Sunday, December 04, 2011

Is Passing Cooties a Necessary Expression of Ecclesial Communion?

The last post featured a discussion about hand-holding at Mass as forced intimacy.  Now the question arises whether hand-holding is a necessary component/expression of communion -- that is, ecclesial communion (cf. paragraphs 946 et seq. of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) -- with our fellow Catholics.

In arriving at an answer to this question, a few salient facts need to be recognized.  Firstly, the Church does not instruct us to hold hands during Mass.  Secondly, at least some of our shepherds, exercising their legitimate teaching and governing authority, are discouraging the practice. Thirdly, non-Catholics and even some who are not baptized often attend Mass and get swept up into the hand-holding; in what sense can we truthfully express "communion" in the sense it is here meant with those who are objectively and by definition not in ecclesial communion?  Fourthly, why, if hand-holding is essential, is it not done in every Catholic rite?  Fifthly -- and perhaps most significantly -- the practice only dates back to about the 1970s.  If hand-holding is indispensable to our sense of ecclesial communion, why did it take until about 40 years ago for us to start doing it?

Hand-holding is totally unnecessary.  We are already one, not only with each other at Mass, but also with the Holy Souls in Purgatory and all the blessed in heaven, and all who will ever attain heaven, as members of the Mystical Body of Christ and partakers of the one Eucharist.  In fact, here is a secret: where everyone at Mass is really focused on God, and giving Him the worship that He is due, without diverting their attention to their neighbors, the whole community aspect takes care of itself -- and in a much deeper and satisfying way than the superficial, pop-psychology group-therapy ice-breakers that have crept uninvited into the liturgy.  God even occasionally grants us a feeling of the love-communion between ourselves and the rest of the congregation, even though we do not know them: a taste of the Communion of Saints. This is true even in -- perhaps one could say especially in -- the allegedly stodgy, hide-bound, chauvinistic Traditional Latin Mass, where there is no room for the touchy-feely infestations that have plagued the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.  Here is a fulfillment of the Scriptural promise that if we seek first the Kingdom of God and His Justice, the rest will be added unto us.


But we short-circuit this promise when we do our own thing at Mass and try to do "communion" on our own.  This makes hand-holding not only unnecessary, but worse than unnecessary.  It is a distraction that diverts our attention away from the Eucharist that is the true source of our Christian unity, and even causes us to believe that the Eucharist is not sufficient.  It leads us away from a true understanding of our Catholic faith, and toward a distaste of that which is authentically Catholic and therefore really calculated to bring us closer to God.

Even though hand-holding only started the ecclesiastical equivalent of thirty seconds ago, there are many who ascribe all kinds of imaginary meaning to the practice, and would feel deprived of a sense of communion if they couldn't engage in it.  That a false significance, unsupported by any legitimate authority, has attached to this innovation in so short a time itself shows its perniciousness.  Authority is critical in the Church, even more than in the arena of the civil law, where binding precedent must always be consulted before a legal determination is made; the acceptance and embrace of traditions of men ought to be completely foreign to the Catholic mind.  Yet here is a classic example of an artificial tradition in action, to the detriment of true faith.  This false tradition can't be done away with too soon.

8 comments:

  1. I'm thinking about inventing force field that I can push a button when anyone violates my personal space at Mass :D

    ReplyDelete
  2. As soon as you invent that force field, I want one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have never heard anyone so against hand holding. I think in the world today we can focus our minds and hearts on much deeper issues regarding faith and salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have never heard anyone so against hand holding. I think in the world today we can focus our minds and hearts on much deeper issues regarding faith and salvation.

    This is the typical liberal response to complaints about abuses: move along, folks, nothing to see here. No big deal. Much ado about nothing. Our energies are best concentrated elsewhere.

    And so we start out by letting little things slide; then bigger things; and the bigger things that slide give place to even bigger things. Thus, step by step, drip by drip, what was once intolerable becomes commonplace.

    There is nothing more important than the august Sacrifice of Calvary, which is what the Mass is; and therefore how we comport ourselves at Mass is a very deep issue of great moment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi, Anita! Looks like we were thinking along the same lines:

    "Holding hands isn't a mere sign of "liking" or of general benevolence; it's an act of intimacy, of special closeness. It's only appropriate to certain relationships in our culture. Extending the act beyond those bounds is awkward, artificial and a distraction, especially for people who don't care to be touched by total strangers or to hold hands with people of the same sex (not even all same-sex couples hold hands)."

    As far as whether there are bigger issues to discuss, I think Simcha Fisher said it best: "I can say, 'Boy, this sprained ankle hurts,' without implying that a triple amputation is a walk in the park." Plus, you're right ... the "little things" become wedge issues and defining struggles because of where they lead, not for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh good grief.

    Of course there are no rules in the GIRM concerning holding hands. There are no instructions in there for what you do with your hands for almost the entire Mass. And that is supposed to be an indicator of what Rome wants? Rome has seen fit to issue the GIRM and its subsequent changes over the last 45 to 50 years (I have a picture of a Mass in @ 1965-66 with everyone holding hands)along with various admonitions concerning a variety of abuses, and the net sum of it is that Rome is entirely silent over the matter. AS in, it is not an issue to them.

    As then Archbishop Chaput said, if you don't want to hold hands, then don't. If you want to hold hands, there is no rule forbidding it. And neither side should criticize the other.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rome has seen fit to issue the GIRM and its subsequent changes over the last 45 to 50 years (I have a picture of a Mass in @ 1965-66 with everyone holding hands)along with various admonitions concerning a variety of abuses, and the net sum of it is that Rome is entirely silent over the matter. AS in, it is not an issue to them.

    I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows. But even if it is not an issue for Rome, that does not mean it shouldn't be.

    As then Archbishop Chaput said, if you don't want to hold hands, then don't. If you want to hold hands, there is no rule forbidding it. And neither side should criticize the other.

    Then maybe you shouldn't criticize me for criticizing the side that wants to hold hands.

    ReplyDelete