Does your church have altar rails?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosslynV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes and no. My church has them, but most of them are stored in the garage. There are two of the original altar rails in front of the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph statues.
 
The communion rails were removed early after the post-vatican II sacking of the churches. The crucifixes were removed somewhat later.

The communion rails had padding that was quite comfortable, as I recall as an adolescent.

The architecture of post V II churches was incompetent. One modern church is still standing, but only, mind you, after the entire concrete foundation of the nave of the church sunk into the ground and had to be replaced. I didn’t see it, but it was like an interior sink hole, I guess.
 
TarkanAttila said:
My home parish, St. Thomas More, does not. It would be awkward to put in a curved altar rail.

Another parish, Holy Cross, has an altar rail, from the 50s.

My Sunday parish - where I go on Sunday - St. Barnabas, an Oxford Movement-turned-Catholic parish, has rails.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have never seen an Episcopal church no matter if it is old or new without an altar rail.
 
My parish does not have altar rails but a local parish is taking up a collection to restore the church to the way it was pre-Vatican II. That is one of the minor achievements of Vatican II in my diocese, all the beauty was taken away. Please bring back altar rails and votive candles everywhere.
 
I’ve been to at least 5 parishes near me that still have them. I know there are more. I believe most parishes that weren’t using them and had the money to remove them did, and others that didn’t have the money simply left them alone. The new churches are built without them.
 
Hi
I am a new member. Ye seem to be saying that churches which regularly have the EF are more likely to have the altar rails.So what is the doctrinal difference? There is the little matter of the council of trent saying 'If anybody says you don’t have to adore our lord truly present in the Most Holy Sacrament anathema sit (that is 'Let him be condemned) And even if it wasn’t condemned it has been consecrated through long usage much like many other non doctrinal matters in the Latin Rite.Similarly if you say communion in the hand is legal Trent says 'If anybody says all persons can administer all sacraments anathema sit.Only priests can touch the eucharist except in an emergency when a deacon (ordained or not, but definitely not a woman or child) is allowed administer the sacrament.
For communion under two species trent says 'if anybody says everybody must communicate under two species anathema sit.It was allowed in the early church up until the seventh century and under intinction from seventh till eleventh centuries.It then became common practise to communicate under one species in the latin rite.It became doctrine at the council of Constance (1414) This doctrine was confirmed at trent.There are rites in the east that still use two species but they had a special; indult at trent being that they used this practise for a century before that council. Some eastern rites use one species (eg maronite,malaberese)others use one species but its not a doctrine(Armenian ,coptic and Chaldean if im not mistaken)
If we want to reform the liturgy why not tighten up the doctrines here mentioned. E.g use a tongs rather than your hand for priests administering the sacrament to stress the spiritual nature therein.Similarly let the priest kneel and receive under one species to give a good example to the laity.
Pray for a return to orthodoxy in the liturgy and the conversion of those who would subvert our semper et ubique faith soon be they sspx or not.
Thanks
Joseph therese.
 
Yes, it’s a small church with historical status. We do kneel at the altar rail for communion also and this is NOT a tridentine Mass parish.
 
Lol! In a chapel that we usually go to Sunday Mass at, my mom was the one who got the rails installed.

They were doing renovations in the chapel and my mom mentioned to the priest that she would like to kneel for Communion, but it was difficult without altar rails. The priest listened and a short altar rail was installed.
 
joseph_therese said:
There is the little matter of the council of trent saying 'If anybody says you don’t have to adore our lord truly present in the Most Holy Sacrament anathema sit (that is 'Let him be condemned)
Click to expand...
Trent did not demand a particular way in which we should adore our Lord truly present. It just stated that it is wrong to say that He doesn’t have to be adored in the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t see how the presence or absence of an altar rail directly affects this.
Similarly if you say communion in the hand is legal Trent says 'If anybody says all persons can administer all sacraments anathema sit.
Click to expand...
Again, these two things don’t really contradict one another. The Church does not consider communion in the hand to be self-communication; regardless, Trent was not referring to the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed. Trent was addressing the Protestant idea that ordination to the priesthood was not necessary.
Only priests can touch the eucharist except in an emergency when a deacon (ordained or not, but definitely not a woman or child) is allowed administer the sacrament.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/mary/tarcis.htm
For communion under two species trent says 'if anybody says everybody must communicate under two species anathema sit.It was allowed in the early church up until the seventh century and under intinction from seventh till eleventh centuries.It then became common practise to communicate under one species in the latin rite.
Click to expand...
Nobody says that everybody must communicate under two species, simply that it was allowed.
There are rites in the east that still use two species but they had a special; indult at trent being that they used this practise for a century before that council.
Click to expand...
Liturgical issues discussed at Trent did not concern the Eastern Churches in any way. The standardization of the Latin Rite. An indult was not necessary nor appropriate. The liturgical matters in Eastern Churches are independent of liturgical issues in the Latin Rite. Besides, most of the unions of Eastern Catholic Churches came into union with Rome well after Trent.
Some eastern rites use one species (eg maronite,malaberese)others use one species but its not a doctrine(Armenian ,coptic and Chaldean if im not mistaken)
Click to expand...
I don’t have personal knowledge of all Eastern Rites, but I do know from personal experience that Maronites and Chaldeans distribute the Eucharist under both species, by intinction. I would be very surprised if any of the Eastern Rites did not have the distribution of both species, as the Eastern Churches were unaffected by the heresy that led to the withholding of the cup from the laity in the west.
E.g use a tongs rather than your hand for priests administering the sacrament to stress the spiritual nature therein.Similarly let the priest kneel and receive under one species to give a good example to the laity.
Click to expand...
These would be innovations to the liturgy and not a return to tradition. Besides, I believe the priest is required to receive under both species for validity.
 
joseph_therese said:
Hi
I am a new member. Ye seem to be saying that churches which regularly have the EF are more likely to have the altar rails.So what is the doctrinal difference?
Click to expand...
There are no doctrinal differences within the Roman rite. The EF and the OF are the same Mass, with differences in rubrics and prayers; but the same Sacrifice, the same Lord. The Eucharist is the same Eucharist.
joseph_therese said:
Only priests can touch the eucharist except in an emergency when a deacon (ordained or not, but definitely not a woman or child) is allowed administer the sacrament.
Click to expand...
You are using the term “administer” in two completely different ways. One way is to confect the sacrament: only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. In the Roman rite, The bishop confects the sacrament of Confirmation (and by explicit and limited permission, a priest). Likewise, in the Roman rite, it is understood that the man and woman administer the sacrament of Marriage - the priest is the official witness, but he does not "marry’ the couple.

Your other use of the term “administer” means dispense. Who may dispense the Eucharist is an administrative or disciplinary rule. In the early Church, people would receive the Eucharist and carry it to their homes to be consumed there. Eventually, deacons and priests dispensed the Eucharist, and the rules were changed a while ago that laity could also administer - dispense - the Eucharist.
joseph_therese said:
For communion under two species trent says (deleted)… It became doctrine at the council of Constance (1414) This doctrine was confirmed at trent.
Click to expand...
No, it did not “become” doctrine. it became a change in discipline. If it had become a doctrine, then the eastern Churches could not distribute under both species.
joseph_therese said:
If we want to reform the liturgy why not tighten up the doctrines here mentioned.
Click to expand...
For starters, they are not doctrines; additionally, the Church in its wisdom is, as Pope Benedict said, going through the reform of the reform. That does not mean tossing out the reform, but it does mean following the rules (such as are published in the General Instructions to the Roman Missal (GIRM) rather than free-lancing. Most of the free lancing was an issue of 20 to 40 years ago, and most of it has been cleaned up. As the priests who were so innovative retire or die off, most of what little remains of free-lancing will retire or die off with them.
 
Duane1966 said:
My parish does not have altar rails but a local parish is taking up a collection to restore the church to the way it was pre-Vatican II. That is one of the minor achievements of Vatican II in my diocese, all the beauty was taken away. Please bring back altar rails and votive candles everywhere.
Click to expand...
That is good in your parish. However, be forewarned, that even in churches with altar rails, there will be people who insist on standing.
 
ProVobis said:
That is good in your parish. However, be forewarned, that even in churches with altar rails, there will be people who insist on standing.
Click to expand...
There are people who will have no choice but to stand. Although I’m not there yet (I’m 56), I can foresee the day when the ol’ knees will make kneeling very easy, but getting back up, very hard. I already find it tough when I have to bend down to get something out of the bottom of the fridge. When I kneel in my pew for the consecration, at least I have the pew to help me propel myself skywards again. The hands help take some of the load off the knees.

At our abbey church, there is no altar rail but rather a cloister barrier with a gate in the middle; the priests stand at the gate and people come up two by two to receive. Some do kneel; but there’s no kneeler, and if I had to kneel in that context, without something to grab onto to help propel myself back up, I’d have trouble. Yet oddly I can still pound up hills on my road bike. I guess the rotational motion is less hard on the knees.
 
ProVobis said:
That is good in your parish. However, be forewarned, that even in churches with altar rails, there will be people who insist on standing.
Click to expand...
So what? Consider a “glass half full” perspective: At the church where I often attend daily Mass, there used to be 2 or 3 people out of 80 or so who would kneel on the floor to receive communion. At the beginning of last Advent, the pastor put in kneelers at each “station” at which people receive the host, with the explanation that a growing number of people were receiving Holy Communion while kneeling, and he wanted to facilitate that posture for those who wished it. There was absolutely no pressure to join those who receive kneeling. The numbers have gradually increased over the last 8 months, and I’d now estimate that 80% of the people at that Mass receive Communion while kneeling. I don’t attend this parish on Sundays, so I don’t really know what the numbers are like at a regular Mass. I assume that those who attend a 6:30 am Mass are rather devout, on the whole, but I’d bet that a fair amount also receive kneeling on Sundays as well.

I’m sure this pastor would love to install an altar rail, but the late 80s semi-circular design of the church doesn’t really lend itself to such.
 
ProVobis said:
That is good in your parish. However, be forewarned, that even in churches with altar rails, there will be people who insist on standing.
Click to expand...
Just like in churches without altar rails, there will be people who insist on kneeling. Just sayin’ 😉
 
Hi BABOCHKA
You have brought up matters which would need more expertise than I have to answer satisfactorly. Maybe a traditional priest or bishop would be more to the point. Unfortunately I don’t know any such prelate to be able to recommend him.Possibly bishops de Galarreta or de Mallerais of the SSPX.
You mentioned that Trent didn’t mention any particular way of adoring our Lord. How many ways are they to adore him?
. Now days they say that one can receive three ways.By that I think they mean kneeling, sitting or standing. There is no precedent for that in the tradition of the church.
Unless you can point out to me some father or doctor of the church who advocated such practises. Otherwise I will go along with St Vincent of lerins (semper et ubique et ad omnium) St Augustine, the pope ha spoken ,causa finite est (that is all controversy is finished) St Thomas Aquinas 'We don’t receive in the hand because of the doctrine of the church, out of reverence for the sacrament and because of the relationship been this sacrament and the priesthood (I recommend the book 'Fundamentals of catholic dogma by Dr Ludwig Ott for more details on these points.)
Lastly St Tarcisius lived in the times of the church Fathers when many things happened which we do not today.Trent would not have made it a dotrine if it had been already done by a previous Pope or council. Also Newman wouldn’t have said ‘Give me a well educated laity who knows what he holds and does not hold, the laity is the measure of the church’ if there was no doctrine to hold as true.
If you are Byzantine go along to an SSPX mass and see the reverence of the faithful. You cant receive except in danger of death.
Thanks for your reply.
Joseph Therese
 
joseph_therese said:
You mentioned that Trent didn’t mention any particular way of adoring our Lord. How many ways are they to adore him?
Click to expand...
There are as many ways to adore our Lord as there are people that he created. Certainly, in corporate worship it is important to have common postures, prayers and methods of adoration and worship, but as individuals, we are not limited to liturgical means of worshiping God. He has created us as bodies and souls and each of us will have our own way of acknowledging his presence in the Eucharist and adoring him.
Now days they say that one can receive three ways.By that I think they mean kneeling, sitting or standing. There is no precedent for that in the tradition of the church.
Click to expand...
There is precedent in the tradition of the Church for receiving kneeling and standing. Kneeling has been the traditional posture of the Latin rite for centuries, but certainly not from the beginning. Standing is the traditional posture of the Byzantine rite. I don’t know about sitting - I’ve never seen that happen, unless someone is physically unable to receive standing or sitting. I myself have received Holy Communion while lying down in a hospital bed.
Unless you can point out to me some father or doctor of the church who advocated such practices. Otherwise I will go along with St Vincent of lerins (semper et ubique et ad omnium) St Augustine, the pope ha spoken ,causa finite est (that is all controversy is finished) St Thomas Aquinas '**We don’t receive in the hand because of the doctrine of the church, out of reverence for the sacrament and because of the relationship been this sacrament and the priesthood **(I recommend the book 'Fundamentals of catholic dogma by Dr Ludwig Ott for more details on these points.)
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Church to which St. Thomas refers is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The practice (of laity not touching the Eucharist) is not the doctrine itself, it is a rule imposed by the Church to support the doctrine. The Church has seen fit to change that rule, as the Church has the right to do. We know that it is not unprecedented in the tradition of the Church. The practice developed as it did for good reason and certainly fosters devotion in the faithful. Still, the Church, in this point in history, allows the laity to touch the Eucharist. Is it prudent? Does it foster due adoration and reverence for the Eucharist? I personally don’t think so, but, as you have quoted St. Augustine, the Pope has spoken.
Lastly St Tarcisius lived in the times of the church Fathers when many things happened which we do not today.
Click to expand...
Certainly. Many things happened in the early church that don’t happen today. Does that make them necessarily wrong? While the doctrine of the church does not change, the way in which the Church lives out the faith has changed much throughout the centuries. I’ve heard stories of the Eucharist being smuggled into prison camps in Communist Russia and Nazi-controlled Poland, and gratefully received by those who were starving for spiritual food? Would you turn Holy Communion down in those circumstances because the priest was not able to sneak in himself, but sent a trusted layman to minister to those in need?
Trent would not have made it a doctrine if it had been already done by a previous Pope or council.
Click to expand...
Which doctrine?
If you are Byzantine go along to an SSPX mass and see the reverence of the faithful. You cant receive except in danger of death.
Joseph Therese
Click to expand...
I have been to Mass at an SSPX chapel. While I certainly did see reverence there, it was not more so than in the Byzantine worship with which I am most familiar. I also didn’t find it to be more (or less) reverent than the FSSP parish where I occasionally attend mass. The parish in which I attend daily Mass (ordinary form) has two of the most reverent priests I have ever known. They foster reverence in the community by their own attention to the beauty of the Mass. I did receive Communion, with the permission of my own pastor and the knowledge of the SSPX priest. Nobody told me that I should only receive in danger of death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top