Holding Hands at the Lord's Prayer

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToledoLegate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ToledoLegate:
We’re still out of perspective here… Again, to say that the Lord’s Prayer and the “Fooling with hands” are symbols of unity is simply PURE HERESY! The liturgical terrorists just can’t seem to get that though their heads.

It is the EUCHARIST…our receiving the Body and Blood, Sould and Divinity of Jesus Christ that is the sign of our communion and unity within the Church. It’s simple. Innovations have no place in the Sacrifice of Holy Mass- PERIOD!

As the adage goes, "Rome has spoken, Case Closed!
Click to expand...
So many people use heresy as a word to say things. That’s a pretty strong statement! Heresy is not what these people are guilty of. People who hold hands during the Lords Prayer have likely not been informed of their error by authority, and hence have not had an opportunity to reform. A heretic is someone who is instructed by the authority of the church and refuses to be corrected. Regardless of what theologians think, people really aren’t putting this much of theological thinking into holding hands during mass. If Rome deemed it that much of a problem, then holy mother church would give an instruction, which would in turn be distributed to the bishops, and to the priests respectively. However, as it stands, Rome HAS NOT spoken. What reason do people have to change their actions if no authority of the church has publicly forbade the holding of hands during the Lords Prayer?

Justin
 
Rome HAS SPOKEN indeed! 1975

Concerning holding hands in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome responded as follows:
QUERY: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon’s invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer. Is this acceptable? REPLY: 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 the 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: Notitiae 11 **(1975) **226. Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]
Code: 
    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.
 
I would stand corrected with the quote provided by Buffalo except that it does not deal with what we are talking about. The whole paragraph is dealing with the replacement of the sign of peace with the holding of hands. If Rome didn’t want people holding hands during the Our Father, we would definitely know about it. That afformentioned statement does not discourage the holding of hands, it simply states that the sign of peace may not be replaced. While the query may elude to the holding of hands as a gesture of unity, it does not discourage it.
Personally, I’m with the people who are against holding hands. I wish Rome would come out and make a statement saying that it is an inappropriate gesture to use in mass. As it is, they really haven’t. So I guess everyone will continue, and if something is said, we will change our ways.
In Christ,

Justin
 
40.png
buffalo:
Rome HAS SPOKEN indeed! 1975
Click to expand...
The material you reposted came from Colin Donovan at EWTN’s web site. Posting his information without proper credit is a big no-no.
 
Hmm…it started with holding hands with your spouse & children if you have them, then reaching out to those next to you, then the pews in front or behind you, then across the aisles until it looks like we’re all playing one big game of “crack the whip!” When did we leave Mass and go to the playground?

Sure, this is a “minor” liturgical abuse in light of worse things that are going on. However, I see it as the proverbial “slippery slope;” today we hold hands during the Our Father; tomorrow are we dancing in the aisles on the way to Holy Communion?

And I DO see this as an improper sign of unity, since it comes before the Sign of Peace. If you need to make peace with someone, it’s doubtful that you would be holding hands with them just minutes before in brotherly unity. (Not to imply that we are NOT at peace with our neighbor in the pew, just looking at the symbolism of the gesture.) The holding of hands seems, in essence, to negate the meaning of the Sign of Peace, which, by the way, comes straight out of Scripture. The Our Father does too, but nowhere does Jesus mandate that we hold hands while saying it. :twocents:
 
Now here’s some food for thought: Should we not be dancing with joy when approaching the Lord in Holy Communion? After all, it is the most joyful experience we will have on this Earth!

Justin
 
Justin, yes it is joyful, but it is also an unbloody sacrafice, and dignity is to be maintained at all times. In these forums, I am somwhat disturbed on how out there some peoples views on liturgy is. This is not a Protestant “Happy Clappy” service folks, it is the holy sacrafice of the mass.
 
It is a scared, most holy mass. My heart overflows with joy and bewilderment everytime. Our Lord loves us so much. The Sprit moves me to reach out and share that joy and bewildment with my family, my bothers and sisters in Christ. I may not know there names or their faces none the less they are my brothers and sisters.
 
I checked on an online Catholic encyclopedia for the definition of heresy because I, too, think ToledoLegate has gone overboard here and it says, "St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. and "…a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.

I don’t think this particular issue ranks right up there as a dogma. I personally thinking accusing someone of heresy is a pretty serious thing and not something to be taken lightly. I think it is a sin to let the fact that someone has a different opinion (yes, that is what yours is too - OPINION) make you act in such an angry and belligerent manner. Again, I say, pray for those who are doing it “wrong” in your opinion and leave it to your priests and bishops to handle. If they do not, pray for them too. Then just trust God to handle it. Remember - Jesus promised that the “gates of Hell would not prevail” against the Church. If the church has survived corrupt popes, it can survive friends holding hands at mass. I personally just trust that Jesus promised so *it will be. *
 
Hand holding during the lords prayer may externally change the nature of this prayer, it is tacky, it is invasive, but it is not a heresy.
 
White Dove, posting pictures does little to sway the debate, and as another poster has said, these debates do not sway anyone because the feelings are so strong.

I will say this, I will take the Tradition of the church, and the way mass is celebrated in most of the world, where hands are not held during the lords prayer trumping a practice int he US that as many have said, is not part of the rubrics of the mass, and as I say, de sacramentalises the mass externally. Again, we are Catholics, not Evangelicals or Pentacostals, sadly at times the liturgy doesnt reflect that.
 
and it really upsets me to see the Priest holding hands with the male or female altar servers too - the priest is supposed to be holding his hands in the oran position during the Pater Noster.
 
40.png
ToledoLegate:
holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer thinking that this is a sign of communion and unity. It’s HERESY! It is not the Lord’s Prayer that is a sign and source of communion but that of receiving our Lord-
Click to expand...
  1. Huh. Interesting. However, here’s what the Catechism says on the Lord’s Prayer: 2768 (as taken from St John Chrysostom): According to the apostolic tradition, the Lord’s prayer is essentially rooted in liturgical prayer: “The Lord teaches us to make prayer in common for all our brethren. For he did not say ‘my Father’ who art in heaven, but ‘our’ Father, offering petitions for the common Body.’”
2770: In the Eucharistic liturgy the Lord’s Prayer appears as the prayer of the whole Church and there reveals its full meaning and efficacy…

2791: … in spite of the divisions among Christians, this prayer to “our” Father remains our common patrimony and an urgent summons for all the baptized. In communion by faith in Christ and by Baptism, they ought to join in Jesus’ prayer for the unity of his disciples.
(Seems to me that this prayer does afford a sense of communion)

2792: Finally,** if we pray the Our Father sincerely, we leave individualism behind, because the love that we receive frees us from it.** The “our” at the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer, like the "us of the last four petitions, excludes no one. If we are to say it truthfully, our divisions and oppositions have to be overcome.

2793: The baptized cannot pray to “our” Father without bringing before him al those to whom he gave his beloved Son. God’s love has no bounds, neither should our prayer. Praying “our” Father opens to us the dimensions of his love revealed in Christ: praying with and for all who do not yet know him, so that Christ may “gather into one the children of God.” God’s care for all men and for the whole of creation has inspired all the great practitioners of prayer; it should extend our prayer to the full breadth of love whenever we dare to say “our” Father.
  1. Man, there are some serious PROTESTANT-HATERS on this forum. They are our saparated brethren, not people for us to feel superior to and mock. The love of Jesus that a lot of them have is FAR more evident than that present in some of the members of this board. I’m tired of Protestant-bashing. It does nothing but inflate pride, and is in fact quite the opposite of love.
  2. It seems to me that this issue is not really worth debating anymore. I think we can all see that the only real pronouncements on the issue leave it as a personal choice. We also agree that if the Church asks us to stop, or to do it, we will all follow. So why are we sitting around arguing about it? Do it if you want to, don’t do it if you don’t. If the Church asks us to do one or the other, we will do it. But I really think this is going nowhere.
j2fan
 
40.png
jp2fan:
Do it if you want to, don’t do it if you don’t. If the Church asks us to do one or the other, we will do it. But I really think this is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
Do any of the arguments here ever go “anywhere”? Hmmm?

I suppose I could live with “do it if you want to, don’t if you don’t” IF that announcement came from the pulpit. But it doesn’t. So in most parishes in this area, everyone is more or less forced to do the “human chain”. If you insist on folding your hands and keeping to yourself, you get nasty looks and/or people grabbing your elbows. Both have happened to me. And as I posted in the other thread on this topic, discomfort over this nonsense drove me away from regular Mass attendance for several years. No, it shouldn’t have - but it did.
 
Melman:
If you insist on folding your hands and keeping to yourself, you get nasty looks and/or people grabbing your elbows.
Click to expand...
I have never held hands during the Lord’s Prayer. BTW, when I converted to Catholicism 5 yrs ago, I didn’t know this was a liturgical abuse. I just don’t like it. Where I come from holding hands is a sign of intimacy & I don’t do it w/people I don’t know. Matter of fact, I don’t really do it w/people I do know.

That said, I have never ever had someone force me to hold hands. I look straight ahead with my hands in front of me or at my side. I don’t pretend I am sick or anything else. I am brutally honest (read: Tactless & Loud) in all areas of my life, I guess.
 
I am absolutely amazed at the lack of Christian charity in this thread! What would Christ do if he were there? Ignore the person next to him so that he could be liturgically correct?

Don’t you think there are other things to get upset about? I can think of a few…

Abortion
Pregnant women with no support
Abused women
Lonely Seniors
Abused Children

Why don’t we spend a little less time looking for abuses during the mass, and a little more time praying for those who are actually abused, not just annoyed by differences in the way others worship God.

And I think it would be great to see a little more joy, love, peace and charity.🙂
 
Melman:
The material you reposted came from Colin Donovan at EWTN’s web site. Posting his information without proper credit is a big no-no.
Click to expand...
I thought I grabbed this - sorry - Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
 
40.png
iguana27:
I am absolutely amazed at the lack of Christian charity in this thread! What would Christ do if he were there? Ignore the person next to him so that he could be liturgically correct?

Don’t you think there are other things to get upset about? I can think of a few…

Abortion
Pregnant women with no support
Abused women
Lonely Seniors
Abused Children

Why don’t we spend a little less time looking for abuses during the mass, and a little more time praying for those who are actually abused, not just annoyed by differences in the way others worship God.

And I think it would be great to see a little more joy, love, peace and charity.🙂
Click to expand...
To many, “Charity” does not include tolerating abuses in the mass and the Eucharist, which is after all “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). The Church lays out clear standards and rituals, and we are expected to obey them in a spirit of obedience. Disobedience must not be explained away as “differences in the way others worship”.

As to the other things you mentioned, yes surely they are important but like the poor, these are things that will always be with us and must not detract from the need to obey the Church’s directions in how to worship God properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top