Do you hold hands during the Our Father?

[MrS]

off topic perhaps… but I really think our Pope will correct a lot of these “norms” in the coming 2-3 months. However, he will probably do so quietly and behind the front pages.

So don’t be suprised to see a re-issue of the Rubrics and more… perhaps with the Credo too. Afterall, it is an invention to translate Credo as “we believe”. “o” has never meant anything but “I”. So I guess the Church got it wrong all these centuries and some one, more inovative, finally got it right.:nope::whacky:

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

I take a very different view. I have read the following analogy regarding issues such as hand holding. In a college campus there were paved areas for students to walk on and grass areas that were not for walking. Eventually some of the students began to cut across the lawn as they felt it was to their benefit. A path was formed and instead of the authorties correcting these folks they just paved over the grass and gave in to their disobedience.

What started out as an abuse was overlooked to appease the few who decided to change things on their own accord. That happens many times and I disagree with it.

The thing is fix, there are review systems in place for almost every type of situation. If we take the position that nobody can ever question or change anything–that “the old way is always the best”–then humanity stagnates, and that includes the Church. The Church has always benefitted from people questioning and proposing new things. It reviews them, accepts some and rejects others. If it weren’t for that the Catholic Church would probably still not oppose slavery or many other evils that were accepted for centuries. The Church is not democratic or progressive, nor should it be, but it does adapt over time as it grows in wisdom and knowledge just as we do individually.

Even your analogy works this way. The appropriate authorities looked at the situation and apparently decided it was more beneficial to allow passage by the way people wanted to go, which didn’t really hurt the purpose of the College or it’s travel system. They could have just as easily put up signs saying “Keep off the grass” or put up a fence to prevent it if that patch of grass was really important for some reason. It’s all a matter of what is really important.

I hope it’s not your impression that I think the rubrics of the Mass are not important, as I definitely do. The rubrics are however man-made and can always be changed if the Church sees a benefit to doing so for whatever reason. We all know that other Catholic Rites have differernt rubrics from the Latin Rite, which certainly doesn’t make them wrong. As we see all over these boards, there are still people who believe that the whole NO Mass is an abomination and invalid although the Church obviously does not think so and a large percentage of the Catholic population actually prefers it. Again the rubrics are different between the TLM and the NO, but it’s not a matter of wrong or right. These are issues of personal preference and don’t in any way determine whether we’re “good” or “bad” Catholics. The sniping that goes back and forth over these kinds of issues really saddens me.

In this particular situation, the Church has obviously determined it to be easier to “pave over the walkway” rather than put up a fence. It appears that this particular “patch of grass” is not a sacred one. Those who would have preferred a fence are understandably upset and I understand that, but the Catholic Church has always proclaimed itself to be big enough to accomodate all of us. That means we have to be able to work together, from the TLM to the NO, from those who prefer silent devotions to the Charismatics, from the Byzantines to the Latins to the Maronites. We’re not always going to like or appreciate all the trappings, any more than any one of us is going to like or appreciate each piece of music during the liturgy or statue in the church. That’s the way life is though; we have to adapt and give everyone room to express themselves in legitimate manners.

Although I know you don’t like it, I pray you can come to peace with it however since it appears that at least for the time being it is going to objectively exist. If it goes away tomorrow I will be sad, but I will adapt. We really can’t allow our joy to be dampened by the fact that we don’t like everything around us. We have to be able to love and cherish each other in our diversity and let that become our unity.

Peace be with you friend,

 

[OhioBob]

ncjohn:

The thing is fix, there are review systems in place for almost every type of situation.

There shouldn’t have to be “review systems” for the mass. The Church has already said that no one can adapt the mass on their own authority. That seems pretty clear.

ncjohn:

If we take the position that nobody can ever question or change anything–that “the old way is always the best”–then humanity stagnates, and that includes the Church.

It sounds like you are advocating change for the sake of change. The Church hasn’t sustained itself for over 2000 years because it was constantly changing. Quite the opposite. I think you are thinking of the Protestants. They love change in all its facets, and look where it’s gotten them. Not exactly the poster children for unity.

ncjohn:

The Church has always benefitted from people questioning and proposing new things.

Can you share some examples with regard to liturgy?

ncjohn:

If it weren’t for that the Catholic Church would probably still not oppose slavery or many other evils that were accepted for centuries.

You are not seriously equating individualistic adaptations within the mass (which is supposed to be celebrated consistently throughout the world) with grave evils like slavery, are you? Talk about straw men…

ncjohn:

They could have just as easily put up signs saying “Keep off the grass” or put up a fence to prevent it if that patch of grass was really important for some reason. It’s all a matter of what is really important.

They also could have expected people to follow the rules, rather than make their own. With each surrender of an issue that “isn’t really important” the importance bar gets higher and higher. That is the problem some of us have with adaptations of the mass.

Your argument seems to be that in this case, since the Vatican hasn’t specifically put the kibosh on the practice, they apparently don’t have any problem with it. I don’t reach that same conclusion. There have been plenty of statements made by Church officials regarding the practice. Were they “official Church positions”, maybe not. But what would it take to convince you that an innovation was not supported, an act of God?

I don’t agree that the mere fact that some innovative practice was not specifically condemned by Redemptionis Sacramentum means that practice is accepted by the Church for inclusion in the liturgy.

ncjohn:

The rubrics are however man-made and can always be changed if the Church sees a benefit to doing so for whatever reason.

Right. If the Church see a benefit. Not if you (or me, or us) sees one.

ncjohn:

We all know that other Catholic Rites have differernt rubrics from the Latin Rite, which certainly doesn’t make them wrong.

I think there should be a “Bob Rite”. Then I could do whatever I wanted. Oh wait, there is. It’s the Episcopalians!

ncjohn:

That’s the way life is though; we have to adapt and give everyone room to express themselves in legitimate manners.

Not with regard to the mass, however. I prefer a little ritualized consistency, thank you. I prefer the mass to be the same wherever I go so that I can concentrate on why I am there and not the clever ways that the particular congregation is expressing itself.

ncjohn:

We have to be able to love and cherish each other in our diversity and let that become our unity.

Music rises to a crescendo… hark, I hear Kumbaya!

 

[mosher]

I don’t know where the idea came that holding hands during the Our Father is an accepted practice. Even the USCCB is concerned about it as per my last conversation with my Archbishop on the issue and we all know that they are definatelly not liturgically orthodox as a body. Further, it takes more than a few decads for something to become traditio in the Church. The usualy norm is between 100 and 200 years before something can be considered an accepted practice. However, liturgically it usually requires that it has existed longer than 1000 years per the applicable documents. The GIRM itself forbids inovations in the liturgy by the laiety or an individual priest for Bishop without the permission of the Holy See and in this case permission has not been given hence it is a liturgical abuse. Further, from “Spirit of the Liturgy” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“What does ‘rite’ mean in context of the Christian liturgy? The answer is: ‘It is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church’s identity as a historically transcendant communion of liturgical prayer and action.’ Rite makes concrete the liturgy’s bond with that living subject which is the Church, who for her part is characterized by adherence to the form of faith that has developed in the apostolic Tradition. This bond with the subjeect that is the Church allows for different patters of liturgy and includes living development, but it equally excludes spontaneous improvision. Thsi applies to the individual and the community, to the hierarchy and the laity.”

 

[mosher]

ncjohn:

We have to be able to love and cherish each other in our diversity and let that become our unity.

Divirsity can never be unity as they are directly opposed rather our unity is soley found in Christ.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

The thing is fix, there are review systems in place for almost every type of situation. If we take the position that nobody can ever question or change anything–that “the old way is always the best”–then humanity stagnates

I have no problem with questioning, or making one’s needs known to the proper authorities. My problem is when a few foist their novelty on the rest of us. They have no authority to do that. We each are entitled to assist at a mass without illicit things being introduced.

The Church has always benefitted from people questioning and proposing new things. It reviews them, accepts some and rejects others. If it weren’t for that the Catholic Church would probably still not oppose slavery or many other evils that were accepted for centuries.

Again, the faithful may make their needs known, but they ought not take on the authority themselves that they do not have. Additionally, please show me where the Church ever taught chattel slavery was morally licit, not individual bishops.

The appropriate authorities looked at the situation and apparently decided it was more beneficial to allow passage by the way people wanted to go, which didn’t really hurt the purpose of the College or it’s travel system. They could have just as easily put up signs saying “Keep off the grass” or put up a fence to prevent it if that patch of grass was really important for some reason. It’s all a matter of what is really important.

We have no proof it has been settled. Silence does not equal approval.

The rubrics are however man-made and can always be changed if the Church sees a benefit to doing so for whatever reason.

And the rubrics do not include hand holding.

These are issues of personal preference and don’t in any way determine whether we’re “good” or “bad” Catholics. The sniping that goes back and forth over these kinds of issues really saddens me.

The sniping stems from the fact that some are tired of innovation and the few introducing things upon their private initiative.

Although I know you don’t like it, I pray you can come to peace with it however since it appears that at least for the time being it is going to objectively exist. If it goes away tomorrow I will be sad, but I will adapt. We really can’t allow our joy to be dampened by the fact that we don’t like everything around us. We have to be able to love and cherish each other in our diversity and let that become our unity.

My joy is not dampened because some have decided to do as they wish without regard to the mind of the Church, but that does not mean I cannot discuss the situation.

As for unity, authentic unity is when we all are on the same page and not doing as we see fit.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

As for unity, authentic unity is when we all are on the same page and not doing as we see fit.

Amen my Friend!
I don’t get the idea of Unity being a “If you don’t happily go along with an innovation, you are not being Christlike.” situation.
If a group of my fellow “Old-tyme Catholic” parishioners got together and went to one of the innovative parishes and all laid prostrate during the Holy Mass, would the others go along for Unity? I don’t think so.

Tolerance goes both ways and until we are offered a Holy Mass (Post V-II) with the traditions and holiness of my home parish, as well as the innovative ones, we have a right to complain. Some poor Catholics are given a “Like it or Leave it” choice and that’s not right.

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Amen my Friend!
I don’t get the idea of Unity being a “If you don’t happily go along with an innovation, you are not being Christlike.” situation.
If a group of my fellow “Old-tyme Catholic” parishioners got together and went to one of the innovative parishes and all laid prostrate during the Holy Mass, would the others go along for Unity? I don’t think so.

Tolerance goes both ways and until we are offered a Holy Mass (Post V-II) with the traditions and holiness of my home parish, as well as the innovative ones, we have a right to complain. Some poor Catholics are given a “Like it or Leave it” choice and that’s not right.

That is how I see it. The scales have been tipped too far in one direction for so long that what should be expected is now seen as Phariseeism.

 

[ncjohn]

Wow, many questions! I’ll try to answer them individually although some may overlap.

OhioBob:

There shouldn’t have to be “review systems” for the mass. The Church has already said that no one can adapt the mass on their own authority. That seems pretty clear.

Whether there should have to or not, the system exists. RS is a result of that system as is the GIRM.

It sounds like you are advocating change for the sake of change.

I definitely don’t and if it came across that way I apologize for my poor communication skills and thank you for allowing me to clarify. My position is that innovation is constant and each potential change has to be evaluated on its merits. People are pretty universally uncomfortable with change, and I am no exception, so acceptance or rejection of any change is going to come more or less quickly to different people. I do firmly oppose any idea however that all change is bad, as I would think you do also.

Can you share some examples with regard to liturgy?

The easiest is the NO Mass itself. Many consider the entire NO Mass an unjustified innovation.

You are not seriously equating individualistic adaptations within the mass (which is supposed to be celebrated consistently throughout the world) with grave evils like slavery, are you? Talk about straw men…

I am stating simply that without innovations in thought, things stay the same, including evil things. If you’d like a smaller example, had someone not innovated in electronics, our computers would still have vacuum tubes instead of transistors, much less integrated circuits, and what we are doing here would be impossible.

They also could have expected people to follow the rules, rather than make their own. With each surrender of an issue that “isn’t really important” the importance bar gets higher and higher. That is the problem some of us have with adaptations of the mass.

I’m not going to try to get into the debate of whether this particular practice should or shouldn’t have come into existence. The reality of it is that we have it, it’s been around for many, many years, and it doesn’t really affect one way or another whether any new ideas would or would not be accepted. Other ideas have been, and I’m sure will be, looked at on their own merits.

The other statement about raising the bar is a really intriguing one though! I personally believe the bar should be high on this kind of thing. I try to live my life in a “What would Jesus do?” kind of way, as trite as the expression itself has become. When looking at something that can potentially upset me, I try to picture in my mind whether it is something that Jesus would be concerned about and make a decision as to whether to actively support or resist it or let it alone. Now if God says do it, or the Church says infallibly that we should do in in God’s place, the question is settled for me. From all the evidence I’ve seen though, this is not one of those situations so my “what would Jesus do” says be charitable to my brother, whichever way he prefers to go on this.

Your argument seems to be that in this case, since the Vatican hasn’t specifically put the kibosh on the practice, they apparently don’t have any problem with it. I don’t reach that same conclusion. There have been plenty of statements made by Church officials regarding the practice. Were they “official Church positions”, maybe not. But what would it take to convince you that an innovation was not supported, an act of God?

There have also been plenty of statements by Church officials who support or have no problem with it. As of this tiime, to the best of my knowledge there is no “official” Church position on this issue. As such, it says to me that people of good conscience are free to believe either one and act charitably within those beliefs unless and until that changes, which of course could be tomorrow.

I don’t agree that the mere fact that some innovative practice was not specifically condemned by Redemptionis Sacramentum means that practice is accepted by the Church for inclusion in the liturgy.

When a practice is as well known, widespread, and widely debated as this one has been, and a document comes out specifically dealing with abuses, the absence of that practice from the abuse list would indicate that the Church has chosen not to take a position on it, or at least not to condemn it.

Right. If the Church see a benefit. Not if you (or me, or us) sees one. I think there should be a “Bob Rite”. Then I could do whatever I wanted. Oh wait, there is. It’s the Episcopalians!

I’m sure you realize how silly this statement sounds since you are obviously a very intelligent guy. Nobody has proposed any such thing. We are simply talking about whether there is or is not a prohibition against a single practice that has been around for decades.

(see part 2)

 

[ncjohn]

(continued)

Not with regard to the mass, however. I prefer a little ritualized consistency, thank you. I prefer the mass to be the same wherever I go so that I can concentrate on why I am there and not the clever ways that the particular congregation is expressing itself.

Sorry, but you already don’t have that. The TLM is different from the NO mass. The Latin NO is different from the NO Mass, in language if nothing else. The Byzantine or any of the other Rites are different from the NO or the TLM. If any difference that occurs is going to affect your ability to concentrate on the matters at hand, you will have a problem no matter where you go.

As a final statement before I depart this discussion, remember that there is nothing magical about the current rubrics. They have been changed before and will more than likely change again. There is nothing that says that what we currently use is “right;” it’s just what we currently use. Keep in mind also that JP2 instructed the Eastern churches to “de-Latinize” their liturgies, aka taking out things that weren’t natural to their liturgies. If what we’re doing is the only “right” way, why would he do that?

I know I’ve said all I can say about this topic without becoming increasingly redundant. I recognize that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind about what they prefer on this, nor did I ever feel I needed to. My only purpose has been to try to get the animosity out of it and recognize that since there is no prohibition and the practice exists, we need to be kind to each other and stop imputing evil motives or lack of piety over our choices. I may well have not accomplished that but it won’t be because I wasn’t wishing peace for all involved. I thank each of you for your intelligent contributions and for forcing me to think through my position on this and other topics.

Peace be with all of you,

 

[hilde_the_dog]

No, but last year I and my wife were visiting my parents who are not Catholic at Christmas and my wife and I went to a Christmas mass at a local catholic church. We were forced to hold hands - people grabbed our hands, force my hand up to hold it. This was not an invasion of my personal space closer to assault. The person admitted to me after mass that he does not like to hold hands but that he was visiting his family and they all do that. This church also serves wine in clay jugs, (also this was self serve) (refills were available if the jug ran out), no visible Crucifix on the wall, could not find the Tabernacle, did not know where to find Holy Water (although I think it might also be used as the Baptismal Fount ((and it was a nice fountain)), and could not find a Missal, and I did not know that anyone could approach the Alter. PLEASE NOTE what has a capital letter and does not.

PS My wife tells me to be easy on them as the church burned down a few years ago. My response is “no wonder”.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

JKirkLVNV:

Oh, thank God and the Holy Angels, someone to back me up on this! All of these things that they are being blamed for would truly bewilder the Protestants I know and with whom I was brought up.

I sorry I missed this before and did not respond in my latest post. I can tell you it ain’t Calvinist. I can remember when we began to say Peace be with You and some considered that close the heresy wait I thkink some did and founded the Protestant Reformed Church which is a splinter of the Christian Reformed Church wichi is a splinter from the Reformed Church of America which came tho the US via the dutch. When in doubt they say start your own church. Is it no wonder I love the Catholic Church.

 

[mosher]

ncjohn - I am not sure how many people know this but the Holding hands issue was going to be put in RS however, it was decided that it was not necessary to address because it had already been addressed in the GIRM and implicitly in RS so it was removed from the working document as an unnecessary redundancy.

 

[MrS]

hilde the dog:

PS My wife tells me to be easy on them as the church burned down a few years ago. My response is “no wonder”.

Burn now or burn later, huh

 

[netmilsmom]

mosher:

ncjohn - I am not sure how many people know this but the Holding hands issue was going to be put in RS however, it was decided that it was not necessary to address because it had already been addressed in the GIRM and implicitly in RS so it was removed from the working document as an unnecessary redundancy.

You are going to be asked for a reference for this.

I believe you!
With the plethora of Vatican documents, if one relies on just two, they get a very small picture.
Just so everyone knows, here is a list of documents which Our Bishops draw from…(Most probably incomplete)
**
Acronym**
Document Name (Latin)
Common Name

    CIC

Codex Iuris Canonici

Code of Canon Law

ICP
Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest

ID
Inaestimabile Donum

GIRM
 General Instruction to the Roman Missal

AGI
Appendix to the General Instruction for Dioceses in the United States

PS
Paschales Solemnitatis
On the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts

DC
Dominae Cenae
On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist

MS
Misericordiam Suam
Introduction to the New Order of Penance

HLS
“This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds”
Issued by US Bishops and approved by Holy See

 

[mosher]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

You are going to be asked for a reference for this.

I believe you!
With the plethora of Vatican documents, if one relies on just two, they get a very small picture.

I would provide a source but working documents are not published but happened to be circulated among some people that I know so their imput can be given.

 

[Searching13]

mosher:

ncjohn - I am not sure how many people know this but the Holding hands issue was going to be put in RS however, it was decided that it was not necessary to address because it had already been addressed in the GIRM and implicitly in RS so it was removed from the working document as an unnecessary redundancy.

I would like to see documentation on the reason.

Since this was not addressed in the GIRM, it was not redundancy as an instruction for the liturgy.

RS was instructed to correct abuses. The grave abuses are listed below.

As to minor abuses, the only mention of posture for the congregation was during the reception of Communion. Perhaps this was not addressed because it is not an abuse, since it has been a fairly common practice (even before the recent GIRM) so it was certainly known, and has never been addressed in liturgical documents.

In general, the posture of the congregation is not considered an abuse, even when it is instructed (Kneeling for Holy Communion is a good exaample of this)

If you see something which you feel is wrong, it is a good choice to discuss it with the Priest or Pastor, and if you get no satisfaction, report it to the Bishop, but certainly always address these matters in charity
**

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.
**

**1. Graviora Delicta

---

---

1. Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the Norms Concerning Graviora Delicta Reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,280 namely:

1. 
   *]taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;281
   *]the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;282
   *]the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;283
   *]the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.284
   
   **

 

[netmilsmom]

mosher:

I would provide a source but working documents are not published but happened to be circulated among some people that I know so their imput can be given.

And another problem is that somethings are said, and somethings are spoken about. Unless you are speaking to a Bishop, you are not going to hear the spoken about.
But if a Catholic is a “One Trick Pony” and only looks at one document for the instructions in the liturgy, that’s where the trouble begins.

 

[Searching13]

As was said, many times,we should follow our the instructions of our Bishop, and I believe, if you search Canon Law, you will learn that you are to obey your Pastor, unless this is a matter of Faith or Morals.

And another problem is that somethings are said, and somethings are spoken about. Unless you are speaking to a Bishop, you are not going to hear the spoken about.
But if a Catholic is a “One Trick Pony” and only looks at one document for the instructions in the liturgy, that’s where the trouble begins.

You are dismissing one authentic document, and if it is the GIRM, it is the law of the liturgy, yet you contend that “hearsay” is a valid argument?

Many priests and seminarians are also priiviledged to this information, and do pass some of it along. Hearsay is never a valid point.

 

[netmilsmom]

Searching13:

As was said, many times,we should follow our the instructions of our Bishop, and I believe, if you search Canon Law, you will learn that you are to obey your Pastor, unless this is a matter of Faith or Morals.

You are dismissing one authentic document, and if it is the GIRM, it is the law of the liturgy, yet you contend that “hearsay” is a valid argument?

Many priests and seminarians are also priiviledged to this information, and do pass some of it along. Hearsay is never a valid point.

It’s not hearsay if the Bishop who said it repeats it to you. That is why I say talk to your Bishop. However when a Pastor says it, he was not in the USCCB meetings so it is hearsay.

The GIRM is not being dismissed, it says nothing so one must look to other documents. There are many of them. An absence of something in the GIRM does not make it correct if it is addressed in another Vatican document or has been ruled on by your Bishop.