www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Holding hands during the Lord's prayer????

I was recently in a RC church and there were two groups of people holding hands during the Lord's Prayer....what is up w/that?!

My understanding is that it is a practice that began with the charismatic movement and has continued in many parishes. My understanding is that it is forbidden by the rubrics of the Roman rite.

Joe

It is forbidden and I won't do it, although I play for the Latin Rite. The pastor has discouraged and condemned the practice several times in both print and sermons.

Although I don't see harm in it, I wouldn't practice it for my own comfort level. I do hold my hands in Orion Posture during the Lord's Prayer though.

For many in the pews, all they know is this:

1) This is how I've always done it

2) What I was told when I became Catholic or when I was younger was that we are uniting our prayers in community and praying together during the Our Father, and that's why we unite in our bodies as well

3) My parish has done it this way since I've started there and I've never heard of anything different.

It is hard to find fault with the people doing it when this is all they have to work with. They were probably new to the parish or visitors and upon return said to someone, "I was recently in a different RC church and we were one of only two groups of people holding hands during the Lord's Prayer....what is up w/that?!"

My understanding is that the practice is technically not specifically forbidden - BUT, then again, neither is standing on your head! The prescribed posture for the congregation during the Lord's Prayer is simply not addressed at all in the Latin Church's General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

What is forbidden, however, is for the priest to actually request that the congregation join hands for the prayer. The GIRM forbids him from adding to or changing the words he says prior to the Lord's Prayer (and, indeed, throughout the entire Mass). His requesting that the congregation join hands would clearly be an addition to the prescribed wording and, therefore, forbidden (although I've seen and continue to see that very scenario occur at numerous Latin Masses). Some Latin bishops have chosen to remain tacit with regard to addressing the issue at all; others have been known to have given directives to their priests not to encourage the practice. I know of none who have specifically endorsed the practice.

This topic has gotten (and continues to get) considerable press on other fora, most specifically those fora that cater to a predominantly Roman Catholic audience, with the general outcome being one of somewhat intense polarization between the hand-holders and the non-hand-holders. The "holders" say that there is nothing that prohibits them from doing so and that it lends a sense of communal unity to the prayer; the "nons" retort by stating that the Sign of Peace which immediately follows this prayer is, in fact, the prescribed sign of unity within the Mass and that the hand-holding prior to this sign serves to undermine its significance� not to mention the discomfort it creates with regard to those who feel intimidated into holding hands against their will. Alas, I fear that the debate is destined to continue unless and until the GIRM is modified to specifically address the propriety or non-propriety of this act.

Al (a pilgrim)

Agreed - it's neither prescribed nor proscribed.

Very much a grey area .

to my mind - much better left to RCs to hammer out - which they do with great regularity

Actually that's not quite true. The Latin liutrgical principle is that if something is not prescribed it is forbidden. We are not to add anything just because there is nothing prescribed in a specific place during the liturgy. There has been a school of "liturgical experts" who think that if there is nothing specificed that that means anyone can make something up and insert it--as if the liturgical books were deficient by not prescribing something or specifically prohibiting it. The principle Of "noble simplicity" envisioned by the post-Vatican II liturgical reform means just that: if there is nothing prescribed, no one may insert something on his own or enocurage another to do something not prescribed. But remember, the difference betwen a liturgist and a terrorist: you can negotiate with the terrorist.

On another note, there is the "orans position" where people mimic the priest's prayer stance: promoted by those who wish to blur the lines between the ordained priest and the laity. Rome asked that that practice be specifically discouraged by the blergy and in many quarters that has been ignored, too, though this issue was addressed over a dozen years ago.

BOB

Blur the lines between the ordained priest and the laity? I do believe that the 'orans position' was typical of all Christian worshipers and that only later did the laity stop because of the purposeful inclusion of clericalisms.

The Muslims stole the prostrations from the Eastern Christians and the Pentecostals stole the 'orans position' from them too. And to think that Eastern Christians would consider them blurs or innovations.

Ever take a good look at a US-American court room? Where do you think the civil government stole that setup?

Eddie

EdHash:

I don't know where you get your information but there has always been a distinction between the ordained leadership of Christ's Church and the laity. And the "orans position" was never a part of the Western Church's liturgical practice for the laity. I've been told by a Russian Orthodox priest that it is part of their custom in some places.

The pejorative term "clericalisms" has no place here. Just because there is a difference in what the clergy are called to do because of ordination takes nothing away from the laity does not mean that it is something that stems from some power move. Your statement betrays the anti-clerical attitude prevalent in some Protestant groups and is out of place here.

In Christ,

BOB

I wasn't trying to use pejoratives. Catholic and Orthodox authors have written about how a greater distance developed between clergy and laity. I wasn't implying that both were one and the same years ago. If clergy and laity stood and raised their hands during prayer and then later only the clergy were allowed - what would you call it? Clergy and laity also partook of the Eucharist in their hands, but only clergy do this today (since then there has developed many ways to receive Eucharist by the laity - all far from the method used in the early church). I read about this from Orthodox theologians too. The Egyptian laity still receive the Eucharist in the altar. This too is no longer the practice in all Byzantine churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

Clericalism is the meta-distinction incurred when false differences are introduced to segregate one class of people (the clergy) from another (the laity). If this term is unacceptable then please provide another to represent this.

Eddie

Ed ,,

Careful - RC Laity may Receive Communion in the hand

Good point. This would be a restoration of ancient practice. I've also witnessed the laity praying in the "orans position".

What exaclty IS the proper posture taken by the laity during the Lord's Prayer? I've seen Catholics cross hands in front of their 'lap' or behind their 'seat' (I am trying to keep it clean) or holdin onto pews in front of them. Is this more proper than lifting them up like the clergy? I am sure that charges of Pentecostalism would result.

Eddie

"Clericalism is, on the one hand, the reduction of the Church to a power structure; and on the other hand, her reduction of that power structure to clergy." (Father Alexander Schmemann, "The Eucharist")

The word is used by Orthodox Christians.

Eddie

Ed:

Some practices have fallen out of use for various pastoral reasons. Some have been discontinued because of the need to catechise. For example, one reason I've been given that the practice of Communion in the hand fell out of use is the difficulty of relating the holiness of the mysteries to new members. In addition, since Christianity is oriental in its origins, the practice of placing the Host on the tongue or using the liturgical spoon for intinction is actually a mark of great respect for the recipient. At an oriental meal where there are no items of silverware that we are used to, the host would put a particularly choice morsel directly into the mouth of his esteemed guest. Another reason often given is that we do not "TAKE" Communion; we "RECEIVE" it. There is a world of difference in the approach to the Mysteries in those two words and it is far more than semantics. It speaks to the entire spiritual life and approach to the Lord of the worshipping community.

The reintroduction of "Communion in the Hand" in the Latin Church began after Vatican II as an act of disobedience by some European bishops and clergy. And as with so many abuses it soon became widespread. The downside is the almost total lack of respect toward our Lord and His Real Presence that is the reality of the Eucharist. So our current practice in the Latin Church is itself argument for a return to Communion placed into the mouth of the communicant.

I am aware of Coptic practice. What you may not be aware of is the measure of preparation and respect that the average Coptic Orthodox and Catholic Christian places on the Eucharist and its reception. They fast to such an extent that even Byzantine Christians--who fast to an extent that makes the West look like backsliders--don't go as far. I'm told that to swallow the liquid in one's mouth during the Eucharistic fast breaks the fast, for just one example of the strictness one finds. So to simply look at the externals is not the way one ought to compare practices between one of the Apostolic Churches and another.

As far as Fr. Schmemann's quote goes, I'd have to agree. But usually the ones making such an accusation are the very people who think of the Church--erroneously--in that way as they approach her and then use that error to cause division. I don't know of any cleric who sees his role as being a power broker or dictator. If they have any kind of spiritual life going, they are usually awed by their tremendous responsibility and the patristic thought that they will be judged far more harshly at the Judgment because of the ordination they have been called to and accepted. Of course, like any calling, there are those who are mismatched. They looked up into the clouds and thought they saw the Lord write "PC" on the underside. They then thought that meant "preach Christ" when the Lord was really trying to tell them "plow corn."

In Christ,

BOB