www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Holding hands during the Lord's prayer????

I can understand the need for catechesis, but when? never? Why is the holiness of the mysteries so difficult to relate to new members? Should they NOT receive it? Are they so sinful that communion too should be restricted ONLY to the clergy? This only demonstrates clericalism moreso. It implies that the laity are so dumb and can never understand the mysteries that only the priveleged (clerical) few can. This borders on gnosticism. It considers the a-gnostic laity as outsiders and therefore must stop doing that which is now only reserved to the clergy elite. When does understanding become such an important feature of the Byzantine Church? One of the arguments for First COmmunion by the Latins up to the 7th year is because they have to understand what they are doing. This is an argument against infant communion because there is no way to tell if an infant understands the full implication of receiving Communion. but infant Communion is practiced by Eastern Christians. This tells me that teh clergy feel more comfortable with infants and toddlers receiving communion than adults becuase adults are just plain stupid.

all historians point to the time in both East and West when the 'holiness' was so stressed that frequent Communion almost died. Then add teh Calvinist idea of one's worth ... Get the picture?

I read the Fathers where the hands are the most worthy vessel to receive Communion. Just as Eastern Christians don't need musical instruments for their worship (the voice being a means of praying twice), tehy don't need instruments to properly receive Communion. Jesus did not give his Apostles the Bread at the Last Supper with a spoon and place it on their tongues. This was a later development as so many other methods.

Clericalism is the meta-distinction between clergy and laity. There is a distinction between those who are commissioned or ordained to serve the Lord in church minstry andthose who aren't. BUT - to extend and expand that distinction to the point where worship is so different between the two 'classes' of believers is a problem.

Mandatory celibacy for non-monastic clergy becomes a solution to all alternative lifestyles because priesthood is lifted up so high that only those in celibacy can truly be called holy or set aside. Those who are married are lesser clergy goes the thinking because marriage is a crutch to those who can't handle celibacy. See where this thinking is going? We are ALL called to holiness; we all have the calling, not just priests.

Whether one receives Communion in the hand or by a spoon or by intinction, the Communion still ends up in the same place: one' dirty mouth. so it is the ritual means, not the ends, that are at stake. And those means are different because the clergy are so different from teh nature of laity. They are more holy and special. they are permitted to raise their hands during the Lord's PRayer but not the laity. The laity can keep their hands in front of their lap or behind their hips. Why? Becuase the laity are less holy or not allowed to be as holy?

Eddie

To the original post:

I have seriously thought of having a t-shirt printed up that says "Please don't touch me - I am a Catholic" to wear to hand holdy churches. LOL

Ed:

I have to wonder about your understanding of the history or the reasons that current Latin practice is what it is. First of all, the Apostolic practice was and is Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Eucharist. That is still preserved in the Eastern Churches. The Eastern bishops have allowed the parish clergy to confer the mystery of Chrismation as part of the whole initiation process begun with Baptism and the Eucharist is given immediately afterward.

In the West, the bishop did not delegate this sacrament to his clergy and conferred it himself as a sign of the unity of the faithful around the bishop. Holy Communion was given after that. Pope St. Pius X in 1910 exteneded an indult to the Latin Church that allowed for young children who had reached the age of reason to receive Holy Communion BEFORE they were confirmed because he felt that the spiritual benefits of receiving the Lord's Holy Body and Most Precious Blood should be had by young people as early as possible. That is why older members of my family could relate the experience of not receiving before they were 12 years of age (in the 19th century). The reasons given for the "age of reason" come from Thomistic theology and relate to when a person is supposed to be mature enough to make basic choices for right and wrong. They almost come along after the practice has been established and seem a little funny to me when one considers the history behind the practices.

I get the feeling from your posts that your approach to this has been tainted by Protestantism. If that be the case, we're on different planets here concerning the whole way of approaching and living the Christian life, what it means to be a Christian, how our whole life is related to what has gone before, and how we are tor transmit our life to the next generation without adding to it or taking from it. That can take years to understand the significant differences that come up here.


I read the Fathers, too, and have been involved with ministry now for some 40 years. I've seen people take the Host down the aisle and not consume it because they received in their hands and didn't have a clue about what to do next--people who have been away a long time and who've been told (erroneously) that there are no longer any rules about not receiving; I've seen people self-intinct the Host (not permitted) and shake off the excess Precious Blood onto the carpet; and I've seen other equally bad practices in this area. What we have here is the Lord of Glory Who has placed Himself humbly in our hands. We do not have any bread left, though the eye deceives. We have His Precious Blood spilled on Calvary. We have no wine left. To tolerate any kind of sacrilege is to violate our own sacred commission to safeguard the Mysteries from desecration. We have a delicate balance here and catechesis does not always penetrate the minds and hearts of everyone because so often people learn much of their religious attitude at home. And that home attitude may be what one of my spiritual fathers called "kitchen sink Catholicism." That means--like the old son "Love Potion Number 9"--that we take a little knowledge home and mix it up there with our own thoughts and/or ignorance and come up with something spiritually dangerous. It still remains that the way in which we treat Our Lord when He lies humbly vulnerable in our hands is the way He will treat us when we come into His Hands after our death.


Mandatory celibacy for the Latin clergy is a discipline that the Church has decided need to be part of the priestly vocation. It could change, but that is the decision of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church. It has nothing to do with claiming that clergy are more holy than the laity. This line of argument seems to parallel a book attacking the Catholic Church that my Protestant grandparents used to have entitled "Why Priests Should Wed." But it has nothing to do with the discipline of the clergy and is not necessarily related to the topic of the Eucharist.

In Christ,

BOB

Theophan. What you are referring to are just that, bad practices. The hands are still the most worthy vessel - not saying that prevention of bad practices is not good either.

Sex is good but many have indulged in bad practices in this area too. Does this mean we should resort to un-natural means? Read Romans 1. Abuse can be found in almost anything when we exchange the glory of God for reptiles.

But back to the hands being the most worthy vessel. If it wasn't then Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox priests should not receive it in their hands. They too should receive it by means of a spoon or any other methods you mentioned.

Whether you were in ministry 40 or 400 years is an argument from experience. Many have gone through longer periods and NEVER witnessed such abuses. I'd really like to know where these things happen in the Catholic Church and why so many years of instruction have failed to form better behaved Catholics.

My argument about the hands being the most worthy vessel (notice i say 'most') is for the same reason why singing 'without' musical instruments is the best form of prayer (though I do like the organ). The argument isn't against musical instruments as it is an argument against using spoons. Both were developed to settle problems that arose in the church whether they may be Eucharist abuse or lack of participation on part of the people.

Eddie

What is your reference for this? Or is this your own opinion?


Again what is your reference for this? Or is this your own opinion?

The hands of a priest are sacred because of what we call their being "in persona Christi" (in the Latin Church)--that is "in the person of Christ." Ordination confers a special character on a priest and this is something that we share in all of the Apostolic Churches, whether Latin, Eastern Catholic, Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. We express our reverence for the hand of the priest in the same way that we would reverence the Hand of Christ Himself. Eastern Christians of all stripes have a custom of kissing the right hand of the priest--the hand that blesses; the hand that passes along the blessings of Christ Himself. There is no comparison between the hand of a layman and the hand of a priest unless you've got some Arian notion that Christ is simply "one of the boys." In the Latin Church the bishop anoints the hands of the new priest, thus consecrating them--setting them aside from all things earthly for the special vocation of simply being a priest.

Beyond that, the clergy are the guardians of the Holy Mysteries. They receive this charge at ordination. It is for the Church to decide how the Mysteries are to be guarded and how they are to be distributed. The Church, in her experience and pastoral practice has made decisions in obedience to St. Paul's instructions that all things are to be done decently and in good order.

If you have some idea of group theory, you understand that a small group is the best way to maintain beliefs and discipline. Larger groups tend to move toward the lowest common denominator--that is, toward the practice of the one least concerned with group norms and practices. The earliest Christians--under persecution for the first three hundred years--were the most strict about who could recieve the Holy Mysteries. They didn't permit anyone into their Eucharistic Liturgy who wasn't fully initiated. The Byzantine Liturgy in its fullness preserves this reminder when the deacon calls for all the catechumens to depart. The Creed wasn't something that the uninitiated were permitted to hear either. Yet, even with these people, the bishops had to constantly remind the faithful how they should approach Our Lord in the Holy Mysteries.

Then suddenly the whole world wanted to be Christian--after Constantine's conversion--and the need to shift gears and try to inculcate into larger groups the same reverence for the Mysteries that the tighter, smaller group had came about. Makes the task much more difficult and much easier to have large scale abuese enter.

Beyond that little bit of theory we have the Western mindset that asks "what is the law" or "what must I do?"--meaning what is the minimumthat I need to do. We have many people who think that once they have reached the eighth year of religious education that they have learned all they ever need to know. And we have many who never learn another thing thereafter. And that's not necessarily any different than the situation during the Age of Faith after the Fall of the Roman Empire. We have spiritual illiterates who just don't "get it."

As for the spiritual disposition of others, that is something that God alone sees. But the clergy are still charged with the guarding of the Mysteries. And the Apostolic Churches take that very seriously.

The Fathers warn us about careless reception. One source I've read says that we should even be cautious about "applying (our) eyes to the Host." That means we should be careful of how we "gawk" at what is placed in our hand. Do many people know this? How about practice it, if they know it?


Where are they? The whole reason that Rome has been trying to tighten up the practices the Latin Church has gotten used to in the last 40 years is because the complaints about abuses have finally hit the critical point. I'd like to know where the place(s) you mention are so we could contact them and ask how they do it.


I don't have a short list of the places where they take place, but many dioceses in the United States are rather big on this kind of thing. In fact, many clergy have encouraged many of the things that have been defined as abuses becuae they have erronesouly believed or been taught themselves that people need to "get relaxed" about these areas--the "God as my Big Buddy" mindset." Catholic magazines have been filled with questions to the editors for the past twenty-five years that include descriptions of abuse after abuse. Take a look at the Motu Proprio posts and the pictures of the "clown Masses" and you'll have some idea of why people are ready to fight to return to a more reverent age.


I think your argument by analogy limps simply because the Eucharist has nothing or nobody as important on earth or in Heaven to compare It to because of Who it is.

In Christ,

BOB

send me one in XL, I like black, I am still a recovering Goth.
Much Love,
Jonn

didn't we discuss this hand holding thing recently? as an EC without a local parish, I attend a RC parish, and yes, most of the folks want to hold your hand, they want to hold your hand (thank you, Beatles)during the Pater Noster. I am pleased that the Roman rubrics at least do not encourage the hand holding thing. I think it is quite phony. why? because I do not think that this Simon Says stuff (every one hold hands) builds community, as soon as Mass is over, those who have not dashed out the door immediately after receiving the Mysteries, run out the door like their heads are on fire, and their butts are catching. how does that show community? if you want to see an example of Christian community, go to a Protestant service, at least in the South. after the service, people stay around, get to know one another and build relationships. THAT is the building of community.
as far as Communion in the hand, I receive the Mysteries in my hand in RC churches, in EC as it is done, as it is the custom. I remember one time while serving as a lector in a RC parish, Father Rudisill (eternal memory)needed an assist in distributing the Elements (this was before both Elements were adopted). so I got the extra Ciborium, and helped distribute. many folks were still receiving on the tongue, and being inexperienced, my hands were making all sorts of unpleasant contact. I was convinced, so nowadays when in Rome,I do as the Romans do and receive in hand.
I see no contradiction in in my case as far as EC or RC. but I will say the EC way is more sanitary and pleasant than RC when it comes to non hand reception.ECs and Orthodox know exactly what I am talking about here.
Much Love,
Jonn

But the argument is usually made - "We have the Eucharist; what more do you want us to do".

Of course the Eucharist is the center of Catholic and Orthodox worship. I said here "Worship". We don't worship each other. But that community between God and Man can be reflected in some way between Christians.

The above example is a good "spiritual success" story. It is not based on a facade of humulity nor is it based on "I got my Jesus, now let me out of here!" This reduces 'community' or 'communion' to "the Mass, nothing but the Mass, and to Hell with the rest of you."

Eddie

As another EC without a local parish I can identify with John Nightwatcher about the handholders in the local Latin Church. Luckily not everyone who goes there does though, so I probably don`t stand out as much when I don`t participate in the handholding.