Orans vs. Handholding

[ncjohn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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.
If one takes the attitude that if it is not addressed, it’s fine, then it’s an anything goes liturgy.

First off, Liturgical Dance has been specifically addressed, which both proves the point that these things get addressed if they are considered a problem and that there was specifically not any concensus that holding hands is a problem or it would have been addressed too. It may take a little time some times but if something is actually considered an issue, it gets addressed. That is exactly why this is NOT an issue. It has been around for a LONG time and the Church has specifically chosen not to address it.

And nobody here that I know if is looking for an “anything goes” liturgy. If somebody tries to introduce juggling, I guarantee it will be addressed and quickly. The problem is trying to compare something that hurts no one and has been around and NOT banned for many years to creating some new ridiculous practice that has not occured and would not be allowed to continue if it did.

Peace,
John

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

First off, Liturgical Dance has been specifically addressed, which both proves the point that these things get addressed if they are considered a problem and that there was specifically not any concensus that holding hands is a problem or it would have been addressed too. It may take a little time some times but if something is actually considered an issue, it gets addressed. That is exactly why this is NOT an issue. It has been around for a LONG time and the Church has specifically chosen not to address it.

And nobody here that I know if is looking for an “anything goes” liturgy. If somebody tries to introduce juggling, I guarantee it will be addressed and quickly. The problem is trying to compare something that hurts no one and has been around and NOT banned for many years to creating some new ridiculous practice that has not occured and would not be allowed to continue if it did.

It is your opinion that it hurts no one. I watched Seniors in physical pain when doing this. It is being discouraged for just that reason. I assume you don’t have arthritis in your shoulders or hands. Maybe if you did, you would understand.
This is something that you should look at. The same people who are in physical pain doing this innovation are the same people who went through Vatican II. They do things because they see everyone else doing them and do not want to look out of place. Some of these wonderful people have no other contact with people but in the church. Going along is what they do. My heart goes out to them.

It has been addressed. It continues to be addressed. Some people just want to overlook it.

 

[netmilsmom]

Here is another to help with the discussion…From the Oklahoma City Diocese website.
ear Father Tharp,
Can you give an explanation of why holding hands at the Our Father is incorrect?
Thank you,
Theresa Hurt, OKC Before we consider whether a particular gesture is appropriate to the Sacred Liturgy, we need to consider the nature of liturgical action. Put briefly, the liturgy is a holy exchange. Christ, in the Incarnation, takes to Himself a human nature. Through this human nature, He gives to Man what he does not possess himself, namely union with God and forgiveness of sin. Therefore, it becomes Man’s obligation to return to God, in thanksgiving, all of the good things God bestows on him. In the Sacramental Liturgy, we represent this through both visible signs (e.g. bread and wine) and ritual gestures. We receive these signs and gestures through the Tradition (cf. GIRM 2000 #42). The Magisterium of the Church is responsible for implementing a set form for these signs and gestures. Hence, our first criterion for determining the lawfulness of a particular gesture rests upon whether that gesture has received approval for use.

The ritual gestures of the Sacred Liturgy are a second language, spoken with the words of the Body. Hence, these ritual gestures must speak in concord with the Faith of the Church. If a gesture during the liturgy either obscures or detracts from the content of Faith, then it must not be done. Additionally, ritual gestures allow the congregation to express their unity, not just as a particular body gathered in one place, but also as members of the one Church throughout the world (GIRM 2000 #42ff.). So, our second criterion for determining the lawfulness of a particular gesture rests upon how that gesture correctly communicates the truth of the Faith.

Now, we can think through your question. Let’s take our first criterion. Is permission given in the relevant liturgical documents for the holding of hands by the congregation? For this, we look toward two documents: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2000) and a recent instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004). Consulting the General Instruction, we find no directive to hold hands at the time of the Our Father (cf. GIRM #36, 42, 81). As for the priest, he is directed to hold his hands extended during the Our Father as a sign of his unifying and leading the Church in prayer (GIRM 2000 #151, 237). Turning to Redemptionis Sacram-entum, no mention is given to this gesture. However, we find this comment: “The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy” (RS #59). In a parallel sense, this could apply to ritual gestures given they function to communicate authentically the content of the Faith.

If you inquire about this practice of holding hands during the Our Father, the answer you generally receive is “It makes us feel like we have real fellowship or community.” Here’s where the distortion lies. The Our Father is not the source of our unity as the Church. It is the Holy Sacraments, particularly Baptism and Holy Communion, that makes the Body one. In Baptism the wounds of original sin are healed and the individual is grafted into the Body of Christ. In Holy Communion, this union is perfected. St. Augustine puts it as “The Church makes the Eucharist, and the Eucharist makes the Church.” The Sacraments create unity not just in the particular place they are celebrated but throughout the entire body of Christ, reaching across time and space. Furthermore, as a celebrant, I find the holding of hands a bit odd as a visual symbol. While it is supposed to be a moment of closeness, I notice what happens is that the ranks close and everyone is on their row and disconnected from others surrounding them. This in turn detracts from the reality that worthy reception of Holy Communion is what strengthens the bond of Communion in the Church-and not just holding hands. Granted, holding hands during the Our Father is not the worst of all liturgical abuses. At the same time, though, we are obliged to remain obedient to norms for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. The Mass is the worship of God and not an opportunity to make someone feel good. If someone finds emotional solace in the Mass, that is icing on the cake. The first question is “What have I come to offer to God?” If anything, the Mass should call us to seek out those who are lonely and give them more than just a little hand holding.

 

[netmilsmom]

This is from the Diocese of Cleveland website…
The one gesture that is probably not appropriate is “holding hands.” It should be noted that when any group of believers gathers for prayer and all join hands, assuming this posture during the Lord’s Prayer is fine. However, when the Lord’s Prayer is prayed at Mass, such an action may not be as appropriate. Given that thesource of our unity is the Body and Blood of the Lord; given that we express our forgiving love of one another in the Sign of Peace, the gesture of holding hands may be redundant. As good and appropriate as this gesture may be outside Mass for stressing our unity and hospitality, such a gesture during Massdoes not seem to express the totality of the Lord’s Prayer in preparation for Holy Communion, the Prayer directed to God in surrender and petition of our daily bread.

 

[otm]

fix:

Because it is a novelty introduced by a few without authority.

About 40 years ago it was introduced. It is not now a novelty, but rather so widespread as to border on ubiquitous.

fix:

Fact or opinion?

Fact. That is how law is interpreted: when the law is silent on an issue and there is clear history that the issue was widely known and no move was made to change the situation, then it is clear that the silence is not restrictive to that issue.

fix:

There are many isues that have not been addressed that does not mean they are licit.

Which shows nothing as to the specific situation. In most instances, something is positively stated: “This is what you do now”, which gets to the licitness of the other action. In this circumstance, changes have been porposed for more than thirty years, and specifically not adopted.

fix:

How do you know the intention of those who introduced it or those who continue to practice it?

By observation, talking with people, the way most people determine motivation behind an action. Let’s not play reductio ad absurdem. Most people in the pews don’t have a clue where this started or why, and are not doing anything to be obstinate or rebellious. Many of them weren’t even born when this started; it is the only thing they know.

Life is not a black or white analysis; in other words, you cannot divide people into one of two camps - liberal or conservative. Most people are simply poorly catechised and doing the best they can with what little they have. There is no validity in simply painting someone one disagrees with as “in the other camp” without a lot more inquiry of that other person.

There really aren’t a lot of flaming liberals out there; a whole lot of people don’t even have any particular opinion. most of the people who have truly been in rebellion aren’t even at Mass.

fix:

Or, some lack the courage to fight the libs.

That is one way to look at it. However, I like to reflect on what Archbishop Chaput said, and what he said “between the lines”.

“Between the lines” he told those who want to hold hands that it wasn’t mandated, and they had a duty in charity to allow the person next to them to not hold hands.

And “between the lines” he told those who don’t want to hold hands that it was a non-issue; they were welcome to not hold hands, but it wasn’t a forbidden act. As in, it was not a liberal conspiracy to Protestantize the Mass, or rebel against legislated posture, or forbidden in any way. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to not hold hands, but as to the fussing about it, get over it.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Then why would you state this…
“however, the insistence by the vocal objectors that this is an “abuse” or a “violation of the rubrics” is beyond tiresome. If they want to practice Canon Law, they need to get a degree.”

You have a minor hobby, the credentials above are from my uncle, the Bishop Emeritus of Steubenville. When I speak to him, who worked on the documents, I think he is a little closer to understanding them than you.

that is very nice that your uncle is a bishop, but his degrees do not make him a Canon lawyer or any other sort of lawyer. They may or may not make him a liturgist either, as most liturgists have degrees specifically in liturgy.

Either you didn’t read my post very carefully, or you didn’t get the gist of what I was saying. I was addressing the argument that has been wending through this thread and others, that either hand holding or the orans position is forbidden by law. The use of the orans position is relatively new, but the issue of holding hands is not forbidden by the GIRM, which is the controlling document for the rubrics. Your uncle has probably had all of a semester introductory course in Canon Law. Most bishops are not Canon lawyers; that is why they have a staff of Canon lawyers. I have a little more background than just a minor hobby of reading about Canon law. My comment about getting a degree in law - I said Canon Law, but a civil law degree would also suffice - is that most people don’t have the first clue of how laws are formed and interpreted. And that includes those who have had a semester introductory course.

None of that, and none of my statements have addressed the issue of any directives from the bishop of any diocese.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

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.

As I said, the bishops are all over the map on the issue.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

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.

I am not inviting disobedience, I am addressing a specifi issue.

The issue was not what a specific bishop said in a specific diocese, it was whether or not it was forbidden by the GIRM. Nothing in my posts suggested in any way that a directive from a bishop should not be obeyed. The only people who would take that from my posts are those who cannot read with any sense of discernment. If anyone were to read my posts, they would know that I strongly support following the bishop’s directive, but that is a different post.

And as a matter of fact, now that you mention that you have spoken to your uncle the bishop who worked on the documents, I have spoken with three bishops about the issue. the consensus was that it was 1) not forbidden; 2) not particularly good from a liturgical standpoint; and 3) so ingrained because of the many years it has occured that it probably wasn’t worth the effort to try and change it, all things being considered.

That some bishops are seeking to change it is fine with me; that some are not does not disturb me in the least. Holding hands doesn’t bother me. Not holding hands doesn’t bother me either.

I don’t think it makes for good, consistent liturgical action. But it doesn’t upset me, either.

It is a little bit like attending a symphony. Some people are really upset if someone else sneezes; for some really sensitive souls, it ruins the mood, and hnece, the music. Some people hear the sneeze, are slightly distracted, and then forrget about it. Some never hear the sneeze, as they are intensely involved in the music.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

that is very nice that your uncle is a bishop, but his degrees do not make him a Canon lawyer or any other sort of lawyer. They may or may not make him a liturgist either, as most liturgists have degrees specifically in liturgy.

Either you didn’t read my post very carefully, or you didn’t get the gist of what I was saying. I was addressing the argument that has been wending through this thread and others, that either hand holding or the orans position is forbidden by law. The use of the orans position is relatively new, but the issue of holding hands is not forbidden by the GIRM, which is the controlling document for the rubrics. Your uncle has probably had all of a semester introductory course in Canon Law. Most bishops are not Canon lawyers; that is why they have a staff of Canon lawyers. I have a little more background than just a minor hobby of reading about Canon law. My comment about getting a degree in law - I said Canon Law, but a civil law degree would also suffice - is that most people don’t have the first clue of how laws are formed and interpreted. And that includes those who have had a semester introductory course.

.

LOL!
You have a big huge straw man going there, my friend!
You apparently have no clue how the laws of the Catholic Church are made either, really and the obedience to them.
Bishops approve the norms and therefore the law. It’s plain and simple no matter the spin you put on it.
If one is in a Diocese in which the Bishop has stated that this is not allowed, you are in disobedience of your Bishop. I’ve given many examples of those Diocese and working on more.
If you do not obey your Bishop, Hmmmmmm.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

LOL!
You have a big huge straw man going there, my friend!
You apparently have no clue how the laws of the Catholic Church are made either, really and the obedience to them.
Bishops approve the norms and therefore the law. It’s plain and simple no matter the spin you put on it.
If one is in a Diocese in which the Bishop has stated that this is not allowed, you are in disobedience of your Bishop. I’ve given many examples of those Diocese and working on more.
If you do not obey your Bishop, Hmmmmmm.

You and I must belong to different Churches.

In my Church the Vatican has the final say. The only say the bishops have is what has been reserved to them, or in some circumstances what has not been legislated on.

And as I have said before, you do not seem to read the posts. I have not made a straw man, as elsewhere in this thread there has been a continuing discussion as to whether or not Rome ruled on the issue.

If I am in a Diocese in which the bishop has made a specific ruling which he has the authority to make, I am most happy to comply.

If the Conference of Bishops has made a rule which they have the authority to make, I am also most happy to comply.

If you re-read the post you were replying to, I think you will see that I said that.

The conference of bishops most definitely worked on the GIRM, but Rome had the final say.

what I tried to say (and I think everyone else understood me to say) was that in formulating the GIRM, neither Rome nor the conference of bishops chose to make a ruling on hand holding during the Our Father. By implication, if nothing else, the local bishop then has the authority to either stop it altogether, replace it with another liturgical act, allow it, or ignore it.

How you get to any idea or implication in my post that I do not obey the bishop, or suggest that anyone else not obey their bishop is completely beyond me. As I said in a previous post, I strongly support obeying the bishop.

and just in case you don’t understand the above, let me make it clear: if the GIRM says that we are to kneel during a specific part of the Eucharistic Prayer, then the bishop does not have the authority to say that I stand; and so I am not is disobedience to my bishop if I kneel as the GIRM trumps the bishop. Where the GIRM is silent, the bishop may then have that authority.

The GIRM is silent as to hand position during the Our Father. My bishop has not made a ruling, so I fail to see how I could possibly be thought to be disobedient to him.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

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.

There is no “open, widespsread, longstanding” practice of juggling or bar-b-queing going on so of course it would not be addressed nor would its introduction be licit. The practice of handholding has been going on and been argued about for decades, yet a current document specifically written to deal with liturgical abuses specifically does not address it as one. By definition in law, a known longstanding practice that is not banned is considered licit.

I’m sure there is something much more deep-seated in your vehement opposition to this and your obvious antagonism to those who find it an uplifting experience of God in each other. I will continue to pray for Authentic Unity and peace with civility between all of God’s children. I will also leave the topic so as to upset you no further.

Peace,
John

Defending my position is not upsetting. That a recent document did not address this one issue does not mean it is licit or should be encouarged.

 

[fix]

otm:

About 40 years ago it was introduced. It is not now a novelty, but rather so widespread as to border on ubiquitous.

It is a novelty in that it was introduced without Church approval.

Fact. That is how law is interpreted: when the law is silent on an issue and there is clear history that the issue was widely known and no move was made to change the situation, then it is clear that the silence is not restrictive to that issue.

Your private view. That the American bishops and Rome have not specfically addressd this issue does not mean it is encouarged. It is not part of the mass.

Which shows nothing as to the specific situation. In most instances, something is positively stated: “This is what you do now”, which gets to the licitness of the other action. In this circumstance, changes have been porposed for more than thirty years, and specifically not adopted.

Again, that there is no reference to it in the norms should tell us it is not to be done.

By observation, talking with people, the way most people determine motivation behind an action. Let’s not play reductio ad absurdem. Most people in the pews don’t have a clue where this started or why, and are not doing anything to be obstinate or rebellious. Many of them weren’t even born when this started; it is the only thing they know.

I agree with you here, but that does not mean the original intention was good, or that it should be continued.

Life is not a black or white analysis; in other words, you cannot divide people into one of two camps - liberal or conservative. Most people are simply poorly catechised and doing the best they can with what little they have. There is no validity in simply painting someone one disagrees with as “in the other camp” without a lot more inquiry of that other person.

My bishop knows the norms as do his priests. That does not stop them from introducing hand holding into the mass.

There really aren’t a lot of flaming liberals out there; a whole lot of people don’t even have any particular opinion. most of the people who have truly been in rebellion aren’t even at Mass.

Talk with the Pope. He has spoken often about the experiments that go on with the mass. Please do not be coy. There is a definite problem with liberalism in the Church today.

“Between the lines” he told those who want to hold hands that it wasn’t mandated, and they had a duty in charity to allow the person next to them to not hold hands.

Chaput should have the courage to tell that to his brother bishops. As I said before, in my parish we are told to join hands.

And “between the lines” he told those who don’t want to hold hands that it was a non-issue; they were welcome to not hold hands, but it wasn’t a forbidden act. As in, it was not a liberal conspiracy to Protestantize the Mass, or rebel against legislated posture, or forbidden in any way. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to not hold hands, but as to the fussing about it, get over it.

He gave his opinion and I respect it, but that is not the entire story. Nor, can we say that is the definitive ruling from Rome.

 

[fix]

Liturgical Gymnastics

Question from on 06-04-2002: There has been an ongoing debate concerning the holding of hands during recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in Mass, often times accompanied by other personal gestures and physical demonstrations. Some folks like it; others do not. I fit in the latter category for one simple reason: To me, holding hands while praying or any other form of liturgical gymnastics, for that matter, are absolutely meaningless and empty gestures.

Some people have stated that by holding hands, they are uniting themselves with Christ. That is what Holy Communion is all about! If you are searching for Christ through holding hands, you miss the entire point of the Mass as well as a good portion of our Catholic faith. To be physically one in union with our Lord Jesus is the greatest gift that He left us.

Our separated brethren don’t have access to this most Blessed Sacrament and the powerful unifying and sanctifying graces that accompany it, so they resort to holding hands. But at that point, it often becomes reduced to a search for a rush or a spiritual high. Such a rush, however, never lasts since you inevitably have to come crashing down sooner or later.

The Lord’s Prayer is placed at the particular point in the Mass that it is, in order to help us mentally prepare for what will be, in a few moments, the physical uniting of us poor wretched sinners with our almighty, merciful and loving God who is really and truly present in the flesh. As such, there should be absolutely nothing that can distract us from this mental and spiritual preparation.

In studying the lives of the saints, (pick any one), none of them ever went around seeking contact with God by any means other than through the sacraments. The saints knew that Heaven was gained by personal suffering and sacrifice, denial of our personal will in deference to God’s own will, all the while participating in a sacramental life and undertaking spiritual sojourns that traversed vast deserts and dark valleys wrought with pitfalls and dangers of all kinds. Perseverance in ascending God’s steep and difficult Holy Mountain was the only path for them.

Another point - Our Lord Jesus gave us what is tantamount to an open book exam in His description of the events surrounding the Last Judgment. He makes it abundantly clear that He isn’t going to judge us by how often we hold hands in Mass. He will judge us by how often we hold hands with others AFTER Mass. It’s easy to hold hands with like minded people and those whom we love. But did we hold hands and sing hymns to God with the store clerk that cheated us? With the mechanic who made your car run worse than when you brought it in? With the road rage driver who cut us off in traffic? With the neighbor who plays his boom-box so loud that it makes the windows of our houses rattle? And don’t forget about that difficult coworker! It isn’t so easy to hold hands with these folks. They are usually the ones most in need of the sacraments, our prayers and intercessions. Yet, it is how we deal with these same difficult people whom we encounter in life that God will judge us. Love them and God Himself will give us that eternal warm and fuzzy feeling in Heaven to enjoy. We need not look for that adrenaline rush while on earth; rather we find ourselves challenged and compelled by God to work to make it an eternal reality in Heaven.

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 06-05-2002: Dear Paul, Wow! I wish I had written this! Many, many thanks. It never occurred to me to take this hand-holding to our life after Mass, in the day-to-day struggle with the world. How right you are, Paul! Mother Teresa held not only the hand of the dying poor, but their whole body as she dragged it along to get it some shelter and food and warm love. God bless you, Paul. Fr. Bob Levis

ewtn.com/creme2.gif

 

[fix]

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH

HOLDING HANDS AT THE OUR FATHER?

ROME, 18 NOV. 2003 (ZENIT).

Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? — T.P., Milford, Maine

A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.

The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.

While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended — so they at least should not hold hands.

One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.

The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.

The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.

For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.

A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.

In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.

The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.

The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda. ZE03111822

---

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur10.htm

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

and just in case you don’t understand the above, let me make it clear: if the GIRM says that we are to kneel during a specific part of the Eucharistic Prayer, then the bishop does not have the authority to say that I stand; and so I am not is disobedience to my bishop if I kneel as the GIRM trumps the bishop. Where the GIRM is silent, the bishop may then have that authority.

The GIRM is silent as to hand position during the Our Father. My bishop has not made a ruling, so I fail to see how I could possibly be thought to be disobedient to him.

I perfectly well understand.
You are correct, if the Vatican says, the Bishop may not overrule, but giving a blanket statement to the readers of your posts that the handholding innovation is allowed is not defaulting to their Bishop because it is not mentioned in the GIRM. Rather you give references without telling them to check with their Diocese. That is what I was speaking about.
When the Vatican rules, the Bishop cannot over rule. When the Vatican says nothing, the Bishops rule. Our innovations and norms are written by the Bishops and approved by the Vatican. That simple.

 

[otm]

fix:

It is a novelty in that it was introduced without Church approval.

No, it was a novelty. After forty years it is no longer a novelty; after thirty years of continude widespread practice with no intervention, it is considered accepted practice.

fix:

Your private view. That the American bishops and Rome have not specfically addressd this issue does not mean it is encouarged. It is not part of the mass.

No, not a private opinion; it is how law is interpreted. I agree that it does not mean that it is encouraged, although there are probably some bishops who would encourage it; and the record shows some are actively discouraging it. But it most certainly is a part of the Mass in that it is doen, and has been done for 40 years. Again, I’ll go back the Chaput, who by the way was addressing a generic question as opposed to a diocese specific question; he said that those who held hands did not do so in violation of the GIRM.

fix:

Again, that there is no reference to it in the norms should tell us it is not to be done.

Now that is a personal opinion; however, it is not how the law of the GIRM is interpreted in this specifi case - again, because it was “on the table” at both versions of the GIRM and was pointely not outlawed. It was ignored, meaning there is no position on it at all.
Your approach to law, and specifically the GIRM is what is called, philosophically, the Northern, or Germanic approach. Whatever is not specificaly aloowed is forbidden.

However, the Church is Roman (or Latin, if you wish), as in Mediterranian; the philosophical approach is the flip of that - whatever is not specifically forbidden is allowed. and let’s not take that to the silliness in this thread and elsewhere of meaning that barbecuing or standing on one’s head is permitted - that is simply not within the gamut of the philosophical approach. Ergo, liturgical dance is not permitted even though it might not be specifically proscribed.

I agree with you here, but that does not mean the original intention was good, or that it should be continued.

I agree, but unless and until either individual bishops specifically forbid it, or specifically require another posture, or until the GIRM is re-written to do the same, we will have it. the best approach is that of Chaput; if you don’t like it, you don’t have to do it, and neither side has the right to impose their opinion or will on the other.

fix:

My bishop knows the norms as do his priests. That does not stop them from introducing hand holding into the mass.

See above; after 30 years it takes the force of accepted practice and is not an introduction.

fix:

Talk with the Pope. He has spoken often about the experiments that go on with the mass. Please do not be coy. There is a definite problem with liberalism in the Church today.

I am not being coy. And I don’t particularly like the term “liberlaism” as it is sometimes used correctly, and sometimes used for “whatever I don’t like”.

To give an example: in moral theology, some want a very rigid definition of sin (and sins - they want everything parsed down to it’s finest detail), and their attitude is that , well, they didn’t commit any of those sins, therefore they are a very good Catholic. However, any fairly articuyalte reading of the Gospels would show two things: 1) Christ did not parse out each and ever sin; 2) he had some really harsh words for the Pharisees who took such an approach, and 3) he demanded much more of us than simply “not sinning”. I have met people who call that liberalism, as the Church, prior to Vatican 2, pretty much took the approach of parsing sin, and there was too much emphasis in the parsing and too little in the rest of what Christ called us to.

fix:

Chaput should have the courage to tell that to his brother bishops. As I said before, in my parish we are told to join hands.

Chaput made the statement publicly; and I am sure that if it has come up, he has said it to any bishops who even want to discuss the issue. However, that in and of itself is indicative of the issue of the autonomy of each bishop. they can decide on their own where there is no specific ruling.

fix:

He gave his opinion and I respect it, but that is not the entire story. Nor, can we say that is the definitive ruling from Rome.

No, it is not a definitive ruling from Rome. However, given two re-writes of the GIRM, the silence from Rome is deafening.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

No, it was a novelty. After forty years it is no longer a novelty; after thirty years of continude widespread practice with no intervention, it is considered accepted practice.
.

Holding Hands at the Our Father has not been in practice across the country for 40 years. It might have been in your area, but not in the whole country. To state that it has been a Widespread practice for 40 years is incorrect. In fact, it is a novelty across most of the country adopted in the last few years.

I did a poll on another website as well as looking on the thread polled here. To the majority of us, this is a recent innovation.

 

[fix]

otm:

No, it was a novelty. After forty years it is no longer a novelty; after thirty years of continude widespread practice with no intervention, it is considered accepted practice.

No, not a private opinion; it is how law is interpreted. I agree that it does not mean that it is encouraged, although there are probably some bishops who would encourage it; and the record shows some are actively discouraging it. But it most certainly is a part of the Mass in that it is doen, and has been done for 40 years. Again, I’ll go back the Chaput, who by the way was addressing a generic question as opposed to a diocese specific question; he said that those who held hands did not do so in violation of the GIRM.

Now that is a personal opinion; however, it is not how the law of the GIRM is interpreted in this specifi case - again, because it was “on the table” at both versions of the GIRM and was pointely not outlawed. It was ignored, meaning there is no position on it at all.
Your approach to law, and specifically the GIRM is what is called, philosophically, the Northern, or Germanic approach. Whatever is not specificaly aloowed is forbidden.

However, the Church is Roman (or Latin, if you wish), as in Mediterranian; the philosophical approach is the flip of that - whatever is not specifically forbidden is allowed. and let’s not take that to the silliness in this thread and elsewhere of meaning that barbecuing or standing on one’s head is permitted - that is simply not within the gamut of the philosophical approach. Ergo, liturgical dance is not permitted even though it might not be specifically proscribed.

I agree, but unless and until either individual bishops specifically forbid it, or specifically require another posture, or until the GIRM is re-written to do the same, we will have it. the best approach is that of Chaput; if you don’t like it, you don’t have to do it, and neither side has the right to impose their opinion or will on the other.

See above; after 30 years it takes the force of accepted practice and is not an introduction.

I am not being coy. And I don’t particularly like the term “liberlaism” as it is sometimes used correctly, and sometimes used for “whatever I don’t like”.

To give an example: in moral theology, some want a very rigid definition of sin (and sins - they want everything parsed down to it’s finest detail), and their attitude is that , well, they didn’t commit any of those sins, therefore they are a very good Catholic. However, any fairly articuyalte reading of the Gospels would show two things: 1) Christ did not parse out each and ever sin; 2) he had some really harsh words for the Pharisees who took such an approach, and 3) he demanded much more of us than simply “not sinning”. I have met people who call that liberalism, as the Church, prior to Vatican 2, pretty much took the approach of parsing sin, and there was too much emphasis in the parsing and too little in the rest of what Christ called us to.

Chaput made the statement publicly; and I am sure that if it has come up, he has said it to any bishops who even want to discuss the issue. However, that in and of itself is indicative of the issue of the autonomy of each bishop. they can decide on their own where there is no specific ruling.

No, it is not a definitive ruling from Rome. However, given two re-writes of the GIRM, the silence from Rome is deafening.

From a post above:

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

From a post above:
" The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees. "

Shhhh, you’re making too much sense. /sarcasm off/

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Shhhh, you’re making too much sense. /sarcasm off/

Folks will dispute the facts all day long, but facts are stubborn things.

The practice was not introduced by legitimate authority. The practice is not part of the mass. In many places, including my diocese, it has become a “custom” which is imposed on those who do not want to participate.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

Folks will dispute the facts all day long, but facts are stubborn things.

The practice was not introduced by legitimate authority. The practice is not part of the mass. In many places, including my diocese, it has become a “custom” which is imposed on those who do not want to participate.

Amen!

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Amen!

Have you ever noticed the counters on these threads that record how many views there are? I assume they are accurate. I have noticed that any thread that is about hand holding, kneeling, or homosexuality has many more hits than other topics.

What does this say?