Upraised palms during the Our Father

[TrueLight]

The orans posture (standing with hands outstretched, not linked) is appropriate for all at the Lord’s Prayer through “For the kingdom . . .”

archdiocese.la/archbishop/letters/liturgy/2.html Quite a ways down, under boldfaced 3.

That’s interesting. This is the first time I have heard of a Bishop actually recommending the Orans position.

 

[TrueLight]

It is ancient Christian posture of prayer which is at the root and heart of the Roman Catholic church … goes back to the very beginning.

It seems to be one of those things (like facing east, and like the kiss of peace … a real kiss, not a handshake) which has been lost over time.

I you would like to learn more about the posture of prayer, there was a good book by Father Gabriel Bunge OSB which (as I recall) explained it pretty well.

Hesychios,

Is this currently done in the East?

 

[onjac]

This is one of the most perceptive posts I have read in a while. Permit me to add some thoughts.

It is insightful to note that the traditionalists movement was not rooted in “traditionalism,” of the kind that motivates the monks at Solesmes. As you say, it was a reaction against the new mass forms promulagated through the 70s.

I would qualify the comment that this was mere nostalgia. They felt that the new mass forms were improper and they felt that the tridentine mass was right. While they knew the trid. mass from the 50s, they did not necessarilly associate it with the 50s. To them, it was simply the correct way to celebrate mass.

Catholic traditionalists believe the tridentine rite to be the “gold standard” of liturgy for a severa reasons - one is universal familiarity, the second, equally important, is at least tepid episcopal tolerance.

However, an interesting trend is growing in Catholic traditionalism - increasingly, some traditionalists are asking for the rubrics that were used in the first half of the 20th century, which have their antecedents in the 16th and 17th century. This indicates that Catholic traditionalists are starting to linking theology with worship authentically.

This development might bring a smile to some within the monasteries of Mount Athos or St. Catherine’s. They could say with justification, “What took you so long?” since they have been systematically safeguarding traditions regarding worship (such as the painting of icons) since at least the 1600s, and the Russian Church attempted a genuine reconciliation with ancient tradition in the reforms that led to the Old Believer schism, much as Trent attempted to genuinely restore the mass to the best medieval forms. But the effort was interrupted by war and revolution in the west. So, Orthodoxy has a consistency of liturgical recension that goes back at least 400 years.

Ostensibly, Vatican 2 undertook to renew this process. Unfortunately, the process was affected by what could be called a kind of “primitivism.” The Fathers might have called it something else. This happened due to the deep seated Catholic aversion to adopting an Orthodox mindset about anything (here Orthodox = Greek), which is based on a fear that critical analysis based on a close reading of the Fathers and bishops of the later imperial period will comprimise concepts regarding the papacy. This retards Catholic liturgical renewal based on masses that Catholics actually used from the post Apostolic period through the 1100s, and particularly the Gregorian mass of the 6th and 7th centuries, which really was a golden age for the mass.

Many Orthodox observers observe that Catholic traditionalists up to now have followed exactly the reasoning as their contemporary Catholic bretheren! “Going back before Trent, et hic dracones sunt.”

Traditional minded Christians are going to have to revisit pre Tridentine thinking. Catholics, in particular, are going to have to reevalute ecclesiology in a post Christian society, as Greeks and other Orthodox had to do after 1453. We have a model for Christians to strive for, but it cannot be found in Trent, or in Florence, or in Avingnon. Catholics should ask why the Venerable Bede, writing in England, in the 8th Century, still referenced events by who were serving as consuls at Rome - 300 years after the last Western emperor was deposed. It is even more basic than the position of one’s hands during the paternoster, which Pope St. Gregory added to the mass.

I’ve noticed this myself. My father lived in HK when he was a kid back in the 50’s. He saw me trying out the Orans position at Mass and went into a long spiel about how nobody ever did that in Mass before Vatican II. It feels unnatural for me to adopt the Orans position but I actually like seeing people doing it at Mass.

One of the Faith Healing priests I’ve met encourages it and he’s definitely a holy man who serves Christ with joy.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios,

Is this currently done in the East?

It is rare among the laity, at least in the circles I move in.

I would welcome it, even encourage it, but I don’t normally see it.

 

[Maryann_C]

Personally, I equate the people who pray the Our Father at Mass with their palms outstretched with those who sing the hymns louder than anyone else-(and often off-key).
Many seem to be saying “Look at how pious I am”.

No judgement here of course!
I am so glad that others have given historical proof of the early Church origins of the posture. have you ever considered that some people are moved to pray this way? I have been and have actually fought against it so as not to stand out in Church. It is a position of adoration as a child stretches out her arms to be lifted up by a loving father.

What I would like to know is where the posture of praying with hands closed came from?

 

[Maryann_C]

I do this at the Our Father during Mass. I also use this posture during adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at times. I have difficulty kneeling in our chapel, so I stand in the back and use this posture for prayer and adoration. I am sort of weak these days, and really expect my arms to get tired, but they rarely seem to do so. Maybe God compensates for our age. I really do see this as a posture of adoration and I do not understand what the flap is about using it from the traditionalists. We have suffered from too much judgementalism in our churches.

I was recently at a church where the whole congregation said " My Lord and My God" at the elevation of the Body and Blood. I was startled, expecting silence. That was something I had always done silently to myself, so upon reflection, it seemed most appropiate that that adoration was done communally. Again, a difference, but done so reverently that I think it would have been an error to criticize.

So beautifully and charitably put. Thank you

 

[joclucsylv]

Hi, I hope this hasn’t been asked before but if it has forgive me. Many people during Mass raise their arms with their palms up during the Our Father. Many others do not. Others hold hands. Which is correct? Personally I don’t raise my arms and palms or hold hands. I guess I am old school maybe.

They do that in my parish and I don’t like it and don’t do it. Only the priest is supposed to take that posture.

 

[iohanne]

Hesychios,

Is this currently done in the East?

Be careful about speaking of “the East” as if it were one monolithic thing. It’s very multi-cultural. Anyway, Hesychios has mentioned that it’s rare among Byzantines but it’s very common among the Copts whose services I occasionally attend. They tend to do it when there’s a decent-sized chunk of stuff that the congregation is saying together - the Lord’s Prayer, the Nicene Creed, etc.

This is one of the most perceptive posts I have read in a while. Permit me to add some thoughts.

I would qualify the comment that this was mere nostalgia. They felt that the new mass forms were improper and they felt that the tridentine mass was right. While they knew the trid. mass from the 50s, they did not necessarilly associate it with the 50s. To them, it was simply the correct way to celebrate mass.

Catholic traditionalists believe the tridentine rite to be the “gold standard” of liturgy for a severa reasons - one is universal familiarity, the second, equally important, is at least tepid episcopal tolerance.

However, an interesting trend is growing in Catholic traditionalism - increasingly, some traditionalists are asking for the rubrics that were used in the first half of the 20th century, which have their antecedents in the 16th and 17th century. This indicates that Catholic traditionalists are starting to linking theology with worship authentically.

This development might bring a smile to some within the monasteries of Mount Athos or St. Catherine’s. They could say with justification, “What took you so long?” since they have been systematically safeguarding traditions regarding worship (such as the painting of icons) since at least the 1600s, and the Russian Church attempted a genuine reconciliation with ancient tradition in the reforms that led to the Old Believer schism, much as Trent attempted to genuinely restore the mass to the best medieval forms. But the effort was interrupted by war and revolution in the west. So, Orthodoxy has a consistency of liturgical recension that goes back at least 400 years.

Ostensibly, Vatican 2 undertook to renew this process. Unfortunately, the process was affected by what could be called a kind of “primitivism.” The Fathers might have called it something else. This happened due to the deep seated Catholic aversion to adopting an Orthodox mindset about anything (here Orthodox = Greek), which is based on a fear that critical analysis based on a close reading of the Fathers and bishops of the later imperial period will comprimise concepts regarding the papacy. This retards Catholic liturgical renewal based on masses that Catholics actually used from the post Apostolic period through the 1100s, and particularly the Gregorian mass of the 6th and 7th centuries, which really was a golden age for the mass.

Many Orthodox observers observe that Catholic traditionalists up to now have followed exactly the reasoning as their contemporary Catholic bretheren! “Going back before Trent, et hic dracones sunt.”

Traditional minded Christians are going to have to revisit pre Tridentine thinking. Catholics, in particular, are going to have to reevalute ecclesiology in a post Christian society, as Greeks and other Orthodox had to do after 1453. We have a model for Christians to strive for, but it cannot be found in Trent, or in Florence, or in Avingnon. Catholics should ask why the Venerable Bede, writing in England, in the 8th Century, still referenced events by who were serving as consuls at Rome - 300 years after the last Western emperor was deposed. It is even more basic than the position of one’s hands during the paternoster, which Pope St. Gregory added to the mass.

Thank you so much for this. Do you know if there’s a movement of people calling for pewless standing prayer? I don’t want to force it on anyone but if there’s already a movement of Catholics trying to reclaim this bit of our patrimony, I’d really like to not be so lonely.

What I would like to know is where the posture of praying with hands closed came from?

I put up a post about this called “Something I’ve Noticed” in the Traditional Catholicism forums. Hopefully we’ll find out where praying with hands closed came from. We’ve already got the origins of people praying with hands clasped.

 

[Exsilivm]

Thank you so much for this. Do you know if there’s a movement of people calling for pewless standing prayer? I don’t want to force it on anyone but if there’s already a movement of Catholics trying to reclaim this bit of our patrimony, I’d really like to not be so lonely.

I am unaware of any Latin calls to reform the liturgy to any point before the later medieval period (since I consider the tridentine to be a reformed version of a late medieval mass, that’s where I am drawing the line). So, no, I have not seen anyone make this request.

Nor do the reforms of the 1960s and 70s constitute an authentic restoration to imperial era worship. Adding old elements randomly fails to recreate a specific mass. Taking a primitive idea like a “collect,” adding an epiclesis from Orthodoxy, or a medieval bell does not result in a mass that the Fathers would recongnise. Thus, adding pewless prayer would not really get you back to an historically authentic form of worship, if you still don’t watch the priest vest, or see the altar clothed, and if you shake hands with the person next to you just before communion.

If you are one of those “Old Romans” who would like to see the Latin liturgy reformed in keeping with Pope St. Gregory, which practically speaking means “more Greek,” then you are going to be lonely for a while. You are somewhat in the position of Erasmus, caught between the Lutherans and the Holy Roman Empire. But keep praying standing, in the orans position, in view of a good icon!

 

[iohanne]

I am unaware of any Latin calls to reform the liturgy to any point before the later medieval period (since I consider the tridentine to be a reformed version of a late medieval mass, that’s where I am drawing the line). So, no, I have not seen anyone make this request.

Nor do the reforms of the 1960s and 70s constitute an authentic restoration to imperial era worship. Adding old elements randomly fails to recreate a specific mass. Taking a primitive idea like a “collect,” adding an epiclesis from Orthodoxy, or a medieval bell does not result in a mass that the Fathers would recongnise. Thus, adding pewless prayer would not really get you back to an historically authentic form of worship, if you still don’t watch the priest vest, or see the altar clothed, and if you shake hands with the person next to you just before communion.

If you are one of those “Old Romans” who would like to see the Latin liturgy reformed in keeping with Pope St. Gregory, which practically speaking means “more Greek,” then you are going to be lonely for a while. You are somewhat in the position of Erasmus, caught between the Lutherans and the Holy Roman Empire. But keep praying standing, in the orans position, in view of a good icon!

Thank you for your response! I don’t necessarily want to reverse the Church to older forms of worship - I think there are many organic and legitimate developments that I really do appreciate such as kneeling for worship, non-litany Kyries, less Greek, the order of elements in the the Canon (Mgr. Duchesne’s book on the Roman Rite gives a slightly different order), etc. However, I think that there are elements which have fallen into disuse for no other reason than the vicissitudes of history and I believe we can and should draw from and include them in our modern liturgical practices. I’d like to refer you to a previous post I did on sitting during liturgy and pews because I touched a bit on the history of standing during worship - it remained a standard of worship for far longer than the late mediaeval period as far as my research has shown me:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=655972

 

[iohanne]

I am unaware of any Latin calls to reform the liturgy to any point before the later medieval period (since I consider the tridentine to be a reformed version of a late medieval mass, that’s where I am drawing the line). So, no, I have not seen anyone make this request.

Nor do the reforms of the 1960s and 70s constitute an authentic restoration to imperial era worship. Adding old elements randomly fails to recreate a specific mass. Taking a primitive idea like a “collect,” adding an epiclesis from Orthodoxy, or a medieval bell does not result in a mass that the Fathers would recongnise. Thus, adding pewless prayer would not really get you back to an historically authentic form of worship, if you still don’t watch the priest vest, or see the altar clothed, and if you shake hands with the person next to you just before communion.

If you are one of those “Old Romans” who would like to see the Latin liturgy reformed in keeping with Pope St. Gregory, which practically speaking means “more Greek,” then you are going to be lonely for a while. You are somewhat in the position of Erasmus, caught between the Lutherans and the Holy Roman Empire. But keep praying standing, in the orans position, in view of a good icon!

Thank you for your response! I don’t necessarily want to reverse the Church to older forms of worship - I think there are many organic and legitimate developments that I really do appreciate such as kneeling for worship, non-litany Kyries, less Greek, the order of elements in the the Canon (Mgr. Duchesne’s book on the Roman Rite gives a slightly different order), etc. However, I think that there are elements which have fallen into disuse for no other reason than the vicissitudes of history and I believe we can and should draw from and include them in our modern liturgical practices. I’d like to refer you to a previous post I did on sitting during liturgy and pews because I touched a bit on the history of standing during worship - it remained a standard of worship for far longer than the late mediaeval period as far as my research has shown me. The painting that I shared with you is from the middle of the 18th century and there are quotes from outside the Church commenting in Roman Catholic practices as late as the 19th century that indicate Catholics still stood and knelt on the floor. There was even a anecdotal response in this thread indicating that there were many European parishes that had no pews well into the early 20th century - the poster’s anecdote centered around her grandmother in Spain. Anyway, my previous post, while slightly lengthy, touches on all these things.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=655972

I also touched a bit on how I think it aids in cultivating a participatio actuosa without falling into the old trap of just having everyone do and say the same thing all at the same time and having everyone hear everything the priest says. I believe that little things like this can teach people how to pray the Mass. Anyways, I’m taking the thread off-topic so I just wanted to share that previous post. You seem to be familiar with the community so hopefully you can spread the word.

 

[patrick457]

I am unaware of any Latin calls to reform the liturgy to any point before the later medieval period (since I consider the tridentine to be a reformed version of a late medieval mass, that’s where I am drawing the line). So, no, I have not seen anyone make this request.

Nor do the reforms of the 1960s and 70s constitute an authentic restoration to imperial era worship. Adding old elements randomly fails to recreate a specific mass. Taking a primitive idea like a “collect,” adding an epiclesis from Orthodoxy, or a medieval bell does not result in a mass that the Fathers would recongnise. Thus, adding pewless prayer would not really get you back to an historically authentic form of worship, if you still don’t watch the priest vest, or see the altar clothed, and if you shake hands with the person next to you just before communion.

If you are one of those “Old Romans” who would like to see the Latin liturgy reformed in keeping with Pope St. Gregory, which practically speaking means “more Greek,” then you are going to be lonely for a while. You are somewhat in the position of Erasmus, caught between the Lutherans and the Holy Roman Empire. But keep praying standing, in the orans position, in view of a good icon!

I believe the first Ordo Romanus preserves a record of the Roman liturgy of the 7th-9th centuries.

And I kind of agree with you: from a purely critical standpoint I do feel that the structure of the ordinary Pauline form is a rather confusing hodgepodge of authentic elements, both Roman and non-Roman, of varying dates (cf. the different Eucharistic Prayers) and reconstructions (cf. the Prayer of the Faithful). In a few places, it even feels like that while the committee wanted to remove many late ‘accretions’, they still chose to retain much of the basic structure of the medieval Roman Mass as if said ‘accretions’ are still present, which resulted in things like the creation of new Offertory prayers based on Jewish models out of scratch in place of the old medieval ones like the Suscipe, sancte Pater. (For the record, there were originally no prayers during the Offertory proper; the only prayer was the one which would later be called the Secret or Prayer over the Gifts, at the end)

Note that I’m not questioning the validity of the new Ordo Missae here - I’m just offering a few humble critiques of my own.

 

[TrueLight]

Be careful about speaking of “the East” as if it were one monolithic thing. It’s very multi-cultural.

Yes, yes I know and I thought about putting a disclaimer because I figured someone would say something, but I didn’t.

 

[SeekNFind]

It just reminds me of the Protestant churches and seeing them throw their hands up, screaming hallelujah or amen (while swaying back and forth) and seeing the looks on their face like they’re holier than thou. Its very fake and obviously, I’m not a fan of it being in the Catholic Church.

Personally, I equate the people who pray the Our Father at Mass with their palms outstretched with those who sing the hymns louder than anyone else-(and often off-key).
Many seem to be saying “Look at how pious I am”.

Seems a little judgmental to me? Protestants in turn say Catholics are “spiritually dead” but saying that doesn’t make it true.

Thanks for the posters who explained the history of the orans posture and that it’s rooted in more than a “look at me” posture. At my parish, BTW, I’d say 50% of people do it. I don’t see anyone linking hands though.

 

[Exsilivm]

I believe the first Ordo Romanus

preserves a record of the Roman liturgy of the 7th-9th centuries.

That is a great book.

It shows how Africa and Europe tried to implement the Roman liturgy, and how the Roman liturgy was related to Greek liturgies, and how they were similar to the Tridentine mass and the Orthodox DL.