Holding Hands

[ncjohn]

If I wanted to wave my hands wildly in the air during the Our Father, would that be okay? Or, if wanted to clap my hands together, would that be okay? Similarly, would it be okay for the priest to say the homily standing on his head? Under your logic, this would all be okay, since the GIRM does not prescribe what I should or should not do with my hands, or that the priest should not stand on his head, so, therefore, everything goes.

This is the common “slippery slope” argument, that if handholding is allowed, then anything is allowed. That is weak for numerous reasons.

First, we are only discussing here the issue of handholding, and not other positions. Second, what an individual does is not controlled anywhere. The issue is only whether the congregation can or should be allowed or directed to do something. If an individual, or the congregation was to do something ridiculous it would be dealt with as needed. There are mechanisms to deal with things that are not positions of prayer, and appeals to higher authority if the priest or pastor was to not deal with them.

Besides that, if you take the postion that handholding is not allowed because it isn’t stated in the rubrics, then you are in a position of saying that folding your hands, putting them in your pockets, putting them on the back of the pew, or any other position you can name, is also not allowed because none of them are mentioned either. It would be pretty much impossible to prescribe a position because a large part of the congregation would be in a position of “disobedience” at any given time because people do different things with their hands, including holding babies, reading their missalette, scratching their noses, or whatever.

Also, my missalette (I probably did not spell this right!) says to “stand” during the Lord’s Prayer, not “stand and hold hands.” Is there, or is there not, a difference between “standing” and “standing and holding hands”?

But it also doesn’t say “stand and fold your hands” or “stand and put your hands in your pockets” or anything else. It just says “stand” and doesn’t address what to do with your hands–or your feet or any other part of your body for that matter.

Finally, the 11 Noticiae 1975 also says “The prolonged holding of hands . . . is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” This is indeed in response to the question asked, but the point, as written, is rather obviously broader in nature.

I find it rather obvious that in specifically NOT stating anything beyond that when the question was asked that there is NOT any broader context. It would have been a perfect opportunity to say “don’t do it” if they had wanted to do so, yet it specifically does not do that, just as the USCCB’s statement would have been a perfect opportunity to say “don’t do it” when the question was asked, but did not.

Is it your position that the USCCB ENCOURAGES people to introduce new stuff into the Mass on personal initiative? It would be my guess that they DISCOURAGE additions to the Mass on personal initiative.

That is most assuredly not my position. My position is that the USCCB, when specificaly asked, specifically stated that there is no prescribed position, and that as such they do not have a problem with people holding hands–or at the very least are not taking a position against it. Keep in mind also that this is NOT a new thing. It goes back at the very least 30 years and quite likely has been around as long as the Pauline Mass which introduced the people saying the Lord’s Prayer. So the tradition of the people holding hands tracks the people reciting the Lord’s Prayer and would certainly be as valid a tradition in that respect as any other position taken. Even before the Pauline Mass, when the people did not recite the Lord’s Prayer, there was no prescribed position for the hands at that time–in fact most people were probably holding their missal in an attempt to follow what was being said–so there is no previous tradtion to fall back on either.

And for what it’s worth, I can’t come to a conclusion in any way that the way we hold our hands during a communal prayer is “adding something to the Mass” any more than I could that holding a baby or sneezing was adding something to the Mass. If it is indeed adding something, then so is any position you put your hands in any time during the Mass since there is no specifcation for doing things with your hands except for a couple things like beating your breast during the confiteor.

 

[ncjohn]

John, email is one dimensional, so I hope you accept that I do not say these things to be snide or rude; rather, I am just trying to see if your logic is consistent.

I certainly took no offense. I have spent extensive time researching this topic over the last year or so, have read tons of different documents and articles expressing opinions, and have done a couple hundred posts on the topic. While I certainly don’t claim to be an “expert” or that my opinions are authoritative, I have more than a passing knowledge and interest in the topic.

In the end, unless and until the Church or the USCCB takes a definitive position, there is neither encouragement or discouragement of the practice from those in authority. It thus would behoove us to act in charity in neither forcing our preferences on each other, or in making judgments about each other’s piety or devotion. I have personally been on both sides of the fence at different times, and have many friends and family members on each “side”. I will do my best to continue to encourage people to be respectful toward each other, and continue to rejoice that so many are trying so hard to bring their joys and sorrows before our awesome God.

Peace,

 

[LeahInancsi]

Where, PRECISELY, does the GIRM say that holding hands by ANYONE during the Our Father is allowed?

Where does it say it’s NOT allowed?

 

[MariaG]

Where does it say it’s NOT allowed?

This then will draw us back to the argument of it does not tell us that we can not do cartwheels at Mass but that does not mean they are allowed

Oh leadership in the Church, why do you not definitively, once and for all speak out on this issue? Maybe because in the larger picture it really is not that important?

God Bless All. Peace.

Maria

 

[cjaubert]

Where does it say it’s NOT allowed?

It says NOWHERE that it is not allowed. It also says NOWHERE that I cannot wear a clown suit to Mass, that I cannot wave my arms wildly whenever I want, or that the Priest cannot say the homily standing on his head.

I am not saying these things should be allowed. Rather, I am just saying, be consistent. If your point is, “The GIRM is silent so I can do it,” then that point has to apply to other things, as well. In other words, my point is logic-based, not faith based.

 

[cjaubert]

This is the common “slippery slope” argument, that if handholding is allowed, then anything is allowed. That is weak for numerous reasons.

I see your point, but I am not making the slippery slope argument. Rather, as stated in the post below, I am just asking for consistency in logic. If the argument from silence is not weak, then it is not weak on other issues, too.

Also, addressing this one point (even if I were to agree with you) does not address any of the other many points listed below. For example, diluting the immediately following sign of peace, or why we don’t hold hands during the whole Mass, or how holding hands does not affect the vertical nature of the prayer.

Finally, let me make one more point on this, if I may. Why do so many people look for loopholes to do what they think feels good, or to get around the spirit of the Mass? Shouldn’t we all be obedient and try to be as reverent as possible, and not play a game of loophole liturgy?

God bless…

 

[cjaubert]

Maybe because in the larger picture it really is not that important?

Maria, this is, most assuredly, not the most pressing issue facing the Church. I don’t think anyone here thinks that. That, however, is, with respect, besides the point, at least in my opinion. My view is, the posture is either acceptable or it’s not acceptable. If it is indeed acceptable, fine. If it is not acceptable, then we should all stop doing it.

Let me try to make my point on your level of importance argument by two analogies. First, let’s say you go to a terrific feast of seven wonderful courses. Everything was great - the wine was tasty, the appetizer delicious, the main course succulent, and the dessert tantalizing. But, there was a cockroach in the salad. Which of the two statements more accurately reflects the one you would make at the end of the evening:

1. That was a truly wonderful and memorable meal, and it really wasn’t that important to me that there was a cockroach in my salad, or
2. I cannot believe there was a cockroach in the salad - how gross.

This is a serious question - I would appreciate your comments.

Second, your post suggests to me, rephrased, that “if it is not the most important thing, let’s not worry about it until we address all the important things.” Let’s try to agree that abortion is, if not the most important issue facing the Church today, one of the most important. Can we agree on that? If so, should we not worry at all about contraception, homosexual marriage, child pornography, murder, masturbation, adultry, pre-marital sex, and on and on and on UNTIL we solve the abortion problem? Or, should we address all the problems, making distinctions only as to HOW MUCH attention they get, not whether they get ANY attention at all?

Again, this is a serious question on which I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks, and God bless

 

[ncjohn]

I see your point, but I am not making the slippery slope argument. Rather, as stated in the post below, I am just asking for consistency in logic. If the argument from silence is not weak, then it is not weak on other issues, too.

Also, addressing this one point (even if I were to agree with you) does not address any of the other many points listed below. For example, diluting the immediately following sign of peace, or why we don’t hold hands during the whole Mass, or how holding hands does not affect the vertical nature of the prayer.

Finally, let me make one more point on this, if I may. Why do so many people look for loopholes to do what they think feels good, or to get around the spirit of the Mass? Shouldn’t we all be obedient and try to be as reverent as possible, and not play a game of loophole liturgy?

God bless…

Quite frankly, IMO, this is exactly why we have the division over this that we do. It is the assumption by people on both sides of the issue that the other side is: pick one a) disobedient, irreverent, taking liberties, fostering false chumminess, diluting the vertical sign, looking for loopholes, etc, or b) cold and unfeeling, expressing false piety, focused on externals, liturgy police, etc. Neither of these views is fair or justified as none of us have the ability to judge anyone’s motivation or piety. Both are uncharitable and un-Christian.

To address your specific questions

For example, diluting the immediately following sign of peace, or why we don’t hold hands during the whole Mass, or how holding hands does not affect the vertical nature of the prayer.

I will give you my reasons, acknowledging that they are not all of the reasons and that anyone else may have different reasons. First off, the Lord’s Prayer is distinct from the rest of the Mass as it is the one time we are called on specifically and as a communal body to pray together. It is a prayer to OUR Father, not MY Father. Second, the Mass is both horizontal and vertical; it is NOT strictly vertical, as is made abundantly clear in the Vatican 2 documents. We are worshipping as the entire Body of Christ, not strictly as individuals. Third, the sign of peace serves a completely different function of recognizing God in each other and pledging to work together for peace for each other, whereas the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of praise and petition. They are two totally different functions. That is why the Noticiae talked about not substituting one for the other.

To those of us who support the practice, we see it as a sign of our communal journey and a recognition that we are saved as the people of God just as much as we are as individuals. It has nothing to do with chumminess, nor is it irreverent in any way. It is just a way of showing our devotion just as folding ones hands does for other people. While you will find the occasional miscreant who will glare at someone who doesn’t participate, most of us are perfectly fine with offering our hands for those who wish to join while taking no offense at those who don’t.

Shouldn’t we all be obedient and try to be as reverent as possible…

On what basis are you making the judgment that anyone holding hands is being disobedient when the Church has made no such statement or judgment? On what possible basis are you concluding that we are being irreverent? If you were able to get your Certificate of Omniscience granted, please let me know how you did it since mine was denied. (Just kidding, but I think you know what I mean there )

Finally, let’s just address the logic issue further. You have said that the GIRM tells us what to do and not what NOT to do. What position does the GIRM tell us to take with our hands at that time? Folded? Clasped? What exactly in your opinion is the “correct” position, and how do you come to that conclusion?

The fact is that it doesn’t address the hand position, period. As such, any prayerful position should be acceptable, or none should be acceptable. Any argument you make for one prayerful position I can make for any other. Conversely any argument you make against any prayerful position I can make against any other based on either the view that what isn’t permitted is prohibitted, or that what isn’t prohibitted is ok. There is no tradition to go back to since the publicly recited Lord’s Prayer is a new part of the Mass, just like the Sign of Peace.

You may say that silence is a weak argument, but I would say that 40 years of silence in the view of the deafening roar of people asking for clarification is pretty darn strong evidence that this is not a big issue for the Church. And I would argue that even bigger is the fact that Redemptionis Sacramentum, specifically written to deal with liturgical abuse, specifically DOES NOT address this. That certainly isn’t because the Church doesn’t know about the issue, and it certainly isn’t because they are afraid to say what they want.

You are certainly free to disagree with my reasons for wanting to do it, though I think you get on shaky ground if you make judgments about my devotion or piety. I think we’ll all be better off regardless, in the absence of something definitive, if we assume the best about each other and encourage each other in our devotion. That Jesus guy we claim to follow, as well as St Paul and others, seemed to be really big on that idea.

Peace,

 

[MariaG]

…

Let me try to make my point on your level of importance argument by two analogies. First, let’s say you go to a terrific feast of seven wonderful courses… But, there was a cockroach in the salad…
Second, your post suggests to me, rephrased, that “if it is not the most important thing, let’s not worry about it until we address all the important things.”
…

Most of your post had to be deleted due to the length of my response.

I do not believe holding hands in Mass can be compared to finding a cockroach in the meal. Finding a cockroach in ones meal is a completely negative thing.

Having a fellow parishner mistakenly reach out and grasp ones hand, in the belief that they feel they are sharing the love of Christ with their “church family” is not intended to be negative by the parishner, even though the person whose hand one is reaching for may view it negatively.

The lack of response from the pulpit condemning this or reminding us that only family and close friends should do this act perpetuates the belief that it is an acceptable action. A Catholic who relies solely on their parish priest for instruction may have no idea that holding hands is not considered acceptable. They would be shocked and puzzled.

And you are very much mistaken when you “rephrased” my question. I in no way feel it should be ignored until other larger problems should be fixed. What my post suggests to your are from your own thoughts and not my own. I in no way said that smaller problems should be ignored UNTIL larger ones are fixed.

I did speculate that maybe the reason the Church has not spoken out definitively on this is that they may not find it important, in the large picture or even important at all for that matter. But there is a difference between speculating why the Church has or has not done something and saying that I am endorsing inaction against something wrong because it is not as important as other issues.

In fact, I already said I truly wish that the leadership would come out and speak definitively on this from the pulpit. But I can’t help but wonder that because they have not, that the Church leadership either feels it is not important or that there are other issues that they feel there are more important that they choose to deal with. I choose not to believe that it is because they don’t have an opinion or don’t take seriously their responsibilities as Shepherds of the Church.

Taking into account your analogy though, I must come to the conclusion that the leadership of the Church does not deal with this because they do not see a problem with it or feel that these are spontaneous actions and are not being imposed on anyone.

You, of course, are free to speculate as to why you feel the leaders of our Church have not chosen to definitively address this issue from the pulpit, as I did.

I also went back and reread Church Militant’s post. Clearly the holding of hands for families and close friends is not the issue but when the holding of hands is imposed on others.

And since the person whom I was responding to said she was holding hands with her husband, I was correct.

**I was incorrect when I stated it was in the GIRM for which I humbly apologize. I also aplogize to Church Militant as well for saying that Church Militant said it was in the GIRM. CM did not say that. **

But Rome has said that the holding of hands spontaneously by family and small groups is “not a difficulty”.

God Bless,
Maria

Rome has spoken.

Code: ZE03111822

Date: 2003-11-18

Holding Hands at the Our Father?

ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Q: Many say we should not be holding hands …What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? – T.P., Milford, Maine

A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.

The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so…

 

[cjaubert]

… Rome has said that the holding of hands spontaneously by family and small groups is “not a difficulty”.

Maria, with respect, Rome did not say this, and has not said this. A priest answering a question on Zenit said this.

God bless you, too!!

 

[cjaubert]

What position does the GIRM tell us to take with our hands at that time? Folded? Clasped? What exactly in your opinion is the “correct” position, and how do you come to that conclusion?

The fact is that it doesn’t address the hand position, period. As such, any prayerful position should be acceptable, or none should be acceptable.

The GIRM is silent on what position our hands should be in, as you know. That’s the point.

You insert that “any prayerful position should be acceptable.” I may indeed agree with that, but then we first have to define “prayerful.” If you think mimicking the priest or holding hands with your neighbor is prayerful, then I disagree. If you think holding your hands in front of you in “prayer hands” (as my kids like to call it) is prayerful, then I agree.

You see, there could be no reasonable debate that “prayer hands” is acceptable (please don’t tell me you disagree!). I think that any posture that reasonable people could disagree about is, by definition, not prescribed.

Thanks for the insightful posts…

 

[ncjohn]

I think that any posture that reasonable people could disagree about is, by definition, not prescribed.

It may not be prescribed, since no position is prescribed, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with it or that it isn’t allowed or suitable. It just means that people who don’t want to use it shouldn’t have to use it, which is my whole point.

I will defend to the death your right, or anyone else’s, to not participate for whatever reason you might have. The only thing I ask in return is to not be looked down on or have my piety questioned if I find a different prayerful position more suitable for myself–even if you don’t find it to be particularly prayerful.

Given my experience in churches all over the world, I would be willing to put money on there being more people who hold hands than there are people who do not. As such, I think that there at least a reasonable argument that a reasonable person would have to agree that it must be a prayerful position even if they don’t like it. And to date, the Church has made no statement that would contradict that.

Thanks to you also for your thoughts. If you’re ever up our way, I’ll make sure we create a “no hand holding” buffer for you, though nobody in our parish would push it on you anyway. And after Mass we can discuss the proper way to dunk a donut.

Peace,

 

[Halo]

I go along with the recently issued texts where the holding of hands is not encouraged. Couldn’t help but think of St John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, when I read this last post. I mean they were not “in the majority” yet they were right. Just because there are alot of people who hold hands, does not make them in the right. You can be sincere in your intentions, but “sincerely wrong”.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Given my experience in churches all over the world, I would be willing to put money on there being more people who hold hands than there are people who do not. As such, I think that there at least a reasonable argument that a reasonable person would have to agree that it must be a prayerful position even if they don’t like it. And to date, the Church has made no statement that would contradict that.

AMEN!

I try not to look down on people who ignore those of us around them who like to hold hands during the Our Father, but it’s hard when they seem so cold and unfriendly. There’s a woman and her son who sit close to me every Sunday. They could turn water to ice in the boiling sun of a Texas summer day with their cold shoulders.

Yes, yes, I know that Mass is not the time for fellowship.

 

[Halo]

Equally,
It is not a matter of “looking down” on anyone for anything. Rather it is a case of being distracted by an unnecessary contact. I am sure, as has been said before, the focus at this part of the Mass is not to be on the people around us. Perhaps you are misinterpreting the body language of those next to you? Perhaps after Mass that cold lady might want to give you the most warm fuzzy hug imaginable?A Time and a Place for Everything.

 

[cjaubert]

It may not be prescribed, since no position is prescribed, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with it or that it isn’t allowed or suitable.

Okay, I have to press you for an answer to a question you have not yet answered:

If I wish to wave my hands wildly in the air while saying the Our Father, does the fact that no hand posture is prescribed mean that there is, or is not, something wrong with me doing so? I would suggest that such a hand posture would not be acceptable AT ALL, but I would like your take. If you find it unacceptable, then why? If no hand posture is prescribed, then what makes hand holding acceptable, but wildly waving hands unacceptable?

This is a serious question.

Now, on to my donuts. I wonder what hand posture I will use while dunking… .(smile)

Blessings…

 

[MariaG]

AMEN!

I try not to look down on people who ignore those of us around them who like to hold hands during the Our Father, but it’s hard when they seem so cold and unfriendly. There’s a woman and her son who sit close to me every Sunday. They could turn water to ice in the boiling sun of a Texas summer day with their cold shoulders.

Yes, yes, I know that Mass is not the time for fellowship.

You try not to look down on people?

This is a rather judgemental attitude about some people who choose not to hold hands. An action that is not required and may even someday be forcefully forbidden.

And ever think that they may have some immune deficiency problems and holding hands may be a serious health risk? Or just feel that they are doing what is required of them and can feel your attitude judging their actions wanting? Which came first their cold attitudes or your trying to not look down on them for not holding hands? And can you not see how this can self-perpetuate itself?

I may have to revise my opinion of why the leadership of the church has not spoken out on this since it would appear that some may be feeling “imposed” upon when they choose not to “spontaneously” hold hands.

 

[MariaG]

Maria, with respect, Rome did not say this, and has not said this. A priest answering a question on Zenit said this.

God bless you, too!!

Which would tell me that even in Rome, the issue is not cut and dried as “holding hands is forbidden”. One lone priest who speaks heresy? Or an issue that does not have a clearcut answer from the leadership of the Church?

Once again, I would state that I would like to hear a statement from the leadership of the Church on this issue. It may be that they don’t feel it is important, but when threads on the subject go on and on and on, clearly it is a divisive and unsettled “nonissue”.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[cjaubert]

Which would tell me that even in Rome, the issue is not cut and dried as “holding hands is forbidden”. One lone priest who speaks heresy? Or an issue that does not have a clearcut answer from the leadership of the Church?

Once again, I would state that I would like to hear a statement from the leadership of the Church on this issue. It may be that they don’t feel it is important, but when threads on the subject go on and on and on, clearly it is a divisive and unsettled “nonissue”.

I would suggest that no statement from Rome is needed. First, “standing” is DIFFERENT than “standing and holding hands.”

For example, if you saw your husband standing on the street next to a woman you did not know, would that be an IDENTICAL posture to him standing there holding her hand? Or, would the posture be different?

Second, it may be that Rome considers the issue unworthy of comment for the same reason above - Rome has told us to “stand” and that is it - no further comment is needed. In other words, if I began wildly waving my arms during the Our Father, would Rome have to comment for anyone to suggest I should not do this? Rome does not have to answer all questions, or comment on everything. When Rome speaks, that’s it.

(As an aside - and I am probably going to open another can of worms! - Rome has spoken on the Agnus Dei. The Sacramentary gives NO options to the “Lamb of God…” language. Yet, the USCCB, WITHOUT authority from Rome made a statement in 1982 (I think) in some kind of music missal that certain alternative words could be used. It is that authority that some parishes today use to defy Rome. Should Rome come out and say, “Hey, guys, we REALLY meant it,” or, does Rome’s failure to correct the USCCB’s mistake evidence that it is “no big deal” or the “issue is unsettled”? The point is, while we should certainly listen to the USCCB, we are under NO obligation to listen to them IF they defy Rome.)

You see, what this all comes down to is, all I ask is consistency - if holding hands is okay because “Rome is silent” on what to do with one’s hands during the Our Father, WHY IS IT NOT OKAY FOR ME TO WILDLY WAVE MY HANDS? I am NOT saying that it IS okay to wildly wave my hands, I am just asking for someone to show me why one gesture is okay and the other is not, using the “Rome is silent’ argument. The fact that NO ONE has answered this question suggests, at least to me, that there is NO logic and the hand holders are, in reality, using the “it feels good so I am going to do it, no matter what anyone else says” argument.

God bless, everyone… Off to Mass…

 

[paramedicgirl]

AMEN!

I try not to look down on people who ignore those of us around them who like to hold hands during the Our Father, but it’s hard when they seem so cold and unfriendly. There’s a woman and her son who sit close to me every Sunday. They could turn water to ice in the boiling sun of a Texas summer day with their cold shoulders.

Yes, yes, I know that Mass is not the time for fellowship.

Did it ever occur to you that they don’t want to be distracted from the Mass by having someone reach out for their hands? If it is clear that the parishioner next to you does not feel comfortable with hand holding, don’t judge them, just leave them alone. They have every right to decline your hand and not be judged for it.