Holding hands, but with a new twist

[Gordon_N]

I know that this question has been posed in it’s various forms all over. My family and I believe that the correct posture for the laity is to fold their hands in prayer. I have read many of the points in the debate with the hand holding during the Our Father. When we moved to NC, I was concerned to see the celebrating priest holding hands with the altar servers during the Our Father. The laity sees this, and most of them duplicate it. What are your thoughts?

Peace,

Gordon

 

[decn2b]

DOnt like the preist doing it because it is something that should NOT be forced. In this situation the Altar Boys are FORCED to do it.

 

[Gordon_N]

Decn2b,

I understand not “forcing” it on others, but is the priest holding hands out of the liturgical norms? I am attempting to research, but isn’t he supposed to be in the orans posture?

Thanks,

Gordon

 

[netmilsmom]

I know that this question has been posed in it’s various forms all over. My family and I believe that the correct posture for the laity is to fold their hands in prayer. I have read many of the points in the debate with the hand holding during the Our Father. When we moved to NC, I was concerned to see the celebrating priest holding hands with the altar servers during the Our Father. The laity sees this, and most of them duplicate it. What are your thoughts?

Peace,

Gordon

That’s a big-bit no-no. Right out of the GIRM

" 152. After the Eucharistic Prayer is concluded, the priest, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. With hands extended, he then says this prayer together with the people.

1. After the Lord’s Prayer is concluded, the priest alone, with hands extended, says the embolism Libera nos (Deliver us). At the end, the people make the acclamation Quia tuum est regnum (For yours is the kingdom)."

From here…
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml

BTW, the hands extended posture is the Orans.

 

[ncjohn]

1. After the Lord’s Prayer is concluded, the priest alone, with hands extended, says the embolism Libera nos (Deliver us).

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard it justified that the priest’s hands are indeed extended while he holds hands ( it doesn’t use the term orans, just that description). While I tend to think this is kind of skirting the intent of the rubrics, I guess the argument could be made that it is technically true. It may however violate the rubrics as to whom is allowed in the sanctuary area at that time. I’d have to double-check that since it isn’t coming immediately to mind.

That being said, I still don’t particularly care for the idea because it tends to reinforce the idea that it is the accepted position for the congregation and at least could lead to a perception that people are being directed to participate, which is just as wrong as being told it is prohibited.

Peace,

 

[decn2b]

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard it justified that the priest’s hands are indeed extended while he holds hands ( it doesn’t use the term orans, just that description).

Peace,

Except the next line of the Girm says “then the priest ALONE” must do so which means he would only be able to hold hands with himself.

 

[ncjohn]

Except the next line of the Girm says “then the priest ALONE” must do so which means he would only be able to hold hands with himself.

The “the priest alone…” statement references saying the embolism, as compared to saying the Lord’s Prayer with the people, not what he is doing with his hands.

 

[Gordon_N]

Thanks to all for their insights and (name removed by moderator)uts. I especially appreciate the link to the GIRM. It states conclusively what I thought (in my mind, at least!) Unfortunately, a document that only states what you are supposed to do, and not what you cannot do, will fall under the interpretation of all that read it. Maybe there is a use to “legaleese”…

Peace,

Gordon