Skip to comments.
IS YOUR MASS VALID? Liturgical Abuse
Our Lady's Warriors ^
| Bruce Sabalaskey
Posted on 12/30/2002 12:04:21 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: sitetest
"None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church. So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers." I would interpret that statement to mean, leave me alone. Do not reach over two pews at the sparsely attended daily mass to grasp my hand so that we may stand contorted in some "Twister" type posture. How do you interpret it? I try to sit as distant as possible in those settings, to avoid the indignity.
21
posted on
12/30/2002 8:21:18 PM PST
by
St.Chuck
To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,
I interpret it this way, try not to impose what you want on others. Try to accommodate what others may, in their ignorance, impose on you.
I personally prefer to fold my hands in prayer. But if the person next to me prefers to reach out for my hand, I will not refuse it. I expect that they think that their gesture is one of good will, and I accept their gesture in good faith, giving the good benefit of the doubt.
As to the indignity, I would rather bear any on myself, then impose it on another by refusing a gesture they make in good faith. I'm not a very dignified fellow, anyway. ;-)
sitetest
22
posted on
12/30/2002 8:27:29 PM PST
by
sitetest
To: sitetest
Oh, I'll except the hand, but the handgrabbers need to get a clue.
23
posted on
12/30/2002 8:40:28 PM PST
by
St.Chuck
To: sitetest
So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers."Such a non-statement. Church-ese. He should add, obviously the most dignified posture is with your hands folded as if in PRAYER! That's the way to do it! Any other way is strictly forbidden. Wouldn't it be nice if a heirarch wrote like that?
24
posted on
12/30/2002 8:50:51 PM PST
by
St.Chuck
To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,
"Such a non-statement. Church-ese. He should add, obviously the most dignified posture is with your hands folded as if in PRAYER! That's the way to do it! Any other way is strictly forbidden. Wouldn't it be nice if a heirarch wrote like that?"
Well, no. Not at all. That isn't at all what he's said or meant, or meant to say. Archbishop Chaput specifically said, "None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."
As to speaking in "Church-ese", Archbishop Chaput is a rather toe-the-line bishop, trying not to be either to the right or the left of the teaching of the Church, and of her Supreme Pontiff. He is also not a mincer of words. There was a post from September or October where he said rather clearly that it is morally unacceptable to vote for pro-abortion candidates.
So, having a reputation as a good, orthodox, upstanding bishop, I must defer to his judgement, unless I see that someone who is his superior (and I know of only one person on earth who fits that bill) disagree with him.
sitetest
25
posted on
12/30/2002 8:59:21 PM PST
by
sitetest
To: sitetest
Archbishop Chaput specifically said, "None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."Yeah? So? He might as well have said "Do what you feel like. The Church has no rules concerning the matter. Therefore, I'm not going to impose any. Just do what you think fits your personal definition of dignified. Unity is no concern here."
My point is that the good bishop didn't say much of anything. Your defense of him is that he hid behind the nonexistent mandate of the church and call it toeing the line. My suggestion is that he draw his own line, at least in his own diocese. Just a thought.
26
posted on
12/30/2002 9:26:29 PM PST
by
St.Chuck
To: NYer
Thanks forthe Bump I will read this today..Have a wonderful NEW YEAR
27
posted on
12/31/2002 2:42:12 AM PST
by
.45MAN
To: St.Chuck
You and sitetest are more generous then am I. I smile and politely shake my head no, I have taught my children to do the same. I see the effect of this in my church, more people are willing to either stare straight ahead in an effort to ward off the advance as are more people willing to gingerly look in my or anothers direction for permission to reach and connect. The willy nilly rush presuming all wish to worship this way is subsiding. Those that like to seem to sit nearby one another; those that don't sit apart. That seems a compromise, a distracting compromise, but one nonetheless. I have a kneejerk reaction to group think and group action. Again, I am not being as charitable as you both and perhaps I should rethink this. V's wife.
28
posted on
12/31/2002 3:23:14 AM PST
by
ventana
To: ventana
Here's what I do to ward off the hand-holders: I have my rosary in my hands at all times, and issue them to the kids as well. They are young yet, but my eldest is quite capable of saying the rosary during Mass, and does. The youngest is old enough to say the Our Father aloud with the congregation, and does so with his hands folded around his rosary.
I find that this method works.
Happy New Year!
To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,
"The Church has no rules concerning the matter. Therefore, I'm not going to impose any. Just do what you think fits your personal definition of dignified."
The first sentence is about what he said. The next sentence can reasonably be inferred. The third is a little wide of the mark, but I won't quibble.
"Unity is no concern here."
This, he didn't say, and it isn't right to say that he said it.
"Your defense of him is that he hid behind the nonexistent mandate of the church and call it toeing the line."
Uh..., actually, I'm not defending him. He doesn't need it. I'm saying that this is what was said by a respected, orthodox, competent bishop. I'm not defending him at all. I'm looking to him for leadership and guidance.
If my pastor or bishop had said something about this issue, to them I would listen. If the Holy Father, or a competent congregation of the Curia say something about this issue, I will listen to them.
But Archbishop Chaput is the highest-ranking member of the hierarchy that I've heard speak about the issue. His words seem like a reasonable guide.
What I take from what Archbishop Chaput said is, within the overall context of respecting the dignity of the Mass, to act with charity and respect for others.
By not forbidding hand-holding, the archbishop lets us know that hand-holding is not, of itself, disrespectful of the dignity of the Mass.
"Twister"-like permutations of humans stretched across aisles seem to me to be disrespectful of the dignity of the Mass. But I haven't seen such a thing in many years, and certainly never at our parish. No one from the pew in front or back has ever tried to hold my hand during the Our Father.
So, until someone in authority over me tells me otherwise, I'll stick to the principle of charity first, and if any small indignity or offense is to be given, I'll try to be the one to accept it and thus extinguish it.
sitetest
30
posted on
12/31/2002 6:19:21 AM PST
by
sitetest
To: St.Chuck; sitetest
Do not reach over two pews at the sparsely attended daily mass to grasp my hand so that we may stand contorted in some "Twister" type posture. LOL!! Thanks for making my day. I've witnessed these contortions at sparsely attended masses.
Sitetest I don't doubt that Chaput is well meaninged but here again, personal interpretations can lead to misunderstangings, especially among congregants. Just watch the facial reaction when a group of hand holders extends their reach to someone who chooses not to participate.
31
posted on
12/31/2002 6:28:58 AM PST
by
NYer
To: ventana; NYer
Dear ventana,
Sometimes I think that I must be in Oz.
In my parish, there are hand-holders. And those that don't hold hands. And it seems that the hand-holders are not very presumptuous. I've never seen an ungracious offer, refusal, or reaction to refusal, to hold hands during the Our Father in our parish.
sitetest
32
posted on
12/31/2002 6:36:33 AM PST
by
sitetest
To: sitetest; St.Chuck; livius
Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; "Eucharistic Ministers" Here is one more example of Vatican II blown out of proportion. A little help has now become an army of ministers who dip into the cup with their heavily perfumed fingers. Don't know where those hands were before they held the host or cup. Nor do I appreciate sipping the Blood of Christ from a cup which reeks of Old Spice.
33
posted on
12/31/2002 6:41:39 AM PST
by
NYer
To: sitetest
In my parish, there are hand-holders. And those that don't hold hands. And it seems that the hand-holders are not very presumptuous.
In my old parish there were far more presumptuous hand-holders than not and the worst offenders were in the choir. THey wouldn't take no for an answer. I developed the habit of crossing my arms, walking as far away as posible and holding music to avoid them. Because half the time they had the sniffles and cough. Talk about inconsiderate. That was aside from the indiginity.
To: NYer
One great thing about the parish I am in now, at the 9 am there are NEVER eucharistic ministers. NEVER. And when there are at other Masses, they only have the cup. And it's usually a couple who are friends of my parents. Very nice, devout people.
The priests distribute Communion ONLY. And believe it or not, several people have left that parish over it.
To: Desdemona
How consoling to know that there are still parishes where full reverence and respect for the Eucharist, still exist.
i>And believe it or not, several people have left that parish over it.
Left because they can't serve as Eucharist ministers?
36
posted on
12/31/2002 7:15:42 AM PST
by
NYer
To: NYer
Left because they can't serve as Eucharist ministers?
I guess. I've only heard it second hand and that is a very biased source. There is a parish in the ghetto where all the suburban revolutionaries go. This includes MANY Jesuit priests from the university. Rumor has it a good number of parishoners at my new parish got fed up with Monsignor P's conservativism and orthodoxy and went to the revolutionary parish so that they could do all the new-wave stuff and, direct quote here, "experience good liturgy."
I think they leave that parish in the ghetto open to keep the revolutionaries out of the rest of the archdiocese. Seriously.
To: NYer; Desdemona; Catholicguy; All
Please forgive me. I mean no disrespect. I truly fear God and endeavor to keep His commandments. I was also raised in the RCC, was an altar boy pre-VaticanII (i.e. we did it in Latin), graduated RC grammar(Dominican nuns) and all-male high school(Dominican priests) and was married in the RCC to a RC. I believe I am not ignorant in the ways of the RCC.
Having said that, I also believe that the Holy Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God and trumps the "traditions" and "catechism" of the RCC for instruction to the believer.
I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and have given Him my life. When I read that He died once for all time and then sat down at the right hand of the Father, I can understand how He, the Father and the Holy Ghost could be offended by those who just won't let Him come down off of the cross because they feel they are doing Him service by continuing to crucify Him afresh at every opportunity!
Can you not see that you are exalting your man-made traditions over the very Word Himself?
To: Ex-Wretch
Can you not see that you are exalting your man-made traditions over the very Word Himself?
Can you explain this further as we were discussing Mass and the Eucharist which comes completely out of the bible. Specifically, we were discussing the Lord's Prayer, which is a direct quote.
To: sitetest
But Archbishop Chaput is the highest-ranking member of the hierarchy that I've heard speak about the issue. His words seem like a reasonable guide.The USCCB has weighed in. The old Sacramentary does not allow either hand holding or the orans gesture, thus neither are licit. The new Sacramentary allows the orans gesture but has not been approved by the Holy See, thus hand holding and the orans gesture are still illicit, despite what Chaput thinks or writes. He thinks if the GIRM doesn't explicitly prohibit something then it's alright. He is mistaken.
Orans
Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the Orans posture during the Lords prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities. Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture? What is the status of the bishops proposal to include this practice as part of the liturgical norms for the US?
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lords Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lords Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. I might also note that in the course of its discussion of the this question, the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lords Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.
__________________________________
Committee on the Liturgy
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3060
November 10, 2002 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishopshttp://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/orans.htm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson