I have never understood the false equation: if it is not in the rubrics = it can be done. I would like anyone who follows this line of argument to justify it. In fact, I’d challenge anyone who believes that is the case to cite authentic, current Church document that supports their argument.
There is a difference between the Northern and the Southern approaches to the law (reference to N & S Europeans, and Americans approach is largely Northern). The Northern attitude is that whatever that is not stated is not permitted while the Southern attitude is that whatever is not stated is not prohibited. This is probably an over-generalisation but there are different ways of looking at the law when the law is silent.
In Rome, being of Southern mind, normally treats silence of the law as being not prohibited while not being mandatory. The title of GIRM is actually quite instructive in that these are
General instructions. This means that outside of specific prohibitions, Rome does allow local adaptation of the GIRM, with approval of the Congregation for the Liturgy. For instance, my softcopy of the GIRM is for England & Wales, with additions and different paragraph numbers from the US version.
In addition there were local adaptation outside of the GIRM. I understand that the Filipino bishops encouraged the holding of hands at mass but did not make it mandatory (the poster did not link to any document and it is possible that Asian bishops online presence are not as extensive as in the West). I also understand that the US bishops did discuss both the holding of hands and specifically encouraging the Orans position but in the end declined to issue any advisory on it.
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/posture/orans-or-open-hand-prayer-posture.cfm
The GIRM is clear on the posture of extending of hands by those celebrating and concelebrating, which implies that they are not permitted to hold hands. The prescribed posture for the congregation is not stated but the Missal rubrics does state that the people are required to stand at the Our Father with no mention of what to do with the hands. If we were to follow the position that what is not stated is not permitted, then it follows that all positions of the hands would be prohibited, including the Orans position or the folding of hands.
I am new to this site and not being American, I am now realising that there is a strong undercurrent against holding of hands among some quarters of the American church. In fact, I understand that a wry comment was made by a bishop during the debate on the Orans position that requiring that position in US would finally do away with the holding of hands. I also realise that part of the unpopularity is that people sometimes insensitively grabs someone else’s hands at mass who may not wish to hold hands.
Personally, I stand and hold hands at Sunday mass when I am at the Children’s Liturgy of the Word (no strangers here - all the children hold hands but not forced to) or when I am with my girlfriend. I don’t stretch out to hold hands with anyone else.
Perplexingly, at daily mass, I kneel throughout the Eucharistic prayer all the way to communion. I know this contravenes the rubrics (which prescribe standing) but I believe I can justify it. So far no one has complained about it but rather complained when I am with the children at Sunday mass when it doesn’t contravene the rubrics. I guess Catholics allow contravention of the rubrics if you show yourself more pious than the rubrics or themselves!!
Ultimately, I think the only requirement is for all Catholics to be sensitive and tolerant of all expressions of personal piety, both of those holding the posture and those responding to someone else’s posture. Shouldn’t this be protected by the First Amendment in the Church?
