Holding Hands At The Our Father

[Spem in alium]

My mother started encouraging my family to hold hands during the Our Father probably about a year ago. I don't feel exceptionally comfortable with it - I prefer to clasp my hands together prayerfully - but I tolerate it because I'm with my family.

[Maggyie]

there's really no rule against holding hands at the Our Father- or putting your hands in the air like you just don't care. Or folding your hands like I do.

[HisChildForever]

The most annoying part is when everyone puts their hands higher for the part of Our Father after the priest talks.

 

Yeah I don't get what this is about.

[PhuturePriest]

there's really no rule against holding hands at the Our Father- or putting your hands in the air like you just don't care. Or folding your hands like I do.

 

It's not in the rubrics. If it's not in the rubrics, you're not suppose to do it. That's of course a general statement and there are things not in the rubrics which are permitted (Such as having someone make an announcement at the end of Mass or something of that nature), but that's different than changing postures during the Mass itself.

[Maggyie]

It's not in the rubrics. If it's not in the rubrics, you're not suppose to do it. That's of course a general statement and there are things not in the rubrics which are permitted (Such as having someone make an announcement at the end of Mass or something of that nature), but that's different than changing postures during the Mass itself.

 

In the United States, it's the custom to kneel when you get back to your pew after receiving Holy Communion. It's also the custom to kneel at the Agnus Dei.

 

Do you know, that's not in the rubrics?

 

In Rome, they stand all the way through the Agnus Dei and after receiving our Lord, they get back to their pews and stand all the way through the Communion rite. That's the more reverent way according to the Church, it's the way it's "supposed" to be done.

 

Our old bishop made a big effort to prevent kneeling after receiving holy communion or at the Agnus Dei because it's not technically correct. Many traditionalists objected, but this was an interesting circumstance where they were squarely on the "wrong" side of an issue.

 

Our bishop eventually backed off; while it's the official policy that everyone in the diocese should stand throughout the rite, no one yells at you if you kneel.

 

Just as no one should be too harshly criticized when holding hands at the Pater Noster. The rubrics rarely concern themselves with the posture of the laity. The laity are not completely extraneous to the liturgy of course but from the perspective of the rubric, they almost are.

[jim111]

Why should it be discouraged? As far as I can tell it is not against any rules, and seems to be a legitimate local form of inculturation.

 
22.3 Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Second Vatican Council, in the decree Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
 
"It is not the individual priest or layman or the group that celebrates the liturgy, but it is primarily God's action through the Church, which has its own history, its rich tradition and creativity. This universality and fundamental openness, which is characteristic of the entire liturgy is one of the reasons why it cannot be created or amended by the individual community or by experts, but must be faithful to the forms of the universal Church."
 Pope Benedict
 

Catholicism is supposed to be a communicable organism.
What about a Christian Kiss to each other during the Peace?
What would St. Francis do?
And why can't my St Bernard go to Mass?

 

"So it is the "whole Christ" , throughout the Community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates. Thus the liturgy is not a kind of "self-manifestation" of a community, but it is emerging from the simple "being-oneself", being closed in on ourselves, and accessing the great banquet, entering the great living community in which God nourishes us. The liturgy implies universality and our awareness of this universal character must always be renewed"
Pope Benedict

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

In the United States, it's the custom to kneel when you get back to your pew after receiving Holy Communion. It's also the custom to kneel at the Agnus Dei.

 

Do you know, that's not in the rubrics?

 

In Rome, they stand all the way through the Agnus Dei and after receiving our Lord, they get back to their pews and stand all the way through the Communion rite. That's the more reverent way according to the Church, it's the way it's "supposed" to be done.

 

Our old bishop made a big effort to prevent kneeling after receiving holy communion or at the Agnus Dei because it's not technically correct. Many traditionalists objected, but this was an interesting circumstance where they were squarely on the "wrong" side of an issue.

 

Our bishop eventually backed off; while it's the official policy that everyone in the diocese should stand throughout the rite, no one yells at you if you kneel.

 

Just as no one should be too harshly criticized when holding hands at the Pater Noster. The rubrics rarely concern themselves with the posture of the laity. The laity are not completely extraneous to the liturgy of course but from the perspective of the rubric, they almost are.

 

 

 

 

I was lead to believe that church doctrine somewhere actually says you don't have to kneel or stand at all, that it is all optional, you can kneel whenever you wan't to, or stand, or sit. There's is no actual doctrine on standing,sitting or kneeling, except what i have stated.

 

Onward christian souls.

JESUS is LORD.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[HisChildForever]

In the United States, it's the custom to kneel when you get back to your pew after receiving Holy Communion. It's also the custom to kneel at the Agnus Dei.

 

Do you know, that's not in the rubrics?

 

In Rome, they stand all the way through the Agnus Dei and after receiving our Lord, they get back to their pews and stand all the way through the Communion rite. That's the more reverent way according to the Church, it's the way it's "supposed" to be done.

 

Our old bishop made a big effort to prevent kneeling after receiving holy communion or at the Agnus Dei because it's not technically correct. Many traditionalists objected, but this was an interesting circumstance where they were squarely on the "wrong" side of an issue.

 

Our bishop eventually backed off; while it's the official policy that everyone in the diocese should stand throughout the rite, no one yells at you if you kneel.

 

Just as no one should be too harshly criticized when holding hands at the Pater Noster. The rubrics rarely concern themselves with the posture of the laity. The laity are not completely extraneous to the liturgy of course but from the perspective of the rubric, they almost are.

 

Interesting - why is it considered more reverent to stand after communion?

[TheLordsSouljah]

I don't really like touching people during mass. The most annoying part is when everyone puts their hands higher for the part of Our Father after the priest talks. 

 

I dont really like Baptists either. 

 

 

Yeah I don't get what this is about.

My mother is Charismatic and so I have been to many Charismatic Masses. The reason for raising the hands is somewhat because of the words announced: 'For the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are Yours, now and forever'. It is a sign of lifting up and giving over of any of these.... 'Not to us Lord, not to us, but to thee be the glory' (no idea where that quote is from.)

Sorry for the bad explanation, but this is my understanding of it.

 

I understand what people mean by focusing on God especially at this point, but I can really imagine more the early Christians doing this as part of their worship.

 

There are some that take on the 'orantes' posture of the priest, which I think is not appropriate for the lay (at least during Mass), but some have their hands facing not the altar (like a cross), but rather like a child asking from his father. 

[TheLordsSouljah]

 
22.3 Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Second Vatican Council, in the decree Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
 
"It is not the individual priest or layman or the group that celebrates the liturgy, but it is primarily God's action through the Church, which has its own history, its rich tradition and creativity. This universality and fundamental openness, which is characteristic of the entire liturgy is one of the reasons why it cannot be created or amended by the individual community or by experts, but must be faithful to the forms of the universal Church."
 Pope Benedict
 

 

I have absolutely no problem with this, and wholeheartedly agree. However, this is not the issue. We are talking about something that has no specifications. That's why this is Phatmass thread, because generally we don't argue about set faith and morals (hehe, unless we are either bored or heretical). If we are not meant to do anything with our hands, then perhaps we should have them hanging by our sides? We see statues of Our Lady, our beautiful model of prayer and holiness have many different hand positions.

Does the Church say anything that our hands should be folded? Just for speculation's sake. If the Church does happen to directly say that we must not have extended hands, then I will definitely discourage it in the future.

[Papist]

there's really no rule against holding hands at the Our Father- or putting your hands in the air like you just don't care. Or folding your hands like I do.

 

There's also is no rule against many things that ought not be done in Mass. Just b/c something is not explicitly in the GIRM to not do does not give us a license to do it.

[Maggyie]

Interesting - why is it considered more reverent to stand after communion?

 

It's 100% cultural context, just like kneeling is. Kneeling is considered a reverent posture in some (mostly western) places because it developed as a social gesture of humility and self-effacement (see also the development of the curtsey).

 

In other cultures kneeling is meaningless. In Eastern Christianity in particular kneeling lacks the implications it has in the west.

 

Standing has its own meaning as a posture of respect as I'm sure you know (standing during the Gospel at a Roman rite mass, or standing through the whole Divine Liturgy in an Eastern rite mass).

 

In the GIRM it states that the laity are to stand from the Offertory until the end of the Mass, except for kneeling during the Consecration. Maybe the thought process is to emphasize the specialness of the Consecration by restricting kneeling to that time? There is an optional indult in the Untied States to allow for the local custom of kneeling at the Angus Dei and after communion- but it's an indult, the same as the indult that allows communion in the hand. The universal, and always correct rule. is to stand.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: "Let us offer each other the sign of peace" should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226.  [Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]

 

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

 

It is an inappropriate "sign," since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.

 

It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II's "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

 

This gesture has come into widespread use, often leaving bishops and pastors at a loss as to how to reverse the situation. For individuals, I would recommend closed eyes and a prayerful posture as sufficient response, rather than belligerence. Most laity, and probably many priests, are blind to the liturgical significance of interrupting the flow of the Mass in this way. It is not necessary to lose one's peace over this or be an irritation to others. Some proportion is required. If asked why you don't participate, simply, plainly and charitably tell the questioner of your discovery. If some chance of changing the practice is possible talk to the pastor or work with other laity through the parish council. You can also write the bishop, as is your right in the case of any liturgical abuse not resolved at the parish level. If your judgment is that no change is possible then I believe you are excused from further fraternal correction.

Nice theory, but this is all conjecture. You made up the part about it being a sign of communion, and it is your own private opinion that signs of unity are inappropriate during the Our Father.

 

I see no straightforward reading of any church document that is plainly intended to discourage holding hands at this point. You guys have read a lot, and I mean a whole lot, into all the texts you have proposed to support your position that holding hands is bad. If it is really that bad, I find it strange that Rome has turned a completely blind eye.

 

Think of it this way: the wrongful practice of holding hands goes completely unchecked by both the local bishops conference and Rome, and the faithful is saved from this practice only by the vocal outcry of conservative Catholic bloggers? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Papist]

Nice theory, but this is all conjecture. You made up the part about it being a sign of communion, and it is your own private opinion that signs of unity are inappropriate during the Our Father.

 

I see no straightforward reading of any church document that is plainly intended to discourage holding hands at this point. You guys have read a lot, and I mean a whole lot, into all the texts you have proposed to support your position that holding hands is bad. If it is really that bad, I find it strange that Rome has turned a completely blind eye.

 

Think of it this way: the wrongful practice of holding hands goes completely unchecked by both the local bishops conference and Rome, and the faithful is saved from this practice only by the vocal outcry of conservative Catholic bloggers? Doesn't make sense to me.

Ok. Why do people hold hands during the Lord's Prayer? Why does a complete stranger reach out to hold my hand? Where is it in the instruction? 

 

PS - I am not a "conservative Catholic blogger"

[Maggyie]

Ok. Why do people hold hands during the Lord's Prayer? Why does a complete stranger reach out to hold my hand? Where is it in the instruction? 

 

PS - I am not a "conservative Catholic blogger"

 

Why do you kneel after Holy Communion? That isn't in the instruction either.

 

People probably hold hands at the Our Father for the same reasons why you kneel.

 

Because that's the tradition of their family/parish/school, because it helps their hearts pray more effectively, etc etc etc etc

 

You don't have to touch strangers if you don't want to - I don't hold hands either. But the Church has nothing to say yet condemning this practice and it's not the business of the laity to go around policing each others non- proscribed postures at Mass.

 

I remember at my childhood parish we had a new pastor who tried to stop the hand-holding by teaching the people to do the orans position. Did this satisfy anyone? no, instead of accusing people of being touchy-feely hippies, they simply switched to accusing them of priest-envy. Especially the women who did the orans position - these were supposedly wanna-be female priests. Leaving aside that the orans position is in no way restricted to priests (another non-existent rule that the liturgy police made up).

 

And I used to be the liturgy police!!! I used to care sooo much what other worshipers were doing. I watched them like a hawk, and I was a true connoisseur of Masses, I could basically write a review every Sunday of what was pleasingly traditional and what was poorly done about that week's Mass. Then I came to understand that the "New York Times Review of Holy Masses" approach to the Eucharist was withering me spiritually. And I also was fairly uneducated, because sometimes the traditionalist perspective is not even correct when it comes to the rubrics.

 

When and if the Church gets around to setting the laity's postures in stone, then there will be case to be made against hand-holding. But I suspect it will be a while because the Church has bigger liturgical fish in the frying pan.