Crossed Arms in Holy Communion line

[Rickwood]

It’s not that I don’t understand the blessing or the sign. It’s just that, perhaps, what you do not understand is that if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place. Furthermore, the blessing that the Holy Father imparts occurs during the presentation of the gifts, not during the reception of Holy Communion.

That is an exceedingly naive and reductionist view. In brief, it’s wrong. There are MANY things that take place within the context of the Mass that are neither specified nor prohibited and they are neither “abuses” nor irregularities. Let me name a few:

Celebrant requests glasses of water on the ambo, altar (!) and the little table next to his chair because he has chronic dry mouth; the little table next to his chair; the use of two corporals on the altar; the wiping of the inside of the chalice after pouring wine into it; the use of an ablution cup on the altar; the prostration of some servers during the consecration; the brief ringing of sanctus bells when the celebrant consumes the precious blood; the little fans in the sanctuary blowing on the celebrant and the servers because it’s so darned hot, the holding of hands by the laity, their use of the orans posture, etc.

If you want a dozen or two more, let me know.

Oh yeah, and you apparently have missed the times the Pope have bestowed blessing DURING communion.

[Edited]

 

[benedictgal]

The real problem is that the priest is not allowed to insert things into the Mass that do not belong there. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on that:

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, 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,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Fiurthermore, these creative moments actually create confusion and the mistaken notion that evveryone in the pews has to stand up and in line during Communion time.

In another thread I noted the example of my grandmother who, for 40 years, could not receive Holy Communion because she was in an invalid marriage. Did she ever go up for a blessing? No. She remained in her pew, along with my step-grandfather, and both made spiritual communions and spent their time in silent prayer. It was not until I graduated from Catholic junior high school that she was able to receive Holy Communion because her annulment had come through and she was able to have her second marriage blessed by the Church.

 

[maggiemay2u]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Rickwood]

I think for some, going up for a blessing may have a profound effect. Personally, I am one who cannot yet take Communion, and I have both kneeled in the pew while praying for a spiritual Communion, and gone up for a blessing. What has a more profound effect on me is kneeling and praying in the pew. Since my priest suggested I go up for the blessing, I did/and do, and since the time of his suggestion I have lost that profound feeling you’re talking about. I am not going to go up anymore, but instead will pray in my pew for a spiritual Communion.

Fantastic! You have found what works for you and you are sticking to it – that’s great.

It would be wrong to say your experiences are uniform to all or that going up for the blessing was in any way an abuse or irregularity.

 

[Rickwood]

The real problem is that the priest is not allowed to insert things into the Mass that do not belong there. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on that:

Fiurthermore, these creative moments actually create confusion and the mistaken notion that evveryone in the pews has to stand up and in line during Communion time.

In another thread I noted the example of my grandmother who, for 40 years, could not receive Holy Communion because she was in an invalid marriage. Did she ever go up for a blessing? No. She remained in her pew, along with my step-grandfather, and both made spiritual communions and spent their time in silent prayer. It was not until I graduated from Catholic junior high school that she was able to receive Holy Communion because her annulment had come through and she was able to have her second marriage blessed by the Church.

That’s OK, you need not answer my comments. Yet no matter how many times you reiterate your own comments they are not going to magically become true.

You need to dig a bit deeper…

 

[musicmantg11]

Kneel down in your pew during the communion procession and make a spiritual communion. Although it is not the same as receiving our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, you can pray the spiritual communion instead. If you cannot receive communion because you commited a sin then ask the priest to hear your confession and grant you absolution. God Bless!

 

[nightwalker]

Why, in your opinion, does the passage from the Book of Blessings not settle this minor issue? Or why does it not apply to this blessing? Do you have a source for your pronouncement, or is it your opinion that it does not apply?

That’s OK, you need not answer my comments. Yet no matter how many times you reiterate your own comments they are not going to magically become true.

 

[BSHoop96]

It goes both ways – the fact that an “official indult” does not exist in no way ensures that it is an “abuse.” I very much used to be a Mass auditor. Since then I have grown through God’s grace with wonderful help from my wonderful spiritual director and a great pastor.

As much as you would like it to be, the Church is not black/white, cut/dried. That’s a naive, reductionist viewpoint that can cause damage. While divine, the Church is made up of people, not machinery. Not everything is specified and people are not obliged to follow your opinions.

Some people here get terribly bent out of shape by hand-holding; orans posture; etc. and respond with the abuse, abuse, abuse!! mantra. That’s wrong and that does damage. At the same time they don’t know what to think about the irregularities in EWTN Masses. That’s hypocritical.

I think the worst part is the “abuse, abuse, abuse!! mantra” often hardens the decision-makers. When it comes to a REAL abuse, they are often slower to react due to the chicken little/sky is falling syndrome.

I would bet dollars to donuts that if your style in real life is similar to here, that you spend a great deal of time in conflict with others.

Why do you keep harping on EWTN. I love EWTN but it is not the magisterium of the Church.

The strike the breast thing. Used to be three. I believe the new change will be one.

I believe benedictgal and myself have butted heads a few times but she is right.

Blessings, holding hands at Our Father, people using the gestures of the priest and sometimes saying the words of the priest have all been spontaneously added. They were not spoken of because they never used to be there. Then they spread. They shouldn’t.

 

[BSHoop96]

There was some mention in a previous post about it being presented on EWTN. I made a point of viewing Sunday. Monday and today’s Masses. No invitation was made for non-receiving Eucharist individuals to step up for a blessing. Perhaps the previous poster was referencing something other than daily Mass. If so, a link would be helpful.

:bowdown2:

Maggie, perhaps the priest was like my priest. When people assume it’s okay and go up for a blessing he does not deny them one. However, he made it clear when I asked that it is not a “blessing line”, but a communion line. He said he speaks of it in RCIA. He is not uncharitable but is spreading knowledge thru his instruction about it.

 

[BSHoop96]

Fantastic! You have found what works for you and you are sticking to it – that’s great.

It would be wrong to say your experiences are uniform to all or that going up for the blessing was in any way an abuse or irregularity.

It most certainly is an irregularity.

May I ask, are you a Catholic? It does not say in your profile. And if you are, what part of the country.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Let me make myself more clear. I have never in the years I have watched EWTN, seen or heard the faithful invited to receive a blessing in lieu of the Eucharist. Another poster had said he had seen it on EWTN. I tune into the Mass almost every day, I watched and listened closely, expressly for the “in lieu of message” or to see the crossed arms/blessing ,for three days, just to ensure my memory was not faulty. I requested a link from the other poster if he had a specific instance, as I believed he might have confused the voiceover “Spiritual Eucharist” with the blessing.

Part of the “Communion line” issue, is that it sets up the opportunity for EMHC to perform some sort of blessing. A previous poster had suggested there be an announcement for the “blessing only” folks to confine themselves to a priest/deacon line.

Other posters had brought to front the “blessing in lieu of” was not founded in Church regulation.

Which I believe, should have been the end of it.

Maggie, perhaps the priest was like my priest. When people assume it’s okay and go up for a blessing he does not deny them one. However, he made it clear when I asked that it is not a “blessing line”, but a communion line. He said he speaks of it in RCIA. He is not uncharitable but is spreading knowledge thru his instruction about it.

 

[Rickwood]

It most certainly is an irregularity.

May I ask, are you a Catholic? It does not say in your profile. And if you are, what part of the country.

So you say. The Church doesn’t appear to support your position.

 

[Rickwood]

It’s not that I don’t understand the blessing or the sign. It’s just that, perhaps, what you do not understand is that if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place. Furthermore, the blessing that the Holy Father imparts occurs during the presentation of the gifts, not during the reception of Holy Communion…

Actually it’s very clear that the Church does not instruct that “if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place.” You suggest it does but it does not. That’s it in a nutshell. Your understanding of the documents appears quite flawed.

You can make all the pronouncements you want, but doing so doesn’t give them any weight.

 

[Rickwood]

It’s not that I don’t understand the blessing or the sign. It’s just that, perhaps, what you do not understand is that if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place. Furthermore, the blessing that the Holy Father imparts occurs during the presentation of the gifts, not during the reception of Holy Communion.

Actually it’s very clear that the Church does not instruct that “if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place.” You suggest it does but it does not. That’s it in a nutshell. Your understanding of the documents appears quite flawed.

You can make all the pronouncements you want, but doing so doesn’t give them any weight.

Furthermore, the comments that I have made are not geared to be offensive. What you need to understand is that there is a deeper issue here. We form a line to receive Our Lord. That is why this time is called Communion. We approach the priest because we seek an intimate contact with our Lord, a physical one that unites us to Him. We don’t go for a blessing. People never approached the communion rail to receive a blessing. They approached to receive Our Lord.

Yet many of your comments are still extremely offensive…

What you don’t seem to understand is that you are not the arbiter of what the documents mean – the Church is. And your interpretations are clearly wrong.

You also post material that is just plain false too. People DID come up to the rail (at least around here) prior to VC2 for blessings.

What, perhaps, you do not understand (and seem to reject) is the notion of Spiritual Communion. If you cannot receive Our Lord, then, you remain in your pew and pray, asking the Lord to come into your heart. What is so offensive about that?

Perhaps you do not understand (and seem to reject) the fact that you lack the authority and ability to interpret the liturgical documents on your own.

 

[Walking_Home]

Actually it’s very clear that the Church does not instruct that “if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place.” You suggest it does but it does not. That’s it in a nutshell. Your understanding of the documents appears quite flawed.

You can make all the pronouncements you want, but doing so doesn’t give them any weight.

Yet many of your comments are still extremely offensive…

What you don’t seem to understand is that you are not the arbiter of what the documents mean – the Church is. And your interpretations are clearly wrong.

You also post material that is just plain false too. People DID come up to the rail (at least around here) prior to VC2 for blessings.

Perhaps you do not understand (and seem to reject) the fact that you lack the authority and ability to interpret the liturgical documents on your own.

---

Wrong again Rickwood. The Church has given us the authority–and as for the ability to interpret–well --we cannot be held accountable if you find yourself lacking in that respect.

RS --2004

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or** lay member of Christ’s faithful**, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

 

[BSHoop96]

So you say. The Church doesn’t appear to support your position.

Actually, there are some priests & parishes across the country that may not support my position but the Church does which you would see if you would bother to read the documents people have posted.

Btw, you didn’t answer my question. Are you Catholic and if so, what part of the country are you from?

 

[Petergee]

Actually it’s very clear that the Church does not instruct that “if it is not written in the GIRM nor in any of the liturgical documents, it has no place.”

Sorry, but that IS exactly what the Church says in para 28 of the general introduction to the Book of Blessings (which is just as authoritative as the Roman Missal). You suggest it does not but it does. That’s it in a nutshell. **Your **understanding of the documents appears quite flawed.

 

[Petergee]

The real problem is that the priest is not allowed to insert things into the Mass that do not belong there. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on that:

Fiurthermore, these creative moments actually create confusion and the mistaken notion that everyone in the pews has to stand up and in line during Communion time.

Exactly. I have seen this happen with non-Catholics/non-practising Catholics thinking they HAVE to go up with everyone else. And not realising that some people are only getting a blessing, they receive Communion because they think everyone’s doing it. And that destroys the argument that “It’s better that they get a blessing rather than be tempted to profane the Sacrament.”

It’s also quite possible that if someone joined the line intending to get a blessing, Satan whispers in their ear, “go on, you’re here now, you may as well take Communion, the priest and the people behind you will notice if you don’t and wonder why”. Whereas if you bite the bullet and take the decision to stay in your pew, reversing your decision afterwards would actually draw more attention to yourself.

To the person who said this is a trivial matter: Maybe it started that way, but it’s no longer just a dozen or so people going up to the priest for a blessing. At least in my parish in Australia. At our parish school, and I think many schools do the same, the teachers pay great attention to teaching the non-Catholics (about 25% of the kids) and the ones who haven’t yet had First Communion, that they must go up with their arms folded to receive a blessing. The philosophy in all our schools is that “inclusion” is the most important thing of all. EVERYbody must be somehow included in EVERYthing, otherwise, gasp, they might feel “left out” or not important or damage their precious self-esteem. (If only the teachers paid as much attention to making sure the kids understand the tenets of the Faith!)

And although as an EMHC I refuse to give blessings, many of our EMHCs do. One in particular (who is the president of our Liturgy Committee) holds a Host and makes a big Sign of the Cross with it in the air above each kid who comes for a blessing. To go to Mass in our parish when the schoolchildren attend, and see hundreds of kids getting these blessings, is a truly “aweful” sight.

 

[Rickwood]

Sorry, but that IS exactly what the Church says in para 28 of the general introduction to the Book of Blessings (which is just as authoritative as the Roman Missal). You suggest it does not but it does. That’s it in a nutshell. **Your **understanding of the documents appears quite flawed.

The BB does not control a priest’s/bishop’s actions during this point of the Mass.

 

[Rickwood]

Actually, there are some priests & parishes across the country that may not support my position but the Church does which you would see if you would bother to read the documents people have posted.

Btw, you didn’t answer my question. Are you Catholic and if so, what part of the country are you from?

I have read the document. It doesn’t apply in this case.