The Altar Rails Came Back

[ncjohn]

This is from first hand experience talking to people, on these forums and in “real life”. No documentation is needed. If you are accusing me of lying about this, then that is another story.

Statements from a handful of people on a conservative website do not constitute a valid sample from which to draw such a conclusion as “fact” the way it was stated. I am not saying you are lying; I am saying you are expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

I’m not talking about pre- and post-VII. I am talking about a manner of recieving the Eucharist regardless of which Mass one attends. And I never said anything about being able to tell what someone is feeling.

Your statement was that “a lot” of people receiving in the hand don’t act reverently, with the implication that irreverent people receive in the hand, or that people who receive in the hand are largely irreverent. My reference to pre-Vatican 2 was made because the universal way at that time was on the tongue and I never saw any difference in the degree of reverence when that was the norm from what I see now. The point is that the lack of reverence is not the result of how one receives, or correlated to it. There are just people that are in tune and receive reverently, and those who do not. Short of omniscience I don’t believe either of us can tell which are which.

You want to show me where I said anything about being more reverant than anyone else? Don’t put words in my mouth. I also never said I was holier than the Church. Again, don’t put words in my mouth…
… I have done none of those things and I would appreciate if you apologized for calling me judgmental.

And don’t put words in MY mouth. I didn’t say you claimed to be more reverent. I said that such an attitude is judgmental, and it is very prevalent in these threads. I don’t believe there was a single “you” in that entire part of the post, with the exception of the generic “you” referring to anyone who believes they can ascertain someone else’s reverence.

No, the Church does not say both are equally acceptable. That is why Communion in the hand is illicit in almost every other country besides the US and Canada.

In the U.S. the Church has said they are equally acceptable. You may not like that, but claiming differently is untrue.

And claiming that THAT is the reason why it may be illicit somewhere else is another unsubstantiated opinion, unless you can show us something that states the reason why one way is or is not acceptable someplace else.

And given that the Church in the U.S. has stated that both are acceptable, claiming that they are not would put one in the position of making oneself above the judgment of the Church.

I have no problem with those who receive on the tongue, nor do I have any problem with those who receive in the hand, as I have done and do both on different occasions. The only beef I have is when people start to think that they have the best or only way when the Church has said otherwise.

Peace,

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

My source on Poland is the first article I posted, as well as the second. Did you read it? I was in Rome for WYD in 2000, and I don’t recall seeing anyone but American pilgrims recieve in the hand. One of those articles mentioned that Communion in the hand was recently allowed in the basilicas in Rome (not in all of Italy)…is that where? As for Mexico, I don’t know the status for sure of an indult there, but at the Spanish Mass at my home parish, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen more than one or two people recieve in the hand. The Polish and Croatian parish in Portland does Communion on the tongue at a Communion rail. I actually have a friend from Croatia, I’ll ask him about the practice in Croatia.

I’ll read the article you posted later. I have to finish a paper on the Reformation…already finished a 19 page paper on liturgical change in 16th century England. And then I’ve got a couple pages to write on Ancient Mesopotamia…I may not get to the article til tomorrow or Wedesnday.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

What’s your source on Poland?

In fact what is your source that a MAJORITY of countries don’t permit communion in the hand? I read about the Phillipines, to be sure, but that’s the only country that is mentioned by name as NOT permitting it.

I have personally received communion in Italy, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Britain, and the US as well as Australia … all of them countries where communion in the hand is both permitted and common.

Add those to Canada, New Zealand, France, Spain and Portugal (which countries I know of only by repute) and Mexico (and I believe Brazil), and you’d have have a very sizeable percentage, and possibly a majority, of the world’s Catholics living under an indult to receive in the hand. Are we talking number of countries where it is permitted or number of people permitted to receive it? Surely the latter is a significant consideration.

And I’ll see your articles and raise you this

Bulldust status lifted pending further enquiries

Pax tecum!

My source on Poland is the first article I posted, as well as the second. Did you read it? I was in Rome for WYD in 2000, and I don’t recall seeing anyone but American pilgrims recieve in the hand. One of those articles mentioned that Communion in the hand was recently allowed in the basilicas in Rome (not in all of Italy)…is that where? As for Mexico, I don’t know the status for sure of an indult there, but at the Spanish Mass at my home parish, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen more than one or two people recieve in the hand. The Polish and Croatian parish in Portland does Communion on the tongue at a Communion rail. I actually have a friend from Croatia, I’ll ask him about the practice in Croatia.

I’ll read the article you posted later. I have to finish a paper on the Reformation…already finished a 19 page paper on liturgical change in 16th century England. And then I’ve got a couple pages to write on Ancient Mesopotamia…I may not get to the article til tomorrow or Wedesnday.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LilyM]

Pax tecum!

My source on Poland is the first article I posted, as well as the second. Did you read it? I was in Rome for WYD in 2000, and I don’t recall seeing anyone but American pilgrims recieve in the hand. One of those articles mentioned that Communion in the hand was recently allowed in the basilicas in Rome (not in all of Italy)…is that where? As for Mexico, I don’t know the status for sure of an indult there, but at the Spanish Mass at my home parish, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen more than one or two people recieve in the hand. The Polish and Croatian parish in Portland does Communion on the tongue at a Communion rail. I actually have a friend from Croatia, I’ll ask him about the practice in Croatia.

I’ll read the article you posted later. I have to finish a paper on the Reformation…already finished a 19 page paper on liturgical change in 16th century England. And then I’ve got a couple pages to write on Ancient Mesopotamia…I may not get to the article til tomorrow or Wedesnday.

In Christ,
Rand

My apologies about Poland, I scanned the article a bit too quickly and missed that comment.

Now I received in Croatia, as I said … I know what I saw there, which was plenty of reception in the hand, as in the other countries (and yes, it was in Rome, so I accept I may be wrong about Italy).

I am not interested in what a Croatian or Mexican community in America may or may not do (they being in an indult country anyway, it’s hardly relevant to my point). Looks like practice differs between expatriate communities and their home countries anyways.

To reiterate - you began by stating that a majority of countries don’t permit reception in the hand. The onus is on you to prove that assertion. So far I’ve had the Phillipines, Poland and Italy outside of Rome. Huge majority of countries that is.

I would add that the biggest and worst profanation of the Eucharist is by those who deny the Real Presence, or approach in a state of mortal sin.

Not by those who believe, are in a state of grace and treat the Eucharist reverently, but inadvertently, in spite of taking every possible precaution, allow a particle or two to fall.

 

[palmas85]

Pax tecum!

Not always. For example, in the Middle Ages when rood screens were in churches, they were what seperated the sanctuary from the nave. The Communion rail was inside the sanctuary. Personally, I wish rood screens would make a comeback, too (as well as high altars and Communion rails).

In Christ,
Rand

I was referring to relatively recent practices. As far as rood screens, don’t some of the Orthodox or Eastern Churches still use them? I went to a Mass about 35 years that either was Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic but they had a rood screen, although they called it something else if I’m not mistaken.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The rood screen in an Orthodox church is called the iconostasis. As I recall, the doors are shut during what we would call the Consecration.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I have heard that at my parish one of the prior pastors had been selling the (donated) statuary and other “Catholic” adornements at such an alarming pace that several parishoners quietly “borrowed” the remainder until he left the parish and then just as quietly slipped them back where they belonged.

LOL, I know of a very dear monsignor in Chicago in the 1960s, who “lent” statuary, unused school desks, and vestments to the good people of the parish to avoid being “taxed” for such articles during Project Renewal.

 

[palmas85]

The rood screen in an Orthodox church is called the iconostasis. As I recall, the doors are shut during what we would call the Consecration.

Thanks, it sure was pretty, I remember that:thumbsup:

 

[JNB]

The “source” you have is by the infamous and the not allways accurate I Shawn McIlhenny, a very angry and bitter former Traditionalist whose personal issues with the SSPX have serverely coluded his judgement. I do not consider him trustworthy in the least and his freeyellow web site serverely twists information. Again, I am no apologist for the SSPX or Rad Trads in general because they also twist information, but I Shawn McIlhenny is no better, and in many ways is worse.

What’s your source on Poland?

In fact what is your source that a MAJORITY of countries don’t permit communion in the hand? I read about the Phillipines, to be sure, but that’s the only country that is mentioned by name as NOT permitting it.

I have personally received communion in Italy, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Britain, and the US as well as Australia … all of them countries where communion in the hand is both permitted and common.

Add those to Canada, New Zealand, France, Spain and Portugal (which countries I know of only by repute) and Mexico (and I believe Brazil), and you’d have have a very sizeable percentage, and possibly a majority, of the world’s Catholics living under an indult to receive in the hand. Are we talking number of countries where it is permitted or number of people permitted to receive it? Surely the latter is a significant consideration.

And I’ll see your articles and raise you this

Bulldust status lifted pending further enquiries

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Pax tecum!

It is not permitted in all of Europe. I know for a fact that in Poland it is still illicit because I just read an article about it yesterday.

See this article: catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
and this:
unavoce.org/cith.htm
and this:
laudetur-jesus-christus.blogspot.com/2006/10/communion-in-hand-by-father-altier.html

Still bulldust?

In Christ,
Rand

I’m just going to jump in here and say, in Lily’s defense, yes, still bulldust.

Why?

These are opinion pieces. The blog is alleged to have been written by Father Altier as a sermon, and is Father’s opinion. The Una Voce site is a group that would like a complete return to the TLM. The first is the best, but still an opinion.

I could write the same opinion pieces, though maybe not quite as well, on the opposite side of the fence. I could also write in favor of some other reception practice.

Lily lives in Australia. I believe she has traveled in Europe. She would know first-hand if she went to Mass there. And from St. Peter’s broadcast, I have seen communicants receive directly from the Pope in the hand.

I have no particles in my hand when I receive in the hand. I was always taught that if there was no longer the appearance of bread, then it was no longer Jesus. This is why the Precious Blood is diluted in accidental spills, and why the Blessed Sacrament is placed in water if it cannot be consumed. Are you chasing after microscopic crumbs? I don’t understand.

I think instead one would need to see something in hard fact from say, the Vatican, that states there are these crumbs, and that they form a serious problem; as long as the Vatican is OK with a place receiving in the hand, it’s OK to receive in the hand (not that I have a problem with either method, and really prefer intinction).

 

[JNB]

Where I am there is a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reveretly, and uses the altar rails, with about 85% revecing on their tounge and 15% in their hands.I have been to masses there with about 500 parishoners(about the parishes capacity) and how the logistics works is that the rail is split in two by the gates, with a priest or deacon(and on rare occasion an instituted acolyte from a religous order) “man” each of the rails and distribute communion. The laity all go to the center asile of the parish and kneel at the altar rail, while the next pew behind them stands right behind the row that is kneeling, when that row has recieved, the next row comes forwars and kneels. It is all shockingly efficent, as communion for 500 parishoners, albiet under one species) took only 10 minuites.

There are some parishes such as the Assumption Grotto in Detroit that distributes communion via intinction, and they use the altar rail as well.

My church still has its altar rails - as do many of the older churches I have attended. However, I have never seen these used - how do the logistics work? Would the entire row of kneeling communicants remain kneeling until all had received - then stand up and be replaced by another group en masse?

Also, we currently receive under both species - how does that work with a communion rail?

 

[LilyM]

Thanks 'burbs That’s always what I’ve been taught as well, that a crumb you can’t see with the naked eye no longer has the appearance of bread (how can it, it has no appearance at all!) and therefore isn’t a concern.

If you’re going to chase after microscopic crumbs, then as I said (and plenty of reputable science backs me up), microscopic crumbs of anything can and do travel at least six feet in the air - and are probably carried further on clothes, shoes etc. Your average sanctuary floor would be littered with them probably from corner to corner :bigyikes: since the hosts are frequently moved right around the place.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I’m just going to jump in here and say, in Lily’s defense, yes, still bulldust.

Why?

These are opinion pieces. The blog is alleged to have been written by Father Altier as a sermon, and is Father’s opinion. The Una Voce site is a group that would like a complete return to the TLM. The first is the best, but still an opinion.

I could write the same opinion pieces, though maybe not quite as well, on the opposite side of the fence. I could also write in favor of some other reception practice.

Lily lives in Australia. I believe she has traveled in Europe. She would know first-hand if she went to Mass there. And from St. Peter’s broadcast, I have seen communicants receive directly from the Pope in the hand.

I have no particles in my hand when I receive in the hand. I was always taught that if there was no longer the appearance of bread, then it was no longer Jesus. This is why the Precious Blood is diluted in accidental spills, and why the Blessed Sacrament is placed in water if it cannot be consumed. Are you chasing after microscopic crumbs? I don’t understand.

I think instead one would need to see something in hard fact from say, the Vatican, that states there are these crumbs, and that they form a serious problem; as long as the Vatican is OK with a place receiving in the hand, it’s OK to receive in the hand (not that I have a problem with either method, and really prefer intinction).

Pax tecum!

The Una Voce piece is not just an opinion piece. It cites Church law and historical documents throughout the entire article. Did you just see who it was from and not read it?

Particles have the appearence of bread particles, so it is still the Sacred Body. Remember, Christ is fully present in all of the host, not just the “big part”.

What is the reason for recieving in the hand? I don’t understand why people are so adament that they take Communion rather than recieve it, as Fr. Altier said.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

The Una Voce piece is not just an opinion piece. It cites Church law and historical documents throughout the entire article. Did you just see who it was from and not read it?

Particles have the appearence of bread particles, so it is still the Sacred Body. Remember, Christ is fully present in all of the host, not just the “big part”.

What is the reason for recieving in the hand? I don’t understand why people are so adament that they take Communion rather than recieve it, as Fr. Altier said.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LilyM]

Pax tecum!

The Una Voce piece is not just an opinion piece. It cites Church law and historical documents throughout the entire article. Did you just see who it was from and not read it?

Particles have the appearence of bread particles, so it is still the Sacred Body. Remember, Christ is fully present in all of the host, not just the “big part”.

What is the reason for recieving in the hand? I don’t understand why people are so adament that they take Communion rather than recieve it, as Fr. Altier said.

In Christ,
Rand

Look, Rand, a diluted (with water) drop of Precious Blood still has, under a microscope, the appearance of wine particles, albeit they are mixed with water particles just as they are in the chalice.

Diluting it with water to clean it off the church floor doesn’t stop it being wine any more, just that it doesn’t LOOK or TASTE or SMELL like wine. And aren’t we told that when cleaning wine from fabric it is to be done until all visible appearance is gone?

In other words there is no Precious Blood when there is no colour, odour, taste - nothing to distinguish it as wine to the senses. THAT is what is meant by the ‘appearance’ of bread or wine. And that is why we can clean spilled Precious Blood from the church floor or from the corporal with water.

Do I have to tell you a third time about the behaviour of microscopic particles (including particles of host)? They would literally be in every corner of the sanctuary and being underfoot constantly!!

 

[LilyM]

Rand al'Thor:

Originally Posted by Rand Al’Thor
Pax tecum!

The Una Voce piece is not just an opinion piece. It cites Church law and historical documents throughout the entire article. Did you just see who it was from and not read it?

Particles have the appearence of bread particles, so it is still the Sacred Body. Remember, Christ is fully present in all of the host, not just the “big part”.

What is the reason for recieving in the hand? I don’t understand why people are so adament that they take Communion rather than recieve it, as Fr. Altier said.

Look, Rand, a diluted (with water) drop of Precious Blood still has, under a microscope, the appearance of wine particles, albeit they are mixed with water particles just as they are in the chalice.

Diluting it with water to clean it off the church floor doesn’t stop it being wine any more, just that it doesn’t LOOK or TASTE or SMELL like wine. And aren’t we told that when cleaning wine from fabric it is to be cleaned until all visible and sensible appearance is gone? Not that you have to put the fabric under a microscope and make sure ALL wine and microscopic particles thereof are gone.

In other words there is no Precious Blood when there is no colour, odour, taste - nothing to distinguish it as wine to the UNENHANCED senses. THAT is what is meant by the ‘appearance’ of bread or wine. And that is why we can clean spilled Precious Blood from the church floor or from the corporal with water. And that is why a microscopic particle that could, for all the sense can distinguish, be anything is no longer the Sacred Body, even if it actually is a particle of host.

Do I have to tell you a third time about the behaviour of microscopic particles (including particles of host)? They would literally be in every corner of the sanctuary and being underfoot constantly!!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I can quote any old thing I want and make it look as if it is fact. These are not fact (and yes, I did read them, not just look at the “who” of them). They are opinion. The facts are presented to state why these people have chosen their opinion, but there are holes in the logic.

If I cannot see the particles with my eyes, then they do not have the appearance of bread. Your logic is flawed. I never have ANY crumbs in my hand that I can see after receiving in the hand.

Why do you (and Father Altier) not see that reception in the hand is valid, and is allowed by the Holy See? One has to hold out one’s hand to receive. One does not pick up the Host out of the ciborium and take it, but receives it. Then one places it in one’s own mouth.

You always have the option to receive on the tongue. So do so. There is also the option of receiving in the hand. Let others do so.

The topic was altar rails, wasn’t it? We have them in our parish church but do not use them. They are made out of marble. Maybe tomorrow I will go in and take a photo of them. They are very elegant.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Fantastic!!!

Who cares what it stands for…whoerver this “PP” he deserves a cardinals hat just for adding the rails!

Joking of course.

Excellent news.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I can see from Lily’s double posts that I’m not the only one having problems tonight. Maybe we should focus our attention on praying to help the Forums repell the assault?

For me, heh, I made my first Communion in 1957. I have never received Communion in the hand nor will I ever do so. All this back and forth begs the question of there are still people of my parent’s generation alive and, from the tenor of some of the posts throughout the forums, there are still people of my generation who don’t agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the late 60s.

I suppose I could kneel on the floor. It’s not the same as kneeling at a Communion rail with a padded kneeler. At my age, if I went down on my knees on the bare floor, Father would have to extend a hand to help me up.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Why do you (and Father Altier) not see that reception in the hand is valid, and is allowed by the Holy See? One has to hold out one’s hand to receive. One does not pick up the Host out of the ciborium and take it, but receives it. Then one places it in one’s own mouth

Pax tecum!

I didn’t ask you to turn the question around on me. If you don’t want to answer it, or more likely, if you guys cannot think of any reason that people should receive in the hand rather than on the tongue, then just say so. Other than “they used to do it a long time ago”. Well, they also used to use Greek and Latin and Gregorian chant and say Mass ad orientem a long time ago, too. Shouldn’t we go back to that too?

In Christ,
Rand