Raising Hands during Mass

[WanderAimlessly]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

At my old parish, it started with that many, then more did it, finally when I left it became almost everyone holding hands and lifting them. (I always waited for the Bic lighters to come out).
Hold your ground if you don’t like it. When I was in mass with my daughter and I held her hands down and told her to close her eyes to be humble, the people around me realized they did not have to do this and did not.

Now I’m in a new parish and pray for those I left behind.

Rasing hands: Yes.

Holding hands: No. There are some families that to this but I have not seen it outside the families. I would refude to hold hands.

PF

 

[netmilsmom]

Okay, so now I have had to do a little research.
The orans position makes me uncomfortable, I don’t know why. So I wondered if Mary (who is so often referenced with, “Our Lady prayed this way”) had ever assumed this position while appearing to us in any apparition.
I did a Google search and could not find a thing, however I did realize why this position makes me so uncomfortable, it is the norm for Muslims in prayer. I guess that seeing the militants so often on prayer rugs on tv, has just put this in a bad light in my mind.

 

[robertaf]

katherine2:

Of course, this is jsut the type of “organic” change in the liturgy that conservatives claim they approve of.

It is sad that this reverental posture for prayer that our Blessed Mother and the early Christian martyers used is compared to rock concert behavior by those who do not understand or appreciate our rich Catholic liturgical heritage.

Hi!
Not just the Blessed Mother and the Holy Martyers but Jesus, Himself.
Scripture speaks of lifting holy hands up to the Lord. Why do you suppose THE CLERGY DOES IT?
Do you suppose the Clergy is holier than the rest of us?
Standing with hands lifted to the Lord is the historical posture for prayer.

What is purely silly looking is those folks who place their hands together, palm to palm. I am still doing a search on the beginnings of this in the Christian Church. The best I have found is that a nun, school teacher adopted it from the Moslems. I honestly do not know if it was a nun but it seems the origin is from Islam. I understand this was not a common form of posture for Jews and it certainly was not in the early Christian Church. Raising our hands was both Christian and Jewish.

 

[netmilsmom]

robertaf:

Hi!
Not just the Blessed Mother and the Holy Martyers but Jesus, Himself.
Scripture speaks of lifting holy hands up to the Lord. Why do you suppose THE CLERGY DOES IT?
Do you suppose the Clergy is holier than the rest of us?
Standing with hands lifted to the Lord is the historical posture for prayer.

What is purely silly looking is those folks who place their hands together, palm to palm. I am still doing a search on the beginnings of this in the Christian Church. The best I have found is that a nun, school teacher adopted it from the Moslems. I honestly do not know if it was a nun but it seems the origin is from Islam. I understand this was not a common form of posture for Jews and it certainly was not in the early Christian Church. Raising our hands was both Christian and Jewish.

Did you read this from this thread???
"What is your evidence that the orans was the posture used by our Blessed Mother and the early Christian martyers?

The orans figures in the catecombs are all female except for biblical figures on tombs that are depicted as asking for the deliverance of the soul of the one buried. Apparently, the female orans represents the soul of the dead person, and the biblical characters in the orans posture are depicted as suplicating for the dead. There’s no proof in the catecombs that the orans position was the normal prayer posture in third century Rome."

You say this…
“Standing with hands lifted to the Lord is the historical posture for prayer”
Yes it is, for the Muslims. I am a Catholic. I will put my hands in the humble position that Our Lady appears in when She graces us with apparitions. I have a call in now to some scholars but so far I have not found a reference to Mary appearing in the Orans position. Many with Her hands folded and extended to Her children, those are many.

 

[Ainchel]

Okay, my response is going to sound like an oxymoron, but I have been praying about this and these are the things that have been revealed to my heart.

One day, during the Consecration, I just happened to be sitting in just the right spot to notice that when the priest raised his hands in the orans position (arms raised up and extended out slightly), his body was in exactly the same position as Jesus was depicted on the life size crucifix behind the altar. In other words, the way Jesus’ arms are extended when He made his sacrifice for us on the cross is the same way the priests extends his arms during the mass! Now, I have no idea of the history of the orans position, exactly where it got started, etc. But to me the orans position was given it full and holy meaning by Jesus on the cross. Perhaps other cultures have used it, but Jesus makes it a holy action when used in the proper context within the sacrifice of the mass. Out of my deep respect for what Jesus did for me and for everyone on the cross, I do not use the orans position but leave it to be the position used by priests.

As far as holding hands, I know that we are not supposed to do that either, but I am having some difficulties. Ever since the day we were married, my husband and I have held hands during the entire mass. We truly feel that our marriage joined us into one body, and we especially feel that bond that “the two have become one” when we are at mass together. Our holding hands during the entire mass is just a natural expression of our unity. So it feels spiritually wrong to hold to his hand during every part of the mass (as has been our custom for over 20 years), but now during the Lord’s Prayer we are told we cannot hold hands. I know that I am being disobedient to continue to hold my husbands hand, but it almost breaks my heart to discontinue what has always been an outward sign of the unity we received in the sacrament of marriage.

 

[netmilsmom]

Ainchel:

Ever since the day we were married, my husband and I have held hands during the entire mass. We truly feel that our marriage joined us into one body, and we especially feel that bond that “the two have become one” when we are at mass together. Our holding hands during the entire mass is just a natural expression of our unity. So it feels spiritually wrong to hold to his hand during every part of the mass (as has been our custom for over 20 years), but now during the Lord’s Prayer we are told we cannot hold hands. I know that I am being disobedient to continue to hold my husbands hand, but it almost breaks my heart to discontinue what has always been an outward sign of the unity we received in the sacrament of marriage.

Oh Dear Lady, please understand that the Catholic Bishops never said that you may not hold hands with you husband. I hold hands with my children and many families in my very Conservative parish do. It is the position of taking everyone’s hands and raising them up at the same time in a group that is frowned upon.
God Bless you and your husband. I pray my marriage is as strong as long as yours!

 

[fix]

john ennis:

The problem isn’t so much that others are doing it–it’s that it is the kind of practice which COMPELS all to do it! True, if you are really passionate about not holding hands, you can choose not to, but it is socially awkward.
Doubt this? Notice how the practice, one it starts, spreads through a church like wildfire. It ain’t because the whole church was just dying to do it anyway, believe me.
John

I think you hit the nail on the head. Is not authentic unity to be found when we all follow the guidelines as set down by the Church?

 

[katherine2]

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Even netmil(name removed by moderator) admits she holds hand during Mass, just that she is selective with whom she holds hands with.

So, hold hands if you want, or don’t hold hands if you don’t want.

The church neither requires nor prohibits it.

 

[netmilsmom]

katherine2:

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Even netmil(name removed by moderator) admits she holds hand during Mass, just that she is selective with whom she holds hands with.

So, hold hands if you want, or don’t hold hands if you don’t want.

The church neither requires nor prohibits it.

And as you can see, the thread is about Raising Hands during Mass. That is frowned upon as a group.

Trust me, if I did not hold the hand of my four year old in mass, she would not behave as well as she does. By the time the “Our Father” comes along, she is getting to the end of her attention span! LOL!

 

[ThornGenX]

I make the effort to not raise my hands and instead put my hands together in the “prayer” position during the “Our Father”. When the priest says “The Lord be with you”, I do point my hands palms up towards the priest when I say “and also with you”. Not sure if that falls under this category or not.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Even netmil(name removed by moderator) admits she holds hand during Mass, just that she is selective with whom she holds hands with.

So, hold hands if you want, or don’t hold hands if you don’t want.

The church neither requires nor prohibits it.

Actually in 1975 the Vatican said the practice was to be repudiated.

Also, is there any liturgical law that says we can’t juggle during the mass?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Actually in 1975 the Vatican said the practice was to be repudiated.

Buzzzzz, wrong, but thnk you for playing our game. Now go away.

 

[rjmporter]

My understanding, and I am sure many of you will correct me if I am wrong, is that the only direction givin to the faithful, in regards to posture, is sit, stand or kneel. Other than the general direction that we should be prayerful at mass, I have no problem if people express their prayerfulness by folding their hands, raising their hand, or keeping their hands stick straight at their sides. My understaning is that the ruberics are silent on hand position for anyone but the celebrant, deacon, and in some cases acolytes.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

Actually in 1975 the Vatican said the practice was to be repudiated.

In order to convince people, could you give us a reference on this?
I have an Aunt who needs to see it.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

fix:

Actually in 1975 the Vatican said the practice was to be repudiated.

Buzzzzz, wrong, but thnk you for playing our game. Now go away.

“…The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226.”

 

[netmilsmom]

"…The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226."

Thanks!
I like to ask for a reference instead of being rude. Most people have an actual basis in fact but I could not find on a Google search.

 

[katherine2]

"…The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace.

okay.

Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics

still no problem. No one ever said it was in the rubrics and therefore mandatory.

Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226."

No one is subtituting for the sign of peace.

Seems to be no problem.

 

[netmilsmom]

katherine2:

still no problem. No one ever said it was in the rubrics and therefore mandatory.

Seems to be no problem.

From the same document…
Notitiae (11 [1975] 226), states the practice “must be repudiated . . . it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on a personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” And anything not in the rubrics is unlawful, again because “no other person . . . may add . . . anything [to] the liturgy on his own authority” (ibid).

Taken from here…
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

From the same document…
Notitiae (11 [1975] 226), states the practice “must be repudiated . . . it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on a personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” And anything not in the rubrics is unlawful, again because “no other person . . . may add . . . anything [to] the liturgy on his own authority” (ibid).

Taken from here…
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

That is why I asked about juggling. That is not in the rubrics, so is it ok?

 

[fix]

One of the most frequently norms of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturdy issued by Vatican II is this: “Therefore, no other person, not even if he is a priest, may on his own add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, p. 22 #3) This same statement was repeated in Sacram Liturgiam, and in Inaestimable Donum. According to Inaestimabile Donum when such things are “done intentionally are a grave offence both against the Church and against the faithful who have a right to an authentic liturgy.”