Laity raising right arm in blessing

[johnnykins]

ncjohn:

Ah and here is where the whole thing really rests! You’re fed up and you’re not going to take it any more. And you’re going to decide which things have “gone too far” when the Church, whose job it is to do so, has clearly not done so. And anyone who disagrees with where you draw the line is intellectually dishonest and “rejecting Rome”.

I’m going to call 'em as I see it. If you can’t or won’t see what has been foisted on the Church by those who believe as you seem to, so be it. Oddly, the folks who think like you have simply ignored Rome, ignored the rubrics and made disingenuous arguments to continue as they want. That’s the fact of the last 40 years.

You can make all the charges you want against me of “intellectual dishonesty” and make all the implications you want that I’m impious, lack devotion, want to hijack and tear apart the Church, and all the other “thank you for not making me like those other siners” statements you want.

QED You throw out that quote as some sort of talisman. But, perhaps it applies to you? You have the ability to think separately and impose motions and acts as you see fit. You are not bound by dear old Hidebound Roman limitations. No my friend - check the “beam in your eye.”

I will let my devotion to the Church, my piety, my adherence to the gospel, and my love of my fellow man speak for themselves. If you really feel you’re in a position to start proclaiming yourself a “better Catholic” than me–or anyone else for that matter–you might want to go spend some time with the Catechism and chatting with your priest or spiritual director.

I’ve never claimed to be a “better Catholic.” You have decided I said that but I haven’t. I have pointed out problems with your reasoning, etc. I’m glad to see that what you determine as “my” is all that matters. Perhaps you need to learn what the Church teaches.

As to intellectual dishonesty, if you want to quote chapter and verse to me to tell me something can’t be done and then claim I’m being dishonest for bringing up that what YOU want to do can’t be done according to the same documents because the documents just don’t address the subject, then so be it.

I never said I wanted hands folded - you did. Reread the posts. I said I wanted the Wave and hooah cheers. I guess you think they’re OK. I, of course, was sarcastic, but…

Believe it or not, there are people out here who are committed and devoted, intellectually honest and knowledgeable of scripture and theology who just don’t agree with you. I can respect your opinions–as opinions–without having to agree with them. And I can do it without having to be disrespectful of you or judge your motivations or devotion.

Well, I sure haven’t met them in the last 40 years, but I guess they are there. The ones I have met tend to be the most arrogant and selfrighteous folks I’ve ever met.

I’m not going to take this any further off-thread. I really don’t care about this particular subject one way or another, but I definitely do care about the Church being torn apart by people on either side thinking that criticizing each other’s prayerful positions–or how we receive communion, or whether or not women wear head covering–is an “ok” thing to be doing. It is “looking at the bowl without looking at the contents” in the worst possible way, and the guy I follow in my religion had an awful lot to say about that stuff.

'guy"? Makes wonder what you believe about Jesus. But, I won’t be shocked no matter what it is.

Peace,

Back at ya

 

[Elzee]

frommi:

Rome exists as a unifying center of the church…not as a place where all authority and power flow.

Well, that would be an interesting thread-starter…

 

[ncjohn]

johnnykins:

I’m going to call 'em as I see it. If you can’t or won’t see what has been foisted on the Church by those who believe as you seem to, so be it. Oddly, the folks who think like you have simply ignored Rome, ignored the rubrics and made disingenuous arguments to continue as they want.

I’m going to just ignore all the personal attacks–especially whatever your implication was about my belief in Jesus–and the obvious anger and concentrate on this one point.

What is it that has been “foisted on the Church” that you are accusing me of believing in and has been shown to be improper rather than just being your opinion of how things should be done. Who are the folks who *think like me * and what do they believe since I don’t think you have any basis to have any idea what I believe beyond my belief that we need to stop tearing the Church apart over non-issues. I fear that the people you might be trying to associate me with will quickly disown me based on my actual beliefs on things.

What have I ignored Rome on, and where did Rome say what I ignored? This might actually have to go to another thread since it sounds like we might be dealing with a whole laundry list of issues for which there is all kinds of evidence and opinion to support positions but which are totally unrelated to the issue at hand. Or you might want to look through previous posts of mine since I’ve spent a good deal of time citing specific evidence and documents on things and it might save a lot of time.

 

[Marauder]

ncjohn:

What goes on during the scrutinies is not referenced by any of the documents you mention to the best of my knowledge.

The rubrics do contain instruction on what is supposed to happen during a Baptism that happens at a Mass. They especially go into detail when Baptism occurs at the Easter Vigil.

Also as I said before, none of the documents you cite have any specifications for hand positions anyway. As such is it ok for me to start a thread complaining because people are folding their hands when their is nothing telling them to do so?

There is no prescribed hand positions in the rubrics for anyone other then the priest. To tell people to have a particular hand position is going against the rubrics.

If the priest says “everyone raise your hands to give a blessing to the new infant” that is adding words to the Rite and to the Mass. If the priest says “everyone join hands for the Our Father” that is adding words to the Mass. The rubrics say when and if there are optional things that can be added or subtracted to do otherwise if violating the rubrics. Just like it doesn’t say the priest can’t wear clown makeup during Mass, it is pretty clear that if he decided to it would be not allowed.

Adding things to the Mass that are not in documents approved by the Vatican is pretty clearly against cannon law.

 

[ncjohn]

Marauder:

There is no prescribed hand positions in the rubrics for anyone other then the priest. To tell people to have a particular hand position is going against the rubrics.

If the priest says “everyone raise your hands to give a blessing to the new infant” that is adding words to the Rite and to the Mass. If the priest says “everyone join hands for the Our Father” that is adding words to the Mass. The rubrics say when and if there are optional things that can be added or subtracted to do otherwise if violating the rubrics. Just like it doesn’t say the priest can’t wear clown makeup during Mass, it is pretty clear that if he decided to it would be not allowed.

Adding things to the Mass that are not in documents approved by the Vatican is pretty clearly against cannon law.

I think we’re in agreement here that priests should not be prescribing positions, as long as you’re not construing this to mean that people can’t decide to hold hands or raise their hand in prayer or blessing on their own.

 

[johnnykins]

ncjohn:

I’m going to just ignore all the personal attacks–especially whatever your implication was about my belief in Jesus–and the obvious anger and concentrate on this one point.

What is it that has been “foisted on the Church” that you are accusing me of believing in and has been shown to be improper rather than just being your opinion of how things should be done. Who are the folks who *think like me * and what do they believe since I don’t think you have any basis to have any idea what I believe beyond my belief that we need to stop tearing the Church apart over non-issues. I fear that the people you might be trying to associate me with will quickly disown me based on my actual beliefs on things.

What have I ignored Rome on, and where did Rome say what I ignored? This might actually have to go to another thread since it sounds like we might be dealing with a whole laundry list of issues for which there is all kinds of evidence and opinion to support positions but which are totally unrelated to the issue at hand. Or you might want to look through previous posts of mine since I’ve spent a good deal of time citing specific evidence and documents on things and it might save a lot of time.

Oddly, I’m not angry at all. Intent on opposing what I see as attempts to validate abuses - yes.

You said:
“I don’t think you have any basis to have any idea what I believe beyond my belief that we need to stop tearing the Church apart over non-issues.” Non-issue?? That is it in a nutshell. These are issues. They are significant issues. That’s what all the clamor is about. That you can’t see that these are issues is, if not obtuseness, at least is a a sort of blind spot. Look at all the threads just in these forums (fora?) on these issues. I guess “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

 

[ncjohn]

johnnykins:

Oddly, I’m not angry at all. Intent on opposing what I see as attempts to validate abuses - yes.

You said:
“I don’t think you have any basis to have any idea what I believe beyond my belief that we need to stop tearing the Church apart over non-issues.” Non-issue?? That is it in a nutshell. These are issues. They are significant issues. That’s what all the clamor is about. That you can’t see that these are issues is, if not obtuseness, at least is a a sort of blind spot. Look at all the threads just in these forums (fora?) on these issues. I guess “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

And again with the personal attacks.

Yes, I’m very familiar with them as I’ve been on a ton of them so no I’m not at all blind. Hand posture in my book is a non-issue. The prohibitions that people keep trying to find are not in any document anywhere from Rome that has been presented. If you really think hand postures are significant issues, much less abuses–beyond priests initiating them, which I agree should not be happening, or people trying to force them on others who don’t want to participate–then I’ll leave you to stew about them.

It is not through ignorance, as you want to imply, that I find them to be non-issues, but exactly the opposite having spent great amounts of time studying documents and listening to arguments from every which way.

And by the way since it’s relevant here, from your statement in a previous post

johnnykins:

I never said I wanted hands folded - you did. Reread the posts. I said I wanted the Wave and hooah cheers.

I never said you wanted hands folded. All I did was reference “…what YOU want to do…” What you want to do with your hands is irrelevant as whatever it is the GIRM does not address it. That was the whole point. And before you throw the wave back out again, something that is obviously not a posture of prayer that was attempted by an entrire congregation would be promptly dealt with. Trying to compare non-prayerful postures done by an individual to prayer postures of longstanding and widespread use just won’t wash.

That being said I will again state that priests, or even bishops, should not be initiating these things as the USCCB is clear that “there is no prescribed position for the hands during the Our Father”. I will go further to say that if it becomes a *de facto * act within a parish to a point where people are feeling pressured into joining in that the priest should remind the congregation to act in charity and not impose their preferences on anyone else.

If there is an issue to be had in all of this, I would say that it is strictly the issue of people trying to force their preferences on someone else when there is no clear dictate on something. If people are acting uncharitably and causing people to feel uncomfortable and pressured, as in the case of this thread, I agree that there is an issue. Beyond that, I just don’t buy into the idea that people can’t, or shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves in prayerful ways.

Peace,

 

[mikew262]

I don’t like it. To me it’s a priestly jesture and it should stay with the priest. Same goes with holding your hands up during the Our Father. To me, it’s almost like the person is showing off. It also looks too Evangelical.

 

[Walking_Home]

AWall:

Hi there! I’ve searched for an answer for this but haven’t found one so my apologies if this has been asked before. During the Rite of Scrutinies at Mass is it ok for the laity to be extending their right arm in blessing over the elect with the Priest? I’m a little uncomfortable doing it (moreso for personal reasons) but my husband is uncomfortable because he said he feels like it’s a priestly gesture.

We’re not trying to be nit-picky, we want to make sure it’s okay…if it is, great.

Thank you for the help.

Andrea

---

Ms. Andrea,

From this and other of your threads, it seems that you are in a Neocatechumenal influenced parish. They may or may not be specifically in your church, but close enough to where those that follow this movement are slowly intoducing their belief in the priesthood of all believers (royal priesthood) over the ministerial priesthood. They do this by getting the people accustomed to using gestures specific to the priest.

 

[johnnykins]

ncjohn:

And again with the personal attacks.

Yes, I’m very familiar with them as I’ve been on a ton of them so no I’m not at all blind. Hand posture in my book is a non-issue. The prohibitions that people keep trying to find are not in any document anywhere from Rome that has been presented. If you really think hand postures are significant issues, much less abuses–beyond priests initiating them, which I agree should not be happening, or people trying to force them on others who don’t want to participate–then I’ll leave you to stew about them.

So you really believe these things have just grown organically so that entire congregations do them. Sorry, I just cannot believe anyone would make such an argument. Of course priests and nuns and liturgical committees have been telling folks to this stuff for years! To suggest it is an individual piety defies belief

It is not through ignorance, as you want to imply, that I find them to be non-issues, but exactly the opposite having spent great amounts of time studying documents and listening to arguments from every which way.

If I implied ignorance I apologize. I actually believe you knowingly are in favor of these things - though that is strictly an opinion from what I have seen here. I may well be wrong - though I don’t think so.

And by the way since it’s relevant here, from your statement in a previous postI never said you wanted hands folded. All I did was reference “…what YOU want to do…” What you want to do with your hands is irrelevant as whatever it is the GIRM does not address it. That was the whole point.

see your post from 10:57 BTW I never referenced any document.

And before you throw the wave back out again, something that is obviously not a posture of prayer that was attempted by an entrire congregation would be promptly dealt with. Trying to compare non-prayerful postures done by an individual to prayer postures of longstanding and widespread use just won’t wash.

And dance has been a a posture of prayer in the Catholic Church? Holding hands too? When was holding hands a liturgical gesture??? Sorry - you protest too much.

That being said I will again state that priests, or even bishops, should not be initiating these things as the USCCB is clear that “there is no prescribed position for the hands during the Our Father”. I will go further to say that if it becomes a *de facto * act within a parish to a point where people are feeling pressured into joining in that the priest should remind the congregation to act in charity and not impose their preferences on anyone else.

We agree here - now if only it happens - no hand holding soon because it was never a liturgical gesture - unless of course you’re willing to admit the potential sacral meaning of the Wave?

If there is an issue to be had in all of this, I would say that it is strictly the issue of people trying to force their preferences on someone else when there is no clear dictate on something. If people are acting uncharitably and causing people to feel uncomfortable and pressured, as in the case of this thread, I agree that there is an issue. Beyond that, I just don’t buy into the idea that people can’t, or shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves in prayerful ways.

Peace,

btw would aboriginal prayerful ways by non-aborigines be OK? Use of Peyote? Ganja? Liturgical prostitutes? They are all methods used somewhere at some time by people to “express themselves in prayerful ways.” Or do you now want to rethink your position.

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins:

btw would aboriginal prayerful ways by non-aborigines be OK? Use of Peyote? Ganja? Liturgical prostitutes? They are all methods used somewhere at some time by people to “express themselves in prayerful ways.” Or do you now want to rethink your position.

Just in case you think I’m being a bit much with these examples - How many folks have seen a “smoke/smudge” service?
How about milk and honey?
Snake handling? (OK here come the “it’s used in the mountains…”)
Tongues? (ditto)
hand raised all the way up? (ditto)
dance?
gymnastics?
Apple or strawberry wine?
bare breasted women?
wheat and honey?
rice cakes?
peanut butter cookies?
yelling?
moaning?

Are any of these Catholic - to the extent they are liturgical in any sense?

 

[jimmy]

frommi:

You won’t find a prohibition on it either.

I don’t think you will find a prohibition on many things that would be considered inappropriate. Just because it is not prohibited does not make it acceptable.

 

[ncjohn]

johnnykins:

So you really believe these things have just grown organically so that entire congregations do them. Sorry, I just cannot believe anyone would make such an argument. Of course priests and nuns and liturgical committees have been telling folks to this stuff for years! To suggest it is an individual piety defies belief

How or why they’ve grown isn’t really relevant after 40 years. The fact that they have been around for 40 years without objection from the Church is relevant. The fact that the USCCB specifically declines to have a problem with them when specifically asked is relevant. The fact that Redemptionis Sacramentum, written to deal with abuses, specifically doesn’t address it is relevant. The only documents that deal with the issue, unless someone has some stashed that I haven’t seen, specifically do not find a problem.

I agree as I have said that it should not be “prescribed” by anyone (including liturgical committees since you brought them up) as nothing is supposed to be prescribed per the USCCB. But the flip side of that is that to forbid it when the Church has not is also to prescribe when nothing is to be prescribed.

If I implied ignorance I apologize. I actually believe you knowingly are in favor of these things - though that is strictly an opinion from what I have seen here. I may well be wrong - though I don’t think so.

Within the bounds of these couple longstanding established practices, I am in favor of allowing the individuals the right to choose between them unless and until the Church shows a preference or expresses a prohibition

see your post from 10:57 BTW I never referenced any document.

Not sure exactly which post you’re referencing since I had none at 10:57. My response to your statement however, which is what I quoted was

ncjohn:

As to intellectual dishonesty, if you want to quote chapter and verse to me to tell me something can’t be done and then claim I’m being dishonest for bringing up that what YOU want to do can’t be done according to the same documents because the documents just don’t address the subject, then so be it.

I stand by the statement. I did not say what you prefer to do, only referenced that the documents do not give any posture for the hands so whatever posture you prefer cannot be justified from the documents.

And dance has been a a posture of prayer in the Catholic Church? Holding hands too? When was holding hands a liturgical gesture??? Sorry - you protest too much.

Not sure where dance came in here as I have indicated nothing here about dance nor do I support it. As to holding hands, as noted above, it has been around for 40 years or so now and is established. Traditions can be valid without having to be thousands of years old.

btw would aboriginal prayerful ways by non-aborigines be OK? Use of Peyote? Ganja? Liturgical prostitutes? They are all methods used somewhere at some time by people to “express themselves in prayerful ways.” Or do you now want to rethink your position.

Again, I am only addressing the couple established practices that have been around for significant amounts of time without any objection from the Vatican. They are widespread and accepted Catholic practices, and no I don’t need to rethink my position. I’m not advocating any new positions and I believe that any of the straw men that get sent up there, would be shot down immediately.

Whether holding hands or Orans *should have been * allowed is open to debate and I’ve heard good arguments from both sides–and have supported both sides at different times in my journey. If they were to be initiated today, knowing what we know about how things tend to spread and how the envelope gets pushed, I tend to think they would disappear as fast as a clown mass, at least in most places. I think the balance toward more care in what gets incorporated into the liturgy is returning, obviously more quickly in some places in others. But the fact is that those two exist and people have adopted them in a faithful spirit that has stood some test of time, most or all of a lifetime for most of us. If they disappeared tomorrow many would be overjoyed, many crushed, and probably the great majority wouldn’t care one way or another.

I don’t personally care whether people hold hands, use Orans, fold their hands in front of them, or just hold on to the pew in front of them. I do care if people start feeling superior that their way is the best or only way or try to force their way on others, just as I have problems when people start getting critical about how people receive communion and these other personal expressions of piety and devotion.

Since we’ve gone badly off thread at this point, and I can’t really think of anything else to say on the original subject, I’m going to do my best to make this my last post here so as not to belabor this any further.

Peace,

 

[johnnykins]

ncjohn:

How or why they’ve grown isn’t really relevant after 40 years. The fact that they have been around for 40 years without objection from the Church is relevant. The fact that the USCCB specifically declines to have a problem with them when specifically asked is relevant. The fact that Redemptionis Sacramentum, written to deal with abuses, specifically doesn’t address it is relevant. The only documents that deal with the issue, unless someone has some stashed that I haven’t seen, specifically do not find a problem.

Really? Or don’t address it at all? Not exactly the same thing. Further, if Rome got into adrressing every crazy posture or action it would never cease to be inundated. Again, you are off base.

I agree as I have said that it should not be “prescribed” by anyone (including liturgical committees since you brought them up) as nothing is supposed to be prescribed per the USCCB. But the flip side of that is that to forbid it when the Church has not is also to prescribe when nothing is to be prescribed.Within the bounds of these couple longstanding established practices, I am in favor of allowing the individuals the right to choose between them unless and until the Church shows a preference or expresses a prohibition.

No doubt

Not sure exactly which post you’re referencing since I had none at 10:57. My response to your statement however, which is what I quoted was I stand by the statement. I did not say what you prefer to do, only referenced that the documents do not give any posture for the hands so whatever posture you prefer cannot be justified from the documents.

HMMMM and contrariwise cannot be gainsaid - All for Jazz Hands to express the Joy of the Our Father - say “aye” Sophistry won’t work either.

Not sure where dance came in here as I have indicated nothing here about dance nor do I support it.

I’ve thrown it in a couple times - lest we forget

As to holding hands, as noted above, it has been around for 40 years or so now and is established. Traditions can be valid without having to be thousands of years old.

How about 10 years? 3 Weeks? One good Wave at your local parrish - erh Faith Community. Hello - the troops are complaining!! and 40 years makes not a Tradition.
More to come

 

[johnnykins]

Again, I am only addressing the couple established practices that have been around for significant amounts of time without any objection from the Vatican.

See above note on Vatican not saying no to every invention

They are widespread and accepted Catholic practices, and no I don’t need to rethink my position. I’m not advocating any new positions and I believe that any of the straw men that get sent up there, would be shot down immediately.

So those that were, by your own admission, improperly foisted (my words not yours) upon the faithful should be allowed to stay? We disagree.

Whether holding hands or Orans *should have been * allowed is open to debate and I’ve heard good arguments from both sides–and have supported both sides at different times in my journey.

yes those arguments are everywhere. they are as pernicious today as they were when first made.

If they were to be initiated today, knowing what we know about how things tend to spread and how the envelope gets pushed, I tend to think they would disappear as fast as a clown mass, at least in most places.

Brecause folks are pushing back now - and no other reason that I can see from history

I think the balance toward more care in what gets incorporated into the liturgy is returning, obviously more quickly in some places in others. But the fact is that those two exist and people have adopted them in a faithful spirit that has stood some test of time, most or all of a lifetime for most of us. If they disappeared tomorrow many would be overjoyed, many crushed, and probably the great majority wouldn’t care one way or another.

Test of time - Hello - look at these threads. Look at this thread!

I don’t personally care whether people hold hands, use Orans, fold their hands in front of them, or just hold on to the pew in front of them. I do care if people start feeling superior that their way is the best or only way or try to force their way on others, just as I have problems when people start getting critical about how people receive communion and these other personal expressions of piety and devotion.

Gee, that’s what’s happened with the hand holding. “Superior” and “best” That’s exactly what I’m fighting here - the attitude that, as you agree, improperly insinuated those actions in the Mass. Glad we agree.

Since we’ve gone badly off thread at this point, and I can’t really think of anything else to say on the original subject, I’m going to do my best to make this my last post here so as not to belabor this any further.

Peace,

Ditto

 

[A2SciTeach]

Andrea,
If you are going to a church where you are being asked to raise your hand to bless people, join hands to pray the Our Father, or takes the Holy Water away during Lent (not counting after Holy Thursday until Easter) or employs other actions that make you question if the actions are acceptable, you are correct to question them. You won’t have much luck getting those actions corrected in your parish, unfortunately. So, you may as well learn to live with it or find a more traditional parish with a priest who is willing and eager to follow his bishop and Rome.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ncjohn:

But the point is that they are not part of the Mass and are not governed by rubrics for the Mass just as a baptism isn’t and an ordination isn’t.

True, they’re not governed by the rubrics of the Mass - they’re governed by the rubrics of their respective rites! They ARE liturgies, and whatever liturgical sensibilities should be applied during the Mass need to be respected during these liturgies as well.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ncjohn:

If you really think hand postures are significant issues, much less abuses–beyond priests initiating them, which I agree should not be happening, or people trying to force them on others who don’t want to participate–then I’ll leave you to stew about them.

Hand postures CAN in fact be significant, because the liturgy is so infused with symbolic meanings that even our posture and gestures contain messages. Messing with these postures and/or gestures can obscure truths of the faith. In the case of blessings, a priest has a power to bless that is not possessed by a layman. A priest can “command” a blessing - actually bless, whereas a layman can only pray that God might bless a person. For the laity to imitate the priest’s posture while he is blessing blurs that distinction. The orans position is also one that has become a specifically priestly posture and demonstrates when he is praying on behalf of the community.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ncjohn:

I agree as I have said that it should not be “prescribed” by anyone (including liturgical committees since you brought them up) as nothing is supposed to be prescribed per the USCCB. But the flip side of that is that to forbid it when the Church has not is also to prescribe when nothing is to be prescribed.Within the bounds of these couple longstanding established practices, I am in favor of allowing the individuals the right to choose between them unless and until the Church shows a preference or expresses a prohibition

The “it’s not forbidden” argument does carry some weight. But only a complete idiot would make it an absolute law that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is thus permitted; this extreme position would allow defecating on the altar, baring one’s bottom and slapping it loudly during the Sanctus, or hoisting up your buddies to do some crowd surfing.

So obviously, there needs to be some sort of guiding principle in discerning whether something not specifically prohibited should nonetheless be kept out of the liturgy. Standard norms of propriety are a good start, and these rule out all the extreme possibilities above. Another guidepost could then be traditional norms of what is proper to sacred versus profane events, or traditionally understood modes of reverence and acknowledging sacred things, times, places, and actions. In my opinion, anyone who knows squat about the liturgy would also insist that actions undertaken during the liturgy conform to the meanings embedded in the rubrics - a principle violated when the laity raise their hands in blessing or in the orans position.

 

[m134e5]

ncjohn:

I just don’t buy into the idea that people can’t, or shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves in prayerful ways.

They can express themselves in any prayerful way they want- when they’re alone. At Mass, there should be uniformity of gestures. Nazi salutes aren’t one of the ones called for in the Mass. Do people realize the impression that gives?