Usher making me get in communion line

[MSSheBear]

As a non-Catholic attending Masses I have always had people assuming that I would get in the Communion line and it has been difficult on a couple occasions to get out of it. But in a couple of Sundays they learn. I think going up for a blessing was a lot better than causing a scene.

If you haven’t ditched Communion for weeks on end you probably aren’t aware of the difficulty of getting out of the pew and the line and the pitying glances you get when someone realizes you didn’t go up to receive.

Taylormcbee: you can try slipping into a empty pew ahead of you and circling back next time. And congratulations on trying out Mass before you enter RCIA:thumbsup:

 

[maryjk]

Communion line is only for those receiving Communion.
It is NOT permitted for non-Catholics or Catholics in a state of mortal sin to go up for a blessing. Some do it through ignorance, some deliberately, some forced like the poster in this thread. Either way it puts the priest on the spot when he’s suddenly confronted by a person standing in front of him who is not receiving. Giving a blessing is his simple way of not embarrassing the person.
Blessings are not permitted and not required as the priest gives a blessing to everyone at the end of the Mass.

This is true, but how do you think the OP should have handled the problem?

Going up seems to be the least disruptive. He could have stood and tried to explain, while people were receiving Communion, but I think that would have been worse than going up for an unapproved blessing.

 

[thistle]

This is true, but how do you think the OP should have handled the problem?

Going up seems to be the least disruptive. He could have stood and tried to explain, while people were receiving Communion, but I think that would have been worse than going up for an unapproved blessing.

The OP should simply have ignored the usher and then after Mass explained.

 

[liturgyluver]

It continues to astound me that people are thought to be so stupid that an usher needs to stand by the pew and direct traffic at Communion. How difficult do they think it is? Stand, exit, walk, receive, consume, walk, enter, kneel/sit/stand. Not complicated.

I haven’t seen an usher doing this in any parish I’ve attended in well over 30 years, in fact, I can only recall seeing traffic cop ushers twice, both times at Midnight Mass about 40 years ago, when we first started standing for Communion. Yet in every parish people are respectful; there’s no pushing, shoving or running and everyone manages to receive Communion, sometimes under both species, in a reasonable time – and no one feel obligated to do anything they don’t want to do.

I wish all the parishes I attended were as respectful as the ones you describe! In some places people start to go up for Communion from the front and work back systematically. But in many more the mad rush for Communion, and resultant congestion with masses of people standing in the ailes is a sight to behold. Horrible.

 

[garn9173]

I would, respectfully, inform the pastor of this incident and leave it to him to handle the situation with the usher. Most pastors will check into it and handle it with tack.
It should not be ignored but not blown up either; a little instruction, by the right person, can go a long way.

Depending on the size of the Parish, I might suggest contacting the office to register a complaint regarding the usher and let the office staff handle it. My Parish has over 2,400 families, so obviously, the Priest is quite busy and may not have time for such a matter.

 

[dochawk]

That’s also my memory of Communion time back then - minus the ushers telling you to leave or kneel. Nobody needed to be told to go up, we went when we were ready and if the other people in the pew weren’t ready, they waited and went when they wanted to. There was no orderly line since you just fit yourself in at the rail when a space opened up.

Growing up in the 70s, my parents tended to wait to avoid the jostling & chaos; we didn’t move until the line passed us.

A couple of years ago, the KofC were asked to send anyone who could possibly make it to one of the RC bishop’s Masses. In regalia, we were actually stationed as security due to a threat . . .

hawk

 

[jilly4ski]

It continues to astound me that people are thought to be so stupid that an usher needs to stand by the pew and direct traffic at Communion. How difficult do they think it is? Stand, exit, walk, receive, consume, walk, enter, kneel/sit/stand. Not complicated.

I haven’t seen an usher doing this in any parish I’ve attended in well over 30 years, in fact, I can only recall seeing traffic cop ushers twice, both times at Midnight Mass about 40 years ago, when we first started standing for Communion. Yet in every parish people are respectful; there’s no pushing, shoving or running and everyone manages to receive Communion, sometimes under both species, in a reasonable time – and no one feel obligated to do anything they don’t want to do.

lol, but sometimes, in these newfangled circle churches, and half circle churches and other such crazy designs for a church, one does not know where the line is or which side to exit the pew, or even if they are supposed to go to the back of church or the front of the church to receive. (That actually happened to me once, there were EMCH’s in the back and front, and didn’t realize I was in the section that was supposed to go to the back. and if you don’t go to your “assigned” EMCH section then you mess up traffic and create a scene). So all of us people who would prefer to receive from the priest, must be corrected and guided to the ‘correct’ communion line.

 

[petersonwp]

I am an usher at my Parish and feel that the “traffic cop” ushers are not a good symbol for these times. I agree that ushers are not necessary at communion. Is anyone familiar with the system of going to communion where the last rows go first (“the last shall be first”). I think this would be a refreshing change for my Parrish where now the first rows go first with ushers blocking the pews with their arms or bodies until that pews turn it is to go to communion—way to heavy handed for my taste. I feel I should suggest that the last pews go first. This would eliminate the “usher footprint” at Mass as all of the busyness of people exiting the pews for communion would be behind everyone, in the back. The ushers would simply follow behind everyone–out of sight and not in a position to be too bossy.

 

[cheercoach24]

Communion line is only for those receiving Communion.
It is NOT permitted for non-Catholics or Catholics in a state of mortal sin to go up for a blessing. Some do it through ignorance, some deliberately, some forced like the poster in this thread. Either way it puts the priest on the spot when he’s suddenly confronted by a person standing in front of him who is not receiving. Giving a blessing is his simple way of not embarrassing the person.
Blessings are not permitted and not required as the priest gives a blessing to everyone at the end of the Mass.

Why then at so many parishes they tell people to put their hands over their hearts to receive a blessing - and often it is in the bulletins as well?

 

[TradAvenger]

Communion line is only for those receiving Communion.
It is NOT permitted for non-Catholics or Catholics in a state of mortal sin to go up for a blessing. Some do it through ignorance, some deliberately, some forced like the poster in this thread. Either way it puts the priest on the spot when he’s suddenly confronted by a person standing in front of him who is not receiving. Giving a blessing is his simple way of not embarrassing the person.
Blessings are not permitted and not required as the priest gives a blessing to everyone at the end of the Mass.

Can you quote the GIRM or any other authority to support your assertion? I have never heard of this before, but have seen many people go to receive blessings. Including children who are not yet of age to receive, non-Catholic attendees of funerals, etc. The blessing of the priest is a sacramental, which anyone can receive. And I’m having difficulty envisioning a rubric which regulates a communion line.

 

[Nigel7]

^ ^ The previous two posters are on the right track…
People are indeed permitted to go up, cross their arms, and receive a blessing.

Communion line is only for those receiving Communion.
It is NOT permitted for non-Catholics or Catholics in a state of mortal sin to go up for a blessing. Some do it through ignorance, some deliberately, some forced like the poster in this thread. Either way it puts the priest on the spot when he’s suddenly confronted by a person standing in front of him who is not receiving. Giving a blessing is his simple way of not embarrassing the person.
Blessings are not permitted and not required as the priest gives a blessing to everyone at the end of the Mass.

Monsignor told me just the other day that it is okay to go up for a blessing. In fact he recommended it.

I never do it though (I remain kneeling in prayer after letting others by), and I do not like the idea of going up for a blessing (since I’m blessed at mass anyway), but when you say “It is NOT permitted”, well, that is simply not true.

 

[Incomplete]

It continues to astound me that people are thought to be so stupid that an usher needs to stand by the pew and direct traffic at Communion. How difficult do they think it is? Stand, exit, walk, receive, consume, walk, enter, kneel/sit/stand. Not complicated.

I haven’t seen an usher doing this in any parish I’ve attended in well over 30 years, in fact, I can only recall seeing traffic cop ushers twice, both times at Midnight Mass about 40 years ago, when we first started standing for Communion. Yet in every parish people are respectful; there’s no pushing, shoving or running and everyone manages to receive Communion, sometimes under both species, in a reasonable time – and no one feel obligated to do anything they don’t want to do.

This reminds me of a funny story.

I was at Mass out of town, sitting in front. When it came time for communion, I was standing, along with the people next to me…and the rest of the folks in my pew sat down. So did those around me.

I looked around, a bit confused, and in a whisper told the folks next to me I was a visitor and asked how communion worked here. The person next to me whispered back, “We don’t know. We’re visitors, too!”

So we sat. And then I saw the folks from the back coming up front, and figured out that they went from the back to the front.

 

[TheMc]

^ ^ The previous two posters are on the right track…
People are indeed permitted to go up, cross their arms, and receive a blessing.

Monsignor told me just the other day that it is okay to go up for a blessing. In fact he recommended it.

I never do it though (I remain kneeling in prayer after letting others by), and I do not like the idea of going up for a blessing (since I’m blessed at mass anyway), but when you say “It is NOT permitted”, well, that is simply not true.

I mean absolutely no offence or disrespect to your pastor, but the truth is, he’s wrong. There’s no way to get around it. That’s the fact.

The Vatican has said that this should not happen.

It is NOT permitted. I have a source for my claims. See that link above, and if you really want it, I can give you a scan of the letter. It speaks very clearly about the matter:

“For others not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”
Translation to very plain english: If you can’t recieve communion for whatever reason, don’t come forward, and don’t get a blessing.
Can you back up your claims? Your pastor says they’re fine. My pastor said they are wrong. So? Who’s right now? Claims such as this get us nowhere.

Before you start saying people are wrong, please back up your claims with more documentation than “my pastor said.”

 

[TheMc]

Can you quote the GIRM or any other authority to support your assertion? I have never heard of this before, but have seen many people go to receive blessings. Including children who are not yet of age to receive, non-Catholic attendees of funerals, etc. The blessing of the priest is a sacramental, which anyone can receive. And I’m having difficulty envisioning a rubric which regulates a communion line.

Here’s a letter straight from Rome on the issue, which clearly states:

“For others not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

 

[TradAvenger]

Here’s a letter straight from Rome on the issue, which clearly states:

“For others not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

I find that letter a bit odd in several respects. One, it quotes some pretty obscure references in earlier parts, including Notitiae. That’s the periodical published by the Congregation of Divine Worship, and it’s beyond the access of most laymen. Heck, when I was at Seminary, I wanted to look something up in Notitiae for a paper I was writing, but the librarian was unable to get it for me. Yet, the most salient part of the letter just says “Church’s discipline has already made clear” with no citation.

The fact that people should be excluded from Communion for various reasons is not in question. There are relevant canons that specifically cover that. What is in doubt is whether they can receive a blessing. The fact that the writer of the letter did not cite a source for this discipline suggests an editorial error.

Finally, this was a private response to a private inquiry. While the recipient of this letter no doubt finds it pursuasive, I don’t think it has any moral binding on any other Catholic out there. Particularly if, to find it, they have to go digging in a web forum.

My advice if someone is unable to receive Holy Communion, considered in the light of this letter, would be to stay in the pew and make an act of spiritual communion. However, someone who nevertheless approaches for the priest’s blessing incurs no sin, despite the contents of this letter.

 

[TrueLight]

Yet, the most salient part of the letter just says “Church’s discipline has already made clear” with no citation.

Even though I strongly believe communion lines are for communion - nothing else, I agree with what you posted. Where does Church teaching say that?

Can we get a definitive “ruling”?

 

[Phemie]

Even though I strongly believe communion lines are for communion - nothing else, I agree with what you posted. Where does Church teaching say that?

Can we get a definitive “ruling”?

It cites the two documents which are readily available: the Code of Canon Law and a document on ecumenism, which I have on my laptop but not on my iPod. The one on ecumenism categorically states that divorced and remarried couples are never to receive a blessing, lest people interpret it to mean they are in good standing with the Church. Obviously that extends to anyone in an invalid marriage.

Personally, I feel that most people who find the references inadequate have a vested interest in keeping the practice going.

 

[liturgyluver]

I find that letter a bit odd in several respects. One, it quotes some pretty obscure references in earlier parts, including Notitiae. That’s the periodical published by the Congregation of Divine Worship, and it’s beyond the access of most laymen. Heck, when I was at Seminary, I wanted to look something up in Notitiae for a paper I was writing, but the librarian was unable to get it for me. Yet, the most salient part of the letter just says “Church’s discipline has already made clear” with no citation.

The fact that people should be excluded from Communion for various reasons is not in question. There are relevant canons that specifically cover that. What is in doubt is whether they can receive a blessing. The fact that the writer of the letter did not cite a source for this discipline suggests an editorial error.

Finally, this was a private response to a private inquiry. While the recipient of this letter no doubt finds it pursuasive, I don’t think it has any moral binding on any other Catholic out there. Particularly if, to find it, they have to go digging in a web forum.

My advice if someone is unable to receive Holy Communion, considered in the light of this letter, would be to stay in the pew and make an act of spiritual communion. However, someone who nevertheless approaches for the priest’s blessing incurs no sin, despite the contents of this letter.

You are quite right to question the status of the document in question. I was staggered to read the suggestions on this forum that blessings were not permitted, especially as they are actively encouraged in the UK, even in Westminster Cathedral.

I checked with the Archbishops’s office and they confirmed that the letter has no legal status. It was an observation note that gave an opinion, and even acknowledged that the question of blessings at communion is under active consideration by the Vatican. Furthermore this definitive guidance is expected to come out next year, and until then the Vatican has agreed that the staus quo should prevail. That is that Bishops’ are free to decide whether blessings are permitted in their area. Therefore where blessings are allowed, they continue to be permitted.

 

[ProVobis]

You are quite right to question the status of the document in question. I was staggered to read the suggestions on this forum that blessings were not permitted, especially as they are actively encouraged in the UK, even in Westminster Cathedral.

I checked with the Archbishops’s office and they confirmed that the letter has no legal status. It was an observation note that gave an opinion, and even acknowledged that the question of blessings at communion is under active consideration by the Vatican. Furthermore this definitive guidance is expected to come out next year, and until then the Vatican has agreed that the staus quo should prevail. That is that Bishops’ are free to decide whether blessings are permitted in their area. Therefore where blessings are allowed, they continue to be permitted.

That would seem to make the most sense to me. A priest always has the power to bless in the name of the Trinity. The hostilily against it seems to be unfounded.

 

[Phemie]

Even though I strongly believe communion lines are for communion - nothing else, I agree with what you posted. Where does Church teaching say that?

Can we get a definitive “ruling”?

You are quite right to question the status of the document in question. I was staggered to read the suggestions on this forum that blessings were not permitted, especially as they are actively encouraged in the UK, even in Westminster Cathedral.

I checked with the Archbishops’s office and they confirmed that the letter has no legal status. It was an observation note that gave an opinion, and even acknowledged that the question of blessings at communion is under active consideration by the Vatican. (…) Therefore where blessings are allowed, they continue to be permitted.

The letter has no legal standing in and of itself. All it’s saying is “documents already exist that forbid the practice” then it tells you exactly which documents. They are not difficult to find. As I said, those for whom Canon Law and other documents are not sufficient are simply not interested in what Rome wants or doesn’t want. As one of our priests yelled at me in a liturgy meeting, “We’ve never listened to Rome before and we’re not going to start now!”