Do you hold hands during the Our Father?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This was your original post
Originally Posted by davy39
I have a question. Do you kneel in your pew, after you receive communion? That has been the practice in our area since I was little. (A long, long time ago) We only sit when the priest sits.
Not because the Priest sits, but because the Blessed Sacrament is no longer exposed and the Tabernacle is closed. We always knelt until the Blessed Sacrament was reserved and the tabernacle was closed and locked.
 
As far as holding hands Our Father, I’m ambivalent towards the practice.

NCJohn, I think, provided an informative background that I hope all would read. From what I gathered from his post, it is not quite the Liturgical Abuse some think it is, otherwise, I am sure this practice would have been addressed in such documents as Redemptionis Sacramentum. But the as NC John pointed out there has been no comment nor out right condemnation of this practice, and I believe this is the right coarse. From GIRM and more importantly, from the Vat II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, great importance is given to the role and authority of the Bishop of the Diocese in regulating the liturgical life of the Church and people he has been called to shepherd. Therefore, I think it is best to leave this practice of holding hands up to the local bishop.

As for me, I take the “When in Rome, do as the Romans” approach. If I’m visiting a parish and it seems to be the accepted practice, then I hold hands, although I do agree with those who said this should be totally optional and no one should be made to feel they have to hold hands.

One side note, yes the ultimate sign and cause of unity is the Eucharist, however, I believe it is important that it is important to realize that with in the liturgy there are many other signs as well.
We pray, stand, sit and sing, not as individuals but as one worshiping people. And most important, outside of the Eucharist, Christ’s presence is found in we are united as one by the Liturgy of the Word. All these factors are why the GIRM is so important, to safe guard the unity the is inheritant in liturgical worship.
 
40.png
TOME:
And most important, outside of the Eucharist, Christ’s presence is found in we are united as one by the Liturgy of the Word. All these factors are why the GIRM is so important, to safe guard the unity the is inheritant in liturgical worship.
So why not hold hands at the Liturgy of the Word?
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
So why not hold hands at the Liturgy of the Word?
Hey netmil(name removed by moderator),

That’s a GREAT idea! I’m gonna introduce that in my Parish, next Sunday. That’ll go great with the new sign language they’ve added to the Alleluia at the LifeTeen Mass in my parish. We’ve also got clapping and hands swaying way over our heads. Oh, and of course, everybody (except me) holds hands for the Our Father.:rolleyes:

Please pray for us.
 
40.png
cargopilot:
Hey netmil(name removed by moderator),

That’s a GREAT idea! I’m gonna introduce that in my Parish, next Sunday. That’ll go great with the new sign language they’ve added to the Alleluia at the LifeTeen Mass in my parish. We’ve also got clapping and hands swaying way over our heads. Oh, and of course, everybody (except me) holds hands for the Our Father.:rolleyes:

Please pray for us.
OH MY!!!

My prayers are with you, my Friend! Whoa!

(you’ve got to share, what kind of sign are they using at the Alleluia?)
 
netsmilmom, first, I’m not found of the practice of holding hands during the Our Father, I’m just not opposed if it has been the custome of the parish community for awhile.

As for holding hands during the Liturgy of the Word, I doubt most Catholics understand or appreciate that we are being united by the Real Presence of Christ in the Scriptures and so holding hand wouldn’t have the same symbolic meaning.
 
40.png
TOME:
NCJohn, I think, provided an informative background that I hope all would read. From what I gathered from his post, it is not quite the Liturgical Abuse some think it is, otherwise, I am sure this practice would have been addressed in such documents as Redemptionis Sacramentum. But the as NC John pointed out there has been no comment nor out right condemnation of this practice, and I believe this is the right coarse. From GIRM and more importantly, from the Vat II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, great importance is given to the role and authority of the Bishop of the Diocese in regulating the liturgical life of the Church and people he has been called to shepherd. Therefore, I think it is best to leave this practice of holding hands up to the local bishop.
Have you read all the posts connected with his? Even in his own Diocese the practice is condemned by the Bishop. People here are stating that this is an innovation. It is an innovation which should be stopped as nothing may be added to the liturgy. Go back through the thread and read what Bishop Jurgis wrote about it. (NCJohn’s Bishop) I think you will understand.
When people are understandably uncomfortable with holding hands (unknown in any other segment of American society) how much unity does it promote?
One side note, yes the ultimate sign and cause of unity is the Eucharist, however, I believe it is important that it is important to realize that with in the liturgy there are many other signs as well.
We pray, stand, sit and sing, not as individuals but as one worshiping people. And most important, outside of the Eucharist, Christ’s presence is found in we are united as one by the Liturgy of the Word. All these factors are why the GIRM is so important, to safe guard the unity the is inheritant in liturgical worship.
As for holding hands during the Liturgy of the Word, I doubt most Catholics understand or appreciate that we are being united by the Real Presence of Christ in the Scriptures and so holding hand wouldn’t have the same symbolic meaning.
What symbolic meaning are you looking for? Aren’t we united by the Real Presence of Christ RIGHT on the Altar at the time of the Lord’s Prayer? What does holding someone’s hand add to the worship of Our Lord?
Again, if Christ visually appeared on that Altar, would you be grasping for a stranger’s hand? Maybe, but I would fall on my face, unworthy to look at Him.
 
I used to always hold hands and wonder why others didn’t; I was taught that way and never knew there was a prohibition. I heard a rumor my junior year of college, but never took it to heart. Then when I was in England NOBODY held hands (okay, a few married couples did 🙂 ) and I when I stopped doing it I really discovered it was much more reverent. Now that I’m back in the US, though, it’s tough for me not to hold hands since nobody else seems to know about not holding it…but I’m trying not to.

When I was in high school the LifeTeen program introduced hand-signs for the Alleluia…I did it then (again unaware of any prohibitions), but still felt it was superfluous. They still do it at my parish, but I have long since stopped…it basically consists of holding your hands up and twisting them in small circles, then holding your hands open as if you are offering something to God…once again, I feel like it’s just something to keep people “feeling involved” or busy.

I do like some stuff LifeTeen does, but with the motions and gestures (and some pretty terrible musical choices) it feels more like a rock concert than Mass.
 
40.png
RockAndHoops:
When I was in high school the LifeTeen program introduced hand-signs for the Alleluia…I did it then (again unaware of any prohibitions), but still felt it was superfluous. They still do it at my parish, but I have long since stopped…it basically consists of holding your hands up and twisting them in small circles, then holding your hands open as if you are offering something to God…once again, I feel like it’s just something to keep people “feeling involved” or busy.
Maybe I’m getting old or maybe I’m just too traditional but if I had to perform this Happy Dance, I would feel I had “Dork” written on my forehead.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Have you read all the posts connected with his? Even in his own Diocese the practice is condemned by the Bishop. People here are stating that this is an innovation. It is an innovation which should be stopped as nothing may be added to the liturgy. Go back through the thread and read what Bishop Jurgis wrote about it. (NCJohn’s Bishop) I think you will understand.
Let’s see if we can’t separate some feelings about this issue from the facts about this issue. First off, to address the specific point above, I have seen you repeatedly make this statement about Bishop Jugis “condemning” this practice. He statement was simply that it is not contained in the order of the Mass, period. Unlike the numerous practices which for which he had specific actions to be taken or not taken, there were none whatsoever with this statement. His statement was a statement of fact with no action request or condemnation attached, nor to the best of my knowledge from my travels in this diocese, has anyone taken it to be such.

Now on to the actual issue at hand. It is abundantly clear to everyone from the dozens of posts you’ve made that you despise this practice, and that is your right. It is also your right to be the cheerleader for others who also dislike it. I strongly admire you for your willingness to stand up for what you believe and a lot of the knowledge you have displayed in doing so. 👍 There are two things however that are not your right.

The first of these is to make your personal beliefs into church teaching. You’ve thrown up all kinds of straw men and red herrings to imply that this either leads to a position that other ridiculous scenarios, from juggling to bar-b-quing in the choir loft, would therefore be just as acceptable. We all know that there are ample mechanisms in place in the Church to prevent that and to deal with it if it occured. You have thrown out your story about the parish full of people whose arthritis caused them to have to leave because they felt compelled to join in. Again, there are numerous mechanisms available to prevent anyone from feeling so compelled. Finally, you’ve tried two approaches to make it illicit. The first was to quote the GIRM and claim that nothing can be added to the liturgy; the other that Bishops rightly have the ability to deal with these things when there is no norm to go by, and implied that such an action by some bishops somehow is binding on others. Unfortunately the two are mutually exclusive in this case. If there is something in the GIRM, then the Bishop has no such latitude. If the Bishop has latitude, then it is because it’s not in the GIRM.

When it’s all said and done, as has been shown several times, the GIRM has gone through two revisions without this being addressed. More importantly, the recent Redemptionis Sacramentum, written specifically to deal with liturgical abuses, specifically did not address it. As such, all the facts and the evidence indicate that there is at the current time nothing illicit about it, however much you might not like it. So you have now put yourself in a position of claiming that people are making up their own rules when you yourself are trying to make up your own rules. If you don’t want it, continue to work to have it banned; but until it is you need to stop acting as if it has been unless you can produce some document from Rome that specifically bans the practice.

The other thing you don’t have a right to do is to impugn other’s devotion or orthodoxy because they happen to disagree with your opinion–even if you were to be 100% right! If you really feel you can set yourself up as a “better” Catholic than I am based on this, or any other issue, you might want to go ask your priest where that puts you. The Pharisee thanking God for not making him like those other sinners beckons to all of us and is quite frankly one of the biggest obstacles to Catholic unity. We are all here to pick each other up when we fall and to help carry each other’s crosses, not to kick our brothers and sisters into the gutter.

As I said, I truly admire your passion for your cause, but it is time to stop the arguing and misleading statements and attacks. It is time for both sides to be charitable. Those who hold hands must respect those who do not want to, without considering them cold or uncaring. Those who do not want to need to recognize that others find it a very meaningful symbol to Our Father and stop denouncing us or considering us less than your definition of orthodox for that. If we let the deceiver use such simple means to divide us, it will be that much easier to distract us from the real battles we have out there.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me. :gopray2:
 
40.png
ncjohn:
First off, to address the specific point above, I have seen you repeatedly make this statement about Bishop Jugis “condemning” this practice. He statement was simply that it is not contained in the order of the Mass, period. Unlike the numerous practices which for which he had specific actions to be taken or not taken, there were none whatsoever with this statement. His statement was a statement of fact with no action request or condemnation attached, nor to the best of my knowledge from my travels in this diocese, has anyone taken it to be such.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me. :gopray2:
John, you need to talk directly to your Diocese. They will set you in the right direction. Don’t take my word for it. Your Bishop is a very Holy man and very clear on this. The Order of the Mass always says what we should do, not what we should not. When they say it is not found in, it is not to be added. Call and ask, they will clairify it for you.
And thank you for all the kind words.
charlottediocese.org/customers/101092709242178/filemanager/Liturgy/Liturgical_Norms_031905.pdf53. **Holding hands during the *Our Father ***is not found in the Order of the Mass.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
John, you need to talk directly to your Diocese.
With all due respect, I’m not stupid and I have looked at it closely and probably have a better idea what goes on in my diocese than you do, just as I would not presume to interpret what goes on in yours. Regardless, the point is that neither your bishop or my bishop makes the rules for the wider church and what either of them say is irrelevant to what is or is not licit in the overall church. People are bound by their diocese if their diocese has banned it, but are not bound otherwise since there are no greater directives, and to continue to imply otherwise does not do anyone any service and undermines your credibility.

Peace,
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Maybe I’m getting old or maybe I’m just too traditional but if I had to perform this Happy Dance, I would feel I had “Dork” written on my forehead.
I think you meant “Dorkette”. 😉

Or in the ICEL inclusive language edition, “Dork-kind”.
 
40.png
ncjohn:
With all due respect, I’m not stupid and I have looked at it closely and probably have a better idea what goes on in my diocese than you do, just as I would not presume to interpret what goes on in yours. Regardless, the point is that neither your bishop or my bishop makes the rules for the wider church and what either of them say is irrelevant to what is or is not licit in the overall church. People are bound by their diocese if their diocese has banned it, but are not bound otherwise since there are no greater directives, and to continue to imply otherwise does not do anyone any service and undermines your credibility.

Peace,
Call your Diocese and ask. That is the advice I would give to and have given to everyone on this board. Whether in LA, where the innovation is openly encouraged or in St. Louis where it is openly discouraged, your Bishop decides. It is not the wider church, it is a particular Diocese.
If parishes in your Diocese are choosing to ignore the directives of the Bishop, it is sad.
 
A quick essay on Pharisees from Wikipedia…
“Because of the New Testament’s frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, and because most scholars agree that the gospels place the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on a large faction of Pharisees, the word “pharisee” (and its derivatives: “pharisaical”, etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Jews today, who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism, typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic. Many non-Christians object that the four Gospels, which were canonized after Christianity had separated from Judaism (and after Pharisaism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism), are likely a very biased source concerning the conduct of the Pharisees. Some have argued that Jesus was himself a Pharisee, and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation is the dominant narrative mode in the Talmud). Jesus’ emphasis on loving one’s neighbor, for example, echoes the teaching of the school of Hillel (Jesus’ views of divorce, however, are closer to those of the school of Shammai). Others have argued that the portrait of the Pharisees in the New Testament is an anachronistic caricature. For example, when Jesus declares the sins of a paralytic man forgiven, the New Testament has the Pharisees criticizing Jesus’ blasphemy. But Jewish sources from the time commonly associate illness with sin and healing with forgiveness, and there is no actual Rabbinic source that questions or criticizes this practice. Although the New Testament presents the Pharisees as obsessed with avoiding impurity, Rabbinic texts reveal that the Pharisees were concerned merely with offering means for removing impurities, so that a person could again participate in the community. According to the New Testament, Pharisees wanted to punish Jesus for healing a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath, but there is no Rabbinic rule according to which Jesus had violated the Sabbath. According to the New Testament the Pharisees objected to Jesus’s mission to outcast groups such as beggars and tax-collectors, but Rabbinic texts actually emphasize the availability of forgiveness to all. Indeed, much of Jesus’ teaching is consistent with that of the Pharisees.”

I think that if some think that Jesus was himself a Pharisee, I’ll proudly stand with Him.
 
Why is it that whenever issues concerning the rubrics come up there is always a poster who references the Pharisees? People really miss the boat on that scriptural reference. In fact, I’ll start a thread …
 
Wow, good thing they got rid of the “holy kiss” or all of you “anti-hand holders” would have REALLY been in an uproar.

Do we have anything better to discuss?
 
40.png
mhansen:
Wow, good thing they got rid of the “holy kiss” or all of you “anti-hand holders” would have REALLY been in an uproar.

Do we have anything better to discuss?
Actually, if you ever go to a Solemn High Mass it is still an option in the Tridentine Liturgy but the form of it is very different and not disjointed from the focus of the Liturgy at the moment. I know because I have experienced it. The problem is more than a “just follow the rubrics” problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top