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

[colliric]

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.

Actually it’s really both. It’s finding a middle ground between us trusting them(which is nessecery) and them being trustworthy(which is also nessecery). It’s not either or, it’s Both. We should trust the clergy, and the clergy should be trustworthy!

and the church is capable of multitasking, but sometimes there are far too many tasks for Rome in of itself(and not the entire church). For example it’s been nearly 6 to 8 months since Sale diocese applied for a new Bishop to replace the retired one.

Relegation of authority is nessecery on many many issues.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually it’s really both. It’s finding a middle ground between us trusting them(which is nessecery) and them being trustworthy(which is also nessecery). It’s not either or, it’s Both. We should trust the clergy, and the clergy should be trustworthy!

and the church is capable of multitasking, but sometimes there are far too many tasks for Rome in of itself(and not the entire church). For example it’s been nearly 6 to 8 months since Sale diocese applied for a new Bishop to replace the retired one.

Relegation of authority is nessecery on many many issues.

Sure it’s both. I didn’t mean to imply that they were mutually exclusive. I merely meant to emphasize that trust must be earned and safeguarded.

I agree that delegation of authority is necessary. Of course it is, and that’s why such delegation is in place. When it comes to the Liturgy the priest presiding at the Mass (and the local bishop for his entire diocese) has many many options available to him. Most Catholics would probably be surprised at all the options and all the opportunities for alterations and additions which are already present and are perfectly legitimate.

I’m trying to make the point that there’s a difference between the Church delegating legitimate decision-making to a local level on the one hand, and usurping that authority on the other hand. We have to be careful not to confuse the two. (and, I’m not at all accusing you of such confusion, I’m merely making the point)

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

ou 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 thYe 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.

---

If by Charismatic “service” you mean a Mass —and if what happens in this Mass falls outside the norms/directives —then those responsible are not following higher legitimate authority. You see— the Charismatic movement is not exempt from the faithful observance of the liturgical norms. Oh --and it was JPII who mandated for the instruction RS–2004.

Now as to authority at the local level —you have a misunderstanding concerning that too. As can be seen —the Church has already made the official statement (more than once) concerning the type of authority the bishops can exercise.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[114.] “At Sunday Masses in parishes, insofar as parishes are ‘Eucharistic communities’, it is customary to find different groups, movements, associations, and even the smaller religious communities present in the parish.”[202] While it is permissible that Mass should be celebrated for particular groups according to the norm of law,[203] these groups are nevertheless not exempt from the faithful observance of the liturgical norms.

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

Its a matter of believing God is in charge via His Church. It is those who in some form or another try to find and/or create loopholes to undermine Church authority in liturgical matters – that seem to be reflecting a problem with God’s position.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Given that there is not now, and in the Mass promulgated by HH Paul VI, there never has been instruction as to posture during the Pater Noster… restricting it from the Orans or from holding hands is just as much adding to the text as requiring same. It is done during a period of standing; that’s as much as the rubrics specify.

Also given that, for the Orans, HH Benedict XVI has weakly endorsed it in a non-infallible way (A book, rather than a specific ex-cathedra statement), it’s an innovation, but not quite an abuse.

Even the USCCB points out that there is no directive EITHER WAY with regard to the Orans nor holding of hands. Therefore, it can neither be compelled nor blocked without, in essence, adding rubrics to the liturgy.

What I’ve seen of the older missals also lacks specific instruction.

Then again, when did the shaking of hands take over from the kiss on the cheek? Was it directed from on high? Do we not still call it the Kiss of Peace? This is the comparable area.

And further, when did men and women start sitting together? The 1917 CIC forbade that… I’ve only seen one gender segregated chapel… Men on the Altar dais, women in the pews… (Chapel for the DSP in Anchorage… the only males allowed were clerics and servers.)

 

[Phemie]

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.

We can only come at these things from our own experiences and mine are so far removed from yours as to be a different Church. I can’t recall ever attending a Mass in the last 25 years where we’ve held hands at the Our Father, Masses celebrated in dozens of parishes in as many dioceses.

 

[Walking_Home]

Given that there is not now, and in the Mass promulgated by HH Paul VI, there never has been instruction as to posture during the Pater Noster… restricting it from the Orans or from holding hands is just as much adding to the text as requiring same. It is done during a period of standing; that’s as much as the rubrics specify.

Also given that, for the Orans, HH Benedict XVI has weakly endorsed it in a non-infallible way (A book, rather than a specific ex-cathedra statement), it’s an innovation, but not quite an abuse.

Even the USCCB points out that there is no directive EITHER WAY with regard to the Orans nor holding of hands. Therefore, it can neither be compelled nor blocked without, in essence, adding rubrics to the liturgy.

What I’ve seen of the older missals also lacks specific instruction.

Then again, when did the shaking of hands take over from the kiss on the cheek? Was it directed from on high? Do we not still call it the Kiss of Peace? This is the comparable area.

And further, when did men and women start sitting together? The 1917 CIC forbade that… I’ve only seen one gender segregated chapel… Men on the Altar dais, women in the pews… (Chapel for the DSP in Anchorage… the only males allowed were clerics and servers.)

---

I believe the orans is prescribed for the priest only. The laity is not given this instruction. Therefore the laity are not to use gestures/actions proper to the priest.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

Liturgical Celebrations

§ 1. Liturgical actions must always clearly manifest the unity of the People of God as a structured communion.(89) Thus there exists a close link between the ordered exercise of liturgical action and the reflection in the liturgy of the Church’s structured nature.

This happens when all participants, with faith and devotion, discharge those roles proper to them.

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

 

[pnewton]

We can only come at these things from our own experiences and mine are so far removed from yours as to be a different Church. I can’t recall ever attending a Mass in the last 25 years where we’ve held hands at the Our Father, Masses celebrated in dozens of parishes in as many dioceses.

Intereesting indeed. All the more reason to take things said here with a grain of salt.

 

[TLM08]

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?

As a small child in the 1960s, I can still remember the wonder and awe of the old Latin Mass. In the blink of an eye it was gone and the sanctuary looked like Woodstock, full of bearded hippies with guitars and tambourines. At the time I didn’t know any better but my parents weren’t happy about it and my grandparents were furious.

Forty years later, the only difference is that those guitar playing, tambourine tapping hippies in the sanctuary now have stressful jobs, haircuts, high cholesterol, kids in college and wear Dockers. (uh…relaxed fit)

I’ve visited protestant churches over the years and the way I see it now, there is very little difference between the new Mass and the typical protestant service. Thank God for Benedict XVI… He seems to be doing something about it now. Although I do not question the validity of the Novus Ordo, I avoid it in favor of the Traditional Latin Mass

 

[Newbie2]

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.

The specific example of holding hands aside, does not the Church allow for variation in the liturgy according to Local Customs? The liturgy isn’t celebrated the exact same way over the entire globe. How does that reconcile with Sacrosanctum Concilium?

 

[FrDavid96]

The specific example of holding hands aside, does not the Church allow for variation in the liturgy according to Local Customs? The liturgy isn’t celebrated the exact same way over the entire globe. How does that reconcile with Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Excellent question. The qualification of “on his own authority” is central here. Such authority can be and certainly is granted by the Church.

First of all, the universal liturgical law itself allows for certain changes or adaptations in certain circumstances (which are clearly defined). To pick an obvious example, liturgical law specifically allows for the choice of several different Eucharistic Prayers, and specifically allows the priest to very briefly introduce the Mass of the day just before the Penitential rite.

Next, the conferences of bishops for each nation or regional collection of nations is absolutely competent to propose changes to the Holy See. These proposals, if they receive the recognition (approval) of the Holy See, then become part of the Liturgical law for that nation. Unless and until that recognition has been officially granted, though, changes are forbidden.

The conferences of bishops are likewise competent to say that within those approved changes, the local ordinary (or even the individual priest) may be given license to make certain changes, provided that they are in harmony with the faith and the established practices of the Church.

The local ordinary likewise has authority to officially dispense from the law in certain circumstances, but without getting into an overly legal discussion, suffice to say that the authority to grant dispensations does not mean that the bishop can simply do whatever he wants to the Mass.

Provision is also made for legitimate custom (which canon law carefully outlines and requires a minimum of 30 years practice), and for Traditions which are centenary (100 years) or time immemorial, so long as these do not run contrary to the law, have not been abrogated by the law, and are in harmony with the Deposit of Faith and Traditions. See canon 26. A law which forbids “future” customs, takes precedence over the establishment of new customs. I mention this only to express the fact that if a new custom violates existing laws, it does not enjoy the favor of the status of “custom” even if evidence exists that it has indeed been done for 30+ years.

The bottom line is that unless the laws of the Church specifically say “changes may be made here” those changes (whatever form they might take) are forbidden.

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks.

OK, so there something forbidden going on…I don’t mean to sound flippant, but let’s say in any particular parish they’re not doing things right…let’s further say it’s not a serious “abuse”…and the priest is not likely to change and let’s also say the bishop comes around every so often and has no problems with what’s going on.

What then? In reality, it probably ain’t gonna get changed.

 

[Sarabande]

Thanks.

OK, so there something forbidden going on…I don’t mean to sound flippant, but let’s say in any particular parish they’re not doing things right…let’s further say it’s not a serious “abuse”…and the priest is not likely to change and let’s also say the bishop comes around every so often and has no problems with what’s going on.

What then? In reality, it probably ain’t gonna get changed.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. Many of my colleagues work in Catholic parishes and other denominations where there is a centralized bishop for each of their cities. A similar conversation came up about this and how pastors handle orders from the bishop. Basically, if a pastor doesn’t want to obey or implement the new directive, he will just ignore it. They look at the piece of paper, maybe comment that it is from the bishop and then place the paper aside. For people who have worked in parishes, they have seen it occur. And if you bring it up with a pastor like that nicely, you’re brushed off.

Then there are the pastors who do work hard at implementing the orders from the bishop and you have the congregations who don’t want it and will fight tooth and nail - sometimes withholding money to the parish or leaving altogether. A sad thing to see, but it does happen. So, a pastor will have his hands tied and in order to to not lose money will do what he needs to do in order to make sure his parish survives. If that means ignoring the order, he may have to do it. I don’t envy that kind of pastor’s position at all.

 

[BSHoop96]

We can only come at these things from our own experiences and mine are so far removed from yours as to be a different Church. I can’t recall ever attending a Mass in the last 25 years where we’ve held hands at the Our Father, Masses celebrated in dozens of parishes in as many dioceses.

That’s because it started and is prevalent in just a few countries. The U.S. being one of them. Were all these Churches in Canada?

 

[BSHoop96]

Given that there is not now, and in the Mass promulgated by HH Paul VI, there never has been instruction as to posture during the Pater Noster… restricting it from the Orans or from holding hands is just as much adding to the text as requiring same. It is done during a period of standing; that’s as much as the rubrics specify.

l

Why would they have spoken of something that was not a problem at that time??? As has been mentioned many times it was spontaneously started by the laity and has grown over the last decades in a few countries. Everyone tries to justify it by saying it’s not mentioned.

And now as more people are joining the thread we are rehashing the same things over and over.

 

[BSHoop96]

The specific example of holding hands aside, does not the Church allow for variation in the liturgy according to Local Customs? The liturgy isn’t celebrated the exact same way over the entire globe. How does that reconcile with Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Yes, as the Church, for example, developed in certain countries they allowed for some forms of dance as that was and had been customary for them always. That is not the same thing as something being spontaneously added and spreading thru the laity.

Sorry for the multiple posts. I just got back on.

 

[pnewton]

Everyone tries to justify it by saying it’s not mentioned.

It is not an attempt at justification to bring up the oddity of it not being mentioned in such docuements as Redemptinus Sacramentum. Even something less common like songs with “Yahweh” have been mentioned as no longer allowed. With a word, the Holy Father could stop 99% of this.

This is not a justification, but it is data for someone like me that here some say one way and some say the other.

BTW - I seldom hold hands for the Our Father. If all else are doing and my hand is reached for, then of course I do. It bothers me not one whit.

 

[BSHoop96]

BTW - I seldom hold hands for the Our Father. If all else are doing and my hand is reached for, then of course I do. It bothers me not one whit.

It is common here so if my hand is reached for I oblige. I, for one, do not think It’s worth hurting someone’s feelings over since it is accepted in many parishes. I am just one of those who think it should not have been added by the laity. I think it will eventually be spoken to one way or the other.

 

[Phemie]

That’s because it started and is prevalent in just a few countries. The U.S. being one of them. Were all these Churches in Canada?

Yes, in 8 different provinces, English parishes, French parishes and bilingual parishes. Urban, suburban and rural.

 

[Aramis]

Why would they have spoken of something that was not a problem at that time??? As has been mentioned many times it was spontaneously started by the laity and has grown over the last decades in a few countries. Everyone tries to justify it by saying it’s not mentioned.

And now as more people are joining the thread we are rehashing the same things over and over.

A great many things are defined that are not problems. For example, the pitch on which a song is to be started is defined in the sheet music. But it’s not a problem when that note is changed .

In the case of the postures during the mass, many things are defined: when to stand, sit, kneel. The position of the hands is not defined in the GIRM nor the Sacramentary.

Defining it, either way, is beyond the competence of the local priest (absolutely beyond); the bishop has the ability (singularly or as part of a regional conference) to go to Rome for recognition of particular law to define a hand position (but Rome has not seen fit to grant same said bar to handholding).

I can give a good reason why it should not be banned: It is especially useful in making certain your children are in the correct (and defined in the GIRM) posture: Standing. When instead it turns into the obligatory human chain, it often becomes disruptive, at which point it becomes an abuse, even tho’ handholding itself isn’t an abuse itself.

Making it compulsory is an abuse.
Banning it completely is an abuse.