Our Father posture

[Don_Ruggero]

But yeah, there is a strain of OCD orthopraxy.

I must remember this phrase you have coined for when I have certain former students visiting. I would not have thought of it. Thank you, @TK421.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Today we received a memo from the Archbishop reminding people that during this terrible flu season contagious and severely ill people are dispensed from their Sunday obligation. We will also suspend any hand-holding, handshaking, and distribution of the cup, as our local hospital has no more beds available. Apparently, the Flu has hit our area hard. I’ve been asked to draft something for the BUlletin and the pulpit annoucements.

I am very sorry to read this and I assure you of my prayers for you and all affected.

May Salus Populi Romani bring health also to the people of your archdiocese. She can be quite effective in dealing with contagions and plagues, as every Roman knows.

I have such fond regards of your Archbishop. You refer to him as a Ph. D. in liturgy…but he is so much more than that, as a graduate of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute and that at a very special moment in time. And in the midst of all that, he quite distinguished himself.

 

[Boler]

I’m only addressing the concept that every posture and gesture of the laity must be regulated.

Then you are addressing a concept which no one in this thread has argued.

 

[babochka]

I understand. (Truly I do, more than you realize since you know me online but not personally).

Father, although we’ve often disagreed here, I would feel honored if I were to someday meet you in person. I suspect I’d even like you.

Your love for the Church and orthodoxy are obvious and your commitment to doing things right is impressive. And I wouldn’t argue with you nearly as much in person.

 

[pianistclare]

Oh thank you so much!!! Yes, we are blessed. I just messaged his office to inquire if they have a “standard” announcement that they prefer to my own. These things happen every couple of years. We will get through it. Our pastor is a very loving and kind priest, full of enthusiasm and caring. He’s currently in Colombia visiting his mother and brother, so we want to make sure that all goes well in his absence.

Can I just say (without embarrassing you) that many of us so appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and patience along with that of the other 2 frequently posting priests. There are so many people clamoring for answers, confused, possibly hurting, or downright poorly catechized that come here. We all learn so much and love you all very much. God has blessed us with the kindness of you priests who take time from your ministry to shepherd even the random stranger.

God is good indeed.
Keeping you all in prayer,
Clare

 

[pnewton]

I appreciate the expert knowledge of the priests we have here, but as an American, I have to try and force my opinion too, by golly! Seriously, thank you guys.

So, it would seem to me that this posture seems the very epitome of the word “organic” in that it is something that just kind of grew, was not promulgated, was not addressed or banned specifically, and literally is a child-like gesture. Johnnie always wants to be like Daddy. Kids, those who are raised in the Church, frequently start imitating the priest, some even playing priest. I would think that many people have their hands go to these positions without any conscious thought. That’s why I don’t care one way or another. I am sure everything will work out, and it seems a waste of good arguing time.

 

[tafan2]

The orans position is a position that is strictly reserved to the celebrant (and con celebrants) alone. Not even the deacon uses this position.

Contrary to what some people claim, the Church does indeed say that the laity are not to assume the gestures which are reserved to the priest

I wish more people knew this. It does bother me to see so many people use the orans position during the Our Father. And then when they raise their hands high during the doxology…

As to holding hands, I can deal with others doing that, as long as they do not expect me to do so. There is nothing more distracting than having to hold hands with a complete stranger, especially if it is a woman. I have a niece who has sweaty palms, she used to go to a parish where everyone held hands. She literally left her pew every mass and went to the back of the church to stand alone during the Our Father. I had a friend who told me once he made sure he was always sitting between his kids at his parish so he wouldn’t have to hold hands with a stranger. I do not know how anyone ever thought this was a good idea, but as I have gotten use to seeing it done. I won’t do it.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I wonder if the early Christians had all this trouble in 100 ad.?

 

[JohnLilburne]

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

“237. Then the principle celebrant, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. Next, with hands extended, he says the Lord’s Prayer itself with the other concelebrants, who also pray with hands extended, and together with the people.”

From the Ceremonial of Bishops, Stational Mass of the Diocesan Bishop:

“159 After the doxology of the eucharistic prayer, the bishop, with hands joined, introduces the Lord’s Prayer, which all then sing or say; the bishop and the concelebrants hold their hands outstretched.”

From the GIRM:
“124. … When the Entrance Chant is concluded, with everybody standing, the Priest and faithful sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross.”

My point is that there are instructions for the bishop and concelebrants to have hands extended during the Our Father. If it were intended that the deacons also do this, they would be included. If it were intended that the instituted acolytes also do this, they would be included. If it were intended that all lay people do this, it would have an instruction similar for that of the Sign of the Cross.

 

[FrDavid96]

I appreciate the expert knowledge of the priests we have here, but as an American, I have to try and force my opinion too, by golly! Seriously, thank you guys.

So, it would seem to me that this posture seems the very epitome of the word “organic” in that it is something that just kind of grew, was not promulgated, was not addressed or banned specifically, and literally is a child-like gesture. Johnnie always wants to be like Daddy. Kids, those who are raised in the Church, frequently start imitating the priest, some even playing priest. I would think that many people have their hands go to these positions without any conscious thought. That’s why I don’t care one way or another. I am sure everything will work out, and it seems a waste of good arguing time.

That’s not what “organic” means.

Organic means it grows naturally out of existing practice. This is the opposite. There’s no precedent for this, no history of it in Catholic liturgical practice. This is not something that “grew out of” Catholic liturgy like a new branch growing on a tree, but rather was grafted onto it from outside (from Pentecostalism by way of the Charismatics). It’s not “organic” but instead “grafted-on” to keep the botanical image.

Research shows that this was never a gesture of the laity in Western liturgy. The best anyone can do is to go back to the paintings on the catacombs. The problem there is that they are all images of the dead in glory. The painting of the living omit this gesture. It’s a false anachronism. Claims that this was a practice in the early Church are simply untrue. They are wishful thinking without any actual basis in historical texts. People will often claim it but they cannot prove it. Any attempts to prove it lead to a dead-end. In other words, so-and-so wrote it. Where did he get that from? It was in a book by someone. Where did he get it? and so on…eventually leads to nothing, no historical record before modern texts. It’s always been a presidential gesture.

Edit: an example of “organic” would be a new Novena in honor of a newly-canonized saint. Novenas are already part of our popular piety. It’s only natural (ie organic) that when we have a newly canonized saint, someone will compose a new novena (consistent with existing practice) for that new saint. Although the novena itself would be entirely new, it would “grow out of the existing form.” Another example would be adding new mysteries to the rosary.

 

[FrDavid96]

I wonder if the early Christians had all this trouble in 100 ad.?

According to the letters of St. Paul, yes the did.

 

[tafan2]

According to the letters of St. Paul, yes the did.

Was thinking about this same sort of reply. I have been reading Fr. Ronald Knox’s book “Enthusiasm”, and in the first chapter he goes through Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in great detail. Those folks who think that the Church did not immediately have problems, that for a hundred years or so that they were all so happy and singing Kumbya, are way off.

 

[pnewton]

That’s not what “organic” means.

Organic means it grows naturally out of existing practice.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word, yet consider this organic, not the opposite of organic. There is an existing practice of the orans position. It is a position of prayer, one that is not limited just to the priest during the Mass. The opposite would not be the laity sometimes copying him, but the priest ceasing that position. At least that is how I see it. I will not be condescending by explaining what the word opposite means based solely on my own opinion and usage. That would be rather rude of me.

I have a priest that has not issue at all with such matters, nor do I. If he ever does take an interest, I will follow his instruction, even if I am in the minority. I don’t ever do the orans thing any way. I am sure that he will do as the bishop asks, which would be in concert with the USCCB, if anything is ever said about that.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

That’s not what “organic” means.

Organic means it grows naturally out of existing practice.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word, yet consider this organic, not the opposite of organic. There is an existing practice of the orans position. It is a position of prayer, one that is not limited just to the priest during the Mass. The opposite would not be the laity sometimes copying him, but the priest ceasing that position. At least that is how I see it. I will not be condescending by explaining what the word opposite means based solely on my own opinion and usage. That would be rather rude of me.

…

You’re making contradictory, or at best incomplete, statements in that first paragraph.

First you say that the orans position is an “existing practice” but that’s only half-true. It is an existing practice AND one which has been reserved to the presider for pretty much the entire history of Western Christianity. Given the context, one cannot say only the first part while ignoring the second.

Likewise you say “not limited to the priest at Mass.” Well, the fact is that it has been limited to the priest (at least the presider) for all of Western liturgical history. There is zero history of the orans position being used by the laity in Western liturgy. It has always been a presidential posture.

You cannot just take the word “organic” and make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

The fact is (as we all know, but some just won’t admit) that the use of the orans position by the laity was brought into Catholic usage from the Pentecostals by the very people who called themselves the “Catholic Pentecostals” before they re-named themselves the Charismatics. That’s not “organic development.” It is grafting. Feelings and emotions don’t change the definition of words.

If you want to use some other approach, by all means state your position. But one cannot call “organic” that which is the polar opposite of “organic development.”

 

[pnewton]

Likewise you say “not limited to the priest at Mass.” Well, the fact is that it has been limited to the priest (at least the presider) for all of Western liturgical history.

I guess I should have diagramed that sentence. I said the posture wasn’t limited to the priest at Mass, with that last prepositional phrase applying to “priest”, not "“limited.” In other words, it is a prayer posture that occurs in other (non-liturgical) places, starting with Paul writing to Timothy. I would even say it is probably my aversion to things charismatic that makes me uncomfortable with the posture, but I do know it has a history of a posture of prayer. And it makes sense. A child wants to reach for his father. Men everywhere ought to pray lifting holy hands. If people are used to praying this way elsewhere, they see the priest do this, and they are praying, I would be surprised if nobody ever did that, especially with the influx of charismatic Christians in places. But it did not begin with Charismatics, or some painting on a wall. It was encouraged by St. Paul as a posture for prayer.

You cannot just take the word “organic” and make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Shortly after Catholic Answers started this forum, someone encouraged me to read “Spirit of the Liturgy.” Great book. It is one of my go-to for understanding of an historical perspective of the changes that took place before I was Catholic. I found it interesting that a lot of what the author defended as organic was denied in quotes I read here by others. So, while we cannot make the term “organic” mean anything we want, I wander if its application or its rejection may beg the question instead of measure it.

You may well be right, so maybe I should not have brought it up. But I did bring up three vectors that this could have come from, instead of sprouting up out of the blue.

Of course, biologically, grafting is an organic process. It is how an old tree can be made to grow better fruit.

 

[FrDavid96]

…, but I do know it has a history of a posture of prayer. …

There is no such history. It doesn’t exist. There is no history of the orans position being used in Western Christian liturgy except as a presidential gesture.

I know there are a lot of people out there who make the claim. The problem is that there’s no truth to it. There is no evidence of it. All the evidence we have shows that it has always been a presidential gesture.

As I said earlier, people will quote this author or that author who speaks of the orans being used in liturgy. The problem is that when the sources are traced back to the original, the trail dies in the 20th century.

Even the claim that this posture is depicted in the catacombs is debunked as myth. Only the deceased-in-heaven are depicted that way. The living are never shown using the orans (again, other than presider).

,

Of course, biologically, grafting is an organic process. It is how an old tree can be made to grow better fruit.

Not always. It can also be used to grow thorns from fruit trees.

 

[brian_custer]

people just don’t want to cease “WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO” AT MASS W/ THE PALM THING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THEM TO TURN ON THEIR BRAINS & ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE WESTERN RITE

not yelling, caps got stuck

 

[brian_custer]

i’ve always thought “palms up” by the congregation was kind of a “look at me” type thing

like “look at me” “i raise my palms” just like the priest

however, and unfortunately for the posers, it is specifically forbidden to do

 

[FrDavid96]

i’ve always thought “palms up” by the congregation was kind of a “look at me” type thing

like “look at me” “i raise my palms” just like the priest

Yes, that’s exactly how I see it.

However, at this point, some people are simply imitating what they see others do, so they don’t always have that motivation.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

They just got fed to the lions or the gladiators.