Is placing the tabernacle to the side of the church sacriligious?
#1
I was at a parish that had this. I read about cases where this happened in the 1970s but never saw it for myself. Worse, there was a priest who has prepared an altar for an extraordinary rite mass. So you have this bizarre spectacle of a TLM with a priest facing an altar for no reason and the tabernacle off to the side next to the broom closet. I didn't even stay for Sunday mass. I left that Satanic place.
Reply
#2
To call that Church a satanic place was a bit too much. The practice of praying ad orientem is actually older than the development of the tabernacle. So the fact that the priest is facing the tabernacle is more accidental then the reason why its done that way. The reasons for praying ad orientem are manifold.
In the Church I go to, because its under some restorations (and so in front of the center tabernacle there's a bunch of construction material), the Mass is precisely how you described it. The Eucharist is in a chapel on the right side and an altar is built in the center of the basilica.
And in fact in most Cathedrals its like that, even when they are not under restorations. Because too many people go in and out of those Cathedrals, so to place the Eucharist in a chapel by the side is actually an act to preserve proper respect for the presence.
Reply
#3
Good points Renatus Frater.yes, ad orientem is a way older practice and it's much more of a rupture to not pray ad orientem than it is to have a side chapel where the Eucharist is reserved rather than to have it reserved in a tabernacle above and behind  the altar. Admittedly I prefer the tabernacle above and behind the altar at a small parish church but in a cathedral with heavy tourist traffic like we have in St Augustine, Fl, it's nice to have that side altar with the tabernacle so you can get that peace and quiet.
Reply
#4
Calling a place where the Holy Eucharist is present "satanic" is sinful and wrong.

It annoys me to see Jesus out back in the woodshed next to the port-a-potties....but it's still the Host and it's still a church.
Reply
#5
1917 Code of Canon Law - Canon 1268:

§1. The most holy Eucharist cannot be kept continually, that is, habitually, except on only one altar of the church.

§2. It shall be kept in the most excellent and the most noble place of the church and therefore regularly on the major altar unless it seems that the veneration and cult of such a sacrament is more convenient and decent elsewhere, observing the prescriptions of liturgical law, which pertain to the final days of the great week.

§3. But in cathedral churches or in collegial or conventual ones in which choral functions are conducted at the main altar, lest ecclesiastical officials be impeded, it is opportune that the most holy Eucharist not regularly be kept at the major altar but in another chapel or altar.

§4. Let rectors of churches take care that the altar in which the most holy Sacrament is reserved be decorated above all the others so that by this appearance the faithful be moved to greater piety and devotion.

-—--------------

Notice that Cathedrals are supposed to have the Blessed Sacrament reserved at another chapel or altar. Otherwise, the main altar is prescribed for most circumstances.
Reply
#6
(07-14-2014, 10:23 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Good points Renatus Frater.yes, ad orientem is a way older practice and it's much more of a rupture to not pray ad orientem than it is to have a side chapel where the Eucharist is reserved rather than to have it reserved in a tabernacle above and behind  the altar. Admittedly I prefer the tabernacle above and behind the altar at a small parish church but in a cathedral with heavy tourist traffic like we have in St Augustine, Fl, it's nice to have that side altar with the tabernacle so you can get that peace and quiet.

This was just a small parish church. There was no practical reason to position it off to the side.
Reply
#7
(07-15-2014, 09:26 PM)Pacman Wrote:
(07-14-2014, 10:23 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Good points Renatus Frater.yes, ad orientem is a way older practice and it's much more of a rupture to not pray ad orientem than it is to have a side chapel where the Eucharist is reserved rather than to have it reserved in a tabernacle above and behind  the altar. Admittedly I prefer the tabernacle above and behind the altar at a small parish church but in a cathedral with heavy tourist traffic like we have in St Augustine, Fl, it's nice to have that side altar with the tabernacle so you can get that peace and quiet.

This was just a small parish church. There was no practical reason to position it off to the side.

There are certainly major theological issues with this, especially as these churches seem to be associated with a pathetic belief in the Real Presence. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Personally I'd rather see these side altars hosting the tabernacle replaced with a monstrance for perpetual adoration, but I find the larger issue regarding disbelief in the Real Presence to stem from the modern practices regarding Communion (receiving in line rather than the altar rail, receiving in the hand, touching the sacred vessels, EMHC's, and standing to receive).
Reply
#8
Not unless the great Cathedrals of Europe and Basilicas, including St. Peter's. Have been committing sacrilege since their construction.

"Worse, there was a priest who has prepared an altar for an extraordinary rite mass. So you have this bizarre spectacle of a TLM with a priest facing an altar for no reason..."

Also, this isn't why the Priest faces the Altar, he faces the Altar( which tabernacle or not, a object worthy of reverence itself anyways) because he is facing "East" whether this is geographical East or not, where ever the Altar is that is, for liturgical purposes, East.
Reply
#9
^Yes, but there is a practical reason for this in a large Cathedral. There's no need for this in a small parish church such as the one I visited. I think canon law is on my side here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)