To Hold or not to hold, that is the question

[deogratias]

believe it is actually part of some ancient manuscripts of Sacred Scripture dated well before Protestantism. The prevailing theory is that it was part of a copyist’s marginal gloss that was erroneously transcribed into the text of Scripture

Never heard this and suspect it is a myth.

 

[squirt]

deogratias:

believe it is actually part of some ancient manuscripts of Sacred Scripture dated well before Protestantism. The prevailing theory is that it was part of a copyist’s marginal gloss that was erroneously transcribed into the text of Scripture

Never heard this and suspect it is a myth.

I don’t know how/where it was introduced, but in the Maronite rite Mass, the “for the power, glory … etc” is included with the Our Father, and THEN the priest says a prayer similar to the one that comes in the ‘middle’ of the two parts in the Latin rite Mass.

There’s an interesting section on the ‘christusrex’ web site that has a bunch of variations of the Latin version of the Our Father …
Pater Noster

 

[guse]

I believe holding hands is not permitted, so we shouldn’t do it until it is. However, my parish holds hands. I am not one who thinks holding hands, in and of itself is wrong. I know many think it is wrong regardless if it is permitted or not. I felt somewhat the same way until I read on the EWTN website that the practice of crossing our heads, mouths, and hearts developed from the people imitating the priest. So something that only the priests did originally was eventually extended to the people.

 

[deogratias]

Holding hands is not the people imitating the priest although I have seem some priests imitating the people and holding the hands of the altar servers - ugh

 

[guse]

True, holding hands is not imitating the priest. The bigger point is that not everything we do is just handed down from Rome and we follow along. The rosary is a bottom up, not top down devotion. In the fairly conservative parish I sometimes attend on Saturday, many people, not just families, are holding hands. Masses that I’ve seen on TV from Washington, DC, people are holding hands. All ages. If in fact it is becoming a common practice, do you think it will be eventually permitted?

 

[robertaf]

Good Morning Church

We hold hands in our Parish. I like it, as far as I know, so does the rest of the Parish. I asked Father today and he said there is not a rule against it, the Bishop approves and it will continue.

We are more than Community. We are family. God is our Father, Mary is our Mother and that makes us brothers and sisters. In our parish, we understand that. In todays homily, we were reminded of that.

For the one who asked where raising their hands in prayer came from, the answer is the Bible and tradition.

Now, maybe someone can tell me where this habit of putting palms flat together in front of you while praying came from. I have heard two stories. One was that nuns started it with children in Catholic Schools the other was it was “borrowed” from Islam.

For me, I prefer to lift holy hands up to the Lord!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_14.gif

 

[deogratias]

All ages. If in fact it is becoming a common practice, do you think it will be eventually permitted?

---

Evidently some Bishops already do permit it. Some may just be ignoring it. But if you asked if I thought it would ever become mandated - well I hope not in my lifetime - I can’t imagine being forced to hold hands.

 

[guse]

It seems some people don’t like any variation in any Mass anywhere. However, I hope holding hands does become “officially” optional. We have other options at Mass and I think that is fine. I agree, even though I do like holding hands but also am fine with not holding hands, I would not want it to become mandatory. I admire the older Catholics. They just go along with the changes, no complaint, just practicing their faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

deogratias,

deogratias:

believe it is actually part of some ancient manuscripts of Sacred Scripture dated well before Protestantism. The prevailing theory is that it was part of a copyist’s marginal gloss that was erroneously transcribed into the text of Scripture

Never heard this and suspect it is a myth.

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia - “Lord’s Prayers”:
newadvent.org/cathen/09356a.htm

The doxology “for Thine is the Kingdom”, etc., which appears in the Greek textus receptus and has been adopted in the later editions of the “Book of Common Prayer”, is undoubtedly an interpolation.

According to Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), comments:

The ascription at the close of the Lord’s Prayer occurs in several forms… Some Greek manuscripts expand “for ever” into “for ever and ever,” and most of them add “amen.” Several late manuscripts … append a trinitarian ascription, “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.” The same expansion occurs also at the close of the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy that is traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.

The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives of the [most reliable manuscripts], as well as early patristic commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer…, suggests that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps on the basis of 1 Chr 29, 11-13) in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church. Still later scribes added “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[deogratias]

I wonder why, that this has been a part of the Protestant Our Father for so long and we just picked it up if it had been that old. I am not doubting it, just curious about how they picked up on it when we were not using it. I always thought it was an innovation of the protetants before.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We didn’t just pick it up. That was my point. Very early on (well before Protestantism), CATHOLIC liturgical usage concluded the Lord’s Prayer with a doxology. It was likely erroneously added to some late manuscripts of Sacred Scripture during transcription.

It is the Protestants that “picked it up.” In the 16th century, the KJV translators relied heavily upon the textus receptus, which was one of the late manuscripts that appended the doxology to the end of the Lord’s prayer in Matt 6:13. Most modern Protestant Bibles, such as the NRSV, however, do not include the doxology in Matthew’s gospel, as textual criticism of the most ancient and reliable manuscripts don’t support it. Instead, they include a footnote saying that some manuscripts have a different rendering, appending the doxology.

Bruce Metzger is probably one of the most respected NT scholar within Protestantism. He asserts that the doxology was likely added by scribes.

 

[deogratias]

Quote:
The doxology “for Thine is the Kingdom”, etc., **which appears in the Greek textus receptus **and has been adopted in the later editions of the “Book of Common Prayer”, is undoubtedly an interpolation

I guess I don’t understand interpolation then -

Etymology: Latin *interpolatus, *past participle of *interpolare *to refurbish, alter, interpolate, from *inter- + -polare *(from *polire *to polish)
transitive senses
1 a : to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter

So I thought that meant that this was an alteration or corruption of the original text (something added) -

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, that is the prevalent Catholic and Protestant view. The doxology was erroneously appended to Matt 6:13. In other words, the few late manuscripts that include the doxology in Matt 6:13 is thought to be a corruption of the original text, based upon the textual criticism of the most ancient and reliable manuscripts.

What may have occurred is as follows:

The early Church prayed the doxology after the Lord’s prayer during their liturgy. A monk, while copying a manuscript of scripture likely added the doxology as marginal note (much like our modern bible footnotes) to the manuscript of Sacred Scripture. Over time, another monk either purposefully or inadvertently copied the marginal gloss into the biblical text. Thus, some late manuscripts contained the gloss as if it were the inspired text.

 

[deogratias]

Okay - thanks that is clearer.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

guse:

It seems some people don’t like any variation in any Mass anywhere.

That’s because the Church herself forbids it.

Just read the forward alone of* Inaestimabile Donum:The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the* Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church,** *which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. *

Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful…

*The Second Vatican Council’s admonition in this regard must be remembered: *"No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority." And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: “Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense.”

However, I hope holding hands does become “officially” optional. We have other options at Mass and I think that is fine.

The Magisterium of the Church lays down what the Mass is, and what it isn’t. We aren’t there to form a consensus on what form, matter, or gestures are to be used. The Church decides that. Even a priest ~ I daresay, even a bishop ~ is not in a position to approve of changes to what the Magisterium has laid down.

I admire the older Catholics. They just go along with the changes, no complaint, just practicing their faith.

For me, just practicing my Faith means being informed about what my Faith is ~ What the Church teaches and instructs, and why. What is right? What is wrong? ~ then, modifying my behavior and opinions so as to conform to Holy Mother Church.

“Older Catholics” sat idly by while the altar rails were stripped from their Churches and images of the Risen Lord replaced all of their crucifixes on the altars, all under the guise of reforms called for by the Second Vatican Council. They never asked, “Show me which Church document says that.” (Now the Magisterium has called for the crucifixes to be put back on the altars, and the images of the Risen Lord removed.)

Today, we have the internet.
We have Catholic forums.
We can access the Vatican website and read the documents for ourselves.

It should be much more difficult for priests or the laity to tamper with the Church’s property. (And by that, I don’t just mean the buildings and statues. The Mass is the property of the Church as well!) We should not stand idly by when we see the Church’s property being vandalized.

(I myself, not ten years ago, heard our then-pastor tell the faithful during Mass that Vatican II required that we remove the altar rail in our church and that we must 'bring our parish up to date." News Flash: We still have our altar rail, but not the same pastor. )

The innovators will do whatever they can get away with. Holding hands during the Our Father and/or lifting one’s hands is fine during private prayer, at prayer meetings, etc.

However, it is not approved in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and therefore should not be “added” to the rubrics of The Mass by individuals (be they ordained or laymen).

Pax Christi. <><

 

[guse]

When we go up to receive communion do we have to bow or genuflect? I thought we could do either? Do we kneel or stand at Mass? At my parish we stand? Is that forbidden? Do we receive in the hand or on the tongue? It is my understanding that those things may be different in different places. Do you really think that bowing instead of genuflecting before receiving the Eucharist is “changing” the Mass? I am under the impression that certain thing must be the same in all places, but that the things that I mentioned could be different. Question: What would we say if the Church mandated holding hands? Would we joyfully obey or complain? The same Holy Spirit is guiding the Church when it makes decisions we like and those we don’t.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

guse:

When we go up to receive communion do we have to bow or genuflect? I thought we could do either?

Bowing is the norm in the US, but genuflecting or kneeling are also permitted, per instructions from the Vatican’s Congregation for Sacred Worship and Discipline in the Sacraments.

Do we kneel or stand at Mass?

We stand during the parts where the Church tells us to stand, and we kneel when She tells us to kneel.

At my parish we stand? Is that forbidden?

Depends on when and where. Read the GIRM to be sure.

Do we receive in the hand or on the tongue?

The Church states that it is the communicant’s choice whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

It is my understanding that those things may be different in different places.

In the Church’s words:
“The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful.” The Church, not we, decide where and when adaptations may be made.

Do you really think that bowing instead of genuflecting before receiving the Eucharist is “changing” the Mass?

No, and I never said that.

Question: What would we say if the Church mandated holding hands?

Well, the Church hasn’t even come close to mandating holding hands. In fact, she has openly discouraged “undue experimentation, changes and creativity,” which could correctly define the present-day hand-holding movement within the Mass.

Would we joyfully obey or complain?

Do you joyfully obey now, that you realize hand-holding is not approved?

The same Holy Spirit is guiding the Church when it makes decisions we like and those we don’t.

Can’t think of any I don’t like. The Church does not err; I err all the time. I trust Her judgement above my own. I don’t try to re-invent Her Mass, or alter Her rubrics. I joyfully follow the Mass as She laid it down for me.

Do you?

Pax Christi. <><

 

[guse]

QUOTE=Panis Angelicas The Church, not we, decide where and when adaptations may be made.

That is my point. The Church does allow for some variations and that those variations do not mean we are being denied a true Mass. What I find interesting is that some people hate hand holding. I was just curious what they would say if the Church mandated it. I admire you if you always like all of the Church’s teachings and always joyfully obey. Some teachings are sometimes hard to accept. They may be hard to live out. However, I know that the Church is doing what’s is best for the Body of Christ at that particular time in history. Yes we should joyfully obey, but sometimes the first step is just acceptance. Joy and understanding sometimes come later.

 

[Michael]

I don’t like the hand holdng at all except with my family. I have stopped for the most part. However, I am a new catholic and have been doing alot of reading about church history and I am astonished that hand holding can cause so much of a conflict among the people. The church has gone through some tremendous oppositions and internal struggles throughout its history and now we are down to a conflict about hand holding. I was very vocal about this to my priest until I learned more about the past struggles of the church and then it seems slightly insignificant compared to the early church. If each individual that does not want to hold hands would just say no then I think the matter would eventually take care of itself. I know that in my church just in the last month I see more and more people not holding. When I started over a year ago it seemed as though everyone held hands. This post is not intended to diminish the views of others but just to present my thoughts on the subject. Thanks

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

guse:

Panis Angelicas The Church:

Yes, those words were the Church’s words, not mine. The Magisterium stated that the faithful have the right to a “true liturgy,” which is the Sacred Liturgy She gives us. And which only She can make adaptations to. That would mean that innovations and alterations are not acceptable to the Church which have not been approved by the Magisterium, which is why I find it surprising that a priest would say that the bishop approves of hand-holding during the Our Father.
I’d like to see that in writing!
I really doubt that a bishop would pen approval to a movement which clearly is not defined in the approved Missal.

What I find interesting is that some people hate hand holding.

I hand-hold at prayer meetings and such. But I refuse to customize the Church’s Mass according to my neighbor’s whims.

I was just curious what they would say if the Church mandated it.

I’m just as curious as to why people don’t accept the Church’s mandates as written.

I admire you if you always like all of the Church’s teachings and always joyfully obey. Some teachings are sometimes hard to accept. They may be hard to live out.

I never said that living out the Church’s teachings is easy. In fact, the Church has never said that either. Aren’t we blessed to have the examples of the Holy Martyrs, who chose prison, torture, and even death before sin? Contemplating the Passion of Our Lord is also very convicting. How we hate the slightest inconvenience or pain. But, you know the old saying, “no pain, no gain; no guts, no glory!”

However, I know that the Church is doing what’s is best for the Body of Christ at that particular time in history. Yes we should joyfully obey, but sometimes the first step is just acceptance. Joy and understanding sometimes come later.