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

[pnewton]

Apparently you feel otherwise since you propose allowing the wound to fester. We know where that leads.

No, I do not see the wound you are talking about as being very wide-spread, nor do I see much festering.

 

[OriginalJS]

Wow! What a discussion over nothing! The central point of the Mass is the Eucharist, not the music, hand-holding, crying babies, bored teenagers, dress, the priest’s singing ability or lack thereof. If you are distracted at one church, consider going elsewhere…

 

[FrDavid96]

No, I do not see the wound you are talking about as being very wide-spread, nor do I see much festering.

And therein lies the problem as it has become. Your sentiment of “I don’t see the wound” is an expression of where we have unfortunately arrived after 40 years of post-concilliar misunderstandings. Liturgical abuses have become so widespread and so commonplace that too many Catholics fail to see them for what they are. In the US, we have almost (and I stress almost) an entire generation or more of Catholics who are unfamiliar with a Mass celebrated with dignity and solemnity, and according to the liturgical laws and legitimate Tradition of the Church. If you don’t see the festering, I suggest you look to a phenomenon called a "life teen ‘Mass’ " Further, the festering is expressed in the fact that in spite of recent liturgical documents from Rome, many of the specific abuses outlined by JP II continue in so many parishes today. We still see crystal “chalices”; we still see an abuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, we still see priests who compose their own words for the Eucharistic Prayer. etc. etc.

Do you not see these things happening? This past Lent, I read a magazine article written by a priest in which he tells the readers that he announces to the parishioners that there is coffee and donuts in the back of the church, should anyone care to leave the Easter Vigil Mass and partake of them during the long readings; yes, at the Easter Vigil Mass no less. This is where we have arrived. If that’s not a festering wound, what is???

 

[benedictgal]

And therein lies the problem as it has become. Your sentiment of “I don’t see the wound” is an expression of where we have unfortunately arrived after 40 years of post-concilliar misunderstandings. Liturgical abuses have become so widespread and so commonplace that too many Catholics fail to see them for what they are. In the US, we have almost (and I stress almost) an entire generation or more of Catholics who are unfamiliar with a Mass celebrated with dignity and solemnity, and according to the liturgical laws and legitimate Tradition of the Church. If you don’t see the festering, I suggest you look to a phenomenon called a "life teen ‘Mass’ " Further, the festering is expressed in the fact that in spite of recent liturgical documents from Rome, many of the specific abuses outlined by JP II continue in so many parishes today. We still see crystal “chalices”; we still see an abuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, we still see priests who compose their own words for the Eucharistic Prayer. etc. etc.

Do you not see these things happening? This past Lent, I read a magazine article written by a priest in which he tells the readers that he announces to the parishioners that there is coffee and donuts in the back of the church, should anyone care to leave the Easter Vigil Mass and partake of them during the long readings; yes, at the Easter Vigil Mass no less. This is where we have arrived. If that’s not a festering wound, what is???

I am afraid that perhaps what you have described is a festering wound that has grown cancerous. Unfortunately, I have seen this play out within four dioceses down here in Texas. In fact, within some parishes (in the same diocese), the differences are as radical as night and day.

I think that what we have forgotten is the fact that the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice. We have forgotten that at every Mass, the veil between heaven and earth is lifted and an immense cloud of witnesses joins us. Time ans space are suspended and we find ouselves back in the Upper Room, at Calvary and at the tomb. You don’t hear that anymore preached from the ambo (although, in my case, my parochial vicar says it all the time, but, he is just one).

A lot of the music today doesn’t reflect these sacred mysterise. It is all about feel good and bullding community, hence the hand-holding and whathaught. We have made about us instead of about Him.

Pope Benedict, as a young theologian in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council saw the handwriting on the wall, especially with what went on at Tubingen. As a peritus (theological expert), he was at the Council and knew what had and had not been said and done. That is why he has been quite vocal when it comes to the Mass. That is why what he has written in the past as Joseph Ratzinger is now coming to pass as Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[pnewton]

Wow! What a discussion over nothing! The central point of the Mass is the Eucharist, not the music, hand-holding, crying babies, bored teenagers, dress, the priest’s singing ability or lack thereof. If you are distracted at one church, consider going elsewhere…

Thank you for the interjection. That is exactly what I meant by straining the gnat. I am grateful for our priest and archbishop. We do not do LifeTeen, but we do use an acoustic guitar and have a very holy Mass. I even had the pleasure of playing at a Mass presided over by our AB the month after he was made a Cardinal. I will let benedictrgirl and FrDavid96 rail against issues they see. I am not brought into conflict with such things, so I have no beef.

 

[BSHoop96]

I think that what we have forgotten is the fact that the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice. We have forgotten that at every Mass, the veil between heaven and earth is lifted and an immense cloud of witnesses joins us. Time ans space are suspended and we find ouselves back in the Upper Room, at Calvary and at the tomb.

gosh benedictgal…this almost made me teary. Well said.

A lot of the music today doesn’t reflect these sacred mysterise. It is all about feel good and bullding community, hence the hand-holding and whathaught. We have made about us instead of about Him.

Yes. And then when someone pops in and reads us in a thread like this it can seem that we are having a big discussion about the “small things”. Small things tend to become “bigger” or lead to other small things. I would venture to say that you could go in some Catholic churches today and not be sure you were in a Catholic church.

Pope Benedict, as a young theologian in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council saw the handwriting on the wall, especially with what went on at Tubingen. As a peritus (theological expert), he was at the Council and knew what had and had not been said and done. That is why he has been quite vocal when it comes to the Mass. That is why what he has written in the past as Joseph Ratzinger is now coming to pass as Pope Benedict XVI.

Tubingen??? Share, please.

 

[benedictgal]

Tubingen??? Share, please.

He was at Tubingen, teaching at a university there. Things started happening that were somewhat disconcerting and he didn’t agree with such activity. Some of it, I think, had a great deal to do with following the Spirit of Vatican II than what the resulting documents actually said. In fact, he covers this in his book, “Milestones.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for the interjection. That is exactly what I meant by straining the gnat. I am grateful for our priest and archbishop. We do not do LifeTeen, but we do use an acoustic guitar and have a very holy Mass. I even had the pleasure of playing at a Mass presided over by our AB the month after he was made a Cardinal. I will let benedictrgirl and FrDavid96 rail against issues they see. I am not brought into conflict with such things, so I have no beef.

You seem to be confusing denying the problem with the lack of a problem. Playing the guitar while Rome burns? Just because you personally choose to deny that liturgical abuses are a cause of great harm to the Church, that doesn’t mean that the harm is not happening.

 

[erasmus211]

Thankfully, this has never been a problem at my Church, and I’m grateful for it. Personally speaking, I would be horrified should the Mass start to resemble politically correct worship.
I pray the Holy Father stops this soon as do others who have commented on here.

 

[Frosty]

You seem to be confusing denying the problem with the lack of a problem. Playing the guitar while Rome burns? Just because you personally choose to deny that liturgical abuses are a cause of great harm to the Church, that doesn’t mean that the harm is not happening.

With all due respect, FrDavid, I don’t think that is a very fair statement. He wasn’t denying that abuses do occur and that they are a serious problem. The thing is that often on this forum unless one is constantly complaining about liturgical abuse, disobedient Bishops, the lack of reverence in a Pauline Mass, or disagrees with the notion that the Pauline Mass is Protestant and in all likelihood either illicit and displeasing to God rather than Catholic etc. etc. etc., then one is accused of sticking one’s head in the sand and being part of the problem.
Any Catholic with half a brain knows that there are large issues and tensions in the Church today but this is not something new. As hard as it to imagine for some, there really are thousands of parishes that are as orthodox as one could wish and where abuses in the liturgy are not a problem. Where the faithful actually believe in the Real Presence and that the Mass is primarily a Sacrifice and “Gulp” these are OF parishes.
Would I like it if all Masses were as reverent and beautiful as Papa Benedict’s or my own Bishop for that matter? You betcha! However, as much as abuses in the liturgy are to be abhored, and those who suffer from them deserving of our sympathy and prayers,surely it is equally as relevant to celebrate parishes where they do not happen.

 

[BSHoop96]

He was at Tubingen, teaching at a university there. Things started happening that were somewhat disconcerting and he didn’t agree with such activity. Some of it, I think, had a great deal to do with following the Spirit of Vatican II than what the resulting documents actually said. In fact, he covers this in his book, “Milestones.”

Okay, thanks.

 

[pnewton]

You seem to be confusing denying the problem with the lack of a problem. Playing the guitar while Rome burns? Just because you personally choose to deny that liturgical abuses are a cause of great harm to the Church, that doesn’t mean that the harm is not happening.

My faith does not allow for the possibility that Rome will burn.

Again, to use the analogy of a wound, I have seen nothing but positives in the last decade. From a priest of a growing parish I see immediate reaction to every change Rome has offered in an attempt to be obedient in presenting a faithful liturgy. He has now celebrated 30 years as a priest. I have seen our diocese grow to an archdiocese and our holy AB elevated to Cardinal. I have no reason to engage in the pessimism that so envelopes others. Sure there are pockets of hardline innovators that will always push the limits into travesty. I just do not see them as a growing faction as much as a dying breed.

In the continue reference to the guitar, since it is allowed and since it our best option at this time, the judgementalism of others is irrelevant. Their authority is non-existent.

I have dealt with benedictgirl long enough and butted heads enough to respect both her opinion and her differences. Were we in the same parish, I would either compromise with her or totally turn everything over to her and happily work under her leadership. I accept that her difference perspective may be somewhat where she is, though. I think she would still like it here.

 

[BSHoop96]

With all due respect, FrDavid, I don’t think that is a very fair statement. He wasn’t denying that abuses do occur and that they are a serious problem.

He/she did kind of seem to be doing that.

The thing is that often on this forum unless one is constantly complaining about liturgical abuse, disobedient Bishops, the lack of reverence in a Pauline Mass, or disagrees with the notion that the Pauline Mass is Protestant and in all likelihood either illicit and displeasing to God rather than Catholic etc. etc. etc., then one is accused of sticking one’s head in the sand and being part of the problem.

Any Catholic with half a brain knows that there are large issues and tensions in the Church today but this is not something new. As hard as it to imagine for some, there really are thousands of parishes that are as orthodox as one could wish and where abuses in the liturgy are not a problem. Where the faithful actually believe in the Real Presence and that the Mass is primarily a Sacrifice and “Gulp” these are OF parishes.

I get the distinct impresson that you are insinuating that we have we have a problem with the OF Mass???

As far as I’m concerned that has nothing to do with it. I love my OF parish. The things we are discussing have been added by the congregation, **not **by the magisterium. They should not be part of the OF Mass any more than an EF Mass. Discussing this isn’t ranting and raving. Good grief, this is a very civil thread compared to some on here.

I did want to add that my parish does hold hands. For unity and because I wouldn’t hurt someone’s feelings over this I take any hand that is extended to me. However, that does not mean that I think it’s totally “okay”. One can disagree without “ranting and raving”. The US, I think Australia, and a few places have this situation. At some point perhaps the Church will speak to it. As has been pointed out, silence does not mean consent.

 

[mcs7474]

I would guess that it is to attract the younger crowd, but as far as I know that is not what the church did traditionally.

Personally (and I know I am different than most kids my age), I prefer more traditional masses with organs rather than guitars/drumsets.

At mass this past weekend, I witnessed something I never have before. The Nicene Creed was sang. I couldn’t believe it. I had trouble following the singing, so I tried to say it in my head, but since it is a profession, I feel like I should say it aloud.

The holding hands thing during the Our Father really gets to me, more than the music. I actually asked my brother (who is a priest) about this, and he said that we shouldn’t hold hands because it is supposed to be a time between the individual and God, not the individual, God, and the individuals next to him/her.

So why do we hold hands, have rock instruments, and try and turn everything (including the Our Father) into a song?

Why not?

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately, you continue to put words into the Archbishop’s mouth. Once again, saying that it is “not regulated” is not the same thing as giving permission for an innovation. I used the cell phone as an extreme example, but the analogy still holds because one is still focusing on someone else rather than on God.

Hogwash to both issues - the cell phone is not an analogy as I pointed out, and no one is focusing on someone other than God by holding hands during the Our Father. Oh, I take that back - those that strongly object to holding hands might be; but that is a personal issue. Those who are holding hands during the Our Father by choice - what, are you a mind reader now, that you can tell what their focus is? I don’t think so… And as to words in the Archbishop’s mouth, no, he is plenty good at putting the words in there himself. You might want to do a little digging around and find what he wrote - it was public material. Unless you don’t want a rather renowned bishop disagreeing with your position.

Holding hands during the Our Father causes the congregation to concentrate on the people next to them. It is a gesture which implies that the prayer is addressed to ones neighbors since they become the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer.

that is as unsubstantiated a comment as I have seen in a while. That makes as much sense as saying that people who recieve in the hand are focusing on the individual distributing the Host rather than on Christ; neither comment is worthy of merit.

Rome has been quite clear in recent communications that innovations to the Liturgy are not acceptable, unless proposed by legitimate authority (the conferences of bishops) and ultimately approved by the Holy See. No doubt, Archbishop Chaput would agree (I venture to say that even though I don’t pretend to know him). Your posts repeatedly imply (key word) that Rome has given its approval to holding hands. That is not the case. Although we have an absence of an actual prohibition specifically against holding hands, there is no doubt that the totality of liturgical law makes it quite clear that no one may add, remove, or change anything in the Mass on his own authority.

No, please read my posts. Rome has shown it doesn’t give a whole lot of concern to the issue. That does not in any way mean that Rome will not at some point rule that it is not to be done; simply that Rome has heard about it since near when it started, and has obviously done absolutely nothing to respond to what you perceive as a major problem, aor at the minimum a very large minor one.

A priest has every right to ask members of the congregation not to do someting which distracts others and detracts from the proper disposition which should be expressed at the Mass. It would not be practical to expect Rome to outline every possible distraction. Again, the lack of a prohibition does not imply permission or acceptance.

By your own words you ahve said that the priest has no authority to change any of the rubrics. there are no rubrics for what the congregation does during the Our Father other than that they stand. The priest by imposing his personal opinion on an aspect of their posture - “Don’t hold hands” - is making a liturgical rule - the rule of not holding hands. By your words he has no authority to do so. You can’t play it both ways. You are inconsistent.

Liturgical abuses are both a symptom and a source of the problem. When a community takes it upon itself to redefine the Mass according to its own tastes, without regard to legitimate authority, and without regard to the authentic practices of the Church, that attitude carries over into the teaching of the faith itself within that same community.

Holding hands during the Our Father is hardly up to the level of redefining the Mass, or without regard to authentic practices (by this I assume you mean palms together…, otherwise I ahve no clue what you are alluding to). Let’s not over-react, ok?

Once again, I agree with you that there are more important issues facing the Church, but this still does not mean that we should fail to address, or even postpone discussion of liturgical abuses. Popes John Paul II and Benedict have tried to teach us that, but we have become so accustomed to ignoring Rome that we aren’t listening anymore.

Ah, but I am listening to Rome; I keep telling you, the silence is deafening.

let’s look at the bigger issue. If a pastor teaches (by example) his congregation that communication from the Holy See can be either ignored or accepted according to local tastes in matters of Liturgy, eventually the congregation gets the message and draws the natural conclusion that following the teachings of Rome is optional. If a priest says “I can disregard Rome in matters of Liturgy” that attitude continues to fester and eventually reaches the point of saying “we can disregard the teachings of Humanae Vitae and everything that flows from it” Do you not see the connection?

I am not dense. You don’t seem to get the fact that a major issue is being made over hand-holding. The posture, other than standing, during the Our Father is not prescribed. Do you have a problem of two children holding hands saying it? Two parents? An elderly couple? 3 people who belong to the same parish and sit together at Sunday Mass? Really? Truly do you have a problem with that? Then I would suggest that you might want to focus on the issue of rule vs. substance. The rule which becomes the substance walks so close to phariseeism, that I am not sure one can distinguish the difference.

 

[BSHoop96]

Hogwash to both issues - the cell phone is not an analogy as I pointed out, and no one is **focusing on someone other than God by holding hands during the Our Father. ** Oh, I take that back - those that strongly object to holding hands might be; but that is a personal issue. Those who are holding hands during the Our Father by choice - what, are you a mind reader now, that you can tell what their focus is? I don’t think so… And as to words in the Archbishop’s mouth, no, he is plenty good at putting the words in there himself. You might want to do a little digging around and find what he wrote - it was public material. Unless you don’t want a rather renowned bishop disagreeing with your position. that is as unsubstantiated a comment as I have seen in a while. That makes as much sense as saying that people who recieve in the hand are focusing on the individual distributing the Host rather than on Christ; neither comment is worthy of merit.

No, please read my posts. Rome has shown it doesn’t give a whole lot of concern to the issue. That does not in any way mean that Rome will not at some point rule that it is not to be done; simply that Rome has heard about it since near when it started, and has obviously done absolutely nothing to respond to what you perceive as a major problem, aor at the minimum a very large minor one.

By your own words you ahve said that the priest has no authority to change any of the rubrics. there are no rubrics for what the congregation does during the Our Father other than that they stand. The priest by imposing his personal opinion on an aspect of their posture - “Don’t hold hands” - is making a liturgical rule - the rule of not holding hands. By your words he has no authority to do so. You can’t play it both ways. You are inconsistent.

Holding hands during the Our Father is hardly up to the level of redefining the Mass, or without regard to authentic practices (by this I assume you mean palms together…, otherwise I ahve no clue what you are alluding to). Let’s not over-react, ok?
Ah, but I am listening to Rome; I keep telling you, the silence is deafening.

I am not dense. You don’t seem to get the fact that a major issue is being made over hand-holding. The posture, other than standing, during the Our Father is not prescribed. Do you have a problem of two children holding hands saying it? Two parents? An elderly couple? 3 people who belong to the same parish and sit together at Sunday Mass? Really? Truly do you have a problem with that? Then I would suggest that you might want to focus on the issue of rule vs. substance. The rule which becomes the substance walks so close to phariseeism, that I am not sure one can distinguish the difference.

I don’t think we’ve condemned anyone here for the practice. You’re getting a little over the top with the phariseeism comparison I think.

Here are a few quotes. I can link the whole thing if you wish.

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

*The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

The use of this practice during the Our Father could **detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal *** and merely human meaning.

We can do this he says this, he says that all night…or we can agree to disagree.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think we’ve condemned anyone here for the practice. You’re getting a little over the top with the phariseeism comparison I think.

Maybe not in this thread…but do a search and see how many times parishioners have been condemned to hell for holding hands during the Our Father.

***Quote:
Originally Posted by FrDavid96
Holding hands during the Our Father causes the congregation to concentrate on the people next to them. It is a gesture which implies that the prayer is addressed to ones neighbors since they become the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer. ***

that is as unsubstantiated a comment as I have seen in a while. That makes as much sense as saying that people who recieve in the hand are focusing on the individual distributing the Host rather than on Christ; neither comment is worthy of merit. -otjm

I gotta side with otjm on this one. “It is a genture which implies that the prayer is addressed to one’s neighbors…”??? “…since they become the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer”.



Following this logic, we should then all be looking up and holding our hands up, pointing toward God, or maybe the Tabernacle or Altar, to make Christ “the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer”.

I can take hand-holding or leave it, but an equally valid interpretation of the hand-holding gesture is that the congregation is showing an outward gesture of community, solidarity in prayer if you will, as they say “Our Father…”

 

[BSHoop96]

Maybe not in this thread…but do a search and see how many times parishioners have been condemned to hell for holding hands during the Our Father.

Well that is over the top. Are you sure you’re not reading more into than is meant? Just as my disagreeing with the practice on here in no way means I think this is in any way a horrible, awful abuse. I think it’s just one more thing the laity has added…not the magisterium, therefore I think it shouldn’t be done.

***Quote:
Originally Posted by FrDavid96
Holding hands during the Our Father causes the congregation to concentrate on the people next to them. It is a gesture which implies that the prayer is addressed to ones neighbors since they become the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer. ***

that is as unsubstantiated a comment as I have seen in a while. That makes as much sense as saying that people who recieve in the hand are focusing on the individual distributing the Host rather than on Christ; neither comment is worthy of merit. -otjm

Following this logic, we should then all be looking up and holding our hands up, pointing toward God, or maybe the Tabernacle or Altar, to make Christ “the focus of the gesture, and thereby the attitude of prayer”.

I can take hand-holding or leave it, but an equally valid interpretation of the hand-holding gesture is that the congregation is showing an outward gesture of community, solidarity in prayer if you will, as they say “Our Father…”

Please re-read my post #115 which includes a quote which virtually says the same thing Fr.David96 says that you are disagreeing with. Also includes a reference to the Catechism. Then get back to me.

 

[Newbie2]

Well that is over the top. Are you sure you’re not reading more into than is meant? Just as my disagreeing with the practice on here in no way means I think this is in any way a horrible, awful abuse. I think it’s just one more thing the laity has added…not the magisterium, therefore I think it shouldn’t be done.

No, it’s pretty clear in a number of threads and posts that ***some *** around the forum consider hand holding just a step away from Gehenna.

Most folks are more reasonable in their discussions, as you are , but I often wonder where these…OK, I’ll say it…“Pharasees” minds are at mass…fretting over the hand-holding or focusing on Christ.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would like the readers of this forum to consider the words of Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated."

JP2 has “urgently appealed” that everyone observe the norms with fidelity. Am I therefore wrong for expecting this to be done?

He also says “There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery” yet there are those who say that my care for the mystery is indeed excessive.

Last quote: “It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery.”

I’m merely doing my part…