The Our Father---Do you join hands or not?

[DaveBj]

This whole debate has less to do with what one does with one’s hands than it has to do with one’s attitude towards authority. One side of the debate believes that anything that is not explicitly approved is forbidden. The other side believes that anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed.

The latter position can lead to very inappropriate bahavior (cartwheels down the aisle for the procession, interrupting the homily with a message in tongues, etc.). The former position can lead to the kind of legalism that Jesus condemned among the Pharisees.

I tend to find myself in the latter group, which means I will wait for Rome to make a definitive statement one way or the other before I will take a position pro or con. That said, I do not hold hands, nor do I assume the orans position. So far I have not even been offered a hand to hold, so it’s been easy.

I am not a prophet, but I would predict that, even if Rome reprobates the practice now, in the future we will see it enshrined as a traditional practice. It wouldn’t be the first time that a practice opposed by Rome has had so much popular support that it has become a standard practice of the Church.

DaveBj

 

[Voice_Of_Reason]

quote=Podo2004 geez i don’t understand what it is with catholics today! Can’t give peace, argues about holding hands at the our father, and kneeling ( i stand through the eucharistic prayer)
catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0179.htm
it says that we are counted worthy to STAND in your presence lord.

Podo The Hobbit
[/quote]

What about every knee bending? Romans 14:11…“As I live says the Lord, to me every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall praise to God.”

How about being Catholic while attending a Catholic Church and throwing away the protestant feely good, do as you please mentality? Let their churches be protestant and let ours be (return in the traditional sense) Catholic.

 

[Teresa9]

There are specific physical postures to adopt that have been outlined in doctrine and unless you are infirm you have to adopt them, kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer is one of them, if you cannot kneel then you should sit. It is a sign of devout reverance to the Real Presence of our Lord Christ Jesus. As for holding hands etc not holding hands, I don’t think church is bothered either way if you do or don’t. Personally I don’t, I am praying to my Father in heaven and am not particularly thinking of anyone else but HIM at this precise moment in the Mass. It is not something that is widely done in the UK anyhow, it doesn’t happen at our Church at all. Therefore take it as optional and if you want to do it and if not don’t.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you xxx

 

[OhioBob]

robertaf:

Every time this topic comes up, I am amazed by some of the posts.

Me too.

robertaf:

Holding hands during the Our Father is not against any rules or an abuse. That is a fact. It is not mentioned.

Neither is patting your head and rubbing your belly. I think I will try that on Sunday. Maybe it will catch on.

This topic has been beaten to death on other threads. Some people like it and see nothing wrong with it. Some people don’t like it but just quietly avoid it. Some people can’t stand it and let you know about it.

I guess we should all just agree to disagree about the subject.

Blessings.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

OhioBob:

Neither is patting your head and rubbing your belly. I think I will try that on Sunday. Maybe it will catch on.

.

.

 

[kfarose2585]

Wait…so are you guys saying that the priests in your parish don’t say, “Let us now join our hearts and our hands as we come together to pray the Our Father”? I think that’s pretty explicit: it means that you’re supposed to hold hands! Is this something unique to my church? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it elsewhere too.

 

[Toni]

mtr01:

That’s what I do (I also bow my head). I figure if someone was to look at me and see me in that posture, they wouldn’t try to hold my hand. Works for me.

I do the same but in my mind I think of Christ with the apostles and I have never seen or heard Christ say now lets all hold hands. I think it is one more thing that worked its way in from the Protestant church.

 

[Podo2004]

Voice_Of_Reason:

What about every knee bending? Romans 14:11…“As I live says the Lord, to me every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall praise to God.”

How about being Catholic while attending a Catholic Church and throwing away the protestant feely good, do as you please mentality? Let their churches be protestant and let ours be (return in the traditional sense) Catholic.

i know it says that, but why does it say that we are WORTHY TO STAND in YOUR presence LORD? I mean it doesn’t say the verse from Romans 14. So i stand… in the presence of Jesus, worthy to serve him. But still it’s something to think about why would they say that we are worthy to stand in HIS presence. If you don’t stand then why say that in the eucharistic prayer? I mean it’s no use if you are gonna kneel ( and i don’t sound like a protestant BTW :ehh: ) What do you mean by “traditional”, the old latin mass?

Podo The Hobbit

 

[otm]

bluerose:

(according to the GIRM–then AND now)

Actually, the GIRM doesn’t address this. In fact, if you really want to be technical, the GIRM doesn’t tell you to stand there with your hands folded, or palms together, either. It simply does not address the issue.

bluerose:

my husband and I kept our hands folded and prayed with heads bowed. Well, the woman next to me apparently decided I missed the cue. She nudged me with her outstretched hand a couple of times. I pretended not to notice…

Well, by this time I was REALLY ready to whack her a good one, but I pretended not to notice and we concluded the Lord’s prayer…
Here’s the kicker: When it was time for the sign of peace, I turned to her, held out my hand, and SHE TURNED HER BACK ON ME!!!

I have no question that the individual reaching out to you acted rudely, crudely, inappropriately, and in an un-Christian manner at the sign of Peace. But IMHO, you brought that on yourself by not taking her hand. I am pretty sure that she got the message from you. So who was rude first? Since the GIRM makes no mention of the position you should take, holding hands is at best a minor liturgical issue. Oh, for the sake of argument, let’s say you were right. When does charity take precedence over right? Christ: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (He was intentionally violating a rule of not working on the Sabbath).

Given the statement recently by Archbishop Chaput on the issue, paraphrasing, to wit: holding hands is a non-issue; those who want to should feel free to do so, those who don’t should also be free to not hold hands, and neither should judge the other I agree that she was uncharitable. So were you.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

otm:

Actually, the GIRM doesn’t address this. In fact, if you really want to be technical, the GIRM doesn’t tell you to stand there with your hands folded, or palms together, either. It simply does not address the issue.

I have no question that the individual reaching out to you acted rudely, crudely, inappropriately, and in an un-Christian manner at the sign of Peace. But IMHO, you brought that on yourself by not taking her hand. I am pretty sure that she got the message from you. So who was rude first? Since the GIRM makes no mention of the position you should take, holding hands is at best a minor liturgical issue. Oh, for the sake of argument, let’s say you were right. When does charity take precedence over right? Christ: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (He was intentionally violating a rule of not working on the Sabbath).

Given the statement recently by Archbishop Chaput on the issue, paraphrasing, to wit: holding hands is a non-issue; those who want to should feel free to do so, those who don’t should also be free to not hold hands, and neither should judge the other I agree that she was uncharitable. So were you.

 

[OhioBob]

kfarose2585:

Wait…so are you guys saying that the priests in your parish don’t say, “Let us now join our hearts and our hands as we come together to pray the Our Father”? I think that’s pretty explicit: it means that you’re supposed to hold hands! Is this something unique to my church? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it elsewhere too.

I’ve never heard a priest use those words (or any words mentioning “joining hands”) at my church, or at any church I have attended anywhere. And I have been to many churches in many places over the many years.

As I understand the options available to the priest in the order of the Mass for the preface to the Lord’s Prayer, the words you mention are not among the options. In my opinion, they are a unique feature of your priest’s approach to the Lord’s Prayer.

If those words were anywhere in the GIRM or any other liturgical document, there wouldn’t be any reason for threads like this.

Blessings.

 

[Toni]

MrS:

If Catholics really knew they were in the presence of God, they might spend the entire Mass prostrate, in silence.

MrS

I agree as they say that people would walk on their knees to communion if they really believed that they were going to receive Christ!

 

[Voice_Of_Reason]

Podo2004:

i know it says that, but why does it say that we are WORTHY TO STAND in YOUR presence LORD? I mean it doesn’t say the verse from Romans 14. So i stand… in the presence of Jesus, worthy to serve him. But still it’s something to think about why would they say that we are worthy to stand in HIS presence. If you don’t stand then why say that in the eucharistic prayer? I mean it’s no use if you are gonna kneel ( and i don’t sound like a protestant BTW :ehh: ) What do you mean by “traditional”, the old latin mass.

Podo The Hobbit

I don’t know that is said. Ask the clergy and protestant “observers” of Vatican II or whoever came with it. If you want to get technical, there’s a lot of other points of the Mass where one can debate be it mis-translations or other items. Such as the priest proclaiming “…it will be shed for you and for ALL” rather than “many” and so on.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by otm
Actually, the GIRM doesn’t address this. In fact, if you really want to be technical, the GIRM doesn’t tell you to stand there with your hands folded, or palms together, either. It simply does not address the issue.

This is a Red Herring argument. The fact that the GIRM is silent is enough to say that it should not be done. I will also point out the the GIRM doesn’t say not to whistle, humm, cheer or other things either. It does say to stand for prayer. In response to a query the Holy see has stated that holding hands “is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics” (Notitiae 11 (1975) 226, Documents on the Liturgy (liturgical press, Collegeville, MI) 1502 n. R29). Furthermore is disrupts the lit
Colin B. Donovan of EWTN had this to say.
Because it is a sign of intimacy. The Mass is a collection of signs, that is, it is a sacrament and not just a prayer service. At a non-Eucharistic prayer service it would be entirely acceptable to hold hands. However, the sign of intimacy in the Mass is Holy Communion, when we receive the Lord and thus are intimately united both with Him and through Him with each other. It should be the visible highpoint (a sacramental sign) to an uninitated observer. Holding hands interrupts the development of the signs, which are first, reconciliation (by handshake or as determined in each nation), followed by, Communion (union with God and neighbor). When an otherwise perfectly fine and laudable human gesture of good will are introduced into a sacrament, it causes havoc to what the Church is saying through the sign. It seems innocent (“what’s the big deal, after all”), but it really shows a lack of respect for the nature of the liturgy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otm
*
Given the statement recently by Archbishop Chaput on the issue, paraphrasing, to wit: holding hands is a non-issue; those who want to should feel free to do so, those who don’t should also be free to not hold hands, and neither should judge the other I agree that she was uncharitable. So were you.*

Here you say that one should be free not to hold hands and than tell her she was uncahritable because she didn’t. IMHO you are the uncharitable one as was the one who tried to force her choice on someone else. Also it is directed that we shake hands. The one most uncharitable was the one who refused to shake hands. Unfortunatly, most have no idea why they should refraim from hand holding. That ignorance is why so many abuses happen.

 

[Servulus]

Ann Cheryl:

Also it is directed that we shake hands.

Actually, we are not directed to shake hands. It is a permitted option. The GIRM puts it this way:
“154 Then the priest, with his hands extended, says aloud: Lord Jesus Christ, you said. After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and says: The peace of the Lord be with you always. The people answer: And also with you. Then the priest may add: Let us offer one another a sign of peace.”

Emphasis added. The optional nature of this gesture seems to be largely forgotten.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Concerning holding hands in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome responded as follows:

QUERY: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon’s invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer. Is this acceptable? REPLY: 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. Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

1. It is an inappropriate “sign,” since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.
2. It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

This gesture has come into widespread use, often leaving bishops and pastors at a loss as to how to reverse the situation. For individuals, I would recommend closed eyes and a prayerful posture as sufficient response, rather than belligerence. Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the liturgical significance of interrupting the flow of the Mass in this way. It is not necessary to lose one’s peace over this or be an irritation to others. Some proportion is required. If asked why you don’t participate, simply, plainly and charitably tell the questioner of your discovery. If some chance of changing the practice is possible talk to the pastor or work with other laity through the parish council. You can also write the bishop, as is your right in the case of any liturgical abuse not resolved at the parish level. If your judgment is that no change is possible then I believe you are excused from further fraternal correction.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Found this on the EWTN website.

 

[IoA]

I believe it was Cardinal Pell who recently wrote an article on this subject for the Adoremus Bulletin.

Basically, the Our Father is a “vertical” prayer, meaning we’re lifting the words - and our hearts - God.

In contrast, the SIgn of Peace is a “horizontal” prayer, where we extend a sign of good will to those around us.

Therefore, it isn’t really liturgically proper to hold hands during the Our Father.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Servulus:

Actually, we are not directed to shake hands. It is a permitted option. The GIRM puts it this way:
“154 Then the priest, with his hands extended, says aloud: Lord Jesus Christ, you said. After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and says: The peace of the Lord be with you always. The people answer: And also with you. Then the priest may add: Let us offer one another a sign of peace.”

Emphasis added. The optional nature of this gesture seems to be largely forgotten.

This is exactly what I meant when I said directed. We should not do it unless told to do it(directed) by the presiding priest. It has been forgotten. We have a priest who omits it at daily mass but you would never know it because everyone shakes hands even though they have not been directed to do so.

 

[BryanW]

I do not. Most of my fellow Church goers don’t understand why though.

 

[otm]

Ann Cheryl:

Quote:
Originally Posted by otm
Actually, the GIRM doesn’t address this. In fact, if you really want to be technical, the GIRM doesn’t tell you to stand there with your hands folded, or palms together, either. It simply does not address the issue.

This is a Red Herring argument. The fact that the GIRM is silent is enough to say that it should not be done. I will also point out the the GIRM doesn’t say not to whistle, humm, cheer or other things either. It does say to stand for prayer.

No, it is not a red herring argument. Everyone wants to argue that is it not permitted because the GIRM doesn’t specify it. That argument begs the question, as the GIRM does not specify hands held or folded or palms together. People who object to holding hands seem, on the large part, to want to hold their hands folded or palms together. That’s perfectly fine. Whistling, cheering, etc. are irrelevant to the question. No one I know is either proposing them or doing them. Holding hands during group prayer is done in other settings; it has found it’s way into the Mass. I am not aruing the propiety of the act, but simply that an argument from the GIRM is not sustainable.
Ann Cheryl:

Given the statement recently by Archbishop Chaput on the issue, paraphrasing, to wit: holding hands is a non-issue; those who want to should feel free to do so, those who don’t should also be free to not hold hands, and neither should judge the other I agree that she was uncharitable. So were you.

Here you say that one should be free not to hold hands and than tell her she was uncahritable because she didn’t. IMHO you are the uncharitable one as was the one who tried to force her choice on someone else.

I am uncharitable? I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. I am just pointing out that both of them were stubborn; she simply used her opinion of the proper posture to hide behind. I don’t question that the other woman was uncharitable, but so was she. It is like my twin daughters getting into a spat; just because one did something wrong did not justify the other one compounding the issue by also doing something wrong.

It is perfectly fine with me if no one holds hands during the Our Father. I agree that it is better liturgically for several reasons. But go read what Chaput said. My position is that charity should prevail on the issue. I would not force her to hold hands; but I would say that if she really wanted to be truly charitable, she should have held hands with the twit standing next to her, and then, after Mass, with a smile on her face, in a loving manner, told the other woman politely why she felt that holding hands was inappropriate.

People who are against holding hands make it into a much larger issue than it deserves. I find it hard to believe that it is that disturbing to some (although they certainly sound that way in the thread); and if it truly is, then it sounds like a personal problem in need of counseling. On the scale of issues the Church needs to deal with, it is so very minor…