I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
jp2fan
God bless,
Dave
I met him. He’s great. He has this ability to always make everyone smile.
God bless,
Dave
- Status
S
system
Guest
Veronica Anne:
Eventually I felt like such an outsider over all this “pure caring” that I stopped attending Mass altogether for several years. I’m back now, and I just plain don’t hold hands, no matter what. So far no one has accused anyone of being “neurotic”… except for some of the good folks in the Catholic Answers Forum.
So to those of you that think hand-holding “builds community”, you just might want to think again. It may give you the warm fuzzies, but clearly there is a signifcant number of people that would simply rather not.
The new document “RS” on the liturgy makes a point of saying that if a “notable number” of people bypass the Precious Blood, then the practice should be stopped as it reflects a disunity. Using that same analogy, I think there’s enough dissent and grumbling over hand-holding that it ought to be abolished on those grounds. (Never mind that it is not in the rubrics and therefore shouldn’t be done anyway.)
You are not alone. It’s always made me uncomfortable. I was made to feel “unsociable” for trying not avoid it. I was given countless nasty looks when trying to ask about it after Mass to the people whom I had apparently so “offended”. I was accused of being an “old unsociable grump” when trying to bring up the topic with my Catholic friends. Indeed I never found anyone who shared my basic simple concern that this didn’t seem like a “proper” thing to be doing at Mass.
Eventually I felt like such an outsider over all this “pure caring” that I stopped attending Mass altogether for several years. I’m back now, and I just plain don’t hold hands, no matter what. So far no one has accused anyone of being “neurotic”… except for some of the good folks in the Catholic Answers Forum.
So to those of you that think hand-holding “builds community”, you just might want to think again. It may give you the warm fuzzies, but clearly there is a signifcant number of people that would simply rather not.
The new document “RS” on the liturgy makes a point of saying that if a “notable number” of people bypass the Precious Blood, then the practice should be stopped as it reflects a disunity. Using that same analogy, I think there’s enough dissent and grumbling over hand-holding that it ought to be abolished on those grounds. (Never mind that it is not in the rubrics and therefore shouldn’t be done anyway.)
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Melman,
What of my example of making the Sign of the Cross after receiving the Holy Eucharist? A significant number of people do it, yet many people do not. Does this “reflect disunity?” Should the Bishop abolish such a gesture because not everyone does it?
Applying your logic to that case … since it ain’t in the rubrics, it shouldn’t be done anyway.
I disagree.
God bless,
Dave
I think your analogy is severely flawed.
What of my example of making the Sign of the Cross after receiving the Holy Eucharist? A significant number of people do it, yet many people do not. Does this “reflect disunity?” Should the Bishop abolish such a gesture because not everyone does it?
Applying your logic to that case … since it ain’t in the rubrics, it shouldn’t be done anyway.
I disagree.
God bless,
Dave
S
system
Guest
But that’s a private gesture. No one is compelled to do it, no one is made to feel uncomfortable if they don’t (you neglected that entire section of my previous message), and it doesn’t convey any misinformed message about “community unity”. So no, I don’t think it’s a problem at all. The GIRM and Rome’s instruction clearly say that we are not to overemphasize postures and private gestures to an extreme. But hand-holding is founded on incorrect theology, so it ought to be an easy thing to eliminate, with only a minimum of explanation.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Exactly. Same with holding hands. I’m in no way making a “statement” about anything by holding a person’s hand, except that I love them.
Huh??? I must have missed that in the Syllabus of Errors.
God bless,
Dave
S
system
Guest
Exactly… how? You’re losing me. How does the priest announcing “please join hands”, and the entire congregation forming the ol’ human chain, create a “private gesture” which no one should feel compelled to take part in?
So I guess that means you missed the statements above from the Archbishop of Denver and from EWTN. Come on, this has been presented over and over.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The priest doesn’t. Perhaps he does in your parish, but that would be a liturgical abuse. That’s altogether different in all the parishes I’ve been to. And being in the military, I’ve been to many parishes.
It seems you’re railing against something I’ve never advocated. As I said earlier, but perhaps you missed it, it is neither proscribed nor prohibited by the Church. Nor should it be, without official inclusion or exclusion of it by the rubrics. To proscribe it or to prohibit it is a change to the liturgy, which no priest has authority to do.
I am the one who posted the article by Archbishop Chaput of Denver. I am in agreement with his position. Are you?
Here. I’ll post part of it again so you can show me where my position is in any way contrary to his …
Nowhere is HE advocating that it be either proscribed or prohibited by the Church, is he? Neither do I. But it seems you are advocating that it be prohibited. I don’t think you’ve made a good enough case for it to be prohibited by the rubrics.
God bless,
Dave
O
otm
Guest
itsjustdave: The theory that is is prohibited in the rubrics comes from the philosophical position in law that whatever is not allowed is prohibited; the reverse is that what is not prohibited is allowed. The latter is often taken to task, with great disdain, by those holding the former by proposing some outlandish behavior, as if the lateer philosophy was the equivalent of “anything goes”. It is not. Melman, however, seems to subscribe to the former philosophy.
Following the Church is interesting if one truly pays attention. What many don’t understand is the word “nuance”.
the GIRM specifically did not address holding hands at the Our Father; neither did the subsequent Redemptionis Sacramentum. The failure of either document to address this issue, which has caused such heat and vituperation among our conservative, neo conservative, and Traditionalist brethern would lend itself to the very strong impication that it is fairly well along the spectrum towards the non-issue end of liturgical “abuses”.
Many seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between a liturgical abuse (a direct violation of a specific rubric; e.g. kneeling during the Consecration) and something they don’t like.
Some people seem to be somewhere between upset and extremely upset; it sounds like a personal problem to me. But the vituperation that accompanies their complaints sound strongly in a lack of charity.
The Pharisees aren’t limited to only the Jewish faith or race. They come up whenever the absolute and rigid application of the law takes precedent over the why of the law.
And on this issue, there is no specific law; see Chaput, above.
iguana27, you get it!
Beverly, are you still hanging in there?
Following the Church is interesting if one truly pays attention. What many don’t understand is the word “nuance”.
the GIRM specifically did not address holding hands at the Our Father; neither did the subsequent Redemptionis Sacramentum. The failure of either document to address this issue, which has caused such heat and vituperation among our conservative, neo conservative, and Traditionalist brethern would lend itself to the very strong impication that it is fairly well along the spectrum towards the non-issue end of liturgical “abuses”.
Many seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between a liturgical abuse (a direct violation of a specific rubric; e.g. kneeling during the Consecration) and something they don’t like.
Some people seem to be somewhere between upset and extremely upset; it sounds like a personal problem to me. But the vituperation that accompanies their complaints sound strongly in a lack of charity.
The Pharisees aren’t limited to only the Jewish faith or race. They come up whenever the absolute and rigid application of the law takes precedent over the why of the law.
And on this issue, there is no specific law; see Chaput, above.
iguana27, you get it!
Beverly, are you still hanging in there?
D
dzung
Guest
At my parish, during special occasion, our pastor often asked the people to hold hands. I often just raised my hands in front of me. It worked very well for me because the people to either side of me can see that I prefer to raise my hands rather than hold hands. Now, I have nothing against the people sitting next to me, but it’s just what I am comfortable with and because these are the hands that I will received my Lord in a few minutes.
But then again, when I visited other parishes, I take it that it’s their custom to hold hand, then I would just participate.
Coming from a small Southeast Asia country, we attend mass with the males sitting on one side and the females sit on the other side (except for major event like Christmas or Easter). We often don’t shake hands but bow. At the priest’s saying, it is customary that we first bow to the altar and hence to the priest, then turn and then two sides to each other. Now, again, because of this “customary” way, some people will bow to someone else’s back, after turning back and forth, you can see some people, habitually, bow to … the wall!
But then again, when I visited other parishes, I take it that it’s their custom to hold hand, then I would just participate.
Coming from a small Southeast Asia country, we attend mass with the males sitting on one side and the females sit on the other side (except for major event like Christmas or Easter). We often don’t shake hands but bow. At the priest’s saying, it is customary that we first bow to the altar and hence to the priest, then turn and then two sides to each other. Now, again, because of this “customary” way, some people will bow to someone else’s back, after turning back and forth, you can see some people, habitually, bow to … the wall!
S
system
Guest
otm, addressing your comments only to those that you agree with, while referring to others in the third person and dropping snide comments like “Pharisees” and “heat and vituperation” toward them, hardly seems like a demonstration of “charity” to me. It actually looks like a pretty lame debating technique.
These forums really are a hoot. I’ve been branded a Traditionalist and a raging liberal, all in the same day.
I’m sorry that you disapprove of my “philosophical position”. But you know, I really don’t have a philosophy. I just try to read everything I can and reach an intelligent conclusion.
Holding Hands at the Our Father?
ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? – T.P., Milford, Maine
A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.
The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.
The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.
Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended – so they at least should not hold hands.
One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.
The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.
The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.
For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.
A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.
In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.
Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
These forums really are a hoot. I’ve been branded a Traditionalist and a raging liberal, all in the same day.
I’m sorry that you disapprove of my “philosophical position”. But you know, I really don’t have a philosophy. I just try to read everything I can and reach an intelligent conclusion.
Please read the attached, and let me know whether Professor McNamara should be “taken to task with great disdain”. Because what he says sure makes sense to me.
ZENIT News Agency, The World Seen from RomeHolding Hands at the Our Father?
ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? – T.P., Milford, Maine
A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.
The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.
The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.
Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended – so they at least should not hold hands.
One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.
The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.
The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.
For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.
A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.
In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.
Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
R
rianredd1088
Guest
i was told that the reason we hold hands at church is to symbolize that we are the body of christ, not 100’s of little bodies. I don’t see nothing wrong with this practice. I think everyone would agree that we are the body of christ, right?
E
Emmy
Guest
I agree with you Rianredd, I do not see anything wrong
with holding hands during the prayer. In my old parish
we did it too so now and then and it always felt good,
feeling connected to the other member of my parish.
Nobody was forced though but everybody participated.
Emmy
with holding hands during the prayer. In my old parish
we did it too so now and then and it always felt good,
feeling connected to the other member of my parish.
Nobody was forced though but everybody participated.
Emmy
B
Bonnie
Guest
I had an experience some years back that made me suspect some peoples motives. I’m in SFO & 1 “brother” would always try to greet me with a big hug & a kiss on the lips. Even after I married he’d still try, & I kept ducking & weaving. I didn’t see him for a few years & had gained some weight. I cringed when I saw him, but he greeted me with a handshake! Thin, I was a kissable “sister”, fat, I got only the hand. Was I ever relieved!
Pro-handholders keep saying that no one is forced. Wanna bet? I sometimes have to hang on to the pew in front of me to stay upright, but people will try to pry my hand off it. Others will place their hands on top of mine.
I am a reserved person - not neurotic, I hope - & would prefer that people keep their hands to themselves. If other folks want to smooch, hug, gladhand or whatever - that’s fine. Just leave me out of it. If a nod of the head is good enough for Jesus (as our Bishop says), then it’s good enough for me.
Pro-handholders keep saying that no one is forced. Wanna bet? I sometimes have to hang on to the pew in front of me to stay upright, but people will try to pry my hand off it. Others will place their hands on top of mine.
I am a reserved person - not neurotic, I hope - & would prefer that people keep their hands to themselves. If other folks want to smooch, hug, gladhand or whatever - that’s fine. Just leave me out of it. If a nod of the head is good enough for Jesus (as our Bishop says), then it’s good enough for me.
M
mattyp
Guest
Chalk me up as a non hand-holder.
:tsktsk:
- I don’t like being interupted during the most important part of the mass for some social “love”.
- I appreciate our parish priest because he has us share a sign of peace before the mass starts so as not to interupt the mass at all.
- It seems to be a recent “feel good” phenomena…I don’t give into trends to the detriment of my faith.
:tsktsk:
K
KCT
Guest
I usually fold my hands and bow my head, but if someone takes my hand, I don’t refuse. Once, someone took my hand out of my pocket in order to hold it. I was shocked!! —KCT
M
MiddleBear
Guest
I’ve noticed that this seems to be a habit with Americans, and perhaps picked up from Protestant Evangelicals, to try to make the mass more friendly.
I find this practice to be distracting and usually don’t hold hands. The exception is I do hold hands with my wife at mass during the Our Father.
I find this practice to be distracting and usually don’t hold hands. The exception is I do hold hands with my wife at mass during the Our Father.
J
jp2fan
Guest
But why is it ok to hold hands with your wife and not the lady on the other side of you? When you go to Mass, you are equally in communion with her as you are with your wife, so why should you be so afraid of holding the hand of another sister in Christ?
jp2fan
ps I thought we were finally done with this subject!!!
jp2fan
ps I thought we were finally done with this subject!!!
B
Bonnie
Guest
Would it be ok to kiss a stranger’s spouse if they kiss during the sign of peace? I don’t think so. So why should I have to hold the hand of a strange - or even not so strange - man during the Lord’s Prayer?
Maybe all the people who want to hug & kiss & hold hands could sit on one side of the church, & those of us who prefer to be more dignified & sedate in our behaviour could sit on the other side.
Maybe all the people who want to hug & kiss & hold hands could sit on one side of the church, & those of us who prefer to be more dignified & sedate in our behaviour could sit on the other side.
D
deogratias
Guest
“was told that the reason we hold hands at church is to symbolize that we are the body of christ”
Piffle - that is what the Eucharist does - it is just a “feel good” innovation that someone came up with.
You know they do that at AA and Alanon meetings. They get in a circle and say the Our Father at the end of a meeting and then they shout “keep coming back” - I always had the urge to say that when they do it at the Mass too. It is a silly nonliturgical custom for the most part but some think it could even have more dark meaning than mere hand holding -
The sign of peace is valid but optional (i.e. it is not a requirement that it be done at Mass) - but this too gets out of hand at times. If I had my preference or could correct the liturgy, I’d just put it somewhere else so as not to interrupt the liturgy of the Eucharist.
Piffle - that is what the Eucharist does - it is just a “feel good” innovation that someone came up with.
You know they do that at AA and Alanon meetings. They get in a circle and say the Our Father at the end of a meeting and then they shout “keep coming back” - I always had the urge to say that when they do it at the Mass too. It is a silly nonliturgical custom for the most part but some think it could even have more dark meaning than mere hand holding -
The sign of peace is valid but optional (i.e. it is not a requirement that it be done at Mass) - but this too gets out of hand at times. If I had my preference or could correct the liturgy, I’d just put it somewhere else so as not to interrupt the liturgy of the Eucharist.
M
Micki
Guest
I no longer hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I also no longer sing Kumbaya either!!
- Status