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

[Sarabande]

Well that didn’t last long did it? Trying to exit this thread I mean.

When was the last time you looked around and saw a bunch of people praying the Rosary during the Mass?

I thought it was frowned upon to say one’s rosary during mass? A few priests I’ve talked to have told me that it was not something that should be done. Is there something I’m missing, because I don’t know why the issue regarding saying the rosary during mass is brought up? I thought it was a practice which has long since stopped with the older generations as they have passed into the next world. And even my grandmother no longer does it. She says it before mass now.

For the record, you are right… I haven’t seen a person say the rosary during mass since I was a little girl back in the 1980s and spied the little old grannies doing it. I’ve seen people now gather for the rosary 15 minutes before mass, but not during. It seems to be kind of a moot point now - unless there are truly loads of people in parishes doing this in other areas.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Times are changing. I understand though. To a certain extent, it is pretty creepy, especially when the church is trying too hard to the point where my fellow teenagers don’t sing.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[BSHoop96]

I thought it was frowned upon to say one’s rosary during mass? A few priests I’ve talked to have told me that it was not something that should be done. Is there something I’m missing, because I don’t know why the issue regarding saying the rosary during mass is brought up? I thought it was a practice which has long since stopped with the older generations as they have passed into the next world. And even my grandmother no longer does it. She says it before mass now.

For the record, you are right… I haven’t seen a person say the rosary during mass since I was a little girl back in the 1980s and spied the little old grannies doing it. I’ve seen people now gather for the rosary 15 minutes before mass, but not during. It seems to be kind of a moot point now - unless there are truly loads of people in parishes doing this in other areas.

I didn’t know people ever said it DURING the Mass. My guess would have been that you should be concentrating on the Mass. It is still said however. One parish here says it before Mass. I say it with a Rosary group on Tuesdays.

Someone brought it up as if it was the same as things introduced spontaneously by the laity like hand-holding at the Our Father. I didn’t agree.

 

[FrDavid96]

I didn’t know people ever said it DURING the Mass. My guess would have been that you should be concentrating on the Mass. It is still said however. One parish here says it before Mass. I say it with a Rosary group on Tuesdays.

Someone brought it up as if it was the same as things introduced spontaneously by the laity like hand-holding at the Our Father. I didn’t agree.

I have this vague memory of Pope Pius X suggesting that the laity read a catechism or pray the Rosary during Mass. While I am certainly not proposing this today, I wonder if anyone else out ther has the same recollection or can give a web reference to it???
Perhaps it was in an introduction to an older peoples-missal?

 

[Sarabande]

I didn’t know people ever said it DURING the Mass.

Yeah, those sweet, little old ladies were always saying their rosaries during mass. I remember my grandmother finishing it up around the time the readings were done. She’d cross herself with the rosary, kiss it, then put it away in her little, leather rosary case. The other old ladies would finish around the same time.

Someone brought it up as if it was the same as things introduced spontaneously by the laity like hand-holding at the Our Father. I didn’t agree.

I don’t know how saying the rosary during mass was initiated - whether a practice started by the Church or spontaneously introduced by the laity. So, I can’t say. If it was initiated by the Church, then it definitely would not be the same as the hold-handing thing. But if introduced by the laity, then it probably shouldn’t be done - although as I mentioned before, it’s a rather moot point since I don’t see anyone doing it anymore and priests we know have told me that it shouldn’t be done.

 

[FrDavid96]

Absolutely not. And for the large part we are. This is not the issue. The issue is, what is an abuse? You will find not fan of absurdity in Mass here. Indeed, we pretty much all believe in following the GIRM as closely as possible. Do you notice the passage does not elucidate what specific abuses? JPII had a a few priests even dressing up like clowns. He had priests gathering all the children around the altar. There were priest using the TLM without an indult. He had priest changing the words to a gender neutral format.

What I am saying is that in the context of this thread, the above quote only begs the question of what is and is not and abuse, and what is observing the norms with fidelity.

You ask the question “what is an abuse?” An excellent question. Let’s look at how reasonable people who desire to be faithful to the liturgical norms of the Church would arrive at such an answer.

Let’s begin with the Second Vatican Council. All you readers out there, go to your bookshelves, or go to a webpage and please read the Vat 2 document “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) Find paragraph #22 and read it for yourselves. When I do that I read the following: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”

Now, let us reasonable people ask ourselves what do the words “no person may add anything [to] the Liturgy on his own authority” mean?

“no person” means no person (does anyone dispute that?)

“add” means to include something which is not already there (does anyone dispute that?)

“on his own authority” means without the permission or mandate of a legitimate authority (does anyone disagree?)

Now, we may answer the big question by saying this: If anyone adds anything to the Liturgy without first obtaining the permission of the Supeme Authority of the Church (the Holy Father), that constitutes an abuse. Please keep this in mind.

Now let’s imagine a hypothetical practice and call it “A” It doesn’t matter what it is. It doesn’t have to be anything specific at all. Suffice to call it “A”

Now let’s ask the question “can I do A?”

Is “A” articulated in the liturgical norms of the Church? We look for a norm that says we should do “A”. We find nothing. We look for a norm that says we may do “A”. We find nothing. We look for norms that say we should/may do something that resembles “A”. We find nothing.

Now we ask the question, have I been given the authority to add “A”?
We look through the norms and we find a wealth of examples where we may add things at times (some of them surprise us), but we find nothing that gives us permission to add “A” among them.

Can we arive at any conclusion other than the one that says "I cannot add “A” because I have never been given the authority to do so. ???

We arrive at the necessary conclusion that to add “A” on our own authority, with no mandate or permission from any legitimate authority, constitutes an abuse.

Now let’s backtrack and replace “A” with “holding hands during the Our Father”. How do we arrive at different conclusions?

The Council says “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority” It seems to me that the statement of the church is clear and unambiguous. It is not open to interpretation. It is not open to expansion by adding “except for…”

The final, unavoidable conclusion is that adding the practice of holding hands during the Our Father (unless you happen to be the Pope) constitutes an abuse of the Liturgy. It realy is that simple.

 

[pnewton]

: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”

Now, let us reasonable people ask ourselves what do the words “no person may addanything [to] the Liturgy on his own authority” mean?

“no person” means no person (does anyone dispute that?)

“add” means to include something which is not already there (does anyone dispute that?)

“on his own authority” means without the permission or mandate of a legitimate authority (does anyone disagree?)

The one part not addressed happened to be the one part you changed. I am not familiar enough with Latin to know if such a change is inherent in the original document. I know from other langauges that prepositions can be slippery, but highly significant. So the quote is not about changes to the Liturgy, but rather changes in the Liturgy. So is holding someone’s hand considered a change, or addition, in the liturgy to you? I guess so. Has my bishop been given permission to make such decisions from the Holy Father? I do not know. It has been quite a stretch since Vatican II.

It is beyond me to know, but I do trust my bishop and priest over internet posters whom I do not know.

If you desire change, I am all for it. For now, I am not in charge of policy for my diocese or parish.

 

[FrDavid96]

The one part not addressed happened to be the one part you changed. I am not familiar enough with Latin to know if such a change is inherent in the original document. I know from other langauges that prepositions can be slippery, but highly significant. So the quote is not about changes to the Liturgy, but rather changes in the Liturgy. So is holding someone’s hand considered a change in the liturgy to you? I guess so.

It is beyond me to know, but I do trust my bishop and priest over internet posters whom I do not know.

Now, you’re just being ridiculous.

I also take notice of the fact that you have persistently avoided any attempt to justify your position in light of the words of Vatican II.

Readers, take notice: Those who defend liturgical abuses are unable to defend them when confronted with the actual words found in the documents of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

Now, you’re just being ridiculous.

Readers, take notice: Those who defend liturgical abuses are unable to defend them when confronted with the actual words found in the documents of the Church.

First, make no mistake you did change a word, and a critical one at that. Second, I have not defended liturgical abuses. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of begging the quesiton? You are postulating as fact the very point you try to prove. I concede that I could be mistaken. Some defense.

You start posting for a week and act as though you are some authority on the subject. I have no reason to believe you. I understand your logic, but I also see the flaw. It is the very thing we discuss; what is an abuse? what is a change in the liturgy? You have even conceded one exception to this very rule, namely if something like hands folded in prayer had been around for ages. I do not see that as a change in the liturgy either.

Oh, and while readers are taking notes (see post 147), they might notice the first line of your previous post. I have not been belittling people here and would appreciate the same.

 

[FrDavid96]

First, make no mistake you did change a word, and a critical one at that. Second, I have not defended liturgical abuses. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of begging the quesiton? You are postulating as fact the very point you try to prove. I concede that I could be mistaken. Some defense.

You start posting for a week and act as though you are some authority on the subject. I have no reason to believe you. I understand your logic, but I also see the flaw. It is the very thing we discuss; what is an abuse? what is a change in the liturgy? You have even conceded one exception to this very rule, namely if something like hands folded in prayer had been around for ages. I do not see that as a change in the liturgy either.

Oh, and while readers are taking notes (see post 147), they might notice the first line of your previous post. I have not been belittling people here and would appreciate the same.

I do not mean to belittle you. If I have, or if I have appeared to do so, I sincerely apologize.

Would you please offer me (and the other readers) a defense of holding hands during the Our Father in light of the words of SC #22 ???

 

[coleraine]

First, make no mistake you did change a word, and a critical one at that. Second, I have not defended liturgical abuses. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of begging the quesiton? You are postulating as fact the very point you try to prove. I concede that I could be mistaken. Some defense.

You start posting for a week and act as though you are some authority on the subject. I have no reason to believe you. I understand your logic, but I also see the flaw. It is the very thing we discuss; what is an abuse? what is a change in the liturgy? You have even conceded one exception to this very rule, namely if something like hands folded in prayer had been around for ages. I do not see that as a change in the liturgy either.

Oh, and while readers are taking notes (see post 147), they might notice the first line of your previous post. I have not been belittling people here and would appreciate the same.

why do you continue to argue? he has given you documented evidence. we all know that mass is supposed to be solemn, and traditional. you dont need to look at a paper to know that - you just need to be catholic.

 

[colliric]

Hm, interesting. I knew about the Our Father, but I didn’t know the Creed was sung in chant. Either way, I think we can agree that when sung today, these are much different than when they used to be sung. It seems today that it is more for a “rock effect”, which has no place in the Church IMO.

I have one particular non-denominational Christian friend who says that the Catholic mass is “boring, and in some ways, scary.” I assume this is because the mass is not as “upbeat” as he would like. He also says that the traditional method of worship (organs, chants, etc.) is outdated and has no place in the church anymore. How would you reply to him?

I go to a Charismatic Catholic Church and it is not done for “Rock Effect” it is instead done in a modernised worshipful manner that happens to be fairly soft-rock based. It is something the church should incorporate to some extent, in modern liturgical services, without alienating the older worship music. This is a balancing act. We cannot accept the bad with the good, and we also cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater either.

It is influenced by the predominantly protestant worship music called “Gospel Music”. This music has not been around for ages and is, music history wise, still a fairly recent development. This is a very valid form of worship music, abiet very modernised and sometimes also too focused on the “good beat” and not on the actual reason Worship music exists in the first place, to respect God and worship him.

Even though a Mass may be “charismatic” it is only by the allowance/permission of the Arch-Bishop and the magesterium that such a mass service can be considered Valid Mass service. The Charismatic mass conforms to the rulings of the Magesterium, in as much as the Magesterium and on a local level the Arch-Bishop is willing to consider it a Novo Ordo mass service even if some lay budding theologians don’t.

I also most disagee with the other quoted fellow’s statement however. No mass service is boring, I throughly enjoy all forms of Mass and am happy to attend any service. I just happen to have done my RCIA at St Augustines and like it there. I would ask this fellow,.does he attend mass(or whatever service he does attend) for nothing but his own enjoyment, or for Jesus?

I would agree with his statement that older music may be outdated, but I would strongly disagree with his statement that it should be removed from the liturgy(etc…) because it simply logically cannot and we should actually respect it as part of our heritage and enjoy it. I love a good sing of Schubert’s Ave Maria sometimes.

It is part of our Tradition, however I personally agree that “Gospel music” and other modern Worship music should be incorporated into the church where that music is appropriate, because like it or not, this continues the long developmental tradition of Worship Music from which the older forms also came.

 

[pnewton]

we all know that mass is supposed to be solemn, and traditional. you dont need to look at a paper to know that - you just need to be catholic.

You are absolutely right, but that was not what me and FrDavid96 were discussing.

I have heard both lines of reasoning. It is something that even close thinking people like Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin have not always seen eye-to-eye on.

Why does everyone seem so keen on converting those that do not agree with them. It is not like I care if we never held hands again. It is not like I desire any variation in the liturgy. I am just tired on all the slamming on our clergy. Maybe they know a little more than we do?

 

[FrDavid96]

First, make no mistake you did change a word, and a critical one at that. Second, I have not defended liturgical abuses. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of begging the quesiton? You are postulating as fact the very point you try to prove. I concede that I could be mistaken. Some defense.

You start posting for a week and act as though you are some authority on the subject. I have no reason to believe you. I understand your logic, but I also see the flaw. It is the very thing we discuss; what is an abuse? what is a change in the liturgy? You have even conceded one exception to this very rule, namely if something like hands folded in prayer had been around for ages. I do not see that as a change in the liturgy either.

Oh, and while readers are taking notes (see post 147), they might notice the first line of your previous post. I have not been belittling people here and would appreciate the same.

I have offered one possible “path” for anwering the question of “what is an abluse.” I await a response to that.

I have not as you say “conceded one exception…” With regard to hands folded in prayer during the Our Father, this practice has been in place since time immemorial. Therefore, it does not constitute a change, it is fidelity to the Tradition which we have received, and not an exception by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[coleraine]

You are absolutely right, but that was not what me and FrDavid96 were discussing.

I have heard both lines of reasoning. It is something that even close thinking people like Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin have not always seen eye-to-eye on.

Why does everyone seem so keen on converting those that do not agree with them. It is not like I care if we never held hands again. It is not like I desire any variation in the liturgy. I am just tired on all the slamming on our clergy. Maybe they know a little more than we do?

well from what ive heard, holding hands isnt good for mass because it draws more attention to the people around you. (i.e. group prayer) and in mass, we are supposed to be soley concentrated on god.

 

[pnewton]

Would you please offer me (and the other readers) a defense of holding hands during the Our Father in light of the words of SC #22 ???

I have no defense of it. I never cared to defend it. You are welcome to take it up with the Church. I have visited with dozens of Churches. Never have I heard any instruction to hold hands or not. Never have I seen a parish where some or even most do not hold hands. I have no answer and have always tried to take a middle road on it. I just find it hard to believe that all the wisdom in the Church is busy posting about this topic and not one minister I have seen on any level has such a hard line on it as those here do.

In absence of expertise, I rely on those in authority and their expertise.

FYI - There is a synod in Rome this week on the Word of God and it’s role in the life and mission of the Church. Notice how they are not obsessed with the same thing that this place is? Who do you think has the better perspective on what is truly important.

 

[pnewton]

well from what ive heard, holding hands isnt good for mass because it draws more attention to the people around you. (i.e. group prayer) and in mass, we are supposed to be soley concentrated on god.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The Mass was never soley on God to the exclusion of our relationship in the Church. The Protestant version of that is “me and Jesus got our own thing going.” Mass has always been communal (also). Even the very begining of the Our Father is Our Father, not My Father.

I am glad you brought it up. It brings us back on track a little to the actual topic.

 

[colliric]

You ask the question “what is an abuse?” An excellent question. Let’s look at how reasonable people who desire to be faithful to the liturgical norms of the Church would arrive at such an answer.

Let’s begin with the Second Vatican Council. All you readers out there, go to your bookshelves, or go to a webpage and please read the Vat 2 document “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) Find paragraph #22 and read it for yourselves. When I do that I read the following: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”

Now, let us reasonable people ask ourselves what do the words “no person may add anything [to] the Liturgy on his own authority” mean?

“no person” means no person (does anyone dispute that?)

“add” means to include something which is not already there (does anyone dispute that?)

“on his own authority” means without the permission or mandate of a legitimate authority (does anyone disagree?)

Now, we may answer the big question by saying this: If anyone adds anything to the Liturgy without first obtaining the permission of the Supeme Authority of the Church (the Holy Father), that constitutes an abuse. Please keep this in mind.

Now let’s imagine a hypothetical practice and call it “A” It doesn’t matter what it is. It doesn’t have to be anything specific at all. Suffice to call it “A”

Now let’s ask the question “can I do A?”

Is “A” articulated in the liturgical norms of the Church? We look for a norm that says we should do “A”. We find nothing. We look for a norm that says we may do “A”. We find nothing. We look for norms that say we should/may do something that resembles “A”. We find nothing.

Now we ask the question, have I been given the authority to add “A”?
We look through the norms and we find a wealth of examples where we may add things at times (some of them surprise us), but we find nothing that gives us permission to add “A” among them.

Can we arive at any conclusion other than the one that says "I cannot add “A” because I have never been given the authority to do so. ???

We arrive at the necessary conclusion that to add “A” on our own authority, with no mandate or permission from any legitimate authority, constitutes an abuse.

Now let’s backtrack and replace “A” with “holding hands during the Our Father”. How do we arrive at different conclusions?

The Council says “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority” It seems to me that the statement of the church is clear and unambiguous. It is not open to interpretation. It is not open to expansion by adding “except for…”

The final, unavoidable conclusion is that adding the practice of holding hands during the Our Father (unless you happen to be the Pope) constitutes an abuse of the Liturgy. It realy is that simple.

No it’s not that simple. The Charismatic service is allowed by the Magesterium to practise in such a manner in that it is not outlawed, it is done, they know about it, and they have not decided to outlaw it and have in fact time and time again endorsed through the official channels the Charismatic Mass service(and movement). It is up to the magesterium of the church which mass service is valid and which isn’t, not lay theologians.

You see “Legitimate authority” also lies on a local level with the Arch-Bishop, he can give the authority on behalf of the magesterium of the church(until the Pope overrules him with an official statement), and in the case of the Charismatic service, it, at least in my arch-diocese, happens.

The Pope has never (at least officially, because JP2 did) endorsed or ruled out the Charismatic Movement and it’s subsiquent version of the mass service. It has been left up to the Diocesan level, and up to the Bishops. It will remain that way until the Pope overrules them.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have no defense of it. I never cared to defend it. You are welcome to take it up with the Church. I have visited with dozens of Churches. Never have I heard any instruction to hold hands or not. Never have I seen a parish where some or even most do not hold hands. I have no answer and have always tried to take a middle road on it. I just find it hard to believe that all the wisdom in the Church is busy posting about this topic and not one minister I have seen on any level has such a hard line on it as those here do.

In absence of expertise, I rely on those in authority and their expertise.

FYI - There is a synod in Rome this week on the Word of God and it’s role in the life and mission of the Church. Notice how they are not obsessed with the same thing that this place is? Who do you think has the better perspective on what is truly important.

And that is PRECISELY my point. What many Catholics (in the US) experience in their churches cannot be defended in light of the actual words of the Church with regard to Liturgy.

Rome tells us one thing, and too many Catholics (lay and clergy alike) take it upon themselves to offer an alternative that cannot be reconciled to what the Church is saying.

How many times have we heard the mantra “Vatican Two says…” and then what follows is all too often the exact opposite of the Council’s teaching? We have tolerate this circumstance far too long.

It’s not a matter of saying that we should trust the clergy, it’s a matter of saying that the clergy should be trustworthy. It is a sad, sad, lamentable comment that too many have betrayed that trust.

Finally, the Church is more than capable of multitasking. Rome has an entire Sacred Congregation dedicated to Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. I doubt that the Congregation is closing during the Synod.

 

[Chuy]

I have no defense of it. I never cared to defend it. You are welcome to take it up with the Church. I have visited with dozens of Churches. Never have I heard any instruction to hold hands or not. Never have I seen a parish where some or even most do not hold hands. I have no answer and have always tried to take a middle road on it. I just find it hard to believe that all the wisdom in the Church is busy posting about this topic and not one minister I have seen on any level has such a hard line on it as those here do.

In absence of expertise, I rely on those in authority and their expertise.

FYI - There is a synod in Rome this week on the Word of God and it’s role in the life and mission of the Church. Notice how they are not obsessed with the same thing that this place is? Who do you think has the better perspective on what is truly important.

The level of arrogance is scary sometimes. I think there are more than a few Catholics out there that figure everything would be just fine if they were in charge.

Sorry, but God has already filled that position.