B
BridgetN
Guest
Opening/extending hands was the traditional Jewish posture of prayer…so as a Catholic…you might not want to look Jewish. Just fold your hands for prayer.
- Status
B
Brettbat
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I
Irishmom2
Guest
There you go. 
P
pianistclare
Guest
What Father David posted is the correct answer .
Last edited:
P
pianistclare
Guest
That’s not exactly correct not exactly nice to say.
Much of our liturgy comes from the Jewish faith.
But hand holding is not one of them, nor extending hands.
Much of our liturgy comes from the Jewish faith.
But hand holding is not one of them, nor extending hands.
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
father wade just talked about this on ewtn radio. he said it’s custom to do it in some parishes. some parishes tell their parishioners not to and some others are ok with it. when it’s custom to do something in a parish. take it up with father wade menezes
C
Cruciferi
Guest
I don’t know what he posted but I agree with you.
P
pianistclare
Guest
A custom is hard to undo.
But it doesn’t mean it is correct.
But it doesn’t mean it is correct.
M
Moneyball
Guest
Wow, that’s a lot of responses in 24hrs! I had no idea people felt this strongly about it. I only started doing it because I thought it was the orthodox way, some of the most devout people I see at Mass do it. Since it’s actually not the orthodox way, nor is it required, I see no reason why I would continue doing it.
@(name removed by moderator), I was doing (and teaching my kids) #5, the “Hold My Baby” posture. That diagram is hilarious btw.
Also special thanks to Father David.
Eric
@(name removed by moderator), I was doing (and teaching my kids) #5, the “Hold My Baby” posture. That diagram is hilarious btw.
Also special thanks to Father David.
Eric
P
Pup7
Guest
I’ve seen Hassidics with their hands raised, palms up, during prayer. There might be something to that.
Last edited:
P
pianistclare
Guest
It wasn’t presented like you presented it. But anyway,
we’re not supposed to do it.
When places allow such it’s hard to unring that bell.
People feel then, like you have taken some beloved tradition from them and they get very angry.
So when a previous pastor allows it, the subsequent pastor feel like they will be courting a huge blowback from people who have grown accustomed to doing it. and they shrug their shoulders.
The one who are adamant about good liturgy get despised.
And so it goes.
Better to learn properly in the first place.
Then there’s no drama and no incorrect thinking.
we’re not supposed to do it.
When places allow such it’s hard to unring that bell.
People feel then, like you have taken some beloved tradition from them and they get very angry.
So when a previous pastor allows it, the subsequent pastor feel like they will be courting a huge blowback from people who have grown accustomed to doing it. and they shrug their shoulders.
The one who are adamant about good liturgy get despised.
And so it goes.
Better to learn properly in the first place.
Then there’s no drama and no incorrect thinking.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
I know we’re not supposed to do it, and I don’t - and to be honest, the first time I saw it I thought, why are they imitating the priest?
:woman_shrugging:t3:
:woman_shrugging:t3:
R
ricmat
Guest
Does anybody know when it started (laity doing the orans position)?
I don’t remember it happening 60 years ago. Apparently it wasn’t necessary.
Since it did change (at least in some places), WHY did it change? Who wanted it to change?
Who does it hurt? Who does it help? Is there a big picture that we’re missing?
I don’t remember it happening 60 years ago. Apparently it wasn’t necessary.
Since it did change (at least in some places), WHY did it change? Who wanted it to change?
Who does it hurt? Who does it help? Is there a big picture that we’re missing?
Last edited:
A
anon10271182
Guest
Orans, the sign of peace melee, chatting in the pews and aisles before and after Mass, even in the confessional line…No. No. No!
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
I think it was about the time folks started pushing “presider” instead of “celebrant” . . . it stuck me as part of a pattern of de-emphasising the role of clergy.
hawk
A
anon10271182
Guest
I’ve been poked by a stiletto fingernail belonging to an old lady who stretched the human chain all the way down the pew to include me, apparently. I had the audacity to stand alone, hands clasped in front of me, trying to focus on the Our Father. Oh, well…
E
Escabrosa
Guest
I returned to the Church a little over 2 years ago after roughly 35 years and I’m seeing a lot of different behavior. I would like to know the appropriate way to worship, as taught by the Church. By all means judge me if it will help me with my worship. I’ll thank you for it.
O
otjm
Guest
There is no correct posture other than standing. The GIRM does not dictate anything else, although many individuals feel they are liturgically correct in their commentary based on what they like or don’t like.
This discussion has been going on since about 1965 or '66, and Rome has known of it for the greater majority of the time, and has specifically chosen to make no rules, in spite of specific opportunities to do so.
People get really heated about the matter. `
We have several here who have said that holding hands is not permissible, but have no citation. There is none.
And while I appreciate that Fr. McNamara teaches liturgy in Rome and answers questions for Zenit (the news agency). I also appreciate that the one in charge of the liturgy in a diocese is the bishop, and that individual is actually “in the trenches” in the US, and (from the response) inundated with this question.
I refer to archbishop Chaput - not exactly one of your “progressive” bishops, who some years ago, out of frustration (at least from the length and comments in the letter) wrote a public letter on holding hands.
His summary is that there is no rule, that Rome has been overlooking the matter in several renditions of the GIRM, and if one wants to hold hands, there is nothing liturgically wrong nor any rule violated; and if one does not want to do so, they should be allowed to not join in, and that both sides need to learn and engage in charity to those of a different mindset.
In short - there ain’t no rule. And all the hedging about it comes from those who either are not aware of how widespread and long it has occurred, or don’t like it.
It has been going on for 50+ years - I have a picture of college students in about 1966 holding hands during the Our Father. Likely source of the practice is from the Charismatic Movement.
Once upon a time, in the forum, a comment was made that any practice which has occurred consistently and widely for 40 years is, until specifically reversed, a de facto accepted practice. Whether or not that is true I leave to others trained either in Canon law or other law sets of the Church. It appears to be more widespread than the orans position, and it was the orans position that the USCCB at one point was going to petition Rome (and then withdrew from doing so, leaving the practice effectively in place).
Anything to the contrary is a personal opinion, with the exception of the USCCB (and those guys are actual liturgists…) which says… there is no rule.
This discussion has been going on since about 1965 or '66, and Rome has known of it for the greater majority of the time, and has specifically chosen to make no rules, in spite of specific opportunities to do so.
People get really heated about the matter. `
We have several here who have said that holding hands is not permissible, but have no citation. There is none.
And while I appreciate that Fr. McNamara teaches liturgy in Rome and answers questions for Zenit (the news agency). I also appreciate that the one in charge of the liturgy in a diocese is the bishop, and that individual is actually “in the trenches” in the US, and (from the response) inundated with this question.
I refer to archbishop Chaput - not exactly one of your “progressive” bishops, who some years ago, out of frustration (at least from the length and comments in the letter) wrote a public letter on holding hands.
His summary is that there is no rule, that Rome has been overlooking the matter in several renditions of the GIRM, and if one wants to hold hands, there is nothing liturgically wrong nor any rule violated; and if one does not want to do so, they should be allowed to not join in, and that both sides need to learn and engage in charity to those of a different mindset.
In short - there ain’t no rule. And all the hedging about it comes from those who either are not aware of how widespread and long it has occurred, or don’t like it.
It has been going on for 50+ years - I have a picture of college students in about 1966 holding hands during the Our Father. Likely source of the practice is from the Charismatic Movement.
Once upon a time, in the forum, a comment was made that any practice which has occurred consistently and widely for 40 years is, until specifically reversed, a de facto accepted practice. Whether or not that is true I leave to others trained either in Canon law or other law sets of the Church. It appears to be more widespread than the orans position, and it was the orans position that the USCCB at one point was going to petition Rome (and then withdrew from doing so, leaving the practice effectively in place).
Anything to the contrary is a personal opinion, with the exception of the USCCB (and those guys are actual liturgists…) which says… there is no rule.
A
analtarboy
Guest
Well I know for sure that you should have your hands in prayer position. (Other ministries are stubborn and extend their hands)
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It depends on the context.
For example, all the priests at Mass celebrate (both the main celebrant and the con-celebrants), but only one of them (the main celebrant) is the presider. So if we’re discussing a subject where it’s important to make that distinction, then the word “presider” might be preferred.
Sometimes, we want to make a distinction between “celebrant” and/or “concelebrant” (both are priests) and the presider: example if the bishop who presides from the chair, but a presbyter is the celebrant.
At Mass, only a sacerdos (presbyter or episcopos) can be the celebrant or the presider.
At a baptism, a deacon can be the celebrant. At the Liturgy of the Hours, a deacon can preside.
It’s not a matter of eliminating any one word, or replacing one word with another. It’s just that given the context of the sentence, or the subject matter, one word-choice might be preferred over another; or that several words might be used interchangeably.
- Status