Holding hands during the Our Father

[MarkThompson]

Even though the question treated the sing of peace and how it was bleeding into the Pater Noster, what I highlighted in bold red is what is at issue here. The CDWDS clearly states that it is not in the rubrics.

Everyone knows that. The way the EWTN page was cut and pasted before, it made it look like the CDWDS had said that “the reasons given” concerning “the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace . . . apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father,” i.e., that the CDWDS had said that hands are not to be held at the Pater Noster. But as even you must admit, the CDWDS has never said that.

 

[FAB]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
A) General norms

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

The first two sentences need to be taken into account:

A) General norms

1. 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.

Along with:

D) Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples

1. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

1. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics

Since the practice of holding hands has become a tradition in the church over a 30 year period, and was started by the faithful, it seems to fall within the definition of this section, I would suspect it is why the bishops have not ernestly tried to stop the practice.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

The first two sentences need to be taken into account:

Along with:

Since the practice of holding hands has become a tradition in the church over a 30 year period, and was started by the faithful, it seems to fall within the definition of this section, I would suspect it is why the bishops have not ernestly tried to stop the practice.

Peace,
FAB

FAB, in my opinion, you are defending the indefensible. Just because someone’s been doing something ilicit for 30 years, that does not necessarily mean that it’s allowed by your interpretation.

Furthermore, unless a bishops’ conference gets the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops and then sends the proposal to Rome for the necessary recognitio, this ilicit gesture remains that, an ilicit gesture.

 

[benedictgal]

Everyone knows that. The way the EWTN page was cut and pasted before, it made it look like the CDWDS had said that “the reasons given” concerning “the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace . . . apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father,” i.e., that the CDWDS had said that hands are not to be held at the Pater Noster. But as even you must admit, the CDWDS has never said that.

I did no such thing, Mark. The CDWDS clearly stated, as I highlighted it in bold in my previous response to you, that this was ilicit.

 

[roadsend]

"Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics."

Seems pretty clear that the Church authorities see this as an illicit “liturgical gesture” not a personal posture choice or anything else.
Catholics, who value and respect our liturgical traditions, should find this practice offensive.

 

[MarkThompson]

I did no such thing, Mark. The CDWDS clearly stated, as I highlighted it in bold in my previous response to you, that this was ilicit.

No, they said handholding during the Pater Noster was “introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” They never said it was illicit – in fact, if they had deemed it illicit, this would have been the perfect opportunity to make it clear. But they did no such thing. You’re seeing things that aren’t in the documents (again).

 

[FAB]

FAB, in my opinion, you are defending the indefensible. Just because someone’s been doing something ilicit for 30 years, that does not necessarily mean that it’s allowed by your interpretation.

Furthermore, unless a bishops’ conference gets the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops and then sends the proposal to Rome for the necessary recognitio, this ilicit gesture remains that, an ilicit gesture.

Benedictgal,
I believe that the if the practice was viewed as ilicit, the bishops would have brought a stop to it.
The section I presented shows the recongition that there is room for flexability within the liturgy of the mass based on local practices. It leaves that decison up the the local ordinary. The section from the general norms indicated the same thing, it is in the hands of the bishop of the diocese to determine what local traditions are allowable and do not take away from the liturgy.
It’s also why that many practices that are pointed out as abuses on these threads really may not be since SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM has taken into account local practices.
It is excellant that you know the documents of the church so well, it also important to recognize the pastoral aspect thay contain.

Peace,
FAB

 

[ProVobis]

Notice the date is from 1975, apparently the comment has had little effect.

Is there an expiration date we weren’t aware of?

 

[ProVobis]

it also important to recognize the pastoral aspect thay contain.

So who’s to say bringing coloring books to Mass doesn’t have pastoral value? You have to recognize culture and old customs as well.

Also for what it’s worth from 1984 Canon Law:

TITLE II: CUSTOM

Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.

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

§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been **lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. **Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

 

[roadsend]

No, they said handholding during the Pater Noster was “introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” They never said it was illicit – in fact, if they had deemed it illicit, this would have been the perfect opportunity to make it clear. But they did no such thing. You’re seeing things that aren’t in the documents (again).

Sacrosanctum Consilium says:
"Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

The Notitiae quote says:
"Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics."

Since this hand holding ritual has been defined by church authorities as a “liturgical gesture”

and

Folks have added it based on their own authority

How can anyone possibly consider it to be licit?

 

[jen_fla]

Since they do it freely and of thier own accord, initiating the practice themselves, that is a faily strong vote.

When you are praying by yourself, I agree with your second comment. But when two or more are gathered it’s a different type of prayer.

Peace, FAB

people in a group setting usually just follow the crowd. i am sure if you asked each one individually if they had a preference (and explained that holding hands does not in any way make the prayer more valuable) you would find most people would like to opt out.

when two or more are gathered has absolutely nothing to do with holding hands. i didn’t have to hold hands with my protestant friend (in the incident i mentioned before) to make my prayer more authentic. if anything the distraction of having to hold a physical hand while i was trying to concentrate took away from my prayer. she doesn’t need me to hold her hand to know what a good friend she is to me. i hug her every time i see her and that’s all good, but during prayer it is a distraction… and it looks showy.

regardless i suppose i am derailing the thread as this is about holding hands during Mass not while in public.

i hadn’t seen this done up until about 6 years ago, so i am surprised some say it’s been around for 30 years. regardless, almost all Catholics i know including myself wish this new custom would go the way of the dodo bird.

 

[MarkThompson]

Sacrosanctum Consilium says:
"Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

The Notitiae quote says:
"Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics."

Since this hand holding ritual has been defined by church authorities as a “liturgical gesture”

and

Folks have added it based on their own authority

How can anyone possibly consider it to be licit?

It’s a liturgical gesture if it’s introduced en masse to fill a liturgical rule (usurp the Sign of Peace), which is the situation the Congregation was responding to. If a father hold’s his daughter’s hand during the prayer, or a husband and wife hold hands, that’s not a liturgical gesture.

 

[adrift]

The prisoners I work with have less of phobia about grasping each others hands in prayer than most on this thread. They do it freely. They want to know God and the salvation of Christ.

Peace,
FAB

Your statements made me wonder if my perception that I have garnered from my friendships with those who work in prisons was wrong . I asked a prison guard friend about your statements he answered with a shake of his head “you have been conned big time.”

What you can believe is how they behave AFTER they are out of prison.

 

[ProVobis]

i hadn’t seen this done up until about 6 years ago, so i am surprised some say it’s been around for 30 years. regardless, almost all Catholics i know including myself wish this new custom would go the way of the dodo bird.

It most probably had not been around 30 years when the 1984 Canon Law was issued protecting such customs.

 

[jen_fla]

It most probably had not been around 30 years when the 1984 Canon Law was issued protecting such customs.

i tend to agree. i’ve attended Mass at numerous Catholic Churches and i just never saw until sometime in the 21st century.

 

[jen_fla]

It’s a liturgical gesture if it’s introduced en masse to fill a liturgical rule (usurp the Sign of Peace), which is the situation the Congregation was responding to. If a father hold’s his daughter’s hand during the prayer, or a husband and wife hold hands, that’s not a liturgical gesture.

is it fair to call the topic at hand (sorry) a liturgical gesture because in some parishes everyone does it and the majority of people expect everyone to do so as well?

i don’t think anyone here has a problem with family members holding hands or even giving each other a kiss on the cheek.

 

[ProVobis]

i don’t think anyone here has a problem with family members holding hands or even giving each other a kiss on the cheek.

If you attend an SSPX, FSSP, ICR or many other EF Masses, you probably won’t see anyone even talking within the Church pews, small children excluded, of course.

 

[MarkThompson]

i don’t think anyone here has a problem with family members holding hands or even giving each other a kiss on the cheek.

You would think so, right? Some people see it as a grave violation of age-old Church dogma . . . or something.

 

[FAB]

Your statements made me wonder if my perception that I have garnered from my friendships with those who work in prisons was wrong . I asked a prison guard friend about your statements he answered with a shake of his head “you have been conned big time.”

What you can believe is how they behave AFTER they are out of prison.

Your friend is tanted by his job. Perhaps he needs some prayer tio see that is is good in most men. The facilty I minister is is low security, the men waht ot come to know the Lord of their own free will. Even my feelow ministers in more secure facilty have the same experance. Bring prisoners into the faith through RCIA, even a couple of lifers.
The Holy Spirit does wonderful work and changes the hearts of men, even after they are in the free.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

So who’s to say bringing coloring books to Mass doesn’t have pastoral value? You have to recognize culture and old customs as well.

Why do posters always wnat to go to the rediculous, it doesn’t add to the discussion.
The church has recogized old customs by allow the regualar celebnration of the EF of the mass.

Also for what it’s worth from 1984 Canon Law:

TITLE II: CUSTOM

Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.

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

§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs

All this is fine and it is up the local ordianary to make decisions.
Holding hands during the Lord’s prayer isn’t in violation of any of these/
Peace,
FAB