The Lord's Prayer during Mass

[FrDavid96]

And you are making a corporate gesture more than it is; a corporate gesture is one which is done by the whole body due to some rubric or instruction. An action of a body in union with its head.

The moment you as a celebrant (or a pastor) instruct on any posture not specifically forbidden and not specifically called for in the GIRM, RS, nor the missal in use, you are adding to the mass.

Provided that the action is neither called for by public instruction, nor enforced, and not specifically forbidden (such as the oremus posture during the embolism), it is “unregulated” and non-corporate.

If someone is enforcing some posture, yes, that’s corporate.
If someone is instructing on posture there, that’s corporate.

It becomes corporate when instructed for OR when enforced.

So you would disagree with Redemptionis Sacramentum #31 which says of priests “let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.”?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi again,

#31 is speaking of the Priest’s actions. It is a real stretch to apply this as well as many directions personally interpreted to an uninstructed situation. As was said, to command or forbid is adding something, not to choose a posture when none is instructed.

It is quite obvious that we are comparing apples to oranges here–some saying this is a regulated area, while others saying it is not. What I find very inconsistant is many who argue for freedom of posture at some times, when it agrees with their preference, argue against freedom when no posture is specified.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

So you would disagree with Redemptionis Sacramentum #31 which says of priests “let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.”?

Fr. David, your argument not only takes into consideration the citation you referenced in RS, but, the whole issue of adding things. Recall that the prohibition is not merely applicable to priests. The preamble in RS certainly encompasses everyone:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

…[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

We, not the priests and not the faithful, have any right to insert insipid and idiosyncratic gestures into the Mass. We do not have that authority. We do not cobble up the Mass and make it our creation. We must receive the Holy Sacrifice in the manner that it has been handed down to us through the centuries, much like St. Paul received it, as he stated in first Corinthians where he said that what he received, he received from Christ.

 

[PapaSquash]

How about if everybody joins hands, as individuals, left hand to right hand and holds them like this?

 

[Indyann]

How about if everybody joins hands, as individuals, left hand to right hand and holds them like this?

Well, if EVERYBODY did that, it seems as though this would be a corporate gesture and would not be allowed, as this is adding something to the Mass.

 

[Aramis]

How about if everybody joins hands, as individuals, left hand to right hand and holds them like this?

If everyone does that without instruction, and without coercion, and in reverence, it’s perfectly reasonable.

The real solution is a postural norm promulgated by the CDW, or failing that, by the conference of bishops and not revoked by the CDW.

Instructing people to do (or not do) is an addition to the rubrics. The rubrics say to stand, and do not define stand.

The issue is exactly the same as post-communion posture. Who may define what is right or wrong in reading the rubrics: The Bishop, the Metropolitan-Archbishop, the Episcopal conference, the CDW and the Pope; each in increasing authority over the prior.

Benedictgal, Fr. David and I all agree that these are the sole sources for valid deviations from what is written in the Missal, within their specific competences… what we do not agree on is negative instruction (“thou shalt not ___”) being an addition. I feel strongly that it is (and the CDW’s various published results on a number of subjects seem to support this contention).

 

[ncjohn]

Benedictgal, Fr. David and I all agree that these are the sole sources for valid deviations from what is written in the Missal, within their specific competences… what we do not agree on is negative instruction (“thou shalt not ___”) being an addition. I feel strongly that it is (and the CDW’s various published results on a number of subjects seem to support this contention).

I would also include myself here, with an addition in that I do not agree in any way, shape or form that an uninstructed, uncoerced action on the part of an individual–regardless of whether someone else joins in–is a “corporate” gesture and can be regulated by the priest. An uninstructed, uncoerced gesture is an individual act and does not add to the liturgy in any way.

I really have a hard time figuring out whether those who argue that it adds to the liturgy truly don’t understand this or whether they just figure that everybody else is either unable to figure it out or unwilling to challenge their conclusion. The degree of hatred for someone else’s prayer practice kind of suggests a blindness to reason on the topic so it’s hard for me to figure out how much is “understanding” related and how much is just a determination to stamp it out at all costs.

For instance, the RS section is repeatedly quoted that says
RS:

The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.

To even try to make this apply requires that great leap of faith that this prayerful action “obscures the sacredness and universal ordering.” Those of us who find this of great value would dispute that it does any such thing; in fact we would find exactly the opposite, that it increases the sacredness for us. Others are more than welcome to disagree and decline to participate, and that is perfectly fine. But they are not allowed to make judgments as to what others find sacred and worthy. Every document quoted fails along the same lines as all of them require one to accept that individual actions “add to the liturgy” in some way when nothing the Church has said indicates any such thing.

As Aramis notes, we are dealing with a negative instruction here, and with approval that has been tacit by the Church just leaving things alone rather than addressing the topic specifically, though it did conspicuously decline to repudiate the practice in the 1975 Noticiae when it simply said that it could not be substituted for the sign of peace. Had they wanted to repudiate it, that would have been the perfect time to do so but they clearly did not.

The USCCB made it clear that they do not see there being anything to be regulated. The Holy See has not overruled that. For a lesser authority to decide to do so is indeed “adding to the liturgy” in making either a positive or negative instruction that does not exist.

I’ll not spend any further time on this as everything that can be said has pretty much been said. Those who have their minds made up I’m sure will remain so. Those who were unsure can read and make their decisions.

I truly wish we could just reach that point of charity that Archbishop Chaput tried to accomplish and that people would stop trying to impose their preferences in the matter on others. I guess it will still be a while before “they’ll know we are Christians by the love we show one another.”

 

[FrDavid96]

I can’t help but notice that the posts supporting adding hand-holding to the Mass have a common theme: And that theme is to say “the Church might say that, but the Church doesn’t actually mean that.”

an addition to the Mass isn’t an addition to the Mass
a corporate gesture isn’t a corporate gesture
a group of people all doing the same thing is an individual gesture
a prohibition against adding something is actually a prohibition
against preventing someone from adding something.
“no one even if he be a priest” really means “only priests”
“nothing may be added” really means “something may be added”
“liturgy is no one’s private property” actually means
“if it makes you feel good, do it”
“universal ordering” actually means “personal preference”
sacred means secular

It is amazing to me that when defending liturgical abuses words take on entirely new meanings which contradict the definitions of those words.

The moment someone shows me that the Holy See has given recognition to hand-holding at Mass I will accept it as a licit practice.

But then again, maybe I will say “well, when the Pope said that hand-holding is a licit gesture, he didn’t actually mean that hand-holding is a licit gesture…”

 

[benedictgal]

I can’t help but notice that the posts supporting adding hand-holding to the Mass have a common theme: And that theme is to say “the Church might say that, but the Church doesn’t actually mean that.”

an addition to the Mass isn’t an addition to the Mass
a corporate gesture isn’t a corporate gesture
a group of people all doing the same thing is an individual gesture
a prohibition against adding something is actually a prohibition
against preventing someone from adding something.
“no one even if he be a priest” really means “only priests”
“nothing may be added” really means “something may be added”
“liturgy is no one’s private property” actually means
“if it makes you feel good, do it”
“universal ordering” actually means “personal preference”
sacred means secular

It is amazing to me that when defending liturgical abuses words take on entirely new meanings which contradict the definitions of those words.

The moment someone shows me that the Holy See has given recognition to hand-holding at Mass I will accept it as a licit practice.

But then again, maybe I will say “well, when the Pope said that hand-holding is a licit gesture, he didn’t actually mean that hand-holding is a licit gesture…”

You are on target, as usual, with your observation. I thnk that the supporters of this idiosyncratic and insipid innovation are trying to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat since they cannot find any substantive documentation to assert their claims.

Just what part of the admonition against adding things (whether it comes from the priest, a layman or a group) do these folks not understand? No means no. Even if the priest were to come down from the sanctuary, stand in the center aisle and grab the hands of the people on either side of him, that would still be ilicit because he is taking it upon himself to add something that is not allowed. I have seen this happen many times in my old parish in Austin. What was worse was when the celebrant said, “let us join our voices, our hearts and our hands in prayer to Our Father…” That was bad and about as ilicit as you can get. Did he have the right to do that? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, the well-meaning, but, misguided folks who grab hands do not realize that they are wrong. You don’t force someone to participate in something that is ilicit. You also don’t try to force yourself on someone else. That happened to me once last year and I politely told the woman that I do not hold hands. After Mass, she went to tell the pastor that I had done wrong. I told the pastor, a friend of mine, that this is not a part of the Mass and should not be done. When I told my PV , he actually included it in his homily (the reading that weekend was about Jesus cleaning the Temple) and he talked about liturgical abuse.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I would also include myself here, with an addition in that I do not agree in any way, shape or form that an uninstructed, uncoerced action on the part of an individual–regardless of whether someone else joins in–is a “corporate” gesture and can be regulated by the priest. An uninstructed, uncoerced gesture is an individual act and does not add to the liturgy in any way.

I really have a hard time figuring out whether those who argue that it adds to the liturgy truly don’t understand this or whether they just figure that everybody else is either unable to figure it out or unwilling to challenge their conclusion. The degree of hatred for someone else’s prayer practice kind of suggests a blindness to reason on the topic so it’s hard for me to figure out how much is “understanding” related and how much is just a determination to stamp it out at all costs.

For instance, the RS section is repeatedly quoted that says To even try to make this apply requires that great leap of faith that this prayerful action “obscures the sacredness and universal ordering.”

—The USCCB made it clear that they do not see there being anything to be regulated. The Holy See has not overruled that. For a lesser authority to decide to do so is indeed “adding to the liturgy” in making either a positive or negative instruction that does not exist.

I truly wish we could just reach that point of charity that Archbishop Chaput tried to accomplish and that people would stop trying to impose their preferences in the matter on others. I guess it will still be a while before “they’ll know we are Christians by the love we show one another.”

Well said. The congregation can not add anything to the liturgy. I will certainly take an interpretation by an archbishop over that of a poster on the internet.

I can understand thinking it a distraction, especially when it gets out of hand, but this has also happened during the sign of peace, and has not been officially addressed. It may be distracting , but it is not forbidden, or even instructed against.

Lux

 

[davy39]

Being an old (70) cradle Catholic, I’m always unconfortable holding hands, especially when they try to make an endless chain of handholding, accross aisles, backwards, behind your back, etc. I think it’s rediculess to say the least. But my wife, who is a convert, thinks it’s ok, so I do it. In our church, when they come to the “for thine is the kindom” etc, they raise their hands in the higher in the air, and give my hand a hard squeeze. What the purpose of this?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

It is lifting your arms in prayer. The charismatics often do this. Much of the handholding is from the charismatics, which worship style is not the preference of many more traditional worshippers, but this does not make it “wrong”. Charismatic is an approved movement of the Catholic Church.

Handholding is also from AA. Even though I am pretty neutral about the handholding, I am certainly OK with giving support to a struggling alcoholic in recovery and making him/her feel more welcome at church.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

Being an old (70) cradle Catholic, I’m always unconfortable holding hands, especially when they try to make an endless chain of handholding, accross aisles, backwards, behind your back, etc. I think it’s rediculess to say the least. But my wife, who is a convert, thinks it’s ok, so I do it. In our church, when they come to the “for thine is the kindom” etc, they raise their hands in the higher in the air, and give my hand a hard squeeze. What the purpose of this?

The purpose of that is to make the Mass look like a high school pep rally.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

The purpose of that is to make the Mass look like a high school pep rally.

Hi Fr David,

Now how would you know this? It is quite obvious that you do not like Charismatic style worship, and this is certainly your choice, but it is an approved movement of the Catholic Church supported by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. (Fr Cantalamessa who was the preacher to both households is very active in the Charismatic movement)

[edited]

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi Fr David,

Now how would you know this? It is quite obvious that you do not like Charismatic style worship, and this is certainly your choice, but it is an approved movement of the Catholic Church supported by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. (Fr Cantalamessa who was the preacher to both households is very active in the Charismatic movement)

So there is no need for sarcasm, and personal interpretations of worship in which you have no interest.

Lux

I know this because it is a secular gesture that is being illicitly incorporated into the Mass. And yes, I and every other Catholic do have an interest in preserving the integrity of the Mass, and an interest that the Mass is always celebrated with solemnity and dignity.

I keep hearing that the charismatic movement is “approved.”
When did this happen? How did it happen? Who approved it? Most (name removed by moderator)ortantly: What was approved?

I read the Sacramentary, the GIRM and all of the officially approved liturgical books of the Church, and I can find nothing “approving” what the charismatic movement does at Mass. Perhaps I’m missing something. Please point it out to me, because in contrast, I do hear official statements of the Church again and again dis-approving of so much of the liturgical usage which began with the charismatic movement.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi again,

Again, you are suggesting that the congregation may add something official to the liturgy. I have not seen any official evidence that this is so.

As I said, the pope makes his wishes known, and has celebrated Masses for the movements, and has never mentioned anything. Many articles have been printed about other things.

Are you against inculturation as well as Charismatic worship?

Lux