Altar Rails?

[Markie Boy]

So I have been checking out Lutheranism after leaving Catholicism. Have not been to a liturgy yet, but watching some of the local ones on line.

I was AMAZED to see an altar rail, and people kneeling at it for communion???? From what I understand those were there to separate the people from the clergy /altar - as the clergy were "special" and could be there, but lay folks not so much.

I would have thought at the Reformation that would be one of the first things to go? Even most modern Catholic churches don't have them any longer.

Any thoughts? Makes me take a huge step back from Lutheranism.

 

[TKA_TN]

My understanding is it’s never been about separating the clergy, but about showing respect for Holy Communion.

 

[LizaMarie]

TKA_ TN is correct. It's about showing respect for Holy Communion, as Lutherans believe in the Real Presence.
Speaking for myself, one of the big turnoffs of churches that believe it's symbolic only was the lack of respect for Holy Communion and even the fact that those churches would not even have Holy Communion often.
I don't believe it is at all about separating the clergy from the laity.

 

[Markie Boy]

When I look on line most articles mention the purpose of the rail is to set the altar apart, and that space was for clergy only. Even if that was a Catholic reasoning, I would have thought those reforming would want to not follow that.

I find very few articles that say the purpose was primarily to show respect for communion.

If Jesus offered communion at a table where everyone was together, I would think we should follow that pattern. The altar rail definitely seems like a later man-made idea.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

When I look on line most articles mention the purpose of the rail is to set the altar apart, and that space was for clergy only. Even if that was a Catholic reasoning, I would have thought those reforming would want to not follow that.

I find very few articles that say the purpose was primarily to show respect for communion.

If Jesus offered communion at a table where everyone was together, I would think we should follow that pattern. The altar rail definitely seems like a later man-made idea.

Historically, we kneel because our Lord transcends time and space and comes to us in His body and blood on the altar. As one would honor an earthly king we honor our heavenly king by bowing and then kneeling in His Presence; likewise, having communed, we rise and bow before departing the chancel. In Lutheranism is is not only acceptable and proper to "adore" the body and blood of our Lord within the context of the Divine Service (Mass). Be mindful that not all of our Churches have rails, there we bow, but stand to receive the eucharist, and bow before departing back to our seats.

In accord with both the General Rubrics of LSB and historic and traditional practices, it is also to separate the two areas. For example, this weekend due to a huge snow storm that went on for almost 4 days, our Pastor could not make it to Church. We changed plans a bit to still have service, but with us elders officiating. When we do this, we DO NOT venture behind the rail or or to the Altar other than to light and extinguish candles. We will read the sermon from the lectern, not the pulpit; when we do the confessional rite we use a pronouncement of grace rather than an absolution; when we do the benediction, we use the inclusive "us" rather than the specific "you". This not only signifies Pastoral Authority, but maintains that authority. The other exception is when we assist the Pastor with the distribution, but then we are there by the authority of his office.

Below are links to Christmas Eve Vespers and Christmas Day Divine Service without communion. I was the liturgist for both services. Another Elder, Nathan, was Acolyte and read the responses, another, Rob read the sermon and served as Cantor for Christmas Day. Our Choir was there for both services.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=497557022475993

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1153581825300209

 

[Markie Boy]

Thanks for sharing! So can you have communion if the regular pastor is not there?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks for sharing! So can you have communion if the regular pastor is not there?

No, we do not pre-consecrate and reserve the sacrament. All the elements, bread and wine, are consumed during the service. (with the rare exception of a few Parishes that pre-consecrate on Maundy Thursday for the Good Friday "Mass of the Pre-Consecrated").

Scripture tells us to "take and eat" and "take and drink" not "lock it up in a cupboard", not to put in in a chapel and adore it. The Bible is clear.

 

[Valletta]

No, we do not pre-consecrate and reserve the sacrament. All the elements, bread and wine, are consumed during the service. (with the rare exception of a few Parishes that pre-consecrate on Maundy Thursday for the Good Friday "Mass of the Pre-Consecrated").

Scripture tells us to "take and eat" and "take and drink" not "lock it up in a cupboard", not to put in in a chapel and adore it. The Bible is clear.

Keeping Jesus in the Holy Eucharist after the mass was done in the early Catholic Church. Tertullian was born in 160 A.D., and he wrote about his concern that if his wife remarried and she did not Mary a Christian that Our Lord in the Eucharist could be profaned should she the Holy Eucharist be kept at home. If there was an important trip permission could be given to take Jesus in the Holy Eucharist along in a "tent" or what became known as a "tabernacle."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I agree.

No, only an ordained Pastor is permitted to Consecrate.

Markie Boy
Huge improvement over RCC practice. They fight over where to put the tabernacle because it's like Jesus is trapped in there.

Jesus said the Last Supper was a pass over. One of the rules of the original pass over was NO Left overs - eat it all, burn what's left.

I guess my question is, if the pastor is not there, is a deacon or appointed person not allowed to consecrate and offer communion?
Yesterday at 7:12 AM

 

[Daniel9v9]

Church architecture and rites are very convoluted. But what I can say is that the Lutheran doctrine on clergy is not the same as that of our Roman Catholic friends, so altar rails serve a different function. I think it's best understood as a practice born out of a respect for the Sacrament and for the sake of good order and the consciences of the Pastor and the congregation. It does not signify that the Pastor is "special" in any way.

 

[Valletta]

So I have been checking out Lutheranism after leaving Catholicism. Have not been to a liturgy yet, but watching some of the local ones on line.

I was AMAZED to see an altar rail, and people kneeling at it for communion???? From what I understand those were there to separate the people from the clergy /altar - as the clergy were "special" and could be there, but lay folks not so much.

I would have thought at the Reformation that would be one of the first things to go? Even most modern Catholic churches don't have them any longer.

Any thoughts? Makes me take a huge step back from Lutheranism.

Altar rails were not around at the time of the reformation. I never attached any importance to the rails, but even if they had been around I don't think they would have been eliminated for some time. All three of the major reformers had different ideas about the Eucharist, thus the beginning of the thousands of denominations, but I think as time when on the holiness of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist in general became more and more distant to Protestants.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Church architecture and rites are very convoluted. But what I can say is that the Lutheran doctrine on clergy is not the same as that of our Roman Catholic friends, so altar rails serve a different function. I think it's best understood as a practice born out of a respect for the Sacrament and for the sake of good order and the consciences of the Pastor and the congregation. It does not signify that the Pastor is "special" in any way.

I think you may have missed the point. The person of the Pastor is not special; the Pastoral Office is. This distinction is maintained in Confessional Lutheranism for the reasons stated in the Confessions; the celebrant must be duly called and ordained. This is maintained to preserve good order:

Article XIV AC - Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Article XIV (defense of the AC). Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

24 The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. <SNIP>

​

 

[Daniel9v9]

I think you may have missed the point. The person of the Pastor is not special; the Pastoral Office is. This distinction is maintained in Confessional Lutheranism for the reasons stated in the Confessions; the celebrant must be duly called and ordained. This is maintained to preserve good order:

Article XIV AC - Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Article XIV (defense of the AC). Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

24 The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. <SNIP>

​

Yep, I understand this, but I’m making a distinction between the Lutheran doctrine regarding the pastoral office versus that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Easily explained, in the Lutheran understanding, the power to deliver God’s gifts of His Word and Sacrament belongs to God, not to the man holding the pastoral office. So the rails do not separate two classes of people, but serves to signify the holiness of the Eucharist and to protect people’s consciences. This architecture or rite is adiaphora, however, and my main point is that it serves a different function than it does in Roman Catholic thinking.

 

[The Liturgist]

@MarkRohfrietsch do you know where I might find a Lutheran Liturgy of the Presanctified? I am hoping to find something that resembles the EO and pre-1955 Presanctified Liturgy attributed to Pope St. Gregory I. There is an older EO presanctified liturgy which is attributed to St. James, which I recently got a copy of, in ROCOR’s service book for the Liturgy of St. James, which is exquisite, and I suspect the practice of a reserved sacrament for the sick and for certain liturgies in Lent and Holy Week, which is admittedly controversial in Lutheranism and also Anglicanism and a few other high church Protestant settings, but much less controversial than Eucharistic Adoration, which I have heard of in Anglo Catholic but not Lutheran contexts, and which is not done in the Eastern churches, originated in what is now the Syriac Orthodox Church under the Greek Oriental Orthodox father Mor Severus of Antioch.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think you may have missed the point. The person of the Pastor is not special; the Pastoral Office is. This distinction is maintained in Confessional Lutheranism for the reasons stated in the Confessions; the celebrant must be duly called and ordained. This is maintained to preserve good order:

Article XIV AC - Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Article XIV (defense of the AC). Of Ecclesiastical Order.​

24 The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. <SNIP>

​

Out of curiosity how is it that some Lutheran churches in Germany came to be without bishops, or assumed a Congregational polity, while others retained an Episcopal polity, historically, rather than doctrinally, speaking? I am really interested in the historical process that resulted in a divergence of polity within Lutheranism and even, if we consider ELDONA a Confessional Lutheran church, within Confessional Lutheranism, but specifically, what caused the historical differentiation between the Scandinavian and German churches in terms of ecclesiastical polity from a purely historical perspective?

Also, out of curiosity did any Lutheran churches, or perhaps the forcibly merged Lutheran and Reformed churches of Prussia (from which correct me if I am wrong a large part of the LCMS originated from, breaking away from Calvinists in the New World, who later merged with the liberal Congregationalists to form the United Church of Christ, a fact remarked at by the leader of the LCMS in 2013 or 2014) wind up with a Continental Presbyterian style polity?

 

[The Liturgist]

Historically, we kneel because our Lord transcends time and space and comes to us in His body and blood on the altar. As one would honor an earthly king we honor our heavenly king by bowing and then kneeling in His Presence; likewise, having communed, we rise and bow before departing the chancel. In Lutheranism is is not only acceptable and proper to "adore" the body and blood of our Lord within the context of the Divine Service (Mass). Be mindful that not all of our Churches have rails, there we bow, but stand to receive the eucharist, and bow before departing back to our seats.

In accord with both the General Rubrics of LSB and historic and traditional practices, it is also to separate the two areas. For example, this weekend due to a huge snow storm that went on for almost 4 days, our Pastor could not make it to Church. We changed plans a bit to still have service, but with us elders officiating. When we do this, we DO NOT venture behind the rail or or to the Altar other than to light and extinguish candles. We will read the sermon from the lectern, not the pulpit; when we do the confessional rite we use a pronouncement of grace rather than an absolution; when we do the benediction, we use the inclusive "us" rather than the specific "you". This not only signifies Pastoral Authority, but maintains that authority. The other exception is when we assist the Pastor with the distribution, but then we are there by the authority of his office.

Below are links to Christmas Eve Vespers and Christmas Day Divine Service without communion. I was the liturgist for both services. Another Elder, Nathan, was Acolyte and read the responses, another, Rob read the sermon and served as Cantor for Christmas Day. Our Choir was there for both services.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=497557022475993

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1153581825300209

Beautiful liturgies, exquisite work Mark. Also I congratulate your parish on not doing what a great many churches did and not having a service on Christmas despite it being a Sunday.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@MarkRohfrietsch do you know where I might find a Lutheran Liturgy of the Presanctified? I am hoping to find something that resembles the EO and pre-1955 Presanctified Liturgy attributed to Pope St. Gregory I. There is an older EO presanctified liturgy which is attributed to St. James, which I recently got a copy of, in ROCOR’s service book for the Liturgy of St. James, which is exquisite, and I suspect the practice of a reserved sacrament for the sick and for certain liturgies in Lent and Holy Week, which is admittedly controversial in Lutheranism and also Anglicanism and a few other high church Protestant settings, but much less controversial than Eucharistic Adoration, which I have heard of in Anglo Catholic but not Lutheran contexts, and which is not done in the Eastern churches, originated in what is now the Syriac Orthodox Church under the Greek Oriental Orthodox father Mor Severus of Antioch.

Having heard tell, I only have some anecdotal information of this practice, so this is a hard question; i think one would be hard pressed to find a completely Lutheran liturgy for this. Speaking from experience, working with Pastors who might compile a liturgy that might be a bit out of the ordinary, Step 1, they will consult liturgies from other traditions, bring a plan together, making sure it is compliant with our theology. Step 2, they would consult their peers, professors at the seminary's and maybe the Regional Pastor (Bishop).

In my experience, the most conservative and liturgical Pastors will seek consensus before venturing on to new or different ground; Liberal, non liturgical Pastors (I know, we are not supposed to have any of those...) will rarely seek consensus, and just do their own thing.

I think that if we were to view it as a an autonomous, stand alone service, there are problems with doctrinal compliance, but if it is part of a larger service, the Triduum; it becomes a continuation of the Maundy Thursday service and culminates in the Vigil, it is not really presanctified, but remains sanctified within the context of this 3 day liturgy, and will be entirely consumed; the last of it, on Friday. There would be a lot of Logistics to deal with; in our traditions, we use red paraments for Thursday would be removed, black paraments would be put on, the crucifix veiled, and the consecrated elements placed back on the altar under a black veil.

Following the service of the word for Good Friday, the distribution of the elements, it would be customary to follow with the Reproaches and the adoration of the Holy Cross; following this the Altar would be stripped bare.

Lots of opportunity and options.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Out of curiosity how is it that some Lutheran churches in Germany came to be without bishops, or assumed a Congregational polity, while others retained an Episcopal polity, historically, rather than doctrinally, speaking? I am really interested in the historical process that resulted in a divergence of polity within Lutheranism and even, if we consider ELDONA a Confessional Lutheran church, within Confessional Lutheranism, but specifically, what caused the historical differentiation between the Scandinavian and German churches in terms of ecclesiastical polity from a purely historical perspective?

Also, out of curiosity did any Lutheran churches, or perhaps the forcibly merged Lutheran and Reformed churches of Prussia (from which correct me if I am wrong a large part of the LCMS originated from, breaking away from Calvinists in the New World, who later merged with the liberal Congregationalists to form the United Church of Christ, a fact remarked at by the leader of the LCMS in 2013 or 2014) wind up with a Continental Presbyterian style polity?

When a region or particular elector decided to go "Lutheran" and the Bishop decided not to, they lost their Bishop. To fill the vacuum of oversight, overseers were appointed by consistory. If history had worked out differently, and Walther had not embraced American politicalize, we would have Bishops. We had one, Stefan, who was discredited unduly by Walther in a power struggle with insinuations of sexual impropriety; and was unceremoniously defrocked by Walther; it could not have been too bad because Walther allowed him to remain as pastor of his large congregation, and his ministry continued until his death.

Yes, there was migration between both synods, and there were congregations (still are) that either remain, or became "free".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Beautiful liturgies, exquisite work Mark. Also I congratulate your parish on not doing what a great many churches did and not having a service on Christmas despite it being a Sunday.

Thanks, you are most kind!

 

[The Liturgist]

When a region or particular elector decided to go "Lutheran" and the Bishop decided not to, they lost their Bishop. To fill the vacuum of oversight, overseers were appointed by consistory. If history had worked out differently, and Walther had not embraced American politicalize, we would have Bishops. We had one, Stefan, who was discredited unduly by Walther in a power struggle with insinuations of sexual impropriety; and was unceremoniously defrocked by Walther; it could not have been too bad because Walther allowed him to remain as pastor of his large congregation, and his ministry continued until his death.

Yes, there was migration between both synods, and there were congregations (still are) that either remain, or became "free".

So this poses a question which I find interesting; some may find it pedantic but I am have a fascination with etymology (but not entomology; things that creepeth are occasionally beautiful but usually I prefer they remain out of sight underground, unlike subway trains, which I find incredibly beautiful): since the word Bishop, or Episkopos, literally means overseer, why were the overseers selected by consistory not given that title?

Was it perhaps for the same reason that John Wesley really would have preferred it if the Superintendents he ordained for what became the Methodist Episcopal Church (and I think the Canadian Methodist Church branched off from that rather than the British Methodist Church, which was formed after John Wesley, who died as an Anglican priest in good standing) had not started calling themselves Bishops?