First Youth Mass Tonight

[benedictgal]

I give up.

The canon is pretty clear. It doesn’t distinguish as to where the custom is found. You are certainly welcome to express your legal opinion to the contrary, though the canon lawyer I consulted agreed with my interpretation and I’ll take his over yours. I doubt that there’s lots of practices that have survived that time period without the Church stepping in if they truly felt they were abuses. RS certainly addressed anything they seemed to have concerns about.

Peace,

The problem with your argument is that it does not apply to the liturgy. If that were the case, then everything, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments to Redemptionis Sacramentum to Sacramentum Caritatis would be considered contrary to this particular Canon.

It does not work that way. Please note this statement:

Moreover, liturgical norms help to protect the celebration of the sacred mysteries, especially the Holy Eucharist, from being damaged by additions or subtractions which do damage to the faith and which may at times risk making a sacramental celebration invalid. The people of God are thus guaranteed celebrations in line with the traditional Catholic faith and they are not left at the mercy of someone’s personal ideas, feelings, theories or idiosyncrasies.

Pope John Paul II is very insistent on the important role of norms regarding the celebration of the Eucharist. “These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”. (Ecclesia de Eucharistia [EE] 52) Love for the Church leads a person to observe these norms: “Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”. (ibid) Our respect for the mysteries of the Christ leads us to respect these norms: “No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality”. (ibid)

Norms don’t just cover what is said at the Mass. They also cover what is done, the rubrics. Furthermore, Cardinal Arinze notes:

The Church believes as she prays. The liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living tradition of the Church. (cf Dei Verbum 8) That is why the Church does not allow the minister or the community to modify or manipulate any sacramental or even general liturgical rite. “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy”. (CCC 1125)

Redemptionis Sacramentum is strong on this point: "The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the liturgy. Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding, it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi". (RS 10)

Therefore, your claim that Canon law applies here (specifically the text you cited) doesn’t hold much water. Your interpretation would mean that any innovation introduced, no matter how contrary it is to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and the other liturgical documents issued from the Holy See, would become legitmate after 30 years. The Church does not work that way. She is not going to contradict herself when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Surely, it was not John Paul’s intent to open up a loophole the size of a double-decker semi truck to allow every innovation into the Mass because of the 30-year rule.

Furthermore, the comments I made regarding the issue with the Neocatechumenal Movement are true and accurate. It is very well within the Holy Father’s right to instruct the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to take appropriate and corrective action to safeguard the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This also applies to Youth Masses.

This is beyond hand-holding and clapping. No one has the right to tinker around with the liturgy and introduce innovations.

 

[japhy]

I’m curious though what you find to be the “correct” position for the hands, and on what basis. And then whether you similarly harass everybody else who does not do what you think is the correct thing. Do you complain about people who put their hands on the back of the pew? Or those who might be holding a missalette? Or those holding babies?

At the small Mass I was at this evening (between 12 and 18 people in all, including the celebrant and another priest (who was not in clerical attire, although perhaps it was his day off) and ended up not assisting in the distribution of Holy Communion… yup, an OMHC let an EMHC do it), we were invited up to the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. Although this issue has been brought up in the past, and I knew it was not our place to be up there, I obeyed the priest. There are no kneelers there, so I knelt on the floor. (If I had been told not to kneel, or to get up, I would have obeyed, though I would have spoken to the priest afterwards.)

Then, during the Our Father, he prefaced it with… well, basically an order to hold hands as a sign of our solidarity. Again, I obeyed the priest, but I knew he was out of bounds. It’s one thing, see, if the hand-holding at the Our Father is spontaneous. It’s another thing, though, when the priest makes up his own words for the Mass (which he had to do to introduce the hand-holding) and obliges us to hold hands with one another (because it basically sounded like we weren’t “in solidarity” with one another and Christ if we didn’t).

NEVERMIND that the Most Blessed Sacrament, just confected, and resting there on the altar, the Eucharist which we would be receiving shortly, is the surest and holiest sign of our solidarity in Christ. We were told to hold hands, and so I did.

Anyway, might point is this: the posture of the hands is generally up to each person. I interlock my fingers in prayer for most of the Mass. It’s just how I prefer to be. It keeps me from putting my arms up on the pews, or picking at my fingernails, or whatever. If someone else really wants to strike the orans position, I have no right to tell them not to. But if, as has been said, there’s nothing in the rubrics about how to hold our hands during the Our Father, the priest should not enforce something upon us; but I’m accepting my duty to obey.

 

[ncjohn]

Anyway, might point is this: the posture of the hands is generally up to each person. I interlock my fingers in prayer for most of the Mass. It’s just how I prefer to be. It keeps me from putting my arms up on the pews, or picking at my fingernails, or whatever. If someone else really wants to strike the orans position, I have no right to tell them not to. But if, as has been said, there’s nothing in the rubrics about how to hold our hands during the Our Father, the priest should not enforce something upon us; but I’m accepting my duty to obey.

You are correct here, and the priest was out of line in directing such a thing. It is situations like that, and the occasional uncharitable person who either grabs at someone’s hand or glares at them for not participating, which I think cause most of the friction. To be fair though there is a good deal of contribution from those who don’t want to and cast aspersions on those who do.

If, as Archbishop Chaput suggests, everyone was to just act with charity and not impose on those around them, it would seem likely that there could be a peaceful coexistence for the most part, though I’m sure some will never get past their personal opinions that it is an abuse no matter how much the facts show otherwise.

I’m truly sorry that you or anyone else should have to experience what you did. Having been totally against the idea myself for many years just out of discomfort, I don’t know that I would have been as obedient as you were.

Peace,

 

[anamchara]

Furthermore, hand-holding is not an organic development of the liturgy. It arises more from the Protestant tradition than the Catholic.

 

[benedictgal]

You really need to stop making comments about Protestants. I am a convert and never held anyones hands during anything until I became a Catholic. Stop blaming them for things. Furthermore, your continued snide demeaning comments about Protestants in general through out this forum I find insulting. I love my Catholic faith but I also have a great love and respect for my Protestant background. You make comments that belittle their spiritual experience and talk about them as if they are a dirty adopted child without any real meaning or purpose. Seriously, this is how I read your comments. Please read the section in the catechism about our separate brethren and keep in mind there are possible converts that lurk in these forums.

 

[Joysong]

Anamchara:

Please read the section in the catechism about our separate brethren and keep in mind there are possible converts that lurk in these forums.

You are so right to be concerned, Anamchara. I would bet the dogmatism evidenced in this section of the forum has chased many potential converts away, and caused really devoted Protestants to tell their communities how unchristian Catholics are.

 

[ncjohn]

Now, I just got through talking to a Canon Lawyer from EWTN (whose integrity as far as I can tell is very trustworthy and in complete agreement with the Holy See) regarding ncjohn’s assertion about the 30-year rule that he quoted. As I suspected, the Canon Lawyer said that it does not apply to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the same reasons I listed (and cited from Cardinal Arinze).

Oh, please…

If we were talking about something that changes the rubrics I could even agree. But there are many, many customs that are liturgical, including immemorial customs such as being allowed to kneel when receiviing communion even though the specified US norm is standing. To say that the growth of customs does not apply to liturgy is silly. The “custom” of folding one’s hands would be just such a custom. Some have come from legislation; others have resulted from popular devotion such as the custom of kissing the hand after the sign of the cross which is often seen from the Latino population. Somehow I’m sure you’re not bothering anyone about that one though nothing in the rubrics specifies it.

EWTN apologists have tried on numerous occasions to try to extend the 1975 Noticiae to make holding hands illicit in spite of its clear wording, so “trustworthiness” is not guaranteed, and is certainly not authoritative in any way. The 30 year rule in canon law, is not really a fixed time though apparently, as noted in this segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A custom must also have a legitimate prescription. Such prescription is obtained by a continuance of the act in question during a certain length of time. No canonical statute has positively defined what this length of time is, and so its determination is left to the wisdom of canonists. Authors generally hold that for the legalizing of a custom in accordance with or beside the law (juxta or prœter legem) a space of ten years is sufficient; while for a custom contrary (contra) to law many demand a lapse of forty years. The reason given for the necessity of so long a space as forty years is that the community will only slowly persuade itself of the opportuneness of abrogating the old and embracing the new law. The opinion, however, which holds that ten years suffices to establish a custom even contrary to the law may be safely followed. It is to be noted, however, that in practice the Roman Congregations scarcely tolerate or permit any custom, even an immemorial one, contrary to the sacred canons.

And as it notes, “…in practice the Roman Congregations scarcely tolerate or permit any custom, even an immemorial one, contrary to the sacred canons.” This is in line with what you noted about the Neocatechumenate. This has specifically NOT happened with regard to holding hands though. I will certainly agree that the Pope, as supreme legislator, and possibly even the CDW, could overrule it tomorrow if he pleases, but that has clearly not happened at this time.

And if your comments about “reasons” as cited from Cardinal Arinze goes back to your contention that holding hands “adds to” the liturgy in some way, I will ask again then what the “proper” or “correct” specified position is that does NOT change the liturgy.

With true respect for both your devotion and knowledge, and without meaning this as a “putdown”, I am really having a hard time determining whether your need to control in this is a result of an inability to understand the issues involved, an inability to accept what the Chruch does and doesn’t say on the issue, or is just a feeling of being backed into a corner that now doesn’t allow a graceful escape. The Noticiae doesn’t address it; the USCCB has specifically commented that there is no prescribed position for the hands at the Our Father; and there is not a single document that you or anyone else has presented from an authoritative office that specifically addresses the issue beyond the tortured attempts to interpret comments about other issues as applying.

As I’ve said often, I’m not in the least bothered by someone being opposed to holding hands; I was against it myself for a long time. I don’t “promote” it, though I will stand for people’s right to do it where they feel called to it since it is a long-standing established practice which the Church has voiced no opposition to at this time despite numerous opportunities.

I’m sure somehow that you’ll have “the last word” on the topic and I’ll leave you to that. At least the information is here though so there isn’t a one-sided condemnation to mislead people.

Peace,

 

[anamchara]

anamchara;3181882:

First of all, my comments were directed to the Church’s liturgircal development. Second, we need to realize that the Church’s form of worship is markedly different than what the Protestant understanding is. The Church offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Protestant do not have a sacrificial element to their form of worship service.

First of all, it doesn’t matter where your comments are directed to. You need to realize that the Church does not want to be arrogant or condescending about having the Holy Sacrifice. It doesn’t matter what we have and they don’t have, it’s about being respectful and having some charity.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh, please…

If we were talking about something that changes the rubrics I could even agree. But there are many, many customs that are liturgical, including immemorial customs such as being allowed to kneel when receiviing communion even though the specified US norm is standing. To say that the growth of customs does not apply to liturgy is silly. The “custom” of folding one’s hands would be just such a custom. Some have come from legislation; others have resulted from popular devotion such as the custom of kissing the hand after the sign of the cross which is often seen from the Latino population. Somehow I’m sure you’re not bothering anyone about that one though nothing in the rubrics specifies it.

The 30 year rule in canon law, is not really a fixed time though apparently, as noted in this segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A custom must also have a legitimate prescription. Such prescription is obtained by a continuance of the act in question during a certain length of time. No canonical statute has positively defined what this length of time is, and so its determination is left to the wisdom of canonists. Authors generally hold that for the legalizing of a custom in accordance with or beside the law (juxta or prœter legem) a space of ten years is sufficient; while for a custom contrary (contra) to law many demand a lapse of forty years. The reason given for the necessity of so long a space as forty years is that the community will only slowly persuade itself of the opportuneness of abrogating the old and embracing the new law. The opinion, however, which holds that ten years suffices to establish a custom even contrary to the law may be safely followed. It is to be noted, however, that in practice the Roman Congregations scarcely tolerate or permit any custom, even an immemorial one, contrary to the sacred canons.

And as it notes, “…in practice the Roman Congregations scarcely tolerate or permit any custom, even an immemorial one, contrary to the sacred canons.” This is in line with what you noted about the Neocatechumenate. This has specifically NOT happened with regard to holding hands though. I will certainly agree that the Pope, as supreme legislator, and possibly even the CDW, could overrule it tomorrow if he pleases, but that has clearly not happened at this time.

And if your comments about “reasons” as cited from Cardinal Arinze goes back to your contention that holding hands “adds to” the liturgy in some way, I will ask again then what the “proper” or “correct” specified position is that does NOT change the liturgy.

Peace,

In the first instance, I would not be so quick to discount EWTN simply because they differ with you on points. They have a great track record of fidelity to the Holy See and have gone through much persecution because they are faithful. Furthermore, their people shoot straight. And, they, too, are part of the Franciscan familiy, since the friars are Missionary Fransicans of the Eternal Word.

Second, while in the United States it is the norm is to receive Holy Communion standing, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipine of the Sacraments stated that kneeling is also an acceptable posture and communicants who opt for this should not be denied Holy Communion.

Hand-holding is pretty much an indiosyncracy that was started in the mistaken notion of “improving the Mass”. However, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not bound by a person’s personal tastes or idiosyncracies. Furthermore, a priest cannot tell people “Let us join our hands and our hearts…” because he does not have the authority to add to or subtract from the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He cannot take it upon himself to cobble up his own rubrics.

Lastly, many people simply hold hands during the Pater Noster because they see other people doing it. It’s a monkey-see, monkey-do thing that really has no relevance. Yestderday, a woman tried to grab my hand and I gently declined. Afterwards she asked me. I told her that it wasn’t anything personal against her, but, this posture is not required and is not part of the rubrics. She was surpised because she thought we had to do it. I explained that it was not a requirement. And her response? “Well, I guess I don’t have to do it anymore.”

Clapping falls along those same lines. It is based on indiosyncracy and personal taste. Even some of the hymns like the Christopher Walker Gloria (which OCP finally had to remove from the service music section because of the problems the song created) clearly indicates in the sheet music when to clap. I suspect that perhaps other songs have those notations. This, again, is an innovation based on idiosyncracies.

 

[ncjohn]

Second, while in the United States it is the norm is to receive Holy Communion standing, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipine of the Sacraments stated that kneeling is also an acceptable posture and communicants who opt for this should not be denied Holy Communion.

Yes, I know. That’s what I just said in my post.

Hand-holding is pretty much an indiosyncracy that was started in the mistaken notion of “improving the Mass”.

It would be good if you just stopped speculatiing on where it came from and attibuting motives, especially with condescending and dergoatory terms like “mistaken notion” and “idiosyncracy”. It is just as entirely possible that people just did it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit as a slightly different form of devotion.

Furthermore, a priest cannot tell people “Let us join our hands and our hearts…” because he does not have the authority to add to or subtract from the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He cannot take it upon himself to cobble up his own rubrics.

I have consistently stated that no third party is allowed to direct anyone to do this as that is indeed creating a requirement that doesn’t exist.

Yestderday, a woman tried to grab my hand and I gently declined. Afterwards she asked me. I told her that it wasn’t anything personal against her, but, this posture is not required and is not part of the rubrics. She was surpised because she thought we had to do it. I explained that it was not a requirement.

The funny thing is that this is where you started from in this thread; simply that it isn’t a requirement. And I had no disagreement with that whatsoever. Somewhere along the line though you changed and at the least strongly implied that it was illicit and an “anomaly”, and started trying to interpret documents to say it couldn’t be done. Had you simply stayed with the “not a requirement” we would have been in agreement even if our preferences might differ. Maybe we weren’t really as far apart as it seemed there for a bit.

Clapping falls along those same lines. It is based on indiosyncracy and personal taste. Even some of the hymns like the Christopher Walker Gloria (which OCP finally had to remove from the service music section because of the problems the song created) clearly indicates in the sheet music when to clap. I suspect that perhaps other songs have those notations. This, again, is an innovation based on idiosyncracies.

I can agree that a song that *directs *clapping should most likely not be used, for that, to me, falls into the same category as directing people to hold hands.

I don’t, however, have a problem with an individual who is just so caught up in their praise that they start to clap along with a song, just as I would have no problem with someone walking in and being so overcome by the presence of God that they prostrated themselves before the tabernacle. I might, to my own embarassment, gaze in wonderment and question their motivation, but I would have no objective problem with it.

Peace,

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3181965:

First of all, it doesn’t matter where your comments are directed to. You need to realize that the Church does not want to be arrogant or condescending about having the Holy Sacrifice. It doesn’t matter what we have and they don’t have, it’s about being respectful and having some charity.

It appears that you have misread and misinterpreted my post. What I explained was in no way condescending or arrogant. There are some very real differences in the Church’s form of worship and in those employed by the various Protetant ecclesial communities.

It does matter very much in to say what the Church has for its worship and what Protestant ecclesial communities have. The form of music, rubrics norms and rites that the Church employs are significantly different that what Protestan ecclesial communities have. The music the Church uses for the Holy Sacrifice must conform to the Church’s dogma, doctrine and liturgical theology. Much of what is contemporary Protestant Praise and Worship music, while more suitable for those particular ecclesial communities (because of the particular nature of their worship) is not suitable for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The two are not interchangeable and, people need to be aware of the significant differences.

This in no way should be construed as arrogance. In fact, it is very much in the line of what the Church taught in the document Dominus Iesus, which was principally written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and severely criticized by many of the faithful because they thought that it was uncharitable and was going to set back the ecumenical movement.

The bottom line is that what may be allowable for a Protestant ecclesial community is not allowable in the Church.

Furthermore, what I wrote in my post was to simply differentiate between the two forms of worship. The music used in Youth Masses is mostly contemporary Protestant Praise and Worship music with theology that is markedly different from the Church’s. This could very well lead to confusion, as some of the younger posters who have already experienced these forms of liturgies hve noted in their comments.

 

[anamchara]

It appears that you have misread and misinterpreted my post.

No, I didn’t or have I misread any of your posts. I was speaking to you in general terms about many posts I’ve seen of yours in which you refer to Protestants in an unflattering/demeaning way. Please don’t use the banner of the Church to further justify such actions.

I am now done with this thread. It has gone completely off topic and I’m probably breaking forum rules by bringing up issues from other threads.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal:

The bottom line is that what may be allowable for a Protestant ecclesial community is not allowable in the Church.

I have to agree with you, Anamchara. Even when you clearly stated that in your entire lifetime as a Protestant, your denomination NEVER held hands, this poster completely disregarded that and persisted with a smoke screen of theological mish-mash that simply restated her denial of your statement.

So what’s new?

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, there is a very strong sense that my posts have been misread and misinterpreted. I initially brought up the hand-holding issue to demonstrate how idiosyncracies and personal tastes have opened the door, over the course of 40 years, for innovations to creep up into the Mass. Others seized on the hand-holding during the Pater Noster and tried to offer their own interpretation of Canon Law, even though two canon lawyers I spoke to significantly differed with that post’s assertion.

Furthermore, there are several Protestant ecclesial communities, such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Once again, the Church and these Protestant ecclesial communities (not just the two named, but the entire umbrella) have very different concepts of worship and these are incompatible with each other since the Church has the sacrificial element and the others do not. This is not an argument of arrogance or lack of charity. This is fact.

Because of these differences, the music also plays an issue. What is fine for Protestant ecclesial communities does not constitute a one-size fits all approach with the Church, particularly where it concerns the use of contemporary Protestant Praise and Worship Music within the confines of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The music used in the Mass must conform to Catholic doctrine, dogma and liturgical theology. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist were very clear in their specific concern over the music at Youth Masses. Pope Benedict XVI echoed this concern when he rightly stated that “one song is not as good as another” as far as the Mass was concerned.

Although I am now 40, remember, that I, too, was once the age of the OP. I came of age early on in the reign of Pope John Paul II when he began his youth movement on a global scale. The important thing to remember is that while the late Pontiff believed in embracing and including the youth through programs such as World Youth Day, it was never to be done at the sacrifice of the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Recall, too, that while the former Rev. Karol Wojtyla began his youth ministry, the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was still the norm. Yes, he had outings and retreats with the young people under his care, but, when it came to the Mass, he never sacrificed the integrity of the liturgy, with its music, prayers, rubrics and norms. Furthermore, 100 years earlier, St. John Bosco began his particular ministry to the young. As his spiritual daughter, I learned the stories of how he began his oratories with field trips, games, and retreats. However, when it came time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he, too, was very diligent in maintaining fidelity to the proper celebration of the Eucharist. He told his boys (and this was passed on to me while I was at one of his order’s schools) that fidelity to the Magisterium, to the Holy Father, was central.

If these particular methods worked for both the former Rev. Karol Wojtyla and St. John Bosco, why can they not work today? As a few of the younger posters in this thread (and in related ones) have noted, they are hungry for solid Catholic doctrine. They have expressed their desire to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the manner that the Church requests with music that is appropriate to the solemn mystery they are about to enter. I suspect that these young people are not alone, and, that their voices are getting louder and clearer.

 

[RomanRevert]

I have to agree with you, Anamchara. Even when you clearly stated that in your entire lifetime as a Protestant, your denomination NEVER held hands, this poster completely disregarded that and persisted with a smoke screen of theological mish-mash that simply restated her denial of your statement.

So what’s new?

Going out on a limb here, I feel that benedictgal along with many others including myself feel that practices such as this erode our Catholic identity … our heritage and faith that was handed down to us through the ages … not just invented 3 years ago in a movie theater/sanctuary/multipurpose room by Brother Jim without whom their little community would not exist. I was a Protestant. I saw this type of behavior. One of the reasons I returned to Holy Mother Church is because of all of the hand holding and arm waving and dancing and the carnival atmosphere. It was not sacred. It was not holy. God was their buddy, not their Creator. Practices such as this contribute to that attitude. Remember … LEX ORANDI LEX CREDENDI. If you worship like you are in a revival tent, chances are you will eventually believe what is being said in those revival tents (which is one reason why I question the charismatic movement in the Church). By the way, “separated brethren” is a euphemism for heretic (since Protestants embrace the heresy of Protestantism). We should start calling it as it is and stop apologizing for our faith… but I digress.

All that being said, I do feel that hand holding is one of the least of the issues that is affecting the liturgy right now. My family and I hold hands during the Pater Noster although I would not hold anyone else’s hand. I do not feel that in and of itself it is wrong, but it is a symptom of larger issue which is the infiltration of non-Catholic worship practices into the Mass. The Mass becomes diluted with innumerable distractions that focus more on the entertainment value and the feelings of men than realizing that Christ is present before us in the Eucharist.

anyway, that is my .02

 

[agapewolf]

If these particular methods worked for both the former Rev. Karol Wojtyla and St. John Bosco, why can they not work today? .

You’re kidding right? Apparently, you don’t know teenagers very well. Teenagers are completly different than they were even 25-30 years ago.8th graders are sleeping with each other…some of them are having oral sex parties. They have completley broken homes, watch television for 3 hours a day, and see no need for God in their lives. It’s a completely different breed. The very fact that our church sought to bring in a different Mass after vatican 2 is the very reason that old methods don’t necessarily work today.

As a few of the younger posters in this thread (and in related ones) have noted, they are hungry for solid Catholic doctrine. They have expressed their desire to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the manner that the Church requests with music that is appropriate to the solemn mystery they are about to enter. I suspect that these young people are not alone, and, that their voices are getting louder and clearer.

While I agree the Mass should be obedient to the instructions, your referencing a few young people here as a huge voice does not hold water to the majority of teenagers out there. As I have stated in other threads…the folks that frequent these forums are not the norm. Yes, they are hungry for sound doctrine but the fact is they aren’t going to get it if they aren’t even going to Mass.

Be careful before replying and really read what I have written. I haven’t argued a point or side here in this post…but these are just realities of who folks are. I’m rebutting your REASONINGS, not the actual argument. Your reasonings do not hold water.

 

[Indyann]

Then, during the Our Father, he prefaced it with… well, basically an order to hold hands as a sign of our solidarity. Again, I obeyed the priest, but I knew he was out of bounds. It’s one thing, see, if the hand-holding at the Our Father is spontaneous. It’s another thing, though, when the priest makes up his own words for the Mass (which he had to do to introduce the hand-holding) and obliges us to hold hands with one another (because it basically sounded like we weren’t “in solidarity” with one another and Christ if we didn’t).

First, I want to say that our new (since June) pastor is a Canon lawyer. This parish has held hands for many years. I never liked and didn’t do it. In fact, I always tried to find a sparsely occupied pew to avoid the hand holders.

Two days ago, I was reading a blog of the Catholic parents of a 14 month old that just died. They had kept a daily blog since the child was 3 months old, so it was quite long.

I cried like a baby while reading it. For at least an hour. Then I sat here trying to figure out why I was crying so. I don’t know the family. I have had no infant deaths in my family. Why, why is this affecting me so?

Am I getting depressed? Am I just getting overly emotional? What’s going on?

After a while of reflection, it came to me. We are the Body of Christ. When one member hurts, we all hurt.

After thinking about this a bit, the thought about the “hand holding is horizontal” came to me.

No, no it is not. It is a sign of solidarity of all God’s children praising Him. It really has nothing to do with your neighbor, other than joining your prayer with his.

Is this so bad?

 

[snhs]

While I agree the Mass should be obedient to the instructions, your referencing a few young people here as a huge voice does not hold water to the majority of teenagers out there. As I have stated in other threads…the folks that frequent these forums are not the norm. Yes, they are hungry for sound doctrine but the fact is they aren’t going to get it if they aren’t even going to Mass.

How are they expected to understand the nature of Mass as a divine sacrifice when they are coming for a happy clappy sing along? If they come to listen to music most of the time thats all they’ll do. You might get a few more of them to attend but they won’t be coming for the right reasons.

The underlying problem is that children are not taught as much as they once were while they are still going to Church. If they understood enough of their faith and what was going then there is no doubt that they would want to come. There is a window while parents take their children to Mass of, maybe, 8 years at the end of which they need to start deciding for themselves and if in that time all they see is a guy in a funny outfit going up to an elevated table and lifting up bits of silverware then is it any wonder they don’t come? If on the other hand their parents/teachers/priest were to explain to them at some point what was going on and why the Church tells us x, y and z then they would see it in the same kind of way people on this forum do.

That doesn’t mean that we should give up anyone above a certain age as a lost cause, but it also means we shouldn’t be bribing them to come to Mass. They should be there for the right reasons not the music or so they can talk to their mates. If the only way to attract teenagers is by music then go ahead and have concerts in Church halls, have a Priest come along to do a talk. Get those who do understand to explain the faith to lead prayers or singing, but don’t try to turn the sacrament of Mass into a concert/pantomime just to get people in pews.

As to whether young people here are representative of the whole, probably not in terms of our behaviour or attitude to belief. But we do spend most of the day surrounded by other young people, many of whom are likely to be friends or peers, who far too often aren’t going to Mass and don’t understand their faith. If we are seeking a real solution to the problem then it is surely to those young people that we should turn. Rather than using the current logic of ‘they like pop music lets add it to the Mass’ shouldn’t we be looking at why those young people who currently attend Mass do so or asking them how to go about bringing their friend to/back to their faith?

 

[japhy]

japhy;3180459:

After a while of reflection, it came to me. We are the Body of Christ. When one member hurts, we all hurt. After thinking about this a bit, the thought about the “hand holding is horizontal” came to me. No, no it is not. It is a sign of solidarity of all God’s children praising Him. It really has nothing to do with your neighbor, other than joining your prayer with his. Is this so bad?

If the hand-holding as a manifestation (a sign) of solidarity, that is one thing. But if it doesn’t lead to deeper actual solidarity, than it is an empty gesture. And if the hand-holding as an effort to produce solidarity, I don’t think it works.

 

[agapewolf]

How are they expected to understand the nature of Mass as a divine sacrifice when they are coming for a happy clappy sing along? If they come to listen to music most of the time thats all they’ll do. You might get a few more of them to attend but they won’t be coming for the right reasons

So they shouldn’t come at all if they aren’t coming for the right reasons?

Again, as i stated before…I wasn’t arguing for any points, just the state of many teenagers today. I did not say one word about “happy clappy”. (and by the way, I don’t think the natural incliniation to clap to rhythm to and ending song qualifies the sarcastic name of “happy clappy”)

This comment you made that they aren’t coming for the right reasons…yet another person that doesn’t know teenagers well. THEY AREN’T COMING AT ALL!!! I think ANY reason we can get them there (cute girls, great music, future friends, relationship to the youth minsiter…whatever) is a great reason. But we have to get them there. We can’t get them there on good reasons if they aren’t coming in the first place. If you read my earlier post, the state of many teenagers today (not all of course), is in a place where they see no need for God.

You say if they come to listen to the music, that’s all they will do. Not true. Once we get them there, we evangelize. I’ve seen it done over and over again.

Look, again, I am not arguing for or against anything in this post, I’m arguing against the reasonings that are given. These do not hold water.