The following article is written by a diocesan priest. The mounting attack on altar rails throughout the Church, renewing the iconoclasm of the 1970s, is a cause of deep concern to every serious Catholic. For this reason it behooves us to understand that even according to the rules that govern the Novus Ordo, there is absolutely no basis for a bishop to oppose the use or the construction of altar rails in churches. – Dr. Kwasniewski
Within the same instruction the CDW includes a section that is directed towards bishops. This section, and the following, are crucial, because the whole document is focused on proper liturgical norms being implemented, keeping in mind the Church’s orthopraxical tradition. In paragraph 19, the CDW states, “The diocesan bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life” (RS, 19). The bishop is the protector of the diocese’s liturgical life.
Moving forward, the CDW states:
Yet, the above quotation puts a limit on the bishop’s authority, for “the bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances.” Thus, the bishop cannot encroach in his liturgical norms upon certain liberties given to the laity and priests alike.
Obviously, this could be taken in an anarchical way that completely contradicts the spirit of the document, by which one claims that everything is an “adaptation… to a particular pastoral” circumstance. In terms, then, of authentic interpretation, what is this liberty “foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books”?
On the most fundamental level, it is that which is printed within the Missal and the GIRM that gives a priest or a member of the lay faithful an option. For example, the priest is given the option to announce the Sign of Peace (Missale Romanum, 128). The lay faithful are given the option to receive Communion kneeling or standing; on the hand (unless there is “a risk of profanation”) or on the tongue (RS, 90). Hence, “it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds… that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing” (RS, 91). These options, which are printed in the rubrics, are liberties that the bishop cannot remove.
But the document does not stop here. It also allows “that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.” Here, we must understand these rubrics within the mindset of its legislator. Again, the point in this clause is not to allow anarchy within the liturgy—far from it! Rather, the mind of the legislator points solely to the traditional practices within the liturgy. This is where altar rails come back into the discussion.
Many church buildings, especially those which have been built in a traditional manner, have retained, restored, or constructed, an altar rail. Is this outside of the purview of the Novus Ordo or Redemptionis Sacramentum? Absolutely not. RS was written for the restoration of tradition within the Sacred Liturgy. The CDW notes, quite explicitly that “the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition, which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations” (RS, 9).
Notably, the CDW is not referring to the perennial Tradition, in terms of doctrine, but tradition, in terms of liturgical customs. RS mentions “tradition” 23 times throughout the whole document. The abuses addressed in RS are against, “against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church” (RS, 4).
With this in mind, reception of Holy Communion at the altar rail, even in the Novus Ordo, is something hardly spoken of in the rubrics, and thus afforded liberty. It is an appropriate adaptation to the liturgy, with the interior of the church in mind. It is an appropriate adaptation to the lay faithful who desire to receive Communion at the rail. Thus, it is not within the purview of the bishop to ban this or any other traditional practice, not explicitly forbidden in the rubrics. The Church’s judgment in these matters has always been on the side of upholding the tradition. The use of the altar rail is a laudable expression of that tradition.
Conclusion
Considering the history, theology, and instructions regarding altar rails, we can now clearly state that these liturgical furnishings are not only permitted, but also a laudatory and traditional enhancement to the sanctuary. They are a gate to the “altar of God, to God my exceeding joy” (Ps. 42). Truly, from the author’s experience, the faithful view the altar rail as an altar for their own sacrifice of their lives, and a place where heaven and Earth meet. In fine, the view, not only of the faithful and clergy, but more importantly of Holy Mother Church, is reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
There are many elements in our Catholic faith that can easily be thought of as superfluous due to their lack of effecting certain actions – which does not make them invalid or illicit. However, this minimalistic approach is the opposite of what we are as Catholics. We do not love certain elements because we think they make us holier in and of themselves. Rather, we love them because they express to us the reality of Him who is holy. In loving these elements, we do not subject ourselves to a form of separation from sincere affection. On the contrary, our innermost beings are drawn into a deep charity that cannot be described. In other words, we encounter the living God. Devotion is not fanaticism. Devotion is a form of expressing the soul’s inner longing for union with the Divine. The spiritual becoming tangible.
This document has three set purposes. The first is to inform the reader about the historical, theological, and liturgical uses regarding the altar rails. The second is to instill in the reader a richer understanding of the nature of this tradition, and to deepen his love for such things. The third is to examine the legality of liturgical furnishings that belong to this category, the category of the “superfluous” or “not necessary”, and answer the question of whether they may be used, and whether they may be banned. By the end of this document, the reader will understand that altar rails have a basis in the historical and theological dimensions of the Mass, and may be utilized and even promoted, in light of recent legislation.
This document has three set purposes. The first is to inform the reader about the historical, theological, and liturgical uses regarding the altar rails. The second is to instill in the reader a richer understanding of the nature of this tradition, and to deepen his love for such things. The third is to examine the legality of liturgical furnishings that belong to this category, the category of the “superfluous” or “not necessary”, and answer the question of whether they may be used, and whether they may be banned. By the end of this document, the reader will understand that altar rails have a basis in the historical and theological dimensions of the Mass, and may be utilized and even promoted, in light of recent legislation.
1. Historical Basis
Our best early resources regarding details in the liturgy come from the fourth century. It was after the Edict of Milan in 313 and the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 that the early Christian witnesses address the liturgy that had emerged into the public eye. Along with this, we still have much evidence of the architecture of the early Christian Church.
A universal constant from this period through the present day was a barrier between the sanctuary and the people. The theological significance of this barrier is to distinguish the Holy of Holies from the inner court, as was done in the tabernacle, and later, the Temple. Our forefathers saw the Mass as the re-presentation of Calvary, and Calvary as the fulfillment of Temple worship. Hence, elements of vesture and architecture, such as the barrier, carried over from our Jewish forbears.
In the East, this took the form of the iconostasis, a barrier at the entrance of the sanctuary. Only clerics and acolytes are permitted to pass through the iconostasis. The priest emerges at Communion to give communion to the faithful there present.
In the West, this initially took the form of a sectioned-off wall, known as a balustrade, which would veil the actions in the sanctuary from the congregation. As time progressed, this barrier would eventually become the rood screen, which was far more common in the West. This screen, while still separating the nave from the sanctuary, served as a mystical meeting point between God’s dwelling place, the new Sancta Sanctorum, and the outer holy place, where God’s elect dwelt. The faithful approached and received the Body of Christ at the roodscreen.
In the medieval era, as Eucharistic theology developed, so did Eucharistic piety. Throughout the West, essentially from the time of the Cluniac Reforms and through the thirteenth century, canon law moved to only allowing the priest, with consecrated hands, to handle the Sacred Species, except by indult. At the same time, already by the nineth century, a combination of popular piety and ecclesiastical legislation brought about the standardization of reception of Holy Communion kneeling on the tongue.
The more modern architecture of the altar rail come into vogue during the Counter-Reformation. To combat Protestant accusations of mystification, artisans made the sanctuary more visible by putting up a rail rather than a rood screen. This became the standard in Christendom for the next 400 years. The rail stood as a culmination of centuries of theological and liturgical development. It still separated the sanctuary from the nave, and allowed a simple and traditional method of distribution of Holy Communion, while also fostering Eucharistic piety and active participation, since the faithful in said churches were able more clearly to observe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Our best early resources regarding details in the liturgy come from the fourth century. It was after the Edict of Milan in 313 and the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 that the early Christian witnesses address the liturgy that had emerged into the public eye. Along with this, we still have much evidence of the architecture of the early Christian Church.
A universal constant from this period through the present day was a barrier between the sanctuary and the people. The theological significance of this barrier is to distinguish the Holy of Holies from the inner court, as was done in the tabernacle, and later, the Temple. Our forefathers saw the Mass as the re-presentation of Calvary, and Calvary as the fulfillment of Temple worship. Hence, elements of vesture and architecture, such as the barrier, carried over from our Jewish forbears.
In the East, this took the form of the iconostasis, a barrier at the entrance of the sanctuary. Only clerics and acolytes are permitted to pass through the iconostasis. The priest emerges at Communion to give communion to the faithful there present.
In the West, this initially took the form of a sectioned-off wall, known as a balustrade, which would veil the actions in the sanctuary from the congregation. As time progressed, this barrier would eventually become the rood screen, which was far more common in the West. This screen, while still separating the nave from the sanctuary, served as a mystical meeting point between God’s dwelling place, the new Sancta Sanctorum, and the outer holy place, where God’s elect dwelt. The faithful approached and received the Body of Christ at the roodscreen.
In the medieval era, as Eucharistic theology developed, so did Eucharistic piety. Throughout the West, essentially from the time of the Cluniac Reforms and through the thirteenth century, canon law moved to only allowing the priest, with consecrated hands, to handle the Sacred Species, except by indult. At the same time, already by the nineth century, a combination of popular piety and ecclesiastical legislation brought about the standardization of reception of Holy Communion kneeling on the tongue.
The more modern architecture of the altar rail come into vogue during the Counter-Reformation. To combat Protestant accusations of mystification, artisans made the sanctuary more visible by putting up a rail rather than a rood screen. This became the standard in Christendom for the next 400 years. The rail stood as a culmination of centuries of theological and liturgical development. It still separated the sanctuary from the nave, and allowed a simple and traditional method of distribution of Holy Communion, while also fostering Eucharistic piety and active participation, since the faithful in said churches were able more clearly to observe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 |
| Figure 1: The Ballustrade of S. Maria in Cosmedin, Rome (source: Liturgical Arts Journal) |
 |
| Figure 2: The layout of the Temple (source: Wikimedia Commons) |
2. The GIRM and Altar Rails
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which governs all things pertaining to the Novus Ordo Mass, explicitly allows for the erection of the altar rail. Following the perennial tradition of the Church, paragraph 295 states that the sanctuary “should be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation.” In practice, this “or” is inclusive, and sanctuaries are often constructed with a fixed elevation and some structure and ornamentation.
Reading this in light of the tradition, we can only interpret this “structure” as the altar rail. In ecclesial legislation, grants are to be applied broadly in the law, and lower authorities than the Universal Law cannot restrict a grant (Can. 36 §1.). Since it is permitted in the General Instruction, it cannot be forbidden that priests choose to mark their sanctuaries by the use of the rail.
The GIRM also specifies that in the arrangement of the Church there should be easy access when it comes to the reception of Holy Communion. It instructs us as follows: “moreover, benches or seating should be so arranged, especially in newly built churches, that the faithful can easily take up the bodily postures required for the different parts of the celebration and can have easy access for the reception of Holy Communion” (GIRM #311).
Although there is no explicit mention on the usage of the rails themselves in these latter norms, the altar rail is still a traditional means by which these norms may be fulfilled. They provide a literal “easy access” to the Sacrament, whether one is standing or kneeling to receive Communion.
Finally, in practical terms, distribution of Holy Communion via this “easy access” at altar rails only speeds up the distribution of Communion. When the congregation lines up at the rails, the distributor may go from person to person without much loss of time in between people. With this in mind, the more common form of distribution seems to provide less “easy access” for the faithful to receive Communion. Many, especially old people, struggle to very quickly kneel to receive without delaying the rest of the line. It is within their right to receive in this manner. Yet, “easy access” is oftentimes not given at a standard parish for the faithful to receive in this way.
In sum, altar rails fulfills the requirements of the GIRM in a traditional and arguably fuller way that is not in contradiction to the law of the Church. It is an erroneous opinion that they are harmful, or even in contradiction to the law of the Church.
3. Altar Rails in Light of Redemptionis Sacramentum
At this point, the rubrics have not given any explicit statement as to whether the altar rails may be utilized. They have also not specified whether reception at the altar rail is something altogether prohibited, or whether it can be prohibited by the bishop.
This brings us to Redemptionis Sacramentum, written by Cardinal Arinze of the CDW (now known as the DDW) in 2004, during the reign of St John Paul II, written in the wake of the 2003 encyclical titled Ecclesia de Eucharistia, which called for instruction on liturgical norms.
In paragraph 4 of RS, the CDW promptly states one of the greatest reasons for issuing said instruction:
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which governs all things pertaining to the Novus Ordo Mass, explicitly allows for the erection of the altar rail. Following the perennial tradition of the Church, paragraph 295 states that the sanctuary “should be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation.” In practice, this “or” is inclusive, and sanctuaries are often constructed with a fixed elevation and some structure and ornamentation.
Reading this in light of the tradition, we can only interpret this “structure” as the altar rail. In ecclesial legislation, grants are to be applied broadly in the law, and lower authorities than the Universal Law cannot restrict a grant (Can. 36 §1.). Since it is permitted in the General Instruction, it cannot be forbidden that priests choose to mark their sanctuaries by the use of the rail.
The GIRM also specifies that in the arrangement of the Church there should be easy access when it comes to the reception of Holy Communion. It instructs us as follows: “moreover, benches or seating should be so arranged, especially in newly built churches, that the faithful can easily take up the bodily postures required for the different parts of the celebration and can have easy access for the reception of Holy Communion” (GIRM #311).
Although there is no explicit mention on the usage of the rails themselves in these latter norms, the altar rail is still a traditional means by which these norms may be fulfilled. They provide a literal “easy access” to the Sacrament, whether one is standing or kneeling to receive Communion.
Finally, in practical terms, distribution of Holy Communion via this “easy access” at altar rails only speeds up the distribution of Communion. When the congregation lines up at the rails, the distributor may go from person to person without much loss of time in between people. With this in mind, the more common form of distribution seems to provide less “easy access” for the faithful to receive Communion. Many, especially old people, struggle to very quickly kneel to receive without delaying the rest of the line. It is within their right to receive in this manner. Yet, “easy access” is oftentimes not given at a standard parish for the faithful to receive in this way.
In sum, altar rails fulfills the requirements of the GIRM in a traditional and arguably fuller way that is not in contradiction to the law of the Church. It is an erroneous opinion that they are harmful, or even in contradiction to the law of the Church.
3. Altar Rails in Light of Redemptionis Sacramentum
At this point, the rubrics have not given any explicit statement as to whether the altar rails may be utilized. They have also not specified whether reception at the altar rail is something altogether prohibited, or whether it can be prohibited by the bishop.
This brings us to Redemptionis Sacramentum, written by Cardinal Arinze of the CDW (now known as the DDW) in 2004, during the reign of St John Paul II, written in the wake of the 2003 encyclical titled Ecclesia de Eucharistia, which called for instruction on liturgical norms.
In paragraph 4 of RS, the CDW promptly states one of the greatest reasons for issuing said instruction:
In this regard it is not possible to be silent about… abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease” (RS, 4).The point in the promulgation of this document, as stated above is to root out liturgical abuses from the preceding decades. It further seeks to restore liturgical celebrations to the “tradition and authority” of the Church, as opposed to the innovations which had been introduced since the promulgation of the New Mass in 1969, often by priest celebrants.
Within the same instruction the CDW includes a section that is directed towards bishops. This section, and the following, are crucial, because the whole document is focused on proper liturgical norms being implemented, keeping in mind the Church’s orthopraxical tradition. In paragraph 19, the CDW states, “The diocesan bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life” (RS, 19). The bishop is the protector of the diocese’s liturgical life.
Moving forward, the CDW states:
It pertains to the diocesan bishop, then, ‘within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his diocese, by which all are bound.’ Still, the bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding. The bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him, and it is his task to regulate, to direct, to encourage, and sometimes also to reprove; this is a sacred task that he has received through episcopal ordination, which he fulfills in order to build up his flock in truth and holiness (RS, 21-22).It is within the rights of the bishop to create liturgical norms for his diocese. These liturgical norms are for the accomplishment of the same task laid out in Redemptionis Sacramentum itself, that is, to stop liturgical abuses and to educate. Many abuses occur out of “ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized” (RS, 9).
Yet, the above quotation puts a limit on the bishop’s authority, for “the bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances.” Thus, the bishop cannot encroach in his liturgical norms upon certain liberties given to the laity and priests alike.
Obviously, this could be taken in an anarchical way that completely contradicts the spirit of the document, by which one claims that everything is an “adaptation… to a particular pastoral” circumstance. In terms, then, of authentic interpretation, what is this liberty “foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books”?
On the most fundamental level, it is that which is printed within the Missal and the GIRM that gives a priest or a member of the lay faithful an option. For example, the priest is given the option to announce the Sign of Peace (Missale Romanum, 128). The lay faithful are given the option to receive Communion kneeling or standing; on the hand (unless there is “a risk of profanation”) or on the tongue (RS, 90). Hence, “it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds… that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing” (RS, 91). These options, which are printed in the rubrics, are liberties that the bishop cannot remove.
But the document does not stop here. It also allows “that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.” Here, we must understand these rubrics within the mindset of its legislator. Again, the point in this clause is not to allow anarchy within the liturgy—far from it! Rather, the mind of the legislator points solely to the traditional practices within the liturgy. This is where altar rails come back into the discussion.
Many church buildings, especially those which have been built in a traditional manner, have retained, restored, or constructed, an altar rail. Is this outside of the purview of the Novus Ordo or Redemptionis Sacramentum? Absolutely not. RS was written for the restoration of tradition within the Sacred Liturgy. The CDW notes, quite explicitly that “the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition, which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations” (RS, 9).
Notably, the CDW is not referring to the perennial Tradition, in terms of doctrine, but tradition, in terms of liturgical customs. RS mentions “tradition” 23 times throughout the whole document. The abuses addressed in RS are against, “against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church” (RS, 4).
With this in mind, reception of Holy Communion at the altar rail, even in the Novus Ordo, is something hardly spoken of in the rubrics, and thus afforded liberty. It is an appropriate adaptation to the liturgy, with the interior of the church in mind. It is an appropriate adaptation to the lay faithful who desire to receive Communion at the rail. Thus, it is not within the purview of the bishop to ban this or any other traditional practice, not explicitly forbidden in the rubrics. The Church’s judgment in these matters has always been on the side of upholding the tradition. The use of the altar rail is a laudable expression of that tradition.
Conclusion
Considering the history, theology, and instructions regarding altar rails, we can now clearly state that these liturgical furnishings are not only permitted, but also a laudatory and traditional enhancement to the sanctuary. They are a gate to the “altar of God, to God my exceeding joy” (Ps. 42). Truly, from the author’s experience, the faithful view the altar rail as an altar for their own sacrifice of their lives, and a place where heaven and Earth meet. In fine, the view, not only of the faithful and clergy, but more importantly of Holy Mother Church, is reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
