Revised GIRM & Orans Posture

[DaveBj]

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.”

Okay, I blew it on reductio ad absurdum. Mea maxima culpa. Nevertheless, I stick by my previous statements. It is understood (= intuitive) that jumping jacks during the Consecration are not done. It may be understood by a few that hand holding/raising is not to be done, but it is not understood by the masses, as evidenced by how may people perform those actions.

The idea that the leadership don’t care is a separate issue from whether or not the people understand or don’t understand what is to be done or not done. Don’t try to confuse the two. In the final analysis I don’t know whether they care or not, but the fact that for years (dare I say decades?) they have known about these practices and haven’t done anything about them speaks volumes to me.

The only people who seem to care about these practices are those who come on these forums to argue about them. Frankly, I believe that those for whom the biggest problem is seeing people hold or raise hands during the Our Father should fall down on their knees and raise their own hands in gratitude, because they are leading truly blest lives.

 

[quilisma]

I wonder if the appropriate Congregation at the Vatican would issue a definitive answer if the bishops submitted a dubium on the matter?

 

[Aeolian]

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.

Simple. The GIRM remains silent because the Church wants to put the ultimate decision on this matter in the hands of the local ordinary.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

Indeed.

…especially because common sense should guide most people, and rarely seems to in any arena these days – from behavior on subway trains to posture during Mass.

The best reason in the world for the congregation not to engage in a virtual 60 minutes of mime in the pews is that, hello: The Action is at the altar. The priest engages us with words, and engages the elements of consecration with words and gestures. Our internal and oral participation are fully sufficient for the priest and for God, without ostentatious body language, wihch distracts other people from where everyone’s eyes should be focused: The Altar (and/or written text if needed/desired).

Mass is not Drama Class.

And with regard to the earlier comments about a carryover from Charismatic Masses or prayers? The people who do this at one of my local parishes have never participated in Charismatic anything. Rather, they’ve watched other people do it. It’s all about imitation and wanting to “participate.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

More discussion and citations about this issue is on this closed thread, beyond the GIRM:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=401068

It would be difficult for me to imagine an indicated (overt) relaxation of congregation gestures with any revised GIRM. This is not the direction that the Church seems to be going toward, with regard to Mass rubrics.

 

[route66]

Re: “it’s all about imitation”. AKA: “Monkey see, monkey do”.
In more pious news: I made it my personal mission in my parish to get people to KNEEL after the Agnus Dei & during the Priest’s Communion.[instead of the thunderous clatter of kneelers being kicked up to the pews]. I had met with opposition that people would be uncomfortable kneeling, completely disregarding that those same people had no trouble kneeling during the Consecration. Today, with the Advent of the “new” translation, success! 5 little words from the Mass facilitator:“Please kneel, if you’re able” literally brought every one to their knees in reverence after Agnus Dei until they rose to proceed to Communion! Gloria tibi, Domine, & Deo Gratias!!!

 

[fall_fox]

fall fox

It is my understanding of the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, that it will direct only in the positive.
The Priest will take the Oran’s Position when Praying the Our Father
During the Our Father the Deacon will fold his hands.
I haven’t looked this up for exact wording, but what it says is close to this.

I think this is the reason the Catholic Church became so confused after V ll.
People read the GIRM and the saw that it didn’t forbid this or that so they assumed that it was all right to do. This is where the Bishops and Priests should have stepped in and correct the situation, they did not.

 

[fall_fox]

Re: “it’s all about imitation”. AKA: “Monkey see, monkey do”.
In more pious news: I made it my personal mission in my parish to get people to KNEEL after the Agnus Dei & during the Priest’s Communion.[instead of the thunderous clatter of kneelers being kicked up to the pews]. I had met with opposition that people would be uncomfortable kneeling, completely disregarding that those same people had no trouble kneeling during the Consecration. Today, with the Advent of the “new” translation, success! 5 little words from the Mass facilitator:“Please kneel, if you’re able” literally brought every one to their knees in reverence after Agnus Dei until they rose to proceed to Communion! Gloria tibi, Domine, & Deo Gratias!!!

fall fox

It’s hard when you go against the “we’ve always done it this way” even though the way they are doing something is wrong, isn’t it? I’m working in my own Parish to get things done the correct way. Sometimes the opposition is too great.

 

[otjm]

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?

It is not a matter of difficulty; it is a matter of choice; Rome has known about holding hands during the Our Father since the early 1960’s, and the orans posture later. There have been what - 3 revisions of the GIRM since the early 1960’s? More? The point sometimes made is too subtle to be understood by some. Rome treats some matters as a parent treats a child; they do not answer every last question that is asked. And obviously, this is a matter that has far greater significance among the people in the pews than it does for those who regulate the liturgy.

 

[otjm]

Simple. The GIRM remains silent because the Church wants to put the ultimate decision on this matter in the hands of the local ordinary.

Actually, no. The local bishop has no authority to add or subtract from the GIRM unless it is specifically granted, and no authority has been granted concerning the position or posture of hands during the Our Father.

 

[otjm]

I wonder if the appropriate Congregation at the Vatican would issue a definitive answer if the bishops submitted a dubium on the matter?

The bishops at one point, if I recall, were planning on asking Rome to grant the orans posture specifically, to answer the objections to holding hands during the Our Father; but failed to get a sufficient vote to broach the matter.

And I suspect they will not use the dubium as a means of getting an answer as they are not of a mind to open that box and see what pops out.

 

[otjm]

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 . . .

Jumping jacks are not a liturgical act. However, the orans posture predates Christianity as it goes back before Christ to ancient Jewish practice - it was a recognized posture of prayer and thus has liturgical validity.

Unlike jumping jacks.

Sorry, your analogy has been tried before by others, and is still as irrelevant.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Jumping jacks are not a liturgical act. However, the orans posture predates Christianity as it goes back before Christ to ancient Jewish practice - it was a recognized posture of prayer and thus has liturgical validity.

Unlike jumping jacks.

Sorry, your analogy has been tried before by others, and is still as irrelevant.

For priests. Shall we also start kissing the altar before mass starts to feel “communityish?” Well, nothing prohibits it, so why not?!

 

[jpjd]

The GIRM is silent on this matter…It is beyond my understanding why it cannot say these postures are forbidden.

Perhaps the GIRM is silent on the matter because it is not forbidden.

 

[MarkThompson]

For priests. Shall we also start kissing the altar before mass starts to feel “communityish?” Well, nothing prohibits it, so why not?!

Here is the logical flaw with line of thinking, which is repeatedly employed in this and similar contexts. The argument goes like this:

1. Jumping jacks (or similar absurd behavior) is, by hypothesis, forbidden.
2. Either (a) everything not stated in the GIRM is forbidden, or (b) everything not stated in the GIRM is permitted.
3. Assume, by way of contradiction, that 2(b) were true: everything not stated is permitted.
4. But a prohibition on jumping jacks is not stated. Therefore, by 2(b), jumping jacks are permitted.
5. However, by (1), jumping jacks are forbidden. This is a contradiction.

Therefore, 6. The assumption (3) must be incorrect; consequently, 2(b) is false.

Therefore, 7. By the disjunction (2), if 2(b) is false then it follows that 2(a) is true: everything that is not stated is forbidden. Q.E.D.
Simple, syllogistic logic, an elementary proof-by-contradiction, isn’t it? I’ll leave for the reader the exercise of constructing the reverse argument, which disproves 2(a) by showing that it would forbid things that are clearly allowed, like various pious gestures or stopping to call an ambulance for somebody who has had a heart attack.

That antinomy reveals the key flaw in this entire line: the major premise itself, (2), is completely baseless. Who, exactly, ever announced the principle of absolute dichotomy, that either absolutely everything not discussed must be permitted, or else absolutely everything not discussed must be forbidden? Who ever decided that it was impossible for some of the things the GIRM does not cover to be forbidden, and others to be allowed.

The difficulty, particularly for an American who feels entitled to black-and-white legal codes and a right of due process which requires that everything have been spelled out for him before he can be held to account for it, is that we cannot comprehend how something might be unstated, and yet forbidden. But Roman law does not proceed on the same principles. It is not written to throw people in jail, and it was not written for a populace presumed to harbor criminal intent at every turn, so there is no need for it to provide due process and spell out the precise contours of licit behavior. Quite to the contrary, Church law, with rare exceptions, is written for an audience which is presumed to be mature, faithful, well-meaning, and to have good taste and good intentions, at least usually.

It is virtually impossible to understand the intent of Roman lawmaking, particularly liturgical lawmaking, outside that frame of mind. Many things do not need to be “forbidden,” simply because nobody would do them, and others would put a stop to it if they actually tried. In the event that things really got out of hand then Rome could step in, but the desire is to avoid at almost all costs a complicated, legalistic code full of exacting specifics, exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and so on. Such codes inevitably create their own contradictions and tend to interpose burdensome difficulties on the many in the course of the attempt to extirpate often minor transgressions by the few.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Here is the logical flaw with line of thinking, which is repeatedly employed in this and similar contexts. The argument goes like this:

1. Jumping jacks (or similar absurd behavior) is, by hypothesis, forbidden.
2. Either (a) everything not stated in the GIRM is forbidden, or (b) everything not stated in the GIRM is permitted.
3. Assume, by way of contradiction, that 2(b) were true: everything not stated is permitted.
4. But a prohibition on jumping jacks is not stated. Therefore, by 2(b), jumping jacks are permitted.
5. However, by (1), jumping jacks are forbidden. This is a contradiction.

Therefore, 6. The assumption (3) must be incorrect; consequently, 2(b) is false.

Therefore, 7. By the disjunction (2), if 2(b) is false then it follows that 2(a) is true: everything that is not stated is forbidden. Q.E.D.
Simple, syllogistic logic, an elementary proof-by-contradiction, isn’t it? I’ll leave for the reader the exercise of constructing the reverse argument, which disproves 2(a) by showing that it would forbid things that are clearly allowed, like various pious gestures or stopping to call an ambulance for somebody who has had a heart attack.

That antinomy reveals the key flaw in this entire line: the major premise itself, (2), is completely baseless. Who, exactly, ever announced the principle of absolute dichotomy, that either absolutely everything not discussed must be permitted, or else absolutely everything not discussed must be forbidden? Who ever decided that it was impossible for some of the things the GIRM does not cover to be forbidden, and others to be allowed.

The difficulty, particularly for an American who feels entitled to black-and-white legal codes and a right of due process which requires that everything have been spelled out for him before he can be held to account for it, is that we cannot comprehend how something might be unstated, and yet forbidden. But Roman law does not proceed on the same principles. It is not written to throw people in jail, and it was not written for a populace presumed to harbor criminal intent at every turn, so there is no need for it to provide due process and spell out the precise contours of licit behavior. Quite to the contrary, Church law, with rare exceptions, is written for an audience which is presumed to be mature, faithful, well-meaning, and to have good taste and good intentions, at least usually.

It is virtually impossible to understand the intent of Roman lawmaking, particularly liturgical lawmaking, outside that frame of mind. Many things do not need to be “forbidden,” simply because nobody would do them, and others would put a stop to it if they actually tried. In the event that things really got out of hand then Rome could step in, but the desire is to avoid at almost all costs a complicated, legalistic code full of exacting specifics, exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and so on. Such codes inevitably create their own contradictions and tend to interpose burdensome difficulties on the many in the course of the attempt to extirpate often minor transgressions by the few.

You make full sense and your logic is completely sound, but after it all, I’m still not sure where the orans position or the hand-holding falls.

 

[otjm]

For priests. Shall we also start kissing the altar before mass starts to feel “communityish?” Well, nothing prohibits it, so why not?!

While I will agree that the only place in the rubrics that the orans posture is noted, it is noted as the priest’s posture, perhaps you can help me out with a bit of research.

We will get to that in a second - but it should also be noted that in the rubrics, there are places where the priest is directed to position his hands palms together, fingers up (that is, the prayer posture of hands most of us were taught as children).

So help me out here. How about you do a bit of research on exactly what directions the laity have in the rubrics.

Just a guess - or maybe a hint - you won’t find much of anything.

And so, by your logic - that the orans is “only the gesture of the priest” - then so is the palms together, fingers pointed up - or at a 45 degree angle - or its companion - palms together, fingers laced.

The root of the problem is that those who take the Germanic approach to liturgical law (“Whatever is not permitted is forbidden”) coupled with a tad bit of an anal approach to liturgy, seem to forget that the liturgy is primarily of a Latin, or Mediterranian background (“Whatever is not forbidden is permitted”).

As a point of reference, the just prior GIRM had the direction that people were to stand during Communion; as it was written, it appeared that all were to stand even after having received and returned to their pew. Cardinal George sent a dubium to the appropriate dicastery asking if that was the intent, or if people could kneel after receiving and returning to the pew. The gist of Cardinal Arinze’s response was that Rome did not intend to be that rigid in the rule, and that they could stand, kneel or sit.

So the argument keeps coming forward that the orans position is only for the priest; Rome has said that we are not to mimic the actions of the priest (in spite of the fact that we do so when we have a our hands palms together, fingers pointing up, even though we are not directed to take that position - a position that the priest is directed to take), and those who vary from not liking hand holding or the orans position during the Our Father, to those who despise it continue to bring this up while Rome, fully aware that it is going on, says nothing. Well, that is, nothing except Cardinal Arinze’s comment that Rome did not intent to be that rigid on a specifically directed posture one that appeared to be very specific, but one that Rome felt was not a rigid in spite of a direction that certainly looked rigid.

I don’t have a dog in the fight. I don’t really care what position my neighbor’s hands are; if they extend them to me to hold hands, then in charity I will hold hands. If they don’t extend their hands, I don’t grab them. If they hold their hands in the orans position, I don’t comment.

I found out decades ago there are far, far more important issues to be dealt with in life than what someone else does during the Our Father. Having someone try repeatedly to kill you can have that result - that you learn to separate out what is important and what is not ( I was in Viet Nam).

The orans position is so unimportant that I am constantly amazed at the amount of angst, ink, and cyber space that is expended against it.

We have killed something in the range of 50,000,000 children in the womb. If the orans position of your neighbor is bothering you, I would suggest, in the way my grandmother taught me, that you offer it up for mercy on those who have had an abortion, those who do the abortion, and the fathers who have impregnated women out of wedlock and abandoned them. Perhaps that will put things into perspective.

 

[otjm]

Here is the logical flaw with line of thinking, which is repeatedly employed in this and similar contexts. The argument goes like this:

1. Jumping jacks (or similar absurd behavior) is, by hypothesis, forbidden.
2. Either (a) everything not stated in the GIRM is forbidden, or (b) everything not stated in the GIRM is permitted.
3. Assume, by way of contradiction, that 2(b) were true: everything not stated is permitted.
4. But a prohibition on jumping jacks is not stated. Therefore, by 2(b), jumping jacks are permitted.
5. However, by (1), jumping jacks are forbidden. This is a contradiction.

Therefore, 6. The assumption (3) must be incorrect; consequently, 2(b) is false.

Therefore, 7. By the disjunction (2), if 2(b) is false then it follows that 2(a) is true: everything that is not stated is forbidden. Q.E.D.
Simple, syllogistic logic, an elementary proof-by-contradiction, isn’t it? I’ll leave for the reader the exercise of constructing the reverse argument, which disproves 2(a) by showing that it would forbid things that are clearly allowed, like various pious gestures or stopping to call an ambulance for somebody who has had a heart attack.

That antinomy reveals the key flaw in this entire line: the major premise itself, (2), is completely baseless. Who, exactly, ever announced the principle of absolute dichotomy, that either absolutely everything not discussed must be permitted, or else absolutely everything not discussed must be forbidden? Who ever decided that it was impossible for some of the things the GIRM does not cover to be forbidden, and others to be allowed.

The difficulty, particularly for an American who feels entitled to black-and-white legal codes and a right of due process which requires that everything have been spelled out for him before he can be held to account for it, is that we cannot comprehend how something might be unstated, and yet forbidden. But Roman law does not proceed on the same principles. It is not written to throw people in jail, and it was not written for a populace presumed to harbor criminal intent at every turn, so there is no need for it to provide due process and spell out the precise contours of licit behavior. Quite to the contrary, Church law, with rare exceptions, is written for an audience which is presumed to be mature, faithful, well-meaning, and to have good taste and good intentions, at least usually.

It is virtually impossible to understand the intent of Roman lawmaking, particularly liturgical lawmaking, outside that frame of mind. Many things do not need to be “forbidden,” simply because nobody would do them, and others would put a stop to it if they actually tried. In the event that things really got out of hand then Rome could step in, but the desire is to avoid at almost all costs a complicated, legalistic code full of exacting specifics, exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and so on. Such codes inevitably create their own contradictions and tend to interpose burdensome difficulties on the many in the course of the attempt to extirpate often minor transgressions by the few.

In a round-about way you have distinguished the philosophical underpinnings of the Germanic and the Mediterranian approaches to law.

The difficulty people have with the jumping jacks issue is that they move from liturgical acts to non-liturgical acts, as if the two were the same, and by use of a non-liturgical act, rule out liturgical ones.

Another way of saying it is that they move from common sense to nonsense. Wasn’t it Voltaire who said in effect, that the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common?

And lest there be any doubt, if you interviewed most Americans, you would find they respond primarily to a Germanic approach to law.

Ah well…

 

[flylow95]

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.

Dear Moderator,
You claim the GIRM is silent on this matter.
I copied this off the EWTN site.
Respectfully,
Kevin Kenney
Ballwin MO

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.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
Apologetics - Doctrine - Canon Law - Eastern Churches - General - History - Liturgy - Moral
NFP - Philosophy - Pro-Life - Scripture - Spiritual

HOME - EWTNews - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - MULTIMEDIA
WHAT’S NEW - GENERAL - RELIGIOUS CATALOGUE - PILGRIMAGES - ESPAÑOL
Terms of Use Privacy Policy

 

[jilly4ski]

In a round-about way you have distinguished the philosophical underpinnings of the Germanic and the Mediterranian approaches to law.

The difficulty people have with the jumping jacks issue is that they move from liturgical acts to non-liturgical acts, as if the two were the same, and by use of a non-liturgical act, rule out liturgical ones.

Another way of saying it is that they move from common sense to nonsense. Wasn’t it Voltaire who said in effect, that the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common?

And lest there be any doubt, if you interviewed most Americans, you would find they respond primarily to a Germanic approach to law.

Ah well…

And yet many people use the same arguments for inherently none liturgical actions, shall we say “dance” than people try to classify as liturgical.

I grew up in a parish that had little girls be “liturgical dancers” (though only boys being altar servers:shrug. They pranced around the aisles (Like the example I used, though granted not during the consecration) and waved flags, during the liturgy. (Notably during the Gloria). I luckily escaped being a -]dancing girl/-], liturgical dancer.

So how did dance become a liturgical action, maybe my parish will have liturgical jumping jack boys.