Demolishment of Altar Rails

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sorry. I think some of those ideas sound idolatrous. “A railing,” or a different liturgy form?
 
You think the doors are there to prevent theft and use at black masses?
I think a lock on the church door handles that. I think it more likely people would be after the gold perhaps. But the real presence would be just as valuable contained in something less ornate.
As for the black mass motive, the thought is repulsive, I admit. But Christ I think would be less bothered than you or I. He forgave men who nailed him to a tree and were casting lots for his garments as he was dying in agony. I doubt satanic something or other can top that.
 
Last edited:
You can check and see for your self. Cardinal Arenzi (sp?) Gave a conference where this was discussed. You can find it on you tube
 
I have seen and experienced all of the ways to recieve.
It is foremost about the eating and nourishment to the BODY and spirit. The mystery that is the union of the physical and spirit.
And I never recall either method without the reverence of thanks and prayer.
 
Demolishing altar rails has done nothing but profane the Eucharist
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Jesus never intended any notion of walling off the real presence.
God’s message is I want you to devour my flesh and drink my very blood. Consume me! It was never a prize for those priests consider worthy. I understand the idea of reverence, but assuming people are reverent, the reasons to create a barrier dissapear. And if cynical, you can assign a motivation of ," you need me to get this," beyond simply wanting it and being a Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
And brother I must identify my different understanding.
The the fundemental gift to the world that is JESUS CHRIST, is the mystery of his very incarnation. At Christmas time I am always reminded of this, and that the Holiday is truly a celebration of the pure joy that is Christ Jesus.
Christ Jesus is the gift of the mystery of incarnation. As mediator. Adopted through. The vine.
The most apparent thing about salvation being possible only through the Christ is not the dogma about belief. It is that Christ Jesus was that bridge between. The material and the spirit. There simply is no path but for the vine, or adoption. Belief or not.
Christ Jesus and the real presence defeat the boundary you speak of. Don’t ressurect a boundary
 
tafan2 said:
Not quite accurate. I cannot remember the details, but I do recall the GIRM being referenced at times regarding some design decisions in our new church.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does reference some design details…However, altar rails are not one of them…and even if it were, the GIRM would not “recommend the altar rail to be gone”, when it does discuss moving the altar itself and other items used for the sacrament, it does not say anything should or should not be moved.
 
I didn’t read about these notions of a divide in that piece. That piece spoke of the rail as an extension of the alter
 
Last edited:
How is an altar rail a boundary? It does serve a secondary purpose of providing delineating the sanctuary from the nave, and area of the Church that is supposed to be well delineated and not unnecessarily entered. So perhaps that is what you mean by a boundary.

The two or three churches I know of in this diocese who kept their altar rails do not present any feeling of separating the people from our Lord.
We have one new church about to be built which will have an altar rail.
 
Maximus1 said:
the real presence defeat the boundary you speak of. Don’t ressurect a boundary
Click to expand...
The fact that you receive the Eucharist IN SPITE OF the rail is the symbol itself. That Jesus crosses the divide to come to us.
 
Ironic that I am on one thread advancing the idea that Churches should be unlocked during the day against those who want to block access to the Blessed Sacrament and on another thread people are complaining about altar rails being a barrier to blessed sacrament.

Schizophrenic forum?
 
Saint Augustine said:
BE WHAT YOU SEE, RECEIVE WHO YOU ARE.
This is the essential message at the moment one receives the real presence. The rest is mystery. Presence meeting presence via food for the journey.
Saint Augustine’s words unfortunately don’t seem to be remembered or understood.
The Sacrament virtually beats us over the head every week to remind there is no divide. Recieve ," WHO YOU ARE."
 
Saint Augustine also said something like you are the mystery on the alter. He was giving Sermon that included 1 Corinthians 12:27.
This is shocking! Did he really mean WE are members in the ACTUAL Body of Christ?
Why would there be a divide with myself?
 
Last edited:
Facing in the same direction in prayer. All face the same direction was the symbolism you speak of.
The Eucharist is a Sacrament of UNITY not division. Saint Augustine describe the bread of many grains in one. The wine, many grapes on a vine in one brew. THE BODY OF CHRIST, all in the church representing we individual members as unity in one body.
We Catholics perhaps let the Protestants lead us astray. They are not reminded of WHO THEY Are each week at mass as we are.
The ideals of rugged individualism and single serving salvation is their unfortunate legacy. And it has bled into Catholic thought it seems. But they can’t be blamed if our notions of the Eucharist are misunderstood.
Perhaps in Vatican III the receiving will be proceeded by Augustine’s words.
To BE WHAT YOU SEE and
You are what you eat.
Hitting us over the head each week until we get it.
 
Last edited:
And reverence to the Blessed Sacrament has increased since they were removed? Perhaps your first assumption is very, very wrong.
 
I do think that before one gets into discussion over whether a practice by the Church should be changed, one should be aware of why it started (even if one disagrees with it), and what could be the ramifications if it were to be changed.

For example, was the altar rail there to 'keep people from Christ?" What specific texts exist which say this was a teaching? If none exist, is this simply an emotional argument meant to ‘justify’ a change after the fact for something (keeping people away) which never actually happened?

I’ve been around 63 years. I have heard a LOT of arguments as to why this or that ‘changed’. Many of them are based on ‘word of mouth’ (for example, I have read ALL the documents of Vatican 2 and nothing of the so-called, "keeping the people away’, "turning one’s back on the people’, “vernacular all the way”, "returning to the practice of the early Church with CITH’, etc were EVER referred to in said documents), and many others rely on esoteric letters or claims of ‘high’ people who believed or taught this. The final argument is invariably that “anything that happens is allowed by the Holy Spirit so questioning it is schismatic” --IOW, denigrate the PERSON in order to claim ‘winning’ of the argument. Old tactics indeed, but a lot of the younger ones here have been spoon-fed them and recognize little else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top