Holding hands at the Our Father

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Before my days as a religious I would do as some suggest here. I would close my eyes, slightly bow my head, and hold my hands in front of me. One time, as I stated I was poked so hard in the side ribs that I bruised. I looked at the man and he gave me a dirty look, he also ignored me during the sign of peace.

I also had people grab and pull at my hands. (as stated else where on this thread) Unless you wish to cause a scene you are forced to hold hands.

Now with my habit it is much harder as I hold my hands underneath my scapular so people can not see them.

Again, I understand that people get a “sense of community” from doing this but that is not what the Our Father is about at the Mass. The moment of community is the Eucharist. Also, if you can not get a “sense of community” out of praying the same prayer, I do not see how hand holding can assist in that. Anyways, it is a feeling and the Mass is not about feelings. It is a false focus.

 

[stephraim]

Again, I understand that people get a “sense of community” from doing this but that is not what the Our Father is about at the Mass. The moment of community is the Eucharist. Also, if you can not get a “sense of community” out of praying the same prayer, I do not see how hand holding can assist in that.

I agree completely. Plus, the CDWDS said it “should be repudiated.”

 

[malphono]

ByzCath;7392363:

Again, I understand that people get a “sense of community” from doing this but that is not what the Our Father is about at the Mass. The moment of community is the Eucharist. Also, if you can not get a “sense of community” out of praying the same prayer, I do not see how hand holding can assist in that. Anyways, it is a feeling and the Mass is not about feelings. It is a false focus.

I agree completely. Plus, the CDWDS said it “should be repudiated.”

Yes indeed. Add me to that list, too.

 

[braumeister]

This says it all. This is why abuses occur at the Mass.

I do not expect to see you complain about any abuses of the Mass in the future as it is “silly” to expect anyone to follow the rubrics faithfully.

I refer you to my comment regarding the rubrics of the congregation. Strictly speaking the congregation do not have rubrics they must follow as the priest and servers do.

 

[Jacob21]

I voted no. I am of the opinion that it reduces the sacrality of the Mass.

 

[Remington]

So, the rubrics are silly? The rubrics are there to tell us what can / should / must be done.

Apparently you hold hands, since you cannot think that someone can be forced to hold hands. It is not at all ludicrous - I have experienced another person first reaching their hand out to me, then, when I simply kept my hands clasped before me with my eyes on the altar, I was tapped on the arm to get my attention, and immediately after, the person grabbed my hand and pulled. Isn’t that being forced? We are at Mass. What would you suggest I do - start a wrestling match, pulling my hand back? Shout at the person? Hit them with the other hand?

Yes, I am exaggerating here, but, unless you are prepared to make a scene at Mass, you can, indeed, be forced to hold hands. It might be infrequently, but it happens.

Further, when you don’t hold hands with someone (I may smile at the person, shake my head, and murmur “I don’t hold hands”), then they may spurn you at the sign of peace. This has happened to me a number of times.

I think peoples’ obsession with other people holding hands is silly. Even sillier are the stories of how people were “forced” to hold hands.

Just keep your hands to yourself if you have a problem with the practice.

 

[Remington]

This says it all. This is why abuses occur at the Mass.

I do not expect to see you complain about any abuses of the Mass in the future as it is “silly” to expect anyone to follow the rubrics faithfully.

It’s not an "abuse."

This is on YOU. You don’t want to hold hands then don’t hold hands. But these stories of forced hand-holding and “abuses” are just silly.

To suggest people do not follow the rubrics of the Mass faithfully because they choose to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer is absurd. It’s actually obsessive.

Posting #7 said in part: “It personally drives me nuts when people hold hands during the our father” as if there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. There is and that person should seek some assistance to understand why (s)he feels so strongly about this matter.

 

[Pug]

Also, if you can not get a “sense of community” out of praying the same prayer, I do not see how hand holding can assist in that. Anyways, it is a feeling and the Mass is not about feelings. It is a false focus.

I think some people, being body and soul, are strongly affected by the body part, especially during the liturgy, where they are accustomed to formal posture expressions. I can see how the hand holding might be a sign for them of the “Our” Father.

It isn’t for me, though, and touching another person often brings awareness of *myself *to the fore, since it engages my worries and concerns about how to touch them gently enough, social protocol, is my palm sweaty, etc.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I refer you to my comment regarding the rubrics of the congregation. Strictly speaking the congregation do not have rubrics they must follow as the priest and servers do.

Actually there are many rubrics there for the people. All the responses by the people, when to kneel, the cross on the forehead, lips, and heart before the Gospel.

 

[marciegoforth]

What are your feelings on this?

I have always felt that this is a special prayer just from you to God…this is how Jesus taught us to pray and I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible that says “everyone hold hands now” and pray…
I think it gives the whole Christian Church family a sense of “unity”…and that’s o.k. but there are other ways of coming together to experience Church family unity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s not an "abuse."

This is on YOU. You don’t want to hold hands then don’t hold hands. But these stories of forced hand-holding and “abuses” are just silly.

So you deny that some of us have felt forced to hold hands?

Now that is just silly.

As for this being on ME, I do not know how to respond to that as I do not know what it means.

 

[Remington]

So you deny that some of us have felt forced to hold hands?

Now that is just silly.

As for this being on ME, I do not know how to respond to that as I do not know what it means.

It’s not an abuse.

It’s ABSURD to suggest that anyone was FORCED to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, save perhaps for some kids by their parents/grandparents.

I think story of forced hand-holding was invented only so the obsessives could continue to rail away against the “abuse.”

 

[catholictiger]

i only do it with my mom, for a multitude of reasons I don’t want to get in on this board but I think that motion with our hands is only meant for the priest to do, but if someone does it I’m not going to complain.

 

[tobbias88]

You’ll be surprised how quickly Swine Flu kills it!

 

[MarkThompson]

I agree completely. Plus, the CDWDS said it “should be repudiated.”

Actually, no. This is a common misconception, as a more careful reading of the instruction will show. The CDWDS was answering the question:
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?
And they replied:
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.
The Congregation was not at all saying that holding hands at the Our Father is to be repudiated (that wasn’t even the question presented), but that adding such a gesture to one part of the Mass cannot be used to replace the real Sign of Peace in its own proper location. A priest cannot omit the Sign of Peace just because he thinks peace is adequately conveyed by having people hold hands at an earlier time.

 

[Pug]

It’s ABSURD to suggest that anyone was FORCED to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, save perhaps for some kids by their parents/grandparents.

I think story of forced hand-holding was invented only so the obsessives could continue to rail away against the “abuse.”

I’m not sure what you are denying, that people take our hands from our sides when we have not offered them on rare occassion or that we are bothered by it. You are correct, unless we are disabled or a child, we cannot be forced to continue holding their hand. We can always pull away and move down the pew.

 

[malphono]

Actually, no. This is a common misconception, as a more careful reading of the instruction will show. The CDWDS was answering the question:
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?
And they replied:
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.
The Congregation was not at all saying that holding hands at the Our Father is to be repudiated (that wasn’t even the question presented), but that adding such a gesture to one part of the Mass cannot be used to replace the real Sign of Peace in its own proper location. A priest cannot omit the Sign of Peace just because he thinks peace is adequately conveyed by having people hold hands at an earlier time.

What happened to the commentary from EWTN that followed the CDWDS quote? It reads, in part (emphasis added):

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.

Reading that, it would seem that not everyone agrees that the CDWDS response is not germane to question in this thread.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s not an abuse.

It’s ABSURD to suggest that anyone was FORCED to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, save perhaps for some kids by their parents/grandparents.

I think story of forced hand-holding was invented only so the obsessives could continue to rail away against the “abuse.”

So you call me a liar when I say that people have taken my hand without my consent during the Our Father at Mass? and held it so that for me to pull it back would be to create a scene that I do not wish to do at Mass?

I am just wondering how you know this.

Also, I am trying to hold a polite conversation so please stop YELLING or you will force me to add you to my ignore list.

 

[MarkThompson]

What happened to the commentary from EWTN that followed the CDWDS quote? It reads, in part (emphasis added):

Reading that, it would seem that not everyone agrees that the CDWDS response is not germane to question in this thread.

Maybe so, it’s a matter of interpretation and argument. There’s a world of difference, though, between “The CDWDS stated that hand-holding during the Our Father is repudiated” and “Well, you see, the principles reflected in the CDWDS’s remarks might be applied in a more extended fashion to argue that hand-holding during the Our Father isn’t exactly consistent with the nature of the liturgical action . . . .”

Clearly, the notion that, flat out, the CDWDS somehow “ruled against hand-holding at the Our Father,” is simply incorrect. Subsequent discussion ought to proceed with that in mind.

 

[malphono]

Maybe so, it’s a matter of interpretation and argument.

OK, yes, I know it’s a matter of interpretation. That was my point. (In this case, I happen to agree with the EWTN interpretation, but never mind that. )

Clearly, the notion that, flat out, the CDWDS somehow “ruled against hand-holding at the Our Father,” is simply incorrect. Subsequent discussion ought to proceed with that in mind.

At the same time, though, (and AFIK), the CDWDS has not spoken in favor of the practice either. The practice of “hand-holding” at the Pater is neither in the rubrics nor in the IGMR, so at best it’s an “innovation” that no one is required to do. At the same time, it could also be considered an abuse, particularly when people are forced (or pressured, or embarrassed, or whatever) into to doing it.