Would you like altar rails to return?

[Mike_Gallagher]

I would also like to see the return of the rails, as it is another reminder of where you are and why you are there.

A very conservative priest once said to me that distributing the Host to people in their hand felt like handing out bus tickets!

 

[Kielbasi]

The latter should happen as a result of common sense, but a lack of catechesis is what led to the removal of altar rails (and statues, icons, sanctus bells, proper music, incense, etc.) in the first place

HUH???

There may be a lack of catechesis, but it had nothing to do with the removal of altar rails, statues, icons, etc. The people , catechised or not, had nothing to do with the decision to do any of that. That was the decision of the bishops and parish priests who were presumably well catechised.

BTW, the Latin rite of the church never had icons at all until recent years, that’s a modern easternization.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

See above quote from the Catechism. It doesn’t have anything to do with EMHC’s or blurring the line between priest and laity. The Catechism was largely the work of the pope and the CDF, and I doubt that they were thinking, “Ya know, we need to get the laity up on the altar more.” Sorry, but it seems to me to be merely a matter of more faithfully copying what the Lord did at the Last Supper. You don’t have to receive Both to rec. the Lord in His Fullness (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), the Church has said so and she has all the authority to govern Her Sacraments. But you can if you wish and it should be allowed. And it is allowed, thank God, in every parish of which I’ve been a member.

It is really hard for me to get into this more faithful copying of the Last Supper and return to the Primitive Church that so many seem to want. I may be wrong, I often am, but not all of Christs followers were at the Last Supper were they? As I recall, just the 12 Apostles were there. No one else. Not the 72 Disciples, none of the multitudes, not the Blessed Virgin, not Mary Magdalene, just the 12… Since the Ordained Priesthood descends directly from the 12 Apostles it makes logical sense to me that the Chalice be given to them, as they are the true descendents of the Last Supper. However, since no one else was there, it seems like a stretch to make the link in that regard for communion under both species for everyone. Yes the Chalice was offered for many years, and tremendous abuses occurred as a result, so it was stopped. With good reason too I might add. Check out why they stopped doing it. You may be surprised.

Since there seems to be such an interest in returning to the primitive church, where exactly do the gentiles among us fit in? As I recall, Christ himself did not extend the teachings into the Gentile areas, and in fact in Matthew he specifically told the Apostles not to go to them. Although a vague reference in John suggests it. So that came later. After the Last Supper as I recall. So logically, returning the church to the time of the Last Supper would disenfranchise many of us and deprive us of our faith and salvation So returning to the Primitive Church might not be the best of all options for many of us.

I still believe offering the Chalice to the Laity is an excuse for more active participation by the laity. You really wouldn’t need Extraordinary Ministers of Communion for communion under one species would you? And could there be a better way to blur the line between the Priesthood and the laity, if my hypothesis about the Last Supper is true?

As I said, I’m often wrong and may be this time. Who knows?.

 

[InnocentIII]

HUH???

There may be a lack of catechesis, but it had nothing to do with the removal of altar rails, statues, icons, etc. The people , catechised or not, had nothing to do with the decision to do any of that. That was the decision of the bishops and parish priests who were presumably well catechised.

BTW, the Latin rite of the church never had icons at all until recent years, that’s a modern easternization.

This is not entirely true … the Icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help dates back to the Middle Ages. It is generally true however that the Western Church preferred statues to icons.

 

[Fergal]

YES!!! And it is not because I want a ‘return’ to the old days""

Since they were taken away, the sanctuary has become a place to traverse for any reason.

In our parish, we have many doors leading outside and one in particular that leads outside very close to the external door of the vestry; (our vestry is beside the sanctuary).

When anyone wants to speak to Father after of before Holy Mass, they simply march up the steps, across the sanctuary and in through the internal vestry door. They then have their little chat and leave out through the same door, across the sancturay once more and out of the Church. There is no sign of reverence anywhere along the way with most of them. They could easily go out side and then up to the external vestry door, which is always open, and share their piece. it is about 5 seconds longer to go outside.

This is what annoys me most. Since this is an ‘I’ statement I realise I am not showing much humility or patience so apologies.

 

[AJV]

JNB:

Whats wrong with intinction? As far as I am concerned, the chalice needs to be abolished, and intinction should be the norm for communion under both species.

The church for the first 10 centuries or so actually favoured the chalice over intinction which was associated with the communion of Judas. It was discouraged by local councils and even by ++Paschal II.
Anyone know why this attitude later changed in both the east and west?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

It is really hard for me to get into this more faithful copying of the Last Supper and return to the Primitive Church that so many seem to want. I may be wrong, I often am, but not all of Christs followers were at the Last Supper were they? As I recall, just the 12 Apostles were there. No one else. Not the 72 Disciples, none of the multitudes, not the Blessed Virgin, not Mary Magdalene, just the 12… Since the Ordained Priesthood descends directly from the 12 Apostles it makes logical sense to me that the Chalice be given to them, as they are the true descendents of the Last Supper. However, since no one else was there, it seems like a stretch to make the link in that regard for communion under both species for everyone. Yes the Chalice was offered for many years, and tremendous abuses occurred as a result, so it was stopped. With good reason too I might add. Check out why they stopped doing it. You may be surprised.

Since there seems to be such an interest in returning to the primitive church, where exactly do the gentiles among us fit in? As I recall, Christ himself did not extend the teachings into the Gentile areas, and in fact in Matthew he specifically told the Apostles not to go to them. Although a vague reference in John suggests it. So that came later. After the Last Supper as I recall. So logically, returning the church to the time of the Last Supper would disenfranchise many of us and deprive us of our faith and salvation So returning to the Primitive Church might not be the best of all options for many of us.

I still believe offering the Chalice to the Laity is an excuse for more active participation by the laity. You really wouldn’t need Extraordinary Ministers of Communion for communion under one species would you? And could there be a better way to blur the line between the Priesthood and the laity, if my hypothesis about the Last Supper is true?

As I said, I’m often wrong and may be this time. Who knows?.

The argument about who was at the Last Supper still doesn’t wash. It’s similar to the Protestants who try to proof text using isolated Scripture (I’m not saying you are a Protestant, anyone reading your posts would realize that wasn’t the case). What’s important is how the Church understood it. It did not occur to the Church that the laity shouldn’t receive the Chalice because from the beginning, it had been offered to them. For over 1200 years, the chalice was given to the laity. It was stopped, not because of abuse, but finally because of the Hussite heresy. So for some 770 years (less, but rounding is easier), the chalice was denied. The Church has permitted it again (how the sacraments are governed is discipline, not dogma) and has further illuminated that receiving under both Sacred Species is a “fuller sign.” She did this in the Catechism, the universal instrument for catechisis in the Faith. Now, she doesn’t require it. No one is MADE to receive from the Chalice. So if people don’t wish to do so, they shouldn’t. For those who do wish to do so, the Church permits it. My only point in all of this was to say that I hope the return of altar rails (which I think would be a good thing) doesn’t impede the reception of the Chalice. If you and yours don’t want to receive It, then don’t.

As for lay involvement, I don’t know what the right balance is. I don’t see anyone attempting to assist the priest in the consecration of the Sacrifice (though I’ve been told it happens, that priests ask the congregation to extend their hands and help confect the Sacrifice) or any of the other things that are exclusive to the ordained priesthood. I advocate for the ordination of more permanent deacons. They are one of the Holy Orders. Then there would be no need for EMHCs at Mass, though we would still need them to take Holy Communion to the sick.

 

[JNB]

The reception of both species in the West for the laity started to die out around the 10th-11th century I understand, and was eliminated alltogether by 1200-1300s with the Hussite heresy, while the chalice may have been used, intinction may have been used as well, it depends on the local useage in the West, and there were quite a few local useages untill Trent(hence one of the problems in trying to reconstruct the mass of the early church, the many various local useages and in some cases, local rites).

In the East, the liturgy is more or less the same since the 7th ecumenical council, around the 8th century.

AJV:

The church for the first 10 centuries or so actually favoured the chalice over intinction which was associated with the communion of Judas. It was discouraged by local councils and even by ++Paschal II.
Anyone know why this attitude later changed in both the east and west?

 

[msproule]

HUH???

There may be a lack of catechesis, but it had nothing to do with the removal of altar rails, statues, icons, etc. The people , catechised or not, had nothing to do with the decision to do any of that. That was the decision of the bishops and parish priests who were presumably well catechised.

Presumably, yes, but were they really? A lack of proper instruction to the general clergy following the Council (catechesis, if you will) led directly to the removal of altar rails, etc. As Cardinal Arinze points out here, to have acted otherwise was a mistake on their part.

BTW, the Latin rite of the church never had icons at all until recent years, that’s a modern easternization.

Study up on the Iconoclasm heresy. The Western Church has always held icons in high esteem.

 

[palmas85]

It is true, I admit it, I am against the laity receiving the Chalice. Well no, not really so much against it as I just don’t understand the desire nor the need for us to do it. From these posts however, I think that intinction would be a simple, economical and vastly better way to receive under both species than by using Extraordinary Ministers as they are currently used. In fact, if the Latin Rite accepted intinction as a method, then there would be no need for extraordinary ministers of communion, would there?

Of course, there would be less full and active participation by the laity. Maybe my earlier ideas about the whole issue of why the Chalice is offered to the laity has some merit.

But, I think I solved the dilemma. Offer intinction, do away with extraordinary ministers and all the confusion that usually results from ten to fifteen persons parading through the sanctuary, and maybe things will start getting back to normal. Everything has to start somewhere.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

It is true, I admit it, I am against the laity receiving the Chalice. Well no, not really so much against it as I just don’t understand the desire nor the need for us to do it

A) Because Our Lord gave it to us, at least in the early Church’s understanding.

B) Because both species are a fuller sign, again according to the Church.

Yes, intinction would work. But why are you so opposed to the Chalice being given to the laity? If we had sufficient priests that there was no need for EMHCs, would you feel differently? I don’t understand this. The ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Chalice isn’t a blurring of the lines between priest and people. I mean, the priests eats the Most Sacred Body, is the fact that we eat It also an “over-involvement of the laity?”

 

[Iohannes]

#1 Reason why the chalice was not offered.
People believed that receiving the Body was not sufficent enough.

More reasons not to have the chalice:

1. Creates Extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion when it is not needed.
2. Accidental spillage.
3. Look at the top of the post.

A good compromise which may work is intinction:
The two species are together, so there is no confusion that they are seperate.

 

[David_B]

jimmy:

It seems that you have gotten a good response, 81% sat yes, bring them back.

It would seem so!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

#1 Reason why the chalice was not offered.
People believed that receiving the Body was not sufficent enough.
**Heretics believed this. The Church corrected it. There’s no reason to continue to deny the Chalice based on the above. **

More reasons not to have the chalice:

1. Creates Extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion when it is not needed. EMHCs aren’t evil if they aren’t abused. Enabling the laity to receive the Chalice is hardly an abuse.
2. Accidental spillage. Surely has always been a danger, much as any accident that might happen to the Most Sacred Body.

A good compromise which may work is intinction: ** I don’t deny this, but the reasons listed aren’t good enough to my mind. If they Church restricts it, that’s good enough. If she permits it, that’s good enough, too.**
The two species are together, so there is no confusion that they are seperate.

I think a lot of people take a position because it’s part of a platform and they accept the platform wholesale without looking at the individual planks. The denial of the Chalice as a matter of course (there are certainly times when it’s inappropriate for the Chalice to be offered, huge crowds, etc) is a bad plank in a what may be a good platform and I don’t think a lot of people who oppose it do it for any other reason than that it’s “conservative” (it’s perfectly orthodox to hold the opposite opinion in this matter of discipline). I’ve begun to think that it’s a party line thing.

This argument of blurring the line between priests and people: the only time I’ve seen that has been when it was encouraged by the PRIEST! A good priest can eliminate that in about a week’s time. Of course, I still see no reason why the Church isn’t encouraging more men to seek the permanent diaconate.

 

[Kielbasi]

I still see no reason why the Church isn’t encouraging more men to seek the permanent diaconate.

Preparing someone to become a deacon is a lot of work, and much of what deacons do can be done by unordained volunteer lay people.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kielbasi:

Preparing someone to become a deacon is a lot of work, and much of what deacons do can be done by unordained volunteer lay people.

But not the administration of the chalice according to some here. Also, there has been a “wind in the sails” to have more deacons who could administer parishes, giving the priests more time to be pastors.

Ya know what, I didn’t intend to hijack this thread, so this is the last from me on the Chalice for this particular thread. Yes, return the rails. It’s a matter of personal preference and I would prefer them.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

A) Because Our Lord gave it to us, at least in the early Church’s understanding.

B) Because both species are a fuller sign, again according to the Church.

Yes, intinction would work. But why are you so opposed to the Chalice being given to the laity? If we had sufficient priests that there was no need for EMHCs, would you feel differently? I don’t understand this. The ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Chalice isn’t a blurring of the lines between priest and people. I mean, the priests eats the Most Sacred Body, is the fact that we eat It also an “over-involvement of the laity?”

Explain to me how receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” than receiving under one? If we accept the truth that the body and blood are truly and completely present under BOTH or EITHER species, how can it be a fuller sign of anything? If you receive the full benefit either way, how exactly does the reception from the Chalice create a fuller sign? It looks to me like typical beaurocratic doublespeak to tell the truth, in order to promote a certain thing or behavior, which in this particular case is to promote extraordinary ministers, and more active lay participation. And again I repeat, I cannot understand why, if you truly believe that you receive the Precious Body and Blood through communion under one species, you would feel the need to receive under both, or even the desire to. The only reason I can think of is that some people feel a bit holier if they receive under both. Much the same as occurred prior to discontinuing the Chalice, people rubbing the blood on their eyes, smearing on their faces, soaking clothing it it etc. Beyond that, every time I have seen the Chalice offered, not too often in my parish by the way, I have seen spillage, I have seen the blood dribbling over the sides of the chalice and dripping to the floor. I saw one time when a communicant took the chalice and drained it in one gulp Thats why I have come to believe that if it is to be offered intinction might be the best way to go.

 

[tee_eff_em]

palmas85:

Explain to me how receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” than receiving under one?

Because the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, with the approval of Pope John Paul II of blessed memory, teaches us so?

1. Formam ratione signi pleniorem habet sacra Communio cum fit sub utraque specie. In ea enim forma signum eucharistici convivii perfectius elucet, et clarius exprimitur voluntas qua novum et aeternum Testamentum in Sanguine Domini ratum habetur, necnon ratio inter convivium eucharisticum et convivium eschatologicum in regno Patris.
   
   Institutio generalis Missalis Romani​
   ​

1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
   
   General Instruction of the Roman Missal​

tee

 

[puzzleannie]

Only if restoring the communion rails is part of a general movement toward building Churches that look like churches and not gymnasiums, ski lodges, or hotel lobbies.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Explain to me how receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” than receiving under one? If we accept the truth that the body and blood are truly and completely present under BOTH or EITHER species, how can it be a fuller sign of anything? If you receive the full benefit either way, how exactly does the reception from the Chalice create a fuller sign? It looks to me like typical beaurocratic doublespeak to tell the truth, in order to promote a certain thing or behavior, which in this particular case is to promote extraordinary ministers, and more active lay participation. And again I repeat, I cannot understand why, if you truly believe that you receive the Precious Body and Blood through communion under one species, you would feel the need to receive under both, or even the desire to. The only reason I can think of is that some people feel a bit holier if they receive under both. Much the same as occurred prior to discontinuing the Chalice, people rubbing the blood on their eyes, smearing on their faces, soaking clothing it it etc. Beyond that, every time I have seen the Chalice offered, not too often in my parish by the way, I have seen spillage, I have seen the blood dribbling over the sides of the chalice and dripping to the floor. I saw one time when a communicant took the chalice and drained it in one gulp Thats why I have come to believe that if it is to be offered intinction might be the best way to go.

Document, please, the following:

Much the same as occurred prior to discontinuing the Chalice, people rubbing the blood on their eyes, smearing on their faces, soaking clothing it it etc.

As for the following:

Explain to me how receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” than receiving under one?

Do you know better than the Church, who gives that teaching in the Catechism? It’s a fuller sign to take It that way because that’s how It was given to us, by Our Lord’s Own Hand, and it’s a fuller sign because that’s how the Magisterium describes it.

I cannot believe that, given the above, anyone could then describe the administration of the Chalice as a plot to promote greater lay involvment. Again, if YOU don’t want to recieve it, then don’t. No one forces you to do so, or constrains your conscience to do so. I haven’t said that you MUST recieve it, which should be ample demonstration that I fully believe what the Church teaches, ie, that the fullness of Grace, of both the Body and the Blood, is contained in both Species. The fact that I avail myself of the Chalice, allowed me by the Church, is no concern of anyone else. This is what I mean by a “party line.” We don’t have to walk in some rigid goose step to be Catholics.