Front and Center - the Tabernacle

[Poche]

In a pastoral letter on the Eucharistic liturgy, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois has directed all pastors to ensure that the tabernacle is placed in the center of the church sanctuary or in "a visible, prominent, and noble space."

Bishop Paprocki writes that proper celebration of the liturgy is "the key to fostering the active participation of the People of God in divine worship." For that reason he strongly encourages serious attention to religious art and architecture, sacred music, and reverent celebration.

Emphasizing that devotion to the Eucharist is central to the faith, the bishop orders that in churches and chapels in which the tabernacle has been moved away from the center of the sanctuary, it should be restored to its central place. "Tabernacles that are not in the center of the sanctuary or are otherwise not in a visible, prominent and noble space are to be moved," he adds.

Bishop Paprocki also strongly encourages Eucharistic processions, especially on the feast of Corpus Christi, "as a witness to our faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and as an expression of our belief that God is in our midst even in our everyday lives."

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=21803

[JacafamalaRedux]

Yep.  :)

[Copeland]

This is SOOOOOOO refreshing!!!!!!!!!!!  :incense: :monstrance:

[SCG]

In a pastoral letter on the Eucharistic liturgy, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois has directed all pastors to ensure that the tabernacle is placed in the center of the church sanctuary or in "a visible, prominent, and noble space."

I see a problem with that language, because I just bet some will argue that a side chapel (at least their side chapel) IS a visible, prominent, and noble space. I wish he had said simply "front and center." Then some would argue that their sanctuary with their free standing altar could not accomodate that.

But even here in this modern monstrosity (below) one could erect a free standing tabernacle in the corner behind the altar.




Like this....only higher.

[SCG]

Although it still looks sad, doesn't it? When they built the new churches they did not have Eucharistic adoration in mind.

[J Michael]

Although it still looks sad, doesn't it? When they built the new churches they did not have Eucharistic adoration in mind.

I can't help but wonder what they *did* have in mind. ??? ???

[J Michael]

Just *why* anyone would even consider placing the tabernacle anywhere *other* than front and center is totally beyond me...



or...

[SCG]

Although it still looks sad, doesn't it? When they built the new churches they did not have Eucharistic adoration in mind.

I can't help but wonder what they *did* have in mind. ??? ???

Gathering around the table of the Lord, that's what they had in mind. Let's get back to "early church simplicity" and focusing on the Eucharist as a MEAL. I am sure there are many churches in the diocese of Springfield that are modern and the pastor won't want the tabernacle front and center. If you have an old church with those beautiful high altars, like the ones you posted above, moving the tabernacle (or keeping it) front and center makes absolute sense.

A few years back our then-new pastor moved our tabernacle to the high altar - we have a gorgeous century-old church. We were so happy.

[SaintSebastian]

The concept of "singularity of image" was popular at the time, from what I understand. The idea was that the Sacrifice being offered on the altar should be the sole focus of the congregation during Mass. The reserved Eucharist should be somewhere where it could be the sole focus of adoration outside of Mass, but both shouldn't be two different focal points at the same time. 

This was also the early motivation for simplifying or getting rid of a lot of the imagery and ornate architectural elements around the altar.  In addition, it was also the original  motivation for turning the priest around--so the whole congregation could focus on what was happening on the altar, rather than being obscured by the priest.

Of course, like many aspects of the liturgical reform, these motivations were mixed with others  like the community or meal emphasis)--even contradictory ones--and things often came about in such haphazard ways as to defeat the very ends of each motivation.  For example, the priest was turned around so the congregation could see all the actions of the priest offering the sacrifice that were usually difficult or impossible to see--and then those actions were greatly reduced or eliminated so there was nothing or little to see...

[J Michael]

The concept of "singularity of image" was popular at the time, from what I understand. The idea was that the Sacrifice being offered on the altar should be the sole focus of the congregation during Mass. The reserved Eucharist should be somewhere where it could be the sole focus of adoration outside of Mass, but both shouldn't be two different focal points at the same time. 

This was also the early motivation for simplifying or getting rid of a lot of the imagery and ornate architectural elements around the altar.  In addition, it was also the original  motivation for turning the priest around--so the whole congregation could focus on what was happening on the altar, rather than being obscured by the priest.

Of course, like many aspects of the liturgical reform, these motivations were mixed with others  like the community or meal emphasis)--even contradictory ones--and things often came about in such haphazard ways as to defeat the very ends of each motivation.  For example, the priest was turned around so the congregation could see all the actions of the priest offering the sacrifice that were usually difficult or impossible to see--and then those actions were greatly reduced or eliminated so there was nothing or little to see...

"Singularity of image"  :LOL: :LOL:  What a great euphemism for "plain, boring, ugly homogeneity".  Or, on the other hand, it could be code for "Protestant". :LOL: :grin: