In Norwalk, Conn., when a groundswell of parishioner support encouraged pastor Father Greg Markey to restore St. Mary Church, the second-oldest parish in the diocese, to its original 19th-century neo-gothic magnificence, he made sure altar rails were again part of the sanctuary.
Altar rails are present in several new churches architect Duncan Stroik has designed. Among them, the Thomas Aquinas College Chapel in Santa Paula, Calif., the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wis., and three others on the drawing boards.
Altar (Communion) rails are returning for all the right reasons.
Said Father Markey: “First, the Holy Father is requiring holy Communion from him be received on the knees. Second, it’s part of our tradition as Catholics for centuries to receive holy Communion on the knees. Third, it’s a beautiful form of devotion to our blessed Lord.”
James Hitchcock, professor and author of Recovery of the Sacred (Ignatius Press, 1995), thinks the rail resurgence is a good idea. The main reason is reverence, he said. “Kneeling’s purpose is to facilitate adoration,” he explained.
When Stroik proposed altar rails for the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, “Cardinal [Raymond] Burke liked the idea and thought that was something that would give added reverence to the Eucharist and sanctuary.”
In Eastern Orthodox churches, there is an iconostasis — a wall of icons and religious paintings that separate the nave from the sanctuary — rather than altar rail separating the sanctuary. While the altar rail is usually about two feet high, the iconostasis veils most of the sanctuary.
“The altar rail is nothing compared to that,” he says, “and these are our Eastern brethren. We can benefit and learn something.”
[Source: National Catholic Register, July 3, 2011.] See full article
17 comments:
Wouldn't be wonderful to have communion rails at St. Paul's? I don't think people would know how to use them, they barely know how to genuflect. Ah...but it would be nice and you wouldn't need all those EMHC.
Having received in both manners, I would say that for me receiving at the altar rail facilitates adoration (a point made in the article). But it is between each one's soul and the Almighty that any true sincerity might be discerned.
Also, in regard to the Eastern Churches, it should be mentioned that the Byzantine Catholic Churches do have the iconostasis - which demonstrate the mystery of a heavenly kingdom here on earth apart from the congregation itself; tough to put in words but deep in appreciation. We can stand to learn very much from the Eastern Catholic Churches, they have endured so much suffering for their beliefs and their recognition of the Holy Father in Rome, and yet have survived. Catholic does not necessarily mean Roman Catholic. There are 22 Eastern Churches, may we always remember.
Additionally, to add to Navarone, the altar rail would definitely cut down on the time it takes to situate all the EMHCs. I know they make every effort to assemble quickly and are quite reverent all the while, but still it takes a good deal of time to get everybody in place. The altar rail would ease this.
I will admit that putting in an altar rail would take some restructuring of the present architecture - the sanctuary and steps and ramp. No doubt such an endeavor would be very difficult to undergo. It would perhaps be better that each of us tries all the more to reflect on the awesome grace given us in Holy Communion and to more deeply and humbly acknowledge the Godhead present.
Just another step back to Pre-Vatican II. Why are we spending so much time and energy on things like communion rails when the church has so many other issues that need serious attention? The "rails" were put into churches to keep the "people" separate from the liturgical space in the early church. Let's just go back to Latin masses, chapel veils, gloves, and black cassocks...that will solve all the issues that are the elephants in the room.
Here we go again. The Holy Father expects communion kneeling while Vatican II has us doing it the other way around. Which is it? Communion Rails are nice. It doesn't matter whether you kneel or stand it is how you are in your heart that should matter. If I don't kneel, does this make me less worthy to receive Body and Blood of our Lord? If I receive from a Eucharistic Minister instead of the priest, am I unworthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ? Exactly what purpose did the Communion Rails offer that they were installed in the first place. I believe that they were used to keep animals out of the santuraries. It would be nice if the priests could speak about this part of the Catholic history of churches.
I agree with Navaronne that many people at St. Paul's would not know how to use them. Many of the people do not even know to say Amen before receiving communion. I sit in the front of the church so I can easily hear what they say and don't say. I see people genuflecting when approaching for communion and others make the sign of the cross. All of this is very confusing.
On a last note, I am not sure Pope Benedict wants to go back to the dard ages. I don't. Just because I don't kneel to receive communion doesn't mean I am unworthy to be a Catholic. I don't think the pope has a right to refuse someone communion just because they are not kneeling. What would Jesus have done? Thrown them out. Refused to give them the Body of Christ. I don't think so.
There was nothing in the Second Vatican Council that said remove communion rails, so you see something was taken away from you and now some object to them being put back. Historically, communion rails served a practical purpose as place to kneel and receive Holy Communion also to distinguish not separate the sanctuary from the nave or main body of the church. There is usually a gate between the main sections which allow access to the sanctuary during processions. Communion rails are also architecturally and aesthetically significant elements within the church.
After it became the usual practice to receive Communion standing, the practical use of the communion rail was diminished.
The removal of communion rails can be linked to the opinions that prevailed in the early decades following the Second Vatican Council, which held that the "enclosed" sanctuary implied that the body of worshipers were excluded from the sacred action of the Mass for this reason they were removed. Within the past several years a new appreciation for sacredness in art and architecture as well as a renewed desire among Catholics for reverence at Mass has led to restoration of communion rails and also including them in newly constructed churches.
Kneeling or standing does not make one more/less Catholic but if Jesus were to suddenly stand before us (despite the fact that he is truly present already) in the sanctuary would you stand and say "my Lord and my God" or kneel and say "my Lord and my God" as St. Thomas did?
Navarone does a nice job answering some of these points. Thanks.
In regard to worthiness, none of us is worthy to receive Holy Communion. Yet grace abounds.
I'd think that the soul's recognition of its Maker present before it would cause the body to tremble and fall in complete adoration. Or maybe it wouldn't be any more special than going through the line of a cafeteria?
Thanks Navarone.
Also, the Holy Father is not forcing anyone to receive one way or the other, though he does have a kneeler in front of him when he distributes Holy Communion - so people kneel.
St. Mary in Akron had the altar rail, but also had a line to the side for those receiving standing.
Freedom in how one shows reverence is part of the Vatican's document Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
I remember when all the fuss came about when we were given the opportunity to stand or kneel for communion and giventhe opportuntity to receive in the hand. As a Eucharastic Minister I have given communion to anyone who appraoches me to receive whether it be in the hand or on the tongue. I don't judge whether someone is worthy or unworthy that is not my job.
Perhaps a communion rail would be nice but the time it takes for EM's to get in place would not be solved by installing a rail. The way we are to stand and distribute is set forth by the pastor. I have not heard of anyone complaining about how long it takes for the EM's to get in place. I have heard complaints about there not being enough cups at the 11am mass.
Even if you took a survey and asked for communion rails to be installed they would not.
Remember the controversy over the removal of the tabernacle? Parisher's had to fight hard to get it placed back in the santucuary.
I also believe that Second Vatican Council asked the Catholic church to become more universal and community oriented. To do this meant becoming more together. There is nothing wrong with being connected to other Catholics or any other denomination.
Does not the Catholic church have more important issues to deal with then whether or not communion rails are in a church or not.
I attended St. Mary's on several occassions for different functions and remember the looks I received when I went to stand for communion. It was as if I had committed mortal sin for standing to receive communion. I am so thankful that I belong to a parish that does not judge how, when, or where an individual receives communion.
I do agreee with anonomous that the pastor should speak on this issue to clear up any misunderstanding that folks seem to have about this.
It would help.
So someone thinks an altar rail would hurry up the process of receiving communion. Why are they in such a hurry. Who put a time frame on how long it takes to get to communion and back to a pew just to leave the church. I don't understand that comment. EM's do the very best they can to assemble.
Instead of thinking about how much time it will take someone to get to communion and race back to a pew shouldn't be what people are thinking about when they are in line to receive the Lord's body and blood.
Come on St. Paul's are you thinking about what time it is or are you preparing to receive the body and blood of our crusified Savior.
It sounds to me as if St. Paul's is concerned with how much time it takes to be in church.
In the non-denominational churches time spent in worship is never considered a problem. People wish to be there and communion is not offered on a regular basis. As a convert, I deeply appreciate all the time I must spend to receive the body and blood. I am not in a hurry to get back home.
As a new parishioner to St. Paul's I have noticed that the EMHC do seem to take to long, not so much to assemble but deciding on who is doing what. Sometimes the celebrant is ready to distribute communion and he is patently waiting. Perhaps everything is being done that can be done, but I have witnessed confusion over who is distributing the blood or the host.
What I have noticed most and I see it as being very disrespectful are those who take the opportunity to shake hands or converse with there buddies as they are going up to communion. The time for socializing is before and after mass and preferably outside the church. If they can make an announcement before mass to turn your cell phones off so as not to have any disruptions in the service they make a few more announcements about other bad behaviors too.
As a former parishioner of St. Mary's, I have seen many people mostly the elderly go to the communion rail and receive communion standing up or even remaining in the very first pew and received communion and no one said anything or made had any strange looks and after singing in the choir loft for 30 some years I have seen a lot and never seen anyone treated with disrespect.
I apologize for the volatile comment on the time it takes for the EMHCs to assemble. I did not mean to offend, but to observe, and was clearly in the wrong to do so. The end I had in mind was not that of a given length of time spent in the church, but as to what I had perceived to be an inefficient use of time. Some of the responses do not bear upon this, and are emotional responses that I apologize for eliciting.
Ironically, I probably wouldn't notice so much if I weren't standing in the pew while Holy Communion is given to the EMHCs and the ciboria and chalices are distributed, but instead kneeling and praying on the kneeler in the pew (something that changed after GIRM circa 2002/2003), which gets us back into the kneeling/standing topic.
As an addendum to my previous comment, I should like to define what I mean to be "an inefficient use of time." I simply mean to say that I perceive a shift in the thread of continuity of the sacrifice at Mass. It's at that moment that my focus does not continue smoothly, and so perhaps this is peculiar only to myself. Maybe I can illustrate this: if a lector were to take a three second pause after every word proclaimed in a reading, e.g. Thus... says... the... Lord:... just... as... from... the... heavens... the... rain... and... snow... etc... I would find this discontinuous, I would have trouble keeping focused, and I would consider this inefficient.
I'm not sure that this has helped explain my thought, but I'll strive to better focus and prepare my heart for Holy Communion. I again apologize for what is simply my own shortcoming, and in no way the fault of those who serve our parish.
If the EM's would stand at the foot of the altar in the order they are supposed to perhaps it would not be so confusing. However, if you are not a Eucharistic Minister then you do not understand what is happening on the altar. Yes, some of them forget where they are supposed to stand. With the elimination of many cup positions at 11am mass, it is confusing to make sure that all have an opportunity to receive the blood of Christ. We do the best we can but ultimately, how and where and how many EM's at a given mass falls on the pastor's decision. Sometimes, he gets mixed up where he is supposed to be and then everything gets messed up. Em's do a wonderful job and it would seem to me that as Catholics, we should be thinking and preparing ourselves for reception of communion. Are we that bored with the mass at this point that we can only find what EM's can or cannot do.
I can't be quiet anylonger. I feel that I need to put my two cents worth in on this EM deal. It would appear as if the communion rail article has stirred up a great deal of controversy over Eucharistic Ministers and when and how long it takes them to do something.
This is very disheartening that as a Eucharistic Minister at St. Paul's parishiners are unhappy with what is going on during Communion.
The same issues happened when Deacon Frank was here and noone appeared to be upset at how long it took him to make sure that everything was good to go.
The purpose of a Eucharistic Minister, a position I hold very dear, is not to replace the presider of the liturgy but to assist him with the distribution of the Body and Blood of Chirst at all masses and special times that we are needed.
I don't know of a single EM that does not do this with the utmost reverence. What I don't understand is why the congregation is finding fault with them. We go through extensive training not just initially but ongoing to make sure that we can be as effeicent as possible. I think the person talking about the priest standing there waiting patiently might not see the priest standing there if John Amedeo wasn't up on the altar doing the work of the deacon. When Frank Lonteen was there, he did all the priest work and it took the same amount of time so why are we fussing about this now.
To receive the Body and Blood of Christ is the reson the Catholic church stands out as the best of all faiths. To realize that this is a special time that is not offered in any other church on a daily basis should be an element that reminds us of exactly what it is for.
Perhaps anoynomous is right in the fact that it would appear that our thoughts are not where they should be but finding ourselves judging everything that goes on.
How about trying to be more patient and understanding instead of being judgemental and wathcing the clock.
This is the first chance I have had to look at the blog in over a week. I would like to know where this article came from. Is it the entire article or paraphrased. Please let me know as I would like to read the whole thing.
Sorry. I thought I had listed the source. It was from the National Catholic Register and I have added a link to it.
Thank you for the link to the complete article. Needless to say it allows for an indepth discussion on why America does things their way. It is very hard for me to accept that only in America we stand and receive with our hands. Receiving communion in the hand is an option. As a Eucharistic Minister, I have given communion to many parishiners at St. Paul's on their tonguews and respect that.
Reading the entire article may help some of those who responded previously to the small paraphrased article on the blog.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment