The Lord's Prayer during Mass

[ncjohn]

However, you neglect one very important fact: no one, not even the priest, has any authority to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, per the Constitution on Sacred LIturgy. This certainly takes into account the “individual.”

No, I don’t neglect it at all and have been consistently addressing the fact that the postures of an individual in the pew are NOT “adding to the liturgy”. Period. If they are then folding your hands is adding to the liturgy. Making the sign of the cross after receiving communion or kissing the back of your hand after making the sign of the cross is adding to the liturgy. ANYTHING that is not specifically called for would be adding to the liturgy. It is an absolutely absurd argument. But it is unfortunately the very premise on which the whole argument of this being illicit is based on.

The fact remains that hand-holding during the Pater Noster adds nothing to the Mass and centers on the horizontal, rather than on the vertical dimension of the Mass.

You are welcome to hold that opinion and I can totally respect that while emphatically disagreeing. The fact that it holds no value for you however does not in any way objectively mean that it does not have value. Nor does your belief that we are focusing on the “horizontal” make it objectively so and I am insulted that you continue to make this judgment that I am doing so. If you knew the least bit about me you would know better.

Canon Law specifically allows for customs to spring from the faithful. I cannot think of a single one of the “immemorial” customs that did not come into being that way: someone does something spontaneously that others find worthy of emulation and over time it becomes widespread. The approval is tacit because the Church just declines to address it. They are not required but are acceptable.

I’m truly sorry that it offends you so much how I choose to pray. There are many such things I don’t care for, but I realize that that is MY problem and my cross to bear. The world doesn’t revolve around my preferences and I will impose them on nobody nor will I make judgments about anyone else’s piety based on the way they prefer. I only ask to be granted the same consideration.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

In my parish, it is the people desperately groping and grabbing for their neighbor’s folded hands, and stretching and leaping wildly across aisles to find any hand at all, who need to pay the most heed to the words written above. When it becomes a physically aggressive and invasive enforcement of “MY way” then it is truly a problem. The folks who silently keep their hands folded, and then come here to vent about it, can’t reasonably be accused of doing anything wrong, IMO.

I am in 100% agreement with you. This should never occur and a priest that doesn’t remind people of a need for charity if such things are brought to his attention is really failing in his duty, IMO.

And I have no problem with someone venting about being abused, or expressing a strong dislike for it for whatever reason they may have… I only have a problem with those who think they have the authority to make the practice illicit because they don’t like it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Two other examples of illicit posture which have been discussed in this thread:

The orans position is one which is reserved to the celebrating priest (and to a certain degree, the concelebrants). Only the priest uses this gesture during the Our Father, or during any of the presidential prayers, or the Eucharistic prayer. The deacon does not do it, the altar boys do not do it, and the congregation does not do it.

Opening-and-closing the hands during “the Lord be with you” is another example of a priest-only gesture. The congregation should not be doing this (nor anything approaching it) when responding “and also with you.” This gesture is reserved to the priest himself–in fact, many do not realize this, but when a priest is proclaiming the Gospel, and says “the Lord be with you” it is illicit for him to make this gesture. That’s right, he does not make that gesture at that moment. The reason is that the priest is functioning as a deacon at that moment (by proclaiming the gospel in the absence of a deacon) and since a deacon does not do this, neither does that priest at that moment.

There is ample documentation of the Church’s prohibition of the congregation taking upon themselves the words or gestures of the clergy, and I see no need to specifically quote them here.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am in 100% agreement with you. This should never occur and a priest that doesn’t remind people of a need for charity if such things are brought to his attention is really failing in his duty, IMO.

And I have no problem with someone venting about being abused, or expressing a strong dislike for it for whatever reason they may have… I only have a problem with those who think they have the authority to make the practice illicit because they don’t like it.

Failing to address the issue of hand-holding during the Our Father is not an act of “charity” is a act of false charity because it is encouraging a liturgical abuse. A priest has the responsibility to ensure that every liturgical action of the Church is done within the liturgical laws and practices as defined by the Church. Priests are in fact failing in their ministry when they neglect to address this and other abuses.

When this is brought to the priest’s attention, it is not his responsibility to explain to the person who does not want his hands grabbed that he should simply ignore it. It is rather his responsibility to explain to the grabber that this practice is an abuse.

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon Law specifically allows for customs to spring from the faithful. I cannot think of a single one of the “immemorial” customs that did not come into being that way: someone does something spontaneously that others find worthy of emulation and over time it becomes widespread. The approval is tacit because the Church just declines to address it. They are not required but are acceptable.

No. That’s not how “custom” works. A practice which is contrary to existing law cannot be said to enjoy the status of “custom.” You are trying to use the ordinary meaning of the word “custom” and apply it to the canonical meaning of the word–it doesn’t work that way.

As you yourself quoted earlier, if a “custom” is contradictory to the law, it can only be said to enjoy the status of custom it it has been approved by some legitimate authority and has been practiced for at least 100 years. Go back and re-read your earlier canon law quote and you will see it for yourself in the last sentence that you quoted.

 

[ncjohn]

Some proper postures during the Our Father would be to have one’s hands folded in prayer, to have one’s hands together with the fingers pointing upward in prayer, or even simply to rest one’s hands on the pew in front. Even holding a missal and reading from it at that time would be a legitimate posture (for those who might have a need to do so). There is no prescribed individual posture, and there are many more which would be perfectly fine at that moment.

Finally, we at least seem to be in agreement.

There’s nothing wrong with a married couple, or parent-child holding hands (to name just 2 possible examples) during the Our Father, on two conditions: that this is truly an individual thing, and that it is not done in such a way as to be seen as the “right way” to place one’s hands during the Our Father.

And again, I totally agree.

We all know that hand-holding is not an individual gesture. The simple, and unavoidable reality is that in our contemporary church society, the practice of hand-holding has become a community gesture. It is dishonest for people to say that it’s an individual posture because the reality of our experience, and our common sense tell us otherwise. If we have 500 people at Mass and they are all holding hands, we cannot speak an untruth and say that 500 people are all doing 500 individual acts but they just happen to be doing the same thing at the same time.

But this is where we diverge.

Yes, some parishes have a “culture” where the majority of people hold hands. But if that is the standard by which a decision is made that something is a community gesture, then the same can be said about the parish where everyone folds their hands and this is no longer an individual gesture.

No matter how you cut it, it is still an individual choice as long as it is not directed by a third party. You either do it or you don’t.

Are there people who feel pressured? I’m sure there probably are. Are there some who do it from just not knowing better? I’m sure there are. That is a matter of catechesis though. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still an individual decision. I do agree though that a better job needs to be done of making it clear to people that it is indeed an individual decision. Archbishop Chaput did an excellent job of that in a statement he released a while back: archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_18_02_our_father_liturgy.htm

If it seems that it has become a “community gesture” in some parishes I would suggest that it is exactly because of what the Church provides for: that the faithful find a practice worth emulating and it comes into common practice. That doesn’t make it required or mandatory. It just reflects that the majority of the people in that parish find value in it just as the majority some other parish may not.

In some parishes women feel intimidated about wearing head coverings because the majority don’t. In other parishes they feel intimidated in NOT wearing one because the majority do wear them. Neither situation is right but we can’t control what intimidates people or makes them feel “pressured”. We can only do a proper job of catechesis and constantly remind people about being charitable and not making judgments about such things. You don’t do that by requiring or forbidding something that is a legitimate individual choice.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

No. That’s not how “custom” works. A practice which is contrary to existing law cannot be said to enjoy the status of “custom.” You are trying to use the ordinary meaning of the word “custom” and apply it to the canonical meaning of the word–it doesn’t work that way.

No, I’m not. I am using the Canon Law definition which specifically DOES allow for things to spring from the faithful. This is especially true since there is not even anything that IS contrary to existing law. There is no existing law about individual gestures, but the canon does specifically allow for it even if it IS contrary.

As you yourself quoted earlier, if a “custom” is contradictory to the law, it can only be said to enjoy the status of custom it it has been approved by some legitimate authority and has been practiced for at least 100 years. Go back and re-read your earlier canon law quote and you will see it for yourself in the last sentence that you quoted.

No, the quote I gave, from current canon law, says 30 years, not 100. And it specifically addresses that the approval can be “tacit” as is the case in pretty much every immemorial custom I can think of.

 

[ncjohn]

When this is brought to the priest’s attention, it is not his responsibility to explain to the person who does not want his hands grabbed that he should simply ignore it. It is rather his responsibility to explain to the grabber that this practice is an abuse.

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that it is the priest’s responsibility to tell the person being grabbed at to just “suck it up”. Quite the oppositie, I have stated consistently that a priest should be advising “grabbers” that this is unacceptable. No person should be instructed or coerced to participate against their will in what is an individual action.

 

[FrDavid96]

Finally, we at least seem to be in agreement.And again, I totally agree.
But this is where we diverge.

Yes, some parishes have a “culture” where the majority of people hold hands. But if that is the standard by which a decision is made that something is a community gesture, then the same can be said about the parish where everyone folds their hands and this is no longer an individual gesture.

No matter how you cut it, it is still an individual choice as long as it is not directed by a third party. You either do it or you don’t.

Are there people who feel pressured? I’m sure there probably are. Are there some who do it from just not knowing better? I’m sure there are. That is a matter of catechesis though. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still an individual decision. I do agree though that a better job needs to be done of making it clear to people that it is indeed an individual decision. Archbishop Chaput did an excellent job of that in a statement he released a while back: archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_18_02_our_father_liturgy.htm

If it seems that it has become a “community gesture” in some parishes I would suggest that it is exactly because of what the Church provides for: that the faithful find a practice worth emulating and it comes into common practice. That doesn’t make it required or mandatory. It just reflects that the majority of the people in that parish find value in it just as the majority some other parish may not.

In some parishes women feel intimidated about wearing head coverings because the majority don’t. In other parishes they feel intimidated in NOT wearing one because the majority do wear them. Neither situation is right but we can’t control what intimidates people or makes them feel “pressured”. We can only do a proper job of catechesis and constantly remind people about being charitable and not making judgments about such things. You don’t do that by requiring or forbidding something that is a legitimate individual choice.

Peace,

If it’s not a legitimate action, then it’s not a legitimate choice. We don’t get to choose our own actions for the Mass. Doing so under the pretense of “community” over-emphasizes the local community and puts the local community into a state of disharmony with the universal community which is the Church. We cannot say that we can violate the ideal of the universal Church (and the universality of the Mass) under the pretense of local preference. The Church has addressed this over and over again.

Only the Church (through the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff) may decide when corporate gestures may be added to the Mass. That’s the point which I just cannot get you to understand. The local community cannot make up its own Mass, no matter what their motivations or their justification might be.

 

[BSHoop96]

Hi again,

I did not miss your point. If you insist on a posture, you are missing the point of the response of the USCCB----

No posture is prescribed.

Lux

Please see Post #60 by FrDavid96. Quite a good explanation…pretty obvious that 500 people (or whatever) holding hands is not just an individual’s choice. Further discussion between us is pointless I’m sure you would agree.

 

[ncjohn]

If it’s not a legitimate action, then it’s not a legitimate choice. We don’t get to choose our own actions for the Mass. Doing so under the pretense of “community” over-emphasizes the local community and puts the local community into a state of disharmony with the universal community which is the Church. We cannot say that we can violate the ideal of the universal Church (and the universality of the Mass) under the pretense of local preference. The Church has addressed this over and over again.

Only the Church (through the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff) may decide when corporate gestures may be added to the Mass. That’s the point which I just cannot get you to understand. The local community cannot make up its own Mass, no matter what their motivations or their justification might be.

Actually, I do fully understand what you’re claiming; I just totally disagree since the “community” is not making the choice. The individual is. As long as you’re locked into this idea that individual gestures somehow “add to the liturgy”, there can be no real discussion as there is a foundational disagreement on the premise. There is no “corporate” gesture involved here; simply a group of individuals who make individual choices. Our parish has many that do and many that don’t. They know it isn’t required and they make their choice according to their preferences, with nobody grabbing at anyone and nobody glaring at anyone. It really can be done without distraction or hard feelings if someone takes the time to charitably educate people instead of heavy-handedly mandating or prohibiting.

I would challenge you to produce a single Church document supporting that idea that an individual’s gestures “add to the liturgy”. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement there though as you acknowledged that individual actions weren’t regulated. The only difference seems to be that you can’t seem to accept the idea of people exercising a rational individual choice for or against participating while I know very well that it can be and is done.

I’ll leave it at that though as my purpose here isn’t to convince you but to give people lurking in the background enough information to make their own decisions.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[BSHoop96]

If it’s not a legitimate action, then it’s not a legitimate choice. We don’t get to choose our own actions for the Mass. Doing so under the pretense of “community” over-emphasizes the local community and puts the local community into a state of disharmony with the universal community which is the Church. We cannot say that we can violate the ideal of the universal Church (and the universality of the Mass) under the pretense of local preference. The Church has addressed this over and over again.

Only the Church (through the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff) may decide when corporate gestures may be added to the Mass. That’s the point which I just cannot get you to understand. The local community cannot make up its own Mass, no matter what their motivations or their justification might be.

Thank you for all your excellent responses and patience in trying to clearly explain all this. However, I think at this point you are beating the proverbial “dead horse” as some on here, such as the poster to whom this was directed, will never “see” your point. Please continue on in these threads though. We need you.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, I’m not. I am using the Canon Law definition which specifically DOES allow for things to spring from the faithful. This is especially true since there is not even anything that IS contrary to existing law. There is no existing law about individual gestures, but the canon does specifically allow for it even if it IS contrary.
No, the quote I gave, from current canon law, says 30 years, not 100. And it specifically addresses that the approval can be “tacit” as is the case in pretty much every immemorial custom I can think of.

Please go back and re-read your own post #35. I’ll quote it here for you:

Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

Since the liturgical laws of the Church clearly forbid anyone from adding anything to the Liturgy on his own authority, any future additions to the Mass, like hand-holding, have been forbidden at least since the Second Vatican Council.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, I do fully understand what you’re claiming; I just totally disagree since the “community” is not making the choice. The individual is. As long as you’re locked into this idea that individual gestures somehow “add to the liturgy”, there can be no real discussion as there is a foundational disagreement on the premise. There is no “corporate” gesture involved here; simply a group of individuals who make individual choices. Our parish has many that do and many that don’t. They know it isn’t required and they make their choice according to their preferences, with nobody grabbing at anyone and nobody glaring at anyone. It really can be done without distraction or hard feelings if someone takes the time to charitably educate people instead of heavy-handedly mandating or prohibiting.

I would challenge you to produce a single Church document supporting that idea that an individual’s gestures “add to the liturgy”. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement there though as you acknowledged that individual actions weren’t regulated. The only difference seems to be that you can’t seem to accept the idea of people exercising a rational individual choice for or against participating while I know very well that it can be and is done.

I’ll leave it at that though as my purpose here isn’t to convince you but to give people lurking in the background enough information to make their own decisions.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

Your arguments still do not make sense. What part of the admonition that the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy do you not understand? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not something that we can cobble up for ourselves. Nor is it our property to do wth as we please, whether as individuals or as a community.

The issue of hand-holding is a meaningless gesture. The minute that we walk into church for Mass, we become a community. Other than what the rubrics prescribe, we don’t need to do anything else. I saw the last two papal Mases on TV. There wan’t any hand-holding going on at St. Peter’s. In fact, the camera did such a dizzyingly good job of panning the assembly that you could see just about everything and anything. Certainly the curial officials didn’t engage in hand-holding.

Fr. David made some rock solid arguments against this practice. It’s not what you nor I want: it’s whatever the Church prescribes.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually, I do fully understand what you’re claiming; I just totally disagree since the “community” is not making the choice. The individual is. As long as you’re locked into this idea that individual gestures somehow “add to the liturgy”, there can be no real discussion as there is a foundational disagreement on the premise. There is no “corporate” gesture involved here; simply a group of individuals who make individual choices. Our parish has many that do and many that don’t. They know it isn’t required and they make their choice according to their preferences, with nobody grabbing at anyone and nobody glaring at anyone. It really can be done without distraction or hard feelings if someone takes the time to charitably educate people instead of heavy-handedly mandating or prohibiting.

I would challenge you to produce a single Church document supporting that idea that an individual’s gestures “add to the liturgy”. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement there though as you acknowledged that individual actions weren’t regulated. The only difference seems to be that you can’t seem to accept the idea of people exercising a rational individual choice for or against participating while I know very well that it can be and is done.

I’ll leave it at that though as my purpose here isn’t to convince you but to give people lurking in the background enough information to make their own decisions.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

I’m sorry to put it this way, but you’re being disingenuous here when you say that hand-holding is an individual gesture. As I said before experience and common sense tell us otherwise.

And to address your last point, it’s not up to individuals to make their own decisions on how Mass is celebrated: the Church does that.

 

[malphono]

…
I would challenge you to produce a single Church document supporting that idea that an individual’s gestures “add to the liturgy”. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement there though as you acknowledged that individual actions weren’t regulated. The only difference seems to be that you can’t seem to accept the idea of people exercising a rational individual choice for or against participating while I know very well that it can be and is done.

I’ll leave it at that though as my purpose here isn’t to convince you but to give people lurking in the background enough information to make their own decisions. …

I’m going to chime in with something about individual actions: e,g., if one were to fold hands behind the head, that would be an individual action. The orans position is, (for better or worse (IMO it’s for the worse, but never mind that now – I have never used it and never will), also an individual action.

However, the business of hand-holding is a whole other ball of wax and is most certainly NOT individual. As the old cliché goes “it takes two to tango” and a tango is not an individual dance. Similarly, neither is hand-holding an individual action. Think about it: when humans join hands, how is is possible to even remotely consider that an “individual action?” Rather like doing a tango solo.

It still seems to me that FrDavid69 and Benedictgal are on target.

End of my comments in this thread.

 

[ncjohn]

Since the liturgical laws of the Church clearly forbid anyone from adding anything to the Liturgy on his own authority…

And again we’re right back to the same problem: that you believe an individual’s gestures can “add to the liturgy”. Again I would challenge you to produce a single document from the Vatican that takes any such position.

As I said, when your entire argument is based on this foundational premise there is really nothing further to discuss.

 

[ncjohn]

What part of the admonition that the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy do you not understand?

I would ask you the same thing since you seem to be on the same page as Fr David in insisting that an individual’s undirected gestures can “add to the liturgy”. That is pure unadulterated baloney.

The issue of hand-holding is a meaningless gesture. The minute that we walk into church for Mass, we become a community. Other than what the rubrics prescribe, we don’t need to do anything else. I saw the last two papal Mases on TV. There wan’t any hand-holding going on at St. Peter’s. In fact, the camera did such a dizzyingly good job of panning the assembly that you could see just about everything and anything. Certainly the curial officials didn’t engage in hand-holding.

And I have seen Papal Masses for World Youth Day where there was extensive hand-holding with not a word of objection from the Pope. Please forgive me if I don’t accept your opinion on what has value or what we need as objective truth.

Fr. David made some rock solid arguments against this practice. It’s not what you nor I want: it’s whatever the Church prescribes.

No, he makes one consistent argument that is foundationally flawed. There is nothing prescribed. That is the whole point. Every argument the two of you make is based on the faulty premise that an individual’s actions can add to the liturgy. There is absolutely no basis for this.

Fortunately the rest of us aren’t bound by your “rulings” so at least I can take comfort that I am safe in my own parish. If I happen to stumble into yours by accident my family will be the ones holding hands, prohibition or no prohibition. We promise not to touch anyone else though.

 

[ibkc]

And again we’re right back to the same problem: that you believe an individual’s gestures can “add to the liturgy”. Again I would challenge you to produce a single document from the Vatican that takes any such position.

As I said, when your entire argument is based on this foundational premise there is really nothing further to discuss.

May I ask you, do you argue with your own parish priest in this rude way?

 

[benedictgal]

And again we’re right back to the same problem: that you believe an individual’s gestures can “add to the liturgy”. Again I would challenge you to produce a single document from the Vatican that takes any such position.

As I said, when your entire argument is based on this foundational premise there is really nothing further to discuss.

I have already quoted the section from the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy that specifically states that no one, no priest, no idividual is allowed to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Redemptionis Sacramentum drives home the point further when it notes that:

[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

Insipid, idiosyncratic gestures like the hand-holding during the Pater Noster do not have a historical precedent. They are merely an innovation that someone thought should be introduced into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.