Is there a Vatican II document which recommended the abolishment of altar railings?

[Joannm]

There was never a mandate to have altar rails. They only gained popularity in the 16th century. Jungmann pointed this out in his The Roman Rite: Its History and Development (I think that is the title). I only recently read this pointed out in Ed Foley’s book From Age To Age: How Christians Celebrated the Eucharist. The rail was an innovation following the Council of Trent but it was never mandated. Unless someone can find an official document mandating their use because I would like to read it.

 

[patrick457]

There was never a mandate to have altar rails. They only gained popularity in the 16th century. Jungmann pointed this out in his The Roman Rite: Its History and Development (I think that is the title). I only recently read this pointed out in Ed Foley’s book From Age To Age: How Christians Celebrated the Eucharist. The rail was an innovation following the Council of Trent but it was never mandated. Unless someone can find an official document mandating their use because I would like to read it.

Altar rails gained popularity after the medieval rood screens were deemed to bar the accessibility of the Mass to lay worshippers visually and physically. The Council of Trent did not explicitly condemn rood screens, although there were a lot of people who widely interpreted Trent’s objective to make the Mass more ‘visible’ as a sanction to remove rood screens. To this end almost all medieval churches in Italy were subsequently re-ordered following the model of the Church of the Gesu, built in 1584, which had an altar rail but no rood screen; and most screens that impeded the view of the altar were removed, or their screening effect reduced. If you ask me, the whole thing with the removal of the altar rails post-VII seems to be an instance where history has repeated itself.

(To be honest, I’ll admit that I’m really a fan of the Eastern iconostasis and the Western rood screen and am really sad to see the latter go. But you can’t have everything, I guess. )

 

[MarMax]

Communion in the hand was the norm for Franciscans 800 years ago.

-Tim-

They also wear habits, renounce all possessions, and live poorer than the poor they serve.

Let’s get started on those aspects too if we’re gonna yank out the “Well the X Religious do it this way…” card.

 

[agnes_therese]

I try not be uncharitable, but my 40 years of experience in the Church has to throw a flag against those nominal Catholics who dispute me.

Calling people “nominal Catholics” just because they disagree with your opinion IS uncharitable. At the very least.

 

[Melchior_1]

They also wear habits, renounce all possessions, and live poorer than the poor they serve.

Let’s get started on those aspects too if we’re gonna yank out the “Well the X Religious do it this way…” card.

Right, because we shouldn’t be adopting the practices of the religious.

Which means no EF (Franciscans), no Rosary (Dominicans), and no LOTH (popularized by the Benedictines, if I’m not mistaken).

 

[MarMax]

Right, because we shouldn’t be adopting the practices of the religious.

Which means no EF (Franciscans), no Rosary (Dominicans), and no LOTH (popularized by the Benedictines, if I’m not mistaken).

The culture necessary for implementation of things like CITH have no bearing on those things you have mentioned. The average Francsican Brother has more holiness in his dandruff than most have in their entire souls when receiving Our Lord in their unconsecrated hands.

I will not let you rope me into breaking rules of the forum, and I’ve lurked on this place enough to know the personalities of those who post, and the “logic” used to bring these arguments up.

There’s simply no reason for CITH other than people think it’s OK because “the Franciscans do it”, etc. They also do other things which people don’t seem keen on. Organic integration of a practice which transcends the need for a supporting culture has no bearing on what is inorganically thrust into erroneous practice which erodes belief in the Real Presence.

 

[TimothyH]

They also wear habits, renounce all possessions, and live poorer than the poor they serve.

Let’s get started on those aspects too if we’re gonna yank out the “Well the X Religious do it this way…” card.

Yours is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the religious in the life of the Church.

The Rule of St. Francis is a more authentic application of the Gospel in the lives of Christians than is our secular life. The lives of the consecrated relgious are more perfect than ours by virture of their rule and their way of life. They have achieved perfection in one or more virtues.

The religious exist to inform the Church. They are not seperate from the secular Church, existing apart in some cloister or ghetto somewhere. In the life of the Church, the religious exist to inform the secular Church, teach the secular Church, and help shape the secular Church. They teach us how to pray, how to serve the poor, how to “do” theology, how to contemplate, how to love, and how to live authentic Christian lives.

The fact is that the Franciscans and all the religious. are Catholic, and more authentically Catholic than are we. That is not my oponion, but the opinion of His Holiness, Pope Innocent III.

 

[MarMax]

Yours is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the religious in the life of the Church.

The Rule of St. Francis is a more authentic application of the Gospel in the lives of Christians than is our secular life. The lives of the consecrated relgious are more perfect than ours by virture of their rule and their way of life. They have achieved perfection in one or more virtues.

The religious exist to inform the Church. They are not seperate from the secular Church, existing apart in some cloister or ghetto somewhere. In the life of the Church, the religious exist to inform the secular Church, teach the secular Church, and help shape the secular Church. They teach us how to pray, how to serve the poor, how to “do” theology, how to contemplate, how to love, and how to live authentic Christian lives.

The fact is that the Franciscans and all the religious. are Catholic, and more authentically Catholic than are we. That is not my oponion, but the opinion of His Holiness, Pope Innocent III.

You stay special, sunshine.

 

[Melchior_1]

The culture necessary for implementation of things like CITH have no bearing on those things you have mentioned. The average Francsican Brother has more holiness in his dandruff than most have in their entire souls when receiving Our Lord in their unconsecrated hands.

I will not let you rope me into breaking rules of the forum, and I’ve lurked on this place enough to know the personalities of those who post, and the “logic” used to bring these arguments up.

There’s simply no reason for CITH other than people think it’s OK because “the Franciscans do it”, etc. They also do other things which people don’t seem keen on. Organic integration of a practice which transcends the need for a supporting culture has no bearing on what is inorganically thrust into erroneous practice which erodes belief in the Real Presence.

It does have some bearing, because it does point towards the influence that the religious have on the secular. I’ve seen people here say “that works for religious, but it has no impact on us and they should keep their things to themselves”, without taking into account that we’ve adopted a lot from them over the years.

Sincere question; Secular Franciscans are no less Franciscans than those consecrated. They are of course permitted to engage in Franciscan customs in their secular state. Wouldn’t that mean they can engage in their Franciscan practices at other parishes?

Regarding “unconsecrated hands”, a Deacon has those yet he can handle the Eucharist.