I once asked about upraised hands during the "Our Father" - Page 13

Oneofthewomen · #**181** Jul 19, '12, 9:29 am

I am not a "hand-holder", unless I am with my family or a particular group of friends where it is "our tradition", so if I am at Mass with them, I hold hands.

I am, however, one of those people who uses the "orans" position, kind of.

When I am at Mass alone, I hold my hands about waist level, palms facing up.
And this is why- prayer is a gift. In oreder to recieve a gift, we must open our hands.
You can't give a gift with tightly clasped hands either.

So as I offer my prayers to the Father, I will do so with "open hands", so that not only can I give to God what I need to, I can receive from Him what I need.
It all seems very simple to me, and why would anyone want to tell me "not" to do so?

CB Catholic · #**182** Jul 19, '12, 5:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jam070406

So you're saying that people that desire a more Holy atmosphere and reverent worship directed towards their Savior are like Pharisees that are incapable of loving their neighbor?

I don't recall reading anything like that in the post. I would say you have totally missed the point, unless you really got it, but wanted to stir the pot a bit.

pete 29 · #**183** Jul 19, '12, 6:25 pm

I always figured that when you pray in Church, a person should just bow their heads and pray. It seems to me that all this hand holding and arm raising just makes the person doing it the focus of attention. It's just my opinion and I have nothing against people who these things. It just seems silly to me when just closing your eyes and bowing your head in prayer ought to be sufficient.

Elizium23 · #**184** Jul 19, '12, 6:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

I always figured that when you pray in Church, a person should just bow their heads and pray. It seems to me that all this hand holding and arm raising just makes the person doing it the focus of attention. It's just my opinion and I have nothing against people who these things. It just seems silly to me when just closing your eyes and bowing your head in prayer ought to be sufficient.

It's a good sentiment. But bowing of the head is a specific gesture that is reserved for certain things in the OF Mass; while it's not incorrect to bow your head when you pray at other times, it makes it inconvenient or at least inobvious when you are supposed to bow your head at the prescribed times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Instruction of the Roman Missal

275. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that represent them. There are two kinds of bow: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.

a) A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.

In the dioceses of the USA, a bow of the head is also the prescribed gesture of reverence for the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion.

pete 29 · #**185** Jul 19, '12, 6:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizium23

It's a good sentiment. But bowing of the head is a specific gesture that is reserved for certain things in the OF Mass; while it's not incorrect to bow your head when you pray at other times, it makes it inconvenient or at least inobvious when you are supposed to bow your head at the prescribed times.

In the dioceses of the USA, a bow of the head is also the prescribed gesture of reverence for the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion.

My point is that all this gesturing to me silently screams, "Look how holy I am". I guess I'm just stuck in my ways.

Elizium23 · #**186** Jul 19, '12, 6:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

My point is that all this gesturing to me silently screams, "Look how holy I am". I guess I'm just stuck in my ways.

Which gesturing? The prescribed gestures written into the liturgical law of the Mass, in the General Instruction? Or the gestures that have been organically introduced by the faithful? Or both?

pete 29 · #**187** Jul 19, '12, 7:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizium23

Which gesturing? The prescribed gestures written into the liturgical law of the Mass, in the General Instruction? Or the gestures that have been organically introduced by the faithful? Or both?

I'm talking about things I haven't seen at Mass before a few years ago, like putting forth the hands when saying, " And with your spirit." I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary unless one is trying to attract attention to themselves. That's the way I see things. Sorry

thewanderer · #**188** Jul 19, '12, 7:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

I'm talking about things I haven't seen at Mass before a few years ago, like putting forth the hands when saying, " And with your spirit." I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary unless one is trying to attract attention to themselves. That's the way I see things. Sorry

Its just a different way of praying.

This reminds me a lot of the women veiling debate. Many women veil as a personal devotion, yet to many others it just comes off as a 'holier-than-thou' gesture and to still others they don't veil, even though they would like to and would find it helpful, because they are too afraid of being perceived as 'holier-than-thou'. Their comes a point when people need to forget about what others think of them and do what is best for themselves in their spiritual journey. As for those that make such judgements about the interior dispostition from the externals they see, they need to make an effort to remember that even though it may seem as though someone has a bad motivation or intention, that is not necessarily true at all and we must leave all such judgements the one true Judge and instead focus on becomingholy ourselves.

pete 29 · #**189** Jul 19, '12, 8:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Its just a different way of praying.

This reminds me a lot of the women veiling debate. Many women veil as a personal devotion, yet to many others it just comes off as a 'holier-than-thou' gesture and to still others they don't veil, even though they would like to and would find it helpful, because they are too afraid of being perceived as 'holier-than-thou'. Their comes a point when people need to forget about what others think of them and do what is best for themselves in their spiritual journey. As for those that make such judgements about the interior dispostition from the externals they see, they need to make an effort to remember that even though it may seem as though someone has a bad motivation or intention, that is not necessarily true at all and we must leave all such judgements the one true Judge and instead focus on becomingholy ourselves.

Very True

RogerDeCourcy · #**190** Jul 20, '12, 5:04 am

No one can see how holy you are in a public ritual. You can only supply the signs of it, as a demonstration of intent. You can set the stage. How the new order of mass is said is too distracting; the priest is under more pressure to perform and so are the laity. And then you have those laity who like being demonstrative at Mass.

You can't complain about casual behaviour at Mass and at the same time defend the changes. One goes with the other. Adding mundane signs to the mass (lay lectors in street clothes) and removing religious ones (like altar rails) works against creating religious awe.

I call it the 'modernist mindwarp': do things which work against your stated intent and then defend them against the 'Pharisees', who are scratching their heads at it all.

clem456 · #**191** Jul 20, '12, 7:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerDeCourcy

No one can see how holy you are in a public ritual. You can only supply the signs of it, as a demonstration of intent. You can set the stage. How the new order of mass is said is too distracting; the priest is under more pressure to perform and so are the laity. And then you have those laity who like being demonstrative at Mass.

You can't complain about casual behaviour at Mass and at the same time defend the changes. One goes with the other. Adding mundane signs to the mass (lay lectors in street clothes) and removing religious ones (like altar rails) works against creating religious awe.

I call it the 'modernist mindwarp': do things which work against your stated intent and then defend them against the 'Pharisees', who are scratching their heads at it all.

You may be missing the point about Pharissaic attitudes. The Pharissaic attitude equates holiness with external form, as opposed to the disposition of a person's heart.There's a certain measure of judgementalism involved. If we are looking at the priest to judge what degree of pressure he is under to "entertain us", or judging how demonstrative the laity is, or judging whether their hands are in the right position, how can we be tending to our own humility and holiness? How well do we participate in the Mass if we are so concerned with the worship of others? What is our first responsibility as a Christian? Is it to reform the faults of others, or to reform ourselves first? Whose position is it to judge the degree of a person's holiness? As a Catholic, I accept final authority of the Church on these issues.

The clothes do NOT make the man, or Bernie Madoff would perhaps be considered virtuous.
The clothes can be a sign of who the man is, but they are incidental to his interior disposition. So it is with lifting the hands or wearing sandals. That being said, I am all for setting a good example of reverent dress and behavior at Mass, so thanks to you for doing so.

Stylites · #**192** Jul 20, '12, 7:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by clem456

You may be missing the point about Pharissaic attitudes. The Pharissaic attitude equates holiness with external form, as opposed to the disposition of a person's heart.There's a certain measure of judgementalism involved. If we are looking at the priest to judge what degree of pressure he is under to "entertain us", or judging how demonstrative the laity is, or judging whether their hands are in the right position, how can we be tending to our own humility and holiness? How well do we participate in the Mass if we are so concerned with the worship of others? What is our first responsibility as a Christian? Is it to reform the faults of others, or to reform ourselves first? Whose position is it to judge the degree of a person's holiness? As a Catholic, I accept final authority of the Church on these issues.

The clothes do NOT make the man, or Bernie Madoff would perhaps be considered virtuous.
The clothes can be a sign of who the man is, but they are incidental to his interior disposition. So it is with lifting the hands or wearing sandals. That being said, I am all for setting a good example of reverent dress and behavior at Mass, so thanks to you for doing so.

RogerDeCourcy · #**193** Jul 20, '12, 8:06 am

Who's judging anyone? I'd like a mass said with all the features our forefathers thought Godly. I don't agree with the current fashion for minimalism. It's too close to iconoclasm.

A mass is an attempt to bring Heaven to Earth. Introducing CITH, altar girls, handshakes and ripping out altar rails only work if you have changed your idea about what a mass is and is for.

Heaven on earth.
The Holy Sacrifice.
A 1920's Missa Cantata

The fast forward to today in your rural Church.

jam070406 · #**194** Jul 20, '12, 8:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by clem456

You may be missing the point about Pharissaic attitudes. The Pharissaic attitude equates holiness with external form, as opposed to the disposition of a person's heart.There's a certain measure of judgementalism involved. If we are looking at the priest to judge what degree of pressure he is under to "entertain us", or judging how demonstrative the laity is, or judging whether their hands are in the right position, how can we be tending to our own humility and holiness? How well do we participate in the Mass if we are so concerned with the worship of others? What is our first responsibility as a Christian? Is it to reform the faults of others, or to reform ourselves first? Whose position is it to judge the degree of a person's holiness? As a Catholic, I accept final authority of the Church on these issues.

The clothes do NOT make the man, or Bernie Madoff would perhaps be considered virtuous.
The clothes can be a sign of who the man is, but they are incidental to his interior disposition. So it is with lifting the hands or wearing sandals. That being said, I am all for setting a good example of reverent dress and behavior at Mass, so thanks to you for doing so.

We could also say that those that disrupt others with immodest dress, ad libbing, chewing gum, chatting etc. are harboring a rebellious attitude that distract others that are attempting to work on their inner disposition.

jam070406 · #**195** Jul 20, '12, 8:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerDeCourcy

Who's judging anyone? I'd like a mass said with all the features our forefathers thought Godly. I don't agree with the current fashion for minimalism. It's too close to iconoclasm.

A mass is an attempt to bring Heaven to Earth. Introducing CITH, altar girls, handshakes and ripping out altar rails only work if you have changed your idea about what a mass is and is for.

Heaven on earth.
The Holy Sacrifice.
A 1920's Missa Cantata

The fast forward to today in your rural Church.

Try as some might I'm not guilted by the Pharisee insult. The whole idea that I wanna do what I wanna do and if you object you're like a Pharisee. It's the same argument Protestants use to tear down the Church.