Revised GIRM & Orans Posture

[jmjconder]

**I realize this question may have already been asked. I did a search.

The Bishop of my Diocese has asked us at our daily Mass to refrain from the “Orans” posture…with a great explaination.

Is this Bishop the exception? Has this always been a part of the GIRM (not to display this posture) and not explained/suggested?

This posture - as fully undersood - has such a profound opportunity for the faithful. Not sure why it is seen as a way to be “welcoming.”**

 

[thistle]

**I realize this question may have already been asked. I did a search.

The Bishop of my Diocese has asked us at our daily Mass to refrain from the “Orans” posture…with a great explaination.

Is this Bishop the exception? Has this always been a part of the GIRM (not to display this posture) and not explained/suggested?

This posture - as fully undersood - has such a profound opportunity for the faithful. Not sure why it is seen as a way to be “welcoming.”**

That is one of the problems. The GIRM is silent on this matter, be it orans posture, half-orans posture or hand-holding.
It is beyond my understanding why it cannot say these postures are forbidden. There would be no confusion then.

 

[Usige]

The most telling thing to me is to watch the Deacon and any priest who are concelebrating the mass. They are given specific rubrics that do not include the orans posture. Normally only the celebrant uses it and the Deacon would have his hands folded in prayer since he is not offering the prayers for others. If the deacon doesn’t use the orans posture, then why would the people do so?

I don’t think it would make a difference even if it were forbidden. The rubrics say that the people should all a bow during the creed at the incarnation, yet it is fairly rare for people to do so.

 

[centurionguard]

That is one of the problems. The GIRM is silent on this matter, be it orans posture, half-orans posture or hand-holding.
It is beyond my understanding why it cannot say these postures are forbidden. There would be no confusion then.

I never have followed the gesture of the Orans Posture exclusive to the Priest alone.

Very few laity (perhaps less than thirty) in my parish will follow the Orans gesture when the Our Father is recited in the Mass.

I think a lot of the laity who did or have followed the Orans gesture was born out of the Charismatic Renewal and Cursillo movements in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was never discouraged by priests then or even now. At least I’ve never heard anything from the Ambo.

Perhaps its only privy to those Catholics who are more well read and educated about the liturgy to the Mass itself.

My oldest copy of the Saint Joseph’s Missal for the Laity (1961) and the new Saint Joseph’s Missal released for the New Mass year Advent 2011-2012 mentions nothing about the Laity permitted in joining in the Orans Posture.

 

[thistle]

I never have followed the gesture of the Orans Posture exclusive to the Priest alone.

Very few laity (perhaps less than thirty) in my parish will follow the Orans gesture when the Our Father is recited in the Mass.

I think a lot of the laity who did or have followed the Orans gesture was born out of the Charismatic Renewal and Cursillo movements in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was never discouraged by priests then or even now. At least I’ve never heard anything from the Ambo.

Perhaps its only privy to those Catholics who are more well read and educated about the liturgy to the Mass itself.

My oldest copy of the Saint Joseph’s Missal for the Laity (1961) and the new Saint Joseph’s Missal released for the New Mass year Advent 2011-2012 mentions nothing about the Laity permitted in joining in the Orans Posture.

Personally I always fold my hands for praying.

However, if orans, half-orans, or hand-holding is not permitted why doesn’t the GIRM forbid it?
What is so difficult about making that clear? One sentence would clarify that.

Also can you refer me to some documentation where it states orans posture is exclusive to the priest alone?

 

[centurionguard]

Personally I always fold my hands for praying.

However, if orans, half-orans, or hand-holding is not permitted why doesn’t the GIRM forbid it?
What is so difficult about making that clear? One sentence would clarify that.

Also can you refer me to some documentation where it states orans posture is exclusive to the priest alone?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm

Orans Posture (“Praying” Hands Extended)
The following explains the origin of the Orans position, in which the priest intercedes during the liturgy on behalf of all. In the last couple decades this posture of praying with hands extended and lifted upwards has become a popular prayer posture for many laity, especially in the Charismatic Renewal.

The Orans position (Latin for “praying”) or some variation of it, was common to almost all ancient religions as an outward sign of supplicating God (or if a pagan religion, the gods). Consider what we do when we plead with someone. We might put our arms out in front of us as if reaching for the person and say “I beg you, help me.” This seems to be a natural human gesture coming from deep within us - like kneeling to adore or to express sorrow. Now, turn that reach heavenwards and you have the Orans position.

The ancient monuments of Christianity, such as the tombs in the catecombs, often show someone in the Orans position supplicating God, to show that the prayers of the Church accompany the person in death.

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing how the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. It used to be minutely defined in the rubrics, which now say only, “extends his hands” or “with hands extended.” Priests understand what is meant (from observation and training), and although there is some variability between priests basically the same gesture is obtained from all of them by these words.

In the rubrics the Orans gesture is asked principally of the Main Celebrant, but on those occasions where either a priestly action is done (Eucharistic Prayer) or prayer in common (Our Father) all the concelebrants do it.

It is never done by the Deacon, who does not represent the People before God but assists him who does.

Among the laity this practice began with the charismatic renewal. Used in private prayer it has worked its way into the Liturgy. It is a legitimate gesture to use when praying, as history shows, however, it is a private gesture when used in the Mass and in some cases conflicts with the system of signs which the rubrics are intended to protect. The Mass is not a private or merely human ceremony. The symbology of the actions, including such gestures, is definite and precise, and reflects the sacramental character of the Church’s prayer. As the Holy See has recently pointed out, confusion has entered the Church about the hierarchical nature of her worship, and this gesture certainly contributes to that confusion when it conflicts with the ordered sign language of the Mass.

Lets take each case.

Our Father. The intention for lay people using the Orans position at this time is, I suppose, that we pray Our Father, and the unity of people and priest together is expressed by this common gesture of prayer. Although this gesture is not called for in the rubrics, it does at least seem, on the surface, to not be in conflict with the sacramental sign system at the point when we pray Our Father. I say on the surface, however, since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.

After Our Father. This liturgical disunity continues after the Our Father when some, though not all, who assumed the Orans position during the Our Father continue it through the balance of the prayers, until after “For thine is the kingdom etc.” The rubrics provide that priest-concelebrants lower their extended hands, so that the main celebrant alone continues praying with hands extended, since he represents all, including his brother priests. So, we have the very anomalous situation that no matter how many clergy are present only one of them is praying with hands extended, accompanied by numbers of the laity.

So, while we shouldn’t attribute bad will to those who honestly have felt that there was some virtue in doing this during the Mass, it is yet another case where good will can achieve the opposite of what it intends when not imbued with the truth, in this case the truth about the sacramental nature of the postures at Mass and their meaning.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/orans-posture-and-hand-holding-during.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

 

[thomas_jd]

**I realize this question may have already been asked. I did a search.

The Bishop of my Diocese has asked us at our daily Mass to refrain from the “Orans” posture…with a great explaination.

Is this Bishop the exception? Has this always been a part of the GIRM (not to display this posture) and not explained/suggested?

This posture - as fully undersood - has such a profound opportunity for the faithful. Not sure why it is seen as a way to be “welcoming.”**

Many of the churchs in my Archdiocese have adopted the orans position and holding of the hands. I see it at morning mass and sunday mass.
Cardinal Arinze, the retired Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship, remarked that the church does not over-regulate the laitys position during mass. He was clear that the
actions described where not an abuse but rather any priest that prohibited the holding of hands would be guilty of abuse. This of course forced me to rethink my position against the mentioned actions. I still do not hand hold or lift my hands but retain the folded hands at a 45 degree angle that was taught by the sisters at school.
There may have been some new developements regarding this but I think the good Bishop may have spoken prematurely, impossible to know without the full text of the bishops
explaination.

 

[jilly4ski]

Personally I always fold my hands for praying.

However, if orans, half-orans, or hand-holding is not permitted why doesn’t the GIRM forbid it?
What is so difficult about making that clear? One sentence would clarify that.

Also can you refer me to some documentation where it states orans posture is exclusive to the priest alone?

Can you imagine how long the GRIM would be if it had to explicitly forbid any posture or other invention that it did not want people to do? Or even if all it did was describe the laity’s posture through the entire mass?

I could jump around in the aisle during the consecration, because hey the GRIM doesn’t forbid it. Seems absurd doesn’t it.

 

[Phemie]

That is one of the problems. The GIRM is silent on this matter, be it orans posture, half-orans posture or hand-holding.
It is beyond my understanding why it cannot say these postures are forbidden. There would be no confusion then.

Considering how well the rubrics are followed now I wouldn’t count on it having much impact.

 

[thistle]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/orans-posture-and-hand-holding-during.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

Unfortunately that is also not clear. It basically says it is not against the rubrics but merely causes an awkward disunity in situations where the deacon cannot use it while the priest and laity are using it and also when the laity continue to use it after the priest has lowered his hands.
This is what I mean. Nothing is defined clearly. That is why there is confusion and heated arguments over this topic.
It should be spelled out clearly and unambiguously in the GIRM either that the orans, half-orans, and hand-holding are permitted or not permitted. Then there can be no confusion.
I ask again. What is so difficult about putting in a sentence to that effect?

 

[DaveBj]

Can you imagine how long the GRIM would be if it had to explicitly forbid any posture or other invention that it did not want people to do? Or even if all it did was describe the laity’s posture through the entire mass?

I could jump around in the aisle during the consecration, because hey the GRIM doesn’t forbid it. Seems absurd doesn’t it.

Nevertheless, if the people are to understand that a given practice is forbidden, then it must be explicitly stated. Otherwise, confusion reigns, just like it is now.

 

[centurionguard]

Unfortunately that is also not clear. It basically says it is not against the rubrics but merely causes an awkward disunity in situations where the deacon cannot use it while the priest and laity are using it and also when the laity continue to use it after the priest has lowered his hands.
This is what I mean. Nothing is defined clearly. That is why there is confusion and heated arguments over this topic.
It should be spelled out clearly and unambiguously in the GIRM either that the orans, half-orange, and hand-holding are permitted or not permitted. Then there can be no confusion.
I ask again. What is so difficult about putting in a sentence to that effect?

I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be anything solidly clear on this Orans Posture from the Holy See. And due to this I expect local Bishops have liberty outside what has been thought to be a traditional norm of Priest using the posture at least prior to the rubrics in the Mass during the Charismatic Renewal by encouraging the laity join in using the same Orans posture usually during the Our Father.

Yet; there are a number of other times the Priest uses the Orans Posture when invoking prayer and you don’t see the congregation joining in. Confusing to say the least.

 

[benedictina]

My concern for this kind of dilemna is always the same one, and that is that if the GIRM and other documents indicate that these gestures are meant for the celebrant(s), then I look to the priest to explain these things to the assembly, and while not condemning those who continue to do so, he clarifies the need for all of us to be “as one” and not do “whatever turns you on” at least, not during the Liturgy. If the various Charismatics and others adopt these gestures during their prayer gatherings, I see nothing wrong with it. But, the Liturgy is SACRED.No variations should exist from one parish to another. However, the main thing is that we, the people, need to be properly instructed, and while we are at it, to be honoured that we are part of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Himself, and despite many wars and disputes is STILL the ONE,HOLY, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Our own small complaints are really coming from our own desire to change to Church to what we perceive as acceptable. Another word for this attitude may be used, it is called “PRIDE”. May the Lord bless us and forgive us for these sins, for I know of no one who is free from this sin, no matter what he or she thinks of themself.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/orans-posture-and-hand-holding-during.html
.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

 

[puzzleannie]

**I **The Bishop of my Diocese has asked us at our daily Mass to refrain from the “Orans” posture…with a great explaination.

Is this Bishop the exception? Has this always been a part of the GIRM (not to display this posture) and not explained/suggested?
."

only in the negative, that is, it is not in the GIRM, so the laity don’t do it (like handholding and all that other fun stuff).

 

[route66]

Watch Pope Benedict when he sings the “Pater Noster” after the Weekly Audience:he FOLDS his hands! I take my cue from him. When the "orans’ posture is attempted by the faithful in my city, most of them look like they’re being held up @ gunpoint.

 

[brigid12]

only in the negative, that is, it is not in the GIRM, so the laity don’t do it (like handholding and all that other fun stuff).

Our parish all do the hand-holding at the Our Father, so I’ve found that by doing the half-orans posture I can avoid holding hands while also avoiding cold looks from my neighbors at the Kiss of Peace. Just keeping my hands folded with my eyes closed gets me dirty looks and I don’t want to be the cause of uncharitable thoughts.

I’ve heard from here on Catholic Answers Radio that the new GIRM won’t say anything about the orans or half-orans posture.

 

[dochawk]

Nevertheless, if the people are to understand that a given practice is forbidden, then it must be explicitly stated. Otherwise, confusion reigns, just like it is now.

Doing jumping-jacks through the anaphora or consecration is clearly prohibited, but that is not mentioned either.

It simply isn’t possible to cite every thing not to do in a rubric whose purpose is to express what to . . .

 

[DaveBj]

Doing jumping-jacks through the anaphora or consecration is clearly prohibited, but that is not mentioned either.

It simply isn’t possible to cite every thing not to do in a rubric whose purpose is to express what to . . .

That is reductio ad absurbum, a logical fallacy. That one should not do jumping jacks during the Consecration is intuitive. That one should not hold hands with other people during the Our Father, or that one should not hold one’s hands in a semi-elevated position is not intuitive, and if the leadership of the Catholic Church wants people not to do those things, then they need to say so explicitly. That the leadership has not done so is an indication to me that they don’t care. Maybe they have more important issues to deal with. I know I do.

 

[dochawk]

That is reductio ad absurbum, a logical fallacy.

hardly; it was a response to a very broad statement.

That one should not do jumping jacks during the Consecration is intuitive. That one should not hold hands with other people during the Our Father, or that one should not hold one’s hands in a semi-elevated position is not intuitive, and if the leadership of the Catholic Church wants people not to do those things, then they need to say so explicitly.

No, they don’t.

There are any number of things that a person might fancy as reverent that they could therefore argue are appropriate, and have no doubt been done at various times. That doesn’t make them appropriate, nor does it suggest that the rubrics should be littered with statements of every inappropriate or improper thing that has ever been done at that point of the liturgy, or even those done recently.

That the leadership has not done so is an indication to me that they don’t care. Maybe they have more important issues to deal with. I know I do.

I certainly have more important issues to deal with than the various bizarre liturgical behaviors in the western Church

hawk

 

[xixxvmcm85]

That is reductio ad absurbum, a logical fallacy.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. It’s a means of argumentation to show a proof by contradiction by taking the natural consequence of an opponent’s argument to its extreme. It’s a perfectly valid means of deduction and (more importantly) a valuable tool in testing the truth of premises.

Your explicit statement was: “Nevertheless, if the people are to understand that a given practice is forbidden, then it must be explicitly stated. Otherwise, confusion reigns, just like it is now.” You countered the ensuing reductio by stating that not doing jumping jacks during the Consecration is intuitive. In other words: There are indeed cases of people understanding the forbidden nature of certain behaviors without an explicit statement to that effect, which is the negation of the premise you used to tentatively conclude that “the leadership [likely doesn’t] care. Maybe they have more important issues to deal with.”