Holding hands at the Our Father

[Newbie2]

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.”

I think the key here is that some people feel that they are forced to hold hands, not that they are physically made to do so. Certainly others can be “pesky” in trying to hold hands with others, so maybe we can say that it can be a real problem for those who feel, for whatever reason, obligated to hold hands when they really don’t want to.

Personally, if poked in the ribs or if someone grabbed my hand against my will, I’d have no problem dealing with it, but we need to realize some people are more affected than others by the feeling of being “forced”.

 

[stephraim]

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.

Yes, my mistake. That is a good point.

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. )

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.

Agreed.

 

[adrift]

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 do you mean by the sign of peace? If you are referring to the action of shaking hands, than you are incorrect. That is an option and is not mandatory.

The parish I now attend has substituted the Oran’s position. What I especially dislike is when the priest hold hands with the altar servers.

 

[Daegus]

A few weeks ago when I was at mass and they said the Our Father my mother just yanked my hand without saying anything and held it up. That was annoying.

The Our Father isn’t a camp-fire song that we sing along to while holding hands, stirring up sentiments and making everyone feel good. It’s about Our Father who art in heaven. No matter what anyone says, it’s not called for and is just another form of liturgical abuse. However, if you REALLY want to do that then go ahead, but I would very well appreciate it if you left me out of it. (Not that anyone is including me in it, I just don’t like it when my mom yanks my hand when I least expect it. I almost thought she was trying to rip my arm off. )

 

[acadian]

It doesn’t really matter one way or the other to me. Really.

If I’m by myself or with the daily Mass people, we usually don’t hold hands. Although at one church I go to for daily Mass, e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y holds hands, and I go with the flow. I am of a different race than nearly everyone else there, and to exclude myself from the hand holding would probably be taken wrong. I hold hands with family. Other people, I take my cues from the people sitting around me. I don’t grab their hands, but neither do I look at them like they are from another planet, if they extend their hand to me.

There are bigger fish to fry in the whole scheme of things. What is in my heart is probably more important than who’s hand I’m holding.

 

[MarkThompson]

What do you mean by the sign of peace? If you are referring to the action of shaking hands, than you are incorrect. That is an option and is not mandatory.

That’s a modern view, essentially a myth propagated by people who don’t like it (Father Z in particular), with no genuine basis in anything the Holy See has ever communicated. The GIRM says, “Postea, pro opportunitate, sacerdos subiungit: Offérte vobis pacem.” Now, “pro opportunitate” can be translated as “when appropriate” or something alike – opportunitas means “fitness, convenience, suitableness.” What it does not really mean is “totally optional, at individual whim or discretion.” Obviously, too, there can be no countenancing the view “It is never suitable, because I don’t like it” or “It is never fit, because it is stupid and should never have been added to the Mass.”

So you’re right that it is not strictly mandatory, but you’re wrong that it is “an option” in the broad sense. It is to be used when appropriate (and not in the sense of “so that means never, because it is never appropriate ” which I’m sure you’re thinking).

And this interpretation is, of course, reinforced by the dubium at issue. The CDWDS clearly did not view the sign of peace as a mere “option”; that’s why they stated that “the sign of peace . . . should [not] 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.” If they viewed the sign of peace as totally optional, then their answer to the question presented in the dubium would have had to be “That’s fine, because the sign of peace can always be omitted for any reason.” This gives us another example of a way in which the sign of peace is not completely optional: it is illicit for a priest to choose to omit it because something else is substituted.

 

[Sharen]

Personally, I don’t care for it. It reminds me of the evengelical “Church Camp” I went to as a kid. People raising their hands in the air, waving them, babbling, shouting Amen at random times, etc. It all felt so incredibly phony. One of the things that really drew me to the Catholic Church in the first place is the tradition, beauty and ritiual of the Mass. It doesn’t need any embellishments. But I guess if some people really enjoy the hand holding with family, that’s their concern.
If they bring in a movie screen, add a rock band and start speaking in “tongues”, I’m outta there!

 

[Remington]

I’m not sure what you are denying, that people take our hands from our sides when we have not offered them on rare occassions 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.

I have had my hands by my sides and the most I ever received was a soft tap on the back of my hand or a very soft attempt to hold my hand. I either bring my hands up to chest level on a 5-on-5 or I decided to hold hands. No problem either way. When I have made it a point of anticipating this by going to the 5-on-5, 5-10 seconds earlier, no one has never tried to hold my hands.

These stories of forced hand holding are preposterous.

 

[Remington]

It doesn’t really matter one way or the other to me. Really.

If I’m by myself or with the daily Mass people, we usually don’t hold hands. Although at one church I go to for daily Mass, e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y holds hands, and I go with the flow. I am of a different race than nearly everyone else there, and to exclude myself from the hand holding would probably be taken wrong. I hold hands with family. Other people, I take my cues from the people sitting around me. I don’t grab their hands, but neither do I look at them like they are from another planet, if they extend their hand to me.

There are bigger fish to fry in the whole scheme of things. What is in my heart is probably more important than who’s hand I’m holding.

Beautiful…

 

[melchesidechpio]

What are your feelings on this?

Sounds to Protestant and not Catholic like We need to conduct ourselves in a worthy manner at all time in His priesence

 

[Remington]

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.

1.) Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is not an “abuse.”

2.) The notion of people being “forced” is hold hands simply does not ring true. It’s used to create the illusion there is a problem because otherwise of course, people can/should simply ignore the hand holding if they do not wish to participate.

3.) Ignore me. I couldn’t care less.

 

[melchesidechpio]

1.) Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is not an “abuse.”

True, but it isn’t stated to do so in the GIRM

2.) The notion of people being “forced” is hold hands simply does not ring true. It’s used to create the illusion there is a problem because otherwise of course, people can/should simply ignore the hand holding if they do not wish to participate.

agreed

3.) Ignore me. I couldn’t care less.

That is just a bad attitude.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1.) Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is not an “abuse.”

2.) The notion of people being “forced” is hold hands simply does not ring true. It’s used to create the illusion there is a problem because otherwise of course, people can/should simply ignore the hand holding if they do not wish to participate.

3.) Ignore me. I couldn’t care less.

Nice, we disagree with you so rather than leaving it at that you call those of us who have felt forced liars. You totally ignore what we have said because it does not fit your opinion.

Oh well, I did try.

 

[adrift]

That’s a modern view, essentially a myth propagated by people who don’t like it (Father Z in particular), with no genuine basis in anything the Holy See has ever communicated. The GIRM says, “Postea, pro opportunitate, sacerdos subiungit: Offérte vobis pacem.” Now, “pro opportunitate” can be translated as “when appropriate” or something alike – opportunitas means “fitness, convenience, suitableness.” What it does not really mean is “totally optional, at individual whim or discretion.” Obviously, too, there can be no countenancing the view “It is never suitable, because I don’t like it” or “It is never fit, because it is stupid and should never have been added to the Mass.”

So you’re right that it is not strictly mandatory, but you’re wrong that it is “an option” in the broad sense. It is to be used when appropriate (and not in the sense of “so that means never, because it is never appropriate ” which I’m sure you’re thinking).

And this interpretation is, of course, reinforced by the dubium at issue. The CDWDS clearly did not view the sign of peace as a mere “option”; that’s why they stated that “the sign of peace . . . should [not] 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.” If they viewed the sign of peace as totally optional, then their answer to the question presented in the dubium would have had to be “That’s fine, because the sign of peace can always be omitted for any reason.” This gives us another example of a way in which the sign of peace is not completely optional: it is illicit for a priest to choose to omit it because something else is substituted.

You have no idea what I am thinking I like the sign of peace. We had one priest,God rest his soul who would not have the sign of peace. According to our pastor, that was his right. But you would never know that from the congregation they shook hands anyway. I trust my pastor to know. I am not sure you do.

 

[Pug]

I have had my hands by my sides and the most I ever received was a soft tap on the back of my hand or a very soft attempt to hold my hand. I either bring my hands up to chest level on a 5-on-5 or I decided to hold hands. No problem either way. When I have made it a point of anticipating this by going to the 5-on-5, 5-10 seconds earlier, no one has never tried to hold my hands.

These stories of forced hand holding are preposterous.

I’ve never heard of a 5 on 5 hand position. Is that like holding your hands in prayer, with all five fingers touching? I get what you mean, though. If I were to stand with my arms crossed, my hands would be high up, and in fact inaccessibly tucked near my armpits.

I don’t agree with your assessment, though, concerning what is preposterous. Social cues (situations, or some word, not sure what one I want) can be subtle, and people respond to them in various ways.

 

[adrift]

1.) Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is not an “abuse.”

2.) The notion of people being “forced” is hold hands simply does not ring true. It’s used to create the illusion there is a problem because otherwise of course, people can/should simply ignore the hand holding if they do not wish to participate.

3.) Ignore me. I couldn’t care less.

I am not sure that it isn’t an abuse accept for your declaration that it isn’t. Perhaps you have documentation that shows that it can be added?

 

[Remington]

I am not sure that it isn’t an abuse accept for your declaration that it isn’t. Perhaps you have documentation that shows that it can be added?

First I suggest you find an accurate definition of what a liturgical “abuse” is. Then you need provide back-up supporting your claim. It’s not that difficult with an actual liturgical abuse.

 

[Remington]

I’ve never heard of a 5 on 5 hand position. Is that like holding your hands in prayer, with all five fingers touching? I get what you mean, though. If I were to stand with my arms crossed, my hands would be high up, and in fact inaccessibly tucked near my armpits.

I don’t agree with your assessment, though, concerning what is preposterous. Social cues (situations, or some word, not sure what one I want) can be subtle, and people respond to them in various ways.

Very true. But I question the veracity of the claims where people are physically forced to hold someone’s hand in an attempt to give legitimacy the notion that hand holding is somehow wrong and therefore should be banned.

If you don’t want to hold hands, don’t. Just try to be gracious about it.

 

[Joan_M]

Try folding your hands in front of your belly, keep your head down and eyes closed while praying the Our Father. People get the message.

For me, I find a sense of community in hand holding, but don’t particularly have a preference either way.

If you had really read my post you would see that I had done what you prescribe. It doesn’t always work.

Further more, we do not do things at Mass because we like them. We do them because the Church in her wisdom require them. The Church has NEVER given permission for holding hands at Mass, much less requiring that we do it. We should not be doing it. It is an abuse, although not a grave one.

 

[Joan_M]

I have had my hands by my sides and the most I ever received was a soft tap on the back of my hand or a very soft attempt to hold my hand. I either bring my hands up to chest level on a 5-on-5 or I decided to hold hands. No problem either way. When I have made it a point of anticipating this by going to the 5-on-5, 5-10 seconds earlier, no one has never tried to hold my hands.

These stories of forced hand holding are preposterous.

Just because you have never had it happen to you does not make it preposterous. I take serious offense at these repeated statements by you, because it clearly indicates that you accuse me (and ByzCath) of lying. I know that I am not lying and I believe ByzCath is not lying. Your lack of experience in this matter does not mean that no one has experienced it. You need to apologize.

I seriously think that the moderators need to lock this thread and, once again, put it on moratorium