Why weren't/aren't laity allowed passed the altar rail?

[Matthew_Holford]

I don’t think they were. This was probably because the married man is “one flesh” with his wife. I think because his soul and the woman’s soul were one; therefore, if the soul of the married man entered the sanctuary, so to did his wife’s. Just a thesis.

I can’t really comment because I was not around at the time. I am aware that several ministries were filled by lay men because most parishes wouldn’t have had the full range of clerics. In those days too it was much more common for men to be married than nowadays so it just seemed …

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I don’t think they were. This was probably because the married man is “one flesh” with his wife. I think because his soul and the woman’s soul were one; therefore, if the soul of the married man entered the sanctuary, so to did his wife’s. Just a thesis.

Or to put it more bluntly, the mindset was probably that even licit sexual relations in a sacramental marriage made a man somehow unworthy or impure regarding being in the sanctuary.

 

[ajpirc]

Or to put it more bluntly, the mindset was probably that even licit sexual relations in a sacramental marriage made a man somehow unworthy or impure regarding being in the sanctuary.

That makes sense, too!

Were Deacons allowed to marry before the changes in the Mass?

 

[Bluegoat]

But you’re undermining the role of the priest, who I understand still follows the order of Melchisedech. Why need priests when laypeople can routinely “enter” the “Holy of Holies” with the turn of a key?

No, I don’t think so. A layperson still is unable to do what a priest does. But at the same time, the idea that a layperson could have any immediate, physical relationship to the Divine Person would have been unheard of in Judaism. There is a huge change from that understanding to the Christian one, and it impacts how we understand the sacred space.

 

[ajpirc]

No, I don’t think so. A layperson still is unable to do what a priest does. But at the same time, the idea that a layperson could have any immediate, physical relationship to the Divine Person would have been unheard of in Judaism. There is a huge change from that understanding to the Christian one, and it impacts how we understand the sacred space.

I think a personal relationship is great and all in regard to something like not needing a priest to intercede everytime we pray a Rosary or read the Bible; we can personally pray or read whenever we want to or need to. But in regard to anybody can open the tabernacle, touch the Blessed Sacrament, or go into the sanctuary, I don’t think those are a personal relationship; people just want to feel like the priest isn’t closer to Christ than they are.

 

[benedictgal]

If the tabernacle corresponds to the Holy of Holies, shouldn’t we only have our priests enter (open) it? But it’s not the Holy of Holies that made itself holy, it was God inside that made it holy. If the Holy of Holies corresponds to the tabernacle, then Whom was inside would correspond to the Blessed Sacrament, correct? If only one priest were allowed to enter once a year with no one else permitted to enter, should we be allowing Eucharistic Ministers to enter the tabernacle or even touching what makes the tabernacle holy?

What I’m saying is (with rhetorical questions), is this the symbolism about why people were not allowed to hold the Eucharist in the Latin Mass and only the priest was allowed?

Actually, in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, only the priest is to approach the Tabernacle, not anyone else. As the Eucharistic Minister, the one who confects the Sacrament, it thus falls to the celebrant do do so.

The Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion only assist, when there is a genuine need, with the distribution of Holy Communion,

 

[Bluegoat]

I think a personal relationship is great and all in regard to something like not needing a priest to intercede everytime we pray a Rosary or read the Bible; we can personally pray or read whenever we want to or need to. But in regard to anybody can open the tabernacle, touch the Blessed Sacrament, or go into the sanctuary, I don’t think those are a personal relationship; people just want to feel like the priest isn’t closer to Christ than they are.

We actually touch and eat the Sacrament. It isn’t just the priest who can do it, we can. That is not the same as just being able to pray directly to God - which any Jew was also allowed to do.

And as far as touching Sacrament in a tabernacle or in another situation - well, it isn’t normally done, but we can probably all think of an unusual situation where such a thing might be appropriate, and we don’t expect to be blasted by a lightening bolt in such a case.

And we are talking about entering the sanctuary. As far as I know there has never been the kind of extreme understanding of what will happen to an individual in such a situation, including in the early church, though they were certainly reverential, and understood that a priest was a particular sort of position. Do people really think that if I as a women am on the roster to clean up the dead flies that fall all over the altar, and vacuum up the ones under it, I should be blasted?

OTOH, if the priest or servers want that job to themselves, I have no problem being struck from the list.

 

[ProVobis]

No, I don’t think so. A layperson still is unable to do what a priest does.

Agreed.

But at the same time, the idea that a layperson could have any immediate, physical relationship to the Divine Person would have been unheard of in Judaism. There is a huge change from that understanding to the Christian one, and it impacts how we understand the sacred space.

If this is indeed the case, then that would have been realized in first century Christianity, when scripture was still being written, no?

 

[TrueLight]

That is why the curtain in the temple was torn when Jesus died on the cross.

Very good point.

In Eastern Spirituality, aren’t there still certain things reserved to the clergy?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

In fact, laity WERE allowed beyond the alter rail in the pre-vatican II days, and they still are.

Every alter boy was a lay person, unless you were at a monastery of some sort. Catholic couples being married were allowed beyond the alter rail. I went to Mass in several foreign countries where there was no alter rail at all. I also attended Masses in the field, while in the Army, and not only was there no alter rail, but we often gathered all around the alter while Father was celebrating the Mass.

I personally cleaned churches (and chapels) as a teen, and i was allowed to not only go beyond the alter rail, but I was allowed to touch every part of the alter, including the tabernacle (in fact, I was required to do so). On more than one occasion, I removed the linens from the inside of the tabernacle, and placed clean ones inside. (I did NOT touch the vessels however, they were removed by the Priest before I cleaned the interior and replaced the linens.)

 

[ajpirc]

Actually, in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, only the priest is to approach the Tabernacle, not anyone else.

What? I’ve been to more Masses where one of the Eucharistic Ministers had put the Eucharist in the tabernacle.

 

[benedictgal]

What? I’ve been to more Masses where one of the Eucharistic Ministers had put the Eucharist in the tabernacle.

By Eucharistic Minister do you mean the priest/bishop? They are the only ones who are Eucharistic Ministers. If you saw an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (a lay person) doing this during the context of the Mass, then, this is ilicit.

 

[Bluegoat]

Agreed.

If this is indeed the case, then that would have been realized in first century Christianity, when scripture was still being written, no?

Well, yes, I think they did realize it then. The attitude to the Eucharist in Scripture is not the same as the Jewish attitude to the innermost parts of the temple I may not quite see what you are getting at here?

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t think they were. This was probably because the married man is “one flesh” with his wife. I think because his soul and the woman’s soul were one; therefore, if the soul of the married man entered the sanctuary, so to did his wife’s. Just a thesis.

Why don’t you go and study your catechism for beginners? I think that you are willing to make heretical arguments just to prove a useless point about discipline. Just because you want to think that you are a traditionalist Catholic you are not exempted from taking time to study the basic of your faith. Thread after thread you go on blasting orthodox Catholics for not being aligned with you and you persist in doing that while breaking basic lows of formal logic and even worse by saying things that are contrary to the teaching of the Church.

 

[ajpirc]

The attitude to the Eucharist in Scripture is not the same as the Jewish attitude to the innermost parts of the temple.

I don’t understand why the temple then was treated better than God’s own body now? It was a holy building, He is your Holy Creator.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t understand why the temple then was treated better than God’s own body now? It was a holy building, He is your Holy Creator.

If we treated the Eucharist the same way the Jews treated the temple, only the priest - maybe even only the bishop or Pope, would be able to partake.

The reason we are Christians and not Jews is that we think God did something radical and shocking - he sanctified all flesh and matter by becoming em-mattered himself.

 

[ProVobis]

If we treated the Eucharist the same way the Jews treated the temple, only the priest - maybe even only the bishop or Pope, would be able to partake.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Didn’t the Jews benefit from the sacrifices made in their behalf by their high priests when they witnessed the once-per-year event of the sacrifice as it was delivered into the Holy of Holies? Until Christ, these were still valid sacrifices and pleasing to God. Cain, Abraham, Melchisedech are still mentioned in the Canon/EP1.

 

[ajpirc]

If we treated the Eucharist the same way the Jews treated the temple, only the priest - maybe even only the bishop or Pope, would be able to partake.

The reason we are Christians and not Jews is that we think God did something radical and shocking - he sanctified all flesh and matter by becoming em-mattered himself.

If we treated the Eucharist the same way the Jews treated the temple, we would have more Catholics understand that the Eucharist is real Flesh. With the way we treat It now, Catholics are falling away from the Church because they think that the Eucharist is, forgive me, bread. Maybe if we treated the Eucharist like It is holy by giving It while kneeling and on the tongue, then maybe those fallen away Catholics will think to themselves, “Why are they treating this substance like it is holy; kneeling in front of It like It’s greater than them, almost like It’s God?” The way we receive the Blessed Sacrament affects the way we believe in it. One option is receiving It like we’re receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, kneeling in front of It and saying, “Father, I am not worthy to feed myself this Most Holy Sacrifice; please feed me.” Of course we shouldn’t think of it as the priest placing It onto our tongue, but as if Christ is, because the priest is in persona Christi. The other option, please forgive me for anything said that is blasphemous, is walking up, a man hands you some of It, and you eat It; it wouldn’t surprise me if someone thought It was only a bread line to receive this week’s bread to eat. Again, I’m sorry for sounding blasphemous.

The reason we are Christians and not Jews is that we believe the God came to us in the flesh to fulfill the Old Covenant, not abolish it. Almost everything in the Church today can be prefigured in the Old Testament. Christ didn’t come to abolish the reverence that the Jews had in the temple, so why do we treat the Eucharist like it is less important, like the reverance that we have toward the Blessed Sacrament? If only a priest was allowed to enter the temple, I think only a priest should be allowed to touch the Eucharist.

 

[Bluegoat]

If we treated the Eucharist the same way the Jews treated the temple, we would have more Catholics understand that the Eucharist is real Flesh. With the way we treat It now, Catholics are falling away from the Church because they think that the Eucharist is, forgive me, bread. Maybe if we treated the Eucharist like It is holy by giving It while kneeling and on the tongue, then maybe those fallen away Catholics will think to themselves, “Why are they treating this substance like it is holy; kneeling in front of It like It’s greater than them, almost like It’s God?” The way we receive the Blessed Sacrament affects the way we believe in it. One option is receiving It like we’re receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, kneeling in front of It and saying, “Father, I am not worthy to feed myself this Most Holy Sacrifice; please feed me.” Of course we shouldn’t think of it as the priest placing It onto our tongue, but as if Christ is, because the priest is in persona Christi. The other option, please forgive me for anything said that is blasphemous, is walking up, a man hands you some of It, and you eat It; it wouldn’t surprise me if someone thought It was only a bread line to receive this week’s bread to eat. Again, I’m sorry for sounding blasphemous.

The reason we are Christians and not Jews is that we believe the God came to us in the flesh to fulfill the Old Covenant, not abolish it. Almost everything in the Church today can be prefigured in the Old Testament. Christ didn’t come to abolish the reverence that the Jews had in the temple, so why do we treat the Eucharist like it is less important, like the reverance that we have toward the Blessed Sacrament? If only a priest was allowed to enter the temple, I think only a priest should be allowed to touch the Eucharist.

I think Catholics would be much better off if they instilled more reverence in people when receiving (as, alas, would we Anglicans.) But that isn’t really the issue here. The issue is that Christians do not think of the sanctuary in precisely the same way the Jews thought of the innermost temple, and we do not say women can’t go in because they are unclean, or married men because they have been defiled by sexual intercourse, or anything like that.

I think there is actually a fairly broad range of good, acceptable practices that will make sure people understand the Eucharist is Holy. Treating the Sanctuary with respect and not casually when one is in there for legitimate purpose; only allowing certain people in some circumstances; receiving on the tongue; care about the altar and its treatment… I also would say there can be more than one way to do some things. I think receiving in the hand doesn’t likely make or break reverence if other things are in place. The East communes people standing, but it is very clearly reverent, so I don’t think kneeling is the make or break issue either.

But we shouldn’t try to say it is something it isn’t in order to try and make it seem more important. There is no need for that.

 

[ajpirc]

The issue is that Christians do not think of the sanctuary in precisely the same way the Jews thought of the innermost temple, and we do not say women can’t go in because they are unclean, or married men because they have been defiled by sexual intercourse, or anything like that.

And all of this is because of liberals in the Church who say these practices are politically incorrect. It’s wierd how women or married men for at least 500 years thought these same practices were alright. Up until liberalism entered the Church, people didn’t care about having rights of being on the altar or receiving the Eucharist in the hand.