Why Have Tabernacles Disappeared?

[mortify]

Many a Catholic asks why the Tabernacle has become hidden in some Churches, the answer is quite simple: [b]The Tabernacle has been considered a liturgical corruption by liturgists,[/b] and therefore it needed removal. Consider these quotes from Dr Theodor Klauser, whose book was first published around the Second Vatican Council (please note the author's use of the word [b]"traditional"[/b] in the first quote is essentially restricted to what he considers the apostolic/patristic age):


[color="#0000FF"][size="3"][b][u]"The tabernacle is the one obstacle remaining in the way of our churches re-acquiring the traditional arrangement;[/u][/b] the celebrant ought to have his place once more in the apse, i.e. behind the altar, and ought once more to be able to celebrate on the apse side of the alter, facing the people; for if the people are to celebrate the eucharstic sacrifice togehterh with the celerbant they ought also to be able to see and follow the offering of the sacrifice on the alter itself."


"It is not without some [u][color="#FF0000"]satisifaction[/color][/u] that historians of the liturgy note that the Constitution [color="#FF0000"](=Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council)[/color] does not say a word about any increase in the practice of devotions to the Blessed Sacrament; this in fact receives no mention at all... In this way, the Constitution silently corrects a tendency that has grown increasingly powerful to shift the cetnral point of the liturgy from the eucharistic sacrifice to the eveneration of the Sacrament."[/size][/color]

[b]Klauser, Theodor. A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An account and some reflections 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Pgs 140, 157[/b]


I had purchased Dr Klauser's book because I wanted to understand the mind of a reformer of the Liturgy. As I read the book I asked myself whether he believed the Church was guided by Holy Spirit, since he appeared to consider the entire history of the liturgy not of organic development, but of corruption, aberration, and distortion. In other words, Dr Klauser and those like him had adopted what is called antiquarianism, or the view that values *only* forms from antiquity. This is what Pope Pius XII had to say about it:

[color="#0000FF"][size="3"][u](I)t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.[/u] Thus, to cite some instances, [color="#FF0000"]one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar reduced to its primitive table-form;[/color] were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body showed no trace of his cruel sufferings; lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.[/size][/color]

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, section 62


One has to ask, [b]"what happened?"[/b] Why was it considered [i]"straying from the straight path"[/i] to desire what today has become the norm: the alter being reduced to a table, the abandoment of black vestments, the dissapearance of polyphonic music, and numerous other practices that the Church regarded as organic developments inspired by the Holy Spirit?

When considering why the Tabernacle has dissapeared, and why certain changes were made to the Liturgy, we have to understand the mind of those who were pushing for reforms. Seeing what I have read I sometimes wonder whether these men believed at all, but God knows best.

Edited March 10, 2010 by mortify

[Saint Therese]

I think the removal of the tabernacle from the altar is due to the (unconscious) way people think about the Mass now. That is, I think, to many people, the Mass is about people, what the people are doing, not about God. Why keep a tabernacle around to confuse things? Also there has been an AMAZING lack of faith in the Real Presence. People say they believe, but the evidence seems to contradict. Reverence has almost totally disappeared. If Jesus appeared in human form, they would throw themselves to the ground. Yet Jesus is already there.

[Brother Adam]

I highly recommend the book The Masterworks of God

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vO%2BaO5fML._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg[/img]

[CatherineM]

Ours is still right where it is supposed to be.

[AccountDeleted]

They haven't disappeared in the EF.

[Apotheoun]

[img]http://web.ku.edu/~russcult/visual_index/images/orthodoxy/12eucharist.jpeg[/img]

[mortify]

The irony is that the New Mass rests on the proposition that the Traditional Mass has been corrupted, yet any objective criticism of the New Mass is immediatly frowned upon.

[KnightofChrist]

If you can remove God from the Altar you can then destroy the Altar.

[mortify]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='10 March 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1268266106' post='2070621']
If you can remove God from the Altar you can then destroy the Altar.
[/quote]

Sorry Brother but these liturgists believe the altar is an aberation as well, it's why they prefer to have a free-standing wooden *table* instead.

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 March 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1268253606' post='2070488']
[img]http://web.ku.edu/~russcult/visual_index/images/orthodoxy/12eucharist.jpeg[/img]
[/quote]


This picture says more than a million words.

[Brother Adam]

There were some liturgical issues in some churches pre-VII that needed to be addressed. I agree, for instance, that it is not fruitful to have an EF Mass where the laity cannot hear the priest when it is appropriate or see the sanctuary and the sole indication Mass has taken place is the bells ringing. There is a way in which active participation needed to be fostered, but of course, it could be fostered without all of the innovations and changes that were made. It is not difficult to learn the EF Mass.

And as beautiful as that picture is, even that beauty pales when compared to the heavenly glory of seeing God face to face.

[mortify]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 March 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1268271369' post='2070664']
There were some liturgical issues in some churches pre-VII that needed to be addressed. I agree, for instance, that it is not fruitful to have an EF Mass where the laity cannot hear the priest when it is appropriate or see the sanctuary and the sole indication Mass has taken place is the bells ringing. There is a way in which active participation needed to be fostered, but of course, it could be fostered without all of the innovations and changes that were made. It is not difficult to learn the EF Mass. [/quote]

One of the points Dr Alcuin Ried makes in his book, Organic Development of the Liturgy, is that *nothing* can justify departure from organic development.

What's interesting is that the Liturgical Movement of the early 20th century focused on reforming the [i]disposition[/i] of the laity, and [b]not[/b] the [i]ritual[/i] of the mass. Thus the laity were already participating in the mass interiorly, and this is what is really meant by the mistranslation "active participation."

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]Sorry Brother but these liturgists believe the altar is an aberation as well, it's why they prefer to have a free-standing wooden *table* instead. [/quote]

Whoa what.. I just finished RCIA in an ordinary form parish. The presiding priest is a product of Vatican II, and I was still taught properly that all Churches require an altar with a stone slab. It's a very important tradition.

[mortify]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='10 March 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1268274087' post='2070689']
Whoa what.. I just finished RCIA in an ordinary form parish. The presiding priest is a product of Vatican II, and I was still taught properly that all Churches require an altar with a stone slab. It's a very important tradition.
[/quote]

From section 301 of the GIRM:

[i][color="#0000FF"]"In keeping with the Church's traditional practice and the altar's symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. [color="#FF0000"]In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used,[/color] provided that the altar is structurally immobile. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid.[/color][/i]

[Slappo]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1268275259' post='2070705']
From section 301 of the GIRM:

[i][color="#0000FF"]"In keeping with the Church's traditional practice and the altar's symbolism, the table of a [b]fixed altar[/b][u][/u] is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. [color="#FF0000"]In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used,[/color] [b]provided that the altar is structurally[/b][u][/u] immobile. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid.[/color][/i]
[/quote]

Heh...

I know very few churches with the bolded part.