Help me defend against the "orans" posture

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

According to the way that the Cannon Law is based, if something is directed for the priest but is not directed as a posture for the laity, it is a priestly gesture. According to Vatican documents, the orans is directed to the priest but has never been directed to the laity in the liturgy. Therefore it is a priestly gesture and not allowed to be done by the laity. Without a that direction to the laity from the Vatican, it is not allowed for them, it’s priestly.

Both canon and liturgical law follow the Roman model – that which is not forbidden is permitted. American law, which follows English Common Law, uses the exact opposite mode – what it not expressly permitted is forbidden. Under both canon and liturgical law (and canon law does not determine liturgical law – see canon 2) we always interpret liberally and not conservatively. This is the way in which the Church has choosen to operate, and attempts to change that are not in keeping with the directives of the Church. The interpretation you have given above is not consistent with the way in which the Church interprets law. Until and unless “competent authority” (meaning Rome or, as appropriate, the Conference of Bishops) makes a ruling on the use of the orans position, all statements related to the suitability of this gesture for the laity are little more than opinions. They may be well informed, but they are still just opinions.

There is no proof that the position shown in the Catacombs is even a Christian gesture as they have a very hard time distinguishing which are Jewish, Christian or Pagan. The depictions in the Catacombs are traced back to the depictions of a soul rising from the body.

Not true. There are several depictions of Eucharistic celebrations with the laity praying in the orans position.

PBS is notoriously faulty in matters of religion. I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt. Consider, on the other hand, the old Catholic Encyclopedia which, in the article on genuflection, says:

It is remarkable that the “orantes” (praying figures) of early Christian art are in the catacomb frescoes invariably depicted as standing with arms extended. Some remarks of Leclercq (Manuel d’Archéologie chrétienne, I, 153 sqq.) suggest that a probable explanation may be found in the view that these “orantes” are merely conventional representations of prayer and of suppliants in the abstract. They are symbols, not pictures of the actual. Now, conventional representations are inspired as a rule in respect of detail, not so much by manners and customs prevalent at the date of their execution, as by an ideal conserved by tradition and at the place and time accepted as fitting. Ancient art has left us examples of pagan as well as of Christian “orantes”. The attitude (standing with arms extended or upraised) is substantially the same in all. This, then, is the attitude symbolical, among the ancients, of prayer.

My experience in the East is that the posture depicted in the icon is that used by the people and the clergy.

Deacon Ed

 

[Hesychios]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

There is no proof that the position shown in the Catacombs is even a Christian gesture as they have a very hard time distinguishing which are Jewish, Christian or Pagan.

Quite likely all three.

The orans posture is very ancient. It wasn’t ‘introduced’ at any point, it was (and still is in many places) the cultural expression of prayer. That is specifically why priests at the altar still use it, from the Medeival period in the west more and more laypersons clasped their hands in prayer in the expression of fealty. It is a natural expression of submission and yeilding in that cultural context. Much like the priestly vestments (having derived from ancient upper-class streetware, the Sunday finery), the Orans posture was retained in the west by the clergy from that earlier time, and is one of the evidences of the truly ancient origins of the Faith we hold.

By not forbidding a practice which was once commonly done (and still is in places) by the laity, I feel we cannot assume that the church forbids it. If it were a new practice I could see the point.

+T+
Michael

 

[H_Opey]

I don’t get what you are saying, Deacon Ed, with all do respect. If this posture is not allowed for a Deacon, then how can it be OK for the laity to do it?

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any memeber of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi-preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity [ICP, Practical Provisions 6~2]

Doesn’t the above state that it is not ok? I am taking this from Mass Confusion by James Aikin. Can you help me out?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

H Opey:

I don’t get what you are saying, Deacon Ed, with all do respect. If this posture is not allowed for a Deacon, then how can it be OK for the laity to do it?

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any memeber of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi-preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity [ICP, Practical Provisions 6~2]

Doesn’t the above state that it is not ok? I am taking this from Mass Confusion by James Aikin. Can you help me out?

The problem is that you are getting an opinion rather than an official statement from the Church. That is, there is an interpretation that the orans position is not permitted to other than the priest. So far the Church has not said that. If the Church had said that, I would be certain to present that since, as a deacon, my function to to teach what the Church teaches.

Deacon Ed

 

[Veritas41]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Great minds read Jimmy!

So true! He helps simple minds like mine better understand some pretty complicated subjects!

Thanks for posting the link to Jimmy Akin’s article on hand-holding and the orans posture during prayer. I see this everywhere I go, and in my parish I think my husband and I and our children are the only ones who *don’t *hold hands or use the orans posture during the Our Father.

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

The problem is that you are getting an opinion rather than an official statement from the Church. That is, there is an interpretation that the orans position is not permitted to other than the priest. So far the Church has not said that. If the Church had said that, I would be certain to present that since, as a deacon, my function to to teach what the Church teaches.

Deacon Ed

No, Deacon, you are giving an opinion. The ICP is the reference. It’s from the Vatican.

Unless you can give a reference where is Orans is directed to the laity then it is covered by the ICP reference. Not an opinion, a reference.

 

[Marilena]

lepanto:

I am trying to explain to my friend that the laity should not take up the orans posture (or hold hands) during the Our Father.

I’m aware that the GIRM is written in the positive-affirmative style, which is to say that “if it’s not in there don’t do it” but that’s not good enough for him. Also, our pastor happily holds hands with the altar servers and does nothing to discourage this abuse, so he’s no help.

Are there any documents/articles (preferably official Church documents) that counter the orans posture/holding hands?

thanks

Our priest does the same thing Alot of people in our parish hold hands during the Our Father. I refuse to do it.

 

[H_Opey]

H Opey:

I don’t get what you are saying, Deacon Ed, with all do respect. If this posture is not allowed for a Deacon, then how can it be OK for the laity to do it?

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any memeber of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi-preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity [ICP, Practical Provisions 6~2]

Doesn’t the above state that it is not ok? I am taking this from Mass Confusion by James Aikin. Can you help me out?

I forgot to put the references:
Mass Confusion by James Akin pg 202
Copyright 1998 Catholic Answers, Inc.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

No, Deacon, you are giving an opinion. The ICP is the reference. It’s from the Vatican.

Unless you can give a reference where is Orans is directed to the laity then it is covered by the ICP reference. Not an opinion, a reference.

Yes, ICP is, indeed, a letter from Rome describing what is and is not to be done. Since the orans position has not been officially declared to be a priestly position, it is an interpretation to say that it is prohibited to the laity. And that is the point. Also, you ask for a reference where the orans position is directed to the laity – which again implies you are thinking in terms of American law rather than Roman law. The reference we would need is one that prohibits, not one that permits.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make this so that you will understand. Of course, I suspect you have your mind made up and are not open to trying to understand this as the Church presents it.

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Yes, ICP is, indeed, a letter from Rome describing what is and is not to be done. Since the orans position has not been officially declared to be a priestly position, it is an interpretation to say that it is prohibited to the laity. And that is the point. Also, you ask for a reference where the orans position is directed to the laity – which again implies you are thinking in terms of American law rather than Roman law. The reference we would need is one that prohibits, not one that permits.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make this so that you will understand. Of course, I suspect you have your mind made up and are not open to trying to understand this as the Church presents it.

I am not trying to understand your point of view because it was explained to me by one of the Bishops of the USCCB. By giving this direction to the Priest, not the Deacons nor laity, it is a Priestly gesture. Therefore orans position not allowed in the liturgy by the laity. Otherwise, one could say that there are no priestly gestures. By silence, all is allowed.
It is easy to spin the facts to your liking, but facts are facts.

 

[MrS]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I am not trying to understand your point of view because it was explained to me by one of the Bishops of the USCCB. By giving this direction to the Priest, not the Deacons nor laity, it is a Priestly gesture. Therefore orans position not allowed in the liturgy by the laity. Otherwise, one could say that there are no priestly gestures. By silence, all is allowed.
It is easy to spin the facts to your liking, but facts are facts.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_9_10.gif

hey girl, it is 9am… time to go to church

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_33.gif

 

[netmilsmom]

MrS:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_9_10.gif

hey girl, it is 9am… time to go to church

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_33.gif

Good morning my friend!
Been to the Childrens choir at 10:30, back for mass at 1:30 with Daddy!

I just had to put in my two cents on this because this argument is thrown around to rationalize some things. It is not correct in this case and I feel, it’s one of those that if we repeat it often enough, someone will believe it.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I am not trying to understand your point of view because it was explained to me by one of the Bishops of the USCCB. By giving this direction to the Priest, not the Deacons nor laity, it is a Priestly gesture. Therefore orans position not allowed in the liturgy by the laity. Otherwise, one could say that there are no priestly gestures. By silence, all is allowed.
It is easy to spin the facts to your liking, but facts are facts.

Fine. Have it your way. The GIRM does not prohibit the action to the laity. The bishops have not prohibited the action to the laity. Rome has not prohibited the action to the laity. One bishop giving his opinion is not authoritative except in his own diocese where, as the chief liturgist, he can (and should) make the rules. If you search the USCCB web site you will not find a single statement for or against the use of the orans position. You will find a document on concelebration that indicates the orans position being used by the concelebrants and also a statement that only the principal celebrant uses the orans position for the embolism after the Lord’s Prayer. Other than that, nothing.

You’d think if the bishops wanted the people to stop they would have something to say about it.

Or is that just my interpretation?

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Fine. Have it your way. The GIRM does not prohibit the action to the laity. The bishops have not prohibited the action to the laity. Rome has not prohibited the action to the laity. One bishop giving his opinion is not authoritative except in his own diocese where, as the chief liturgist, he can (and should) make the rules. If you search the USCCB web site you will not find a single statement for or against the use of the orans position. You will find a document on concelebration that indicates the orans position being used by the concelebrants and also a statement that only the principal celebrant uses the orans position for the embolism after the Lord’s Prayer. Other than that, nothing.

You’d think if the bishops wanted the people to stop they would have something to say about it.

Or is that just my interpretation?

Each Bishop has the authority to stop or encourage many things being our shepherds. To make a blanket statement about this posture, under the guise of “Roman Law” and your interpertation of it, is not correct for every Diocese and certainly not correct with a priestly gesture.
Some Bishops have taken the same stance as you have, if they don’t tell us that it’s wrong, it’s right. I would never say not to obey your Bishops (like in Cleveland where the Orans is encouraged to discourage Handholding at the Our Father), but it is not correct to encourage with a blanket statement that is personal interpertation.

 

[Ursastar]

before we make the kiss common practise, can we pray for the nit nurse to do the school rounds. Its better to give than receive may be something else. ps not being awful about catching …but giving

 

[G_S]

Not having read every entry, what I have to say may be repetitive. The Tridentine Mass, for all its rubrical detail, did not specify posture for the congregation. Local custom prevailed. In some places, such as Scotland, I believe, the congregation knelt for almost the entire Mass. With the advent of the liturgical changes, local custom could no longer suffice because of the desire for novelty. A question such as holding hands for the Our Father or the congregation’s using the orans posture simply were not questions until recently and are, in a way, underaddressed even in the most recent GIRM. It’s really not such a big deal. It is only when the priest instructs the people to hold hands or use the orans posture that an ad hoc change in the liturgy is produced. Would those who frown at a family holding hands stop someone from putting their face in their hands after communion because it’s not mentioned in the GIRM?

The deacon’s posture is another issue and is regulated. We are suppoosed to keep our hands folded. The rubrics state, for example, that we keep our hands folded when asking the people to offer each otehr the sign of peace and when dismissing them at the end of Mass. At these two times especially, it seemed that almost every deacon would give a broad sweeping gesture. I did myslef until I read to the contrary.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Both the Pater Noster hand-holding and the orans position are…

http://www.allfootballbettinglines.com/images/NFL_sgnal/illegaluseofhands.gif
…illegal use of hands…

…as far as I’m concerned.

Of course, if everyone in the congregation did this for the whole Mass…

http://www.allfootballbettinglines.com/images/NFL_sgnal/illegalsubstitution.gif

…the question would become moot.

It has the added benefit of symbolizing how we are all trying to keep our brains from turning to mush and seeping out the top of our heads from listening to years of a puerile English translation of Holy Mass.

I can just hear the wheels turning in some liturgist’s mind even as I speak…

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

Of course, if everyone in the congregation did this for the whole Mass…

http://www.allfootballbettinglines.com/images/NFL_sgnal/illegalsubstitution.gif

Per Roman law, no one says that you can’t do this…

 

[dcdurel]

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. (see article for more)…

 

[dcdurel]

As you can see, the phrase “it must be repudiated” refers to the substitution of the individual exchange of the sign of peace for something else, not to the actual holding of hands during the Lord’s Prayer. Nevertheless, the reply does use language that discourages handholding during the Lord’s Prayer-“it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” Canon law prohibits us from introducing new elements and rites into the liturgy: “The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them” (CIC 846, para. 1). This implies a rejection of the practice.