Unnerving Our Father (hand holding) experience

[robwar]

Last week at Mass I extended a hand to the woman next to me and she refused to hold hands during the Our Father - meaning she indicated that she did not want to do so. That was ok, I just held my husbands hand on the other side, but turned to her to offer peace. We touched fingertips as I recall. Interestingly, she sat behind me yesterday. As I turned to extend peace to people behind me, she smiled and held out her hand. Long Story short: I think we all need to accept where people are at as gracefully as possible. You don’t know, besides opinions of whether one should be doing this or not, there are issues of infection, especially for those with compromised immune systems, issues of psychological impairments such as OCD, etc. My sense is that with this lady we made a connection and offered peace even though we are not on the same page with regard to holding hands. Lets try to stop squabbling over minutiae and start loving each other more.

OK, mea culpa, I am a little opinionated also.

that was very well put! thank-you!

 

[robwar]

1. I hate to be nitpicky but please capitalize ‘Mass.’ When I see someone refer to mass, I think of tumors. It’s special, it’s holy, capitalize! Descend soapbox..

No one is trying to be disrespectful by not capitalizing Mass. This is a little sharp and obviously no one by the content of the subject is anyone referring to tumors. That is a bit insulting.

 

[St_Francis]

Ya know, it is part of mine without being intrusive to others. But please, don’t make blanket pronouncements affecting others on your own personal preferences.

Our culture is the whole society, not just our personal preferences. We do not have our own cultures all by ourselves.

Look at it this way, if I were standing in the grocery line holding the hand of a strange man, do you think my husband would have a right to be upset with me?

In the same way, I think a lot of married people might feel somewhat or very uncomfortable holding hands with a stranger of the opposite sex. And I wasn’t really thrilled with the idea of my children holding hands with strangers, either.

In the US culture as a whole, holding hands means something that is *not *conducive to holding hands during Mass.

 

[sedonaman]

Ya know, it is part of mine without being intrusive to others. But please, don’t make blanket pronouncements affecting others on your own personal preferences.

So you are one of those who make it uncomfortable for others. Just go through this thread and count the Americans who are for and who are against.

 

[Elizium23]

Hold your hand up, point to it, make a face, and mouth ‘sorry’. They will assume you are infectious.

It is not moral to lie or even allow someone to believe something that is untrue. Not even “little white lies” for social purposes.

 

[cshoremom]

SOmetimes during our Mass, we do the “hand holding across the aisle”…it is not every Mass, and our priest announces that we are to “hold hands across the aisle during the Our Father, please move into the aisle”, etc, when he wants us to do that…I follow…I’d feel conspicuous if I did not follow.

Personally , I do not like that tradition…I’d rather pray with my hands folded, or even my hands up and open, as I do most often.

But I do it…
( I am also somewhat of a germophobe…so that and the Sign of Peace are disturbing, from that perspective…But again, I do it…It is what is expected…)

Purell.

 

[adopted_heir]

No one is trying to be disrespectful by not capitalizing Mass. This is a little sharp and obviously no one by the content of the subject is anyone referring to tumors. That is a bit insulting.

Sorry if it seemed sharp, but obviously Mass is very important–to all of us. Mass is a holy sacrament; mass is something else. I’d just like to make people aware of what they’re writing because the subject deserves that respect. Thank you for capitalizing.

 

[sw85]

I am always amused and perplexed by the cumbersome social conventions that have sprung up around this totally illicit and improper liturgical innovation. When the time for the Our Father comes, I simply clasp my hands in front of me, lower my head, close my eyes, and ignore the chaotic drama swirling around me. As for the sign of peace, my rule is that my feet stay planted firmly on the floor and I will do no more than bend my knees slightly to reach to shake someone’s hand. If someone on the other hand of the pew wants to offer me the sign of peace, they can settle for two fingers extended in a V-shape.

When in Rome…
Speaking personally, I would think it prudent to follow that maxim when different procedures are encountered, After all, it has been argued many times on this forum that hand-holding isn’t prohibited.

Can’t say I’ve heard that argument. If so, it isn’t terribly compelling. The GIRM prohibits alteration of the liturgy, without indult or other exemption, by anyone except the appropriate authorities in the Vatican, including the parish priest. Hand-holding is not in the liturgy, therefore hand-holding is an addition to the liturgy, therefore hand-holding is prohibited. Filling an aspergillum with goat’s blood and sprinkling the altar with it probably isn’t explicitly forbidden either, but we don’t need a prohibition spelled out to know that it’s a no-no.

I much agree with paperweight, and would add that if you’re going to refuse to hold hands, you need to go all in. You chose to hold hands with your mother (and that’s fine), but then REJECTED holding hands with another mass-goer. I can certainly see why she took such a rejection personally… since from the outside it’s easy to see how that could come across as a personal rejection. Of course, her reaction and rudeness was uncalled for, particularly in context that it occured during the solemnity of the mass… but you could have nipped this one in the bud by “doing as the romans do” or by refusing to hold ANY hands rather than judging on whom you would bestow exception to your usual practice.

I can agree that hand-holding shouldn’t be done under any circumstances, but if this is how the lady was actually thinking, that makes her less sympathetic in my mind, not more so. What kind of self-entitled jerk actually thinks “What, you’ll share an intimate gesture with your mother but not a total stranger like me?”

 

[Actaeon]

So you are one of those who make it uncomfortable for others.

Just going to point out that Ohanna specifically stated that they try NOT to be intrusive to others (which really isn’t that hard to do). So please don’t be rude and accusatory when a poster makes clear that they’re not of the ilk that INSISTS on grabbing hands.

Just go through this thread and count the Americans who are for and who are against.

In the US culture as a whole, holding hands means something that is *not *conducive to holding hands during Mass.

Apparently you are both unaware, but holding hands in our culture is a common sign of “solidarity” and “unity”

After all, it’s a common scene among protestors, such as [conducive to holding hands during Mass.*not *]("

here, or here…

So yes, there is a distinct difference between intimate hand holding, such as one would expect between a husband and a wife, and holding hands as a sign of solidarity, which, in fact, IS a common gesture in American society.

Not that I agree that such a gesture is remotely needed when we have the ultimate solidarity found in the Eucharist (so much so that holding hands as a sign seems a rather hollow implementation by comparison), but to say that “you aren’t part of the culture” is completely incorrect in this regard.

I am always amused and perplexed by the cumbersome social conventions that have sprung up around this totally illicit and improper liturgical innovation.

I get the “improper” and “innovation” part (for the reasons I mentioned above), but perhaps you could expound and source your claim that said practice is, in fact, ILLICIT as defined by the church…

Can’t say I’ve heard that argument. If so, it isn’t terribly compelling. The GIRM prohibits alteration of the liturgy, without indult or other exemption, by anyone except the appropriate authorities in the Vatican, including the parish priest. Hand-holding is not in the liturgy, therefore hand-holding is an addition to the liturgy, therefore hand-holding is prohibited. Filling an aspergillum with goat’s blood and sprinkling the altar with it probably isn’t explicitly forbidden either, but we don’t need a prohibition spelled out to know that it’s a no-no.

The GIRM does prohibit modification of the liturgy… sure, and if holding hands were anything other than a gesture of the laity I might agree with you on this point… but the GIRM does not expressly forbid gestures of reverence by the laity (such as many like myself who would strike our breasts three times saying mea culpa after the agnes dei, or the many people who make the sign of the cross during several portions of the mass… or the many of us who kneel even in areas where the norm is standing). The church has even gone so far as to regulate that people who choose to kneel or receive on the tongue may not be denied communion.

So obviously, there is a distinct difference between a priest sprinkling an altar with goat’s blood as a made up rite, and a parishoner crossing themselves, or holding hands during the Our Father.

I can agree that hand-holding shouldn’t be done under any circumstances, but if this is how the lady was actually thinking, that makes her less sympathetic in my mind, not more so. What kind of self-entitled jerk actually thinks “What, you’ll share an intimate gesture with your mother but not a total stranger like me?”

All I’m pointing out is that when one assumes that hand-holding with one person IS an acceptable thing to do while with another is not, they are making a judgement that most certainly IS personal. Hence the reason that it is important to make it either a universal gesture or not a gesture at all.

As to judging whether two people are related or not, I don’t generally focus on who is sitting next to who in mass. If someone looks of driving age in my church, which is often crowded, I would rarely assume that they MUST be related to the person sitting next to them.

 

[Cailte]

It is not in the rubrics that we should hold hands. It is okay for husband and wife and children, but is not mandated at all.

I agree that hand-holding is a distraction for many. It was never mandated by
Vatican II, and seems to have been started by lay people.

I just keep my hands folded and reasonable people get the idea that I do not want to hold hands during the Our Father. If they have a problem with that, it is not my problem.

If only we would get correction from our priests on this matter it can be settled once and for all.

Yes - also it is apparently only a USA thing. When I am home in Ireland I never see it being done.

I heard two origins for this at my US parish. Someone said that it is an import into American Catholicism from some of the more charismatic African-American churches - and that the Bishops are unwilling to rule against it because of the fear of giving offense. Another that it originated in AA meetings when they recite the Lord’s Prayer. Do you know if either of these is true?

I also don’t see in Ireland the hands held in the *orans *position as some do in the USA - which was always just the prerogative of the priest, praying on behalf of the congregation.

 

[Dorothy]

Yes - also it is apparently only a USA thing. When I am home in Ireland I never see it being done.

I heard two origins for this at my US parish. Someone said that it is an import into American Catholicism from some of the more charismatic African-American churches - and that the Bishops are unwilling to rule against it because of the fear of giving offense. Another that it originated in AA meetings when they recite the Lord’s Prayer. Do you know if either of these is true?

I also don’t see in Ireland the hands held in the *orans *position as some do in the USA - which was always just the prerogative of the priest, praying on behalf of the congregation.

I really don’t know about the origins of the hand holding.

With regard to the orans position, several years ago our bishop had all the parishes in our diocese instruct the congregations verbally, and with an insert diagram in our bulletin with regard to how they should extend their hands if they wanted to. They were not to do it like the priest does, but to keep their elbows next to their waist and extend their arms in front of them, palms open. I assume this was meant to avoid people extending their hands way out to their sides, imitating the priest, and sometimes in front of someone’s face.

So, what was the result of that instruction? In my parish about 50% reverted to a praying position, hands clasped or palms together, and about 25% continued with arms outstretched to the sides or high in the air, and the rest held hands.

 

[John_Grudzien]

Personally, I usually just hold my missal, and say the Pater Noster in Latin…that is usually enough to convey the fact that I do not hold hands.
Also, if pressed during the Sign of Peace, I willnot shake hands, buy will smile and respectfully nod my head at the person next to me…sometimes I have had to tell an unusually insistent person that I am a rather Traditional Catholic and that it makes me uncomfortable to shake hands in Church.:twocents:

 

[pnewton]

So you are one of those who make it uncomfortable for others. Just go through this thread and count the Americans who are for and who are against.

This thread is hardly representative of mainstream American Catholics. Likewise, no one ever starts a thread saying that they held hands in their parish and everything went fine, though that is what almost always happens. I have done both, as I go with the flow, and never had the slightest hiccup, or witnessed anyone put out, offended or making a scene.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Apparently you are both unaware, but holding hands in our culture is a common sign of “solidarity” and “unity”
…

That’s a new one on me. I don’t’ agree with it. I was in Korea in the military, and it is common to see two grown Korean men walking hand-in-hand. The command thought it was enough of a concern to U.S. members that it included an explanation in its literature on service in Korea that it was not a sign of homosexuality but that they were merely friends. If "holding hands in our culture is a common sign of ‘solidarity’ and ‘unity’ " then such an explanation would not have been necessary.

 

[clem456]

I just have to chuckle at these threads.,
Holding hands or not, doesn’t matter to me, whatever the Church allows and the local culture embraces is fine.

I would prefer not to hold hands with others, I actually have a pre-disposition not to do it. This is probably one of the best reasons why I SHOULD do it. When I have a pre-disposition not to do something, that raises a red flag for me. I also have a pre-disposition not to shake hands at other times, or give a person a hug, or step into difficult situations, like at funeral homes. The joining hands at the Our Father brings me out of my own private space and into solidarity with those around me. I never regret doing it.

It’s like Our Lord said in the Gospel last Sunday: “ephphatha”…be opened.

 

[robwar]

This thread is hardly representative of mainstream American Catholics. Likewise, no one ever starts a thread saying that they held hands in their parish and everything went fine, though that is what almost always happens. I have done both, as I go with the flow, and never had the slightest hiccup, or witnessed anyone put out, offended or making a scene.

thank-you, that was very well put! There are a number of ways to communicate with others that you do not want to hold hands during Our Father and not be misinterpreted as rude or offensive. It does send mixed signals to others around you if you are holding hand with a family member and refusing to hold hands with others and they might not be aware of the relationship you have with your family. I’ve never seen anyone try to force holding hands on others and I do so most people in churches where it is common willingly hold hands. In a similar note, during kiss of peace, it does come across as rude when people don’t or barely shake hands. Yes, others are pointing out that they have sensory issue or afraid of germ etc.
Maybe the best thing is for everyone to think about how they might come across to others around them in church and try to avoid being misinterpreted.

 

[lizaanne]

I’m not at Mass to hold hands. I’m at Mass to worship the Creator of the Universe.

If someone wants to hold hands they can build a campfire in their back yard and have at it.

So very very blessed we don’t do this at our parish. What a silly and disruptive exercise.

~Liza

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not at Mass to hold hands. I’m at Mass to worship the Creator of the Universe.

If someone wants to hold hands they can build a campfire in their back yard and have at it.

So very very blessed we don’t do this at our parish. What a silly and disruptive exercise.

~Liza

I’ve noticed that this “silly and disruptive exercise” and the sign of peace, have taken over as high point of the Mass.

 

[clem456]

I’m not at Mass to hold hands. I’m at Mass to worship the Creator of the Universe.

If someone wants to hold hands they can build a campfire in their back yard and have at it.

So very very blessed we don’t do this at our parish. What a silly and disruptive exercise.

~Liza

Please correct me if I’m misreading your post…

In your view then, the local custom of holding hands at the Our Father detracts from worship of the Creator of the Universe for those people?
And degrades the Mass to the level of a campfire?
And parishes that have this custom are not blessed?

Im just wondering if that’s what you really intend, or if you are engaging in hyperbole.

 

[sw85]

Apparently you are both unaware, but holding hands in our culture is a common sign of “solidarity” and “unity”

Neither of which are appropriate gestures during the Our Father, which is, after all, a supplicative prayer to God.

I get the “improper” and “innovation” part (for the reasons I mentioned above), but perhaps you could expound and source your claim that said practice is, in fact, ILLICIT as defined by the church…

Sure. Chapter 22 on the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium:

*22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
2. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.*

No other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything. Since laypersons are ontologically and authoritatively subordinate to priests, they have even less authority to alter the liturgy than he does.

Now the objection that the laity’s behavior are not governed by the GIRM and the Missal would function if, and only if, the GIRM and Missal did not also prescribe the appropriate behavior of the laity, including posture and reverential gestures. It does. We are, for instance, to perform a minor bow (i.e., a bow of the head) at every mention of the name of Jesus, Mary, the three divine persons named together, and the saint being honored on that day. That’s just one of many examples.

That’s another thing that baffles me, by the way – that the same people who are utter sticklers for this illicit gesture have no interest in expressing reverence in the way the Church actually requires them to do!

So the liturgy prescribes our behavior. To deviate from its prescriptions is to change the liturgy. We are forbidden to do so. QED.

The GIRM does prohibit modification of the liturgy… sure, and if holding hands were anything other than a gesture of the laity I might agree with you on this point… but the GIRM does not expressly forbid gestures of reverence by the laity (such as many like myself who would strike our breasts three times saying mea culpa after the agnes dei,

I have never heard of this practice, but it is in any event illicit, too. Striking one’s breast during the mea culpa at the confiteor, on the other hand, is mandatory.

or the many people who make the sign of the cross during several portions of the mass…

Also illicit, except in those places where it is prescribed (i.e., during the naming of the three divine persons, together with a minor bow).

or the many of us who kneel even in areas where the norm is standing).

I’m not sure what you mean here, and I suspect the liturgy is done somewhat differently in your area than mine. If the GIRM allows flexibility here, then it’s licit; e.g., it allows us either to sit or kneel after receiving communion. I sometimes do one, sometimes do the other, and neither choice is off the table.

The church has even gone so far as to regulate that people who choose to kneel or receive on the tongue may not be denied communion.

Sure. Because the Church alone has authority to regulate liturgy and liturgical posture. This is also one of those areas where the Church allows flexibility within the dioceses. We receive communion in the hand by indult alone, which IIRC can be revoked by the bishop. Card. Ranjith of Colombo has revoked it and required that communion be received kneeling and on the tongue throughout his entire archdiocese. This flexibility is permissible precisely because it is allowed by the Church which has exclusively authority to regulate liturgy.

So obviously, there is a distinct difference between a priest sprinkling an altar with goat’s blood as a made up rite, and a parishoner crossing themselves, or holding hands during the Our Father.

Yes, it was an exaggeration. Holding hands during the Our Father isn’t an act of desecration. But my point is that both are illicit, and we don’t need the GIRM to say we can’t do it to know we can’t do it. After all, there’s a potentially infinite number of things we shouldn’t be doing during Mass and there’s only so much space in the GIRM. It can’t be filled with a laundry list of prohibitions. The Church is quite clear that what is in the GIRM and the Missal is authoritative and everything else is illicit.

All I’m pointing out is that when one assumes that hand-holding with one person IS an acceptable thing to do while with another is not, they are making a judgement that most certainly IS personal. Hence the reason that it is important to make it either a universal gesture or not a gesture at all.

Sure, but I’m saying just because it’s a personal judgment doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable or forbidden. When I choose to go out with Kelly but not Katie, I am making a personal judgment re: the merits of Kelly and Katie.

Again, I agree there should be no such gesture at all. Holding hands is not a reverential gesture, much less one approved by the Church. But even if were allowed to hold hands, it’s not unreasonable for one to prefer to hold hands with one’s family than with total strangers.

At any rate, all of these hurt feelings could be avoided by simply abolishing this ludicrous and inappropriate custom altogether.