O
otjm
Guest
Many Americans tend towards a Germanic approach to law, which may explain some of our reactions.
Last I checked, Rome was in the Mediterranean…
- Status
Last I checked, Rome was in the Mediterranean…
J
Jennifoo
Guest
Hi there. God bless you for seeking to grow in your understanding of the orans position in the Sacred Liturgy. Other posters have given you good answers, and I hope that it helps you.
In my diocese, the Bishop hasn’t officially implemented this for the laity, but many do so at Mass. I just pray the Our Father with my hands in the usual prayer position as that’s never wrong, according to my understanding.
If your conscience continues to bother you I would suggest speaking with your confessor or spiritual director. As important as it to grow in understanding, it’s also important to have a spirit of hearty obedience to those in authority.
I’ve often found it helpful to pray for understanding and discernment when I’m faced with issues such as this. God always answers sincere prayers, especially when we’re seeking to be faithful to Him and His Church.
Pax Christi
E
eddie_too
Guest
i do not use the orans posture at any time when attending Mass. the reason is that i am most comfortable using a hands folded posture because this tends to help me focus my mind on what i am doing which is praying.
if others want to use the orans posture, i accept that.
the only question i have about mandating the orans posture for the faithful at any point in the Mass would be about the consequences in a highly attended Mass where the pews are filled beyond their normal capacity and people are shoulder to shoulder. in those circumstances, the orans posture might create some difficulties. at least, i can imagine it creating some difficulties.
if others want to use the orans posture, i accept that.
the only question i have about mandating the orans posture for the faithful at any point in the Mass would be about the consequences in a highly attended Mass where the pews are filled beyond their normal capacity and people are shoulder to shoulder. in those circumstances, the orans posture might create some difficulties. at least, i can imagine it creating some difficulties.
J
Jennifoo
Guest
Good point.
O
otjm
Guest
If you look at the picture of post #10, it would appear that there should be no difficulty.
Well, maybe when the CE crowd shows up…
but that is only two days out of the year.
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t raise hands. I don’t hold hands. I do fold hands, bow, kneel, and genuflect at appropriate times.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
As a concelebrant, I have never had that experience.
Even we are closely spaced, such as at an ordination, I have never had a brother priest extend hands in such a way that I found his hand in my face.
We typically readily adjust the posture to account for whether we are the presider at Eucharist or a concelebrant surrounded by other concelebrants, above all in venues of limited space.
I would assume the laity who adopt the orans gesture would be cognizant of people standing near them. It is a rudimentary courtesy.
G
goout
Guest
I don’t raise hands either but I have no problem with anyone else doing it. Doesn’t bother me.
I join hands if there are people around me who would like to. My wife and I always do, or anyone else. At Sunday Mass it’s customary for our congregation to join hands. I simply put my hand out to the person next to me.
At morning Mass when there are few people, I simply fold my hands in front of me, I don’t go down the pew to seek out another hand.
I am surprised at the OP, that a bishop and/or pastor would actually endorse or mandate a particular posture.
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me correct this. It is not protestant. Quite the opposite. While there is a "raising of the hands in some Protestant denominations, that is done over the head, usually with hand facing out. As a former Baptist, I find the Catholic orans position improper to prayer, for me. But then, I find look forward improper to prayer. I much prefer prayer with the head bowed and the hands down. That is the normal Protestant way, with the lifting of the hands being the charismatic version.
I am about on of a dozen in the Church that does not hold the orans position. I am fortunate enough to in a position that I can do what I want either way. When someone does reach for my hand, which is most of the time, I always accept it, as my love for others is greater than love of hand control. Then if their hand is up, so is mine. So,…
…the bishop, is the bishop, is the bishop. One should do what he says you must do. You are not really obligated if he is only *encouraging *it. Without knowing exactly how this was put out, I really have no idea if it was proper for him to do so, or not, so I will go with it being fine, as that is the appropriate default position of a lay person to the clergy.
E
e_c
Guest
Here is a relevant text, from the document, “On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained in the Sacred Ministry of Priest”… Article 6, Section 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…”
(Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.)
Bishops can’t just make stuff up in the liturgy… They can moderate, interpret, promote, enforce, and sometimes create laws, but they too, must follow the rules.
It seems hand holding is far better than the orans, which is quite distinctively sacerdotal, at least in the Latin Rite… It is a symbol of acting “in persona Christi capitis.”
If I recall correctly, some bishops have come down hard on this stuff in the US.
“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…”
(Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.)
Bishops can’t just make stuff up in the liturgy… They can moderate, interpret, promote, enforce, and sometimes create laws, but they too, must follow the rules.
It seems hand holding is far better than the orans, which is quite distinctively sacerdotal, at least in the Latin Rite… It is a symbol of acting “in persona Christi capitis.”
If I recall correctly, some bishops have come down hard on this stuff in the US.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No. In point of fact, this text is not relevant to the question at hand and its evocation, since it is on a different level, is not helpful; theology defines what actions, gestures and words are proper to the Presider…or to those concelebrating in virtue of the sacramental character of Order. If those of us who are ordained and who are theologians had determined these to be applicable, then they would have been applied. That they have not indicates in itself that they are not applicable
The Orans posture is not “distinctly sacerdotal” from the perspective of theology, although it is a gesture properly used by those with the sacerdotal character
What is being proscribed in what you have cited are issues such as
- Having the Extraordinary Ministers approach the altar at the Agnus Dei, taking the Host before the Ecce and then communicating simultaneously with the Presider in the way a priest concelebrating would
- Having the deacon self-communicate from the paten and from the chalice after the manner of a concelebrant
- A deacon, at the side of the Presider and elevating the chalice at the Per ipsum, could not join the Presider in saying those words as a concelebrant could
- While a deacon can incense the Book of the Gospels as the one properly to proclaim the Gospel, he could not incense the altar at the entrance or the offertory, even if the Presider is physically impeded. The rite would need to be omitted. He could, however, incense the Blessed Sacrament at the elevation of the Host and Chalice after the consecration, for example
- Allowing a deacon, on the occasion of his anniversary of ordination or other special occasion, to sit in the Presider’s chair at Mass while the Presider occupied the sedilia, for example. (The deacon properly would use the Presider’s chair if he were presiding…as, for example, at a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest or a Liturgy with Holy Communion during the week, at a Wedding or Funeral that he presided in the absence of a priest, the solemn celebration of Lauds, Vespers, etc.)
- This would also apply to the use of epicletic gestures, which are to be avoided by those who are not bishops or priests in the liturgy since they have their own proper placement in the liturgy, such as at the consecration of the Eucharist, the consecration of the Sacred Chrism, and ordinations
Bishops can’t just make stuff up in the liturgy… They can moderate, interpret, promote, enforce, and sometimes create laws, but they too, must follow the rules
In response, I will only say that in all my decades, I have never met a bishop who would “just make stuff up in the liturgy.” I have worked, on the other hand, with the most wonderful of bishops…who quite well prepared to assume the role entrusted to them by the Holy See (or by the election of their synod in the Eastern Churches) and well understood the scope of their vast power…in terms of breadth, in terms of depth, and in terms of limit
As for the conclusion of the passage, Pope Benedict said it well when, in a letter to all the bishops of the world, he wrote in Summer 2007
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”)
Indeed, they may make such provision, positive disposition and particular legislation to the full extent that the norm of law and the grant of the Apostolic See gives them that power to exercise within their own Particular Churches. Deo gratias
E
e_c
Guest
Okay, but the orans is typically a sign - in the liturgy - as prayer on behalf of the faithful, at least historically. So it would, at a minimum, blur the lines if seen in continuity…
Here are some other voices:
canonlaw.info/liturgysacraments_orans.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm
praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-Pastoral-Letter-with-Decree-Bulletin-Insert.pdf (see 4c on page 3)
The “orans issue” is sure to continue until Rome steps in, which is not likely in the next forever and a half. Oh well. But there are bigger liturgical fish to fry at the moment anyway…
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The first article you cite is that of a canonist from the United States who has held positions about which the Holy See has had to make corrective declaration. In what he posits on this matter, that the celebrant should not extend his hands for the Our Father, it is a position so far removed from liturgical scholarship as not to merit comment.
The second author only has a licentiate – which is moreover not the licentiate in liturgy, as is evident – and when one’s work has been as a liturgist and in liturgical scholarship, I am not sure why you would recommend either of these two sources to me.
The bishop, quite appropriately, has given a directive to the members of his diocese, for he is the supreme moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, according to the grants of law, and all in the diocese should show absolute, immediate and unquestioning deference to him – just as that should be shown to the diocesan bishop of the original poster as he encourages those in his diocese to use the orans gesture.
The Holy See has chosen not to issue further guidelines for very good reasons.
E
e_c
Guest
Can you explain what is wrong with the first two sources’ content? Saying the authors aren’t qualified is not helpful.
The third source is most useful in a way, as it shows the level of diversity which can arise… One diocese’s liturgy looks this way, another diocese next door looks another way, and it is under some kind of obedience. What is the meaning of the difference? How is this lack of unity helpful to the faithful? Is this what God and His Church really want? Etc.
It just does not seem appropriate to mandate an action as a part of the liturgy which simply is not a part of the liturgy. The lack of a specific directive is not license to do whatever one likes… Invention is not moderation.
I look forward to reading your response, but I’m afraid I’ve said what I have to say and don’t have much else to contribute. There are already several other threads here on the topic anyway!
E
e_c
Guest
Because it looks like it is in imitation of the celebrant. That is the root of the problem. The meaning of the action has been confused and even lost.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think this describes what happens, not why it is a problem. It agree it looks like the celebrant. I think everyone considers it a posture of prayer. So what? People can’t pray if a priest is praying? I do not think anyone believes they are “helping” the priest or are somehow co-priest, anymore than playing air guitar makes one a musician, or hanging out in the garage makes you a mechanic.
E
e_c
Guest
Most people do it because that’s what everyone else is doing. There’s not really a thought about a meaning in continuity with any kind of liturgical tradition. “I don’t know, it’s just what we do.” And some will offer some explanation of why they like it or dislike it after simply accepting that fact of “this is what we do,” even though it is not officially “what we do” in the liturgy, since it is in no rubric anywhere. Then some will find out that it’s not in the rubrics and will refuse to do it, creating potentially awkward situations: “WHY won’t you hold my HAND?” Etc. That’s what’s really going on.
Most people showing up on Sunday don’t know the word “orans” or know anything about what the gesture means. But they all know that “what we do at the Our Father looks like what Father is doing…” And one might begin to wonder why there is such pressure to make the same kind of gesture. Then the meaning of that gesture to those who might have otherwise understood or appreciated it becomes unclear and even lost entirely.
If we want people to participate more fully in the liturgy, that means knowing what gestures are for, right?
I was taught in seminary that this was something that priests made up after the Council through encouraging their congregations to do it - I’ve never heard a good argument (or any argument for that matter) that it developed organically. If it is not organic but is rather an invention of the will of individuals, then it is a rupture and deviation from the authentic liturgy of the Church. It seems especially clear that nobody - including the local bishop - can mandate this action, anymore than he could mandate that everyone wear the liturgical color of the day. It is just not a part of the liturgy and therefore can’t be enforced as such.
That’s all I can say. If that’s not convincing, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
O
otjm
Guest
For starters, Canon lawyers are not liturgists; they are lawyers. One would not go to a liturgist for representation in a Canon law matter; and the reverse is just as true.
Anyone can have an opinion; opinions are a dime a dozen. Valuable opinions are based in expertise, and expertise is lacking of the two individuals cited.
You are confusing unity with uniformity. The GIRM itself provides alternatives in various areas; the fact that in matters where there is no direction at all (such as this, where there is absolutely no direction as to how the laity should hold their hands), the bishop may make a determination should come as absolutely no surprise.
The bishop you noted then should say nothing either. And I have half a notion that is not and would not be your position. Again, as Don Ruggero has pointed out, Rome has specifically said that bishops have the power; so your issue is with Rome, not the bishops, who exercise the power which Rome has granted.
This matter is not particularly different than the matter of posture between the Agnus Dei and reception of Communion.
And as to the orans position, where Rome is silent as to how the laity should hold their hands, what is being proposed by some bishops has a history older than the Catholic Church and is directly related to prayer.
Rome has granted the license; and various bishops have responded. It is not all that difficult.
E
e_c
Guest
- EWTN usually does not put out trash. Nor does Dr. Peters usually put out trash. So that’s why I appealed to them. And nobody has yet to address the actual content of either argument.
- The GIRM allows for variation, yes. So where there is allowance of variation, within those variations noted it is all the same liturgy under the same rubrics. However, when someone mandates an additional rubric which is not actually part of the liturgy, they have added something foreign - it is no longer an issue of uniformity but of unity. The very fact that there are distinct options at certain points seems to indicate that when it is legitimate to alter something in the liturgy, IT WILL BE EXPLICITLY NOTED.
- I would like to see the document which states that bishops may mandate this posture for their diocese. If that document can be produced, I will be on my merry way, apologizing as I go for my belligerence and foolishness. If you mean that Rome has said that there is simply not a prescribed posture, then fine - that’s something quite obvious. But on the other hand, a bishop may certainly forbid actions that are not part of the rubrics. For instance, he may say that anyone wearing a rainbow sash is not to be admitted to Communion. He may mandate that priests not ride into Holy Thursday Mass on a donkey. Etc.
- It seems quite different to me. In the one, the congregation persists in a posture (standing) which happens to be the same as the celebrant (and which is extremely “general” anyway), which they had already been in for some time, OR they go down to kneel, distinct from the action of the celebrant. In the orans issue, the congregation imitates the action of the celebrant on cue… and it is a “special” action, unlike simply standing.
- Sure it is older than the Church and is related to prayer. So is liturgical dance. What you must show is that it is within a bishop’s rights to create a law for liturgy in his diocese such as this. So there can’t be an appeal to history - the appeal must be to the law, which is always written and promulgated by the legitimate authority. It should not be hard to find.
- I don’t know what “license” has been granted for bishops to add such a rubric. Again, if you can provide that document, my tail will go between my legs and I will do you intellectual obeisance.
- Status