Holding Hands

[ncjohn]

SummaTheo:

Let me correct myself. What stops the whole congregation from holding hands throughout the whole mass? Secondly, people either approve or dissapprove but I’ve never heard of why someone does it.

As one of the posters below noted, “common sense” would be at least part of it. Being as this has been present for at least 30 years now without it spreading beyond the Lord’s Prayer, do you have some indication that it is spreading beyond that? Like everything else in the Church, there are processes in place to address something that is found to be an actual abuse. *Redemptionis Sacramentum * was just a shining example of that process at work, even if it didn’t go as far as some would have liked.

As to the “why,” I can’t speak for everyone obviously, but the reason the people I know do it is as a sign of communion and unity as we say the OUR Father, emphasizing that it is a communal prayer, not an individual prayer. With the Mass being a celebration of both the Vertical and Horizontal communion, the Eucharist is our Vertical communion while we see the Lord’s Prayer as a sign of the horizontal communion of the Body of Christ.

Now if we could just get the “approve or disapprove” out of our conversation and substitute “prefer or don’t prefer” and then act charitably toward those who don’t share our preferences!

Peace,

 

[THutch04]

SummaTheo:

If we continue with the holding of hands, what stops people from using it throughout the rest of the mass?

I remember a couple of months ago, a family sitting in front of me held hands during the Consecration. That’s the only time I had ever seen it, and I haven’t seen it since then. I can understand why people would choose to do it during the Lord’s Prayer, even though I personally choose not to, but I don’t really see the need for it during the Consecration.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Angels Watchin:

It’s just not ok. We’re not supposed to be holding hands because the GIRM does not tell us to. Period.

and the orans is for the priest, not the laity.

Angel

The GIRM doesn’t tell us lots of things. It doesn’t tell us whether we should pray with hands clasped, or palms together, or whether we should make the the little sign of the cross over our forehead, lips, and heart at the reading of the Gospel – I’ve never heard anyone complain about that one. It doesn’t say whether we should listen to the Scriptures and the homily with our eyes open or closed (presumably not sleeping!). I could go on and on with similar examples.

 

[netmilsmom]

Prometheum_x:

The GIRM doesn’t tell us lots of things. It doesn’t tell us whether we should pray with hands clasped, or palms together, or whether we should make the the little sign of the cross over our forehead, lips, and heart at the reading of the Gospel – I’ve never heard anyone complain about that one. It doesn’t say whether we should listen to the Scriptures and the homily with our eyes open or closed (presumably not sleeping!). I could go on and on with similar examples.

Some gestures are historically Catholic.
Q: Just before the Gospel reading, the celebrant leads us in the gesture with our thumbs making the sign of the cross on our foreheads, lips and hearts. Who created this and why?

A: As early as the ninth century, the faithful were making the sign of the cross on their forehead and breast at the reading of the Gospel. Then, in the eleventh century, we find the deacon and the faithful making the sign of the cross on the forehead, mouth, and breast after the words “A reading of the holy gospel . . .” (Jungmann, Mass of the Roman Rite).

According to Jungmann, “The original idea of this signing of oneself is probably indicated in the scriptural text frequently cited in this connection, the quotation about the wicked enemy who is anxious to take the seed of the word of God away from the hearts of hearers (Mark 4:15). . . . But another explanation takes over by degrees; an ever-increasing stress is placed on the readiness to acknowledge God’s word with courage. . . . The meaning is this: For the word which Christ brought and which is set down in this book we are willing to stand up with a mind that is open, we are ready to confess it with our mouth, and above all we are determined to safeguard it faithfully in our hearts” (CIN-Origin of the Sign of the Cross, Father Mateo, July 28, 1991).

And are encouraged by ALL the American Bishops…
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/theo.shtml

“Other gestures such as the reverential sign of the Cross, the beating of the breast, the sign of the Cross on the forehead, lips and heart and the gesture of adoration before receiving Holy Communion should not be allowed to fall into disuse.”

The best you’ve got on the Orans and Handholding is individual Bishops and a direction from the GIRM that “no posture is prescribed”. Why not another prayer posture? Why not laying Prostrate?
Do you have a reference from the Vatican that states that the orans position is for the laity in the liturgy? It’s stated for the Priest.

Personally, I am Latin Catholic. I will go with what is Historically Latin Catholic. Neither orans nor Handholding is historically Latin Catholic, but your other examples are.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

thistle:

Like the other poster said, common sense. It would be ridiculous to hold hands throughout the whole Mass and totally impractical but its not inappropriate during The Lord’s Prayer which is considered the family/community prayer (“Our Father”) which is why many people hold hands during this prayer only.
I still don’t understand why some people consider this an abuse because they say its not specified in the GIRM. Are these people saying they know better than the Popes and all the councils of bishops in the past 40 years or so. If it was an abuse it would have been forbidden. It has not been forbidden so it is not considered an abuse.

I personally don’t care what you do with your hands. Just keep your peculiar vision of “Catholic Community” to yourself. I’ve read too many stories on this board about people being hit, slapped, pinched, punched and kicked because they refused to hold hands. Not to mention the nasty accusations of being “uncharitable.” Which begs the question. Just who is really being uncharitable, the one who clasps his own hands together and bows his head quietly, or the viscious touchy-feely type who resorts to physical and verbal abuse when someone doesn’t share their trendy view of liturgical posture?

And, as a side note, I wouldn’t trust anyone who thinks the earth is round. Bunch of screwballs if you ask me. :whacky:

 

[Prometheum_x]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Personally, I am Latin Catholic. I will go with what is Historically Latin Catholic. Neither orans nor Handholding is historically Latin Catholic, but your other examples are.

As am I. My comment was in response to the person whose argument was based solely on the GIRM and was not intended to state that handholding has the same legitimacy as signing the cross at the Gospel.

I might add that at one time the signing of the cross at the Gospel reading was not a part of what was Historically Latin Catholic and it appears it was a practice that developed gradually over the course of several centuries.

I am not a fan of free-spirited improvisation in the liturgy, but I will also not refuse to accept the possibility of new things becoming part of the tradition of the Church – my reasoning here is not concerned with the specific legitimacy of orans posture of handholding. I am simply making a general statement.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Dr. Bombay:

I personally don’t care what you do with your hands. Just keep your peculiar vision of “Catholic Community” to yourself. I’ve read too many stories on this board about people being hit, slapped, pinched, punched and kicked because they refused to hold hands. Not to mention the nasty accusations of being “uncharitable.” Which begs the question. Just who is really being uncharitable, the one who clasps his own hands together and bows his head quietly, or the viscious touchy-feely type who resorts to physical and verbal abuse when someone doesn’t share their trendy view of liturgical posture?

And, as a side note, I wouldn’t trust anyone who thinks the earth is round. Bunch of screwballs if you ask me. :whacky:

It appears that people become fond of their own personal traditions rather quickly and do not remain content let them remain private. It irks me when the contemporary minded person scoffs at the “rigid traditionalist mindset” of the past, only to insist that their spontaneity and innovations become some sort of universal standard.

At least within their personal universe. . .

 

[thistle]

Dr. Bombay:

Grabbing your private parts during the Lord’s Prayer isn’t strictly forbidden either. Mind if I do it next time I’m standing next to you?

I personally don’t care what you do with your hands. Just keep your peculiar vision of “Catholic Community” to yourself. I’ve read too many stories on this board about people being hit, slapped, pinched, punched and kicked because they refused to hold hands. Not to mention the nasty accusations of being “uncharitable.” Which begs the question. Just who is really being uncharitable, the one who clasps his own hands together and bows his head quietly, or the viscious touchy-feely type who resorts to physical and verbal abuse when someone doesn’t share their trendy view of liturgical posture?

And, as a side note, I wouldn’t trust anyone who thinks the earth is round. Bunch of screwballs if you ask me. :whacky:

You are being ridiculous and pretty nasty!! As for your opening remark, if you are really a Catholic I assume you will be going to Confession before receiving Communion.

 

[netmilsmom]

Prometheum_x:

As am I. My comment was in response to the person whose argument was based solely on the GIRM and was not intended to state that handholding has the same legitimacy as signing the cross at the Gospel.

I might add that at one time the signing of the cross at the Gospel reading was not a part of what was Historically Latin Catholic and it appears it was a practice that developed gradually over the course of several centuries.

I am not a fan of free-spirited improvisation in the liturgy, but I will also not refuse to accept the possibility of new things becoming part of the tradition of the Church – my reasoning here is not concerned with the specific legitimacy of orans posture of handholding. I am simply making a general statement.

Something is historical when it has been done for hundreds of years. The idea of using the Orans, as has been brought up by others, because it was an ancient practice, disregards the hundreds of years we used other postures, exclusively Catholic. We have adopted the postures of the people who protested against us, stating that it was “ancient”, or that the liturgy should be a community. We are Latin Catholic and should be looking to things Historical to us, not others.
And as for the possibility of new things becoming tradition, nothing is to be added to the liturgy. And with that, there are many other documents beside the GIRM to guide our postures.

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

Here is the answer from the USCCB website usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/orans.shtml to the question:

*Orans

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.

Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?

No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.*

Sorry I missed you! The GIRM does not tell you not to lay prostrate either.

No where in the GIRM does it ever tell you what NOT to do and while one can find Vatican documents which tells the Laity to fold their hands, one cannot find instruction for the Orans connected to the laity.

It is up to your Bishop on whether to give permission but where it is stated that there is nothing prescribed, nothing is to be added.

 

[harinkj]

Prometheum_x:

It appears that people become fond of their own personal traditions rather quickly and do not remain content let them remain private. It irks me when the contemporary minded person scoffs at the “rigid traditionalist mindset” of the past, only to insist that their spontaneity and innovations become some sort of universal standard.

At least within their personal universe. . .

Wicca makes up a lot of new traditions. I think I saw a book once in a bookstore that told you how to make up your own rituals for various situations.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[ncjohn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

It is up to your Bishop on whether to give permission but where it is stated that there is nothing prescribed, nothing is to be added.

You are right that it is up to the Bishop.

It is abundantly clear however both from the USCCB statement and the lack of action by the Church in prohibiting Orans or holding of hands that this is not considered to be “adding” anything and is not an “abuse.” If your statement there was correct, then your statement that it is up to the Bishop would have to be wrong since he would have no such authority. “Nothing is prescribed” means pure and simply that there is no specific posture demanded at that time.

I really don’t understand why it is we (in general, not you specifically) have to continue to pick at each other over this issue. At this time it is settled, even if some don’t like the way it’s settled. Short of some new document being issued, there is nothing to prohibit it, and the most recent document dealing specifically with abuses did not address it. While you may have lots of good reasons for personally opposing it, the evidence is clear that the Church has not.

I really think it’s time for all of us to start acting like grown-ups and stop sniping at each other over this. If you don’t like it don’t do it. If someone reaches for you, continue to fold your hands in front of you as you do now. If there is a pattern of such action, ask the priest to charitably remind people not to impose their preferences on anyone else. This Body of Christ needs to stop having the ears and eyes trying to gouge each other out and seek some peace.

 

[Prometheum_x]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Something is historical when it has been done for hundreds of years. . . .

. . . .And as for the possibility of new things becoming tradition, nothing is to be added to the liturgy. And with that, there are many other documents beside the GIRM to guide our postures.

I wasn’t saying something new should be considered “traditional” or “historical” right away, only that it has the potential to become so over the course of hundreds of years, just like many other things, such as the aforementioned signing of the cross at the Gospel.

Nothing is to be added to the liturgy? I’m sure you mean that with exceptions, for otherwise we would be still using the exact same liturgy (down to the letter) as the apostles.

 

[Prometheum_x]

harinkj:

Wicca makes up a lot of new traditions. I think I saw a book once in a bookstore that told you how to make up your own rituals for various situations.

• Kathie :bowdown:

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

You are right that it is up to the Bishop.

It is abundantly clear however both from the USCCB statement and the lack of action by the Church in prohibiting Orans or holding of hands that this is not considered to be “adding” anything and is not an “abuse.” If your statement there was correct, then your statement that it is up to the Bishop would have to be wrong since he would have no such authority. “Nothing is prescribed” means pure and simply that there is no specific posture demanded at that time.

There was no need to specifically go against the style of the GIRM and state that something is NOT to be done when it is stated in other documents. When something is not specifically stated for the laity, but is specifically stated for the Priest, it is for the Priest.

I really don’t understand why it is we (in general, not you specifically) have to continue to pick at each other over this issue. At this time it is settled, even if some don’t like the way it’s settled. Short of some new document being issued, there is nothing to prohibit it, and the most recent document dealing specifically with abuses did not address it. While you may have lots of good reasons for personally opposing it, the evidence is clear that the Church has not.

The church takes time. Lots of time. By not speaking of other innovations they were built upon. Slowly but surely, innovations are being eliminated.

I really think it’s time for all of us to start acting like grown-ups and stop sniping at each other over this. If you don’t like it don’t do it. If someone reaches for you, continue to fold your hands in front of you as you do now. If there is a pattern of such action, ask the priest to charitably remind people not to impose their preferences on anyone else. This Body of Christ needs to stop having the ears and eyes trying to gouge each other out and seek some peace.

Catholics, before the internet, were forced to listen to Liturgical Commitees who brought in innovations. Now we have a voice. It is easy to throw out the insult of being childish when information is being presented against one’s opinion. However, until we are all on the same page, guided by our Bishops who are all on the same page, discussion is not insult, it is providing information and giving opinions.

 

[thistle]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

There was no need to specifically go against the style of the GIRM and state that something is NOT to be done when it is stated in other documents. When something is not specifically stated for the laity, but is specifically stated for the Priest, it is for the Priest.

The church takes time. Lots of time. By not speaking of other innovations they were built upon. Slowly but surely, innovations are being eliminated.

Catholics, before the internet, were forced to listen to Liturgical Commitees who brought in innovations. Now we have a voice. It is easy to throw out the insult of being childish when information is being presented against one’s opinion. However, until we are all on the same page, guided by our Bishops who are all on the same page, discussion is not insult, it is providing information and giving opinions.

When you say discussion is not an insult, how about the remarks of Dr Bombay " Grabbing your private parts during the Lord’s Prayer isn’t strictly forbidden either. Mind if I do it next time I’m standing next to you?" These are not only insulting but disgusting and certainly not providing information or giving opinions.

 

[netmilsmom]

Prometheum_x:

I wasn’t saying something new should be considered “traditional” or “historical” right away, only that it has the potential to become so over the course of hundreds of years, just like many other things, such as the aforementioned signing of the cross at the Gospel.

Nothing is to be added to the liturgy? I’m sure you mean that with exceptions, for otherwise we would be still using the exact same liturgy (down to the letter) as the apostles.

From here…
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html

“Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

 

[Prometheum_x]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

From here…
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html

“Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

But a bishop can.

 

[harinkj]

Prometheum_x:

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

You had written earlier:

Prometheum_x:

It irks me when the contemporary minded person scoffs at the “rigid traditionalist mindset” of the past, only to insist that their spontaneity and innovations become some sort of universal standard.

I was just pointing out that these people who come up with these new innovations might consider going to Wicca instead of changing the Catholic Church away from what the Vatican wants.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[netmilsmom]

thistle:

When you say discussion is not an insult, how about the remarks of Dr Bombay " Grabbing your private parts during the Lord’s Prayer isn’t strictly forbidden either. Mind if I do it next time I’m standing next to you?" These are not only insulting but disgusting and certainly not providing information or giving opinions.

Some people use sarcasm to make a point. To use the absolute absurdity takes the abstract and presents it in the context of the discussion.
To some of us, these innovations are beyond our concept of acceptable. They are just that, innovations. To those who accept the innovations, the sarcasm is absurd, to us, it is just as unrealistic as adopting a prayer posture that is not Historically Latin Catholic.

If you walked into a Catholic Church where everyone was kneeling on a prayer rug as the Muslims do or shokeling as the Jewish worshipers do, how comfortable would you feel? To me, holding hands is a gesture of prayer used at my Presbyterian In-law’s house. Orans is how my Jewish friends pray. To me, none of the above belong in the liturgy.