Revised GIRM & Orans Posture

[MarkThompson]

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

So Thistle was right – the GIRM is silent on the question. Were it otherwise, Colin B. Donovan, STL, would not have had to engage in such a longwinded, circuitous way of saying “I don’t like it.” He could simply have pointed to the portion of the GIRM that authoritatively treated of the matter.

 

[pnewton]

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

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

Let us reduce to the absurd in the other direction. Where are one’s hands during, let us say the Our Father for now? Would it be objectionable if they were folded in pray? That is not in the rubrics either. Put my hands in my pocket? That too is not given as a posture in the rubrics. Are the hands to be held down to the side? Same problem. As no posture is listed in the GIRM as to what one is to do with the hands, we by necessity must do something that is not listed in the GIRM. I see where Cardinal Arinze has a point that the posture of the people can not be over-regulated.

That being said, if the bishop has sees a need to bar something within his diocese, there is no logical reason why the faithful should do anything but be obedient. While we may understand or agree with all decisions, he is within his authority.

 

[jilly4ski]

Let us reduce to the absurd in the other direction. Where are one’s hands during, let us say the Our Father for now? Would it be objectionable if they were folded in pray? That is not in the rubrics either. Put my hands in my pocket? That too is not given as a posture in the rubrics. Are the hands to be held down to the side? Same problem. As no posture is listed in the GIRM as to what one is to do with the hands, we by necessity must do something that is not listed in the GIRM. I see where Cardinal Arinze has a point that the posture of the people can not be over-regulated.

That being said, if the bishop has sees a need to bar something within his diocese, there is no logical reason why the faithful should do anything but be obedient. While we may understand or agree with all decisions, he is within his authority.

What I and the other poster were objecting to is the argument that because the GRIM doesn’t forbid it, it is therefore allowed. That argument is absurd, just as our examples point out.

 

[TheMc]

Let us reduce to the absurd in the other direction. Where are one’s hands during, let us say the Our Father for now? Would it be objectionable if they were folded in pray? That is not in the rubrics either. Put my hands in my pocket? That too is not given as a posture in the rubrics. Are the hands to be held down to the side? Same problem. As no posture is listed in the GIRM as to what one is to do with the hands, we by necessity must do something that is not listed in the GIRM. I see where Cardinal Arinze has a point that the posture of the people can not be over-regulated.

That being said, if the bishop has sees a need to bar something within his diocese, there is no logical reason why the faithful should do anything but be obedient. While we may understand or agree with all decisions, he is within his authority.

But it seems everyone is missing one major point: tradition. If you look at the OF and only the OF, some things don’t make sense. Some things seem unclear. But the Mass must be looked at with continuity. For example, in the OF, it says the priest may intone the gloria. What does that mean? One word? One note? The first half? A look at the EF rubrics clears this up. How about when the GIRM says you may ring a bell “a little before the consecration”? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Well, check the EF rubrics, and you know what that means.

There’s many other situations like this in the OF. The OF is not a break from the tradition of the church.

That’s what people are missing. The longstanding tradition of the Latin rite is for the faithful to pray with folded hands. Not holding hands, not orans. That’s the best thing we can do during Mass. If we say everything must be in the GIRM or we can do whatever we want, it would be a mess. That’s why we follow the legitimate traditions of the past.

1. The gestures and bodily posture of both the priest, the Deacon, and the ministers, and also of the people, must be conducive to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, to making clear the true and full meaning of its different parts, and to fostering the participation of all. Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the roman rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the people of god, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

 

[centurionguard]

But it seems everyone is missing one major point: tradition. If you look at the OF and only the OF, some things don’t make sense. Some things seem unclear. But the Mass must be looked at with continuity. For example, in the OF, it says the priest may intone the gloria. What does that mean? One word? One note? The first half? A look at the EF rubrics clears this up. How about when the GIRM says you may ring a bell “a little before the consecration”? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Well, check the EF rubrics, and you know what that means.

There’s many other situations like this in the OF. The OF is not a break from the tradition of the church.

That’s what people are missing. The longstanding tradition of the Latin rite is for the faithful to pray with folded hands. Not holding hands, not orans. That’s the best thing we can do during Mass. If we say everything must be in the GIRM or we can do whatever we want, it would be a mess. That’s why we follow the legitimate traditions of the past.

1. The gestures and bodily posture of both the priest, the Deacon, and the ministers, and also of the people, must be conducive to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, to making clear the true and full meaning of its different parts, and to fostering the participation of all. Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the roman rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the people of god, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

That’s what people are missing. The longstanding tradition of the Latin rite is for the faithful to pray with folded hands. Not holding hands, not orans. That’s the best thing we can do during Mass. If we say everything must be in the GIRM or we can do whatever we want, it would be a mess. That’s why we follow the legitimate traditions of the past.

Ever watch little children coming up the aisle to receive their First Communion with their small little hands folded together in prayer? Of course we all have witnessed this. And no its not a cute gesture; it predisposes the mind into a disposition of reverence. We may well remember our own first Holy Communion.

Strange though how such a gesture of clasped hands in prayer might be above an adult lay person. Just watch adult parishioners returning from receiving communion. Not all are disposed in symbolic reverence with hands folded. We Catholics have forgotten much about the disposition of bodily gesture and reverence during Mass. Complacency can be our worst enemy especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

A sense of Reverence and Awe is lost because some see the Mass as just a celebration, as just a reenactment of what happen on Calvary. But what some really fail to see is the Real Sacrificial Victim on the Altar. That’s why bodily gestured Reverence has disappeared in the Church.

 

[TheMc]

Ever watch little children coming up the aisle to receive their First Communion with their small little hands folded together in prayer? Of course we all have witnessed this. And no its not a cute gesture; it predisposes the mind into a disposition of reverence. We may well remember our own first Holy Communion.

Strange though how such a gesture of clasped hands in prayer might be above an adult lay person. Just watch adult parishioners returning from receiving communion. Not all are disposed in symbolic reverence with hands folded. We Catholics have forgotten much about the disposition of bodily gesture and reverence during Mass. Complacency can be our worst enemy especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

A sense of Reverence and Awe is lost because some see the Mass as just a celebration, as just a reenactment of what happen on Calvary. But what some really fail to see is the Real Sacrificial Victim on the Altar. That’s why bodily gestured Reverence has disappeared in the Church.

Yes! Exactly my point! I’d also like to add to my above remarks by saying that not only is folded hands the traditional norm for prayer in the latin rite, but orans/hand holding has absolutely no tradition to back it up in the liturgy! It was simply injected there.

 

[pnewton]

That’s what people are missing. The longstanding tradition of the Latin rite is for the faithful to pray with folded hands. Not holding hands, not orans.

I am not missing this at all. In fact, this tradition shows that the argument from absence in the GIRM is not valid. Not every posture that the faithful take is in the GIRM. Thats the “G” (general) part. Therefore, the posture the faithful take on their own is a small matter to worry about. Whether one is more traditionally-minded and folds their hands or is not and holds hands, it is not worth fretting over what others are doing. The Church doesn’t.

 

[Deacon_Jim]

This all sounds like a great beginning for a new “Inquest” for the Church!
It’s too bad so many of us, especially the Magisterium, have nothing more important to do than waste our time and energy on trying to regulate peoples gestures and positions. I wonder if any of you realize that there was a time in the Church when you would forfeit your life for making the sign of the Cross incorrectly. “Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

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

Amen and many thanks for explaining things, point by point.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

This all sounds like a great beginning for a new “Inquest” for the Church!
It’s too bad so many of us, especially the Magisterium, have nothing more important to do than waste our time and energy on trying to regulate peoples gestures and positions. I wonder if any of you realize that there was a time in the Church when you would forfeit your life for making the sign of the Cross incorrectly. “Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

I don’t believe the discussion is inviting an inquest,:angel1: but a way to do things “decently and in order,” as the Bible says. There is beauty in tradition, and I think it’s healthy from time to time to reflect upon why we are not following it. I appreciate people here who post rules of the Magisterium. New converts like myself need guidance, and that is why we like to know the rules rather than be swept up in fads or fashions that have veered away from tradition.:nun1::harp::heaven:

 

[jmjconder]

This all sounds like a great beginning for a new “Inquest” for the Church!
It’s too bad so many of us, especially the Magisterium, have nothing more important to do than waste our time and energy on trying to regulate peoples gestures and positions. I wonder if any of you realize that there was a time in the Church when you would forfeit your life for making the sign of the Cross incorrectly. “Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

**I am taken back from your post - esp. given your title.

This is not about what you have described. It is about a lost teaching moment that fails to instruct the faithful as to why it is the way it is. The priest is the only one during the Mass that is in the person of Christ. He alone lifts our prayers and offers them up. When I came to understand this profound part of the Mass - so many other “regulations” came into a new light. This question has to do with a full understanding of the Liturgy - the role of the priest, deacon and those of us in the pews. This particular “regulation” has a meaning far beyond the gesture itself.

Deacon Jim W- during the Our Father - what is your posture when you are on the Altar?**

 

[pnewton]

**
Deacon Jim W- during the Our Father - what is your posture when you are on the Altar?**

The topic is not about him. A deacon should be obedient to his priest and bishop, not us. It is really not our business to judge each other.

 

[napoli426]

The GIRM would be a million pages long if it specifically forbade you to do all the abuses after Vatican 2. People are people. That’s why this new translation is going to cause lots more abuses. I have already witnessed it myself. Problem has always been that most Bishop’s are too gutless to come down hard. My advice? Stick with the 1962 Missal.

 

[jmjconder]

The topic is not about him. A deacon should be obedient to his priest and bishop, not us. It is really not our business to judge each other.

**Point well taken. Did not mean to demean Deacon’s vocation.

The reason I asked is the Deacon’s posture during the “Our Father” is very specific. If a Deacon does not follow the posture for him - the posture for the people in the pews may not seem all that important either.

Again – this is a unique teachable moment in Liturgical practices – I wish it would be explained.**

 

[pnewton]

The reason I asked is the Deacon’s posture during the “Our Father” is very specific. If a Deacon does not follow the posture for him - the posture for the people in the pews may not seem all that important either.

The other side to this is that in your diocese, that obedience would include this latest instruction. It is not that I think the posture in the pews is unimportant, as un regulated. I saw a recent video series on Catholicism by Fr. Barron. It includes a lot of imagery of worshipers around the world. The one thing that struck me is that in not of these is there a posture of apathy. I do not know how to specifically describe this (I guess glancing at one’s watch might be a clue), but I see that the greater importance should be on the posture of the heart, and let the people take that posture the of love and worship, be it orans or folded hands. I grew up Baptist, so I am a natural bowed head, hands folded guy. I never understood the posture during the Eucharistic Prayers being the same as, say, during the anouncements.

 

[ljsedivy]

Ever watch little children coming up the aisle to receive their First Communion with their small little hands folded together in prayer? Of course we all have witnessed this. And no its not a cute gesture; it predisposes the mind into a disposition of reverence. We may well remember our own first Holy Communion.

Strange though how such a gesture of clasped hands in prayer might be above an adult lay person. Just watch adult parishioners returning from receiving communion. Not all are disposed in symbolic reverence with hands folded. We Catholics have forgotten much about the disposition of bodily gesture and reverence during Mass. Complacency can be our worst enemy especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

A sense of Reverence and Awe is lost because some see the Mass as just a celebration, as just a reenactment of what happen on Calvary. But what some really fail to see is the Real Sacrificial Victim on the Altar. That’s why bodily gestured Reverence has disappeared in the Church.

God bless you! What a beautiful and perfect post.

I do “pray” the entire mass. My hands are folded during the entire mass. How many times does the priest say, “Let us pray” and “Amen”. Obviously, it’s a prayer.

In addition, praying the entire mass with my hands folded, really does help me to drink in every word and to really focus on what is happening. I try to “see” with my spiritual eyes and envision what is happening on the other side of the veil during consecration. I “see” the church suffering below and my savior on the cross.

I have a friend who brought her neice to church (she does not go because her family does not – she was 10 at the time). This little girl really did see the other side of the veil and asked her aunt what was that man doing up there as she cried. If I remember correctly, she also saw the Blessed Mother.

 

[Transformer]

Every Catholic, myself included, should be careful not to imply that his prudential judgment on the matter is somehow the authoritative judgment that the Church really intends.

As far as I know, nowhere (in the GIRM or elsewhere) does it say anything about the hand posture of the laity during the Our Father. That means that the laity raising their hands in prayer is not a liturgical abuse, and unless one’s local bishop says otherwise, what to do with one’s hands during the Our Father is up to individual prudential judgment.

The GIRM is not ambiguous. It is perfectly clear. There is no hand posture specified for the laity. It is left up to individual bishops, or if they don’t specify anything, then individual congregants.

If you think that the laity raising their hands in prayer is inappropriate, that is a prudential judgment of yours. Another person could, perfectly licitly, read the evidence differently and conclude that it is an acceptable practice. Now, it’s certainly true that your prudential judgment could be right and that other guy’s prudential judgment wrong; perhaps the practice is in fact inappropriate. But if he raises his hands during the Our Father, he is doing nothing disobedient or illicit, as the matter is very clearly left up to individual judgment by the Church’s liturgical laws.

These discussions would be much more pleasant if everyone admitted that it is a matter of individual prudential judgment, as it clearly is.

And yes, I’m aware that by my argument a person could flail his arms above his head wildly during the Our Father and it would still not be illicit because the GIRM says nothing about laity hand posture. But such extreme examples mean nothing. If a person can’t see the obvious difference between a totally ridiculous judgment about hand posture like “I can flail my arms above my head!” and a halfways reasonable one like “I can raise my hands in prayer” or “I can hold hands with my family,” it’s because he doesn’t want to see the difference.

That’s what people are missing. The longstanding tradition of the Latin rite is for the faithful to pray with folded hands. Not holding hands, not orans. That’s the best thing we can do during Mass. If we say everything must be in the GIRM or we can do whatever we want, it would be a mess. That’s why we follow the legitimate traditions of the past.

1. The gestures and bodily posture of both the priest, the Deacon, and the ministers, and also of the people, must be conducive to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, to making clear the true and full meaning of its different parts, and to fostering the participation of all. Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the roman rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the people of god, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

This is a good paragraph to bring up, as long as everyone keeps in mind that it is your prudential judgment to make the application of this paragraph to the practice in question. It is your prudential judgment that lay people raising their hands in prayer is incompatible with the “traditional practice of the roman rite” and is only a matter of “private inclination or arbitrary choice.” The Church does not make that application for you. She could, but she very conspicuously doesn’t.

Now, perhaps your prudential judgment is right, and a contrary one would be wrong. Perhaps it really is incompatible with the tradition of the roman rite for the laity to raise their hands in prayer. But it’s still your prudential judgment, and other lay faithful are still free under the Church’s law to reach a contrary prudential judgment.

 

[Transformer]

As for me, I find some (though perhaps not all) of the arguments advanced against lay people raising their hands in prayer to be unconvincing. Consider this paragraph that someone pulled from EWTN:

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.

Now, I have two responses to this. First of all, it begs the question in a very annoying way at one point. It says, “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.” But what it fails to mention is that the laity making the gesture and the laity not making the gesture are both equally in accordance with the rubrics. The rubrics simply do not say what the laity should be doing with their hands during the Our Father, nor does it say anywhere in the GIRM that the default posture for the laity that they must adopt in lieu of other instructions is hands folded together. As much as some Catholics would like to pretend that the GIRM says that, it simply doesn’t. Raising your hands is no less in accordance with the rubrics than not raising your hands; on this particular topic the GIRM simply does not say either way.

Second, I’m not exactly seeing the argument here. Why exactly is the Church’s desire for unity defeated? Heck, if a few people raising their hands in prayer–and thereby not trespassing the rubrics at all–and some other people folding their hands in prayer defeats the Church’s desire for unity, then my, the Church’s desire for unity is easy to defeat! But really, if the laity doing two different things (both equally consistent with the rubrics, mind), defeats the Church’s desire for unity, then how about those people who can’t kneel and so sit during the consecration? Shouldn’t we all sit so that everyone is doing the same thing and the Church’s desire for unity is not defeated? I don’t really buy that the unity the Church desires is so fragile and inflexible that different lay people holding their hands in somewhat different positions somehow destroys it.

 

[otjm]

As for me, I find some (though perhaps not all) of the arguments advanced against lay people raising their hands in prayer to be unconvincing. Consider this paragraph that someone pulled from EWTN:

Now, I have two responses to this. First of all, it begs the question in a very annoying way at one point. It says, “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.” But what it fails to mention is that the laity making the gesture and the laity not making the gesture are both equally in accordance with the rubrics. The rubrics simply do not say what the laity should be doing with their hands during the Our Father, nor does it say anywhere in the GIRM that the default posture for the laity that they must adopt in lieu of other instructions is hands folded together. As much as some Catholics would like to pretend that the GIRM says that, it simply doesn’t. Raising your hands is no less in accordance with the rubrics than not raising your hands; on this particular topic the GIRM simply does not say either way.

Second, I’m not exactly seeing the argument here. Why exactly is the Church’s desire for unity defeated? Heck, if a few people raising their hands in prayer–and thereby not trespassing the rubrics at all–and some other people folding their hands in prayer defeats the Church’s desire for unity, then my, the Church’s desire for unity is easy to defeat! But really, if the laity doing two different things (both equally consistent with the rubrics, mind), defeats the Church’s desire for unity, then how about those people who can’t kneel and so sit during the consecration? Shouldn’t we all sit so that everyone is doing the same thing and the Church’s desire for unity is not defeated? I don’t really buy that the unity the Church desires is so fragile and inflexible that different lay people holding their hands in somewhat different positions somehow destroys it.

The problem is that some people equate unity with uniformity.

 

[otjm]

What I and the other poster were objecting to is the argument that because the GRIM doesn’t forbid it, it is therefore allowed. That argument is absurd, just as our examples point out.

Your examples do not point that out, if for no other reason than that wht we are discussing here is a liturgical posture, and what you are interjecting is a non liturgical posture or non liturgical act. That is called a red herring.