Holding hands during the Our Father

[journeyman]

In answering the question Donovan seems to presuppose (as the Vatican did in 1975) the hand-holding "replaced" the sign of peace . . . in our parish it is "in addition to"

The typical "pro" reason seems to be "it is the community gathered in worship" . . . which doesn't respond to the "con" response that this is a "worship" moment, not a "community" moment during the Mass

We've been through explicit/implied debates before (guitars?) and the answer seems to come down to what seems to be a practical answer - if you don't want to participate, you shouldn't be forced to

Then there are the very practical reasons not to participate - the sneezy, sniffly, runny nose, headache can't sleep at night reason . . .

[cappie]

The reason usually given for holding hands during the Our Father (it seems much more common in the USA than in Australia) is that it creates a sense of unity and community.

[b]This, however, is the express purpose of the Communion Rite, as we walk together to the Altar and share the Communion[/b].

I see two other drawbacks in the practice.

Firstly, unlike any other part of the liturgy, people are virtually forced to participate whether they feel comfortable or not.

Secondly, holding hands has never been an accepted gesture for public prayer. A more appropriate alternative might be to encourage people to adopt the orans stance, with arms raised and palms turned upwards, as practised in some parishes and [b]permitted in the revised Italian Sacramentary. [/b]

Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer should not be introduced where it is not currently practised, on the other hand I think it would be pastorally inappropriate to suppress what is a genuine part of people’s prayer in some places.

[cappie]

Holding Hands at the Our Father?


ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord's Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to "Our Father." Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord's Prayer during Mass? -- T.P., Milford, Maine

A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops' conference has officially addressed it.

The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

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.

While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended -- so they at least should not hold hands.

One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.

The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.

The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer's God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.

For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.

A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the "orantes" posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.

In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops' request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.

The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.

The U.S. bishops' conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the "American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal" last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.

[OLAM Dad]

Ora, the posture that you describe is known as the orans posture. It is a clerical posture and should not be adopted by the laity. A priest I know well describes this practice as the clericalization of the laity. He also takes umbridge with what he calls the laicization of the clergy, in which the clergy tend to mimic posture more appropriately used by the laity.

For more information [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm"]click HERE.[/url]

Orans Posture ("Praying" Hands Extended)
The following explains the origin of the Orans position, in which the priest intercedes during the liturgy on behalf of all. In the last couple decades this posture of praying with hands extended and lifted upwards has become a popular prayer posture for many laity, especially in the Charismatic Renewal.

The Orans position (Latin for "praying") or some variation of it, was common to almost all ancient religions as an outward sign of supplicating God (or if a pagan religion, the gods). Consider what we do when we plead with someone. We might put our arms out in front of us as if reaching for the person and say "I beg you, help me." This seems to be a natural human gesture coming from deep within us - like kneeling to adore or to express sorrow. Now, turn that reach heavenwards and you have the Orans position.

The ancient monuments of Christianity, such as the tombs in the catecombs, often show someone in the Orans position supplicating God, to show that the prayers of the Church accompany the person in death.

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing how the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. It used to be minutely defined in the rubrics, which now say only, "extends his hands" or "with hands extended." Priests understand what is meant (from observation and training), and although there is some variability between priests basically the same gesture is obtained from all of them by these words.

In the rubrics the Orans gesture is asked principally of the Main Celebrant, but on those occasions where either a priestly action is done (Eucharistic Prayer) or prayer in common (Our Father) all the concelebrants do it.

It is never done by the Deacon, who does not represent the People before God but assists him who does.

Among the laity this practice began with the charismatic renewal. Used in private prayer it has worked its way into the Liturgy. It is a legitimate gesture to use when praying, as history shows, however, it is a private gesture when used in the Mass and in some cases conflicts with the system of signs which the rubrics are intended to protect. The Mass is not a private or merely human ceremony. The symbology of the actions, including such gestures, is definite and precise, and reflects the sacramental character of the Church's prayer. As the Holy See has recently pointed out, confusion has entered the Church about the hierarchical nature of her worship, and this gesture certainly contributes to that confusion when it conflicts with the ordered sign language of the Mass.

Lets take each case.

Our Father. The intention for lay people using the Orans position at this time is, I suppose, that we pray Our Father, and the unity of people and priest together is expressed by this common gesture of prayer. Although this gesture is not called for in the rubrics, it does at least seem, on the surface, to not be in conflict with the sacramental sign system at the point when we pray Our Father. I say on the surface, however, since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.

After Our Father. This liturgical disunity continues after the Our Father when some, though not all, who assumed the Orans position during the Our Father continue it through the balance of the prayers, until after "For thine is the kingdom etc." The rubrics provide that priest-concelebrants lower their extended hands, so that the main celebrant alone continues praying with hands extended, since he represents all, including his brother priests. So, we have the very anomalous situation that no matter how many clergy are present only one of them is praying with hands extended, accompanied by numbers of the laity.

So, while we shouldn't attribute bad will to those who honestly have felt that there was some virtue in doing this during the Mass, it is yet another case where good will can achieve the opposite of what it intends when not imbued with the truth, in this case the truth about the sacramental nature of the postures at Mass and their meaning.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[Sojourner]

I held hands with the people next to me this morning, but I typically don't ... it just would have been rude not to do it today because I was sitting pretty close to both people.

I've changed my position on this, although I'm not a hardline "no hand-holding" person. I just like to reserve hand-holding for special occasions.

[qfnol31]

[quote]In answering the question Donovan seems to presuppose (as the Vatican did in 1975) the hand-holding "replaced" the sign of peace . . . in our parish it is "in addition to"[/quote]

I would say that because it comes before the Basium Pacis it does in a way replace the more meaningful following moment.

And I have a feeling both the Vatican and Dr. Donovan are fully aware that it does not mean there is no Sign of Peace.

[son_of_angels]

Is it just me, or is this whole horizontal/vertical terminology really annoying? The term seems to set one against the other, rather than seeing that one is in the other (horizontal in the vertical). I've seen as much community in a traditional Mass as in a Novus Ordo (hand holding and all) and vice versa.

Anyway, enough of my rant, I personally am against the hand-holding at the Our Father because the prayer and those that follow really are preparations for taking Communion. It is a time to recollect, not to go scurrying all over the place. That is why I also feel the sign of the peace needs to be curbed back a bit. It especially is problematic when the priest joins hands with the altar servers, replacing the orans posture, and showing a false theology (The priest is the one offering the sacrifice, the people are offering the sacrifice by the hands of the priest), not to mention just being terribly annoying, cheesy, and folksy. This isn't a family dinner, it is the most solemn rite of our church, where heaven and earth meet! Jesus first performed this rite, realizing that his death was hours away!

[Akalyte]

i cant wait until Benedict XVI re-interprets vatican II and settles it all. There's going to be a hole lot of whining american catholics.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Dec 26 2005, 02:34 PM']Is it just me, or is this whole horizontal/vertical terminology really annoying? The term seems to set one against the other, rather than seeing that one is in the other (horizontal in the vertical).
[/quote]
I think that we all should remember that the cross is both vertical and horizontal... They are not mutally exclusive, but there are times when one is and should be emphasized. In the end, however, we cannot have the cross withouth both in their proper places...

[photosynthesis]

I never knew there was anything wrong with the Orans position... I remember reading in a lot of parish church bulletins that this was the most acceptable posture during the Our Father. I guess now i know

I used to put my arms in the Orans position, but then it usually resulted in the person next to me holding my hand, which, if i'm not prepared for it, scares me so much that I scream, which is most certainly not appropriate so now I just fold my hands in front of me and try not to make eye contact with anyone else so that no one violates my personal space

[mariahLVzJP2]

so whats wrong with holding hands again??

after reading these comments i still dont see why its "wrong"

[philothea]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' date='Dec 26 2005, 07:59 PM']so whats wrong with holding hands again??

after reading these comments i still dont see why its "wrong"
[right][snapback]836547[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

(1) It's an innovation. People shouldn't make up stuff to do at mass all on their own. That's up to the Magisterium to determine.

(2) The way it's undertaken often forces people who don't want to hold hands to do so.

It's also debatable whether it's appropriate to hold hands during the mass at that particular time at all, but IMO the above two reasons are plenty sufficient.

[journeyman]

[quote name='cappie' date='Dec 25 2005, 03:53 PM']Holding Hands at the Our Father?
ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord's Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to "Our Father." Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord's Prayer during Mass? -- T.P., Milford, Maine

A: <snip>

While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended -- so they at least should not hold hands.

[right][snapback]835918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's interesting - the retired priest who has presided the most at Mass in our parish of late comes out into the parish community for the Our Father

(not to change the subject (ad orientum, anyone?), but that is the one point in the Mass when his back is to the parish)

[quote name='cappie' date='Dec 25 2005, 03:53 PM']A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the "orantes" posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.

In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops' request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.

The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.

The U.S. bishops' conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the "American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal" last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.

[right][snapback]835918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The more charismatic members of the parish do that at other points of the Mass. . . and in a far more charismatic parish than ours, at points where it truly does appear as if they are, if not usurping, at least duplicating, the priestly actions.

[Fidei Defensor]

I personally find it annoying when people hold their hands out, and/or hold hands during the Our Father. The Priest holds his hands out when he offers prayers to God, and in the Mass, this obviously holds both symbolic and physical meaning. IMHO, The rest of the congregation should fold their hands in humility or something to that effect when they pray.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Dec 26 2005, 02:34 PM']
Anyway, enough of my rant, I personally am against the hand-holding at the Our Father because the prayer and those that follow really are preparations for taking Communion.  It is a time to recollect, not to go scurrying all over the place.  That is why I also feel the sign of the peace needs to be curbed back a bit. It especially is problematic when the priest joins hands with the altar servers, replacing the orans posture, and showing a false theology (The priest is the one offering the sacrifice, the people are offering the sacrifice by the hands of the priest), not to mention just being terribly annoying, cheesy, and folksy.  This isn't a family dinner, it is the most solemn rite of our church, where heaven and earth meet! Jesus first performed this rite, realizing that his death was hours away!
[right][snapback]836416[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree. I don't mean to sound like a Grinch or a Scrooge, but I find the hand holding to be cheezy and annoying as well. I like being in Europe, because the people here (that actually go to church) don't do it.

To be honest, I would rather see the sign of peace at another place in the mass -- it seems like it turns into a big social hour (especially when I'd go to mass at a college campus...the big hugging and extended laughing and jokes just seemed inappropriate). Here you are, enjoying this very holy moment, kneeling and focusing on the consecration and all that, and suddenly you have to stand up and have someone reach out and make you look rude if you don't take their hand. And then you have to shake hands with people, and then it goes back to the holy moment of kneeling and taking communion. It just seems disjointed and out of place. Some kind of "touchy feely community" gesture butting it's head into the middle of the most sacred moment in the mass.

I know that V2 brought it back from the early church, but in the early church they did it at the beginning of mass or before the Eucharistic prayer. I'd personally rather it be at the beginning of mass.

[cappie]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 28 2005, 10:56 AM']
I know that V2 brought it back from the early church, but in the early church they did it at the beginning of mass or before the Eucharistic prayer. I'd personally rather it be at the beginning of mass.
[right][snapback]837097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

FYI

In the "Old Mass" the Pax was exchanged between the Celebrant and the Deacon after the Agnus Dei before the Communion of the Priest

[Ash Wednesday]

So basically just the priest and the deacon exchanged a sign of peace?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Cathurian' date='Dec 24 2005, 11:11 PM']Is it a mortal sin to hold hands during the Our Father? I know you're not supposed to do it.
[right][snapback]835693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Only if bad taste is a mortal sin.

[cappie]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 28 2005, 12:21 PM']So basically just the priest and the deacon exchanged a sign of peace?
[right][snapback]837131[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yes, although if a Bishop was presiding (not celebrating) the celebrant would approach him to offer the pax as well.

[son_of_angels]

Yes, but in the Sarum liturgy the "Pax" given among the laity was an actual item, usually a representation of the crucifix, or some other icon, which was venerated throughout the congregation. This is also the case with other medieval churches. I like that one!