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

[Tantum_ergo]

Kfarose, here are the actual Catholic missal prayers (Latin and English) which are used, TODAY. I have marked with *** symbols the APPROVED words which the priest MAY use. You will note that there is no mention of the “joining of hearts and hands” offered as a licit alternative prayer before the Our Father.

<<
COMMUNION RITE

Lord’s Prayer
Lord’s Prayer

The priest sets down the chalice and paten and with hands joined sings or says one of the following:
The priest sets down the chalice and paten and with hands joined sings or says one of the following:

*****A.Praeceptis salutaribus moniti, et divina institutione formati, audemus dicere:
A.Let us pray with confidence to the Father in the words our Savior gave us.

B.
B.Jesus taught us to call God our Father, and so we have the courage to say:

C.
C.Let us ask the Father to forgive our sins and to bring us to forgive those who sin against us.

D.
D.Let us pray for the coming of the kingdom as Jesus taught us.********

He extends his hands and he continues, with the people:
He extends his hands and he continues, with the people:

Pater noster, qui es in caelis: sanctificetur nomen tuum; adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie; et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: et ne nos inducas in tentationem; sed libera nos a malo.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

With hands extended, the priest continues alone:
With hands extended, the priest continues alone:

Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut, ope misericordiae tuae adiuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi et ab omni perturbatione securi: exspectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi.
Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.>>>>>

I’m probably somewhat older than you. I can (just!) remember the changeover from the Latin Mass to the N.O. (which is one of the reasons I can still recite the correct Latin for the mass and for other prayers), AND I can remember with great clarity the “hand-holding” epidemic which swept through MY part of the country–the Northeast–between 1970 and 1975, along with the removal of organs, the proliferation of guitars and tambourines, tie dyed priestly vestments, liturgical dance, and other vestiges of the great “eastern and philosophical” cultural wave of the time.

I have no doubt that you LIKE hand-holding, but it was not a part of the Mass for the majority of people for the majority of time, it was never explicitly introduced–and believe me, every one of the APPROPRIATE changes in the Mass was explained back in the change-over. ONLY the “innovations” were NOT explained; they “just growed”, “from the spirit of Vatican II”, to foster “unity”, etc.

ANY change is difficult for people. For YOU, the change would be to NOT have hand-holding. You don’t like that idea, it’s plain–so perhaps if you considered that your disquiet is not only echoed by the “non hand holders” but has been present for some 30 plus YEARS might make you a little more inclined to see that a different POV might be not just to DISRESPECT you, but a legitimate difference.

 

[Mimi_G]

I just wonder if God is holding his head in disbelief or holding his stomach in laughter at this moment. Catholics arguing about whether or not to hold hands during His prayer! Sometimes we are truly a comical bunch, we Catholics.

 

[dhgray]

dmm2000:

I do not hold hands during the Our Father either. I believe that we come to full communion with our brothers and sisters during Communion.

I close my eyes, and fold my hands as I do during prayer. I have not had an issue by praying the Our Father this way.

I was raised to hold hands during the Our Father and I teach my children too because we pray as a family. I do not impose this belief on others around me. I put it out there, if you take it, God Bless you, if you don’t take it, God Bless you. Either way, we are still praying together and God Bless you.

 

[OhioBob]

Mimi G:

I just wonder if God is holding his head in disbelief or holding his stomach in laughter at this moment. Catholics arguing about whether or not to hold hands during His prayer! Sometimes we are truly a comical bunch, we Catholics.

I always tell myself that there is no point to discussing this topic in these threads since we all agree to disagree, and then a sentiment like yours just makes me respond after all. Go figure.

Speaking only for myself, the point of this issue is not that it is a big deal worthy of great argument. I admit that it is a small thing. But that is the point. Small things add up to big things.

Frankly, I could not care less whether anyone holds hands with anyone else during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass. It’s a small thing. The problem that I (and other non-hand-holders) have expressed is when small things like that become not just personal expressions of piety, but real adaptations inserted into the liturgy in one parish or another as “the way we do things here”.

We all have heard the statistics regarding the decline in Mass attendance and the declining belief in the Real Presence and heard stories about the general loss of the sacred in the liturgy. I submit that these larger issues rise (or at least gain momentum) from the loss of control over such seemingly small adaptations.

For my part, I like knowing that I can walk into a Catholic church anywhere and participate in the one true sacrifice of the Mass - the SAME liturgy no matter where I go. The Church assures me that that is my right as a Catholic. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

Sure it’s a small thing, but what was the old saying - “take care of the small things, and the big things will take care of themselves”.

So go ahead and hold hands. Or not. I don’t care. Really. I’ll love you just the same and I won’t cringe or cry out if you touch me during Mass.

Just don’t expect your personal practices to become a part of everyone’s liturgy just because you prefer it that way. That’s the part that I do care about.

As for whether God is (figuratively, of course) holding His head or His stomach over this issue, I like to think that He is holding His breath. To see whether we truly treasure the gift of the liturgy, or whether we would rather fiddle with it however we see fit to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities.

Blessings.

 

[tru_dvotion]

No, I do not have to. My diocese is blessed with a good Bishop and he is faithful to Canon Law and the Magisterium.

 

[otm]

tru_dvotion:

No, I do not have to. My diocese is blessed with a good Bishop and he is faithful to Canon Law and the Magisterium.

And I suspect that those in Colorado would say that they are blessed with a good bishop, and that he is also faithful to Canon Law and the Magisterium. And he also thinks this is pretty much a non-issue, from his recent statement. His name? Chaput. And another archbishop/Cardinal who gets frustrated with the question is Cardinal George of Chicago.

Do I read into your comment that you might think that those two are not faithul to Canon Law and the Magisterium, or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

otm:

And I suspect that those in Colorado would say that they are blessed with a good bishop, and that he is also faithful to Canon Law and the Magisterium. And he also thinks this is pretty much a non-issue, from his recent statement. His name? Chaput. And another archbishop/Cardinal who gets frustrated with the question is Cardinal George of Chicago.

Do I read into your comment that you might think that those two are not faithul to Canon Law and the Magisterium, or am I misunderstanding you?

There are three bishops in Colorado and There are many who do not as you suspect would say that they are blessed with a good bishop.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

otm:

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.

…

Of course it is a red herring. It really ignores what the GIRM is which is a positive directive. You could not possibly house the books it would take to say what not to do. So what the GIRM does is list what is permitted. Since the GIRM does not permit handholding it is not to be done. To say that the GIRM does not say anything and therefore it is permitted is a deceit.
Why I said you were uncharitable is because the woman was acting properly not to hold hands and as you admitted was her right. There was nothing uncharitable in not holding hands. You judging it uncharitable was to me an uncharitable remark.

 

[tru_dvotion]

otm:

And I suspect that those in Colorado would say that they are blessed with a good bishop, and that he is also faithful to Canon Law and the Magisterium. And he also thinks this is pretty much a non-issue, from his recent statement. His name? Chaput. And another archbishop/Cardinal who gets frustrated with the question is Cardinal George of Chicago.

Do I read into your comment that you might think that those two are not faithul to Canon Law and the Magisterium, or am I misunderstanding you?

To the first comment, no, I do not live in the States.

To the second comment, yes you are correct in your assumption.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Holding Hands at Mass
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

 

[bluerose]

Okay, so for all those who say, “Well, the GIRM doesn’t say you can’t…”, please remember that when your teenager says, “But Mom/Dad you didn’t say I couldn’t have 50 friends over for a party on a school night…”

And as for the accusations that I was rude first, thanks very much. The congregation wasn’t explicitly invited or instructed to join hands. When the invitation to the Lord’s prayer is announced, I automatically bow my head. I don’t look around or reach out to whomever is next to me. I think my actions state quite clearly that I am not a hand-holder. Therefore, I don’t think I was initially rude… nor rude at all. It is, after all, an OPTION as so many have pointed out, not a requirement. Just because my “option” doesn’t conform to yours doesn’t make me rude to exercise it. I was polite to the woman, even up to the sign of peace. That she chose to ignore my “option” makes her actions even ruder.

Shall we set up a “hand-holding” section in the churches, so that those who are uncomfortable with us “rude” non-hand-holders can avoid us crowding their space?

Sorry, I don’t usually get “huffy” but I’m tired of always being the one having to apologize for “being uncharitable” with things like this!
Blue"Dear Pot, yes, I am black, signed Kettle"Rose

 

[tru_dvotion]

You were not uncharitable. When we cannot be kind and do the right thing at the same time, we are often accused lacking in charity. Sometimes people confuse enemies for friends, and friends for enemies said St.Augustine. The apostle Paul had the same problem: “Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” Rejoice, if you are persecuted for holding onto the truth, your reward will be great in heaven.

 

[otm]

tru_dvotion:

To the first comment, no, I do not live in the States.

To the second comment, yes you are correct in your assumption.

Since you are not in the United States, I can understand why you might not know of their reputations.

Both would be considered solidly orthodox. Both strike me as holy men. One (George) served as our archbishop for 11 months, before being sent to Chicago and subsequently being made cardinal. He is not only holy, and orthodox, but smart as a whip.

And the point I am trying to make is that very orthodox bishops see this as such a minor detail as to be essentially insignificant. From their comments publicly, on a scale of 10, it is not a zero, but hasn’t gotten up to the level of a one.

 

[otm]

Ann Cheryl:

Of course it is a red herring. It really ignores what the GIRM is which is a positive directive. You could not possibly house the books it would take to say what not to do. So what the GIRM does is list what is permitted. Since the GIRM does not permit handholding it is not to be done. To say that the GIRM does not say anything and therefore it is permitted is a deceit.
Why I said you were uncharitable is because the woman was acting properly not to hold hands and as you admitted was her right. There was nothing uncharitable in not holding hands. You judging it uncharitable was to me an uncharitable remark.

Deceit? No, just an inability to understand how the Church makes law and regulation. Cardinal George sent a dubium to Rome when the question came up, almost immediately, as to whether everyone who had received Communion had to remain standing until the last had received. The GIRM appeared to require that. Rome’s answer was that they did not intend the GIRM to be so rigidly applied generally to postures. So even Rome has a less rigid application of the GIRM than you wish.

In addition, there is a general rule when looking at laws and regulations, that what is clearly known prior to and during the regulation making and is not addressed by the regulations subsequently promulgated is not therefore prohibited by failure to positively include it. The bishops and Rome were all well aware of the dissent and dissatisfaction about hand holding. They chose not to address the issue in the GIRM when they clearly could have; it is not as if the issue was unknown. Therefore no conclusion can be made that it was prohibited by its omission, particularly as other issues over which there was controversy were addressed: e.g. standing during the Consecration.

And as to the woman not holding hands; it is not a question of right; it is a question of insisting on the right over a matter as insignificant as this. Her own comments indicated that there was no way whe was going to hold hands. Being in the right is one thing. Making a point as she chose to (twice she indicated a feeling of a desire to retaliate) had all of the dignity of two kids squabbling on the playground. If the other woman was going to be a jerk, simply holding hands would have charitably resolved the issue, along with a polite, kind explanation after Mass. She chose being right over being charitable. Sorry, when you choose to pick a battle, it is hard to say you are not in a fight. Just before Communion. They both lacked charity.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

join hands

 

[ridesawhitehors]

Its dorky… It makes me very uncomfortable, looks like summer camp, and distracts me from the mass.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Let’s just set aside what is the “right” thing to do.

I still disagree. Comfort varies when it comes to personal space. I know people who would have had a panic attack if they had to hold hands with a stranger for the duration of the Our Father. We have no right to call this person uncharitable without knowing all the facts. There are a number of reasons why someone would want to retaliate when they feel cornered or dominated. Acting like a kid and squabbling or lacking in charity is certainly not one of them. Besides we have no right to judge her.

 

[otm]

tru_dvotion:

Comfort varies when it comes to personal space. I know people who would have had a panic attack if they had to hold hands with a stranger for the duration of the Our Father. We have no right to call this person uncharitable without knowing all the facts. There are a number of reasons why someone would want to retaliate when they feel cornered or dominated. Acting like a kid and squabbling or lacking in charity is certainly not one of them. Besides we have no right to

judge her.

I took her statements at face value. I see no reason to read in excuses when she was forthright in her actions and responses. There are a number of reasons why people will want to retaliate, and I usually find that they state them pretty well.

Don’t hide behind the issue of “judging”. I am not saying she has a black heart. I am saying that she was uncharitable; that there was a better way to handle the situation.

There is a lack of charity on the part of some of both those who would hold hands, and those who would not; that seems obvious from the public comment of Archbishop Chaput. Neither should force the issue. My position is that a) there is a marked lack of charity over this issue just before Communion; b) that lack of charity is not reserved only to those who would hold hands; c) the issue is much less significant than those who would not hold hands make it to be, and d) if someone next to you doesn’t get the message of what you would prefer in terms of posture at that point (holding or not holding), get over it, be charitable and do the opposite of what you would prefer.

Panic attacks? Maybe so. I have a friend who gets claustrophobic very quickly; he generally tries to sit on the end of the bench at church. And if the situation arises that he has to move in to let someone else sit on the end, he does so, and just deals with it.

Feeling dominated or cornered can cause reactions. And all too often we justify our reactions because of that. I suggest that the better choice is to act rather than react, and learn that while rules have a reason, sometimes people (charity) is more important. I suggest reading again the Gospel narrative of Christ violating the Sabbath rule by picking grains and eating them…

 

[Mimi_G]

OhioBob:

I always tell myself that there is no point to discussing this topic in these threads since we all agree to disagree, and then a sentiment like yours just makes me respond after all. Go figure.

Speaking only for myself, the point of this issue is not that it is a big deal worthy of great argument. I admit that it is a small thing. But that is the point. Small things add up to big things.

Frankly, I could not care less whether anyone holds hands with anyone else during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass. It’s a small thing. The problem that I (and other non-hand-holders) have expressed is when small things like that become not just personal expressions of piety, but real adaptations inserted into the liturgy in one parish or another as “the way we do things here”.

We all have heard the statistics regarding the decline in Mass attendance and the declining belief in the Real Presence and heard stories about the general loss of the sacred in the liturgy. I submit that these larger issues rise (or at least gain momentum) from the loss of control over such seemingly small adaptations.

For my part, I like knowing that I can walk into a Catholic church anywhere and participate in the one true sacrifice of the Mass - the SAME liturgy no matter where I go. The Church assures me that that is my right as a Catholic. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

Sure it’s a small thing, but what was the old saying - “take care of the small things, and the big things will take care of themselves”.

So go ahead and hold hands. Or not. I don’t care. Really. I’ll love you just the same and I won’t cringe or cry out if you touch me during Mass.

Just don’t expect your personal practices to become a part of everyone’s liturgy just because you prefer it that way. That’s the part that I do care about.

As for whether God is (figuratively, of course) holding His head or His stomach over this issue, I like to think that He is holding His breath. To see whether we truly treasure the gift of the liturgy, or whether we would rather fiddle with it however we see fit to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities.

Blessings.

I can’t say that I disagree much with anything you’ve said. I personally am not a hand-holding initiator, but if someone offers me their hand, I will take it. I just wonder if God would prefer me to take my brother’s hand or snub him when he offers it to me. Somehow I don’t think God is worried about such a trivial thing during the sacrifice of the Mass. My problem with discussing this issue to death is that, in my opinion, there are so many more important things to worry about with unauthorized changes to the liturgy. Hand holding, in my opinion, is small potatoes when compared with other more important issues. But that’s just my humble opinion. I, too, would love to experience the very same liturgy no matter what church I’m attending. As you say, sadly, that’s not the case and it has not been for quite a long time.

God Bless.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Panic attacks? Yes people do get panic attacks. Do they hide behind it? You bet they do. I know a woman who cannot sign her name in public. She avoids all and every situation where she has to sign her name in front of someone.

Now for a completely different reason, why is it considered uncharitable not to follow the majority? That is how liturgical abuses spread and become the norm. Some have been granted a special dispensation by the Vatican, simply, because it would have meant a huge number of Catholics participating in descent. But the Vatican never gave the green light, only made allowances for special circumstances. (I suppose every mass is a special circumstance.) But it all had to begin somewhere, followed by the eager sillies and so pretty soon everybody was doing it, and why not, after all, if everybody is doing it, then it must be the charitable thing to do.

That fact she was angry at the other person’s lack of manners, no way negates the fact, she was being coerced into something she did not want to do. If everybody jumps off the cliff, is it uncharitable not to jump? I realize holding hands during the Our Father is not as serious as jumping off a cliff. But in a pluralistic society, and because, the Church has not escaped its influences, it is still not uncharitable to stand up to impudence. Too many wrongs are allowed to flourish and are perpetuated in the name of charity.