Holding Hands

[OhioBob]

Orionthehunter:

To address your concern about being percieved as uncharitable, make yourself enthusiastically available in the Sign of Peace.

I make myself available for the Sign of Peace. Whether or not I’m “enthusiastically available” is probably open to debate. I politely wish God’s peace on those around me, then I call it a day as soon as the Agnus Dei begins. I’m not one of those who feels the need to prowl the adjacent aisles in search of people to wish peace upon, smooch my neighbors or hug strangers like a bear. If that’s your thing, more power to you. I may give a little nod to someone up the aisle if I’m feeling particularly gregarious. I’ve even been known to plant a peck on the better half and give the kids a few noogies if time permits. But that’s the best I can muster.

Personally I find the Sign of Peace to be placed in a peculiar place in the Mass. It always seemed something better moved to the early part of the liturgy. There seems to be a movement afoot to consider moving the Rite, so I’ll keep my hopes up. Until then, I will afford the Rite of Peace proper respect without artificially inflating its importance during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. My opinion, of course.

Until then, I’ll do my best, but I doubt I am overly enthusiastic.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

So we’re going to apply this quote to something that is recognized and widespread and act like that is some “idiosyncracy.”

That is the point. It is not recognized by the proper authority. It is an innovation that is often “forced” on others. The entire argument is backward. It should not be that some folks decide to do something and those who reject it should give reasons why. Those that introduce it need to show that the Church is in favor of it.

And yet, I see no one using this quote to recognize that individuals kneeling for communion is a problem, despite *specific prohibitions * in the GIRM.

Kneeling has a long history in the mass. It is not an innovation.
The Vatican has said it those who choose to do it are not being disobedient. Do you have such a reference to support hand holding?

If we want to talk about actual abuses and maybe call that “anything goes” I’ll join right in with you. If we’re going to use the term to apply to “anything that I don’t like” I don’t think you’re helping your cause.

It is not just that some “dislike” it, but that it is basically forced on others when there is no authority saying it should be done.

 

[netmilsmom]

Orionthehunter:

OK. We get the point. You feel strongly about this. Keating as good a man as he is, his opinion is just that- his opinion. You agree with Keating. He is neither a Bishop or most importantly not my Bishop. Our primary obligation of obediance and submission is to our Bishop. Maybe this is an innovation that the Bishops should change if it detracts from the Sign of Peace. You have raised good arguments (especially regarding your comments about allowance for local customs regarding holding hands or bowing. However, this runs in the face of so many other comments about similar matters of local “flavor” or custom that should be snuffed out). But there are others who also have well-intentioned and reasoned arguments

Your attitude toward me seems to think that I think holding hands should be the norm. This is not true. Personally, in most cases, I prefer not to hold hands for the very reasons articulated- it appears to be more intimate than proper for people we don’t know well- but do so when near people with whom I have a relationship. My position is quite simple-until the Bishops address the issue, it continues as a matter of personal choice. People on both sides need to be charitable toward the others.

P.S. Keating’s remark that “And in some cases, holding hands even suggests something unsavory, as when we see two men holding hands as they walk down the sidewalk” is nonsense. IMHO, society would be served if every expression of affection wasn’t immediately assumed to be something inappropriate. I’m a hugger and think there is too little hugging and expressions of affection going on. This past weekend, I traveled to see an old friend’s son play a h.s. football game (we live hundreds fo miles apart and seldom see each other but the game was near my home). More than once, during the tense moments I reached over and grabbed his hand. After the game, we hugged passionately (I even had tears in my eyes as the evening and our parting made me realize how much I missed him) and I did the same to his wife. I love him dearly and love her because of how much she means to my friend. If anyone thought that we had anything but a pure philia (fellowship) love relationship, it is indicative of how they have allowed the sickness in the culture to invade them.

(I guess I am just answering your arguments for Handholding. You have made it clear that you don’t think it should be the norm, but you are continuing to defend it. This is not personal to you, it is what you are stating.)

All of this is with good friends. Where are we expected to hold hands with people we just met. Did you grab the hand of anyone that you did not know? Did you hold it?

As the Good Bishop of St. Louis states, consideration should be given for those who are uncomfortable with this. Not just a wave of the hand dismissing our comfort level.

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

As the Good Bishop of St. Louis states, consideration should be given for those who are uncomfortable with this. Not just a wave of the hand dismissing our comfort level.

Right. It is an old story these days. Introduce what you desire, do it long enough so some claim it is a custom, all the while ignoring those who reject it and ignoring the proper channels of authority.

The sixties just will not die off.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Where can I read the Church has specifically declined to stop it?

The Church allows all manner of illicit things to go unchecked for any number of reasons.

Come on fix, I know you know better than this after all the threads on this topic.

The Church has declined through two revisions of the GIRM to address this topic, although there have been people asking about it going back to at least the mid 70’s. That in and of itself says that they do not see a need to intervene and don’t consider it an abuse.

On top of that, we just had *Redemptionis Sacramentum * come out, specifically dealing with liturgical abuses. Not a word addresses this issue, which the Church certainly knows people are concerned about, although many, many other things are specifically repudiated, many of them of much more recent origin.

I am fully on your side as far as your feeling that it should not be forced on anyone. I can also understand and respect your reasons for not liking it personally, even though I do personally find it meaningful and fully rational. I have never called for it to be the norm–only that we not take it away from those of us that find it meaningful.

I keep hearing “that’s easy for you to say because your preference is being used.” That is true, but it’s only true because the Church doesn’t seem to have an issue with it. There are many other things that I would like to see different, but the Church for some unknown reason doesn’t see a need to pass these things by me for approval, and since this particular one continues, they apparently don’t send them to you either. I think we should file a grievance with the appropriate Congregation and get this corrected.

As I said earlier, we need to work together on legitimate abuses and not let little preference things diminish our joy. None of us are going to get everything we want, even if we knew what that was. For instance, what I respond to most now is totally different than what I responded to 20 years ago. Twenty years ago I hated the hand holding; now I find it very meaningful. Conversely, twenty years ago I hated anything that even smacked of Latin, whereas I now frequently have Chant on my CD player in the office. Five years ago I would not have supported kneeling for communion; now I find myself drawn to it, although I don’t do it, and find what is happening at Net’s parish to be a wonderful approach that could be a great model.

Can’t we please have some peace and stop calling down the thunderbolts on each other for this preference stuff? I will continue my call to making it clear that nobody should impose themselves on anyone who doesn’t want to hold their hand. I’ll even continue to call for clarification of the kneeling situation so we don’t have to fight about that one. And by the way, OhioBob, I agree with you about moving the sign of peace. I’d much rather see it at the beginning of mass some time.

Peace,

 

[OhioBob]

ncjohn:

…I am fully on your side as far as your feeling that it should not be forced on anyone. I can also understand and respect your reasons for not liking it personally, even though I do personally find it meaningful and fully rational. I have never called for it to be the norm–only that we not take it away from those of us that find it meaningful…

As I said earlier, we need to work together on legitimate abuses and not let little preference things diminish our joy. None of us are going to get everything we want, even if we knew what that was.

As much as I sometimes enjoy sparring on this issue, I tend to agree with you that there are bigger fish to fry.

That being said though, I do have to express my one particular pet peeve, which is the combination-hand-holding-orans. Sheesh. I wish people would pick one or the other - hold hands or do the orans. But doing them both looks too much like the “wave”.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

Come on fix, I know you know better than this after all the threads on this topic.

The Church has declined through two revisions of the GIRM to address this topic, although there have been people asking about it going back to at least the mid 70’s. That in and of itself says that they do not see a need to intervene and don’t consider it an abuse.

On top of that, we just had *Redemptionis Sacramentum * come out, specifically dealing with liturgical abuses. Not a word addresses this issue, which the Church certainly knows people are concerned about, although many, many other things are specifically repudiated, many of them of much more recent origin.

I am fully on your side as far as your feeling that it should not be forced on anyone. I can also understand and respect your reasons for not liking it personally, even though I do personally find it meaningful and fully rational. I have never called for it to be the norm–only that we not take it away from those of us that find it meaningful.

I keep hearing “that’s easy for you to say because your preference is being used.” That is true, but it’s only true because the Church doesn’t seem to have an issue with it. There are many other things that I would like to see different, but the Church for some unknown reason doesn’t see a need to pass these things by me for approval, and since this particular one continues, they apparently don’t send them to you either. I think we should file a grievance with the appropriate Congregation and get this corrected.

As I said earlier, we need to work together on legitimate abuses and not let little preference things diminish our joy. None of us are going to get everything we want, even if we knew what that was. For instance, what I respond to most now is totally different than what I responded to 20 years ago. Twenty years ago I hated the hand holding; now I find it very meaningful. Conversely, twenty years ago I hated anything that even smacked of Latin, whereas I now frequently have Chant on my CD player in the office. Five years ago I would not have supported kneeling for communion; now I find myself drawn to it, although I don’t do it, and find what is happening at Net’s parish to be a wonderful approach that could be a great model.

Can’t we please have some peace and stop calling down the thunderbolts on each other for this preference stuff? I will continue my call to making it clear that nobody should impose themselves on anyone who doesn’t want to hold their hand. I’ll even continue to call for clarification of the kneeling situation so we don’t have to fight about that one. And by the way, OhioBob, I agree with you about moving the sign of peace. I’d much rather see it at the beginning of mass some time.

Peace,

All I can say is that the hierarchy has not spoken on it. I have no idea if they approve or disapporve. I do know that the introduction of it cannot be traced to any proper authority.

I would have less of a problem if it were authentically optional. For example, a few folks wanted to do it with their family. The problem is where I live it is basically mandatory and I find that very distasteful and bordering disobedient.

If the Church were do introduce it I would not like it, but I would accept it out of obedience. What we have today is some radical folks starting it, foisting on others, many afraid to oppose it and then being driven through as if it were ordained by God, except we have only the authority of the hand holders to accept.

So, I must hold hands during the mass, not out of obedience to the Church, but out of deference to those who chose to act outside the authority of the Church. So, I am pained on two accounts. One, I am coerced to do what I do not want and those coercing me are acting as if they have a special authority.

I prefer to have a mass as the Church intends. I am not asking for much, only what is just and right as the Church allows.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

I would have less of a problem if it were authentically optional. For example, a few folks wanted to do it with their family. The problem is where I live it is basically mandatory and I find that very distasteful and bordering disobedient.

And I have to tell you that on that point you and I are in 100% agreement.

I assume you have approached the priest trying to have him ask people to be charitable and reminding them that they shouldn’t be imposing on other people. If you have done that and still have the problem, I can only apologize for the lack of charity that some might choose to show. I know I have felt very uncomfortable on those rare occasions when I have been at a Charismatic Mass. I have no problem with what they do, but since I don’t feel comfortable doing it, I feel very awkward when I just stand there. I guess it must be very parallel to your experience except that I don’t have to endure it on a regular basis.

Net’s position of having different Masses with different approaches is a valid solution in my mind in most parishes, even if there might be occasions where you might end up needing to attend the one you’d rather not. Maybe that is something you could approach your pastor with.

At any rate I will continue to pray for your peace of mind and for all of us.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

And I have to tell you that on that point you and I are in 100% agreement.

I assume you have approached the priest trying to have him ask people to be charitable and reminding them that they shouldn’t be imposing on other people. If you have done that and still have the problem, I can only apologize for the lack of charity that some might choose to show. I know I have felt very uncomfortable on those rare occasions when I have been at a Charismatic Mass. I have no problem with what they do, but since I don’t feel comfortable doing it, I feel very awkward when I just stand there. I guess it must be very parallel to your experience except that I don’t have to endure it on a regular basis.

Net’s position of having different Masses with different approaches is a valid solution in my mind in most parishes, even if there might be occasions where you might end up needing to attend the one you’d rather not. Maybe that is something you could approach your pastor with.

At any rate I will continue to pray for your peace of mind and for all of us.

I am in a very “progressive” diocese and a very “progressive” parish. As I said even the priest and others on the altar hold hands. It has been done for so long they claim it is a custom and acceptable. There is no debate. If there is discussion it is handled politically and by that I mean dialogue is an end unto itself, rather than a means to the truth. See where I am going?

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

I am in a very “progressive” diocese and a very “progressive” parish. As I said even the priest and others on the altar hold hands. It has been done for so long they claim it is a custom and acceptable. There is no debate. If there is discussion it is handled politically and by that I mean dialogue is an end unto itself, rather than a means to the truth. See where I am going?

Yes, definitely not good, and since you say the diocese is also “progressive” I assume the Bishop isn’t going to step in either.

Is there not a group of like minded people who might sit in a block and break the chain? If I’m ever in your area, I promise I will come and sit with you and specifically NOT hold hands just to be in solidarity.

Until then, you might just have to use the Serenity prayer.

 

[Lapsed]

fix:

I would have less of a problem if it were authentically optional. For example, a few folks wanted to do it with their family. The problem is where I live it is basically mandatory and I find that very distasteful and bordering disobedient.

Thank you for that, Fix. I’m glad I’m not the only one who got that impression. The last time I was at a Mass, this didn’t happen. Twenty years later and I find myself unexpectedly in the middle of what for me was a very uncomfortable situation and no apparent escape. When no one warns you about this and the entire congregation appears to be participating, you really don’t feel not participating is an option.

I thought I would just sneak into Mass for the experience again as I’ve been reading the Catechism and considering meeting with the parish priest. For my first real contact with the Church in 20 years, this was not in the least bit encouraging.

There needs to be a practical way of dealing with this so that those who are uncomfortable with hand holding don’t feel like they have no choice. Something like a “No hand holding” section or alternating pews or some such. This may sound somewhat facetious, but there does need to be some way of solving this dilemma.

The legitimacy of the practise isn’t really relevant at this point because it is currently accepted and widespread, whether or not it is official. I’m more concerned with the pratical issue raised for me of how not to feel forced to participate.

 

[netmilsmom]

Lapsed:

There needs to be a practical way of dealing with this so that those who are uncomfortable with hand holding don’t feel like they have no choice. Something like a “No hand holding” section or alternating pews or some such. This may sound somewhat facetious, but there does need to be some way of solving this dilemma.

My heart goes out to you.
You could do what I did. Take a six-year-old with you and when the Our Father starts, announce in a stage whisper, “Be a good girl, close your eyes, fold your hands and think about Jesus.” (this actually was a cue to others not to grab her hand)
The people around you will either be appalled or appreciate it.
In my old “Catholic Community” where seniors made up the majority of the population, it became apparent that it was greatly appreciated.
A couple of weeks into it, we became the non-handholding section in the last two pews on the left side. I think that if we had remained, it could have snowballed through the whole church!
Sometimes people just need validation that one does not have to participate.

OR find a really Historically Catholic parish and go there. God Bless my parish!

 

[SnorterLuster]

Lapsed:

I thought I would just sneak into Mass for the experience again as I’ve been reading the Catechism and considering meeting with the parish priest. For my first real contact with the Church in 20 years, this was not in the least bit encouraging.

I know exactly what you are feeling. The big difference is that I knew what was going on since my old parish was one of the most liberal in the diocese. I solved my problem by making an appointment with the priest at the TLM parish. For once in my life, I made the right decision the first time.

 

[Indigna_Ancilla]

+JMJ

Re.: the use of orans by laity:
the Holy See has made specific comments about laity adapting the rubrics of the priest during the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration (in an unprecedented conjuction of Vatican dicasteries):

6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 , are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest.

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.
The late Pope John Paul II approved this in “forma specifica”, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is thereby binding on us, regardless of what any other priest or bishop might chose in great and grave error to the contrary.

The orans gesture is part of the priest celebrant’s rubrics, even to the point that even a concelebrant priest is not to gesture in the orans.

 

[Indigna_Ancilla]

fix:

I am in a very “progressive” diocese and a very “progressive” parish. As I said even the priest and others on the altar hold hands. It has been done for so long they claim it is a custom and acceptable. There is no debate. If there is discussion it is handled politically and by that I mean dialogue is an end unto itself, rather than a means to the truth. See where I am going?

Wow! Priests are NOT to be holding hands during the mass.

HAND-HOLDING
Yes, it is true that there is no norm posture for the hands during the congregation during the prayer of the Our Father. But, let’s consider at the entire context of what the Church does say about new rites or new gestures being brought into the liturgy.
First of all, the process for introducing a new rite or gesture is, of course, a liturgical matter, not a community matter. The process of bringing in a new rite or gesture into the Catholic liturgy entails a 2/3rds majority vote in the bishops’ conference, and even after that, then the Holy See most agree for any change to then be acccepted as liturgically acceptable. (It is not for any lessor authority than this to decide whether hand-holding should be expected to be uphold by their own decree.)

As far as the argument that hand-holding expresses unity, here is my opinion:
The “Our Father” is a vow to God. It is personal, and directed only to Him. We are people who by concupiscence (Thomists would agree and any good, Catholic theologian) that we are people who have strong sensitive appetitives, that is to say, that we can easily be swayed, or at least distracted by our senses. Touching another person is certainly sense-giving, so much that it draws attention to the person(s) to whom we are touching and by whom we are being touched. By this very fact, it takes from the sense we have of God.

Imagine if you were actually witnessing the Passion of our Lord. Would you be compelled to hold hands, especially even with a stranger? If Jesus hung on the Cross with in front of you, perhaps you would take some time to be ‘alone’ with him in that moment, and beg for his mercy, and pray as he taught. What is more intimate than our relationship with Christ? Should we not respect his prayer to the Father by honoring that intimacy?

Let me focus on him during his Holy Sacrafice (the Mass), and then I’ll hold your hand… AFTERWARDS. lol.

Holding hands is about group unity from a humanistic perspective, and is, therefore, not directed towards God, but to the group.

The Catechism states (2785) that the prayer the “Our Father” is accomplished only by focusing on God alone and focuses on our relationship only with God, as opposed to (from that relationship) with each other.(2786)

 

[sconea]

Jayson:

Hand Holding… ewww!

Jason, bless you, I found your comment ‘clear and succinct’. It left no doubt in my mind as to your opinion and compared to some of the other convoluted drivel posted, it was most refreshing!

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**General Notice:

Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:

Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
.

 

[the_phoenix]

Just when you think you’ve seen it all during Mass, you experience what I did earlier this year and see something new:

During the sermon, the woman seated next to me took out a bottle of lotion. At first I thought nothing of it, figuring that perhaps she had some sort of a skin condition even though she looked to be youngish-to-middle-aged and in good health. I assumed she would simply apply a discreet amount wherever it was needed, and be done with it. People have medical problems. I can understand that.

Imagine my horror when she squeezed out gobs of the strong-smelling stuff and began slathering it all over her well-tanned arms and legs. She was wearing shorts or a short skirt, which along with her tan, I hadn’t really paid much attention to until then. And when I say slather, I do mean slather. And when I say smelly … it reeked! Must’ve been cocoa butter suntan lotion.

At that point, I moved further down in the pew away from the lady I had now come to see as Lotion Woman. Why? Because it just made me feel real uncomfortable imagining holding hands during the Our Father and/or shaking her greasy smelly hand during the Handshake of Peace, and then potentially going up to receive Communion in the hand! Now normally I greatly prefer to receive Communion on the tongue; however, if I wind up in a line with a Eucharistic Minister who appears new, nervous, or otherwise uncertain, I sometimes receive in the hand in the hopes of lessening the chances that the Host will be dropped.

The handshake of peace came. Lotion Woman started walking towards me, so I gave the most charitable greeting I could think to manage under the circumstances … I smiled and waved with a half-bow. Could be this was real awkward, am admittedly not the best at social skills, but I was feeling really uncomfortable here. I did sincerely wish her peace and believe that this ought to be a case where the thought counts.

Lotion Woman reached out to me anyways, starting to get an offended look on her face. I refused the hand and finally said to her, “Excuse me, but I don’t want any of your lotion.” Perhaps she thought me uncharitable because she didn’t know how much the thought of receiving Our Lord into a handful of smelly greasy suntan lotion was bothering me.

~~ the phoenix

 

[thistle]

fix:

That is the point. It is not recognized by the proper authority. It is an innovation that is often “forced” on others. The entire argument is backward. It should not be that some folks decide to do something and those who reject it should give reasons why. Those that introduce it need to show that the Church is in favor of it.

Kneeling has a long history in the mass. It is not an innovation.
The Vatican has said it those who choose to do it are not being disobedient. Do you have such a reference to support hand holding?

It is not just that some “dislike” it, but that it is basically forced on others when there is no authority saying it should be done.

Forgive me for putting in my ten cents worth but I understand nobody is “forced” to hold hands. They do not have to if they do not want to and I really find it hard to believe these stories of physical abuse on folks who decline to hold hands.
Whether holding hands is an abuse or unwarranted innovation I don’t know because at 57 years old I have been a Catholic for the past 14 years so in all churches in the many countries I have been to Mass either holding hands or hands outstretched turned upwards are the only gestures I have seen. It seems to me, though, that if such a thing was an abuse or unwarranted innovation surely this globally practiced and obviously well known gesture to the hierachy of the Church would have been stopped by now. How many Popes and Councils of Bishops have there been in the past 30 to 40 years. I don’t think the argument that they have had no time to address this due to more important matters really holds (not over a 30 year time period anyhow).

 

[fix]

Lapsed:

Thank you for that, Fix. I’m glad I’m not the only one who got that impression. The last time I was at a Mass, this didn’t happen. Twenty years later and I find myself unexpectedly in the middle of what for me was a very uncomfortable situation and no apparent escape. When no one warns you about this and the entire congregation appears to be participating, you really don’t feel not participating is an option.

I thought I would just sneak into Mass for the experience again as I’ve been reading the Catechism and considering meeting with the parish priest. For my first real contact with the Church in 20 years, this was not in the least bit encouraging.

There needs to be a practical way of dealing with this so that those who are uncomfortable with hand holding don’t feel like they have no choice. Something like a “No hand holding” section or alternating pews or some such. This may sound somewhat facetious, but there does need to be some way of solving this dilemma.

The legitimacy of the practise isn’t really relevant at this point because it is currently accepted and widespread, whether or not it is official. I’m more concerned with the pratical issue raised for me of how not to feel forced to participate.

You have summed up my thoughts very well. I focus on the legitimacy of it because the same way this practice got a hold other things can creep in as well.

I have no solution.