Is this wrong????


#1

I usually go to SUnday morning Mass…but I wanted to sleep in tomorrow, so I went to vigil mass today. I went to the local Catholic Church…a Church I do not like, but I was busy and I needed to go somewhere close…anywho…there are a few liturgical abuses that go on at this place (that is why I drive 20 minutes to go somewhere else), such as holding hands during the “Our Father”…I refused to hold hands, instead I joined my two hands together as in prayer…even though people were staring at me expecting me to hold their hands…I just ignored them. Am I right for not taking part in liturgical abuse, or should I hold thier hands…because it has been said, “When in Rome…” I believe I am right for not taking part in this abuse.


#2

I do not understand how holding hands during the Lords Prayer is liturgical abuse. Can you perhaps elaborate with some liturgical theology and sources? Thank you!


#3

ewtn.com/expert/answers/holding_hands_at_mass.htm

What do you have to say about this now? It is ABUSE

[quote=trailblazer]I do not understand how holding hands during the Lords Prayer is liturgical abuse. Can you perhaps elaborate with some liturgical theology and sources? Thank you!
[/quote]


#4

I would have done what you did. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, especially. Furthermore, for all they know, you could have had a cold or something & didn’t want to infect them. Remember, you do not go to church to congregate, but, to worship God and focus on Him who is in the Eucharist. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: You’re not at church to make friends.


#5

It may be an abuse, but I haven’t heard it being one. I think that what you did was right because I do it in my own parish. But it realy isn’t that big of an abuse because it doesn’t take anything away from God or the Mass. And some people live for that kind of kum by ya stuff. But I wouldn’t report it because most parishes still does this, at least where I live. I think there are bigger fish to fry than this.


#6

I also read, though, that it can be sinful to go against what is the norm in a certain parish, and you might appear uncharitable toward the other parishoners (I’m just playing devil’s advocate, don’t worry). I think that you can make a case either way, and you did what you felt was proper in your situation. If you were uncomfortable holding hands, that is legit. I fold my hands together as well (rather than extending my arms upward as we have been instructed to do, I’m just not dealing with that nonsense).

And do remember, some things such as these are a matter of practice (ie not liturgical abuse, another example would be music, a parish is pretty free to chose the music they use in Mass, unless I am gravely mistaken).

Eamon


#7

WOW! You learn something new every day! I do this with my family at mass, we have always held hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I have a hard time seeing how it replaces the sign of peace, though. We still offer the sign of peace. Wow! I’m speechless…


#8

I don’t think what you did was wrong. I don’t like the holding hands
bit either, and I don’t do it.

What is disruptive is how others interrupt me while I praying in
order to hold hands – tapping me on the shoulder, etc. I’ve
even had adults try to grab my hands, even though I’m in a
prayerful posture. What up wid dat!?

As far as the music, don’t get me started. I go to Our Lady of
Fatima Parish. Never **once **can the music director sing
even one chorus of the Ave Maria or any other song dedicated
to Our Lady. Oh, but she can somehow work Bach into the Mass. :banghead:


#9

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.]<<

We seem to be missing the point here. Please referrence the statements in bold above.

The question refers to those churches which “replace” or “supplant” the sign of peace with the holding of hands at the Lord’s prayer. At the church I last attended mass at, St Eulalia, we shake hands, (some embrace) as the sign of peace, and we “also” hold hands during the Lord’s prayer.

Holding hands during the Lord’s parayer is NOT and abuse of the liturgy unless it is used to replace the sign of peace gesture.

Thal59


#10

Thal, you should have included more of the quote:

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.

#11

YOU ARE VERY WRONG…holding the hands during The Lords Prayer is AN ABUSE…plain and simple…it has become so common that it is considered commonplace…Thank God I usually go to a TLM. This kind of stuff isn’t tolerated.


#12

[quote=dumspirospero]I usually go to SUnday morning Mass…but I wanted to sleep in tomorrow, so I went to vigil mass today. I went to the local Catholic Church…a Church I do not like, but I was busy and I needed to go somewhere close…anywho…there are a few liturgical abuses that go on at this place (that is why I drive 20 minutes to go somewhere else), such as holding hands during the “Our Father”…I refused to hold hands, instead I joined my two hands together as in prayer…even though people were staring at me expecting me to hold their hands…I just ignored them. Am I right for not taking part in liturgical abuse, or should I hold thier hands…because it has been said, “When in Rome…” I believe I am right for not taking part in this abuse.
[/quote]

You are correct not to hold hands. It takes a two-thirds majority of the bishops’ conference and approval of the Holy See to make a change in the rubrics of the Mass, and that hasn’t happened to allow such a posture. It may not be the biggest abuse, but those who know the facts shouldn’t do it. You may even want to print out the germane text from this (orginally from Zenit.org):

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=508

You can make a few hundred copies at copymax or kinkos. Maybe you could get it published in the bulletin. Even then, many people will probably succumb to “rubrics legislation by peer pressure”.:frowning:


#13

Well, I feel that this section of the article has also been overlooked

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.

So, why exactly is everyone freaking out. It seems that you have made your decision not to hold hands during the Our Father. Fine, so why is everyone getting riled up? If it is a liturgical abuse, would you mind producing more evidence to support your claim (I’m not disagreeing with you, and I have read the article, I would just like another source if you have it, because right now, all I have is the word of one fallible human being in that article)?

Eamon


#14

[quote=turboEDvo]So, why exactly is everyone freaking out. It seems that you have made your decision not to hold hands during the Our Father. Fine, so why is everyone getting riled up? If it is a liturgical abuse, would you mind producing more evidence to support your claim (I’m not disagreeing with you, and I have read the article, I would just like another source if you have it, because right now, all I have is the word of one fallible human being in that article)?

Eamon
[/quote]

It is only really an issue when you have people trying to pry your hand from you to hold it, disturbing your prayers.

On to your next point, show proof it is allowed.


#15

[quote=mjdonnelly]Thal, you should have included more of the quote:

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.
    [/quote]

I cannot understand what is going on here. I assume everyone here can read plain English. I hate to use this tactic, but I get frustrated over arguments that should never occur…

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.

This is clearly pointing out that the questioned abuse consists of some who do not offer the sign of peace at the deacon’s invitation. Instead, they attempt to replace the act by combining the gesture with the holding of hands during the Lord’s prayer. (It also specifies “singing” the Lord’s prayer; at my church, we do not sing it - are we guilty of an abuse?)

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. (It is not mandated by the church, it is optional at the deacon and parishoner’s choice.Simply because it is not in the rubrics does not mean it is an abuse.) I remember a Bishop of a new church in Sierra Leone pointing out how the sign of peace was confusing to his congregation because it was given in the middle of the service, whereas his people were used to greeting people with a gesture of peace when they first meet. To accomodate this, this church in Sierra Leone offers the sign of peace at the very beginning of the mass. Does this scandalize you?)

>>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.]<<

Again, the whole issue is talking about replacing, supplanting, or substituting the “sign of peace” with the holding of hands at the Lord’s prayer. (Which again, is purely optional.)

If you don’t wish to offer a sign of peace - then don’t, it is your option. If you don’t want to hold hands at the Lord’s prayer - then don’t, it too is your option.

What I don’t understand are these petty accusations being made at those who do under the guise of abuse! If you feel that shaking hands as a sign of peace, wishing the peace of the Lord upon one’s brother or sister in Christ, or holding the hand of your brother or sister in Christ is abusive, then you have bigger problems than the one currently being discussed.

Thal59


#16

It is not an abuse, as thal has pointed out it is being taken out of context. Holding hands do not change anything, it does not replace anything. If you read the link, the first part is an official explanation which addresses replacement, the remaining part of the link is one person’s opinion of that official explanation.


#17

the “sign of peace” is actually a kiss (generally on the cheek) isn’t it? So you’re having a problem with holding hands during the Lord’s prayer?


#18

I do not believe that it as an abuse. I wish however that the Church would deem it as such. It is a protestant invention and I refuse to do it.


#19

To go to a Vigil Mass simply because you would prefer to lie in on a Sunday morning is an abuse in itself.

You wanted to bring up the whole idea of abuses and your short sight does not allow you to see that you are abusing the provision of the Vigil Mass.

Remember it is always better to take the plank out of your own eye first before you tackle the splinters in your brothers eye.

The Sunday Vigil Mass (on Saturday Evening) is to accommodate the problem that people may have of missing Sunday Mass due to work.
While it is technically permissible to attend the Vigil Mass on Saturday and not the Sunday morning Masses to fulfil one’s Sunday obligation, the intent and spirit of allowing a vigil mass is being abused. Sunday Vigil Masses on Saturday evening should only be attended, in my view, when Sunday Mass is not possible. But today many people go to the Vigil Mass so they can have Sunday to themselves. This is not proper.

Sunday is officially called, THE LORD’S DAY. It is not my personal lie in day, my personal mental health day, etc. It is a day to give to God FIRST in worship, second in other prayer, devotion, study, and good works, THEN in rest and recreation and time with family. All servile work should cease on this day (regardless of whether one goes to vigil Mass or Sunday morning Mass). Sunday is not the time to repair the roof, mow the lawn, or other work that takes one away from worship, prayer, devotion, good works, and time with family.

It would behoove you to follow the Church’s full teaching on this. Mass obligation is the BEGINNING of our obligation for Sunday, not the end.


#20

[quote=turboEDvo]Well, I feel that this section of the article has also been overlooked

So, why exactly is everyone freaking out. It seems that you have made your decision not to hold hands during the Our Father. Fine, so why is everyone getting riled up? If it is a liturgical abuse, would you mind producing more evidence to support your claim (I’m not disagreeing with you, and I have read the article, I would just like another source if you have it, because right now, all I have is the word of one fallible human being in that article)?

Eamon
[/quote]

Since the last few posters did not click on the link I provided, here is a pertinent section:

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=508

No one, not even a priest, is allowed to change elements of the mass. The legislative authority rests with the bishops’ conferenced and the Holy See. So if you think you can introduce novel postures of your own authority, think again.

It’s not the gravest liturgical abuse, but it is an abuse, nonetheless.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.