Skip to comments.Covington Bishop: No holding hands during mass
Posted on 11/30/2011 5:08:01 PM PST by TSgt
COVINGTON, Ky. - Bishop Roger Foys of the Covington Diocese decreed that parishioners should not hold hands during the Lord's Prayer.
In his decree Bishop Foys writes:
Special note should also be made concerning the gesture for the Our Father. Only the priest is given the instruction to "extend" his hands. Neither the deacon nor the lay faithful are instructed to do this. No gesture is prescribed for the lay faithful in the Roman Missal ; nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal , therefore the extending or holding of hands by the faithful should not be performed.
"I'm a little bit surprised," said Dan Ryan of Edgewood.
9 News spoke Ryan as he picked up his son from Covington Catholic High School.
"It helps keep us together as a family you know the motto that says a family that prays together stays together. I think there's a whole lot of room for interpretation there I think again we're talking about individual decisions and individual options there should be some discretion it sounds like to me," said Ryan.
"First, I didn't know that was an edict that Bishop Foys made but my family and I do hold hands while we say the Lord's Prayer but the way I feel about it is if that is not part of liturgy then we will follow the liturgy," said J. Zang of Crestview Hills.
In a statement to 9News diocesan spokesman Tim Fitzgerald said, "Bishop Foys purpose [in issuing the decree] was to reiterate the directives guiding the celebration of the Mass as specified by the Second Vatican Council and related Vatican documents, fulfilling his role as chief teacher of the diocese; he did so as the new translation of the Roman Missal was first used in the diocese and in the United States last weekend. The decree concerned the proper texts of Mass prayers; liturgical music; gestures for priests, deacons, religious and lay faithful; the location of the choir and other musicians; and prayerful silence before and after Mass.
Taking that one verse and building an entire doctrine on one verse is nonsense. Scripture tells us 2 or 3 witnesses. That applies to scripture as well when we want to determine what is meant. If our view of one verse does not fit with other portions of scripture we must continue to search for the meaning.
Jesus tells us that wherever two or three are gathered in His name He is among us.
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That promise was not just to the Apostles but to all believers who trust in Him.
John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Even back in Malachi 3 we see that God honors even just two who gather in His name.
Malachi 3:16 Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other, and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored his name.
No large organized conglomerate. No long established hierarchical organization. Just 2 or 3 individuals gathered in Jesus name have all the power of God available to them if they ask according to the will of the Father. He wishes for no one to be lost but we are told to first go to an individual who is doing wrong by ourselves and if he wont listen to us then to take 2 or 3 but if he still wont listen we are told then, and only then to take the matter to the church which we know is the local gathering of believers and address the issue. If he still at that point refuses to listen we are to have nothing to do with that individual. Thats a directive to all the believers of that local church not just to the elders of the church.
Yes, yes, yes. That started the whole “We are Church” movement.
Thank God the Vatican understands the difference between The Priest and a priest. When the laity can consecrate, then we are all “The Priest”.
Taking the specialness away from The Priest by the libs has caused the Priest shortage, imo. It’s the law of unintended consequences.
>>In other words, pray in silence along with the priest than?<<
One of the precepts of the church is to “Assist at Mass by active participation” so praying the Our Father is participating. Usurping a Priestly Gesture is not. No orans, no handholding. Neither is in the GIRM.
And let the oil run low in my lamp? Not going to happen.
>>traditional Latin Mass<<
For me, the TLM is great as extraordinary. I don’t get a lot out of it. If it became the norm, I would get used to it. My girls sing in our Latin choir. The times I attended the TLM, I found my mind wandering and had a tough time following. I have no problem with the Latin NO, but a full TLM is like attending our Slovak mass for me.
Now, our parish has an historically correct NO. No handholding, no “lift up your hearts” freethrow, no clapping or dancing. Our Holy Mass is like EWTN except we kneel and receive by intinction on the tongue. I’ll continue to attend our NO eventhough our parish celebrates the TLM every weekend as well.
Although, it’s going to be fun and interesting on Christmas. My girls are singing for the midnight TLM at one of our classic parishes downtown. I’m looking forward to that.
Which says it shouldn’t be done?
If you do not feel the need to hold or shake hands, then do not. For those that do, there is no wrong. Big deal.
Dress code issues are a Much bigger fish to fry.
I agree that we shouldn’t take one verse in isolation in scripture. It is one entire unit of truth, and it does not contradict itself when examined as a whole.
That is why I am suprised you would talk about 2 or 3 witnesses being sufficient. Matthew 18:17 says that 2 or 3 is not sufficient. Christians never thought (until about 500 years ago) it was sufficient when it comes to authority or doctrine, only sufficient to have Jesus in the “midst” of them.
Please read Matthew 18:17 and ask yourself what this “Church” really is. It is not a local gathering of believers, it is the hierarchichal structure Jesus introduced. Read Acts and examine the meetings that were held and the primacy of Peter. Large disputes were not settled locally - they were handled by the “Church”. In fact that is what most of the Epistles are - an apostle providing the guidance of the Church to a community of believers.
Ah, resisting temptations while in church.... :)
You gave me a giggle as I pictured in my mind one of the ushers running up to the woman and shoving the sweater over her.
Modesty? What is that? That’s apparently a quaint old notion that someone sold off at a yard sale. I am astounded to see what little modesty there is among young women today. I don’t see how the average man in both commercial and social situations can concentrate on what he needs to think about.
Believe me, I know and long for the Latin Mass. If there were one for me to attend I would be there in a heartbeat. I will just have to keep praying for more changes to occur. Pope Benedict may just be the one who brings us full circle.
The same authority by which the Church instructed believers to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled" (Acts 15:29).
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
That has to be addressing a local church. Jesus is addressing a local group or he wouldnt have said where two or three are gathered. Its the local church who would treat the man as a heathen and a publican. It would be a real stretch to try and infer into that the church being a larger entity than the local church. Time and time again throughout scripture individual churches are addressed.
>> Read Acts and examine the meetings that were held and the primacy of Peter.<<
There is no primacy of Peter established anywhere in scripture.
'He takes the initiative in the appointment to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and resurrection of Christ to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the Apostles delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the Christian community (Acts 2:14-41). First of the Apostles, he worked a public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new increase to the flock of believers (Acts 3:1-4:4).
'In the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles before the Jewish High Council, Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus and the obligation and liberty of the Apostles to preach the Gospel (Acts 4:5-21). When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the people Peter appears as judge of their action, and God executes the sentence of punishment passed by the Apostle by causing the sudden death of the two guilty parties (Acts 5:1-11). By numerous miracles God confirms the Apostolic activity of Christ's confessors, and here also there is special mention of Peter, since it is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and neighbouring towns carried their sick in their beds into the streets so that the shadow of Peter might fall on them and they might be thereby healed (Acts 5:12-16). The ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish supreme council to adopt new measures against the Apostles, but "Peter and the Apostles" answer that they "ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29 sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labour in fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by his Master. He also retained connection with the other Christian communities in Palestine, and preached the Gospel both there and in the lands situated farther north. When Philip the Deacon had won a large number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were deputed to proceed thither from Jerusalem to organize the community and to invoke the Holy Ghost to descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time as judge, in the case of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from the Apostles the power that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:14-25).'
Love your sensible attitude. Y’all come back now!
"Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
"Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well." - Acts 15:22-29
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Notice they were in Jerusalem among the Jews. Peter was "Apostle to the Circumcision." Thats why it was he who spoke on that occasion. Peter was not called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. To confirm that Peter would be the one to speak in that curcumstance look at the previous versus.
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? The people had just heard the Apostles speak in each of their native tongue. Peter, having been called as The Apostle to the Circumcision would have been speaking in Hebrew and would have been expected to be the speaker in that situation. It doesnt indicate that he had any leadership position other than to the Jews.
Up untill about Acts 10 it was mostly the Jews who the Gospel was preached to. After that is when it is beginning to become clear that the Jews as a nation had pretty much rejected Christ. It was Paul who was called the Paul, "Apostle to the Uncircumcised". If anyone would have been the leader as far as the Genitles is concerned it would have been Paul not Peter.
Yet when a contention arose it was James who showed more leadership. It was he who rose to declare the decision. Peter spoke only as a representative of the outreach to the Jews to affirm that indeed the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentile without the need for physical circumcision. It was only natural because he was the one who showed embarrassement when caught eating with the uncercumcised after having shown preference to still following the law of circumcision.
>>When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the people Peter appears as judge of their action<<
Of course he did. He was after all the Apostle to the circumcised and would have been seen by the Jews as the one having authority to speak to them.
All the times that it looked like Peter was in a leadership position was when dealing with the Jewish people. Not when working with the Gentiles.