Our Father "Habits" During Mass

[CB Catholic]

IMO, the whole hand-holding and hand position thing has been blown way out of proportion and is nothing but a distraction and fodder for an argument. Which, of course, is Satan pulling his usual tricks to try and divide and cause dissension among Catholics.

Since the Church has prescribed no rubric on this, do what you feel the Lord is leading you to do, and let others worship in the way the Lord leads them. This is small potatoes compared to what we might be facing as a Church in the future, and if we are going to spat among ourselves over every little thing, we are not going to be in a good position to fight the enemy in the big stuff that might be coming our way.

We need to get out of la la land and wake up to what is going on around us, and unite ourselves in prayer to one another and Christ to face what might be in store for us. While we're arguing among ourselves over stuff like this, the enemy is gaining a foothold.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

No, that's not true at all. And the Roman Missal has absolutely no comment whatsoever on use of the orans posture by members of the congregation.

Your are mistaken.
The Roman Missal does not allow for the faithful to raise their hands in the “orans” position (or hold hands) during Mass. Such posture is reserved for the priest.

Article 6:§ 2. … In Eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the Eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

The orans position is proscribed for the priest and as such is proper only to them in the Mass.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

The Church has no requirements and makes no suggestions concerning hand positions during the Our Father. People on the Internet are sure bothered by it, though.

Obligatory XKCD reference:

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by adrift

Your are mistaken.
The Roman Missal does not allow for the faithful to raise their hands in the “orans” position (or hold hands) during Mass. Such posture is reserved for the priest.

Article 6:§ 2. … In Eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the Eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

The orans position is proscribed for the priest and as such is proper only to them in the Mass.

That passage is not in the Roman Missal. I'm not sure where you came across it, but it's from the 1997 Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest. Set in its proper context, the passage you're quoting isn't referring to what you think.

That paragraph actually says:

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

To begin with, that is not a very good translation. The authentic text, at 89 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 852, 869 (1997), of the sentence you're concerned with says:

. . . [A]movendi sunt varii generis abusus contrarii praescripto can. 907, cuius vi in celebratione eucharistica diaconis et christifidelibus non ordinatis non licet proferre orationes et quamlibet aliam partem praecipuam sacerdotis celebrantis—speciatim quidem precem eucharisticam cum doxologia conclusiva—vel explere actiones et actus qui eiusdem celebrantis sunt proprii.

As I expect you'll see, a more accurate translation would say:

The various kinds of abuses are to be eliminated which are contrary to the prescript of Canon 907, by the force of which is it not permitted to deacons and unordained members of the faithful to offer the prayers and any other part belonging to the priest celebrant—especially the Eucharistic prayer with concluding doxology—or carry out the actions and gestures which are proper to the same celebrant.

In a bit, we'll find out why a faithful translation (especially translating explere as "carry out" rather than "use") is important. But I suppose the first thing we'd notice about this paragraph, is that its nature is as an exhortation to obey the requirements of Canon 907. So we ought to take a look at that Canon and its setting in the Code. The text says:

Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform [fungi, a synonym of explere in this sense] actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.

And when we look at the section of the Code in which Canon 907 is found, we see immediately that it governs "the minister of the Eucharist," setting out a wide variety of things he can and cannot do. Not one jot of this section, however, governs the laity. Indeed, nothing whatsoever in any part of the Code of Canon Law governs the laity's conduct at Mass, excepting rules for who and when to receive the Eucharist. Standing, sitting, kneeling, on the tongue, in the hand, hats, miniskirts, which responses to make, what should be sung -- absolutely none of it is in the Code of Canon Law.

It is clear, then, that Canon 907 does not, and was not intended to, govern how a layman comports himself in the pews during Mass. Rather, it governs what the celebrant can grant or delegate to the deacon or a lay person: as the Instruction says, what is forbidden is the abuse in which the priest hands over important parts of the celebration so that some else can "quasi preside." So it is readily obvious that we have to reject any interpretation under which it is claimed that somehow, in the midst a section dealing with the "minister of the Eucharist" and within the framework of a Code that in no way tells the laity what to do at Mass, Canon 907 slipped in to govern the laity's prayer stance during the Our Father -- and not just as a matter of rubrics and good form, but on pain of violation of canon law!

In this light, you will see the importance of a correct translation of the Instruction's word explere. The normative Latin text of the Instruction is not saying that, in some vague sense detached from any concrete context, it is inappropriate to "use" actions and gestures proper to the priest, but rather that deacons and laity should not be the ones carrying out, fulfilling, discharging, executing, those parts of the celebration that are assigned to the priest. That is why this paragraph is tied to Canon 907: the intended meaning is, the priest may not have other people execute his actions and gestures for him.

Finally, we can briefly trace two of your other errors, on which we won't dwell. (1) The orans position is not an actus, an active gesture; it is a posture. How exactly could a person be said to explere the orans posture? (2) Something is not "proper" to the priest merely because the priest is told to do it and nobody else is. The Latin word proprius means "belonging to one, personal, particular, one's own." We might say that it is proprius to the priest to be the one standing in front of the congregation leading everybody with his hands in the orans position, but there is no indication anywhere in the Missal (or elsewhere) that the orans position itself "belongs" to him in an exclusive way. To the contrary, it is a matter of immemorial custom that this is a posture of prayer, not some sort of priestly stance.

I hope this is a clear explanation.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

That passage is not in the Roman Missal. I'm not sure where you came across it, but it's from the 1997 Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest. Set in its proper context, the passage you're quoting isn't referring to what you think.

That paragraph actually says:

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

To begin with, that is not a very good translation. The authentic text, at 89 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 852, 869 (1997), of the sentence you're concerned with says:

. . . [A]movendi sunt varii generis abusus contrarii praescripto can. 907, cuius vi in celebratione eucharistica diaconis et christifidelibus non ordinatis non licet proferre orationes et quamlibet aliam partem praecipuam sacerdotis celebrantis—speciatim quidem precem eucharisticam cum doxologia conclusiva—vel explere actiones et actus qui eiusdem celebrantis sunt proprii.

As I expect you'll see, a more accurate translation would say:

The various kinds of abuses are to be eliminated which are contrary to the prescript of Canon 907, by the force of which is it not permitted to deacons and unordained members of the faithful to offer the prayers and any other part belonging to the priest celebrant—especially the Eucharistic prayer with concluding doxology—or carry out the actions and gestures which are proper to the same celebrant.

If you would have followed my link you would have known where I got it from.

Even with your more"acurate translation" It says what I bolded that same thing. It is not proper to carry out the gestures(oran position). I agree that Peggy Fry Catholic Answers Apologist quoted the wrong document but it doesn't make her answer wrong.

The Roman Missal does not allow for the faithful to raise their hands in the “orans” position (or hold hands) during Mass. Such posture is reserved for the priest.

Article 6:

§ 2. … In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

ICP

Recommended reading:

About That Orans Posture

In the end it does not equate to there being no prohibition or document against using the oran position. Simpy not true.

[Ohana]

Much ado about not very much. I agree, this is a distraction. Deleting this thread from my list.

[brgregmack]

Holding hands during the Lord's Prayer is a spontaneous local custom that is fine so long as it is not required. Jimmy Akin, in his Mass Revision notes:

One of the most commonly asked questions concerns the holding of hands during the Our Father. The Holy See has not ruled directly on this issue. In response to a query, however, the Holy See noted that holding hands "is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics." For this reason, no one can be required to hold hands during the Our Father.


I have personally stopped. For a little while I continued when I'm with the choir, but that meant turning my back to the altar, so I've stopped. I've let them know my reasons for doing so, and move slightly so they can continue holding hands.

I do like what's been said and would like to reiterate that this isn't something we should bicker about.

[Dominique1234]

Originally Posted by ContactR3ality

Hi there,

So I was just wondering is holding hands during the Our Father discouraged? You see my family is one of those that have always held hands during the Our Father during mass and I saw other families and individuals doing it so I've always thought it was okay. I never knew why I did it I just did it. I thought it was a 'unity' thing.

But, I've recently learned through different more conservative Catholics, priests and other really great Catholic friends of mine that this practice of holding hands is actually discouraged. I've also done some personal research and found the same results. I used to hold my hands up during the Our Father even without my parents, but now I've stopped. Instead I just fold my hands together.

While I don't do this when I am at mass myself, when I am with my parents it's totally different. I really want to stop this practice, mainly because now I'm uncomfortable doing it knowing that it's discouraged. But at the same time, I also feel uncomfortable talking to my parents about it. I'm still a teenager only 16 and I don't want to seemingly disrespect them by not wanting to hold hands any longer. However, I feel distracted with the action now and can't seem to focus fully during the Our Father at mass because of this.

Maybe there's just something wrong with how I perceive this and shouldn't make a big deal about it. . .but I'm not sure.

Any advice on how to deal with this or to confront my parents?

I would ask your family to do the research on it as well.Maybe even have them speak to a Catholic Priest you trust enough to help them see what you understand. From my understanding, holding hands, according to Cardinal Arinze, is definitely discouraged because if you hold hands with one person, shouldn't you hold everyones hands to create the unity aspect of the situation?There is absolutely no need for physical contact during a prayer. He does not have, although, a particular stance on raising your hands.

But I've also read about raising your hands in supplication to God during the Pater Noster is only allowed by the priest.This is part of the Rubrics of the Mass. It says so in the Missal. It is actually called the Orans posture. Only the Priest has the authority to do the Orans Posture during the Our Father because he is doing so in supplication for the Congregation. For US. He does it FOR US. Even the Deacon isn't allowed to do it.So my understanding is that if the deacon is not allowed to do it, why should a lay person be allowed to do it? Some will want to contradict this teaching by saying that it says nothing to the effect that the congregation can't do it as well. If we're speaking of unity, then there isn't any if everyone is doing something different.

Some will also say the important thing is to be in unity while saying the Our Father, which I agree with completely. But following Church rules is also important. This is why we kneel when we kneel, we stand when we stand, and we sit when we sit.

Hope this helps a little.

Dom

[Dominique1234]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

No, actually, it isn't discouraged.

Funny, I notice that people keep speaking in the passive voice here. Obviously, that's because writing in the ordinary active voice would require them to try to decide who is doing all this discouraging. Somehow "Internet kibbitzers discourage it" wouldn't have quite the same force to it as the faceless, ambiguous "It is discouraged" does.



No, that's not true at all. And the Roman Missal has absolutely no comment whatsoever on use of the orans posture by members of the congregation.

Holding hands IS discouraged.

•Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 22.3 (1963)
o Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

•Canon 846.1 (1983)
o The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.

•Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125 (1992)
o For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority of the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

•General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 24 (2003)
o Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.

•Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos. 31, 59 (2004)
o They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.
o The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy

If you are to say, "there is nothing mentioning gestures"... then answer me this. Are gestures not part of the liturgy? (Orans posture only the priest is allowed to do i.e.)

We are not to add or remove anything. Period. Rules are rules. Who says I can't stand when everyone sits then? I don't want to sit, I want to stand. This is where it's leading to. Next thing you know, we'll have liturgical dance because there's no rule against it...

[Dominique1234]

Originally Posted by adrift

If you would have followed my link you would have known where I got it from.

Even with your more"acurate translation" It says what I bolded that same thing. It is not proper to carry out the gestures(oran position). I agree that Peggy Fry Catholic Answers Apologist quoted the wrong document but it doesn't make her answer wrong.


In the end it does not equate to there being no prohibition or document against using the oran position. Simpy not true.

Thank you for making these facts clear! It truly bothers me when there are some who just pick and choose what they want and ignore the entire rule. Aren't those called cafeteria catholics?

They are in my prayers... God bless you for speaking the ENTIRE truth.

[ContactR3ality]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

My bet is that you're uncomfortable holding hands with your parents period, since you are approaching adulthood. When you have kids you will know how significant holding hands with them is. I hold hands with my dad when I'm lucky enough to be at mass with him (once every few years since he lives so far away) - that's 500lbs of man-flesh holding hands right there! If my brother the deacon is on my other side of me at mass then there's over 800lbs of manly men holding hands and praying together!

Why do I hold his hands when praying to "Our Father"? Because they are the hands that worked to provide food for the table and a roof for our heads, that wiped my bottom, bathed me, fed me, corrected me from time to time, and taught me to drive, and arm-wrestled with me when I was bigger.

I'll be honest. I'm a little appalled, once I rec'd this email, that the assumption is that I'm uncomfortable holding hands with my parents merely because I am approaching adulthood.

I was honestly asking a question about what the church taught and, frankly, holding hands in public or showing affections such as hugs or whatever with my family has never been an issue for me. I have always been very close to them.

I appreciate the answer, but, frankly, the assumption instituted in it is a little insulting to me and my integrity. I wouldn't ask this question if it was because I was uncomfortable holding hands with my parents. That is pointless and would be deceptive from my side as, in that case, my search would be purely focused on an answer that justifies not holding hands with my family in public. Which was not my intention in the slightest.