Should the congregation have defined prayer postures at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter amicatholic2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
trish2009 said:
I think it might be a good idea for the Pastor in each parish, or the Bishop, to stress the proper way to hold our hands as we pray the Mass.
Click to expand...
It is your opinion that the “proper way” is as you described; but that was 50 years ago. It was not mandated by the Church; it was a cultural issue, most often taught by the nuns who were involved in Catholic education.

Sadly, culture has changed - in many ways. Trying to impose culture on people hasn’t shown much in the way of positive results, whether it is church matters or others.

Holding hands during the Our Father is just short of 50 years of practice. Rome has been aware of it, most likely just about as long as people have been doing it, and has seen fit to not regulate the matter. Rome pretty much is known for wisdom (in spite of a few critics); perhaps we should pay attention and move on to something else. Some parishes will have a culture that suppresses hand holding culturally; others the opposite. I understand that some thing can be distracting; but to a certain extent, we are distracted by what we allow to bother us; that is, we have a choice as to how we react. The phrase “let go and let God” comes to mind.
 
trish2009 said:
I think it might be a good idea for the Pastor in each parish, or the Bishop, to stress the proper way to hold our hands as we pray the Mass.
Click to expand...
I think that would be a terrible idea.
CB_Catholic said:
I cannot think of anything more off-putting than going to Mass and being forced to perform hand gestures in a puppet-like manner. What next?
Click to expand...
I agree Carolyn.

There are so many different prayer postures. There is no, one “proper way to hold our hands as we pray.”
 
otjm said:
It is your opinion that the “proper way” is as you described; but that was 50 years ago. It was not mandated by the Church; it was a cultural issue, most often taught by the nuns who were involved in Catholic education.

Sadly, culture has changed - in many ways. Trying to impose culture on people hasn’t shown much in the way of positive results, whether it is church matters or others.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it has anything to do with culture. It has to do with respect, reverence and a proper sense of the sacred. Just as people now attending Mass wearing shorts, halters and mini skirts so short it looks like a bathing suit. Even the ushers wear shorts in the summer. A total loss of the sense of what is proper respect for the house of God and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
trish2009 said:
I don’t believe it has anything to do with culture. It has to do with respect, reverence and a proper sense of the sacred. Just as people now attending Mass wearing shorts, halters and mini skirts so short it looks like a bathing suit. Even the ushers wear shorts in the summer. A total loss of the sense of what is proper respect for the house of God and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Then you have not been exposed to many cultures nor studied how cultures change.

The whole issue of what constitutes formal wear as opposed to casual wear is a culturally driven issue. There is a cultural issue of dress for work. Carhart may still be the clothes of choice for many in the trades; but the question of suit and tie for white collar workers have most certainly changed over the last 50 years; and those issues are identified as culturally driven.

I am not trying to justify it. I am simply commenting on the reality. The West Coast is and has been notoriously less formal than much of the rest of the US. In 1986 I had a sales job in which I called on CPAs and the financial people in larger companies; every day I was in a suit and tie. The vast majority of them were formally dressed. I now work in a CPA’s office; none of us wear a tie to work, except on those occasions we might be meeting with a client; and if we wear a tie, it is more often than not with a suit. I am not trying to justify that; I would prefer a suit (and in a number of occasions, I have worn a suit and been more formally dressed than those I work with).

I agree that a more formal approach does lend itself to reverence; but it is not per se reverence. Reverence is internally driven, and while we are humans and thus subject to the impact of externals, it would be beyond facetious to suggest that one cannot be reverent in something that is not highly formal. I am not talking about tank tops here; but jeans have become accepted at work (we have “Friday dress” which is jeans - clean, not ragged - at work. And to say that someone coming to Mass in jeans is not being reverent is to make a judgment of their internal disposition. Unless one is, perhaps, Padre Pio, that is not a gift we have. It is akin to saying that same individual may not be a good lawyer or CPA because they are in their office on Friday in jeans.
 
A defined list of what is recommended and what is not allowed would be good IMO.
 
Rome, being in Italy, and so one of the Mediterranean countries does not like rigid rules while Americans do. That said, we will not have a firm ruling of much of postures/hands.
 
GangGreen said:
A defined list of what is recommended and what is not allowed would be good IMO.
Click to expand...
That, however, misses the point. In the GIRM there are no instructions as to hands posture. So there is no list to be given as to what the Church recommends (it doesn’t recommend anything) or forbids (it does not forbid anything specifically).

As has been noted in this thread, there appears to be a rule that one is not to mimic the priest; but that is generic and not specific; and has been noted elsewhere, has been interpreted as preventing the orans posture. It could be debated whether or not a bishop has the authority, as chief liturgist in his diocese, to forbid the orans posture, and that is for a Canon lawyer - which, if I recall, most laity are not. Meanwhile, the Church has not formally waded further into the issue. Some time ago, the USCCB took up the issue, and it resulted in a non-statement’ that is, nothing came of it.

Keep in mind that hand holding goes back at least to the 1964-1966 time, and I seriously doubt that it took very long for Rome to hear about it. The GIRM has been published at least twice if not three times since then (I don’t track it too closely), and Rome certainly had the opportunities to address the issue of which they had knowledge; and they did not.

A few years ago, then Archbishop Chaput (while still in Colorado) wrote an article. He is someone I admire greatly, and hardly what would be called a liberal.

In the article, he said in so many words that he was sick and tired of all the fuss about holding hands during the Our Father. He stated clearly that there was no rule whatsoever concerning hand posture. He said those who wished to hold hands were free to do so; those who wished to not hold hands were free to not do so, and that above all, charity was called for on both sides. That is, someone who wanted to hold hands had no business whatsoever making any remarks of those who didn’t, nor had any right to force them to do so. And the same applied to those who wished to not hold hands; they were eminently free to not do so, but had no right to make accusations of those who wished to do so, nor to insist that those who did were somehow wrong, or irreverent.
 
ProVobis said:
Just a suggestion, as I said. Look at the impact Michelangelo’s paintings have made. Much more than 1000 English translations. 😃
Click to expand...
Oh, I am not against what is considered a prayer position of the hands. When I was in grade school, it was pretty much a guarantee that if one had one’s hands “palms together”, one was far less likely to have a knuckle applied to one’s skull by the nun who taught that class, than if one didn’t - the usual implication of the latter being that one was up to something besides focusing on the priest.

Nowadays, someone for sure would charge “Child Abuse by Nun in Church!!!”

The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common… Voltaire
 
otjm said:
That, however, misses the point. In the GIRM there are no instructions as to hands posture. So there is no list to be given as to what the Church recommends (it doesn’t recommend anything) or forbids (it does not forbid anything specifically).

As has been noted in this thread, there appears to be a rule that one is not to mimic the priest; but that is generic and not specific; and has been noted elsewhere, has been interpreted as preventing the orans posture. It could be debated whether or not a bishop has the authority, as chief liturgist in his diocese, to forbid the orans posture, and that is for a Canon lawyer - which, if I recall, most laity are not. Meanwhile, the Church has not formally waded further into the issue. Some time ago, the USCCB took up the issue, and it resulted in a non-statement’ that is, nothing came of it.

Keep in mind that hand holding goes back at least to the 1964-1966 time, and I seriously doubt that it took very long for Rome to hear about it. The GIRM has been published at least twice if not three times since then (I don’t track it too closely), and Rome certainly had the opportunities to address the issue of which they had knowledge; and they did not.

A few years ago, then Archbishop Chaput (while still in Colorado) wrote an article. He is someone I admire greatly, and hardly what would be called a liberal.

In the article, he said in so many words that he was sick and tired of all the fuss about holding hands during the Our Father. He stated clearly that there was no rule whatsoever concerning hand posture. He said those who wished to hold hands were free to do so; those who wished to not hold hands were free to not do so, and that above all, charity was called for on both sides. That is, someone who wanted to hold hands had no business whatsoever making any remarks of those who didn’t, nor had any right to force them to do so. And the same applied to those who wished to not hold hands; they were eminently free to not do so, but had no right to make accusations of those who wished to do so, nor to insist that those who did were somehow wrong, or irreverent.
Click to expand...
To me, that’s why it would make things easier and less guesswork to just have it laid out. Let them create a list. In the past, with what is now the EF, it was never an issue since there wasn’t any/much external participation of the laity. The EF doesn’t lend itself to all of these different things. However, in the OF it’s a different ballgame. As such, if the Church is aware of any kind of local customs that go beyond holding your hands in prayer, holding a book, or just doing nothing, then they should be addressed as either “do it if it is a local norm” or “this is explicitly not allowed.” It would clear up many issues.
 
otjm said:
In the article, he said in so many words that he was sick and tired of all the fuss about holding hands during the Our Father. He stated clearly that there was no rule whatsoever concerning hand posture. He said those who wished to hold hands were free to do so; those who wished to not hold hands were free to not do so, and that above all, charity was called for on both sides. That is, someone who wanted to hold hands had no business whatsoever making any remarks of those who didn’t, nor had any right to force them to do so. And the same applied to those who wished to not hold hands; they were eminently free to not do so, but had no right to make accusations of those who wished to do so, nor to insist that those who did were somehow wrong, or irreverent.
Click to expand...
How sensible this is!👍
Honestly, what is there to get upset about if some pray the Our Father in the orans position or hold hands with their family members at that time?
In my parish, which is, or was, largely “ageing white Kiwi”, we had the joy of having a large number of Filipino immigrant families move into the area, and their custom at Mass is to pray the Our Father with slightly raised hands, and families join hands. I like it that we can have a variety of customs and that people can express their culture freely if it is not disturbing others. None of us who are non-Filipino are even remotely bothered by this. I’m delighted to see more evidence of the Universal Church in my parish!🙂
 
ATeNumquam said:
Honestly, what is there to get upset about if some pray the Our Father in the orans position or hold hands with their family members at that time?
Click to expand...
I’m sure some will be uncomfortable watching grown men holding hands at any event.
 
DaveBj said:
I wasn’t going to get involved in this discussion, this time around, but then one of my Catholic FB friends posted a link to tomorrow’s homily, on this subject, by Fr. Paul Nicholson. I think it’s a very balanced look at the use of the orans position by the laity.

fatherpaulnicholson.com/homilies/showhomily.php?track_ident=A2-O-06-4-2014-02-19
Click to expand...
Most interesting. I wasn’t aware that it was Pius XII who allowed the praying of the Pater Noster by the congregation.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
I know there are times to sit, stand, and kneel at Mass. But should there be rubrics about what the congregation does with its hands at Mass?

Many people like to criticize when lay congregants raise their hands in the orans posture or hold hands during Mass - the orans posture was even forbidden (or strongly discouraged - I don’t remember) by one bishop for the congregations in his diocese because he said it was a priestly gesture at Mass (never mind the many images of laypeople in the orans posture in the Roman catacombs). I’m not that concerned about how people improvise what they do with their hands at Mass when there is no rule regarding what they should do - people have been holding Rosaries and doing all kinds of things for centuries. What I am wondering is whether or not there should be rubrics for what everyone should do with their hands at certain times. Should we have our hands joined in prayer at certain times? Should they be palm to palm or fingers interlaced? Should our right thumb go over our left thumb? Should our hands rest on our breast? Should there ever be a time when rubrics tell the whole congregation to raise one or both hands in any way? Priests have been improvising, too, by asking the congregation to raise their hands at times. RC priests are infamous for asking for forgiveness rather than permission when it comes to just about everything - and especially liturgy. Rather than let people improvise willy nilly, why not just say exactly what laypeople are supposed to be doing with their hands at any point in Mass ? I actually find it distracting having to figure out what I should do with my hands - every time I join them in prayer I think for a bit over how I should do it. I like rules! Whatever rules are drawn up can allow for inculturation as long as it is sensible and allows for Mass to be solemn.
Click to expand...
i.e " 31. … Where this is laid down by the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat so that they correspond to the capacity for understanding of those participating. However, the Priest should always take care to keep to the sense of the explanatory text given in the Missal and
to express it in just a few words. It is also for the presiding Priest to regulate the Word of God and to impart the final blessing. He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), … He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.
  1. The nature of the “presidential” parts requires that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen to them attentively."
the only disciplinary mass prayer rule i know is: one is allowed to kneel as long as one needs to at consecration, and when You receive God’s heart. one participating in the One sacrifice has to keep culturally acceptable standards alive. everything else either does or does not help a person in this love prayer to our God.

God bless ya
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top