewhat underappreciated for a few decades, on the whole, but I think that has largely been changing in recent times, for the better.

 

[twf]

Interestingly our Archbishop commanded all pastors to move the tabernacle back to a prominent location in the sanctuary. This was perhaps 5 or so years ago.
That being said, it is a fallacy to assume it was always like this prior to Vatican II. Great cathedrals did and do often reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a special side chapel. That’s true in Rome itself.

The cathedral in Santo Domingo is the oldest church in the Americas. There the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a very handsome chapel off the nave upon a beautiful side altar.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

yes because they where bishops

 

[Duesenberg]

How can we know the mind of another? And even if we could there isn’t a single answer. Better to focus on why the tabernacle should be central, when possible.

Because the tabernacle movements were done in large order and hopefully someone else knows a lot more about it than I (or apparently you) do.

 

[Duesenberg]

The reason for moving the tabernacle in some churches probably stems from recommendations made in a post-conciliar document but not in Vatican II itself…

**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). **

**It goes on to say, “The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped” (54). **

**The Code of Canon Law states, “The tabernacle in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer” (CIC 938:2). **

THIS is the sort of information I was looking for. Thank you very much!

 

[Duesenberg]

Interestingly our Archbishop commanded all pastors to move the tabernacle back to a prominent location in the sanctuary. This was perhaps 5 or so years ago.

That being said, it is a fallacy to assume it was always like this prior to Vatican II. Great cathedrals did and do often reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a special side chapel. That’s true in Rome itself.

The cathedral in Santo Domingo is the oldest church in the Americas. There the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a very handsome chapel off the nave upon a beautiful side altar.

Reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a proper, separate chapel is fine if there is need. But it was clearly very common here to move tabernacles just outside the sanctuary – 5, 10, maybe 20" and often locate them in former statue niches, etc.

I’m very curious why this happened? Within the last few years before he passed away, I asked our former pastor about it as our tabernacle was moved during his tenure – something I am certain of. He claimed he wasn’t pastor when the tabernacle was moved so I left it at that.

 

[Vico]

WHY exactly were tabernacles actually moved from church sanctuaries in the 1970s? The only explanation I have ever heard that is that having Jesus Christ in repose in the tabernacles in the same “sight line” as the mensa of the altar, “confused” the faithful. That it took their focus away from the sacrifice taking place a top the altar. That’s always sounded like a load of malarkey to me.

Sure I understand in limited cases where the relocation of the tabernacle to an adjacent chapel makes sense. But most relocated tabernacles I have personally seen are no more than 10 or 15’ outside the sanctuary. Often in places of very little honor within the church.

It makes me wonder, were tabernacles intentionally moved in some parishes as a visual way to dismiss the real presence? Or was it as misguided attempt to make Jesus appear “more human”?

Eucharisticum Mysterium from 1967, after Vatican II (1962-1965), which gave the reasoning for the move, is that it was better that “the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass”.

55. A Tabernacle on an Altar where Mass is Celebrated with a Congregation

In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of worship by which Christ is present to His Church116 are gradually revealed. First of all, Christ is seen to be present among the faithful gathered in His name; then in his Word, as the Scriptures are read and explained; in the person of the minister; finally and in a unique way (modo singular) under the species of the Eucharist. Consequently, because of the sign, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle.

– Sacred Congregation of Rites on May 25, 1967

Eucharisticum Mysterium - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship

 

[Duesenberg]

I agree, yet in this Catholic cathedral it actually has a screen (look closely – sort of like miniature old saloon doors) in front of the tabernacle that is closed during the celebration of the Mass so people will not be “distracted” by its presence – or what’s reposed inside of it.

 

[Phemie]

Many parishes didn’t retain their high altars. I know ours was smashed and disposed of. That only left side altars within the sanctuary as possible places of reservation. Originally both those altars were retained with one used for the Tabernacle but over the years one was removed and something else placed there. I’m trying to remember what exactly, it’s been a while since I’ve been to church back home. IIRC, it’s the Baptismal Font (the Baptistry which was delineated by a rail and gate had been in the sacristy until the 70s) that has replaced one side altar, the other continues to be used for the Tabernacle.

 

[Duesenberg]

1. A Tabernacle on an Altar where Mass is Celebrated with a Congregation

In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of worship by which Christ is present to His Church116 are gradually revealed. First of all, Christ is seen to be present among the faithful gathered in His name; then in his Word, as the Scriptures are read and explained; in the person of the minister; finally and in a unique way (modo singular) under the species of the Eucharist. Consequently, because of the sign, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle.

– Sacred Congregation of Rites on May 25, 1967

Eucharisticum Mysterium - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship

Thank you for this.

I wonder how they defined the “altar” in this case? As the table where the sacrifice takes place or the entire sanctuary area?

 

[Duesenberg]

Many parishes didn’t retain their high altars.

OK, but what would have kept them from placing the tabernacle on a suitable table/stand/plinth/etc. at the rear of the sanctuary where the former altar was once located?

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

My parish sanctuary

 

[Vico]

Vico:

1. A Tabernacle on an Altar where Mass is Celebrated with a Congregation

In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of worship by which Christ is present to His Church116 are gradually revealed. First of all, Christ is seen to be present among the faithful gathered in His name; then in his Word, as the Scriptures are read and explained; in the person of the minister; finally and in a unique way (modo singular) under the species of the Eucharist. Consequently, because of the sign, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle.

– Sacred Congregation of Rites on May 25, 1967

Eucharisticum Mysterium - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship

Thank you for this.

I wonder how they defined the “altar” in this case? As the table where the sacrifice takes place or the entire sanctuary area?

You are welcome. The GIRM has details:

295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, the Word of God is proclaimed, and the Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers exercise their functions. It should be appropriately marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, moreover, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be easily celebrated and seen.[114]

298. It is desirable that in every church there be a fixed altar, since this more clearly and permanently signifies Christ Jesus, the Living Stone (1 Pt 2:4; cf. Eph 2:20). In other places set aside for sacred celebrations, the altar may
be movable.

An altar is said to be fixed if it is so constructed as to be attached to the floor and not removable; it is said to be movable if it can be displaced.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...uction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-5.cfm

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

Many parishes didn’t retain their high altars.

OK, but what would have kept them from placing the tabernacle on a suitable table/stand/plinth/etc. at the rear of the sanctuary where the former altar was once located?

Why do that when they could use a prominent side altar that already had a built in Tabernacle? In my hometown parish at least it’s more visible on the side altar than it would be behind the altar.

In the parish where I am now the Tabernacle was off to the side of the altar so it could be seen. It was moved forward at some point in the early 2000s but then the stand it is on was raised significantly and it was set dead center. It took 35 years to get to that point since our church was built in the 70s.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

its really sad that so many alters was destroyed during the reform of the liturgy

 

[Duesenberg]

1. A Tabernacle on an Altar where Mass is Celebrated with a Congregation

In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of worship by which Christ is present to His Church116 are gradually revealed. First of all, Christ is seen to be present among the faithful gathered in His name; then in his Word, as the Scriptures are read and explained; in the person of the minister; finally and in a unique way (modo singular) under the species of the Eucharist. Consequently, because of the sign, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle.

– Sacred Congregation of Rites on May 25, 1967

Eucharisticum Mysterium - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship

1. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, the Word of God is proclaimed, and the Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers exercise their functions. It should be appropriately marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, moreover, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be easily celebrated and seen.[114]

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?