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

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Lux, lets pretend for a moment, that holding hands during worship, is not a pagan practice. Okay?

Now just look at what it means to hold hands? What does it mean? I’ll answer for you, it is a sign of respect/intimacy/closeness with the person next to you.
.

Lisa–

Yes, you do answer for me, …and I disagree.

Many object to handholding, but not because they claim it is a pagan practice.

Do you have any authentic comfirmation of your claim?

Lux

 

[colliric]

Fr. David, individual conferences were allowed to petition Rome for permission to have communicants receive Holy Communion standing as long as communicants who desired to receive Our Lord while kneeling were not denied. That is the huge loophole right there, as I mentioned in my earlier post. In fact as late as 1982, my pastor was still using the communion rail for the reception of Holy Communion. In 1976, when I received my First Holy Communion, I received on the tongue and while kneeling at the communion rail.

Furthermore, if you werer to look at the Latin version of the 2002 edition of the GIRM, kneelign is still valid. Standing is the one that has the petition and that petition is granted so long as the conferences understand that if a communicant approaches and kneels, he is not to be denied Holy Communion nor is he to be labled as disobedient. Nor would the celebrant be labeled disobedlient if he allowed communicants at his Masses to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

yes this is right, people kneel at my church quite frequently.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

yes this is right, people kneel at my church quite frequently.

Yes, and they are not to be denied Holy Communion, but the norm is still standing in the US.

Lux

 

[pnewton]

I just thought of something. Since kneeling for communion reception is not listed in the GIRM, does this constitute yet another exception to the “universal” rule?

 

[benedictgal]

I just thought of something. Since kneeling for communion reception is not listed in the GIRM, does this constitute yet another exception to the “universal” rule?

Actually, if you were to look at the Latin version of the GIRM (2002 edition), you will find it:

1. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter approprinquant.

Non licet ipsis fidelibus panem consecratum neque calicem sacrum per semetipsos accipere eo minus de manu in manum inter se transmittere. Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.

Genuflexi means kneeling in Latin. Thus, the option is given here for the conferences to adopt standing as a posture. Here is what the exact same section says in Spanish:

1. Después el sacerdote toma la patena o el copón y se acerca a quienes van a comulgar, los cuales de ordinario, se acercan procesionalmente.

No está permitido a los fieles tomar por sí mismos el pan consagrado ni el cáliz sagrado, ni mucho menos pasarlo de mano en mano entre ellos. Los fieles comulgan estando de rodillas o de pie, según lo haya determinado la Conferencia de Obispos. Cuando comulgan estando de pie, se recomienda que antes de recibir el Sacramento, hagan la debida reverencia, la cual debe ser determinada por las mismas normas.

The same provision exists for adaptation in Spanish as well. Now, the only English GIRM that I have seen is for the United States, but, I would be curious to see the provisions listed for the Australian, British, New Zealand and Irish conferences to see how they have handled the situation. Remember, the US GIRM is only in effect for the US.

The bottom line is that, contrary to what some here might think, Rome would not have reacted the way she did had she not believed that kneeling was just as valid a posture as standing. The Holy Father would not have acted as he has had he not believed in the validity of kneeling.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

The bottom line is that, contrary to what some here might think, Rome would not have reacted the way she did had she not believed that kneeling was just as valid a posture as standing. The Holy Father would not have acted as he has had he not believed in the validity of kneeling.

No, the bottom line is that your personal interpretation of the Pope’s actions does not change the norm. Whether or not people are permitted to ignore the norm is irrelevant.

The norm in the US is standing.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

No, the bottom line is that your personal interpretation of the Pope’s actions does not change the norm. Whether or not people are permitted to ignore the norm is irrelevant.

The norm in the US is standing.

Lux

Lux, no one is disputing you on this. You and I have sparred on this in another thread. The Holy See has already spoken rather clearly that kneeling is a valid option. No one is to be labled disobedient or dissident because they choose to kneel.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just thought of something. Since kneeling for communion reception is not listed in the GIRM, does this constitute yet another exception to the “universal” rule?

Not exactly. Please allow me to explain.

There is an over-riding rule/law/Tradition in the Church that the faithful have a right (yes, a right in the legal sense) to receive the Sacraments, provided that they are properly disposed (for example, not in mortal sin) and otherwise not impeded (for example can’t marry again if they’re already currently married to someone else). Let’s not get too technical about that point. It’s a different topic for a different time. Suffice to say that speaking in general terms, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments.

What Rome is saying is that the right to receive the Eucharist cannot be denied to someone simply because he approaches the priest kneeling to receive. That’s not quite the same thing as declaring outright that the practice is licit if it conflicts with the approved adaptations of the US conference of bishops. Such adaptations, by the very fact that they have received the “recognitio” of the Holy See constitute the actual liturgical law for that region–they are not, per se, exceptions; they are the law.

Rome approved the universal liturgical law (the “typical” Roman Missal), but that same Holy See also approved the adaptations requested by the conferences of bishops for each region/nation. Since those adaptations have been approved by the Holy See, it is not up to anyone else to declare himself exempt from those laws.

Let’s look at a different, less controversial issue. Men do not wear hats in church (in our American culture). Let’s say that a parishioner has some personal quark and “always” wears a hat. When it comes time for communion, the priest may (and I say should) ask him to remove his hat. He refuses. The priest cannot thereby deny him the Eucharist on account of wearing a hat. This does not mean that wearing a hat is somehow an approved “posture” for Mass.

Now, my fear here is that we’re going to go off on a tangent by saying that kneeling is a practice from time-immemorial. Yes. Granted. I’ve been agreeing with that point over-and-over-again. It’s not the same thing as a man wearing a hat. I am merely trying to provide an un-controversial example to illustrate the point. I’m NOT trying to compare the two.

 

[benedictgal]

I realize that we’ve strayed way off from the OP to the point that we’ve departed from hand-holding and guitar-strumming during the Mass, but, during the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, when the Holy Father re-introduced, restored or whaterver “re” one would like to add after this prefix, he preached a homily that bears repeating:

At this point we cannot forget the beginning of the “Decalogue”, the Ten Commandments, where it is written: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20: 2-3). Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present. Kneeling before the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: those who bow to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate themselves before any earthly authority, however powerful. We Christians kneel only before God or before the Most Blessed Sacrament because we know and believe that the one true God is present in it, the God who created the world and so loved it that he gave his Only Begotten Son (cf. Jn 3: 16). We prostrate ourselves before a God who first bent over man like the Good Samaritan to assist him and restore his life, and who knelt before us to wash our dirty feet. Adoring the Body of Christ, means believing that there, in that piece of Bread, Christ is really there, and gives true sense to life, to the immense universe as to the smallest creature, to the whole of human history as to the most brief existence. Adoration is prayer that prolongs the celebration and Eucharistic communion and in which the soul continues to be nourished: it is nourished with love, truth, peace; it is nourished with hope, because the One before whom we prostrate ourselves does not judge us, does not crush us but liberates and transforms us.

I believe that this is justification enough for those who wish to kneel in order to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Now, for the record, I stand to receive Our Lord. But, I will defend someone who chooses to kneel because that is a valid option and Rome has ratified it on several occasions.

On the other hand, hand-holding during the Pater Noster has no traditional basis in the liturgical worship of the Church and is a misguided attempt at forcing a communion that will occur a nano-second later during the Kiss of Peace and later on, during the actual reception of Holy Communion. a much deeper union between the comunicant and Christ and the communicant and the Church.

 

[otjm]

You can deny that holding hands during spiritual worship, is not a pagan practice. But it is. And its not a custom of the Catholic Mass for 1900 years. Pagans have been doing it through this time period.

Christianity was born out of Judaism, not paganism.

No one is denying that pagans do certain things, or witches do certain things. You brought it up with the implication, it would seem, that because witches hold hands in a circle, that holding hands during the Our Father somehow is related to that.

I flat out deny that. Witches do other things, too; that has nothing to do with the Mass or the conversation at hand.

Whether or not holding hands has been in the Mass officially is beside the point also, as it is not in the Mass officially now. It started as a spontaneous gesture of unity and has become somewhat inculturated in the Mass in many areas.

People hold hands. Parents hold their children’s hands, and that is pretty much a universal reaction acroos all nations, cultures and religions. Lots of other people hold hands. Hand holding is a sign of friendship and a sign of unity. whether it should be doen during Mass is open to discussion, but bringing in a stray comment about witches and pagans does nothing to enhance the discussion. It did not source from witches and pagans, it sourced from people seeking an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Your comment about witches is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement; such arguements are fallacious.

 

[Walking_Home]

Not exactly. Please allow me to explain.

There is an over-riding rule/law/Tradition in the Church that the faithful have a right (yes, a right in the legal sense) to receive the Sacraments, provided that they are properly disposed (for example, not in mortal sin) and otherwise not impeded (for example can’t marry again if they’re already currently married to someone else). Let’s not get too technical about that point. It’s a different topic for a different time. Suffice to say that speaking in general terms, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments.

What Rome is saying is that the right to receive the Eucharist cannot be denied to someone simply because he approaches the priest kneeling to receive. That’s not quite the same thing as declaring outright that the practice is licit if it conflicts with the approved adaptations of the US conference of bishops. Such adaptations, by the very fact that they have received the “recognitio” of the Holy See constitute the actual liturgical law for that region–they are not, per se, exceptions; they are the law.

Rome approved the universal liturgical law (the “typical” Roman Missal), but that same Holy See also approved the adaptations requested by the conferences of bishops for each region/nation. Since those adaptations have been approved by the Holy See, it is not up to anyone else to declare himself exempt from those laws.

Let’s look at a different, less controversial issue. Men do not wear hats in church (in our American culture). Let’s say that a parishioner has some personal quark and “always” wears a hat. When it comes time for communion, the priest may (and I say should) ask him to remove his hat. He refuses. The priest cannot thereby deny him the Eucharist on account of wearing a hat. This does not mean that wearing a hat is somehow an approved “posture” for Mass.

Now, my fear here is that we’re going to go off on a tangent by saying that kneeling is a practice from time-immemorial. Yes. Granted. I’ve been agreeing with that point over-and-over-again. It’s not the same thing as a man wearing a hat. I am merely trying to provide an un-controversial example to illustrate the point. I’m NOT trying to compare the two.

---

Sorry FrDavid96—Rome has come right out and said --" Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of **acting illicitly **when they kneel to receive Holy Communion"----yet here you are --applying illicitness to the practice of kneeling.

 

[FrDavid96]

… It did not source from witches and pagans, it sourced from people seeking an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Therein lies the heart of the problem. Beginning sometime in the 1960s people who wanted to make all sorts of changes to the Mass, entirely on their ownn authority, have been claiming an “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” to justify their own personal tastes. Let’s face some reality here: most of the liturgical abuses we see today originated with the so-called “Catholic Pentecostals” who now call themselves “Charismatics” since they’ve realized that the original name more accurately reflects their protestantizing tendancies. Anything that conflicts with the liturgical laws of the Church is labeled as “inspired by the Holy Spirit,” and anyone who opposes such innovations is labeled as “opposing the Spirit.” This is a bunch of hogwash (to put it mildly).

Do we have 2 different “Holy Spirits?” One Who inspires the Magesterium and has inspired it for 2000 years, and one who inspires the Charismatic movement? It seems we do…

 

[Lisa44]

No one is denying that pagans do certain things, or witches do certain things. You brought it up with the implication, it would seem, that because witches hold hands in a circle, that holding hands during the Our Father somehow is related to that.

I flat out deny that. Witches do other things, too; that has nothing to do with the Mass or the conversation at hand.

Whether or not holding hands has been in the Mass officially is beside the point also, as it is not in the Mass officially now. It started as a spontaneous gesture of unity and has become somewhat inculturated in the Mass in many areas.

People hold hands. Parents hold their children’s hands, and that is pretty much a universal reaction acroos all nations, cultures and religions. Lots of other people hold hands. Hand holding is a sign of friendship and a sign of unity. whether it should be doen during Mass is open to discussion, but bringing in a stray comment about witches and pagans does nothing to enhance the discussion. It did not source from witches and pagans, it sourced from people seeking an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Your comment about witches is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement; such arguements are fallacious.

I’m not going to answer you, because it appears you haven’t read or even tried to comprehend my argument.

Pnewton disagreed with my argument, but at least he/she read my argument and offered a criticism that was valid.

Resorting to insults is not called for.

 

[Lisa44]

Lisa–

Yes, you do answer for me, …and I disagree.

Many object to handholding, but not because they claim it is a pagan practice.

Do you have any authentic comfirmation of your claim?

Lux

I clearly articulated my theory with proof of the pagan custom of holding hands during worship. And I supported my theory with the Catachism of the Catholic Church.

Are you familiar with what it means to develop one’s own theory? I didn’t read it in a book. It is my use of my brain to arrive at a conclusion. You may agree or disagree with my conclusion.

But again, I won’t repeat myself because you didn’t even try and comphrehend my argument. I’m not an intellectually lazy person, I try and meditate and reason on every argument.

I think all people should engage their brain and examine things in the light of their reason. Its ok to ask experts ‘what should I do or think’ but its equally important to analyze things with one’s own powers of intellect that God gave us to use.

 

[pnewton]

Pnewton disagreed with my argument, but at least he/she read my argument and offered a criticism that was valid.

We should realize ( and thank you for pointing it out kindly) that disagreement is not a bad thing, nor should we take it personally when people disagree with us. Priests, theologians and saints all disagree with each other from time to time. Even Peter and Paul; Barnabas and Paul, had disagreements. It is a challenge to our humility to accept such points, and even criticism with humility and not return insult for insult.

 

[Oshiego_Rod]

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?

There is a time and place for everything. I enjoy the solemn Traditional Mass and I enjoy praise & worship (guitars, drums, etc). But in no way would I combine the two.

 

[ncjohn]

On the other hand, hand-holding during the Pater Noster has no traditional basis in the liturgical worship of the Church and is a misguided attempt at forcing a communion that will occur a nano-second later during the Kiss of Peace and later on, during the actual reception of Holy Communion. a much deeper union between the comunicant and Christ and the communicant and the Church.

Again with the “misguided attempt” insults directed at the overwhelming majority of Catholics who do in fact participate in this. It’s clear you don’t like it, and that’s fine, but the continual insulting tone towards others who find value–even if you don’t–is getting very old.

Of course it doesn’t have a “traditional basis” as before the Pauline Mass the priest recited the Pater Noster without the people. Since the inception of the people praying it in the vernacular however this custom has existed, making it likely just as legitimate a “custom” as folding one’s hands was in the days before the people prayed the prayer. Of course I never heard anyone complain in those days because someone held their child’s hand or put their hands on the back of the pew.

As to your argument about not needing the symbolism, from your previous post, the same or very similar argument could likely be made about each and every sign and symbol contained within the Mass. We don’t need any of them, but it is widely known that people do respond to signs and symbols and thus the Mass is full of them. You may not like this one and find it unnecessary, but a great number of others would beg to disagree. There are many of the symbols contained in the Mass that I might find unnecessary for me personally but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.

And the argument that we don’t need it because we have the sign of peace and communion following similarly hold no water. The sign of peace is a symbol of peace wished for one’s “neighbors” rather than a communal prayer to Our Father. Communion is that personal moment of union with God, while celebrated as part of the community, but again is totally separate and distinct from the prayer of the Our Father.

I don’t begrudge you your personal distaste for this at all, but please, PLEASE leave the condescension and superiorty complex at the door. We really don’t need to be insulting each other over how we express our piety and devotion. If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but please stop judging those of us who do find value in a gesture that we do find a valid symbol and which the Church has consistently failed to find fault in.

Peace,

 

[benedictgal]

Again with the “misguided attempt” insults directed at the overwhelming majority of Catholics who do in fact participate in this. It’s clear you don’t like it, and that’s fine, but the continual insulting tone towards others who find value–even if you don’t–is getting very old.

Of course it doesn’t have a “traditional basis” as before the Pauline Mass the priest recited the Pater Noster without the people. Since the inception of the people praying it in the vernacular however this custom has existed, making it likely just as legitimate a “custom” as folding one’s hands was in the days before the people prayed the prayer. Of course I never heard anyone complain in those days because someone held their child’s hand or put their hands on the back of the pew.

As to your argument about not needing the symbolism, from your previous post, the same or very similar argument could likely be made about each and every sign and symbol contained within the Mass. We don’t need any of them, but it is widely known that people do respond to signs and symbols and thus the Mass is full of them. You may not like this one and find it unnecessary, but a great number of others would beg to disagree. There are many of the symbols contained in the Mass that I might find unnecessary for me personally but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.

And the argument that we don’t need it because we have the sign of peace and communion following similarly hold no water. The sign of peace is a symbol of peace wished for one’s “neighbors” rather than a communal prayer to Our Father. Communion is that personal moment of union with God, while celebrated as part of the community, but again is totally separate and distinct from the prayer of the Our Father.

I don’t begrudge you your personal distaste for this at all, but please, PLEASE leave the condescension and superiorty complex at the door. We really don’t need to be insulting each other over how we express our piety and devotion. If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but please stop judging those of us who do find value in a gesture that we do find a valid symbol and which the Church has consistently failed to find fault in.

Peace,

Actually, the term “misguided” isn’t uncharitable at all. The fact remains that there is no tradition for hand-holding in the liturgy. The Pater Noster is directed towards God the Father not at each other. We are not the focus of the Pater Noster; the Father is.

Inasmuch as there are seven petitions that we direct towards the Father, the point is that they are directed towards Him not towards us.

Now, communion is mult-layred. Not only are we uniting ourselves with Jesus in a profound way, we are also uniting ourselves with the Church (who is the Body of Christ). That is why, for example, those who support abortion rights (as is the case with certain politicians who call themselves Catholics) are denied Holy Communion because they are not in Communion with the Church. Furthermore, the Kiss of Peace before the Fraction Rite establishes and reinforces genunine community, if you will, because we reconcile ourselves with each other prior to receiving Our Lord, which is more profound and more meaningful than a hand-holding gesture.

To say that hand-holding finds its “tradition” to the Pauline Mass is a misnomer because it is not found anywhere in the rubrics nor in the GIRM. I have a Roman Missal from 1969 and no such rubric exists. There is no hand-holding posture. The hand-holding gesture is a personal idiosyncracy that someone or some group inserted into the Mass on their own initiative and is not part of the organic development of the Mass.

One last thing: in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, the Holy Father refers to such attempts at introducing a false sense of community as “misguided”. He uses that term. Francis Cardinal Arinze uses the term idiosyncracies a lot in his addresses and writings.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I clearly articulated my theory with proof of the pagan custom of holding hands during worship. And I supported my theory with the Catachism of the Catholic Church.

It is personal opinion, and disparages Charismatic worship. This is not what the Catechism teaches.

Are you familiar with what it means to develop one’s own theory? I didn’t read it in a book. It is my use of my brain to arrive at a conclusion. You may agree or disagree with my conclusion.

Our obligation is to form a right conscience and correct understanding. This is not the case with your theory.

But again, I won’t repeat myself because you didn’t even try and comphrehend my argument. I’m not an intellectually lazy person, I try and meditate and reason on every argument.

I think all people should engage their brain and examine things in the light of their reason. Its ok to ask experts ‘what should I do or think’ but its equally important to analyze things with one’s own powers of intellect that God gave us to use.

Please be sure of authentic spiritual direction. Your soul depends on it.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Not only are we uniting ourselves with Jesus in a profound way, we are also uniting ourselves with the Church (who is the Body of Christ).

That is exactly the purpose of hand-holding.

As John said…do what you choose, but your personal opinion, with personal interpretations prove nothing.

Lux