What does this mean?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What does it mean when the congregation during the Lord's prayer hold their arms out at the sides with palms of hands upward? It was always just the priest who did this during the prayer and now everyone seems to do it. It makes it seem like everyone is trying to act like the priest. I personally don't feel comfortable doing this because it reminds me of when people raise their arms and sway them back and forth during corny slow pop songs at concerts. No offense to people here woh do it, maybe if I understood why its done I wouldn't feel that way. I just really wanted to know -

What does it mean? Where did this gesture come from? How did it become the thing (for everyone, not just the priest) to do during the prayer? How come people just don't simply keep their hands folded in prayer (fingers interlacing one another or palms and fingers pressed together). Is that not good enough? And if it is, why not just leave it that way? Thnaks for your replies.

-- Liz (passingby@nospan.com), September 18, 2002

Answers

.

-- (abc@efg.com), September 18, 2002.

I forgot to ask also - At my cousins wedding right before the mass ended the priest said something like Let us pray for Ashley and Bill. Everyone then raised up their right arms (in a sort of nazi salute kind of gesture sorry but that the only way I can describe it so you might know what I'm talking about). Then he said We bless this couple.. Now AFAI knew only a priest could bless something and make it holy. Can everyone not just clergy bless things and other people? Again I didn't participate in this gesture instead I kept my head bowed and just silently joined my prayer with everyone elses. It just didn't feel right to hold my arm up and out. I noticed a few other people who looked like they thought it was a strange thing to do too. What do you think? Why do the people copy the preist? I hope I don't insult anyone who does this sort of thing I guess I just don't understand what these body gestures mean. Thanks again. -Liz

-- Liz (passingby@nospam.com), September 18, 2002.

Hello, Liz.

Don't feel in the least bit embarrassed about (1) not doing these things, (2) about finding them strange or sensing them to be wrong, and (3) about speaking up about them here. You are doing the right thing!

The fact is that these practices -- which you will find to have caught on only in certain places in the Catholic Church -- are not legitimate.

The first thing you asked about -- praying with hands out and palms up -- is referred to as the "orans posture." ["Orans" is Latin for "praying."] Some priests use it or a variation thereof -- more often with hands further outstretched and palms not turned upward.

The posture you saw is one that is not authorized by the Church for the laity to use. It is a violation of liturgical regulations. Your reaction is exactly what I too thought, even before I heard some bishops voice it: "It makes it seem like everyone is trying to act like the priest." For the last 30 years, there have been a variety of problems -- this being one of them -- in which priests try to be less like priests and more like the non-ordained, while simultaneously, non-priests try to take on priestly duties, actions, and postures. The Church condemns this latter aberration as the "clericalization of the laity."

A few years ago, the U.S. Catholic bishops, at one of their semi-yearly meetings considered voting on giving approval to the laity to use the "orans posture." (A positive vote would have required further approval by the Vatican.) Either the vote was not taken, or the proposal was voted down. (I can't recall which.) The point is, though, that the bishops knew that the posture was not legal. The laity have to be made aware of this too, so that they stop doing what is wrong. The problem, I believe, is that priests and bishops don't have the courage to speak up and tell people about this, because they fear alienating devout folks whose feelings might be hurt.

At this point, I probably don't even have to tell you that the other thing you saw was also "verboten." As you suspected, in a liturgical setting, only an ordained man (bishop/priest/deacon) is permitted to "bless" a person or object. It was improper to make it seem, through the raised arm, that the congregation was blessing the couple. The priest made it worse by saying, "We bless this couple ..." You did the right thing, Liz, by bowing to pray and holding your hands together (whether folded or not), the approved, centuries-old customs in the Latin Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2002.


John,

As a studied person, I take it you know what you are talking about. However, you mentioned that praying the Our Father with arms outstretched and palms up was "...one that is not authorized by the Church for the laity to use. It is a violation of liturgical regulations." I honestly cannot see how this is a violation - can you point me to the text that condemns this? Many of the parishes near and far from my home do this (and holding hands), and I can't imagine that being unauthorized by the Church this would stand.

I was raised doing this, more specifically we hold hands - and if there is a person missing then we hold our hands out as if someone were there. And feel quite comfortable doing it, without equating myself to the priest in the least (you know me). Nonetheless, if our holy mother Church condemns this action, then I will stop doing it and hope that my church (and quite frankly many churches) learns the truth.

As far as stretching your hand out to pray over someone (the nazi style) is also a very cosher thing (in my opinion). It is symbolic of laying your hands on the person. Since everyone at the wedding couldn't lay hands, this is what is done. Sometimes at prayer meetings or conferences when someone is about to make a speach or testemony, we ask the congregation to stretch out their hands toward the person and pray for Gods blessing. This is not in any way detracting from the preistly role - and I am not aware of this action being limited to only the priest, nor am I aware that it has been condemned (as many of our priest friends allow this).

It might simply be a matter of what customs one is used to. Like in latin countries the sign of the cross after the priest anounces that the Gospel is going to be read is much different than ours, but there is no specific manner in which one MUST do this. Likewise I don't know that there is a rule that specifically says one must say the Lords prayer with their hands at their sides, palms down.

Lots of times when I am praying, I am so filled with JOY to be praying to my Abba, Father, I lift my hands to the heavens - this is the feeling I get saying the Lords Prayer. Does it mean that I am trying to be like the priest - not in the least!

I think that many Catholics grew up in a very strict and orderly fashion, which is good, but it isn't mandated by our mother Church. Any deviation from the "norm" is heretical. That isn't the case. True Charismatics who are on fire for the Lord, and very much on fire for the Church and our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, are full fledged Catholics, yet are so moved by the Holy Spirit that they can't help but rais their hands (and quite often their voices) in praise. AMEN!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (Jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 19, 2002.


1 Timothy 2:8 "Therefore I want the men in every place to pray , lifting up holy hands, without wrath or dissension."

Just wanted to point out that whether or not there is a liturigal acceptance of this practice (which I understand has it's place), those practicing this lifting up of hands during prayer and worship are not attempting to supplant priests. They are merely expressing a legitimate form of prayer and worship.

Where does it say that we can/should place our palms together in front of our bodies as we normally pray versus arms stretched out with palms up? How about heads bowed versus faced raised to heaven? Eyes closed or open? Can we pray kneeling? standing? laying prostrate? in the shower? driving our cars?

My point is that when one wants to pray to God, let's celebrate the desire and practice and not argue over the form it takes. God is glorified when we pray. True?

As for blessing others with laying on of hands. This was a practice that was common in Jewish culture. A parent would convey blessing by laying hands on their children and stating blessings upon them (see Isaac's blessing of Jacob). God uses that method for New Covenant believers when the scripture teaches about praying for one another and even conveying the gifts of the Spirit such as healing through that method - which was definitely for all believers and not just the priesthood.

Just wanted to interject that the practices you're describing Liz are certainly scripturally legitimate for laity (who all function as God's "royal priesthood"). Whether or not they are liturically accepted is another matter, which I'm not addressing at all, that's for the Catholic Church to decide on their own.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 19, 2002.



Jmj

Hello, Jake H.
While writing my answer, above, I was saying to myself, "Surely Jake and/or his mom will object to this. Therefore, I am going to mention what the bishops did. It will help them to realize that what I am saying is right."

But, to my dismay, Jake, you seem not to have noticed what I wrote about the bishops. Let me repeat it now, because it goes a long way toward answering your objections:

"A few years ago, the U.S. Catholic bishops, at one of their semi-yearly meetings considered voting on giving approval to the laity to use the 'orans posture.' (A positive vote would have required further approval by the Vatican.) Either the vote was not taken, or the proposal was voted down. (I can't recall which.) The point is, though, that the bishops knew that the posture was not legal. The laity have to be made aware of this too, so that they stop doing what is wrong. The problem, I believe, is that priests and bishops don't have the courage to speak up and tell people about this, because they fear alienating devout folks whose feelings might be hurt."

So, Jake, you wrote: "I honestly cannot see how this is a violation -- can you point me to the text that condemns this?"

Jake, it does not work this way. The Church does not list all the different ways that people can do something wrong, because the list would be far too long. Instead, she tells us what postures and gestures to use -- and to these, we are not free to add new ones that we invent or adopt from other religions. Also your word, "condemns," is far too strong. I did not say that the mentioned postures/gestures were "condemned," but rather that they were not "authorized" -- as is made clear by the bishops' action of attempting to authorize one of them. [When I used the word "condemn" in my first message, I was referring to the overall massive movement toward clericalization of the laity, not to a specific praying posture.]

Jake, as a Catholic who wants to be obedient, I don't want to do things that are not authorized by the hierarchy, especially not within something so sacred as the Liturgy. I am just urging everyone to want to take the same attitude of obedience. It takes strong mental discipline to do what is right.

We cannot approach these things with a loose attitude, as expressed in the words, "some people are so moved by the Holy Spirit that they can't help but raise their hands." That kind of thinking is simple wrong, and it arises from a lack of discipline. No one is "moved by the Holy Spirit" to do unauthorized things. The Holy Spirit instead will help people who have the will power to be obedient to do only authorized things.

Nurturing an attitude of excessive freedom, autonomy, and the "lack of discipline" that I mentioned can lead to failure to be obedient to one's bishop in many areas -- and even eventually to doctrinal dissent. As you know, some segments of the so-called Catholic Charismatic Renewal have fallen into these very aberrations. A way that you and your fellow "charismatics" can fight against becoming future "casualties" is to avoid insisting on having your way in issues like this one (unauthorized postures). [The same is true of holding hands during the Lord's Prayer. You will find at least one old thread in which this was discussed.]

Jake, you continued: "Many of the parishes near and far from my home do this (and holding hands), and I can't imagine that, being unauthorized by the Church, this would stand."

But I answered this too in the paragraph I had to quote again. Though they are wrong, these improper gestures/postures are not serious abuses (compared to some that could be imagined). So, as I said above, "The problem, I believe, is that priests and bishops don't have the courage to speak up and tell people about this, because they fear alienating devout folks whose feelings might be hurt." Your pastor, Jake, may not even know that these postures are not authorized. But assuming that he does know it, he also knows that you and your friends are pious people who attend Mass each week (maybe even daily) -- and he fears that you may be angry with him or even stop attending Mass if he tells you to stop these gestures/postures. That is the way the weak human mind and will work, Jake. This is the same kind of fear within pastors that stops them from preaching homilies against contraception, shacking up, and other popular practices. (I am not equating unauthorized postures with these mortal sins, but only trying to explain why you have never been told to stop raising your hands and holding hands.) Since the word is not getting out, from the fearful clergy to the laity, about these gestures/postures, maybe I can reach at least a few people through posts like this.

I should mention one more thing: An individual priest or bishop lacks the authority to give a congregation permission to use postures (and to do many other things at Mass) that are not authorized in the Church's liturgical law. It does not matter even if some people in every parish within a diocese use unauthorized postures. I'm sure that, as a little boy, you were taught that the fact that Jimmy and Molly, down the block, were doing something wrong did not mean that you were allowed to imitate them.

You continued: "I was raised doing this, more specifically we hold hands -- and if there is a person missing then we hold our hands out as if someone were there. And feel quite comfortable doing it ..."

Yes, I know ... but being "raised doing this" does not make it less wrong ... and "feel[ing] quite comfortable doing it" does not make it less wrong. After all, many couples "feel quite comfortable" with their contraception and sterilizations. You didn't know that these postures/gestures were wrong, so you have not sinned, but that does not make them less wrong, objectively speaking.

You continued: "As far as stretching your hand out to pray over someone (the nazi style) is also a very cosher thing (in my opinion)."

But, Jake, decisions about what is "kosher" are not based on our "opinion," but on the Church's law.

"It is symbolic of laying your hands on the person. Since everyone at the wedding couldn't lay hands, this is what is done."

But neither the priest nor the laity "lays hands on" a couple in the Sacrament of Marriage, which is normally celebrated within Mass. We are not allowed to mix paraliturgical practices with the Liturgy. It's as simple as that. More importantly, as I stated earlier, it is forbidden for the laity to adopt any part of the role of a priest within a liturgical setting -- in this case the blessing of a couple. Each person present at Mass has a role, and it is not the laity's role to bless. It doesn't matter if it is widespread, feels good, is permitted by a priest, etc.. It is simply wrong.

You continued: "Sometimes at prayer meetings or conferences when someone is about to make a speach or testemony, we ask the congregation to stretch out their hands toward the person and pray for Gods blessing."

There is nothing wrong with this, since it is not within the liturgy and there is no confusion of roles.

You stated: "I don't know that there is a rule that specifically says one must say the Lords prayer with their hands at their sides, palms down."

No one stated that there is such a rule. We may keep our hands in any position (at sides, in back, in front, folded) that could not cause visitors, children, etc., potentially to mistake us as taking a sacerdotal role at Mass. The "orans" position is for the priest only.

You continued: "Lots of times when I am praying, I am so filled with JOY to be praying to my Abba, Father, I lift my hands to the heavens -- this is the feeling I get saying the Lords Prayer. Does it mean that I am trying to be like the priest -- not in the least!"

I believe that you, Jake, are not trying to be the priest. However, others do not know this. Their perceptions matter, and the Church's law matters. You may lift your hands when you are praying privately, but not publicly.

Jake, when we finished a disagreement before (about "deliverance/unauthorized exorcism"), I said to myself, "Ouch, we are going to clash again, I fear." I'm glad that it did not happen quickly, and I hope that it does not happen again (or at least often). It is very taxing on my soul, and makes me very sad, when I get involved in such disputes, especially with people who want to be good Catholics.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.


Jake,

I,too, lift up my hands when saying the Our Father. I never once thought I was trying to imitate the priest. To me, it is a form of worship and praise - lifting up my prayers to Our Lord. Maybe that is more protestant, I don't know.

I started to do that when I was involved with the Catholic Charismatic prayer group.

I don't lift them way up high for everyone to see - I just raise them slightly. I am beginning to wonder if I really do belong in the Protestant church.

I never heard the words "legal" used anywhere regarding our prayer life in the Catholic Church. How I choose to pray is between me and God and I really do not think that Jesus would object to our offering up our prayers this way.

The Bishops make up new roles all the time - one day we are kneeling during the consecration of the Body and Blood of Jesus the next we are told to stand....prayers are added, prayers are eliminated...one day we are not allowed to eat meat on Friday and now we are....

I just find it so hard to follow all the man-made rules, but I suppose if one wants to be a good Catholic they must play by the rules. I have lots to think about.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 19, 2002.


Marylu,

"I am begining to wonder if I do belong in the Protestant Church"

Marylu, please pray about this in front of the Blessed Sacrament! Rember none of the thousands of Protestant denominations have Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. What do you think one of your favorite saints, St. Padre Pio would think about this? It broke St. Pio's heart when his sister left the convent.

You have said before that St. Pio use to hear Confessions for 18 hours some day. If you leave the Church, than as A Protestant, you will not be able to go to Confession, Marylu.

Just as another Catholics opinion about this and nothing more. I never hold anyone's hand at Mass, and I never lift my arms in the air when praying during Mass.

I have prayed for your Mom, that everything will work out for her. I don't want to read that your Mom is receiving the Eucharist, and you joined one of the thousands of Protestant denominations, and arn't at Mass with her now.

Ask Our Lady to pray for you, and help you with this struggle. We all have our daily battles, Marylu. The Blessed Mother is right there for you. Go say a prayer in front of your St. Michael statue. He will look out for your beautiful soul too.

I will rember you, and your family in my prayers ML.

Your brother in Christ.

David S

PS; Rember ML, It was the Protestant man made rules that don't believe in the Real Presence. But what did the God of the Universe say about this?

-- David (David@excite.com), September 19, 2002.


John, I REEEEEEEEEEEALLLY don't have time to share my thoughts on this one, am tempted to begin but need to be at work in half hour. Then, after work will meet with a couple about what kind of music they would like me to play at their wedding, then from there, dinner with my husband, then we have a meeting with our spiritual directors tonight to pray and discuss a very serious discernment issue that has arisen in our prayer group. If I'm not too tired I'll write tonight.

I must say I took you to Mass with me this morning. I became very aware of my body posture, hoping my palms weren't turned at the wrong angle giving someone scandal. I struggled to keep my eyes on Jesus as my thoughts swirled around in my head as I watched the Catholic school kids in obvious confusion as to how to behave at the consecration. I watched very pious -looking people doing all the right things, knowing that they were as lost as sheep could be when it comes to knowing all the right Church teachings. I was hoping our priest, a very holy one indeed, was not innocently but unknowingly allowing us to do things that are unofficial. Oh how I struggled to keep my eyes on Jesus.

I found myself thinking, 'John must be the most frustrated of all men, poor man'. It is a battle. I found myself stepping back and saying, "Lord, You take it, in all Your mercy, You take it". And He caused me to smile.

I will take this to further prayer, and will be back. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 19, 2002.


Friends, I must say everything that John Gecik says on this subject is the truth. He knows what he's talking about; and he's put it in tactful way, so others mightn't be upset about it. He's correct on all points.

I'm always aware of little liberties taken in the liturgy by well-meaning and fervent Catholics. But naturally, I keep it to myself and try to offer a proper example. If a neighbor approaches from the side during the Our Father, to insist I take his/her hand, I give them my hand. It's better than refusing, because that would probably be seen as uncharitable. But during this prayer and practically the entire duration, my hands are an exact imitation of the holy hands of Our Blessed Mother; we only have to look at her hands as portrayed in the images of Our Lady of Fatima and Guadalupe. There can certainly be NO better attitude before the Infinite Holiness of God. Mary is the great prototype of Christian love for God; our holiest and lovliest example. Why would we wish to depart from her own example?



-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 19, 2002.



David S. is so right that none of the Protestant religions have Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. When I came into the Catholic Church, I really felt like I had come "home", because finally, that hole was filled, ie, Jesus was real and present!

Now, having said that, Mary Lu, I can really understand your feelings. I will occasionally lift my hands in prayer, I hold hands during the Our Father, and have ever since I came into the church 16 years ago. ALL the parishes with one exception have practiced this during the Our Father.

These are my thoughts and opinions:

We are a COMMUNITY, not a just a group of individuals. When we hold hands during the Our Father, we are joining our prayers with the angels, and all the faithful around the world, are we not, and that joining of hands recognizes that community, that connectedness we have with each other. Though this is PURELY my OWN speculation, I have often thought of angels, in spirit, joining hands with us, especially where there are "breaks" in the joining of hands.

I have often raised my hand (as the priest asked us to) to bless catachumens during their jouney in the time before fully coming into the church, to bless mothers, fathers, newly marrieds, couples celebrating significant anniversaries. As Jake said, it would not be possible for everyone to lay hands on, so this is done in the spirit of laying on hands.

I believe that it was no coincidence that an old thread entitled (I believe) Blessings by Eucharist Minister was pulled up soon after this thread started. I replied on that thread and it much of what I said applies to this thread also. It seems to me that when we get so bogged down in the tiny details of legalities, we miss the spirit, the love. Jesus taught this Himself.

Listen, I believe in the doctrines the church teaches! I'm not trying to pick and choose. I want to be respectful and honor God in the Mass, and be obedient to God of course. I'm not advocating "dancing in the aisles" :) And I'm not saying that if someone is uncomfortable praying holding hands, or lifting their hands, or whatever, that they should be forced to do so. Absolutely not.

John, again I have great respect for your extensive knowledge. But I must say that I am bothered by your saying that the Holy Spirit would not lead us to do something that was not "authorized". I most certainly agree that He would not lead us to do something sinful, but I really struggle with the "not authorized". It was not authorized for David (in the Bible) to eat consecrated bread, which was only lawful for the priests to eat. It was not for Jesus and the disciples to pick the grains of wheat. But Jesus pointed out that these were not sinful.

I must agree completely with Dave B. These practices are not scripturally wrong. But if they are liturgically wrong, illegal, unauthorized, then what is authorized? I looked in my Catechism and could not find this.

Wow, I have spent too much time on this. I'm not really looking to debate anyone here. I'm just stating my thoughts and opinions. But really if the Bishops want to stop these practices mentioned in this thread and in the other thread (Blessings), then they really ought to be more vocal about it. If they want people to accept that these practices are flat out wrong, then they need to make that clear to us lay people.

Carolyn

aka cksunshine

-- cksunshine (cksunshine@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.


WOW I took so long to write that other people posted in the meantime! Theresa, I have to say that after reading this thread, but before reading your post, I was worried about how "conscious" of my body posture I would be during Mass on Sunday! I can see now I'm not alone in that!

Eugene, I think that it is very gracious of you to take the person's hand. And I do try to maintain that same humbleness and praise and holiness that Mary imbodies (sp?) from my heart outward, no matter if I'm holding hands or not.

To everyone:

For me, I guess the bottom line of all I tried to say in my other posts is that it's about the heart. God wants my heart. He wants me to do things from my heart. He wants me to love from my heart. The outward actions are nothing if the heart is not right with God. And for me that's my focus, a full time job!. The outward actions will follow if the heart is right with God.

Love in Christ, Carolyn

aka cksunshine

-- cksunshine (cksunshine@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.


Personally, I believe that posture in prayer is important, however, I also believe that not everyone keeps the same posture of prayer. That notwithstanding, I believe one should look to the priest or deacon as a means of example. In fact, the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal (soon to be updated and more specific in certain parts)) states, "For the sake of uniformity in movement and posture, the people should follow the directions given during the celebration by the deacon, the priest, or another minister."

Incidentally, what bothers me, and which seems to be a blatant mimcry of the priest, is when the congregation as a whole or in part repeats out loud the words of consecration and/or the doxology (through Him, with Him, in Him...) In fact, a very holy priest I know would say the words of consecration in Latin knowing that most of the congregation no longer has a grasp on Latin, especially the specific words of consecration. The Council of Trent saw fit to deal with this issue very extensively, Vatican II, on the other hand, did not. This is not to say that Vatican II didn't deal with it, however, they could have dealt with it in a little more length.

I think it all goes back to Catholics that were never properly catechized. Take away their foundation, and they rest on soft ground.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), September 19, 2002.


First of all I loved Theresa's post!. I think John is worried by the same things every non-charismatic is worried about, expressed in the words of John Paul II: "Always seek Christ: seek him in meditation on the Word of God, seek him in the sacraments, seek him in prayer, seek him in the witness of your brothers and sisters. Be grateful to the priests who pastor your communities: through their ministry it is the Church who guides you and helps you as a mother and teacher. Joyfully welcome the occasions that are offered to you to deepen your Christian formation. Serve Christ in those close to you, serve him in the poor, serve him in the needs and necessities of the Church. Let yourselves be truly guided by the Spirit! Love the Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic! " almost every non-charismatic think charismatics lack those things, that they are a group of rebels who consider themselves "elite" and that that's the reason why JPII gave this exhortation to them (specially the one referring to obedience to The Church)... I think I am going to grant those people a point here; that is common, but that's not taught neither encouraged by any serious and well founded catholic charismatic community.

I think we all know that the congregation "hold[ing] their arms out at the sides with palms of hands upward" and "rais(ed)[ing] up their right arms (in a sort of nazi salute kind of gesture)" are costums the Charismatic Renewal has favored and hence, spread.

Honestly John, I don't think people who does that are doing anything "illegal" or "un-authorized". I don't know of any rule, Canonical or of any other nature, written or tacit, that states one cannot express devotion in a specific way.

-- Cristian (gabaonscy@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.


Hello David,

Thank you so much for your concern. It is amazing that you rememembered my mom. She is not receiving communion yet - hopefully soon. It takes time.

As for my leaving the church, of course I am not. But, I do, however, get upset that so much emphasize is placed on things that would not bother Jesus at all, I'm sure. How can it be illegal or unauthorized to lift one's hands in praise to Our Lord?

When I stand in front of Our Lord on judgement day, David, do you really think He is going to say...well, Mary Lu, you performed an illegal action while in church, you were disobedient to the bishop's orders and raised your hand in praise to me?

I think people don't like that because it reminds them of what the protestants do - the born agains, that is.

That is my opinion...As I have said many times, David, I am not an orthodox catholic like most of you are. I love my Lord, Jesus and Our Lady, all the saints, etc...but cannot think so rigidly. I just cannot.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 19, 2002.



Hi, Marylu

I am happy to read your post to me! :-) We need more good Catholic Lady's like you, and I realy mean that.

No, I don't think on judgement day that Our Lord will tell you that. But what do I know? I did't read anyone say, or even suggest that Our Lord might, though! I do believe that John is correct, and I think that he was answering a question that was asked by Liz.

I do agree with you that it is no big deal. If someone wants to hold hands, than I would never look down on them, but I was taught that it is not the correct thing to do.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 19, 2002.


Marylu,

I forgot one thing.

You said, " I love my Lord Jesus and Our Lady, and the saints....."

There is no doubt in anyones mind that you do love Jesus, Mary, and the saints ML. You have taught us so much about St. Pio and some of the other holy saints.

May the holy name of Jesus bless you.

David

PS; I will pray for your Mom, and you pray for my Mom, friend.

-- David (David@excite.com), September 19, 2002.


Thank you, David...

After reading this thread, I thought of the story in Scripture about Martha and Mary..."Martha, Martha, you worry about so many things, but Mary knows what is important."

How we hold our hands when we pray is not that important - pray like Our Lady does, or clasp your hands, however...what is really important is what is in our hearts...what is going on inside of us...what we are saying to Jesus when we pray - the outer appearance is not important - many look very holy when they pray - it means nothing - Jesus does not care about the outer appearance, but the inner.

I think the Bishops have more important things to concern themselves with than whether or not "legalities" are being honored.

God Bless you too, David. You are a very good catholic and a very good and kind person.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 19, 2002.


Jmj

Well, folks (especially you good ladies), you certainly proved my point about why you have not heard from your priests and bishops the things that I stated. They are fearful of being frank about this, because they would rather tolerate this slight liturgical abuse than have verbal abuse heaped on them. Oh, I know that most of you didn't "abuse" me at all, but each of you said at least one thing that was just not right and not fair to me either. If a priest or bishop were to speak up as I did, their audience would be much larger, so they would have to take the criticism that I am taking 100-fold.

I remain amazed that all (four? five?) people who have opposed me have continued to disregard what the bishops did -- consider debating/voting on permitting this posture during Mass ... but it was not passed, so it remains against the liturgical law. That is really all the matters, when we come down to it. No amount of debating or reasoning among us really matters. The point is simply to be obedient and not do what is forbidden. (If it were not forbidden, the bishops would not have been talking about permitting it.)

The sin of Adam and Eve was basically one of pride and disobedience. When we break any just law -- be it a divine law, a civil law, or a liturgical law -- we make ourselves into little Adams and Eves. That's really what this conversation is about -- not about customs, likes/dislikes, etc., but just obedience. It is a tremendous virtue and so hard to practice. There is a good reason that "obedience" is one of the "evangelical counsels" -- the virtues that consecrated religious must vow.

Since I love all of you too much, I am not going to embarrass anyone by quoting from your messages and showing how I disagree with them. I will just mention a few things, in "broad brushstrokes," to show that you have partially misjudged me.

1. I don't like rigidity and boring sameness. I love variety, as long as it is within the bounds of the law given to us by the Peter's and the Apostles' successors. I can't put my preferences ahead of their directives.

2. We have tremendous freedom to pray in various ways, following any of hundreds of "spiritualities" or "inventing" one of our own. I am totally in favor of great, even wild, freedom to praise God, to sing, etc., in ways that bring us closer to God. But that is in private prayer. Liturgical prayer is different, because the Mass and Sacraments are the possession of the whole Church, not of the priest or any individual in attendance. That is why there are detailed rules for everyone to follow.

3. If my efforts here cause some self-consciousness and uneasiness, that is a good thing! The bad feeling won't last long. Every time we train ourselves to do something good tough, it is hard (even painful) at first. But doing the right thing gradually becomes so natural that one doesn't feel any self-consciousness at all. Being obedient becomes more and more automatic, and being disobedient is the thing that feels wrong and unnatural.

4. Changes in liturgical rules and other disciplines are rare. For centuries, there has never been a time when standing during the consecration has been permitted by the Western/Latin Church. (The standing sometimes seen today is pure disobedience.) There was a change that permitted the eating of meat on Friday -- more than 30 years ago, but not constant fluctuations in the rule since then. There is considerable stability in Church disciplines. We shouldn't think of obedience as "playing by the rules." We should feel indebted to the Church's leaders for loving us enough to impose disciplines on us. Many adults these days are angry at their parents for having let them get away with murder through lack of discipline. We should thank God that our Church is not a delinquent Mother, but one who expects a lot out of us. I fully understand the resistance I am encountering here. It is very hard to break a bad habit. (I quit smoking almost 15 years ago.)

5. I feel neither frustrated nor poor, but rather very fulfilled and rich. Though I don't deserve ANY of it, God blesses me greatly each and every day. I won't let anything ruin my relationship with him, my joy and peace from being with him in prayer and sacraments.

6. The Church gives us other ways, at Mass, to express our unity and togetherness, rather than by holding hands. We need to find those other ways and be satisfied with them. Our Mother and Teacher gave them to us.

7. We cannot say to ourselves, "I won't do something sinful, but I might do something unauthorized." That is a false dichotomy, because when something is "unauthorized," doing it is sinful -- namely, a sin of disobedience. Into this, the Holy Spirit does not lead us. We do such things either by innocent imitation of others (not knowing it is wrong) or by a willful decision to disregard the law. What is authorized is explained, not in the Catechism, but in the Code of Canon Law (a small part) and mainly in the General Instructions and rubrics found in the Missal (Lectionary and Sacramentary). Wherever these things pertain to the laity, our pastors should inform us. If they fail, we can read the documents ourselves, either by looking at them in church or rectory or on the Internet. Even missalettes tend to give some directions concerning posture, but there is so much more in the General Instructions, which are beautiful and informative, not just directing us, but teaching us about the Mass.

God bless you.

John
PS: Thank you very much, Eugene and David S, for your kind words of support.
PPS: David B, as Catholics we believe in the universal priesthood of all the baptized. However, we know that the sacrificial, ordained priesthood is of a higher and distinct order. Some of the duties and privileges of the ministerial priesthood are different from those of the univeral priesthood of believers. We are not "interchangeable."
PPPS: Seminarian, for you ... Number 4 from the 1980 Vatican instruction called "Inestimable Gift" says this:
"It is reserved to the priest, by virtue of his ordination, to proclaim the Eucharistic Prayer, which of its nature is the high point of the whole celebration. It is therefore an abuse to have some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer said by the deacon, by a lower minister, or by the faithful. [Clearly, this means that no one but the (con)celebrant(s) may pray the words of the consecrations aloud. JFG] On the other hand the assembly does not remain passive and inert; it unites itself to the priest in faith and silence and shows its concurrence by the various interventions provided for in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer: the responses to the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the Consecration, and the final Amen after the Per Ipsum ["Through Him, with Him, in Him"]. The Per Ipsum itself is reserved to the priest. The final Amen especially should be emphasized by being sung, since it is the most important in the whole Mass."

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.


John,

Understood and agreed. My reference wasn't meant to place the laity priesthood on par with the ordained priesthood, just pointing out that all of us are indeed "priests" before our God of one sort or another. I attend a church now that has priests and celebrate the Real Presence in the Eucharist, so I am reminded weekly of the differences.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 20, 2002.


Dear John, I just have less than two weeks around this forum, and I have to say that your posts are of the ones I've enjoyed the most because they're so clear and precise and I've noticed an honest and responsible intention of helping others in them. But most of the time when one find this clarity one can't help the ideas on his head to start coming out in a very free way; and I think that is the reason we[I] tried to express something about what you said.

I understand your concern about the sacramental character of this prayer and I guest you're making echo on the preoccupation of the Holy See when they stated that "confusion has entered the Church about the hierarchical nature of her worship" but you used words as "authorized" "legal" "sinful" and you even mentioned the Canon Law and the Sacramentary and you WON'T find a statement there saying the laity cannot use the Orans posture; the deacon cannot, even the con-celebrants get their hands down in order it can be understand who's representing Christ in the Altar; but it nevers says the faithful cannot do it. You mentioned the decision the bishops tried to make once, but they never said the posture was "illegal", on the contrary what I think they said was this:

"During the Communion Rite of Mass the bishops of the United States have recommended that, as we pray the Our Father, the prayer given us by Jesus himself, we extend our arms downward, holding both hands with the palm outward in the ancient orans gesture, a gesture that signifies our need, our humble dependence on God, and our openness to receiving the gifts of daily bread and forgiveness which we seek in this prayer." (From this site).

John wrote:
"We have tremendous freedom to pray in various ways, following any of hundreds of "spiritualities" or "inventing" one of our own. I am totally in favor of great, even wild, freedom to praise God, to sing, etc., in ways that bring us closer to God. But that is in private prayer. Liturgical prayer is different, because the Mass and Sacraments are the possession of the whole Church, not of the priest or any individual in attendance. That is why there are detailed rules for everyone to follow." No comment! absolutely right!.

I think the new Sacramentary (not approved) includes an encouragement for the laity to use the Orans posture, until it is approved it is "illegal" to use it? Don't think so. The current one doesn't state we can't use it.

So John, I think it's valuable and imperative that we know the rules (and "teach" the ones that don't) that involves these things. We all want to obey and maintain the unity, but in my case, I think what happened here is that nobody thought they were doing something illegal and sinful (that's serious!) and obviously they had to say something.

In the Love of Jesus

-- Cristian (gabaonscy@hotmail.com), September 20, 2002.


Thank you Christian for posting that link to the Bishop's webpage and quoting their recommendation. This was extremely helpful to me. Also you were able to express very clearly some of the thoughts that were going through my mind about legal, authorized and illegal.

John, you stated that we proved your point of why the bishops are afraid. However afraid or not, that IS their responsibility. I'm sorry that I said something that was just not right and that was unfair to you. I tried very hard to just state my opinions and thoughts in a respectful way. I believe that point number 7 was addressed to me. I do rely on my pastor as well as my children's sacrament teachers (catachists) and on my bishop. Unfortunately everyone in those leadership positions seem to be very confused, and it seems this is the case all over the country. I will continue to try to explore, in the small spare time I have, the resources you said, but I am not trained in these matters, and so yes I do tend to rely on those who are.

I am not trying to ignore the rest of item 7, or any of the other items, but I am feeling quite sick and was up most of the night, and I just can't put any more into this.

God bless you all,

Carolyn cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 20, 2002.


In my own stubborn way, I have point #6 of John's to comment on:

Showing solidarity by linking hands during the Our Father is hardly more valid than simply repeating the prayer in union. The very words are a powerful expression of oneness, and in any case directly following, we engage in the ''peace'' handshake, not only with the neighbor to each side, but as many as we care to reach out to. I find all the daisy-chain symbolism superfluous, seeing that the One being addressed in worship is God the Father; not him-her or whoever sits next to me. Just my 2 cents.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 20, 2002.


Jmj

Thank you, Eugene, for that wise observation. Holding hands, then shaking hands a few seconds later? Even intuition shows that this was not what the Church has in mind for us to do.

In the EWTN document library, we can read something called "Notices Of the [Vatican] Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline Of The Sacraments." The Congregation published several queries and replies.
One query is: "In liturgical assemblies there is a great variety of gestures and postures during a celebration. For example, should the people: a. stand during the prayer over the gifts; b. kneel after the 'Sanctus' and during the entire eucharistic prayer; c. sit after communion?"
Within the Congregation's reply are these words: "The points determined are in no way to be considered trivial, since their purpose is to ensure uniformity in posture in the assembly celebrating the eucharist as a manifestation of the community's unity in faith and worship. The people often give the impression immediately after the 'Sanctus' and even more often after the consecration by their diverse postures that they are unmindful of being participants in the Church's liturgy, which is the supreme action of a community and not a time for individuals to isolate themselves in acts of private devotion." [I believe that an example of such an disapproved "act of private devotion" is the use of the "orans" posture.]


Thank you, David B, Carolyn, and Cristian, for your friendly responses (and for your overly kind compliment, Cristian). I hope that you will be feeling a lot better very soon, CKSunshine.


Cristian, I would like to respond to some points that you raised. I'll put your words in quotation marks, before my comments.

"... you ... mentioned the Canon Law and the Sacramentary and you WON'T find a statement there saying the laity cannot use the Orans posture; the deacon cannot, even the con-celebrants get their hands down in order it can be understand who's representing Christ in the Altar; but it nevers says the faithful cannot do it."

Cristian, I think that you must have missed it when I explained that we cannot use the form of reasoning that you are using -- namely: "The Church's documents do not forbid the use of such-and-such posture/gesture (which I would like to use), so therefore I will do such-and-such!"
No, we cannot reason that way, because liturgical documents (especially the GIRM) are not places in which the Church lists things that we are forbidden to do, but rather the things that we may or should do. Directives are stated positively, not usually negatively. The list of things forbidden would be too long! The description of permitted or required gestures/postures is short. Things that are not on that short list should be avoided. That includes the "orans" posture.

Maybe I can get my point across best by giving you an example or analogy that will reveal that using "orans" or "hand-holding" is not acceptable.

Suppose that you are attending Mass, and you are in the second pew (or further back). There is a man in the very first pew, close to the pulpit/lectern. The priest begins his homily, and all are seated. During the homily, the man puts his hands up in the air and begins to sway in an arc from left to right. After a few minutes of doing that, he begins blowing (and loudly popping) big bubbles with chewing gum. After a few minutes of doing that, he begins to speak up at the end of each of the priests sentences, saying -- "Right, Father. I agree with you ... No, no. I don't buy that," etc.. After a few minutes of doing that, he gets up, goes in front of the pews, and sits on the floor for the rest of the homily.
These postures/gestures/actions are all things that the man wanted to do, and he enjoyed doing them. Therefore, he was allowed to do them, right?

Cristian, do you see what I am driving at? NONE of the things that man did are mentioned and forbidden in the GIRM or elsewhere. But they are not authorized, because they are not on the short list of permissible/required actions by the laity. By analogy, the use of the "orans" posture is not mentioned and forbidden, but -- just as the actions of the man I described should be avoided -- so "orans" and hand-holding should be avoided, because they are not on the list of authorized and required actions.

Cristian, you stated: "You mentioned the decision the bishops tried to make once, but they never said the posture was 'illegal,' on the contrary what I think they said was this:
"'During the Communion Rite of Mass the bishops of the United States have recommended that, as we pray the Our Father, the prayer given us by Jesus himself, we extend our arms downward, holding both hands with the palm outward in the ancient orans gesture, a gesture that signifies our need, our humble dependence on God, and our openness to receiving the gifts of daily bread and forgiveness which we seek in this prayer.'"

Cristian, I am about as certain as a person can be that the U.S. bishops did not vote to permit the use of "orans," and the Vatican did not subsequently approve such a vote. (If they had, it would have been widely announced.) I hate to say it, but you have just come across yet another irresponsible COMMITTEE comment posted at the USCCB Internet site. I believe that the words you quoted are very dishonest, because they imply that all the U.S. bishops voted to permit "orans," and got Vatican approval of this. I can assure you that at least scores, if not the great majority, of U.S. bishops do NOT "recommend that ... we [laity use the] orans gesture" at Mass.

If you click on the link you provided, you will see that this is merely an essay from staffers [probably laity] at the Committee on the Liturgy, not something from the whole body of bishops. By going to the "higher level" page (www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/girm), you'll read that your page is a (May, 2002) suggested "bulletin insert" -- not an official document at all.

By now, everyone should know how unreliable are pages and documents that come from committees, and the Committee on the Liturgy has been one of the worst culprits in the USCCB for many years. You will remember how that committee issued the "Environment and Art" document that has led to the "wreck-ovation" of hundreds of churches and cathedrals (destruction of beautiful works of art, hiding away the tabernacle, etc.). For a couple of decades, that Committee booklet was taken as "the bible" for altering churches, even though it was never even approved by the entire body of U.S. bishops. Then you will remember how a bishops' marriage committee issued a horribly misleading document a few years ago, "Always Our Children," to advise the parents of children suffering from homosexual attractions -- a document that the Vatican required by withdrawn. And just a few weeks ago, you will remember how a bishops' interfaith committee caused an uproar by posting a document that stated improper things about Christian evangelization of Jews.

And so, Cristian, I believe that what you quoted is another in the list of committee-based improprieties. I believe that there is only a group of bishops -- namely, a majority of those on the Liturgy committee -- that "recommends" our use of "orans" -- but then that fact got blown out of proportion into the idea that all the U.S. bishops (and the Vatican) have actually authorized "orans." There are two things that tend to support my position on this:
(1) The
Spanish translation of the bulletin insert says nothing about using the "orans" position. I think that an English-speaking staffer wrongly added the sentences that you quoted -- or a Spanish-speaking staffer, knowing them to be inaccurate, deleted those sentences when he made the translation!
(2) The USCCB has now published its new (November, 2001) Adaptations of the GIRM for the Dioceses of the U.S.. [Because a heavily revised GIRM was issued in Latin in 2000, this USCCB document will replace the venerable adaptations document of 1969.] The new adaptations document, though it refers several times to gestures and postures never approves of the "orans" position nor of hand-holding.

Finally, Cristian, you stated: "I think the new Sacramentary (not approved) includes an encouragement for the laity to use the Orans posture ...".
Actually, I have heard that the new Roman Missal -- definitely its new GIRM -- has been published, but not yet in use because not fully translated from Latin into English. If I learn that the new GIRM "encourage[s] the laity to use the 'orans' posture," I will be the first to announce it here and withdraw my objection. (I just now tried to obtain the new GIRM and review it to see if you are correct, Cristian. The new GIRM can be downloaded in Acrobat/PDF form at the USCCB site. However, my poor small computer cannot handle the gigantic (multi-megabyte) files, forcing me to abandon the download. I will try again in the future, using a more powerful computer.)

Sorry for the great length of this post, but I feel very strongly about this subject, and I hope that at least one person will begin to think differently from before (about "orans" and/or hand-holding), after having read what I have written.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 20, 2002.


[Dear Moderator, if it is not too much trouble, please close my link in the paragraph that starts with, "If you click on the link you provided". To my great relief, though, I found that my error did not cause any text or subsequent links to be messed up. Thanks. JFG]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 20, 2002.

John,

Thank you for your concern. However, I really think that you are picking extremes(like blowing bubble gum, etc.) to try to prove that doing something even slightly different than what the GIRM tels us is wrong. Because it is not mentioned, doesn't make it wrong. You have to also look at the context and the motives of the person.

I have to let you know that, like my mom, I took your comments to work with me. And it really bothered me. I felt like a "bad" catholic for being so stupid to do something like this. I don't remember the exact quote, but you said something to the effect of, "..I know you are trying to be a good Catholic..", which would imply that I was being a bad Catholic (really patranizing - even if it was un-intentional). And this bad feeling wasn't good for me, like you think. This makes one feel selfconscious and stupid, to be frank. If I were to really be sinning, and you pointed out my fault, the feeling wouldn't make me selfconscious and it probably wouldn't make me feel stupid. I would know my heart and feel the need to confess and make things right with my God. But, no, I don't feel like I need to appologise to God for holding hands or raising my palms during the Our Father.

Jesus came to destroy the Law. Because anyone who follows Jesus is above the law and doesn't need the law. The law was made for man, not man for the law. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. But he knew in His heart that it wasn't a sin, because His intention was good. Nonetheless, the Pharasees tried to make him feel bad for this. Jesus' point was that the law was there for those who would abuse the Sabbath.

Yes, John, you are right. People (women in particular) who want to be priests, and therefore copy the gestures of the priest, ought to follow the "law", because the law was meant for them. But in my heart, and in MaryLu's heart, and in my mothers heart, we do not want to be or imitate priests. We just want to praise our God! You and I as humans cannot be these peoples' judges, because with an issue like this it really is only an abuse depending on what the persons' interiour motives are, and because we cannot read peoples hearts - you cannot say that I am abusing the Our Father.

You're telling me that if St. Francis were to be seated next to two people who offered him their hands during the Lords Prayer he would say, "Ah, no, I'm sorry - It's not in the GIRM"? I would be more apt to think that he would smile at them and take their hands and pray the Lords Prayer with LOVE!

I guess you're lucky to be in a parish where everyone follows the letter of the Law, and therefore you aren't tempted to break the rules. However, I have the unfortune to be in a parish where many people are ignorant to the GIRM, let alone basic Catechitical teachings. But nonetheless, my heart is pure and I offer Charity rather than repremand and guilt trips. I have been raised, like I said, holding the hands during the Our Father. And never had I ever thought that I was imitating the priest. Nor has any child or visitor mistaken me or those next to me as priests (or even seminarians). I know in my heart that I have not sinned, just as Jesus knew that he hadn't "broken the law" by healing on the Sabbath.

In my limited and humble knowledge, it is my observation that before you are carried away by the letter of the law (just as the Pharasees), John, you should re-evaluate the message you are sending. Because not everyone who raises their hands during the Our Father is a sinner.

Thanks for your time - and God bless.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 21, 2002.


Good morning, Jake! :)

Thank you for that beautiful post!

I must say I never thought of myself as a bad Catholic until I came onto this forum. I think many would be surprised how "unorthodox" Jesus was - Jesus was a radical who came here to save sinners and he sat with the lowliest of the low and was not concerned with saving souls - I doubt very much that the little things concerned him.

I always say to my friends, "Thank God He is the judge because we would send each other to hell without blinking an eye."

God Bless you, Jake

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 21, 2002.


OOPS!! SHOULD SAY WAS CONCERNED WITH SAVING SOULS AND NOT CONCERNED WITH APPEARANCES OR WHO 'LOOKED' HOLY.

ML

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 21, 2002.


To All,

BTW,

Please forgive me if I seem disrespectful to the orthodox catholics. I am not. I respect you for your discipline and obedience to the hierarcy of the church. Rules are made for a reason and I commend you that you follow those rules.

I know these things are important to you.

I prefer to keep things simple, including my prayer life. MaryLu

God bless all of you.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 21, 2002.


Thank to everybody for you replies to my question. I didn't know that the body gestures were arguable. I have gone to many parishes in and around my town and everyone uses these posistions so I assumed when I asked my questions I'd get one or two explanations and that would be that. I'm very sorry about causing arguements between friends and I hope my posts didn't insult anyone. I was just trying to understand.

Many of the replies have repeated what Mary Lu said above, like it doesn't matter what we say or do, but what is in our hearts that counts. I really don't agree all the way. What is in our hearts should shoud echo or be directdly linked to our outter expression. That maybe they should go hand and hand. If we do one thing but our hearts feel another way, someone could make untrue assumptions about us couldn't they? Like me thinking everyone wan'ts to act like the priest. I think that people should be thoughtful about not setting a bad example for other people.

I think its kind of sad that people do these hand gestres but don't get upset that the kneelers at my church have been taken away. Imight sound stiff but i think if you are on fire for the lord a person should and would want ot kneel down. Some people I work with think of Jesus as a friend and a peer or a buddy and thats nice - But He is also a king and I think people's body positions should show that.There should be a fear of him maybe? Not a fear like you should hide from him but more like a fear that shows you know how poweful he is. My friend who is Ukrainian catholic says Jesus isn't like a John Lennon in the sky. He is a mighty king.

Here is an example of a bd example for others. My neighbor is methodist. He says if he believed Jesus was REALLY there at his church he would fall down on his knees and stay that waythe whole time he was there but when catholic's go to communion they seem like they are going up to grab a cracker and it dosn't seem like a big deal when it should be a HUGE deal he says. I never seem to have a good answer for him. When i told him the bishops say we can't kneel for communion he thought that was crazy. I sorry that my post was so long and i don't want to cause any more trouble around here but I thought I should say something and also thank everybody who replied. -Liz

-- Liz (passingby@nospam.com), September 21, 2002.


I'm amazed Jake and others have rationalized all John was trying to clarify, and particularly when Jake makes reference to the way Christ defied Pharisees. It was in fact, the Pharisees Jesus decried; saying, they love to stand in public wearing their tasselled robes and holding their hands up to heaven. Jesus found the posture phoney, and clearly says so. In one other instance, He told of the Publican modestly beating his breast at the back of the Temple, saying softly: ''Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.'' This was more pleasing, He said, to His Father in heaven. That was Christ's point of view!

To Jesus, it seems, ostentation in the temple was self-serving and hypocritical. It may be that John's judgement in the Orans question is closer to Christ's at that, than is the ostentatious display which is an ''Orans'' delivery of the Our Father. John has not seemed Pharisaical to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 21, 2002.


Off !

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 21, 2002.

Dear Liz, Your question has not been a source of dissention, it has been a catalyst for some good family discussion. Even in the healthiest of families there needs to be communication, and this thread has been a good witness to that. I'm touched by everone's honesty.

I've been tending my daughter as she suffers with the flu for the last 36 hours. Even though she's 20, it's been precious time with her, as moms know, I'm blessed to still be able to put a wet wash cloth on her brow, as when she was a child.

My attitide about this subject has changed, I'm not so flippant as in my last post, I've treated this issue as a serious matter. May we agree in prayer before I say a few words? Using psalm 19, verse 15,

"Let the words of my mouth meet with Your favor, keep the thoughts of my heart before You, Lord, my rock and my redeemer."

John, no doubt, will say my words are superfluous, it's a done deal, the bishops said, that's that, so be it!

I wish it were that simple. About a year ago one of our friends mentioned to me about the priest at Mass at our sister parish {Our Lady of Peace in santa Clara, a national shrine},interupting Mass and harshly admonishing the people for holding hands at the Our Father. His explanation , as I recall, was that it is the position of only the priest. Now I have read, and am aware of the pope's address of the problem regarding the distinctions between the clerics and the laity. I didn't apply the two together, and having heard the harsh fashion in which it was done, I remember putting it off.

Of course, the fashion in which it's delivered, and all our rationalizations do not negate the power of the law, or give us excuse to ignore them. {although it's a good example of how important it is that we pray for wisdom in delivering a word,for it may have a tremendous effect on how it is received!}.

I could run to my pastor and confronted him with this issue, "Why are you not telling us things we ought to know?" But we have an issue greater then this. Yes, we mustn't get sloppy in our vigilance and our example, but there are far more weightier things our pastor is ignoring. We have taken up arms, literally, with him regarding the sex-ed in the school {ask Jake about that battle, he was 14, and witnessed an unspeakable graphic sex book come into his hands, it took us 30 days of battle until the bishop finally removed it}. We took up arms about the illegal changing of the words in the lectionary, changes that elimated masculine references and radically changed the whole meaning and thrust of the scripture; it only took a week for the bishop to correct that, and miraculously the person responsible was fired.

My point is not to brag, no, my heart is weak, and I'm one in most need of prayer and strength, but I defend the 'little ones' who are righteous in heart, not standing in the front of assemblies waving their arms saying 'look at me'. No, we are fighting the good fight.We are not getting sloppy.

I am very aware of the Catholic school kids at daily Mass, and know that all 70 eyes are on us. They're dying for a good example. And so I make sure I receive my Lord reverently, for them, and for His sake!! We go down on our knees after the Sanctus!!! It's the Lord ,and all the saints and angels present at this unspeakable moment, how could we do anything else?

Leading music at Mass, I used to think, it sounds silly, 'o, here I am, short grey hair, they probably think I'm some radical feminist ex- nun'. So I purpose to be submissive and reverent, and obedient, and wear a dress! {I actually don't let that thought get very far anymore, I'm being healed of "what'll they think", it can paralyze us!} I know well before my God, when I'm in rebellion, and He knows too, so it doesn't last but a few days, moments, before I repent

So, when I've faced the Lord with this, "Lord, here I am with this, you know my heart and its ways", I do not feel an urgency to move on it yet. He is patient, and will make things clearer for us as we go along. There are weightier matters He has us dealing with now.

I can see how this discussion of the 'letter of the law', and the references of 'people being disobedient' can be too heavy of a burden for some people, {isn't there a scripture in which Jesus talks about the pharisees piling laws on people that is just to heavy for them}, can cause some to 'throw in the towel'.

I've seen people so paranoind of 'having the right behavior near the sanctuary, I could actually see them bound in cords, and all tied up in trying to look correct, this is not the freedom Christ has come to bring us.

I've experienced both 'seasons'; of being led to study the law, and the season of seeking the Lord's voice in my heart. He still smiles at me about this issue. When we finally abide in the Kingdom, we will see it clearly, not as through a glass. Until then, let us not patronize each other, let us not judge each other.

Yes, some have the gift of teaching,what a splendid and important part of the Body. But there are those who are 'out there' , in the 'trenches', getting their hands dirty, reviving bodies and literally dragging them into the kingdom. They get beat up, and hungry, and sometimes need to "eat the standing grain". It's ok. Jesus knows. Let's be patient, as His Kingdom comes, and we learn how to "Worship in Spirit and Truth".

Today's reading from Ephesians 4 is so beautiful. Keep reading it though- it's for us right now..go to verses 13 to 16. ..He's equipping us for the building up of the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the faith and knowledge of the Son of God..... read it.

May the Holy Spirit bless all of us out of our socks today!!! Theresa



-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 21, 2002.


sorry about the grammar mistakes, I thought i was getting kicked off the internet so I sent it quickly.

By the way, keep on going in Ephesians 4, verses 30 to 32, ....'all bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one anther as God has forgiven you in Christ." Amen Tee

-- Theresa (rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 21, 2002.


Jmj

Thanks again so much, Eugene, for another very insightful and supportive post.


Jake, I am somewhat reluctant to reply to you, because you are taking this so personally. You are so attached to certain behaviors ("orans" position and hand-holding) that you are replying to me emotionally and with unjust accusations. Repeatedly, you have not objectively evaluated what I have written. I will make an effort to explain why I say this, but if I cannot break through the barrier of miscommunication this time, I'll probably not post again.

You wrote: "I really think that you are picking extremes (like blowing bubble gum, etc.) to try to prove that doing something even slightly different than what the GIRM tels us is wrong."

You missed my point. I showed that it was wrong to do what the fictional guy was doing, because what he did was not on the list of actions that are permitted or required. The "extremeness" or "mildness" of what he did was irrelevant; just doing what was not authorized is what mattered. The same principle holds for the actions that you are trying to defend.

You referred to "orans" and "hand-holding" as "slightly different" from what is authorized by the GIRM. Sorry, but I consider them very different. And that is why (as you have again ignored) the bishops were thinking about authorizing "orans." That posture is so different (and in my opinion distracting and potentially misleading) that it is unauthorized.

You continued: "Because it is not mentioned, doesn't make it wrong. You have to also look at the context and the motives of the person."

This is an example of what I meant when I said that you are not always "objectively evaluating what I have written." I proved, by analogy and by a quotation from a Vatican document, that a posture/gesture that is "not mentioned" is indeed "wrong." The "motives of the person" doing something disobedient do not remove the objective guilt of the disobedience. You seem to be promoting the moral error known as "situation ethics." If if were true that the "motives of the person" could govern morality, then anyone could excuse all kinds of things that the Church assures us are sins (including even abortion and euthanasia). We may disobey only when told to do something immoral. We may not disobey merely when we have what we consider "good motives."

You continued: "I have to let you know that, like my mom, I took your comments to work with me. And it really bothered me. I felt like a 'bad' catholic for being so stupid to do something like this."

Well, Jake, it is good that what I said "bothered" you (in the sense of "making you think hard"), but it is very bad that you eventually gave in to the temptation to change your mind and defend your actions again. I think that the reason you backtracked is that you made a serious error. You started to "fe[el] like a 'bad' Catholic for being so stupid to do something like this." If you would re-read my previous posts, you would see that I NEVER called you or anyone else a "bad Catholic," and I never said that anyone is "stupid."

Jake, if you had been able to read my posts objectively, your reaction would not have been the guilt trip that you described. Instead, your reaction would have been simply: "Wow! I did not have any idea that what I have been doing is not authorized. I will have to stop doing it." As simple as that!

You continued: "I don't remember the exact quote, but you said something to the effect of, '..I know you are trying to be a good Catholic...', which would imply that I was being a bad Catholic (really patranizing - even if it was un-intentional)."

This is an example of injustice on your part. You have the thread right there in front of you. Don't tell me, "I don't remember the exact quote ..." Go back and look it up! If you had done so, you would never have written this, because my statement was not "patronizing" and did not "imply that [you were] being a bad Catholic." Go back and re-read what I actually said, and you will find that I was expressing how much I dislike having disagreements with folks (like you, your mom, etc.) whose desire is to be good Catholics. (In other words, it is much tougher for me to "fight" with good guys like you than with dissenters.)

You continued: "And this bad feeling wasn't good for me, like you think. This makes one feel selfconscious and stupid, to be frank. If I were to really be sinning, and you pointed out my fault, the feeling wouldn't make me selfconscious and it probably wouldn't make me feel stupid. I would know my heart and feel the need to confess and make things right with my God. But, no, I don't feel like I need to appologise to God for holding hands or raising my palms during the Our Father."

Your uneasiness was not my fault, but your own, Jake, because you did not read what I said carefully, and you imagined that I said things that I really did not say. I never said that you had sinned in the past! In fact, I said just the opposite. Here are my words [how did you overlook them?] from a previous message: "You didn't know that these postures/gestures were wrong, so you have not sinned, but that does not make them less wrong, objectively speaking." If a person does something improper, but does not realize that it is improper, there is no subjective sin involved.

After you have verified that I have been telling you the truth about "orans" and "hand-holding," then your conscience will be fully formed, and you will not be able to do those things without committing a sin of disobedience. Until now, you have not sinned, and I never said that you did.

Jake, please go back a few paragraphs now and re-read the last passage I quoted from you. Your words raise another serious moral problem -- namely, that you trust your "feelings" to let you know if you have sinned. [You used the words "feel/feelings" three times.] We cannot make decisions or judge our past actions based on "feelings." An examination of conscience involves facts, not feelings. In fact, "feelings" are the major negative component in this whole thread's discussions. Our feelings cannot be trusted in making moral decisions. Instead, we have to turn objectively to well-formed consciences -- which are faculties of the intellect, not of the emotions.
Hmmmm. I'm beginning to think that the problems in this thread and other problems involving Christian charismatic/pentecostal movements may be rooted in the error of "let your feelings be your guide" (to evaluating past, current, and proposed behavior). That is not the Catholic way.

You continued: "Jesus came to destroy the Law."

Really? You had better let Jesus know about that, because he said differently: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them."

You continued: "Because anyone who follows Jesus is above the law and doesn't need the law. The law was made for man, not man for the law."

It is true that we no longer need to follow the Mosaic Law -- i.e., the hundreds of ordinances that Jesus and his fellow Jews followed. But you seem to want to use that as an (illegitimate) excuse for also disregarding at least one of the Ten Commandments, if it becomes inconvenient to you. Our present controversy has nothing to do with "the Law," but is related to the Fourth Commandment, "Honor your father and mother." Under this commandment, we owe obedience to people in authority over us, including those Church leaders that wisely prepared and promulgated disciplines and liturgical rules. To be obedient in this way is not "legalism" or "Pharisaism." In fact, Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees! -- "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Matt. 23). How much more should we Catholic "practice and observe whatever" the Vicar of Christ tells us Catholics!

You continued: "Yes, John, you are right. People (women in particular) who want to be priests, and therefore copy the gestures of the priest, ought to follow the 'law,' because the law was meant for them. But in my heart, and in MaryLu's heart, and in my mothers heart, we do not want to be or imitate priests. We just want to praise our God! ... with an issue like this, it really is only an abuse depending on what the persons' interior motives are ..."

What??? It's OK for you to use "orans," but (at the same Mass) the pro-women's-ordination feminist in the next pew must avoid using "orans"??? Please try to be serious, Jake. No one could accept such an idea. What is needed is simply for all to be obedient and avoid "orans."

You continued: "You're telling me that if St. Francis were to be seated next to two people who offered him their hands during the Lords Prayer he would say, 'Ah, no, I'm sorry - It's not in the GIRM?' I would be more apt to think that he would smile at them and take their hands and pray the Lords Prayer with LOVE!"

Jake, earlier in this thread, I had to use a phrase that never used before. Amazingly, I have to use it again -- "false dichotomy." You are unjustifiably (and offensively) claiming that a person who wants to be obedient (and who advises others to be obedient) cannot "pray ... with LOVE!" You should know that the people of St. Francis's time would never have "offered him their hands," because they knew better than to be disobedient in that way. But, for the sake of argument, if it had happened, I hope that my patron saint would have said something similar to what I would say: "I'm sorry, my friend, but the Church does not give us permission to do that."

You continued: "I guess you're lucky to be in a parish where everyone follows the letter of the Law, and therefore you aren't tempted to break the rules. However, I have the misfortune to be in a parish where many people are ignorant to the GIRM, let alone basic Catechetical teachings."

Unintentionally, Jake, you just made one of my points. You revealed that you are "tempted to break the rules," and you give in to that temptation. But, starting tomorrow, you can stop giving in, if you have the will power. And you can start to share previously unknown facts with your fellow parishioners -- facts about liturgical rules and about "basic catechetical teachings."

You continued: "But nonetheless, my heart is pure and I offer Charity rather than reprimand and guilt trips."

As I mentioned earlier, I am against guilt feelings when there has been no subjective sin committed. I have never recommended that you "reprimand" people, and I have not reprimanded you. I have recommended "informing" people, just as I have informed you. It is through "informing" people and giving good example (obedience) that you will demonstrate true "charity" to others. (Giving bad example and keeping quiet are definitely not ways of exhibiting "charity.")

Jake, you closed by writing: "... it is my observation that before you are carried away by the letter of the law (just as the Pharisees), John, you should re-evaluate the message you are sending. Because not everyone who raises their hands during the Our Father is a sinner."

I have already written about each thing you mention here, so I won't be redundant. I will just reiterate the most important thing: Up to now, I have not called anyone "a sinner." I have said that someone, in the future, may deliberately sin, but I have not judged anyone's past actions as sinful.

Jake, may God bless you and all who have taken your side on this thread. I bear you no ill will at all.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 21, 2002.


Theresa, I was writing my post while you were posting. I did not see what you wrote before I composed my message. Still, I don't think that I would have stated anything differently.
Yes, indeed, Ephesians 4 is very helpful.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 21, 2002.

Dear Jake:
You must realise-- the right or wrong of this is not such as to make you a sinner. Sin is an offense against God or neighbor, an injustice. But a liberty taken in a rite of worship is ''improper'', though maybe not sinful.

You may not have thought what we're talking about was ''improper''. But it is; and that's really what John is saying. It's something done ''ad-lib'', without thought given the formality of the rite.

The Liturgy is ritual. God expects our close attention to ritual; contrary to what many people think. To each celebration of the Eucharist there's a beginning, middle and finale-- an end. To give God perfect worship as a people, every member is placed in a role. The role of priest, the congregated faithful, and Our Divine Lord Himself. All uplifted in a ritual ceremony to the infinite Majesty of God.

Many of the deviations from our Church's set ritual we might think are insignificant, or ''the letter of the law'', are neither. Deviating can result in a flawed ritual offering. Ritual can't be improvisation.

Who is in charge? By whose criteria do we Catholics maintain a perfect ceremonial practice? Certainly not by ad-libbing and adding to the ritual without authorization. God may not send anyone to hell or purgatory for doing that, but neither is He receiving a perfect ritual offering from those who owe it to Him. God sees every imperfection!

We can assume in His infinite mercy God will not punish us for it. But that's not the point here. The point here is, can we as a people take our roles within this ritual SERIOUSLY? It isn't a game! It's the divine worship God has commanded of His people through Christ and the apostles.

Don't make the mistake of thinking, as many protestants erroneously do, that ritual is not pleasing to God, or that it isn't biblical. Nothing is MORE biblical and fitting for the people of God.

It has to be serious and solemn ritual, with every detail offered up ONLY as the Church has taught it; not by loose application. --Step by step, with our loving attention to every word and act; because Christ makes this holy offering and we're His loving servants.

Every act is essential and HOLY! That's why John says what has been authorized and only that, is proper. We have GOD to serve at each and every celebration of Holy Mass. Our offering must be the best and most exact representation of Jesus Christ before His Almighty Father. To be fitting and holy, it has to have the stamp of His Church's approval, where the Holy Spirit abides.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 21, 2002.


Hi, Jake

On 9/19, you said,"I honestly can not see how this is a violation-can you point me to the text that condemns this" when speaking to John about Hands holding during "Our Father".

This very question is found in journal Notitiae, Rome's official interpretation of the GIRM. Holding hands was addressed in 1975.

QUERY: In some places there is a current practise whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon's invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord's Prayer. Is this acceptable?

REPLY: The prolonged holding of the hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Furter, it is a Liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invatation;"Let us offer each other the sign of peace" should be supplamanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is fulled with meaning, graciousness,and Christian inspiration. Any substitution must be repudiated.

Jake, It is clearly stated that holding hands is not in the ruberics. And the fact that Rome clearly states that it is not there reaffirms the Church's disapproval of this gesture. Vatican II states that is illicit to add anything to the rubrics.

I can tell you are having a hard time accepting what John has been trying to explain to you. It is true Jake, and look around at Mass and you will see more people than you would think, do not hold hands during "Our Father". Pray about this, Jake. Everyone knows you are a good Catholic.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 21, 2002.


Sacrosanctum Concilium, Solemnly Promulgated by his holiness Pope Paul vi on Dec. 4, 1963:

D) 37. "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples."

I seriously doubt that holding hands implicates the faith or the good of the whole community.

I do not wish to stretch this debate, as it isn't a black and white matter where we can easily understand the position of the Church. I respect you, John, so if you choose to respond I will graciously accept your comments.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 22, 2002.


Jmj

I'm sorry, Jake, but I think that it is time for you to yield on this. At least, I hope that by the time you finish reading this, you will agree that it is time to give up.

I don't really want to embarrass you, but I have to reveal now the context of the paragraph 37 that you quoted from "Sacrosanctum concilium." (By doing this, I don't mean to imply that you were being deceptive. I'm certain that you would not intentionally deceive.)

Before the #37, you placed the letter "D," above. In the document, what comes just before #37 is this:
"D) Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples"
So we see that, in #37 etc., there is going to be something about future "norms" (rules) for making adaptations. Are we going to find that "adaptations" can be made by the will of the laity in the pews? No. Here is what we find in #38 and #39 -- with my emphasis added, to show that adaptations like hand-holding and "orans" would have to be be approved by the local bishops' conference:

"38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics. [Note: When this was being written, 1963, the new rite of the Mass had not yet been prepared. JFG]

"39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2 [the "territorial bodies of bishops"], to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution."

Jake, as we know, the U.S. bishops have already provided (first in 1969 and now in 2001) for all the adaptations they have found fit to authorize -- and they did not include "orans" and hand-holding.

You stated: "I seriously doubt that holding hands implicates the faith or the good of the whole community."

But the point I have made repeatedly is that we can't go by private opinions -- not even private opinions of priests or bishops. Instead, the Church has decided to go by norms and decisions made by bishops' conferences, confirmed by the Vatican.

If you or I were to have the right privately to decide that "holding hands [does not] implicate the faith or the good of the whole community," then we would have to grant that some other laymen have the right to decide that clown Masses, polka Masses, and ballet during Mass also do not "implicate the faith or the good of the whole community" in their parishes. We know that there are people who will try to make those arguments. Just as those folks cannot be permitted to decide, so you and I cannot decide. Only the bishops and the Vatican can decide on adaptations.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 22, 2002.


Thank you for this discussion.

Self: The many laws that Christ freed us from have been replaced by other laws just as numerous. These laws are used to draw the line between those who would be bound by them and those in the outer circle. In this discussion I am glad to be able to read it without the feeling that another slave chain was about to be bound on me. Less emotional.

John:

You said that this was really important to you. I read that as important on an emotional level as well as other levels. This because of the deapth and ferver of your reaction. Thus your accuasion of Jake having only an emotional arguement fell a bit flat. It does seem to me that you do have most of the law on your side. And little of the spirit. The last is the minor chord in this discussion. So by law we must suppress the expression of the Charismic Catholics and force them to reconsider where they should be (as in should I be Catholic if I can not be Charismic?). Not because it is herasy, but because it is outlaw. Yes, I would think that St. Francis would be accepting of others who would worship God in their own way.

Look at what diversity there is in Catholic worship! The spanish sometimes prostratate themselves on the floor in worship. Are they mimicing the priests who do this at their ordination? I suspect not, I suspect that they are just totally into the worship of the Lord. I really suspect that if I toured the Los Angeles area I could find many different varientions of the Mass. All from spirit filled people who want to worship the Lord. A spanish man I have heard of will go the whole way to his pew on his knees. Is this an outlaw or a deaply moved man?

So, John, who do we rub out next? The folk bands on the alter? The spanish? Should we inquire what the vietnamese are doing? The African based churches? the Koreans?

Mary Lu:

While you are welcome to take communication and the sacriments at the church I attend, Please do not abandon your current practice until you really can not stand it. All instutitations have a strong human and organizational level and these levels affect what the instution can and will do. No organization is unflawed, or all others would have copied that one at the risk of being competively eliminated. A change of organizations will just change the problems, not eliminate them. I kind-of prefer the problem set I now have, but to say that it is not there is a foolish mistake.

Jake, good luck to you, you will need it. I like what you and Mary Lu are saying, but can not help you.

yours in Christ, Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 22, 2002.


Dear Sean,
You see everything around you through the subjective lens of a well-meaning observer. You ought to remember, feelings are not the point.

In the cases you mention, ''prostrated'' worshippers, one who travels on his knees to a pew; you may not be seeing the real facts. You only see curiosities, and you misinterpret them as they relate to our thread.

Because we haven't been discussing odd customs. We were discussiing the formal, approved version of the Liturgy. The Mass. No one prostrates himself during Mass, Sean. It would be pointless, even in ages past. These are actions that may have been customary as rites associated to holy orders, and private worship not within the context of the Liturgy.

People walking on their knees on the floor, (to the altar rail-- not their pew-- once fulfilled a personal pledge by this action. They did it in solemn prayer, but NOT as some variation on the liturgical rites. These are private practices. Undertaken as a token of gratitude; or in supplication.

You've ventured: ''I suspect that they are just totally into the worship of the Lord. I really suspect that if I toured the Los Angeles area I could find many different varientions of the Mass. All from spirit filled people who want to worship the Lord.'' Well; your suspicions would be wrong, Sean. There is NO variation allowed in the celebration of the Mass. None.

Spirit-filled people? They go to Holy Mass and serve God through Jesus Christ. And nothing could be holier! You may not want to see it, but all Catholics, lay and clergy, are ''totally into the worship of the Lord.'' Or should be.

The Church has been given total responsibility for the lawful celebrations of these mysteries. They never give liberty to me or you, however, on the basis of our Spirit-filled enthusiasm. That is encouraged and lawful as private or group exercise, but not for liturgical services. They are untouchable, and only the bishops and our Holy Father the Pope may make exceptions to the rules.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 22, 2002.


Hello, Sean

Don't worry, Marylu said, that she isn't leaving the Church! Scroll up and read it. You must of skipped that post.

"So, John, who do we rub out next?..... The Spanish? Should we require what the Vietnamese are doing? The African based Churches? The Koreans?"

I know I am NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, but, what does this have to do with the high price of fish in China? Slow down, Sean!

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 22, 2002.


I don't feel embarassed at all, John. But thanks for the concern. I understood the context of this document when I read it, and though it is written primarily for customs (of different cultures, etc.) it still must necessarily apply to this situation. I will reiterate the important statement: "Even (emphasis added) in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community." Therefore, if in Africa the cultural custom is to hold hands during the Our Father - this statement would render it acceptable. And if this be true from a cultural standpoint, I am justified in extrapolating it to apply to a community or parish where the parishiners hold hands, as it does not "implicate the faith or the good of the whole community."

I have also spoken to two good priest friends (one of which is the Pastor of a very conservative parish), and both had mentioned the Bishops' meeting, hand position, etc. They both confirmed that it is niether a "rule" nor is it "wrong" to hold hands.

I realize that we will most likely not meet eye to eye on this, but in the research and prayer that I have done there is peace in my heart, and I wish you peace also.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 23, 2002.


Jmj

Well, Jake, we could "meet eye-to-eye," but only if you would resolve to read what I have written more carefully and open-mindedly.

You stated: "I will reiterate the important statement: "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community."

No, Jake. That is an important statement, but not the most important one. I am deeply troubled that you could not see that the following is the most important statement to help us through our present disagreement:
"it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority ... to specify adaptations."
The bishops, and only they, can allow adaptations (and only with subsequent Vatican approval. Case closed, Jake.

Even the the case is closed, let's go on ...
You continued: "And if this be true from a cultural standpoint, I am justified in extrapolating it to apply to a community or parish where the parishiners hold hands, as it does not 'implicate the faith or the good of the whole community.'"

This is false. You are not "justified in extrapolating" anything, because you don't have the right or competence to make such judgments. Only your nation's bishops do.

You continued: "I have also spoken to two good priest friends ..."

Jake, although priests are more likely to get things like this right than laypeople are, they are (unfortunately) far from reliable -- and I think that you know this. Many priests have not even read the relevant documents (or at least not for many years). Other priests (even some normally good ones) know what is required, but disagree with the pope and decide to disobey. [I even see liturgical improprieties by orthodox priests on EWTN.] The simple fact is that you got incorrect information from the two priests. (I won't try to guess why.) I am confident that, if they are obedient priests, and if they would read this thread, they would realize that they were mistaken and would give you new and different advice.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2002.


Dear Liz, In my church we bend our arms at the elbow and the palms are face up. Not that it matters. The really important part is that we are praying the Our Father together. A lot of people in my church are homeless, uneducated and foreign to Canada. I think their prayers are recieved by God in the humble manner in which they are said. When the Apostles asked Jesus to teach them to pray He said "Our Father...." I guess He forgot to mention where you should hold your hands----or maybe He thought the prayer was the important part. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 24, 2002.

While at mass this morning, I observed others while praying the Our Father.

In noticed that several 'orthodox' catholics had their palms raised while saying the prayer...some did hold hands.

The priest celebrating the mass is from the old school and never minces his words when reprimanding us for doing something inappropriate during mass. He constantly reminds us that he is the celebrant and we are to follow his lead, not 'lead.'

He never said anything about palm raising or holding hands while saying the Our Father.

In fact, he is constantly yelling at people (especially women) who say the rosary during mass. He warned us many times that if he sees us saying the rosary during mass, that he will ban us from attending his mass because one cannot and should not do anything that takes away from concentration of the mass. He is very strict about following the literagy and guidelines.

He was not in a very good mood today, but one day when he is in an approachable mood I will ask him about this subject.

I refrained today from raising my hands while saying the Our Father, but did not feel right about it.

One women who attends mass seven days a week and has done so since her childhood days, raises her palms...and sometimes, she holds hands with others. Her son is a priest and I am going to ask her about it.

I think way too much is being made about this subject when there are so many other important matters to contend with our world and our church.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 24, 2002.


Dear Mary Lu:
To a point you're correct. Many other subjects are better to be arguing about than this. I don't call it ''sinful'' to deviate a little from the norm.

Let me say then, that the Orans posture etc., was never the norm. It is a deviation from the norm, and I leave it up to the individual whether or not that's important.Here's a clip of your previous post: --''I,too, lift up my hands when saying the Our Father. I never once thought I was trying to imitate the priest. To me, it is a form of worship and praise - lifting up my prayers to Our Lord. Maybe that is more protestant, I don't know. --and then-- ''I started to do that when I was involved with the Catholic Charismatic prayer group.-- then:

I don't lift them way up high for everyone to see - I just raise them slightly. I am beginning to wonder if I really do belong in the Protestant church.''

Precisely the point here. For some souls these things have caused confusion. In this forum we discuss the many ways confusion results. So, I think you hit the nail on the head. Jake and some others should look at it from that point of view. Even our priests ought to.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 24, 2002.


As a final post, knowing that this subject has already been beaten to death, I thought that I would present some actual Bishops' statements:

Here's the response of the Bishop's to the question of the use of the "orans" gesture by the faithful, in preference to holding of hands, during the Our Father. It can be found at the following website. http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/orans.htm

Below is the actual text.

[Orans

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s 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 Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s 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 Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.]

I'm glad that they are at least in the process of coming up with a Sacramentary which guides us on this issue. As there is currently NO POSITION assigned, I will continue to hold hands, so as not to scandalize or hurt the feelings of those who offer me their hands. As the Bishops have expressed dislike (which does not however represent the feeling of the Pope - or the Church) of this action, however, if the persons at my sides do not extend their hands to me, I will not "force" my hands to them. When the new approved version of the Sacramentary is issued I will comply with whatever position they prescribe, as it will then be documented and approved.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 24, 2002.


Jmj

Hello, Gene.
After being in tune with you throughout this thread, I find that I have to disagree with you on one point now.

You said that you "don't call it 'sinful' to deviate a little from the norm." I have to disagree with you on that. In fact, if I had thought that there was no potential sin involved here, I never would have posted a single message on this thread. The reason I have been so adamant in pursuing this is that, once a person becomes aware of the fact that a certain "deviation from the published norm" is not authorized, he commits a sin of disobedience (and possibly pride too) if he deliberately continues that "deviation."

The reason that "deviation" is a sin is that the person can never justify placing his judgment over that of the bishops and the Vatican -- "They haven't given us permission to do this, but I know better than they" or "Aw, what harm could there be in it? I don't need permission" or some similar kind of thinking. [The only kind of norm that may be violated is one that is impossible to keep. For example, a priest is required to wear a chasuble, but if he is traveling (or in prison, etc.) and has no access to a chasuble, he can celebrate Mass without one.]

Almost surely, Gene, this kind of sin (when one is really committed) is only a venial one, but we cannot brush things like this off as if they were no sin at all. Even venial sins offend God and hurt our relationship with him.

As I made clear in an earlier post ... I want to emphasize that I am not accusing a single soul here of having sinned in the past. If someone used a gesture/posture without being aware that it was unauthorized, then there was no sin committed.

I will go even farther ... Suppose someone here is still not convinced by all my documentary evidence and by our logical argumentation that "orans" and hand-holding are forbidden. Suppose he/she still thinks that I am mistaken. I would say two things about that person:
(1) He/she needs to make a good faith attempt to find out if I am actually right (by more carefully considering our evidence and arguments and by obtaining an expert opinion from an orthdox liturgist or from the Vatican), and ...
(2) That person may continue to use the gesture/posture without sinning until it has been determined (from an authoritative source) that I was right. At that point he/she must abandon the gesture/posture.

If anyone can get a definitive, written ruling from the Vatican in favor of "orans" or hand-holding, I will take back what I have said above. But here we are, more than 33 years after the beginning of the "Catholic Charismatic Renewal," and no one has ever sought and obtained that kind of written authorization from the Vatican. That speaks quite loudly to us.


MaryLu, I was disheartened to read your latest message, in which you described the gestures/postures being used around you at your parish, and you talked about what your parish priest has said and not said.

The reason I was dishearted is this: In earlier posts in this thread, I have repeatedly explained that the gestures/postures that you see people using in church are not relevant. They must play no part in deciding whether a gesture/posture is permitted or not. The only thing that matters is what the bishops have authorized. All around us in life are people who are doing improper things. The simple fact that folks do these things (even if 90% of the people do them) does not make them right. In the same way, even if 90% of the people in your parish hold hands, that does not make the practice permissible.

I admire you greatly, MaryLu, for avoiding the use of an unauthorized gesture today at Mass. I think you did this because you knew, in your conscience, that you were doing what was right. But then you said that you "did not feel right about it." Here again, you have forgotten (or did not read) two things that I explained earlier:
(1) Our "feelings" are not what matter. We can't act on the basis of how we "feel," but rather on the basis of what is right and wrong (as reflected in the Church's liturgical rules, in this case).
(2) When we have been doing something out of habit, it feels uncomfortable to try to break that habit. That feeling of discomfort (which you experienced today) does not mean that breaking the habit is wrong. (If it did, no one would ever quit drinking or smoking to excess.)

You wrote: "I think way too much is being made about this subject when there are so many other important matters to contend with our world and our church."

I agree with you completely. Having been here at the forum for 2 and 3/4 years, MaryLu, I can tell you that I have never raised the subjects of "orans" or hand-holding on the forum -- even though I am so much against them (as you have noticed!). So, you can see that I agree with you that there are more "important matters to contend with." I posted a message here in response to Liz, who started this thread. That is the only message I would have posted here if I had not subsequently been opposed and forced to defend myself.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2002.


Jmj

Jake, we posted almost simultaneously, so I had not yet seen your message.

My friend, we all have to keep a desire for accuracy and great care in our use of words as high priorities in our writing of messages. Otherwise, we will stop being taken seriously. In your new message (similar to what happened earlier in the thread), something is being put forward as "the response of the Bishops" to an inquiry about "orans." But, in fact, what you have quoted is a brief, unapproved opinion page from the Committee on the Liturgy (consisting of a small group of bishops, plus religious and lay staffers). These comments were never put before the body of 300+ bishops for their vote. It is therefore inaccurate to refer to them as a "response of the Bishops."

Jake, I found something else you just said to be very troubling, indicative of a rebellious spirit. Even though you yourself have quoted this passage that comes right out and tells us that neither "orans" nor hand-holding is currently authorized (and that hand-holding is not appropriate), you will hold hands anyway. Please pray very hard about this, Jake, to avoid beginning now to commit deliberate sins of disobedience and pride.

You would please God greatly by being obedient (and by helping others around you to be obedient, by advising them of the facts). In my opinion, it would be a wonderful thing if, little by little, all hand-holding would cease in your parish, simply because you had the courage to be the first one to stop and to tell your neighbors (who trust you) that it is not permissible. From your parish, obedience could then spread to the rest of your diocese -- and from there throughout the nation and the world. [Well, I can dream, can't I? ;)]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2002.


Dear John,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us and I apologize if I seemed disrespectful to you or rude. I certainly did not mean to be.

You are very obedient to the church and very orthodox. It will take me a while to become an orthodox Catholic and I don't know if I ever will be. You do make me think about things and what it really means to be catholic, a good catholic. I'm not sure I can follow all those rules to the letter.

However, I do appreciate learning from you.

God bless you and thank you.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 25, 2002.


John,

Thank you for your good wishes. I am feeling better, thank you. This subject has kind of gotten under my skin, so I have spent SEVERAL hours (which I believe is a good start to a good faith effort) doing what you have suggested, researching this topic. I specifically quote from two of your posts:

"What is authorized is explained, not in the Catechism, but in the Code of Canon Law (a small part) and mainly in the General Instructions and rubrics found in the Missal (Lectionary and Sacramentary). ... If they fail, we can read the documents ourselves, either by looking at them in church or rectory or on the Internet. Even missalettes tend to give some directions concerning posture, but there is so much more in the General Instructions, which are beautiful and informative, not just directing us, but teaching us about the Mass. "

and

"(1) He/she needs to make a good faith attempt to find out if I am actually right (by more carefully considering our evidence and arguments and by obtaining an expert opinion from an orthdox liturgist or from the Vatican)"

Because this is all quite new to me, I literally started from square one. I found a copy of the GIRM and read it, and searched extensively through the Internet. In earlier posts you said "the short list of permissible/required actions by the laity" and also "liturgical documents (especially the GIRM) are not places in which the Church lists things that we are forbidden to do, but rather the things that we may or should do. Directives are stated positively, not usually negatively"

As I said, I spent several precious hours on this. The only required action on the part of the laity that I could find was that we are to stand for the Our Father. I could find no authorized direction on what we ARE to do with our hands, our eyes, or even our head position. No other posture except to stand.

So now I am coming to you for help. Because you have stated that such direction exists, that there is a short list of permissable/required actions could you please help me find these documents that state what these actions and postures are. If they are on the internet, please provide links. In all of this discussion (which I carefully went through again prior to posting) I could not find such a quote from an official document listed in this thread.

Thank you for your help.

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 25, 2002.


Dear CK Sunshine,
I wouldn't be too negative about the matter. In my heart I realise almost everyone here is sincere and devout at prayer; in or out of an Orans stance. One of us thinks it's a sin to depart from the catechism's expressed teachings. It might be a sin; but I'm not certain. Sure, I know "feelings" are not what matter. We can't act on the basis of how we "feel," but on the basis of what is right and wrong as reflected in the Church's liturgical rules, in this case --John's warning.

Yet we struggle to see right and wrong as a choice here. I myself described it as a deviation from the norm. Not sinful, but still imperfect. I clearly stated that in Mass we ALL should strive for perfection. I still don't see the matter as serious enough, and I was taught that our thoughts, words, and deeds must be serious to be true sins.

I was never taught the catechism was a blueprint, an inerrant manual for salvation. It is our loving teacher given us by the Church. Nowhere was I taught I had to blot out of my mind any thought, word, deed which the catechism touched on and deemed a danger or obstacle to faith and morals. --What's my motive for saying this?

Well, I can search that very catechism, and prove there is no sin in a thought, word or deed unless it is SERIOUS and undertaken with my full consent.

John seems to say (he will correct me if I'm off the mark) our obedience CAN'T be denied once the catechism has pronounced something wrong, or something strictly proper. It's the authority he defends.

I'm in favor of the same authority. But not always under pain of sin. There is truly sin if we know something is serious, and we still offend. When we do that thing unforced and with full consent. BUT that, to me does not include the penalty of sin, about a simple thing like the Orans gesture. No truly serious offense would ever be certifiable, in my honest opinion. Except against the cathechism, I suppose.

I never knew the catechism imposed pain of sin on us in every item it contains. A mind-set of this kind, IMHO approaches the exact fault Jesus Christ imputed to the Pharisees. Washing the outside of the cup, etc., and judging all the minutae with an iron hand. I hope I've stated the foregoing with no insult to John, and that he can patiently read my post without some serious reaction.

Just wished to shed light on the few things we haven't covered till now. (On this ''unimportant subject'', which doesn't seem to fade away. Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 25, 2002.


Hello, MaryLu. [Wait a minute! Ricky Nelson: "Hello, Mary Lou. Goodbye, heart ..." Sorry. Couldn't contain myself.]

Hello, MaryLu.
Thank you for the kinds words. There was no need for you to apologize. Never have I thought that you have said anything disrespectful or rude to me! It is true that I have felt sad on some occasions when you have expressed doubts about yourself. But I have enjoyed very many of your posts -- especially those with practical spiritual advice. Let's keep our chins up together!

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 25, 2002.


Hi John,

That was funny, thanks for the gift of laughter today :) We can all use it.

And, thank you for your encouraging words. I don't really doubt myself when it comes to my faith - I doubt my obedience to the church because I am not orthodox as far as following all the rules set in the catechism (which I have not read) btw, just the old Baltimore cathechism when I was growing up.

Have a good day! MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 26, 2002.


Hi there,

Thank you Eugene for your answer and heartfelt comments. I have read them, but please forgive me, I will read them again in the morning, when I'm a little clearer. Please let me explain. I had a very unforeseeable, seemingly unavoidable, totally caught by suprise, accident, and because of pain medication, I am not quite up to par. My left leg is completely bruised; but God was watching out for me, because although I am hurt, my little son is not, although I dropped him when I fell. If he had been walking instead of me, he would have been the one to fall into the (deep) hole, instead of me. I'm ok, just recovering. So please understand if I'm just not up to complete comprehension.

I am coherent enough to say though that although I am taking this subject very seriously, I am not trying to be not too negative about it. I am sincerly asking for help locating these documents and this list of what we should do with our postures during Mass. I have children to teach about this! Any help (from anyone) would truly be appreciated.

Thanks so much!

Carolyn

cksunshine

P.S. I'm doing ok. I feel like I shouldn't even mention my accident, but I wanted Eugene to know why I couldn't read his comments more closely. Please, if you would pray for me, then please pray for my children. It seems that each of them (all 5!) could use prayers for various things. I have a teenager (need I say more?), one who is being bullied, one who is torn between God's word and the crowd, one who is just like me and hurts much more inside than she wants to admit, and one who is just embarking on this life, and doesn't understand why life isn't fair. Please pray for my children. Thank you from the bottom of this mom's heart.

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 26, 2002.


Dear Carolyn,

I am so sorry to hear about your accident. Thank God the baby is okay.

I do hope you have a speedy and complete recovery. I certainly will remember you in my prayers and your children. For those of us who have children, we understand completely!

May God bless you with His strength and peace; May He heal you completely.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 27, 2002.


ck,

I am sorry to hear of your accident. I also hope you have a speedy recovery and get back on your feet soon. The Lord was certainly watching over your little one, thank God.

I am also a mom, and you and your family are in my prayers.

God bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 27, 2002.


Carolyn,

You and your family are indeed in my prayers, my friend. I'm very thankful for God's protection over you and your child. As you said, it could very well have been much worse.

I'm convinced that the most important responsibility a parent has is to intercede and pray for their children. It's a struggle that lasts a lifetime.

God bless.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 27, 2002.


Mary Lu, Kathy, and Dave,

Thank you so very much for your well wishes and prayers, especially for my children. I am feeling much better today, but my leg is turning some very interesting colors from the bruising! At least it doesn't hurt so bad now.

Mary Lu and Kathy, I'm so glad that you moms are on this board! Thank you for understanding and praying for my family.

Dave, thank you also! When I saw your message, I thought of your own family. Are they doing ok now? I agree with you about praying and interceding for our children. I'm not much into art, but I have a beautiful print by Ron DiCianni entitled "Spiritual Warfare" and it is of a father praying over his son (who is asleep in bed). If you look carefully in the background you can see an angel fighting a demon, and winning. It is hung over my fireplace as a constant reminder to pray for my children. I believe there is another print of a mom praying over her daughter, but I cannot find a copy anywhere.

Thanks again everyone. Please know that I keep all of you and your families in my prayers also!

Carolyn

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 27, 2002.


Carolyn,

I am happy to read that everything worked out, and your child did not get hurt. His guardian angel was right there thanks to God. I will rember your children, and yourself in my prayers.

I have a feeling that you will be getting the information that you requested sometime soon. I have never read anyone request something to learn, and John not help them.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 27, 2002.


Dear Carolyn,

David is so right about your baby's guardian angel being there with him to protect him. I think your guardian angel was right there with you too - it could have been so much worse.

I always say the St. Michael prayer for my children every day and I pray to Our Lady to watch over them for me. Pray to your children's guardian angels as well.

My mother always prays to St. Ann for us. Somehow I forget about St. Ann, but being Our Lady's mother she certainly is a powerful saint.

Take care, Carolyn and, again, speedy recovery. When you are feeling better and up to it, don't forget to take some time for yourself again...even if it is just an hour away from the kids...listen to some nice relaxing music, a nice hot bath, some candles....or just a nice brisk walk (well, that will be out of the picture for a while :) )

Whatever you do, make sure you take care of mom as well as you take care of those kids, Carolyn, okay???

Love, MaryLu

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), September 27, 2002.


c.t.

-- . (.@...), September 28, 2002.

Hi Carolyn,

I have that same picture hanging in our hall outside our boys' room!! It's very inspiring and a great reminder of the battle parents face daily for their children.

My wife and son are doing pretty well, thanks so much for asking. My wife has pain every day as a reminder and has been wrestling with memories of late. The one year anniversary plays a part in that as does our having to go through the legal hoops to try to settle the matter with the insurance companies. But all in all, I'm still overwhelmingly grateful that they are here and doing as well as they are.

Take care and God bless.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 29, 2002.


Jmj

Hello, Carolyn (CKS).
I'm glad you were able to give us a good progress report on your recovery. I was sorry to read that, just after having had to suffer through an illness, you had to suffer a serious injury too. Knowing you, though, I am confident that you have been "offering it up" in union with the sufferings of Jesus.

I apologize for taking so long to reply to you. I read your reply and Eugene's (of the 25th), one after the other. I knew that it would be difficult for me to write replies to each of you. I knew that it would require a lot of time, and I couldn't figure out which reply to write first. I began trying to write replies "in my head," but without putting them down "on paper." Then I suddenly became so busy (especially at work) that I could not find enough consecutive minutes of free time to sit down and respond to either of you. At last, on this Sunday evening, I can give it a try.

Here are the key comments, from your message, that I want to address: "I found a copy of the GIRM and read it, and searched extensively through the Internet. In earlier posts you [John] said 'the short list of permissible/required actions by the laity' and also 'liturgical documents (especially the GIRM) are not places in which the Church lists things that we are forbidden to do, but rather the things that we may or should do. Directives are stated positively, not usually negatively.' As I said, I spent several precious hours on this. The only required action on the part of the laity that I could find was that we are to stand for the Our Father. I could find no authorized direction on what we ARE to do with our hands, our eyes, or even our head position. No other posture except to stand. So now I am coming to you for help. Because you have stated that such direction exists, that there is a short list of permissable/required actions could you please help me find these documents that state what these actions and postures are. If they are on the internet, please provide links. In all of this discussion (which I carefully went through again prior to posting) I could not find such a quote from an official document listed in this thread."

Please bear with me, Carolyn, while I begin with an indirect, rather than a direct, reply ...

As you know, you can find a wonderful and much-embracing summary of the Church's teachings (content of faith and morality) in the new Catechism -- with still more details on doctrines to be found in other documents (such as encyclicals, apostolic letters, conciliar writings, etc.).

What else does the Church give us besides all our doctrines? She gives us disciplinary directives -- rules/regulations to follow -- because, without "governance" and obedience to authority, a society of over a billion people cannot exist in an ordered form that is productive and pleasing to God. So where are these "disiciplinary directives"? They are divided into two major segments -- canon law and liturgical law.

As you may know, all disciplinary directives not related to the liturgy (and some that are tangentially related to the liturgy) are collected in one volume called the "Code of Canon Law" (for the Western/Latin Church). [There is a separate Code for the Eastern Churches, who make up about 2% of Catholics in the world.] The current edition of the Western Code was published in 1983, the revision having been requested by Pope John XXIII in 1959, I believe. The previous edition was published in 1917, having been requested by Pope St. Pius X, I believe, many years earlier. Before that, there was no collection of canon laws in one volume. Instead, all the non-liturgical disciplinary directives were spread thoughout hundreds of documents from different eras, and it took a genius of a prelate (working many years) to assemble the 1917 Code.

Why did I mention all that about Canon Law? It is because the Church now faces a similar situation with regard to liturgical law. Since the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy in 1963, there have been an abundance of documents published that contain disciplinary directives related to the Mass and sacraments. In my opinion, the time has come for someone at the Vatican to perform the great task of compiling a "Code of Liturgical Law" for the Western/Latin Church. Without a doubt the G.I.R.M. is quite extensive and covers a high percentage of the liturgical directives, but it is not exhaustive. Other directives (or deeper treatments of G.I.R.M. directives) can be found in other places. And, though this may be hard for some to accept, certain liturgical laws are "unwritten laws," simply "understood" because they have been passed down by tradition/custom from earlier generations.

In an earlier message (as you quoted), I said: "What is authorized is explained, not in the Catechism, but in the Code of Canon Law (a small part) and mainly in the General Instructions and rubrics found in the Missal (Lectionary and Sacramentary)." [Emphasis was added just now.]

Carolyn, you were great to search for things to read and to spend much time on the G.I.R.M.. The reason I emphasized a couple of words just now was to repeat that there are directives other than in the G.I.R.M. alone. There are various liturgical documents issued, at intervals in time, by Vatican bureaus. (You may recall my referring on a few occasions to 1980's "Inestimable Gift," for example.) There is a special instruction printed at the front of the Lectionary, analogous to the G.I.R.M. in the Sacramentary. Then, within the latter book on the altar, interspersed between the priest's various prayers, are little directives printed in red ink -- and these are called the "rubrics." Not all the rubrics are repeated in the G.I.R.M.. As you can see, it gets quite complicated (even daunting) -- which is why I said that there is a need for a "Code of Liturgical Law."

Now, having given you all that "background" information, am I able to reply directly to your concerns? In part, yes.
You quoted me as having referred to "the short list of permissible/required actions by the laity." I believe that you took my words literally -- as though I were stating that there is a centrally located, printed list of everything permissible/required on one or two pages. I'm sorry, but I did not mean to say that. My word, "list," was intended broadly -- to refer to all the scattered references to "permissible and required actions by the laity." If you read the G.I.R.M. (and the U.S. bishops' appendix) completely, you will find several such things -- e.g., the ways (and times) to make movements and assume postures, in articles 20-21-22 ... and the ways (and times) to bow, in article 234 .. the times to genuflect in article 233 ... the time to make the Sign of the Cross, etc.. Sometimes there are references to "unfixed" gestures, with decisions to be made by a nation's/region's bishops -- as in article 56: "The form the sign of peace should take is left to the conference of bishops to determine, in accord with the culture and customs of the people."

Now, having said what I could, fairly briefly, about directives concerning certain gestures and postures, I have to tell you honestly that I doubt that we could compile a complete list of all the "permissible or required" gestures and postures, even if were were to read every word in every single liturgical document of the Church. I realize that you thought I had implied that we could find or compile such a list. I can see that in these words of yours: "I could find no authorized direction on what we ARE to do with our hands, our eyes, or even our head position. No other posture except to stand [for the Lord's Prayer]. ... [C]ould you please help me find these documents that state what these actions and postures are.

Carolyn, if a "Code of Liturgical Law" could be written, then it would be good for it to contain the details you mention. However, as of now, I don't believe that we are going to find, in any modern liturgical document, references to "what we are to do with our hands, our eyes, or ... our head" during the Lord's Prayer. Why not? Because it would never have occurred to the writers of post-Vatican-II liturgical documents to mention those things directly. Why not?

Between the writing of the Constitution on the Liturgy (1963) and 1969, the new rite of the Mass for the Latin Church was being prepared. This rite was not something totally brand new and different, but rather a "reform of the liturgy" that had been celebrated for hundreds of years. The Church uses the word "reform" in the sense of "re-formulation" of the old rite, not "reform" in the sense of fixing something broken. The new rite did not arise in a vacuum, but replaced the old rite. Although it shook up some people (especially those who were ill-prepared by their pastors), the new rite was not a shocking and unbearable change for most people, because so many familiar elements of the old rite were carried over into the new.

Why am I telling you this, which may seem irrelevant? Because such things as "what we are to do with our hands, our eyes, or our head" during the Lord's Prayer were things that were already "engraved" on the collective consciousness of the laity through hundreds of years of practice during the old rite. These such basic things were simply carried forward into the celebration of the new rite, without the Church having to write them down in the form of directives in the G.I.R.M., etc.. Everyone was already accustomed to the natural use of his/her hands -- either to hold a missal, or to place them together in a prayerful gesture, or to rest them if necessary. Just as it did not seem necessary to codify these ancient hand positions, I am sure that it never occurred to anyone in the Vatican that someone in the 1970s would import or invent a new gesture/posture [orans, holding hands], so the Curia saw no need to guard against future improprieties in writing.

And actually, we are able sometimes to "deduce" what the Church expects of us. For example, throughout the G.I.R.M., you will find many references to the (con-)celebrating priest(s) praying with "hands joined" or "hands outstretched." But never do we see those words used with regard to the laity's hands. The natural deduction to be drawn is that the hands of us laypersons are never intended to be "outstretched."

Carolyn, I don't know how "orans" and "hand-holding" first made their appearance among the Catholic laity at Mass. I can only speculate. Perhaps "orans" came from a single person's deliberate or accidental imitation of the priest's hands -- and then it caught on at one Mass in one parish before spreading out. Perhaps hand-holding was done among some non-Catholics, was brought into the Mass by one person who converted to Catholicism -- and seemed to others to be a nice gesture. It is very likely that these things happened innocently -- not as intentional actions done to break rules. But their initial innocence cannot serve as an excuse for their continuation today.

Back in 1984, I returned to the active practice of the Catholic faith after years of inactivity. The very first Mass I attended was celebrated by young "rookie" priest who impressed me greatly. As the years went by, I saw him rise to become a pastor, the president of a pontifical catechetical institute, the dean of a Catholic college's graduate school, and the writer of a weekly column on aspects of Catholic beliefs and practices.

In 1999, this priest was asked: "Father ... I am puzzled ... by a seemingly new gesture: that of holding hands during the Lord's Prayer. I feel very uncomfortable doing it. I heard it is actually a violation of Canon Law ... Why do pastors allow it?"

[I want to copy part of Father's reply here, in hopes that it will at least partially answer your own questions, Carolyn]:
"Throughout the Mass, various gestures are prescribed for both the priest and the faithful worshipers. For example, we begin and end Mass by making the sign of the cross; during the Confiteor, we strike our breast; we sign ourselves with the cross on the forehead, lips, and heart at the proclamation of the Gospel; during the Creed, we bow at the words professing our faith in the incarnation of our Savior; we kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Lamb of God; and we receive Holy Communion either on the tongue or the hand.

"All of these prescribed physical gestures help make the act of worship at Mass one which involves our whole being, body and soul, thought, words, and actions. They also help create a spiritual disposition to receive our Lord in Word and Sacrament. Moreover, these gestures are prescribed, just as the readings from Sacred Scripture and the Order of the Mass are, to make the Sacrifice of the Mass a unified act of worship throughout the whole Church — in a sense, every Catholic is doing the same thing, the same way. To find the rubrics (regulations which govern the Mass) concerning these gestures, one may turn to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (1970), "On Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Outside of Mass" (1973), "Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery" (1980), and "Instruction on Certain Norms Concerning the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery" (1980).

"However, in all of the liturgical documents for the universal Church or of those particular ones issued by the United States Bishops Conference, nowhere is the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer mandated. Frankly, this gesture arose among the various liturgical innovations in the aftermath of Vatican Council II. Perhaps the holding of hands was introduced with good intentions to highlight the unity of the congregation as they pray, 'Our Father,' not 'My Father.' Yet, if unity is the key, then should we not be holding hands throughout the entire Mass? "The unity that is sought really comes later and after a spiritual progression: First, we fall on our knees as the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass: we recall not only our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection but also our need as individuals to offer ourselves to Him. Second, we pray in the words our Savior taught us, the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask, 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,' even the person next to us in the pew. Third, we offer the Sign of Peace, a gesture found in the earliest Masses to show a genuine unity based on peace and forgiveness. Finally, we receive Holy Communion, which truly brings us into communion with our Lord and with each other. Looking at the logic of this spiritual progression to real unity, the holding of hands at the Our Father is extraneous.

"... [T]he priest does not have the right to introduce, mandate, or impose [the holding of hands]. The Code of Canon Law (1983) does mandate: 'The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them' (Canon 826.1). Note that this Canon repeated a previous mandate found in both Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) and the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, No. 45 (1967), which was issued to address certain abuses arising in the liturgy after the council. ...

"The Church also reminds the priest, who is the guardian of the sacraments and who acts in persona Christi in offering the Mass: 'The priest should realize that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncracy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church" (Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No. 1 (1970)).

"A person in the pew should not feel obliged or coerced to hold hands with someone else during the Lord's Prayer, yet congregational 'peer pressure' could easily lead to such feelings. One can only imagine how intimidated a person must feel by the rest of the congregation if he does not desire to hold hands, whether because of personal preference or because of another reason such as arthritis. Granted, the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer seems to have become almost a tradition in some parishes throughout the country. Nevertheless, we must remember that this gesture is not prescribed, it is an innovation to the Mass, and in its goal to build unity and sensitivity, it can be alienating and insensitive to individuals."

[Thank you, Father, for speaking up. I do find these gestures to be very distracting and troubling when I notice them. I feel blessed to be able to attend Mass where few people use them.]


I'm sorry to have had to "talk your ear off," Carolyn. I hope that, even if you disagree with me, I have satisfied your request.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 29, 2002.


Hi everyone,

I only have a few short minutes here, but I wanted to, first of all let everyone know that I am doing much better. Mary Lu and David, you are SO right about our guardian angels looking out for us! My stories about angels are not as spectacular as some I've heard, but I have seen direct evidence of our angels, especially the children's angels watching out for them. Maybe we ought to start a thread!

And Mary Lu, I took your advice to heart and did do something good for me. I have come to recognize how true it is that we moms have to take care of ourselves, and that it is not selfish to do the kind of things you suggested. I wish I had realized that as a young mom! Thank you so much for your concern and advice!

John, I want to thank you for your reply. I can tell how much time and effort you put into it, and it was very informative! As I said above, unfortunately I only have a short time here today, as my own work has gotten busy because I have to get caught up on things I had to let go of last week due to my injury. Your post deserves thoughtful reading and I promise I will reply soon. Oh, and I am learning to offer it up to Jesus! This seems to have been a season for me to have quirky (wierd) accidents and illnesses. But I always try to think of what good can come from it, you know what I mean? Anyway, thank you so much for answering my request, I very much appreciate it.

Dave, I'm glad to hear that your family is doing ok. Anniversaries can be tough, that's for sure. I will pray especially for your wife, and for a quick resolvement to the legal issues. What I went through is so minor when I think of the trauma they have been through. BTW that is so cool that you have that same picture!

I hope that everyone has a blessed day!

Carolyn

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), October 01, 2002.


Hello, Jake

I have prayed for you about this. I hope you will learn from this thread and pass this on to fellow Catholics.

God bless

David

-- David (David@ecite.com), October 03, 2002.


Friends,

Earlier in this thread, in speaking about liturgical improprieties (especially gestures/postures), I stated: "The problem, I believe, is that priests and bishops don't have the courage to speak up and tell people about this, because they fear alienating devout folks whose feelings might be hurt."

Now since I was so tough on our ordained men, I consider it my duty to emphasize cases in which some of them do courageously speak up. I was happy to present one such case by quoting from a learned priest (above) on September 29. A kind friend has brought another case to my attention now.

Fr. John Lombardi of the National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes (in Maryland) has written the following, to be read by visitors to the Shrine and to its Internet site:

Question: "During the 'Our Father' does the Church call us to hold hands?"
Answer: "No. This arises because individuals and congregations practice different things, depending on the priest, style of worship, etc. The new Sacramentary (official prayer book of the Catholic Church) stresses the minimum uniformity we all must have at Mass, and this does not include holding hands ... A good liturgical principle to remember is: no one should coerced into anything uncomfortable. What about silence and greeting at Mass? Some think these cannot go together -- horizontal (human) acts, and vertical (worship) acts. Who says so? 'There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embraces ... a time to be silent and a time to speak' (Eccl. 3:5,7 ). Are you fully practicing these?"

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2002.


Hello, Cristian.

In a message that you posted (above) on September 20, you quoted (and linked) a page from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Internet site, as follows:

"During the Communion Rite of Mass the bishops of the United States have recommended that, as we pray the Our Father, the prayer given us by Jesus himself, we extend our arms downward, holding both hands with the palm outward in the ancient orans gesture, a gesture that signifies our need, our humble dependence on God, and our openness to receiving the gifts of daily bread and forgiveness which we seek in this prayer."

Immediately after you posted this, Carolyn (cksunshine) wrote: "Thank you Christian for posting that link to the Bishop's webpage and quoting their recommendation. This was extremely helpful to me."

Then, after I looked at the page you had linked, I wrote:
"Cristian, I am about as certain as a person can be that the U.S. bishops did not vote to permit the use of 'orans,' and the Vatican did not subsequently approve such a vote. (If they had, it would have been widely announced.) I hate to say it, but you have just come across yet another irresponsible COMMITTEE comment posted at the USCCB Internet site. I believe that the words you quoted [from the Committee on the Liturgy] are very dishonest, because they imply that all the U.S. bishops voted to permit 'orans,' and got Vatican approval of this. I can assure you that at least scores, if not the great majority, of U.S. bishops do NOT 'recommend that ... we [laity use the] orans gesture' at Mass. ... I believe that there is only a group of bishops -- namely, a majority of those on the Liturgy committee -- that "recommends" our use of "orans" -- but then that fact got blown out of proportion into the idea that all the U.S. bishops (and the Vatican) have actually authorized 'orans.' The USCCB has now published its new (November, 2001) Adaptations of the GIRM for the Dioceses of the U.S. [though they are not yet in effect]... The new adaptations document, though it refers several times to gestures and postures, never approves of the 'orans' position nor of hand-holding."

Cristian, just today I was able to verify that, at the June, 2001, bishops' meeting, the Committee on the Liturgy's suggested/proposed adaptation to the G.I.R.M. -- to allow for the laity to use the "orans" posture -- was not accepted by the body of U.S. bishops as a whole. And that is why "orans" is not mentioned in the final "adaptations" document passed in July. [This information comes from the excellent Adoremus Society for the Renewal of Sacred Liturgy (http://www.adoremus.org/0701bishopsmeeting.html).]

In my opinion, it was irresponsible of someone at the USCCB to leave online the page that you found, quoted, and linked -- since it contains incorrect information. It is more than just "incorrect," since (1) it dishonestly implies that the whole body of bishops recommended something that only a mere majority of one committee actually recommended and (2) it makes people think that something rejected almost 1.5 years ago was actually approved. This "bulletin insert" needs to be withdrawn, or at least corrected, so that it reads as its Spanish translation does.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2002.


Hello John,

I know I already did it, but I want to thank you once again John for your effort on keeping faithful to the Truth and Obediencie to the Church; that effort help us all and that's why I read your posts with great delight and attention because I know what moves you.

Before I make the comment about your last post there's something I'd like to say; I don't remember exactly when the congregation started using the Orans posture, but I can remember when I was a child and nobody, except the priest, did it. Then I started attending charismatic groups and when the Our Father was said everybody raised their hands; then I started doing it everytime I said it, no matter where I was. I never noticed almost everybody in my country does it at Mass until it was discussed here in the forum. (The Charismatic Renewall's work has been really big down here!)

I remember when I was in the seminary the priests used to hold hands with us, and even asked us to do it explicitly a couple of times, but they were not charismatic they were liberals theologians!. So I grew up with this being so common, I never thought this could be against the rules. John, if it is I will not do it! But, honestly, I used to think that when someone was not able to use this posture at Mass was because he had not met The Lord! or because he was ashamed to do it.(really!)

Now, you say you consider the fact of people writing this page I gave a link to, to be an irresponsible act because of two things: (1) it dishonestly implies that the whole body of bishops recommended something that only a mere majority of one committee actually recommended and (2) it makes people think that something rejected almost 1.5 years ago was actually approved and I understand your concern; but first, it has not been proven that this was rejected and second, I don't think that that page being up means the whole body of bishops approved it.(?)

In the case that this was actually rejected, then this would not be just an irresponsible act but a whole plot against the Truth or the US body of bishops itself, because it is not a single page... their site says this in this document (Guidelines for the Concelebration of the Eucharist):The principal celebrant, "with hands joined, introduces the Lord's Prayer; with hands outstretched, he then says [or sings] this prayer itself with the other concelebrants and the congregation". The concelebrants likewise hold their hands outstretched in an orans gesture during the singing or recitation of the Lord's Prayer itself.. That was like a definitive document, but this one, wanted to clarify peoples's doubt about it stating that the New Sacramentary will allow it but by that time it was not approved yet.

Specially these days I've noticed that there are so many "voices" in the world and I've learned that the only voice that will never fail or err is The Church's. I'll do whatever She says. So, no doubt, I'll only obey Her. (And for you non-catholics sniffing around, I say this because I trust 100% that this Church is the Holy Spouse of Christ, and as far as I know Jesus couldn't be a polygamist!)

I'm praying this can be clarified, in the meantime I am going to think about Paul's recommendation so I won't commit sin: Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

And note, I'm not telling you(plural) to do the same!

In the love of Jesus.

-- Cristian (gabaonscy@hotmail.com), October 07, 2002.

I will try to respond to you on Tuesday, Cristian. (Thanks for your kind words.) JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 07, 2002.

Hi everyone,

In some ways I really hate to bring this thread back up, but I feel that I have some unfinished business in this thread that I need to handle. I am reminded of this thread each Sunday as I hold hands with my family during the "Our Father". It has been bugging me enough that I just need to do this. I promised to make a reply and I didn't.

John, I have a lot of respect for you, and I have learned a lot from this thread (and this forum) from you and many others as well. Out of that respect for you I need to be honest with you. I recognized the quote from the priest in your September 29, 2002 post immediately when I first read it. It is from Fr. Sanders. It can be found (both the question and his answer) on numerous websites on the Internet by doing a search on google.com with the criteria of "holding hands" and "Our Father". I did this particular search in September during that chunk of time that I did all the research that I talked about in a previous post.

John, I did not address this earlier with you because I spent so much time in September on this subject. It was time I really didn't have to spend. As I said before I recognize the time (time you probably didn't have either) and effort that you went through to answer my questions and I very much appreciate it. As much as I did learn from it though, I am bothered by one thing in your post. At the time I thought, "you know we have both spent so much time on it, maybe it's just best to let it go." However I am just going to say it, and then be done with it.

You obviously have a lot of respect for Fr. Sanders. Out of that respect for him (and for us here as well) I wish that you would have printed the FULL answer that he gave to the question. Unfortunately you left out something that, for me at least, was extremely important. For everyone's benefit I am posting the whole answer and highlighting the parts that you left out.

From Fr. Sanders:

"Throughout the Mass, various gestures are prescribed for both the priest and the faithful worshipers. For example, we begin and end Mass by making the sign of the cross; during the Confiteor, we strike our breast; we sign ourselves with the cross on the forehead, lips, and heart at the proclamation of the Gospel; during the Creed, we bow at the words professing our faith in the incarnation of our Savior; we kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Lamb of God; and we receive Holy Communion either on the tongue or the hand.

"All of these prescribed physical gestures help make the act of worship at Mass one which involves our whole being, body and soul, thought, words, and actions. They also help create a spiritual disposition to receive our Lord in Word and Sacrament. Moreover, these gestures are prescribed, just as the readings from Sacred Scripture and the Order of the Mass are, to make the Sacrifice of the Mass a unified act of worship throughout the whole Church — in a sense, every Catholic is doing the same thing, the same way. To find the rubrics (regulations which govern the Mass) concerning these gestures, one may turn to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (1970), On Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Outside of Mass (1973), Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (1980), and Instruction on Certain Norms Concerning the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (1980).

"However, in all of the liturgical documents for the universal Church or of those particular ones issued by the United States Bishops Conference, no where is the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer mandated. Frankly, this gesture arose among the various liturgical innovations in the aftermath of Vatican Council II. Perhaps the holding of hands was introduced with good intentions to highlight the unity of the congregation as they pray, "Our Father," not "My Father." Yet, if unity is the key, then should we not be holding hands throughout the entire Mass?

"The unity that is sought really comes later and after a spiritual progression: First, we fall on our knees as the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass: we recall not only our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection but also our need as individuals to offer ourselves to Him. Second, we pray in the words our Savior taught us, the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," even the person next to us in the pew. Third, we offer the Sign of Peace, a gesture found in the earliest Masses to show a genuine unity based on peace and forgiveness. Finally, we receive Holy Communion, which truly brings us into communion with our Lord and with each other. Looking at the logic of this spiritual progression to real unity, the holding of hands at the Our Father is extraneous.

"Can a congregation hold hands anyway, even if it is extraneous? While no one can find fault if a husband and wife, or a family want spontaneously to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer, the priest does not have the right to introduce, mandate, or impose it. The Code of Canon Law (1983) does mandate: "The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them" (Canon 826.1). (Note that this Canon repeated a previous mandate found in both Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) and the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, No. 45 (1967), which was issued to address certain abuses arising in the liturgy after the council.) Therefore, a priest who introduces, mandates, or imposes the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer is violating the norms set by the Church.

"The Church also reminds the priest, who is the guardian of the sacraments and who acts in persona Christi in offering the Mass: "The priest should realize that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncracy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church" (Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No. 1 (1970)). A person in the pew should not feel obliged or coerced to hold hands with someone else during the Lord's Prayer, yet congregational "peer pressure" could easily lead to such feelings. One can only imagine how intimidated a person must feel by the rest of the congregation if he does not desire to hold hands, whether because of personal preference or because of another reason such as arthritis.

"Granted, the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer seems to have become almost a tradition in some parishes throughout the country. Nevertheless, we must remember that this gesture is not prescribed, it is an innovation to the Mass, and in its goal to build unity and sensitivity, it can be alienating and insensitive to individuals.

Fr. Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

end quote

Because you respect this priest, I assume that you respect that he says no one can find fault with a husband and wife, or a family spontaneously holding hands at this time. I understand that the priest should not introduce, mandate or impose this. I also do not want to make my neighbor feel uncomfortable and subject them to "peer pressure" or as Fr. Lombardi said "coercing them into something uncomfortable."

As long as I follow that (do not offer my hand to my neighbor), according to Fr. Sanders, there is no fault with me holding hands with my husband and/or my family. I guess that's where I have to leave this subject at this time.

Again I appreciate the time and effort you put into this, and I do thank you for it. I just felt it was also important set the record straight that Fr. Sanders said that no one can find fault with a husband and wife or family spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father.

cksunshine



-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), November 11, 2002.


Hi, cksunshine. I have missed you lately!

I thought it possible that someone would post a message similar to yours one day -- because I knew that Fr. Saunders's article was available online.

If you look back at my partial quotation of his statements, you'll see that I used an ellipsis (...) to indicate that I had omitted some of his words. I omitted those words because I knew that they were incorrect.

You just said to me: "Because you respect this priest, I assume that you respect that he says no one can find fault with a husband and wife, or a family spontaneously holding hands at this time."

Yes, I do respect Fr. S, but that does not mean that I respect his mistakes. I used to read and enjoy his articles every week in the diocesan newspaper. About two or three times each year, though, I caught him making a mistake -- either a factual or logical one. We see at least one such mistake in the passage that I omitted from my quotation -- an important passage that wrongly tries to excuse something that is illicit.

For two reasons, Fr. Saunders is wrong to say that "no one can find fault" in the situation he describes. In referring to how a couple or family hold hands, Father uses the word "spontaneously," which can mean either of two things: (1) unconsciously/automatically or (2) voluntarily [as opposed to "compelled"]. If he had the first meaning in mind, I would say that hand-holding usually does not happen unconsciously/automatically, but rather by a deliberate decision. If he had the second meaning in mind -- voluntarily (by their own choice) -- then one doesn't need to look far to see that Father is mistaken. You see, he contradicts himself a bit later, in the same paragraph, by writing the following words [with my emphasis]...

"The Code of Canon Law (1983) does mandate: 'The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them.' ... (Note that this Canon repeated a previous mandate found in both Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963)"

The Vatican II Constitution mentioned by Father says this: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."
Note: "no one" -- neither bishop nor priest nor layman -- may add anything. Fr. Saunders was therefore wrong to state that, while the priest could not impose hand-holding, the family could "add" it to "the liturgy." No. Both actions are forbidden. I did not want to go into all this -- and I did not want to criticize Fr. Saunders publicly -- which is why I did not quote the words that you made bold, Cksunshine.

I'm sorry if this continues to make you uncomfortable, my friend, but I hope that you will appreciate the fact that I have no choice but to continue to insist on maintaining my former position. Thanks for the kind words you have said about my investing time and effort in this discussion. I commend you for having done the same.

God bless you.
John
PS: When Advent begins next month, the parishes in my diocese [and I think that it is supposed to be nationwide] will begin to follow the new U.S. adaptations to the 2000 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.). I recommend that everyone click on this link and read the short document containing the adaptations. There are a few new things there, and everyone should be aware of both the new adaptations and the old ones (i.e., those that are being retained.) A few of the adaptations are hard to understand without having the full G.I.R.M. to refer to, but most are easy to understand. This "adaptations" document, in an early draft, authorized the "orans" position, but it no longer does (because the full body of bishops did not approve of that). The document does not authorize hand-holding.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 11, 2002.


Hi everyone,

(I posted this in a related thread, but for the sake of my fingers, I'm simply recopying what I wrote there.)

Wow, I haven't been around much, but now that the kids' basketball season is over with, I hope to be able to be more of a "regular" again. We shall see. Anyway, I was doing some research the other day, and came across this article from the archbishop of the Denver, CO diocese (Archbishop Chaput). I would regard him as an extremely reputable source, and so I am copying his article and also posting the link. Moderator, if I'm supposed to only provide the link, please delete the copied article. Sorry for not knowing the protocol.

Link: http://www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_18_02_our_father_liturgy.htm

Article:

Liturgy Series Part 11 The 'Our Father': Appropriate gestures for prayer December 18, 2002 Denver Catholic Register

As we stand after singing the "Amen" to the Eucharistic prayer, we come to the beginning of the Communion Rite. This part of Mass includes the "Our Father," the sign of peace, the breaking of the bread, reception of holy Communion and thanksgiving, and the prayer after Communion. Toward the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest prays, "May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. ... Make us grow in love." We were privileged to be present at the consecration when the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of Christ. Now we ask to be made, ourselves, into the body of Christ. By baptism, we have already entered into that reality. However, through the example of Jesus' self-giving in love and the nourishment we are about to receive, we long to grow more deeply in communion with one another.

The celebrant invites us to pray the words of Jesus in the "Our Father." This is the prayer Jesus Himself taught us, and because of that, it's the model prayer for the Church. How should we pray it?

A lot has been said in popular writing about our gestures at this point of the Mass. Do we fold our hands, or hold them outstretched, or hold hands with those around us? Some people have surprisingly strong feelings about this issue. Our answer to this question needs to come from the Church's understanding of this moment in the Mass.

The priest stands with his arms outstretched as the prayer begins. The assembly should also stand. There are no options for gestures listed in the General Instruction for this part of the Mass. For many persons, folding their hands during the "Our Father" is the best way to express their prayer. For others, they may hold their hands outstretched. Still others hold hands.

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.

Some people feel that holding hands during the "Our Father" enhances a sense of community. This is perfectly appropriate — so long as it can be done with dignity and without the unseemly acrobatics that sometimes ensue.

For other people, holding hands is a kind of intimacy they reserve for family members. It makes them uncomfortable to hold hands during Mass, and they prefer not to do it. This is also perfectly appropriate. A parish may have several ways of praying the "Our Father," depending on the people who take part in a specific Mass. No one should feel coerced, and the beauty of the liturgy should always be observed.

We have seen before that the Mass is rich with symbols and signs. The beauty and centrality of the Eucharist, which our Lord entrusted to the Church for all times and all peoples, should always be evident in every celebration of the Mass. Thus, those involved in liturgical education should take special care not to allow their private preferences to influence their work.

The liturgy is the public worship of the whole Church, not merely the local community. And it is God's gift — through Jesus Christ and His Church — to all the faithful, who have a right to the truth and an obligation to ask for it.

me again:

According to the archbishop, the gestures are neither "mandated or forbidden by the Church". "No one should feel coerced, and the beauty of the liturgy should always be observed." This IS the guideline that I personally will follow.

cksunshine



-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 02, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, CKsunshine. Well here we are again!

You wrote: "This IS the guideline that I personally will follow."

I would recommend that you not do this, because it is not a "guideline." It is just an opinion. Without a doubt, it is an opinion from a very fine bishop -- one of the best in the nation -- but it is just his opinion, and I can tell that he arrived at it without fully (if at all) considering the arguments against it.

If he could read the conversations we have had here (on two threads), Archbishop Chaput would be able to reflect on why the Church does not want people to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer. I am quite sure that he has not been exposed to all (if any) of the persuasive arguments.

For example, he says: "There are no options for gestures listed in the General Instruction for this part of the Mass. For many persons, folding their hands during the 'Our Father' is the best way to express their prayer. For others, they may hold their hands outstretched. Still others hold hands. None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."

This tells me that he is unaware of the principle by which the Church mandates gestures or suggests alternative gestures -- but does not forbid gestures by listing them specifically. Thus, as he seems unaware, gestures that are not mandated nor suggested are ipso facto forbidden.

He also seems not to have reflected on a very sobering fact: By his logic, there could be hand-holding (or a multitude of other, newly conceived gestures) spontaneously inserted by the faithful into various points in the Mass wherein "none of these gestures is [now] mandated or forbidden by the Church." See what I mean? Once he says that hand-holding is OK in one part of the Mass (because not forbidden), then hand-holding (or embracing or kissing or many other things) could begin to appear throughout the Mass -- and he will have no grounds for forbidding these things.

Well, I don't want to go over everything again. We've probably covered it completely already. I just needed to show that even a very fine shepherd like Abp. Chaput can make mistakes in fact or judgment (as I'm sure he would be honest enough to admit to you in person).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.


Dear Friends,

I have purposely stayed away from this forum for the last several weeks. Every time I even lurk here, I come away feeling so discouraged and disheartened for a variety of reasons. However, at the risk of dragging this up one more time, I feel I have some unfinished business here to handle.

John,

First, I would like to say that I am glad that we agree that Archbishop Chaput is indeed a "very fine bishop, one of the best in the nation.” You also called him “a very fine shepherd." I also agree with this. However, I do NOT believe that he intends for the faithful to read his series of articles on the new GIRM and Roman Missal as “just his opinions” (which is what you called his guidelines). Indeed, in his very first article he states:

“In March of this year, the Holy Father promulgated a new edition of the Roman Missal for the celebration of the Mass. This is one of the most important — and one of the best — developments in the liturgical life of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Studied and followed consistently, the new Roman Missal has wonderful potential for recovering both the beauty and power of Catholic worship. We don't yet have an official English edition of the text, but we do have a "General Instruction" (the GIRM) to guide us in applying what's new and different about the Missal's content. My responsibility as archbishop is to ensure that this new abundance of good information about the Mass is welcomed in all our parishes. With that end in mind, I'm beginning this week a series of columns here in the Register. My goal is not just to explain the elements of the Mass, or the diversity of our roles within the Eucharist, or why we do certain actions like kneeling, standing or singing. All of these things are important, of course. But my real goal is to reawaken in all of our hearts a love for worshiping God together as one faithful Church. I hope you'll join me.”

He is taking his role as archbishop very seriously and educating the people, not just giving his opinion, about the new Roman Missal and the GIRM. A very worthy goal of a fine shepherd!

His articles (here is a webpage that has links to all his articles http://spiritofchrist.org/frjeff/newmass.asp ) are very thorough and well thought out. In reading the articles, one can tell how much effort he is putting into his responsibility to educate the people. Why, if he is putting all this time, energy, thought and reflection into these articles (especially when he knows that he is writing and teaching in his role of archbishop), would anyone doubt that he does not know what he is talking about, has not done his homework and appropriate research, and/or reflected adequately on these subjects?

Again, John, you state this principle: “the Church mandates gestures or suggests alternative gestures -- but does not forbid gestures by listing them specifically. Thus … gestures that are not mandated nor suggested are ipso facto forbidden.”

You also said,” If he could read the conversations we have had here (on two threads), Archbishop Chaput would be able to reflect on why the Church does not want people to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer. I am quite sure that he has not been exposed to all (if any) of the persuasive arguments.”

As you’ve indicated, we’ve been over this thoroughly in the two threads. Well John, if you truly believe what you say (and I know that you do), then I invite you to write to the archbishop, show him these threads, and expose him to this principle and the persuasive arguments.

I, for one, am not persuaded by your arguments. If however, Archbishop Chaput is persuaded, I invite you to email me and let me know, and I will immediately come back to the board and humbly admit the error of my ways.

Until then, I will follow his teachings and guidelines. Why? Not because what his teaching happens to be is in line with my current practice. Rather, because he is a very fine bishop, he is extremely credible, he is taking his responsibilities seriously and putting great effort into educating the people, AND he is the highest authority in the church, to date, that I have read/heard clear teaching on the new Roman Missal and GIRM and what our (the people’s) part and role should be.

I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours, John, by the very role that he has within the Church, and by the impeccable record and credibility that he has exhibited to date in his role as priest and bishop. I know and fully understand that Abp. Chaput is a human being that can make mistakes in fact or judgment. If he has in fact erred in his teaching, then I’m sure he will be humble enough to admit it. And I will give him all the more credibility for it.

However, until that time, or until a time when a teaching comes forth from a higher source (ex: the pope, the council of bishops, etc), I will respect his teaching and authority, and follow the guidelines that he has set forth. (Moreover, I’m not talking about “the bishops didn’t authorize it, therefore we can’t do it, kind of argument, unless that’s what the BISHOPS themselves say.)

I don’t expect in any of this that I would persuade you John. That is not my goal here actually. Because I’ve been vocal about this subject, I did not feel that I could in good conscience leave this hanging out there, in the event someone ever pulls this thread up from the archives.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I respectfully decline, because I find the archbishop’s credentials and authority to exceed yours. Carolyn

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Jmj
Hi, Carolyn. I'm not interested in pursuing this specific subject (licit gestures/postures) any further. All that could be said has been said. It does not bother me for you to have the last word on the specific subject matter.

However, I feel that I have a duty to correct you on two other, more basic, things, which are contributing greatly to our basic disagreement here:

(1) You are mistakenly taking Abp. Chaput's comments/opinions as "teachings." [Your words: "I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours ..."] His articles that tell about the G.I.R.M. are his best effort to explain what the Vatican has published. They are not "teachings." Teachings/doctrines are things that we have to believe by faith. If Abp. Chaput really were imparting doctrine, then I would be right alongside you submitting to his teaching authority.

(2) You wrongly think that I am trying to "teach" and to claim an authority equal to or above Abp. Chaput's. [Your words again: "I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours ..."] The reality is that I am not trying to "teach," and I claim no authority at all! I am merely stating facts, arguing logically, and trying to persuade people to agree with sensible ideas. And what I am trying to pass along is not contrary to Church doctrine or discipline.

Finally, I will not be writing to Abp. Chaput. It is not my place to do so, because he is not my bishop. I have written to my own bishops more than once (on other topics). I encourage anyone who sees this thread (and the other one) and who lives in the Archdiocese of Denver to print the threads and send them to Abp. Chaput. However, I must say in advance that his opinion of what anyone says on these threads would not be binding on anyone. Only the Vatican (or the majority vote of a Conference of bishops, followed by Vatican approval) can bind on most liturgical matters, including gestures/postures.

I'm sorry if it hurts you to read these words of mine, CKS, but I think it quite likely that your "feeling so discouraged and disheartened" arises from an unwillingness to "surrender" to arguments that are more convincing than your own. This kind of "denial" -- clinging to a position that has been shown to be untenable -- can lead to feelings of depression (in your words, "feeling so discouraged and disheartened"). I think that if you "surrender," you will feel a lot better. However, if you are feeling greatly oppressed by people and events in your life, and if opposing me gives you a much-needed sense of self-respect, then please continue without surrendering. Your emotional health is more important to me than your agreeing that we should avoid a certain gesture or posture.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Thank you JFG, dear messenger.

-- SCassadyMD (SCassadyMD@aol.com), November 29, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ