we are both wrong. From
http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2510bi1.html:
The communion rail, or altar rail, was introduced into Catholic churches centuries ago to separate the sanctuary from the assembly and to provide a support against which communicants could kneel. After the Second Vatican Council, the rubrics no longer asked the faithful to kneel during communion. Consequently many churches removed their communion rails; others left them in place; new constructions generally do not include them.
The removal of communion rails caused great pain for many in the church. Since the Mass culminates in the sharing of communion, the rail became a place of the highest importance for the faithful. The removal of the rail disoriented many people, who feared that someone had compromised the very heart of Catholic belief.
In fact, the beliefs of the church remained intact. Although the posture for communion has changed, the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ, the importance of reverence at communion, and the insistence that the Mass culminate in communion has remained the same, as it always will. By encouraging the faithful to stand for communion, the rubrics returned to a symbolic posture which stresses belief in the resurrection rather than one which promoted simple adoration.
Standing for communion demonstrates our belief that Christ is risen and that the eucharistic food we share is a foretaste of the life to come. Although the real presence of Christ deserves our adoration, standing emphasizes our participation in the mystery of the Mass, which is the point of communion. Since the range of belief we express at communion has opened wider, the rail has become inessential.
The other function of the rail, to separate the clergy from the laity, hindered the Vatican II church which had heard the universal call to holiness and which had affirmed that all the baptized together form the people of God. Now the rubrics just encourage that the sanctuary be identifiable by its elevation or the distinction of its design.
I don't trust your source, sorry. No slam on you--just that Resource Publications/San Jose doesn't seem to be an authoritative historical source.
Check the Catholic Encyclopedia.