I was (and still am) inspired by Benedict’s vision of mutual enrichment between the Novus Ordo and the TLM. And frankly, that view fairly common among priests my age. I don’t know the future, but I would bet the ‘Reform of the Reform’ will ultimately win the day, even if it is decades from now.
In our diocese we are blessed with multiple beautiful “reform of the reform” style parishes and I’m so grateful. I always want to be docile to the Church, but for me I hope not to be relegated to sloppy 90s style Masses nor have the (I think good in substance if not often in practice) reforms of V2 erased.
If Francis can "undo" Benedict with the wave of a pen, a future Pontiff can just as easily "undo" Francis, especially since all the life in the Church today is on the side of orthodoxy and tradition.
I will never understand the hate for communion rails. On a practical level, it allows people to kneel & get up faster than usual. In addition, people who want to kneel but need the physical assistance are able to receive in this posture. (This point could also be achieved by putting out movable kneelers at the distribution lines).
On a totally different less serious level- it creates a GREAT toddler blockade from the sanctuary. Even if a kid isn’t a “runner” it’s a nice piece of mind that they’ll be slowed down (at least) or stopped before they actually interrupt the sacrifice of the mass.
A parish I used to go to had a communion rail, and I thought it was actually a beautiful place to say my penance after confession since it was right at the foot of the sanctuary.
Yes- in the diocese of Columbus, OH- our parish still has (and uses!) the communion rail for communion. I believe there are a handful of other parishes in the diocese as well…
I am right there with you. I have come to LOVE Altar rails. They give me those few precious moments before receiving (on the tongue mind you) to reflect, pray, and give thanks on my knees for all that I have been given.
[Bishop James Conley] "has also mandated that all new churches built in the diocese must have altar rails, and any older church that is being renovated must include new altar rails"
Reverence, beauty, and tradition are stressed in the Diocese of Lincoln. How is vertical worship being stressed in the Diocese of New York and Diocese of Chicago?
Our military chapel does not have them where we are currently stationed, but I love them when we were close enough to a TLM to use them. Those few moments are precious.
My family and a few others have started to use the first pew kneeler to receive- we just wait for the priest to step to the side to distribute to us.
I can see the faith in my family being nourished by the Altar rail in my parish. My children see my wife and I silently praying and reverently receiving. The see the rest of the parish (friends, teachers, young, old) doing the same. Kneeling isn't mandated, but my parish does it almost universally. It feels right. Nobody really notices when someone remains standing, nor cares. The Eucharist is our love, and the only thing we want is for others to desire Christ and rejoice in His presence. Altar rails allow us to do this communally.
Listening to the lives of the saints through Glory Stories, having Altar rails, a rosary before Mass, the 'O Sacrament Most Holy' and 'St. Michael' prayers after Dismissal, and the hard work of our Priests and parish school (https://www.lincolndiocese.org/joyandwonder) have instilled a yearning for communion in my children. I can see it in their eyes, hear it in their questions, and see it in their posture as they kneel between my wife and I at the Altar rail. My oldest is getting ready for his first communion this spring. They have been learning about Blessed Carlo Acutis (who is canonized the day after my oldest's first communion) and HIS devotion to the Eucharist.
Knowing that there are bishops who would extinguish these practices that are helping me bring up my children in the faith, well, I can better understand Matthew 18:6.
"They give me those few precious moments before receiving (on the tongue mind you) to reflect, pray, and give thanks on my knees for all that I have been given."
What are you doing for the whole previous portions of the Mass, playing video games on your phone?
Maybe you should use that time to reconsider natsy, unsupported and judgmental statements.
I both believe in the Real Presence and view the reception of the Eucharist as an integral part of the Mass, not something separate from it, as was the practice in my grandparents day.
I don't do Latin Mass but a parish near me does Altar Rails and it's so nice.
1. I get 5-10 seconds after kneeling to take a breath and get settled in a prayerful state of mind
2. People seem to stay kneeling for 2-3 seconds after kneeling to consume so I feel less rushed to 'get out of the way' for the next person.
3. Meanwhile, the priest is definitely doing more communions per minute (which may be offset by the amount of time it takes to walk back to the beginning of the rail so maybe its a wash.)
4. It feels more 'communal' because I'm side by side with the other faithful. I know there's some liturgical reason they gave when they made the communion procession but it seems so impersonal. 50% of the time while walking up I'm trying to bow my head prayerfully but then I worry people will think I'm staring at the butt of the person in front of me.
What’s interesting is that one could simply install a “movable” altar rail, as it would not be a permanent change to the church building as such. A series of interlocking kneelers would serve the same purpose. If artfully done, one would not be able to tell whether or not it’s a permanent fixture, or something removable.
Rules are rules only if they are enforceable. And frankly, 20 years from now, they aren’t going to be able to enforce this stuff.
I suspect that altar rails are a flashpoint because they are a symbolic rebuke to the egalitarianism which motivated so much of the 20th-century liturgical changes. By physically defining a clerical space and a lay space, the altar rail challenges the reformers' efforts to blur the clerical-lay distinction.
I remember years ago when a new archbishop came to our archdiocese and he was interviewed by his brother who was a call-in radio talk show host. Almost everybody who called in complained about not being able to kneel in church. At all. Because the kneelers had been removed. After a while it became just comical. He fixed it for us.
In my career as an Evangelical Protestant pastor, every church I've served has had an altar rail, as did the (similarly Evangelical Protestant) church I grew up in. It will never cease to befuddle me that so many Catholic bishops seem this eager to try to out-'low-church' us.
It's because nobody came in and brainwashed the congregation that the altar rail is a symbol of their subjugation as laypeople. Or something like that. Many of these Catholics, despite claiming to be ecumenically-minded, are so unfamiliar with the architecture and practices of traditional Protestant churches that they don't even realize that they have altar rails.
I am a fan of communion rails. But I am wondering how a practical point is managed? Our son is in a wheelchair and cannot kneel at altar rails. When we are at a church that uses them, it is an awkward and perhaps risky (re dropping the Host) lean that the priest needs to do - even if our son is by the “gate” on the main aisle. (We’ve been to more than one church with the altar rail.)
Hm. I would think that going to a main “gate” or opening every time would be the best choice. You could also ask the priest if they have another suggestion as well
At my nearest church on weekend Masses the deacon or an EMHC goes out at the start of communion to distribute anyone who should not have to get up and stand in line (an organized body of ushers provides practical support for this I think). So I expect we would still need to have a thoughtful protocol for distribution if we used the altar rail since the people here who currently cannot move from a pew once they are in it will not simply cease to exist.
This is not a problem. The ushers simply open the gates and the priest/Deacon goes out to those who need that. And people who can approach but can't kneel simply stand at the rail. An ordinary part of distribution with the rail.
The rail is not there to exclude. It's there to encourage a norm of reverential reception and to be a symbol of heaven approaching the earth. Even those who can't kneel will benefit from the norm.
At my church the people who cannot kneel generally go the gate. We use patens, so the risk of dropping the Host is pretty minimal, and I think the guy with the longer electric chair tends to angle a bit to make it easier.
I attend a TLM parish, and this past Sunday, an elderly woman came to the rail who could not kneel. The priest simply stepped through the communion rail gate and gave her the Eucharistic standing.
This is an every day part of distribution with a rail. The ushers just opens the gates for the priest or the priest will open it himself. Not a problem. We have a gentleman in our parish who is wheelchair bound and we're happy to do this.
The rail represents the separation of heaven and earth that exists until the second coming. The gate is the gate to heaven. Our Lord goes out to his flock at the rail or all the way out to the pews. And even outside the church itself
Having a communion rail would also enable people to line up across the front of the sanctuary, requiring the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister to move back and forth to distribute. This would enable people to pause and receive without at the same time walking away — even if the person received in the hand and while standing. Right now, there is little focus on the actual reception of the Lord and people are busy scrambling to get out of the way.
The only thing I've read people mention against them are that they make people feel bad, like they're a bad Catholic for not being more reverent, or like other people are going to think they're not as good a Catholic as someone else.
The same argument is made against movable kneelers, and people kneeling on the floor, or wearing veils, or (sometimes it seems) doing anything visibly religious at all.
I sometimes wonder if they want us to not go to Mass, in case some of the many people who skip, by choice or by need, feel bad about it. (I heard that suggested during Covid, no exaggeration.)
Like many Catholics, I'm agnostic about altar rails -- don't see any need to remove them or install them. Those demanding I pay for an installation are obligated to come up with a better answer than your comment.
My comment was not an argument for it, it was trying to find the argument against it. There are lots of comments here providing reasons for them. Given that they were almost universally removed (and all the parishioners forced to pay for the removal), one would think there would be an explanation for removing them.
At least in my parish, my consent is not obtained for everything that is done with parish money. I don't think I'd get very far by attempting to require it.
Our parish introduced the use of portable kneelers for Holy Communion last year but it was announced this past Sunday that that per the Diocese we will no longer be allowed to use the kneelers. I don’t understand it. This seems out of keeping with our bishop to micromanage so I’m wondering if it’s some other power within the Chancery?
As an EMHC I can tell you that the parishioners coming up the center aisle prefer the kneeler to coming to an EMHC who does not have a kneeler.
There is also no real obligation on parishioners to follow this norm. The only obligation the norm itself lays out, is the obligation for the pastor to explain to people who kneel why the norm is the norm.
Meanwhile the norm for the Latin Rite as a whole is to receive kneeling.
Clearly no one should be denied a sacrament because of non-observance of a norm. That would be a disproportionate punishment for a minor violation. I do find it odd that many neo-traditionalists stridently push laxity on this norm while get quite irate about non-observances of other norms. But I have my own oddities as well, so life goes on.
I'm currently travelling overseas and I find the local Mass norms to be quite interesting.
This particular norm is contrary to the Latin Rite norm, and also contrary to traditional practice for the last bunch of centuries. It's weird to be rigid about it.
As best I can tell, trads generally don't get their knickers in a knot about norms at all. It's about doctrine, the practices that come out of doctrine, reverence, and tradition. The norms published by bishops are probably not given a very high priority unless they also fall within one of those categories . The norms thereby become useful for talking to conservative Catholics who tend to put a relatively high priority on whatever the bishop says.
Part of this is simply a defense mechanism. The norms change when you move, or when the bishop/bishop's conference changes their mind, and they're published in innumerable different documents over many decades and coming from many different levels of Church governance. It's too much. I don't even know many norms, but I know I've never been in a parish that follows all the official ones. People have either selected or invented their own set of norms, possibly unwittingly, or gone back to the old ones.
I appreciate your flexibility on norms. Elsewhere, I have noticed some neo-traditionalists with their knickers high over various norms, particularly concerning women in the liturgy. But based on your example, I intend to be careful not to stereotype.
Again, that's not because it's a norm, it's because it is contrary to tradition and to some extent Scripture. I'm familiar with trads getting upset about various things, but the root cause is never because it violates a current norm, in my experience.
Hah. So I typically attend a a Latin mass (ancient Carmelite rite, fwiw, not Tridentine) and naturally always therefore receive kneeling at the altar rail.
I visited a different parish while traveling and was delighted to find that they hauled out a kneeler for communion and put the single priest distributing communion right behind it, so it was seamless to just kneel to receive
Except I failed to accommodate for the difference in physics. Apparently (I had no idea I did this) habitually lean on the rail a bit as I go down. Give it a bit of weight.
Uh, turns out, you can’t *actually* do that with kneelers (if I had thought about it, I would have known, but I didn’t think, and didn’t even know that I did this). I about knocked it over. A hair more I would have knocked the priest over too.
Happily no one was harmed and after the priest and I exchanged an anguished, shamefaced (me), and terrified (him) look, Communion proceeded.
I also forgot to say “Amen” at that point just to round things out (one doesn’t say it when receiving in the Latin mass).
But yeah. That’s my kneelers-instead-of-altar-rail story. I still think they’re a great idea! lol. Just. I need to watch myself.
One thing that people seem to forget in the post-Covid era is that Vatican II did move toward the laity receiving the Eucharist under both species. Unless the Latin Church adopts intinction as a norm, much blood will be spilled over communion rails (pun intended).
Ah, thank you for this. Through a series of logistical challenges, I had to go to mass on Christmas at a church across town. The priest celebrated mass ad orientum. Now, I've been a Catholic for 25 years, and this is the first time I had ever been to a mass in which the priest celebrated this way. So now at least you know that in the Diocese of San Angelo, ad orientum is still permitted.
In addition to the discord you mention in the aftermath of TC, this turn against “reform of the reform” strikes a discordant note against the backdrop of “synodality.” The New York Archdiocese’s memo said “no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating, but it seems to be picking up a bit of steam.” But if something is picking up steam, should not the listening Church, the synodal Church, pay heed, discern, and accompany? The approach of throwing the book (in this case the GIRM) at those in whom a desire for altar rails is bubbling up gives off a distinct air of authoritarian clericalism, no?
// this turn against “reform of the reform” strikes a discordant note against the backdrop of “synodality.” //
"Synodality" is a vague term with no clear meaning other than that given it by those using it. One has to try to understand what they mean by it by watching how they use it. If by "cat", they mean "dog", "dog" it is.
It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform as a means to lower the temperature after Traditionis. Stranger still that some are actively doing the opposite.
I don't think this can last. Is there anyone young in the church who has enough vitriol against traditional liturgical practices to maintain such a divisive approach?
But those are angry letters about TLM written by those who want the traditional Mass, not by people who attend and want to attend the Novus Ordo. There is nothing the bishop can do to reinstate what Rome has banned.
My policy is to never write angry letters to clerics. If I am upset at something my bishop has forbidden I write to thank him for an opportunity to break my attachments to created things and mortify my will. If I am disappointed that he moved a priest I write to thank him for the time that the priest was there and cite some specific inarguably good qualities of the priest because you know things go into a guy's permanent file to be used for God knows what.
If I am extraordinarily angry at someone (generally I reserve this for people closer to me than bishops or priests) I have a Mass said for them at mymassrequest.
My point is that if angry letters are going to be hinge on which the door swings, you're going to get a lot more angry letters. I don't think it makes sense to base what you do on that.
There are the pro-tradition bishops, who are keeping their heads down and trying to ensure that nothing traditional gets heard about outside the parish where it's actually happening. This requires them to actually suppress traditional things on occasion, lest they get caught. It also means we're less likely to hear about bishops who are reforming the reform.
Then there are the bishops who are anti-traditionalist, and they use the "Spirit of Traditionis Custodes" to justify opposing anything traditional.
Then there are the bishops who do whatever they think the relevant people want (those who determine promotions), as loudly as they can. If I remember right, everyone involved in bishop assignments in the US is anti-traditionalist. Certainly a lot of Vatican Cardinals are, or TC would never have gotten to the Pope's desk.
There are young priests (and laity) who oppose tradition. I expect they will be the ones most likely to be promoted for at least another decade, maybe two. There are a LOT more priests than bishops, so they don't actually need many such young priests. On the bright side, bishops' hearts can change.
Yes I suppose I was speaking more from emotion than prudence in my comment. The cruelty some bishops have shown in following up Traditionis with gratuitous bans on e.g. ad orientem took me somewhat by surprise. Especially given that even very small gestures in the other direction would go a long way to healing relationships with hurting members of the flock.
As a general rule, people don't develop strong empathy for those they do not see and talk to regularly. Empathy is an emotion designed to help form a community, and you can't form a community with someone you never see. So you can expect bishops to react empathetically to hurting people primarily when those people are diocesan employees. I do not believe many of those employees are traditionalists, and most probably don't lean in that direction either.
The number of bishops who have responded to sexual abuse victims by trying to protect the priest (whom they know) or the diocesan coffers, rather than the victim (whom they have probably never seen) is a good indication that bishops are not immune to this. There is usually some additional grace given to those whom your community has designated as a protected class, but that clearly does not apply to traditionalists in the Catholic Church.
Two of the most interesting things about Bishop Strickland was that he actually did a daily holy hour, and he actually walked around and talked to ordinary Catholics on a daily or weekly basis.
I’m not sure how to articulate the feeling of dismay evoked by the knowledge that it is noteworthy and unusual for a bishop to have a daily holy hour.
…..
I just. I don’t have words. What do they think their JOB is. Can you imagine a married couple being *noteworthy* bc they spent an hour together speaking during a day? 😞
To be fair, I don't know that other bishops don't do a daily holy hour. I just know that the only other bishop I've heard talk of it was Fulton Sheen. And he gradually shifted from gently suggesting that his priests do one, to insistently and persistently recommending it as of great importance.
I like your use of the married couple analogy. I remember a group of us talking to an Amish guy while touring his milking parlor, asking whether he or his wife did the milking. He very sincerely explained that they did it together, because "I don't want to do without her, and she don't want to do without me." They legit wanted 24/7 together, and probably got pretty close. That's noteworthy. It's also what St. Paul told the Thessalonian laypeople that they should be doing: "pray constantly". When I'm doing well, I can wish for that sort of prayer.
The men who are chosen to become bishops are chosen, in great part, because they are safe men who will not rock the boat. To promote the "reform of the reform," would be rocking the boat for those who have power in the Church today.
For some people, it's TLM or nothing. Reform of the reform won't do anything for them. But for some others, it's not TLM or nothing. More than anything, they want a reverent liturgy, and so reform of the reform would be a way to get them to give the ordinary form another look. So I'm agreeing: if you are trying to get people to choose the ordinary form over the TLM, you'd think this would be the way to go....
It should be noted that any renovations to install altar rails are in fact *re*-installing them after they were removed and destroyed, almost universally against the wishes of the laity. That is a microcosm for the entire post-VII liturgical experience.
I think this is going to be a greater problem, even after the Pope is dead. A generation of bishops and priests, even those of moderate to conservative dispositions, have steadily disgested the idea that all this smacks of the "old days" and the TLM, and to allow it in wouldn't just be a concession to the flock, but an admission that one of the core things they knew ended up being wrong.
There's also the elephant in the room: the bishops trying to reverse this tide tend to not have a lot of credibility and trust among their flocks, so these attempts at change will not only inspire blowback, but it will paint a narrative of bishops at war with their flocks and priests, which will change the narrative around trads quite a bit I think.
// A generation of bishops and priests, even those of moderate to conservative dispositions, have steadily disgested the idea that all this smacks of the "old days" and the TLM, and to allow it in wouldn't just be a concession to the flock, but an admission that one of the core things they knew ended up being wrong. //
Whatever is done in the present determines what can be done in the future. Break it now, and it will probably stay broken.
The elephant in the room is the "hermeneutic of rupture", an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council as the start of another "Reformation", something quite different from the aggiornamento proposed by Pope John XXIII. While this is an invalid intepretation of Vatican II (which sought renewal and reform to allow the Church to share it heritage with the modern world), it is the evident that it is liturgical agenda for the Pope and his Council of Cardinals.
“no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating, but it seems to be picking up a bit of steam.” Imagine seeing people giving reverence to Christ and being baffled at why they are doing that.
> "no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating"
I for one cannot tell you where the impetus came from (to which I am docile) to drop to my knees for communion, about 5 years ago, because there is no postmark on it. Am I baffled by why I am doing it? No because I have given that no thought. If someone says jump you say sir how high sir (however I did also ask a priest of the parish whether we are allowed to, and perhaps I was hoping to be told not to because I don't like to be different.)
// Francis has emphasizes that bishops are the “guardians of tradition.” But at least some of them seem to be at odds with the very Catholics looking for the symbolism and customs of the Church’s liturgical traditions. //
The Roman Catholic Church seems headed toward the Anglican model, which is to say that it's becoming increasingly unattractive to those looking for a spiritual home in close continuity with two thousand years of history and tradition. On the other hand, the new direction will likely please those happy to belong to a religion whose leading lights are always attentive to and respectful of current trends in secular culture. Autres temps, autres moeurs.
In some ways we do not have the Anglican model. As my Anglican friends point out, the Anglican church does not purport to ban the Book of Common Prayer: it is quite common for a large parish with several clergy to have a BCP service on Sunday alongside the more modern ones. And nobody convulses on the floor or catches fire at the very idea.
Our parish slowly reincorporated use of the altar rail over the last couple years following a growing number of us parishioners choosing to kneel to receive (Communion was already being distributed from behind the rail due to Covid era logistics), so it felt like a kind of organic growth out of the particular piety of our parish. And I am so grateful- I find it personally to be a beautiful gift to be able to kneel to receive the Lord. At another local parish I visited, they had a normal standing Communion line, but those who wanted to receive kneeling just scooted over and knelt at the rail and the priest distributed to them at the end. This is what’s great about an altar rail! It’s right there so if someone wants to kneel to receive they can without creating a “disturbance” (which can happen a little bit when someone kneels in the standing line in the aisle). I’m sorry to think that other parishes might not have the same freedom to make use of an altar rail.
I’ve been to several parishes outside of my diocese with rails and it was completely normal seeming for the people who knelt and completely normal seeming for the people who stood. Maybe people harbored feelings about it one way or another, but I couldn’t sense any tension or disturbance. It seemed to work well for everyone.
"standing at the Agnus Dei, even while kneeling is the ordinary posture in the United States." - "at" is confusing here - Isn't the ordinary posture to kneel immediately after the Agnus Dei?
Yes - that is the norm in the dioceses of the United States. Apparently it’s cool to ignore the norms you dislike if you are a bishop, but God forbid a priest encourage reception of the Eucharist kneeling and in the tongue…
It's also strange that many bishops pick and choose when they are going to rely on the USCCB to regulate liturgy in their own dioceses; many will ignore the ordinary posture of kneeling after the Agnus Dei, but will rigidly adhere to the USCCB's decision that standing must be normative for the reception of Holy Communion.
The Ordinariate Missal is an attempt at the RotR, but all it did was make a committee try and fix a committee’s work. That’s not how liturgy has ever worked. It has to be organic, springing from actual inculturation with respect for Tradition. Even if you think committee liturgies are a good thing, so many of the historical and liturgical assumptions made by Bugnini have been proven to be hogwash.
The fact is that the Missal printed in the US in 1965 made all the changes the council actually called for. Retranslate that and restore the calendar.
A committee determined to be faithful to the tradition handed on instead of a committee determined to incorporate the zeitgeist. I understand your point but unless you believe you can simply rewind the clock the Ordinariate liturgical project is amazingly traditional, beautiful and the best thing going.
I was (and still am) inspired by Benedict’s vision of mutual enrichment between the Novus Ordo and the TLM. And frankly, that view fairly common among priests my age. I don’t know the future, but I would bet the ‘Reform of the Reform’ will ultimately win the day, even if it is decades from now.
Agreed.
Yup. In it for the long haul.
In our diocese we are blessed with multiple beautiful “reform of the reform” style parishes and I’m so grateful. I always want to be docile to the Church, but for me I hope not to be relegated to sloppy 90s style Masses nor have the (I think good in substance if not often in practice) reforms of V2 erased.
If Francis can "undo" Benedict with the wave of a pen, a future Pontiff can just as easily "undo" Francis, especially since all the life in the Church today is on the side of orthodoxy and tradition.
I will never understand the hate for communion rails. On a practical level, it allows people to kneel & get up faster than usual. In addition, people who want to kneel but need the physical assistance are able to receive in this posture. (This point could also be achieved by putting out movable kneelers at the distribution lines).
On a totally different less serious level- it creates a GREAT toddler blockade from the sanctuary. Even if a kid isn’t a “runner” it’s a nice piece of mind that they’ll be slowed down (at least) or stopped before they actually interrupt the sacrifice of the mass.
A parish I used to go to had a communion rail, and I thought it was actually a beautiful place to say my penance after confession since it was right at the foot of the sanctuary.
Yes- in the diocese of Columbus, OH- our parish still has (and uses!) the communion rail for communion. I believe there are a handful of other parishes in the diocese as well…
Shhhh….
OK, I want to do it this way now...
I am right there with you. I have come to LOVE Altar rails. They give me those few precious moments before receiving (on the tongue mind you) to reflect, pray, and give thanks on my knees for all that I have been given.
[Bishop James Conley] "has also mandated that all new churches built in the diocese must have altar rails, and any older church that is being renovated must include new altar rails"
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/liturgical-reform-in-the-catholic-church-and-the-second-vatican-council
Reverence, beauty, and tradition are stressed in the Diocese of Lincoln. How is vertical worship being stressed in the Diocese of New York and Diocese of Chicago?
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Our military chapel does not have them where we are currently stationed, but I love them when we were close enough to a TLM to use them. Those few moments are precious.
My family and a few others have started to use the first pew kneeler to receive- we just wait for the priest to step to the side to distribute to us.
I can see the faith in my family being nourished by the Altar rail in my parish. My children see my wife and I silently praying and reverently receiving. The see the rest of the parish (friends, teachers, young, old) doing the same. Kneeling isn't mandated, but my parish does it almost universally. It feels right. Nobody really notices when someone remains standing, nor cares. The Eucharist is our love, and the only thing we want is for others to desire Christ and rejoice in His presence. Altar rails allow us to do this communally.
Listening to the lives of the saints through Glory Stories, having Altar rails, a rosary before Mass, the 'O Sacrament Most Holy' and 'St. Michael' prayers after Dismissal, and the hard work of our Priests and parish school (https://www.lincolndiocese.org/joyandwonder) have instilled a yearning for communion in my children. I can see it in their eyes, hear it in their questions, and see it in their posture as they kneel between my wife and I at the Altar rail. My oldest is getting ready for his first communion this spring. They have been learning about Blessed Carlo Acutis (who is canonized the day after my oldest's first communion) and HIS devotion to the Eucharist.
Knowing that there are bishops who would extinguish these practices that are helping me bring up my children in the faith, well, I can better understand Matthew 18:6.
"They give me those few precious moments before receiving (on the tongue mind you) to reflect, pray, and give thanks on my knees for all that I have been given."
What are you doing for the whole previous portions of the Mass, playing video games on your phone?
Do you really see no difference between the moments immediately before and after receiving Holy Communion, and all the rest of the Mass?
If not, than just so you know, most people who believe in the Real Presence do.
Maybe you should use that time to reconsider natsy, unsupported and judgmental statements.
I both believe in the Real Presence and view the reception of the Eucharist as an integral part of the Mass, not something separate from it, as was the practice in my grandparents day.
obviously, I would like to remind everyone in this thread of The Pillar's commenting policy. I bet you already know what it is.
I assumed so, and I apologize for implying otherwise.
The physical reception of our God is something of a climax to the prayer that occurs throughout the Mass, yes?
Thank you and yes, I think what you said above is a good statement.
I don't do Latin Mass but a parish near me does Altar Rails and it's so nice.
1. I get 5-10 seconds after kneeling to take a breath and get settled in a prayerful state of mind
2. People seem to stay kneeling for 2-3 seconds after kneeling to consume so I feel less rushed to 'get out of the way' for the next person.
3. Meanwhile, the priest is definitely doing more communions per minute (which may be offset by the amount of time it takes to walk back to the beginning of the rail so maybe its a wash.)
4. It feels more 'communal' because I'm side by side with the other faithful. I know there's some liturgical reason they gave when they made the communion procession but it seems so impersonal. 50% of the time while walking up I'm trying to bow my head prayerfully but then I worry people will think I'm staring at the butt of the person in front of me.
What’s interesting is that one could simply install a “movable” altar rail, as it would not be a permanent change to the church building as such. A series of interlocking kneelers would serve the same purpose. If artfully done, one would not be able to tell whether or not it’s a permanent fixture, or something removable.
Rules are rules only if they are enforceable. And frankly, 20 years from now, they aren’t going to be able to enforce this stuff.
I suspect that altar rails are a flashpoint because they are a symbolic rebuke to the egalitarianism which motivated so much of the 20th-century liturgical changes. By physically defining a clerical space and a lay space, the altar rail challenges the reformers' efforts to blur the clerical-lay distinction.
I remember years ago when a new archbishop came to our archdiocese and he was interviewed by his brother who was a call-in radio talk show host. Almost everybody who called in complained about not being able to kneel in church. At all. Because the kneelers had been removed. After a while it became just comical. He fixed it for us.
Why not just kneel on the floor?
There are people who are not capable of doing that? Or are not capable of getting back up afterwards?
Let's bring back the rood screen ...
So let's do a two foot rail, which gets us to the same place.
In my career as an Evangelical Protestant pastor, every church I've served has had an altar rail, as did the (similarly Evangelical Protestant) church I grew up in. It will never cease to befuddle me that so many Catholic bishops seem this eager to try to out-'low-church' us.
It's because nobody came in and brainwashed the congregation that the altar rail is a symbol of their subjugation as laypeople. Or something like that. Many of these Catholics, despite claiming to be ecumenically-minded, are so unfamiliar with the architecture and practices of traditional Protestant churches that they don't even realize that they have altar rails.
Or even the Protestants that celebrate Ad Orientem as well as count their Sundays as being after Pentecost
I am a fan of communion rails. But I am wondering how a practical point is managed? Our son is in a wheelchair and cannot kneel at altar rails. When we are at a church that uses them, it is an awkward and perhaps risky (re dropping the Host) lean that the priest needs to do - even if our son is by the “gate” on the main aisle. (We’ve been to more than one church with the altar rail.)
Hm. I would think that going to a main “gate” or opening every time would be the best choice. You could also ask the priest if they have another suggestion as well
At my nearest church on weekend Masses the deacon or an EMHC goes out at the start of communion to distribute anyone who should not have to get up and stand in line (an organized body of ushers provides practical support for this I think). So I expect we would still need to have a thoughtful protocol for distribution if we used the altar rail since the people here who currently cannot move from a pew once they are in it will not simply cease to exist.
This is not a problem. The ushers simply open the gates and the priest/Deacon goes out to those who need that. And people who can approach but can't kneel simply stand at the rail. An ordinary part of distribution with the rail.
The rail is not there to exclude. It's there to encourage a norm of reverential reception and to be a symbol of heaven approaching the earth. Even those who can't kneel will benefit from the norm.
At my church the people who cannot kneel generally go the gate. We use patens, so the risk of dropping the Host is pretty minimal, and I think the guy with the longer electric chair tends to angle a bit to make it easier.
I attend a TLM parish, and this past Sunday, an elderly woman came to the rail who could not kneel. The priest simply stepped through the communion rail gate and gave her the Eucharistic standing.
This is an every day part of distribution with a rail. The ushers just opens the gates for the priest or the priest will open it himself. Not a problem. We have a gentleman in our parish who is wheelchair bound and we're happy to do this.
The rail represents the separation of heaven and earth that exists until the second coming. The gate is the gate to heaven. Our Lord goes out to his flock at the rail or all the way out to the pews. And even outside the church itself
Having a communion rail would also enable people to line up across the front of the sanctuary, requiring the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister to move back and forth to distribute. This would enable people to pause and receive without at the same time walking away — even if the person received in the hand and while standing. Right now, there is little focus on the actual reception of the Lord and people are busy scrambling to get out of the way.
The only thing I've read people mention against them are that they make people feel bad, like they're a bad Catholic for not being more reverent, or like other people are going to think they're not as good a Catholic as someone else.
The same argument is made against movable kneelers, and people kneeling on the floor, or wearing veils, or (sometimes it seems) doing anything visibly religious at all.
I sometimes wonder if they want us to not go to Mass, in case some of the many people who skip, by choice or by need, feel bad about it. (I heard that suggested during Covid, no exaggeration.)
Like many Catholics, I'm agnostic about altar rails -- don't see any need to remove them or install them. Those demanding I pay for an installation are obligated to come up with a better answer than your comment.
My comment was not an argument for it, it was trying to find the argument against it. There are lots of comments here providing reasons for them. Given that they were almost universally removed (and all the parishioners forced to pay for the removal), one would think there would be an explanation for removing them.
At least in my parish, my consent is not obtained for everything that is done with parish money. I don't think I'd get very far by attempting to require it.
Our parish introduced the use of portable kneelers for Holy Communion last year but it was announced this past Sunday that that per the Diocese we will no longer be allowed to use the kneelers. I don’t understand it. This seems out of keeping with our bishop to micromanage so I’m wondering if it’s some other power within the Chancery?
As an EMHC I can tell you that the parishioners coming up the center aisle prefer the kneeler to coming to an EMHC who does not have a kneeler.
The norm for the United States for both the Latin and Byzantine churches is to receive standing.
If norms could not change, the US Latin norm would be kneeling.
Of course, norms can change. I just noted the current norm.
There is also no real obligation on parishioners to follow this norm. The only obligation the norm itself lays out, is the obligation for the pastor to explain to people who kneel why the norm is the norm.
Meanwhile the norm for the Latin Rite as a whole is to receive kneeling.
Clearly no one should be denied a sacrament because of non-observance of a norm. That would be a disproportionate punishment for a minor violation. I do find it odd that many neo-traditionalists stridently push laxity on this norm while get quite irate about non-observances of other norms. But I have my own oddities as well, so life goes on.
I'm currently travelling overseas and I find the local Mass norms to be quite interesting.
This particular norm is contrary to the Latin Rite norm, and also contrary to traditional practice for the last bunch of centuries. It's weird to be rigid about it.
As best I can tell, trads generally don't get their knickers in a knot about norms at all. It's about doctrine, the practices that come out of doctrine, reverence, and tradition. The norms published by bishops are probably not given a very high priority unless they also fall within one of those categories . The norms thereby become useful for talking to conservative Catholics who tend to put a relatively high priority on whatever the bishop says.
Part of this is simply a defense mechanism. The norms change when you move, or when the bishop/bishop's conference changes their mind, and they're published in innumerable different documents over many decades and coming from many different levels of Church governance. It's too much. I don't even know many norms, but I know I've never been in a parish that follows all the official ones. People have either selected or invented their own set of norms, possibly unwittingly, or gone back to the old ones.
I appreciate your flexibility on norms. Elsewhere, I have noticed some neo-traditionalists with their knickers high over various norms, particularly concerning women in the liturgy. But based on your example, I intend to be careful not to stereotype.
Again, that's not because it's a norm, it's because it is contrary to tradition and to some extent Scripture. I'm familiar with trads getting upset about various things, but the root cause is never because it violates a current norm, in my experience.
Your suggesting the Byzantines are "to some extent " against Scripture?
I’m imagining the ushers speaking into their secret service style radios: “We’ve got a runner!” 😀
Hah. So I typically attend a a Latin mass (ancient Carmelite rite, fwiw, not Tridentine) and naturally always therefore receive kneeling at the altar rail.
I visited a different parish while traveling and was delighted to find that they hauled out a kneeler for communion and put the single priest distributing communion right behind it, so it was seamless to just kneel to receive
Except I failed to accommodate for the difference in physics. Apparently (I had no idea I did this) habitually lean on the rail a bit as I go down. Give it a bit of weight.
Uh, turns out, you can’t *actually* do that with kneelers (if I had thought about it, I would have known, but I didn’t think, and didn’t even know that I did this). I about knocked it over. A hair more I would have knocked the priest over too.
Happily no one was harmed and after the priest and I exchanged an anguished, shamefaced (me), and terrified (him) look, Communion proceeded.
I also forgot to say “Amen” at that point just to round things out (one doesn’t say it when receiving in the Latin mass).
But yeah. That’s my kneelers-instead-of-altar-rail story. I still think they’re a great idea! lol. Just. I need to watch myself.
One thing that people seem to forget in the post-Covid era is that Vatican II did move toward the laity receiving the Eucharist under both species. Unless the Latin Church adopts intinction as a norm, much blood will be spilled over communion rails (pun intended).
Ah, thank you for this. Through a series of logistical challenges, I had to go to mass on Christmas at a church across town. The priest celebrated mass ad orientum. Now, I've been a Catholic for 25 years, and this is the first time I had ever been to a mass in which the priest celebrated this way. So now at least you know that in the Diocese of San Angelo, ad orientum is still permitted.
How did you know?
Bishop Sis is a gem
In addition to the discord you mention in the aftermath of TC, this turn against “reform of the reform” strikes a discordant note against the backdrop of “synodality.” The New York Archdiocese’s memo said “no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating, but it seems to be picking up a bit of steam.” But if something is picking up steam, should not the listening Church, the synodal Church, pay heed, discern, and accompany? The approach of throwing the book (in this case the GIRM) at those in whom a desire for altar rails is bubbling up gives off a distinct air of authoritarian clericalism, no?
// this turn against “reform of the reform” strikes a discordant note against the backdrop of “synodality.” //
"Synodality" is a vague term with no clear meaning other than that given it by those using it. One has to try to understand what they mean by it by watching how they use it. If by "cat", they mean "dog", "dog" it is.
It also is like, oh, NOW we care what the GIRM says? Now let’s do “sacred music at Mass.”
To paraphrase the immortal words of Captain Barbosa…
JUST KNEEL
It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform as a means to lower the temperature after Traditionis. Stranger still that some are actively doing the opposite.
I don't think this can last. Is there anyone young in the church who has enough vitriol against traditional liturgical practices to maintain such a divisive approach?
> It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform
Not strange at all.
Some people write angry letters to bishops about what their new priest does.
Bishops don't like angry letters.
Why would they willingly bring angry letters on themselves?
Yes, you're right, but I was thinking of reform of the reform as a response to the angry letters Traditionis would have already occasioned.
But those are angry letters about TLM written by those who want the traditional Mass, not by people who attend and want to attend the Novus Ordo. There is nothing the bishop can do to reinstate what Rome has banned.
I suppose we need to write angry letters about what our old priests do then
My policy is to never write angry letters to clerics. If I am upset at something my bishop has forbidden I write to thank him for an opportunity to break my attachments to created things and mortify my will. If I am disappointed that he moved a priest I write to thank him for the time that the priest was there and cite some specific inarguably good qualities of the priest because you know things go into a guy's permanent file to be used for God knows what.
If I am extraordinarily angry at someone (generally I reserve this for people closer to me than bishops or priests) I have a Mass said for them at mymassrequest.
My point is that if angry letters are going to be hinge on which the door swings, you're going to get a lot more angry letters. I don't think it makes sense to base what you do on that.
There are the pro-tradition bishops, who are keeping their heads down and trying to ensure that nothing traditional gets heard about outside the parish where it's actually happening. This requires them to actually suppress traditional things on occasion, lest they get caught. It also means we're less likely to hear about bishops who are reforming the reform.
Then there are the bishops who are anti-traditionalist, and they use the "Spirit of Traditionis Custodes" to justify opposing anything traditional.
Then there are the bishops who do whatever they think the relevant people want (those who determine promotions), as loudly as they can. If I remember right, everyone involved in bishop assignments in the US is anti-traditionalist. Certainly a lot of Vatican Cardinals are, or TC would never have gotten to the Pope's desk.
There are young priests (and laity) who oppose tradition. I expect they will be the ones most likely to be promoted for at least another decade, maybe two. There are a LOT more priests than bishops, so they don't actually need many such young priests. On the bright side, bishops' hearts can change.
Yes I suppose I was speaking more from emotion than prudence in my comment. The cruelty some bishops have shown in following up Traditionis with gratuitous bans on e.g. ad orientem took me somewhat by surprise. Especially given that even very small gestures in the other direction would go a long way to healing relationships with hurting members of the flock.
As a general rule, people don't develop strong empathy for those they do not see and talk to regularly. Empathy is an emotion designed to help form a community, and you can't form a community with someone you never see. So you can expect bishops to react empathetically to hurting people primarily when those people are diocesan employees. I do not believe many of those employees are traditionalists, and most probably don't lean in that direction either.
The number of bishops who have responded to sexual abuse victims by trying to protect the priest (whom they know) or the diocesan coffers, rather than the victim (whom they have probably never seen) is a good indication that bishops are not immune to this. There is usually some additional grace given to those whom your community has designated as a protected class, but that clearly does not apply to traditionalists in the Catholic Church.
Two of the most interesting things about Bishop Strickland was that he actually did a daily holy hour, and he actually walked around and talked to ordinary Catholics on a daily or weekly basis.
I’m not sure how to articulate the feeling of dismay evoked by the knowledge that it is noteworthy and unusual for a bishop to have a daily holy hour.
…..
I just. I don’t have words. What do they think their JOB is. Can you imagine a married couple being *noteworthy* bc they spent an hour together speaking during a day? 😞
To be fair, I don't know that other bishops don't do a daily holy hour. I just know that the only other bishop I've heard talk of it was Fulton Sheen. And he gradually shifted from gently suggesting that his priests do one, to insistently and persistently recommending it as of great importance.
I like your use of the married couple analogy. I remember a group of us talking to an Amish guy while touring his milking parlor, asking whether he or his wife did the milking. He very sincerely explained that they did it together, because "I don't want to do without her, and she don't want to do without me." They legit wanted 24/7 together, and probably got pretty close. That's noteworthy. It's also what St. Paul told the Thessalonian laypeople that they should be doing: "pray constantly". When I'm doing well, I can wish for that sort of prayer.
The men who are chosen to become bishops are chosen, in great part, because they are safe men who will not rock the boat. To promote the "reform of the reform," would be rocking the boat for those who have power in the Church today.
For some people, it's TLM or nothing. Reform of the reform won't do anything for them. But for some others, it's not TLM or nothing. More than anything, they want a reverent liturgy, and so reform of the reform would be a way to get them to give the ordinary form another look. So I'm agreeing: if you are trying to get people to choose the ordinary form over the TLM, you'd think this would be the way to go....
I agree. Look at St. Ignatius in NYC, for a parish with reverent liturgy and great preaching (sometimes from Fr. martin!).
It should be noted that any renovations to install altar rails are in fact *re*-installing them after they were removed and destroyed, almost universally against the wishes of the laity. That is a microcosm for the entire post-VII liturgical experience.
The laity in my parish had no objection. But I am quite happy to leave this matter to a vote or consensus of the laity of each parish.
I think this is going to be a greater problem, even after the Pope is dead. A generation of bishops and priests, even those of moderate to conservative dispositions, have steadily disgested the idea that all this smacks of the "old days" and the TLM, and to allow it in wouldn't just be a concession to the flock, but an admission that one of the core things they knew ended up being wrong.
There's also the elephant in the room: the bishops trying to reverse this tide tend to not have a lot of credibility and trust among their flocks, so these attempts at change will not only inspire blowback, but it will paint a narrative of bishops at war with their flocks and priests, which will change the narrative around trads quite a bit I think.
// A generation of bishops and priests, even those of moderate to conservative dispositions, have steadily disgested the idea that all this smacks of the "old days" and the TLM, and to allow it in wouldn't just be a concession to the flock, but an admission that one of the core things they knew ended up being wrong. //
Whatever is done in the present determines what can be done in the future. Break it now, and it will probably stay broken.
I enjoyed your column on this over on your own sub!
The elephant in the room is the "hermeneutic of rupture", an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council as the start of another "Reformation", something quite different from the aggiornamento proposed by Pope John XXIII. While this is an invalid intepretation of Vatican II (which sought renewal and reform to allow the Church to share it heritage with the modern world), it is the evident that it is liturgical agenda for the Pope and his Council of Cardinals.
Rupture is something I wide swath of the Church, liberal and conservative, agree on.
“no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating, but it seems to be picking up a bit of steam.” Imagine seeing people giving reverence to Christ and being baffled at why they are doing that.
> "no one is sure where the impetus for this is originating"
I for one cannot tell you where the impetus came from (to which I am docile) to drop to my knees for communion, about 5 years ago, because there is no postmark on it. Am I baffled by why I am doing it? No because I have given that no thought. If someone says jump you say sir how high sir (however I did also ask a priest of the parish whether we are allowed to, and perhaps I was hoping to be told not to because I don't like to be different.)
Or, to recall John 9:30 The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.
// Francis has emphasizes that bishops are the “guardians of tradition.” But at least some of them seem to be at odds with the very Catholics looking for the symbolism and customs of the Church’s liturgical traditions. //
The Roman Catholic Church seems headed toward the Anglican model, which is to say that it's becoming increasingly unattractive to those looking for a spiritual home in close continuity with two thousand years of history and tradition. On the other hand, the new direction will likely please those happy to belong to a religion whose leading lights are always attentive to and respectful of current trends in secular culture. Autres temps, autres moeurs.
In some ways we do not have the Anglican model. As my Anglican friends point out, the Anglican church does not purport to ban the Book of Common Prayer: it is quite common for a large parish with several clergy to have a BCP service on Sunday alongside the more modern ones. And nobody convulses on the floor or catches fire at the very idea.
The difference is they also have a Vestry. Amazing what concord you get when the laity have some say.
Our parish slowly reincorporated use of the altar rail over the last couple years following a growing number of us parishioners choosing to kneel to receive (Communion was already being distributed from behind the rail due to Covid era logistics), so it felt like a kind of organic growth out of the particular piety of our parish. And I am so grateful- I find it personally to be a beautiful gift to be able to kneel to receive the Lord. At another local parish I visited, they had a normal standing Communion line, but those who wanted to receive kneeling just scooted over and knelt at the rail and the priest distributed to them at the end. This is what’s great about an altar rail! It’s right there so if someone wants to kneel to receive they can without creating a “disturbance” (which can happen a little bit when someone kneels in the standing line in the aisle). I’m sorry to think that other parishes might not have the same freedom to make use of an altar rail.
I’ve been to several parishes outside of my diocese with rails and it was completely normal seeming for the people who knelt and completely normal seeming for the people who stood. Maybe people harbored feelings about it one way or another, but I couldn’t sense any tension or disturbance. It seemed to work well for everyone.
You can’t go after the beating heart of Tradition in the Western liturgy (the TLM) without it also impacting the veins and arteries of the same body.
There’s a pattern here: clericalist bullies forcing their views on the laity, who just want their parishes to be beautiful and holy.
So let's bring back trusteeship.
"standing at the Agnus Dei, even while kneeling is the ordinary posture in the United States." - "at" is confusing here - Isn't the ordinary posture to kneel immediately after the Agnus Dei?
Yes - that is the norm in the dioceses of the United States. Apparently it’s cool to ignore the norms you dislike if you are a bishop, but God forbid a priest encourage reception of the Eucharist kneeling and in the tongue…
yes, after is a better word than "at." thank for the feedback.
It's also strange that many bishops pick and choose when they are going to rely on the USCCB to regulate liturgy in their own dioceses; many will ignore the ordinary posture of kneeling after the Agnus Dei, but will rigidly adhere to the USCCB's decision that standing must be normative for the reception of Holy Communion.
As I said on Twitter: Lipstick, meet pig.
The Ordinariate Missal is an attempt at the RotR, but all it did was make a committee try and fix a committee’s work. That’s not how liturgy has ever worked. It has to be organic, springing from actual inculturation with respect for Tradition. Even if you think committee liturgies are a good thing, so many of the historical and liturgical assumptions made by Bugnini have been proven to be hogwash.
The fact is that the Missal printed in the US in 1965 made all the changes the council actually called for. Retranslate that and restore the calendar.
A committee determined to be faithful to the tradition handed on instead of a committee determined to incorporate the zeitgeist. I understand your point but unless you believe you can simply rewind the clock the Ordinariate liturgical project is amazingly traditional, beautiful and the best thing going.
That was not my experience using it along with the NO and 1962 Missal simultaneously.
Is that a (mere) priest saying Mass in Sacred Heart cathedral, or Bp Wall?
Is it bishop wall? Thank you!
It's Bishop Wall.