Help me defend against the "orans" posture

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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.

Again (and my last comment on this topic): I have made no personal statement about this (whereas you, in fact, have). I have said that at this point in time the Church has not made an offical teaching therefore I cannot encourage nor can I discourage those who hold hand or use the orans position.

If a bishop has made a particular statement with regard to his diocese, then that statement is “law” and must be obeyed.

Deacon Ed

 

[Ursastar]

dont start imposing your will on all. Let us pray when we want. perhaps you should give up prejudices for lent. Or are you going to decide we wear uniforns at mass too.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The legalists on this topic make me glad that no such laws exist in the Eastern Catholic Churches. For that matter no laws exist in the entirity of the Catholic faith, but that doesn’t seem to matter to some in this thread.

I do understand the concern that some have that the liberals are taking over the Church in America. I can’t see how the issue of orans has much to do with that however. Wouldn’t you all be better off trying to get the Holy Kiss, Gregorian Chant, and the priest facing God as a shepherd back into the liturgy rather than worrying about the people fervently praying to God?

CDL

 

[netmilsmom]

GregoryPalamas:

For that matter no laws exist in the entirity of the Catholic faith, but that doesn’t seem to matter to some in this thread.

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]

 

[GregoryPalamas]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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]

I was referring to specific laws on this matter.I should think you would be concerned more about the “Extra ordinary Eucharistic ministers” than about this. Why not get acquainted with the people who raise their hands during prayer and find out why they do it. They may have impure motives and you can help them have better motives. Perhaps you will discover something about yourself that you did not know. But fussing about something that for most people who do it is a way to draw more closely to God seems rather harmful, don’t you think?

I would wish to know as many devout people as I possibly could and I’d want to talk with them to either help them become more holy or to find out how I might become more holy or both before I condemned them.

CDL

 

[netmilsmom]

GregoryPalamas:

I was referring to specific laws on this matter.I should think you would be concerned more about the “Extra ordinary Eucharistic ministers” than about this. Why not get acquainted with the people who raise their hands during prayer and find out why they do it. They may have impure motives and you can help them have better motives. Perhaps you will discover something about yourself that you did not know. But fussing about something that for most people who do it is a way to draw more closely to God seems rather harmful, don’t you think?

I would wish to know as many devout people as I possibly could and I’d want to talk with them to either help them become more holy or to find out how I might become more holy or both before I condemned them.

But, my friend, this is a discussion about handholding and not EMHCs. I HAVE gotten to know those that raise their hands and found that many don’t like it but do it because “everyone else does”.
The Orans and handholding have been slowly pushed in our parishes. Like Altar Girls, I see more harm than good coming from them than good. It is quite easy for you to stay in your Eastern Rite parish and tell us what we should be fighting for. You do not have the innovations that we do. You do not see the seniors (and others) who are uncomfortable with these postures, feeling as if they are correct because of peer pressure.

I will continue to point out the facts in this issue. I have many times before. Misinformation is believed when it is repeated often enough. I point out the facts, priestly gestures, Vatican rulings and individual Bishops that should all have a hand in one’s decision to do this. Without these statements, based on reference and not opinions, one can make an informed decision about whether to encourage or discourage these postures.

If one’s Bishop is encouraging such postures, wonderful. If not, than encouraging them is disobedience and an internet poster should not override it by misinformation. I always say to check with your diocese.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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]

Okay, since this seems to be taken out of context, let’s look at some specific examples. During the epiclesis the priest extends his hands over the gifts. This is a gesture which is proper to the priest. Some deacons were doing this. It is wrong and, therefore, should not be done. It is wrong for an EMHC to bless one in the communion line who is not receiving communion with the hand making the sign of the cross – that gesture is reserved to the ordained (bishop, priest, deacon). These are specific abuses, already prohibited, that were being addressed. The orans position does not fall into that category since it is not prohibited to the laity (or deacons).

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Okay, since this seems to be taken out of context, let’s look at some specific examples. During the epiclesis the priest extends his hands over the gifts. This is a gesture which is proper to the priest. Some deacons were doing this. It is wrong and, therefore, should not be done. It is wrong for an EMHC to bless one in the communion line who is not receiving communion with the hand making the sign of the cross – that gesture is reserved to the ordained (bishop, priest, deacon). These are specific abuses, already prohibited, that were being addressed. The orans position does not fall into that category since it is not prohibited to the laity (or deacons).

If you would like to see it in context, here it is…
Article 6

Liturgical Celebrations

§ 1. Liturgical actions must always clearly manifest the unity of the People of God as a structured communion.(89) Thus there exists a close link between the ordered exercise of liturgical action and the reflection in the liturgy of the Church’s structured nature.

This happens when all participants, with faith and devotion, discharge those roles proper to them.

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. 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 member 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.

In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.

Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them.

To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.

From here…
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

Thank you. Your examples are perfect of priestly gestures. They are directed to the priest in Vatican documents and not the laity. As is the Orans position in the liturgy as well as other documents.

 

[joeysmom]

Jabronie:

I always argue that at the point we say the prayer, Jesus is there “in person” at the altar. Isn’t it an insult to be looking up to the sky by raising our hands when He is right there in front of us?

That and I just find the whole holding hand / Oran’s stuff annoying.

My mom told me the same thing recently. In my ignnorance I would look up. Well, now I know better.
BTW, she also told me the SME at the altar would actually turn their back on the altar and look up towards the crucifix to pray the Our Father. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to educate those around us.

 

[H_Opey]

H Opey:

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

I felt that finishing what James Akin had to say is important:

“Fortunatley, cases where members of the laity “quasi-preside” are rare-usually only found at conferences held by dissidents. However, there are many cases where the laity assume postures proper to the priest (such as standing when they are supposed to be kneeling) or use guestures proper to the priest (such as praying with arms outstretched).” page 202 Mass Confusion by James Akin.

To the orginal poster: I brought up the same with some people in my parish. Some hold hands, some outstreched, others, hands together. The priest is just happy that people are there@! Anyway, even if you do bring this to your friend’s attention, that doesn’t mean they are going to change their habits. Some like it, some don’t care one way or the other, WHETHER THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO OR NOT. Keep praying and asking questions. Maybe your friend will get interested and start doing some digging herself/himself and grow in our faith.
God Bless

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

You write:

Thank you. Your examples are perfect of priestly gestures. They are directed to the priest in Vatican documents and not the laity. As is the Orans position in the liturgy as well as other documents.

So, once again, it is clear that I didn’t make myself clear. These are specifically mentioned in documentation from Rome as being prohibited. Liturgical law, as I said, permits what is not expressly prohibited.

Deacon Ed

 

[Ursastar]

do the T. mass have wine blood for the people? I want to understand better. Are the T. mass people ’ right wing
extremists’? What do Catholics mean when they call people that?
Would the schism about T. mass be resolved if the NO was in the church language of latin? Should the mass be modified? The mass is so amazing, can we celebrate it better?

New Thread.?

 

[seabird3579]

Veritas41:

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.

I prefer not to hold hands during the Our Father and if no one else does it, I’m much more comfortable. But if someone next to me reaches for my hand (particularly if it is a child) I will always hold their hand to be charitable — and to keep my focus on Jesus rather than the “issue.” Otherwise, the whole thing just becomes a big distraction.

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

These are specifically mentioned in documentation from Rome as being prohibited. Liturgical law, as I said, permits what is not expressly prohibited.

I think I see where your misunderstanding stems from.
Deacons are associated with priests. Those gestures which are directed to the laity are not the postures or gestures for the Deacons. Here is an example.
“A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined” (BB 1999)"

The postures and gestures which are directed specifically to the Priest are priestly gestures. They are not to be done by the laity because they are not in a Priestly role. Being a Deacon, I can see where you would be told what you are stating, but with more research, the rationalizations of “if it doesn’t state it, it’s okay” becomes clearer. It states in the above reference that a Priest or Deacon has a certain posture but does not state that the laity is not directed to do it. It gives the posture that the laity is to use. Can the laity use the outstretched hands? No, they were given the direction of hands joined.
The laity has never been given the direction to use the Orans, therefore it is a priesty gesture, as it is the most directed posture given to the Priests and Deacons.

Vatican documents do not state what one is not allowed to do, but rather what one is. We can look at a document and say “Because it says that you can do A and I can do B, then I can do A because it doesn’t state that I cannot.” but it will not tell you that I cannot. The documents define roles.

The one fact missing is the ICP document that states that one is to never assume another role.

Again, this posture is something that is allowed or encouraged in some Diocese. Each should check with his/her own before encouraging or discouraging this posture. We are directed by our Bishops, not some internet posters like you and me.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I think I see where your misunderstanding stems from.

Yeah, eight years of studying liturgy, serving as an MC for my bishop(s). Of course I’m confused…NOT!

Vatican documents do not state what one is not allowed to do, but rather what one is. We can look at a document and say “Because it says that you can do A and I can do B, then I can do A because it doesn’t state that I cannot.” but it will not tell you that I cannot. The documents define roles.

Actually, documents from Rome do tell us what not to do! They may also clarify what is acceptable and what is not. The very document you cited specifies what not to do.

Deacon Ed

 

[ncjohn]

Net, we seem to have a contradiction here when you first say this
netmil(name removed by moderator):

The laity has never been given the direction to use the Orans, therefore it is a priesty gesture, as it is the most directed posture given to the Priests and Deacons.

and then say this
netmil(name removed by moderator):

Again, this posture is something that is allowed or encouraged in some Diocese.

If it is strictly a priestly gesture, a Bishop or Conference of Bishops would not have the authority to ask this. Yet they not only do, but the Holy See has specifically authorized some places, as noted in a previous post, to use the Orans. When you combine that with the fact that numerous questions such as that at the USCCB website questioning the validity of the Orans at the Our Father specifically decline to repudiate it, it should be clear that there is nothing “abusive” about the gesture itself.

There is also the consideration, again from a previous post, that the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of and by the people rather than being a “presidential” prayer, and as such it would not be at all improper for all the people to be assuming the prayerful position during that prayer.

I personally don’t use this position, and as I always have, I strongly object to any individual being *imposed on * to use it or holding hands. No priest should be directing the congregation into one of these postures, and where it becomes “expected” at the expense of those who do not wish to participate, the priest should be reminding people to act charitably and not impose their preferences on others.

Peace,

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

Net, we seem to have a contradiction here when you first say thisand then say this
If it is strictly a priestly gesture, a Bishop or Conference of Bishops would not have the authority to ask this.

Dear John! How good to see you here.

We all know that Bishops rationalize that which they think is right. I’m not saying, and never have, that a Bishop who thinks like Deacon Ed is an evil person looking to undermind the Catholic church!!! I feel that each of our shepherds are doing his best.

How long did it take to right more pressing matters that affected our youngest and most innocent? Maybe 30 years?
Why is that? Because we were left for a long time to make our own decisions. Some of those decisions were not right. It’s coming.
Give it time, things move very, very slowly at the Vatican!

Correcting mistakes and innovations will come. However, one cannot expect the little things to be corrected before the big things. In a short year, the gears are turning. While the press made our new Holy Father an old, lameduck Pope who would fall ill any second and not get a thing done, he has moved with lightening speed in Vatican terms, to start to make things right.

Time will tell who is absolutely correct in this. I may be right, I may be wrong, but God knows that everyone who gives facts on this has his/her heart in the right place.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Ursastar:

do the T. mass have wine blood for the people? I want to understand better. Are the T. mass people ’ right wing
extremists’? What do Catholics mean when they call people that?
Would the schism about T. mass be resolved if the NO was in the church language of latin? Should the mass be modified? The mass is so amazing, can we celebrate it better?

New Thread.?

No.

No.

“Right wing extremist” is another way that liberals have of saying, “Someone who is 100% loyal to the Pope and all Church teachings.”

No.

Yes.

Yes.

 

[lphelps]

I had never seen this gesture until I went to the National Shrine in DC and all of a sudden, certain people began to mimic the motions and gestures of the priest. I thought that I had missed something. Whenever I come across it now, I gently close my eyes and listen to the priest until the show is over. We have none of the attention grabbing and "warm and fuzzy’ gestures at my parish, except for the occasional “scream prayer”, thank goodness. We socialize at pancake breakfasts and Mardi Gras events instead.

 

[ncjohn]

lphelps:

I had never seen this gesture until I went to the National Shrine in DC and all of a sudden, certain people began to mimic the motions and gestures of the priest. I thought that I had missed something. Whenever I come across it now, I gently close my eyes and listen to the priest until the show is over. We have none of the attention grabbing and "warm and fuzzy’ gestures at my parish, except for the occasional “scream prayer”, thank goodness. We socialize at pancake breakfasts and Mardi Gras events instead.

So I take it then that you feel this is some kind of “show” of false piety or people trying to draw attention to themselves for some reason? Which of course would then imply that you are more pious by NOT doing these things?

Am I misunderstanding something in your statement?