Hmmm, Good question. So far, I haven’t introduced anything inot the Mass on my personal initiative. Let me think about it and maybe I might come up with something.
I must disagree. We should have unity. Take a stop sign as an example. When we each encounter it do we each decide how we will act? One will go through it, one may stop, one may run it over. Is that unity? Nope, true unity is when we each obey it and stop.
This is the issue. The Church does not make a pronouncement on every single issue. We should not need an edict issued for every single aspect of the mass. That is why many have said we do not have the authority to add anything by our own initiative. It may not be a great abuse, but taken in context of all that has gone on these past few decades it stands as one more example of rebellion to many folks.
I do not automatically think one is less Catholic because they participate in hand holding. I am simple pointing out that many think it is not proper and giving reasons for that.
Tolerance? You mean like minimizing what we ought to do?
The statement made was this…
By your definition then Martin Luther, Calvin, Wycliff and Huss were merely seekers of truth. How could they be otherwise. They saw something they did not agree with, their consciences told them so, and they saw TRUTH somewhere else. Obviously by your reasoning God spoke to them through their conscience. So there cannot possibly any problems at all with picking and choosing what suits you personally. For some reason that just doesn’t sound right to me. Sorry, maybe I’m just not enlightened enough.
Ok, one last try.
You continue to insist on calling this an abuse. If we even set aside that the GIRM does not address it, RS just came out specifically addressing liturgical abuses of all manners, and specifically did NOT address this. Given that this practice is longstanding, widespread, and widely known, there is no way that RS would not have addressed it if it was considered an abuse. As such, please cease with this claim unless you have been appointed to some position superceding the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy or can cite some document from the Church that defines it as an abuse. You have every right not to like it; you don’t have the right to paint others as abusing something or being “rebels.”
It’s not my definition. It comes straight from the catechism. If you don’t approve, maybe you should address it with them.
May 23, 2004, 04:50 PM
).
Since hand holding during the Our Father is an expression of unity to many people, and since barbecueing is preparing food for a meal, I fail to see why you would bring that up. There is simply no logical connection between the two issues.
We have had perpetual Adoration for something like 8 to 10 years. We have just finished building the first Catholic grade school in the Archdiocese in 40 years, and completed the first year of school; attendance for next year is up beyond the first year. We have had 2 or three women who have joined orders which are growing; have two priests who have been ordained and one seminarian in Rome, a recently ordained deacon and another in formation. Our priest is a Jesuit, in his early 70’s. when the new GIRM was released we instituted it right away.
Actually, I have done some research. The bishops are all over the board.
I am not sure what to make of your statement. I was replying to someone who posted that hand holding seemed to them to be relatively new, about a dozen years long.
Again, I have no bone to pick with the bishop. Nor have I picked one in any of my posts, so I am not sure why you bring it up.
However, you are ignoring the fact that those who don’t like this have been raising a hew and cry for almost as long as it has gone on; and more specifically, from before the release of the GIRM two issues ago. For as much heat and angst as has been generated about the issue, I sincerely doubt there is a bishop alive, or any who have died in the last thirty years, who has not gotten an earfull about the issue. Both Rome and the bishops have pointedly not domne anything in the two editions of the GIRM that have been promulgated in that time. When a specific issue, widely known and recognized, which is capable of being legislated against specifically is not addressed, one cannot legitimately say that the failure to address it positively means that it is not allowed.
If you want to have any reasonable chance of impact on the issue, then you need to focus on the proper reasons for trying to change it. Those need to come from a deep understanding of what liturgy is about (way more than the rules) and why. It isn’t going to get changed because some people “feel uncomfortable”. That can be dealt with by the fact that it is not a legilated posture, such as standing to receive Communion is. It isn’t going to be changed because some are of the opinion that it is an abuse because it is not legislated; the legislative history shoots holes in that theory too. Ad it isn’t going to be legislated against becaus some think it is “Protestantizing” the Church, or that we didn’t do it at some point in our history or for some lenght of time in our history. Those simply don’t carry any weight in liturgical decisions.
No. Those are not postive laws requiring certain defined behavior, they are negative laws prohibiting certain behavior.
Then why would you state this…
Not on the handholding issue, look again. Even Pilla in Cleveland is discouraging handholding by encouraging Orans. More importantly, one should listen to one’s own Bishop for guidance.
By making blanket statements that this innovation is allowed, without stating that each Bishop rules on it, you are inviting disobedience. I refer to it because people need to do their own reseach as to what is allowed in their diocese.
You make my point for me. That some choose to make themselves the authority by disobeying the stop sign is the opposite of unity.Ok, one last try.
Yes we should have unity, but once one gets outside of dogma and doctrine, there is not even unity in beliefs between individuals within the hierarchy, much less outside of it. Your example isn’t even good as people make decisions all the time to “roll through” or ignore stop signs. Authentic Unity would certainly not be confined to just one topic though, even if you could get it there. Authentic Unity can only be unanimous consent to the mind of God, which will not occur on this earth before the second coming.
Rome has not addressd juggling during the mass by your logic it would not be an abuse.
Because it is a novelty introduced by a few without authority.
Fact or opinion?
There are many isues that have not been addressed that does not mean they are licit.
How do you know the intention of those who introduced it or those who continue to practice it?
Or, some lack the courage to fight the libs.
The point of this discussion is that obeying the mind of the Church is not legalism. Obeying the rule that we ought not add to the mass is not legalism.
With all due respect, the examples and arguments (as in a previous one suggesting the same argument about Bar-b-queing in the choir loft) get more and more ludicrous. Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting any such thing, nor would they be beneficial in bringing one closer to God as many of us find handholding to be.
Well, no one had addressed Liturgical Dance for the longest time. It went on in my last parish. Who says that the next innovation will not be juggling or BBQs.