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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fred_conty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am surprised to see the majority say no. Assuming the original question was referring to the sign of peace, I am surprised the majority said no. It is part of the rubrics of the mass, so of course we should do so, just like following all of the other rubrics. Are there people on this thread condemning liturgical abuses, yet voting no? That seems a very inconsistent position.

As to the question: should it be in the mass at that point? Not ours to decide. Why waste brain cells on it?
 
tafan said:
I am surprised to see the majority say no. Assuming the original question was referring to the sign of peace, I am surprised the majority said no. It is part of the rubrics of the mass, so of course we should do so, just like following all of the other rubrics. Are there people on this thread condemning liturgical abuses, yet voting no? That seems a very inconsistent position.

As to the question: should it be in the mass at that point? Not ours to decide. Why waste brain cells on it?
Click to expand...
The Sign of Peace between the laity is optional.
 
SofSP said:
The Sign of Peace between the laity is optional.
Click to expand...
Is it? I did not know that.
The Rite of Peace
Click to expand...
  1. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
As for the actual sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by the Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. However, it is appropriate that each person, in a sober manner, offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest.
Click to expand...
If if optional, it seems to me, I have a hard time understanding the answer “no” to the question. If it is a valid option in the mass, and the priest includes it, who are we to say we should not do it? It would certainly seem to be a liturgical abuse to not do so, at least to me.
 
pianistclare said:
Apparently I’m the only one who ever complained…so they shrug it off. More important fish to fry, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Not a good hill to die on? I like that statement from earlier. We all have only so much we can say, depending on us and the disposition of our priest/bishop, before we ruin any chance of being heard any further. I like to save my indignation for those things I think core to Eucharistic reverence. Sure, I wish all the hand-holding had never started (but I like the sign of peace), but none of this is worth any cost to me to bring up. Now, my goal is just to stay within my own assigned area and try and keep expanding chant and Latin, though I am almost to where I want to be.

I think I will take up the challenge to reduce movement at the sign of peace. I think I can probably do that within a year, starting with the kids that sing with me.
 
tafan said:
Is it? I did not know that.

If if optional, it seems to me, I have a hard time understanding the answer “no” to the question. If it is a valid option in the mass, and the priest includes it, who are we to say we should not do it? It would certainly seem to be a liturgical abuse to not do so, at least to me.
Click to expand...
So we understand the OP’s question, it was whether we should hold hands during the Our Father, even though the title suggests something different.

As I understand it, as far as the title of thread goes, it is up to the priest whether to ask the congregation to “let us offer each other some sign of peace” (or however he words it.) That option shouldn’t be in dispute. FWIW, the exchange of peace is part of the EF Mass as well, as at least one poster has mentioned. So it’s not an innovation. How it’s done is a different story.
 
ProVobis said:
So we understand the OP’s question, it was whether we should hold hands during the Our Father, even though the title suggests something different.

As I understand it, as far as the title of thread goes, it is up to the priest whether to ask the congregation to “let us offer each other some sign of peace” (or however he words it.) That option shouldn’t be in dispute. FWIW, the exchange of peace is part of the EF Mass as well, as at least one poster has mentioned. So it’s not an innovation. How it’s done is a different story.
Click to expand...
Interesting, my browser clearly showed the thread title of shaking hands, except on the poll results. Haven’t seen that happen before.

Ok, well, then I change my vote!!!
 
Hmmm… well I voted “no” because, as some of you may agree, some people use the time wrong and go all the way across and to their neighbors, relatives, etc. etc. to give a “sign of peace” when it’s like a lovely “hi”. What comes after? The singing of Lamb of God. What my parish priest usually does is wait until all is calm to continue. The problem is that the choir, especially at 1PM where I am, usually sings the Cordero de Dios (or Lamb of God) immediately after the celebrant says “you may offer a sign of peace”. Many people lose focus and it’s a bit inappropriate to go around and say hi, and be called out as unfriendly and stiff for not giving the sign of peace to so and so.

Just unite your sufferings with Jesus. It’s the best we can do.
 
We noticed a LOT of people do not want to shake hands. Probably good idea not to with colds running around certain times. So now we have quit extending out hands and sometimes people extend theirs and I feel rude if I don’t shake. So its kind of a case by case basis but most of time I give sign of peace to everyone and if someone thrusts their hand at me anyway, I shake it. LOL one day, the young woman behind me held up her mitts to everyone when I turned and extended my hand.

I would think it would seem good NOT to shake hands if you’re taking communion in the hand which I don’t. One church during the flue season actually announced they were not doing the sign of peace due to it being flue season. Not sure why they couldn’t still allow people to nod, give peace sign etc. I guess that announcement would have been too complicated.
 
ProVobis said:
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?
Click to expand...
Raising the hands is not just a gesture. It has a purpose. I will say no more on that.

Holding hands - I don’t care for it personally. When I pray the our father, I want to offer my prayer to Him without distraction of grabbing someone by the hand. They do it this way in a church near me. First time it happened we were clueless. I had to elbow my spouse because he had his eyes closed and was breaking the chain and the man in front had his hand held out to him and kept waiting for him. I guess they knew we were new to it. They did everything different there. For example they stand while waiting for communion and only kneel after they return to seat. At both the other churches we go to, we kneel until its our time to go up and kneel when we return to our seat. They also had altar girls. That was new for me. I suppose if I visited all the states, I’d see a lot of things done differently.

🤷
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
We don’t hold hands this side of the World England/Ireland , we consider it Liturgical abuse, was never sanctioned, invented by who ?
Click to expand...
The most often mentioned source was the start of the charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. That, however, was in February 1967; I have a picture of a Mass where people were holding hands during the Our Father, dated about 1964-1966 (so before the charismatic movement).
 
Rae8 said:
Raising the hands is not just a gesture. It has a purpose. I will say no more on that.

Holding hands - I don’t care for it personally. When I pray the our father, I want to offer my prayer to Him without distraction of grabbing someone by the hand. They do it this way in a church near me. First time it happened we were clueless. I had to elbow my spouse because he had his eyes closed and was breaking the chain and the man in front had his hand held out to him and kept waiting for him. I guess they knew we were new to it. They did everything different there. For example they stand while waiting for communion and only kneel after they return to seat. At both the other churches we go to, we kneel until its our time to go up and kneel when we return to our seat. They also had altar girls. That was new for me. I suppose if I visited all the states, I’d see a lot of things done differently.

🤷
Click to expand...
standing from the Agnus Dei through reception of Communion is an option which the bishop may choose.
 
pianistclare said:
Yes. The innovation of holding hands is contrary to the rubrics.
Click to expand...
There are absolutely no rubrics whatsoever as to the matter; there is no rule in the GIRM as to what you are to do with your hands - palms together, fingers interlaced; palms together, fingers pointing up; hands at your side; arms crossed, or holding hands with the person next to you. Sorry - Archbishop Chaput, when he was archbishop of Denver, put that one to rest. Or at least, he tried to. And he actually knows the rubrics, the GIRM, and Canon law. This bit about it violating the rubrics is an utter impossibility when there are no rubrics to be violated. It keeps popping up; and the challenge is, please state thr rubric which it violates. There is none.
 
I see no problem with either gesture. Holding hands during the Our Father makes me feel more united and together with the rest of the congregation especially since I feel isolated most of the time. We are praying the OUR Father so I see nothing wrong with doing it together as a group holding hands. No one should be forced to if they don’t want to though. As for the sign of peace I think it solidifies the feeling of togetherness. I don’t see anything wrong with a handshake or hugging a friend near you.
 
oremosjuntos said:
Hmmm… well I voted “no” because, as some of you may agree, some people use the time wrong and go all the way across and to their neighbors, relatives, etc. etc. to give a “sign of peace” when it’s like a lovely “hi”. What comes after? The singing of Lamb of God. What my parish priest usually does is wait until all is calm to continue. The problem is that the choir, especially at 1PM where I am, usually sings the Cordero de Dios (or Lamb of God) immediately after the celebrant says “you may offer a sign of peace”. Many people lose focus and it’s a bit inappropriate to go around and say hi, and be called out as unfriendly and stiff for not giving the sign of peace to so and so.

Just unite your sufferings with Jesus. It’s the best we can do.
Click to expand...
if you think that is distracting, I wish i could take people here on a tour of my town, to the Cathedral i go to on occasion an my original parish i now normally go to, it is beyond distracting at both, i dunno about any where else in town, but i gave up lookin for a quiet church to celebrate mass at in town. That an i wish i could make a sound recording of the homily because it is insane, the moment directly after the homily, it is like clock work, people in unison cough, hack, sneeze,…

Literally the only time i get to pray is in adoration, i am basically just going through the motions now at mass on Sunday.
 
otjm said:
There are absolutely no rubrics whatsoever as to the matter; there is no rule in the GIRM as to what you are to do with your hands - palms together, fingers interlaced; palms together, fingers pointing up; hands at your side; arms crossed, or holding hands with the person next to you. Sorry - Archbishop Chaput, when he was archbishop of Denver, put that one to rest. Or at least, he tried to. And he actually knows the rubrics, the GIRM, and Canon law. This bit about it violating the rubrics is an utter impossibility when there are no rubrics to be violated. It keeps popping up; and the challenge is, please state thr rubric which it violates. There is none.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I do remember reading somewhere that this is not to be done, but where?🤷
I apologize.
Thank you for your posts. Keep us straight friend, 👍
Peace,
pianist
 
otjm said:
There are absolutely no rubrics whatsoever as to the matter; there is no rule in the GIRM as to what you are to do with your hands - palms together, fingers interlaced; palms together, fingers pointing up; hands at your side; arms crossed, or holding hands with the person next to you. Sorry - Archbishop Chaput, when he was archbishop of Denver, put that one to rest. Or at least, he tried to. And he actually knows the rubrics, the GIRM, and Canon law. This bit about it violating the rubrics is an utter impossibility when there are no rubrics to be violated. It keeps popping up; and the challenge is, please state thr rubric which it violates. There is none.
Click to expand...
One shouldn’t expect IGMR/GRIM to cover EVERYTHING. Even if it covered what the congregations should do with their hands during every second of the Mass, then everyone will be doing innovative things with their feet. You know how easily bored they get. I would expect many things just happen to fall under proper church etiquette. Unfortunately AFAIK no one has written such a book which has the Vatican’s approval.
 
Hi all,

Joining the thread late, so apologies if I missed something.

Firstly - I concur that there really isn’t a firm direction on the holding of hands from the GIRM or otherwise. Or at least, if there is one, I haven’t seen it yet.

However, I don’t really think the holding of hands during the Our Father is particularly of great value in the liturgy because it places an emphasis on physical touch that really isn’t done anywhere else in the mass. So, to me, it seems a bit off.

Plus there’s the practicality of the matter. What if someone is sick? Or simply not comfortable touching another person? There could be a plethora of reasons not to hold someone’s hand.

That being said, I do not think that those who choose to do so are necessarily doing anything WRONG, it just seems off from the liturgy.

Anyway, just my two cents.
 
ProVobis said:
One shouldn’t expect IGMR/GRIM to cover EVERYTHING. Even if it covered what the congregations should do with their hands during every second of the Mass, then everyone will be doing innovative things with their feet. You know how easily bored they get. I would expect many things just happen to fall under proper church etiquette. Unfortunately AFAIK no one has written such a book which has the Vatican’s approval.
Click to expand...
The GIRM covers the rules; why would it not cover rule if there was one? Granted that RS made specific commands concerning rules which were not being followed (and was silent on hand holding), those rules (such as fractioning the wine before consecration) were already in the GIRM. And the GIRM has specified such things as standing while all receive (later explained in a dubium), so it is not like the GIRM will not cover any postures.

The GIRM is where the Church states such things as postures; hand holding has been going on during the Our Father since the mid 1960’s and there have been at least three issues of the GIRM promulgated since then. Rome has specifically refused to legislate the matter. Why is it so hard for us to accept that Rome appears to have no opinion on the matter.

And as far as feet, that is a red herring. Holding hands is a sign of unity; it actually has a purpose. That is not to promote it; but there is some liturgical connection in the act. Proposing regulation of random non-liturgical acts has no place in the discussion, except to attempt to provide ridicule. Let’s keep to the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top