Yet another hand holding question

[Lisa44]

I recommend a book written by Thomas Day, titled “Why Catholics Can’t Sing”. In it he quotes an elderly woman’s response when someone reached for her hand at the kiss of peace. She curtly responded, “I don’t believe in that sh*t”. In fact, Day devotes–and names–an entire chapter after her quote. Humor of course, but I know others who feel the same way but don’t have the guts to hold their ground.

Thank you for the book recommendation.

 

[elgar]

I just wish I knew why we could not ‘drop’ this ‘innovation’ of hand-holding in Mass.

Can’t we spend one hour without ‘having’ to hold hands because somewhere, sometime about 35 or 40 years ago, some people decided Mass wasn’t ‘relevant enough’ and we needed to ‘be church by touching each other’ and ever since, people keep doing it?

I’ll shake your hand after Mass (even when it hurts my shoulder). I’ll hug you after Mass for half an hour or** more** if that’s what you need. I’ll gather round the donut station holding hands with the entire congregation and sing Kum Ba Yah. . .if it is AFTER MASS.

Why, why, why can’t all the ‘extras’ and additions be done AFTER MASS??

(in case you can’t tell, I recently moved. My otherwise lovely parish and lovely priest have --unfortunately for me–at some point made it ‘mandatory’ that everybody holds hands for the Our Father. I stand off to the side, hands wrapped around prayerbook and eyes tightly shut and so far I haven’t had my shoulder/arm/hand pulled, thank goodness–but why do I have to have that worry of possible physical pain, and certainly why do have the of being ‘outside the group’ when this whole hand holding is not mandatory and should not be?)

My rector purposely stays at the altar during the exchange of peace. He has stated several times he is not a “touchy-feely” type, but he allows everyone else to exchange handshakes, hugs, kisses, etc. When things go on excessively, he clears his throat. Time to switch gears and concentrate on the Mass.

Really, how many times do you need to say “good morning” anyway? I’ve seen it in both Catholic and Protestant settings where you get greeted before, during and after. This is so ostensively shallow. Applause is another pet peeve of mine but another topic for another thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy-
The definition of stranger is ‘a person with whom one has no personnal aquaintance.’

Whether they are Christians or not, I still don’t know them.

Especially since the only Catholic I know is my husband. I went to Mass by myself, literally everyone was a stranger to me.

There are many reasons a person may not want to hold hands during Mass. For me it mainly disrupts the experience for me, turning my attention to an awkward social gesture with someone I’ve never met before.

Am I OK with greeting Christians I have never met before (aka strangers) with a kiss or embrace. No, I’m really not. I think that I would reserve that for Christians who I knew, and was comfortable with, and with whom such acts of affection felt appropriate.

I read your quotes from the bible as they mostly relate to a “holy kiss”. Most of the contexts for those instructions are very specific in that the letter is describing certain people or saints who are coming to those people to preach. They are to greet them warmly, ie: a holy kiss.

Also, the holy kiss has been adapted in our times as the handshake as its not our custom to kiss people.

Lets try not to take the bible out of context and use it as a prop for our own liturgical adaptations. If Pope Benedict says we must hold hands then I’ll believe him. Otherwise, I’ll ask my Priest about it and see what he says.

I never said that you should kiss people. I was just pointing out that the idea of physically greeting other Christians is not foreign to the Scriptures. If you’re going to argue that the Bible doesn’t say you should hold hands, OK, but then you’re stuck with the fact that the Bible does say you should kiss. The truth is, holding hands is not specified by the rubrics–all this holy kissing stuff was, after all, nothing other than directions from bishops–and you don’t have to hold hands where the rubrics don’t specify that you should. If the Church were to add hand-holding to the rubrics, though, you would find no refuge from it in the Scriptures.

The word “stranger” does not simply apply to someone you are not acquainted with. It also carries the connotation of being someone outside your family, circle, or group. The mere fact of baptism makes a person our brother or sister, one with us in the Body of Christ. This is a very intimate bond, one that supercedes the lack of other introductions.

But, there is no reason to quibble about that. Consider this directive:
“Love your fellow Christian always. Do not neglect to show hospitality, for by that means some have entertained angels without knowing it.” Heb. 13:1-2

Or, more importantly:
“…I was a stranger, and you welcomed Me…” from Matt. 25:31-46

At Mass at the very least, if nowhere else, all should be welcomed as Christ.

 

[Matt33]

It is so odd, how people can freak out about a word that they just want to make a point. Fine instead of stranger how about someone with whom you have no previous acquantance. Geesh, I think we all know what the poster meant. lets move on.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is so odd, how people can freak out about a word that they just want to make a point. Fine instead of stranger how about someone with whom you have no previous acquantance. Geesh, I think we all know what the poster meant. lets move on.

My point is that we shouldn’t differentiate between people at Mass based on how familiar we are with them. We should do for those with whom we are well-acquainted the same that we would do for those with whom we are not acquainted. Equal hospitality should be the rule.

This is actually a good reason not to have hand-holding during Mass. It isn’t unusual for people to feel that touch more intimate than a brief handshake requires prior acquaintance.

There used to be an old rule that “the roof consitutes an introduction”…meaning, if you met someone at a party to which you were both invited, you need not wait to be formally introduced, but should feel free to introduce yourselves. The Church is like that: her roof constitutes an introduction.

 

[Matt33]

yup we all should be freindly.

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Applause is another pet peeve of mine but another topic for another thread.

I would like to applaud that particular statement so please let me know when you start that thread elgar

  ***********************

I don’t think Pope Benedict is going to be forcing the handshake/kiss/sign of peace too soon on anyone. In the Roman Missal, the rubrics say :

Then the deacon (or the priest) **may **add :

Let us offer each other the sign of peace.

I also know a priest who isn’t really “touchy-feely” friendly. When he was moved to a new parish, he decided to leave out the sign of peace, which, according to the missal, is his prerogative. At the end of the Mass some of the parishoners came up to him saying, “Father, you didn’t say the Mass right…You made a mistake…You forgot to say let us offer the sign of peace”.

 

[Georgia]

Be friendly; be charitable; be decent. BUT, it does seem we are getting a little to touchy-feely at Mass.

We have two nearby parishes and my work schedule sometimes sends me to the one a little farther from my house. It starts with a “Stand and greet one another” just before the opening procession. Everyone smiles and shakes hands. Later, we get to the Our Father and most everyone holds hands. Not us. I feel that leads to the orans posture for those without a fellow hand holder and it seems to me that it is specifically reserved for the celebrant. (Canon law mentions never doing gestures that are reserved for the celebrant and that seems to be one.) Then, there is the sign of peace. After Mass is over, there is applause, never mind what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said about applause for liturgical functions, and we get to go. At our regular parish, we only have the interaction in the hand holding for the Our Father and hand shaking for the sign of peace. We go along with the latter and not with the former.

Call me crusty or old fashioned and you would be right, but it seems to take some of the dignity from the Mass when you have have all that directed at one another. I know, yes, I am a to-the-core Southern guy and we are never allowed to show emotion unless the house is on fire and then only briefly, so everything I wrote should be taken with a grain of salt.

My sons, my wife and I do the Our Father with palms together, fingers straight and our thumbs crossed. If anyone sticks out a hand on either side, we just look ahead. It works and no one is embarrassed. We just don’t feel comfortable with the hand holding.

 

[otjm]

Later, we get to the Our Father and most everyone holds hands. Not us. I feel that leads to the orans posture for those without a fellow hand holder and it seems to me that it is specifically reserved for the celebrant. (Canon law mentions never doing gestures that are reserved for the celebrant and that seems to be one.)
My sons, my wife and I do the Our Father with palms together, fingers straight and our thumbs crossed.

This is not meant to pick, but to respond to the comment about the orans posture being specific to the priest.

This comment has been made elswhere by others. It might be pointed out that the rubrics also have the priest holding his hands in the posture you and your family hold them; that would be a “sauce for the goose is suace for the gander” proposition that would have to exclude the position you hold your hands. I don’t think most people want to go down that path; they only want to go down a path that supports their position. The orans posture is used specifically by the priest, but it is not as if it is something new; the Psalms refer to the posture for prayer, and the Psalm (I think it is 141, but this is on the fly) is not written as if a priest were saying it; it was a common prayer. So considering the fact that there are little in the way of directions in the GIRM for the laity anywhere through the Mass in terms of hand position and none specifically for the Our Father through two generations of the GIRM since it started, it would seem your hand position is perfectly acceptible; and while the orans posture is not as common as yours (palms together), it is a matter that has been acknowledged by Rome with a deafening silence in terms of rules written.

The hand holding issue seems to create a great amount of ire among a relatively small group of people; and there have been incidents which would indicate that there is a small group of hand holders who also get somewhat heated up about it. The great majority of people don’t seem to have an issue about it one way or another.

And as Archbishop Chaput has said, the issue should be dealt with by charity on all sides of the issue.

 

[NeedImprovement]

My main beef, I think, is that the hand holding and the sign of peace become a distraction to me. …distraction from what ? is the logical question. At those moments I’m trying to condentrate on Jesus present in the Eucharist. I find those things really break my concentration.

When I was younger, every summer I’d develop quite a pronounced rash up the side of the thumb and forefinger and on the curve that the two form. It hung around for most of the summer and only occasionally went away with the help of some prescription creams. It was right on a section where the hand makes contact with another. Now that was a distraction. The discomfort of the rash, wondering whether my fellow parishoner(s) would notice during the sign of peace…not wanting to take a chane I might transfer some rash-causing agent to someone else.

I can’t use that one as an excuse any more because it has resolved itself, but it messed me up concentration - wise, at the Mass for at least 7 or 8 years.

I blame the Beatles !! None of this was occurring until after they had recorded and released “I Wanna Hold Your Hand.”
:D

 

[BSHoop96]

This is not meant to pick, but to respond to the comment about the orans posture being specific to the priest.

This comment has been made elswhere by others. It might be pointed out that the rubrics also have the priest holding his hands in the posture you and your family hold them; that would be a “sauce for the goose is suace for the gander” proposition that would have to exclude the position you hold your hands. I don’t think most people want to go down that path; they only want to go down a path that supports their position. The orans posture is used specifically by the priest, but it is not as if it is something new; the Psalms refer to the posture for prayer, and the Psalm (I think it is 141, but this is on the fly) is not written as if a priest were saying it; it was a common prayer. So considering the fact that there are little in the way of directions in the GIRM for the laity anywhere through the Mass in terms of hand position and none specifically for the Our Father through two generations of the GIRM since it started, it would seem your hand position is perfectly acceptible; and while the orans posture is not as common as yours (palms together), it is a matter that has been acknowledged by Rome with a deafening silence in terms of rules written.

The hand holding issue seems to create a great amount of ire among a relatively small group of people; and there have been incidents which would indicate that there is a small group of hand holders who also get somewhat heated up about it. The great majority of people don’t seem to have an issue about it one way or another.

And as Archbishop Chaput has said, the issue should be dealt with by charity on all sides of the issue.

Don’t the rubrics specify that while the priest is in the orans position during the Our Father that the Deacon is not?

While what the laity are doing at that time is not spoken to specifically it has been stated that we should not do the gestures of the priest. In addition, I would think that it would be safe to assume that if the Deacon is not to do so, maybe we shouldn’t either.

 

[liturgyboy]

Looking at GIRM 95

Thus, [the laity] are to shun any appearance of individualism or division keeping in their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.

Thus, if we are to follow the rubrics we are to suck it up and to follow suite with the congregation.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Looking at GIRM 95

Thus, [the laity] are to shun any appearance of individualism or division keeping in their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.

Thus, if we are to follow the rubrics we are to suck it up and to follow suite with the congregation.

So if the presider instructs the faithful to stick their baby finger in their nostril and pat themselves on the head with the opposite hand while bowing to their neighbor…then we have to do it ?

 

[otjm]

Don’t the rubrics specify that while the priest is in the orans position during the Our Father that the Deacon is not?

While what the laity are doing at that time is not spoken to specifically it has been stated that we should not do the gestures of the priest. In addition, I would think that it would be safe to assume that if the Deacon is not to do so, maybe we shouldn’t either.

I don’t question the rubric you note. Just read what I wrote…

The whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot, and the tempest has been blowing for more than 40 years. I don’t have a dog in the fight; I am really not concerned about whether we hold hands or don’t hold hands. There are so many larger fish to fry, that I simply sit on the sidelines and watch, when I need some amusement.

There simply is no clear rubric about holding hands, and the “gestures of the priest” is vague enough that one could run a truck through it. If Rome came out tomorrow and banned holding hands, my day, my Mass, my equilibrium would most definitely not be upset.

On the other hand, if Rome came out tomorrow and said that all must hold hands during the Our Father, I would do so, and (shame on me) I would find a wee bit of delight in the angst that would follow. OK, so I have a spot that probably needs some correction; but in the scale of what goes on in the world, it is a never ending source of amazement of how much angst and ink gets spilled because someone is holding hands.

Maybe it is just the fact that I was in a war; people tried to kill me and I succeeded in causing other people’s death, that I have a slightly different perspective. I am so glad to go to Mass, I just flat out don’t care if people hold hands or not. There really are other more important matters in life; this really is not on the radar screen. Get shot at a few times, and one will start to set priorties a bit differently than those who sit and pick at what then seem to be nits.

Don’t get me wrong; I grew up before Vatican 2; I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I really don’t want the bad, and the ugly speaks for itself. But there is far more good than many wish to admit. There really are more important things than getting one’s own way, whether that way is “by the books” or is just something that one prefers. By the books is fine; I don’t complain about that. But when it is not just exactly so, and particularly when just exactly so is not spelled out, I can overlook it; there are more important fish to fry, as I said.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

OTJM,

Agreed, and a great post.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Don’t the rubrics specify that while the priest is in the orans position during the Our Father that the Deacon is not?

While what the laity are doing at that time is not spoken to specifically it has been stated that we should not do the gestures of the priest. In addition, I would think that it would be safe to assume that if the Deacon is not to do so, maybe we shouldn’t either.

This instruction is so as not to be confused with the celebrant. If you are on the altar vested, you should not mimic the priestly gestures. There is very little mention of gestures for the congregation, and it is not considered an abuse, if they are not followed. A lay person may not know the instruction.

It is far more distracting and should not be done when the words of the Eucharistic prayer are said with the priest, as many good people do.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

So if the presider instructs the faithful to stick their baby finger in their nostril and pat themselves on the head with the opposite hand while bowing to their neighbor…then we have to do it ?

You know that is a red herring and has no bearing on this situation.

 

[Apryl]

Applause is another pet peeve of mine but another topic for another thread.

You, too? uch:

I don’t know when that came into vogue, but no one can explain that one.

Gimme a couple of days: I’m gonna start that thread (not to mention: talk it up at my church!):clapping:

 

[Joe_5859]

My sons, my wife and I do the Our Father with palms together, fingers straight and our thumbs crossed. If anyone sticks out a hand on either side, we just look ahead. It works and no one is embarrassed. We just don’t feel comfortable with the hand holding.

Your comment made me think of something. I think it’s easier for families to avoid the hand-holding without hurt feelings than it is for individuals. If an individual refuses to participate, it can be taken as unfriendly. If a family doesn’t do it, well, then it’s just not their thing. After all, if a guy’s not holding hands with his own wife and children, why would I be offended that he’s not holding hands with me?

 

[BSHoop96]

I don’t question the rubric you note. Just read what I wrote…

The whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot, and the tempest has been blowing for more than 40 years. I don’t have a dog in the fight; I am really not concerned about whether we hold hands or don’t hold hands. There are so many larger fish to fry, that I simply sit on the sidelines and watch, when I need some amusement.

There simply is no clear rubric about holding hands, and the “gestures of the priest” is vague enough that one could run a truck through it. If Rome came out tomorrow and banned holding hands, my day, my Mass, my equilibrium would most definitely not be upset.

On the other hand, if Rome came out tomorrow and said that all must hold hands during the Our Father, I would do so, and (shame on me) I would find a wee bit of delight in the angst that would follow. OK, so I have a spot that probably needs some correction; but in the scale of what goes on in the world, it is a never ending source of amazement of how much angst and ink gets spilled because someone is holding hands.

Maybe it is just the fact that I was in a war; people tried to kill me and I succeeded in causing other people’s death, that I have a slightly different perspective. I am so glad to go to Mass, I just flat out don’t care if people hold hands or not. There really are other more important matters in life; this really is not on the radar screen. Get shot at a few times, and one will start to set priorties a bit differently than those who sit and pick at what then seem to be nits.

Don’t get me wrong; I grew up before Vatican 2; I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I really don’t want the bad, and the ugly speaks for itself. But there is far more good than many wish to admit. There really are more important things than getting one’s own way, whether that way is “by the books” or is just something that one prefers. By the books is fine; I don’t complain about that. But when it is not just exactly so, and particularly when just exactly so is not spelled out, I can overlook it; there are more important fish to fry, as I said.

otjm…actually I would agree with the main point of your argument…there are much bigger fish to fry…that is why I do hold hands in my hand-holding parish. However, the reason I sometimes get in this discussion is that “where does this stuff end”? Yes, the instructions in the rubrics are pretty broad but 50 years ago that sufficed…no one would think of introducing these things into the Mass. I want to stay in the “Catholic” church…not a hand-holding, arms raised, amen shouting, guitar-playing, liturgical skit/dance performing, female priest and/or laity-presided “symbolism” Mass where someone might next decide an altar call would be nice. Now I realize this is, of course, an exaggerated description but considering that I heard in RCIA the other day a discussion about 70+ percentage of Catholics not believing in the real presence I think it’s pretty important we hold fast from one end of the spectrum to the other.