Does anyone else do this?

[Aeolian]

There are no authoritative documents or writings that specifically endorse what you are saying, why is that? Because we are supposed to be looking at the GIRM and the documents of Vatican II in the light of tradition. It sort of reminds me of Sola Scriptura as a metaphor… 'If it aint instructed or discouraged specifically in the GIRM, then we can/don’t do it". Look at it through Scripture and Tradition, looking at the GIRM through the lens/light of tradition. By doing this, we see that we are supposed to continue the practice of adoring the elevated Host and Chalice.

Beautiful…

 

[Aeolian]

Just a question: are you a latin expert? Do you know latin? How many years of theology do you have under your belt?

I’m not saying you don’t have either, but I’m just curious.

I said “authority.”

 

[TheMc]

I said “authority.”

No, you said:

…]despite his moniker “What Does The Prayer Really Say? Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues” he has no more ability to ascertain what the prayer really says than I do.

Anyways, he doesn’t need any authority to translate what latin prayers say.

Again I say, since you think “he has no more ability to ascertain what the prayer really says,” what training do you have in latin and history?

 

[TheMc]

I said “authority.”

No, you actually said:

…] despite his moniker …] Slavishly accurate liturgical translations …] he has no more ability to ascertain what the prayer really says than I do.

Anyways, he doesn’t need any authority to translate latin texts.

Again I say: Since you think “he has no more ability to ascertain what the prayer really says,” what training do you have in latin and history?

 

[TheMc]

It’s not permitted to say the mass without at least one other person, except in special circumstances.

From the current GIRM:
252. At a Mass celebrated by a Priest with only one minister to assist him and to make the responses, the rite of Mass with the people is followed (cf. nos. 120-169), the minister saying the people’s parts if appropriate.

1. If, however, the minister is a Deacon, he performs his proper functions (cf. nos. 171-186) and likewise carries out the other parts, that is, those of the people.
2. Mass should not be celebrated without a minister, or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the instructions, and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted.

Just and reasonable is a moderately strong bar… not insurmountable, but still.

But as for hermits, most hermits actually live in community, simply praying alone, working alone, and eating alone. They come together for the prayers of the hours and the mass.

The Carthusians are monk-hermits… and the bulk of the modern hermits!
newadvent.org/cathen/03388a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthusian

Where is “just and reasonable” defined? If a priest wishes to celebrate Mass alone, and there’s no one around, that seems reasonable, and it certainly is just. It’s not as if he’s avoiding people to celebrate Mass.

 

[GwenL]

…

Why does my discerning keep coming up? Are people trying to guilt me into thinking that if I speak frankly or perhaps not as kindly as I should that I am an imperfect sinner undeserving of a vocation? Well, imagine that. I already know that. Now please, less about me as a person and my character.

Did you not read my post there? I said they may be lying out of ignorance. Maybe that was poor wording, but it still remains an untruth.

…

Again, you are misunderstanding my own points. Bowing of the head as a sign of reverence towards God is not an addition to the rubrics. Not any more so than scratching ones ear during Mass. It is a personal, individual movement, oriented towards God, that is actually prescribed if you read the GIRM number I quoted. Nobody here has even been talking about the priest ad-libbing, only about the difference or similarity between holding hands during the Our Father, and between a bow of the head during the elevation.

The reason that your discerning keeps coming up is that your language and statements are very harsh. Your accusation of another poster of “blatant lying” was really quite nasty. I teach high school science. That is the kind of personal attack that I would expect from a freshman who cannot yet control their “blurt-outs.” And I do not tolerate it for one minute. Not only out of normal human courtesy, but because a fist or knife fight would quickly start. Telling someone that they are now blatantly lying and in the next sentence attributing a possible motive of ignorance is really not very charitable. Your attribution of ignorance doesn’t soften the attack.

Bowing the head as a sign of reverence when the priest elevates the host for adoration–OK. What about the people that raise their arms? Or say a prayer out loud, loud enough for many others to hear? What about those that sing a hymn? We have one lady who stands up, holds both arms parallel to the ground, brings them in a flourish to above her head, sings a few lines, and then sits. Is that OK?

We have one woman who is a regular EF attendee. She comes to our OF Mass because it’s the most reverent in the area. She does all the standard EF postures–kneels for the absolution at the beginning, etc. Is that wrong?

I think that any gesture by the laity that doesn’t interfere with or distract others is probably OK, as long as they are not specifically required or encouraged by the celebrant. Unity of worship is far more important than unity of posture.

 

[Cyclophile]

The holding of hands is no more “discouraged” than any other discussed additions to the Mass. Your vertical/horizontal comments means nothing at all in this context because they are ultimately based on your opinion or those of others. To some, particularly family members, holding hands (as an example) has deep meaning and significance in the most positive and relevant way.

Your attempts right now at justifying some additions while denigrating others is a huge turn-off in my world. I don’t have any problems with any of the actions discussed. I don’t believe I would notice any of them anyway at Mass. But for people to embrace some additions while denigrating others is very, very bad form.

You seem fixated on this holding hands thing… by all means, if you are in a parish that practices this, do so! I’ve not seen anything specifically prohibits it here or there. Just don’t try to grab my hands when I am there with my hands clasped because I do not care for the practice. I don’t know where your hands have been and church isn’t an evangelical baptist revival tent.

I thought the question was about striking your breast…not a debate about hand-holding…?

in response to the OP: I attend both a OF and an EF parish (the OF for scheduling reasons) and in the EF, the 1962 Missal has us striking our chests. My assumption is that people carried that over to the OF.

 

[GwenL]

You seem fixated on this holding hands thing… by all means, if you are in a parish that practices this, do so! I’ve not seen anything specifically prohibits it here or there. Just don’t try to grab my hands when I am there with my hands clasped because I do not care for the practice. I don’t know where your hands have been and church isn’t an evangelical baptist revival tent.

I thought the question was about striking your breast…not a debate about hand-holding…?

in response to the OP: I attend both a OF and an EF parish (the OF for scheduling reasons) and in the EF, the 1962 Missal has us striking our chests. My assumption is that people carried that over to the OF.

I really don’t think that Aeolian was suggesting that he wanted to hold your hands. If you read the entire thread, you will see that he’s pointing out a bit of inconsistency. People posting here think that it’s OK to invent pious gestures of adoration (“invent,” meaning “aren’t in the GIRM”) during the elevation of the host. But the same people think that it’s heresy to invent gestures at other times, for example to hold hands during the Our Father, or assume the orans posture.

By the way, I don’t want to hold your hand either. I don’t do it and won’t do it when someone might try to grab my hand.

The original question was about striking the chest as a reverent gesture during the elevation of the host. The conversation branched into other gestures.

 

[Cyclophile]

I really don’t think that Aeolian was suggesting that he wanted to hold your hands. If you read the entire thread, you will see that he’s pointing out a bit of inconsistency. People posting here think that it’s OK to invent pious gestures of adoration (“invent,” meaning “aren’t in the GIRM”) during the elevation of the host. But the same people think that it’s heresy to invent gestures at other times, for example to hold hands during the Our Father, or assume the orans posture.

By the way, I don’t want to hold your hand either. I don’t do it and won’t do it when someone might try to grab my hand.

The original question was about striking the chest as a reverent gesture during the elevation of the host. The conversation branched into other gestures.

Seems to me that it totally derailed.

 

[Aeolian]

No, you actually said:

Anyways, he doesn’t need any authority to translate latin texts.

Again I say: Since you think “he has no more ability to ascertain what the prayer really says,” what training do you have in latin and history?

“fr z.” has no more authority than I do. The problem with that is that some people treat his comments (or those of Colin O’Donovan or others) as official pronouncements from the Church and they are not.

 

[Aeolian]

You seem fixated on this holding hands thing… by all means, if you are in a parish that practices this, do so! I’ve not seen anything specifically prohibits it here or there. Just don’t try to grab my hands when I am there with my hands clasped because I do not care for the practice. I don’t know where your hands have been and church isn’t an evangelical baptist revival tent.

I thought the question was about striking your breast…not a debate about hand-holding…?

in response to the OP: I attend both a OF and an EF parish (the OF for scheduling reasons) and in the EF, the 1962 Missal has us striking our chests. My assumption is that people carried that over to the OF.

I’m not “fixated” on anything. Have no fear, your remarkably rude “I don’t know where your hands have been and church isn’t an evangelical baptist revival tent” comments mark you as someone I would avoid anyway in real life. I would ignore someone like you at Mass.

I think it’s terribly wrong for some people to champion certain additions while denigrating others. Terribly bad form. Such people are hypocrites. Not only that, it blunts the voices of such people even when they do have constructive (name removed by moderator)ut leading to their further frustration.

The “vertical versus horizontal” shtick is nothing more than a very poor excuse for allowing some people to treat additions as if they were in a cafeteria, as if they can pick and choose which additions to approve and which to disprove. Another poster is right – as long as the addition does not impinge upon the Mass, ignore it already and if you cannot then that’s on you.

 

[GwenL]

Seems to me that it totally derailed.

I heard that this happens on the internet, some times.

 

[Ohana]

Goodness, I am gone about a day antd this thread has gone viral. Must have really struck some chords!!!

 

[MartyrForJesus]

The reason that your discerning keeps coming up is that your language and statements are very harsh. Your accusation of another poster of “blatant lying” was really quite nasty. I teach high school science. That is the kind of personal attack that I would expect from a freshman who cannot yet control their “blurt-outs.” And I do not tolerate it for one minute. Not only out of normal human courtesy, but because a fist or knife fight would quickly start. Telling someone that they are now blatantly lying and in the next sentence attributing a possible motive of ignorance is really not very charitable. Your attribution of ignorance doesn’t soften the attack.

Bowing the head as a sign of reverence when the priest elevates the host for adoration–OK. What about the people that raise their arms? Or say a prayer out loud, loud enough for many others to hear? What about those that sing a hymn? We have one lady who stands up, holds both arms parallel to the ground, brings them in a flourish to above her head, sings a few lines, and then sits. Is that OK?

We have one woman who is a regular EF attendee. She comes to our OF Mass because it’s the most reverent in the area. She does all the standard EF postures–kneels for the absolution at the beginning, etc. Is that wrong?

I think that any gesture by the laity that doesn’t interfere with or distract others is probably OK, as long as they are not specifically required or encouraged by the celebrant. Unity of worship is far more important than unity of posture.

As NewsTheMan said, he is sorry for being rude in the past and like all of us, he is a sinner. He quit CAF for his spiritual growth, which he said had become an occasion of sin for him, and he didn’t want to offend or hurt anyone anymore. We all make mistakes or sometimes come across as rude. Let’s all pray for his vocation.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

The reason that your discerning keeps coming up is that your language and statements are very harsh.

That is very subjective. Honestly we need a few more clerics with a bit of conviction in their tone. Look where wishy-washy feel-good priests and religious have gotten the Church.

Your accusation of another poster of “blatant lying” was really quite nasty. I teach high school science. That is the kind of personal attack that I would expect from a freshman who cannot yet control their “blurt-outs.” And I do not tolerate it for one minute. Not only out of normal human courtesy, but because a fist or knife fight would quickly start. Telling someone that they are now blatantly lying and in the next sentence attributing a possible motive of ignorance is really not very charitable. Your attribution of ignorance doesn’t soften the attack.

Actually you have mischaracterised his statement. The poster he replied to was telling an untruth. By ascribing ignorance to the cause of the lie was in its self a charitable act because it robbed the person in question of any willful wrongdoing.

However the choice of word was wrong. NewsTheMan has used “lie” and “telling an untruth” interchangeably. A lie generally carries with it the intent of deceive others. But as he qualified by his ascribing to ignorance, he obviously didn’t think that was the person’s motives.

So criticise him for his choice of words. Not him as a person.

 

[Aeolian]

That is very subjective. Honestly we need a few more clerics with a bit of conviction in their tone. Look where wishy-washy feel-good priests and religious have gotten the Church.

“Conviction” is a world away from being plain rude.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

“Conviction” is a world away from being plain rude.

Rudeness is culturally and socially subjective. Why is he obliged to play to your societal norms?

 

[GwenL]

That is very subjective. Honestly we need a few more clerics with a bit of conviction in their tone. Look where wishy-washy feel-good priests and religious have gotten the Church.

Actually you have mischaracterised his statement. The poster he replied to was telling an untruth. By ascribing ignorance to the cause of the lie was in its self a charitable act because it robbed the person in question of any willful wrongdoing.

However the choice of word was wrong. NewsTheMan has used “lie” and “telling an untruth” interchangeably. A lie generally carries with it the intent of deceive others. But as he qualified by his ascribing to ignorance, he obviously didn’t think that was the person’s motives.

So criticise him for his choice of words. Not him as a person.

I have not mischaracterized anybody’s statement. Telling another poster that he is “blatantly lying” is uncharitable and nasty, period. Then adding that it may be due to ignorance adds to the harm. He didn’t say “I think you might have your facts wrong” or even “you are wrong.” He said “now you are blatantly lying.”

When called on this, he stood his ground and repeated his accusation.

This sort of behavior has nothing to do with “conviction.” A cleric can be firm, uncompromising of the truth, and honest, without being nasty. “Now you are blatantly lying” is nasty.

His choice of words was terrible. When I did criticize him for his choice of words, he came back with his justification and said that he did note that it might be out of ignorance that the person was blatantly lying.

I can’t even imagine a priest saying this to someone. Even if the person were blatantly lying, I can’t imagine a man with any pastoral instinct saying “you are blatantly lying.”

Again, I will not tolerate this speech from a 15 year old in my class. They are required to learn to control their outbursts.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Again, I will not tolerate this speech from a 15 year old in my class. They are required to learn to control their outbursts.

And you are not in your classroom and he is not a fifteen year old boy that you have any authority whatsoever to discipline and even go so far as to join the choir of those questioning his vocation.

I don’t think he was out of order with his statement. What I think was out of order were those assaulting his vocation. Okay… say he was out of line… say he was nasty and rude… to then turn around and attack his discernment for this reason is down-right cruel. Do you think priests are born in God’s grace and immaculately preserved from Original Sin? Do you think they’ve never sworn, cursed or turned to their fists in anger? Do you think they haven’t doubted in matters of Faith? Failed to keep check on modesty and chastity?

If he was out of line then there were a hundred other methods you (and others, don’t think I’m just signally you out) could have used to address the situation. You could have sent him a private message explaining your concerns. You could have even posted your concerns in the thread in a more charitable manner. You all have the sheer cheek to talk of charitably addressing others when you have done something like this?

You are at liberty to tolerate whatever you so wish in your classroom but keep it there as it does not extend beyond that. You accuse of him of nastiness and immaturity… you are just being arrogant. You are degrading the teaching vocation to base point-scoring.

Learn to be more charitable.