Official document on hand holding during Our Father

  • Thread starter Thread starter danielsisk619
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

danielsisk619

Guest
I went to new church the other day in a neighborhood I’m going to move into soon and they still hold hands during the Our Father. I remember that there was some document or letter put out by some one saying we shouldn’t. I was wandering what that document was.I didn’t hold hands with my neighbors at mass this Sunday and I had the guy on my left put his hand on my shoulder and I wanted to know what this document was in case some one confronts me for not holding hands.

Thanks for the help,
 
danielsisk619 said:
I went to new church the other day in a neighborhood I’m going to move into soon and they still hold hands during the Our Father. I remember that there was some document or letter put out by some one saying we shouldn’t. I was wandering what that document was.I didn’t hold hands with my neighbors at mass this Sunday and I had the guy on my left put his hand on my shoulder and I wanted to know what this document was in case some one confronts me for not holding hands.

Thanks for the help,
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that this is a banned topic.
 
Its not in the band topics area of Traditional Catholics and I can’t find the list of band topics for the whole of the forum and all I want to know is if there’s a document out there I can cite if I’m ever confronted.
 
ethelzguy said:
It is my understanding that this is a banned topic.
Click to expand...
According to Patrick Madrid, the hand-holding has actually been proscribed (written against) by church authority. It probably crept in during the 60s or 70s. It is the same as the hand gesture when we say “And also with you” to the priest. No one knows how that crept in, either, but it’s not in the rubrics.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) likely clears this up. Why not “Ask an Apologist”?

Christ’s peace.
 
I see if any non-professional Apologist know before I had a question onto there heap.
 
I read once that it was going to be part of the rubrics in the USA- the Bishops of the USA sent the Vatican a Missal with hand-holding rubrics but it actually was not approved. However most bishops didn’t seem to mind either way.

Although I have noticed that hand-holding is on the decline- no one does it at Daily Masses at my local Church
 
They do it at my parish, but I don’t myself. First time I’ve seen it is here in chicago.
 
This is an issue which is under discussion. From what I understand from my last pastor there are those in the church who approve of the practice since it shows unity as one body of Christ, There are those who object to it since the unity in the mass is in the procession and recieving the Eucharist. It appears that it is accepted by the vast majority of the laity and could prove to be one of the issue were the they are leading the bishops and theologians.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
This is an issue which is under discussion. From what I understand from my last pastor there are those in the church who approve of the practice since it shows unity as one body of Christ, There are those who object to it since the unity in the mass is in the procession and recieving the Eucharist. It appears that it is accepted by the vast majority of the laity and could prove to be one of the issue were the they are leading the bishops and theologians.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
Is there a need for “unity” when we are simultaneously reciting the perfect prayer as taught by Christ? To me, it’s superfluous and detracts from the prayer. I think it’s 70s schlock.

Anyway, the faith is not a democracy. If it was, it would be as fractured as Protestantism is. Our faith requires obedience. That is more than good enough for me.

Christ’s peace.
 
danielsisk619 said:
Its not in the band topics area of Traditional Catholics and I can’t find the list of band topics for the whole of the forum and all I want to know is if there’s a document out there I can cite if I’m ever confronted.
Click to expand...
Banned Topics List

Catholic Answers has an obligation to protect our members and assure that the Forums remain a respected discussion environment in which members feel secure in participating.

To achieve this, it is necessary to ban certain topics, content, and posting techniques. If you are unsure whether or not something falls within the scope of this list, inquire of a moderator privately, before posting
  1. Advocating violence or threatening a person or institution
  2. Inappropriate language or graphics (crude, obscene, rude, vulgar, or blasphemous)
  3. Pornography and links to pornographic sites or sites which host links to or advertise pornographic sites
  4. Sexually explicit or graphically violent material or content that is inappropriate for non-adult members or might offend adult members
  5. Hate material and links to sites that promote bigotry, hatred, or prejudice toward those of any race, religion, ethnicity, culture, or nationality
  6. Derogatory terms characterizing a class of people by religion (Papists, Prods, Fundies), political affiliation, or national/ethnic origin
  7. Blatantly disrespectful characterization of any faith, (“Rome is the Whore of Babylon”, “Nazarenes are Holy-Rollers”, “Jews are Christ-killers”, “Muslims are terrorists”) its tenets, practices, or adherents
  8. Proselytizing Catholics or encouraging them to leave the Church
  9. Debating moderator action, including discussing, disputing, or speculating as to why a member’s posting privileges were restricted, why posted messages were edited or deleted, or why threads were closed or removed from public fora
  10. Posts in circumvention of a restriction, suspension, or ban imposed by staff
  11. Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles
  12. Identifiable information pertaining to individuals, including the names of non-public personages who have not consented to being identified, their mailing or e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or details of their private life (or such information - not already in the public domain - which relates to a public personage who has not consented to it being revealed)
  13. E-mail or private correspondence from a third party
  14. Discussion of political candidates, including posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate
  15. Rumored “conversions in process” that involve third parties, particularly public figures. Exception: If the possible conversion is itself a news story, that news story may be discussed in the Catholic News sub-forum so long as a link to the news story is provided in the original post
  16. Encouraging “swarming” of other forums to engage in debate of anti-Catholic postings there
  17. Links to blatantly anti-Catholic sites, except as a valid reference point for discussion
  18. Addresses or telephone numbers of individuals, institutions, or commercial enterprises to promote activity that might negatively affect another’s life or business operations
  19. Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion
  20. Soliciting or proffering financial, legal, medical, or mental health advice
  21. Asserting credentials as a clergyman, religious, theologian, or legal or medical professional, on which members might rely to their detriment, when the credentials cannot be verified to the satisfaction of CA staff
  22. Lengthy excerpts of articles or publications that exceed standards for “reasonable use” (generally no more than three paragraphs) or might otherwise be construed to infringe copyright
  23. Unlinked news stories or those not linked to a publicly accessible website (one that does not require registration or payment)
  24. Intentionally deceptive material, including plagiarism (presenting another’s work as one’s own) or text attributable to or quoting others that has been altered
  25. False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation
  26. Promoting unapproved apparitions and revelations (those not approved by the Church for private or public devotion) or alleged private locutions
  27. Soliciting business for any commercial enterprise without prior approval by CA staff
  28. Soliciting donations for any individual or institution without prior approval by CA staff
  29. Spamming (multiple or repetitious messages consisting of identical or nearly identical text or links without substantive commentary)
  30. Using “sock puppet” identities to deceive others, promote an agenda, bolster one’s own credibility, filibuster, or engage in debate with oneself in furtherance of a point of view
From time to time, it may be necessary to adopt content rules applicable to individual forums because of their particular nature. Members should periodically review the Posting Guidelines of forums in which they regularly participate
 
michaeldaniels said:
Where did this come from??? :confused:
Click to expand...
The GIRM I believe instructs, that during the reciting of the Our Father to hold out the arms and hands in a posture of praise. This posture lends itself to holding the next persons hand. I also remember the practice in Chrismatic masses.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
The GIRM I believe instructs, that during the reciting of the Our Father to hold out the arms and hands in a posture of praise. This posture lends itself to holding the next persons hand. I also remember the practice in Chrismatic masses.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
Our hands position are not to mimick the Priests. If you choose you can hold your hands palm up but in a lowered position.
 
po18guy said:
Anyway, the faith is not a democracy. If it was, it would be as fractured as Protestantism is. Our faith requires obedience.

Christ’s peace.
Click to expand...
The laity has a much larger voice than you think. That’s why there are pastoral councils on parish and diocesan levels, so that the clergy can have an ongoing dialoge with the people of the church. The adoration of Mary began with the laity and was then recognized by the bishops and theologians as an example.

Peace
FAB
 
Hand holding is becoming passe here in Wisconsin and people are using the orans position during the pater Noster.I don’t think the GIRM approves or forbids either for the laity. It just says nothing about it. I just hold on to the back of the pew ahead of me to keep from tumbling over. Poor balance. 😃
 
buffalo said:
Our hands position are not to mimick the Priests. If you choose you can hold your hands palm up but in a lowered position.
Click to expand...
The question was were did the practice start. even with holding the hands lower, it still lends itself to holding hands. Also, since many hold hands in prayer circles outside of mass the practice made it’s way into worship practices.
Since there is really no harm and is a form of being on community it has continued.

Peace,
FAB
 
Hand halding is contrary to the rubrics of the Mass and therefore illicit.

It is extremely silly and Protestant. It makes Catholics look like goofballs and that we have no understanding of the sacred, supernatural, or that we understand how to worship God in the honor he deserves.
 
FAB said:
The GIRM I believe instructs, that during the reciting of the Our Father to hold out the arms and hands in a posture of praise. This posture lends itself to holding the next persons hand. I also remember the practice in Chrismatic masses.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
The GIRM does not so instruct the laity, I can assure you of that.

In GIRM 43 and 160, the paragraphs dealing with the people’s posture during Mass, the only posture specified for the congregation at the Lord’s Prayer is standing. It says nothing at all about what people do with their hands. The history of the bishops’ debate on the orans position shows the origin of the confusion that persists to this day.

During the US bishops’ discussion in the 1990s of the proposed ICEL revision of the “Sacramentary” (prayers for Mass), some liturgists were urging that this orans gesture, which by custom only the priest assumes, should now be mandated for the entire congregation.l.

In 1995, the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), then chaired by Bishop Donald Trautman , proposed certain amendments to the proposed revision. Among these, the BCL recommended specifying the orans posture for the people during the Our Father. The rationale was that the orans gesture was used in the “early Church”, and that this posture should replace hand-holding during the Our Father, a practice that was becoming increasingly common.

Several bishops objected to adopting the orans for the people and strongly opposed making it a rule. The bishops compromised, at the 1995 session, and voted to make the orans an option for the congregation during the Our Father.

It is important to note that the bishops’ debate and vote on the orans posture for the people involved the ICEL Sacramentary, not the new Roman Missal. One source of continuing confusion is as follows, when the proposed ICEL Sacramentary was sent to the Holy See for approval (after the November 1999 meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops), the BCL posted on its web site a description of the orans posture, saying that this posture would be permitted when the new Sacramentary was approved.

This comment stated, in part:

No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. Note also that in the course of its discussion of this question, the BCL expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.

The Sacramentary revision, however, was not only replaced by the new Roman Missal, but it was officially and specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal was introduced.

However, the comment on the USCCB web site was never removed.

Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? It was said that hand-holding was a common practice in certain groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive.

As far as remembering the orans from Charismatic Masses you are correct. That is where they first wormed their way into the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top