The Altar Rails Came Back

[boppysbud]

If things were the same as they were when I was a new convert way back in the early 70s I would have been delighted to kneel for Holy Communion.

But things have changed since I had a crippling stroke in august 2005. No way can I kneel, at a rail or in the pew, nor can I genuflect. If I did manage to get down to the floor, I wiuld never get back on my feet.

Back then 1975 we kind of thought V2 was a good thing, and not a thing to back away from. Some of us do not have such great memories of the silent Mass, when we had to say the rosary, because the Mass was the Preist’s private property, and we could not understand Latin, and did not care to learn.

Back in the good old days there actually were liberal Catholics who read the National Catholic Reporter, and we thought they were good, now so many Catholics think God is a registered Republinant, and wants to tell the poor to drop dead.

But I bet the gung-ho people who want to turn the calandar back to before V2, would be delighted to know that I do recieve Holy Communion on the tougue, since my right hand is to weak to trust it to hold up the Sacred Host.

Would you deny me Our Lord in Holy Communion since I am incapable of kneeling?

 

[WenckebachCath]

But I bet the gung-ho people who want to turn the calandar back to before V2, would be delighted to know that I do recieve Holy Communion on the tougue, since my right hand is to weak to trust it to hold up the Sacred Host.

Would you deny me Our Lord in Holy Communion since I am incapable of kneeling?

Wow, God Bless you Boppy’s Bud. You tell it like it is and I hope that people pay heed!

 

[palmas85]

If things were the same as they were when I was a new convert way back in the early 70s I would have been delighted to kneel for Holy Communion.

But things have changed since I had a crippling stroke in august 2005. No way can I kneel, at a rail or in the pew, nor can I genuflect. If I did manage to get down to the floor, I wiuld never get back on my feet.

Back then 1975 we kind of thought V2 was a good thing, and not a thing to back away from. Some of us do not have such great memories of the silent Mass, when we had to say the rosary, because the Mass was the Preist’s private property, and we could not understand Latin, and did not care to learn.

Back in the good old days there actually were liberal Catholics who read the National Catholic Reporter, and we thought they were good, now so many Catholics think God is a registered Republinant, and wants to tell the poor to drop dead.

But I bet the gung-ho people who want to turn the calandar back to before V2, would be delighted to know that I do recieve Holy Communion on the tougue, since my right hand is to weak to trust it to hold up the Sacred Host.

Would you deny me Our Lord in Holy Communion since I am incapable of kneeling?

If someone was or is physically incapable of kneeling or if it would cause them discomfort, they were and still are always free to stand. That was true even when I was a kid back in the 50’s. No denying of Holy Communiopn for that reason, unlike some of our more progressive types who have refused to distribute to those who knelt. And this was after specific instructions had come down from Rome concerning the practice.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Back then 1975 we kind of thought V2 was a good thing, and not a thing to back away from. Some of us do not have such great memories of the silent Mass, when we had to say the rosary, because the Mass was the Preist’s private property, and we could not understand Latin, and did not care to learn.

This I really can’t fathom. I was born in 1971, so the liturgical use of Latin had been effectively snuffed out long before I was old enough to become familiar with it durign my childhood. I had no formal training in Latin and have no gift for learning languages (as my grade in high school Spanish would attest), but it took attending a TLM only 3 times (about 5 years ago) before I was able to follow along with a missal. I still don’t know Latin, but I do not “have” to say the rosary on the rare chances I have to attend a TLM, even if I forget my “real” missal and have to follow along with one of those little red missalette things (or even if I have nothing to follow along with at all).

Back in the good old days there actually were liberal Catholics who read the National Catholic Reporter, and we thought they were good, now so many Catholics think God is a registered Republinant, and wants to tell the poor to drop dead.

First, the National Catholic Reporter has dropped the quality of its news coverage significantly since its heyday. The last few times I’ve tried to read it I’ve been left with the impression that it is not trying to present Catholic news so much as (often dubious) opinions dressed up as fact. I don’t care for the Wanderer for much the same reasons.

Also, it has recently been established (by a researcher who was raised and still considers himslef a liberal) that conservatives give significantly more to charity than liberals do, and in ways that result in a much greater value of services being provided directly to those in need, with less fraud and overhead than the goverment programs the liberals favor. It is not just anecdoctotal evidence that those in the trenches and donor lists at the local charities were mostly Republicans, the anecdotes have been collected and backed up. It is not that the Republicans et all want the poor to “drop dead”, it is that they don’t like the Democrats plan of forcing (though taxation) everyone to support predominately liberal government social programs that have a bad habit of spending lots of that money without getting as much real aid to those in need for the money spent as they would have letting the groups they target for taxation give funds on thier own to programs that work effectively.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I do care that this thread was about altar rails.

Pax tecum!

Yeah, and I think that kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue might…just might…have at least a *little *bit to do with altar rails.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[palmas85]

Yes, it does make a difference to the extent that it is reverent, but NOT as to whether we stand or kneel, or receive in the hand or on the tongue, or lying in a hospital bed or wheeled up in a wheelchair.

The post cited was indeed WAY out of line in its implications and accusations and is not in line with Church teachings, whether we happen to agree with them or not.

Sorry that fact escapes you.

Oh it didn’t escape me at all. I knew exactly what the poster was saying and implying. I nevre mentioned kneeling,standing, sitting or anything else for that matter. I merely said the manner of reception does matter. Thats all.

 

[ncjohn]

Oh it didn’t escape me at all. I knew exactly what the poster was saying and implying.

Actually, I don’t think you do know, which would help explain your snide reply to her.

I’m pretty sure–and I hope she’ll correct me if I’m wrong–that she was saying that as long as you receive reverently it doesn’t matter which position you’re assuming, which is the position of the Church, at least in this country.

So basically, I’d have to disagree with you on both counts: I don’t think you knew what she was “saying or implying” (or maybe you did and just don’t like her opinion, making it ok to be rude); and I don’t think that if done reverently that the manner of reception matters. And the Church seems to agree since it allows us the option.

Altar rails are wonderful, and if my Church had and used one I would be right there. But there is certainly no requirement for it, and it doesn’t affect one’s devotion or reverence one iota–though it might affect the appearance of it for those who choose to make judgments about such things.

Peace,

 

[dessert]

There are those of us who remember that we knelt to receive Our Lord. This WAS the norm until the late 1960s. It went every bit as smoothly for foot traffic and there were NO EHMCs - just the priest and ONE altar boy holding the paten. Communion took the same amount of time.

Like I said, our neighboring parish still has the communion rails and one can go to Communion and kneel to receive Our Lord at a NO Mass. I don’t see the problem with this. 90% of the faithful receive standing because this is what happend after VII! What about all of us who were alive during VII and didn’t appreciate what was done? Everyone assumes that “the new springtime” was accepted overwhelmingly by all Catholics alive in the 60s. Sorry, hate to disabuse you of this idea, but I was a teenager in the 60s and I in no way, no how approved of the changes. I quit attending Mass for years until I found a reverent NO. IMHO the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

Just look at all the responses! We’re not all wackoes! But we remember a Church that is far, far different from what we encounter today. Clown Masses? Liturgical dancers? A cast of thousands on the altar for Communion? Oh, for the Church of my childhood. Tridentine or NO is NOT the issue - the issue boils down to one word and one word only - reverence!

Amen to all you have said, I was astounded when I ccame back but there is the rverence in our church but we don’t have rails. Thank God for it. I went to a TLM and I now wish I didn’t because I cried and yearned for something I used to have but it is to far away. But we are a neww generation and can keep the respect if we just take it slowly and even if no rails or rails we are sstill at the foot of the cross. Yes I agree with you reverence. return

 

[palmas85]

Actually, I don’t think you do know, which would help explain your snide reply to her.

I’m pretty sure–and I hope she’ll correct me if I’m wrong–that she was saying that as long as you receive reverently it doesn’t matter which position you’re assuming, which is the position of the Church, at least in this country.

So basically, I’d have to disagree with you on both counts: I don’t think you knew what she was “saying or implying” (or maybe you did and just don’t like her opinion, making it ok to be rude); and I don’t think that if done reverently that the manner of reception matters. And the Church seems to agree since it allows us the option.

Altar rails are wonderful, and if my Church had and used one I would be right there. But there is certainly no requirement for it, and it doesn’t affect one’s devotion or reverence one iota–though it might affect the appearance of it for those who choose to make judgments about such things.

Peace,

No actually, that is what I said. I never mentioned kneeling standing or anything else. Her general tone was you can receive any way and any how you want. It doesn’t matter.

Oh you forgot to call me uncharitable. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part, so I’ll say it for you

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE.

But you did call me rude, which I appreciate.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

And now back to altar rails…

 

[Bob67]

**There are people who do receive Our Lord reverently
while standing & receiving in the hand but,
doing away with the Altar Rails has led to many
desecrations of the Sacred Host.

Why would anybody wanna take the risk of
Our Lord being Desecrated?

If it stopped even one evil person from getting
a hold of a Sacred Host & using it in a
Black Mass it would be worth it!**



Bring Back The Altar Rails To Every Church In The World!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Back then 1975 we kind of thought V2 was a good thing, and not a thing to back away from. Some of us do not have such great memories of the silent Mass, when we had to say the rosary, because the Mass was the Preist’s private property, and we could not understand Latin, and did not care to learn.

That’s half the problem-“didn’t care to learn”? Who’s fault is that?

Plus, the Mass isn’t (and was never) the “priest’s private property” and any missals and catechisms from “back in the day” will bear this out.

 

[marci]

I love to hear stories of “tradition” coming back into the church and the mass. To all of you that have the opportunity to go to LM or reverent NO, please pray for the rest of us who do not have that ability. I just drove 100 miles to go to mass today for Imaculate Conception because I wanted a reverent and holy feeling while honoring the Blessed Mother.

To all of you who become impatient with all those who want to bring back tradition, I would ask that you have as much charity with them as you do for those people–whether lay or ordained–who do things which are “against the rules”. It is amazing to me how much charity is shone for the teenager in the mid-drift and daisy dukes taking communion, or the priest who allows people to stand around the alter during the Consecration, but you get one catholic kneeling to recieve communion and you would think Hitler entered the building.

 

[catholic2]

Just the Altar Rails? How about a church that kept the Tabernacle on the Altar like in the preVII and the priest facing with and not towards the worshipers, and the women wearing headcoverings…(women with head coverings naturaly don’t bare their navels)

 

[palmas85]

I love to hear stories of “tradition” coming back into the church and the mass. To all of you that have the opportunity to go to LM or reverent NO, please pray for the rest of us who do not have that ability. I just drove 100 miles to go to mass today for Imaculate Conception because I wanted a reverent and holy feeling while honoring the Blessed Mother.

To all of you who become impatient with all those who want to bring back tradition, I would ask that you have as much charity with them as you do for those people–whether lay or ordained–who do things which are “against the rules”. It is amazing to me how much charity is shone for the teenager in the mid-drift and daisy dukes taking communion, or the priest who allows people to stand around the alter during the Consecration, but you get one catholic kneeling to recieve communion and you would think Hitler entered the building.

Of course it is that way. The Catholics who still prefer to kneel for Holy Communionand prefer a Priest rather Barney the donosaur and think that the Mass should be reverent are generally all lumped together with sedevacantists in the minds of many of the modern thinking crowd. In their minds, prior to Vatican II no body knew what was going on, nobody knew a thing about the faith and apparently virtually no one practiced it. Only the Priests:bigyikes: knew what was going on. It was only with the coming of the vernacular and other such practices that the scales fell from everyones eyes and they were able to see just how much in bondage they had been to the evil ordained Priesthood. Now flush in the glow of springtime all is well in the Church and we, thettraditionalists are seen as neanderthals wanting to drag the faith backward.

Those are the main reasons charity canm be shown to everyone else no matter how sacriligious they are and no matter what blasphemy they preach. They are all right.

We are the problem.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Wow! What a wide-ranging thread! We started out with the wonderful news that a church has installed an altar rail, then digressed into communion in the hand, flying sacred particles, and now the charitable habits of Democrats versus Republicans. What can I say but “how 'bout them Winterhawks?”

Well, back on the original topic, I was pleasantly surprised to discover a few years ago that Holy Rosary Cathedral in Vancouver, British Columbia, had installed new brass altar rails under the auspices of the saintly, now-retired Archbishop Adam Exner, and they use them too!

 

[Indyann]

No actually, that is what I said. I never mentioned kneeling standing or anything else. Her general tone was you can receive any way and any how you want. It doesn’t matter.

Oh you forgot to call me uncharitable. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part, so I’ll say it for you

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE.

But you did call me rude, which I appreciate.

In the first place Palamas, I was responding to the poster who said those who receive in the hand “grabbed the Host” I said nothing at all about the reverence, irreverence or any thing that could be construed that way,
unless as, ncjohn said, maybe you just don’t agree with my opinion.

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE. (your post)

 

[Indyann]

Actually, I don’t think you do know, which would help explain your snide reply to her.

I’m pretty sure–and I hope she’ll correct me if I’m wrong–that she was saying that as long as you receive reverently it doesn’t matter which position you’re assuming, which is the position of the Church, at least in this country.

So basically, I’d have to disagree with you on both counts: I don’t think you knew what she was “saying or implying” (or maybe you did and just don’t like her opinion, making it ok to be rude); and I don’t think that if done reverently that the manner of reception matters. And the Church seems to agree since it allows us the option.

Altar rails are wonderful, and if my Church had and used one I would be right there. But there is certainly no requirement for it, and it doesn’t affect one’s devotion or reverence one iota–though it might affect the appearance of it for those who choose to make judgments about such things.

Peace,

I sure hope he is the only one who interpreted my post in that way. Somehow, I think you are right about him just not liking my opinion. But evidently we are in good company, as it is also the opinion of the Magesterium.

 

[palmas85]

In the first place Palamas, I was responding to the poster who said those who receive in the hand “grabbed the Host” I said nothing at all about the reverence, irreverence or any thing that could be construed that way,
unless as, ncjohn said, maybe you just don’t agree with my opinion.

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE. (your post)

Thanks for responding. I’m always glad when someone gets so upset with me that they decide to use the old standby uncharitable:thumbsup: I was surprised that our other good friend did not but as I said Im sure it was an oversight. Thanks to you and I though we managed to straighten everything out.

Actually, I neither know nor care how you receive. Hows that for uncharitable? I said the manner of reception is what counts. I never mentioned kneeling standing in the hand on the tongue anything. All I said was the manner mattered. If you don’t think receiving reverently, which is the ultimate manner of reception by the way, is important that is surely your opinion. The fact that you jumped up practically screaming that you didn’t grab the Host and it didn’t matter how you received because it is still the Body and Blood of Christ struck me as particular. But that is just my opinion.

Of course being a grandfather myself, not an American citizen by birth and far from a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, my opinion probably doesn’t count for much, except to me.

Peace be to you.

 

[Kielbasi]

**Why would anybody wanna take the risk of **
Our Lord being Desecrated?

**If it stopped even one evil person from getting **
**a hold of a Sacred Host & using it in a **
Black Mass it would be worth it!



Bring Back The Altar Rails To Every Church In The World!

I don’t see where altar rails ever stopped any desecration or sacrileges, reports of such events pre-date the redecoration of churches.

BTW, a “Black mass” doesn’t require a consecrated Host to conduct.