Holding Hands during the Our Father

[Oneofthewomen]

Originally Posted by adrift

Did you miss this in the answer?

No, I did not, and that is not the answer.
This is the question to & answer from the CDW

QUERY: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon's invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord's Prayer. Is this acceptable? REPLY: 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.]

everything else is the OPINION AND INTERPRETATION of Mr. Donovan for EWTN.

As I said, one can only look to the answer for the question which was asked.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by Oneofthewomen

No, I did not, and that is not the answer.
This is the question to & answer from the CDW

everything else is the OPINION AND INTERPRETATION of Mr. Donovan for EWTN.

As I said, one can only look to the answer for the question which was asked.

The answer gave reasons.

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.

Just because it addressed the question of being replaced does not make it irrelevant. Holding of hands is not in the rubrics.

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.

1) 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.

2) 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.

It may be his personnal opinion but it is based on the reasons given.
When you say

And as I said before "apples & oranges

that means that they are unalike but that simply is not true. The reasons given apply to both.

[Oneofthewomen]

Originally Posted by adrift

The answer gave reasons.


Just because it addressed the question of being replaced does not make it irrelevant. Holding of hands is not in the rubrics.


It may be his personnal opinion but it is based on the reasons given.
When you say that means that they are unalike but that simply is not true. The reasons given apply to both.

This was posted originally in this thread as a means to say that the church "disapproved" the holding of hands during the Our Father.
The fact is, it does not. That was not the question asked, and therefore,
while everything that Mr. Donovon says may be true, it is still only his opinion.
He is extrapolating out of an answer what he wants it to say.
This is not what the Church says.

[thewanderer]

I have a question for "traditional" catholics concerning this. I have heard from so many traditional catholics that tradition must develop organically. How is this not an organic development if it is a "liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative"? Isn't this exactly the kind of organic development that traditional catholics call for? why is there such outrage against it?

(foor the record, I generally do not participate in this, although I also have not been to a chruch where the parisheners did this in long time)

[Annabelle Marie]

Originally Posted by roadsend

You make my point that bishops do not always address liturgical abuse when they can't help but know that it exists.
That said, please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that "all Bishops are corrupt" only that some bishops did not act to protect children.
As to "Furthermore, how can you know the Bishop in question WASN'T trying to do something?". The answer as to how I know this, I cannot give without violating forum rules.
I realize that the abuse issue is far more common in the family, the schools, and other institutions than in the Church, yet I used this example to show in spades that bishops do not always take action when matters of concern are brought to their attention, the assertion of an upstream poster notwithstanding.

A Bishop looking the other way or a priest abusing a child is hardly on par with letting the laity hold hands during the Our Father.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by adrift

I get the impression that you believe that "no position is prescribed" means that you can do anything.
First off the Bishops said a bit more
It isn't just no position prescribed but that no position is proscribed for an assembly. The directions from the Church is proactive that is they tell you what you MAY do not what you can't. Here the Bishops say that is isn't part of what the congregation May do. You will not find a directive that the congregation hold hands. They are not speaking of individuals but congregations. Hand holding is wrong when it becomes a congregational action which the Bishops say is not prescribed.

I am really curious about this. It sounds to me as though you are claiming that unless a bishop proscribes a position for the people than they are not allowed to take up that position. Is this what you mean? or am I missing something?

[The Curt Jester]

There are times when holding hands is the norm. These times would be:

• 1. Helping a little child across the street.
  
• 2. At a seance.
  
• 3. With ones fiancee during a walk in the park
  
• 4. Forming a chain to rescue someone who is hanging off a cliff.
  
• 5. Forming a PETA protest to block logging efforts.

At Mass isn't one of them.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

There are times when holding hands is the norm. These times would be:

• 1. Helping a little child across the street.
  
• 2. At a seance.
  
• 3. With ones fiancee during a walk in the park
  
• 4. Forming a chain to rescue someone who is hanging off a cliff.
  
• 5. Forming a PETA protest to block logging efforts.

At Mass isn't one of them.

It is also true that kneeling used to not be the norm. How is this an argument against either of them?

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

A Bishop looking the other way or a priest abusing a child is hardly on par with letting the laity hold hands during the Our Father.

Agree, but many bishops have done both of these and both of course are wrong but to a different degree.

[mattkubes]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Isn't this exactly the kind of organic development that traditional catholics call for?

No. Not least of all because it moves us to focus on those around us. That is not the point of the liturgy - not even a secondary point.

As stated by a certain Cardinal Ratzinger in his review of Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy:
"If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God."

Of course I don't run into this issue at the TLM.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by Oneofthewomen

This was posted originally in this thread as a means to say that the church "disapproved" the holding of hands during the Our Father.
The fact is, it does not. That was not the question asked, and therefore,
while everything that Mr. Donovon says may be true, it is still only his opinion.
He is extrapolating out of an answer what he wants it to say.
This is not what the Church says.

The Church does not approve of the holding of hands so your facts are in error. Unless of course, you can produce a document that says differently. Not all that he says was his opinion. To hold hands is not in the rubrics. As the Bishops said No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

This has been wrongly interpreted to mean that the assembly is free to introduce handholding which it is not.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

I am really curious about this. It sounds to me as though you are claiming that unless a bishop proscribes a position for the people than they are not allowed to take up that position. Is this what you mean? or am I missing something?

No that is not what I am claiming. What the Bishops said is that no position is prescribed for the assembly. We are told in the mass what action to be taken kneeling, standing, etc. Those actions are common to everyone. The assembly is not allowed to introduce their own actions. When the action becomes not an individual action but an assembly action it is wrong. When the priest says to do it or does it himself along with the entire assembly it is no longer an individual but an assembly. The rubrics do not say to do so. Since we are to follow the rubrics, we should not be holding hands as if the rubrics required it. Most people have no idea that it isn't part of Mass.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by mattkubes

No. Not least of all because it moves us to focus on those around us. That is not the point of the liturgy - not even a secondary point.

As stated by a certain Cardinal Ratzinger in his review of Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy:
"If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God."

Of course I don't run into this issue at the TLM.

I understand that the liturgy is not about us, that is essentially, and centrally about God. However, it is the public, communal, worship of the church, including the church triumphant, suffering and militant, correct? so why is it wrong to include a posture that is a greater sign of this community? I do not see these two things as contradictory.

Which still does not answer my question as to why this is not considered to be an organic development.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by adrift

No that is not what I am claiming. What the Bishops said is that no position is prescribed for the assembly. We are told in the mass what action to be taken kneeling, standing, etc. Those actions are common to everyone. The assembly is not allowed to introduce their own actions. When the action becomes not an individual action but an assembly action it is wrong. When the priest says to do it or does it himself along with the entire assembly it is no longer an individual but an assembly. The rubrics do not say to do so. Since we are to follow the rubrics, we should not be holding hands as if the rubrics required it. Most people have no idea that it isn't part of Mass.

Ok, let me just make sure I understand this correctly. It is not against the rubrics for parishoners to hold hands during the Our Father as such, but it should never be encouraged by the priest as the 'correct posture' for a parish. Is this esssentially what you're saying? or am I still missing something?

[adrift]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Ok, let me just make sure I understand this correctly. It is not against the rubrics for parishoners to hold hands during the Our Father as such, but it should never be encouraged by the priest as the 'correct posture' for a parish. Is this esssentially what you're saying? or am I still missing something?

I hate to be picky because basically your right. Is it against the rubrics? That depends on how you see them. They are not rules about what you can't do but what you can do. That is why the Bishops phrased it the way they did. There is nothing wrong with holding a family members hands but then again why would you do it? Is it the appropriate time? It comes just before sharing of the peace which makes that less of a sign. You have just been holding hands what is the point of the sign of peace?