Catholic Replies
Q. Recently we got a new pastor who has resumed the holding of hands during the Our Father that our previous pastor had eliminated. Has this now become part of the liturgy? And what is the purpose of the holding hands to begin with? Also, what do you think of “Polka Masses”? — C.G., Wisconsin.
A. No, holding hands during the Our Father has not become part of the liturgy. It is not mentioned in the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which says only that “the principal celebrant, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. Next, with hands extended, he says the Lord’s Prayer itself together with the other concelebrants, who also pray with hands extended, and together with the people” (n. 237). Nothing there about holding hands.
As for the purpose of this practice, an earlier edition of the GIRM had this to say:
“The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, 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 invitation: Let us offer each other a sign of peace should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass. The sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated” (Appendix 2, n. 112).
We haven’t heard of “Polka Masses” in a long time, but we think that any celebration of Mass that diminishes the reverence that is due to God alone is out of place. When people are more interested in the music at Mass than in the Holy Sacrifice taking place on the altar, someone’s priorities are mixed up.
Readers who are as old as this writer can remember when we were told that guitar Masses were the answer to bringing the youth to church. A lot of young people were going to Mass back then, but where are they now? When people come to realize that participation at Mass is participation in the liturgy being celebrated continuously in Heaven, they will want to be in their parish church every week.
Q. Last Sunday, one of our deacons gave the homily at the 8:00 a.m. Mass. While commenting on the Gospel of St. Matthew (whose feast was the next day), he stated that St. Matthew neither wrote the Gospel attributed to him nor was he a tax collector. I’m confused because I have always believed that St. Matthew wrote the first Gospel and was a tax collector. Are the deacon’s comments an accurate reflection of what the Church now holds true about St. Matthew? — S.S., New Jersey.
A. No, they are not accurate, and it is the deacon who is confused. Even if you know nothing about the authors of the four Gospels, common sense would tell you that the Church would hardly have offered readings “from the holy Gospel according to Matthew” for centuries unless that Gospel was written by Matthew, who was also known as Levi (cf. Mark 2:14).
Mark says that Levi was “sitting at the customs post” collecting taxes when Jesus said to him, “Follow me.” Jesus then had a meal at Levi’s house, and the Lord was criticized for “eating with sinners and tax collectors” (Mark 2:16).
In Matthew’s own Gospel, he says that “as Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him. While he was at table in his [Matthew’s] house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ [Jesus] heard this and said, ‘Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do….I did not come to call the righteous but sinners’” (Matt. 9:9-13).
One would think that your deacon would be familiar with the following passage from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
“The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, handed on to us in writing the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” (n. 18).
Two footnotes accompany this passage. The first one says that “apostolic men” refers to Mark and Luke, who were “partly contemporary with the Apostles, but younger than they.” The other footnote cites the writings of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John. In his second-century work Against Heresies, Irenaeus said:
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke, also, a companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom, also published a Gospel while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia.”
Your deacon should also take a look at the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. After emphasizing the need for “the greatest prudence” when presenting scriptural matters to Catholics in the pews, the Instruction said:
“This virtue of prudence must especially be cultivated by those who write for [or speak to] the faithful at a popular level. . . . They must consider it a sacred duty never to depart in the least from the common doctrine and tradition of the Church. Yes, they may turn to their own use the real advances in biblical knowledge…but they must avoid altogether the rash fancies of innovators. They are strictly charged not to give in to a dangerous itch for novelty, recklessly disseminating attempts at the solution of difficulties without prudent sifting and serious discrimination — disturbing the faith of many.”
Let’s give the deacon the benefit of the doubt and say that he was not being reckless in what he said about St. Matthew and his Gospel; perhaps he was only repeating something he had heard from someone he considered to be an expert on modern biblical scholarship. But he should have been more prudent in speaking at Sunday Mass to ordinary Catholics, who come to give worship and praise to God and to receive sound instruction on scriptural matters. They do not need to be exposed to questionable theories about the Gospels.
Q. Recently there was a prime-time special about a young man named Mat Franco who could move half a block in five seconds on his own and do other supernatural things. What do you think about this? — M.G.L., Arizona.
A. Mat Franco is a 27-year-old magician who was born in Rhode Island and has been doing magic tricks since he was in elementary school. At the age of 15, he was invited to perform on stage in Las Vegas as part of a show hosted by the Society of American Magicians.
After graduating from the University of Rhode Island with a degree in business administration, he toured the country doing magic shows on college campuses and got his big break in 2014 when he finished first on the America’s Got Talent TV show, the only magician to capture the $1 million top prize.
A two-hour TV special entitled Mat Franco’s Got Magic aired on NBC a few weeks ago, and he demonstrated his amazing sleight-of-hand skills. Franco is surely an accomplished magician, but he is not able to do supernatural things. Only God can do those.
