Holding hands during mass for Our Father

[porthos11]

Boy we are getting off topic.

As was said many times most instructions are not for the congregation. A member of the congregation cannot add anything to the celebration of the liturgy, and most of the laity have never seen any instructions, so how could they apply?

As was also said many times, if you consider one posture an illicit gesture, you must also forbid every posture which is not mentioned in the instructions (folded hands, striking of the breast, praying the rosary, etc)

Folded hands are a fairly neutral posture, are not intrusive, and symbolize nothing more than prayer; striking the breast at the Confiteor is indeed called for, and not anywhere else for the laity; and praying the Rosary at Mass is not supposed to be done anyway.

These instructions just do not apply to the laity.

Yes, they do, otherwise, the Instructions would not have phrases starting with "The faithful… "

 

[ncjohn]

George,
There’s a lot of sources. I’m sure you’re familiar with them, but for the sake of clarity, and our other readers, I’ll list them.

And yet not a single one of those sources addresses the most hotly complained about item there is!

Especially Redemptionis Sacramentum, written recently and specifically to deal with even the minutest of abuses, has not a single word about the practice.

And when Cardinal Arinze was here and asked about this he said straight out that this wasn’t something even being looked at.

Not a single word from anywhere in the Vatican at any time yet you continue to insist that it is illicit. And then ignore the sentence right before the one in SC that you wrongly interpret to regulate a personal spontaneous gesture.
SC:

In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Individual priests have no authority to regulate liturgy. That means they don’t get to forbid things. If they think there is an issue they have the ability to go to the body with jurisdiction–the USCCB–and ask THEM to do something but they do not have that authority on their own. In fact that sentence you keep interpreting to apply here is really written to keep priests from changing the liturgy, thus the language “even if he be a priest”. The people in the pews don’t change liturgies.

Perhaps I should ask the question in another way: What is the “appropriate” posture for the hands at the Our Father, and please specify the source that tells you that. Then please let me know what action you are doing to forbid every other posture taken by people in the pews, from holding their baby to holding a missalette to putting their hands in their pockets. For if my holding my wife’s hand or my grandchild’s hand is adding to the liturgy then so is every other position taken by anyone else, especially if “everybody else” is also doing it–a “corporate posture” as you cite it in a later post. So what do we do about those corporate hand folders?

I know you desperately want to be able to ban this, and that you really want to be able to justify an action you’ve apparently already taken, but there are times when one has to question when maybe they’ve overstepped. I guess nobody in your parish has forced the issue. I saw one priest end up highly embarassed when he found out he didn’t have this authority and had to then deal with that. Hopefully you won’t be put in such a position.

I’ll not belabor things any further. Nothing you or I say is going to change things since the Church ultimately has the authority individuals aren’t going to either stop it or be able to sustain it.

Peace to you,

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Liturgy is from Heaven, it is not fabricated on earth. Holding hands creates dissonance in the faithful, especially those who have a solid liturgical backing.

 

[ncjohn]

Lux:

These instructions just do not apply to the laity.

Yes, they do, otherwise, the Instructions would not have phrases starting with "The faithful… "

And that’s exactly the point.

When there is a specific thing the laity is to do with their hands the GIRM notes that. If it doesn’t note it there is no specific thing. That is exactly why the USCCB noted that there is no prescribed posture for the hands at the Our Father.

You can’t have it both ways. As Lux says, if one of them is illegal because it isn’t called for, then all of them are illegal for the same reason.

 

[ncjohn]

Liturgy is from Heaven, it is not fabricated on earth. Holding hands creates dissonance in the faithful, especially those who have a solid liturgical backing.

I have a very solid liturgical grounding from both the TLM and the Pauline Mass and it creates no dissonance whatsoever for me. It creates instead a great sign of the community praying to Our Father.

I have no problem though with those who don’t see that significance and prefer not to participate, any more than I would have a problem in whether one chooses to receive from the cup or wear a chapel veil. Each is an individual preference. If one finds dissonance, don’t participate, but please don’t jump to the conclusion that your seeing something means that it objectively exists.

Peace,

 

[ljprevo]

Is there anywhere in the GIRM that says I can’t start screaming “AMEN” during parts of the priest Homily?

How about jumping up and down and rolling on the floor up and down the isle?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Is there anywhere in the GIRM that says I can’t start screaming “AMEN” during parts of the priest Homily?

How about jumping up and down and rolling on the floor up and down the isle?

do a search—this has been addressed many times.

Lux

 

[ljprevo]

do a search—this has been addressed many times.

Lux

I was being sarcastic to make a point, holding hand, raising them up, adding anything extra to “feel” a certain way should be avoided.

Jesus knows we are united together, hold hands does that help US or does that help God?

Mass is and should be 100% focus on our Lord.

 

[benedictgal]

I was being sarcastic to make a point, holding hand, raising them up, adding anything extra to “feel” a certain way should be avoided.

Jesus knows we are united together, hold hands does that help US or does that help God?

Mass is and should be 100% focus on our Lord.

That is the same point that the Secretary to the Congreation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was making during his address at the Gateway Liturgical Conference. The sad part was that there were some folks (laity) who just didn’t buy into what he said.

The liturgy has to please God. This pleasing sacrifice has to center on the fact of living the Eucharistic dimension (as indicated in Sacramentum Caritatis). The acceptableness of the Sacrifice means that we have to be disposed to the transformation. We have to conform our lives to this divine act. We need to “eucharistify” it and make people aware that this is veritas splendor. When we bring down divineness (in other words, make it horizontal and focus on the community), we destroy the liturgy, the more human we make it and the more destructive it becomes. We need to have a sense of wonder before the divine mysteries of God.

Holding hands during the Pater Noster makes the activity more about us than about God. We don’t need to have a tactile experience to understand “community.” The fact that we are gathered together to worship God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is enough.

 

[Appleby]

In addition, I find the multitudes standing in the pew in the “orans” posture during the Our Father to look like a bunch of potted plants. This is a priestly gesture that should be reserved for the celebrant. …and NO thank you, I do not wish to hear anything about us being a “royal priesthood”. This was not the intent of the scripture. I can’t help but to wonder how many of these people are doing this for show. Can’t people just fold their hands and pray? Again I simply refuse to engage in these “hip” displays of theatrics!

They do this in our church but it is a cultural thing as they are Filipino, mostly. It looks kind of evangelical to me but you dare not repudiate cultural stuff in Toronto.

There is so much extraneous noise in the Mass now – and not just from cell phones, crying babies and the like – that it is sometimes very hard to concentrate. My old Anglo-Catholic church was much closer to the traditional Mass than any Catholic church I have attended since swimming the Tiber. It is just too bad that they are so obsessed with homosexuality that they can not think of anything else.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Holding hands during the Pater Noster makes the activity more about us than about God. We don’t need to have a tactile experience to understand “community.” The fact that we are gathered together to worship God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is enough.

This is an opinion, not a fact. Many agree that it is more “us” & God, than “me” & God, and therefore more in the spirit of community worship, which is the Mass. Since it is not an abuse, it is preferable to join, if this is the custom of the community, but it should never be forced on anyone.

(Personally I am sort of neutral–I follow the custom of my host Parish when I am not at my home Parish)

Lux

 

[Dicerning]

Hand holding during the Pater Noster can cause much division.

If the practice were never started there would be one less thing to be divided about.

As for me…its OK to hold your hand out to me but don’t be shocked if I don’t pay attention to you.

Grab my hand? You will get a lecture right there in church from me.

 

[happymommy]

They do this in our church but it is a cultural thing as they are Filipino, mostly. It looks kind of evangelical to me but you dare not repudiate cultural stuff in Toronto.

There is so much extraneous noise in the Mass now – and not just from cell phones, crying babies and the like – that it is sometimes very hard to concentrate. My old Anglo-Catholic church was much closer to the traditional Mass than any Catholic church I have attended since swimming the Tiber. It is just too bad that they are so obsessed with homosexuality that they can not think of anything else.

Our Priest took care of the cell phone problem, really quick. His first week in our parish he made an annoucement at the begining of mass that all cell phones should be turned off. Well of course not everybody thought that meant their cell phones So as they started to ring, he stopped what he was doing and just looked at the person until they turned it off. It didnt’ take long for everyone to turn off their phones. They still tell you at every mass, during the announcements, to please turn off your cell phones, but I haven’t heard one ring in months

 

[ac_claire]

I would have to respectfully disagree.

The authority to regulate the liturgy is given to the Bishops conferences, not to individual priests. Since the USCCB has stated that there is no prescribed position, for an individual priest to state that there IS, or to attempt to prohibit one, would be exceeding his authority.

On the contrary, it would be entirely within his authority to do so. Because there is no prescribed position in the GIRM, that does not mean that any position one wants to take is ok. That’s a backwards argument there. We’re talking about holding hands during the Our Father, which is something that has been unofficially added to the rubrics in many, many parishes. The priest has all the authority of the Church to tell his parish to not ad-lib their own postures. This is common sense.

 

[ac_claire]

And that’s exactly the point.

When there is a specific thing the laity is to do with their hands the GIRM notes that. If it doesn’t note it there is no specific thing. That is exactly why the USCCB noted that there is no prescribed posture for the hands at the Our Father.

…therefore the laity needs to do no special things with their hands. Just stand and pray, like you would during the Prayers of the Faithful, the Nicene Creed, the Gloria, etc., etc. Don’t add things.

 

[Leonius]

Individual priests have no authority to regulate liturgy. That means they don’t get to forbid things.

They do have the authority and duty to protect the purity of the liturgy against unauthorised innovations. Anything not stated in the rubrics is an unauthorised innovation, it is not a case of if its not forbidden anywhere its ok to do it, it is the opposite, if its not in the rubrics it should not be done period.

If they think there is an issue they have the ability to go to the body with jurisdiction–the USCCB–and ask THEM to do something but they do not have that authority on their own.

Yes they do, its the other way round, if you feel the priest is wrong you have the right to appeal to the Bishop, the priest is the head of the parish, the laity cannot just run around doing whatever they want against the direction of the priest. To oppose the authority of a priest you need sufficient reason, there is no sufficient reason for refusing the priests instruction not to hold hands at the Our Father.

In fact that sentence you keep interpreting to apply here is really written to keep priests from changing the liturgy, thus the language “even if he be a priest”. The people in the pews don’t change liturgies.

Holding hands at the Our Father is not stated in the rubrics and is therefore a liturgical abuse as it is an unauthorised, illicit addition the the liturgy by the laity who have no more authority to implement changes into the liturgy than the priest does.

Clarifications and Interpretations of the GIRM “Notitiae” Vol. XI (1975) p. 226] explains:

“. . .holding hands is a sign of intimacy and not reconciliation, and as such disrupts the flow of the Sacramental signs in the Mass which leads to the Sacramental sign of intimacy with Christ and our neighbor, Holy Communion.”

Questioning the holding hands in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome answered 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 (or priest’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.]

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the reciting or singing of the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Holy Communion is the sign of intimacy and unity during the sacrifice of the Mass. Thus a human gesture of intimacy precedes both the sign of reconciliation at the Sign of Peace and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, but more importantly it precedes Holy Communion, which is the appropriate sacramental sign of intimacy and unity within the People of God.
2. The Holy See has the authority, and is the choreographer of the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law. As stated above “Any substitutions [to these rubrics] must be repudiated.” Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the theological implications, thought you would think that obedience would be enough.
3. This practice of holding hands alienates many people, and nothing should be introduced into the liturgy, especially if it is optional and arbitrary if it has that effect.

 

[PJM]

It depends upon what you mean by official. The main discussion is that we are not instructed to do so in any of the liturgical documents governing the mass. We have been instructed not to add anything or take away anything from the Mass. A few years ago this question was asked and answered on the US Bishop’s website but the answer has since been withdrawn since the problem has grown so widespread. The Bishop’s basically said that the sign of unity in the Mass is the Eucharist which is the focus of the Mass. When the people try to do things to express unity like holding hands then they take away from the focus of the mass.

Reply

I do, and I don’t.

I do when attending Mass with my wife, I don’t when I attend daily Mass.

I am aware that it is not an approved practice, but when compared to Communion in the hand, ordinary ministers of the Eucharist, removal of altar rails ect., ect., ect, I asked myself WWJD?

My dear friends there are far, FAR, **FAR/**COLOR] greater abuses to contend with. Amen?

God bless, PJM m.c.

 

[MrS]

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the reciting or singing of the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Holy Communion is the sign of intimacy and unity during the sacrifice of the Mass. Thus a human gesture of intimacy precedes both the sign of reconciliation at the Sign of Peace and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, but more importantly it precedes Holy Communion, which is the appropriate sacramental sign of intimacy and unity within the People of God.
2. The Holy See has the authority, and is the choreographer of the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law. As stated above “Any substitutions [to these rubrics] must be repudiated.” Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the theological implications, thought you would think that obedience would be enough.
3. This practice of holding hands alienates many people, and nothing should be introduced into the liturgy, especially if it is optional and arbitrary if it has that effect.

Well said… appreciate your post:thumbsup:

 

[ncjohn]

They do have the authority and duty to protect the purity of the liturgy against unauthorised innovations. Anything not stated in the rubrics is an unauthorised innovation, it is not a case of if its not forbidden anywhere its ok to do it, it is the opposite, if its not in the rubrics it should not be done period.

And again, if not being specified means it’s forbidden, then ANYTHING you do with your hands at the Our Father is forbidden since NOTHING is specified.

And no, he doesn’t have the authority as the very section of SC he quoted is very specific as to who has that authority.

And no, the Noticiae specifically does NOT address the concept of itself, which would have been very easy to do had they intended to just repudiate the practice. You don’t get to extrapolate your own opinion to “clarify” something they specifically did NOT say.

I’m sorry but none of your arguments hold water and are nothing more than the typical “cherry picking” of sentences trying to justify doing something the Church itself has declined to do and trying to make things say something they don’t.

Individual actions cannot of themselves alter the liturgy. Period. If they did then any gesture whatsoever, including whatever your preferred position is, would be “adding to the liturgy”. SC specifically states that it did not intend to strictly regulate such things. That being said, if someone instructs others to do so that is indeed adding to the liturgy since they are instructing something that is not specified in the GIRM. But conversely, forbidding something is also changing the liturgy because nothing is specified so you don’t get to do that either.

You just don’t get to have it both ways. And the Church, in failing in all these decades to speak negatively to the topic, has made its position clear. Individuals, “even if he be a priest”, do not get to be “more Catholic than the Pope” by imposing their own preferences on the liturgy.

And with that I’m done. This stuff has been hashed out ad infinitum. When someone can come up with a single official document from the Vatican saying this has been repudiated, please post it. And I’m not talking about individual opinions about how they think some unrelated document should be extrapolated to cover this topic. Until then it’s all just wishful thinking about one wishes the Church would do.

Peace,

 

[ljprevo]

And again, if not being specified means it’s forbidden, then ANYTHING you do with your hands at the Our Father is forbidden since NOTHING is specified.

…snip…

At first I leaned toward agreeing with you, but your arguement is not holding water, why?

Just as a liberal would agrue about abortion, “Well what about women who are rapped and get pregnant”? Very rare case. Because one person needs it, the rest do (though I don’t agree with abortion period.)

What I am saying is the whole parish is doing an act during the mass, we are not talking about individuals standing a certain way, holding a baby, scratching their face, coughing, etc. I always thought that holding hands was part of what happens during mass, I did not learn so until I was 33 years old, 33 !!! I never knew it was not part of the rubric of the mass.

So now we have an added gesture in the mass that is not specifically part of the mass. I challenge you this, randomly ask people in your parish, if your does the hand holding if they think holding hands during the Our Father is parrt of the mass, I will bet 9 out of 10 will say yes, if not all of them.

“A PART of the MASS” It is not.