Holding hands during mass for Our Father

[beckycmarie]

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.

I choose not to participate in the handholding out of reasons of obedience - yet my non-participation seems to be an issue for those who are handholders. I’ve experienced the following:

1. People grabbing my folded hands insisting on holding mine.
2. People on my left and right holding hands across me. (This has happened to me in the choir and I was pushed backwards out of the line of handholders!)
3. People interpreting my choice not to hold hands during the Our Father as unfriendliness on my part, and they ignore me/refuse to shake hands during the sign of peace.

I for one would be glad to see an end to the hand-holding.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I choose not to participate in the handholding out of reasons of obedience - yet my non-participation seems to be an issue for those who are handholders. I’ve experienced the following:

1. People grabbing my folded hands insisting on holding mine.
2. People on my left and right holding hands across me. (This has happened to me in the choir and I was pushed backwards out of the line of handholders!)
3. People interpreting my choice not to hold hands during the Our Father as unfriendliness on my part, and they ignore me/refuse to shake hands during the sign of peace.

I for one would be glad to see and end to the hand-holding.

That too would be my experience.

To add an anecdote, at my college-time parish (aka, the one I attend during school), the congregation will actually move out of the pews, and into the center aisle to hold hands. It’s a big to do, with everyone shifting to the left or to the right, and it really places a huge load of uncomfortableness on anyone who desires to stand still and not participate in this innovation.

 

[ncjohn]

I’m going to do one last post here simply to clear up a couple loose ends.

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.

Except that’s not what the canon law says:

CAN. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

A new custom can’t be against “divine” law. It expressly CAN be against existing laws and an allowance for that is specifically made. However to obtain force it must be “reasonable”. Maybe you don’t think it’s reasonable but the majority of Catholics would likely not agree with you and the Church has not given any indication they don’t find it to be so. It has most certainly not been reprobated, which would make it “unreasonable”.

benedictgal:

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

And yet not a word from the Holy See denying the USCCB’s decision in all these years since it has been made.

Again, please provide a single document that says the Holy See has any problem with this. Without that the USCCB authority stands. Even if one could argue that the USCCB didn’t have the authority here, which flies in the face of the very document you quoted, the priest unquestionably does not have it from the very sentence you quoted. If there is no prescription he doesn’t get to make one up.

benedictgal:

So, if something is not in the books and does not have recgotio from the Holy See, then, it should not be done.

Then stop folding your hands. There is no presription to do so, so therefore it is forbidden. It’s hard to believe people keep trying to make this illogical argument when there is no support for any position they want to pick either.

I guess you guys get the last word. I’ll trust that people can examine the facts, regardless of what their personal leanings may be, and at least understand that there is nothing illicit here even if one doesn’t like it and wishes it would go away.

And I do sympathize strongly with you beckymarie if you have indeed been treated so discourteously. If it makes you feel any better I have been called names I can’t even repeat by those who oppose it for daring to express my devotion differently from the way they do. The door unfortunately swings both ways. I’ve tried really hard to just get people to close their eyes, say their prayer whichever way they prefer, and not get all uptight about what anyone else is doing. I guess some just have to have it their way though and let loose on anyone that doesn’t see things their “one, right way”.

Truly sad.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m going to do one last post here simply to clear up a couple loose ends.

Except that’s not what the canon law says:

CAN. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

A new custom can’t be against “divine” law. It expressly CAN be against existing laws and an allowance for that is specifically made. However to obtain force it must be “reasonable”. Maybe you don’t think it’s reasonable but the majority of Catholics would likely not agree with you and the Church has not given any indication they don’t find it to be so. It has most certainly not been reprobated, which would make it “unreasonable”.
And yet not a word from the Holy See denying the USCCB’s decision in all these years since it has been made.

Again, please provide a single document that says the Holy See has any problem with this. Without that the USCCB authority stands. Even if one could argue that the USCCB didn’t have the authority here, which flies in the face of the very document you quoted, the priest unquestionably does not have it from the very sentence you quoted. If there is no prescription he doesn’t get to make one up.Then stop folding your hands. There is no presription to do so, so therefore it is forbidden. It’s hard to believe people keep trying to make this illogical argument when there is no support for any position they want to pick either.

I guess you guys get the last word. I’ll trust that people can examine the facts, regardless of what their personal leanings may be, and at least understand that there is nothing illicit here even if one doesn’t like it and wishes it would go away.

And I do sympathize strongly with you beckymarie if you have indeed been treated so discourteously. If it makes you feel any better I have been called names I can’t even repeat by those who oppose it for daring to express my devotion differently from the way they do. The door unfortunately swings both ways. I’ve tried really hard to just get people to close their eyes, say their prayer whichever way they prefer, and not get all uptight about what anyone else is doing. I guess some just have to have it their way though and let loose on anyone that doesn’t see things their “one, right way”.

Truly sad.

The Holy See didn’t say anything because the USCCB never took a vote on the move to send it to Rome. The Holy See rules on things that 2/3 of the Latin Ritve bishops havae voted on to send to Rome. That is how it works. If there is no documentation to send to Rome, with the required 2/3 vote, then how can you expect Rome to issue a rule?

The bottom line is that holding-hands has no justifiable reason because it does not exist in the GIRM nor in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, the introduction of it goes against what I quoted from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy because it is an idiosyncratic innovation with no basis in the oganic development of the liturgy.

You may quote the section from Canon Law, however, if I recall, that didn’t even come into play when the Holy Father corrected the “innovations” of the Neocatechumenal Way, who took it upon themselves to introduce things into the Mass that had no business being there.

For my part, I have had a similar experience to that of beckymarie. A woman grabbed me and I held my ground. She then told the pastor that I had done something wrong at the Mass because “we are supposed to hold hand”. I told my PV and he said that no such provision exists anywhere in the norms.

Ncjohn, for the record, I used to hold hands in my much younger days until I realized that the gesture was pointless. What completely turned me off was when people started singing it (and also moving out the pews) and swaying. That kind of stuff happens at Royal-Memorial Stadium when we are blaring out the Eyes of Texas because we’ve beaten the Aggies, Tech or another team. But, not for Mass. I thought to myself, let me off at the next stop. This is ridiculous. It was then that I realized that this posture was both ridiculous and it had no real basis at all in the liturgy. It was just a fad that, like bell-bottom pants and loud polyester shirts, needs to go away.

 

[FrDavid96]

…could not fit the original post
…

If it is not found in any legitimate liturgical books, it is by that very fact forbidden and illegitimate.

Ok. One more time. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II)
22. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. 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.
2. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.
3. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the Liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the Liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

I am growing weary of people who keep saying that the Church has approved this liturgical abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that the USCCB has allowed this practice. They have been anything but clear on it. They have been intentionally vague because they know that they cannot permit it, but they specifically avoid articulating that it is forbidden because they apparently don’t want to admit it, and want to specifically avoid a situation where Rome has to make a definitive decision. That’s why they have never formally proposed it as a legitimate option; because they know the Holy See will answer “negative.”

If you want more documentation, read Redemptionis Sacramentum and Spiritus et Sponsa. It is absolutely impossible and downright dishonest to say that to add any liturgical action to the Mass on one’s own authority is anything other than specifically forbidden by the Church. People may choose to ignore the Church, but that will not change the fact that any addition to the Mass is specifically and unequivocably forbidden.

And also, one more time, the priest not only has the right, but the solemn obligation to ensure that the Sacraments are celebrated validly and licitly. The priest has every right to forbid any liturgical aberration, whether this is something large and significant or minor and of little significance, or anything in-between. Again see Redemptionis Sacramentum should anyone have any doubts whatsoever on this point. #32 very specifically says that the priest is bound to regulate the Liturgy lest abuses occur. Read it for yourselves please before saying that the priest cannot do this. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum #32 for yourselves. Elsewhere in that same document:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

Thank you for reading. If I sound frustrated, it is because I am. How many times does Rome have to say the same thing over and over again before some people will finally get the point?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

If it is not found in any legitimate liturgical books, it is by that very fact forbidden and illegitimate.

Ok. One more time. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II)
22. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. 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.
2. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.
3. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the Liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the Liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

I am growing weary of people who keep saying that the Church has approved this liturgical abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that the USCCB has allowed this practice. They have been anything but clear on it. They have been intentionally vague because they know that they cannot permit it, but they specifically avoid articulating that it is forbidden because they apparently don’t want to admit it, and want to specifically avoid a situation where Rome has to make a definitive decision. That’s why they have never formally proposed it as a legitimate option; because they know the Holy See will answer “negative.”

If you want more documentation, read Redemptionis Sacramentum and Spiritus et Sponsa. It is absolutely impossible and downright dishonest to say that to add any liturgical action to the Mass on one’s own authority is anything other than specifically forbidden by the Church. People may choose to ignore the Church, but that will not change the fact that any addition to the Mass is specifically and unequivocably forbidden.

And also, one more time, the priest not only has the right, but the solemn obligation to ensure that the Sacraments are celebrated validly and licitly. The priest has every right to forbid any liturgical aberration, whether this is something large and significant or minor and of little significance, or anything in-between. Again see Redemptionis Sacramentum should anyone have any doubts whatsoever on this point. #32 very specifically says that the priest is bound to regulate the Liturgy lest abuses occur. Read it for yourselves please before saying that the priest cannot do this. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum #32 for yourselves. Elsewhere in that same document:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

Thank you for reading. If I sound frustrated, it is because I am. How many times does Rome have to say the same thing over and over again before some people will finally get the point?

Fr. David,
Thank you!

An amazing post.

 

[Newbie2]

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?

Nobody can say for certain what early Christians did or did not do as far as holding hands.

I have been to some CCR Masses .

CCR=?

(The only CCR I know is Credence Clearwater Revival )

 

[benedictgal]

Nobody can say for certain what early Christians did or did not do as far as holding hands.

CCR=?

(The only CCR I know is Credence Clearwater Revival )

Someone on this thread referred to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal using this abbreviation.

I have read some of the writings of the early Church Fathers and no such reference to hand-holding was made. Not even “The Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquila has any indication that this happened. Furthermore, if it did happen, there would have been reference to it and it would have been included in the ancient liturgy of the Church. But, it is not.

There is no indication that even Ancient Israel prayed in this manner. Not evne the pagan devotees of the Roman and Greek pantheon of gods prayed in this manner, at least as far as I can tell having read the mythological books and other sources. I took three semesters of Classical Civilization and its Art as my elective bloc when I was in college and it included looking at the cultic worship of the Greeks and Romans.

 

[Newbie2]

Someone on this thread referred to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal using this abbreviation.

I have read some of the writings of the early Church Fathers and no such reference to hand-holding was made. Not even “The Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquila has any indication that this happened. Furthermore, if it did happen, there would have been reference to it and it would have been included in the ancient liturgy of the Church. But, it is not.

There is no indication that even Ancient Israel prayed in this manner. Not evne the pagan devotees of the Roman and Greek pantheon of gods prayed in this manner, at least as far as I can tell having read the mythological books and other sources. I took three semesters of Classical Civilization and its Art as my elective bloc when I was in college and it included looking at the cultic worship of the Greeks and Romans.

How about before the liturgy was codified. Your assertion has no basis in fact. Facts are that we just don’t know what Christians did when the met in little groups in houses. Maybe they did it, then stopped doing it. You don’t know. I don’t know. We’re merely speculating.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

How about before the liturgy was codified. Your assertion has no basis in fact. Facts are that we just don’t know what Christians did when the met in little groups in houses. Maybe they did it, then stopped doing it. You don’t know. I don’t know. We’re merely speculating.

But, it hadn’t survived/been mentioned anywhere, and it has no basis in tradition.

Thus… it’s an aberration!

 

[gospel_life]

You may quote the section from Canon Law, however, if I recall, that didn’t even come into play when the Holy Father corrected the “innovations” of the Neocatechumenal Way, who took it upon themselves to introduce things into the Mass that had no business being there.

So the Pope jumped all over the Neocatechumenal Way for the stuff they did but nobody from Rome has ever muttered a word about this horrible handholding that has been going on for ages?

Seems to lend even more credence to the idea that the Church doesn’t find this to be an issue.

 

[Newbie2]

Perhaps, BayernAnhaenger. But your question was:

*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? (My emphasis)

We don’t know for certain that the faithful never did it, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

So the Pope jumped all over the Neocatechumenal Way for the stuff they did but nobody from Rome has ever muttered a word about this horrible handholding that has been going on for ages?

Seems to lend even more credence to the idea that the Church doesn’t find this to be an issue.

Hi,

Yes, this is how I would understand these 2 situations.

Lux

 

[ac_claire]

Hi,

Yes, this is how I would understand these 2 situations.

Lux

Well, there’s been so much ambiguity (mostly negativity) from the cardinals and bishops who’ve talked about this issue over the years that I have recently changed my mind and decided that it’s not a good thing. So I refrain now.

If the church is packed and someone offers me their hand, under most circumstances I will take it so as not to make it awkward. But normally now I just clasp my hands and close my eyes when we start the Our Father, I know this has helped me personally focus more on the prayer.

The unity aspect is already present. I’m standing in God’s house sharing the Lord’s Supper with my brothers and sisters, and praying with them in unison. That’s true family unity.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, there’s been so much ambiguity (mostly negativity) from the cardinals and bishops who’ve talked about this issue over the years that I have recently changed my mind and decided that it’s not a good thing. So I refrain now.

If the church is packed and someone offers me their hand, under most circumstances I will take it so as not to make it awkward. But normally now I just clasp my hands and close my eyes when we start the Our Father, I know this has helped me personally focus more on the prayer.

The unity aspect is already present. I’m standing in God’s house sharing the Lord’s Supper with my brothers and sisters, and praying with them in unison. That’s true family unity.

I’m with you!

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, as I said there are valid points for both sides. Personally, I don’t mind it, unless you get those conga lines where they try to connect the entire church.

I am just saying that it is not forbidden.

I do go with the custom of the host community. I believe this is more in the spirit of public community worship than forcing or forbidding it.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

There really is no justification for this gesture, none whatsoever. There are those who claim that going about whatever is the “local custom” should be the norm. But, that is also wrong.

The fact remains that the hand-holding gesture is not codified in the GIRM nor does it appear anywhere in the authoritative liturgical documents of the Holy See. Since it is not a norm, it should not be followed, regardless of some alleged local custom.

The hand-holding gesture is a personal idiosyncracy that crept into the Mass.

I am the one who brought up the issue with the Neocatechumenal Way. What they were doing were things that were 180-degrees to the opposite of the prescribed norms for the Mass to the point that they were just about inventing their own form of the Mass. I daresay that having stepped into one of these activities by accident, it is no wonder that Rome acted the way it did.

Now, if you were to watch a Mass broadcast from St. Peter’s Basilica, you will find virtually no hand-holding. Believe me, CTV is very good (to the point of annoying) at panning the crowds. You do not see this activity.

As one of the posters indicated, the unity is already there from the moment we walk into the church. Just the fact that we have all entered and have assembled together has already unity. We do not need further manisfestations of this through silly gestures. Nor are we required to follow a local custom that has no basis at all in the liturgical Tradition of the Church.

I would challenge the proponents of hand-holding as a local custom to please find a specific reference in the authoritative documents of the Holy See to prove that this is valid. I submit that you will not find anything because no such instrument exists. Therefore, if it does not exist, then it should not happen, and priests are free to prohibit this practice from the Mass because it is not legitimate.

 

[benedictgal]

How about before the liturgy was codified. Your assertion has no basis in fact. Facts are that we just don’t know what Christians did when the met in little groups in houses. Maybe they did it, then stopped doing it. You don’t know. I don’t know. We’re merely speculating.

We have the writings of St. Justin Martyr and others who have recorded what went on in the liturgy of the early Church. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Ancient Israel, where most of the early Church grew out of, never prayed in that manner.

 

[benedictgal]

Well, there’s been so much ambiguity (mostly negativity) from the cardinals and bishops who’ve talked about this issue over the years that I have recently changed my mind and decided that it’s not a good thing. So I refrain now.

If the church is packed and someone offers me their hand, under most circumstances I will take it so as not to make it awkward. But normally now I just clasp my hands and close my eyes when we start the Our Father, I know this has helped me personally focus more on the prayer.

The unity aspect is already present. I’m standing in God’s house sharing the Lord’s Supper with my brothers and sisters, and praying with them in unison. That’s true family unity.

AC, let’s not forget that we are not the only ones present. The entire Church, Triumphant, Militant and Suffering, joins in on every Mass that is celebrated. My PV noted that in his homily today.

So, when we’re busy “forming community” let’s not ignore the vast unseen cloud of witnesses that joins us at every Mass. I don’t see anyone reaching out to hold their hands during the Mass.

 

[Aramis]

Perhaps, BayernAnhaenger. But your question was:

*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? (My emphasis)

We don’t know for certain that the faithful never did it, that’s all I’m saying.

There are some surviving third century illustrations of the faithful in the orantes posture during a liturgy of some kind; given the one I’ve seen on TV, it’s clearly got a deaconess and a priest, and bread and a chalice on the table. It looks to be the Divine Liturgy, but given the antiquity and location, it’s probably byzantine rite. (It was in Greece, IIRC.)