Oran's Posture - Priest Only!?

[FrDavid96]

The orans posture at the Our Father is to be done by the priest only.

The notion that “if it’s not prohibited, it’s permitted” is simply wrong. The liturgical norms of the Church simply do not work that way. The rubrics describe what is done.

In recent years, the Church has repeated time and again that the laity are not to perform the words or the gestures of the clergy (priest or deacon) at Mass. To say that this is not prohibited is simply a contradiction of fact.

The Church does not have to edit every single rubric in the Mass to say “the priest, not the congregation, then does this…”

In the Mass, each person or group of persons has a proper role. They are not to be confused.

A while ago (early 2000s), the US bishops petitioned Rome for a US variation on the Mass asking Rome to approve the laity using the orans at the Our Father. The Holy See rejected the request.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

i’d like to know where this Orans posture got started. I was a regular Mass attendee from the late 1960s through the 1990s and I do not remember anyone in the congregation, except for a couple of charismatics maybe, using this posture.

About 1998 I fell off the Mass bandwagon and did not go very often for the next 10-15 years. When I resumed going to Mass regularly around 2013, suddenly almost everybody is doing Orans posture. I assumed it had been put in place through some directive. From what Father is saying, it doesn’t sound like that is the case.

 

[twf]

The sign of peace is often a bow, not a handshake, here in Vancouver as well…thanks to the massive influx of Asian Catholics over the past few decades. I must prefer it to the handshake of my more rural, less multicultural home diocese.

 

[CilladeRoma]

This is one of the silly debates I do not understand.
I do not hold my hands in an “orans” position, per se, but I do not keep them folded or do the “5 on 5” either.

If I am standing, I hold my hands about waist high, with my palms up, usually with one hand laying on the other.

So long as we are not being “directed” to do something, which would be against the rubrics, what I do with my hands while I pray is really no one else’s business.

 

[FrDavid96]

It was included in another proposed list of adaptations, if not the 2002 attempt.

In any case, your post proves that this adaptation to the Mass requires the approval of the Holy See.

The Holy See (if it’s true that this has been approved for some countries) does not grant approval for adaptations which are already permitted by the Missal.

So unless one can show where the Roman Missal says “the congregation does this” or show where Rome has approved this adaptation, it is not permitted.

How can you can reconcile the practice to these words “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” ?

What part of that sentence is unclear? or ambiguous?

What part of that sentence justifies the laity engaging in a gesture that is proper to the priest celebrant?

Source: 6 § 2

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ocuments/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The sign of peace is often a bow, not a handshake, here in Vancouver as well…thanks to the massive influx of Asian Catholics over the past few decades. I must prefer it to the handshake of my more rural, less multicultural home diocese.

I’ve noticed several parishes where people now just hold their hand up and make an upraised palm or a peace sign at others around the Church. I think just holding up your hand in a sign of peace and smiling at people is a good way to go about it - it’ s faster than having to shake everyone’s hand and removes some of the concerns about germ transmission (since you’re probably going to be receiving the Host in your hand in a few minutes), arthritis, attendees from cultures that don’t shake hands, etc.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is one of the silly debates I do not understand.
…

It’s silly. It’s childish. It looks downright ridiculous (as a priest I literally see it from a different angle).

It has no basis in Catholic liturgy. It has no basis in liturgical tradition of the Latin rite.

It is an attempt at having the laity perform a gesture which is reserved to the priest alone (yes, priest, the deacon also does not do it.)

It makes the Mass look very trivial and superficial, like a high school pep rally. That’s especially true of the later innovation where people “do the wave” at the doxology.

It really does look ridiculous.

 

[FrDavid96]

Neither is there a prohibition against having a monkey dressed in a little red tuxedo dancing on the altar during the Gospel.

Just because the rubrics do not (indeed cannot) address every possible situation, does not mean that anything is permitted.

A quote from the USCCB website (which has no authority whatsoever) does not change what the Church clearly says:

“Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

 

[FrDavid96]

It might not be on that list, but it is certainly addressed here

“Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

Again, what part of that sentence do you not understand?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve read that.

It does not change the fact that the current rubrics are crystal-clear that the gesture is indeed reserved to the priest.

Dr P. proposed modifying the rubrics, not disregarding or disobeying them. There is a huge difference.

 

[FrDavid96]

I can give plenty of examples of clerics attempting to act beyond their own competence.

It doesn’t change anything about the sentence:

“Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

If a bishop sends out a letter encouraging all the congregation to join the priest in the words of consecration, that would be an example of a bishop acting beyond his competence. It would not make it right.

 

[BartholomewB]

How can you can reconcile the practice to these words “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” ?

What part of that sentence is unclear? or ambiguous?

]

In a parish where the pastor encourages widespread use of the orans posture at this or that moment of the Mass, what advice would you give the laity? Should they obey the pastor’s wish? Should they rebel? Should they wait for a favorable moment when he’s alone in his office, with no one to overhear the conversation, and diplomatically point out his mistake to him? And what if he says No, if he stubbornly and obtusely carries on recommending the orans posture? What then?

 

[FrDavid96]

In a parish where the pastor encourages widespread use of the orans posture at this or that moment of the Mass, what advice would you give the laity? Should they obey the pastor’s wish? Should they rebel? Should they wait for a favorable moment when he’s alone in his office, with no one to overhear the conversation, and diplomatically point out his mistake to him? And what if he says No, if he stubbornly and obtusely carries on recommending the orans posture? What then?

He’s wrong to encourage it. He’s absolutely wrong to force the issue.

If he is (as you say) stubborn and obtuse, then there’s not much one can do.

In the meantime, no one can ever be required to do it. I always remind people that no matter what anyone says, no one can tell you that you must.

If people don’t do it, they aren’t rebelling because he is acting beyond his own competence (his legitimate authority). One cannot rebel against an authority that doesn’t exist.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Tis_Bearself asked why the orans position started being used by the congregation, because she wasn’t going to Mass much at that time when it became popular. Neither was I, and I can second her observations about what it was like to return to Mass after it became a thing. Deacon Jeff seemed to indicate that it was started by a bishop. I’m wondering if that is the answer to Tis’ question.

On a side note, when I was growing up (80’s) my parish did not hold hands during the Our Father, but when we would occasionally (once a year in the mid 80’s) visit a certain other parish where hand holding during the Our Father was done, then we would do it there…’when in Rome’.

 

[Kei]

Is there a list of gestures that are for the priest and not the laity during mass? If so, where can one find it? As opposed to simply gestures that are common and not specifically for the priest during the mass?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

How can you can reconcile the practice to these words “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” ?

What part of that sentence is unclear? or ambiguous?

What part of that sentence justifies the laity engaging in a gesture that is proper to the priest celebrant?

Source: 6 § 2

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ocuments/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

I think it has become necessary to quote the actual article because the text is being misrepresented when a sentence is taken out of context.

Article 6

Liturgical Celebrations

§ 1. Liturgical actions must always clearly manifest the unity of the People of God as a structured communion.(89) Thus there exists a close link between the ordered exercise of liturgical action and the reflection in the liturgy of the Church’s structured nature.

This happens when all participants, with faith and devotion, discharge those roles proper to them.

§ 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.

In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.

Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them.

To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.

What is being proscribed is anyone other than the priest who is the Presider saying the presidential prayers, along with actions and gestures such as using the Presider’s chair, taking the Presider’s place in the processions, doing an epicletic or indicative gesture at the consecration in the anaphora.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The position you outline is, substantially, correct.

Personally, although I have had American students, I have never understood how certain Americans become almost obsessive about rubrics. It is bizarre. I had hoped that the need for the CDW to intervene some years ago would be so chastening that it would lead to a change of this disposition.

To a dubium originating with Cardinal George, there was a wonderful answer to clarify the nature of rubrics for the laity. It is worth quoting substantially:

“Numerous inquiries” received by the BCL led Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the BCL, to submit a dubium (doubt, question) to the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) on May 26, 2003:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

The BCL Newsletter continues: “In the implementation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, therefore, posture should not be regulated so rigidly as to forbid individual communicants from kneeling or sitting when returning from having received Holy Communion” (p. 26. emphasis added.)

Indeed, this principle applies here, as well. The directive for the laity is to stand for the Our Father and what follows. Of course, the laity are free to choose another position, if common sense directs it…one who is ill or otherwise disabled, one who is aged, one who is holding in hand or nursing an infant…may be unable to stand or it may simply be better for them not to stand. Whether their hands are folded or are palm-against-palm or resting on the pew in front of them or behind their back or are at their side or are holding someone else’s hand or are elevated in the orans posture or otherwise occupied is the concern of the lay person…it is not the occupation of the rubrics. It would be to go into the arena of rigidity which Cardinal Arinze – and others – rightly condemn.

 

[Duesenberg]

I read about this when it came out. I stopped doing it. Wife was furious with me about me until a State Senator ( parishioner at our church ) posted on facebook to a recently ordained Priest ( also from our Parish ).

A lot of people have read this article and no longer do this gesture at our Parish.

Do they do it at your Parish?

“Most people who attend a Novus Ordo parish…” <— I stopped reading after that. “Novus Ordo parish” is not only offensive it sounds rather stultified. The author was really telegraphing his issues from the very beginning.

I pray using the 5-on-5 position. Not sure what others do as my eyes are closed at this point in the Mass.

 

[Duesenberg]

I must say I have to chuckle (loudly) at people who get all twisted-up about things like this. They not only get upset at the lay use of the orans (especially when members of the faithful appear to be signalling touchdowns) and hand-holding, they get up upset at the welcoming gesticulation by the laity at the “and with your spirit” that emulates the celebrant. (Maybe this is just at my parish?) Some in my parish even imitate the hand positions of concelebrating priests during the consecration (from their knees of coure.)

Who really cares? Get over it already!

Now if a posture (e.g. orans) was actually prescribed for priests (which it is), and the celebrant ignored it, I would find that problematic. Much like the deacons who refuse to kneel even though they are physically able to.

I do things at Mass that apparently bother some people. I cross the Gospel reading with my thumb in my missalette before I cross my forehead, lips and heart. I do this because it was the way I was taught. It neither impacts others, nor is it wrong.

When I cross myself at Mass I use a EC blessing cross. It helps me to remember. There’s no rule against it and again, it neither impacts others, nor is it wrong.

I pray the Our Father using the 5-on-5 posture. That really bugs some people, but it shouldn’t. In no way is the posture proscribed by the Church.

As someone who attends both RC and EC sacrificial liturgies I frequently cross myself both from left to right and the reverse – even in situations where some say it’s not proper. The Church says nothing about where one can use a specific method and where they cannot.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Seems to be mixed. I do not assume the Orans position. Some people hold hands.

One of our priests some years ago sarcastically said that in some parishes, they “visit and have long chats and cocktails”.

I was always taught the “Orans” position for the hands belonged only to the celebrant/priest.

Whenever I did a Communion Service, I did not assume the “Orans” position … and actually did not even stand directly in the center of the altar … the priest’s position … off to the side and never sat in the presider’s chair either.