Apropos [Ken Graham's Question of 18th August](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96729/looking-for-sources-of-mediaeval-church-architecture-that-shows-and-or-explains) on medieval church architecture. One rarely comes across literature on the big crosses constructed around churches. For instance, you find an obelisk, a construction that traces its origin to Egyptian culture, at the centre of St Peter's Square, Rome. Of course, it has a cross on the top. Curious enough, the churches of Southern India, some of which trace their origin to the first century, have such peculiar constructions. St Thomas, the Apostle is believed to have reached India in 52 AD and established a few churches. The Portuguese who landed in 1498 rebuilt many such ancient churches, supplementing the local architecture with their own (See [Christianity in Kerala: Church Architecture](https://www.keralatourism.org/christianity/church-architecture/24)) . One particular feature is that of three crosses on a pedestal—erected on the south, north, and west of prominent churches, which almost invariably faced east. Some of these crosses, erected at a distance of say, half a mile, from the church, are accompanied by a small chapel locally called 'Kappela', the word tracing its root to the Portuguese language. These chapels would not host the Holy Eucharist and would be used for devotions like rosary and novena. Historians say that the construction of such an extension of the main church by way of crosses, was in vogue even before the arrival of the Portuguese since some of them have inscriptions in Syriac language. That would imply that the custom had originated with the Jews or any other people like the Chinese, Persians, and Arabs who had settled in India for trade. I am not aware if the tradition can be seen in the West. From where did the tradition of erecting three crosses around a church originate?

Of late, there has been a controversy in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of Kerala, Southern India which follows the oriental rite. It comes after a decision by a recent Synod that the celebrant of the Holy Mass (Qurbana) should face the Altar (which has the Tabernacle) as had been done in the good old days. The clerics and the faithful who are accustomed to facing one another over the Altar Table for more than half a century, are less than happy with the decision. One wonders why churches invariably have their Tabernacle embedded on the wall at one end of the church. We may have adopted the practice from the Israelite. But with so much of advancement in security measures like CCTV, the Tabernacle could also be positioned in the middle of the church, so that the celebrant of the Holy Mass can face both the Tabernacle and the faithful at the same time. My question therefore is: Are there Catholic Churches in any part of the world which have the the Tabernacle fixed in the middle of the church ?

We read in Ezekiel 43: 6-10 how God spoke to the prophet, of the importance of keeping the temple holy: > Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. 8 When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger. Now let them put their harlotry and the carcasses of their kings far away from Me, and I will dwell in their midst forever. Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. However, one comes across many ancient churches having the graves of the religious as well as laity within their walls. Of course, churches of modern times may not permit such burials. My question therefore is: what were the justifications given by administrations which allowed the burial of the religious and the laity in the church ? Views of any denominations are welcome.