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.
>>Wish all bishops took that position<<
The Bishop in Cleveland took that stand and instead instructed the laity to use a “modified Orans” Which looks like the “stick um up” gesture.
>>How does holding my husbands hand during the prayer direct it away from Our Father?How does holding my husbands hand during the prayer direct it away from Our Father?<<
It’s not your family that this poster is talking about. It’s the focus on “community”. Everyone getting together and holding hands.
Now, reasonably you should be able to focus exclusively on Christ during the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” but if you are thanking God for your great husband or child, cool. If you are taking the hands of strangers and this is encouraged by the congregation, they are ignoring the GIRM.
And we do have those instructions for something.
>>What about rasing the hands up, not holding hands?<<
The “Hands Extended” position is a directive given specifically to the Priest in the Holy Mass. NOT to the laity. In fact, this gesture is for the priest and deacon ONLY.
There is a reason we are told what gestures we can use in the holy mass.
Here, this will help you...
“However that may be, the Holy See has been concerned about the laity unduly aping the priest at Mass, and in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration, an unprecedented conjunction of Vatican dicasteries wrote:
6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 [i.e., “In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.”] are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.
This instruction, incidentally, was approved by John Paul II in forma specifica, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is binding on us with the pope’s authority and not merely the authority of the authoring congregations.”
Could it be because both the priest and deacon raising the hands represents Christ as the high priest?
It’s during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Eventhough you are praying for the congregation, your focus should be on God, NOT them.
>>Could it be because both the priest and deacon raising the hands represents Christ as the high priest?<<
That sounds right to me. And that’s why the “we are all Priests” wing of the liberal Catholics pushed all of us using the Orans position and mimicking the priest in the Holy Mass.
Remember the liberal Catholics will base this on what was said what I believe is in 1st Peter about being a “royal priesthood” by being baptized.
I can’t believe that so far no one has mentioned the following:
“...and prayerful silence before and after Mass.
When did it become permissible to chat with each other when in the presence of the Eucharist?
And what happened to genuflecting before entering the pew?
In other words, pray in silence along with the priest than?
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.
Peter was the leader:
1. Jesus named him Rock (check for rock references in Isaiah again)
2. he gave him the keys
3. he told him to “feed my sheep”
4. read what the early church (i.e. post Acts) thought - nobody thought James was the leader and everyone thought Peter was the leader.
If your views are right how come nobody thought the way you did for 1500 years.
Heres the ESVA version of Isaiah 31:9
Isaiah 31:9 His rock shall pass away in terror, and his officers desert the standard in panic, (ESVA) (English Standard Version Anglicised)
The problem with that version is that its translated in a way that leads the reader in English to a wrong idea. The word translated rock there means a stronghold. The armies would have areas they considered strongholds but God is saying even their strongholds wont protect them when He comes against them.
Look at the King James translation.
Isaiah 31:9 And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem. (KJV) Compare to Judges 20:47 But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months. The rock Rimmon was their stronghold.
The same word is used in Isaiah 26.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength: (some translations have rock)
Sine Jehovah is a fake word I have some problems with your translation. But I digress...
So I am Catholic, what is your denomination since it rejects Peter’s primacy? I would like to know.
Also do you think that examining the views of the early church (first 100 years or so) is useful for interpretting scripture?
LOL Pigeon holing are you?
JHVH - Tetragrammaton
Like this one:"Peter was "Apostle to the Circumcision."
I bet that this was taken from a book outside the bible. I doubt this was figured alone just by scripture. Which shows for some to believe this they have to go outside the bible. It's kind of funny when you declare only the bible. Which takes away the solo scripture. Just typical " Sola Scriptural" hogwash like it wrote itself. The church came first was fully established, They wrote the bible. Not to be bible alone so 7000 ways to sunday worship only interpretion by millions.
They accuse the Catholic Church of mishandling the word but come up with this definition. Proably never heard until the last 500 years.
Heres what Paul said about Peter.
Galatians 2:8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me (Paul) toward the Gentiles: (KJV)
>>I bet that this was taken from a book outside the bible. I doubt this was figured alone just by scripture.<<
Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. (NIV)
>>Which shows for some to believe this they have to go outside the bible. It's kind of funny when you declare only the bible. Which takes away the solo scripture.<<
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (NASB)
>>They accuse the Catholic Church of mishandling the word but come up with this definition. Proably never heard until the last 500 years.<<
Galatians 2: 8 for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles; (ASV)
Do Catholics read ANY version of the Bible?
Jesus said to them again, Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
Sorry, I am not buying that. Dictating posture for prayer? Really?
So you think he stayed that way. Just from that letter alone.
So lets run up another wacky repeat ping of nonsense repeats. All been written on these threads.
I dont know what you use for scripture but I think Ill just let you figure things out with whatever it is you read or follow. K?
Have you never read ACTS and how Peter stands up at the First Council and settles the argument with Paul.
It’s right there in the Bible. The Council of Jerusalem.
So you did not read this in a outside author’s book then look it up in the bible? You read scripture first since you were a kid not looking up outside books to get ideas what a verse means? It’s only the bible? Let’s be honest. You are pure Sola Scriptura. No outside ideas? Never read an outside book to influence you?
Do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John pertain only to the Jews?
The Greek bible and the ESV (my favorite) do not use the “apostle to/of the uncircumcised” language.
But the Greek Bible was translated from the KJV so it might not be right./sarc
Romans 11:13 Now I [PAUL] am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
1 Timothy 2:7 For this I [Paul] was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Galatians 2:7-9 7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Yep, I have read and studied it. Peter stands to affirm that indeed the Jews and the Gentiles should all be the same when it comes to salvation. Then it was Barnabas and Pauls turn after which it was James who at the end of the conference gives his decision.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Clearly it was James who was the leader in Jerusalem.