Demolishment of Altar Rails

[Maximus1]

Nobody said equal with God. Perhaps this is the original misunderstanding

 

[tafan2]

Being members of Christ’s mystical body does not make us Christ.

 

[Maximus1]

That is a question I cannot answer because my knowledge of Byzantine history is limited.
We have to remember the idea of sanctuary evolves from the first covenant Jewish tradition involving THE HOLY OF HOLIES. That place where God’s presence is.
The SHOWBREAD, or bread of " presence" had it’s own purpose, but the similarity is easily seen. The SHOWBREAD idea, if I recall, originates from God providing manna in the desert in Exudus.
The water and Western ideas seem to have a relationship to the FIRST COVENANT practice, but obviously there are substantial differences. Dogmatic ideas are just that. Markers to maintain importance , reverence, etc. Anything more, you venture into the rhelm of idolatry.

 

[Maximus1]

" He was made human so that he might make us gods."
A pretty shocking statement.
It was the incarnational theology found in the writings of Iranious, Gregory of Nyssa, Ciril of Alexandria on through Saint Augustine.
Of course there is an ontological difference. Interestingly this initial Church father quote is one that tracks the Christmas liturrgical tradition. In my experience, nothing is more shocking to Catholics as this element of core orthodoxy.

 

[Maximus1]

I have lived long enough to conclude that many of the older Catholics I know, and that is a lifetime of people, believe to their core that eating fish on Friday is a fundemental marker of a true Pius Christian while at the same time their authentic and actual reaction to" love your enemies" is some mixture of you weren’t really serious about that were you?
And my point is not to make fun of people. It is to point out that a change might arise from an unsound misconception. A misconception of Christ’s own teaching about the direction of corruption ( from in to out, not out to in). Or a helping hand ofva long ago Pope and local fishing industry.
Perhaps you might consider this phenomena among your obviously well reasoned research conclusions.
I directly addressed PROPONENTS of rails who also espoused the misconception you suggest no proof for. Perhaps the removal of the railings ( on no longer use of railings) were to fix the PROPONENTS misconception. Ironically.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Nobody said equal with God.

It does sound like in your posts that is what you are saying.

 

[Maximus1]

Shocking isn’t it. I am very careful quoting in this area because having grown up in the church, I ended up stumbling upon it eventually and was shocked myself.
Most shocked to learn that it was central to Christianity. Then it seem to get muddled in the middle centuries.
The ironic result is those who pride themselves in their tradition adhere to the period where the tradition was diluted. They in fact don’t go back far enough to know what tradition is.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I’m not sure how that answers that your posts seem to be saying that we are equal with God.

 

[Phemie]

Since after the reform, Communion is frequently received standing and in processional form, the people approaching the priest while he remains in one spot. Hence, the Communion rail has often lost one of its principal functions.

Likewise, where Communion is often distributed under both species and by more than one minister the rail can sometimes be an obstacle.
Removal of Altar Rails | EWTN

Except that in my memory the removal of the altar rail preceded the indult for Communion in the hand. I find it ironic that our local Anglican congregation receives kneeling, in the hand, and also receives from the chalice. Why is it not considered an obstacle there?

 

[Brendan_64]

I have lived long enough to conclude that many of the older Catholics I know, and that is a lifetime of people, believe to their core that eating fish on Friday is a fundemental marker of a true Pius Christian while at the same time their authentic and actual reaction to" love your enemies" is some mixture of you weren’t really serious about that were you?

Is your implication that older Catholics tend to care less about their neighbours than younger Catholics do? Or that Catholics who value traditional pious practices and devotions tend to care less about their neighbours?

 

[whatistrue]

I cannot speak for anyone else, especially not @Maximus1, but my takeaway from that was that some people don’t go beyond the superficial (e.g. fish on Friday) to get to the core (e.g. love thy neighbor).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I cannot speak for anyone else, especially not @Maximus1, but my takeaway from that was that some people don’t go beyond the superficial (e.g. fish on Friday) to get to the core (e.g. love thy neighbor).

So, I see Friday abstinance and loving our neighbor as two different things. Friday abstinance is our way of commemorating the crucifixion of Christ as an expression of love for Him. Loving our neighbor is going to be demonstrated in more specific day to day actions.

 

[whatistrue]

So, I see Friday abstinance and loving our neighbor as two different things.

Well yes, I would have to agree that they are definitely different. Did I somehow conflate them into a single thing without noticing?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Well yes, I would have to agree that they are definitely different. Did I somehow conflate them into a single thing without noticing?

Perhaps it was my misunderstanding of your post. I guess I have heard the two conflated before.

 

[Brendan_64]

I cannot speak for anyone else, especially not @Maximus1, but my takeaway from that was that some people don’t go beyond the superficial (e.g. fish on Friday) to get to the core (e.g. love thy neighbor).

I would argue that pious practices are not, as you seem to imply, superficial. I would also argue that an implication that those people who value pious practices are somehow operating at a ‘superficial’ level and are more likely to not love their neighbour than those who do not value pious practices, is not a sound implication.

 

[whatistrue]

If it is a deep core part of the Faith, why was it relaxed? You are of course free to disagree, but I tend look at overemphasis on such things as similar to keeping the letter, but not necessarily the spirit, of the law.

 

[whatistrue]

Well, my experience (Active Navy; Army National Guard) ended more than a few years ago, so I can’t say one way or the other on training levels. But I have to ask, since I saw it myself, whether the lack of training is actually putting out unprepared soldiers or is it more a matter of it’s not done the same way I learned? If it is putting out unprepared soldiers then that is a real problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. But also remember that the Church is not the Army - it is not now beholden (as an institution) to whatever political party is in power in any particular nation at any particular time. How much of the core of the Faith in the entire world is actually relaxed?

 

[whatistrue]

I don’t see it that way, but I am not going to argue against it. It works for you, so it’s all good as far as I am concerned.

 

[PetraG]

So, I see Friday abstinance and loving our neighbor as two different things. Friday abstinance is our way of commemorating the crucifixion of Christ as an expression of love for Him. Loving our neighbor is going to be demonstrated in more specific day to day actions.

Fasting, almsgiving and prayer have been considered pillars of the Christian life since the early Church.

“Do you wish your prayer to fly toward God? Give it two wings: fasting and almsgiving.”
—Saint Augustine

If you read the original letter that abolished the pain-of-sin place of abstinence from meat during Fridays outside of Lent in the US, it is an eye-opener:
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...toral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm

Reading the Church’s written communications and the Constitutions that were promulgated as a result of Vatican II is also an eye-opener. The horse very obviously took the bit in its teeth on these matters, as happened in many other churches and in many other aspects of society at the time.

The West went into a cultural upheaval after World War II and as a reaction to all of the societal changes brought on by two World Wars. Think of how different the world was before the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand than the world was just 50 years later!! Had the hounds of war and societal destruction ever been unleashed in such a way as that? Vatican II was a response meant to face that tidal wave of changes head-on; it was not the cause of them. Others have pointed out that previous Church councils also took about 100 years to actually be implemented. Apparently the council of the 20th century wasn’t an exception. It was not possible that the world would go back to the way it was before the wars and governmental take-overs of the 20th century, any more than it was going back to the way it was before the bubonic plague swept Europe and wiped out so many and so much. (I think that in the US, where the war wasn’t “directly felt” in the sense of whole cities being wiped out, we can tend to forget how much change the wars did bring even to the US, because of the war efforts and the sacrifices made.)

In response to your post, I only mean to say that self-denial and almsgiving have usually been meant to complement prayer and to form one unified response that is the Christian life, whose source is ultimately in the grace that comes to us from the Pascal Mystery via the sacraments.

 

[Rau]

Ultimately there is an arbitrariness about utilizing an altar rail or not. As we have seen, good reasons and appealing metaphors can be put forth to persuade that an altar rail is “good”. But the same can be done for the absence of a barrier. It is within the purview of those who decided to remove them to do so. And it’s our individual right to like the decision or to dislike it. With that, let it go…