B
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I must take issue with that last sentence in your post.
I am not asking you to take my word for it. Please refer to *Redemptionis Sacramentum *(2004) a legally binding Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
(The bold type is my own emphasis)
[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. **The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden **many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.
[12.] On the contrary, it is the **right of all of Christ’s faithful **that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the **Catholic people have the right **that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the **Catholic community’s right **that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.
[18.] **Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy **lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”
[30.] The office “that belongs to Priests in particular in the celebration of the Eucharist” is a great one, "for 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 always brought into play within the context of the 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".
[31.] [with regard to priests]…They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions… Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.
Extra emphasis was added by me in #31. My own words follow:
You see, my friend, a priest has a solemn obligation NOT to permit unauthorized changes to the Mass. The faithful have a RIGHT to clerics who faithfully follow the liturgical norms of the Church.
These are not merely my words, these is not merely my opinion, this is not merely my interpretation of vague instructions open to many interpretations. This is the teaching and liturgical law of the Church. Read it for yourself. Don’t take my word. Don’t take the word of anyone else posting here. Read it for yourself.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
You cannot seriously be putting this forward as a logical argument? This is a rhetorical question, btw.
This argument has been made over and over. Why would it have been spoken to? People stood and did whatever they’ve been doing for as long as people remember…clasp or fold their hands…keeping them to themselves. I can’t imagine that they thought the laity would have made a change that would have affected the congregation. Do you expect them to list every don’t that they could possibly think of that people might decide would be a nice addition to the Mass?
Surely responsible parents can make sure their children are standing at the proper time.
It’s not that hand-holding is so terrible, although I personally find it distracting particularly at this place in the Mass,** it’s that the laity has introduced something to the Mass. ** Where does it end?? What is so hard to understand about that???
For that reason it shouldn’t be done.And speaking of done. I’ve just posted my last hand-holding post! I wish I had the beating a dead horse smilie.
B
bkovacs
Guest
It’s because after Vatican 2. Protestant ideologies infected the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI is trying to stop it, and return Catholics to their identity, theology, rituals, etc. Before it goes to far. But it may be to late and there may be a split in the future. Only God knows!. I believe Pope Benedict XVI somewhere said that the Church may become smaller in the future.
O
otjm
Guest
OK, one more time: It is not an unauthorized change in the Mass; change would imply that there was something required, and that was changed.
There is no requirement as to hand posture, so holding hands is no more a change than is palms together, or, for that matter, folding one’s arms across one’s chest with hands tucked in, or on the arms. There simply is no posture in the GIRM for the hands, so holding hands does not change a required posture.
To change something (a posture) there must be a posture that is to be changed.
As I have said, you really need to read what the good Archbishop has said - and I’ll let you in on a little secret - he disagrees with you.
As noted in a few posts back - if Rome wants to speak they have shown repeatedly they are amply capable of it; they recently came out and banned using Yahweh in song. And that one was an issue almost no one was talking about, let alone complaining about. This one has been on the complaint list almost from the start, which, contrary to some opinions herein, carries more weight than some would give it, most particularly when seen in the perspective of the changes Rome has made.
The flat out bottom line is you don’t seem to have a whole lot of training in actually reading and understanding what Rome is speaking about when Rome speaks. You take it to be a paintbrush with which to paint any and all things you don’t like. The documents you quote simply don’t address the issue, as much as you would like them to.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
“They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions”
The words are from Redemptionis Sacramentum. The bold-type is mine.
Are you denying that the word “additions” is in the document in exactly that place? Do you think I added that word on my own? Every reader here is free to locate a copy of RS and read for himself what it says.
The words are from Redemptionis Sacramentum. The bold-type is mine.
Are you denying that the word “additions” is in the document in exactly that place? Do you think I added that word on my own? Every reader here is free to locate a copy of RS and read for himself what it says.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
There are very few instructions for posture of the laity during Mass. If the laity are instructed, they are instructed to follow the instruction of the priest. Disobedience to the instruction of a priest (unless something against faith or morals) or disrespect is far more serious than a priest giving an instruction on posture.
As to regional customs this document on inculturation.
Local bishops usually give authority to their pastors, which is the reason these minor variations are allowed. Most letters of complaint may be acknowledged and passed on to the pastor, but there is rarely any action taken.
Lux
P
pnewton
Guest
No, but you must also consider the word “arbitrary”. Some here have said that the practice of holding hands was something spontaneous from the laity. Therefore, it is not an arbitrary action by a priest and this section does not apply. In fact, I have never heard a priest give instructions to hold hands.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Hi,
I have, and I really don’t care for it, especially when people start climbing over pews to make these conga lines, but he is the pastor, and I just accept it.
Many support groups do this, and it is comforting to many who may feel they are struggling alone.
Lux
I have, and I really don’t care for it, especially when people start climbing over pews to make these conga lines, but he is the pastor, and I just accept it.
Many support groups do this, and it is comforting to many who may feel they are struggling alone.
Lux
P
pnewton
Guest
Perhaps. It has happened before. But I disagree with the assumption that Cathoics have lost their identity, theology and rituals. I do not know any Catholics, except some dissident posters here who feel this way. I do not believe you are plugged in to the Catholic mainstream.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Maybe because you have eyes --yet you do not see, etc. As Arch. Ranjith well stated — we are being de-culturated right out of our Catholic identity. The Church is suffering from a bad case of “inculturation” run amok.
Arch. Ranjith — on “inculturation”.
katobs.se/art_intew_ranjith.htm
As for what has been carried out up to now, one cannot be altogether satisfied. Some positive developments are visible, like the large scale use of vernacular languages in liturgy, making the sacraments better understood and to that extent better participated, and the use of art, music and Asian gestures at worship. But a lot of arbitrariness and inconsistency can also be noted, arbitrariness through the permitting of all kinds of experiments and officialisation of such practices without proper study or critical evaluation.
I once was listening to a radio talk given by a Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka who ridiculed Christians for allowing local drum beating in their churches without knowing that those beats in fact were chants of praise for the Buddha. This could be just one instance of unstudied absorption of local traditions that are per se incompatible with what we celebrate.
By inconsistency I mean practices we introduce as adaptations but per se are incompatible with our culture, like just a bow instead of genuflection or prostration before the Holy Eucharist, or communion in the hand received standing, which is far below levels of consideration given to the Sacred in Asia. In some countries, instead of introducing liturgical vestments or utensils reflective of local values, their use has been reduced to a minimum, or even abandoned. I was at times shocked to see priests and even bishops celebrating or concelebrating without the proper liturgical attire.** This is not inculturation but de-culturation, if such a word exists.**
L
Lisa44
Guest
.
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.
L
Lisa44
Guest
If I wanted to speak in tongues I would have joined the Pentacostal church. If I want to hold hands with people I would have joined a pagan group. If I wanted to sing a lot I would have joined a Protestant church. etc…
This is culture. Catholic culture HAS changed i don’t know how Pnewton can say that it hasn’t.
I like Gregorian chant and sombre monastic traditions, I joined the Catholic church but oops… I thought this was a Catholic church…
you get the picture. (Not that I became a Christian for the music, of course not, but there are many Christians sects…why do people become CATHOLIC, and not protestant?) Because of one thing and one thing only: Tradition. Period. End of story.
Without tradition, I dare say, I don’t know what would happen to Christ’s church.
This is culture. Catholic culture HAS changed i don’t know how Pnewton can say that it hasn’t.
I like Gregorian chant and sombre monastic traditions, I joined the Catholic church but oops… I thought this was a Catholic church…
you get the picture. (Not that I became a Christian for the music, of course not, but there are many Christians sects…why do people become CATHOLIC, and not protestant?) Because of one thing and one thing only: Tradition. Period. End of story.
Without tradition, I dare say, I don’t know what would happen to Christ’s church.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
What about Christmas trees/wreaths, or wedding rings? These are pagan practices that have been incorporated into Catholic worship.
P
pnewton
Guest
That particular insult is a matter of opinion and a rather meaningless jab. You have no place to comment on my experience and the Catholics I know. Perhaps you run in cirlces of unhappy, dissatisfied Catholics, but I do not. As the below AB comments, he too was not speaking of me, but rather was addressing the Asian Catholic community. Of course they will have different issues.
Where is this statement? I searched for it under “identity” and “culturated” and could not find it.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not a Catholic for the culture. I am Catholic because of my faith in the promise of Christ made to Peter. It was a theological decision, not a preferential on. And what I said, before it is twisted any more, was:
Only a third of these is related to culture and it is the one I am willing to concede may be based more on experience because of the vagueness of the concept.
P
pnewton
Guest
We can go on forever like that. We have the dating of the Feast of the Nativity, as well as many other feasts. Conversion of pagan worship sites to Churches. The addition of the organ to worship. The Church has always taken and sanctified that which it found pre-existing.
Even Paul at the Acropolis used a pagan altar as a starting point for his sermon there.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
**That particular insult is a matter of opinion and a rather meaningless jab. ** You have no place to comment on my experience and the Catholics I know. Perhaps you run in cirlces of unhappy, dissatisfied Catholics, but I do not. As the below AB comments, he too was not speaking of me, but rather was addressing the Asian Catholic community. Of course they will have different issues.
Where is this statement? I searched for it under “identity” and “culturated” and could not find it.
pnewton — it is an observation. I have read your posts in this thread where you state “I have no defense of it.** I never cared to defend it "— “It is not an attempt at justification to bring up the oddity of it not being mentioned in such docuements as Redemptinus Sacramentum”---- "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”.
For someone who has no defense of it/care to defend it --justify it-- care for it —you’re keeping up a back and forth debate — with those that via documentation from the Church see it a an un-authorized intrusion into the Mass. There is something you are not seeing --if you are putting this type of effort into a debate of an act—for which you have no defense–justification–etc.
As to the statement — maybe if you had read what I posted --you would have understood —that I condensed what Arch. Ranjith said–into my own words. But below are some direct statements by Arch. Ranjith : By the way – since we are** one **Church —what undermines the Church in Asia applies too for us here in the US and the Church as a whole.
P
pnewton
Guest
And a valid observation at that. I do not know if I am an oddity here or not, but you have raised a question about what I say and what I do… It surely does seem like a contradiciton. My reasoning for jumping in on some issues are not that I side with one side or another, but rather that I seem arguments presented (and presented like a dogmatic, case-closed) that are as much opinion as fact. I see the actions of priests being criticized from afar by those not familiar with specifics. I do not believe that the issue of holding hands is a prima facae, open and shut case. It is *this *that I argue against, not the holding of hands in general.
Remember that this thread is not about holding hands during the Our Father, but the liturgy in general. The tone of the OP was how I got started down this path.
O
otjm
Guest
And therein lies the problem. “Feel” is about emotions, and emotions tend to run their own course without recourse to logic. The facts - not the feelings - are that hand holding came from Catholic Charismatics. Not New Age, but people seeking the Holy Spirit. But people who don’t know the facts get feelings (from who knows where) and go off down their own path, all too often with a sense of self-righteousness (and I do not presume youi are; I am simply reflecting on the last 40 years of dispute) that some people simply will not slow down and deal with the facts. We don’t like something, so we find a way to smear the intentions and the characters of those we don’t like, without ever bothering to find out why they do what they do.
So do families. I held my daughters hands many times. So do husbands and wives; so do friends, when one of them is having a rough patch. So do Vietnamese men who are friends, in Vet Nam (and that is a cultural thing that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality).
I know a fair number of pagans, given that Oregon is one of the most unchurched states in the Union; and they don’t all hold hands. I don’t persoanlly know any Wiccans, so I can’t speak to them. But to imply that people holding hands are doing so because there is some Wiccan background to this is flat out a smear and not acknowledging the facts of where this started - in other words, not based in truth…
Holding hands is a sign of unity, and has nothing to do with being Wiccan, or coming from that as a source.
- Status