Unable to cross arms at communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodSpawned
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stpurl said:
And I’m saying that people who go around and start calling people who simply state the facts are rigid, hateful, unmerciful, etc., etc. are absolutely mistaken.
Click to expand...
To use your terminology, those who state the facts and rules (church law) and condemn such things as abortion, homosexual marriage, adultery, pre marital sex, and other such niceties are hateful, unmerciful, rigid, unfeeling, intolerant, unenlightened, and “haters”. (in the eyes of contemporary society. And I stand right next to them in important questions such as I just cited. I guess I depart when it comes to “I’m sorry little Timmy but I know that you want to be blessed before Jesus in Communion, but there are those of us adults who are outraged at your doing so because it is against the rules. Now go sit down and don’t come up here to communion again. I know the priest says it is okay, but we know better and are telling you that what you are doing is wrong.” Sad. I think this whole discussion is ludicrous when it comes to trying to permit something that gives meaning to a little boy or girl. I think Christ would agree. Then again ……
 
Last edited:
No, Joey, please stop trying to put words in my mouth I never said, or make arguments that I have never argued.

No matter how much you slice it, it’s still baloney.

It is not about little Timmy (poor sweet baby) and his being made to feel unwelcome by the nasty rigid haters who would refuse him his RIGHT to a dang blessing.

You are mistaken.

You are not addressing the topic but creating a strawman.

The fact is that it has never been required for a person who cannot receive the Eucharist to come forward in the communion line to receive a blessing. It is perfectly proper and has been from time immemorial in Christendom for a person who cannot receive the Eucharist to remain in the pew.
 
One of the things that made First Holy Communion was the knowledge that I would now be able to go up to the alter and receive the Lord.

I also felt ashamed when I couldn’t go up because I felt I was in a state of sin.

I understand taking small children up when there is only one adult present. However, I wonder if taking them up when they are old enough to sit in the pew removes the sense of anticipation and specialness for them.

I also wonder if adults who go up and don’t receive are trying to avoid the judgement (real or imagined) of fellow parishioners, along with their sense of shame.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
No, Joey, please stop trying to put words in my mouth I never said, or make arguments that I have never argued.

No matter how much you slice it, it’s still baloney.

It is not about little Timmy (poor sweet baby) and his being made to feel unwelcome by the nasty rigid haters who would refuse him his RIGHT to a dang blessing.

You are mistaken.

You are not addressing the topic but creating a strawman.

The fact is that it has never been required for a person who cannot receive the Eucharist to come forward in the communion line to receive a blessing. It is perfectly proper and has been from time immemorial in Christendom for a person who cannot receive the Eucharist to remain in the pew.
Click to expand...
Who is trying to put words into whose mouth?? I am a little incredulous that you would even make such a claim. NOWHERE in any post of mine on this thread have I said that anyone has a RIGHT to a blessing at the communion “rail” NOWHERE. In fact, I have stated in the past that no one has a right to the Eucharist, it is a GIFT from our Savior.
There is no strawman here. Priests have interpreted Et. Unam Sint by JPII as promoting inclusiveness. Okayed by many bishops, they have started the inclusive “movement” with our own. Does the blessing in question go against policy that predates Et Unam Sint, I imagine so. But I would bet I could find other instances that do the same thing, either in your country, or in others.
My Catholicism predates JPII. I remember the old ways, the old rules and regulations. When dropping a host was a sin of the greatest kind. At least Sister Mary Margaret said so. And I remember the look on a little boy named Michael at six when, with hands crossed over shoulders, he received a blessing at communion before he was of the age where he could receive. And the look on his face standing next to his bishop on a home video that his folks took at his ordination, some twenty two years later. Did that blessing all those years ago, enkindle a fire in him that lead to his vocation. I like to think so.

In an age where youth generally walk away from the faith, I will support anything that instils in them a love and appreciation of the church and Christ’s sacraments. And I don’t give a DANG if it offends the sensibilities of those who love the rules and regulations.

If the practice is good enough for a pastor and his bishop, it is good enough for me. And if that bishop decides that the practice is an abuse and not an aid, and bans it, I will support that ban.

The topic concerns the practice of receiving a blessing before the Eucharist prior to being able to receive. That is all I have been addressing. Those who disagree will not see it that way. No matter how you slice that, accusing me of not addressing the topic is baloney. Personally, it is hard for me to believe that people who claim to be catholic could be so up in arms about a practice that attempts to bring others closer to the church.
 
Dacinom said:
Blessings, you completely lost me here as to the point you were making. I’m not sure what someone dying at Mass has to do with the discussion, could you explain further?
Click to expand...
He’s saying that he’s seen many things at Mass that are far more important than whether a blessing is given at communion time. 😉
 
Dacinom said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
I’ve seen people die at mass, EMT crews work on heart attack victims while the service continues. I 've seen Down Syndrome victims drop the host from their tongue or walk into the minister of the cup and cause the contents to spill on the ground. And that victim cry unconsolably for hours afterward.
Click to expand...
Blessings, you completely lost me here as to the point you were making. I’m not sure what someone dying at Mass has to do with the discussion, could you explain further? I don’t know what a Down syndrome victim is either. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Gorgias answered perfectly the reference I was making. It was a contrast of events I have seen at Mass.
And thank you for the blessings. They are returned.
 
I’m as old or older than you, Joey.

And this is not about you or your feelings or your experiences.

And I have not misrepresented you or put words in your mouth.

I am simply tired of being ‘charged with’ the crime of 'taking rules and regulations over mercy" (as if they were mutually opposed) according to the rules of Joey.

I repeat, there is no requirement for a person who cannot receive the Eucharist to get into the communion line to receive a blessing. That is what I have said from the start; it is others, including you, who have tried to make it into a 'you rigid rule-loving meanie, how can you deny all the luvvvvv and mercy and perception of same in the name of your petty rules, how dare you, I will call you out and try to shame you for your denial of little Timmy, and little Michael, and all the people whom you would try to keep away from a blessing".

I have never ‘tried to keep people from a blessing.’ I have never called them out, shamed them, etc.

You keep acting --and stating-- things that make it look like I’m trying to hurt others at the expense of my ‘rigid rule loving pride’ and that all YOU’RE doing is trying to support the people I’m rigidly ‘holding down.’

Balderdash.

It is not required that anyone (particularly a woman with a 3 week old infant) who cannot receive the Eucharist must enter the communion line for a blessing.
 
And, of course, the topic was never whether the issue was right or wrong (except to note, by Ike, that at least one bishop had forbidden the practice in his diocese), but simply the fact that it is not mandated that a person who cannot receive the Eucharist must get in the communion line for a blessing (especially when it’s the case of a woman or man holding a 3 week old infant and worried about positioning arms).

Yet somehow this has morphed into an Us versus Them, “Rules versus Mercy”, Judgmental ‘trad’ versus loving, caring, ‘but what about the CHILDREN’ thread.

Until it gets locked, I’m just going to keep quietly stating facts. It is not and has not been mandated that a person who cannot receive the Eucharist must get into the communion line for a blessing.

Now how that fact has been twisted into accusations that people are rigid rules loving jerks who would deny Timmy and Mikey and lord knows who else a simple blessing that the PRIEST allows, and when there are so many really vital issues in the Church, blah blah. . . Well, I’ve seen it happen but I sure don’t know how simple facts have led to such mischaracterizations!
 
stpurl said:
It is not and has not been mandated that a person who cannot receive the Eucharist must get into the communion line for a blessing.
Click to expand...
Oh, heck, don’t be afraid… take it further! The CDF seems to have said that not only is it “not mandated”, but that it’s not normative at all!
 
stpurl said:
It is not and has not been mandated that a person who cannot receive the Eucharist must get into the communion line for a blessing.
Click to expand...
I agree and have never claimed in this thread that it is a mandate.
stpurl said:
Until it gets locked, I’m just going to keep quietly stating facts.
Click to expand...
Then may I suggest that you don’t embolden such phrases as “stay in your pew” and such as you did with your earliest posts. Doing that gives the impression of superiority and that one who has the right to dictate the actions of others. Maybe that wasn’t your intention, but it comes across that way. Remember, interpretation of only the written word, loses the possibility of the writers intent that is evident in spoken communication. It is from doctrinaire statements such as that, given an emphasis of superiority, that the thread has wandered in the direction it has.

Rereading your posts, you are correct that you have never said receiving a blessing is a mandate. It is just the tone of those who express their contention with a justification that is grounded only in “the rules”, devoid of pastoral care and concern, that causes those of us who see the majority of Catholics turning their backs on the faith, to react. Justifiably, well that’s up for debate.
Shalom
 
Please, Joey, when this old lady has already had to relearn that ‘all caps is shouting, not emphasis like it is in a handwritten letter’, now you’re lecturing me on what I can and cannot bold?

Now ‘bold’ somehow means I’m acting superior? Dictating the actions of others?

Just when I thought that nothing was going to surprise me. . .
 
This thread is really shocking to me, I had no idea there was a controversy around this.

Before I converted to Catholicism I used to go up with arms crossed to receive a blessing. It was not about wanting a “participation trophy” of sorts but about not wanting to inconvenience everyone around me and stand out even more than I already did.

Many Protestants at mass are pretty uncomfortable and don’t really understand what’s going on. Many are there because they are with a family member. Like someone said earlier, I had no idea that there was a blessing at the end of mass! Honestly at the time I didn’t care about getting a blessing from a Catholic anyway… but I did want to be respectful, I knew I couldn’t receive, and I didn’t want to bring attention to myself or be in the way.

I had been to a few masses where people had to step over me, and I hated it. Stepping out of the pew is equally as awkward, plus they’ll just be back in a minute so if you’re in the middle someone will have to step over you either way.

Mass was stressful, not knowing what to say or do made me feel like everyone knew I shouldn’t be there. Being in the way made me feel worse. I realize that was just my perception, and that in reality nobody around me cared or noticed, but it felt like a big deal to me. When I found out I could go up and cross my arms to indicate I wasn’t receiving I was so relieved!!

I see no problems with someone going up for a blessing if it makes them feel more comfortable. I really don’t see how it would disrupt anything or cause any problems.
 
stpurl said:
Please, Joey, when this old lady has already had to relearn that ‘all caps is shouting, not emphasis like it is in a handwritten letter’, now you’re lecturing me on what I can and cannot bold?

Now ‘bold’ somehow means I’m acting superior? Dictating the actions of others?

Just when I thought that nothing was going to surprise me. . .
Click to expand...
No, I’m not dictating anything. I only suggest that when others read all caps or bold text, it gives an impression. I alluded to your “stay in your pew” post in bold. I take that as someone dictating from a position of superiority. I will not do it with the exception of an occasional word.
Just suggesting that your use of caps, bold, italics, etc. can give an impression you are not intending.
 
Once all your posts in a thread are about responding to ever-escalating barbs from one other person, it’s time to start PMing each other and leave the rest of us out of it. Or, for better mental health, realize that you’re never going to agree with the other person and let it go. What’s the point of this incessant fighting? It’s certainly not genuine dialogue, which at least has the chance of changed minds at the end. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Magdalene said:
I see no problems with someone going up for a blessing if it makes them feel more comfortable. I really don’t see how it would disrupt anything or cause any problems.
Click to expand...
You are right because that is done in most parishes now.

This thread was about the OP asking whether it was right for her to shake her head indicating she was not receiving Communion because she was holding a baby in her arm. She was afraid it might be offensive.

As a thread like this, it can be blown out of proportion because people like to answer more than what is being asked. And then probably somewhere it touches a nerve.
 
I’ve completely lost the plot of whatever point you were getting at, Joey.

All stpurl was saying is that it’s not necessary for a person trying to manage holding a baby to go up to the Communion rail for a blessing. It’s a hassle for the person to get themselves up there, hard for them to communicate to the priest with a baby in their arms because they can’t cross their arms, etc.

You seem to have somehow gone off on a general rant about all the problems you see in the Church. I don’t get it and I wish you’d stop, especially since you have made about 10 posts on the subject here and it’s like you’re badgering. Please lay off.
 
Reuben_J said:
This thread was about the OP asking whether it was right for her to shake her head indicating she was not receiving Communion because she was holding a baby in her arm. She was afraid it might be offensive.

As a thread like this, it can be blown out of proportion because people like to answer more than what is being asked. And then probably somewhere it touches a nerve.
Click to expand...
Right. I saw this as a thread about one OP who thought she somehow was obligated to go up to get the blessing even though carrying the baby made it difficult.

Somebody says, “No, you don’t have to go up. You still get the blessing at the end of Mass”.

And somehow it goes from there into Traditional vs. Modern and the umpteenth discussion of What’s Wrong With the Church Today, how it’s being unwelcoming, etc.

Not helpful.
 
The point is she wanted to go. She was asking whether it was alright for her to shake her head to indicate that she was not receiving.

I think that is two different issues.

Of course, we can say, “ you don’t have to come up.” That’s not her issue. She wants to come up.

We can tell her whether she can come up or she cannot. If we tell her that she does not have to, it means she can. So her question is how to do it with a baby in her arm? I think someone answered that correctly - cross her free arm on her chest, and she would be probably understood by the priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top