Father Groeschel and the Charismatic movement

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

If the majority do it, it would be the community thing to do. It is not forbidden, as long as the celebrant does not instruct the congregation

Really? Where’s this ‘majority rule,’ and ‘it’s all good unless the celebrant says otherwise’ found in the GIRM? It’s news to me!

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

I, too am just using examples of when the instructions are not followed exactly, and this is allowed.
from the USCCB

and from postures and gestures

**In spite of the instruction and reenforcement, many people do kneel or genuflect, and this is allowed. I am just saying that sometimes things outside of the instructions are allowed. **
%between%

The differing postures which you cite here, SuZ, you know full well are only “allowed” in the U.S. because the Vatican wrote in support of those who wished to maintain the “centuries-old” and “very appropriate” signs of reverence, of genuflecting or kneeling for Holy Communion.
The letters were several. And they were very specific about the posture of kneeling during the reception of Holy Communion. They were not carte blanch to make up whatever postures and gestures one wishes in any part of the liturgy.
Liturgical innovations have been expressly forbidden in Inestimabile Donum.
Kneeling for Holy Communion is not a liturgical innovation, but a centuries-old Church tradition, lauded by the Vatican.

You’re mixing apples and oranges if you’re going to try to equate kneeling for Holy Communion with body swaying, arm waving, hand holding, clapping, revelling, laughter, spontaneous outbursts from the community (in native tongue or babble, take your pick) during the Mass.

 

[Mysty101]

mtr01:

What I’m talking about are liturgical innovations. Things that have made their way into the Mass without proper approval, such as hand holding during the Our Father, clapping along with the hymns, being slain in the spirit, or what have you are not additions to the Mass which have been approved by the proper authority. Now, I’ve no problem with people who want to do these kinds of things in prayer meetings or healing services, or whatever. They just don’t belong in the Mass.

First of all, it is a totally different situation if the people do something, than if the the priest does it.
I really don’t want to keep rehashing this, but I’ll try.
http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif

hand holding during the Our Father, clapping along with the hymns,

must be kept totally separate—yes these are common in Charismatic style masses. If they are abuses, they certainly are not serious

ROME, 18 NOV. 2003 (ZENIT).
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? — T.P., Milford, Maine

A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.

Clapping—again there are many options for music, if this is abusive, it is not serious

being slain in the spirit,

Healing prayers are not allowed during the Mass, and I have never seen this abuse taking place. If you have seen this, report it.

If people fall over for whatever reason—again this is not prompted by the celebrant.

True there are some abusive situations, but most often Charismatic style priests are careful to avoid abuse, since they know many people are looking to pounce.

Also remember the Priest is not responsible for the actions of the congregation.

Anyone who does not like this style of worship should not attend. Most times you will hear a pin drop during the consecration. Many other Masses have many more noisy distractions, especially if they are very crowded. How often do you see people with screaming or disruptive children refuse to use the cry room?

 

[mtr01]

Mysty101:

First of all, it is a totally different situation if the people do something, than if the the priest does it.
I really don’t want to keep rehashing this, but I’ll try.
http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif

must be kept totally separate—yes these are common in Charismatic style masses. If they are abuses, they certainly are not serious

I think you keep missing my point. We laypersons have an obligation to follow the rubrics. As I stated before, even though they haven’t been formally addressed, they weren’t officially introduced into the Mass by the proper authority and aqre thus proscribed by the GIRM.

Mysty101:

Clapping—again there are many options for music, if this is abusive, it is not serious

Any abuse, no matter how serious, is an abuse nonetheless.

Mysty101:

Healing prayers are not allowed during the Mass, and I have never seen this abuse taking place. If you have seen this, report it.

If people fall over for whatever reason—again this is not prompted by the celebrant.

True there are some abusive situations, but most often Charismatic style priests are careful to avoid abuse, since they know many people are looking to pounce.

Also remember the Priest is not responsible for the actions of the congregation.

Like I said, the laity has an obligation to follow the rubrics as they are outlined. I would also suggest the pastor, as shepherd of his parish, has the responsibility to make sure this is done.

Mysty101:

Anyone who does not like this style of worship should not attend. Most times you will hear a pin drop during the consecration. Many other Masses have many more noisy distractions, especially if they are very crowded. How often do you see people with screaming or disruptive children refuse to use the cry room?

It’s not that simple. If I’m travelling and stop by a Church to attend Mass, and they are doing all sorts of things not done at my parish, where’s the unity in that? One of the beauties of the Catholic Mass is that wherever you go, aside from the allowed variations, it should be celbrated exactly the same. I still believe that allowing each parish to worship as they please is a sign of congrationalism, and is not Catholic. We should be fostering unity in the larger sense. It’s just not as simple as “if you don’t like it, then don’t go there.” Also, like I said before, I’m not singling out charismatics either. An abuse in a non-charismatic Mass is an abuse in a charismatic Mass.

However, like I said, if these things want to be done outside the Mass, in special services or meetings, then go ahead.

 

[Mysty101]

mtr01:

An abuse in a non-charismatic Mass is an abuse in a charismatic Mass.

However, like I said, if these things want to be done outside the Mass, in special services or meetings, then go ahead.

I do appreciate where you are coming from, but this is a Charismatic thread.

We are not in a position to correct abuses by the congregation. I do mention anything questionable to the proper authority, as I believe all authentic Catholics should do, whether they are Charismatic or not.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

When Mysty quoted the November 18, 2003 Zenit article, she failed to continue the rest of what Fr. McNamara said about hand holding during the Our Father, not surprisingly.

Here is the rest of his response:

The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.

While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended – so they at least should not hold hands.

One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.

The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.

The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.

For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.

A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.

In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.

The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.

The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.

P.S. I am not anti-“authentic” renewal, but I am skeptical of much of what is attributed to the “charismatic movement.”
God Bless <><

 

[Mysty101]

Panis,
I just want to emphesize that no posture is prescribed for the Lord’s Prayer, so it is not abusive situation.
The holding hands has many arguments pro and con, which we have seen many times.
http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif

 

[1_Maria]

Panis Angelicas:

P.S. I am not anti-“authentic” renewal, but I am skeptical of much of what is attributed to the "charismatic movement."

The only post I’ve seen so far in any Charismatic thread on this message board that gives me a view of what an authentic charismatic group really is can be found in Makerteacher’s post #66 which can be found here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=314816&postcount=66

Makerteacher’s Bishop is a tremendous gift to his people and they seem to be a gift to him also.

He does not seem to be someone who would ‘look the other way’ when it comes to “small abuses”.

Makerteacher and her charismatic group appear to be well-formed in being faithful to the little things and that has to be one of the major reasons there is such an abundance of fruit in that parish and beyond, extending even to the internet through this message board.

Maria

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Mysty101:

Panis,
I just want to emphesize that no posture is prescribed for the Lord’s Prayer, so it is not abusive situation.
The holding hands has many arguments pro and con, which we have seen many times.
http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif

Actually, http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/poke2.gif , I have heard that the GIRM does not spell out what one can not do but what one should do.

So in that light, if no posture is prescribed for the Lord’s Prayer then the addition of one, that of hand holding, would be going against the GIRM.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Yes, Mysty, it is clear what you wished to emphasize, because you even underlined it. But what followed was a huge “However,” which was conveniently omitted.
You say that hand holding is not a liturgical abuse.
Would you agree that it is a liturgical innovation? An experimental gesture?
Would you agree that the Vatican has already forbidden liturgical innovations?

cin.org/vatcong/donum.html
Inaestimabile Donum

** Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness
Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980**
The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people.
Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful…

---

The Second Vatican Council’s admonition in this regard must be remembered: “No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.” And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense."

I simply want to say that it seems incorrect for you to post that as long as the priest says it’s ok, then it is ok, or that if the majority of those in attendance are doing it, then that’s the community thing to do, or that because there hasn’t been an exactly worded document forbidding this specific posture, it’s ok to indulge in it.

No, it isn’t ok to invent new gestures and postures for the Mass.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath:

if no posture is prescribed for the Lord’s Prayer then the addition of one, that of hand holding, would be going against the GIRM.

If no posture is prescribed, then ANY posture would go against the GIRM, no?

How about the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? Is that equally a liturgical abuse? It too is not prescribed by the GIRM.

I find quite a bit of inconsistencies in the anti-hand-holding arguments. It’s a private gesture of the faithful. The priest celebrant ought not to hold hands, but if it is a private gesture of the faithful, there’s nothing wrong with it. Like the sign of the cross after the Eucharist, it is neither prescribed nor proscribed by the GIRM for the faithful as a private gesture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Do the anti-hand-holding folks here equally rail against the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? If not, why not?

 

[Exporter]

beng:

This is not a good excuse.

The fact is Charismatic as practiced nowadays is inconsistent with the Bible And Vatican II.

((((**********************************************************************))))

Beng, I wrote, "Here are my two cents.

Charismatic worship and prayer ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE.

Holy Mother Church has not been wrong all these years. There are lay people forcing these groups to meet at homes, unguided. This can not only open the door to danger it can warp the minds of some, not all".

You should agree that when on a thread someone writes the word,“charismatic prayer”, it has not been defined. Limits have not been set. When it has been thrown out as a very general term - we cannot really talk about it specifically! How do you differenciate between Charismatic Prayer and Traditional Prayer?

In my little paragraph, I said that charismatic prayer was being done in homes, Unguided. I said that unguided activity can open doors to danger. It was not an accident that I wrote that. As long as the influences of Eastern Religions are present - it can be dangerous. What is dangerous? Opening doors to evil spirits with out saffeguards, that’s what!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Do the anti-hand-holding folks here equally rail against the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? If not, why not?

Here is what I am against in regards to the hand holding.

When the priest does so, when the EMHC enter the sanctuary to hold hands among themselves with the priest.

When people in the pews are forceful and attempt to make everyone do so.

When people stretch across pews/large open space to do so.

I have heard from many who do this and want everyone to do it that this is a sign of community. This is a misunderstanding of the Mass. The sign of community within the Mass is communion, not the Lord’s Prayer.

As for the Sign of the Cross after recieving the Eucharist. I believe the GIRM does make some mention of a sign of reverence when one recieves the Eucharist. I think this would cover both before reception and immediatly following it.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

itsjustdave1988:

Do the anti-hand-holding folks here equally rail against the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? If not, why not?

Specifically, blessing oneself with the sign of the cross is another example of a centuries-old tradition among Catholics. It’s simply a personal gesture indicating that something very holy is about to begin or has just been completed, for instance. It is not an “innovation.”
Secondly, one blessing himself does not impose upon others, requiring their participation.
Hand-holding is invasive, as it requires the active participation of another, who may not be comfortable with the innovative gesture at all.
I didn’t mean to single out hand holding as the only innovation. There are many: liturgical dancing, arm raising and hand waving, spontaneous shouts and acclamations or bursts into song, and basically anything that deviates from the structure of the Liturgy as laid down by the Church for the benefit of all the faithful.

Some find Mass boring and think they need to liven it up. I say, they need to understand what the Mass truly is. Properly celebrated, it doesn’t need fixing!

 

[gnome]

itsjustdave1988:

Do the anti-hand-holding folks here equally rail against the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? If not, why not?

I don’t see the connection here. The sign of the cross is an approved gesture (done at the beginning of Mass). People also do
sign of the cross after private meditation/prayer after receiving Communion. The focus is directed toward God. How can the sign of cross cause any distraction to other people?

 

[Mysty101]

itsjustdave1988:

Do the anti-hand-holding folks here equally rail against the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion? If not, why not?

Some people are very selective and subjective as to how they apply the rules.

Holding hands is a distraction, but kneeling in the aisle to receive Holy Communion when there are no provisions is not.

Go figure

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree with ByzCath … if it is disruptive to the Order of the Mass, it ought not to be done. However, I don’t find it disruptive. With this, I take with reverence the catechesis of Denver’s Archbishop Chaput.

I don’t see the “it isn’t in the GIRM therefore it is proscribed” to be all that convincing, however. Many people make a reverent personal gesture after receiving Holy Communion, but it is not prescribed in the GIRM. Is it disruptive? Is it a sign of disunity? I don’t think so. Does everyone do it? No. It is neither proscribed nor prescribed, so it is not a liturgical abuse. Neither is holding the hand (or not holding hands, if I so choose) of the one standing to my left or right.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath,

The “reverence” you mention is before receiving …

From the GIRM #244:

The communicants approach, make the proper reverence, and stand in front of the priest. Showing the host he says: “The body of Christ.”
The communicant answers: “Amen” and receives the body of Christ from the priest.

d. The communicant then moves to the minister of the chalice and stands before him. The minister says: “The blood of Christ,” the communicant answers: “Amen,” and the minister holds out the chalice with purificator.

Nothing about post-receipt reverence. If it isn’t in the GIRM, is it necessarily proscribed or an abusive gesture? I dont’ think so.

I agree with Archbishop Chaput’s catechesis on this point:

11. The ‘Our Father’: Appropriate Gestures for Prayer

A lot has been said in popular writing about our gestures at this point of the Mass. Do we fold our hands, or hold them outstretched, or hold hands with those around us? Some people have surprisingly strong feelings about this issue. Our answer to this question needs to come from the Church’s understanding of this moment in the Mass.
The priest stands with his arms outstretched as the prayer begins. The assembly should also stand. There are no options for gestures listed in the General Instruction for this part of the Mass. For many persons, folding their hands during the “Our Father” is the best way to express their prayer. For others, they may hold their hands outstretched. Still others hold hands.

None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church. So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers.

Some people feel that holding hands during the “Our Father” enhances a sense of community. This is perfectly appropriate — so long as it can be done with dignity and without the unseemly acrobatics that sometimes ensue.

For other people, holding hands is a kind of intimacy they reserve for family members. It makes them uncomfortable to hold hands during Mass, and they prefer not to do it. This is also perfectly appropriate. A parish may have several ways of praying the “Our Father,” depending on the people who take part in a specific Mass. No one should feel coerced, and the beauty of the liturgy should always be observed.

 

[Mysty101]

If you are in the US, the US adaptions would also apply (they are the GIRM—just as legal as the original is for those with no approved adaptations)

**
**
Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.** The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.** **Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. **

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.