Do you think we should shake hands after praying the Our Father at Mass?

[Brendan]

When the priest says “Let us offer each other some sign of peace” (or whatever the words are), I suppose one could argue there’s a certain level of command there, in which case, proper church etiquette should take over. (A nod or handshake or distant “V” should suffice.)

100% Correct but even the authority, and hence the obedience, comes from the rubrics. The deacon or priest has been granted the authority to issue such a statement from the GIRM, but even then, he and the faithful are bound, via obendience, to the permitted signs approved by the local episcopal conference.

But I have yet to hear a priest say “Let’s hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer.” In fact this would be inserting something in the texts which isn’t there. So no command, no disobedience.

I actually have heard such a statement. But the priest receives no authority from either the bishop, the GIRM nor his Office to make such a statement, thus any disregard of that statement would not incur disobedience. In fact, a strong case could be made that following such a statement would be an act of disobedience to Rome, which forbade such additions on personal initiative/.

 

[Cat]

Aquinas defined the Virtue of Obedience as conforming one’s Will to the One who has the authority.

So for obedience to be involved at all, the priest would have to have been given that authority to command what is being asked.

So the question then becomes, has the priest been given such authority to command in this matter?

If not, and the priest can merely ‘ask’, then obedience, by definition, is not involved.

Just to clarify:

Whether or not a priest has the authority to ask people to “shake hands” is questionable. But he definitely has the authority to ask the congregation to offer each other the Sign of Peace.

I see two topics happening here. Some people are talking about “shaking hands,” while others are talking about “offering the Sign of Peace.” It’s confusing.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the Lord would honor a believer’s willingness to obey a priest who makes a request, even an “extra-rubrical” request, as long as the request is not a command to sin. I don’t believe the Lord Jesus would count it as “sin” if we obey a priest’s extra-rubrical request.

Jesus will hold the PRIEST accountable, but not those who obeyed the priest.

I hope I made that point clear.

The Scriptures say that the one who obeys the commandments of the Lord (including honoring the authorities) is the one who loves Jesus. And also, the Scriptures say that “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Also, Naaman was healed because he obeyed a command, even though he didn’t understand the purpose of that command.

We are the sheep and our pastor is our shepherd. In real life, the shepherd will make demands of the sheep that they don’t want to follow, but if they don’t obey, they may be in mortal danger. We need to recognize that our shepherds have an ordination and charism from the Lord Jesus that enables them to see dangers and trouble that we, as sheep, cannot even begin to see. We need to respect the “shepherding charism” of our priests.

 

[pianistclare]

Just to clarify:

Whether or not a priest has the authority to ask people to “shake hands” is questionable. But he definitely has the authority to ask the congregation to offer each other the Sign of Peace.

I see two topics happening here. Some people are talking about “shaking hands,” while others are talking about “offering the Sign of Peace.” It’s confusing.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the Lord would honor a believer’s willingness to obey a priest who makes a request, even an “extra-rubrical” request, as long as the request is not a command to sin. I don’t believe the Lord Jesus would count it as “sin” if we obey a priest’s extra-rubrical request.

Jesus will hold the PRIEST accountable, but not those who obeyed the priest.

I hope I made that point clear.

The Scriptures say that the one who obeys the commandments of the Lord (including honoring the authorities) is the one who loves Jesus. And also, the Scriptures say that “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Also, Naaman was healed because he obeyed a command, even though he didn’t understand the purpose of that command.

We are the sheep and our pastor is our shepherd. In real life, the shepherd will make demands of the sheep that they don’t want to follow, but if they don’t obey, they may be in mortal danger. We need to recognize that our shepherds have an ordination and charism from the Lord Jesus that enables them to see dangers and trouble that we, as sheep, cannot even begin to see. We need to respect the “shepherding charism” of our priests.

 

[Adonia]

When I sit next to people who hold hands (majority at my church do) and the Our Father prayer is about to begin, I simply raise my folded hands high about my chin, lip level, bow my head slightly and close my eyes. This way I am not getting any looks, nor am I giving any. I continue through the prayer and then toward the middle or end look up at our beautiful crucifix front and center and pray the rest of the prayer focused on Jesus. I don’t look anywhere else. Many people don’t try to hold my hand, because I hold steadfast to praying in this way, and they know it.

When giving the sign of peace, it depends if I shake hands or not - many people just smile and say “peace be with you” - but if someone outstretches their hand I will reciprocate, but I keep my eyes on theirs, which seems to deter the handshake 9-10 times.

That’s the way my father used to do it during the Our Father. He definitely was not a hands holding guy.

 

[pianistclare]

That’s the way my father used to do it during the Our Father. He definitely was not a hands holding guy.

I’ve tried that. I’ve had people literally pry my hands apart, and then after Mass say “don’t you like us”.

 

[ProVobis]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the Lord would honor a believer’s willingness to obey a priest who makes a request, even an “extra-rubrical” request, as long as the request is not a command to sin. I don’t believe the Lord Jesus would count it as “sin” if we obey a priest’s extra-rubrical request.

Jesus will hold the PRIEST accountable, but not those who obeyed the priest.

So now we’re calling something that’s not in the texts or rubrics “extra-rubrical”?

Whether one is obligated to follow something he knows not to be in the rubrics and could be disobedience on the priest’s part to initiate it is a good discussion topic IMO.

 

[Brendan]

The Scriptures say that the one who obeys the commandments of the Lord (including honoring the authorities) is the one who loves Jesus. And also, the Scriptures say that “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Also, Naaman was healed because he obeyed a command, even though he didn’t understand the purpose of that command.

We are the sheep and our pastor is our shepherd. In real life, the shepherd will make demands of the sheep that they don’t want to follow, but if they don’t obey, they may be in mortal danger. We need to recognize that our shepherds have an ordination and charism from the Lord Jesus that enables them to see dangers and trouble that we, as sheep, cannot even begin to see. We need to respect the “shepherding charism” of our priests.

Going back to the definition of the Virtue of Obedence, there is no obedience where there is not authority.

If the priest lack authority, there is no disobedience.

You are most certainly correct that the leaders of the Chuch have a special charism, but when a member of the Church, of whatever station, acts contrary to the teachings of the Church, even in little matters, there is no Virtue in following them, and a strong likelihood of vice

Note what Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I ) states about obedience

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Thus if any Catholic, of whatever station, has knowledge that the Church teaches that no additions to the liturgy should be made on one’s own initiative, it would be a matter of obedience to reject any attempts to follow those who attempt to do the opposite.

It would be THERE that one would find the Virtue of Obedience, and no where else in such a matter.

The question then becomes, do you wish to practice Virtue?

 

[pianistclare]

Going back to the definition of the Virtue of Obedence, there is no obedience where there is not authority.

If the priest lack authority, there is no disobedience.

You are most certainly correct that the leaders of the Chuch have a special charism, but when a member of the Church, of whatever station, acts contrary to the teachings of the Church, even in little matters, there is no Virtue in following them, and a strong likelihood of vice

Note what Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I ) states about obedience

Thus if any Catholic, of whatever station, has knowledge that the Church teaches that no additions to the liturgy should be made on one’s own initiative, it would be a matter of obedience to reject any attempts to follow those who attempt to do the opposite.

It would be THERE that one would find the Virtue of Obedience, and no where else in such a matter.

The question then becomes, do you wish to practice Virtue?

Oh, I don’t think that anyone is really doubting the veracity of what you are saying…
but WE’RE not the ones to be convinced are we?


Just sayin…

 

[johnmann]

If I were pope, the Sign of Peace would be moved to the introductory rites. It’s so out of place in the Eucharistic Prayer and it makes more theological sense beforehand.

I noticed these days that most have abandoned the handshake in favor of a “shy Hitler.” Palm facing out but held close to the body. I prefer it to a handshake but I would prefer a bow over either. It’s already the established custom in Asia.

As for holding hands during the Our Father, I prefer not to but I would not even speak out against it. It’s no abuse. In fact, I think it’s rather appropriate for families.

 

[Brendan]

If I were pope, the Sign of Peace would be moved to the introductory rites. It’s so out of place in the Eucharistic Prayer and it makes more theological sense beforehand…

Why so, the Kiss of Peace has always been where it is, even in the Eastern Liturgies. Why would it make sense to move it.

What should happen is that be moved back to what it was, the exchange between the priest and the people, and nothing more.

 

[Cat]

So now we’re calling something that’s not in the texts or rubrics “extra-rubrical”?

Whether one is obligated to follow something he knows not to be in the rubrics and could be disobedience on the priest’s part to initiate it is a good discussion topic IMO.

ProVobis and Brendan, the question is, Does the believer KNOW, with absolutely certainty, what the rubrics are?

I certainly would never trust myself on this.

We’ve all seen posts on CAF from people who are convinced that something is in the rubrics or not in the rubrics, for OF Mass–and then those with more knowledge point out that they are incorrect.

I know that you two are much more knowledgeable about Mass rubrics than I am, but to be honest, meaning no disrespect towards both of you and others on CAF, I would rather trust my priest and all the other knowledgeable Catholics in my parish (including deacons, seminarians, pastoral associates, the hired Liturgy and Music Director, graduates from ministry formation, those with college degrees in liturgy from various Catholic seminaries, etc.), rather than two people that I don’t know from an online site. .

I just can’t understand this mindset of constantly being on the alert for liturgical abuses in the Mass. I would think this would steal joy and undermine trust in God and His Church. And I think if it was discussed in the presence of children and teenagers, it would gradually destroy their faith in and respect for the Catholic Church. I think it’s one thing to expect a correct liturgy and work through proper channels to correct some of the gross obvious abuses described by some posters on CAF. But to constantly question why we do a Sign of Peace, why we shake hands, why we hold hands, etc.–this is a hard path to travel and IMO, leads only to cynicism, not deeper faith.

 

[ProVobis]

I just can’t understand this mindset of constantly being on the alert for liturgical abuses in the Mass. I would think this would steal joy and undermine trust in God and His Church.

Well, we are supposed to listen and learn, no? Yesterday, I heard a “for you and for all” consecration. Ordinarily I would have ignored it. However, didn’t the Church go through 40 years of controversy over this? I kept telling myself, “It’s okay, he’s an older priest, and made a few other mistakes” and even received communion from him. So it’s not like a lot of us look for abuses. I think, Cat, by now you have a pretty good idea of what to expect at Mass. Wouldn’t a priest who says “Let’s hold hands during the Our Father” issue some red flags in your mind? Don’t forget, God held both Adam and Eve accountable, perhaps one more than the other, but still…

 

[Brendan]

ProVobis and Brendan, the question is, Does the believer KNOW, with absolutely certainty, what the rubrics are?

That is why the Church publishes them, so that all might know

I certainly would never trust myself on this.

I would disagree, you have certainly shown yourself to be quite literate and have demonstrated good reading comprehension.

In the cases that you mention, if you noticed, the primary means that those with knowledge of the rubircs use is to actually quote from the documents themselves.

Ergo, you can have such knowledge if you go to the liturgical documents themselves, again that is why the Church publishes them, not just to clergy, but to the whole world. Because the Church desires that all might know what is expected of them in the liturgy.

 

[Brendan]

I just can’t understand this mindset of constantly being on the alert for liturgical abuses in the Mass. .

It’s not a mindset, it is a function of knowledge. You would agree that the Church desires all to know and understand the Liturgy in light of Church teaching, correct.?

If one learns what the Church desires in the Liturgy, and then sees something contrary to that, it would be impossible to simply return to a state of ignorance on the matter. If our child was in a Mathematics class, and we see a mathematical error in the assignment given by the teacher, would it be a correct thing to simply ignore the error, or to bring it to the attention of the teacher?

Likewise when anyone in the Church deviates from what the Church itself desires at Mass. You are correct, our trust in in the Lord and His Church, which is precisely why we object when an individual member of the Church deviates from the instructions given.

 

[johnmann]

Why so, the Kiss of Peace has always been where it is, even in the Eastern Liturgies. Why would it make sense to move it.

What should happen is that be moved back to what it was, the exchange between the priest and the people, and nothing more.

“Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” - Matthew 5:23-24

I believe it was Cardinal Ratzinger who suggested that maybe the sign of peace should be moved to the end of the introductory rites.

 

[pnewton]

It would be THERE that one would find the Virtue of Obedience, and no where else in such a matter.

The question then becomes, do you wish to practice Virtue?

This is a very unfair question. Of course we all desire virtue. The reason I call this unfair is that you developed a syllogism with numerous assumptions (or opinions) that may or may not be true and then brought your opinion to the point of representing virtue. a virtuous person may well disagree with you. Specifically,

1. There is no evidence of a lack of authority. The bishop has authority over the liturgy and if he has granted a practice, then the priest does have authority.
2. There is nothing here being discussed contrary to the teaching of the Church. All things here are a matter of discipline. As I said earlier when the option to omit the Sign of Peace was discussed, the rules are “general” and subject to local implementation, especially when something is questionable and not absolute.
3. With the subject here, none of this applies anyway, as nothing is contradictory by having a sign of peace. I know you said, “What should happen is that be moved back to what it was, the exchange between the priest and the people, and nothing more,” but this is just your opinion and not the mind of the Church. I think your opinion should be granted courtesy, but then the Golden Rule would mandate you do the same for others. After all, what you think is just as far away from the current rule as anything offered here.

 

[pnewton]

I just can’t understand this mindset of constantly being on the alert for liturgical abuses in the Mass.

I am the same way. I understand the desire to seek remedy where the abuse in question is unquestionable and grave. It cuts at who we are. But all this minor stuff, that often is not even contrary to the instructions is what I do not get. I can’t help but think that if there was ever and instituted role of liturgical police, the volunteers would be numerous.

 

[ProVobis]

I am the same way. I understand the desire to seek remedy where the abuse in question is unquestionable and grave. It cuts at who we are. But all this minor stuff, that often is not even contrary to the instructions is what I do not get. I can’t help but think that if there was ever and instituted role of liturgical police, the volunteers would be numerous.

pn, the problem with adlibbing something that’s not in the text is a serious one, as I see it. I frequently attend Spanish Mass for the obligation. I haven’t a clue as to what the priest is talking about if he provides no hand gestures or anything like that. It’s not like I’m looking for abuses; I merely want to abide by proper church etiquette and worship God. (IOW, no offering chewing gum to my neighbor, etc.) I imagine the same thing goes for someone who doesn’t understand English who happens to go to English Mass. And let’s not kid ourselves; this is more frequent than it appears. Instructions from the priest are not always clear to everyone there. I don’t know how the practice of holding or raising hands came into being but I’m venturing to guess it was because of instructions (or example) they picked up from one or more priests or some liturgical committee. What’s next?

 

[pnewton]

pn, the problem with adlibbing something that’s not in the text is a serious one, as I see it. I frequently attend Spanish Mass for the obligation… I don’t know how the practice of holding or raising hands came into being but I’m venturing to guess it was because of instructions (or example) they picked up from one or more priests or some liturgical committee.

I guess I have never seen ad-libbing. In any case, this holding hands is not the same thing, in that the text is in the GIRM and posture of Our Father is not. It could well be an organic development from families starting it and perhaps a result of converts coming in. In any case, note that the Church has not yet condemned it or suggested it be stopped.

 

[pianistclare]

I guess I have never seen ad-libbing. In any case, this holding hands is not the same thing, in that the text is in the GIRM and posture of Our Father is not. It could well be an organic development from families starting it and perhaps a result of converts coming in. In any case, note that the Church has not yet condemned it or suggested it be stopped.

As I’ve said numerous times…this is what my present and 2 former pastors have said.
It’s something that just “sprang up” organically. They never saw it as anything more than annoying to some (like me) therefore, they see no need to speak to a seemingly harmless thing. Apparently I’m the only one who ever complained…so they shrug it off. More important fish to fry, I suppose. None has ever insisted that I cooperate. They seemed to appreciate that I knew it was odd, and there was some eye-rolling with each of them when we spoke about it. Clearly they didn’t like it, but they let it go for the sake of pastoral kindness. Which I guess they have a right to.

I also, get tired of persons on the forums (people that I just LOVE and respect otherwise) who seem to thrive on pointing out abuse, as well as in other threads, acting superior for loving the TLM of the EF.

I’m guilty of this in regard to music, being a church musician since God was a boy…

It’s something I have to work on…constantly. I try real hard, especially now in Lent, when there seems to crop up a lot of these (what shall we call them) “shenanigans”?
I pray that God reminds me of His Holy Presence and makes me turn away from so much criticism.

Thanks for perspective. Please anyone, don’t say that I am disrespectful or not a “good” Catholic. There’s another thread where one kept advances the uber trad position, and others barked back. It got ugly. We’re having a lovely discussion here, I think.
Peace,
pianist