N
netmilsmom
Guest
I never said it was forbidden, I did say that no one has sited this as a gesture for the laity.
I have continually said check with your Bishop.
- Status
I have continually said check with your Bishop.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
That is what my five year old would say.
“You never said I couldn’t jump on the couch, so I can.”
“Daddy drinks wine and you never said I couldn’t.”
The posiblilities are endless.
If you are in a Diocese encouraging the Orans, God Bless you.
If you are not and you are looking at the documentation here, you are going against a directive by the Vatican that your Bishop has not openned to interpertation.
It’s up to your Bishop.
S
Searching13
Guest
This argument was refuted by Deaccon Ed, who is quite knowledgeable on Canon Law.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
This is Liturgical Law, not Canon Law. When it comes to an excommunication or denial of Communion, I am very glad that they are this open.
It is up to your Bishop, not me, not you, not Deacon Ed or anyone else on this forum.
You won’t be punished no matter what your Bishop says. If anyone wants to rationalize with, it’s not forbidden so I can, that is the person’s right.
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).
Until a reference shows that this gestures is directed to the laity, it is a priestly gesture.
P
PJR
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Thanks Ed for your answers. One more question, off topic again. There’s a gentleman in our parish who is from Jordan. He was raised in one of the Eastern Rites. I can’t recall if it’s Maronite or Melkite. Do you know if one would be more specific to that region? He and his family belong to our parish so I am also assuming that there is no particular problem with going from one Rite to another. I am unaware of any churches in my area-other than the Orthodox, which I realize is not in communion with Rome. I would love to attend Eastern Liturgy, I have been told it is very rich and beautiful. Sorry I wandered off there. Thanks again for your answers. Paula
P
PJR
Guest
Sorry Deacon Ed, I am so computer challenged that I inserted a response in the middle of your quote. Please everyone, don’t attribute my words to his!! DUH
While I’m here, I also wanted to ask FIx where the quote came from. EWTN? Thanks, Paula
While I’m here, I also wanted to ask FIx where the quote came from. EWTN? Thanks, Paula
N
netmilsmom
Guest
newadvent.org/cathen/05590a.htm
“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: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever” (St. John, vi, 59).”
F
fix
Guest
Hi,
You can find it here:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
Liturgy and Sacred Music
Then click on
Praying Hands Extended (Orans) in the list.
You may read the entire piece there.
S
Searching13
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Until a reference shows that this gestures is directed to the laity, it is (your opinion that it is) a priestly gesture.
You cannot speak for the Church on this matter.
Deacon Ed is also quite knowledgeable on liturgical Law
More accurately
Until a reference shows that this gestures is directed to the laity, it is (your opinion that it is) a priestly gesture.
You cannot speak for the Church on this matter.
T
tadly
Guest
Searching, are you a liturgical lawyer? Deacon Ed has not answered me about being one.
The people here seem to be saying to go to your Bishop. That makes sense.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
NO, I’m not a canon lawyer. Like all clerics, I studied canon law during my formation. I have had additional training in canon law as it pertains to marriage since I do work with people seeking annulments. I have studied liturgy, however, and serve as one of the Masters of Ceremony for my diocese as well as serving as the parish liturgist in my Latin parish.
My doctorate is in sacred theology, not canon law and not liturgy, however. But my dissertation was related to liturgy and, consequently, required that I be very familliar with how liturgical directives are understood with the mind of the Church.
netmil(name removed by moderator): I cannot find any documentation at the Vatican site relating to how one interprets liturgical law. The textbook which I used in my basic formation in liturgy referred to the directives in canon law that have already been cited. The experts at EWTN have used (and expressed) the same principle which I have enumerated.
Again, I suggest you ask your bishop if what I have said regarding how liturgical law is interpreted is correct.
At this point I really have nothing more to say. If you wish to continue to push your argument as if it were Church law, those who are so inclined are welcome to accept your advise. Those who are so inclined may accept mine. I really don’t care.
I have a book to finish writing and don’t have sufficient time to dig through musty archives to find something that is probably no better documented than the textbook I used which refers to canon law.
Deacon Ed
T
tadly
Guest
Deacon Ed:
I was just asking. There are Deacons at my wifes church. They seem very knowledgable. I was just wondering if they were who I should talk to instead of bothering the priest.
I’m sorry Deacon Ed, I didn’t mean to upset you.
I was just asking. There are Deacons at my wifes church. They seem very knowledgable. I was just wondering if they were who I should talk to instead of bothering the priest.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
You didn’t upset me at all. The “NO” was simply because my finger didn’t let go of the shift key in time…
You could certainly ask a deacon – they do receive training in this area. However, to be fair, not all deacons are trained at the same level. Clearly I have more education than some other deacons, and less than some. There are canon lawyers who post here (Deacon John Lansing, for example) to whom I defer in questions of canon law.
BTW, some deacons are better educated in liturgy than some priests – that’s why I serve as the parish liturgist instead of my pastor. I have more knowledge in this area than he, and he defers to me and, when I don’t know, I call the Diocese and speak to the director of liturgy who has more training and I. And if she doesn’t know, then I call the pastor of the Basilica of San Juan Capistrano since he has training far beyond what I have.
Deacon Ed
M
MrS
Guest
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE OF INTEREST TO THIS THREAD, ORIGINALLY APPEARING AT CATHOLIC EXCHANGE WEB SITE
iT IS WRITTEN BY A VERY WELL RESPECTED CANON LAWYER, DR ED PETERS.
PLEASE READ
Another Look at the Orans Issue****
Orans is Latin for “praying.” In liturgy today, the “orans position” is the gesture whereby the priest extends his arms out from his sides, with hands open and facing up, during certain of his audible prayers at Mass.****
What Is It for Today?
The orans position (or sometimes, orante), is obviously different from the priest folding or joining his hands, and is prescribed for the celebrant at various points in Mass: for example, during the Opening Prayer, most of the Eucharistic prayer, and the Our Father. The “orans issue” is the recent practice of some lay persons in the congregation adopting this gesture as their own, notably during the Our Father, and introducing thereby, if nothing else, disunity in worship.
While the orans position has rich tradition in Jewish and even ancient Christian prayer life, there is no precedent for Catholic laity assuming the orans position in Western liturgy for a millennium and a half; that alone cautions against its (re)introduction without careful thought. More specifically — and notwithstanding the fact that few liturgical gestures are univocal per se — lay use of the orans gesture in Mass today, besides injecting some gestural disunity in liturgy, could be used by some to suggest a blurring of the differences between lay liturgical roles and those of priests just at a time when distinctions between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood are struggling for healthy rearticulation.
Since at least the mid-1990s, bishops, liturgists, and other observers have discussed the orans issue at Mass and possible ways to resolve it, including ratifying the gesture for lay use. These discussions (summarized in Adoremus Bulletin, November 2003) have been interesting as far as they go, but they seem not to ask the fundamental question: Namely, what is the orans position in liturgy for today? From insight into its contemporary liturgical purpose, presumably, one could formulate rubrics for its use.
The orans issue is not one that congregations invented; rather some liturgical activists seem to have promoted it as a vehicle to advance an agenda. Still, I want to consider the further possibility that the current rubric calling for the priest to assume the orans posture during the Our Father might itself be misplaced and susceptible to confusion in the congregation.
…con’t
iT IS WRITTEN BY A VERY WELL RESPECTED CANON LAWYER, DR ED PETERS.
PLEASE READ
Another Look at the Orans Issue****
Orans is Latin for “praying.” In liturgy today, the “orans position” is the gesture whereby the priest extends his arms out from his sides, with hands open and facing up, during certain of his audible prayers at Mass.****
What Is It for Today?
The orans position (or sometimes, orante), is obviously different from the priest folding or joining his hands, and is prescribed for the celebrant at various points in Mass: for example, during the Opening Prayer, most of the Eucharistic prayer, and the Our Father. The “orans issue” is the recent practice of some lay persons in the congregation adopting this gesture as their own, notably during the Our Father, and introducing thereby, if nothing else, disunity in worship.
While the orans position has rich tradition in Jewish and even ancient Christian prayer life, there is no precedent for Catholic laity assuming the orans position in Western liturgy for a millennium and a half; that alone cautions against its (re)introduction without careful thought. More specifically — and notwithstanding the fact that few liturgical gestures are univocal per se — lay use of the orans gesture in Mass today, besides injecting some gestural disunity in liturgy, could be used by some to suggest a blurring of the differences between lay liturgical roles and those of priests just at a time when distinctions between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood are struggling for healthy rearticulation.
Since at least the mid-1990s, bishops, liturgists, and other observers have discussed the orans issue at Mass and possible ways to resolve it, including ratifying the gesture for lay use. These discussions (summarized in Adoremus Bulletin, November 2003) have been interesting as far as they go, but they seem not to ask the fundamental question: Namely, what is the orans position in liturgy for today? From insight into its contemporary liturgical purpose, presumably, one could formulate rubrics for its use.
The orans issue is not one that congregations invented; rather some liturgical activists seem to have promoted it as a vehicle to advance an agenda. Still, I want to consider the further possibility that the current rubric calling for the priest to assume the orans posture during the Our Father might itself be misplaced and susceptible to confusion in the congregation.
…con’t
M
MrS
Guest
con’t Pt II
When the Priest Prays Aloud and Alone
The first thing to notice in this matter is that, with the problematic exception of the Our Father, the orans position is prescribed for the priest predominantly when he is praying aloud and alone as, for example, during the Opening Prayer, the Prayer over the Gifts, and the Post-Communion Prayer. When, however, the priest is praying aloud and with the people, for example, during the Confiteor or the Creed, his hands are usually joined. In other words, when the priest is praying aloud and on behalf of a then-silent congregation, clearly exercising a leadership role, the orans posture being used then does not occasion congregational gestural imitation because the people are silent at that point in the Mass.
Conversely, though, when prayers are said aloud by the priest and people, the fact that the priest’s hands are joined during such prayers occasions — if anything by way of congregational imitation — the traditional gesture of joined or folded hands expected among the laity at Mass in the West. From these observations, it seems that the rubric calling for the priest to assume the orans position during the Our Father, in which prayer he joins the people instead of offering it on their behalf, is at least anomalous, and possibly inconsistent with the presidential symbolism suggested today by the orans position elsewhere in the Mass.
There remains to consider, though, how this miscue (if it is one) appeared in the liturgy. I suggest that originally, the orans rubric for the priest during the Lord’s Prayer was not a mistake, but that it quietly became one in the course of liturgical reforms undertaken by Pope Pius XII just prior to Vatican II.
\
…con’t
When the Priest Prays Aloud and Alone
The first thing to notice in this matter is that, with the problematic exception of the Our Father, the orans position is prescribed for the priest predominantly when he is praying aloud and alone as, for example, during the Opening Prayer, the Prayer over the Gifts, and the Post-Communion Prayer. When, however, the priest is praying aloud and with the people, for example, during the Confiteor or the Creed, his hands are usually joined. In other words, when the priest is praying aloud and on behalf of a then-silent congregation, clearly exercising a leadership role, the orans posture being used then does not occasion congregational gestural imitation because the people are silent at that point in the Mass.
Conversely, though, when prayers are said aloud by the priest and people, the fact that the priest’s hands are joined during such prayers occasions — if anything by way of congregational imitation — the traditional gesture of joined or folded hands expected among the laity at Mass in the West. From these observations, it seems that the rubric calling for the priest to assume the orans position during the Our Father, in which prayer he joins the people instead of offering it on their behalf, is at least anomalous, and possibly inconsistent with the presidential symbolism suggested today by the orans position elsewhere in the Mass.
There remains to consider, though, how this miscue (if it is one) appeared in the liturgy. I suggest that originally, the orans rubric for the priest during the Lord’s Prayer was not a mistake, but that it quietly became one in the course of liturgical reforms undertaken by Pope Pius XII just prior to Vatican II.
\
…con’t
M
MrS
Guest
…conclusion
A Case for Changing the Rubrics
The Our Father (Pater) has been a part of the Mass for many centuries. Over that time, of course, language barriers occasioned and rubric evolution reinforced the assignment of more and more prayers to the priest. Eventually, the Pater became a prayer that was offered by the priest on behalf of the people, whose exterior participation in that prayer was, by the early 20th century, limited to a vicarious one via the server’s recitation of the closing line, Sed libera nos a malo (But deliver us from evil). A look at the pre-Conciliar rubrics in any sacramentary regarding the Pater is consistent in showing the priest’s hands extended, that is, in an orans position, as one would expect for prayers the priest offers on behalf of the congregation.
But in 1958, as part of Pope Pius XII’s liturgical reforms, permission was granted for, among other things, the congregation to join the priest in praying the Pater, provided that they could pray in Latin (AAS 50: 643; Eng. trans., Canon Law Digest V: 587). Thus, for the first time in many centuries, a congregational recitation of the Lord’s Prayer was possible. Lay recitation of the Pater was not mandated, and there is no evidence that this limited permission for congregational recitation of the Pater occasioned awareness that such permission, if it was widely acted upon, might necessitate a change in the rubrics. By then, it seems, the orans posture and the Lord’s Prayer were associated, not with the manner in which the prayer was being offered, but with the prayer itself. From there, it seems, the orans rubric for the priest during the Our Father simply passed unnoticed into the new rite of Mass.
Today, of course, the priest is not praying the Our Father for the people the way he does several others prayers on their behalf in Mass, and in which prayers they participate by silent interiorization, marked by a vocal “Amen”; rather, the priest and people pray the Our Father together in Mass. Lay persons should not be imitating the priest in what seems to have become in the West a posture appropriate (in public liturgical prayer, anyway) to celebrants. But, if the above analysis is correct and the orans position has come to symbolize priestly prayer over the congregation instead of with it, then neither should the rubrics any longer call for the priest to extend his hands during the Our Father as if he is praying on behalf of the congregation. The rubrics should be changed to direct the priest to join his hands during the Our Father, as he does for other vocal prayers offered with the people. If Rome decides to do this, I think the orans issue might resolve itself quickly.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law. His canon law website can be found at www.canonlaw.info. The opinions expressed in this article are Dr. Peters’, but some of the ideas behind this analysis arose from bright students’ questions in his Liturgy & Sacraments classes.
A Case for Changing the Rubrics
The Our Father (Pater) has been a part of the Mass for many centuries. Over that time, of course, language barriers occasioned and rubric evolution reinforced the assignment of more and more prayers to the priest. Eventually, the Pater became a prayer that was offered by the priest on behalf of the people, whose exterior participation in that prayer was, by the early 20th century, limited to a vicarious one via the server’s recitation of the closing line, Sed libera nos a malo (But deliver us from evil). A look at the pre-Conciliar rubrics in any sacramentary regarding the Pater is consistent in showing the priest’s hands extended, that is, in an orans position, as one would expect for prayers the priest offers on behalf of the congregation.
But in 1958, as part of Pope Pius XII’s liturgical reforms, permission was granted for, among other things, the congregation to join the priest in praying the Pater, provided that they could pray in Latin (AAS 50: 643; Eng. trans., Canon Law Digest V: 587). Thus, for the first time in many centuries, a congregational recitation of the Lord’s Prayer was possible. Lay recitation of the Pater was not mandated, and there is no evidence that this limited permission for congregational recitation of the Pater occasioned awareness that such permission, if it was widely acted upon, might necessitate a change in the rubrics. By then, it seems, the orans posture and the Lord’s Prayer were associated, not with the manner in which the prayer was being offered, but with the prayer itself. From there, it seems, the orans rubric for the priest during the Our Father simply passed unnoticed into the new rite of Mass.
Today, of course, the priest is not praying the Our Father for the people the way he does several others prayers on their behalf in Mass, and in which prayers they participate by silent interiorization, marked by a vocal “Amen”; rather, the priest and people pray the Our Father together in Mass. Lay persons should not be imitating the priest in what seems to have become in the West a posture appropriate (in public liturgical prayer, anyway) to celebrants. But, if the above analysis is correct and the orans position has come to symbolize priestly prayer over the congregation instead of with it, then neither should the rubrics any longer call for the priest to extend his hands during the Our Father as if he is praying on behalf of the congregation. The rubrics should be changed to direct the priest to join his hands during the Our Father, as he does for other vocal prayers offered with the people. If Rome decides to do this, I think the orans issue might resolve itself quickly.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law. His canon law website can be found at www.canonlaw.info. The opinions expressed in this article are Dr. Peters’, but some of the ideas behind this analysis arose from bright students’ questions in his Liturgy & Sacraments classes.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
"Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law. His canon law website can be found at www.canonlaw.info. The opinions expressed in this article are Dr. Peters’, but some of the ideas behind this analysis arose from bright students’ questions in his Liturgy & Sacraments classes. "
Wow! Thank you MrS for bringing this here!
Wow! Thank you MrS for bringing this here!
S
Searching13
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Thanks so much for this tip—it is very helpful.
Deacon Ed,
Thanks so much for this tip—it is very helpful.
O
OhioBob
Guest
I think the issue isn’t whether it is a posture that the laity can assume, rather it is a question of whether such a posture should be “mandated” i.e. incorporated into the liturgy and required of the congregation.
Speaking for myself, I don’t care if an individual assumes the orans during the Lord’s Prayer. I just don’t like the fact that it has been mandated in our diocese. However, I shut my eyes, grit my teeth and I do it out of obedience to our Bishop.
There was a comment made that the orans is acceptable for the laity because it is a common gesture that priests and laity alike perform, such as genuflecting and the sign of the cross. I don’t disagree that they are common gestures, but if a particular parish or diocese mandated that everyone was to genuflect when the priest did, or mandated that everyone was to make the sign of the cross when the priest did, I think most would find that an innapropriate approbation of a priestly gesture.
No, the orans isn’t prohibited, just as genuflecting and the sign of the cross are not prohibited. But that lack of prohibition does not make it appropriate at any particular moment, especially when mandated for the entire congregation.
Finally, no one has mentioned that the priest is directed to join his hands prior to the concluding doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, yet in parishes which mandate the orans, everyone else is standing there in the orans. To me that seems to support the thought that the orans should not be a mandated posture for the laity at that time.
But no, it is not prohibited. I just can’t follow that logic to the conclusion that since it is not prohibited, mandation of the posture doesn’t constitute a liturgical innovation.
But that’s just me…
N
netmilsmom
Guest
God Bless you Bob!
Remember that there are hundreds of souls released from purgatory when you give that suffering for them.
God knows I would.
- Status