Mandated orans posture

[MrS]

Deacon Ed:

Thus, unless it is specifically forbidden it is permited. There are, of course, limits to how far this can be taken.

Deacon Ed

This highlites the problems that arose after VatII… ambiguity stemming from lay opinions that were not properly addressed.

I think the opposite is true. Unless it is specifically allowed, it is not permitted for us to assume.

So much of our rich heritage is given to us on this basic formula.

There are 3 persons in the Trinity… we don’t say that there are not 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc
The mother of God conceived only Jesus. … we don’t define the doctrine as there were no brothers, no sisters, no twins, no triplets…etc
Their are times when the priest acts alone… we don’t read when he can’t act without our participation.
There are 7 sacraments… we aren’t taught there are not 8, 9 or just 2.

Even the Credo… we are instructed (in error) to say “we believe”… not to quit doing it right and saying “I believe”

The GIRM is a positive statement… not a list of negatives or exclusionn.

(sorry, had to butt in…
you are doing well, netmil(name removed by moderator),
not you are off the mark on this…)

 

[Digitonomy]

This is really off-topic with regard to this thread, but now that you’re into Canon Law, I’m interested.
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.

It is quite clear that this is the case for canon law. From the Code of Canon Law, canon 18 states

Laws which establish a penalty or restrict the free exercise of rights or which contain an exception to the law are subject to a strict interpretation.

The strictness mentioned means these laws are only to be applied in the strictest conditions, or those areas explicitly stated. Or you could style it that such laws take the most permissive form for those areas not explicitly covered.

Also possibly relevant, canon 14:

When there is a doubt of law, laws do not bind even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones.

So it seems to me that notwithstanding your rule about gestures proper to the priest, the rule about the orans is not explicit that it excludes the congregation, and I have to seriously question whether such an inference would meet the standard of canon law.

However, it is not canon law, but liturgical law which is at issue here. Does the “strict rather than broad interpretation” principle of canon 18 apply not just to canon law, but also to liturgical law? I could find no cite within the GIRM or other authoritative source to suggest this. But besides Deacon Ed, it also seems to be the approach taken by EWTN.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Digitonomy:

This However, it is not canon law, but liturgical law which is at issue here. Does the “strict rather than broad interpretation” principle of canon 18 apply not just to canon law, but also to liturgical law? I could find no cite within the GIRM or other authoritative source to suggest this. But besides Deacon Ed, it also seems to be the approach taken by EWTN.

Yes, the same principle applies to liturgical law. I’m still trying to find an offical statement to this effect.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

MrS:

This highlites the problems that arose after VatII… ambiguity stemming from lay opinions that were not properly addressed.

I think the opposite is true. Unless it is specifically allowed, it is not permitted for us to assume.

So much of our rich heritage is given to us on this basic formula.

There are 3 persons in the Trinity… we don’t say that there are not 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc
The mother of God conceived only Jesus. … we don’t define the doctrine as there were no brothers, no sisters, no twins, no triplets…etc
Their are times when the priest acts alone… we don’t read when he can’t act without our participation.
There are 7 sacraments… we aren’t taught there are not 8, 9 or just 2.

Even the Credo… we are instructed (in error) to say “we believe”… not to quit doing it right and saying “I believe”

The GIRM is a positive statement… not a list of negatives or exclusionn.

(sorry, had to butt in…
you are doing well, netmil(name removed by moderator),
not you are off the mark on this…)

The GIRM prescribes what should be done, but with only a few exceptions, does not prescribe what should not be done. Since it does not prohibit certain actions they are permitted (again, a certain sense of propriety should be expected). Your interpretation is typically American – but both liturgical and canon law are Roman. We have to interpret them as they are intended, not as we would normally read law. Again, in American law if a thing is not permitted it’s forbidden. In Roman law if a thing is not forbidden it is permitted. This is a basic principle of both canon and liturgical law. Attempts to read the GIRM any other way is simply contrary to the mind of the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[MrS]

Deacon Ed:

The GIRM prescribes what should be done, but with only a few exceptions, does not prescribe what should not be done. Since it does not prohibit certain actions they are permitted (again, a certain sense of propriety should be expected). Your interpretation is typically American – but both liturgical and canon law are Roman. We have to interpret them as they are intended, not as we would normally read law.

Deacon Ed

once again… whose propriety… yours, America’s, Rome’s?

Thank God for Benedict XVI… I believe in a short time he will interpret them for you and for me.

Until then, we do what is permitted, not try to interpret what is not negated, or not on a “forbidden list”.

I agree we need an authority to determine what the rules say. I question, however, why we need an authority to determine what the rules don’t say…here or in Rome.

So, after 40 years of wandering in the desert of ambiguity, we have a Pope who might just lead us out of the confusion brought on by both the laity and the ordained.

 

[MrS]

Deacon Ed:

The GIRM prescribes what should be done, but with only a few exceptions, does not prescribe what should not be done. Since it does not prohibit certain actions they are permitted (again, a certain sense of propriety should be expected). Your interpretation is typically American – but both liturgical and canon law are Roman. have to interpret them as they are intended, not as we would normally read law. Again, in American law if a thing is not permitted it’s forbidden. In Roman law if a thing is not forbidden it is permitted. This is a basic principle of both canon and liturgical law. Attempts to read the GIRM any other way is simply contrary to the mind of the Church.

Deacon Ed

I read your post before the edit… we have the same habit huh??

 

[netmilsmom]

Digitonomy:

T

However, it is not canon law, but liturgical law which is at issue here. Does the “strict rather than broad interpretation” principle of canon 18 apply not just to canon law, but also to liturgical law? I could find no cite within the GIRM or other authoritative source to suggest this. But besides Deacon Ed, it also seems to be the approach taken by EWTN.

This is in regard to punishments such as excommunication and denying communion. It’s how the Bishops skated away from Communion for politians who support the right to Abortion.
It has does not have to do with the liturgy at all.
The Bishops who are discouraging these innovations do not see it that way either.

 

[otm]

Deacon Ed:

The actual expression is “hands joined” and you will not find that posture specified for the people, only for the priest. I generally do not use the section of the GIRM that is broken into chapters but, rather, the PDF version of the GIRM which allows me to search the entire document.

However, you are correct that the GIRM generally specifies what is to be done, not what is not to be done. But you have then gone beyond what is correct in your assertion: “If a posture is never mentioned for the laity, it is not for the laity” because, as I said, the posture of praying with “hands joined” is never mentioned for the laity.

You are also applying an American legalistic understanding of law to litugical law. American law is always understood in the “most restrictive sense” while Roman law (both canon and liturgical) is always understood in the least restrictive sense. So, in general, what is not prohibited is permitted.

Deacon Ed

Also know as the Germanic approach to law, and the Mediterranian approach.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

MrS:

I read your post before the edit… we have the same habit huh??

Yeah, sometimes I shoot from the lip. In this case, hit the wrong button before I edited what I had written.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

MrS:

once again… whose propriety… yours, America’s, Rome’s?

Thank God for Benedict XVI… I believe in a short time he will interpret them for you and for me.

Until then, we do what is permitted, not try to interpret what is not negated, or not on a “forbidden list”.

I agree we need an authority to determine what the rules say. I question, however, why we need an authority to determine what the rules don’t say…here or in Rome.

So, after 40 years of wandering in the desert of ambiguity, we have a Pope who might just lead us out of the confusion brought on by both the laity and the ordained.

In all cases I defer to Rome when Rome has spoken, I defer to the approach to liturgical law that I learned in school which is consistent with what I learned in studying canon law. That is, I use the Roman approach. I try to also know that there are limits to the principle of “what is not forbidden is permitted.” As I pointed out elsewhere – those who don’t follow a sense of appropriate liturgy give us clown Masses, cowboy Masses, et al. There are limits.

Deacon Ed

 

[Searching13]

In addition to all the factual , well explained and documented statements by Deacon Ed, there is also the reality of the situation.

The USCCB has been asked and answered the question, and chose to decline to respond on either side. Even the bishops who discourage the orans position do not say it is forbidden. I read in another thread that someone wrote regarding the posture during the Eucharist Prayer (which is specifically mentioned) and did not even receive a response. The bishops chose to decline. I sincerely doubt any action regarding the orans posture would be taken by Rome if there was even an acknowledgement of the report.

So now some of you are trying to convince people to follow your incorrect interpretation of documents and scripture. It would be far more effective to take the “good cop” approach and just very nicely say that although this posture is not specifically forbidden, and is allowed and even encouraged in some legitimate rites, there are many articles by well known Catholic authors giving solid statements which show that the orans position is discouraged in the Latin liturgy.

It is not up to any of you to correct or insult anyone, even if they were in error, but especially if it is you who are in error. (I am also referring to remarks in the closed thread in this comment)

 

[netmilsmom]

MrS:

once again… whose propriety… yours, America’s, Rome’s?

It has be stated that genuflecting, folding hands etc have not been directed for the laity. That has been proven otherwise.
The directive that laity is not to use gestures exclusively for the priest, is clear cut and not open to interpertation. So because the Orans position is the liturgy is for the priest only, and cannot be proven that it is directed to the laity at all, then under the directive that laity cannot use priestly gestures, it is not for the laity.

If one ignores those directives given to the priest and never to the laity, stating that it is an open interpertation, then there are parts of the mass such as the words of the consecration, which are directed to be priest only, which may be mimiced by the laity, but we know that this is not true.

What makes a priestly gesture? A directive to the celebrant that is never directed at the laity. Correct?

We can debate the Spirit of the Law for days, but the directive that nothing that is for the priest should be done by the laity is clear cut. I will concide that the punishment for it would be considered “most permissive” but that doesn’t make it right. Because of this directive and knowing that the celebrant only is given directive for the orans position, one must prove that this is not a priestly gesture. One must site and example where it is directed toward the laity as was done with genuflecting and folding hands.

 

[Searching13]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

It has be stated that genuflecting, folding hands etc have not been directed for the laity. That has been proven otherwise.

Regardless what you think you have proven, you cannot get any authority to affirm this.

The directive that laity is not to use gestures exclusively for the priest, is clear cut and not open to interpertation

But it does not specify the gestures. This is the whole point.

.

So because the Orans position is the liturgy is for the priest only, and cannot be proven that it is directed to the laity at all, then under the directive that laity cannot use priestly gestures, it is not for the laity

Again, you are using faulty logic and incorrect premise to draw a wrong conclusion

So because the Orans position is the liturgy is for the priest only,

you have never proven this—it is not stated anywhere.

If one ignores those directives given to the priest and never to the laity, stating that it is an open interpertation, then there are parts of the mass such as the words of the consecration, which are directed to be priest only, which may be mimiced by the laity, but we know that this is not true.

Again a wrong conclusion----you are aplying instructions for the priest to the laity. The PRIEST may not change the words-the rules for words are much more strict than those of posture, and also for the celebrant and the congregation you are confusing the whole issue. Perhaps the more recent RS document would clarify it for you This lists the grave abuses and the less serious.

What makes a priestly gesture? A directive to the celebrant that is never directed at the laity. Correct?

I’ve never heard that definition—site your source. Blessing over people or simulating sacraments, are the gestures most often prrohibited with reference to the canon law. Gestures such as these are always forbidden. The postures and gestures of the congregation during Mass would not cause confusion as to the identity of the celebrant. There would be more concern, if someone were on the altar, but that in itself would be an abuse.

The orans posture is not forbidden—

 

[netmilsmom]

And please check with your Bishop regarding this position!
Some Bishops, for example Cleveland, are encouraging this innovation to overcome the innovation of holding hands for the Our Father. It is apparent that the USCCB cannot agree on it, so asking the body is fruitless.

Of course, some would like to ignore the directive to not use a priestly gesture because there will be no punishment, However, I teach my five year old to do what’s right whether she will “Get away with it” or not.

 

[Searching13]

It has been acknowledged by both sides of this discussion that the bishops are not of the same mind on this issue, but no one has forbidden it.

I teach my five year old to do what’s right whether she will “Get away with it” or not.

Again this is your opinion-----the orans posture is not forbidden, so therefore it is not wrong.

Of course you may teach you child not to use it, but it may cause undo guilt or confusion for you to say it is forbidden.

 

[netmilsmom]

Searching13:

Regardless what you think you have proven, you cannot get any authority to affirm this.

Neither have you.

But it does not specify the gestures. This is the whole point.

Priestly gestures, those not directed at the laity.

.

Again, you are using faulty logic and incorrect premise to draw a wrong conclusion

In order to define a gesture as a priestly gesture, one must site where it is directed to the priest.
In order to prove a gesture for the laity, one must site that it is directed to the laity.
Site where the Orans is directed to the laity.

you have never proven this—it is not stated anywhere.

Because you can’t site a directive where it is said to be a gesture to the laity, but can show where it is a priestly gesture, it is a priestly gesture.

Again a wrong conclusion----you are aplying instructions for the priest to the laity. The PRIEST may not change the words-the rules for words are much more strict than those of posture, and also for the celebrant and the congregation you are confusing the whole issue. Perhaps the more recent RS document would clarify it for you This lists the grave abuses and the less serious.

It’s more than words, it is also postures.
Instruction on Collaboration (Nov. 13, 1997) “Neither may . . . non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the . . . priest celebrant” (ICP, Practical Provisions 6 §2).

Unless you can show that the Orans position is directed to the laity in the mass, it is a priestly gesture.
It can be an abuse or a grave abuse, it is still an innovation that does not belong in the liturgy.

The orans posture is not forbidden—

Correct! for the priest.

 

[netmilsmom]

Searching13:

It has been acknowledged by both sides of this discussion that the bishops are not of the same mind on this issue, but no one has forbidden it.

Again this is your opinion-----the orans posture is not forbidden, so therefore it is not wrong.

There is a difference between “not being encouraged” and right.
The Orans is “not being encouraged”

Of course you may teach you child not to use it, but it may cause undo guilt or confusion for you to say it is forbidden.

Not in my parish. We have the RS on our website. We put no innovations into the liturgy. Whether we can get away with it or not.

 

[Searching13]

Unless you can show that the Orans position is directed to the laity in the mass, it is a priestly gesture.

This is just not true. Deacon Ed has thoroughly explained the interpretation of canon and liturgical law… You may not like some things, and some bishops may agree with you, but you have no right to say it is forbidden or wrong.

This is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is just an opinion.

 

[Searching13]

There is a difference between “not being encouraged” and right.

There is also a difference between “not being encouraged” and forbidden.

 

[netmilsmom]

Searching13:

I’ve never heard that definition—site your source. Blessing over people or simulating sacraments, are the gestures most often prrohibited with reference to the canon law. Gestures such as these are always forbidden. The postures and gestures of the congregation during Mass would not cause confusion as to the identity of the celebrant. There would be more concern, if someone were on the altar, but that in itself would be an abuse.

The orans posture is not forbidden—

Sorry, I didn’t see that you edited after I wrote…
Like the Orans?

Site a source with a definition of a priestly gesture.