Holding hands during the Our Father?

  • Thread starter Thread starter psteichen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lrs said:
The feet washing comment clinches it-
Jesus washed the Disiciple Feet at Holy Thursday- was this show of humble servitude only meant for the Disciples or for all humankind?? Lisa
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m a little confused:confused: . Are you saying that holding hands at the Our Father is similar to Jesus washing the Disciple’s feet? Is this what you are using to justify holding hands? Because as you said, His washing of their feet was an act of humble servitude. I can hardly see holding hands as being an act of humble servitude.

As has been pointed out, there are a lot of reasons someone might not want to hold hands: arthritis, a compromised immune system, fragility, the bishop has requested that it not be done, losing focus, and countless others. I have held hands with many different people at church. Some of them were really limp and some had a vice grip on me. Recently, the young man who had my hand held it up so high during the doxology that I thought my arm might come out of socket. Do you really think I could focus on praying to God during that? My husband has shoulder problems and can only raise his arm so far. If this had happened to him, the scream would have been enough to stop Mass! He would have run out to the vestibule and possibly have had to miss communion because of it. Is that humble servitude? Does that foster a sense of community?

To me, the negatives by far outweigh any positive that might come from holding hands.
 
ncjohn said:
Even the very conservative Cardinal Arinze, who I think we would agree is in more of a position to make authritative statements, doesn’t try to say any such thing.
Click to expand...
John, remember I love you as you read this. 🙂
Cardinal Arinze was here speaking in Detroit. He was asked about handholding and the Orans. This was his response, in my own words.

“How about his answer to the Holding Hands and Orans question? I loved that he stated what was in the GIRM and basically said, what is there is right. The Priest is given the Orans instruction.
He then stated that he had bigger things to worry about. Which is true.”

This can be seen on the Cardinal Arinze in Detroit thread. Although we are all looking for the CD-ROM or streaming audio of the talk, no one disputed what I heard he said. To understand what he is saying, one must understand the words
prescribed
*set down as a rule or guide *
positive, prescribed
formally laid down or imposed; “positive laws” *
official, prescribed
conforming to set usage, procedure, or discipline; “in prescribed order” *
appointed, decreed, ordained, prescribed
*fixed or established especially by order or command; “at the time appointed (or the appointed time”)

So the GIRM does not prescribe anything. However does that mean that it does not Proscribe anything? Can I lay prostrate at the Our Father? No.

In other words, the Vatican is not giving an absolute to folding one’s hands because someone may not be able to do it. That is the way they work. By the same tolken, they are not going to say, don’t hold hands with your child or spouse. And that is not what the non-handholders are looking for anyway. We just don’t want this to become the norm in every parish because a group of liturgists wanted to do one better than the old way.

You and I agree that listening to one’s own Bishop regarding this is the best way to go. No one is damned to he!! for handholding or folding. But if handholding makes another human uncomfortable, if it makes that person have to “go against the flow” for his/her comfort, is that Christian? Or as lrs states in her own humble way, should we always be the one’s to sacrifice?
*
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Cardinal Arinze was here speaking in Detroit. He was asked about handholding and the Orans. This was his response, in my own words.

“How about his answer to the Holding Hands and Orans question? I loved that he stated what was in the GIRM and basically said, what is there is right. The Priest is given the Orans instruction.
He then stated that he had bigger things to worry about. Which is true.”
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that and read the thread. I responded to this in post 163 here.

As I said there, until I see the transcript to see his actual words I can’t comment on specifics, but nobody has claimed that he in anyway said that we are not allowed to hold hands, and that he did say that it was not a matter of great importance to him.

Peace,
 
Walking_Home said:
The first–RS-27 —does address experimentation within our litury. Since holding hands is not called for–it is experimentation and taking liberties with the Mass.
Click to expand...
The section specifically addresses “texts” and “other matters which are prescribed”. No matter how you try to interpret that, neither applies here. And again, folded hands, clasped hand, hands in the pockets, hands on the pew, holding your child, ad infinitum, are also not called for. If one thing is experimentation, then ALL are experimentation.
For some reason --you fail to comprehend that the supreme interpreter of norms is the Apostolic See. They clarify any and all norms --even Canon Law. The Apostolic see indeed has the authority to interpret how the GIRM is applied.
Click to expand...
Actually, I fully comprehend the system and I fully agree that they have that authority. The conference submits their proposal–which they did. The Apostolic See issues its approval–which it did. The USCCB expressed its norm as “no position is prescribed”, a clarification of the GIRM, in which no position is prescribed. The Apostolic See has the authority to overrule or clarify the issue–THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO despite the numerous requests.

The USCCB has the authority, submitted its request, had it approved, and clarified it. There has been nothing issued to change that. So in what way does that NOT make the statement as issued the authoritative statement, unless and until the Apostolic See changes it?? I just cannot in any way understand the conclusion you come to.

I’ve not seen anyone else come to these conclusions that you see so clearly, and there is clearly nothing from the Vatican that says what you conclude. And since the USCCB and it’s statements are what we are guided by in the absence of something from the Vatican superceding it–as in the question of kneeling for communion–we are under their authority.

Finally, the idea that someone putting their hand out is an imposition just doesn’t stand up. If you are one who does not want to hold hands and you just fold your hands and look forward, there is nothing to consider and no distraction or imposition. It’s only a distraction if you are spending time worrying about it rather than just going about your own business. And quite frankly, there are far too many people on both sides of this issue spending their time doing exactly that from the evidence presented here about judging motives of the people standing next to them. I find that incredibly sad given what I am at Mass for, and I’m sure what you are at Mass for.

Peace,
 
ncjohn said:
The section specifically addresses “texts” and “other matters which are prescribed”. No matter how you try to interpret that, neither applies here. And again, folded hands, clasped hand, hands in the pockets, hands on the pew, holding your child, ad infinitum, are also not called for. If one thing is experimentation, then ALL are experimentation.

Actually, I fully comprehend the system and I fully agree that they have that authority. The conference submits their proposal–which they did. The Apostolic See issues its approval–which it did. The USCCB expressed its norm as “no position is prescribed”, a clarification of the GIRM, in which no position is prescribed. The Apostolic See has the authority to overrule or clarify the issue–THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO despite the numerous requests.

The USCCB has the authority, submitted its request, had it approved, and clarified it. There has been nothing issued to change that. So in what way does that NOT make the statement as issued the authoritative statement, unless and until the Apostolic See changes it?? I just cannot in any way understand the conclusion you come to.

I’ve not seen anyone else come to these conclusions that you see so clearly, and there is clearly nothing from the Vatican that says what you conclude. And since the USCCB and it’s statements are what we are guided by in the absence of something from the Vatican superceding it–as in the question of kneeling for communion–we are under their authority.

Finally, the idea that someone putting their hand out is an imposition just doesn’t stand up. If you are one who does not want to hold hands and you just fold your hands and look forward, there is nothing to consider and no distraction or imposition. It’s only a distraction if you are spending time worrying about it rather than just going about your own business. And quite frankly, there are far too many people on both sides of this issue spending their time doing exactly that from the evidence presented here about judging motives of the people standing next to them. I find that incredibly sad given what I am at Mass for, and I’m sure what you are at Mass for.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Where is the proof. Show me a document from the Apostolic See that states handholding is approved. It is not in the GIRM–so where is your proof. What we do know is that no one–is to add, omit, adapt, etc. The Apostolic See does not have to change it—because it is not there to begin with.

By the way–every time you or anyone–extends their hands—it is still and imposition.
 
Walking_Home said:
Where is the proof. Show me a document from the Apostolic See that states handholding is approved. It is not in the GIRM–so where is your proof.
Click to expand...
So then we go back to the fact that we’ll just need to cut off our hands since there is no instruction at all in the GIRM on what to do with them, and no basis giving you an abillity to assume a “default” position.

I’m sorry, but there is no documentation nor any logical consistency to come to the conclusion that it is ilicit. Even beloved Cardinal Arinze, when specifically asked the question, said he had more important things to worry about–when he would have made a clear statement that it was not allowed if that was the case.

Dislike it if you wish. DESPISE it if you wish. But please stop telling people it’s wrong as that is a clear misstatement of fact, and clear misstatements of fact are covered in that troublesome old list of commandments, not to mention the rules of this forum. It may not be the “best” choice, if there is such a thing, but it is clearly permitted and licit as things currently stand.

Peace,
 
ncjohn said:
So then we go back to the fact that we’ll just need to cut off our hands since there is no instruction at all in the GIRM on what to do with them, and no basis giving you an abillity to assume a “default” position.

I’m sorry, but there is no documentation nor any logical consistency to come to the conclusion that it is ilicit. Even beloved Cardinal Arinze, when specifically asked the question, said he had more important things to worry about–when he would have made a clear statement that it was not allowed if that was the case.
Dislike it if you wish. DESPISE it if you wish. But please stop telling people it’s wrong as that is a clear misstatement of fact, and clear misstatements of fact are covered in that troublesome old list of commandments, not to mention the rules of this forum. It may not be the “best” choice, if there is such a thing, but it is clearly permitted and licit as things currently stand.

Peace,
Click to expand...
It does not matter how many times you come around–trying to find justification for stating that it is allowed. SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Oh–and good going again-- with the negative conotations (commandments and forum rules)–I can see that this is another way to try and justify yourself.

You did misrepresent what Card. Arinze did state. I guess to you since this issue is not at the top of the latter—we are free to do as we wish.

Extending your hand—is still an imposition.

Quote=netmil(name removed by moderator)
“How about his answer to the Holding Hands and Orans question? I loved that he stated what was in the GIRM and basically said, what is there is right. The Priest is given the Orans instruction.
He then stated that he had bigger things to worry about. Which is true.”
 
Walking_Home said:
It does not matter how many times you come around–trying to find justification for stating that it is allowed. SHOW ME THE PROOF.
Click to expand...
It is allowed because when specifically asked, the body authorized to make the rules stated “no position for the hands is prescribed”. That is it. That is the authoritative statement in the absence of being superceded by the Vatican. Are you just telling me that you refuse to acknowledge their authority on the issue? Otherwise I don’t understand how you get around that.

The basic rule of law is that if you want to accuse someone of wrongdoing, you first have to show that something is wrong. The burden is on the accuser to show that. It is not up to me to show I didn’t commit a crime that doesn’t exist. You have to show in a positive manner that something is wrong. Since those in authority have specifically disagreed with you, it’s going to be hard to do that.
Oh–and good going again-- with the negative conotations (commandments and forum rules)–I can see that this is another way to try and justify yourself.
Click to expand...
I guess I don’t see any negative connotations. I just see statements of fact as to violations. It has nothing to do with me justifying myself. I let my facts do that.

And by the way, in accusing people of things that you don’t know objectively to be true, these things also start to become an issue:

CCC said:
2477
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

of *rash judgment *who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Click to expand...
You did misrepresent what Card. Arinze did state. I guess to you since this issue is not at the top of the latter—we are free to do as we wish.
Click to expand...
I did not misrepresent anything he said. His statement, according to the thread source you posted, was that he “had bigger things to think about”. He specifically did not say–when asked the specific question–that there is anything wrong with holding hands. Given his conservative views, there is no question he would have said so if it was the case.

I have also never said or implied that anyone is free to “do as we wish”. I have only said that this specific practice that has been in existence for over 30 years across the majority of the Catholic population without any indication at all from the Vatican that they have a problem cannot be considered “wrong” or illicit. I have not addressed any other issue or implied in any way that an “anything goes” position is acceptable and have argued against that many times on these threads.

I’m going to quit at this point. You can believe I’m wrong, or that it should be wrong, or whatever your position is. I’ll agree to not care, as long as you don’t try to tell people that it is wrong or illicit. Then I will continue to call on you to show one single instance where the Vatican or the USCCB has said so. Without that, your interpretations of obscure passages of non-relevant documents just don’t carry any weight.
 
Someone is going to have to give a reference to the fact that handholding for the Our Father has been going on for 30 years in the MAJORITY of Catholic parishes.

I’m sorry but this is just a fact that cannot be taken at face value. Some parishes maybe, but at one point I asked people on different forums how long they had been doing this and most of them said either never or within the past 10 years.

I didn’t see it until I moved to Detroit. I had not in the parishes in Cleveland.
 
ncjohn said:
It is allowed because when specifically asked, the body authorized to make the rules stated “no position for the hands is prescribed”. That is it. That is the authoritative statement in the absence of being superceded by the Vatican. Are you just telling me that you refuse to acknowledge their authority on the issue? Otherwise I don’t understand how you get around that.

The basic rule of law is that if you want to accuse someone of wrongdoing, you first have to show that something is wrong. The burden is on the accuser to show that. It is not up to me to show I didn’t commit a crime that doesn’t exist. You have to show in a positive manner that something is wrong. Since those in authority have specifically disagreed with you, it’s going to be hard to do that.

I guess I don’t see any negative connotations. I just see statements of fact as to violations. It has nothing to do with me justifying myself. I let my facts do that.

And by the way, in accusing people of things that you don’t know objectively to be true, these things also start to become an issue:

I did not misrepresent anything he said. His statement, according to the thread source you posted, was that he “had bigger things to think about”. He specifically did not say–when asked the specific question–that there is anything wrong with holding hands. Given his conservative views, there is no question he would have said so if it was the case.

I have also never said or implied that anyone is free to “do as we wish”. I have only said that this specific practice that has been in existence for over 30 years across the majority of the Catholic population without any indication at all from the Vatican that they have a problem cannot be considered “wrong” or illicit. I have not addressed any other issue or implied in any way that an “anything goes” position is acceptable and have argued against that many times on these threads.

I’m going to quit at this point. You can believe I’m wrong, or that it should be wrong, or whatever your position is. I’ll agree to not care, as long as you don’t try to tell people that it is wrong or illicit. Then I will continue to call on you to show one single instance where the Vatican or the USCCB has said so. Without that, your interpretations of obscure passages of non-relevant documents just don’t carry any weight.
Click to expand...
Just more words ncjohn–more fluff. Where is the PROOF.

I am at the edge of my chair–waiting what else you will throw at me—I mean you already mention time in confession, commandments, etc.

Ps. Extending your hand—IS an IMPOSITION.
 
Sorry if this has been stated already (I’m too lazy to read the entire thread!! 😃 ) but I find it sort of amusing that this is such an issue? I do have to say that without CLEAR guidance as to proper rubric I don’t have a problem with it. If the Bishops specifically forbid it, then I leave it to their guidance.

BUT I know that the Protestants and non-churched that have seen specifically the entire parish holding hand sort of thing (and one Evangelical is/was pretty anti-Catholic) see it as an impressive demonstration of fellowship, friendship and worship. They then noticed how familial the celebration of the Eucharist is, with everyone sharing the Cup and the Body.

I certainly don’t want anything to distract from the display and reverence of the Body and Blood, but I guess I kinda fail to see how reaching “across the aisle” in an act of friendship and worship does that?? :o
 
Jennifer123 said:
Sorry if this has been stated already (I’m too lazy to read the entire thread!! 😃 ) but I find it sort of amusing that this is such an issue? I do have to say that without CLEAR guidance as to proper rubric I don’t have a problem with it. If the Bishops specifically forbid it, then I leave it to their guidance.

BUT I know that the Protestants and non-churched that have seen specifically the entire parish holding hand sort of thing (and one Evangelical is/was pretty anti-Catholic) see it as an impressive demonstration of fellowship, friendship and worship. They then noticed how familial the celebration of the Eucharist is, with everyone sharing the Cup and the Body.

I certainly don’t want anything to distract from the display and reverence of the Body and Blood, but I guess I kinda fail to see how reaching “across the aisle” in an act of friendship and worship does that?? :o
Click to expand...
Of course they would. They do it themselves (at least the ones I am familiar with) . They do not have the Church to guide them—and our Lord Christ at the Altar—this is where our unity is.
 
CRW said:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur10.htm provides an outstanding answer to this question by Fr. Edward McNamara, professor of Liturg at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that article. It reaffirms what many of us have been saying, especially this part:

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect. …(more)
 
Walking_Home said:
Of course they would. They do it themselves (at least the ones I am familiar with) . They do not have the Church to guide them—and our Lord Christ at the Altar—this is where our unity is.
Click to expand...
This discussion just smacks me as the sort of thing that leaves Protestants cold - and for me I’m about trying to lead as many to the Truth as possible. But all this hand-wringing (excuse the pun) about holding hands just seems silly to me. 😛 It’s only one element of the Mass. I know worship is not about making us feel good but gee whiz. Sorry if that upsets people but I dunno - I think this is seriously overwrought. I think I’ll stick to my instincts and just stay out of it. :o
 
Jennifer123 said:
This discussion just smacks me as the sort of thing that leaves Protestants cold - and for me I’m about trying to lead as many to the Truth as possible. But all this hand-wringing (excuse the pun) about holding hands just seems silly to me. 😛 It’s only one element of the Mass. I know worship is not about making us feel good but gee whiz. Sorry if that upsets people but I dunno - I think this is seriously overwrought. I think I’ll stick to my instincts and just stay out of it. :o
Click to expand...
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the **priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended **— so they at least should not hold hands. The GIRM does not offer any instructions for the lay so my wife and I refrain fron holing hands. I believe if it is not specific in allowing then the practice in not within the norms. When hands are extended to us we smile, and refrain. The USCCB declined to rule on the correct procedure or at last establish one, so we are faced with the lay making their own. I truely believe that many priests refrain from the decision process to not offend those the do and reduce the offering.

IMHO we must have order in the Mass. I have attended many that I thought I needed tickets for the entetainment. I trust in Jesus to keep his chuch until the end of days.
 
Jennifer123 said:
This discussion just smacks me as the sort of thing that leaves Protestants cold - and for me I’m about trying to lead as many to the Truth as possible. But all this hand-wringing (excuse the pun) about holding hands just seems silly to me. 😛 It’s only one element of the Mass. I know worship is not about making us feel good but gee whiz. Sorry if that upsets people but I dunno - I think this is seriously overwrought. I think I’ll stick to my instincts and just stay out of it. :o
Click to expand...
Quote=Jennifer123
BUT I know that the Protestants and non-churched that have seen specifically the entire parish holding hand sort of thing (and one Evangelical is/was pretty anti-Catholic) see it as an impressive demonstration of fellowship, friendship and worship. They then noticed how familial the celebration of the Eucharist is, with everyone sharing the Cup and the Body.
I am all for bringing in all that listen to the call of our Lord. I have family that I am trying to bring back in. One thing that we need to make sure of–is that any and all who come into the Church – accept Her for who She is. They need to accept Her teachings, Her laws and Her Mass. They need to see and understand that our Mass is much,much more than an impressive demonstration of fellowship, friendship and worship. It is true worship of the Son offering Himself to the Father—and this is what none of us should ever play down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top