Should hand holding at the Our Father be a cause for division among the Faithful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristianVet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristianVet

Guest
Maybe someone can help me out with this issue of hand holding during the Our Father. I know it seems to be a huge bone of contention with many Catholics.

Our parish priest, God bless him, has a very difficult job. He is trying to bring together, subtlely, to warring factions within our parish – the far left and the far right.

Now, I know the reasons most believe there should be no hand holding during the Our Father at Mass, and it makes sense to me on some level. However, our Pastor came on board when most of the parish was still using this practice.

He announced several months ago, that it would be the “standard” practice at our parish to hold hands during the Our Father. So in obedience, I went along trying not to show any dismay. So far, as a parish, its been okay.

But I wonder if all the hallaballoo about it is worth it. Last night family came in from out of town to see my son make his Confirmation – at the Our Father I naturally reached over to hold my own mother’s hand, and she refused to hold my hand. Finally, she did, but looked disturbed about it. 😊

Why has this issue become so divisive?
 
Well, let’s first mention that it is not in the Rubics of the Mass. When we do hold hands, we are doing something that is not a part of the Mass.

Maybe this is a simple explaination, but it is the best one I have heard. When Father says 'peace be with you" and we relpy and also with you, that is when we are offering “comunion” with each other. Since the Priest is the one that Offers the Mass, he is the one that brings upon comunion with the people, we are not allowed to do that, which is what we are doing when holding hands with each other.

As you probably noticed, I do not like the hand holding thing. I truly do not understand the point of doing it. Trying to bring unity with each other? We are at Mass together, unity. We are Catholics, unity. We are praying to God, with the ultimate prayer, unity. I just do not understand holding hands and then one and a half minutes later we are shaking hands, but lets not get on the shaking hands thing.
 
Normally, it is the presiding priest who sets the example to keep the celebration of the Mass faithful to the Rubrics or simply, the Order of Mass. The Catholic Church and its sacred traditions have withstood 2000 years of controversy and abuse. If we allow all sorts of improvisations(even how practical) in the way the Mass is said, one cannot imagine the confusion that will ensue if these are accumulated for hundreds or thousands of years!
 
It is my understanding that the faithful are not to be “forced” into participating in this novelty. By making an announcement that this will be a “custom” in the Parish, the priest is now making this gesture “official”. I believe that the faithful could certainly object to that.

I attended a Parish a few years ago that announced in the bulletin that the “orans” position would be the “official” posture during the Our Father. I stopped going to that Church immediately.
 
Hand holding is forced. I loathe it with a pure and white hot loathing. No, I’m not crabby and I’m normally very friendly, but there’s something about this that sets me off. I will never go to a church where you have to hold hands.
 
blessedtoo said:
I attended a Parish a few years ago that announced in the bulletin that the “orans” position would be the “official” posture during the Our Father. I stopped going to that Church immediately.
Click to expand...
Probably there were other matters with with you did not agree and this was the final situation.

Hand holding of itself is not really an abuse, since only the priest can commit a real abuse. Some priests do suggest handholding. Sometimes it is more of an attempt at fellowship. The congregation is told to keep a unified position, and not try to stand out from the rest. ( #42 GIRM)

The priest described may just be trying to keep up what was already being done, and tried to get a uniform posture established.

Whatever the situation, it would be very hard to get a uniform posture once there are so many on each side—many will keep doing what they are doing no matter what is said.

You chose the best solution, if you found the situation too distracting. Many do hold hands in my parish, and the Pastor and one priest do encourage it. I will hold hands is someone is next to me and offers their hand, but I won’t participate in those crazy acrobatics when people reach over pews and across aisles to get a sort of conga line through the whole church.

Lux
 
I think that the problem is people don’t like feeling forced to do something. Especially if it is very extroverted/social and they tend to prefer a more personal experience of prayer. Nor do people like being told “not” to do something, particularly if what they enjoy is not appreciated by others and fails to catch on. So the action frustrates both sides as one feels uncomfortable and the other can’t understand why anyone would have such reservations and try to stop it. Here is where a little understanding could go a long way. There are varied personalities and approaches to prayer. When we impose our personal preferences, we risk losing real unity and upsetting others. Given, we can’t please all of the people all of the time. But it would seem like a healthy medium would be to just allow everyone to do what they like, within reason, and not insist that one or the other element be eliminated or overcome. Instead, we have the potential for common enrichment, if we’d just respect what each can offer. As the saying goes, “In essentials unity, in non essentials diversity, in all things charity.” Here is where we could certainly have unity in diversity if there were just more charity.
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
Hand holding of itself is not really an abuse, since only the priest can commit a real abuse. Some priests do suggest handholding. Sometimes it is more of an attempt at fellowship. The congregation is told to keep a unified position, and not try to stand out from the rest.
Click to expand...
I think people can commit an abuse but even if they can’t, it was the PRIEST who permitted it. I don’t like hand holding because it reinforces the heretical teaching that the Mass is celebrating community. We are at Mass to worship God. What really disturbs me is that this is another small example of disobedience. As Jesus said “If you can’t do the little things, how can you do the big things”.
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
Hand holding of itself is not really an abuse, since only the priest can commit a real abuse.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the idea that only a priest can commit a real abuse? Could you reference the Church document that states that, or is that strictly your own assumption?

Some priests do suggest handholding. Sometimes it is more of an attempt at fellowship. The congregation is told to keep a unified position, and not try to stand out from the rest. ( #42 GIRM)

You hit the nail on the head, the priest may only SUGGEST. The Church did not give him, or even the bisop, the authority to mandate a posture at this point.

Your premise that GIRM 42 requires a unified posture is also flawed, as Cardinal Arinze has said on many occasions that the faithful cannont be required to hold hands at this point. So, if a unified posture is required, and hand holding is cannot be required, then ergo, hand holding cannot be the posture mandated.
 
ChristianVet said:
. Last night family came in from out of town to see my son make his Confirmation – at the Our Father I naturally reached over to hold my own mother’s hand, and she refused to hold my hand. Finally, she did, but looked disturbed about it. 😊

Why has this issue become so divisive?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are the one being divisive! Why would you care if this family holds hands or not?

If you want to do so, fine, but why try and force someone else?

Do you feel that supposed ‘sign of unity’ a stronger sign when someone is made uncomfortable is they don’t do it?
 
Brendan said:
Where do you get the idea that only a priest can commit a real abuse? Could you reference the Church document that states that, or is that strictly your own assumption?
Click to expand...
I am speaking of the term liturgical abuse—this applies only to the celebrant.

Lux
 
Brendan said:
Could you clarify? Are you trying to say that only the celebrant may commit a liturgical abuse?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, yes.

from Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse
3. Levels of Abuse - Invalid and Illicit
Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)[1], and many clarifications have been made in other documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).

The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass “invalid.” For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation[9]. The issue of fulfilling the Sunday obligation under such a circumstance will be dealt with later in this article.

The lesser abuse is called “illicit.” These type of abuses are less serious and do not cause the failure of the Consecration of the Eucharist. There are a wide variety of these types of abuses which detract from the holiness and reverence in the Mass. However, an illicit Mass can still be a valid (as opposed to invalid) Mass.

In general, experimentation is gravely wrong, as stated in Vatican II’s Instruction on the Orderly Carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy (Liturgicae Instaurationes):

“The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church’s rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences.”

“Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church.”

Abuses of any kind causes scandal, meaning that such practices are obstructions to a person’s way to increased Faith (see Matthew 18:6-9). As Inaestimabile Donum says, “The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi” (translation: people believe as they pray).
 
Brendan said:
You hit the nail on the head, the priest may only SUGGEST. The Church did not give him, or even the bisop, the authority to mandate a posture at this point.

Your premise that GIRM 42 requires a unified posture is also flawed, as Cardinal Arinze has said on many occasions that the faithful cannont be required to hold hands at this point. So, if a unified posture is required, and hand holding is cannot be required, then ergo, hand holding cannot be the posture mandated.
Click to expand...
My premise is not flawed. Unified posture is instructed. In the spirit of community worship, since handholding is not a abuse (maybe not the best choice, but since no posture is prescribed, it is not an abuse) I personally will go with the manner of worship of the community, unless there is something very wrong.

I agree that no one is to attempt to browbeat anyone into any position at the Lord’s prayer, but it is equally wrong to call a posture an “abuse” when there is nothing wrong with the posture. Since no posture is prescribed, it would be equally wrong to dictate a “folded hands” posture.

Lux
 
A lot of people hold hands at my church - but it seems to be an inter-family thing. People don’t hold hands with the stranger next to them and I’ve never had a stanger offer me his hand. I have no problem with hand holding and do so with my parents at mass, but I would consider it extremely rude if someone next to me expected me to take his hand - one really shouldn’t impose on people like that.

I think letting people do it with their family or friends is fine - I honestly don’t mind that we don’t have a perfectly-uniform hand posture durring the Lord’s Prayer at my church. It’s not like it’s a distraction or anything. Mandating hand-holding would be like mandating that one pray with their hands pointing upwards (like that “praying hands” drawing) rather than clasped together, or mandating that everyone hold a missal just so durring the readings. I consider overall-body posture more important (kneeling, standing, sitting, etc), but what we do with our hands isn’t a big deal to me.
 
Hmmm—after rethinking this one, I’m not sure if it is even wrong to suggest handholding. If it is just a suggestion, and not coerced in any manner, is it really wrong?
 
Rabbititus said:
I think letting people do it with their family or friends is fine - I honestly don’t mind that we don’t have a perfectly-uniform hand posture durring the Lord’s Prayer at my church.
Click to expand...
Mass is community public worship. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. If it is not “wrong” among natural family members, it is not wrong in Christian community. Your preference is fine, but has nothing to do with liturgical instructions.

Lux
 
There are worst abuses but I can’t help think that if your not faithful in small matters will you be in large ones?

A priest does not have the authority to say that hand holding will be the standard. It isn’t a matter of obedience to your parish priest. The priest himself is being disobedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top