Can anyone point me to authoritative texts for the removal of altar/communion rails from churches. I cannot find any decent online resources: I have only found one text claiming the Vatican are opposed unless it is absolutely necessary i.e. due to changing the size of the sanctuary etc, but does not give the sources.

Please help as my own parish are talking about taking them away.

Benji

-- Benji (benji@benji.com), November 01, 2004

Answers

bump

-- bump (bump@bump.com), November 01, 2004.

For an expert answer on this and other matters related to wreck- ovations of Catholic churches -- and for help in fighting such foolish pastoral actions -- please contact the St. Joseph Foundation, experts in Canon Law.

There are NO authoritative Church texts requiring or recommending the removal of altar rails. Only NON-authoritative texts have suggested this -- such as an infamous, non-binding, putrid 1970s document from a small committee of bishops. Unfortunately, the latter document ("Environment and Art") has been MIScharacterized by various bishops and many parish pastors as something that was binding on them, supposedly forcing (or at least authorizing) them to wreck-ovate their once-beautiful churches. At long last, a majority of bishops have acted to suppress the bad document, replacing it with a better one.

-- @ (@@@.@), November 01, 2004.

The St. Joseph Foundation, as far as I can see, addresses issues of Canon Law, and "rights" of the faithful. The physical design of churches, including the presence or absence of altar rails, has nothing to do with Canon Law, and altar rails are certainly not a "right". Therefore I don't see why SJF would address such an issue.

It is true that "there are NO authoritative Church texts requiring or recommending the removal of altar rails". It is equally true that there are NO authoritative church texts requiring their installation or perpetuation. Therefore there is no sound objective basis for objecting to their removal. However, since such alterations to church design are merely a matter of someone's opinion, it would be well for the lay congregation to collectively voice their opinions before such plans progress too far. It's pretty difficult to influence a change after the architects have been paid. They should request the specific reasons behind such alterations, and also be prepared to offer specific reasons for their own position. "We don't like it" isn't going to prevent such alterations from occuring.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2004.

Stop the wreckovations!

Here are some resour ces.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

Thanks Nick

However, these make no reference to the altar rail issue

-- Benji (benji@benji.com), November 03, 2004.

"However, these make no reference to the altar rail issue."

Hi Benji,

My first link mentions "Communion rails have been ripped out, tabernacles hidden, kneelers removed, pews replaced by portable chairs, statues sold to antique dealers, and priceless works of art lost." It's only one part of the whole wreckovation insanity. Paul is probably correct - there are probably no "official" documents either way. Pre-Vatican II, there was no need for such a document because removing altar rails would have been unthinkable. Post-Vatican II, good luck finding almost anything that isn't ambiguous enough for a modernist to exploit.

I can't comment on your church in particular, but the ripping out of altar rails is almost always accompanied by other destruction too (often the altar itself). When the modernists bring in their jackhammers, they're not likely to stop with the altar rail. My advice is to fight this. In my former parish, the beautiful marble altar was destined for the jackhammer until people found out that wreckovation is very expensive and revolted. The altar rail was ripped out though, I'm sad to report. (Has anyone noticed the striking parallels between the destruction of altars, altar rails, statues, etc. in England in the time of Cranmer, Henry XIII, and Elizabeth I; and the past 40 years?)

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004.

TEST

-- in da nite (thing@go.bump), November 03, 2004.

thanks ya'll.

-- bump (things@that.go), November 03, 2004.

I also regret much of the "modernization" of beautiful old churches, but I have also seen some very beautiful recently constructed modern churches. And I have seen some rather ugly churches, both old and new. It is true that "Pre- Vatican II ... removing altar rails would have been unthinkable." The reason of course is that pre-Vatican II, altar rails were needed. They served an essential purpose. The faithful would kneel there in order to receive Holy Communion. That functional purpose no longer exists. Another important purpose of the altar rail was to clearly set apart the sanctuary from the rest of the church structure, to emphasize the sanctity of what occurs there. While it is important not to diminish that concept, it can be accomplished a number of ways other than by constructing a wall or fence between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself and the congregation - such as elevating the sanctuary above the level of the main body of the church (to me, far more symbolic than separation by a fence), and the use of different materials, especially more precious materials, in the construction of the sanctuary area.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.

"Pre- Vatican II ... removing altar rails would have been unthinkable."

True, but why should it be "thinkable" post-VII? As Paul says, The Council documents did not say anything about altar rails being removed (nor about moving the tabernacle , nor that mass should be celebrated facing the people, nor.....) What good has removing the rails accomplished? Like most post-VII innovations, it has been a disaster.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 03, 2004.

How so? How does not having a rail running across the front of the church qualify as "a disaster"?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.

Because it has discouraged kneeling when receiving the Eucharist, which has contributed to individuals adopting less pious postures and attitudes when receiving our Lord. I know you disagree with this, as you and I disagree on communion in the hand, but that's the way I see it. 70% of Catholics aged 18-44 don't believe in the Real Presence. Many things can be blamed, in part, for this pathetic statistic. Removing altar rails is but one of those things, so maybe the word disaster is too strong (or maybe not), but all of these things collectively have been a disaster IMO. I pray that altar rails and the posture of kneeling to receive communion return to become the norm in the Liturgy.

The attitude of kneeling ought never to be allowed to disappear from the Church. It is the most impressive physical expression of Christian piety, by which, on one hand, we remain upright, looking out, gazing upon Him, but, on the other, we nonetheless bow down.

--Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 03, 2004.

In my diocese the Altar and altar rails went the way of destruction seven years ago. The church is now almost empty. Coincidence?

-- Who cares (what@happened.com), November 03, 2004.

"Because it has discouraged kneeling when receiving the Eucharist, which has contributed to individuals adopting less pious postures and attitudes when receiving our Lord."

Brian, I think you have it backwards. Receiving Holy Communion standing is not a result of removal of altar rails. Removal of altar rails is a result of (among other factors) the lack of need for them because Communion is now received standing.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox. net), November 03, 2004.

Yes, I understand that. They go hand in hand. Ok how about if I put it this way: What good has removing the rails receiving holy communion standing instead of kneeling, accomplished? Like most post-VII innovations, it has been a disaster.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 03, 2004.

After this discussion on the removal of altar rails, are we going to have a discussion concerning the right speed at which we are to make the sign of the cross?

I have come across no authoritative document instructing us to make the sign of the cross at any speed less than three and a half seconds. Why then am I seeing everybody making the sign of the cross at a speed averaging 1 second to 1 and a half seconds? I believe it is a sacrilege and grounds for being denied communion!

-- brian (brian@brian.com), November 03, 2004.

It took me 4 years to talk my husband into attending Mass with me. His religious background of fundamentalism and parents who were extremely anti-Catholic made it quite difficult for him to even entertain any conversation with me concerning my faith. We married when I was away from the Church. As the years went by, he became interested in Catholic theology..finally he agreed to attend Mass. He was stunned. He told me that "if Catholics believed that Christ was actually physically present in the Host, you'd never know it in a million years from their attitude of total irreverence." And he was correct. He went on to say he'd seen more respect given to the local mayor at a banquet than was shown by Catholics to God himself. We spoke with the priest..his response? "It's a casual church. If I bring the subject up, nobody will come to mass at all." People chewing GUM , chatting with their neighbors in communion line, laughing on the way back to their pews..oh yeah..I don't know what has happened to the Catholic Church ..this is NOT "ok"..and it began with saying it's OK not to kneel before the Host..and it's OK to rip out the kneelers altogether, and it's OK to remove the altar rail and call it a "barrier"..little by little these small things ENCOURAGE people to adopt a "casual" attitude towards the sacrament of HOLY Communion..and now people wonder WHY so many Catholics don't believe? Why should they? When people are TAUGHT there is no deference to be given to God by any outward signs,then the inference is that the Host is just a symbol..hey, it's "all good".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Lesley,

It's good to see you again. It's been quite a while.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 04, 2004.

Lesley,

Why do you put up with it? Why don't you leave your "casual church" and attend a Catholic Church? You say "I don't know what has happened to the Catholic Church". I say nothing has happened to the Catholic Church, but very undesirable things have predictably happened to people and parishes which have separated themselves from the authority of the Catholic Church, and it sounds like your own parish is clearly within that sad but small minority. In my parish, and in numerous others I have occasion to attend, no such disrespectful behavior is seen, nor would it be tolerated if it appeared. People participate fully in the Mass and receive the Blessed Sacrament with reverence, not because of the presence or absence of kneelers (though all the churches I attend have them) or altar rails (which may or may not be present), but because they are Catholics and are aware of the nature of the Most Holy Eucharist they are receiving. This is the norm. What you describe is a tragic deviation from the norm, which unfortunately is not a unique situation, but which is most certainly atypical of what happens in the great majority of Catholic parishes.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2004.

"... but because they are Catholics and are aware of the nature of the Most Holy Eucharist they are receiving."

A New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus. (See also "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II", by Kenneth C. Jones.) The people Lesley describes are simply part of that 70%. I've even heard of people acting that way in the presence of the Pope (World Youth Day, or any of those "stadium masses").

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Such "polls" are taken by telephone. They call random numbers and ask for a person's religious affiliation. If the person says "Catholic", they proceed to ask all kinds of opinion questions and even theological questions. They don't bother to ask if the person has attended Mass in the past 20 years, or for that matter if they have ever attended Mass as an adult. For a considerable number of people "Catholic" means their parents were nominally Catholic and they were baptized Catholic. Period. Or maybe they even went to Catholic grammar school 40 years ago. And they are proud of it! If you ever suggested to them that they are not really Catholic becaue they haven't practiced their faith in decades, they would rip your head off. Then the media publishes their "research" into what "today's Catholics" think and believe. The fact is, the body of people who will identify themselves as "Catholic" to a stranger on the phone is quite different from the body of people who receive the Eucharist weekly or even daily. If they want to know what Catholics really believe, why don't they stand outside a Catholic Church and poll the people who are leaving Sunday Mass?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2004.

Thanks Brian..nice to be back..I've been pretty ill for awhile.(what else is new?)

Why don't I leave? If I could, I would..rather unique situation for me. Most of the time I can't attend anyway because of my illness..when I can, it's a small rural area with a single church. As in the only one in a 50 mile radius.

As soon as I'm able, my dear husband has agreed to journey two hours up to the big city and attend a Mass there..Although I attended a Mass in Philly in June when I was there for my youngest son's graduation from college and noted similarities to what we experienced here in the boonies. It saddens me to no end.

Then in August when my Mother died, I had the most eye-opening conversation with a life-long friend of mine in Boston. This friend of mine is also in her 50's, attends daily Mass, teaches teens about Catholic living, etc..and here she was "lecturing" me on how the Church has "no right to tell anybody how they shouldn't scatter ashes, or preach a Protestant salvation message at Mom's funeral service". Her firm belief is that, in her words "The bishops should mind their own business." Good grief. And she is teaching the teen agers in her parish? The attitude of long-time Catholics that I've known for years has dramatically changed about many things..and it has a great deal to do with these "small" seemingly insignificant issues IMHO.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Brian,

"In the crisis of faith we are experiencing, the critical issue seems to be increasingly the correct celebration and correct understanding of the Eucharist"-- Cardinal Ratzinger, Il Dio Vicino, 2003

Lesley,

Sorry to hear about your recent troubles. I hope your presence here indicates your health has improved somewhat. I hear what you're saying. It can be difficult to change parishes, especially in small towns, and especially if one is infirmed. I'm sure you just offer it up, as many people do.

Paul,

You make a good point. But, the Diocese of Rochester in 1997 did pretty much what you suggested, surveying practicing Catholics in the Diocese on whether they believed in the Real Presence, or whether they thought that the bread and wine were merely symbols of Jesus' body. Only 34% believed in the Real Presence, about 6% different from the NYT poll portrayed in Jones' book.

Granted, this is one diocese, 7 years ago, but sad to say, I think surveying people coming out of church on Sunday will yield results similar to Rochester. I hope I'm wrong. It would not be the case in every parish certainly. It sounds like that would not be the case in your parish. But I have trouble believing that it would be much better on average.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 04, 2004.

Vatican II was a blessing to the people of the Church.

The problems are not the result of Vatican II, but the cultural changes and relaxation of morals. Vatican II did not cause that, people did.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 04, 2004.

Brian (Crane), do you have any evidence that MORE THAN 34% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence before Vatican II, the removal of altar rails etc. People such as yourself often talk as if before 1962 100% of Catholics had perfect faith, but somehow I doubt it. To support your theory you would also have to survey parishioners of churches which still have altar rails, kneelers etc versus parishioners of churches that don’t have them.

A church I have visited a few times has no kneelers, but the proportion of people who kneel (on the carpeted floor) seems the same as in churches that have kneelers. I believe it was only relatively recently (19th century?) that kneelers became common in churches.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 04, 2004.

As someone who experienced life in the Church way before the 1960's, I can say that the attitude of people at Mass,if one were an observer, was like night and day compared to nowdays. During communion, one could hear a pin drop..quite literally. There was an overall "sense" of overwhelming awe which pervaded the church during the elevation of the Host..people bowed their heads..

A few years ago on Christian music stations a very popular song emerged..it is still around..The lyrics are about meeting Jesus in heaven someday..it's called "I Can Only Imagine." Very powerful words in this song.."Will I stand in Your presence? To my knees will I fall? Will I shout alleluea? Will I be able to speak at all? " And so here we Catholics are with the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus Christ right there in front of us and we do what?

Take out kneelers from churches so people who WANT to "fall to their knees" in awe of the REAL presence of Christ cannot do so without making their neighbors stumble behind them?

Remove altar rails and kneelers so that older folks have no hope of getting to their knees if they wanted to?

Make it so the congregation looks at folks who are awe-inspired by the REAL presence of Christ are "guilty" of some sort of false piety?

My goodness. It's not Vatican II..I agree. It's a combination of things..Vatican II never said anything to take people away from the belief in any of the sacraments. The misinterpretation of Vatican II has done much harm IMHO.

Kneeling before Almighty God is false piety? Kneeling to receive Jesus ..body and blood REAL and complete in His HOLY Presence..not an option????? We can kneel before our beloved Pope and kiss his ring without hesitation (as we should)...but we cannot kneel before Christ to receive HIM? What's wrong with this picture?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

"Vatican II was a blessing to the people of the Church."

Maybe it was "a disastrous failure on virtually every count."

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

Nick is so right. When will Catholics stop making excuses and rationallizing what is happening. There is a real crisis in the church, more so the faith. Manyof these bishops are more concerned with living in luxury than they are in running a tight ship. They have become an entity to themselves instead of being one with the faith.

-- Marty (Martygg@unity.com), November 05, 2004.

John,

I can understand attributing the problems in the Church to "cultural changes and relaxation of morals," rather than to the Council. I don't completely agree with that but it's an argument many people make. Fine. But why do you say it has been a blessing? I'm not asking contentiously, I am just curious.

Nick,

That is a pretty good book. That cover photo of the nuns during a mass celebrated by Cardinal Mahoney has always given me the creeps. Have you read The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber by Father Ralph Wiltgen? I think its a real good journalistic account of the Council by someone who was there reporting on it.

Steve,

No evidence of course (but you knew that didn't you), but do you really think that belief in the Real Presence today is equal to or greater than "before Vatican II, the removal of altar rails etc?" Do you?

I have been to a few churches without kneelers. Two of them I know, were former protestant churches that were bought by the Diocese, and one of them is being completely remodeled and will include kneelers. So I can understand that situation, and certainly one can kneel without kneelers, but building or remodeling a Catholic church and excluding them? Yikes! That's like discouraging people to kneel. I think that has been pretty rare, but I'm sure it's happened.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 05, 2004.

"Have you read The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber by Father Ralph Wiltgen? I think its a real good journalistic account of the Council by someone who was there reporting on it."

Hi Brian,

I have that book but I haven't read it yet. I'm going to move it to the top of my reading list! Thanks.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 09, 2004.

Look guys, the argument you all are having is fine, but to look to the point of almost judging is wrong. "Many of these bishops are more concerned with living in luxury then they are in running a tight ship." Such things should not ever be said about men of God. They are the shepherds and we are the sheep. We are to obey them because they are the men ordained by the power of the holy spirit. Trust in them and there ways, they will lead you on the right path.

-- Nicholas (aflac1@carolina.rr.com), November 30, 2004.