Holding hands during the Our Father?

[Michael_Welter]

I don’t know when, or how, the practice of holding hands started. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with it, and willingly participate whenever possible.

However, I would like to point out that may never be mandated. I’ve been to a few Masses where the priest told the people to join hands. That’s simply not allowed. To each his own. If someone doesn’t want to join hands during the Our Father, then they should never be required to do so.

 

[Karl_M]

I can see the point that non-hand holders have. However, I think the common argument on it taking the focus off the Lord is over-analyzing it.

Personally, I like the idea of the congregation holding hands.

However, I think that the priest(s), deacon, etc… should stay in the sanctuary. I’m also not a fan of people crossing the aisle to hold hands.

 

[ncjohn]

They seem to be new additions to the Mass in recent years that have spread to most American parishes.

I don’t pretend to know exactly how and when the practice began, but we do know for a fact that it existed prior to 1975 since there is a Noticiae from that year addressing a problem with people substituting it for the sign of peace. As such it is not a “new addition”. I tend to believe, though I’ve not seen any specific evidence other than circumstantial, that the practice sprang up organically as the transition to the Pauline Mass occured in the early 70’s. Addtionally, this is not just an American practice as I have seen and heard of it being done all over the world, though admittedly more in some places than others.

What many forget in the “we should stick with what was traditional” argument is that there is no tradition to fall back on here. The recitation of the Lord’s Prayer by the congregation, like the sign of peace, is a new part of the Mass that only came into beiing with the Pauline Mass, and as such it is not at all unexpected that a different way of praying it might spring up with it. There was no “prescribed” position prior to the Pauline Mass as the people did not pray the Our Father any more than they did any of the rest of the Mass, and most were simply following along in their Missal to keep up with the translation (or saying their rosaries) as they did through the rest of the Mass.

I have heard many arguments against its use, and I don’t disagree that many of them are very justifiable. I have no problem with anyonoe who finds it objectionable for ANY reason not doing it–I personally didn’t do it myself in the beginning for the simple reason that it felt uncomfortable to me. And as Michael Welter noted, nobody is allowed to “direct” its use; it is a matter of personal initiative.

In the end, justified or not, the Church delegated the authority to the conferences of Bishops to control these postures. The USCCB in turn, without it having been in any way superceded by the Vatican, has said that “there is no prescribed position for the hands at the Our Father.” As I said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any individual deciding to not hold hands. There is however a problem with anyone trying to proclaim that it is not allowed when the Church has not said so, thus making themselves “more Catholic than the Church”.

Maybe at some point the Church will decide that it does want some specific position, and I will personally rejoice in any clarification that comes down. Until then however I will stick with Archbishop Chaput in his statement
Archbishop Chaput letter:

None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church. So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers.

Peace and charity to all,

 

[8640]

The Bishop in Saginaw has a similar statement that I can track down if anyone wants it. While these Bishops do not speak officially for the Church, what they say is in line with the USCCB’s statement that there is no prescribed position for the hands during the Our Father.

Could you provide Carlson’s statement?

 

[RCCDefender]

As they say, “When in Rome…” When I am at the Newman Center I hold hands because virtually everyone does (even though I’d prefer not to). When I’m at my territorial parish I don’t because most don’t do it there. I wish there were more definitive instruction on this position. Holding hands kind of reminds me of wiccan rituals… that’s why I’d prefer not to…

 

[Em_in_FL]

My parish always held hands across the entire community… until recently when it was suggested to have our hands raised.
We usually sit with our extended family and continue to just hold hands… but the rest of the parish has their hands raised…

 

[Walking_Home]

The Church is well aware that there are shortcomings in the GIRM that have allowed some to “improvise”. Where the GIRM is silent — and has led to —lets do it since it is not forbidden is a shortcoming.

As to those actions that are proper to the priest—(the laity is not instructed to perform)—this actions are forbidden by cannon law.

vatican.va/roman_curia/sy…n.html#PREFACE

1. Many responses to the Lineamenta cite various causes for the neglect of these norms: an insufficient knowledge of the history and theological meaning of the rites; a wish to be novel; and a distrust that ritual signs are capable of speaking to people. Some responses maintain that norms are not observed because of shortcomings in The General Instruction on the Roman Missal. For example, inadequate translations of liturgical texts and the lack of precision in the rubrics leave the celebrant at liberty to improvise certain parts. Some responses make specific reference to the need to take great care in translating liturgical texts by entrusting this challenging work to specialists, under the bishops’ supervision and with the approval of the competent congregation of the Holy See.

An Urgent Pastoral Program

1. Generally speaking, the Lineamenta responses provide a picture of the shadows existent in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Where some liturgical rubrics are treated with mistrust, others seem to be adopted to provoke changes inspired by ideologies or theological misconceptions, not a few of which come from movements and groups seeking changes in the liturgy.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.

 

[ncjohn]

Could you provide Carlson’s statement?

saginaw.org/liturgy/girmgestures

Specifically, from the chart in the document

A variety of gestures may be used in the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw–hands folded in prayer, holding hands with those next to us, holding our hands out, elbows bent in the ancient orans position

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here in the diocese of Burlington, Vermont, in August our bishop gave specific instructions that during the Our Father there was to be no hand holding and no orans postures, that the sign of peace did not have to include a handshake but could consist in a sober nod and/or a simple greeting of peace, and that we were to kneel after the Lamb of God until after the reception of the Eucharist. As well, he mentioned SILENCE before and after Mass, as well as at prescribed points in the liturgy, proper attire, and above all proper preparation for the PRIVILEGE of receiving the Eucharist, and the need to be in a state of grace as a baptized Catholic.

Comments?

 

[netmilsmom]

What’s plain and simple is that “no position is prescribed.” You are free to adopt any prayerful position you like, as am I.

Peace,

Except a priestly position.
John, give the citation where the laity is to use the “hands extended” position.
Unless you can find it, this is a priestly position and cannot be used by the laity in the liturgy.

Also, Italy had to get special permission to use the Orans at the Our Father. The USA did not, so the laity cannot use it. Period.

(you know I love you John! )

 

[ncjohn]

Here in the diocese of Burlington, Vermont, in August our bishop gave specific instructions that during the Our Father there was to be no hand holding and no orans postures, that the sign of peace did not have to include a handshake but could consist in a sober nod and/or a simple greeting of peace, and that we were to kneel after the Lamb of God until after the reception of the Eucharist. As well, he mentioned SILENCE before and after Mass, as well as at prescribed points in the liturgy, proper attire, and above all proper preparation for the PRIVILEGE of receiving the Eucharist, and the need to be in a state of grace as a baptized Catholic.

Comments?

As I understand it from my discussions with people, the conference of Bishops is the body to whom the authority is delegated to regulate postures and individual priests and bishops do not have the authority to override that. If that is true, they would be entitled probably to strongly encourage or discourage something, but not to mandate or forbid something that differs from the adopted position.

I am no canon lawyer though, and while my reading of the appropriate passages pretty much agrees with that, others may have other interpretations and I am certainly not going to put myself in a position of debating them.

That being said, if my bishop made a specific ruling I would comply regardless unless and until it was proven to be wrong.

 

[ncjohn]

Except a priestly position.
John, give the citation where the laity is to use the “hands extended” position.
Unless you can find it, this is a priestly position and cannot be used by the laity in the liturgy.

Also, Italy had to get special permission to use the Orans at the Our Father. The USA did not, so the laity cannot use it. Period.

(you know I love you John! )

Hi Net! Good to see you again.

You know that I’ve basically stood by the sidelines in that discussion because it was much grayer, and I hesitate to address it here since it is off-topic to this discussion, but I’m going to address it quickly anyway and hope it doesn’t lead into a separate distraction. Maybe if it does the Mods will split it off for us.

My newer understanding on the topic is this. Italy specifically asked for and received permission to use the Orans as its prescribed position. By being granted that permission, the Vatican has basically acknowledged that it is not assumed to be a “priestly” position since they would not have granted the use of a priestly position to an entire entity.

If that is the case, the next question becomes whether it can be used in the US. The argument that it takes special permission only holds up to the extent that for it to be the prescribed position it would require special permission as it did in Italy. My understanding is that that was considered and either dropped in their application process or that the request for it was denied. That would mean that the USCCB cannot mandate the Orans for the US at this time. But since it has been determined to not be a priestly gesture, it would seem to be available for individuals to use if they want to. I know of at least one diocese where it has been mandated–which I don’t think is within a bishop’s authority (see my previous post)–and I’ve seen several that acknowledge it as an option.

Again, I’ve not gone as deeply into this topic and my opinion obviously holds no authority whatsoever, but it does seem to be in line with what individual bishops in the US are saying, and with the USCCB statement when asked about its use that specifically did not say it couldn’t be used.

As I said, I hope this doesn’t degenerate into a debate on this here since it is off-topic. I personally will say nothing further about it here.

Peace,

 

[netmilsmom]

Hi Net! Good to see you again.

My newer understanding on the topic is this. Italy specifically asked for and received permission to use the Orans as its prescribed position. By being granted that permission, the Vatican has basically acknowledged that it is not assumed to be a “priestly” position since they would not have granted the use of a priestly position to an entire entity.,

Hi John! (((Hugs)))

Can you give some references to this?

 

[ncjohn]

Hi John! (((Hugs)))

Can you give some references to this?

That Italy received permission is a known fact, as you acknowledged. The rest of it is logic drawn from that fact. I don’t remember where I read it, but it was pretty readily deducible (is that a word??) for me and was the same conclusion I had drawn.

As I said though, there may be other interpretations based on things I haven’t seen since this is relatively recent, so I’m not comfortable enough to get into a debate though I’d love to see any other documentation that addresses it to help clarify my own tenuously-held position.

((Hugs back to you))

 

[ComradeAndrei]

This is a perfect example of a custom that we should just keep doing what had been normative for at least a few hundred years-keeping our hands to ourselves during prayer (any prayer) and I would also like to see more opting out of the “sign of peace”-there are often way too many dramatics involved in that.

I don’t see why we can’t just keep the traditional positions of prayer and leave all the touchy-feely nonsense for non-Catholics.

 

[Walking_Home]

There can be no precision if some are advocating innovations, provisions, adaptations which are not called for in the rubrics. As to our bishops----Rome has addressed the matter.

As to the orans----until someone can produce an official Church document–stating that the laity can perform such action—it is for us here in the US an action specific to the priest.

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

This is a perfect example of a custom that we should just keep doing what had been normative for at least a few hundred years-keeping our hands to ourselves during prayer (any prayer) and I would also like to see more opting out of the “sign of peace”-there are often way too many dramatics involved in that.

I don’t see why we can’t just keep the traditional positions of prayer and leave all the touchy-feely nonsense for non-Catholics.

I agree. As far as the sign of peace I remember my father commenting on how this was a total distraction. He use to say how do ya do to people who would extend their hand during this part of the mass. I think if he was alive today he would be attending a TLM altogether.

 

[AMDG1]

I never used to fold my hands but now lest anyone near me were to get the idea that they could hold my hand.

By the way…didn’t receiving communion in the hands result from a fear that if the priests hands touched a person’s mouth that it could spread germs? Now we have people holding the hands of strangers and receiving communion by the same hands. Call me crazy but it seems germy to me…

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m no theologian, so I can’t speak to whether it is allowed or encouraged or not. But I can say that it feels altogether unnatural to me. I don’t much mind holding my grandchild’s hand; certainly not my wife’s. But holding hands with some other guy’s wife? With the guy himself? How many men in this culture hold hands with another guy? It goes against the grain in our culture because that’s a gesture usually reserved for sweethearts, spouses or little kids to whom we’re related. It’s a bit like kissing in that way. Nobody does it outside of that brief moment during the Our Father.

I never minded shaking hands at the “kiss of peace” and am thoroughly delighted that it’s a handshake, which is normal in our society and seems appropriate at that point in the Mass, and not an actual kiss, which would be totally out of place.

I have always thought the virtually enforced holding of hands was something introduced by liberal Church activists who aren’t too fond of anything in Western culture, and thought perhaps that we needed some alien practices so we wouldn’t be so “Western” about things like same-gender handholding.

Anyway, I don’t like it at all, and find it a distraction. And I’m sorry, but holding one’s hands up (I take it this is called the “orans”) like some Evangelical fixing to be “slain in the spirit” leaves me cold as well. I grew up in the Bible Belt and learned to associate that, on the part of laypeople in the congregation, with whooping and hollering and fainting, and I just find it unnerving and alien.

 

[demerzel85]

I usually go for Sunday Mass at my Parish Church, but go to the more sparsely populated side, which is the side altar and has the statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Very little hand-holding opportunities there