Why do we hold hands, have guitars, etc. in mass?

[otjm]

As to the statement — maybe if you had read what I posted --you would have understood —that I condensed what Arch. Ranjith said–into my own words. But below are some direct statements by Arch. Ranjith : By the way – since we are** one **Church —what undermines the Church in Asia applies too for us here in the US and the Church as a whole.

I, too, don’t have a dog in the fight; if hand holding was done away with that would be fine; if it was required that too would be fine. I stay in the debate (and I suspect that pnewton does too) because I tire of people deciding they know what is needed for the Church, when church leaders seem to know differently. I also tire of mis-statements of fact and law.

Part of me - and I will probably do time in purgatory for this - really would like to see Rome come out with a rule that we all hold hands during the Our Father, for no other reason than I would be amused at the response by those who so dislike it and seem so thoroughly focused on it. I have met people who have told me how they won’t hold hands because of fear of germs; at the end of the conversation I always give them a warm smile, say “Well, let’s shake on it” and extend my hand - and every one of them has shaken my hand. Which leads me to believe that germs as an issue is simply a smoke screen.

But then, life is amusing in many ways.

 

[EasterJoy]

Personally (and I know I am different than most kids my age), I prefer more traditional masses with organs rather than guitars/drumsets…

So why do we hold hands, have rock instruments, and try and turn everything (including the Our Father) into a song?

Singing at Mass, even singing the entire Mass from start to finish, is a very old tradition.

IMHO, one of the things that killed the use of the organ in the Catholic Church is the prevalence of poorly trained organists and low quality and badly-maintained organs. In fact, I would argue that the invention of the electronic organ may have killed organ music in the Catholic Church. We may be too tight-fisted to withstand the introduction of an invention like that.

There are also a lot more people who know how to strum between six chords on a guitar at a believable level of competence than there are people who are capable of competently playing a keyboard instrument that requires use of the feet…assuming of course, that we’re talking about musicians willing to work for free!

If you want organ music, help to raise the money for a good organ and a good organist. If you raise enough money to support the re-introduction of the organ at a high quality level, the basic desire for it will be established.

 

[FrDavid96]

An observation:

People who are opposed to holding hands during the Our Father are quoting official, authoritative Church documents to support their position, as well as (sometimes) their own sentiments on the matter.

People who support (or simply do not oppose) hand-holding during the Our Father make primarily arguments from sentiment or arguments from silence (it’s not specifically forbidden therfore it’s allowed).

Now a thought:

We can go back-and-forth forever on sentiment. It serves no purpose from either side. We can discuss it, we can share our thoughts, but ultimately, we will never agree.

The argument against hand holding is to say (in paraphrase) the Church has said that no one may add, remove, or change anything in the Sacred Liturgy on his own authority. Therefore if we add the practice of holding hands, in the complete absence of any such authority, we are thereby violating the norms of the Church.

The argument for hand holding is to say that it is a form of inculturation and/or to say that if it’s not specifically forbidden it is permitted or at the very least tolerated. Rome has never specifically said that the practice is forbidden, in spite of many inquiries.

Am I right so far? Is that a fair summary? I’ve made an honest attempt to summarize both points of view objectively. I hope I have done so fairly.

Inculturation must be proposed by the conferences of bishops and ultimately approved by the Holy See. This has not happened with regard to holding hands.

The argument from silence does not hold water, because the position of “silence” cannot be reconciled to the constant, consistent, and abundant statements found in the official laws of the Church which clearly forbid any additions to the Liturgy on ones own authority.

If there were a absence of laws specifically forbidding additions on one’s own authority, or if those laws could somehow be interpreted as vague, I would be willing to concede the point.

Given the abundance of times that the statement of Sacrosanctum Concilium #22 has been repeated and paraphrased by the Holy See, given the context of many of them, and given the fact that the Church has never quailified this statement by saying something to the effect of “unless it’s not a big deal…” (if you’ll pardon my use of eccleastical English!) The only conclusion we can arive at is to say that no additions to the Mass, no matter how insignificant they may seem, are permitted without the approval of the Holy See.

 

[EasterJoy]

An observation:

People who are opposed to holding hands during the Our Father are quoting official, authoritative Church documents to support their position, as well as (sometimes) their own sentiments on the matter.

People who support (or simply do not oppose) hand-holding during the Our Father make primarily arguments from sentiment or arguments from silence (it’s not specifically forbidden therfore it’s allowed).

Now a thought:

We can go back-and-forth forever on sentiment. It serves no purpose from either side. We can discuss it, we can share our thoughts, but ultimately, we will never agree.

The argument against hand holding is to say (in paraphrase) the Church has said that no one may add, remove, or change anything in the Sacred Liturgy on his own authority. Therefore if we add the practice of holding hands, in the complete absence of any such authority, we are thereby violating the norms of the Church.

The argument for hand holding is to say that it is a form of inculturation and/or to say that if it’s not specifically forbidden it is permitted or at the very least tolerated. Rome has never specifically said that the practice is forbidden, in spite of many inquiries.

Am I right so far? Is that a fair summary? I’ve made an honest attempt to summarize both points of view objectively. I hope I have done so fairly.

Inculturation must be proposed by the conferences of bishops and ultimately approved by the Holy See. This has not happened with regard to holding hands.

The argument from silence does not hold water, because the position of “silence” cannot be reconciled to the constant, consistent, and abundant statements found in the official laws of the Church which clearly forbid any additions to the Liturgy on ones own authority.

If there were a absence of laws specifically forbidding additions on one’s own authority, or if those laws could somehow be interpreted as vague, I would be willing to concede the point.

Given the abundance of times that the statement of Sacrosanctum Concilium #22 has been repeated and paraphrased by the Holy See, given the context of many of them, and given the fact that the Church has never quailified this statement by saying something to the effect of “unless it’s not a big deal…” (if you’ll pardon my use of eccleastical English!) The only conclusion we can arive at is to say that no additions to the Mass, no matter how insignificant they may seem, are permitted without the approval of the Holy See.

This is a very good argument for why a direction in the printed missal or from the priest to hold hands during the Our Father is not appropriate. Surely, that would be a case of adding to the rubrics.

I don’t think it is a particularly good argument for why someone may not choose to hold their neighbor’s hand during the Our Father, shouldn’t make a sign of reverence as the cross passes by in procession, and so on. In other words, I have not seen evidence that the rubrics imply that everybody should be at some religious equivalent of military attention when not doing what the rubrics specifically direct them to do. If we are supposed to strictly maintain that attitude and posture throughout Mass, then that really should be added to the rubrics, as that is not widely understood by the laity to be the case.

 

[Walking_Home]

And a valid observation at that. I do not know if I am an oddity here or not, but you have raised a question about what I say and what I do… It surely does seem like a contradiciton. My reasoning for jumping in on some issues are not that I side with one side or another, but rather that I seem arguments presented (and presented like a dogmatic, case-closed) that are as much opinion as fact. I see the actions of priests being criticized from afar by those not familiar with specifics. I do not believe that the issue of holding hands is a prima facae, open and shut case. It is *this *that I argue against, not the holding of hands in general.

Remember that this thread is not about holding hands during the Our Father, but the liturgy in general. The tone of the OP was how I got started down this path.

---

Yes this thread started in general --but zeroed in on the hand holding issue. I have seen the argument – based on the liturgical books not being specific on what to do with our hands — therefore hand holding is not an intrusion into the liturgy. As can be seen below —there has been discussion concerning the shortcomings/lack of precision in the liturgical books that in essence leave the door open/create loopholes for the manipulation of the Mass. This weakness in the liturgical books can not only be exploited by the clergy but by the laity too.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

SYNOD OF BISHOPS

XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE EUCHARIST:
SOURCE AND SUMMIT
OF THE LIFE AND MISSION
OF THE CHURCH

1. Many responses to the Lineamenta cite various causes for the neglect of these norms: an insufficient knowledge of the history and theological meaning of the rites; a wish to be novel; and a distrust that ritual signs are capable of speaking to people. Some responses maintain that norms are not observed because of shortcomings in The General Instruction on the Roman Missal. For example, inadequate translations of liturgical texts and the lack of precision in the rubrics leave the celebrant at liberty to improvise certain parts. Some responses make specific reference to the need to take great care in translating liturgical texts by entrusting this challenging work to specialists, under the bishops’ supervision and with the approval of the competent congregation of the Holy See.

 

[Walking_Home]

I, too, don’t have a dog in the fight; if hand holding was done away with that would be fine; if it was required that too would be fine. I stay in the debate (and I suspect that pnewton does too) because I tire of people deciding they know what is needed for the Church, when church leaders seem to know differently. I also tire of mis-statements of fact and law.

Part of me - and I will probably do time in purgatory for this - really would like to see Rome come out with a rule that we all hold hands during the Our Father, for no other reason than I would be amused at the response by those who so dislike it and seem so thoroughly focused on it. I have met people who have told me how they won’t hold hands because of fear of germs; at the end of the conversation I always give them a warm smile, say “Well, let’s shake on it” and extend my hand - and every one of them has shaken my hand. Which leads me to believe that germs as an issue is simply a smoke screen.

But then, life is amusing in many ways.

---

Yes —life is amusing in many ways. I have seem arguments based on thin air, on loopholes, blanks and so forth. Arguments where people use themselves as the authority. And somewhere along comes some type of statement that people are not up to comprehend documents/laws/etc. issued by the Church

 

[pnewton]

Yes this thread started in general --but zeroed in on the hand holding issue.

Yep, and for the record, I believe FrDavid96 did a very fair and balanced presentation of both sides in his above thread. I also agree with what Easter Joy said:

This is a very good argument for why a direction in the printed missal or from the priest to hold hands during the Our Father is not appropriate. Surely, that would be a case of adding to the rubrics.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Yes this thread started in general --but zeroed in on the hand holding issue.

Yep, and for the record, I believe FrDavid96 did a very fair and balanced presentation of both sides in his above thread. I also agree with what Easter Joy said:
Quote:
This is a very good argument for why a direction in the printed missal or from the priest to hold hands during the Our Father is not appropriate. Surely, that would be a case of adding to the rubrics.

---

Considering the Church has used the term “anyone” in reference to the manipulation of the Mass ---- the same can be said of laity on their own accord — exploiting the weaknesses of the liturgical books to introduce un-authorized innovations.

 

[Lisa44]

What about Christmas trees/wreaths, or wedding rings? These are pagan practices that have been incorporated into Catholic worship.

We are talking about the liturgy here. Can you site a pagan practice that has been incorporated into the liturgy?

And therein lies the problem. “Feel” is about emotions, and emotions tend to run their own course without recourse to logic. The facts - not the feelings - are that hand holding came from Catholic Charismatics. Not New Age, but people seeking the Holy Spirit. But people who don’t know the facts get feelings (from who knows where) and go off down their own path, all too often with a sense of self-righteousness (and I do not presume youi are; I am simply reflecting on the last 40 years of dispute) that some people simply will not slow down and deal with the facts. We don’t like something, so we find a way to smear the intentions and the characters of those we don’t like, without ever bothering to find out why they do what they do.

So do families. I held my daughters hands many times. So do husbands and wives; so do friends, when one of them is having a rough patch. So do Vietnamese men who are friends, in Vet Nam (and that is a cultural thing that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality).

I know a fair number of pagans, given that Oregon is one of the most unchurched states in the Union; and they don’t all hold hands. I don’t persoanlly know any Wiccans, so I can’t speak to them. But to imply that people holding hands are doing so because there is some Wiccan background to this is flat out a smear and not acknowledging the facts of where this started - in other words, not based in truth…

Holding hands is a sign of unity, and has nothing to do with being Wiccan, or coming from that as a source.

We are talking about the liturgy so, I’m still not sure why you think that based on the fact that hand holding derived from charismatics, you think it should be incorporated into the liturgy why?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is a very good argument for why a direction in the printed missal or from the priest to hold hands during the Our Father is not appropriate. Surely, that would be a case of adding to the rubrics.

I don’t think it is a particularly good argument for why someone may not choose to hold their neighbor’s hand during the Our Father, shouldn’t make a sign of reverence as the cross passes by in procession, and so on. In other words, I have not seen evidence that the rubrics imply that everybody should be at some religious equivalent of military attention when not doing what the rubrics specifically direct them to do. If we are supposed to strictly maintain that attitude and posture throughout Mass, then that really should be added to the rubrics, as that is not widely understood by the laity to be the case.

Overall, I agree with you.

The rubrics do not call for a rigid uniformity of posture for individuals (but there is certainly a call for uniformity of gestures in the general sense). At the same time, keep in mind that “A common posture, observed by all, is a sign of the unity of the assembly and its sense of community. It both expresses and fosters the inner spirit and purpose of those who take part in it” (this is from the 1974 printing of the GIRM #20–it just happens to be what’s on my desk at the moment. It’s an outdated printing, but the words still hold true).

If a few people just happen to be holding hands, in a private way, there is no problem with this. No problem at all. However, the reality is that that is not what is happening. For example, I know a married couple who simply place one hand on the back of the next pew and the other places a hand over that one. Perfectly acceptable. I repeat perfectly acceptable.

In general, and yes, I am painting with a very broad brush here-and-now, in general, what is happening in many places and among many groups of the faithful (in particular those who identify themselves as “Catholic Pentecostals” or “Charismatic Catholics”) is that the hand holding has moved well beyond the point of being merely a private, personal gesture among (let’s say for example) married couples or siblings. The reality is that the expression this gesture has taken-on is one of a corporate gesture involving the entire congregation (with a few individual exceptions). It has moved beyond being merely hand-holding and it has evolved (or devolved) into lifting the hands up for everyone to see, and culminating in a sort of “group wave” during the doxology after the Our Father. There is no doubt that the gesture has been imposed on many people who object to it; hand-holders will grab and forcibly hold the hands of neighbors with no regard to the other’s sensibilities (this is a fact, not an absolute, but it is widespread). Hand-holders will step out into the aisles and join with those on the other side.
The problem here is that many (not all, but many) young Catholics (whether young in age, or new to the Church) are being initiated into the “proper” way to behave at Mass and are being told, either in direct words and teaching, or by example, or simply as a matter of conformity, that the proper and expected gesture for the Our Father is to hold hands. And that is why it has become unacceptable, and that is why the practice has become a liturgical abuse. It would not be an abuse if it were done privately or unobtrusively by a few people. But that’s simply not the reality we’re dealing with.

The very fact that so many Catholics are discussing this matter stands as testament that it has indeed become an unwritten (and illicit) rubric in so many places, and among so many groups.

 

[Walking_Home]

Overall, I agree with you.

The rubrics do not call for a rigid uniformity of posture for individuals (but there is certainly a call for uniformity of gestures in the general sense). At the same time, keep in mind that “A common posture, observed by all, is a sign of the unity of the assembly and its sense of community. It both expresses and fosters the inner spirit and purpose of those who take part in it” (this is from the 1974 printing of the GIRM #20–it just happens to be what’s on my desk at the moment. It’s an outdated printing, but the words still hold true).

If a few people just happen to be holding hands, in a private way, there is no problem with this. No problem at all. However, the reality is that that is not what is happening. For example, I know a married couple who simply place one hand on the back of the next pew and the other places a hand over that one. Perfectly acceptable. I repeat perfectly acceptable.

In general, and yes, I am painting with a very broad brush here-and-now, in general, what is happening in many places and among many groups of the faithful (in particular those who identify themselves as “Catholic Pentecostals” or “Charismatic Catholics”) is that the hand holding has moved well beyond the point of being merely a private, personal gesture among (let’s say for example) married couples or siblings. The reality is that the expression this gesture has taken-on is one of a corporate gesture involving the entire congregation (with a few individual exceptions). It has moved beyond being merely hand-holding and it has evolved (or devolved) into lifting the hands up for everyone to see, and culminating in a sort of “group wave” during the doxology after the Our Father. There is no doubt that the gesture has been imposed on many people who object to it; hand-holders will grab and forcibly hold the hands of neighbors with no regard to the other’s sensibilities (this is a fact, not an absolute, but it is widespread). Hand-holders will step out into the aisles and join with those on the other side.
The problem here is that many (not all, but many) young Catholics (whether young in age, or new to the Church) are being initiated into the “proper” way to behave at Mass and are being told, either in direct words and teaching, or by example, or simply as a matter of conformity, that the proper and expected gesture for the Our Father is to hold hands. And that is why it has become unacceptable, and that is why the practice has become a liturgical abuse. It would not be an abuse if it were done privately or unobtrusively by a few people. But that’s simply not the reality we’re dealing with.

The very fact that so many Catholics are discussing this matter stands as testament that it has indeed become an unwritten (and illicit) rubric in so many places, and among so many groups.

---

FrDavid96—at one church I attended for a while – the hand holding entailed a hand holding/orans position and the person standing on each side of the center aisle --stepping out into the aisle to hand hold with the person across. This formed one continues line of hand holding/orans across each line of pews —with people standing in the center aisle.

 

[pnewton]

---

Considering the Church has used the term “anyone” in reference to the manipulation of the Mass ---- the same can be said of laity on their own accord

Except “laity” is not an any one and therein lies a problem with no easy solution at least on a local level. If this thing evolved, as some have said, I can see how it could happen. So does a priest forbid holding hands in Mass, period? Perhaps one must be related to hold hands?

I don’t know the best way to proceed, if I were a priest in question, but I do know the directives from Rome offer a great opportunity to catechize and effect changes, from a purely practical standpoint.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

This is exactly my contention. I feel that holding hands and standing in a circle (RCIA) or in lines in the pews (Mass) is a New Age practice that has been absorbed by the church.

It was not my impression that “Catholics” were like that.

That is an example of cultural practices. All the pagans and wiccans I know, as well as new age groups, they ALL hold hands at some time or another in their worship services.

This is a real stretch. Are pegans & wiccans your companions?

Scouts and children also stand in circles—are they also pagans & wiccans?

Which is it? You say you are only speaking of the liturgy, yet you make wild accusations against charismatic style worship. Did you read my post #186?

(excerpt)

each conference of bishops has the power to lay down norms for its own territory that are suited to the traditions and character of peoples, regions and different communities."[108] The same also applies to the gestures and postures of the faithful,[109]

Local bishops usually give authority to their pastors, which is the reason these minor variations are allowed. Most letters of complaint may be acknowledged and passed on to the pastor, but there is rarely any action taken.

Charismatic is a legitimate movement of the Catholic Church. The preacher to the Papal household is very strong in this movement. It is a very serious matter to speak against this worship, and equate it to new age or pagan practices.
Lux

 

[EasterJoy]

Overall, I agree with you.

The rubrics do not call for a rigid uniformity of posture for individuals (but there is certainly a call for uniformity of gestures in the general sense). At the same time, keep in mind that “A common posture, observed by all, is a sign of the unity of the assembly and its sense of community. It both expresses and fosters the inner spirit and purpose of those who take part in it” (this is from the 1974 printing of the GIRM #20–it just happens to be what’s on my desk at the moment. It’s an outdated printing, but the words still hold true).

If a few people just happen to be holding hands, in a private way, there is no problem with this. No problem at all. However, the reality is that that is not what is happening. For example, I know a married couple who simply place one hand on the back of the next pew and the other places a hand over that one. Perfectly acceptable. I repeat perfectly acceptable.

In general, and yes, I am painting with a very broad brush here-and-now, in general, what is happening in many places and among many groups of the faithful (in particular those who identify themselves as “Catholic Pentecostals” or “Charismatic Catholics”) is that the hand holding has moved well beyond the point of being merely a private, personal gesture among (let’s say for example) married couples or siblings. The reality is that the expression this gesture has taken-on is one of a corporate gesture involving the entire congregation (with a few individual exceptions). It has moved beyond being merely hand-holding and it has evolved (or devolved) into lifting the hands up for everyone to see, and culminating in a sort of “group wave” during the doxology after the Our Father. There is no doubt that the gesture has been imposed on many people who object to it; hand-holders will grab and forcibly hold the hands of neighbors with no regard to the other’s sensibilities (this is a fact, not an absolute, but it is widespread). Hand-holders will step out into the aisles and join with those on the other side.
The problem here is that many (not all, but many) young Catholics (whether young in age, or new to the Church) are being initiated into the “proper” way to behave at Mass and are being told, either in direct words and teaching, or by example, or simply as a matter of conformity, that the proper and expected gesture for the Our Father is to hold hands. And that is why it has become unacceptable, and that is why the practice has become a liturgical abuse. It would not be an abuse if it were done privately or unobtrusively by a few people. But that’s simply not the reality we’re dealing with.

The very fact that so many Catholics are discussing this matter stands as testament that it has indeed become an unwritten (and illicit) rubric in so many places, and among so many groups.

If you are saying that it is appropriate for the priest to, now and again, point out that this or that increasingly widespread practice is nevertheless not part of the rubrics and therefore not expected of any who don’t care to do it, I agree with that.

If you are saying that it is likewise appropriate for the priest to give pastoral direction when this or that private practice is becoming an obstacle to the recollection of others or overall propriety of during the Mass–for instance, to ask that worshipers remain in their own places during the Our Father and the Sign of Peace, in order to better maintain a reverent atmosphere–then I agree with that, too.

It is just as appropriate for the priest to ask that people not wave their hands or leave their places during the Our Father as it would for him to ask that people not grab the processional cross to kiss it as it passes by or throw rose petals in the aisle that the Altar Society will have to clean up later. This is not about hand-holding, per se, but about the point at which permissible private variations in posture or gesture cross the line by disrupting the intended flow of the liturgy itself.

Yes, I can get on board with that.

 

[Aramis]

No, but you must also consider the word “arbitrary”. Some here have said that the practice of holding hands was something spontaneous from the laity. Therefore, it is not an arbitrary action by a priest and this section does not apply. In fact, I have never heard a priest give instructions to hold hands.

I have. Exact wording was “I invite you to join hands, as we pray together to Our Father…”

 

[pnewton]

I have. Exact wording was “I invite you to join hands, as we pray together to Our Father…”

Well that priest sure made his opinion known.

 

[otjm]

An observation:

People who are opposed to holding hands during the Our Father are quoting official, authoritative Church documents to support their position, as well as (sometimes) their own sentiments on the matter.People who support (or simply do not oppose) hand-holding during the Our Father make primarily arguments from sentiment or arguments from silence (it’s not specifically forbidden therfore it’s allowed
The argument against hand holding is to say (in paraphrase) the Church has said that no one may add, remove, or change anything in the Sacred Liturgy on his own authority. Therefore if we add the practice of holding hands, in the complete absence of any such authority, we are thereby violating the norms of the Church
The argument for hand holding is to say that it is a form of inculturation and/or to say that if it’s not specifically forbidden it is permitted or at the very least tolerated. Rome has never specifically said that the practice is forbidden, in spite of many inquiries.

Am I right so far? Is that a fair summary? I’ve made an honest attempt to summarize both points of view objectively. I hope I have done so fairly.

Inculturation must be proposed by the conferences of bishops and ultimately approved by the Holy See. This has not happened with regard to holding hands.

The argument from silence does not hold water, because the position of “silence” cannot be reconciled to the constant, consistent, and abundant statements found in the official laws of the Church which clearly forbid any additions to the Liturgy on ones own authority.

If there were a absence of laws specifically forbidding additions on one’s own authority, or if those laws could somehow be interpreted as vague, I would be willing to concede the point.

Given the abundance of times that the statement of Sacrosanctum Concilium #22 has been repeated and paraphrased by the Holy See, given the context of many of them, and given the fact that the Church has never quailified this statement by saying something to the effect of “unless it’s not a big deal…” (if you’ll pardon my use of eccleastical English!) The only conclusion we can arive at is to say that no additions to the Mass, no matter how insignificant they may seem, are permitted without the approval of the Holy See.

I would again point to Archbishop Chaput, someone who appears to have had a bit mortraining in both Canon and liturgical law than you have. You might read what he has to say; and he is not one to ignore the documents you keep trying to say apply, nor is he a pick - and - choose type of bishop. Your understanding of the documents and what they were aimed at, as well as the history of the issue vis-a-vsi the bishops and Rome, and in particular their request for direction, leaves you without anything to stand on other than that the docuents which they understand - and you refuse to - do not apply. In short, the bishops get it. You don’t. They understand the documents Rome has issued simply are not aimed at this issue.

And if you think I am simply blowing smoke - take a look at the response to the dubium submitted by Cardinal George concerning the issue of whether or not the congregation must stand after receiving Communion until all have received. Rome’s answer - no; they were welcome to sit, or to kneel, and Rome did not intend to be so rigid in terms of posture. And since Rome has specifically not responded to repeated requests concerning hand holding, by analogy and common sense - that latter we can all agree is not common - Rome has not intended to be so rigid as to dictate the posture of our hands during the Our Father.

Let’s get over being anal about it. I can agree that it is distracting to those who don’t like it. I agree whole-heartedly with the Archbishop that no one should impose either postion on others; if you don’t wnat to hold hands you should be free to not do so, and no one should make any comment - verbal or otherwise - concerning your desire to not do so. and anyone who diesires to hold someone’s hadn during the prayer should be able to do so without being criticized for “adding” anything. Nothing has been “added”. Get over it. Rome is not into micro-managing your posture during this prayer. You are. From that, you should take a hint.

 

[Walking_Home]

Except “laity” is not an any one and therein lies a problem with no easy solution at least on a local level. If this thing evolved, as some have said, I can see how it could happen. So does a priest forbid holding hands in Mass, period? Perhaps one must be related to hold hands?

I don’t know the best way to proceed, if I were a priest in question, but I do know the directives from Rome offer a great opportunity to catechize and effect changes, from a purely practical standpoint.

---

Gee pnewton —not sure where you got that one --laity not being included in the anyone. Anyone is anyone–any person —you, me, the person next to you in Mass --we are all laity are we not.
It seems you are trying to play a numbers game-- if it involves more than one – well then what the Church says does not apply.

 

[Walking_Home]

I would again point to Archbishop Chaput, someone who appears to have had a bit mortraining in both Canon and liturgical law than you have. You might read what he has to say; and he is not one to ignore the documents you keep trying to say apply, nor is he a pick - and - choose type of bishop. Your understanding of the documents and what they were aimed at, as well as the history of the issue vis-a-vsi the bishops and Rome, and in particular their request for direction, leaves you without anything to stand on other than that the docuents which they understand - and you refuse to - do not apply. In short, the bishops get it. You don’t. They understand the documents Rome has issued simply are not aimed at this issue.

And if you think I am simply blowing smoke - take a look at the response to the dubium submitted by Cardinal George concerning the issue of whether or not the congregation** must stand after receiving Communion until all have received. Rome’s answer - no; they were welcome to sit, or to kneel, and Rome did not intend to be so rigid in terms of posture**. And since Rome has specifically not responded to repeated requests concerning hand holding, by analogy and common sense - that latter we can all agree is not common - Rome has not intended to be so rigid as to dictate the posture of our hands during the Our Father.

Let’s get over being anal about it. I can agree that it is distracting to those who don’t like it. I agree whole-heartedly with the Archbishop that no one should impose either postion on others; if you don’t wnat to hold hands you should be free to not do so, and no one should make any comment - verbal or otherwise - concerning your desire to not do so. and anyone who diesires to hold someone’s hadn during the prayer should be able to do so without being criticized for “adding” anything. Nothing has been “added”. Get over it. Rome is not into micro-managing your posture during this prayer. You are. From that, you should take a hint.

---

otjm —that was a response to a specific question dealing with what can be done after receiving communion. Rome’s answer was to that one issue. Can’t really take the response to that one issue and apply it to other areas --where the Church Herself did not apply it to.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

The Church has chosen where to be less rigid.

Posture of the laity is one of those areas. Have you read any of the documents on inculturization?

The only specific instruction on posture of the laity coming from Rome was to allow the laity to ignore the prescribed posture for reception of Holy Communion in the US. Obviously posture of the laity is not considered abusive.

Lux