M
msproule
Guest
It does not feel right to me at all. It would feel right if perhaps the priest said,“lift up your arms…”
- Status
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Ahh…that would be the “scoop” gesture
Ignatius:
C
chicago
Guest
Sometimes, at Mass, I have to raise my hand (and even wave it around) to call “Sister”'s attention to my need for being dismissed to go to the potty. But, usually, she just comes over and slaps me; yipping “Be Quiet! Pay attention to the altar.” Once I almost peed in my pants.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
To me it looks like people are lifting up their hearts. Like an invisible heart in their hands.
Some people in my own parish actually did a dip in their knees, like a free throw.
P
Pariah_Pirana
Guest
I watched today at Mass.
It looked like one of those “hands-up” basketball drills – complete with everyone watching to see if the others hand their hands up as well.
A couple of touchdown signallers to boot…
\0/
|
/\
It looked like one of those “hands-up” basketball drills – complete with everyone watching to see if the others hand their hands up as well.
A couple of touchdown signallers to boot…
\0/
|
/\
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Pariah Pirana:
Which is why I state that if some people get brave enough to stop, this innovation will die out.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
W
Windmill
Guest
My wife and I don’t hold hands. Our choice. We don’t make it a lithmus test for orthodoxy.
P.S. Another bit of liturgical trivia: when the priest/deacon says “The Lord be with you,” we should not be raising our hands as we say, “And also with you.” In fact, not even a deacon is allowed to use that gesture (though many do). It is reserved strictly for priests and bishops.
Gestures in liturgy MEAN things. If we start rearranging things “because it feels right” we are pretending 1) we have legitimate control over the liturgy & 2) structure and form have no purpose.
Why don’t we just start throwing confetti at the consecration since “it feels right”.
P.S. Another bit of liturgical trivia: when the priest/deacon says “The Lord be with you,” we should not be raising our hands as we say, “And also with you.” In fact, not even a deacon is allowed to use that gesture (though many do). It is reserved strictly for priests and bishops.
Gestures in liturgy MEAN things. If we start rearranging things “because it feels right” we are pretending 1) we have legitimate control over the liturgy & 2) structure and form have no purpose.
Why don’t we just start throwing confetti at the consecration since “it feels right”.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Great. Now I’m going to be thinking about confetti at the Consecration next Sunday, instead of adoring Our Lord.
Must stop reading these boards… :nope:
Must stop reading these boards… :nope:
C
chicago
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
Well, actually, next week (Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ) you almost could use a sort of confetti, rose petals in a Eucharistic procession.
J
judicame
Guest
Raising and holding hands during the Our Father? :bigyikes:
This must be an American thing (I hope). I have never seen this in Britain, though I have seen one or two people raise their hands in a priestly gesture, briefly. I hope they don’t try to impose this here.
I sometimes wonder whether any other single innovation caused more apostasy amongst British Catholics than the horror of that shaking-hands ‘sign of peace’ thing during the novus ordo mass. Ugh! When I meet lapsed Catholics that subject still often comes up.
One minute you’re praying, the next you’re like “how do you do” , “How do you do”. It just seems forced and ends up feeling insincere, which is the last way one wishes to feel during mass.
Some cynical liturgical bureaocrat’s idea of ‘collegiality’ no doubt, tenuously paralleled to something in the genuine history of the early Church. Phoowee.
.
This must be an American thing (I hope). I have never seen this in Britain, though I have seen one or two people raise their hands in a priestly gesture, briefly. I hope they don’t try to impose this here.
I sometimes wonder whether any other single innovation caused more apostasy amongst British Catholics than the horror of that shaking-hands ‘sign of peace’ thing during the novus ordo mass. Ugh! When I meet lapsed Catholics that subject still often comes up.One minute you’re praying, the next you’re like “how do you do” , “How do you do”. It just seems forced and ends up feeling insincere, which is the last way one wishes to feel during mass.
Some cynical liturgical bureaocrat’s idea of ‘collegiality’ no doubt, tenuously paralleled to something in the genuine history of the early Church. Phoowee.
.
M
Melanie01
Guest
Why on earth does one raise ones hands during mass, ahh yes another novelty??!!
N
netmilsmom
Guest
For about 1500 years, we folded our hands and bowed our heads.Why on earth does one raise ones hands during mass, ahh yes another novelty??!!
However, some people like to fix what isn’t broken.
1
1yellow_rose
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Christians and Jews have prayed in the Orans position even longer than that.
K
katherine2
Guest
Yes, they do. And the orans postion is a posture of prayer. That is what it means. it would be inapporpriate during the readings, for example.
U
UnworthySoul
Guest
I was under the impression that the proper stance was to stand with arms straight down at your sides with your palms facing forwarding. Kind of a stance that shows you to be utterly vulnerable to God. Is this incorrect?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I think it resembles too much the orans gesture of the priest. In my view, the laity ought not to mimic the gestures which are prescribed specifically for the priest alone.
C
CantorRick
Guest
Well…
As a Cantor, …the raising of the hands is…obligatory.
As a Cantor, …the raising of the hands is…obligatory.
1
1yellow_rose
Guest
Do you have official liturgical documentation on this? I do not recall ever being told that the orans posture was exclusively for the clergy, especially during the Lord’s Prayer.
From the USCCB site
F
fix
Guest
In 1995, the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), then chaired by Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, proposed certain amendments to the proposed revision. Among these, the BCL recommended specifying the orans posture for the people during the Our Father. The rationale was that the orans gesture was used in the “early Church”, and that this posture should replace hand-holding during the Our Father, a practice that was becoming increasingly common.
Several bishops objected to adopting the orans for the people (by custom a priestly gesture), and strongly opposed making this a rule.
But eventually the bishops compromised, at this 1995 session, and voted to make the orans a permissible option for the congregation during the Our Father.
It is important to note that the bishops’ debate and vote on the orans posture for the people involved the ICEL Sacramentary, not the new Roman Missal.
One source of continuing confusion is this. When the proposed ICEL Sacramentary was sent to the Holy See for approval (after the November 1999 meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops), the BCL posted on its web site a description of the orans posture, saying that this posture would be permitted when the new Sacramentary was approved.
This 1999 BCL comment stated, in part:
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. I might also note that in the course of its discussion of … this question, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.
The Sacramentary revision, however, was not only replaced by the new Roman Missal, but it was officially and specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared.
Unfortunately, however, this outdated and misleading comment on the USCCB web site was never removed. It was still there as of October 28, 2003.
http://www.adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html
Several bishops objected to adopting the orans for the people (by custom a priestly gesture), and strongly opposed making this a rule.
But eventually the bishops compromised, at this 1995 session, and voted to make the orans a permissible option for the congregation during the Our Father.
It is important to note that the bishops’ debate and vote on the orans posture for the people involved the ICEL Sacramentary, not the new Roman Missal.
One source of continuing confusion is this. When the proposed ICEL Sacramentary was sent to the Holy See for approval (after the November 1999 meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops), the BCL posted on its web site a description of the orans posture, saying that this posture would be permitted when the new Sacramentary was approved.
This 1999 BCL comment stated, in part:
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. I might also note that in the course of its discussion of … this question, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.
The Sacramentary revision, however, was not only replaced by the new Roman Missal, but it was officially and specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared.
Unfortunately, however, this outdated and misleading comment on the USCCB web site was never removed. It was still there as of October 28, 2003.
http://www.adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html
- Status