Locating a Tabernacle
by Duane L.C.M. Galles, J.D., J.C.L.
The designs of new churches and the renovation of existing ones have been the center of many controversies. Three are mentioned in "Straws in the Wind" in this issue. In these and others, the Saint Joseph Foundation was asked to assist. The particulars vary in each case, but there are three issues that are usually present. They are (1) the location of the tabernacle, (2) placing the altar in the midst of the congregation and (3) the reduction of the status of the sanctuary as a very special place where very special things take place. The latter inevitably means ripping out the altar rail.
This article concerns the canonical issues surrounding the location of the tabernacle, which the experience of the Saint Joseph Foundation indicates is the most controversial of the three issues. Contention often arises when the faithful see plans for new construction or renovation and are dismayed that the tabernacle is to be relegated to some obscure place or even consigned to a separate chapel. The liturgists then defend the plans by citing authentic norms, but without mentioning that these norms have been superceded by more recent legislation. Frequently, they also cite sources that have no force of law at all, such as Environment and Art in Catholic Worship.
My aim is to show that the law now in force requires that the tabernacle be located in a prominent and conspicuous place within that part of the church or oratory that is dedicated to public worship. In order to do this, I will have to trace the history of the legislation since Vatican II. This will not be easy because the evolution of the current law takes some twists and turns and some statutes contain ambiguities and internal inconsistencies, so please bear with me.
The Purpose of the Tabernacle
The basic norm regarding the placement of the tabernacle is the common sense rule that form follows function. The final cause or end for which the Blessed Sacrament is to be reserved in churches is "so that the faithful may readily and fruitfully continue to honor the Lord present in the sacrament, through personal worship." (Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass, Art. 9) While the "original" reason for reserving the Eucharist was for viaticum, or the communion of the sick, worship—rather than viaticum—is now the chief reason for the reservation of the Eucharist and this final cause chiefly governs the location of the tabernacle in which it is to be reserved.
"The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the Blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], Art. 1324) The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being." (CCC, Art. 1325) By it we already unite with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life when God will be all in all. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by genuflecting. The Church still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass but also outside of it by reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, by exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and by carrying them in procession. While the tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought as viaticum, "as the faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species" and "it is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament." (CCC, Art. 1379)
The Language of the Law
But beyond the reason for the law one must also look to the words of the law. The law, as canon 17 tells us, is to be understood from the proper meaning of its word both in their text and context. Thus, to know the law on the location of the tabernacle, we must refer to the actual language of the law. In fact, the language has changed over time as we shall see and so we must begin with a survey of the various provisions of the language of the law.
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law the rule on the location of the tabernacle was very clearly set forth. Canon 1268, §2 said that the Eucharist was to be reserved "in the most prominent and honorable part of the church and ordinarily on the high altar unless there were some other place more suitable and decent for the veneration and worship of this great sacrament." However, in cathedral and collegiate and conventual churches where persons were bound to choir, canon 1268, §3 recognized an exception, viz. that the Eucharist might better be reserved in another chapel or altar with a view to preventing interference with the choral services celebrated at the high altar.
In 1964 the instruction, Inter Oecumenici, 56 AAS (1964) 877, article 95, summarized the ius vigens [law in force] as follows: "The Eucharist is to be reserved in a solid and secure tabernacle placed in the middle of the main altar or on a minor but truly worthy altar or, in accord with lawful custom and in particular cases approved by the local ordinary, also in another, special and properly adorned part of the church."
Three years later the instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, began the process of expanding the exceptions already begun by paragraph 3 of canon 1268 of the 1917 Code to the general norm set forth in paragraph one of that canon. Article 54 of the 1967 instruction, however, repeated in summary fashion the Code’s ius vigens: "The Eucharist is to be reserved in a solid and secure tabernacle placed in the middle of the main altar or on a minor, but truly worthy altar, or else, depending on lawful custom and in particular cases approved by the local ordinary in another special and properly adorned part of the church." At the same time the previous article 93 stated,
"The place in a church or oratory where the Eucharist is reserved in a tabernacle should be truly a place of honor. It should also be suited to private prayer so that the faithful may readily and to their advantage continue to honor the Lord in the sacrament by private worship. Therefore, it is recommended that as far as possible the tabernacle be placed in a chapel set apart from the main body of the church, especially in churches where there frequently are marriages and funerals and in places that, because of their artistic or historical treasures, are visited by many people."
Thus, besides the choral offices, the presence of numerous marriages or funerals as well as the presence of historical or artistic treasures visited by tourists were now seen as the legitimate grounds for exceptions to the general norm that the tabernacle be placed on the high altar. At the same time the stress on private adoration may have given some the impression that public adoration of the Eucharist in rites like Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Forty Hours devotions and Corpus Christi processions were after Vatican II somehow passe. And so the location of the tabernacle could be undertaken without reference to the demands of such rites.
In 1970 with the advent of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the expanded exceptions seemed to become the general rule. Gone now was the language about the high altar. Instead, article 276 of the general instruction reads:
"Every encouragement should be given to the practice of Eucharistic reservation in a chapel suited to the faithful’s private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church, the sacrament should be reserved at an altar or elsewhere in keeping with local custom and in a part of the church that is worthy and properly adorned."
In 1973, the general norms for Holy Communion and the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass, article 9, made like statements which seemed to evince a preference for the separate chapel of reservation. Despite the fact that this liturgical book contained rites for the public worship of the Eucharist outside Mass, its rubrics seemed to think in terms of locating the tabernacle for private worship only. The rubric stated:
"The place for the reservation of the Eucharist should be truly prominent. It is highly recommended that the place be suitable also for private adoration and prayer so that the faithful may readily and fruitfully continue to honor the Lord present in the sacrament, through personal worship. This will be achieved more readily if the chapel is separate from the body of the church, especially in churches where marriages and funerals are celebrated frequently and in churches where there are many visitors because of pilgrimages or artistic and historical treasures."
But the next article continued the old insistence that the tabernacle be placed "on an altar or if not on an altar at the discretion of the local ordinary in some other noble and properly ornamented part of the church. Finally, in 1980 came the instruction, Inaestimabile donum. In its article 24, gone now was any mention of the preference for the separate Eucharistic chapel, which was mentioned only as a possibility. Nor was there any further expansion of the list of exceptions to the general norm set forth in the 1917 Code. These exceptions had in fact become but a growing list of reasons for banishing Jesus from the high altar. In language which prefigures that language of the 1983 Code’s canon 938, the instruction said, "the tabernacle in which the Eucharist is kept can be located on an altar, or away from it, in a spot in the church which is very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated."
In any case, the 1983 Code has almost the same language as this instruction. Canon 938, §2 states: "The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated and suitable for prayer."
The Texts in Context
Having examined the texts of the law on the location of the tabernacle, we may now look at those texts in their context. Key to the question of tabernacle location, then, is understanding the function of reservation, which is to promote devotion to the Eucharist. As we have seen, Eucharistic devotion can be public or private. We saw earlier the clear doctrine contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Moreover, the 1967 instruction on the worship of the Eucharist, Eucharisticum mysterium, art. 58, had itself pointed out: "Devotion, both private and public, toward the sacrament of the altar even outside Mass is strongly advocated by the Church." The instruction went on to say that such public devotions include eucharistic processions, especially on Corpus Christi, exposition of the Blessed Sacrament followed by benediction, and the solemn annual Forty Hours exposition (Arts. 59-63). At the same time to promote private worship of the Eucharist outside Mass pastors are to see to it that churches in which the holy Eucharist is reserved "are open every day for at least several hours, at a convenient time, so that the faithful may easily pray in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament." Access for public and private worship, therefore, is the first law of location of tabernacles.
Worthiness of place is the second criterion set forth; the place for reservation "should be truly preeminent" and this requirement has been a constant in the documents from the 1917 Code onward. The presence of the Eucharist, moreover, is to be indicated by a veil on the tabernacle or in another suitable way, and a lamp or candle is to burn constantly "as a sign of honor shown to the Lord." (Arts. 9,11)
The manual on Eucharistic worship outside Mass also lists a third and clearly subsidiary criterion. The instruction adds: "It is highly recommended that the place be suitable also for private adoration and prayer so that the faithful may readily and fruitfully continue to honor the Lord, present in the sacrament, through personal worship." The text then in article 9 goes on to say that "this will be achieved more easily if the chapel of reservation is separate from the body of the church, especially in churches where marriages and funerals are celebrated frequently and in churches where there are many visitors because of pilgrimages or the artistic and historical treasures."
The words "highly recommended" and "achieved more easily" point out the subsidiary character of this criterion. What is "recommended" is clearly not commanded and what is "achieved more easily" is merely appealed to out of prudence and not by virtue of an imperative. The text then goes on to explain cases where such prudence might be advisable: churches with "frequent" weddings or funerals, places of pilgrimage, and places of tourism. Prescinding from the Italian situation where the entire country is like a vast museum containing half of the world’s inventoried items of cultural property of great importance to all mankind, one expects that few of America’s 19,000 parish churches meet any of these criteria and thus few of them so need to concern themselves with such considerations of prudence.
It is true that the law of the 1960s seemed to evince a preference for the separate eucharistic chapel, but if we examine this language in its context the preference is more apparent than real. Indeed, while the instruction Eucharisticum mysterium of 1967 seemed to tend in the direction of the separate chapel, in the end this document was downright schizophrenic on the subject. Its article 54 quoted the ius vigens and authorized what we shall call option A: "The Eucharist is to be reserved in a solid and secure tabernacle, placed in the middle of the main altar." The same article of the document then went on to provide, as a reasonable alternative location for the tabernacle where the middle of the high altar was inconvenient, what we shall call option B: The tabernacle could be located instead on "a minor but truly worthy altar." But lest it promote cultural imperialism the instruction went on to offer a further option, C. It permitted the tabernacle to be located more generally in a "special and properly adorned part of the church."
Then, quite inconsistently with either option A or B, but bolstering option C, article 55 of the instruction stated: "it is more in keeping with the nature of the [eucharistic] celebration that, through reservation of the sacrament in the tabernacle, Christ not be present eucharistically from the beginning on the altar where Mass is celebrated. That presence is the effect of the consecration and should appear as such."
Of course, even if it was more "in keeping" to have Mass sans tabernacle, option C was clearly not mandated by the instruction. Had option C in fact been mandated, neither options A nor B nor any other place within the body of the church would have been a permissible location for the tabernacle. Significantly, the only thing that the instruction did actually prohibit was celebrating Mass coram sanctissimo, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed (Art. 61)--but that is quite a different matter from celebrating Mass before the reserved Sacrament. Nor is it clear from a wider reading of the instruction that article 55 was intended to have any juridical significance. Regarding the building of new churches, article 56 enjoins the taking into account of article 54, but makes no mention of article 55. With respect to remodeling existing churches, article 56 makes no reference to article 55, but strictly enjoins that article 24 with its prohibition on the destruction of artistic treasures (which could be a tabernacle or adjoining reredos) be followed. Lamentably, too little attention has been paid to this prohibition.
Article 276 of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal of 1975 did not clarify the differences between the 1967 and 1973 documents. But, while citing both of them as sources, it merely gave "every encouragement" to the use of a separate eucharistic chapel while specifically permitting the Blessed Sacrament to be reserved on "an altar" or "elsewhere in a part of the church that is worthy and properly adorned" where there existed no separate Blessed Sacrament in a church. "Every encouragement" is clearly no juridical imperative and both the proper meaning of the words and its context make this clear.
But fortunately the ambivalence of the legal text ended in 1980 with the appearance of the instruction, Inaestimabile donum. This instruction, promulgated to correct "varied and frequent abuses," restated the final cause of reservation and even emphasized that, besides the eucharistic celebration, "public and private devotion to the Holy Eucharist outside Mass is highly recommended."
As for the location of the tabernacle, Inaestimabile donum stated that the tabernacle could be located "on an altar," or "away from it in a spot in the church which is very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated," or "in a chapel suitable for private prayer and for adoration by the faithful." Thus the 1980 document replicates option B (and this includes option A), and also option C (a separate chapel) of the 1967 instruction, showing that the "more in keeping" language of the 1967 instruction was not intended to eliminate options A or B. At the same time the 1980 document puts an end to the "more in keeping" language with regard to the separate Eucharistic chapel and so places option C on a par with the other options. Thus if read closely in relation to the 1967 instruction, the 1980 instruction ended any preference for a separate chapel created by article 55 of the 1967 instruction. Moreover, the 1980 instruction, like the 1967 instruction, was approved by the Holy Father in forma specifica and so ranked, not as a dicasterial instruction as is described in canon 34, but as papal law.
That now brings us to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. When we come to canon 938(2) we find replicated the language of Inaestimabile donum minus any mention of separate chapels. But in other respects the canon closely follows the language on the placement of tabernacles of the 1980 instruction and endorses its options A and B, albeit not C. At the same time canon 938 adds as general criteria for the placement of the tabernacle that the tabernacle is to be located "in a distinguished place in the church," a place which is "conspicuous," "suitably adorned" and "conducive to prayer." Notably, whereas in Inaestimabile donum the tabernacle might be located in a chapel suitable for private prayer and adoration, the Code’s language, having dropped any mention of the chapel, refers only to prayer and so includes both public and private prayer. The annotated version of the Code cites as the source of the canon, inter alia, the instruction Inaestimabile donum, article 24. Thus it seems that, even if the 1967 instruction appears to have given a preference for a separate Blessed Sacrament chapel, Inaestimabile donum ended that preference and the Code, which does not even mention the separate chapel as an option, has understandably codified the ius vigens of Inaestimabile donum. It follows, then, that after the 1983 Code came into effect, it would be clearly wrong to view the seeming separate chapel preference suggested in the 1967 instruction as still in force.
The History of the Statute
The legislative history seems also to reinforce this conclusion. During the final session of the Code Revision Commission one consultor wished to amend what is now canon 938 to read: "The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is to be placed in some part of the church or oratory in a place in which it can immediately be seen by all. The commission rejected this proposal saying "in a place able to be seen by all" was already comprehended by the words "prominent" and "conspicuous". The commission could hardly have replied thus if it intended the Eucharist to be lodged in a place separate from the body of the church. During the same session one Father greeted the proposed canons of book IV with great joy. He declared, "Hence, a faithful application of these norms allows a correction of the abuses arising from the errors not only in the application of the ‘renewal of the liturgy’ but also against the spirit and the decrees of the Second Vatican Council." In other words he saw this body of canons as a genuine codification of the post-conciliar legislation and as its authentic summary. The Pontifical Council, it might be noted, took this same approach in the authentic interpretation of canon 230(3) permitting female altar servers. The Council ignored the invitation of canon 2 to supplement the language of the canon with language from the liturgical books and instead looked only to the text of the canon for an authentic statement of the ius vigens. The same approach seems to be called for here in interpreting canon 938(2).
This conclusion is reinforced by the amendments to the liturgical books that were published after the promulgation of the 1983 Code. Article 10 of the praenotanda for the rites for the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass had since 1973 specified language for the location of the tabernacle. Now that article was to be amended to conclude exactly with the language set forth in canon 938, viz., "situm in aliqua ecclesiae vel oratorii parte insigni, conspicua, decore ornata, ad orationem apta." This phrase had now become the new standard for the location of the tabernacle.
Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor." It adds that "the dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar." While the Catechism is not a juridical document, it would seem that this article, located in a group of articles obviously intended to provide an outline for the physical layout of a church building, can lend at least doctrinal force to the notion that the tabernacle is to be located in the church and in a place that fosters adoration and not merely private prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.
Doubtless for these reason Monsignor Peter J. Elliott of the Pontifical Council on the Family in the chapter "The location of the tabernacle" in his Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite argues similarly and adds that in "parish churches we find that an academic liturgical rationalism has tried to require a separate chapel" for the tabernacle. He adds, "this extremism has done great harm" and has resulted in the practical end of public Eucharist worship in many places. He admits that the preference for separate Eucharistic chapel did reflect "the era of the 1970’s." Nowadays, however, he finds such preferences "dated." Alas, like old women clinging to the bouffant varnished hairdos of their salad days, many liturgists continue to propagate this "dated" preference.
[Editor’s Note. Mr. Galles is the Saint Joseph Foundation’s Vice President for Canonical Affairs. He received his Licentiate in Canon Law (J.C.L.) Degree from St. Paul’s University in Ottawa and is pursuing studies toward a Doctor of Canon Law (J.C.D.) Degree.] © Christifidelis, Saint Joseph Foundation, 11107 Wurzbach, #601B, San Antonio, TX 78230-2553, (210) 697-0717.
This item 1158 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
