C
clem456
Guest
You’re joking right?
I’m looking for the little yellow smily face but didn’t see it. I must have misread.
- Status
I’m looking for the little yellow smily face but didn’t see it. I must have misread.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
You clearly don’t mind holding hands, but not everyone in the universe does. To belittle us by essentially saying we aren’t praying hard enough or focusing on God enough is kind of rude.
I don’t like the holding/shaking hands thing, never have, never will. So go ahead and accuse me of not desiring God enough to overlook the fact that I think it’s silly and distracting. I think it’s a device designed to " build community" that comes off feeling artificial and forced-accept for the established cliques that already exist.
L
lizaanne
Guest
We are all in the same place, doing the same thing, for the same reason, at the same time. Why do we need yet ANOTHER sign of “solidarity”?
It’s not necessary. And it is not the place for the people to reform the Mass according to their own will.
~Liza
A
Actaeon
Guest
Like I’ve said, you’ll get no arguments from me there… I certainly agree with the hand-holders that we need a sign of unity in the mass, but my conclusion is that said sign of unity is found ultimately in Communion, which is the pinnacle of the unity of the Church. That fact makes hand-holding during the Our Father a comparitively shallow display of solidarity, and therefore unnecessary.
Again, this would make sense if the postures of the laity were considered “alterations” of the liturgy. If I were to take your strict position I would have to berate after mass anyone who had raised their hand to cover a sneeze for their abusive alteration of the liturgy through such EGREGIOUS posture change which was not allowed by the GIRM.
And moreso, the GIRM itself, in the query and response section, states that
234b. QUERY: Some of the acts of reverence by both the celebrant and the people have fallen into disuse, for example, the profound bow to be made in place of the former genuflection at the words announcing the mystery of the incarnation in the Credo. Are such gestures still to be observed? **REPLY: Clearly people should express their faith, devotion, and reverence not only by words but also by gestures and posture. **
It then goes on to say that where gestures are proscribed they must be followed, and that care should be taken since the prescribe gestures are fewer and simpler… but one thing the query response does NOT do is prohibit gestures of personal reverence by the laity (though in another section it states that the prior roman missal cannot be used as justification to mandate certain personal gestures)
You are aware that a minor bow as a gesture of reverence was introduced by the GIRM because laity started the tradition based on Phil 2:10, right, and that it wasn’t mandated until 1274 AD, though it had been in practice for 1000 years before that time, right?
To be certain, I would chalk this up to ignorance and social conditioning more than “no interest in expressing reverence in the way the church actually requires them to do”. Most often, they likely believe that they ARE expressing reverence in the way the church teaches. Better Catechesis is needed, for sure.
Again, I fail to see how a person folding their hands and bowing their head during the Our Father is a deviation from the liturgy, or how holding hands is a change in the liturgy (even if it is ill advised). Oh, that’s right, I forgot to mention that the GIRM states that the posture for the Our Father is standing and makes no mention of folding one’s hands or bowing one’s head. By your definition, such a practice is likewise illicit.
Those examples I listed are all traditional signs of reverence used by Catholics for hundreds of years. It’s a shame that you aren’t more aware of the traditional signs of personal reverence which were so common until recently…
It’s a shame you take such an extreme position, even traditional catholics recognize the need for signs of personal piety where they are prudent and appropriate…
No argument from me there, and the point wasn’t to say that the personal judgement was somehow WRONG to make… I was merely pointing out a psychological reason why the lady MAY have taken offense. Just as you would not be OBLIGATED to date Katie, one would understand if Katie was a little emotionally hurt by your rejection… just as the woman in the OP might have felt rejected and had an emotional response… one which could have been avoided if the OP had stood by his values of not holding hands with ANYONE.
I think we are in agreement on this point at any rate, so no need to keep discussing it
S
sedonaman
Guest
Nope.
R
robwar
Guest
first of all I am not belittling anyone and I am not thinking or implying that someone is praying better or harder than someone else. Hand holding is rather common in a number of parishes in the US. It’s more or less a give or take. My family always holds hands during Our Father and from what i’ve seen in 25 years as a Catholic, most people do and seemly don’t have a problem with it whether it is just between family and friends or including others. My parish starts Mass out with “please rise and greet your neighbor”, there is hand holding during Our Father and people again shake hands at the kiss of peace which is a part of Mass. To go to Mass and think it is just me and Jesus, don’t bother or touch or look at me sounds more isolated and sad than anything. We are called to be the body of Christ and a body is not a bunch or disconnected cells. My parish is friendly, vibrant and very involved and alive. One of the other poster implied that parish with hand holding are cursed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again I have never seen anyone forced to hold hands and do something they don’t want to do but to imply that holding hands during Our Father is not reverent or real prayer and that something that is fairly common in a number of parishes is wrong is a bit of an over reach.
A
Actaeon
Guest
Oh please, it’s too humorous that people have to invent hyperbole when there are others who go so far as to call hand holding during the our father a curse to the Mass… the latter is actually offensive, and probably meant to be so, while this is just you inventing a reason to be offended.
C
clem456
Guest
I see you joined the Church this spring. Did you go through the RCIA process? One of the primary ideas the RCIA process is designed to address is, “what is truth and doctrine, and how are they integrated into real faith”? RCIA teams cannot just teach candidates 'what the rules are". The doctrine is key but knowing the rules alone does not bring us faith, or solidarity and unity.
If they did, we would have the demons of hell on board. The demons know truths above our comprehension. That does not mean they are holy beings…they just know the truth. In Matthew’s Gospel the demons are the first to call out Jesus as the Son of God. You see repeatedly on these forums, and also certain contemporary commentators, throw out all kinds of uncharitable missives, decrying this Church practice and that, uncharitably characterizing other Catholics, and justify it by saying, “I’m speaking the truth!” Well the answer to that is “So? And your point is?” Simply knowing the truth and following the rules does not make us holy, it is just a beginning. Doctrine does not build up the mystical Body of Christ without humility, charity, tolerance, integrated faith.
Im with ya on recognizing what the rules say, truly, but we are going to part company with the calling out of profanity and suffering (not you but another poster) and lawlessness because of these gestures.
We might like them to be unwelcome, but that is not the reality.
What if the practice never goes away? What if the culture begins to value kissiing of the cheek as in ancient times (this is the traditional forum after all), and that becomes a tolerated practice? What will we do?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Mega
!!!
S
sedonaman
Guest
:extrahappy: !!! You got that right!!!
Back in the days prior to Vatican II, we didn’t have Catholic politicians, Church leaders, and dissidents who all supported the intrinsic evils, but somehow we had less “solidarity” because we didn’t hold hands during the Our Father. Go figure.
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
More
will not hurt I suppose. We are united as catholics by the eucharist. We are united to Jesus, all those angels and saints in Heaven as well as all our brothers and sisters across the globe. Hand holding takes away (yet again and like all the other frippery we see at our parishes) from the true unity we all need to focus on during the Mass.
A
Actaeon
Guest
Yeah, sure, and Ted Kennedy was a wonderful orthodox Catholic who suddenly with Vatican II decided that partying with hookers and abortion were fine because of Vatican II…
Please, don’t insult our intelligence. While the vast growth of access to mass media has allowed the limelight to shine on less than stellar personality flaws of members of the church, it’s a bit niaive to claim that no such dissenters existed prior to Vatican II… it’s far more likely (and realistic) to posit that such people had no national podium on which to voice thier opinions and were limited to only a local impact.
R
robwar
Guest
then what do you call the Kennedys? they were pre Vatican II. Based on their lifestyle and policies, they don’t come across exactly devoted practicing Catholics. John Kennedy said he would not be taking advise from the Pope as part of his election promise. That was all pre-Vatican II. Hand holding in praying together as a community Our Father is hardly the worse thing going on and we have much bigger issues and problems than hand holding in Mass.
C
clem456
Guest
This is just oversimplified nonsense. Sorry. The kiss the ancients shared with one another…was that pre Vatican 2 ? Why do you feel the need to compare people as more or less this or that?
R
robwar
Guest
I have always had that focus. I had no clue to your logic here. Holding hands takes away from true unity?? Not sure how you come up with this logic.More
C
clem456
Guest
Joining hands for the Our Father has never taken away from unity at a Mass I’ve participated in (contrary to the soul reading capabilities of some here).More
This is -your opinion-. Our opinions are not doctrine, contrary to what modernist individualism might imply.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Well, maybe it needs to be simplified so people can understand what’s going on. We didn’t used to hold hands, and someone decided that we needed to hold hands to increase solidarity and/or unity. That means we were perceived to have had less before we started holding hands. That someone saw it as an opportunity to force his/her personal preference on the rest of us. This increased that person’s power, which was the goal all along. Whether it actually increased solidarity and/or unity is an open question, judging from the responses here. One thing is sure: someone’s power lust was satisfied.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Oh the irony in this statement just knows no bounds…
Opinions are NOT doctrine - and it is personal opinion alone that has caused the hand holding at Mass. It wasn’t there until someone started it on their own, or some priest made it up. It was their OPINION that the Mass needed something else, something more. How horribly insulting to the greatest Sacrifice of all eternity – that the Holy Mass is somehow lacking if we aren’t holding hands.
Surely the angels weep.
~Liza
A
Actaeon
Guest
I think you’re taking the motivation in the worst way possible, when there is much more realistic one that could be assumed: that holding hands was not to INCREASE unity and solidarity, but rather to increase the EXPRESSION of unity and solidarity (since the outward expression of reverence established in the norms of the mass are, as described by the GIRM, instituted as means of expressing unity of worship).Well, maybe it needs to be simplified so people can understand what’s going on. We didn’t used to hold hands, and someone decided that we needed to hold hands to increase solidarity and/or unity. That means we were perceived to have had less before we started holding hands. That someone saw it as an opportunity to force his/her personal preference on the rest of us. This increased that person’s power, which was the goal all along. Whether it actually increased solidarity and/or unity is an open question, judging from the responses here. One thing is sure: someone’s power lust was satisfied.
Why would you possibly assume that someone tried instituting this as a nefarious means to gain power? That’s simply a ludicrous assertion to make, especially since there’s not even a clear origin of WHO introduced the practice in the first place. If attempting to institute the practice was a move to gain power or influence, the person responsible for it was a massive failure because they failed to attach their name to the practice at all.
I think I’m going to grab some popcorn, because when conspiracy theories about shadow organizations gaining power by introducing hand holding arise, that’s when a thread gets interesting…
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
Easy if you use logic. The hand-holding becomes ‘an event’ in and of itself and takes away from the deeper meaning. Read this thread or some of the umpteen others devoted to this topic and you’ll see what I mean. You think 80% of the weekly Mass-goers realize we are joined…truly joined…with Heaven?
Mind you…I’m talking about 80% of the 20% of catholics that attend weekly Mass. Not you personally it seems. So great! You & I are focused.
- Status