The Alter Rail

[edwest2]

In my view, and of course I realize its purely a matter of personal opinion, nearly all of the architectural changes to my home parish produced negative ascetic results. And there were a number of them. I can recall grumbling about the removal of the alter rail, and I really recall complaints when one pastor decided to take out one row of pews to facilitate additional Eucharistic Ministers. The “no” finally came from the parish when a proposal to put in a large Baptismal Font up front was made. Over time we lost the rail, one confessional, brass lanterns,and a row of pews.

Then a few years back we had a pastor, from another country, who quietly and on his own began to restore what he could. Not everything could be reclaimed however.

I suppose that’s what started me thinking about the altar rail. He actually knew where part it was (assuming that the same place didn’t have all of it). I wish somebody would get it back and put it back in, but I suppose you can’t really go to a remote owner and say “hey, give me that back”.

As a purely non religious observation, major changes to the design of old structures rarely really improve them. As a religious observation, changing the architecture of a carefully designed church might send the wrong message or give the wrong impression.

You’re right.

amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Michael-Rose/dp/1933184442

Ed

 

[phil19034]

The altar rail is not part of monastic tradition. The monks giving communion would stand at an opening in the enclosure. I’m pretty sure pre-Council that it was still kneeling and on the tongue, but not at a “rail”:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YpcSGmWJ59A/UNtmK30cloI/AAAAAAAAA10/T8DY36e-qeE/s1600/mariawald.jpg

You don’t see the two kneelers in the picture, outside the chancel?

 

[phil19034]

So it was another of those things that something was allowed in the 60’s, in this case standing in a line, and everyone ran with it and it became the de facto norm as a result.

So really there’s nothing stopping a parish or diocese from re-instituting communion at the rail (albeit standing at the rail after the USCCB’s 2002 directive on standing being the preferred method now).

Seems to be an odd trend of the RCC in the 60’s and early 70’s that anything that was now “allowed” even if technically still not the preferred method, became the de facto norm in short order.

A big part of the problem during that time was the media. They were reporting “so called” changes faster than the bishops could read the documents and interpret how to implement things in their dioceses. Parishes were hearing things on the news and though the grapevine and running with it.

In regards to the USCCB directive on standing being the preferred method, there is a parish near me where the lay pastoral council mandated that parish use the Altar Rails… the priests said ok.

I’m also sure that many viewed pulling the Altar Rails out with the same rational that parishes used when they removed the Rood (or Chancel) screens after the Council of Trent.

Even though the two were very different. The Rood Screens partly blocked the view of the Altar from the nave, while the altar rails did not.

God Bless.