Crossed Arms in Holy Communion line

[Aramis]

Let’s stop nit-picking here.

I could not understand why a person would continuously go to Holy Mass and go with the expectation that they WOULD NOT go to Holy Communion.

If One has committed a mortal sin, or a number of significant venial sins since last confession…

If One has eaten too soon before…

Simply to hear the Word of God proclaimed…

because one’s spouse is Catholic…

Because one is Orthodox in an area without an Orthodox Parish, and does not feel comfortable with a Reader’s Typica outside the proper chapel…

Because one has yet to make first holy communion…

Because one is curious…

… lots of reasons.

The Mass and other Catholic forms of Divine Worship are not just for those who will commune, but for all who are willing to do so to come and Worship in the True Church and to hear the Word of God and the Lessons of the Sermon.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a haven for saints.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Actually, the Mass becomes valid when the priest consumes the Body and Blood of Christ. That no one else receives the Body and Blood of Christ does not make it an invalid Mass. I have been to Masses where no Communion is distributed. Mostly side altar Masses though.

What?
No offense intended in the following, but that sounds like a heresy that was common with in the Opus Dei that the transubstanciation only finishes with the faithful saying “amen” before recieving.
NO WAY!

If the priest does not consume from both species however little it may be, it is not invalid but illicit. He is required to liturgically and it is a grave thing not to.

 

[jmcrae]

Let’s stop nit-picking here.

I could not understand why a person would continuously go to Holy Mass and go with the expectation that they WOULD NOT go to Holy Communion.

Because they are not Catholic, or because they have some kind of an impediment to the Sacraments (not validly married, for example), or because, being Catholic, they have not yet received First Holy Communion, or because they have eaten or drunken something within the past hour, or because, needing to go, they have not yet been to Confession, or because they find themselves mentally/emotinally distracted at the Mass for some reason, and are not mentally/emotionally disposed to receive the Sacrament - there can be many reasons why someone might not receive Holy Communion at Mass.

 

[geraldffff]

As for the bishop having the authority to order that you stand…

Not in this case.

Read General Instruction of the Roman Missal numer 43.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

This has all the adaptation already.

Anyhow,
tell me what canonical penalty will you be subject to for doing what all saints did after they received Holy Communion?

An ipso facto frown?

This is off thread but relates. Hmmm I do not read in that, which your refer, where our Bishop is a variance. I guess it must be in the interpretation. I would not claim our Bishop is impious. The standing. It was a side point anyway. We stand after the consecration and then remain standing until the priest sits after communion.

 

[jmcrae]

This is off thread but relates. Hmmm I do not read in that, which your refer, where our Bishop is a variance. I guess it must be in the interpretation. I would not claim our Bishop is impious. The standing. It was a side point anyway. We stand after the consecration and then remain standing until the priest sits after communion.

You may do so, of course, since there is no specific posture mandated for that period of time, and nobody with authority to mandate anything.

It seems more fitting to kneel, however, in thanksgiving that your Creator has come down from Heaven to be with you, both in your body and in your soul.

 

[curtishouse29]

I am in the process of becoming a confirmed Catholic and the first time I ever went to Mass I was told by what I thought to be one of the ushers after Mass that I should cross my arms and receive the blessing when Communion occurs. I have been doing that ever since and this was the first time I ever heard that it was wrong. The man that told me this eventually told me he was Master of processions or ceremony or some other title like that…dont quote me on that lol There are two different Priests that have blessed me during Communion and never saw a problem whatsoever. Then this thread comes up and gets me all out of whack lol I just don’t know what I should do now. Just sit there at the pew while everybody else gets in line or continue to get blessed or what…This is definitely confusing…Maybe I can bring this up during RCIA when it starts up in September.

Curtis

 

[Lepanto]

I am in the process of becoming a confirmed Catholic and the first time I ever went to Mass I was told by what I thought to be one of the ushers after Mass that I should cross my arms and receive the blessing when Communion occurs. I have been doing that ever since and this was the first time I ever heard that it was wrong. The man that told me this eventually told me he was Master of processions or ceremony or some other title like that…dont quote me on that lol There are two different Priests that have blessed me during Communion and never saw a problem whatsoever. Then this thread comes up and gets me all out of whack lol I just don’t know what I should do now. Just sit there at the pew while everybody else gets in line or continue to get blessed or what…This is definitely confusing…Maybe I can bring this up during RCIA when it starts up in September.

Curtis

If anybody tells you it’s OK to use the communion line for anything other than communion, politely ask them to show you the official Church liturgical documentation indicating that this practice is licit.

If there was such a document, it’ll be no more than 10, maybe 20 years old at the most since this is a very new practice. That should make it easy to look up. But you know what – I can guarantee nobody will be able to show it to you because no such document exists, and so what we have is a case of people accreting illicit practices to the Mass when they don’t have the authority to do so.

 

[geraldffff]

I am in the process of becoming a confirmed Catholic and the first time I ever went to Mass I was told by what I thought to be one of the ushers after Mass that I should cross my arms and receive the blessing when Communion occurs. I have been doing that ever since and this was the first time I ever heard that it was wrong. The man that told me this eventually told me he was Master of processions or ceremony or some other title like that…dont quote me on that lol There are two different Priests that have blessed me during Communion and never saw a problem whatsoever. Then this thread comes up and gets me all out of whack lol I just don’t know what I should do now. Just sit there at the pew while everybody else gets in line or continue to get blessed or what…This is definitely confusing…Maybe I can bring this up during RCIA when it starts up in September.
Curtis

welcome!!! It is cool that you are with us. Don’t be out of whack! We all have a lot to learn. I was unclear about this subject till I read this thread. I’'ve been a practicing Catholic many years.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

our pastor has several times reminded the congregation that this is NOT part of the Communion rite, and the proper time to receive a blessing is with the entire congregation at the final blessing.

I am sorry to say that I am of the inclination to think that he just didn’t want to be bothered with it. Please pray for our priests. They need it so very much. They have so much responsibility guiding Jesus’ flock. They will also have so much to answer for. I tremble when I think of what the holy priests have to answer for, let alone those who are not. They deserve our prayers…for not only do they sacrifice themselves for a life of total service for our sake at the request of Jesus, but we need them so much.

 

[mullenpm]

Jesus N Cherie, puzzleannie’s pastor has nothing to answer for. He is correct to inform his congregation that the crossed-arms blessing in the Communion line is not a part of the Liturgy and they should be content with the final blessing at the end of the Mass.

You are implying that he is wrong and is doing sinful, when he is not. This new practice, and it is “new” is not a part of the liturgy.

 

[BSHoop96]

**I am sorry to say that I am of the inclination to think that he just didn’t want to be bothered with it. **Please pray for our priests. They need it so very much. They have so much responsibility guiding Jesus’ flock. They will also have so much to answer for. I tremble when I think of what the holy priests have to answer for, let alone those who are not. They deserve our prayers…for not only do they sacrifice themselves for a life of total service for our sake at the request of Jesus, but we need them so much.

Please see my post #70. You will see that my priest speaks of this also and I can guarantee it’s not because he does not want to be bothered.

 

[jmcrae]

I am in the process of becoming a confirmed Catholic and the first time I ever went to Mass I was told by what I thought to be one of the ushers after Mass that I should cross my arms and receive the blessing when Communion occurs. I have been doing that ever since and this was the first time I ever heard that it was wrong. The man that told me this eventually told me he was Master of processions or ceremony or some other title like that…dont quote me on that lol There are two different Priests that have blessed me during Communion and never saw a problem whatsoever. Then this thread comes up and gets me all out of whack lol I just don’t know what I should do now. Just sit there at the pew while everybody else gets in line or continue to get blessed or what…This is definitely confusing…Maybe I can bring this up during RCIA when it starts up in September.

Curtis

My own rule of thumb is that whenever there is a conflict of opinion between an anonymous Internet bulletin board, and my own living breathing pastor, whom God sent to me to be in charge of my soul, I follow my pastor’s opinion.

This Board is useful for knowing what ideas are out there, and what the reasoning for them is, but the rubber meets the road in your own parish, with your own pastor. He is the one who knows you personally, and knows your neighborhood and the people who live around you, and he is best situated to decide what is good for you guys, and what is okay, when it comes to these minor kinds of issues.

Now, if he were committing some kind of major sin, or just completely ignoring Catholic thinking of any kind altogether, that would be a different story. But with these minor kinds of things, just go with whatever your pastor advises you to do, and don’t worry about what you see written on the Internet.

 

[BSHoop96]

My own rule of thumb is that whenever there is a conflict of opinion between an anonymous Internet bulletin board, and my own living breathing pastor, whom God sent to me to be in charge of my soul, I follow my pastor’s opinion.

This Board is useful for knowing what ideas are out there, and what the reasoning for them is, but the rubber meets the road in your own parish, with your own pastor. He is the one who knows you personally, and knows your neighborhood and the people who live around you, and he is best situated to decide what is good for you guys, and what is okay, when it comes to these minor kinds of issues.

Now, if he were committing some kind of major sin, or just completely ignoring Catholic thinking of any kind altogether, that would be a different story. But with these minor kinds of things, just go with whatever your pastor advises you to do, and don’t worry about what you see written on the Internet.

One thing I would add to that is do you really know if your pastor is “totally okay” unless you ask. I didn’t until I asked mine. He said he would never deny anyone a blessing but in talking to him I found out how he really felt about it. He will be speaking about it in RCIA. JM, you are right, it’s not a major thing and I think many pastors choose not to make a huge issue of it.

 

[pnewton]

If anybody tells you it’s OK to use the communion line for anything other than communion, politely ask them to show you the official Church liturgical documentation indicating that this practice is licit.

Or if it is condemned, ask for the document that shows it is illicit.

I think jmcrae has the best rule of thumb

My own rule of thumb is that whenever there is a conflict of opinion between an anonymous Internet bulletin board, and my own living breathing pastor, whom God sent to me to be in charge of my soul, I follow my pastor’s opinion.

 

[Lepanto]

Or if it is condemned, ask for the document that shows it is illicit.

As stated earlier, Church documents typically are written in the “positive-affirmative” style. In other words, they say what to do, not what not to do. That’s why they also don’t prohibit people from doing jumping jacks in the communion line. If they mentioned every prohibited thing the documents would never end.

So the burden of proof is on whomever argues that blessings belong in the communion line.

 

[jmcrae]

So the burden of proof is on whomever argues that blessings belong in the communion line.

If a priest offers to a non-Catholic to bless him in the Communion line, it is not up to the non-Catholic to prove anything at all about Catholic law - if he chooses to accept the invitation, he is not doing anything “wrong.”

If the priest is doing something wrong, then his Bishop will correct him.

Hopefully, nobody is just marching into the Communion line and going up to ask for a blessing, without first being invited to do so by the priest. If so, then the priest would gently correct the person afterwards, if he thought it was a problem.

 

[HoosierGal]

Another interesting set of quotes:

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to participate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom’s pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term, for example, changing the way people perceive the act of receiving Communion.

the bishops’ conference of England and Wales has published a fairly authoritative statement on this issue, to wit:

“Even though some in the assembly may not receive ‘sacramental’ Communion, all are united in some way by the Holy Spirit. The Traditional idea of spiritual communion is an important one to remember and re-affirm. The invitation often given at Mass to those who may not receive sacramental communion — for example, children before their first communion and adults who are not Catholics — to receive a ‘blessing’ at the moment of Communion emphasizes that a deep spiritual communion is possible even when we do not share together the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ” (the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, “Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction,” (Catholic Truth Society, April 2005, In number 212, pg 95)."

I would note that the bishops here interpret the blessing itself as a kind of spiritual communion

One reader proposed that accepting the possibility of this blessing of non-communicants went against the principle that “liturgical documents are prohibitive of all that they do not prescribe.”

While in no means in favor of liturgical inventiveness, I do not believe this to be a valid principle in interpreting liturgical law.

Liturgical norms have several levels ranging from the Divine decree (such as the essential elements of the sacraments) to precepts descriptive of prevalent customs, the latter constituting the vast majority of liturgical norms.

The different levels do not lessen their value as true laws, which require obedience. But they are usually content to set out a general scheme with no desire to rigidly set every gesture to the exclusion of all others.

On the other hand, several other readers did express a fear that the introduction of the blessing for those not receiving Communion breached the general liturgical norm that “Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (“Sacrosanctum Concilium,” No. 22).

Here we are on different terrain. Even if we were to accept that the blessing offered to non-communicants could be established as a legitimate custom that responds to new pastoral demands, not foreseen in the law itself, it is clear that it is not incumbent on the individual priest to introduce a novel rite into the Communion procession.

Finally, even if we were to accept the (still hypothetical) legitimacy of this custom, I would be personally hesitant to generalize its use beyond those areas where it has proved a useful pastoral solution to specific problems for relatively small groups.

I also see no pastoral advantage in using it for children before their first Communion. A child who observes parents and siblings approaching the altar should have a greater sense of hope and desire to be able to participate just as they do.

As we mentioned before, a blessing in this case could even weaken the awareness of the greatness and uniqueness of holy Communion. It can also cause pastoral problems insofar as it is an easy custom to introduce but, once in, very difficult to renege upon, due to parental sensitivity.

All from: Blessings for Non-communicants by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

 

[geraldffff]

Jesus N Cherie, puzzleannie’s pastor has nothing to answer for. He is correct to inform his congregation that the crossed-arms blessing in the Communion line is not a part of the Liturgy and they should be content with the final blessing at the end of the Mass.

You are implying that he is wrong and is doing sinful, when he is not. This new practice, and it is “new” is not a part of the liturgy.

I agree!! It is we, the laity that has to be more diligent and educate ourselves it these areas. I know I have failed in this at times. If we do not educate on abuses like getting in the communion line to get blessing then we allow the Mass to slide in to a meaningless “do as I wish ritual.”

 

[BSHoop96]

**Or if it is condemned, ask for the document that shows it is illicit. **

I think jmcrae has the best rule of thumb

The only problem there is that the GIRM states what should be done. It can’t possibly address everything that comes up that shouldn’t be done like things that work their way into the Mass that were not started by the magisterium.

 

[pnewton]

The only problem there is that the GIRM states what should be done. It can’t possibly address everything that comes up that shouldn’t be done like things that work their way into the Mass that were not started by the magisterium.

I am familiar with the argument from silence in the GIRM. Were one to include something that obviously ought to be in the GIRM, then such an argument might hold. But there are many things that are not included.

For example, when the issue of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer comes, this argument is always used. People who object to it state that one should clasp their hands or bow in prayer. Yet that posture too is not listed. The Girm does not state that one should hold the hands to the side. Is that forbidden? The GIRM does not list that as an option

So to the topic of those not able to receive communion. What should they do? Stay in the pew and make an act of spiritual communion? That too is not in the GIRM. So those who suggest that as an option are just as guilty of taking an action not in the GIRM. How many communion lines? Three? That is not in the GIRM.

I know this sounds ridiculous, but that is the natural result of the argument from silence of the GIRM. The rule about excluding things not in the GIRM should only apply to where the GIRM structures the Mass carefully and any such omission is obvious.

The order of communion reception and how the procession is to occur is scarcely touched, save for the way music is incorporated. That is why I think jmcrae has the best idea. If Rome defers to the celebrant for such matters, so should we.

FYI_

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml