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

[Bluegoat]

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.

Yes they did. And yes, people benefit from the Incarnation and Resurrection, even if they don’t have the Eucharist. I think that would perhaps be the best comparison.

But I’m not sure we could compare that to actually ingesting God in the Eucharist? I don’t really think there is any equivalent to that in Temple Judaism that I can think of.

It is an intimacy that even the priest didn’t have in that context, and I think that is why it changes our relationship to the Holy spaces.

I do think it is still important for us to keep spaces Holy. I knew a minister in a United Church near where I lived that put a coffee maker in the Sanctuary, because he didn’t want people to think it was a “special place”. I thought that was crazy, even with them not believing in the Real Presence. A big part of designating spaces as holy is so that we can really worship - we can remind ourselves physically what holiness is.

But the actually eating the Real Presence - that is just so intimate. It doesn’t make sense that we can have that, and then say the laity, or women, can’t come into the Sanctuary at all because they will defile it somehow or are unclean, unlike the priest. I don’t even have a problem really with not allowing non-clergy or women normally to keep the sense of a holy place, but I don’t think it is the same reasoning the Jews used - I think it is a pragmatic decision, and one that could be changed if the pragmatic issues changed.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

First, you seem to think that these practices were a lot more extreme and universal then they were.

And if the CC today says that women are not impure and that being unclean isn’t an issue, do you actually think that was the issue before? Somehow it has changed? 500 years ago women were unclean, but now they are not?

If people said women were unclean in the past, they were wrong, and it is good that idea has been corrected. It has nothing to do with “liberals”.

 

[ajpirc]

First, you seem to think that these practices were a lot more extreme and universal then they were.

And if the CC today says that women are not impure and that being unclean isn’t an issue, do you actually think that was the issue before? Somehow it has changed? 500 years ago women were unclean, but now they are not?

If people said women were unclean in the past, they were wrong, and it is good that idea has been corrected. It has nothing to do with “liberals”.

I don’t think women shouldn’t be up on the altar because they’re “unclean.” It’s the same reason why only men are to be ordained: Christ was a man (male) and He chose 12 men to lead the early Church. I just think that the sanctuary should only have ordained and unmarried males (excluding married clergy).

I still think that liberalism was the purpose for this. Without its political correctness, we probably wouldn’t even be talking about this right now. Heck, this website probably wouldn’t even be hear now. Liberlism has left many Catholics not knowing about the Faith, so many of them come here to ask those questions about the Faith.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t think women shouldn’t be up on the altar because they’re “unclean.” It’s the same reason why only men are to be ordained: Christ was a man (male) and He chose 12 men to lead the early Church. I just think that the sanctuary should only have ordained and unmarried males (excluding married clergy).

I still think that liberalism was the purpose for this. Without its political correctness, we probably wouldn’t even be talking about this right now. Heck, this website probably wouldn’t even be hear now. Liberlism has left many Catholics not knowing about the Faith, so many of them come here to ask those questions about the Faith.

It’s one thing to say a woman shouldn’t be ordained as a priest or shouldn’t be asked to serve.

It’s another to say that a woman cannot even get near the tabernacle even to clean it.

Christ choosing men to found the church has nothing to do with that.

 

[ajpirc]

It’s one thing to say a woman shouldn’t be ordained as a priest or shouldn’t be asked to serve.

It’s another to say that a woman cannot even get near the tabernacle even to clean it.

Christ choosing men to found the church has nothing to do with that.

Then what was the original purpose of not allowing women in the sanctuary?

 

[TrueLight]

Then what was the original purpose of not allowing women in the sanctuary?

Do you mean in Judaism or Catholicism?

 

[Bluegoat]

Then what was the original purpose of not allowing women in the sanctuary?

Because at some point in the development of Christianity, only the ordained were allowed. However - that isn’t totally universal - for example in convents nuns were often servers.

There are many things that are done because they are useful. Restricting the sanctuary to ordained ministries - which there used to be a lot more of - is one way of preserving it’s specialness.

But if our cultural situation changes, it can be appropriate to change the way we go about preserving that sense of holiness. If we are having to always have church in private homes, different rules would make sense. If we are in a nunnery, different rules make sense. If restricting women makes people think that women are unclean, or think the Church teaches that women are unclean, maybe something different would make sense.

The Sanctuary is not defiled in some objective way by a non-clergy member being there. If so, it would never be allowed.

In the Orthodox Church, the laity and women don’t usually go behind the iconostasis. But if someone’s child runs in there around the altar, even if it is a girl - no one thinks that makes it unclean, or less holy to us. And in a nunnery, I believe women serve at the altar too.

One of the differences between the Jewish way of thinking and the Christian way is what was external becomes internal. Holiness is as much about what comes out of us as about what goes in.

 

[ajpirc]

Do you mean in Judaism or Catholicism?

Catholicism

 

[ProVobis]

One of the differences between the Jewish way of thinking and the Christian way is what was external becomes internal.

Where is your source for this?

Holiness is as much about what comes out of us as about what goes in.

So does sitting in a judge’s chair automatically make one a judge? Seems as if you have to earn that position first before it has any meaning. Same for holiness in this case, IMO.

Good points about religious orders, though.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I am simply amazed at the amount of superstitious claptrap that is being presented as “reasons” why the laity can’t be “allowed” beyond the alter rail.

In simple fact, in the Latin Rite, they ALWAYS have been allowed, just limited.

 

[TrueLight]

Catholicism

I’m not sure. I am but a three month old fetus in the life of the Church.

I would guess it probably carried over from Judaic law. However, we are not under Judaic law. I am not unclean and I do not need to purify myself after my menses.

A woman ordinarily does not have reason to go near the sanctuary because she is not ordained nor a server in the Extraordinary form. However, I think it is ridiculous to tell a woman she can clean everywhere but the sanctuary area because she is a woman.

However, if this rule encourages men to sign up for the priesthood, I am willing to sacrifice my indignation.

 

[TrueLight]

I am simply amazed at the amount of superstitious claptrap that is being [presented as “reasons” why the laity can’t be “allowed” beyond the alter rail.

In simple fact, in the Latin Rite, they ALWAYS have been allowed, just limited.

Old Medic, you’re a little grumpy
[/quote]

 

[Cristiano]

Old Medic, you’re a little grumpy

I do not think that he is grumpy, and what he says makes a lot of sense. During the years on CAF I noticed a lot of “self-professed” traditionalists that were creating a lot of superstitious claptrap to justify the return to tradition. That is the way of the Devil to move people away from the Church.
Those ignorant behaviors are also critical in undermining all the piety, studies, and apologetic work done by traditionalists that really do it for the love of God and not for the love of themselves. I have seen a lot of charitable and knowledgeable traditional Catholics find to defend rightful and good traditions just because someone else just decided that spewing was the best way to be a traditional Catholic.
It is not always a pleasure being associated with someone that you strongly disagree with just because they enjoy the same form of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

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

I have as well, and it’s usually at those churches where the tabernacle is not front and center but off to the side of the altar. I hear in some churches the tabernacle is quite a distance from the altar/sanctuary.

 

[Bluegoat]

Where is your source for this?

So does sitting in a judge’s chair automatically make one a judge? Seems as if you have to earn that position first before it has any meaning. Same for holiness in this case, IMO.

Good points about religious orders, though.

Well, a very wise priest said it to me. But I think he got it from Paul. And Jesus. “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”

As Christians, it really isn’t enough just to have an external relationship with rules. We know the created world is, in itself, good. An item or person or place in itself isn’t unclean, and in a perfect world all things and places would be holy. It is how we relate to things that can make them unclean or unholy. What we are trying to do is to allow God to make an interior change in us that will allow us to have that relationship with creation where it is all holy.

Part of the way we do that is by designating particular times and places as sacred, so that we can really immerse ourselves in the idea of sacred space and come to possess it within ourselves. That is most natural around the place where we participate in the Mass, because that is a big part of the gift of the Eucharist - making ourselves holy. We partake “that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us”.

Ultimately, we want to be continually enlarging that sacred space. Christ is allowed to dwell in us and so we take him out into the world with us. We want to be able even to look or interact with the worst sinner and see Christ shining forth in him and respond to that. Because Christianity tells us we are all redeemed by Christ, and the logos sustains us all.

So while creating a sacred space means often making the space restricted in some way to show us what holiness is, ultimately it works by transforming us internally so we can uncover the holiness in everything.

This is, I think, rather different than the Jewish approach which seeks to make one holy by avoiding contact with the unholy, and defilement comes from the unclean thing itself.

 

[ProVobis]

I would guess it probably carried over from Judaic law.

And the two cherubims on each side of the tabernacle are a reminder of that.

 

[TrueLight]

I do not think that he is grumpy, and what he says makes a lot of sense.

I was being nice. “Superstitious claptrap” is what most would call… uncharitable at best.

Claptrap
pretentious but insincere or empty language: His speeches seem erudite but analysis reveals them to be mere claptrap.
2.
any artifice or expedient for winning applause or impressing the public.

During the years on CAF I noticed a lot of “self-professed” traditionalists that were creating a lot of superstitious claptrap to justify the return to tradition. That is the way of the Devil to move people away from the Church.
Those ignorant behaviors are also critical in undermining all the piety, studies, and apologetic work done by traditionalists that really do it for the love of God and not for the love of themselves. I have seen a lot of charitable and knowledgeable traditional Catholics find to defend rightful and good traditions just because someone else just decided that spewing was the best way to be a traditional Catholic.
It is not always a pleasure being associated with someone that you strongly disagree with just because they enjoy the same form of the Mass.

Man oh man. I’ll take your word for it since I’ve only been here for three months.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Very good point.

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

It varies from Church to Church. Definitely in our Church, women are allowed to clean behind the Iconostasis,and replace the altar linens. I took part in such exercise on the eve of Easter, where we lifted the tabernacle off the Holy Table and the women replaced the linen. Then we placed the tabernacle back. Everyone was lay. The only absolute no-no was when there was any type of Service going on (Divine Liturgy or any other prayer service).

Actually the most important area in a Byzantine sanctuary is the area between the Holy Doors and the Holy Table. Only ordained men may go through that area. Even altar servers or even those ordained to Minor Orders cannot stand in that area. Funny though that the Bishop told me after one Liturgy that I should stand closer to him to hand him the censer. I’m a bit too careful not to enter that area but what happens is that he has to reach out a bit to get the censer.

edit to add:

The nice thing about the Byzantine tradition is that many of the other ministries in church by the laity are done outside the Iconostasis. Women may become a Cantoress or Lectoress because there is never a church architecture where the Cantor would be behind the Iconostasis, nor an area beside the Sanctuary where its looks kind of a gray area if its part of the Sanctuary or not. Also for Lectors, all lay reading are done in the center of the Nave. I’ve heard some would even have the reader stand at the back of the Nave in the middle facing the Holy Doors. But for us the reader just go to the center, or sometimes remain where they are.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So what you’re saying is that because Christ gave everbody access to God, then we should treat the Eucharist less reverently?

Where did I say that? Is having access to Christ less reverence?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

So what about married priests?