"And also with you" Gesture

[Orionthehunter]

Well, the statement you make here is quite different even from the one you made in the original thread. Regardless, such statements shouldn’t be made as fact if documentation can’t be produced to back them up, as you often rightly demand.

Peace,

More importantly, we have to make sure it is in context. Cardinal Arinze may have been talking about matters that are or border on abuses and not minor, subtle personal acts of piety. Especially, if one is to site someone of the stature of Cardinal Arinze, a specific site is especially warranted.

A faithful Catholic needs to always remember that it is a heresy to intentionally or wrecklessly misrepresent a teaching of the Church. I’m not accusing Netil(name removed by moderator) of doing being a heretic because I know she had no such intent so please don’t misinterpret this but we need to be especially careful when we quote someone of the stature of Cardinal Arinze in the event we do so unintentionally.

This minor gesture that conforms the body with the heart and mind is not in the same context as postures to imitate the Priest during the liturgy.

Fix made a comment “a distinction between those gestures that are authentic custom, like genuflection, that have grown part of tradition in the mass and those that are spontaneously introduced by our own initiative like the hand thingy you all are speaking about.”

How do you think that the custom/tradition of striking the breast during the Confiteour or the “lippy thing” prior to the Gospel became part of the Mass or even the bow done during the Creed or another place where many (including my wife) cross themself but I don’t remember exactly since I don’t do it? Or the tradition that isn’t in the GIRM but most everyone does is crossing themself after they recieve Communion. While I do it, I’ve often wondered why we don’t do it before we recieve. They all likely started from spontaneous gesturing among the laity.

 

[Nordar]

And some people can make it through the entire “Mass for Mimes” without a single giggle, God Love them!!!

“Mass for Mimes” that’s too funny but a perfect description.

 

[netmilsmom]

Well, the statement you make here is quite different even from the one you made in the original thread. Regardless, such statements shouldn’t be made as fact if documentation can’t be produced to back them up, as you often rightly demand.

Peace,

As soon as they release it, it’s yours.
Until then, we always have this…

From here…
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html

“Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

There is a big difference between genuflection, the profound bow, the crossing of the three interceptors of the Gospel…And what appears to be the congregation playing “This old man” at the point of “with a knick-knack paddy-wack” or playing Paddy Cake. “Mass for Mimes” says it all.

 

[Orionthehunter]

As soon as they release it, it’s yours.
Until then, we always have this…

From here…
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html

“Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

Below is the context of the entire quote. As you can see it is directed at much larger issues than if someone augments their prayer that the Lord be with the Celebrant with a discrete physical expression that conforms their physical expression with that in their heart and mind.

Keep in mind I don’t make this gesture. At the same time, to minimize true abuses that do violate either Canon Law or the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy with a discrete physical expression in conformity their discrete personal prayer is out of context and proportion.

Canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law states:

The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.

Number 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states:
Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. Therefore, no one may change any approved and confirmed liturgical text. This includes, but is not limited to the “Lectionary for Mass” and the “Sacramentary.”

I would like someone to cite that the following are specifically mentioned in the Sacred Liturgy and and thus not an addition to the Sacred Liturgy:

1. 
   *]The lippy thing prior to the proclamation of the gospel
   *]The crossing of oneself after recieving Communion
   *]The crossing of oneself when one recieves the Priests absolution during the Act of Penance (Confiteor)

 

[KathleenElsie]

When we do the response to “Peace be with you”, I put my hands so that my palms are facing outwards when I say “And also with you”. And I do slighty raise my hands upward (palms up) when we respond to “Lift up your hearts”. I will not hold hands during the Our Father though, unless someone reaches for my hand. Finally, my parish has caught on to bow during the Creed.

Things that I do, that I don’t see anyone else do, also include bowing my head whenever the name of Jesus is mentioned during mass. I also do the sign of the Cross during the Entrance and the Offertory Rites whenever the crucifix processes past me.

I do most of what you do, I genuflect when the crucifix processes past me.

 

[netmilsmom]

Below is the context of the entire quote. As you can see it is directed at much larger issues than if someone augments their prayer that the Lord be with the Celebrant with a discrete physical expression that conforms their physical expression with that in their heart and mind.

And from what I can see, states perfectly that no one is to add anything to the liturgy. Following the direction of JustDave’s link, those things which are traditional are allowed in the liturgy.
Found at Zenit.org:
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=55351

I would like someone to cite that the following are specifically mentioned in the Sacred Liturgy and and thus not an addition to the Sacred Liturgy:

1. 
   *]The lippy thing prior to the proclamation of the gospel
   *]The crossing of oneself after recieving Communion
   *]The crossing of oneself when one recieves the Priests absolution during the Act of Penance (Confiteor)

1. 
   So therefore, crossing oneself is a purely Catholic tradition. It is allowed in the liturgy. As is the “lippy thing” called the small sign of the cross.
   
   *St. Jerome, who died in A.D. 420, said that the sign of the cross was sometimes made on the lips. Prudentius, a Christian poet who died in A.D. 405,mentioned that the sign was made on the chest. The small sign of the cross was commonly used by the end of the 4th century.
   
   *Or you could just go with what the USCCB says…
   Quote:
   Gestures too involve our bodies in prayer. The most familiar of these is the Sign of the Cross with which we begin Mass and with which, in the form of a blessing, the Mass concludes. Because it was by his death on the cross that Christ redeemed humankind, we trace the sign of the cross on our foreheads, lips and hearts at the beginning of the Gospel…
   
   But there are other gestures that intensify our prayer at Mass. During the Confiteor the action of striking our breasts at the words through my own fault can strengthen my awareness that my sin is my fault. In the Creed we are invited to bow at the words which commemorate the Incarnation: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This gesture signifies our profound respect and gratitude to Christ who, though God, did not hesitate to come among us as a human being, sharing our human condition in order to save us from sin and restore us to friendship with God. This gratitude is expressed with even greater solemnity on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord and on Christmas when we genuflect at these words.
   From here…
   usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml

 

[demerzel85]

No, bowing your head in the name of Jesus is TRADITION. You do it in Mass and out of mass.
Gesturing back to the priest is not.

Well I don’t do it to imitate the Priest.

 

[Walking_Home]

As soon as they release it, it’s yours.
Until then, we always have this…

From here…
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html

“Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

---

Hello Ms. netmil(name removed by moderator),

Thankyou for the link ----found it very informative----including the following.

1. Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations

Moreover, a priority at Mass and other liturgical acts is worship of God. The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes. Idiosyncrasies tend to attract attention to the person rather than to the mysteries of Christ being celebrated. They can also upset, puzzle, annoy, mislead or confuse the congregation.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Back when I used to go to the Novus Ordo church, I remember this one group of about 20 or so in front. At times it resembled a Ti Kwon Do class.

It’s sad that so many are so willing to emulate the Protestant gestures, but shun the Catholic gestures such as genuflecting at the words of the incarnation. Same with the gestures of the Priests and those serving at the altar. In the Traditional Mass, for instance, whenever Jesus’ name is mentioned, everyone turns toward the tabernacle and bows, and Priests and seminarians remove thier berettas as they bow. Also, each and every time anyone passes in front of the tabernacle, they genuflect. There is absolutely no doubt that we are there to worship Christ who is present in the most special way in the Eucharist.

 

[netmilsmom]

Well I don’t do it to imitate the Priest.

I never said you did.
But innovation is innovation. You gesture to the Priest, I shorkle for the Creed and suddenly we has a mass free for all.
That is the problem.

 

[netmilsmom]

Back when I used to go to the Novus Ordo church, I remember this one group of about 20 or so in front. At times it resembled a Ti Kwon Do class.

It’s sad that so many are so willing to emulate the Protestant gestures, but shun the Catholic gestures such as genuflecting at the words of the incarnation. .

Are you in MI?
It’s sounds like my “Happy Catholic Community”. (I escaped too)

Did you watch the YouTube film posted here? That one is right, it’s the Hippy influence on our Mass. Thankfully, it’s dying.

 

[pnewton]

I understand what those of you who are opposed to any movement of hands are saying, but I can not see all the distinctions between those that are traditions and those that are done without thinking. It occurs to me that the"also with you" which often do ont handed, is much the same as and ushers movement to indicate, “Your turn.” Do you think ushers should not be allowed to gesture?

I do not mean to be frivolous, but I there seems to be so much frivolity already. If our bishops have a problem with this sort of thing as much as others here, all they need to so is say so. I might have to remain seated, though, so I can sit on my hands. I believe this might be the only way not acidently move them improperly.

 

[Orionthehunter]

And from what I can see, states perfectly that no one is to add anything to the liturgy. Following the direction of JustDave’s link, those things which are traditional are allowed in the liturgy.
Found at Zenit.org:
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=55351

So therefore, crossing oneself is a purely Catholic tradition. It is allowed in the liturgy. As is the “lippy thing” called the small sign of the cross.

St. Jerome, who died in A.D. 420, said that the sign of the cross was sometimes made on the lips. Prudentius, a Christian poet who died in A.D. 405,mentioned that the sign was made on the chest. The small sign of the cross was commonly used by the end of the 4th century.

Or you could just go with what the USCCB says…
Quote:
Gestures too involve our bodies in prayer. The **most familiar **of these is the Sign of the Cross with which we begin Mass and with which, in the form of a blessing, the Mass concludes. Because it was by his death on the cross that Christ redeemed humankind, we trace the sign of the cross on our foreheads, lips and hearts at the beginning of the Gospel…

But **there are other gestures that intensify our prayer **at Mass. During the Confiteor the action of striking our breasts at the words through my own fault can strengthen my awareness that my sin is my fault. In the Creed we are invited to bow at the words which commemorate the Incarnation: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This gesture signifies our profound respect and gratitude to Christ who, though God, did not hesitate to come among us as a human being, sharing our human condition in order to save us from sin and restore us to friendship with God. This gratitude is expressed with even greater solemnity on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord and on Christmas when we genuflect at these words.
From here…
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml

This is exactly my point. The three items I list (“lippy thing”*)are not specifically included in the liturgy. However, by tradition, they are allowed/not discouraged/acceptable/encouraged. I’m at a loss why this minor discrete gesture can not be such a tradition? All traditions have to have a start.

Read closely what I bolded from the USCCB. The Bishops don’t say these are the only ones. In fact, I know there are others, i.e. where many cross themselves when the Priest gives absolution for our venial sins during the Act of Penance. More importantly, the USCCB in your post acknowledge that gestures involve our bodies in prayer. This is very consistent with Catholic Creation theology and the emphasis that we are human beings (body and spirit) and not just spirit beings. Its why we have Sacred Art, Sacramentals, Statues, etc. We understand that our body’s can bbe instruments to reinforce and intensify our prayer.

In a day and age when our Priests are under siege, stressed, overworked, some have betrayed us and Christ, and we have a shortage of Priests, this prayer that the Spirit “be also with” our Celebrant/Pastor has become a very intense and important prayer in our Church.

If this gesture makes this prayer more urgent, passionate, and intense for my neighbor in the Mass, I’m all for it. Over the past several years, we have said a prayer for vocations in our diocese before every Sunday Mass. Over the past 18 months, we have prayed for a new Bishop (to be ordained tomorrow! Thank God!). But this little prayer said during Mass is a prayer for the Priest/Pastor we have right before us.

When one considers all the challenges facing our Church, in so many ways, the most critical starts with our local Pastor. His Holiness has a profound capacity to rub off on us. Rather than attributing this discrete gesture as a negative or example of “creeping Protestantism”, why can’t we see it is a new fervency and understanding by the laity of how important this small but important prayer said during the Mass is?

Additionally, while the “lippy thing” never fell into nonuse, many of the gestures that are traditional are coming back into the Mass. The understanding of conforming body to spirit and mind is being rediscovered and reemphasized. For instance, the bow prior to recieving Communion may have historical roots but is at least to me recently encouraged from the top. Isn’t it inspiring that a new gesture to emphasize and intensify our prayer for our Priests is concurrently coming from the laity? The Holy Spirit works in mysterious and wonderful ways.

• On a side note, I find it hilarious that when the first person who used the phrase “lippy thing”, we all knew what they were talking about.

 

[netmilsmom]

I understand what those of you who are opposed to any movement of hands are saying, but I can not see all the distinctions between those that are traditions and those that are done without thinking. It occurs to me that the"also with you" which often do ont handed, is much the same as and ushers movement to indicate, “Your turn.” Do you think ushers should not be allowed to gesture?

1. Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations

Moreover, a priority at Mass and other liturgical acts is worship of God. The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes. Idiosyncrasies tend to attract attention to the person rather than to the mysteries of Christ being celebrated. They can also upset, puzzle, annoy, mislead or confuse the congregation. <<

The Ushers have a job. The laity should remain united. It isn’t a matter of a subconscience movement of the hands but rather one that is an innovation and becomes automatic.
Like genuflecting to a tabernacle that isn’t there. People do that in our chapel.

 

[fix]

Fix made a comment “a distinction between those gestures that are authentic custom, like genuflection, that have grown part of tradition in the mass and those that are spontaneously introduced by our own initiative like the hand thingy you all are speaking about.”

How do you think that the custom/tradition of striking the breast during the Confiteour or the “lippy thing” prior to the Gospel became part of the Mass or even the bow done during the Creed or another place where many (including my wife) cross themself but I don’t remember exactly since I don’t do it? Or the tradition that isn’t in the GIRM but most everyone does is crossing themself after they recieve Communion. While I do it, I’ve often wondered why we don’t do it before we recieve. They all likely started from spontaneous gesturing among the laity.

I offer this:

** Liturgical Abuses and Legitimate Customs**

                       CAN. 23             *                          O*nly that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

                         CAN. 24§1*.              No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of              law.*
            §2. *A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.*

                         CAN. 25             *No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.*

Again I ask who has the authority to introduce what they want without proper approval? Where does it end?

 

[netmilsmom]

This is exactly my point. The three items I list (“lippy thing”*)are not specifically included in the liturgy. However, by tradition, they are allowed/not discouraged/acceptable/encouraged. I’m at a loss why this minor discrete gesture can not be such a tradition? All traditions have to have a start.

Traditions have a start generations before us.
Innovations are those not traditionally used by Catholics. The small sign of the cross has been used for many generations.
I guess the best bet would be to write to Cardinal Arinze or ignore the directive.

 

[ncjohn]

The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes

Netmil(name removed by moderator) from USCCB:

But there are other gestures that intensify our prayer at Mass…

So finally we get to the inconsistency and the crux of the matter. We cite on one hand that the liturgy should not be demonstrating personal tastes, while citing on the other that there are gestures that intensify our prayer at Mass, but which are neither specified, required, or uniform–thus becoming expressions of personal tastes.

What we clearly have here, as has been evident all along, is some who think that “nothing not specified should be done” but then unable to justify the gestues that they participate in except to appeal to “tradition”, though those gestures were never “specified” in tradition either and even then were just “demonstrations of personal taste”.

So it becomes a matter of “the gestures I find meaningful are ok, but the ones someone else finds meaningful are not” or “my gestures of personal taste are better than your gestures of personal taste.” As the USCCB statement quoted says, “Gestures too involve our bodies in prayer”, which is exactly the point Orion was trying to make I believe.

Now how do we reconcile that statement with the one that the liturgy is not a field for self-expression? Quite simple, actually. Just as the RS section cited about adding to the liturgy has no relevance to individuals personal gestures–as seen when the entire section is quoted in context–the section about self-expression is also related to the idea of changing the celebration or texts at the whim of the celebrant. That entire section of RS deals with changing liturgical texts and other items that are “prescribed”, not with what individuals are personally doing with their hands since there is nothing prescribed for what individuals are to do with their hands.

Sorry, but you just can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “no personal tastes” but then add “…except MY personal tastes”. You can’t say “do only what’s specified” but then say “but what I want to do that isn’t specified, and never has been specified, is ok”.

I am not recommending any kind of “free for all”, nor does one exist. You can do all the ridiculous slippery slope arguments about mass shorkling you want, but the fact of the matter is that it ain’t gonna happen if the masses don’t find it appropriate and meaningful–the same criteria that brought on the sign of the cross and all the other wonderful gestures that we have in our tradition. And if it is a “free for all” if everyone isn’t doing the exact same thing, then we would have it anyway–as we always have–because some people make the sign of the cross while others don’t; some make the “small sign” while others don’t; some bow while others don’t; some fold their hands while others clasp their hands and still others put their hands on the back of the pew; some beat their breasts while others don’t; ad infinitum. There is not now, and never has been “gestural unity” nor is there any need for there to be.

Quite frankly the hand-wringing that goes on about these things would be laughable if it wasn’t so seriously pitting devout Catholics who love God and Church against each other, as if this stuff had the slightest thing in the world to do with our love of God and our salvation.

Woe to you who teach traditions of man as the law of God. Was Jesus really not clear enough in the gospels about this stuff?? For people claiming to base their entire beliefs on the Word of God as proclaimed in the gospel, I sometimes wonder how we can continue to go after each other like this.

Peace,

 

[netmilsmom]

And if it is a “free for all” if everyone isn’t doing the exact same thing, then we would have it anyway–as we always have–because some people make the sign of the cross while others don’t; some make the “small sign” while others don’t; some bow while others don’t; some fold their hands while others clasp their hands and still others put their hands on the back of the pew; some beat their breasts while others don’t; ad infinitum. There is not now, and never has been “gestural unity” nor is there any need for there to be.

But really, it was unified directly Post VII. It was the innovators that mixed it up. The mass of my childhood and the mass that I am at now, Post VII done to the directives, has unity in gesture.
Only visitors do not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I offer this:

Again I ask who has the authority to introduce what they want without proper approval? Where does it end?

Because we are not required to do the “lippy thing”, it is a tradition that has not been incorporated into the law. Nobody here has proposed that it be a required gesture and thus a Custom. But your site does provide a great deal of illumination on the subject.

Customs “emanate (to come forth, issue as from a source) from the community of faithful” as a tradition and ultimately may be incorporated into law by becoming a custom (so long as they don’t violate divine law). So, to answer, your question: The authority must be the faithful. And since this is the process for traditions becoming Customs, it obviously isn’t an inherent abuse but rather an accepted manner for developing Customs.

I’m now stuck by the attitude I’m seeing here is one that seems to advocate that the Church has reached a static point- No new traditions can develop and thus no new Customs.

The link to which you site includes the following: A noted commentator on liturgical law has mused that many of the abuses apparent in the celebration of the liturgy in some places may, indeed, be lawful custom. A custom can be described as a “common tradition” as opposed to an abuse, which is a “corruption.” A custom, while itself never becoming a law, obtains the force of law when certain ingredients are present. The Code of Canon Law acknowledges certain standards. **The tradition emanates from the community of the faithful rather than a legislator although the custom must be approved by the latter **(canon 23). Moreover, the community of the faithful must be capable of receiving a law, e.g., a diocese, a parish, a religious institute, a public association of the faithful, etc., (canon 25). The required approval may be express or tacit. If the custom is contrary to divine law it can not be enforced. Nor can a custom that is contrary to or beyond canon law be enforced unless it is a reasonable one. However, a custom that is expressly reprobated is not regarded as a reasonable one (canon 24). According to canon 26, “Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.” (See canons 200-203 for the norms on the calculation of time and the meaning of “continuous” and “complete” years.)