Holding Hands during the Our Father

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donna_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you claiming that the angels and saints are not present at every celebration of the Mass?
No. I didn’t even address this point. I asked how holding hands could be seen to be a greater sign of our unity with the Church Triumphant. The obvious answer is that it isn’t. It’s the turning of the congregation in on themselves. Because the hand-holding-kumbaya routine can do nothing but put the focus horizontally, I would argue that it’s not a legitimate or organic liturgical development. It is alien to the West and contrary to the singular purpose of the liturgy.
 
No. I didn’t even address this point. I asked how holding hands could be seen to be a greater sign of our unity with the Church Triumphant. The obvious answer is that it isn’t. It’s the turning of the congregation in on themselves. Because the hand-holding-kumbaya routine can do nothing but put the focus horizontally, I would argue that it’s not a legitimate or organic liturgical development. It is alien to the West and contrary to the singular purpose of the liturgy.
I’m sorry, but according to this mode of thought how can any visible sign be a sign of anythign visible? The Church uses many visible things and rituals as signs of invisible realities. I see no reason why holding hands as a sign of the unity of all members of the church can’t be a sign of the unity of the church triumphant as well. In other words it is not contrary to the purpose of the liturgy.
Also, why would the fact that it is alien to the west mean that it cannot be a legitimate or organic liturgical development?

Again, please understand that I am simply trying to understand this matter more. I am not trying to say that this is a good, legitimate, organic development, I just don’t see why people would say for sure that it isn’t and so I am trying to understand why they hold this. Yes, that will involve me saying things that can sound as though I think it is a good thing, but that does not mean I am taking a side one way or the other, rather I am trying to put the other side of the argument out here so that I can understand it better. 🙂
 
No. I didn’t even address this point. I asked how holding hands could be seen to be a greater sign of our unity with the Church Triumphant. The obvious answer is that it isn’t. It’s the turning of the congregation in on themselves. Because the hand-holding-kumbaya routine can do nothing but put the focus horizontally, I would argue that it’s not a legitimate or organic liturgical development. It is alien to the West and contrary to the singular purpose of the liturgy.
I’m sorry, but according to this mode of thought how can any visible sign be a sign of anythign visible? The Church uses many visible things and rituals as signs of invisible realities. I see no reason why holding hands as a sign of the unity of all members of the church can’t be a sign of the unity of the church triumphant as well.
I also still do not see why you claim it is contrary to the purpose of the liturgy.
Also, why would the fact that it is alien to the west mean that it cannot be a legitimate or organic liturgical development?
 
No. I didn’t even address this point. I asked how holding hands could be seen to be a greater sign of our unity with the Church Triumphant. The obvious answer is that it isn’t. It’s the turning of the congregation in on themselves. Because the hand-holding-kumbaya routine can do nothing but put the focus horizontally, I would argue that it’s not a legitimate or organic liturgical development. It is alien to the West and contrary to the singular purpose of the liturgy.
I’m sorry, but according to this mode of thought how can any visible sign be a sign of anything invisible? The Church uses many visible things and rituals as signs of invisible realities. I see no reason why holding hands as a sign of the unity of all members of the church can’t be a sign of the unity of the church triumphant as well.
I also still do not see why you claim it is contrary to the purpose of the liturgy.
Also, why would the fact that it is alien to the west mean that it cannot be a legitimate or organic liturgical development?

Please understand that while some things I am saying may sound like I believe it is a good, legitimate, organic development, I have not made up my mind on the matter. I do not understand why people claim that it necessarily isn’t a legitimate example of good organic development and the arguments and examples I bring up are part of what prevent me from understanding this. I am honestly trying to understand. 🙂
 
Hand holding during the Our Father does not appear to be part of the traditional way of worship in the church, be it Roman or Byzantine, so why would we include it in the Mass? I’ve even seen people grab hands across the aisle and and over the back to the seat behind them. It seems when a little latitude is acknowledged, the side-boards are then further tested. Let’s put our attention on worship, not searching for someone’s hand to hold. The sign of peace would seem to more that address a need for unity and fellowship of belief if that be the intent of the hand holding. Why do we feel a need to add more to the Mass?
 
Yes, it does and i am glad this is not being done in my parish. Why add more to a mass that already from before is changed and altered way too much?
 
Even in far away Malta, Europe, I’ve seen people holding hands during the Our Father, but very few. Personally I don’t like it much. Never do it. But then it is no big deal, is it?

God bless.

Victor
I agree that in the big scheme of things it’s not a big deal but someone could be led to believe that it’s required and that would be incorrect. I use my Magnificat Magazine. I just hold it firmly in both hands and close my eyes. That way no one tries to hold hands. I don’t like it and find it distracting. Especially when some insist on raising their hands at the end. I am not a hand raiser and feel this is forced on me.

What bothers me more than that is when the Lord’s prayer is concluded the priest continues with a prayer about the peace of the Lord—most people ignore this and think the prayer is complete, drop hands, and ignore the rest of that prayer that is so beautiful and powerful to me:

“Lord Jesus Christ you said to your Apostles: peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will. Who live and reign forever and ever. Amen.”

Most people totally ignore that THIS is also a prayer so I remind myself to stop worrying about others, keep my eyes closed, and pray that prayer in its entirety. If the “hand holders” were paying attention, they would hold hands until this portion is complete as well. I see it is listed as a seperate prayer but I just clutch my book and people will not try to hold hands with me and I try to focus on the prayer and not on what others are doing. We have hand raisers too who like to raise their hands at the end of the Lord’s Prayer as some sort of expression or gesture that I don’t undersatnd so the important thing to me is to keep my eyes closed and really pray and not worry about everyone else.

Lorrie
 
I haven’t read all the posts, so if this is redundant, I apologize.

I have never been comfortable with the hand holding. Holding hands with an old lady…fine. With a young woman, it doesn’t feel right at all. With a very little kid…kind of disturbing. With another guy…AAGHHHH!

So, I don’t do it.

In one of my two parishes, there was quite a bit of it for awhile. Then the priest announced at Mass that it wasn’t required. That pretty much ended it. I think people were relieved to know they didn’t have to do it, and quit.
 
Some people don’t like it because it wasn’t part of the Roman Mass until 1970 and the nearest place we’ve seen it is among some Protestant sects. This used to bother me a lot as I thought that it amounted to the insertion of Protestant prayers into the Mass, but I gritted my teeth and kept my opinions to myself.
It is a doxology with clear basis in Tradition, and with Scriptural foundation.

There is a good, Catholic sourced article here.

Despite its usage in Protestantism, it is not a unique Protestant convention, and has traceable roots in the early Church.
However, apparently it was used in ancient Eastern Catholic liturgies and was adopted to make the Mass more East-friendly. I think that cuts the legs from under any concerns, and I try not to let my feelings on it bother me.
The Latin Church has never, nor should it ever, do something in its own rite or ritual to placate the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, it may be said that the Latin Church did a healthy review of its own rubrics and decided that the inclusion of this doxology (yes, a part of the form of Divine Liturgy celebrated in many EC Churches) was sound and preferrable.
I recommend you don’t worry about it, either.
On this we agree.

As to the holding of hands (or the raising of hands, for that matter), we continue to seemingly borrow from the televangelist playbook. Many more knowledgeable than I have spoken on the subject here and in many other threads, and its seems to have been confirmed that this is not an accepted practice of the Church, yet it continues.

IMHO, the Church should speak definitely once and for all on these matters. Until then, people will continue to feel uncomfortable pressure to conform to unaccepted practice.
 
I really dislike the hand holding and always have. In the local parishes this practice somehow morphed into one in which people held their hands apart, palms up, during the Our Father, mimicking the Priests. Sometimes they’ll do that and hold hands. No idea how all this occurred, but I do recall that it crept in during the 1980s.

Eons ago, when I was a college student, I would attend Mass at a Newman Center where hands were routinely held. For one year I always went to the same Mass as an Arab student, whom I did not know, but who clearly was uncomfortable with it. As I didn’t like it, I always sat in the same row as he, and usually he and I were the only ones sitting in that pew. We never exchanged any words on the topic, but we had an implied pact. One Mass I was running a bit late and didn’t get into church until just before Mass started, and found that a very Hippy girl had taken my place. When the Our Father came she smiled broadly and grabbed both of our hands. The poor Arab student looked over at me with an expression of absolute horror, and it was clear that I’d let him down.

In our local parish, the Priest and Deacon relatively recently gave a short friendly talk in which they noted that holding hands was discouraged, and discouraged us from doing it, and also discouraged the palm up posture. Since then, I’ve returned to the old clasped hands, but I’m one of the few.
 
Grandfather…good points and I agree. Many years ago the nuns taught us that where ever we might go to Mass, the Mass is the same. Not now. I was in Rome and some stood while others knelt or sat. I didn’t know if they were correct or I was correct. At Communion, I told my friend to keep her hands folded and the priest would give her a blessing. He did not know what she wanted and kept trying to give her Communion and then he understood.
 
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)
I agree. I think it’s being inconsistent to say that hand holding is an inorganic development. Of course, I think that being organic is only one of the things that makes a development good.

My opinion is that if the day ever comes when we laity generally receive good catechesis again, the practice will dwindle away of its own accord. In the meantime, we can do what we think is best and teach our children the same. It’s not even worth an Internet argument, IMO.

But if anyone wants to start orans posture thread I’ll throw down.
 
I was under the impression it was not to be encouraged by the priest at any point. People may do it spontaneously, if they wish. My wife and I don’t do it. It seems sort of Protestant to me. When we were in Europe, I never saw it done in any of the churches we attended. I’ve only seen it in the U.S.
Was in St. Peter’s Square for Easter Mass and it was done there. Actually, it was very nice because we were all pilgrims from many nations. I’m getting use to it but I too see/saw it as Protestant too. Did it at other churches in Rome too.
 
Does anyone else find it interesting that there are some topics like this that always engender so much discussion, no matter how many times we have had the same conversation? 😛
 
Was in St. Peter’s Square for Easter Mass and it was done there. Actually, it was very nice because we were all pilgrims from many nations. I’m getting use to it but I too see/saw it as Protestant too. Did it at other churches in Rome too.
I haven’t attended Mass there, so I can’t comment on that. My assumption is there were a lot of Americans in attendance. I have been to most of the countries of central Europe, eastern Europe, the Balkans and Ireland and have not seen anyone hold hands.
 
Exactly, in that it should not be encouraged. However, some people seem to have the belief it is now part of the established Mass. It is not.
 
Does anyone else find it interesting that there are some topics like this that always engender so much discussion, no matter how many times we have had the same conversation? 😛
Clearly it is an issue that is near and dear to many people’s hearts. 🙂
 
I haven’t read all the posts, so if this is redundant, I apologize.

I have never been comfortable with the hand holding. Holding hands with an old lady…fine. With a young woman, it doesn’t feel right at all. With a very little kid…kind of disturbing. With another guy…AAGHHHH!

So, I don’t do it.

In one of my two parishes, there was quite a bit of it for awhile. Then the priest announced at Mass that it wasn’t required. That pretty much ended it. I think people were relieved to know they didn’t have to do it, and quit.
Good for him. The priest took charge. More should.
 
I haven’t attended Mass there, so I can’t comment on that. My assumption is there were a lot of Americans in attendance. I have been to most of the countries of central Europe, eastern Europe, the Balkans and Ireland and have not seen anyone hold hands.
Ok…I know we embraced and shook hands. I’m not sure we did hold hands. The woman next to me was African, family behind from Bavaria, and kids to the left from Germany. Anyway, the embracing was very moving. There were 100,000 in the Square.
 
I know it is not in the rubrics, but I have never heard the the Church has “disapproved” of the practice.
Would you kindly site your source, please?
The source is the GIRM. It’s not in there. No where! Period. Father Rocky has commented on it. The Bishop from the Diocese of Green Bay has come out and told the parishes there that they are not to do it.

Generally speaking, a priest can tell you not to do it. he can say nothing but he cannot tell you TO do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top