Holding Hands and Kneeling

[JKirkLVNV]

I think Cardinal Arinze spoke to this issue, but I cannot cite it. It was in an address, I believe, or an interview. Anyway, if I remember correctly, Cardinal Arinze said that those who did NOT wish to hold hands were not to be imposed upon. It’s not a position that has a tradition in our church. I think he mentioned that if one wished to hold the hand of a loved one (a child, a spouse, a beloved, whatever), that was natural and ok. The expectation that everyone was going to form a continuous daisy chain was not. He also made a point of saying that unity was expressed anyway during the Sign of Peace and that this was not the point in the liturgy for such an expression. I avoid this by folding my hands in front of me or holding on to the pew in front of me. I’m perfectly willing to exchange the sign of peace with my immediate neighbors, so I hope they don’t think I’m copping an attitude during the Lord’s Prayer.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**Folks: The questions for this thread regarding a NO Mass are:

My parish holds hands during the Our Father. I find this a bit awkard, and don’t do so unless offered a hand by someone where refusing might be considered rude. What’s the official ruling here?

People stood for the Consecration and Communion. This was completely foreign to me. What’s the ruling here?

Those who wish to discuss other topics should find a thread on the topic of their choice and post on it in the appropriate forum. As most of you are aware the TC Forum is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102**

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My parish holds hands during the Our Father. I find this a bit awkard, and don’t do so unless offered a hand by someone where refusing might be considered rude. What’s the official ruling here?

We were away in New Hampshire a few weeks ago, and at Sunday Mass the Church had no kneelers. People stood for the Consecration and Communion. This was completely foreign to me. What’s the ruling here?

MAKirwan.

We hold hands at our parish too, and I have no problem with it.

As far as not having kneelers, was this at a monastery church by chance?

Monasteries are allowed to follow norms that are sometimes different than what parish churches do.

BTW, where in NH? I live in MA.

Jim

 

[pennymarie]

That is called a red herring arguement. Holding hands is a sign of unity. A cartwheel is not a sign of unity and so is irrelevant to the discussion. Some people feel that it is inappropriate; many fell that it is appropriate. Niether side should ciriticize the other…

Not a red herring argument, nor intended as a criticism or slight or insult to anyone. It is a statement of fact, however.

Another statement of fact - The true sign of unity in the Mass of the Catholic Church is the reception of the Eucharist. Prior to that, there is the Sign of Peace, which occurs after the Our Father. And some question that as well if it turns into a three-ring circus which it can in some settings.

Another statement of fact - the practice of holding hands was introduced by individuals in what some would state is a misguided attempt to show unity which is already shown elsewhere in the Mass.

Finally, individuals do not have authority over the liturgy. The Holy See does. To date, the Holy See has not specifically approved the practice of holding hands during the Our Father. The fact that they haven’t made a strong statement against it does not matter. Athough it has been discouraged. I too have heard that it is acceptable for close family members to hold hands but not for the entire congregation to do so. I just can’t put my finger on it. As was said on the AAA forum, it is up to the people claiming it is acceptable to hold hands to provide the supporting documents for it, not the other way around. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22396&highlight=holding+hands

Church documents tell us what practices we ARE to follow. We are not free to change them at will because it seems like a nice thing to do, because we want to be more like the other groups, or because it will liven things up or make it “more meaningful” to us.

That said, hand holding may technically be illicit however as liturgical abuses go, it is minor compared to other abuses and not worth ruining your own spiritual peace over. If you prefer not to hold hands, simply clasp your own hands in prayer (and close your eyes if necessary) when it’s time for the Our Father. Most people will understand.

Which is perfectly acceptible and should not be criticized by anyone.

Goes without saying but it wouldn’t matter to me if there was criticism since it is not the official practice of the liturgy. Peer pressure didn’t bother me when I was 14 and it doesn’t bother me now. However, many who prefer not to hold hands feel at best uncomfortable (as if they’re insulting the others by not wanting to hold their hand) and at worst bullied into the practice by the questioning looks and grasping hands by those engaging in the practice and THAT is a shame.

 

[ncjohn]

Finally, individuals do not have authority over the liturgy. The Holy See does. To date, the Holy See has not specifically approved the practice of holding hands during the Our Father.

You are half right here. Nobody is allowed to call for this as a practice, for instance the priest or a liturgical director making a statement “Let’s all join hands to pray as Jesus taught us.” However, when done on personal initiative, it is up to the individual and there is nothing illicit about it. And the Holy See only regulates this indirectly since they have delegated the authority to define these norms, subject to approval, to the conferences of Bishops. The USCCB, when asked about hand postures during the Our Father, answered that there is no prescribed position for the hands during this prayer.

The fact that they haven’t made a strong statement against it does not matter. Athough it has been discouraged.

Please provide any statement at all, strong or weak, that someone in authority has made against it. No one so far has produced any such thing. Nor has any statement “discourging” it been shown, beyond statements from individual bishops. Opinions of apologists or individual bishops carry no weight here since they do not regulate the liturgy, no matter how much they might think something different should be done.

Another statement of fact - the practice of holding hands was introduced by individuals in what some would state is a misguided attempt to show unity which is already shown elsewhere in the Mass.

Unless you can provide some documentation to this, claiming it to be a “statement of fact” is silly. To date, no one has been able to even identify exactly when it started, much less who started it or with what motivation. There are all kinds of opinions about where it came from and why, but none of them are statements of fact.

Church documents tell us what practices we ARE to follow. We are not free to change them at will because it seems like a nice thing to do, because we want to be more like the other groups, or because it will liven things up or make it “more meaningful” to us.

Not so. The rubrics do not tell us how to position our hands. Period. They don’t tell us to hold them; they don’t tell us to fold them; they don’t tell us to put them on the back of the pew or to put them in our pockets. It is not a matter of “changing” anything, as there is no specification of anything to change.

And by the way, holding hands may very likely be considerred a valid “tradition” at this point since under canon law 30 years of unabrogated use entitles something to that claim. That does not create a requirement for it, of course, but it would put it on par with other “traditions” of the Church, length of time notwithstanding.

Peace,

 

[adrift]

Please provide any statement at all, strong or weak, that someone in authority has made against it.

Holding hands at mass
Unless you can provide some documentation to this, claiming it to be a “statement of fact” is silly. To date, no one has been able to even identify exactly when it started, much less who started it or with what motivation. .

And by the way, holding hands may very likely be considerred a valid “tradition” at this point since under canon law 30 years of unabrogated use entitles something to that claim. That does not create a requirement for it, of course, but it would put it on par with other “traditions” of the Church, length of time notwithstanding.
You say no one knows when it began and then say its covered by tradition because it has been used for 30 years? I guess it is almost 30 years that I encountered it but it isn’t quite and I do know that the first time I encountered it, it was directed by the priest. This was not done on the inititive of the people.
Peace,

 

[otjm]

Finally, individuals do not have authority over the liturgy. The Holy See does. To date, the Holy See has not specifically approved the practice of holding hands during the Our Father. The fact that they haven’t made a strong statement against it does not matter.

Yes, it does matter. Let me try to explain why: there is an unspoken assumption among many people, particularly those who seem to object on the basis that holding hands is not in the GIRM, that the Church mandates posture down to the last jot and tittle. It doesn’t. And if you don’t believe that, please go read the GIRM thoroughly. The GIRM does not mandate how people hold their hands throughout the Mass. The custom of holding one’s hands palms together, fingers interlaced, or palms together, fingers pointing out or up, is just that; a custom. It is not in the GIRM. Those who don’t want to hold hands insist that the palms together is the only appropriate posture for hands, but it is not in the GIRM so it is not the Church law of liturgical posture.

As was said on the AAA forum, it is up to the people claiming it is acceptable to hold hands to provide the supporting documents for it, not the other way around. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22396&highlight=holding+hands

That may be said in that forum, but again, they are insinuating that the Church legislates all posture; Cardinal Arinze himself has said that the Church does not regulate posture that rigidly (and the comment was made about whether people had to stand after receiving, until all had received). You are simply mistaken about how the Church makes law, interprets law, and how minutely it regulates such issues.

Please note: I don’t care what posture you take during the Our Father - holding hands or not - but I grow weary of the commentary by those who don’t want to, who also want to object to everyone else who does.

Church documents tell us what practices we ARE to follow.

Again, in some areas (such as the posture of your hands), only to a very limited extent. By your arguement, you are not allowed to hold your hands palms together because the documents don’t say you should. Please read them. They don’t say it.

That said, hand holding may technically be illicit however as liturgical abuses go, it is minor compared to other abuses and not worth ruining your own spiritual peace over.

It cannot be illicit if there is no regulation at all as to the posture of your hands. It would only become illicit if there was a regulation.

 

[adrift]

It cannot be illicit if there is no regulation at all as to the posture of your hands. It would only become illicit if there was a regulation.

I was with you until this. The GIRM is a postive document that means that it says what is allowed not what is not allowed. If the hand holding was limited to a few than you would be right. When it becomes a community action than I believe it is an abuse because nowhere does it say that at this point in the Mass everyone is to hold hands. Unless there is a regulation to do so I believe it enters into the realm of abuse.

 

[cricker]

Where did you get that? St. Peter’s Basilica doesn’t have kneelers. Are saying that St. Peters is violating Church law?

A point of information:

Having just got back from Rome and attending Mass at St. Peter’s, I just had to respond to say that St. Peter’s **DOES INDEED have kneelers **(and, from the way they are constructed - attached to the benches - I assume that they always have.)

(I just wanted to end this myth, as I have seen it in print several times.)

Peace, Cricket

 

[Michael_Welter]

A point of information:

Having just got back from Rome and attending Mass at St. Peter’s, I just had to respond to say that St. Peter’s **DOES INDEED have kneelers **(and, from the way they are constructed - attached to the benches - I assume that they always have.)

(I just wanted to end this myth, as I have seen it in print several times.)

Peace, Cricket

It isn’t a myth. Did you attend Mass in the main cathedral? It normally doesn’t have have any seating, as it is open to tourists all day long. But when the Holy Father says Mass there, they set up chairs with no kneelers. Yes, the side chapels have kneelers, as do the chapels in the catacombs below. But the main cathedral has no kneelers. Kneelers are not needed for kneeling, they are just there for convenience.

I’ve been to St. Peter’s Basilica as well.

 

[cricker]

Yes, the Basillica it is open to tourists all day, BUT, at the High Alter in the Main Cathederal (where the famous window of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove is located), there ARE permanent wooden benches with kneelers. This part is not open to tourists to wander through (though you can walk up to the partition and see it), but is where all daily masses at St. Peters are held (about 6 per day, as I recall). This is where the Pope says the mass … they just fill in the rest of the Basillica with folding chairs, I assume. The permanent seating area probably seats about 200-300 people. I personally attended Mass there just a few weeks ago, so I am certain of my information.

 

[Califman831]

As far as I know there is nothing in the liturgical documents of the Church that tell us not to do it. But then they also don’t tell us to do a cartwheel down the aisle after receiving Holy Communion either. People just know that isn’t appropriate.

That was a great scene from the Blues Brothers. As for the kneeling question, I have no problem kneeling on god’s floor and find it humbling. Did the church even have manufactured kneelers during its early years?

 

[ncjohn]

I was with you until this. The GIRM is a postive document that means that it says what is allowed not what is not allowed. If the hand holding was limited to a few than you would be right. When it becomes a community action than I believe it is an abuse because nowhere does it say that at this point in the Mass everyone is to hold hands. Unless there is a regulation to do so I believe it enters into the realm of abuse.

You are correct here IF some third party is calling for people to do so. If they are doing so of their own volition or just because it happens to be the “norm” of the parish, that is not regulated in any way.

Anybody is free to choose not to do so at any time, and charity would dictate that no one should think or act in any negative way because of that.

Peace,

 

[BigFeet]

It’s all explained quite simply right here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/holding_hands_at_mass.htm

 

[Michael_Welter]

It’s all explained quite simply right here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/holding_hands_at_mass.htm

That article deals with replacing the sign of peace with holding hands hands during the Our Father. That’s not what this OP asked about in this thread. This has nothing to do with the sign of peace. This discussion has to do with holding hands during the Our Father.

 

[BigFeet]

That article deals with replacing the sign of peace with holding hands hands during the Our Father.

I suggest you try to actually read the article before you comment on its content. I’ll cut & paste the part you clearly missed…

**While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.
2. It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

This gesture has come into widespread use, often leaving bishops and pastors at a loss as to how to reverse the situation. For individuals, I would recommend closed eyes and a prayerful posture as sufficient response, rather than belligerence. Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the liturgical significance of interrupting the flow of the Mass in this way. It is not necessary to lose one’s peace over this or be an irritation to others. Some proportion is required. If asked why you don’t participate, simply, plainly and charitably tell the questioner of your discovery. If some chance of changing the practice is possible talk to the pastor or work with other laity through the parish council. You can also write the bishop, as is your right in the case of any liturgical abuse not resolved at the parish level. If your judgment is that no change is possible then I believe you are excused from further fraternal correction.

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL**

 

[adrift]

You are correct here IF some third party is calling for people to do so. If they are doing so of their own volition or just because it happens to be the “norm” of the parish, that is not regulated in any way.

Anybody is free to choose not to do so at any time, and charity would dictate that no one should think or act in any negative way because of that.

Peace,

I actually remember how hand holding started. The priest said to do it. At one point, hands use to be dropped after the end of the Our Father then again the priest instructed people to continue to hold hands through for thine is the kingdom etc. The only thing that I can see actually came from the people is the raising of the hands while saying for thine is the kingdoom.
I am not sure if we are talking past each other.

The argument is made that not everything is mandated in the mass for instance how you hold your hands and by extension your neighbors hand.
It is pointed out that the GIRM doesn’t prohibit this action. This is a misunderstanding of what the GIRM operates.

What I am pointing out is that the GIRM says what you may do not what you may not do.
If the whole community is holding hands, it is no longer individual action but a community one. That is what is covered by the GIRM. The GIRM does not instruct the community to hold hands at this time. You would be correct if some individuals held hands but that is not the case. You will find very few who do not hold hands. How do these individuals see this action? I would bet that they see it as part of the mass just as they would standing or kneeling at other parts of the mass.

 

[ncjohn]

I actually remember how hand holding started. The priest said to do it.

Maybe in your parish, but certainly not THE starting point. This goes back to the late 60’s, though nobody I’ve seen has so far p(name removed by moderator)ointed a place or time.

What I am pointing out is that the GIRM says what you may do not what you may not do.

This is a common misperception that is easily cleared when one reads the GIRM. Except for a couple small points on such things as making the sign of the cross, the GIRM NEVER says what to do with our hands, nor what not to do with them. It does not do so now and did not do so before. There has never been an instruction to fold our hands, and this was strictly a custom, though it was never even close to universally observed as the people did many, many different things with their hands from just holding them in front of them to holding missals or rosaries, to holding children or just having them in their pockets. One also needs to remember that one can’t really go back to “tradition” on this as the practice of the congregation praying the Our Father is new to the Pauline Mass, and the holding hands pretty much parallels that practice.

If the whole community is holding hands, it is no longer individual action but a community one.

No, it becomes a group of people making individual decisions to do so, as long as someone else isn’t directing them to do so, which would be illicit. The fact that a parish may over time develop a “norm” of holding hands does not make it mandatory for anyone.

Can the widespread use make it uncomfortable for some who do not wish to? The possibility exists, which is why it is good that some bishops, notably Archbishop Chaput of Denver, have issued statements reminding people to be charitable in not imposing their preferences on others or making judgments about the piety of others. Asking your priest to remind people of that is also a good option also.

Some people who find this particularly distasteful for whatever reason have been trying for years to “prove” this to be illicit, but the fact is that it just isn’t. The Church may at some point decide to change that, but unless and until they do, we all need to figure out how to act charitably with each other.

Peace,

 

[otjm]

I was with you until this. The GIRM is a postive document that means that it says what is allowed not what is not allowed. If the hand holding was limited to a few than you would be right. When it becomes a community action than I believe it is an abuse because nowhere does it say that at this point in the Mass everyone is to hold hands. Unless there is a regulation to do so I believe it enters into the realm of abuse.

You are certainly free to believe it is an abuse, but a person far greater then either of us has had other to say: Archbishop Chaput of Colorado, someone I hardly consider a liberal, has said that the issue is not regulated; that is, there simply is no regulation as to hand posture; and those who wish to hold hands are free to do so and should not be criticized as doing something illegal or illicit; and those who do not wish to hold hands should not be required to do so, and each side should have charity to the other. No, I don’t have the explicit citation, but it was in a public statement in the Catholic press. And he does know a thing or two about both liturgical regulations and Churhch laws.

In short, whether a family holds hands while no one else in the congregation does, or whether the whole congregation holds hands with the exception of the same family, it is simply not regulated, not illicit, and not an abuse. It is just something some people don’t like and want to stamp out.

If everyone holds hands, that is not an abuse but simply a community holding hands. Would it be better liturgically if they did not? I certainly will not protest to the contrary. Do I dislike it? No. Do I like it? No. I really don’t have a dog in the fight, but I also am tired of the carping about the issue as it is so minor compared to serious problems the Church has, whether they may be in the liturgy, in theological development, or in church governance (i.e. the sex abuse cases).

 

[otjm]

I suggest you try to actually read the article before you comment on its content. I’ll cut & paste the part you clearly missed…

**While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.
2. It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

This gesture has come into widespread use, often leaving bishops and pastors at a loss as to how to reverse the situation. For individuals, I would recommend closed eyes and a prayerful posture as sufficient response, rather than belligerence. Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the liturgical significance of interrupting the flow of the Mass in this way. It is not necessary to lose one’s peace over this or be an irritation to others. Some proportion is required. If asked why you don’t participate, simply, plainly and charitably tell the questioner of your discovery. If some chance of changing the practice is possible talk to the pastor or work with other laity through the parish council. You can also write the bishop, as is your right in the case of any liturgical abuse not resolved at the parish level. If your judgment is that no change is possible then I believe you are excused from further fraternal correction.

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL**

and the essence of Colin’s statement at the end seems to be that the pastor or the bishop should make a rule regarding holding hands; the priest in his parish has no more business telling people how to hod their hands that does a lay person. The rubrics are silent. Whether the bishop could do so - whether it is within his general regulatory powers over the liturgy - is questionable, as most issues of bishops’ regulation of liturgical posture is pointed out in the GIRM - e.g. the issue of standing at Communion time.

Rome certainly has the power to regulate it; it has been around since at least 1966, if not earlier, and the silence fr4om Rome has been deafining.

The short of it is if you don’t want to hold hands, don’t. Whether or not an individual wishes to take on the issue to attempt to forg a change may be related, however, as to how closely they identify with the man of La Mancha.