Ceremonies and Sacrament: Laud's rejection of orans
Then the Presbyter standing up, shall say the prayer of consecration, as followeth, but then during the time of consecration, he shall stand at such a part of the holy Table, where he may with the more ease and decency use both his hands.
As Laud points out, "use both his hands" quite clearly has reference to the manual acts prescribed in the rubrics of the Prayer of Consecration. Laud's accusers, however, had a rather fanciful notion that something quite different was being indicated. Laud quotes them:
He must have the use of both his Hands, not for any thing he hath to do about the Bread and the Wine ... But (as we are taught by the Rationalists) That he may be stretching out his Arms, represent the extension of Chris on the Cross.
The 'Rationalists' is a term describing a school of liturgical thought flowing from a work already mischievously invoked by Laud's critics: the 13th century liturgical scholar Durand whose Rationale Divinorum Officiorum set out a rather colourful understanding of the symbolism of the liturgy and liturgical actions.
It is worth noting that Thomas Aquinas interprets the liturgical gesture in the same fashion as Durand:
The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross - ST III.83.5.
Laud, however, makes clear his rejection of this school of thought:
And what Warrant have they for this? Why Durand says so. Now truly the more Fool he. And they shall do well to ask their own Bishops, what acquaintance they have with Durand? For as for my self, I was so poorly satisfied with the first Leaf I Read in him, that I never medled with him since. Nor indeed, do I spend any time in such Authors.
He then proceeds to dismiss the liturgical action in terms that are significant:
nor is there any such thing Ordered or Required in the Book; nor doth any English Divine practise this that I know.
It is the latter part of the statement that is particularly interesting. Laud declares that the gesture is unknown in the Caroline Church. He did not know "any English Divine" who said the Prayer of Consecration with arms extended. What is more, he insists that seeing the presbyter is "no great matter". He notes that "this varies according to the Nature of the Place, and the Position of the Table":
So that in some Places he may be better seen, and in some not [presumably a reference to cathedrals]. Though I am not of Opinion, that it is any End of the Administration of the Sacrament to have the Priest better seen of the People.
Laud's words here reinforce his insistence that no gestures are required of the priest during the Prayer of Consecration beyond the manual acts. And it is these which are his concern, that they should be performed in a decent fashion. His opponents, he says, are advocating consecrating the elements in "a very loose and mean way", whereas the rubric was composed in order to ensure decency:
to avoid the unseemly disordering of something, or other ... perhaps the very Elements themselves; which may give Scandal to them which come to Communicate.
Contrary to ornate interpretations of liturgical gestures, Laud attached no significance to the congregation seeing the priest at the Table: the presbyter's ministry was to decently and reverently consecrate the elements in order that the faithful could receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood. Laud's understanding encapsulates the teaching set forth in 'Concerning Ceremonies' and Article 34: that "without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any order or discipline in the Church", that ceremonies are "ordained ... so that all things be done to edifying".
Against this background, the orans gesture can also be seen as a fussy and unnecessary distraction because the presbyter's ministry at the Table is to rightly and decently consecrate the elements through prayer, Word, and manual acts. What is more, because orans was caught up with an alter Christus theology of priesthood and liturgical symbolism which obscured this focus on consecration of the elements by prayer, Word, and manual acts, itself oriented to the reception of the Sacrament by the faithful, Laud had further reason to dismiss it.
Laud's purpose in rejecting orans was thus also deeply sacramental: to ensure a reverent focus on the elements and the Words of Institution, highlighted by the accompanying manual acts.
Dear Laudable Practice --
ReplyDeleteI am happy to be corrected on this, but I had always understood there to be a distinction between 'orans' and the 'arms-at-perpendicular-in-imitation-of-the-cross' gesture. I am aware that the Sarum Mass (roughly contemporary with Durandus) has an explicit rubric indicating the stretching out of the arms immediately after the words over the cup ("Here let him replace the cup, and raise his arms in the form of a cross, the fingers being joined until the words of thy gifts.") but it is almost certain that the priest would have already been in orans for much of the liturgy up until that point. The distinction seems to be: whether the elbows are bent or not. In 'orans' the elbows are always substantially bent (see links below). In general, medieval crucifixes portray Christ with arms mostly straight, not bent at the elbow. It would seem the Sarum/Durandus gesture would be a mometary straightening of the arms. I definitely think this is far too theatrical, and agree with you/Laud that it would certainly take away attention from where it should be: The Lord and his sacramental body and blood. But to be opposed to this single Sarum gesture does not mean that one is opposed to orans generally. I.e. Laud might not be speaking against orans elsewhere in the eucharistic prayer (although, perhaps you know of where he might speak against it by name elsewhere in his writings?)
What leads me to believe that orans was a standard liturgical "posture" independent of the cross-arms gesture is the portrayal of priests in medieval art, who, when not represented holding the bread or wine, are usually in "orans" (with arms bent). E.g.:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/489203578255136941/?lp=true
https://www.pinterest.cl/pin/299207968992340667/
https://jannagnoelle.com/2018/01/29/any-given-sunday-in-the-middle-ages-medieval-mondays-9b/
(in the back) https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66991113188845581/?lp=true
and then, very interestingly: We see Christ not on the cross, but emerging from a tomb, with his hands in orans just like the pope celebrating, suggesting his priestly-mediatorial role.
https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/8830
Would love to hear your thoughts. (BTW, I think I have figured out your secret identity, are your initials B.C.?)
Ben, many thanks for your comment. And yes, it is quite possible that you are entirely right! A few things, however, give me pause for thought.
DeleteThe first is that Laud's accusers were not particularly worried about accurately reflecting his case. Judging by their rather ridiculous interpretations of some of the 1637 rubrics, I do not think they would have been prepared to recognise a difference between orans and the more elaborate gesture. And Laud in his response does not seek to defend orans as different.
This being so, I think both gestures were regarded as one in this exchange.
Secondly, I am not aware of any 17th or 18th century Anglican pictorial depictions of the consecration which show the priest in the orans position. If there are any, I am very happy to be corrected. But my instinct is that the absence of any such depiction would suggest that it was not a common practice.
Thirdly, my aim in the post was not to condemn the orans gesture but rather to highlight Laud's focus on the manual acts. And from what he says regarding them, I think this too makes orans an unlikely gesture for Laudian clergy. Everything he says in this particular exchange is focussed on the manual acts as *the* actions of the presbyter during the Prayer of Consecration.
Your point regarding Durand and Thomas is, of course, correct - they were referring to a specific gesture not orans. I should have recognised this in the post. For Laud's critics, however, I think they probably meant the same thing.
And for Laud himself? Judging from his words in the account, I think he would have regarded orans as unnecessary and fussy, drawing attention to the person of the presbyter when the focus should be on Word and elements.
As I say, I could be entirely wrong on this and am very open to being corrected.
Brian.
Yes, I am on the fence. On the one hand, it "feels" like a ritual/liturgical movement resourcing to invigorate "orans", but on the other hand, 1 Tim 2:8 DOES prescribe the lifting up of the hands at prayer generally. I, too, can find no Art to help decide the case.
ReplyDeleteWhat would help would be: finding early reformation or puritan invective against the practice (which couldn't be only about the sarum-cross thing), or finding post 1850s writing that is pushy in advocating for it.
In the face of silence I assume continuity -- that it was un-self-consciously passed down from the middle ages to the reformers, but who knows...
Come to think of it, what we now think of as "prayer hands" (palms together, fingers upward) seems to perhaps be a vestigial trace of "collapsed orans"? I.e. the hands came closer and closer together (as Romish priests still often do today), and then just eventually fell into each other? "prayer hands" definitely seems like a post-reformation thing, without earlier precedent... I think I have seen it in Art for 18th century priests, though not sure if in connection to Holy Communion. So maybe "prayer-hands" is the living-tradition version of orans??
BTW, what do you make of this sort of thing about "Laud's ritual" https://books.google.com/books?id=3EpOTM3z-noC&pg=PA81&dq=%22arms+expanded%22+laud&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ8_LEp5jnAhVnUt8KHYAHBxIQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22arms%20expanded%22%20laud&f=false
In terms of silence equating to continuity, I do not think I am convinced. I have just checked Mant's 1820 Notes on the Rubrics. As he gathers commentary from 17th and 18th century authorities, and seeks to guide clergy, it is significant that no reference at all is made to the orans gesture. Standing is the only gesture indicated as having significance at the Prayer of Consecration, together with the manual acts. Similarly with his 1843 Charge on the Rubrics.
DeleteI think the evidence, therefore, does lead us to conclude that orans was not a practice amongst 17th and 18th century Anglicans.
You probably are correct about the "prayer hands" being the equivalent to orans. It does make sense: not showy, unfussy, decent, reverent.
As to Hume's account of Laud's ritual, I really do think we must be quite sceptical about it. Laud's own words indicate considerable caution and conservatism about ritual. He is very clear, for example, that acts of adoration towards the consecrated elements are not to be considered. This renders Hume's account very unlikely indeed.
You have been my main source for learning about all things laudian, so I trust you on this entirely -- but I'd love to learn more about Hume (who I didn't know about till yesterday) -- do you reckon it to be a piece of just fantastical libel? Or could Laud have sometimes been less cautious in his actual ritual practice (when he thought he was among friends) than when he was forced to defend himself in writing? (Several anglo-catholic bishops I know operate this way -- doing more in practice than they would defend on paper)
DeleteI will have to confirm if Hume was quoting from a contemporary source (and I have a feeling I have seen it somewhere else), but the mis-reporting and exaggeration of Laudian ceremonial was pretty standard stuff. What does strike me about the report is that aspects of the supposed ritual are quite out of keeping with Laud's concern for a decency and uniformity (which separates him from many anglo-catholics ...!).
DeleteI believe that the frontpiece of Crouch's Divine Banquet (published in 1696) shows a priest praying in the orans posture at the celebration of the Communion.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your comment. It is an interesting possible counter example, although I have my reservations, for two reasons. Firstly, I am not aware of any other examples. Secondly, I do wonder if it is a stylistic technique by the artist. So, for example, the same posture can be seen in a definitively non-eucharistic portrayal: https://laudablepractice.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-serious-liturgy-for-serious-time.html. I do wonder if it is used by the artist to signify prayer.
DeleteAside from that, the position of the priest repeats what we see in other portrayals: in front of the Table, but to the north side and at an angle, so as not to obscure the manual acts.
I think both depictions strongly suggest that the orans posture was known within Anglicanism after the English Reformation and during the period of the Caroline divines , either as a eucharistic posture or a general posture of prayer (or the symbolism would likely have been lost on those viewing the depictions). The depiction in the Divine Banquet appears to show other contemporary elements of eucharistic practice: The north side celebration, the use of flagons, the common loaf, the Commandments in the sanctuary, as well as the altar rail--which all strongly suggest that the orans "survived" within this mix. However, given the lack of ceremonial direction in the Prayer Book and few clear and "standardized" visual examples of celebrating the liturgy, it is not surprising that the celebrations may have varied widely and that the orans faded. In the 1700s and 1800s it is likely that the "prayer hands" or standing with the Prayer Book became the standard gestures for eucharistic celebration, especially in parish churches.
ReplyDeleteI think I will would strongly push back on your suggestion. There is no reference to orans in pre-Caroline descriptions of the Communion and no depiction of it in pre-Caroline portrayals. When it comes to the Caroline era, there is no mention of it in Sparrow. In the accusations against the Laudians it is not mentioned, when opponents were seeking any hint of shared ritual with Rome. Post-1662, apart from Crouch, no depiction of it is made of it in the various manuals for communicants. Wheatly's famous 1714 frontispiece does not show the priest using the orans gesture, despite the exalted Christ being so depicted. Mindful that great care was taken by the High Church tradition to maintain 1662 liturgical standards - and that any idea of the 18th century as being one of 'decline' is now generally accepted by historians to be woefully inaccurate - it would seem odd if all other aspects of 1662 ceremony were retained, but orans disappeared. That it may have been used here and there by a minority of priests is possible: that it was standard during the Caroline period, then strangely disappearing in the 18th century, seems rather unlikely.
Delete