Rails and related

  • Thread starter Thread starter system
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

system

Guest
I did not want to interrupt the “what our parishes are doing right” thread, but a comment there deserved a response:
40.png
JCB:
40.png
JNB:
How can use of an altar rail cause confusion? A negative? It is sad how dissent has become entrenched, and actions that started as dissent are now defended tooth and nail.
Click to expand...
:yup: It’s terrifying…
Click to expand...
Instead of a one-liner and a smiley face, please try to understand the concern.

Imagine a communion line in a typical “good” parish. Some receive in the hand and some on the tongue. But here comes a communicant who moves over to the rail and insists on receiving there. (The rails that I have seen are on either side of the altar, perhaps a few steps from where the priest and/or EM is giving communion.)

Can you not appreciate how that would cause confusion? Hopefully the priest or the EM has been trained in how to deal with this, maybe not. Either way it creates an interruption; those who are hopefully concentrating on their own Communion are distracted. After mass, a curious child asks Mom and Dad what happened. Most likely, the parents won’t know. Maybe someone will ask the priest about it, but probably not. So now the seed of doubt, of whose communion is “better”, has been planted. If you are willing to overlook all that in the name of defending your “rights”, then you’ve probably missed the point I’m trying to make.

*(Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, *Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on June 14, 2001) "The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions."

(GIRM 160) “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.”

Yes, you are free to ignore all this. But why would you want to? Why usurp the teaching authority of the bishops? A frequent complaint is that the role of “laity” and “clergy” is blurred by liturgical abuses. Well, seems to me it’s a two-way street.
 
How would this cause confusion since the priest should not be outside of the sanctuary to distribute Holy communion to begin with? When I was at St. Jude’s in St. Petersburg, Florida in 1976 - 1982 they had everyone approach and kneel at the altar rail it didn’t really matter if you were receiving in your hand or on your toungue and it worked out very well.
 
Rich, I was speaking of the typical parish where communion at the rails is not the norm. BTW, are you saying that people at the Florida church received at the rail, kneeling, and in the hand? That is a combination that would confuse me.
 
I have been to Masses(Both NO, and TLM) that use the altar rails or kneel in a altar rail fashion. When the rails are in use, everyone uses the rails. There is no EMHC, only priests distributing Communion. I do not see how that can cause any confusion.

What is wrong with kneeling for Holy Communion? It is not even an abuse and a minor issue.

When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed are we not suppose to kneel? When the Blessed Sacrament is in the Monstrance, everyone kneels, why not at Mass?
 
In my parish, we have the altar rail, and use it. There are a few people who do not kneel, but they are too infirm to do so–however, they do come up and stand by the rail. I do think that’s probably the best–unless you’re behind or beside those who stand at the rail, you don’t notice they’re not kneeling (and since in my parish, they’re all using walking aids of some type, you definitely wouldn’t think ill of them for not kneeling). It doesn’t seem to take any more time than the alternative, and that’s without using a bunch of EMHC (the most we ever have are two Sisters).
 
I know I am Byzantine, but I used to attend a Latin Church, one that still had the altar rails present :bigyikes: (especially being in Rochester, NY)!!!

Now, one aspect of the altar rails is that it can allow a couple of priests and a deacon to give communion in a quick and efficent manner there by limiting the number of EEM’s used.

Add to that, you do not need to kneel at it…

In this praish, I would say that 80% knelt at the rail and 20% stood… Communion in the hand/on the tongue was about 50/50.
 
Let’s try a little reversal here regarding the norm:

GIRM 160 (this is a pretend, don’t be confused 🙂 )

“The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is kneeling. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they stand. Rather, such instances should be approached pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.”

Now STOP READING 😉 for a moment, and DO NOT come back at me and say this is how it really should be. That is not the point and is only a smokescreen if you do.

I have no doubt that if the norm were written as above, many of you would be using your argument in reverse. This is a double-standard and a picking and choosing of what to follow as instructed by the rubrics. You would be arguing adamantly that the rubrics ‘must’ be followed as they are written by the church. You would say I am sure, that the pastor needed to follow the rubric and catechise those standing as to why they must kneel and how it breaks the unity of communion. I have absolutely no doubt that that would be the argument. You would not be gentle on those who chose to still stand----seeing it as disobedience and maybe defiance.

Why do you not use that same argument for the current norms (regardless as to how anyone feels about or prefers kneeling for communion)? There seems to be as many Catholics who call themselves orthodox who use their own private judgment in determining what to follow from the instructions from the bishops as those who are roundly denounced as ‘cafeteria’ Catholics only just on the other end of the spectrum.

The norm instructs the pastor to catechise the kneeling communicate so as to change the action of kneeling to standing. If it were in reverse many of you would yell, ‘Bravo’. Why is this not a double standard?
 
Is there good reason, though, for abandoning the communion rail, even if everyone were to stand there? I think the answer to that question is a resounding “No”.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Now, one aspect of the altar rails is that it can allow a couple of priests and a deacon to give communion in a quick and efficent manner there by limiting the number of EEM’s used.
Click to expand...
And there you have it. That is what the objection to altar rails is all about.

It is what Fr. Stravinskas, on The World Over last week, referred to as “the worst kind of clericalism,” where laity feel that they must “participate” by having some sort of “official” ministry, to the point that it becomes necessary to their spiritual well-being (or so they think, anyhow).
 
Hello Mr Melman - I don’t wish to be a nitpicker but I did notice you frequently used the term “EM” in your post.

There appears to be a consentrated effort in the
Church today to use the correct terminology in order to delineate the duties of each.

A Catholic Answers Staff Apologist posted what is accurate and what is not and I thought you and others might find this information helpful.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=36593&postcount=14

I hope you view my comment here as educational and not critical as is my intent.
 
40.png
deogratias:
Hello Mr Melman - I don’t wish to be a nitpicker but I did notice you frequently used the term “EM” in your post.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reminder, I should know better since only yesterday I got involved in a lengthy discussion about it on another forum. I can’t defend using the wrong term intentionally (and I did not), but most people will probably continue to use the various terms interchangeably with no real harm done.
 
It, like any of the changes, just requires a little practice - two more letter is all that need be done “EMHC” - it is taking me some time to remember we are to stand until all receive communion in my parish:)
 
Melman:
I did not want to interrupt the “what our parishes are doing right” thread, but a comment there deserved a response:

Instead of a one-liner and a smiley face, please try to understand the concern.

Imagine a communion line in a typical “good” parish. Some receive in the hand and some on the tongue. But here comes a communicant who moves over to the rail and insists on receiving there. (The rails that I have seen are on either side of the altar, perhaps a few steps from where the priest and/or EM is giving communion.)

Can you not appreciate how that would cause confusion? Hopefully the priest or the EM has been trained in how to deal with this, maybe not. Either way it creates an interruption; those who are hopefully concentrating on their own Communion are distracted. After mass, a curious child asks Mom and Dad what happened. Most likely, the parents won’t know. Maybe someone will ask the priest about it, but probably not. So now the seed of doubt, of whose communion is “better”, has been planted. If you are willing to overlook all that in the name of defending your “rights”, then you’ve probably missed the point I’m trying to make.

*(Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, **Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on June 14, 2001) “*The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.”

(GIRM 160) “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.”

Yes, you are free to ignore all this. But why would you want to? Why usurp the teaching authority of the bishops? A frequent complaint is that the role of “laity” and “clergy” is blurred by liturgical abuses. Well, seems to me it’s a two-way street.
Click to expand...
If someone believes in the Real Presence he is required to break the “norm” of the Bishop. The Bishops are always making up bogus norms. I am sure you know you genuflect to the tabernacle because it contains the Real Presence. You bow to images, the altar, etc. because these SYMBOLIZE what they are (statue symbolize the Saints, altar symbolizes Sacrifice of Christ, etc.) WHY then is the Bishops’ norm a bow? Do they believe that the Eucharist is a symbol? In any event, eveyone must disobey this “norm” (if it can be called disobeying) because the current form to receive the Eucharist is not at all reverent and is an insult to God. The reason the norm is not kneeling is that is takes too long. Actually, if they’d put the Communion rails back in and not have everyone receive individually so they can have some “personal God” feeling rather than the communal, corporate form of Mass, then it would be even faster with a Communion rail. You kneel to pray yet not to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?? There is a huge dichotomy here. Some people see it and kneel to receive Our Lord. God bless.

Matthew
 
Eens, you’re not making any new arguments, they’ve all been made here before, almost as it from a checklist.

But to repeat: clergy have their role and the laity have theirs. You are deciding to disregard and contradict the clear teaching of the US Bishops. I don’t care why the Bishops decided what they did, we are charged to be obedient. Yes, there are allowed “exceptions” but they are just that, exceptions. Please re-read “Dolly’s” post above, she makes an excellent point.
 
It doesn’t really matter in my case, as I don’t go to Novus Ordo; however, if I ever did and were to receive Communion, there is no way I would stand. I don’t care if the Bishops said it was illicit to do so…

Matthew
 
Melman, we have been though this before. The CDW from the Vatican sent 3 letters to US bishops stateing it was a Catholics right to kneel for communion, and they are not to be considered dis obidient, again, this was re affirmed in the latest liturgical documents.

Second Melman, a norm does not equal a canon law, much less a teaching, and again, once this “norm” came out 2 years ago, Bishops such as Cardinal Eagan in NYC re affirmed Catholics right to kneel for communion. Obidience to the Bishops Melman, please, Rome has spoken, and those who kneel for communion are to be respected.
 
40.png
JNB:
Melman, we have been though this before.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have. But how do you respond to the concerns in the initial post, and to the very well-stated comments of Dolly?
 
Br. Rich SFO:
How would this cause confusion since the priest should not be outside of the sanctuary to distribute Holy communion to begin with? When I was at St. Jude’s in St. Petersburg, Florida in 1976 - 1982 they had everyone approach and kneel at the altar rail it didn’t really matter if you were receiving in your hand or on your toungue and it worked out very well.
Click to expand...
Outside of the sanctuary , can you please define this ?

Our church was built in 1977, has no rails, the sanctuary is just a huge platform in the shape of an arc, I guess, 2 steps to go up on it, altar in middle, tabernacle on shelf at back wall behind altar, and the priest and lay ministers come down the 2 steps to the same level of flooring as the congregation and stand at front of all the pews. Some Masses, as they are busier, even have lay ministers half way down aisles , to serve the people at the back of the church, the priest always stands at front though and in middle aisle, we probably have 6 aisles I think, but only 1 is used for procession.

Love Kellie
 
My take melman, I defer to tradition, and yes, I strongly believe as long as it is licit to do, postures during mass that are connected to the traditional postures, such as kneeling for communion take presedence over innovations such as hand holding during the lords prayer. Again, the CDW from the Vatican has spoken on the matter, case closed, we have a right to kneel.

That said, if the Bishops conference made kneeling the norm for communion, I would defend those who stand for communion, unless canon law states that communion bust be received kneeling. To me, I personally think that “norm” was inserted to slow down the restoration of tradition to the normative missal. Again, thankfully the Vatican did step in to prevent the rights of Catholics being abused.
 
The Altar rail made very clear the distinction between the sanctuary area and the body of the church. The priest (celebrant(s)) could very easily stand on the last step slightly elevated. The GIRM says that the celebrant is not to leave the sanctuary area during the celebration of the Mass which include the Sign of Peace, the Homily, receiving the gifts, distributing Communion, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top