Holding hands during mass for Our Father

[ncjohn]

I’ve just quoted some very clear documentation, but I’m awaiting your response to that documentation to prove to me that a priest may not forbid a practice which is not to be found in any approved liturgical book.
What you say (that a priest cannot forbid) and what the Church says (that a priest has an obligation to do so) seem to be at odds with each other. How do you reconcile them?

:yawn:

I have to giveyou credit for doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt. But in the end you have the fundamental flaw that you can’t get away from. In order for any of those documents to mean anything there has to be an abuse. And to get to there being an abuse you have to get someone to believe that there truly is an intent that how we hold our hands is “adding to the liturgy.”

You ignore the clear language of SC that there is no intent to strictly regulate posture.

You take a sentence from SC that was written to keep priests from adding things to the liturgy and try to put that on to the people in the pews and extrapolate that how they hold their hands while they pray “adds to the liturgy”. But only for this one single position; in your mind THAT position adds to the liturgy while no other position we put our hands in does so.

You ignore the fact that the USCCB is the body authorized to regulate postures and that they have clearly said that there is no prescription for or against the practice. And then try to take a position that their non-position somehow requires approval from the Holy See and that you get to ignore them.

You ignore the Noticiae–the only direct document from the Vatican on the topic–that specifically said you can’t substitute holding hands for the sign of peace but specifically did not in any way reprobate the holding hands itself.

You and benedictgal have made clear that the Neocatechumenal Way was sanctioned for introducing things, yet no one has sanctioned this practice.

You bring up RS, which goes into minute detail about numerous actual abuses yet doesn’t say a word about the most whined about question out there. But you want to take some general language and try to make it specific to something that nobody addressed in a document about abuses.

Benedictgal brings up the statement that there is “virtually” no handholding at Papal masses, and while I will concede that it is not common, it is not non-existent either. And it is most certainly pretty widespread at the Papal World Youth Day masses. Yet not a single word from the Pope or his spokesmen on the subject.

And when Cardinal Arinze was asked the question when he visited the US he answered that it wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.

I’m sorry but it just takes a tremendous leap of faith and logic to get to the position that how we hold our hands is adding to the liturgy, much less an abuse. The burden is really on you to show a single official document that supports that interpretation. Unless and until you can do that, none of those other documents are applicable. And unless and until you can do that, any claim that you have any authority to regulate it is clearly untrue based on the very paragraph from SC that you keep trying to use as the basis for the argument.

You clearly have a hatred for this, and I can respect even that as it is your prerogative. But as I said earlier, there comes a time when one has to recognize when the facts just don’t support the actions and one is becoming “more Catholic than the Pope.”

I hope over time you’ll be able to recognize that there are some very loyal and devout Catholics out there who just happen to pray differently than you. We’re not stupid and we’re not fuzzy-headed liberals; we just see a value and a sign that you clearly detest for whatever reason. Why it upsets you so much how we pray I don’t know but I’ll continue to pray that we can stop judging each other over such things.

Peace,

 

[FrDavid96]

:yawn:

I have to giveyou credit for doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt. But in the end you have the fundamental flaw that you can’t get away from. In order for any of those documents to mean anything there has to be an abuse. And to get to there being an abuse you have to get someone to believe that there truly is an intent that how we hold our hands is “adding to the liturgy.”

You ignore the clear language of SC that there is no intent to strictly regulate posture.

You take a sentence from SC that was written to keep priests from adding things to the liturgy and try to put that on to the people in the pews and extrapolate that how they hold their hands while they pray “adds to the liturgy”. But only for this one single position; in your mind THAT position adds to the liturgy while no other position we put our hands in does so.

You ignore the fact that the USCCB is the body authorized to regulate postures and that they have clearly said that there is no prescription for or against the practice. And then try to take a position that their non-position somehow requires approval from the Holy See and that you get to ignore them.

You ignore the Noticiae–the only direct document from the Vatican on the topic–that specifically said you can’t substitute holding hands for the sign of peace but specifically did not in any way reprobate the holding hands itself.

You and benedictgal have made clear that the Neocatechumenal Way was sanctioned for introducing things, yet no one has sanctioned this practice.

You bring up RS, which goes into minute detail about numerous actual abuses yet doesn’t say a word about the most whined about question out there. But you want to take some general language and try to make it specific to something that nobody addressed in a document about abuses.

Benedictgal brings up the statement that there is “virtually” no handholding at Papal masses, and while I will concede that it is not common, it is not non-existent either. And it is most certainly pretty widespread at the Papal World Youth Day masses. Yet not a single word from the Pope or his spokesmen on the subject.

And when Cardinal Arinze was asked the question when he visited the US he answered that it wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.

I’m sorry but it just takes a tremendous leap of faith and logic to get to the position that how we hold our hands is adding to the liturgy, much less an abuse. The burden is really on you to show a single official document that supports that interpretation. Unless and until you can do that, none of those other documents are applicable. And unless and until you can do that, any claim that you have any authority to regulate it is clearly untrue based on the very paragraph from SC that you keep trying to use as the basis for the argument.

You clearly have a hatred for this, and I can respect even that as it is your prerogative. But as I said earlier, there comes a time when one has to recognize when the facts just don’t support the actions and one is becoming “more Catholic than the Pope.”

I hope over time you’ll be able to recognize that there are some very loyal and devout Catholics out there who just happen to pray differently than you. We’re not stupid and we’re not fuzzy-headed liberals; we just see a value and a sign that you clearly detest for whatever reason. Why it upsets you so much how we pray I don’t know but I’ll continue to pray that we can stop judging each other over such things.

Peace,

Show me hand-holding in the Sacramentary as either a required or permitted option and I will agree with you.
Until then, I will continue to hold to the words of S.C, R.S., and every other instance of the Church saying clearly and unambiguously that nothing may be added to the Mass on one’s own authority.
I don’t have to prove that every single liturgical aberration is forbidden. The burden of proof lies with one who supports it. So far, I have heard nothing but an argument from silence, or an argument from personal preference. I accept neither.

 

[The_Smiter]

:yawn:

I have to giveyou credit for doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt. But in the end you have the fundamental flaw that you can’t get away from. In order for any of those documents to mean anything there has to be an abuse. And to get to there being an abuse you have to get someone to believe that there truly is an intent that how we hold our hands is “adding to the liturgy.”

You ignore the clear language of SC that there is no intent to strictly regulate posture.

You take a sentence from SC that was written to keep priests from adding things to the liturgy and try to put that on to the people in the pews and extrapolate that how they hold their hands while they pray “adds to the liturgy”. But only for this one single position; in your mind THAT position adds to the liturgy while no other position we put our hands in does so.

You ignore the fact that the USCCB is the body authorized to regulate postures and that they have clearly said that there is no prescription for or against the practice. And then try to take a position that their non-position somehow requires approval from the Holy See and that you get to ignore them.

You ignore the Noticiae–the only direct document from the Vatican on the topic–that specifically said you can’t substitute holding hands for the sign of peace but specifically did not in any way reprobate the holding hands itself.

You and benedictgal have made clear that the Neocatechumenal Way was sanctioned for introducing things, yet no one has sanctioned this practice.

You bring up RS, which goes into minute detail about numerous actual abuses yet doesn’t say a word about the most whined about question out there. But you want to take some general language and try to make it specific to something that nobody addressed in a document about abuses.

Benedictgal brings up the statement that there is “virtually” no handholding at Papal masses, and while I will concede that it is not common, it is not non-existent either. And it is most certainly pretty widespread at the Papal World Youth Day masses. Yet not a single word from the Pope or his spokesmen on the subject.

And when Cardinal Arinze was asked the question when he visited the US he answered that it wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.

I’m sorry but it just takes a tremendous leap of faith and logic to get to the position that how we hold our hands is adding to the liturgy, much less an abuse. The burden is really on you to show a single official document that supports that interpretation. Unless and until you can do that, none of those other documents are applicable. And unless and until you can do that, any claim that you have any authority to regulate it is clearly untrue based on the very paragraph from SC that you keep trying to use as the basis for the argument.

You clearly have a hatred for this, and I can respect even that as it is your prerogative. But as I said earlier, there comes a time when one has to recognize when the facts just don’t support the actions and one is becoming “more Catholic than the Pope.”

I hope over time you’ll be able to recognize that there are some very loyal and devout Catholics out there who just happen to pray differently than you. We’re not stupid and we’re not fuzzy-headed liberals; we just see a value and a sign that you clearly detest for whatever reason. Why it upsets you so much how we pray I don’t know but I’ll continue to pray that we can stop judging each other over such things.

Peace,

The bishops taking no position on this or any other poature is not the issue. The * orans* position is reserved for the clergy. It is presumptive for the laity to assume postures relegated to the clergy. Either way, it seems that those who choose to refrain from the holding of hands are the ones who are made to be the outcasts. If someone is insistent (why they would be I do not know - possible poor catechesis) I hoild their hands - there is no need to bring scandal or to be uncharitable. But why is it that in choosing to remain faithful to the correct practices I am the one who is made to feel that I am the one who is not in step?

I really have no axe to grind over this issue, I simply wish that those who blindly fall into every popular and sultural sawy withgin the liturgy would not look at those who do not as somehow being less than participatory in the liturgy.

 

[FrCorey]

Even in medieval times, they did wash them once a year (usually at Pascaltide). After about a week, they start to itch.

thats what fine wool is for…

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Show me hand-holding in the Sacramentary as either a required or permitted option and I will agree with you…

Show any prayer posture for the congregation either required or permitted. What should the congregation do?

Lux

 

[Freshman88]

Even in medieval times, they did wash them once a year (usually at Pascaltide). After about a week, they start to itch.

ha! I always enjoyed FSSP videos where they show the seminarians playing hockey or basketball in a cassock. Adds a whole new element to the game if you ask me.

 

[beckycmarie]

ncjohn,

Your post reminds me of the joke about a boy whose father sends him to his room and tells him, “I’d better not see you come out of your door for an hour.”

Fifteen minutes later, the boy is out playing in the yard. The father demands to know why the boy has defied him, and the boy replies, “you didn’t say I couldn’t go out the window.”

It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that the documents quoted by Fr. David forbid adding disruptive gestures to the liturgy. It’s one thing if a married couple or family wish to hold hands among themselves, and quite another when the entire assembly holds hands, across rows, into the choir loft, in a disruptive and coercive manner. I say coercive because it pressures people who do not wish to hold hands into doing so, and when they refuse, creates conflict. A few examples of such coercion and conflict from thread alone:

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.

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.

I would think that these are perfect examples of actions that “introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist,” as described by the Vatican document quoted by Fr. David.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t have to prove that every single liturgical aberration is forbidden.

No, but it has to BE an aberration and it is up to the one claiming it to be one to prove that. You have yet to show a single piece of documentation from the Vatican, or to overcome the clear statements that say otherwise, that supports an interpretation that how one holds one’s hands introduces anything into the liturgy and is therefore an abuse. Without such an interpretation there is no basis to declare an aberration that the Church has not. As has been pointed out repeatedly there is NO position for the hands specified so you don’t just get to pick one YOU don’t like and declare it an abuse.

I know you have a lot invested here in your position and that giving even the tiniest concession would be very difficult. We have conceded that there are lots of good reasons for an individual to not want to participate, and have no disrespect for anyone for whatever their reason is. We agree that no third party should be instigating it and I have heartily supported priests reminding their congregations that it is not required. Lux and I have even agreed that a priest explaining his position and just nicely asking people to refrain would likely bring compliance out of nothing more than courtesy and respect. And I don’t think any of us condone anyone grabbing at someone who doesn’t wish to participate. I would even agree that if it truly does get “disruptive” with people daisy-chaining across aisles or doing some kind of gymnastics that a priest has the right to tone it down. That being said though, I will not concede for a second any “legal” right for you to heavy-handedly forbid the practice when all the evidence says you don’t have the authority.

I would ask again what it is about how someone else prays that has brought out such hatred? Why the speck in someone else’s eye creates such a beam in your own on this matter. I know that none of us like to have our “authority” challenged but this seems to be far beyond that and I just can’t put my finger on what it might be.

Archbishop Chaput of Denver put together a wonderful statement on this topic a while back that addresses the requirements and the charity aspect of how we should be conducting ourselves. For what it’s worth it can be seen here. archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_18_02_our_father_liturgy.htm It is of course just the statement of a single bishop and not binding on anyone but as a pretty conservative bishop and exceptional shepherd I personally take his advice to heart.

Regardless, I can’t imagine anything that hasn’t been said at this point. It has become all heat and no light and clearly no minds are going to be changed. I would like to highly recommend a cease-fire to give all time to just cool off and recompose themselves. If that decision doesn’t come easily, I would alternately just ask the moderators to shut this thread down in the interest of peace.

 

[Paul1961]

“…and some of this seems ridiculous to you, but the fact is we are supposed to be obedient to the Church’s guidelines for Mass, and not introduce innovations, such as holding hands during the Our Father”

When I have a dilemma , I try to imagine that an embodied Jesus is here with me. What would he say and do?

I picture him looking at this kind of petty argument and shaking his head in disappointment. Where is the message love that I left you with?

If he was in the pews with us, would he join hands with those around him? I believe he would. He would reach out to the leaper. He would reach out his hand to that lonely sole longing for any human contact and give them a smile that warmed their heart.

 

[estesbob]

Show me hand-holding in the Sacramentary as either a required or permitted option and I will agree with you.
Until then, I will continue to hold to the words of S.C, R.S., and every other instance of the Church saying clearly and unambiguously that nothing may be added to the Mass on one’s own authority.
I don’t have to prove that every single liturgical aberration is forbidden. The burden of proof lies with one who supports it. So far, I have heard nothing but an argument from silence, or an argument from personal preference. I accept neither.

So is holding hands during the Our Father a venial or a Mortal sin? And if i put my hands in pockets during the Our Father is that an abuse? How about if I fold my arms? Clasp my Hands behind my back?

 

[Parce_Domine]

*“introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist,” *

When I’m already praying, and the person on each side of me interrupts my prayer to pull my hands apart and hold them when I have already made my preferred posture clear, it very much creates disharmony. That’s right, it annoys me. The laity have no authority to impose this and that is precisely what is happening.

Since there are several pages on this thread already and I must get ready for Mass soon, I’ll ask a question that might already have been answered: What is the purpose of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer? All the answer I’ve gotten so far is vague “fellowship” type answers, which obviously are inadequate since offering the sign of peace immediately follows the prayer. Is there a better reason, or one that at least would justify disrupting one at Mass? If it’s already been answered, just point me to the page number please.

The same people that grab my hands during prayer would not dare be so demanding of my attention if I was on the phone with someone important, but they’ll interrupt my talking to Someone who is more important than anyone I could be on the phone with.

What is so urgent about holding hands before the Sign of Peace that it justifies interrupting someone in prayer or even imposing one’s personal preference onto someone in this manner at all?

Also, if I want to bow my head, please don’t grab my hair and pull my head up just because you don’t want to bow yours. I won’t reach up and push yours forward if you don’t bow. It would cause disharmony for me to impose my preferences on you, too.

 

[Dicerning]

Pot calling the kettle black, methinks.

Anyway, this thread could go on forever, and probably will. Those who will complain and cite chapter and verse, those who don’t care either way, and those who like the practice, as well as those Bishops and Priests that tolerate and may encourage the practice.

I just love being a Catholic.

You forgot to mention those bishops and priests who frown on it.

Like my parish priest…and parish for that matter. It doesn’t happen at our parish.

 

[FM927]

I thought the only time you actually touch (i.e. shake hands) someone sitting next to you is when you share the sign of PEACE!
In my parish I have never seen anyone greet anyone else before mass or after for that matter, unless it was someone they knew.
Also after Mass the only hand that gets shaken is the Priest’s
who stands at the door of the church telling everyone to have a wonderful day.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

That is fine. No posture is prescribed at these times.

It has been shown that the Church does not want to be rigid in regulating the posture of the congregation.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

I have to giveyou credit for doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt. But in the end you have the fundamental flaw that you can’t get away from. In order for any of those documents to mean anything there has to be an abuse. And to get to there being an abuse you have to get someone to believe that there truly is an intent that how we hold our hands is “adding to the liturgy.”

It’s a given that corporate hand-holding is adding a gesture to the Liturgy that isn’t there. It is absurd to say that ANY corporate gesture is not adding something to the Liturgy (if it’s not already there). I’m afraid the fundamental flaw is on your part when you deny that adding something to the Mass is in fact adding something to the Mass.

You ignore the clear language of SC that there is no intent to strictly regulate posture.

While Sacrosanctum Concilium is not itself liturgical law, we do have the liturgical laws. We cannot dismiss them simply because we don’t like them. SC clearly says that no one may add anything to the Liturgy on his own authority.

You take a sentence from SC that was written to keep priests from adding things to the liturgy and try to put that on to the people in the pews and extrapolate that how they hold their hands while they pray “adds to the liturgy”. But only for this one single position; in your mind THAT position adds to the liturgy while no other position we put our hands in does so.

No. The Council says that no one may add to the Liturgy, even if he is a priest. That does not mean that one who isn’t a priest may add something on his own authority.

You ignore the fact that the USCCB is the body authorized to regulate postures and that they have clearly said that there is no prescription for or against the practice. And then try to take a position that their non-position somehow requires approval from the Holy See and that you get to ignore them.

I am not ignoring the USCCB, I am following the approved Sacramentary.

You ignore the Noticiae–the only direct document from the Vatican on the topic–that specifically said you can’t substitute holding hands for the sign of peace but specifically did not in any way reprobate the holding hands itself.

Once again, you make an argument from silence.

(edited for space)
You bring up RS, which goes into minute detail about numerous actual abuses yet doesn’t say a word about the most whined about question out there. But you want to take some general language and try to make it specific to something that nobody addressed in a document about abuses.

Again, I do not accept your argument from silence. The plain meaning of RS is that nothing may be added. It is disingenuous to read into that document that anything not specifically forbidden is permitted. This line of thought flies in the face of the entire document; both the letter of the words and the spirit of the words. The Church was being very clear in that nothing may be added. The plain meaning of the words applies here.

Benedictgal brings up the statement that there is “virtually” no handholding at Papal masses, and while I will concede that it is not common, it is not non-existent either. And it is most certainly pretty widespread at the Papal World Youth Day masses. Yet not a single word from the Pope or his spokesmen on the subject.

And when Cardinal Arinze was asked the question when he visited the US he answered that it wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.

Two more arguments from silence.

I’m sorry but it just takes a tremendous leap of faith and logic to get to the position that how we hold our hands is adding to the liturgy, much less an abuse. The burden is really on you to show a single official document that supports that interpretation. Unless and until you can do that, none of those other documents are applicable. And unless and until you can do that, any claim that you have any authority to regulate it is clearly untrue based on the very paragraph from SC that you keep trying to use as the basis for the argument.

The real leap of faith is to say that the plain meaning of the words of Redemptionis Sacramentum do not mean what those words say. Again, I don’t have to prove that Rome has forbidden it. Since it is not to be found anywhere in any single approved liturgical document of the Church, the burden of proof lies with the one who supports it.

(quoted post edited for the sake of space)

I will continue to pray that people will accept that the Church and not individual preferences determine what happens in the Mass. I will continue to pray that people stop setting themselves up as knowing better than the Church what should happen at the Mass.

I cannot help but point-out that you make references to Sacrosanctum Concilium and Redemptionis Sacramentum to “support” your position, yet you have completely avoided using the actual words of those documents. Why not? Could it be that those words mean what they say they mean, and not whay you say they mean? Quote the documents to support your own interpretation of them and it might lend some credibility to your arguments. I and othes have quoted them over-and-over again.

I say that the documents of the Church mean exactly what they say. You say that the documents do not mean what they say. Let the readers here search for the documents themselves and actually read them–they’re available on the internet quite easily.

I invite anyone reading this thread to actually read Redemptionis Sacramentum adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html
Read it in it’s entirety and judge for youselves if the position of the Church is that (a) nothing may be added to the Liturgy on one’s own initiative or (b) something may be added so long as the one doing it thinks of it as “no big deal”.