Historical origins of the communion rail

[spangler1982]

Does anybody know of some good, solid resources I could use to research this?

I was listening to a priest the other night, and I heard him say that the reason why communion rails were originally established in churches. He said this was because people would go from church to church just to witness the Consecration, and when the Eucharist was consecrated, the laity would then often “storm” the sanctuary to be as close as possible to Our Lord. So the clergy decided that they needed some sort of physical barrier to prevent the laity from doing this. Thus, the communion rail was established and promoted for all the churches.

Now, of course, this sounded kind of strange to me, so I wanted to bring it to the Forums. Like all novel ideas, there is usually SOME grain of truth to it…. Does anybody know?

 

[SonCatcher]

One history I heard from Fr. Jim Nisbet is that the altar originally was very high and had an 8-foot wall. People could actually watch the consecration over the top of the wall. Over time, the wall lowered until it became the communion rail we are familiar with. He describes that the reverse happened in the Eastern rites. The wall grew taller until it became the iconostasis used today.

 

[Digitonomy]

It would certainly surprise me if the origin of the rail was completely separate from the origin of the iconostasis in Eastern churches, as the last two posts seem to imply.

 

[SonCatcher]

It would certainly surprise me if the origin of the rail was completely separate from the origin of the iconostasis in Eastern churches, as the last two posts seem to imply.

Actually, Fr. Nisbet inferred that both the communion rail and iconostasis had the same origin: an 8 foot wall that grew taller in the East and shorter in the West. That is what I meant by “reverse happened”

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, Fr. Nisbet inferred that both the communion rail and iconostasis had the same origin: an 8 foot wall that grew taller in the East and shorter in the West. That is what I meant by “reverse happened”

That makes more sense. Any idea when and where that wall first became commonplace? I’m guessing that the early Christians meeting in people’s homes didn’t have the 8-foot wall. Then again, maybe the consecration was performed in the Kitchen.

 

[SonCatcher]

That makes more sense. Any idea when and where that wall first became commonplace? I’m guessing that the early Christians meeting in people’s homes didn’t have the 8-foot wall. Then again, maybe the consecration was performed in the Kitchen.

I don’t really know where the first wall came from. I don’t think they were plentiful in catacombs, either. Somehow I suspect it wasn’t the kitchen as cooking tended to be outdoors. I think the altar had its own roof, though, so it probably was its own building (apparently not a house since the walls were partly open) and then they built a larger one around the congregation.

EDIT: I don’t know where to find them now but I once saw pictures of the interior of the church in Lanciano (where the Eucharistic miracle occurred - most sites only show the monstrance containing the Body and Blood). I think it is an excellent example of early church architecture.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That makes more sense. Any idea when and where that wall first became commonplace? I’m guessing that the early Christians meeting in people’s homes didn’t have the 8-foot wall. Then again, maybe the consecration was performed in the Kitchen.

From my readings, at least in the East, the Divine Liturgy was done on a table in the center of the room, and people are around the table. Not on one side of it. So those complaining of circular churches as modern innovations, think again.

 

[SmokeRing]

From my readings, at least in the East, the Divine Liturgy was done on a table in the center of the room, and people are around the table. Not on one side of it. So those complaining of circular churches as modern innovations, think again.

You’re right. Many things that people now hold as being “traditional” are not truly that old in the scheme of things.

Fr. Jim also needs to realize that most iconstasis are not “floor to ceiling.” While that is the tradition in the Russian/Slavic Countries it is not typically true in the even older Greek tradition. Rood screens in the West were still quite common in parts of Western Europe during the Medieval Period and far later. Like kneelers I suspect they were most common in the UK but I don’t know this to be a fact:

I think the distribution of Holy Communion is a secondary feature when it comes to altar railings. I think their primary reason of existence is to demarcate between heaven (the sanctuary) and earth (the nave.) Some have worked very hard to wipe-out this demarcation which I feel has both good and bad points.

 

[SonCatcher]

You’re right. Many things that people now hold as being “traditional” are not truly that old in the scheme of things.

Fr. Jim also needs to realize that most iconstasis are not “floor to ceiling.” While that is the tradition in the Russian/Slavic Countries it is not typically true in the even older Greek tradition. Rood screens in the West were still quite common in parts of Western Europe during the Medieval Period and far later. Like kneelers I suspect they were most common in the UK but I don’t know this to be a fact:

http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/resources/glossaryImagePopup/images/pubimg/full/rood_screen_36448.jpg
Rood Screen

I think the distribution of Holy Communion is a secondary feature when it comes to altar railings. I think their primary reason of existence is to demarcate between heaven (the sanctuary) and earth (the nave.) Some have worked very hard to wipe-out this demarcation which I feel has both good and bad points.

I did not say “ceiling.” Why did you read that into it?
[edited]

 

[drforjc]

From my readings, at least in the East, the Divine Liturgy was done on a table in the center of the room, and people are around the table. Not on one side of it. So those complaining of circular churches as modern innovations, think again.

You are comparing apples and oranges. “House churches” were out of necessity as Christians could not generally worship in public. When Christianity was legalized in th Roman Empire, Christians immediately adopted the basilica style.
In any event, one should avoid antiquarianism as a reason to adopt long discarded practices.

 

[SmokeRing]

Actually, Fr. Nisbet inferred that both the communion rail and iconostasis had the same origin: an 8 foot wall that grew taller in the East and shorter in the West. That is what I meant by “reverse happened”

I would say that most iconostasis are not more than 8’ tall.

 

[SmokeRing]

You are comparing apples and oranges. “House churches” were out of necessity as Christians could not generally worship in public. When Christianity was legalized in th Roman Empire, Christians immediately adopted the basilica style.
In any event, one should avoid antiquarianism as a reason to adopt long discarded practices.

That’s not true. Although in some cases formally secular buildings in the form of basilicas were converted into churches.

 

[SonCatcher]

I would say that most iconostasis are not more than 8’ tall.

Then I beg your pardon. The only DL I have attended borrowed a Latin chapel and used a portable iconostasis. I also may have misinterpreted Fr. Nisbet’s remarks (he was primarily discussing the altar, itself, so this was an aside).