Our Father posture

[stpurl]

May I respectfully inquire why you are choosing to show the ‘original’ of a since edited comment of a fellow priest?

I seem to recall occasions where you, Father, have edited your posts. I dare say most of us here have done so.

Should not a priest, indeed any poster, in charity, have PM’d someone or at the least stated, “I read your original comment, which I thought was pretty rude, I’m glad you corrected it” rather than posting a comment which has since been edited with the obvious implication that “editing’ is simply not allowed in Father David’s case, no, his ‘transgression’ must be 'bolded and reposted by you”. In the world we live in, that could be construed as an attempt at ‘virtue shaming’ and I find that attitude far more problematic than a person who has the sense and humility to correct himself.

 

[JamalChristophr]

[No message]

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Usually not because I attend the TLM or a very conservative NO parish. It’s a ridiculous usurpation of the priests role by the laity invented and fostered by clerics and para-clerical assistants such as liturgy directors. The best posture, as during all prayers at Mass, is hands together in front of one’s chest, head slightly bowed.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

Basically, anything EXCEPT hands outstretched? Since the Church has given no guidance, what is appropriate?

Because the Church has said that this is a gesture reserved to the celebrant.

Think about it: since we know (beyond doubt) that the deacon is NOT to use this gesture, it makes perfect sense that the congregation is likewise not to use it.

The fact that it is a presidential gesture is what matters here. In western liturgical tradition, this gesture has always been reserved to the celebrant. That sets it apart from another gesture that might simply be “nothing is prescribed.”

Maybe if I put this into an Eastern perspective. Imagine if some group of people were to decide that “everyone” should be using a hand-cross at Divine Liturgy. There’s no actual prohibition against the congregation all bringing and using hand crosses; that doesn’t make it legitimate. There is no rubric that says “the congregation is prohibited from using hand crosses at Divine Liturgy” but that doesn’t make it right because (as you know) the hand cross is reserved to the celebrant (and sometimes concelebrant).

I think that I have misunderstood your perspective on this. I view this as an individual issue, not a corporate one. I have not experienced it as a decision that “everyone” take this posture. I frequent a small number of Latin Rite parishes locally and have visited many while traveling. I live in California, so not exactly a bastion of conservatism. I have experienced this as more of an occasional thing, with some (maybe 20%?) participating. (Holding hands across the aisles is something else - I have, unfortunately, seen that.) I look at it as an anomaly, a quirk that doesn’t harm anyone. I’ve only seen pictures of whole congregations participating. To use your example, if a person decided to start carrying a hand cross to the Divine Liturgy and holding it, I don’t see the problem. If the majority started to do it, I would start to become uncomfortable. If a person demanded that the entire congregation take part, I would be upset.

I definitely have a problem with the orans posture being mandated for the entire congregation. If that is what you are objecting to, we are in total agreement.

For the record, I don’t do it myself, in the East or West. I would be decidedly uncomfortable if someone insisted that I pray that way in public. (I do sometimes use the posture for private prayer.) It does seem showy and attention-seeking, but that could be just me. I don’t do the wave at sporting events, I don’t dance in public, I don’t cheer loudly… you get the picture. It is not commonly done in Slavic churches, though it is very common in the Middle-Eastern Churches that I have visited.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I do not. I have taken the word of @Don_Ruggero as fact, as he is certainly more acquainted with European liturgical issues than any of us. I imagine such documentation is not readily available in English.

@Babochka

That is normal since I am European.

It is in the Praenotanda per il Rito della Santa Messa that is published by the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana.

If Father David is a priest and one moreover who feels liberty to insult in multiple instances not only a priest senior to him in ordination but one who is a professor emeritus of liturgy and sacraments, then I trust such a person should have no more problem in finding the correct document of the CEI than I do in finding the citation I need in the GIRM that has the adaptations for the United States through the USCCB.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Bishop Roger Joys of Covington (in Kentucky, United States) wrote in a 2011 decree, in 4c: (The full document is at http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-cont...storal-Letter-with-Decree-Bulletin-Insert.pdf ).

“Special note should also be made concerning the gesture for the Our Father. Only the priest is given the instruction to “extend” his hands. Neither the deacon nor the lay faithful are instructed to do this. No gesture is prescribed for the lay faithful in the Roman Missal; nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, therefore the extending or holding of hands by the faithful should not be performed.”

As moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, the diocesan bishop can impose that decision. That is his prerogative. At the moment when I retired from the position I last held, he was unique in having so promulgated such a proscription.

 

[JohnLilburne]

Chapter 4 of the Ceremonial of Bishops is titled “General Norms”. It has near the beginning of the chapter “Before describing the individual rites, it seems advisable to state some general norms that have proved valid by long use and that should be followed”. Section V is headed “POSITION OF THE HANDS”. It begins:

“Raised and outstreched hands
104. Customarily in the Church a bishop or presbyter addresses prayers to God while standing and with hands slightly raised and outstreched. …”

Another part of this is:
“Joined hands
107. Unless the bishop is holding the pastoral staff, he keeps his hands joined: [footnote 80. “Hands joined” means: “Holding the palms sideward and together before the breast, with the right thumb crossed over the left” (Caeremoniale Episcoporum, ed. 1886, I, XIX, 1) when, vested, he walks in procession for the celebration of a liturgy; when he is kneeling at prayer; when he moves from altar to chair or from chair to altar; when the liturgical books prescribe joined hands.
Similarly, concelebrants and ministers keep their hands joined when walking from place to place or when standing, unless they are holding something.”

Ceremonial of Bishops is an official liturgical book, published in Latin in 1984. I have quoted from the Liturgical Press edition of 1989.

 

[JamalChristophr]

It looks to me like the Holy Father is going to need to call for the Third Vatican Council just to settle this great dispute.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Should they stand with hands by their sides, hands clasped together, arms crossed over their chests (another ancient

I answer your question by returning to the instruction that Cardinal Arinze gave to the Americans when they were having such problems with regard to the post Communion of the Mass.

He said it very well and the principle applies here.

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.

Note that His Eminence says for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass. This applies to rubrics governing other aspects of the posture of the laity. The focus, properly understood, should be on the broadness – and avoiding any sense of rigidity. He also emphasises that the rubric is not to be seen as impositional.

The rubric for the laity at the Our Father merely states that they should be standing and this in order for there to be “a certain uniformity” – that does not mean everyone must be standing. Some could choose to remain kneeling, for example. If they choose to do so, an issue should not be made of it. Some may choose to sit – either by choice or necessity.

As Archbishop Chaput says – which simply echos what the Conference of Bishops for the United States declares – nothing is said about the hands of the laity and what they are to do with their hands.

Thus, they could have them palm to palm…their fingers interlaced…their arms raised…their arms across their chest…holding the hands of others…arms at their side…hands resting on the pew in front of them…hands in their pockets…hands behind their back…hands holding their worship aid…hands covering their eyes or faces. The rubrics are just not concerned with what the laity are doing with their hands during the Our Father.

What would be a problem would be if, for example, the laity were to hold one or both hands in front of them at the epiclesis and at the institution narrative in the anaphora. These gestures are not a posture of prayer but is the epicletic and then subsequently the indicative gesture for the consecration of the Eucharist. Similarly, the laity should not use such gestures during the consecration of the Sacred Chrism or during an ordination. That sort of gesture is properly proscribed.

But the orans gesture is simply a posture of prayer…which anyone can use, publicly or privately. Just as anyone can use any of the postures listed above.

I would add that I have seen the orans gesture used at the Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer with communities of Religious for whom I am sacramental minister as well as the abbey where I go for retreat and days of recollection. It is quite normal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“Joined hands

1. Unless the bishop is holding the pastoral staff, he keeps his hands joined: [footnote 80. “Hands joined” means: “Holding the palms sideward and together before the breast, with the right thumb crossed over the left” (Caeremoniale Episcoporum, ed. 1886, I, XIX, 1) when, vested, he walks in procession for the celebration of a liturgy; when he is kneeling at prayer; when he moves from altar to chair or from chair to altar; when the liturgical books prescribe joined hands.

I always smile at this point with the ceremonial because that was not the way Pope Saint John Paul II did it normally. He would interlace his fingers.


Pope Benedict did use the palm to palm posture more…but even he would choose to disregard it at his pleasure.


My bishops over the decades would tend more toward the interlaced fingers.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

@Don_Ruggero, could you explain how this clarification was made? Did the bishops of those countries seek clarification or permission? I’m which countries has this occurred?

For obvious reasons, the one I know the most intimately is what happened in Italy.

The clarification came after discussion by the Bishops collectively and a vote by the CEI and it, along with other clarifications relative to what is known in English as the GIRM was published with the recognitio of the Holy See.

I want to be quite clear here. The reason the majority of the Bishops took this decision was not, in fact, because there is a question as to whether the laity can choose this gesture – Archbishop Chaput explains that matter in a very clear way. The decision was specifically to prevent instances such as what happened in the Diocese of Covington.

Simply put, the action precludes any diocesan bishop – or priest – from trying to interfere in any way with the laity using this venerable prayer posture. It also specifies the laity may use it during other parts of the Mass beyond the Our Father, should they wish.

It was a definitive action…although the members of the liturgical assembly have the latitude to use it or not.

 

[pnewton]

The Lord’s prayer is not about doing a community prayer or having some kind of social gathering.

It is a communal prayer. Look at the words, though I sympathize with your dilemma.

 

[BartholomewB]

The Lord’s prayer is not about doing a community prayer

Do you begin the prayer with the words “Our Father” or “My Father”?
The Creed is something else altogether. “I believe,” not “We believe.”

 

[pnewton]

I always smile at this point with the ceremonial because that was not the way Pope Saint John Paul II did it normally. He would interlace his fingers.


My bishops over the decades would tend more toward the interlaced fingers.

It’s a Protestant conspiracy!

Really, that is how pretty much every Baptist prays. (as opposed to, here is the Church, here the steeple, open the door and see all the people) It seems much more natural for me.

One message rings clear to me, every time Cardinal Arinze spoke: respect for God and respect for the people of God. Nothing should be done disrespectfully and the laity should not be regimented like boot camp, as long as nothing is proscribed that is not in the GIRM.

This arguing baffles me, and I am sure it would baffle most Catholics in the pew. We mostly just get along. I have never had any “stink eye” or weirdness by not raising my hands, and I never do. Likewise, I will hold a hand if someone insists, not if they don’t, but always with my family and with my choir. I have much more important issues at Mass…

… like keeping track of who is properly dressed and who is not. (joking)

 

[stinkcat_14]

Likewise, I will hold a hand if someone insists, not if they don’t, but always with my family and with my choir. I have much more important issues at Mass…

I am not a fan of holding hands as a general practice, but if someone next to me wants to do that I am fine with it. As one of my aunts used to say, if that is all that is wrong with them, you don’t have much to complain about. I can see, for example, a family or a husband and wife holding hands if they wish, that would make some sense to me.

 

[BartholomewB]

The clarification came after discussion by the Bishops collectively and a vote by the CEI and it, along with other clarifications relative to what is known in English as the GIRM was published with the recognitio of the Holy See. … The decision was specifically to prevent instances such as what happened in the Diocese of Covington.

The Wikipedia page for Bishop Roger Foys of Covington, Kentucky, includes a one-paragraph section under the title “Pater Noster Controversy.” From what you say here about the Italian Bishops’ Conference, it looks as though the Curia (presumably the CDW?) took notice at the time of Bishop Foys’ decree and gave its blessing to the Italian bishops’ move to preclude any such diocesan decree in their territory. Would it be safe to deduce that the Curia would probably endorse a similar move by a national bishops’ conference in any other country?