The Lord's Prayer during Mass

[puzzleannie]

Ya know, when there is an excessive number of people holding hands during the Our Father, I wait at the end for somebody to strike up “Taps.” “Day is done, gone the sunnnnnnnnnnn…”

DD actually tried the crossed arms thing the first time we encountered this group hug at our new parish.

 

[osmond]

My missal tells me to stand, sit and kneel, and bow during the Creed when we say the part referring to the Incarnation. Nowhere does it say “hold hands” or “orans posture.”

Sorry if I’m sounding grumpy. I’m tired, and may be descending into curmudgeonism.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

Nor does it anywhere say to bow your head with your hands placed palm on palm in front of you…

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

GIRM:

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal

.

My missal tells me to stand, sit and kneel, and bow during the Creed when we say the part referring to the Incarnation. Nowhere does it say “hold hands” or “orans posture.”

Sorry if I’m sounding grumpy. I’m tired, and may be descending into curmudgeonism.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

Since there is no posture prescribed, if orans or handholding is wrong, so is folded hands.

Lux

 

[Maria1212]

Hi,

I keep my hands folded in prayer during the Our Father and keep my eyes closed and head bowed, or I look straight ahead at the altar. Sometimes I am the only on end not holding hands at a particular Church. I try to sit on the end (by the wall) at that one particular church because they even stretch across the aisles to hold hands.

I recently returned from living in Japan. During the sign of peace in Japan, everyone bows to each other when they see “peace be with you.” Now that I am back in the States, I shake hands unless I have a cold, or notice the people around me do. In that case, I keep my hands folded, but still greet them with peace be with you and smile as I say it. That way, they will know I don`t mean to be rude and the environment is still one of unity. I do the same thing when we have to greet our neighbor at the beginning of Mass.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Tigg]

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.

I think the entire question of hand holding, or no, causes many to be uncomfortable, and to me, it disrupts the flow of the Mass, but compared to other major liturgical problems we suffer through, this seems like small potatoes. According to this article, it most likely started with the charismatic movement.

         Entire article here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/orans_posture.htm

 

[FrDavid96]

Since there is no posture prescribed, if orans or handholding is wrong, so is folded hands.

Lux

No. Praying with folded hands is a time-tested authentic gesture for the laity at Mass. It is disingenuous to compare the two.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Orans is also an ancient prayer form, and handholding has been around for almost 50 years.

No posture prescribed means no posture prescribed. Since the USCCB gave that response without qualification, I will accept it.

Lux

 

[malphono]

Orans is also an ancient prayer form, and handholding has been around for almost 50 years.

No posture prescribed means no posture prescribed. Since the USCCB gave that response without qualification, I will accept it.

Lux

I don’t know what “ancient” means in respect to the orans posture. I do know that it was not used by the congregation for the Pater Noster in the Latin Rite more than 40+ years ago. It’s also not used in the Oriental Churches (I cannot speak for the Byzantine Churches) except by those congregants influenced by Novus Ordo.

As for handholding being around for “almost 50 years” (less common than the orans position in the first place, and more like 40+ years in the second place, but who cares?) that’s not exactly what I would call, FrDavid96 says

FrDavid96:

… a time-tested authentic gesture …

40+ (or have it your way, 50) years doesn’t quite cut it. For what little it’s worth, my vote in this goes to FrDavid69.

 

[Phemie]

Orans is also an ancient prayer form, and handholding has been around for almost 50 years.

No posture prescribed means no posture prescribed. Since the USCCB gave that response without qualification, I will accept it.

Lux

Since the Deacon may not be in the orans position during the Lord’s Prayer, why would it be OK for the laity to do something he may not?

 

[porthos11]

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Therefore, no holding of hands.

 

[ac_claire]

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Therefore, no holding of hands.

I’m sorry, I don’t know much Latin…can you translate this? Thanks!

 

[ncjohn]

40+ (or have it your way, 50) years doesn’t quite cut it. For what little it’s worth, my vote in this goes to FrDavid69.

Except that under Canon Law, 30 years of unabrogated use is enough to qualify as a custom, so I guess it does “cut it”.

 

[FrDavid96]

Except that under Canon Law, 30 years of unabrogated use is enough to qualify as a custom, so I guess it does “cut it”.

Not quite. That argument has been tried before. New practices which are contrary to the liturgical law cannot be said to enjoy the favor of “custom” until they have been legitimately practiced for 100+ years. Since handholding is already contrary to the liturgical laws, which forbid adding anything to the Liturgy on one’s own authority they are not being legitimately practiced in the first place, so there are two reasons why this cannot be called “custom.”

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m sorry, I don’t know much Latin…can you translate this? Thanks!

Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The law of prayer is the law of belief
St Vincent of Lerens

In other words, when we ask the question “what do we believe?” we look to what we pray for the answer.

It also means that since we believe that the Our Father is a prayer addressed to the Father and not to each other, our focus/posture at that moment should likewise be toward the Father and not toward each other.

 

[ncjohn]

Not quite. That argument has been tried before. New practices which are contrary to the liturgical law cannot be said to enjoy the favor of “custom” until they have been legitimately practiced for 100+ years. Since handholding is already contrary to the liturgical laws, which forbid adding anything to the Liturgy on one’s own authority they are not being legitimately practiced in the first place, so there are two reasons why this cannot be called “custom.”

I would submit that you’re pretty much wrong across the board with these claims.

First off, there is nothing being “added” to the liturgy as these are actions taken by individuals and are not regulated. As such it is not contrary to any liturgical laws. The USCCB has clearly answered that question and they are the body given the authority over liturgical postures. You’ve tried making this ludicrous argument before that individual actions are adding to the liturgy, based on a misinterpretation of the SC statement about no individual “…even if he be a priest…” being able to add things to the liturgy. The problem is that the clause was clearly a warning to priests to not try to add things themselves, which is clear from the preceding statement in the section. If holding hands, an individual action, is “adding to the liturgy”, then so is any other position one puts one’s hands in since NO position is specified for the laity by any liturgical books.

As to the 100 years, I have no clue where that came from since the Canons specifically say 30, even when it is a custom contrary to current law, beyond current canon law, or one which has not been introduced by a legislator.
Canon Law commentary:

A noted commentator on liturgical law has mused that many of the abuses apparent in the celebration of the liturgy in some places may, indeed, be lawful custom. A custom can be described as a “common tradition” as opposed to an abuse, which is a “corruption.” A custom, while itself never becoming a law, obtains the force of law when certain ingredients are present. The Code of Canon Law acknowledges certain standards. The tradition emanates from the community of the faithful rather than a legislator although the custom must be approved by the latter (canon 23). Moreover, the community of the faithful must be capable of receiving a law, e.g., a diocese, a parish, a religious institute, a public association of the faithful, etc., (canon 25). The required approval may be express or tacit. If the custom is contrary to divine law it can not be enforced. Nor can a custom that is contrary to or beyond canon law be enforced unless it is a reasonable one. However, a custom that is expressly reprobated is not regarded as a reasonable one (canon 24). years. According to canon 26, “Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”

I expect that the next argument is that one cannot make the argument from silence but note the be first underlined point which states that the approval may express or tacit. 40 years of silence certainly qualifies as tacit approval.

You can continue to make these claims which have no support from the Vatican beyond trying to read interpretations into documents that have nothing to do with the subject. But all it ends up being is an attempt to be “more Catholic than the Pope.” Maybe we’ll eventually get a Pope who truly abhors the practice and decides to call for it to end, but so far that hasn’t happened, nor has there ever been a word about it from any of the Popes despite its widespread use at such events as World Youth Day masses.

We really need to get past this bickering over HOW people pray and be happy that people are praying. We need to stop judging people’s devotion and piety and be charitable across the board in not laying extra burdens on people.

Peace,

 

[benedictgal]

I would submit that you’re pretty much wrong across the board with these claims.

First off, there is nothing being “added” to the liturgy as these are actions taken by individuals and are not regulated. As such it is not contrary to any liturgical laws. The USCCB has clearly answered that question and they are the body given the authority over liturgical postures. You’ve tried making this ludicrous argument before that individual actions are adding to the liturgy, based on a misinterpretation of the SC statement about no individual “…even if he be a priest…” being able to add things to the liturgy. The problem is that the clause was clearly a warning to priests to not try to add things themselves, which is clear from the preceding statement in the section. If holding hands, an individual action, is “adding to the liturgy”, then so is any other position one puts one’s hands in since NO position is specified for the laity by any liturgical books.

As to the 100 years, I have no clue where that came from since the Canons specifically say 30, even when it is a custom contrary to current law, beyond current canon law, or one which has not been introduced by a legislator.
I expect that the next argument is that one cannot make the argument from silence but note the be first underlined point which states that the approval may express or tacit. 40 years of silence certainly qualifies as tacit approval.

You can continue to make these claims which have no support from the Vatican beyond trying to read interpretations into documents that have nothing to do with the subject. But all it ends up being is an attempt to be “more Catholic than the Pope.” Maybe we’ll eventually get a Pope who truly abhors the practice and decides to call for it to end, but so far that hasn’t happened, nor has there ever been a word about it from any of the Popes despite its widespread use at such events as World Youth Day masses.

We really need to get past this bickering over HOW people pray and be happy that people are praying. We need to stop judging people’s devotion and piety and be charitable across the board in not laying extra burdens on people.

Peace,

Actually, ncjohn, the USCCB does not have that kind of authority. They have limited authority, but, not absolute. In other words, they cannot create something new. It has to have a 2/3 vote of all of the Latin Rite Bishops and it must be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio. This also applies to amendments to the GIRM. Whatever amendment they want to make to the GIRM, and the hand-holding business is something because it is not found in the books, must first be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the necessary recognitio. On its own, the USCCB cannot approve any changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Furthermore, your final statement is ironic. Those who force themselves on the rest of the faithful by either grabbing their hands or making annoucements from the altar encouraging them to do the same are the ones imposing an unnecessary burden on the faithful. Perhaps this statement from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy bears repeating:

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

This was certainly the case with the codification of the Blessing of a person on their 15th birthday, a ritual that existed in the Episcopal Conference of Mexico, but needed to be amended for use in the United States for use within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. On its own, the USCCB couldn’t approve it and mandate its use. The recognitio had to come from Rome. Mind you, this particular custom is rather old (significantly older than hand-holding). Nonetheless, it still needed to be cleared by Rome and such recognitio was granted last year.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Since the Deacon may not be in the orans position during the Lord’s Prayer, why would it be OK for the laity to do something he may not?

The deacon is in the sanctuary, the laity is not.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

When the Second Vatican Council said “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority,” The council Fathers meant what they said.

They did not mean that the pentecostal movement (who now call themselved “charismatics”) are exempt from this.

They did not mean that individual communities can add whatever they please to the Mass.

They did not mean that individual priests can add something to the Mass which isn’t there.

They did not mean that if an individual person says “I don’t see anything wrong with it” then it can be added.

They did not mean that every possible liturgical abuse would be articulated by Rome and if it’s not on that list, it’s permitted.

They did not mean that people can take silly, secular gestures and add them to the Mass.

They did not mean that people can say “if it makes me feel good, I’ll add it to the Mass”

The words “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority,” mean what they say.

“No other person” means “no other person”
“even if he be a priest” means “even if he be a priest”
“may add…anythinig” means “may add anything”
“on his own authority” means “on his own authority (without the approval of the Holy See which reserves that authority to itself)”

Hand-holding during the Our Father is not by any possible standard a legitimate addition to the Mass.

 

[Fidelis]

Since there is no posture prescribed, if orans or handholding is wrong, so is folded hands.

Lux

Except that folding your hands is neither distracting nor does it inherently force people to join in or not join in a non-required action.

Aside from the fact that it is not called for in the rubrics, there are many reasons why people object to holding hands during the Our Father. For many people, hand-holding is a very personal action shared with those who are very close–spouses, lovers, parents and children. To be forced to participate or appear hopelessly churlish is unfair and embarrassing to them. A person who does not wish to hold hands in a congregation of people who have come to fully expect everyone to hold hands, is forced to take a perceptively negative action, i.e. actively declining to hold hands. This marks that person out as an unfriendly boor when, ironically, all they are doing is declining to participate in an act that is not even required!

What about the objection “At Mass we are all supposed to be one big family anyway; we should be able to show the love we are supposed to feel.” Well, that is the express purpose of “the kiss of peace” before Holy Communion. In some cultures, a fraternal gesture is literally a kiss. In the Orient, it is a polite bow. In our culture, it is a friendly shaking of hands. To go from a more intimate expression of love (holding hands) to a less intimate (a handshake) does not make any sense. If someone wants to hold hands with their spouse or kids during the Our Father, more power to them. When the entire congregation automatically goes into the stretch across the pews mode at the invitation to pray, it becomes intrusive and presumptive.

Frankly, I am astounded that people go to so much trouble to defend any un-mandated action that, effectively, forces other people, willing or not, to participate. If someone wants to individually whirl like a dervish or bounce on one foot, or pick their I don’t know what and it makes them feel holier to do so during Mass, then go for it. But for goodness sakes, just because it makes you feel good, don’t insist on promoting an un-mandated practice that makes others feel like boors if they don’t feel the same way about it and decline to play along.

:coolinoff:

 

[Phemie]

If someone wants to individually whirl like a dervish or bounce on one foot, or pick their I don’t know what and it makes them feel holier to do so during Mass, then go for it. But for goodness sakes, just because it makes you feel good, don’t insist on promoting an un-mandated practice that makes others feel like boors if they don’t feel the same way about it and decline to play along.
:coolinoff:

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: