OTJM
Yes, abortion and sexual licentiousness are real problems. Yes, they are bigger problems than holding hands at the Our Father. Yes, we must do more to end them. Absolutely.
No, we should not ignore liturgical abuses because we have other, more important issues to deal with.
I don’t recall that I said “ignore them”; I said “put them in perspective”. When your house is on fire, you don’t sit there worrying about whether you were over-charged on your phone bill.
It is just that attitude of “liturgical norms don’t matter” that got us into the mess we’re in now.
What got us into this position runs far deeper than an attitude about liturgical norms. The issue of liturgical norms is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.
People know that they have no legitimate authority to change the Mass, so they try to change the subject instead. This attitude is particularly problematic among priests.
I think Archbishop Chaput’s attitude is indicative of a whole lot of things. His attitutde is that we need to be charitible; his opinion is that holding hands is acceptible within legitimate understanding of liturgical law.
The problem is not that people like me insist on “wasting time” talking about these issues–the problem is that others feel that they know better than the Church what should be the liturgical laws.
Well I trust that the Archbishop has had training in liturgical law, Canon law and not a few other issues from teachers and authorities other than those popular dissenting gurus - in other words, I believe he knows and understands the mind of the Church - and follows it.
Allow me to re-phrase what I said in an earlier post: The problem with holding hands at the Our Father is that it becomes a corporate gesture. You are correct in saying that the position of the hands is not regulated. Why, then, do certain groups regulate it? When a priest asks the congregation to hold hands, he is “regulating” it; which he cannot do. When people reach across to literally grab the hands of those next to them, whether they want to do so or not, they are regulating it. I have been in situations where people literally grab my hands pull them against my will during the Our Father. Is that acceptable? It happens.
Again, I refer to the Archbishop - and I do not disagree with you about the priest commenting; however, that sword cuts both ways. For those who are upset about hand holding and want it to stop, the priest who publicly states that it is not to happen is just as guilty of imposing his form of liturgical practice as the one who says “Let’s hold hands”; neither one has any business doing that. and no, to reiterate the Archbishop, no one has any business forcing you to do so.
When holding hands becomes something that the entire congregation does, and feels compelled to do, then it is being regulated.
No, it is not being regulated; it is being the common practice. Regulation has a specific meaning. The old phrase “When in Rome, do…” comes to mind, as well as my grandmother, who all too often in my young life came back with the phrase “offer it up”. I personally do not prefer to hold hands. I would never, ever refuse someone else’s hand in the given situation (no specific directive from Rome) for the simple reason that I would never put my feelings about holding hands above the charitible response of holding someon’s hand. I would not reach out; but if they do, I would not reject it.
None of what you said changes the fact that adding a gesture that is not part of the Mass and making it into a corporate gesture is indeed a violation of the liturgical norms of the Church. Romes ambiguous answer that it is “not regulated” is certainly not the same thing as saying that it is acceptable.
Rome’s answer is not ambiguous. Rome has avoided giving any answer at all; and the question has been asked by more than just the laity. Rome may well answer it at some point. That’s fine by me. But the silence has been deafening.
One does not necessarily follow from the other. As far as I know, there is no “regulation” against talking on a cell phone during Mass, but that doesn’t mean that we can expand that to say that Rome has said it’s prefectly fine to talk on a cell during Mass. Of course not, that would be absurd. And its equally absurd to draw the conclusion that “not regulated” is the same thing as “acceptable.”
That is called a red herring. Talking on the cell phone has noting to do with liturgical jestures. Holding hands is a sign of unity (you spoke of corporate gesture - I could not have put it better). Whether it is appropriate to show a sign of unity by doing such is hotly debated; I certainly would not hold it as necessary. But let’s keep to the topic, ok? You and I both know that there is a difference in liturgical intent between talking on a cell phone (no intent whatsoever) and holding hands as a sign of unity (liturgical intent; may be considered misguided).
I have not said, and I do not say, that we should ignore issues that are liturgical. I say that we should put them in perspective. If you are having a heart attack, you don’t stop to deal with a hangnail. It is still a hangnail; it is still a possible source of infection entry into the body. There is danger there.
There is just a tad bit more danger in the heart attack, I would submit. We are dealing with heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, prostate cancer, and a whole host of other serious issues, by analogy in the Church. I am not even convinced this gets to the level of a hangnail, and it would appear, neither is Archbishop Chaput. Would that we would have a thousand of him.
:harp: I dare say they also held hands and danced. St Paul tells the early Christians to give each other a kiss - what would you if that occurred at your liturgy? No doubt guitars and clapping (a sign of joy) are good to keep youngsters in the Church. In fact, they are leaving because of dreary choirs singing Latin only - for them at least! Though Catholic liturgical music including Gregorian chant is one of the high points of Western Civilization.
Fold your hands in front of you.
:harp:
