Why do we hold hands, have guitars, etc. in mass?

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Neither statement is accurate. Mass was offered in Latin on an altar ad orientem until the modern post-conciliar period. Of course the EF is still done that way and there is nothing even in the OF missal that prohibits it even today. (Remember that the typical edition of the OF Missal is in Latin.) Restoring the use of Latin and ad orientem to the OF is a hallmark of the “reform of the reform” movement which exists in a growing number of parishes in the US and elsewhere.

My point is that there have been many liturgical changes, and inculturization has allowed many options.

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

Priorities in establishing liturgical norms.

The Church (first) chooses not to regulate the posture of the laity during Mass. RS has pointed out the priorities in addressing abuses. Posture of the laity during the Lord’s prayer was not mentioned. The Church chooses not to regulate it.

Again you are in error for attempting to write your own norms.

Lux

---

Guess --we aught to blot our where the Church says about giving in to our own inclinations.

 

[malphono]

My point is that there have been many liturgical changes, and inculturization has allowed many options.

Lux

That may well be, but I don’t see what “inculturization” (as you put it) has do with it.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it appears to me that Lisa44 was looking from a historical perspective and thus saying something quite different.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

Guess --we aught to blot our where the Church says about giving in to our own inclinations.

I can’t understand how many who argue for strict norms, and against personal worship preferences also argue for kneeling for Holy Communion when the norm is to stand.

What inclinations? A payer posture? We are told to worship as a community. There is no posture prescribed for the Lord’s prayer. If we cannot hold hands, then we also cannot pray the rosary, sign ourselves, or do any other unnamed posture or practice.

The only documentation given here is a personal interpretation of a general instruction. Rome has never addressed handing holding, after the many complaints over the years.

She chooses not to, and many would do well to folow her example.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

That may well be, but I don’t see what “inculturization” (as you put it) has do with it.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it appears to me that Lisa44 was looking from a historical perspective and thus saying something quite different.

Many people stand in circles, it is not a strictly pagan practice. And what has this to do with hand-holding at Mass.

Should we also ban children’s games if they stand in a circle?

Inculturization refers to customs of the neighborhood or group. Much of the hand-holding comes from AA. I will not begrudge this little comfort to those who are struggling with such a difficult problem.

Lux

 

[pnewton]

I can’t understand how many who argue for strict norms, and against personal worship preferences also argue for kneeling for Holy Communion when the norm is to stand.

In that case there actually has been a statement from the Vatican that such ones are not to be denied communion. This may not be the strongest statement of tolerance, but it is more than we have heard on the other subjects posted here.

 

[malphono]

Many people stand in circles, it is not a strictly pagan practice. And what has this to do with hand-holding at Mass.

Should we also ban children’s games if they stand in a circle?

Inculturization refers to customs of the neighborhood or group. Much of the hand-holding comes from AA. I will not begrudge this little comfort to those who are struggling with such a difficult problem.

Lux

Believe it or not, I know what “inculturization” means. And since I am an earthling, I also know that many people in many cultures stand in circles for a variety of reasons. But what have children’s games have to do with a liturgical posture? Last time I checked, the Holy Liturgy was not a game.

My point was very simply that (to quote myself) “it appears to me that Lisa44 was looking from a historical perspective and thus saying something quite different.” While I cannot speak for another poster, it seems to me that the point being made was in relation to tradition and continuity. In that context, I do not see inculturization, or AA, or children’s games, etc., to be relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

In that case there actually has been a statement from the Vatican that such ones are not to be denied communion. This may not be the strongest statement of tolerance, but it is more than we have heard on the other subjects posted here.

Yes, I do agee, but find it very difficult to understand how liturgical norms can be so open to personal preferences in one area, but not in another. I do not care for handholding, especially when acrobatics are involved, but I will go along with it, if it is a local custom.

The Mass is community worship, and we told not to do anything to make ourselves apart from the community.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Believe it or not, I know what “inculturization” means. And since I am an earthling, I also know that many people in many cultures stand in circles for a variety of reasons. But what have children’s games have to do with a liturgical posture? Last time I checked, the Holy Liturgy was not a game.

My point was very simply that (to quote myself) “it appears to me that Lisa44 was looking from a historical perspective and thus saying something quite different.” While I cannot speak for another poster, it seems to me that the point being made was in relation to tradition and continuity. In that context, I do not see inculturization, or AA, or children’s games, etc., to be relevant to the discussion at hand.

Hi,

I don’t know how far back you’ve read, but it doesn’t appear far enough.

This is exactly my contention. I feel that holding hands and standing in a circle (RCIA) or in lines in the pews (Mass) is a New Age practice that has been absorbed by the church.

It was not my impression that “Catholics” were like that.

That is an example of cultural practices. All the pagans and wiccans I know, as well as new age groups, they ALL hold hands at some time or another in their worship services.

I am just pointing out that we cannot forbid everything pagans do (no more eating for you)

BTW What is the religion you claim in your profile?

Lux

 

[otjm]

---

otjm —that was a response to a specific question dealing with what can be done after receiving communion. Rome’s answer was to that one issue. Can’t really take the response to that one issue and apply it to other areas --where the Church Herself did not apply it to.

And I disagree with you: Rome was stating that it did not intend to be that rigid about posture when a specific posture was required - standing - and Rome said they were not trying to be rigid about posture.

The point then follows, where there is no posture (for hands) indicated at all, many are trying to find a rigid application from other documents not related to the specific question (hands) to say that Rome by implication of other documents wants a rigid application that hand holding is not permitted (because it is an alleged change, although no one yet has shown what changed, since there was no posture required of hands previous to hand holding throughout congregations).

Rome did not say that it did not intend to be rigid about posture after receiveing Communion and only in reference to that issue. It simply said it did not intend to be that rigid. In other words, it did not qualify the statement about lack of rigidity towards posture as applying only to the specific question. That statement taken in the context of the 40+ year debate about hand holding certainly has the implication, due to Rome’s continual refusal to address hand holding, that it is not rigid about the posture of hands during the Our Father.

 

[otjm]

We are talking about the liturgy so, I’m still not sure why you think that based on the fact that hand holding derived from charismatics, you think it should be incorporated into the liturgy why?

I never said it should be incorporated into the liturgy. Your post implied, if not outright said, that hand holding came from Wiccans and pagans. I disagree wtih you; it came from the Charismatic Movement.

There has been a raging debate over hand holding during the Our Father from not long after it started showing yup in the Mass, which was 40+ years ago. I have no personal desire to see it made mandatory (except for the amusement I would find watching and hearing those who object to it so strongly from their viewpoint of liturgical law having to compy); nor do I have any personal desire to see it ruled impermissible (other than the amusement of watching those who are so hot to do it- but then, some of those are inclined to not observe the rules already on the books, so it might simply end up as one more rule not observed well).

People held hands prior to Vatican 2; they did it with their children, and with their spouses. It simply was not wide-spread. There wasn’t a rule back then either. And there wasn’t a fuss about it, because people who didn’t want t o do it simply didn’t. Once it became popular (and it spread like wildfire when it got going), people who didn’t like it complained. They have been complaining ever since.

My contention is that there simply is no rule; it occured before Vatican 2 and no one said “You are adding something to the Liturgy and that is not permitted!”. That contention came when it became more wide-spread.

But to attribute it to Wiccans and pagans is about as logical as attributing it to Democrats and Republicans. None of them are the source of holding hands during the Our Father.

 

[otjm]

Holding hands is a long established tradition in pagan and wiccan (and before wicca, aka witches). It has to do with “closing the circle” (the five elements…etc).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

I really don’t care if people hold hands walking down the street. We are talking about the Catholic Mass.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/holding_hands_at_mass.htm

zenit.org/article-8728?l=english

Pagans preceeded the Charismatic movement. So did witches. And the subject here is how ‘hand holding’ got incorporated into the Catholic Mass.

I’m trying to visualize, 18th century France or England, and people getting up and forming continuous lines holding hands, and the people on the ends of the pews, holding hands, to make a continuous circle (pagan practice) during the Our Father.

Can you see it in the 4th century? How about the 12th century?

No, you can’t see it because it NEVER happened before.

Why? Because those people knew what it meant to be a Catholic. As opposed to a witch or a pagan…etc…

The fact that it may not have been commented on is not proof that it did not occur. Sorry, not a logical conclusion nor a legitimate proof. One cannot prove a negative; and one cannot use lack of comment to prove that because it was not commented on, that it did not exist.

Wiccans gather and make invocations. Wiccans as such may debatably not have existed prior to the coming of Christ, but witches most certainly did as they are noted in the Old Testament. They made invocations to their presumed deities; does that locgically mean that the Church,which came after the witches, took that practice from witches when it makes invocations to God?

No, I didn’t think so.

 

[Lisa44]

Pagans and witches also preceeded Christianity. Shall we also ban altars? What about chant?

The Mass was totally different then. The altar was turned, and the Mass was in Latin.

Again Charismatic is an approved ecclesial movement of the Catholic Church. It is optional, so you do not need to like it, but it is very wrong to disparage legitimate worship soley on your preference, with no official support.

Lux

I believe our liturgical form comes from Judaism not paganism.

Hi,

I don’t know how far back you’ve read, but it doesn’t appear far enough.

I am just pointing out that we cannot forbid everything pagans do (no more eating for you)

BTW What is the religion you claim in your profile?

Lux

You are being rediculous.

I never said it should be incorporated into the liturgy. Your post implied, if not outright said, that hand holding came from Wiccans and pagans. I disagree wtih you; it came from the Charismatic Movement.

There has been a raging debate over hand holding during the Our Father from not long after it started showing yup in the Mass, which was 40+ years ago. I have no personal desire to see it made mandatory (except for the amusement I would find watching and hearing those who object to it so strongly from their viewpoint of liturgical law having to compy); nor do I have any personal desire to see it ruled impermissible (other than the amusement of watching those who are so hot to do it- but then, some of those are inclined to not observe the rules already on the books, so it might simply end up as one more rule not observed well).

People held hands prior to Vatican 2; they did it with their children, and with their spouses. It simply was not wide-spread. There wasn’t a rule back then either. And there wasn’t a fuss about it, because people who didn’t want t o do it simply didn’t. Once it became popular (and it spread like wildfire when it got going), people who didn’t like it complained. They have been complaining ever since.

My contention is that there simply is no rule; it occured before Vatican 2 and no one said “You are adding something to the Liturgy and that is not permitted!”. That contention came when it became more wide-spread.

But to attribute it to Wiccans and pagans is about as logical as attributing it to Democrats and Republicans. None of them are the source of holding hands during the Our Father.

You can deny that holding hands during spiritual worship, is not a pagan practice. But it is. And its not a custom of the Catholic Mass for 1900 years. Pagans have been doing it through this time period.

The fact that it may not have been commented on is not proof that it did not occur. Sorry, not a logical conclusion nor a legitimate proof. One cannot prove a negative; and one cannot use lack of comment to prove that because it was not commented on, that it did not exist.

Wiccans gather and make invocations. Wiccans as such may debatably not have existed prior to the coming of Christ, but witches most certainly did as they are noted in the Old Testament. They made invocations to their presumed deities; does that locgically mean that the Church,which came after the witches, took that practice from witches when it makes invocations to God?

No, I didn’t think so.

Christianity was born out of Judaism, not paganism.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I believe our liturgical form comes from Judaism not paganism.
.

…and a circle is not pagam, even if it was used in worship.

Originally Posted by Lux et Tenebrae
Hi,

I don’t know how far back you’ve read, but it doesn’t appear far enough.

I am just pointing out that we cannot forbid everything pagans do (no more eating for you)

BTW What is the religion you claim in your profile?

Lux

You are being rediculous.

This post was in response to malphono, whose profile lists religion to be Suryoyo-Morounoyo

Christianity was born out of Judaism, not paganism

Check ancient religions----you may learn something about worship in general.

Lux

 

[Lisa44]

Lux, lets pretend for a moment, that holding hands during worship, is not a pagan practice. Okay?

Now just look at what it means to hold hands? What does it mean? I’ll answer for you, it is a sign of respect/intimacy/closeness with the person next to you.

Its a person to person link. True?

What is Mass about? Mass is about a God to man link. We eat the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. True?

One could argue that holding hands during Mass is verging on idolatry. Why? Because we are only supposed to worship God alone. We are not supposed to worship created things.

When you hold hands you are emphasizing a man to man link. This in and of itself is pagan because pagans, and witches, and non-theistic religions rely on their own powers to transport themselves out of worldly misery. So being human has a power in it that alone will suffice. That is why they hold hands, to show that they are united and strong in their power in the universe. ( idolatry).

To add, think of other mono-theists will you? Muslims and Jews. They are both theistic, and focused soley on the creator in their worship. Do they hold hands with oneanother? No.

You can use your reasoning abilities to argue that holding hands during Mass is bordering on idolatry.

That combined with the fact that witches and pagans do hold hands during their ceremonies, will show you that it is not a theistic gesture, but a pagan one. And its certainly not a Christian liturgical gesture. Not historically, and not correctly.

Thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

I can’t understand how many who argue for strict norms, and against personal worship preferences also argue for kneeling for Holy Communion when the norm is to stand.

What inclinations? A payer posture? We are told to worship as a community. There is no posture prescribed for the Lord’s prayer. If we cannot hold hands, then we also cannot pray the rosary, sign ourselves, or do any other unnamed posture or practice.

The only documentation given here is a personal interpretation of a general instruction. Rome has never addressed handing holding, after the many complaints over the years.

She chooses not to, and many would do well to folow her example.

Lux

Since you’ve said that you “can’t understand” it you’ve opened the door for an explanation of the differences:

Rome has said that the norm for receiving Communion (in the US at least) if in fact standing. One who chooses to kneel when receiving Communion is in fact in violation of liturgical norms, and both Rome and the US bishops have said that those who do so should be educated in the proper posture.

Quite frankly, BOTH practices (kneeling for Communion AND holding hands during the Our Father) constitute liturgical abuse. Rome has said that those who kneel may not be denied the Holy Eucharist simply because they are kneeling. That’s not the same thing as saying that the practice should be tolerated. It is a matter of stating the principle (which cannot be understated) that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments (so long as they are properly disposed, and nothing else impedes them). A cleric who denies Communion to anyone simply because he is holding hands during the Our Father would likewise be in the wrong. But in both cases, pastors (and indeed all priests) still have the responsibility of enforcing the norms of the Church (to include the oft-stated prohibitions against ANYONE adding ANYTHING to the Liturgy on his own authority).

If anyone brings up the issue of Papal Masses at which communicants are asked to kneel, the response is simple: the Holy Father does indeed have the authority to make changes to the Mass. While he can do so, it is not acceptable for other clergy to follow his example, UNLESS the Pope himself chooses to extend that option to them.

It is certainly NOT a “personal interpretation” to say that when the Church says over and over and over again consistently that no one may add anything to the Liturgy on his own authority. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by Lux et Tenebrae
I can’t understand how many who argue for strict norms, and against personal worship preferences also argue for kneeling for Holy Communion when the norm is to stand

Perhaps because this was the norm under the EF and it was not some personal idiosyncracy that popped up like the issue of hand-holding. That’s a huge difference. Furthermore, kneeling is a universal norm; hand-holding is not.

 

[benedictgal]

Rome has said that the norm for receiving Communion (in the US at least) if in fact standing. One who chooses to kneel when receiving Communion is in fact in violation of liturgical norms, and both Rome and the US bishops have said that those who do so should be educated in the proper posture.

Quite frankly, BOTH practices (kneeling for Communion AND holding hands during the Our Father) constitute liturgical abuse. Rome has said that those who kneel may not be denied the Holy Eucharist simply because they are kneeling. That’s not the same thing as saying that the practice should be tolerated. It is a matter of stating the principle (which cannot be understated) that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments (so long as they are properly disposed, and nothing else impedes them). A cleric who denies Communion to anyone simply because he is holding hands during the Our Father would likewise be in the wrong. But in both cases, pastors (and indeed all priests) still have the responsibility of enforcing the norms of the Church (to include the oft-stated prohibitions against ANYONE adding ANYTHING to the Liturgy on his own authority).

If anyone brings up the issue of Papal Masses at which communicants are asked to kneel, the response is simple: the Holy Father does indeed have the authority to make changes to the Mass. While he can do so, it is not acceptable for other clergy to follow his example, UNLESS the Pope himself chooses to extend that option to them.

It is certainly NOT a “personal interpretation” to say that when the Church says over and over and over again consistently that no one may add anything to the Liturgy on his own authority. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.

Fr. David, inasmuch as I agree with you on most of what you have written, I believe that you might be wrong regarding the lumping together of kneeling for communion as a liturgical abuse, given what the Church has ruled regarding this ussue. Are you not aware that kneeling for communion is a universal norm for the Church? While the USCCB has applied for and received permission to adopt the posture of standing as the norm for the United States, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is indicated in the original Latin version of the GIRM and is found in the other languages of the GIRM as well.

Furthermore, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has made this statement, where the reception of Holy Communion is concerned:

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

This letter dates back to 2002 and was written by Jose A. Cardnial Medina Estevis, predecessor of Francis Cardinal Arinze, who has upheld this ruling on numeour occaions. Both prefects have acted with the authority given to them by the Holy Father.

 

[Lisa44]

(Continued from my holding hands is idolatry post.)

From the Catachism, page 561: The First Commandment

“You shall worship the Lord your God, and **him only **shall you serve.”

2807 The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world.

2113 "Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God…"

2114 An Idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."

Why hold hands? Again, is your fellow man going to save you? Are we in Mass to revere our fellow man? Or, are we there to worship God alone? And not our fellow man as well. I hate to break it to you, but the man standing next to you could be the devil. Is Jesus the devil? Is God the devil?

THAT IS WHY WE WORSHIP GOD ALONE.

 

[ncjohn]

Quite frankly, BOTH practices (kneeling for Communion AND holding hands during the Our Father) constitute liturgical abuse.

With all due respect, that is absolute baloney. No one here has at any time been able to produce ANY statement from the Vatican that holding hands during the Our Father is a liturgical abuse despite years of trying. In fact, in the only statement from the Vatican anyone has ever produced here that even addressed the topic of holding hands–which dealt only with substituting it for the sign of peace–the Vatican specifically did NOT repudiate the practice of itself and only stated that it could not be substituted.

One is certainly welcome to not approve of the practice, or to believe it misguided, and is certainly more than entitled to not participate in it for whatever reason they may have. One is not entitled, however, to proclaim something to be an “abuse” that the Church has not.

A far more valid argument can actually be made under canon law that its unabrogated and widespread use over approximately a 40 year period constitutes it as a legitimate “custom”.

Either way, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, it would seem wise to not refer to things as abuses that have not been proclaimed as such.

Peace,