To Hold or not to hold, that is the question

  • Thread starter Thread starter deogratias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I’ve been blessed. I don’t think I have ever had to deal with the holding hands during the Our Father at any church I have regularly attended. I think it might have happened once or twice on vacation, but, as far as I know, never at home.
 
I’ve seen both. I attended one church where everyone holds hand, even extending to the next pew. At another church, no one holds hand. They just all raise their hands in prayer. Well at the current church I attend, people do both. Some hold hands, some don’t.

One time, I’ve seen an old lady walking slowly accross an isle to hold the hand of another lady at the end. The other lady retracted her hand. The first old lady didn’t know so extend her hand again and try to hold the other lady’s hand. At the second retraction, the message was clear. We don’t need that confusion.

The rubrics for the church say not to hold hand. I agree with that. I’m more comfortable with my hands raised in prayer instead of thinking, that person’s hand is too warm, too cold, he just sneezed into it… It is distracting. I wouldn’t mind if everyone wants to hold hand. But for those who don’t, it is awkward for them and also for those around them.

Warmest regards,
Benjamin
 
The rubrics for the church say not to hold hand. I agree with that. I’m more comfortable with my hands raised in prayer instead of thinking
Click to expand...
No they don’t forbid it nor condone it and the same is true with raised hands although if you are in Bishop Mahoney’s Diocese, I hear he has advised his Diocese to not hold hands but to use the orans position.
 
I agree, the document says nothing about posture during the Our Father. It also gives no specifics for the Sign of Peace (kiss on cheek, embrace, shake hands, etc) so I guess we should just look at each other and say “Peace of Christ be with you” and look at them soberly? So, if you don’t want to hold hands during the Our Father, then you probably don’t want to shake hands with your neighbor during the Sign of Peace either. The GIRM does not say you have to, so…I guess it’s up to each bishop (per the GIRM) to decide for his diocese.

Peace…
 
From the GIRM:

Movements and Posture
  1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.
A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.
 
Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Right # 587 says:

“Even the smallest child can be involved in teh singing or saying of the Our Father. While joining hands with others during the Our Father is not consonant with adult liturgy, rasing the hands like the priest may be an appropriate gesture, and small children do this spontaneously.”

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
 
40.png
PioMagnus:
Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Right # 587 says:

“Even the smallest child can be involved in teh singing or saying of the Our Father. While joining hands with others during the Our Father is not consonant with adult liturgy, rasing the hands like the priest may be an appropriate gesture, and small children do this spontaneously.”

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
Click to expand...
This may be a useful book in many regards, but bear in mind it is not an official teaching document of the Church.
 
On April 25, 2002, the President of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory, promulgated the approved adaptations of the GIRM for the United States. They do not include the orans position. This is not surprising, as this would have required a change of the posture of the deacon, as well as the faithful. That would have been a more substantive change of the Roman Rite. The bishops had originally requested the Orans to wean people away from holding hands.

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing ow the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. It used to be minutely defined in the rubrics, which now say only, extends his hands" or “with hands extended.” Priests understand what is meant (from observation and training), and although there is some variability between priests basically the same gesture is obtained from all of them by these words

No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer according to USCCB Committee on the Liturgy nccbuscc.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/orans.htm
 
I still don’t understand what problem people have liturgically or spiritually with the congregation holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

I can understand that some are personally uncomfortable with holding a “stranger’s” hand at all, and that others may feel that they can enter into the prayer more fully if they keep to themselves. But there are others that don’t feel that way.

Simply assuming, as one previous poster did, that everyone just simply mechanically grabs a hand offered them and doesn’t at some level place significance on the gesture is unfair. I would say there are just as many people who mindlessly recite the prayer with their hands to themselves as there are that may mindlessly take a hand and say it. If you want to take it to an extreme, why recite the prayer out loud even? Why not just have silence while everyone says the prayer to God themselves? (I don’t really believe this, just pointing out the exteme

I personally feel that it is a beautiful gesture of unity and community, not detracting from the perfect communal form of the Eucharist, but enhancing the congragation’s proclamation of oneness in preparation for the Eucharist. The prayer begins “Our Father…” after all. What is wrong with being united not only verbally and spiritually, but physically as well? I also have no problem with people “opting out” for whatever personal reasons.

What I actually find very telling about this issue is how quickly and completely it has spread in my area. Over the last 15 years, I went from never seeing it to seeing it in almost every parish I’ve been in (we’ve moved a lot, too). When something spreads that quickly, with obviously no direct encouragemet from the Church leadership, the gesture must be striking a chord in the congration and raising their feeling of participation in the Mass and the pinnacle of the Mass, the Eucharist.

Those are just my thoughts. It honestly distresses me somewhat that the Church is making such an issue of this when there are much larger problems to deal with. I wonder how much of it is really only a power show.

I hate feeling that way, because I love my faith.

javelin
 
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.”

In short, we are not permitted to interject our own invented “rubrics” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just because we deem it to be a “beautiful gesture.”

Hand holding requires the participation of another worshipper; therefore it is invasive.

The Sign of Peace comes after the Our Father, so why shake hands with someone, if you’ve already been holding hands already? Holding hands kind of trumps shaking hands, and therefore, you’ve rendered rather meaningless the Sign of Peace, which is a valid part of the Mass.

Pax Christi. <><
 
“In short, we are not permitted to interject our own invented “rubrics” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just because we deem it to be a “beautiful gesture.””
Click to expand...
That doesn’t address why this particular gesture is deemed threatening to the sanctity of the celebration of the Mass (or a “rubric” worthy of suppression). I fail to see (and no one has proposed a sound one) a spiritual or liturgical problem with members of the congragation willingly adopting the holding of hands.
Hand holding requires the participation of another worshipper; therefore it is invasive.
Click to expand...
It is invasive only if people are forced to do it. Why do people have a problem with a small gesture that others may do to enhance their worship? It is more invasive, IMHO, to force people to not do something that is really completely harmless. No one is advocating changing the order or substance of the Mass, nor the priestly rites that lead to the consecration.

This whole situation sounds a lot like the Pharisees wanting to condemn Jesus for curing the sick on the Sabbath. Purely legalistic application of Canon Law will only serve to further alienate many of the faithful, which our Church cannot afford. We are already losing over 70% of baptized Catholics to Protestantism and apostacy; that is the problem that is really threatening our Church, not holding hands during a prayer.
The Sign of Peace comes after the Our Father, so why shake hands with someone, if you’ve already been holding hands already? Holding hands kind of trumps shaking hands, and therefore, you’ve rendered rather meaningless the Sign of Peace, which is a valid part of the Mass.
Click to expand...
I’ve actually found that rather than minimizing the Sign of Peace, hand holding during the Lord’s Prayer actually enhances it. People have already overcome their insecurities regarding the physical contact and can more genuinely and openly convey their prayers of peace.

In Christ,
javelin
 
40.png
javelin:
I still don’t understand what problem people have liturgically or spiritually with the congregation holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer… Simply assuming… that everyone just simply mechanically grabs a hand offered them and doesn’t at some level place significance on the gesture is unfair. I would say there are just as many people who mindlessly recite the prayer with their hands to themselves as there are that may mindlessly take a hand and say it. If you want to take it to an extreme, why recite the prayer out loud even? Why not just have silence while everyone says the prayer to God themselves? (I don’t really believe this, just pointing out the exteme

I personally feel that it is a beautiful gesture of unity and community, not detracting from the perfect communal form of the Eucharist, but enhancing the congragation’s proclamation of oneness in preparation for the Eucharist. The prayer begins “Our Father…” after all. What is wrong with being united not only verbally and spiritually, but physically as well? I also have no problem with people “opting out” for whatever personal reasons.

What I actually find very telling about this issue is how quickly and completely it has spread in my area. Over the last 15 years, I went from never seeing it to seeing it in almost every parish I’ve been in (we’ve moved a lot, too). When something spreads that quickly, with obviously no direct encouragemet from the Church leadership, the gesture must be striking a chord in the congration and raising their feeling of participation in the Mass and the pinnacle of the Mass, the Eucharist.

Those are just my thoughts. It honestly distresses me somewhat that the Church is making such an issue of this when there are much larger problems to deal with. I wonder how much of it is really only a power show.

I hate feeling that way, because I love my faith.

javelin
Click to expand...
Javelin, thank you for your post. And your well-considered concern. Although I don’t agree with it, I appreciate your point.

The reason why it’s “such an issue” with me is that I know the statistics of how many Catholics standing there holding hands actually know that it’s the taking of the Eucharist that is THE sign of community –

Last numbers… it’s less than half of the people in the pews who actually KNOW that.

There is SUCH a need for us to have “community” and show it that is why, I think, folks are jumping on the “hold hands to show we’re united” bandwagon.

If I didn’t KNOW, myself, that the hand-holding at the Lord’s Prayer is not THE sign of community (the Eucharist, which is required of us), but A sign of community –

only then would I jump on that holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer bandwagon.

I do NOT mean to be disrespectful of you or your point, Javelin.

I’m just offering my post here as a description of why those of us who get pressured into holding someone’s hand as if it’s REQUIRED are pretty gun-shy of it at this point.

Especially when you can barely hear the responses in Mass… but you SURE can hear EVERYBODY saying the Lord’s Prayer.

Next in volume is the Allelulia.

When there’s a music group who leads us in the responses, then it’s MUCH LESS likely that you’ll hear the people in the pews sing that response. At least, our Archbishop finally put out a notice that we are NOT to applaud the music group at the end of Mass… as if their ministry is a performance that calls for applause because we don’t applaud the lector or the ushers or the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist for how THEY perform THEIR ministries. Our Archbishop encourages us to, instead, if we feel like we want to thank the people in the music group that by all means, walk up to them AFTER Mass and tell them so.

Each of our responses have just as much importance and application as the Lord’s Prayer… otherwise, we wouldn’t be having those responses, at all.

Hope that helps?
:o
 
Thank you, Veronica Anne, for your response.

I do have a couple questions/comments, though… =)

I couldn’t exactly follow your meaning in this statement–could you clarify for me?
“If I didn’t KNOW, myself, that the hand-holding at the Lord’s Prayer is not THE sign of community (the Eucharist, which is required of us), but A sign of community – only then would I jump on that holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer bandwagon.”

In response to:
“I’m just offering my post here as a description of why those of us who get pressured into holding someone’s hand as if it’s REQUIRED are pretty gun-shy of it at this point.”

Please understand that I in no way think that hand-holding should be required. I do think that it should be allowed. I can definitely understand why feeling pressured into holding hands would detract from your worship and your sense of community, and if you are feeling undue presure to hold hands, then the priest probably needs to address the issue to the congregation directly, making it clear that people should respect one-another’s preference in the matter.

“Especially when you can barely hear the responses in Mass… but you SURE can hear EVERYBODY saying the Lord’s Prayer.”

Instead of pulling down the enthusiasm in the Lord’s Prayer by limiting how people enter into the prayer, though, I want to see the participation in the rest of the Mass rise to that level. Wouldn’t that be glorious! I don’t see the enthusiasm as a problem, I see it as a good start on drawing people more deeply into the whole Mass.

Peace,
javelin
 
I can never see the fuss over this proposition it seems so clear to me. On one side we have those who stress reverence and sacrifice of the mass and on another we have those who stress community and celebration. I don’t think this is an “either or” situation but more a “yes and”.

The question of what is an acceptable gesture that doesn’t infringe on the rights of those who expect revernce and those who want more touchy feelly celebrations. Since the Bishops are not givien the authority in GIRM to legislate new gestures we must look to the gestures that are present and allowed by the GIRM.

Having the individuals or the congregation hold hands or adopting of the orans position is not appropriate because they are denied to deacon in the rubrics or not approved for use in the mass.

There are only two choices the hands clasped together gesture of the deacon or no gesture beyond standing with the hands at your side.

I think if more people adopted the gesture of hands clasped of the deacon, which is how the nuns taught us to pray, and out of respect did not profane the reserved nature of the orans or introduce new gestures from our pop culture such as holding hands then the mass would refelct more Glory. I can’t help but chuckle when I see and hear a congregation sway slightly back and forth as they sing the Our Father, it looks like a Coke commercial from the 1970’s.

The hand clasped gesture would clearly address the needs of those who want reverence and those who need to feel they are part of an active worship community, they could not help but feel emotionally impressed by the uniformity of action.

God Bless
 
Hand-holding during the Our Father is rare in these parts.

The first time anybody reached for my hand during Mass was a few weeks ago when I was in a crowded church in New Mexico.

The young girl who reached for my hand had minutes before made room for me on the kneelers when she noticed that my only other option was to kneel on the floor.

Her family was sitting in the pew in front of us and they were holding hands.

There was no way I was going to refuse her gesture to hold hands.
 
Aside from the fact that it is not called for in the rubrics, there are many reasons why people object ot holding hands during the Our Father. One is that a person who does not wish to hold hands in a congregation of people who have come to fully expect everyone to hold hands, is forced to take a perceptively negative action, i.e. actively declining to hold hands. This marks that person out as an unfriendly boor when, ironically, all they are doing is declining to participate in an act that is not even required!

People dislike holding hands with strangers for a variety of reasons. For many people, hand-holding is a very personal action shared with those who are very close–spouses, lovers, parents and children. To be forced to participate or appear hopelessly churlish is unfair and embarrassing to them. What about the objection “At Mass we are all supposed to be one big family anyway; we should be able to show the love we are supposed to feel.” Well, that is the purpose of “the kiss of peace” before Holy Communion. In some cultures, a fraternal gesture is literally a kiss. In the Orient, it is a polite bow. In our culture, it is a friendly shaking of hands. To go from a more intimate expression of love (holding hands) to a less intimate (a handshake) does not make any sense. If someone wants to hold hands with their spouse or kids during the Our Father, more power to them. When the entire congregation automatically goes into the stretch across the pews mode at the invitation to pray, it becomes intrusive and presumptive.
 
Instead of talking about rubrics as we were liturgical scholars… Let’s just return to the Traditional Latin Mass… Where the rubrics are set in stone… Anyway if the Traditional Latin Mass the “We Are Church” people will probably leave…because the rubrics are set in stone
 
We ought to do whatever private gesture we feel comfortable doing, so long as it does not disrupt the liturgy.
 
In one church I attended in Illinois, at the Lord’s Prayer there was a stampede (sounded like one, anyway) as people went to the middle to hold hands all across the church. Some were very upset with me and my wife that we “broke the chain”.
 
When I was a young woman this was not included in the Catholic version of the Our Father - I guess it was added to attract protestants to our religion, anyone know for sure why this was added???
Click to expand...
I believe it is actually part of some ancient manuscripts of Sacred Scripture dated well before Protestantism. The prevailing theory is that it was part of a copyist’s marginal gloss that was erroneously transcribed into the text of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top