I once asked about upraised hands during the "Our Father"

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I think the previous poster meant ‘Protestant’ in the sense that it looks like something Protestants would do at one of their praise and worship services.

Mimicing the priest with the orans posture in a Catholic mass looks like one is also trying to offer the mass in the same way as the priest. One can’t, so it looks stupid. I’d guess it’s something that’s come out of charismatic worship. It does fit in with the presence of EMHCs and unvested lay lectors; has idea has got around that the laity are ‘a royal priesthood’ in the ‘people’s mass’ and are thus their actions are integral to the sacrifice? It’s a confusion.

So St. Agnes and the Theotokos were mimicking priests. In the eastern Churches such a posture is quite common so it can’t be ascribed to protestant charismatic influences. Besides, I have clearly shown that those postures went back to the 2nd century, and I don’t think anyone will deny there were no protestants in the 2nd century.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In the eastern Churches such a posture is quite common …

It is indeed, but not by the laity.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

So St. Agnes and the Theotokos were mimicking priests. In the eastern Churches such a posture is quite common so it can’t be ascribed to protestant charismatic influences. Besides, I have clearly shown that those postures went back to the 2nd century, and I don’t think anyone will deny there were no protestants in the 2nd century.

1. Did they do it at mass?
2. Even if they did, it’s 1800 years later and the Mass has developed significantly in that time.
3. It’s a Catholic mass.

 

[denitaA]

I’ve been reading this thread and the responses to it, just wanted to chime in. My mother was raised United Pentecostal, the strictest kind of Charismatic church. I never joined, but I grew up watching my mother’s people jumping up and down, waving their hands, etc. Not long before her passing, my mom returned to this church, and the only time I attended with her, she jumped up and down like she was having fits. Scared me to death. I didn’t become a Catholic until way after she died. Anyway, I’ve been to other Charismatic services, including Catholic. I do not like them at all. I agree with the person who said they didn’t join the Catholic Church to do this. I attend the EF almost exclusively, and when I do attend an OF Mass, I usually remain kneeling with my eyes closed and hands folded, to avoid seeing this as well as so no one will try to hold my hand either.

 

[Elizium23]

I attend the EF almost exclusively, and when I do attend an OF Mass, I usually remain kneeling with my eyes closed and hands folded, to avoid seeing this as well as so no one will try to hold my hand either.

So you remain kneeling? What rubric or tradition does that follow?

 

[Cider]

Oh really, upraised hands are a Protestant innovation? Is that so? Btw I didn’t came up with this one, it was dzheremi but I thought it was brilliant.

http://www.churchyear.net/orans.jpg

Look at this Protestant, hanging out in the 2nd century catacombs in Rome. It’s disgraceful!

http://thehandmaid.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/agnes.jpg

That’s it, I give up! There are just too many Protestants around…

It’s even older, pagan Greece and Rome both used the position.

 

[denitaA]

So you remain kneeling? What rubric or tradition does that follow?

Sorry, I’m a big chicken. I should stand, though at the EF Low Mass where I go we all kneel. I’m not sure why. But I’m “chicken” at OF, even during the week. I just don’t want someone trying to grab my hand. I also do this to avoid the “sign of peace.” If you know of a proper way to do this within the rubrics, let me know. Honest. I’m not mad at your comment. Just don’t know what to do.

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry, I’m a big chicken. I should stand, though at the EF Low Mass where I go we all kneel. I’m not sure why. But I’m “chicken” at OF, even during the week. I just don’t want someone trying to grab my hand. I also do this to avoid the “sign of peace.” If you know of a proper way to do this within the rubrics, let me know. Honest. I’m not mad at your comment. Just don’t know what to do.

Just so you know, the sign of peace is actually in the rubrics, it doesn’t always have to be given, but if the priest asks the laity to givve each other the sign of peace the correct response according to the rubrics is to give the sign of peace in a sober manner to those near to you, so I think it is definately innapropriate in such a case to remain kneeling to avoid following the rubrics, I can understand it more with raising hands for the Our Father because that is not a part of the rubrics, but not for the sign of peace.

As for the low EF, it has different rubrics, so it is quite possible that they call for the people to remain kneeling. I don’t remember exactly, but I’m sure someone else here could inform you.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Sorry, I’m a big chicken. I should stand, though at the EF Low Mass where I go we all kneel. I’m not sure why. But I’m “chicken” at OF, even during the week. I just don’t want someone trying to grab my hand. I also do this to avoid the “sign of peace.” If you know of a proper way to do this within the rubrics, let me know. Honest. I’m not mad at your comment. Just don’t know what to do.

The Sign of Peace is part of the OF Mass. Why would you avoid giving the Sign of Peace to your brothers and sisters in Christ? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything Pentecostal.

However it is not mandatory that you participate in this by shaking hands, but your reasoning for not doing it is questionable–“a big chicken”? I am afraid I do not understand this at all.

As for holding hands at the Our Father–that you can avoid by folding your hands in front of you and signaling you wish to keep them that way. But if others are holding hands, that is not a big deal and should not disturb your Mass experience. The Church actually has made no official statement on this, but some people object to it anyway and try to convince others it is forbidden. It is not. There is nothing saying it is forbidden or permitted. It is a minor issue, and not worth all the nastiness that often accompanies arguments about it, which is far worse than any hand-holding or hand raising.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Sign of Peace is part of the OF Mass. Why would you avoid giving the Sign of Peace to your brothers and sisters in Christ? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything Pentecostal.

You are correct, and I would note that this does derive from ancient custom. In the Byzantine tradition, only the clergy exchange a sign of peace (in a quite dignified manner).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I do attend Mass rather regularly for an Eastern Catholic, and have no problem with this per se, especially given its genesis and intent. However, even the most staunch supporter would have to admit that some folks go overboard (tantamount to what my teenage daughter would instantly dub a “PDA”). There have been quite a number of occasions where I have felt very uncomfortable about what was going on around me at that moment (let’s leave it at that). The purpose is to acknowledge each other as people of common faith and Christian dignity.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I’ve been watch debates about various things for a while, like “Pro Multis”, the supression of the TLM and the schism of the SSPX. I’m pretty sure the handshake will go the same way, in time, once people ‘get’ that it’s out of place in a mystic rite to have the whole congregtion break off to do it.

On a wider level, we’ll find that our foreathers had excellent reasons for the Mass to have the form it had and that the innovators weren’t quite as clever as they thought they were.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ve been watch debates about various things for a while, like “Pro Multis”, the supression of the TLM and the schism of the SSPX. I’m pretty sure the handshake will go the same way, in time, once people ‘get’ that it’s out of place in a mystic rite to have the whole congregtion break off to do it.

On a wider level, we’ll find that our foreathers had excellent reasons for the Mass to have the form it had and that the innovators weren’t quite as clever as they thought they were.

I’m not trying to start on argument, but personally I disagree very much. I think it may be moved to some other time in the Mass, such as the offetory, but I doubt very much that it will ever be removed entirely, nor would I want it to be. However, since this is entirely a matter of speculation there is hardly a right answer. I’m just throwing in my :twocents:

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

1. Even if they did, it’s 1800 years later and the Mass has developed significantly in that time.
2. It’s a Catholic mass.

But if they did it wouldn’t be an illigitimate innovation of the protestants. Not sure what you’re trying to say with three though. I don’t really mind, but it’s quite funny how a thread about how some people hold their hands is on page 12 already.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

But if they did it wouldn’t be an illigitimate innovation of the protestants. Not sure what you’re trying to say with three though. I don’t really mind, but it’s quite funny how a thread about how some people hold their hands is on page 12 already.

Saying it’s a (Roman) Catholic mass was in reply to the post about it being done in the East. It’s almost comical how ‘pick-and-mix’ the Latin rite has become.

You have to ask: do these innovations express the intention of the rite well? I say no. I think they are a misguided attempt to stop a generation becoming apostates by involving them more. The lasting attraction for people in a religion is holiness: at a basic level, miracles and at at refined level, one’s own sanctification.

Focus on that and the rest follows.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Saying it’s a (Roman) Catholic mass was in reply to the post about it being done in the East. It’s almost comical how ‘pick-and-mix’ the Latin rite has become.

You have to ask: do these innovations express the intention of the rite well? I say no. I think they are a misguided attempt to stop a generation becoming apostates by involving them more. The lasting attraction for people in a religion is holiness: at a basic level, miracles and at at refined level, one’s own sanctification.

Focus on that and the rest follows.

That’s hard to argue against and I think you’re quite right.

 

[clem456]

Saying it’s a (Roman) Catholic mass was in reply to the post about it being done in the East. It’s almost comical how ‘pick-and-mix’ the Latin rite has become.

You have to ask: do these innovations express the intention of the rite well? I say no. I think they are a misguided attempt to stop a generation becoming apostates by involving them more. The lasting attraction for people in a religion is holiness: at a basic level, miracles and at at refined level, one’s own sanctification.

Focus on that and the rest follows.

What does holiness consist of?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

It is That which moves the Seraphim, those nearest to God Himself, to sing only one word in His Presence: “Sanctus”. It is the state of Perfection.

Psalm 96 (Douay Rheims) would be a start, in the context of a Mass.

1 A canticle for David himself, when the house was built after the captivity. Sing ye to the Lord a new canticle: sing to the Lord, all the earth.

2 Sing ye to the Lord and bless his name: shew forth his salvation from day to day.

3 Declare his glory among the Gentiles: his wonders among all people.

4 For the Lord is great, and exceedingly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.

5 For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

6 Praise and beauty are before him: holiness and majesty in his sanctuary.

7 Bring ye to the Lord, O ye kindreds of the Gentiles, bring ye to the Lord glory and honour:

8 bring to the Lord glory unto his name. Bring up sacrifices, and come into his courts:

9 adore ye the Lord in his holy court. Let all the earth be moved at his presence.

10 Say ye among the Gentiles, the Lord hath reigned. For he hath corrected the world, which shall not be moved: he will judge the people with justice.

11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, let the sea be moved, and the fulness thereof:

12 the fields and all things that are in them shall be joyful. Then shall all the trees of the woods rejoice

13 before the face of the Lord, because he cometh: because he cometh to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with justice, and the people with his truth.

What is appropriate at the chief ceremony of a religion, a sacrifice to The God? Do the changes of the past 50 years convey the awe appropriate at such a rite, or not?

I don’t think so. I think it’s become far too casual and populist.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think it’s become far too casual and populist.

But is it the Church, or the Catholic?

 

[clem456]

It is That which moves the Seraphim, those nearest to God Himself, to sing only one word in His Presence: “Sanctus”. It is the state of Perfection.

Psalm 96 (Douay Rheims) would be a start, in the context of a Mass.

What is appropriate at the chief ceremony of a religion, a sacrifice to The God? Do the changes of the past 50 years convey the awe appropriate at such a rite, or not?

I don’t think so. I think it’s become far too casual and populist.

What I’m asking is, what is the essence of a person’s holiness? Is it observable by practices? Is it developed in a person by external forms and practices?

 

[TimothyH]

What I’m asking is, what is the essence of a person’s holiness? Is it observable by practices? Is it developed in a person by external forms and practices?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus corrected the Pharisees teaching that personal holiness was measured in frequency or piety in worship. Jesus taught that our holiness would be measured in how we treat each other.

To a Jew in the first century, worship was sacrifice, and it took place in one spot on earth, the Temple in Jerusalem. It was so important that Jewish males were commanded to go up to the temple three times each year and offer sacrifice. To a Jew at the time of Jesus, offering sacrifice at the temple was the most important thing he would do in his life.

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24)

In light of the importance of temple worship, Jesus’ words were radical, and caused no small controversy. If we have wronged anyone, we are to go make it right first, and only then were we to approach God and offer worship. Jesus was reordering priorities, teaching us that how you treat other people comes before worshipping God, and that our worship is not acceptable to God if we go around treating people like garbage. This is only one example from the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus’ teaching on the measure of personal holiness being how we treat other people.

King David, one thousand years prior, understood this intuitiively.

For you do not desire sacrifice or I would give it;
a burnt offering you would not accept.
My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit;
a contrite, humbled heart, O God, you will not scorn.
Then you will desire the sacrifices of the just,
burnt offering and whole offerings;
then they will offer up young bulls on your altar.
(Psalm 51:18-19,21)

David knew that his sin of an affair with a married woman and murder of her husband was a personal insult to God, and that God would not accept his worship until he was truly sorry for his sins, and until he made it right to the extent that he was able.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matthew 5:38-39)

That’s Jesus’ rabbinical teaching formula right there. Jesus quotes the Old Testament law about what it means to be holy (You have heard that it was said) and then gives the new law about how we are to treat each other (But I say to you).

The Law of Moses specified what righteous behavior was. If you obeyed the Law of Moses, you were righteous and holy, you were perfect. If you did not obey the Law of Moses, you were a sinner. It was that simple. Jesus corrects this thinking, and his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is given to us for this one purpose, to teach us that he will judge us not on how we worship or on how we obey commandments, but on how we love each other.

That’s what holiness is. It is loving your enemy. It is loving the person who wants to kill you. The Pope could change the rubrics tomorrow with the stroke of his pen. Holiness is not following the rubrics. Whether you kneel during the Angus Dei or not is not a measure of holiness. Holiness is treating other human beings with dignity, and respect, and loving each other more than we love ourselves. That’s what holineness is.

-Tim-