Our Father posture

[Don_Ruggero]

Gestures that are exclusive to him and any concelebrant would include, for example, the epicletic gesture before the consecration and the demonstrative gesture of concelebrants at each consecration.

I have never heard the term epicletic. Tried to look it up but I didn’t understand it. Would you explain it a bit more?

The epicletic gesture most commonly seen is at Mass, when the Bishop or Priest extends his hands over, and invokes the Holy Spirit upon, the elements to be consecrated in the Eucharistic Prayer, prior to pronouncing the institution narrative. That is a gesture that only the Bishop or Priest may use and any other use would, theologically, be distorted as well as distorting to the sign value of the sacred action.

The Bishop will use this gesture in the Chrism Mass when consecrating the sacred chrism, with the priests present also extending their right hands in silence, participating in the epicletic gesture.

The epicletic gesture is used also in ordinations, in the conferring the sacrament of Sacred Order.

In all of these instances, this is a gesture that the laity should not employ because it would be theologically inappropriate…at Mass, in the consecration of the sacred chrism, or in ordination – that is a gesture properly reserved.

The orans posture, on the other hand, is a posture of prayer.

 

[hope]

I don’t know why they would be. I know I wouldn’t. I understand and I think most would too, that they have a different tradition in their communities. I have always wanted to attend an Eastern service. I only visited one parish where we could not kneel for the Eucharistic prayer. However, that parish no longer stands but kneels now. I see things that aren’t to be done but it is not a big deal. I must admit I was disturbed by the practice of a parish where they had home made bread. When time came to distribute communion, others would go and help the priest rip the loaf into smaller pieces. Thank goodness that no longer occurs. I look out for what I am doing not what others do. I think most are that way.

 

[hope]

Thank you.
Would you please explain why we have the exchange of peace?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Don_Ruggero is the sign of reverence the bow of the head or sign of the cross in this instance.

And also, should the Eucharist be placed in the mouth before or after the Precious Blood?

Thanks.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have asked many times without answer exactly why do we have the sign of peace. At one time there was talk about moving it to the beginning of Mass. I wish they would do that. Is there someone who can explain what the sign of peace is for?

I think the General Instruction for the Roman Missal explains it very well:

82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

I remember, years ago, when the Anglican priests seeking full communion with the See of Rome were being received and ordained as Catholic priests under the pastoral provision granted by the Holy See, with the necessary rescript from the Holy Father for each dossier, there was provision for retaining elements of the Anglican patrimony. This was entitled the Book of Divine Worship and drew quite heavily on the Book of Common Prayer.

In that disposition, the sign of peace occurred before the Offertory, which I thought was quite a pleasing placement, pastorally, as it occurred immediately after the penitential rite, which itself followed the bidding prayers.

In the years since, the liturgy for that community has been revised after Anglicanorum Coetibus and among the changes was the placement of the sign of peace, which mirrors where it is in the Roman Missal…such was the disposition of the CDF of that epoch.

 

[babochka]

I don’t know why they would be. I know I wouldn’t. I understand and I think most would too, that they have a different tradition in their communities. I have always wanted to attend an Eastern service. I only visited one parish where we could not kneel for the Eucharistic prayer. However, that parish no longer stands but kneels now. I see things that aren’t to be done but it is not a big deal. I must admit I was disturbed by the practice of a parish where they had home made bread. When time came to distribute communion, others would go and help the priest rip the loaf into smaller pieces. Thank goodness that no longer occurs. I look out for what I am doing not what others do. I think most are that way.

Because often there is not a “right” way to do things. I’m only talking about those who get very upset by people holding their hands in the Orans posture to pray. Rigid unity of posture is not as much expected. While there is generally unity, it isn’t really regulated in the same way.

 

[brian_custer]

why shouldn’t we just do “palms up” or hold hands for the entire Mass?

handstands, backstands, toe-dancing, trampolines

if it feels good, do it

despite the fact that every priest i know, including the ones who post here say we shouldn’t

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Don_Ruggero is the sign of reverence the bow of the head or sign of the cross in this instance.

And also, should the Eucharist be placed in the mouth before or after the Precious Blood?

Thanks.

There is no mention of making a sign of the cross. For those of a more draconian approach to rubrics, no lay person should make the sign of the cross therefore. But, of course, such an approach is absurd.

The gesture of reverence prescribed is a bow of the head which is, liturgically, the most minimal of bows. When I am receiving at Mass and am not a concelebrant – usually when I was Master of Ceremonies before or now attending in choir – I would venture that my bow is seen by others as more profound than simply a bow of the head.

Edited: Sorry, I forgot your second part. Both elements, of course, are the Eucharist. Normally one would first receive the Host and then one would receive the Precious Blood…unless one abstains from the Host because of gluten issues, for example, in which case one would proceed directly to the chalice.

Especially in the case of someone who had a gluten sensitivity, it is not beyond the realm of what I could foresee that they might receive from the chalice first and in a normal fashion and then later, at the end of Communion, receive the low Gluten Host when effort had been taken to prevent cross contamination since the Presider would have been handling the standard host well before Communion and may desire to assure there is nothing at all still adhering to his fingers before, finally, administering the low Gluten host. As I say, that would simply be a potential matter of practicality.

 

[hope]

Thank you again for your reply.
I wish this was better explained at church. I see people waving to everyone in Church. It is more like they are saying hello than what you have stated. I guess that is why it confuses me.

 

[FrDavid96]

The rubrics and liturgical norms and laws of the Church are not meant to be cast aside so casually as is the penchant of some misguided priests.

I’m reminded of the words of St John Paul II and I would ask readers here to seriously ponder them.

I have bolded certain parts.

52 All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. [NOTE the absence of any insults against Americans] These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/s...-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

 

[brian_custer]

that is a good one, nice job, father d

 

[babochka]

why shouldn’t we just do “palms up” or hold hands for the entire Mass?

handstands, backstands, toe-dancing, trampolines

if it feels good, do it

despite the fact that every priest i know, including the ones who post here say we shouldn’t

There is a priest posting here, in this very thread, who says otherwise.

To say that assuming a very ancient prayer posture Is about simply “feeling good” and equivalent to doing gymnastics in church is ridiculous.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To say that assuming a very ancient prayer posture Is about simply “feeling good” and equivalent to doing gymnastics in church is ridiculous.

The importance of this posture, of course, you would know from your personal experience, since it is a cherished posture for those in the East.

 

[brian_custer]

maybe there is a difference between the “east” & “west” in this regard

the “western” rite priests i’ve come into contact with; have said specifically the congregation should not do it (in Mass)

 

[FrDavid96]

maybe there is a difference between the “east” & “west” in this regard

the “western” rite priests i’ve come into contact with; have said specifically the congregation should not do it (in Mass)

Yes, of course.

East and West have different liturgical norms. And let us not forget that the Eastern Churches themselves are quite diverse. Their norms and traditions are perfectly valid and to be held in as high a regard as the Western practices. Still, they apply to the Eastern Churches, not the Latin.

The topic here is about what happens in the Latin Rite Mass. Attempting to apply Eastern rubrics to the Latin Mass lacks even the mere semblance of credibility.

 

[exnihilo]

the practice there, with every encouragement from the pastor, is for the whole congregation to join hands, the whole length of every row, for the Our Father. I would see it as churlish to refuse to join in. I’m not the Posture Police.

If anything I’d consider it churlish to expect people to hold hands. The posture police are the ones trying to force everyone to hold hands. It is one thing for people to individually choose to do this. It is an entirely different thing to coerce others into doing it.

 

[babochka]

brian_custer:

maybe there is a difference between the “east” & “west” in this regard

the “western” rite priests i’ve come into contact with; have said specifically the congregation should not do it (in Mass)

Yes, of course.

East and West have different liturgical norms. And let us not forget that the Eastern Churches themselves are quite diverse. Their norms and traditions are perfectly valid and to be held in as high a regard as the Western practices. Still, they apply to the Eastern Churches, not the Latin.

The topic here is about what happens in the Latin Rite Mass. Attempting to apply Eastern rubrics to the Latin Mass lacks even the mere semblance of credibility.

Just to clarify, I am not attempting to apply Eastern norms in any way. I am just saying that we don’t really worry if someone does something differently than what is expected. I’m only addressing the concept that every posture and gesture of the laity must be regulated.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you again for your reply.

I wish this was better explained at church. I see people waving to everyone in Church. It is more like they are saying hello than what you have stated. I guess that is why it confuses me.

You’re welcome.

I think that the rite of peace has been a particular challenge in various places, so I am not surprised you would find it confusing or bewildering.

I remember being bemused when my work would bring me to the United States and I would be the Presider for Eucharist in the occasional parish where people were quite enthusiastic for the sign of peace – as if they were overcome and thrown into throng. It is supposed to be a real cordiality but also marked by a sobriety…not an overabundance of enthusiasm.

 

[FrDavid96]

Just to clarify, I am not attempting to apply Eastern norms in any way. I am just saying that we don’t really worry if someone does something differently than what is expected. I’m only addressing the concept that every posture and gesture of the laity must be regulated.

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

And likewise, it’s not about “regulating every posture and gesture.” I don’t think anyone is coming even close to suggesting that.

It’s about regulating a posture that is (yes, in the West, but not the East) proper to the celebrant.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am just saying that we don’t really worry if someone does something differently than what is expected. I’m only addressing the concept that every posture and gesture of the laity must be regulated.

Indeed…