I once asked about upraised hands during the "Our Father"

[AlanFromWichita]

There was a thread in here not too long ago where people who were advocating saying the Rosary during Mass, that saying a private devotion during a public liturgy was acceptable. This despite the public external act that could show they aren’t investing fully in the Mass.

If the perception is wrong there, that there’s nothing externally wrong with that and they are investing in the Mass fully, perhaps the perception of that some have with raising of the hands is off too.

I’ve heard from two different priests, one who mentioned it in his homily and the other who just quietly endured, that they found it extremely distracting and rude when people (typically old ladies but not always) would sit in the front row and be holding their rosary and mouthing it. They said the least they could do is go sit in the back where it isn’t right in their faces.

On the hands raising issue, neither priest ever mentioned it as a problem.

The difference is, in one case the “abuse” is synchronized with what’s going on in the Mass, and in the other case it’s totally in collision with what’s going on.

So you want to make your parish priest happy? Get together with some others, get to church early enough to claim the entire front row so the whisperers and the mouthers are at least partly obscured. As an added bonus, you won’t be burdened with seeing “orans” on laity. You’ll probably need to be there 40 minutes early the first week (earlier each week after), and pretend you’re deaf and blind when they fuss at you to move and give them back “their” seats.

Alan

 

[adrift]

See my quote above. In the United States, the orans position during the Our Father is not “supposed to be done”, but neither is it “not supposed to be done”; according to the USCCB, “no position is prescribed”. Your local diocese or parish may have different requirements, prohibitions, or customs, but there is no general prohibition on the orans position during the Our Father in the United States.

I guess you missed this. Although it is true that no position is prescribed it is also true that the orans position should not be used because it is a posture reserved for the priest.

What about raising hands with the priest in mass?
The Roman Missal does not allow for the faithful to raise their hands in the “orans” position (or hold hands) during Mass. Such posture is reserved for the priest.

Article 6:

§ 2. … 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.”

ICP

Recommended reading:

About That Orans Posture

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Traditionally, the Mass is considered to be a mystical re-presentation of the Crucifixion. Christ, through the person of the priest, makes two separate consecrations, symbolizing the separation of His Body and Blood during His physical death on the cross. He then offers himself to the Father just as He did on the cross. That’s why it’s called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the Mass is identified primarily with calvary.

The Last Supper is an important, secondary image associate with the Mass, but the Sacrifice is the primary one. If you read the text of the Roman Canon and other parts of the 1962 missal, this is very evident.

I’ll take your word for what the Church says, but it really is interesting.

I also see, from a mystical perspective, how giving Himself to the Father, and giving Himself to His friends, are similar. The essence of Jesus, in the accidents of bread and wine, is distributed out for many, so they may all become a part of the Body, so in essence the Body of Christ is still on this earth in the accidents of the people who are in Communion with Him.

I just made all that up, so don’t ask me for sources.

Oops gotta go honeydo some things … back later!

Alan

 

[thewanderer]

The Church must have its reasons for consistently emphasizing the Sacrice over the Meal. My reasoning tells me that because the Sacrifice on the Cross is the foundation of our salvation, it deserves the more prominent place. Also, my experience of the Mass has been very different since I started praying with this theology in mind. Before I thought the Mass was just about Our Lord offering Himself to us. That’s still true, but now I see the more important thing, which is Our Lord continually offering Himself to the Father for our sake. The Church sees that latter offers as more important, and the Council of Trent made a lot of statements about it, like how grace is poured out on people at Mass even when they don’t receive Holy Communion, because just being at Mass is being mystically at the foot of the cross.

I guess this is why I am confused, if you fully understand what is happening at the meal you realize and understand that it is the sacrifice on the cross, they are one and the same event. I’m not claiming that everyone who attends the OF realizes this… but it makes me wonder about the claim that one emphasis is more important than the other… I see them as both equally important as they are two different aspects of the same reality.

 

[Rich_C]

I guess this is why I am confused, if you fully understand what is happening at the meal you realize and understand that it is the sacrifice on the cross, they are one and the same event. I’m not claiming that everyone who attends the OF realizes this… but it makes me wonder about the claim that one emphasis is more important than the other… I see them as both equally important as they are two different aspects of the same reality.

I’m not a theologian, I just know what I’ve read. An inscription in my 1954 missal calls the Crucifixion the “First Mass.” More recently books call the Last Supper the “First Mass.”

My understanding is that while both are the same Sacrifice, the logic still doesn’t work both ways.

Sacrifice of the Cross = value is inherent in the act

Last Supper = value is derived from being the same sacrifice as the Sacrifice of the Cross

That’s the best of my understanding. Do you see the difference?

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not a theologian, I just know what I’ve read. An inscription in my 1954 missal calls the Crucifixion the “First Mass.” More recently books call the Last Supper the “First Mass.”

My understanding is that while both are the same Sacrifice, the logic still doesn’t work both ways.

Sacrifice of the Cross = value is inherent in the act

Last Supper = value is derived from being the same sacrifice as the Sacrifice of the Cross

That’s the best of my understanding. Do you see the difference?

Only kind of… I mean, if the last supper really is the very same sacrifice than the value is in fact inherent to it. I mean, if the last supper really is the sacrifice of the cross rather than just some representation or remebrance of said sacrifice, then its valus **is **inherent to what it is.

 

[Rich_C]

Only kind of… I mean, if the last supper really is the very same sacrifice than the value is in fact inherent to it. I mean, if the last supper really is the sacrifice of the cross rather than just some representation or remebrance of said sacrifice, then its valus **is **inherent to what it is.

I didn’t mean to even hint that they are not the same. Let me think of another expression. I think it’s proper to say that the Cruxification is the original Sacrifice, if you will, made actually present at the Last Supper and every Mass since. We wouldn’t say that the other way around, that the Last Supper is the foundation of our salvation, which the Crucifixion actually made present again, would we?

I mean, Christ paid for our sins on the Cross. The Last Supper is a reference to the Cross, in way in which the Cross is not a reference to the Last Supper, right?

I guess I understand it as well as I can, being an ordinary layman, and can’t express it any better.

 

[thewanderer]

I didn’t mean to even hint that they are not the same. Let me think of another expression. I think it’s proper to say that the Cruxification is the original Sacrifice, if you will, made actually present at the Last Supper and every Mass since. We wouldn’t say that the other way around, that the Last Supper is the foundation of our salvation, which the Crucifixion actually made present again, would we?

I mean, Christ paid for our sins on the Cross. The Last Supper is a reference to the Cross, in way in which the Cross is not a reference to the Last Supper, right?

I guess I understand it as well as I can, being an ordinary layman, and can’t express it any better.

I didn’t mean to imply that you thought they weren’t the same. I hope it didn’t come across that way.

I guess I just don’t see a problem with emphasizing the Mass as the Last Supper, so long as it is understood what the last supper is. If it is clear that the Last Supper is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, then to emphasize the Last is to emphasize the sacrifice because they are the very same thing.

We might need to just agree to disagree here, it is a rather difficult subject so I don’t know how much it will help to keep repeating how we see it. After all, ultimately all that matters is that we hold on to the Faith, not have a perfect understanding of a difficult topic is not the end of the world.

 

[Rich_C]

I didn’t mean to imply that you thought they weren’t the same. I hope it didn’t come across that way.

I guess I just don’t see a problem with emphasizing the Mass as the Last Supper, so long as it is understood what the last supper is. If it is clear that the Last Supper is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, then to emphasize the Last is to emphasize the sacrifice because they are the very same thing.

We might need to just agree to disagree here, it is a rather difficult subject so I don’t know how much it will help to keep repeating how we see it. After all, ultimately all that matters is that we hold on to the Faith, not have a perfect understanding of a difficult topic is not the end of the world.

I guess to me what really matter is this: When I only identified the Mass with the Last Supper (which I did all my life until a year ago) I thought the miracle of the Mass was principally about Christ giving us, the human beings there, grace through the reception of His Body and Blood.

Now that I understand it’s mostly about the Sacrifice, it’s no longer primarily about what we receive. It’s primary about what the God the Father receives. The Mass is a gift of the Son to the Father, so that the Father will have mercy on humanity.

It’s a totally different way of looking at the Mass. Now I see the Mass as more God-directed and more of a work by God, for God, with resulting benefits for us. I see the Mass as sustaining the world by perpetuating the fruits of the Sacrifice of Calvary, not just helping those who receive Holy Communion to live faithfully. It averts judgment for everyone by its fruits.

I didn’t see any of that until I saw the centrality of the Sacrifice, but if you saw all that from the Last Supper connection, kudos. I am kind of a blockhead, I admit.

 

[thewanderer]

I guess to me what really matter is this: When I only identified the Mass with the Last Supper (which I did all my life until a year ago) I thought the miracle of the Mass was principally about Christ giving us, the human beings there, grace through the reception of His Body and Blood.

Now that I understand it’s mostly about the Sacrifice, it’s no longer primarily about what we receive. It’s primary about what the God the Father receives. The Mass is a gift of the Son to the Father, so that the Father will have mercy on humanity.

It’s a totally different way of looking at the Mass. Now I see the Mass as more God-directed and more of a work by God, for God, with resulting benefits for us. I see the Mass as sustaining the world by perpetuating the fruits of the Sacrifice of Calvary, not just helping those who receive Holy Communion to live faithfully. It averts judgment for everyone by its fruits.

I didn’t see any of that until I saw the centrality of the Sacrifice, but if you saw all that from the Last Supper connection, kudos. I am kind of a blockhead, I admit.

All right, I’ll bite, one more reply.

The way I see it is that both of these focuses are important aspects of the one true reality. Christ, in the same act, both offers himself to the Father for the remission of our sins and offers us the grace to follow His Will through giving Himself to us in the Eucharist. Both of these aspects are important and both must be recognized by all. So long as both are recognized as true I don’t see a problem with leaning the focus in either direction, changing the focus helps to give us a new perspective, however, it is important in doing so not to lose sight of what one already knew. So, I see nothing wrong with an emphasis on the Last Supper as long as it does not lose sight of the reality of the sacrifice. I would say the same thing about emphasis on the Sacrifice, if it gets to the point that such an emphasis causes one to lose sight of the aspect of the Last Supper then something wrong is going on. Hopefully that helps make my perspective more understandable.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It’s like saying that the shape of the left side of a sphere is more important than the right side, or vice versa. Or whether the left side is still the left side if you look at it from a different angle. “Important” is problematic here; we’re trying to make a dualistic determination where theologically there apparently isn’t one.

 

[Rich_C]

All right, I’ll bite, one more reply.

The way I see it is that both of these focuses are important aspects of the one true reality. Christ, in the same act, both offers himself to the Father for the remission of our sins and offers us the grace to follow His Will through giving Himself to us in the Eucharist. Both of these aspects are important and both must be recognized by all. So long as both are recognized as true I don’t see a problem with leaning the focus in either direction, changing the focus helps to give us a new perspective, however, it is important in doing so not to lose sight of what one already knew. So, I see nothing wrong with an emphasis on the Last Supper as long as it does not lose sight of the reality of the sacrifice. I would say the same thing about emphasis on the Sacrifice, if it gets to the point that such an emphasis causes one to lose sight of the aspect of the Last Supper then something wrong is going on. Hopefully that helps make my perspective more understandable.

I still think the offering made to God holds pride of place above the sharing in which we partake, like in old testament worship, but I really should go back to my catechism this weekend and study.

My problem was, I didn’t even know there was a sacrificial aspect to the Mass until I started attending the EF. I think a lot of Catholics today are in the same boat. I think that I didn’t understand the Mass at all before. I wish it was more explicit in the Ordinary Form, because the Mass was my only teacher for a long time, and it probably still is for most Catholics.

 

[thewanderer]

I still think the offering made to God holds pride of place above the offering to us, like in old testament worship, but I really should go back to my catechism this weekend and study.

My problem was, I didn’t even know there was a sacrificial aspect to the Mass until I started attending the EF. I think a lot of Catholics today are in the same boat. I think that I didn’t understand the Mass at all before. I wish it was more explicit in the Ordinary Form, because the Mass was my only teacher for a long time, and it probably still is for most Catholics.

Yes, the fact that you were unaware of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is a problem. And I think you are most likely right that many other Catholics have this same problem. There is indeed much need for better Catechesis.

 

[Rich_C]

Yes, the fact that you were unaware of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is a problem. And I think you are most likely right that many other Catholics have this same problem. There is indeed much need for better Catechesis.

Indeed.

 

[clem456]

This is a reason why Mass in the vernacular can be good. The theology is there and can be easily understood. For years though, even in English,the words went in my right ear and out my left. Now, it’s like a whole new world has opened up, as I listen to the words the priest is saying and can meditate upon them.

 

[Rich_C]

This is a reason why Mass in the vernacular can be good. The theology is there and can be easily understood. For years though, even in English,the words went in my right ear and out my left. Now, it’s like a whole new world has opened up, as I listen to the words the priest is saying and can meditate upon them.

I’m glad you had a good experience with that.

I found a whole new world open up when I discovered the EF Mass. It states the theology of the Mass so clearly and precisely and make it so clear what is happening. That’s when I realized it was sacrificial for the first time.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m glad you had a good experience with that.

I found a whole new world open up when I discovered the EF Mass. It states the theology of the Mass so clearly and precisely and make it so clear what is happening. That’s when I realized it was sacrificial for the first time.

Unfortunately, the only EF Mass around here is at 8:30 Sunday and for 25-ish years I’ve been playing music at the 8 at our home parish so I’m claimed for that time.

… which is why I don’t know these things …

How does going to Mass in a language I’m assuming you don’t know, help you understand anything? It isn’t like they explain in English as they go along, is it? Or did you go to a place the homily is in English?

Alan

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Unfortunately, the only EF Mass around here is at 8:30 Sunday and for 25-ish years I’ve been playing music at the 8 at our home parish so I’m claimed for that time.

… which is why I don’t know these things …

How does going to Mass in a language I’m assuming you don’t know, help you understand anything? It isn’t like they explain in English as they go along, is it? Or did you go to a place the homily is in English?

Alan

The missal has both Latin and English side by side, so you follow along with mass in your missal and then you know what the priest is saying, which is a very good idea. More people should do that at the OF also.

 

[Rich_C]

Unfortunately, the only EF Mass around here is at 8:30 Sunday and for 25-ish years I’ve been playing music at the 8 at our home parish so I’m claimed for that time.

… which is why I don’t know these things …

How does going to Mass in a language I’m assuming you don’t know, help you understand anything? It isn’t like they explain in English as they go along, is it? Or did you go to a place the homily is in English?

Alan

Almost all of us have a little book with all the prayers in Latin and English, side-by-side, so we know every word that’s said.

I don’t know if you’re aware, but the prayers are different, not just in a different language. Very few prayers from the EF Mass were retained in the OF, and these prayers (read in English during Mass) are just a treasure. They explain the Faith beautifully and clearly in ways the OF doesn’t. I love the EF more for what it prays than for what language it uses to pray.

 

[triumphguy]

When we pray the Our Father what exactly are we praying?

Abba… daddy…

An utterly radical way of addressing God, who was previously always the unnameable, or was addressed using a title like Lord of Hosts.

This prayer of Jesus would have shocked the disciples to the core.

So if His children raise their hands to their daddy, is He going to be displeased?

We’ve got bigger things to worry about than the slight raising of forearms, hand held upwards that we see in Canadian parishes.