Holding hands during the Lord's Prayer-Respectfully Declining

[hotdiggity]

Ok , I’ll be a bit blunt: messing with the liturgy is not the best way to show our hospitality or even our willingness to die for one another. The sacred liturgy is not the work of human hands, or at least it should never be such…it is the result of literally almost two millennia of tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When individuals, no matter how many, adopt a novel custom, that is not proper. One can bear it with charity - as if one grabs my hand before I fold them - but one cannot promote what is the result of personal initiative.

Holy Mass, contrary to popular belief (especially in the last few decades) is about Christ, about God. It is not about making friends or interacting with our fellow brothers in Christ. It is in focusing on the Spotless Lamb alone that we find true communion with our brothers and sisters. Mass should be totally and entirely focused on Him, with utmost reverence and attention towards the altar and the minister acting in persona Christi, as if Jesus Christ Himself stood before our very eyes.

Instead too often we find a disordered motion towards the people, which is not always openly condemned by the Church but nevertheless affects reverence in Mass, and not for the best…it’s not the fact of holding hands per se…it’s the idea that somehow we must introduce these novel elements of get-together…that somehow we must show more closeness to one another…thus we hold hands, but we also find extra-rubrical “good mornings” and “good afternoons”, or else sometimes there are motions of clapping, or we find a priest walking down from the ambo and interacting with the congregation or even asking questions as if the homily was some sort of dialogue amidst peers, or an excessive interaction of lay faithful in Holy Communion when priests and deacons should be present instead…and finally, Mass ends and many form small groups and start chatting, rather than devoutly keeping company to God who is physically present within them…all of this is an expression of the very same issue, and if we try to deny that there is an issue and we try to justify one or the other occurrence, we are simply not offering the best we have to offer in terms of liturgy.

So yes, people have excellent reasons to not want to accept the imposition of this novelty. That does not mean that those who adopt them at some point don’t do it with the best intentions and full of love…that does not mean that we should respond full of charity, seeing Christ reflected through our neighbor…but we can and should understand and accept the liturgy as it is, not adapt it as we personally think it should be.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

The celebrant is the facilitator of the Lords Prayer and provides the appropriate hand posture, and the Faithful pray it in unison but individually. It isn’t a corporate prayer.

 

[NickD]

In my archdiocese, it is expected of you to hold hands during the Our Father, and if you don’t people think you’re one of those nasty traditionalists… :banghead:

It’s a breath of fresh air to visit other places and not be expected to get all touchy-feely with strangers… :extrahappy:

but to answer your question, I fold my hands in prayer on my chest–as I learned to when altar serving It usually works

 

[adrift]

To answer the question I have a book to follow the Mass I just hold it. At parishes that hold hands I have not had a problem. Only once did a woman snub me at the exchange of peace.

Documentation?

After doing a search, I could not verify anything you wrote. The only referece came back to you.

I did check with the the Vatican which verified that the GIRM contain the norms of what should be done.

As I said it states what can be done. It would take an unending book to tell people what they shouldn’t do.

It also fits with Cardinal Arinze’ response over the prior GIRM which said in so many words that those who had received Communion were to remain standing until all had received. His response was that Rome did not intend to be so rigid about posture.

Since the instructions to stand until everone received was against the GIRM your point is moot.

After Communion. In 1974 Rome gave an official interpretation of the rubrics on the period after Communion, which makes the posture an option. It states,

After communion they may either kneel, stand, or sit. Accordingly the GIRM no. 21 gives this rule: “The people sit. . .if this seems useful during the period of silence after communion.” Thus it is a matter of option, not obligation. The GIRM no. 121, should, therefore, be interpreted to match no. 21: Notitiae 10 (1974) 407.

The new GIRM states,

43… They should sit during the readings before the gospel and during the responsorial psalm, for the homily and the preparation of the gifts, and, if this seems helpful, they may sit or kneel during the period of religious silence after communion.
However, some of the faithful complain that hey are being required to stand at their place after getting back from Communion. A response which Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, received from Rome appears to clarify that point.

Query: Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by no. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, [the new 2000 GIRM] intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following reception of Communion?

Response: Negative. [Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Prot. 2372/00/L, 7 November 2000]

 

[MikeInFlorida]

Others can be upset all day long that I don’t accept their hand, but it’s an inappropriate posture for the faithful. The priest is the intercessor for the Lords Prayer and uses the orans posture which, by the way, is not to be mistaken for the lifting up of hands which many misguided Faithful seem to feel compelled to do.

 

[R_C]

R_C;10726097:

I shall call a novelty anything that developed after the rise of protestantism and its anti-liturgical heresy, and particularly each and every practice within the Holy Mass that is not clearly allowed and is not found in Tradition in the Roman Rite or any other Rite.

I’d walk a bit carefully there as you are coming fairly close to calling the OF a novelty; Rome seems to think otherwise.

Seems.

Below a few writings by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith of Holy Roman Church:

Today we might ask: Is there a Latin Rite at all any more? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy seems to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange. Core groups make up their own ‘liturgies’ from week to week, with an enthusiasm which is as amazing as it is misplaced.

After the Council, many deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program. They argued that the New Testament had abolished the cult of the Temple, and that the tearing of the veil of the Temple from top to bottom upon Christ’ death was meant to signify the end of the sacred. …] Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things. …]

In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy …] We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication …]

Even the official new books, which are excellent in many ways, occasionally show far too many signs of being drawn up by academics and reinforce the notion that a liturgical book can be ‘made’ like any other book. The new missal “was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth."

 

[R_C]

Ah, yes, the “cartwheeling down the isle” objection. That is called a red herring.

Holding hands, or also taking Communion standing, receiving the Chalice from a female lay “extraordinary minister”, are not too far from cartwheeling down the isle, if we look at the bi-millennial history of the sacred liturgy.

It was absolutely the custom in most Low Masses before Vatican 2; I can’t remember one in fact; it was only used in High Masses and Solemn High Masses. and there is no “complete absence” now.

The point of the “optional” in the GIRM after the reform that removed the Low/High difference was to allow the use of incense even in what before was a “low” Mass. Now incense is mostly gone even from the main Sunday celebration in too many places. But of course, it’s a new custom, so we have no right to ask for incense to be reintroduced in those places, do we.

It was the custom before Vatican 2 that most people left after Mass, and many chatted after they got out of the church. It has migrated into the church after Mass, but other than this side or that side of the doors, it continues on from before Vatican 2.

When people walk out of the house of God and into the world, their demeanor obviously changes and adapts. We are expected to behave different inside a Church where Christ is truly present. It is indeed quite interesting that the behavior - understandable outside of Church - has migrated into the Church. Of course, it may be due to the fact that often people barely have the time to kneel after Communion before they hear “let us pray” and Mass is over, while before there was a certain amount of time, especially extended by the reading of the Gospel of John and - in Low Mass - by the prayers to Our Lady, St. Michael, and the Sacred Heart.

The point is that it does not matter for how long an unacceptable series of behaviors is present in some spots of the Universal Church: that which is not done well is to be repaired. And that includes the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, for there are many theologians in high places who have been calling for a “reform of the reform” not due to the Council but to “problems in the post-conciliar development of the liturgy…connected with the fact that the Council’s approach to this fundamental mystery was not sufficiently kept in mind” (words of Card. Ratzinger). As Cardinal Koch (then Prefect of another Dicastery of Holy See) wrote: “a liturgical re-form takes its orientation from that fundamental form of the Christian worship service that is prescribed by the Church’s Tradition”.

Of course, it would already be a huge step to begin actually applying what is mandated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Veterum Sapientia, and Memoriale Domini…as well as by trying to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a way that resembles more a Catholic Holy Mass than a Lutheran service (which is often the case, don’t get me wrong, but not always…I am not complaining, just pointing out facts for those who don’t know or don’t mind the issues of the liturgical reform which was not of but subsequent to VII and has lead to endless threads on holding hands et cetera).

 

[otjm]

Holding hands, or also taking Communion standing, receiving the Chalice from a female lay “extraordinary minister”, are not too far from cartwheeling down the isle, if we look at the bi-millennial history of the sacred liturgy.

Actually they are extremely far. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you do not understand the authority of the papacy. Sorry, can’t help you.

The point of the “optional” in the GIRM after the reform that removed the Low/High difference was to allow the use of incense even in what before was a “low” Mass. Now incense is mostly gone even from the main Sunday celebration in too many places. But of course, it’s a new custom, so we have no right to ask for incense to be reintroduced in those places, do we.

Incense was not used in Sunday Masses before 1962; sorry - I was there as an altar boy. Incense was used in funerals and in solemn High Mass, and at Benediction.

When people walk out of the house of God and into the world, their demeanor obviously changes and adapts. We are expected to behave different inside a Church where Christ is truly present. It is indeed quite interesting that the behavior - understandable outside of Church - has migrated into the Church. Of course, it may be due to the fact that often people barely have the time to kneel after Communion before they hear “let us pray” and Mass is over, while before there was a certain amount of time, especially extended by the reading of the Gospel of John and - in Low Mass - by the prayers to Our Lady, St. Michael, and the Sacred Heart.

The amount of time was not significantly different from what it is now. “Quite interesting”? Actually, boring. Barely time? Your view of history is a bit skewed; we stood for the last Gospel. and everyone sat as the priest sat, for not much more than a minute or two - as now.

" (words of Card. Ratzinger). As Cardinal Koch (then Prefect of another Dicastery of Holy See) wrote: “a liturgical re-form takes its orientation from that fundamental form of the Christian worship service that is prescribed by the Church’s Tradition”.We don’t disagree.

Of course, it would already be a huge step to begin actually applying what is mandated in Sacrosanctum Concilium

, Veterum Sapientia, and Memoriale Domini…as well as by trying to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a way that resembles more a Catholic Holy Mass than a Lutheran service (which is often the case, don’t get me wrong, but not always…I am not complaining, just pointing out facts for those who don’t know or don’t mind the issues of the liturgical reform which was not of but subsequent to VII and has lead to endless threads on holding hands et cetera).Your comment on the Lutheran service could use some historical research.

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

Documentation?

For Rome? any good map.

For the philosophy of Law? any good course on it.

 

[otjm]

After doing a search, I could not verify anything you wrote. The only referece came back to you.

and your point is…? I didn’t do a search - it was part of a course I took in law.

I did check with the the Vatican which verified that the GIRM contain the norms of what should be done.

I was not referencing the current GIRM but the one previous to it. Your quote about Archbishop Burke is not correct; the dubium was sent by Francis Cardinal George, and it was not about kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

As I said it states what can be done. It would take an unending book to tell people what they shouldn’t do.

For some people, there is no help. Others understand the issue. those who take the Germanic approach consider anything else to be free-wheeling with no law at all.

Since the instructions to stand until everone received was against the GIRM your point is moot.

See above. Wrong bishop, wrong dubium.

 

[adrift]

I was not referencing the current GIRM but the one previous to it. Your quote about

I see than your whole response to my post was a Non sequitur.

 

[ProVobis]

Others can be upset all day long that I don’t accept their hand, but it’s an inappropriate posture for the faithful. The priest is the intercessor for the Lords Prayer and uses the orans posture which, by the way, is not to be mistaken for the lifting up of hands which many misguided Faithful seem to feel compelled to do.

I agree and it’s not even a matter of whether it’s done at the Lord’s Prayer or not. Basically the gesture is an invasion of space that is not called for in the rubrics, and I’m not sure it’s even appropriate for out of Mass or out of the rubrics. I can understand holding your kid’s or spouse’s hand or walking an elderly to and from a pew but the way it’s done today I feel really distracts from the Mass, especially when there is the exchange of peace right afterwards.

 

[otjm]

I see than your whole response to my post was a Non sequitur.

Is that how you admit mistakes?

 

[mlz]

Where I live no one holds hand unless they are related( families) most raise their hands to The Lord as they pray.

Mlz

 

[adrift]

Is that how you admit mistakes?

What a joke. You make a comment on my post which was about the current GIRM with a remark about a previous GIRM and I made a mistake. I should also mention that not until a later post did you make mention of what GIRM your were talking about :juggle: I made no mistake. My comments stand. Your remark about what you learned, you know what they say about a little bit of learning, was not relevant to my remark.

Well, a study of the philosophy of law would indicate that you are taking the Germainc approach to law: “What is not permitted is not allowed”.

the other approach to law is the Mediterranean model: Whatever is not prohibited is allowed". Last I checked, Rome was in the Mediterranean.

Your statement is without foundation and for all I know since I couldn’t find anything on a search misstated, misquoted and misrepresented.
I guess the way you admit a mistake is by committing another. :bowdown: