Mandated orans posture

[netmilsmom]

Digitonomy:

What is shokeling?

The bowing that the Jewish people do.
Jesus and Mary were Jews, why Orans over this?

 

[tadly]

Searching13:

This was addressed in another thread -We are discussing the posture of the congregation, not the action of the Priest. Also we must use good judgement and common sense. I am attempting to have a serious discussion. You don’t think your sarcasm is disrespectful? You have also insinuated that I cannot understand you, because I disagree. I understand you perfectly well.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=894280&highlight=confusion#post894280

I saw a priest in a clown costume on another thread.
Why do you say that this is sarcasm? I think it’s a genuine question. I would like to know. Should I expect this at a Catholic church?

From what I see here, when someone brings up a question, rather than answer it, posters tell the person that they are getting snippy or sarcastic. People needs to back up their facts with more references. The Bishops here seem to be unclear so some other references need to be found to back up te point.

So, without malace, sarcasm or snippyness, I am genuinely asking that someone answer the questions presented here. How can a person who is looking for real answers get them if the valid questions are met with emootional roadblocks?

 

[Digitonomy]

Deacon Ed:

I have to admit my attendance at Ruthenian parishes has been limited to California. On the other hand, my attendance at Melkite parishes has spanned the country and, in theory, we are all to be following the same basic liturgical praxis…I have also attended liturgy with the Romanians and they, too, use the orans

Is this actually listed in the rubrics, as is the case for the Qurbono of the Maronites, or is it more on the level of a tradition for these Churches?

Can anyone provide insight as to whether orans is the mandated posture in the liturgies of the other Eastern Catholic Churches?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

tadly:

So, without malace, sarcasm or snippyness, I am genuinely asking that someone answer the questions presented here. How can a person who is looking for real answers get them if the valid questions are met with emootional roadblocks?

The problem with getting an official answer on this particular subject is that there isn’t one. People have supplied their opinions on what is valid. Some have done so using interpretations of the GIRM which are inconsistent with the way Roman law is interpreted which means that their interpretations are not consistent with the Church. Others have supplied documentation from local bishops–but that only applies in the diocese where that bishop is the ordinary.

The general principle of Liturgical praxis is that what isn’t expressly forbidden is permitted. Of course, there are limits to that – but that’s why you might see a cowboy Mass, or even a clown Mass – there is no express prohibition in the GIRM and someone went way beyond good taste and sense.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Digitonomy:

Is this actually listed in the rubrics, as is the case for the Qurbono of the Maronites, or is it more on the level of a tradition for these Churches?

Can anyone provide insight as to whether orans is the mandated posture in the liturgies of the other Eastern Catholic Churches?

Here we have a problem. The rubrics for the Eastern Churches tend to dictate what the ministers are supposed to do, but do not address the people (in general). There is no directive for the people to raise their hands in the orans position. My experience of the Maronites, Ruthenians (in California), Melkties and Romanians is that the orans position us used for the Lord’s Prayer. Since most Byzantine Churches use the Byzantine Daily Worship book by Abp. Joseph Raya (of blessed memory) it follows that the expectations of that book would be common. Since, however, he does not spell out that posture (but being Melkite used it himself) I cannot say with any certainty what other parishes do.

Deacon Ed

 

[tadly]

Deacon Ed:

The problem with getting an official answer on this particular subject is that there isn’t one. People have supplied their opinions on what is valid. Some have done so using interpretations of the GIRM which are inconsistent with the way Roman law is interpreted which means that their interpretations are not consistent with the Church. Others have supplied documentation from local bishops–but that only applies in the diocese where that bishop is the ordinary.

The general principle of Liturgical praxis is that what isn’t expressly forbidden is permitted. Of course, there are limits to that – but that’s why you might see a cowboy Mass, or even a clown Mass – there is no express prohibition in the GIRM and someone went way beyond good taste and sense.

Deacon Ed

Again, this is a genuine question. I’m just finding out things in the Catholic church. Does Deacon mean lawyer? Do you study the law of the church? We have two Deacons in my wife’s church and sometimes I talk to them about the things I don’t understand. Should I choose them over the priest? He is pretty busy and if the Deacons will give me a better answer, I won’t bother the pastor.

The thing I like about the Catholic service is that things don’t change. In my wife’s parish back home or here, we get basically the same thing. Should I expect to be running into Cowboy masses if they are allowed? Doesn’t it make sense to have someone come down on people who are making a mockery of the service?

 

[PJR]

Deacon Ed, You explained the symbolism of the orans posture earlier. Arms lifted up to “Daddy”. Do you know where and when the hands folded posture developed? I was just curious if anyone knows. I am still confused as to why one is more or less appropriate than the other for the Our Father specifically. What is the intended meaning of having your hands folded in front of you? Kneeling is pretty obvious-but I’m sure you could expound here too. Standing?

Are we to conclude from all the documents quoted that a unified posture for this prayer is best? Is that because we are offering this particular prayer together-hence the “our, us, we” in the prayer. Of course we are all offering ourselves in the Eucharistic sacrifice as well though we are not to mimic the priest’s role. Maybe you could enlighten me a little here, your explanations are pretty good. I hope I didn’t give you too many questions. Thanks, Paula

 

[fix]

How about this:

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.

EWTN

 

[tadly]

PJR:

Deacon Ed, You explained the symbolism of the orans posture earlier. Arms lifted up to “Daddy”. Do you know where and when the hands folded posture developed? I was just curious if anyone knows. I am still confused as to why one is more or less appropriate than the other for the Our Father specifically. What is the intended meaning of having your hands folded in front of you? Kneeling is pretty obvious-but I’m sure you could expound here too. Standing?

Are we to conclude from all the documents quoted that a unified posture for this prayer is best? Is that because we are offering this particular prayer together-hence the “our, us, we” in the prayer. Of course we are all offering ourselves in the Eucharistic sacrifice as well though we are not to mimic the priest’s role. Maybe you could enlighten me a little here, your explanations are pretty good. I hope I didn’t give you too many questions. Thanks, Paula

And why at this time in the service over another? Is it that other religions say the Lord’s Prayer so you want to go with something I see in my sister’s evangelical church?
We had some people start to raise their hands to heaven in our church back home. I thought it was strange because Presbyterians are not normally into outward signs of prayer. We tend to fold into our prayer. If there is unity, it is praying with someone, not body to body but soul to soul.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

PJR:

Deacon Ed, You explained the symbolism of the orans posture earlier. Arms lifted up to “Daddy”. Do you know where and when the hands folded posture developed?

I don’t know for sure when this posture came into practice, but it was common in Asia before the time of Christ. Because of influence along the spice route, it may have been brought back to the Middel East and was picked up there. There are paintings in the catecombs showing people praying with hands together, so it was certainly found in the Church of the 3rd and 4th century (as was the orans position)

I was just curious if anyone knows. I am still confused as to why one is more or less appropriate than the other for the Our Father specifically. What is the intended meaning of having your hands folded in front of you? Kneeling is pretty obvious-but I’m sure you could expound here too. Standing?

Because the Our Father is specifically a prayer of petition it is appropriate that we show our dependency. Holding one’s hands together is a sign of personal prayer – it represents the prayer of the heart being sent to God (the hands are near the heart, but the fingers point upward which is traditionally where God is). Standing is also the traditional Jewish posture for prayer. Because the use of seats in early Christian churches was limited to the elderly, pregnant women and, surprisingly, clergy most people stood to pray.

Kneeling is an interesting issue because it has different cultural meanings. In the West it has been seen as a sign of worship but in the East it is a sign of repentence. Both derive from the idea that kneeling is a sign of self-abasement.

Are we to conclude from all the documents quoted that a unified posture for this prayer is best? Is that because we are offering this particular prayer together-hence the “our, us, we” in the prayer. Of course we are all offering ourselves in the Eucharistic sacrifice as well though we are not to mimic the priest’s role. Maybe you could enlighten me a little here, your explanations are pretty good. I hope I didn’t give you too many questions. Thanks, Paula

The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church is unique in that we believe we are saved in the context of a community of believers as opposed to a me-and-Jesus approach common to the Protestant understanding (which derives from Luther’s personal understanding). Consequently our worship is corporate, that is, we gather as a body. As much as possible uniformity of posture should be one of the goals becuase it reflects the community at worship rather than a bunch of individuals who happen to be worshipping at the same time in the same place.

I’ve tried to keep the answers concise, and I hope I haven’t sacrified clarity or depth in order to do so.

Deacon Ed

 

[fix]

Deacon Ed:

The “lifting up of our hands” is a petition to the Father: “pick me up, Daddy!”

Could you please provide us with a reference for this. I know Abba means daddy, but I would like to know where this idea originates from. Thanks.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

fix:

Could you please provide us with a reference for this. I know Abba means daddy, but I would like to know where this idea originates from. Thanks.

The idea behind the expression is found in the Church Fathers. The actual expression is mine (although others have said similar things). I’ll see if I can find an appropriate reference for you, but it may take a while.

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Netmil(name removed by moderator): The GIRM also specifies when the priest should genuflect and when he should fold his hands in prayer. By extension of the logic you have used the laity should never do these either. Those gestures, as well as the triple signation at the beginning of the Gospel are not reserved to the priest.

Here is your instruction from the Vatican for someone other than the priest to fold hands…
Ceremonial of Bishops (1989), part IV.v, par. 107, which prescribes joined hands for “concelebrants and ministers” “when walking from place to place or when standing, unless they are holding something.”
In other words, the altar servers and even priests who are concelebrating but not the principal celebrants are to keep their hands folded. If the altar servers can do it it is not a gesture proper to the priest (in this case to the bishop as principal celebrant).

Deacon, the ball is in your court. Please give any reference to a Vatican document where the Orans position is prescribed for the laity.

 

[Searching13]

No one said that the orans position was prescribed for the laity.

What was said is that it is not forbidden.

Can you understand the difference?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Deacon, the ball is in your court. Please give any reference to a Vatican document where the Orans position is prescribed for the laity.

Again yuo ask the wrong question (or, perhaps, from the wrong perspective). As I’ve already stated, both canon and liturgical law are interpreted in the most permissive rather than least permissive form. Thus, unless it is specifically forbidden it is permited. There are, of course, limits to how far this can be taken.

Deacon Ed

 

[fix]

Deacon Ed:

Again yuo ask the wrong question (or, perhaps, from the wrong perspective). As I’ve already stated, both canon and liturgical law are interpreted in the most permissive rather than least permissive form. Thus, unless it is specifically forbidden it is permited. There are, of course, limits to how far this can be taken.

Deacon Ed

Searching13:

No one said that the orans position was prescribed for the laity.

What was said is that it is not forbidden.

Can you understand the difference?

How do you answer this theologian from post 46?:

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.

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Again yuo ask the wrong question (or, perhaps, from the wrong perspective). As I’ve already stated, both canon and liturgical law are interpreted in the most permissive rather than least permissive form. Thus, unless it is specifically forbidden it is permited. There are, of course, limits to how far this can be taken.

Deacon Ed

First, I think I will need a Vatican reference to your quote that both cannon and liturgical law are interpreted in the most permissive rather than least permissive form.

Then, this was your original quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deacon Ed
* Netmil(name removed by moderator): The GIRM also specifies when the priest should genuflect and when he should fold his hands in prayer. By extension of the logic you have used the laity should never do these either. Those gestures, as well as the triple signation at the beginning of the Gospel are not reserved to the priest.*

I have given you three references where the laity has been instructed to genuflect and to fold hands.
I don’t think that it’s unfair to ask the same references of you.
The orans position has never been instructed as a position for the laity nor for those assisting. How could it ever be interperted as something that is not specific for the priest?

 

[netmilsmom]

Searching13:

No one said that the orans position was prescribed for the laity.

What was said is that it is not forbidden.

Can you understand the difference?

Juggling is not forbidden either.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

First, I think I will need a Vatican reference to your quote that both cannon and liturgical law are interpreted in the most permissive rather than least permissive form.

I’ll see if I can find one.

The orans position has never been instructed as a position for the laity nor for those assisting. How could it ever be interperted as something that is not specific for the priest?

Okay, we’ll do it your way…it is the custom of the Melkite Church, a Church in communion with Rome, for the laity to use the orans position in praying the Our Father. In the early Chuch this was a customary prayer position as evidenced by numerous paintings in catecombs and in early Christian art. Since it was used by the laity it is not, nor can it be, reserved to the priest.

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

Okay, we’ll do it your way…it is the custom of the Melkite Church, a Church in communion with Rome, for the laity to use the orans position in praying the Our Father. In the early Chuch this was a customary prayer position as evidenced by numerous paintings in catecombs and in early Christian art. Since it was used by the laity it is not, nor can it be, reserved to the priest.

Deacon Ed

We are speaking of the Roman Rite and not the Melikite.
Here is an expose of the Catacombs from PBS, Frontline…
“And so, these catacombs literally are like colonies of ants going farther and farther down into this soft… rock, and as you go in, what you can do is, you can see up the walls as they dig the burial loculi, or chambers, where they slide the body in place. Those are the cheap burials. And we can’t, in some cases, tell whether they’re pagan or Jewish or Christian. The more elaborate burials become large rooms carved out in the rock, where they actually look like little chambers or homes, and here we see some elaborate paintings, and the rooms can be entirely decorated in frescos and much more elaborate kind of burial chambers are built within them for the bodies.”

Understanding that there a problem with distinction between the Pagan, Christian and Jewish tombs, there is no guarentee that this posture was Christian.
Besides, as someone else said, this is not the early church. We have rules now.

Also this from the Catholic Encyclopedia…
“One of the figures is clad in the tunic and pallium reserved in early Christian art to persons of sacred character, while the other, at the opposite side of the tripod, stands in the attitude of an orans. The sacred personage holds his hands extended over the loaf and the fish, somewhat after the manner of a priest holding his hands over the chalice before the Consecration. Wilpert’s interpretation of the scene is that the figure with extended hands represents Christ performing the miracle of the multiplication, which act, in the intention of the artist, is symbolic of the Consecration. The orans, on the other hand, is a symbol of the deceased, who, through the reception of Holy Communion, has obtained eternal happiness:”

Understanding that a figure in the Orans position symbolizes the deceased, it is not conclusive that this was a common prayer posture but rather would be in all tombs to represent the dead.