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

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaskoman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blaskoman

Guest
Additionally, do any vat 2 documents proscribe communion in the hand?
 
No on both counts.

The Second Vatican Council never stated anything about altar rails one way or the other. My understanding is that this was an innovation by those that saw the altar rail as a way to keep the laity and clergy separated and therefore blocked the “full and active participation” of the laity called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

As for communion in the hand, this is also a post Vatican II change. If memory serves CITH is an indult granted by the Holy See to allow a conference of Bishops to dispensed from the norm of communion on the tongue. I believe the original letter was published in 1969 and most indults were granted in the mid to late 1970’s (say 1974 - 1977?). In the original letter I seem to remember that it was suggested that communicants could be allowed to take the consecrated host directly from the ciborium or paten, but the practice of the laity self communing was latter expressly forbidden in 1974.
 
blaskoman said:
Additionally, do any vat 2 documents proscribe communion in the hand?
Click to expand...
No and no. Basically, liturgical changes after 1965 did not reflect directives agreed to by the council fathers.

Here’s a relevent and very recent quote by Cardinal Brandmuller, a Church historian:
I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the Beeldenstorm (the statue/image storm) which occurred in the 18th century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be decreed per ordre de muft. And we are still paying the cost today.
Click to expand...
 
Usige said:
No on both counts.

The Second Vatican Council never stated anything about altar rails one way or the other. My understanding is that this was an innovation by those that saw the altar rail as a way to keep the laity and clergy separated and therefore blocked the “full and active participation” of the laity called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how that is accomplished with that. In the Byzantine Rite there is literally a wall between the altar and the people and doors that are opened and closed throughout the Liturgy. Some even have curtains over the doors. Same for the Armenian Rite and I believe some of the other Syriac Rites where they have curtains where they close off the altar at certain parts of the Liturgy. But it has never prevented active participation by the people in terms of singing hymns, chanting responses and the like.
Usige said:
As for communion in the hand, this is also a post Vatican II change. If memory serves CITH is an indult granted by the Holy See to allow a conference of Bishops to dispensed from the norm of communion on the tongue. I believe the original letter was published in 1969 and most indults were granted in the mid to late 1970’s (say 1974 - 1977?). In the original letter I seem to remember that it was suggested that communicants could be allowed to take the consecrated host directly from the ciborium or paten, but the practice of the laity self communing was latter expressly forbidden in 1974.
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand was the norm early in the Church.
 
Usige said:
No on both counts.

The Second Vatican Council never stated anything about altar rails one way or the other. My understanding is that this was an innovation by those that saw the altar rail as a way to keep the laity and clergy separated and therefore blocked the “full and active participation” of the laity called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

As for communion in the hand, this is also a post Vatican II change. If memory serves CITH is an indult granted by the Holy See to allow a conference of Bishops to dispensed from the norm of communion on the tongue. I believe the original letter was published in 1969 and most indults were granted in the mid to late 1970’s (say 1974 - 1977?). In the original letter I seem to remember that it was suggested that communicants could be allowed to take the consecrated host directly from the ciborium or paten, but the practice of the laity self communing was latter expressly forbidden in 1974.
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand was the norm for Franciscans 800 years ago.

-Tim-
 
The document is called, “The Spirit of Vatican II”. Unfortunately there are no hard copies to reference, but the things you question are all there nonetheless.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Communion in the hand was the norm early in the Church.
Click to expand...
TimothyH said:
Communion in the hand was the norm for Franciscans 800 years ago.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
OraLabora said:
And altar railings are not tradition in Benedictine conventual chapels.
Click to expand...
Yes, I assume the OP was asking about the Latin Rite and the tradition in most parishes since at least the Council of Trent.

Also remember that communion in the hand was not universal even in the earliest history of the Church. Pope St. Leo the Great mentions communion on the tongue in the 5th century when he wrote “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” (emphasis mine). Even when St Basil mentions communion in the hand in the 4th century it is in reference to times of persecution when the faithful might not have access to a cleric.
If one feels he should in times of persecution, in the absence of a priest or deacon, receive Communion by his own hand, there should be no need to point out that this certainly shows no grave immoderation; for long custom allows this in such cases.
Click to expand...
St. Basil, Doctor of the Church
Click to expand...
The statement that CITH happened for 1000 years before the middle ages just is not born out by historical documents.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Communion in the hand was the norm early in the Church.
Click to expand...
So your contention is because it is older it must be better? I think the discussion should not be whether it was once widespread in the early Church, but whether it should be introduced in the present day. St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 11) talks about women who are obligated to shave their heads if they choose to opt out of covering her head with a veil. Will you be standing at the door next Sunday with an electric shaver? I think not!
TimothyH said:
Communion in the hand was the norm for Franciscans 800 years ago.
-Tim-
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you have a link to this? I am always open to new information.

I learned that the Communion wafer becomes the Body of Christ, I am not worthy to touch it with my hands. The priest places it on my tongue because I know that particles (if I place it in the palm of my hand) can become separated and the Body of Christ can fall on the ground where others might trample on His Body.

My experience as an altar boy in the 1970’s strengthens this where we distributed Communion at the altar rail with the paten under every chin. I observed one incident where the Host (the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) fell on the carpet. Father stopped everything and cleaned the spot according to Church Law.

From what I have learned is that Communion the hand came about from dissident priests in Holland after V2.

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.

I would like to have some (name removed by moderator)ut from others who have attended Mass at the Vatican. Did you receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity standing or kneeling; in the hand or on the tongue when you attended Mass at St. Peters? I was ther this Summer but would like to hear form others.
 
FLGreg said:
So your contention is because it is older it must be better? I think the discussion should not be whether it was once widespread in the early Church, but whether it should be introduced in the present day. St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 11) talks about women who are obligated to shave their heads if they choose to opt out of covering her head with a veil. Will you be standing at the door next Sunday with an electric shaver? I think not!

Interesting. Do you have a link to this? I am always open to new information.

I learned that the Communion wafer becomes the Body of Christ, I am not worthy to touch it with my hands. The priest places it on my tongue because I know that particles (if I place it in the palm of my hand) can become separated and the Body of Christ can fall on the ground where others might trample on His Body.

My experience as an altar boy in the 1970’s strengthens this where we distributed Communion at the altar rail with the paten under every chin. I observed one incident where the Host (the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) fell on the carpet. Father stopped everything and cleaned the spot according to Church Law.

From what I have learned is that Communion the hand came about from dissident priests in Holland after V2.

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.

I would like to have some (name removed by moderator)ut from others who have attended Mass at the Vatican. Did you receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity standing or kneeling; in the hand or on the tongue when you attended Mass at St. Peters? I was ther this Summer but would like to hear form others.
Click to expand...
Please do not put words into other posters mouths. They expressed no opinion on receiving in the hand being better. They simply gave you factual information.

You may personally prefer receiving on the tongue (which I do) but you have no right to be disrespectful about receiving in the hand when the Church (to which you owe obedience) says it is valid and allows communicants to receive in the hand.
 
thistle said:
Please do not put words into other posters mouths. They expressed no opinion on receiving in the hand being better. They simply gave you factual information.

You may personally prefer receiving on the tongue (which I do) but you have no right to be disrespectful about receiving in the hand when the Church (to which you owe obedience) says it is valid and allows communicants to receive in the hand.
Click to expand...
You need to provide proof where I “put words into other posters mouths”.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t know how that is accomplished with that. In the Byzantine Rite there is literally a wall between the altar and the people and doors that are opened and closed throughout the Liturgy. Some even have curtains over the doors. Same for the Armenian Rite and I believe some of the other Syriac Rites where they have curtains where they close off the altar at certain parts of the Liturgy. But it has never prevented active participation by the people in terms of singing hymns, chanting responses and the like.

Communion in the hand was the norm early in the Church.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t actually “in the hand.” Communicants held a special cloth over their hands so that they did not actually touch the host with their hands.
 
FLGreg said:
You need to provide proof where I “put words into other posters mouths”.
Click to expand...
“So your contention is because it is older it must be better?”

Your own words. Clearly a rhetorical question.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t know how that is accomplished with that. In the Byzantine Rite there is literally a wall between the altar and the people and doors that are opened and closed throughout the Liturgy. Some even have curtains over the doors. Same for the Armenian Rite and I believe some of the other Syriac Rites where they have curtains where they close off the altar at certain parts of the Liturgy. But it has never prevented active participation by the people in terms of singing hymns, chanting responses and the like.
Click to expand...
I think a more interesting question is, “Did the Council of Trent explicitly mandate the abolishment of rood screens”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top