Holding hands during mass for Our Father

[happymommy]

Why are you holding hands? Where does this come from? And, again, what does this contribute to the worship of God at His Holy Sacrifice, the Mass?

I would like to consider myself a blessing to the parish I am a part of. Even though they do things that I severely disagree with (like ignoring some of the very important rubrics), I still tough it out, and altar serve. Without me, there’d be one less orthodox Catholic serving at the altar.

But, my contribution to the parish means nothing in this topic.

So, again, please answer my questions.

We started holding hands while praying at home. It brings us together in our prayers to Christ. It unites us in our love for the Lord. It is something we do, now we do it as a family. I’m not asking you to do the same, I would like to see where it says we can’t or shouldn’t do it. I would also like a little respect! Just because I do something you do not, does not mean that you can be rude to me.

 

[happymommy]

I would venture to say he is referring to its origins in protestant services?

I was raised Protestant, but we did not hold hands at all… and even if that is what he was referring to ,it’s still rude. I don’t like it when Protestans make rude comments about the Catholic Church, so I don’t think we should be making them about them.

 

[MrS]

What exactly do you mean by “consider the source” ?

Are you suggesting that I’m not as Catholic as you or that my faith isn’t as strong? Or is that I don’t love the faith as much and don’t respect the tradtions? If this is what you mean, then that all sounds pretty pompous to me and not the attitude of a Christian!

I was directly referring to the poster’s comment:

Originally Posted by BayernAnhaenger forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*My problem is that it was introduced into the liturgy by the faithful with no tradition whatsoever. *

It is bad enough when clergy “re-invent the wheel” to please themselves… the faithful, it seems, think they too can get away with self-expression,…

Thus… consider the source of the innovation.

If it is not from an authority, be it the GIRM, or a Vatican instruction… consider it un-authoritive.

Perhaps, happymommy, you should read the whole post, the comments and the post to which the comment refers.

.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I would venture to say he is referring to its origins in protestant services?

…and possibly AA, but this is irrelevant.

It is definitely a part of authentic Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which is an approved movement of the Catholic Church, supported by both JPII and BXVI.

Certainly optional, but it is also not up to any individual to forbid it.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

There is no basis within the Sacred Tradition of the Church to pray the Pater Noster joining hands with the person next to you. The only posture that has basis in Tradition is the Orans posture (hands lifted and separated). Even Pope Benedict said that much in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy.”

The problem is that the hand-holding makes the prayer “horizontal” and puts the focus on us rather than on God. While the Mass does have some horizontal dimensions, it is more vertical. Just look at the Cross. The horizontal line is much shorter than the vertical line. That is how we should approach the Mass.

There are some proponents who say this fosters “community”. We are already gathered as a community when we enter the church for Mass. At the sign of the cross we are all praying together. We don’t need a further manifestation. Incidentally, if one subscribes to this “community” aspect, how, then, do you treat the cloud of unseen witnesses that are present with us at the Mass? The angels, saints and suffering souls are just as much a part of the community as we are. Has anyone tried holding their hands during the Pater Noster? If you are gonig to argue that this posture fosters community, then you also need to look at the angels, saints and suffering souls because they are just as much a part of the worshipping body as you are.

Incidentally, just because a movement may “introduce” a practice, that doesn’t make it legitimage. Take the Neocatechumenal Way, for example. They took excessive liberties with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the point that it became somewhat unrecognizable. I know. I happened to walk in on such an event. The movement had Papal approval, but, not for its liturgical practices. There is a huge and glaring difference. In fact, Pope Benedict took them to task in 2005 for their liturgical aberrations to the point that Francis Cardinal Arinze, at the Holy Father’s request, issued a letter informing them that they had two years to correct the deficiencies. Final approval of the movement was contingent on the group correcting their errors. Thus, a movement may be approved, but not their liturgies.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

We started holding hands while praying at home. It brings us together in our prayers to Christ. It unites us in our love for the Lord. It is something we do, now we do it as a family. I’m not asking you to do the same, I would like to see where it says we can’t or shouldn’t do it. I would also like a little respect! Just because I do something you do not, does not mean that you can be rude to me.

How was I rude to you? I merely asked you why you started this. You’re the one who went and questioned my contributions to the parish.

Isn’t the fact of being married enough to “unite you in love for the Lord”? Or, repeating the words Christ gave to us isn’t enough to unite you?

And, now, how does this contribute to the worship of God?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

…and possibly AA, but this is irrelevant.

It is definitely a part of authentic Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which is an approved movement of the Catholic Church, supported by both JPII and BXVI.

Certainly optional, but it is also not up to any individual to forbid it.

Lux

That’s not to say the CCR is not without criticism, and, if I’m recalling correctly, some corrections to bring it more in line with the Church?

Or am I thinking of a different sub-group?

 

[benedictgal]

That’s not to say the CCR is not without criticism, and, if I’m recalling correctly, some corrections to bring it more in line with the Church?

Or am I thinking of a different sub-group?

I have been to some CCR Masses and they are not without their share of problems, only, these are not as widely known as the ones that I referenced in my post.

The fact of the matter remains that these innovations have no legitimate tradition in the Church. One shouldn’t practice them and a priest is well within his right to forbid them. He can forbid them because there is no justification for these practices wtihin the GIRM nor in RS. In fact, RS and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy make it perfectly clear that no one has the right, be he priest or layman, to introduce something into the Mass on his own authority.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I have been to some CCR Masses and they are not without their share of problems, only, these are not as widely known as the ones that I referenced in my post.

The fact of the matter remains that these innovations have no legitimate tradition in the Church. One shouldn’t practice them and a priest is well within his right to forbid them. He can forbid them because there is no justification for these practices wtihin the GIRM nor in RS. In fact, RS and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy make it perfectly clear that no one has the right, be he priest or layman, to introduce something into the Mass on his own authority.

Exactly.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

That’s not to say the CCR is not without criticism, and, if I’m recalling correctly, some corrections to bring it more in line with the Church?

Or am I thinking of a different sub-group?

As I said, the Church has remained neutral regarding Charismatic Masses. The Holy Father has attended, and not criticised this style of worship. I do not know how it would be handled, if a priest forbad handholding, and a complaint was made.

I doubt this will ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction----obviously it can’t. There are many valid points on both sides. My suggestion would be to avoid it, if it is distracting, and possibly change parishes, if it is very widespread in your parish. I sincerely doubt there will ever be an official forbidding of the practice.

Lux

 

[ncjohn]

My problem is that it was introduced into the liturgy by the faithful with no tradition whatsoever.

And yet Canon Law specifically allows for things that spring up from the faithful. Not only allows for it but allows for them to become legitimate customs when continued unabated for a substantial period of time as this has.

Praying with one’s hands folded started from somewhere too, as did every other prayer position. This is simply a matter of jumping on someone else’s legitimate preference.

Where in the last 2000 years of the Church have the faithful ever held hand and raised them up while saying the Our Father in Mass?

Well, let’s see… since the Our Father wasn’t prayed by the people until the 1960’s, and the people were kneeling while it was being prayed by the priest, the people would have been doing with their hands whatever they were doing. Some had them folded. Some just had them on the pews. Some held rosaries or missals or their children, or whatever holy card had the greatest number of indulgence days. Then, as now, there was no prescribed position.

In the 1960’s the prayer became a communal prayer said by ALL of the people to OUR FATHER, while standing. At the same time the practice of holding hands sprang up and over time was adopted by what is almost surely the majority of Catholics. And during all of the time since the Church has had not a single official negative comment.

As to what it adds, many of us find a very strong sign of the unity of the community standing before God. Contrary to what some will claim, that doesn’t make it horizontal or put the focus on the community. It puts the focus on the fact that we stand together as a pilgrim Church in our journey. Not all see value in that sign, and that’s fine. There are many signs and symbols in the liturgy to help draw us in. Very few if any appeal to everyone in the pews but most everyone resonates with at least some of them. The fact that you may not like one that resonates with me doesn’t make it of less value and more than it would if one that draws you in doesn’t particularly draw me. The fact that you don’t see something doesn’t mean that it objectively doesn’t exist and doesn’t have value.

As was asked earlier, why is it that people get so upset over how someone else prays??? If you don’t want to do, it don’t do it. There are many valid reasons why one may not want to and the overwhelming majority of us will totally respect that. But somehow we have to get past this judging of people’s piety and devotion because they hold their hands different from how we might prefer.

Peace,

 

[benedictgal]

And yet Canon Law specifically allows for things that spring up from the faithful. Not only allows for it but allows for them to become legitimate customs when continued unabated for a substantial period of time as this has.

Praying with one’s hands folded started from somewhere too, as did every other prayer position. This is simply a matter of jumping on someone else’s legitimate preference.

Well, let’s see… since the Our Father wasn’t prayed by the people until the 1960’s, and the people were kneeling while it was being prayed by the priest, the people would have been doing with their hands whatever they were doing. Some had them folded. Some just had them on the pews. Some held rosaries or missals or their children, or whatever holy card had the greatest number of indulgence days. Then, as now, there was no prescribed position.

In the 1960’s the prayer became a communal prayer said by ALL of the people to OUR FATHER, while standing. At the same time the practice of holding hands sprang up and over time was adopted by what is almost surely the majority of Catholics. And during all of the time since the Church has had not a single official negative comment.

As to what it adds, many of us find a very strong sign of the unity of the community standing before God. Contrary to what some will claim, that doesn’t make it horizontal or put the focus on the community. It puts the focus on the fact that we stand together as a pilgrim Church in our journey. Not all see value in that sign, and that’s fine. There are many signs and symbols in the liturgy to help draw us in. Very few if any appeal to everyone in the pews but most everyone resonates with at least some of them. The fact that you may not like one that resonates with me doesn’t make it of less value and more than it would if one that draws you in doesn’t particularly draw me. The fact that you don’t see something doesn’t mean that it objectively doesn’t exist and doesn’t have value.

As was asked earlier, why is it that people get so upset over how someone else prays??? If you don’t want to do, it don’t do it. There are many valid reasons why one may not want to and the overwhelming majority of us will totally respect that. But somehow we have to get past this judging of people’s piety and devotion because they hold their hands different from how we might prefer.

Peace,

However, we need to look back at the admonition from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy:

“Therefore no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on their own authority” [SC 22: 3]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is too great a mystery and a treasure for us to do with as we please. No one has the right to insert something based on personal idiosyncracy. This includes hand-holding. A priest is perfectly in his right to forbid such a practice because it has no basis in the authotitative, liturgical documents of the Holy See nor is it in the GIRM.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And yet Canon Law specifically allows for things that spring up from the faithful. Not only allows for it but allows for them to become legitimate customs when continued unabated for a substantial period of time as this has.

…As was asked earlier, why is it that people get so upset over how someone else prays??? If you don’t want to do, it don’t do it. There are many valid reasons why one may not want to and the overwhelming majority of us will totally respect that. But somehow we have to get past this judging of people’s piety and devotion because they hold their hands different from how we might prefer.

Peace,

Hi John,

Agreed, and since there is no prescribed posture for the Lord’s prayer, we must do something with our hands, so this would not be considered adding something to the liturgy, especially when there was a neutral response when the question was asked directly.

Lux

 

[ncjohn]

However, we need to look back at the admonition from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy:

And again, this clause deals with priests changing the liturgy, not individual spontaneous gestures of the people. Gestures of the people cannot change the liturgy. The priest, or some other third party, demanding them, however, would be an addition. Earlier statements in the document make clear that there is no intent to strictly regulate postures or gestures.

A priest is perfectly in his right to forbid such a practice because it has no basis in the authotitative, liturgical documents of the Holy See nor is it in the GIRM.

And again, no, he specifically does NOT have that authority, as is clear from the very same paragraph of SC that you used above. The sentence directly before it states clearly that it is the conference of bishops that has that sole authority. The sentence that nobody, not even if he be a priest, is allowed to change the liturgy, is the clarifier and emphasizer of THAT statement.

For a priest to insert his own prohibition when the USCCB has specifically said that there is no prescribed position is modifying the liturgy every bit as much as if he had demanded a position.

We can continue with this “my interpretation vs your interpretation” stuff but the Church’s position is quite clear by its failure to make a single negative comment about this in the entire time of its existence, along with the USCCB’s very specific answer to the question.

When someone can show me a single official document that supports your interpretation without being some individual’s extrapolation of other unrelated documents, I’ll be happy to listen. Until then it just continues as wishful thinking in the face of the objective reality of its existing for approximately 40 years without the Church objecting.

All of this has been rehashed time and again so I’m going for pizza now. Anyone want to join me?

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/2.gif

 

[FrDavid96]

And yet Canon Law specifically allows for things that spring up from the faithful. Not only allows for it but allows for them to become legitimate customs when continued unabated for a substantial period of time as this has.

Praying with one’s hands folded started from somewhere too, as did every other prayer position. This is simply a matter of jumping on someone else’s legitimate preference.

First of all, many people here misunderstand the concept of “custom” custom does not mean that people can just do whatever they please and if it goes on long enough, it becomes “custom.” Any addition to the Mass, yes, again any addition to the Mass which does not enjoy the approval of the Holy See is forbidden by the liturgical laws of the Church.

A custom may not be introduced which is contrary to existing laws. Laws forbiding future customs do just that. Custom must be harmonious with the existing liturgical practices, and grow organically out of those practices in light of the entire liturgical Tradition. Holding hands during the Our Father does not meet this criteria.

It is far from a “legitimate preference” We don’t get to add things to the Liturgy simply because we “prefer” them. A liturgical aberration is an abuse. It is not custom, and it is not a matter of preference.

 

[benedictgal]

And again, this clause deals with priests changing the liturgy, not individual spontaneous gestures of the people. Gestures of the people cannot change the liturgy. The priest, or some other third party, demanding them, however, would be an addition. Earlier statements in the document make clear that there is no intent to strictly regulate postures or gestures.

And again, no, he specifically does NOT have that authority, as is clear from the very same paragraph of SC that you used above. The sentence directly before it states clearly that it is the conference of bishops that has that sole authority. The sentence that nobody, not even if he be a priest, is allowed to change the liturgy, is the clarifier and emphasizer of THAT statement.

For a priest to insert his own prohibition when the USCCB has specifically said that there is no prescribed position is modifying the liturgy every bit as much as if he had demanded a position.

We can continue with this “my interpretation vs your interpretation” stuff but the Church’s position is quite clear by its failure to make a single negative comment about this in the entire time of its existence, along with the USCCB’s very specific answer to the question.

When someone can show me a single official document that supports your interpretation without being some individual’s extrapolation of other unrelated documents, I’ll be happy to listen. Until then it just continues as wishful thinking in the face of the objective reality of its existing for approximately 40 years without the Church objecting.

All of this has been rehashed time and again so I’m going for pizza now. Anyone want to join me?

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/2.gif

I am afraid that, in my opinion, you have missed the point. A priest is perfectly wihin his right to ban the practice of hand-holding during the Pater Noster since there is no prescription legitimizing the practice.

Now, a priest would be over-stepping his bounds if he were to, let’s say, ban communicants from kneeling ot receive Our Lord, as kneeling is a legitimate posture and has been supported by Rome.

I do not mean to throw open that can of worms, but you need to make the distinction between banning something that is not even in the books to begin with and banning something that is legitimate.

It’s also like the Unity Candle. It has no basis in the Church’s liturgical tradition, yet some people will try to use it. A priest is perfectly within his rights to ban this, especially since it is not in any part of the Nuptial Rite.

 

[ncjohn]

First of all, many people here misunderstand the concept of “custom” custom does not mean that people can just do whatever they please and if it goes on long enough, it becomes “custom.” Any addition to the Mass, yes, again any addition to the Mass which does not enjoy the approval of the Holy See is forbidden by the liturgical laws of the Church.

A custom may not be introduced which is contrary to existing laws. Laws forbiding future customs do just that. Custom must be harmonious with the existing liturgical practices, and grow organically out of those practices in light of the entire liturgical Tradition. Holding hands during the Our Father does not meet this criteria.

It is far from a “legitimate preference” We don’t get to add things to the Liturgy simply because we “prefer” them. A liturgical aberration is an abuse. It is not custom, and it is not a matter of preference.

And again, how the people in the pews hold their hands is not an addition to the liturgy.I would beg that you show any document from the Vatican that would claim such a thing.

There was no existing prohibition against it nor does one exist now. And again, the USCCB has specifically addressed the question by answering that there is no prescribed position. The clearly leads to the fact that there is also no prohibition against the position. And since they are the ones–the ONLY ones–authorized to regulate the liturgy (with the approval of the Holy See of course), it therefore goes that nobody else, even if he be a priest, gets to take on that authority himself. No matter how one tries to twist the words, the language is very specific that the USCCB is the body with the authority and nobody else gets to take it on themselves to demand or forbid.

Again, I’ll ask you: What is the “correct” postion for the hands of the faithful at the Our Father and what documentation can you provide to support that. And what actions are you taking in prohibiting every other position? What are you doing about those people who “prefer” to fold their hands? Or those who “prefer” to put them on the back of the pew? Oh…wait…they aren’t allowed to prefer to do that…

 

[benedictgal]

And again, how the people in the pews hold their hands is not an addition to the liturgy.I would beg that you show any document from the Vatican that would claim such a thing.

There was no existing prohibition against it nor does one exist now. And again, the USCCB has specifically addressed the question by answering that there is no prescribed position. The clearly leads to the fact that there is also no prohibition against the position. And since they are the ones–the ONLY ones–authorized to regulate the liturgy (with the approval of the Holy See of course), it therefore goes that nobody else, even if he be a priest, gets to take on that authority himself. No matter how one tries to twist the words, the language is very specific that the USCCB is the body with the authority and nobody else gets to take it on themselves to demand or forbid.

Again, I’ll ask you: What is the “correct” postion for the hands of the faithful at the Our Father and what documentation can you provide to support that. And what actions are you taking in prohibiting every other position? What are you doing about those people who “prefer” to fold their hands? Or those who “prefer” to put them on the back of the pew? Oh…wait…they aren’t allowed to prefer to do that…

However, the USCCB is not the Magisterium. Before they can even make a pronoucement on something or a requirement, they have to pass the document by a 2/3 majority and then send it to Rome. The Holy See will either grant the recognitio or deny it. The real authority lies with Rome.

 

[ncjohn]

I am afraid that, in my opinion, you have missed the point. A priest is perfectly wihin his right to ban the practice of hand-holding during the Pater Noster since there is no prescription legitimizing the practice.

No, I’m afraid it is you that is missing the point.

The USCCB is the body authorized to regulate the liturgy. They have stated that there is no prescription, PERIOD. That means against it OR for it.

There is no prescription allowing any other position for the hands either, which is why they stated what they did.

I’m really done here. It’s just the same arguments over and over with no official documentation to back them up, trying to have it both ways.

 

[benedictgal]

No, I’m afraid it is you that is missing the point.

The USCCB is the body authorized to regulate the liturgy. They have stated that there is no prescription, PERIOD. That means against it OR for it.

There is no prescription allowing any other position for the hands either, which is why they stated what they did.

I’m really done here. It’s just the same arguments over and over with no official documentation to back them up, trying to have it both ways.

The USCCB only has rule-making authority where it pertains to adaptations made to the Roman Missal. According to the GIRM:

1. It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, for use in the regions under their care, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See.149

Although it is up to the national episcopal conferences to decide the postures of the people, the final approval (recognitio) must come from the Holy See. In other words, the USCCB doesn’t operate in a vaccuum. Whatever adaptations it makes must have the recognitio from the Holy See.

That is the part that has been left out in some posts. So, if something is not in the books and does not have recgotio from the Holy See, then, it should not be done. A priest is in his right to forbid something that is not approved. Silence on the matter doesn’t mean that the celebrant has carte blanche to introduce or even mandate an innovation like hand-holding during the Pater Noster.