Altar Rail Puts Communicants on Right Track

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dallas_r said:
If altar rails do make a big comeback, people who cannot kneel should be exempt from the rule [norm].
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Those who cannot kneel can also go to the rail but can stand at that spot rather than kneel. Surely back in the days when altar rails were the norm everywhere, there must also have been a number of people who could not kneel. I’m sure it’s not a new problem. It’s the same thing even now with the parts of Mass where the congregation kneels. No one expects those who cannot kneel to do so.
 
Last edited:
mbmulkern said:
Let’s remember that some just physically can’t kneel. Bad backs bad knees etc. does that mean they are showing disrespect to God? I think too many of us are looking around to see what other people are doing in mass.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but where did I say it was disrespectful to stand, esp if you can’t kneel?

I have bad knees and if the kneelers are bad or lacking, it’s often hard for me to kneel. But I love to kneel where there are nice, wide, kneelers with extra padding (like the altar rail at my Cathedral).

The Church always allowed those who can’t kneel to stand. Standing used to be the exception. But today, in the US kneeling is the exception. In other countries (esp in Africa) kneeling is the norm and standing is the exception.

Personally … I don’t receive communion kneeling unless at an EF mass or at the one parish in my area that uses the Altar rail for communion (both are great because the kneelers are nice and padded).

So I’m one of those people who doesn’t typically kneel for communion. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the symbolism of kneeling.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Kneeling is an exception to the norm, not a norm. A norm, as in “normal” is one way; the exception was put in ultimately as there was a major dustup of people being refused if they would not stand.

It (kneeling) is not normative now; it is an exception to the norm so that we don’t have confrontations between communicants and whomever is distributing (the dustup was specifically a priest refusing to give Communion).

Communion kneeling is not the norm, but Rome made certain it was understood that it was not prohibited, and the norm of standing was not an absolute.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum: "
[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing."

(my bold)
 
What little experience I ahve of the matter is another parish in Portland; they simply do not present the Cup. I find that sad (as I agree with the comment by the Church that reception of the Cup is a fuller sign).
 
where was thatt commnt made? I have always been taught that the Body and Blood of Christ are both fully Him…And, it is far easier to clean up from a dropped Host than spilled wine…
 
Augustinian said:
I don’t think an altar rail can make the people better informed about doctrine
Click to expand...
otjm said:
And proper catechesis is the issue - not altar rails.
Click to expand...
This is a sentiment commonly expressed in these types of discussions, yet I believe you are creating a false dichotomy. In true Catholic fashion, reverent liturgy and solid catechesis should go hand in hand: Both/And, not Either/Or.

To separate the two creates a dissonance. It is confusing and deeply discouraging to learn about the mystery and beauty of the faith, only to discover that the liturgies near you are conducted in a banal fashion with little attempt to reflect that glory and wonder. Likewise, one could be surrounded by beautiful liturgy, but if he is never given good catechesis, he lacks a solid foundation for growing in the faith and knowing God.

The two concepts must go together to be effective.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
Kneeling is an exception to the norm, not a norm. A norm, as in “normal” is one way; the exception was put in ultimately as there was a major dustup of people being refused if they would not stand.
Click to expand...
Actually, kneeling for communion in the universal norm, standing is the exception to the norm. But more people stand in the west than kneel.

In the United States, standing is the norm based on the USCCB.
 
Last edited:
Even in the Extraordinary Form, if someone can’t kneel, they can stand. There is a parish near me that uses the altar rail for Ordinary Form Mass, and some people stand to receive… no issues.
 
Last edited:
When you say “got rid of the alter rail”, do you mean physically remxoved or don’t use?

I’m aware that some churches are built without them and some churches removed them, but nearly all churches I’ve been in over the coutse of my life have altar rails.
 
‘the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon’ (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 245).
 
Some were physically removed. In some cases, they have been put back.
 
the tube is just a hollow cylinder of precious metal, placed into a chalice/container of Precious Blood, and then a finger placed on one end to keep the liqud within, then dripped into the mouth of the faithful by slightly moving the finger.
 
With proper catechesis (as there have been comments about people receiving while not believing in the True Presence), the problem can be solved.

Much of the issue about kneeling goes to an emotional issue. It is like getting into an argument about CITH/COTT. Some people express their belief that COTT is much more reverent. That gets down to a feeling, not a fact; and the altar rail being more reverent parallels it.

I grew up with altar rails, as I was born in 1946. As far as my experience, neither is more reverent. Reverence is in the heart and demeanor of the individual. I understand that those who are pro altar rail feel deeply; but the word remains - “feel”. Reverence is as reverence does. If you sally up to Communion, it doesn’t matter whether you receive standing or kneeling; sallying up is not a reverent approach but rather a casual one.

My first pastor whom I remember (from the age four until in my early 20’s) had a severe problem with alcohol. This was prior to Vatican 2, and I remember any number of weekday Masses where he was clearly intoxicated; so I can speak to “banal fashion” from personal experience. It did not stop me from entering college seminary; it did not destroy my faith; but I remember holding the paten under everyone’s chin and being told to move faster. A reverent distribution of Communion? Not.

And I hve been to a parish in Portland which has retained the altar rail, and I have noted one of the older priests going down the line distributing Communion not quite as fast as my first pastor - but certainly faster than anyone in the parishes where Communion is received standing.

And that is not to say that always occurs; simply that I have seen enough that I don’t buy that altar rails are per se conducive to more reverent reception.
 
Actually, it is based on the GIRM; it may well be that the USCCB requested that as the norm, but the norm is set for the US by Rome when they wrote the latest edition of the GIRM.
 
I, and priests and parishioners agree, this has nothing to do with emotion. Who did and why were the altar rails and communion rails removed in the 1960s? They weren’t there for no particular reason. I obeyed Holy Mother Church. It is a legitimate issue regarding reverence which is why some are being put back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top