Holding Hands during the Our Father

[adrift]

This is the second time this has been posted in this thread.
And as I said before “apples & oranges”.
The question is about replacing the sign of peace with hand-holding during the Our Father, not if holding hands during the Our Father is acceptable.

One cannot make a statment say something that it does not.

Did you miss this in the answer?

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the **reasons given apply **also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

 

[Stylites]

It’s actually in the King James and other Protestant Bibles I’ve seen. It is my understanding that some manuscripts have it and some don’t.

Yet the source of the words is the Missal, not from earlier copies of the scriptures. Picking and choosing which parts of the Catholic liturgy are “worthy” of our observance seems imprudent.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Did you miss this in the answer?

No, I did not, and that is not the answer.
This is the question to & answer from the CDW

QUERY: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon’s invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer. Is this acceptable? REPLY: The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226. [Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]

everything else is the OPINION AND INTERPRETATION of Mr. Donovan for EWTN.

As I said, one can only look to the answer for the question which was asked.

 

[adrift]

No, I did not, and that is not the answer.
This is the question to & answer from the CDW

everything else is the OPINION AND INTERPRETATION of Mr. Donovan for EWTN.

As I said, one can only look to the answer for the question which was asked.

The answer gave reasons.

The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.

Just because it addressed the question of being replaced does not make it irrelevant. Holding of hands is not in the rubrics.

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.

1. It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

It may be his personnal opinion but it is based on the reasons given.
When you say

And as I said before "apples & oranges

that means that they are unalike but that simply is not true. The reasons given apply to both.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The answer gave reasons.

Just because it addressed the question of being replaced does not make it irrelevant. Holding of hands is not in the rubrics.

It may be his personnal opinion but it is based on the reasons given.
When you say that means that they are unalike but that simply is not true. The reasons given apply to both.

This was posted originally in this thread as a means to say that the church “disapproved” the holding of hands during the Our Father.
The fact is, it does not. That was not the question asked, and therefore,
while everything that Mr. Donovon says may be true, it is still only his opinion.
He is extrapolating out of an answer what he wants it to say.
This is not what the Church says.

 

[thewanderer]

I have a question for “traditional” catholics concerning this. I have heard from so many traditional catholics that tradition must develop organically. How is this not an organic development if it is a “liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative”? Isn’t this exactly the kind of organic development that traditional catholics call for? why is there such outrage against it?

(foor the record, I generally do not participate in this, although I also have not been to a chruch where the parisheners did this in long time)

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You make my point that bishops do not always address liturgical abuse when they can’t help but know that it exists.
That said, please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that “all Bishops are corrupt” only that some bishops did not act to protect children.
As to “Furthermore, how can you know the Bishop in question WASN’T trying to do something?”. The answer as to how I know this, I cannot give without violating forum rules.
I realize that the abuse issue is far more common in the family, the schools, and other institutions than in the Church, yet I used this example to show in spades that bishops do not always take action when matters of concern are brought to their attention, the assertion of an upstream poster notwithstanding.

A Bishop looking the other way or a priest abusing a child is hardly on par with letting the laity hold hands during the Our Father.

 

[thewanderer]

I get the impression that you believe that “no position is prescribed” means that you can do anything.
First off the Bishops said a bit more
It isn’t just no position prescribed but that no position is proscribed for an assembly. The directions from the Church is proactive that is they tell you what you MAY do not what you can’t. Here the Bishops say that is isn’t part of what the congregation May do. You will not find a directive that the congregation hold hands. They are not speaking of individuals but congregations. Hand holding is wrong when it becomes a congregational action which the Bishops say is not prescribed.

I am really curious about this. It sounds to me as though you are claiming that unless a bishop proscribes a position for the people than they are not allowed to take up that position. Is this what you mean? or am I missing something?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

There are times when holding hands is the norm. These times would be:

• 1. Helping a little child across the street.
• 1. At a seance.
• 1. With ones fiancee during a walk in the park
• 1. Forming a chain to rescue someone who is hanging off a cliff.
• 1. Forming a PETA protest to block logging efforts.

At Mass isn’t one of them.

 

[thewanderer]

There are times when holding hands is the norm. These times would be:

• 1. Helping a little child across the street.
• 1. At a seance.
• 1. With ones fiancee during a walk in the park
• 1. Forming a chain to rescue someone who is hanging off a cliff.
• 1. Forming a PETA protest to block logging efforts.

At Mass isn’t one of them.

It is also true that kneeling used to not be the norm. How is this an argument against either of them?

 

[roadsend]

A Bishop looking the other way or a priest abusing a child is hardly on par with letting the laity hold hands during the Our Father.

Agree, but many bishops have done both of these and both of course are wrong but to a different degree.

 

[mattkubes]

Isn’t this exactly the kind of organic development that traditional catholics call for?

No. Not least of all because it moves us to focus on those around us. That is not the point of the liturgy - not even a secondary point.

As stated by a certain Cardinal Ratzinger in his review of Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy:
“If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God.”

Of course I don’t run into this issue at the TLM.

 

[adrift]

This was posted originally in this thread as a means to say that the church “disapproved” the holding of hands during the Our Father.
The fact is, it does not. That was not the question asked, and therefore,
while everything that Mr. Donovon says may be true, it is still only his opinion.
He is extrapolating out of an answer what he wants it to say.
This is not what the Church says.

The Church does not approve of the holding of hands so your facts are in error. Unless of course, you can produce a document that says differently. Not all that he says was his opinion. To hold hands is not in the rubrics. As the Bishops said No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

This has been wrongly interpreted to mean that the assembly is free to introduce handholding which it is not.

 

[adrift]

I am really curious about this. It sounds to me as though you are claiming that unless a bishop proscribes a position for the people than they are not allowed to take up that position. Is this what you mean? or am I missing something?

No that is not what I am claiming. What the Bishops said is that no position is prescribed for the assembly. We are told in the mass what action to be taken kneeling, standing, etc. Those actions are common to everyone. The assembly is not allowed to introduce their own actions. When the action becomes not an individual action but an assembly action it is wrong. When the priest says to do it or does it himself along with the entire assembly it is no longer an individual but an assembly. The rubrics do not say to do so. Since we are to follow the rubrics, we should not be holding hands as if the rubrics required it. Most people have no idea that it isn’t part of Mass.

 

[thewanderer]

No. Not least of all because it moves us to focus on those around us. That is not the point of the liturgy - not even a secondary point.

As stated by a certain Cardinal Ratzinger in his review of Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy:
“If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God.”

Of course I don’t run into this issue at the TLM.

I understand that the liturgy is not about us, that is essentially, and centrally about God. However, it is the public, communal, worship of the church, including the church triumphant, suffering and militant, correct? so why is it wrong to include a posture that is a greater sign of this community? I do not see these two things as contradictory.

Which still does not answer my question as to why this is not considered to be an organic development.

 

[thewanderer]

No that is not what I am claiming. What the Bishops said is that no position is prescribed for the assembly. We are told in the mass what action to be taken kneeling, standing, etc. Those actions are common to everyone. The assembly is not allowed to introduce their own actions. When the action becomes not an individual action but an assembly action it is wrong. When the priest says to do it or does it himself along with the entire assembly it is no longer an individual but an assembly. The rubrics do not say to do so. Since we are to follow the rubrics, we should not be holding hands as if the rubrics required it. Most people have no idea that it isn’t part of Mass.

Ok, let me just make sure I understand this correctly. It is not against the rubrics for parishoners to hold hands during the Our Father as such, but it should never be encouraged by the priest as the ‘correct posture’ for a parish. Is this esssentially what you’re saying? or am I still missing something?

 

[adrift]

Ok, let me just make sure I understand this correctly. It is not against the rubrics for parishoners to hold hands during the Our Father as such, but it should never be encouraged by the priest as the ‘correct posture’ for a parish. Is this esssentially what you’re saying? or am I still missing something?

I hate to be picky because basically your right. Is it against the rubrics? That depends on how you see them. They are not rules about what you can’t do but what you can do. That is why the Bishops phrased it the way they did. There is nothing wrong with holding a family members hands but then again why would you do it? Is it the appropriate time? It comes just before sharing of the peace which makes that less of a sign. You have just been holding hands what is the point of the sign of peace?

 

[mattkubes]

I understand that the liturgy is not about us, that is essentially, and centrally about God. However, it is the public, communal, worship of the church, including the church triumphant, suffering and militant, correct? so why is it wrong to include a posture that is a greater sign of this community? I do not see these two things as contradictory.

Liturgy can exist entirely apart from any communal celebration; in other words, that is not a defining characteristic of the liturgy. We assist at the Mass in order to witness the sacrifice of the priest at the altar and to offer ourselves entirely to God in return for all that He has given to us.

And if I may ask…how does holding hands offer a sign of community with the Church Triumphant/Suffering? I’ve also never heard of the Holy Souls in Purgatory participating in our worship at Mass. In any case, you seem to have taken a leap in logic there without fully explaining yourself. I don’t see how this improves on the union achieved through prayer and our reception of Holy Communion.

 

[thewanderer]

I hate to be picky because basically your right. Is it against the rubrics? That depends on how you see them. They are not rules about what you can’t do but what you can do. That is why the Bishops phrased it the way they did. There is nothing wrong with holding a family members hands but then again why would you do it? Is it the appropriate time? It comes just before sharing of the peace which makes that less of a sign. You have just been holding hands what is the point of the sign of peace?

No, feel free to pick away. I’m honestly trying to figure out what the rules actually are.

So instead of saying it is not against the rubrics I should simply have said that it is not wrong for people to do as a personal practice (as opposed to a practice of the whole assembly)?

actually… now that I’ve phrased it like that I realise that I’m still not clear on the idea of a practice being ‘of the asssembly’. Ok, so it definitely means the priest cannot tell his parishoners that this is the posture they should adopt. Does it mean that it would be wrong for everyone in attendance to take up this posture? even if they were not specifically encouraged by the priest?

You make a really interesting point about the Our Father being so close to the sharing of peace that is really worth thinking about for everyone who participates in both of these practices. I know the article quoted earlier talks about the handshake of peace as a sign of peace, not of community, but I have always felt that both are included within it, which rather does beg the question of whether or not it is redundent to hold hands for the Our Father. I think it ultimately would come down to whether it would warp your understanding of the Mass, whether such a practice encourages you to focus too much on the community to the point that you fail to focus on God. I am sure that this varies from person to person, but it is definitely something to think about.

 

[thewanderer]

Liturgy can exist entirely apart from any communal celebration; in other words, that is not a defining characteristic of the liturgy. We assist at the Mass in order to witness the sacrifice of the priest at the altar and to offer ourselves entirely to God in return for all that He has given to us.

And if I may ask…how does holding hands offer a sign of community with the Church Triumphant/Suffering? I’ve also never heard of the Holy Souls in Purgatory participating in our worship at Mass. In any case, you seem to have taken a leap in logic there without fully explaining yourself. I don’t see how this improves on the union achieved through prayer and our reception of Holy Communion.

The Mass is the public worship of the Chruch. Are you claiming that the angels and saints are not present at every celebration of the Mass? I admit that I am not sure about the case of those in purgatory, my point was that there does not seem to be anything *inherently *wrong or contradictory with the idea of having a sign of the unity or communion of all the members of the Church during Mass so long as it does not obscure the sacrificial aspect of the Mass or cause people to forget that the Mass is most importantly about God. It is the worship of God, and so is of course centered on God, but it is still a public act of worship on the part of the Church as a whole, not a private prayer offered up by individuals.

Please, I am not trying to argue one way or the other as to whether or not it is a good practice to hold hands during the Our Father. Like I said, I do not personally do this. Rather I am honestly trying to understand why it is not considered an organic development.