The Metamorphosis of the Catholic Mass

[Mysty101]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Was it when I had nothing to say to you after you insulted me and another poster named Kathy?
Or was it when you got off suspension, and addressed issues from a closed thread on another?
I posted that I would not read it because I wanted you to know that I didn’t think it was worth my time to go back weeks to cover your suspension.)

All of the above, and regarding my suspension, I told you numerous times that we are told not to discuss the actions of moderaters, and especially those of which we do not know the DETAILS

I’m sorry that you would not like to address what I have written but rather chastise.

I am tired of addressing it–you just don’t get it.

Robertaf (a fellow Charismatic) and I had a dispute and in the end came to a conclusion that we agreed on having masses for everyone. She is great. Perhaps you can talk to her

Roberta and I are friends, and I will not share our private conversations…

 

[pnewton]

On CA Live radio I heard a few years ago mention that the hand-holding wqs probably an abuse because it was not set forth in the GIRM. More recently, I heard a different apologist on the same program say that it probably did not rise to the level of being an abuse. More telling is the fact that Cardinal Arinze when setting abuses straight in RS did not mention this, the most prevelant of deviations. To me, it is a non-issue. If I am where some hold, some don’t, I don’t. Otherwise I go with the rest of the parish.

What did bother me was the idea that this was a result of a Protestant invasion. As a convert, I can not tell you how much I detest this statement. I have met a few Catholics that view the Church as their personal club (let’s close the membership and keep outsiders away). If this is not what was meant then let me caution that inciteful rhetoric can easily be misunderstood.

 

[msproule]

otm:

I read the link, but did not see a date on the article. I would be curious as to when it was written, as it sounds as if it was a much older rubrics being discussed.

It comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is almost 100 years old! (Sorry, I was not trying to pass this off as some newly issued information.)

My point was to help explain the historical meaning of this gesture. My opinion is that the meaning has been lost (or at least blurred) only due to lack of use and instruction. My hope is that the gesture will once again find common usage in the liturgy. The USCCB seems to suggest that it still carries meaning.

For the record, I am not interested in just this one gesture. The same arguments can be applied on a much larger scale.

So going back to the original post, I think that all the personal “touches” that get introduced into the Mass arise from, and to a lesser extent are a cause of, the loss of our sense of history and (dare I say) tradition.

 

[Mysty101]

PS (and I hope my last post regarding this aspect of this issue)
netmil(name removed by moderator):

.
Robertaf (a fellow Charismatic) and I had a dispute and in the end came to a conclusion that we agreed on having masses for everyone. She is great. Perhaps you can talk to her.

And what have I said from the very beginning? That the orans is not forbidden. (I never said that all Masses should be Charismatic or that anyone must use any position, just that none was prescribed)
That love is the greatest commandment
That we need to get our priorities in order
And most importantly that we should never ridicule anyone, especially for their prayer posture.

Have you heard any of the readings this week?
Earlier regarding priority, and today regarding name calling.

Mt 5:

But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother
will be liable to judgment,
and whoever says to his brother,
‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin,
and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

Father said “raqa” is a hard word to translate. It means hold others in contempt, look down, scorn or ridicle.

Where does any scripture say you will be answerable if you use the wrong prayer position, especially if none is prescribed?

 

[msproule]

pnewton:

What did bother me was the idea that this was a result of a Protestant invasion. As a convert, I can not tell you how much I detest this statement. I have met a few Catholics that view the Church as their personal club (let’s close the membership and keep outsiders away). If this is not what was meant then let me caution that inciteful rhetoric can easily be misunderstood.

I cannot remember where this comment was made or to whom it is atrributed, but I assume it was not intended to mean what you say. I think what is being suggested is that over time, for better or worse, through attrition, conversion, ecumenism, reform, et cetera, there has been a loss of many practices and the introduction (from both the top and bottom) of many things that are non-traditional to Catholicism.

For example, I lament the disuse sacred, traditional forms of music. I do not care to hear contemporary music within the Mass. If you go to a beautiful old Catholic church and hear contemporary music, it just does not seem to fit. Still, the sacrifice that takes place at a modern church is the same, so to me the music should reflect the gravity of what is occurring on the altar. One might (rightfully or wrongfully) conclude that the influx of this type of music is the result of groups of converts who have brought it in from their former churches. Or perhaps it is just easier to learn. Maybe I am in the minority and most of the faithful like this particular form of music.

I will stop there for fear that I will go even further off-topic :clapping: !

 

[Mysty101]

pnewton:

What did bother me was the idea that this was a result of a Protestant invasion. As a convert, I can not tell you how much I detest this statement. I have met a few Catholics that view the Church as their personal club (let’s close the membership and keep outsiders away). If this is not what was meant then let me caution that inciteful rhetoric can easily be misunderstood.

I definitely hope you know that this is a minority who feel “my way or the Highway.”, and most are as disgusted as you by intolerance and disrespect. This offence to you, as well as CCR and possible converts has been my point from the first discussion on posture.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I guess you know better than the Vatican.
Thank you Mysty for your insight.

My issue isn’t anything to do with knowing better than the Vatican, as I follow what the Vatican requires.

The Vatican has not made a rule on the issue; and in fact, it would be unusual for the Vatican to do so, as the GIRM is the normal process for establishing these rules. The GIRM is silent on the position of the laity for the larger part, other than directions about sitting, standing, kneeling, and bowing.

Again, I point out the statements by Archbishop Chaput, which you have chosen to not address.

One thought has occured to me, several times, in particular about holding hands during the Our Father.

When Christ rose form the dead, He appeared at times and those to whom He appeared did not recognize Him (see, e.g. the two disciples on the road to Emmaeus). I have wondered how one of the individuals who seem so upset by hand holding would react, were they to take their normal approach which they have stated herein (in various threads) of clearly rejecting the hand of the person next to them, and at the end of the Our Father, find they were standing next to Christ as he revealed himself to them as at Emmaeus.

Given that we are charged to see Christ in one another, I find in interesting and amazing that some in this forum call the fellow Catholic next to them in the pew a “stranger” (Lord, when did we not give you a cup of water?).

Frankly, I find the discussion somewhere between bemusing and amusing. I don’t have a strong emotional reaction one way or the other. I think that holding hands is poor from a liturgical standpoint, but not for the reasons most suggest; I also think that Archbishop Chaput is right; it is not a prohibited act, but a non-regulated one.

If the Church at some point says that holding hands is prohibited (or the Orans position), or prescribes a certain posture, I will gladly comply, whether that is having hands folded, holding hands, the Orans, or something else. In the meanwhile, if someone wants to hold my hand during the Our Father, that is fine; and if they don’t want to, that is fine, too.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry, because you didn’t edit my post I thought you were another poster.

Where is the directive that the priest is to pray this way at a certain point in the Holy Mass?
The Orans IS directed and therefore a Priestly getsture.
You will find much more that we are not given directions on than what we are.
When you think of BBQ, that is not stated in the documents and not allowed to be done.

Well, BBQ is not a liturgical act, except perhaps to Moloch.

Again, at certain times the priest holds his hands palms together, fingers pointing skyward; therefore that is a Priestly gesture… but I’ve already said that…

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

If it’s yes, why don’t they state it???
They don’t state laying prostrate in Holy Mass is wrong either. It’s a proper prayer posture.

I suspect, to a large extent, that there are two issues or reasons they may not have addressed the issue:

1. They do not feel a need to regulate every possible posture - see ofr example, the published response after the issuance of the last version of the GIRM. to the dubium as to posture after receiving Communion: Rome’s response was that they did not intend that people should have to remain standing until all had received, and they were not of a mindset to overrregulate.
2. Most of the bishops consider it a non-issue, or one that is of very minor importance.

It should be remembered that holding hands has been around since the mid 1960’s; the bishops have pointedly chosen to not address the issue. Not once, but at least twice.

That in itself is a statement.

 

[otm]

msproule:

It comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is almost 100 years old! (Sorry, I was not trying to pass this off as some newly issued information.)

My point was to help explain the historical meaning of this gesture. My opinion is that the meaning has been lost (or at least blurred) only due to lack of use and instruction. My hope is that the gesture will once again find common usage in the liturgy. The USCCB seems to suggest that it still carries meaning.

For the record, I am not interested in just this one gesture. The same arguments can be applied on a much larger scale.

So going back to the original post, I think that all the personal “touches” that get introduced into the Mass arise from, and to a lesser extent are a cause of, the loss of our sense of history and (dare I say) tradition.

I thought it was older, as it referred to a gesture in a way that clearly indicated it was a rubric from the Tridentine rite.

I would agree with you that some has been lost to meaning due to almost total lack of use.

One of the difficuties is that even within the Church, there is room for different gestures. We have lost (and are now recovering) some of the traditions of the early Church. RCIA is an example. what concerns some is that some traditions have been changed, and there are new acts, which with time and repetition, will become traditions. We just happen to be in the change stage, and that is something some people have a hard time dealing with, whether it is Church, or family, or societal traditions.

At one time, there was a tradition that one went to the Sacrament of Reconcilliation only once in a life time. Obviously, not all traditions should remain.

Time will tell.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

fix:

As has been said many times one may go into McDonald’s anywhere in the country and know what to expect, the same can’t be said of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. Each trendy vicar or trendy lay person must introduce something by their own private initiative to make the mass more relevant.

Dare I suggest that McDonalds is a bad analogy. To put it bluntly, you get a standardized low-quality product that lacks any individual character. Same with a lot of other chain restaurants. You get a manufactured, pre-packaged experience in which the people serving you are basically interchangable parts in a big distribution network, reheating and serving pre-made meals.

I’m not arguing for trendy innovation at Mass or anything like that. But the McDonalds/Mass analogy is essentially dehumanizing.

 

[otm]

Bobby Jim:

Dare I suggest that McDonalds is a bad analogy. To put it bluntly, you get a standardized low-quality product that lacks any individual character. Same with a lot of other chain restaurants. You get a manufactured, pre-packaged experience in which the people serving you are basically interchangable parts in a big distribution network, reheating and serving pre-made meals.

I’m not arguing for trendy innovation at Mass or anything like that. But the McDonalds/Mass analogy is essentially dehumanizing.

Given the almost absolute attention to detail, proceedures and process that McDonalds follows - they are famous for consistency and following the rules and regulations - one would think that the charge would have been laid at the Tridentine rite; that seems to be one of the aspects particularly liked by those who favor it.

However, you are right that the analogy is dehumanizing, and I would add, inappropriate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

pnewton:

What did bother me was the idea that this was a result of a Protestant invasion. As a convert, I can not tell you how much I detest this statement. I have met a few Catholics that view the Church as their personal club (let’s close the membership and keep outsiders away). If this is not what was meant then let me caution that inciteful rhetoric can easily be misunderstood.

I’ve heard the highlighted statement above repeatedly on these forums. I always want to know “What Protestants were doing this stuff?” Standing to rec. communion? I was raised Southern Baptist, which for this post will represent the Fundamentalist world view. We rec. the Lord’s Supper SITTING DOWN IN A PEW! Our bottoms did not depart from said pew until we rose for the singing of “Blessed Be the Tie That Binds.” No standing for Communion there, or with the Church of Christ, the Presbyterians, the Assemblies of God, etc. I became an Episcopalian. Even Evangelical Episcopalian rec. at a rail, in my experience. The only time we rec. standing (in “procession”) was at diocesan gatherings, when there were tons of communicants. The same goes for the Methodists (they knelt at rails). Thus, my only experience for rec. Communion standing WAS AS A ROMAN CATHOLIC! Please, people, get past this lame and possibly bogus argument. As for postures, if it doesn’t overtly disturb the Mass, what’s the issue really? I don’t raise my hands in the orans position even in private prayer, I don’t feel moved to hold my neighbor’s hand during the Lord’s Prayer (the Sign of Peace is coming up and we can go as squishy as we like then), but if someone else wants to do so, what loss is there, really? We have priests and nuns fomenting HERESY and we get our knickers in a twist over what’s being done with one’s hands during Mass? Souls are falling into hell like leaves and we’re getting worked up over hand-holding for the Lord’s Prayer?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

My momma always taught me to keep my hands to myself.

I wish other momma’s taught that too. :nope:

 

[TJD]

Archbishop Edwin O’Brian has directed my priest, and I assume all his priests, to discourage holding hands during the Our Father. I believe he is encouraging, not requiring, the orans posture for the Lord’s Prayer. I’m sure he has a good reason.

Christ’s Peace,

 

[Mysty101]

TJD:

Archbishop Edwin O’Brian has directed my priest, and I assume all his priests, to discourage holding hands during the Our Father. I believe he is encouraging, not requiring, the orans posture for the Lord’s Prayer. I’m sure he has a good reason.

Christ’s Peace,

As the “High Priest of his flock”, he is within his authority to set postures & gestures within his diocese.

as OTM said

Most of the bishops consider it a non-issue, or one that is of very minor importance.

It should be remembered that holding hands has been around since the mid 1960’s; the bishops have pointedly chosen to not address the issue. Not once, but at least twice.

That in itself is a statement.

However, if this Bishop chooses to address it, the congregation should heed his instruction.

But, if you are concerned about Vatican approval, this may be understood in minor situations such as these, since the Vaatican never chose to address it.

 

[TJD]

Originally posted by Mysty101
But, if you are concerned about Vatican approval, this may be understood in minor situations such as these, since the Vaatican never chose to address it.

No concern here.

As a matter of fact I’d be concerned if formal proclamations were necessary over this.

Christ’s Peace,

 

[fix]

Bobby Jim:

Dare I suggest that McDonalds is a bad analogy. To put it bluntly, you get a standardized low-quality product that lacks any individual character. Same with a lot of other chain restaurants. You get a manufactured, pre-packaged experience in which the people serving you are basically interchangable parts in a big distribution network, reheating and serving pre-made meals.

I’m not arguing for trendy innovation at Mass or anything like that. But the McDonalds/Mass analogy is essentially dehumanizing.

All analogies are flawed to some extent. Using the term dehumanizing is incorrect. My point was that in many ways an institution as insignificant as McDonald’s can maintain authentic unity while many in the Church have embraced congregationalism.

 

[fix]

otm:

Given the almost absolute attention to detail, proceedures and process that McDonalds follows - they are famous for consistency and following the rules and regulations - one would think that the charge would have been laid at the Tridentine rite; that seems to be one of the aspects particularly liked by those who favor it.

However, you are right that the analogy is dehumanizing, and I would add, inappropriate.

It is funny when speaking of the NO you reject the Mc Ds analogy, yet have no qualm in applying it to the Tridentine mass.

 

[otm]

fix:

It is funny when speaking of the NO you reject the Mc Ds analogy, yet have no qualm in applying it to the Tridentine mass.

You are right, I do reject it; because of posters such as yourself making it eminently clear that the Pauline rite is subject to more alternatives, specifically allowed or not, there is no way that I would apply the analogy to it.

And, as posters such as yourself have repeatedly made known, one of the things that they like and respect about the Tridentine Mass is its consistency and repeatablity.

So I guess the only thing that puzzels me is why you would find that funny, as you are the one who makes the analogy so clear.

I mean, everyone who has eaten there and in any of its competitors knows that McDonalds fries are the standeard in the industry; they got to be the standard not only because of how they are done, but also because they are so exact, so consistent, with no variations. And a Big Mac is a Big Mac no matter where you eat.

In other words, you opened the door. Why are you surprised I walked through it?

Or did I miss something?