The rubrics simply dictate posture (standing, sitting, kneeling, etc.), not hand placement. If we believe that whatever is not forbidden is allowed, may I stand during the Our Father and frantically wave my arms above my head the entire time? Why not? This isn’t allowed?
and why would you bring up a meaningless gesture?
In 67 years, I have heard reasons for why we hold our hands pals togeether: “It is reverent.”; “That’s the way we do it.”; (from a sister who taught young children): “It keeps their hands off others.”; and that about sums it up; that was to be seen as a posture of reverence, without any particular explanation as to why it was. It is, however, seen in other cultures and religions.
The orans posture goes back to ancient Jewish times as a prayer posture.
Holding hands is seen by many, if not most who do it, as a gesture of unity.
and you bring in a gesture that has no meaning; that is called a red herring. Sorry, I am not fishing. We both know that has no meaning in prayer (and please, don’t bother making one up), so let’s move forward, ok?
“Because that’s not appropriate!” I agree; neither is hand-holding. What is “appropriate” at the Mass is dictated by a common-sense reading of the rubrics. The rubrics tell us to stand, not stand and hold hands.
The rubrics also don’t tell you to hold your hands palms together and fingers either interlaced or pointing out during the Our Father; but let’s be honest; you would have not problem with that even though it is not in the rubrics. So one is ok although not in the rubrics, but the other is not? Um hmm… As Cardinal Arinze said, the Church is not that rigid about posture.
“But holding hands is something you do while standing!” No, holding hands is something you do in addition to standing, just as surely as waving my arms frantically above my hand is something I would do in addition to standing. Here’s a thought experiment: suppose you’re in a courtroom about to give witness at a trial. The bailiff says “Please rise” as the judge enters the courtroom. If you stand and keep your hands at your side, or in your pockets, or folded in front of you, etc., you’re standing. If you stand and make moose ears or wave your arms above your hand, you’re standing and doing something else, and the something else is going to get you in trouble.
and your point is… nothing. You do not add to the discussion.
Invariably these arguments devolve to “what does the law say?” which is, as I said before, exactly the kind of minimalist legalist positivism of which liturgical liberals always accuse liturgical conservatives. There is rarely ever an attempt to actually defend the practice. Because the practice cannot be defended. It is invasive, aberrant, historically abnormal, and inappropriate to the Mass generally and that part of the Mass specifically. To the extent an argument is ever marshalled in support of it, it’s always “it makes us feel united!!!” which is positively not what the Our Father is about.
Actually, the practice can be defended; it is seen by most as a sign of unity and a sing of community; the prayer we recite together is “Our Father” not “My Father”.
It is not aberrant; it is extremely widely accepted throughout other countries as well as within the US. After 48 years or more, it is not departing from the norm, it is the norm. You seem to have the idea that anything which happens in the Church starts at the top and works down; much of the last 2000 years shows differently.
If it was so inappropriate, then why has Rome seen so fit as to not enter into the matter for almost 5 decades? Because they do not share your view.
Historically abnormal - catchy phrase, that. It was also historically abnormal to do baptisms by full immersion for centuries, but the Church approves of that now. That, too, is historically abnormal.
As Archbishop Chaput ( a bit more trained in liturgy than you or I) said, a) it is not regulated; b) if you wish to you certainly may; c) if you wish to not do so, you certainly may choose to not do so, and d) both sides owe the other charity. He did not think it an aberration, abnormal, and if posture during the Our Father was as he suggested, not invasive (because he was just as emphatic about the right of those choosing to not holding hands, to not do so) and not inappropriate at that time of the Mass. In other words, he opposes every one of your characterizations.
Frankly, I find the protestations against it to be every bit as legalistic as you accuse those holding hands of being. The vehemence doesn’t come from the side of those holding hands; it comes from the side of those who are “disgusted by it” as one poster put it.
I don’t have a dog in the fight; I don’t really give a whit whether people hold hands or don’t. If someone next to me reaches out, then in charity I will hold hands; if they don’t reach out, I don’t either. I am focused on the prayer, and the rest is so absolutely minimal that I am hardly aware of it. Rome doesn’t care; I don’t care, and you are the one with the issue. You are, however, in a small minority, and people with far more liturgical training than you disagree with you; and some with a good degree of training agree with you. But Rome doesn’t. When Rome does, then you can say “See, I told you so”, but until they do, the silence is deafening.
And, as can be noted, the absence of anyone posting as to why other people won’t hold hands is high, wide and prolonged. It is only the posts of those who object who get this conversation going; were they to take Archbishop Chaput’s advice, we could all move on to issues that actually matter.
