G
gospel_life
Guest
It was certainly not my intent to be disrespectful, and if it came across that way I humbly apologize.
Perhaps a bit of frustration creeping in.
- Status
Perhaps a bit of frustration creeping in.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Indeed. Everything is already there, the holding hands thing doesn’t have anything to do with the liturgy itself IMO. As someone who used to argue from the other side on these forums, I’d say most proponants of holding hands are for it because it’s a “nice” custom, it makes people feel good, warm fuzzies are sometimes involved, etc., etc. But you can’t escape that it’s an *unauthorized addition *and it *adds nothing *to the liturgy.
In my case, understanding began to dawn about this practice right around the time I embraced the TLM. I still go to the OF most of the time, but my entire understanding of the liturgy has expanded and come closer, I hope, to the truth of it. So IMO it’s a lukewarm understanding of what the liturgy is and what it is for that makes people think (as I did) that holding hands is a wonderful practice at best, or not a big deal at worst. Speaking generally, of course.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Lux, I’d like to ask you to please do something. Please read excerpts from Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.
[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the **Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner **that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the **exclusion of all blemishes **and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.
[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.
[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be "anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated"
[30.] The office “that belongs to Priests in particular in the celebration of the Eucharist” is a great one, “for it is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is always brought into play within the context of the Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many”
[31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”. They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions
Note that in paragraph 12, the “right” of the faithful appears no less than 3 times.
Now, would you kindly explain to me, and everyone else reading here why, especially in view of paragraphs 18, 30 &31 how it is not permitted for a priest to forbid arbitrary additions like hand holding at the Our Father to be added to the Mass???
Please show me how your statement can be reconciled to the words of John Paul II in Redemptionis Sacramentum because the plain meaning of those words of #18 is that not only may a priest prohibit abuses, but it is his obligation and the right of the faithful that he do so.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Great post, Fr. David!
It completely justifies why a priest friend of mine has forbidden the practice in his parish. He is well within his rights because it is an idiosyncratic innovation that has no basis within the norms and rubrics of the Church.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Fr David:
Peace
Lux
If the posture of the congregation is not to be rigidly regulated, and handholding was not forbidden by the Church when the direct question was asked, that’s pretty clear. This s not an abuse. You may attempt to apply any document you wish, but the bottom line is that you will never find authentic clear documentation for your position. Many priests encourage it, many discourage it, and many remain neutral, and I have never hard any reprimand for any of those positions.
Peace
Lux
P
peary
Guest
I can think of a host of more important matters concerning rubrics than “holding hands” at Mass. 
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I’ve just quoted some very clear documentation, but I’m awaiting your response to that documentation to prove to me that a priest may not forbid a practice which is not to be found in any approved liturgical book.
What you say (that a priest cannot forbid) and what the Church says (that a priest has an obligation to do so) seem to be at odds with each other. How do you reconcile them?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
OK. That’s fine. But the purpose of this thread is to talk about this very issue.I can think of a host of more important matters concerning rubrics than “holding hands” at Mass.
We talk about other matters in different threads. Nothing wrong with that either.
B
benedictgal
Guest
The fact remains that no one has any authority whatsoever to introduce, on his own initiative, any posture or idiosyncratic whim into the Mass. Redemptionis Sacramentum and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy are very clear on that.
Were the bishops of the United States to want to do this, they would have to present the issue at the next meeting of the USCCB, pass the measure by a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite Bishops and then send the proposal to the Holy See for the necessary recognitio. That is the only way that something like hand-holding could be used legitimately. But, the recognitio needs to come from Rome, not on anyone’s initiative.
Therefore, a priest who forbids this practice is not disobeying anyone because hand-holding is not a norm. It’s not anything but a misguided, idiosyncratic posture that is suppose to show a sign of unity that doesn’t need to be further expressed. The faithful, both the seen and the unseen, are already united in prayer. We do not need physical contact with each other to show unity. That is already leaning too heavily towards the horizontal.
Now, a priest cannot compel people to join hands for the recitation of the Pater Noster. This is not in the GIRM and should not be done. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen to the point that the priest comes down from the altar area and joins hands with the people in the first row, standing in the aisle and grabbing the person on the other side. This is completely wrong on so many levels. Now, he would be at fault for doing this because it is not a part of the Mass. He is trying to insert something that is not legitimate.
Were the bishops of the United States to want to do this, they would have to present the issue at the next meeting of the USCCB, pass the measure by a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite Bishops and then send the proposal to the Holy See for the necessary recognitio. That is the only way that something like hand-holding could be used legitimately. But, the recognitio needs to come from Rome, not on anyone’s initiative.
Therefore, a priest who forbids this practice is not disobeying anyone because hand-holding is not a norm. It’s not anything but a misguided, idiosyncratic posture that is suppose to show a sign of unity that doesn’t need to be further expressed. The faithful, both the seen and the unseen, are already united in prayer. We do not need physical contact with each other to show unity. That is already leaning too heavily towards the horizontal.
Now, a priest cannot compel people to join hands for the recitation of the Pater Noster. This is not in the GIRM and should not be done. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen to the point that the priest comes down from the altar area and joins hands with the people in the first row, standing in the aisle and grabbing the person on the other side. This is completely wrong on so many levels. Now, he would be at fault for doing this because it is not a part of the Mass. He is trying to insert something that is not legitimate.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Why isnt this thread dead yet!?!?!? I guess if we hold hnads duriing the Our Father, the Latin-obsessed thinks we should burst into flames
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Lux,
What is so hard to understand about obeying a priest?
If the priest says that you should not hold hands during the Our Father, then you shouldn’t do it.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
Refer to post #188.Why isnt this thread dead yet!?!?!? I guess if we hold hnads duriing the Our Father, the Latin-obsessed thinks we should burst into flames
CW I know you’re new to the Church and some of this seems ridiculous to you, but the fact is we are supposed to be obedient to the Church’s guidelines for Mass, and not introduce innovations, such as holding hands during the Our Father (which by the way began with Alcoholics Anonymous and worked its way into Mass).
Some people prefer obedience over innovation.
But Samuel said: "Does the LORD so delight in holocausts and sacrifices as in obedience to the command of the LORD? Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams. 1 Samuel 15:22
C
CWBetts
Guest
Refer to post #169. Acording to the professonal apologists at Catholic Answers, theholdon ghand thing is not forbidden by the Holy See.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
Wrong. See post #183.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
If a priest suggested we join hands, I would; if he requested no one hold hands, I wouldn’t. If he requested me to kneel or stand for Holy Communion, I would also do that.
My obedience is not the question, and I personally don’t particularly care for handholding, but as I said, if the Church remained neutral when directly questioned, I can’t understand how anyone says it’s forbidden.
Lux
A
ac_claire
Guest
When it comes to the liturgy, we don’t condone unauthorized additions and gestures because they “aren’t forbidden.” You could justify just about anything under the sun with that logic.
There’s a name for that kind of faulty reasoning; I can’t quite remember it but I’m sure someone will.
F
Freshman88
Guest
I didn’t mean to defend you either father, when your capable of doing so yourself, its just that this post irked me.
Anyway, just as people are irked and angered at the sight of a priest in cassock, so many of us are inspired by it to. I hope I have the strength to never take off my cassock, if this is my calling.
F
Freshman88
Guest
Perfectly understandableIt was certainly not my intent to be disrespectful, and if it came across that way I humbly apologize.
Perhaps a bit of frustration creeping in.
. I’m sorry if my drawing attention to it was harsh, but I think it needed to be done.
F
Freshman88
Guest
Are we not to reprove our brothers?Pot calling the kettle black, methinks.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Even in medieval times, they did wash them once a year (usually at Pascaltide). After about a week, they start to itch.
- Status