2nd Century Mass CCC Paragraph 1345

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jguerra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jguerra

Guest
I read this quote from the above-captioned paragraph:

**1345 **As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. . ."
I would like to hear from the experts as how the sign of peace was done in the second century. I’m thinking it was a ritualized embrace, like clasping your neighbors shoulder joints and saying “Peace!”

Your (name removed by moderator)uts appreciated.

Joe
 
As much as many here on this forum who are Roman Catholics prefer to do away with the Sing of Peace, its actually pretty universal in the Church. Exchanges of the sign of peace are done in other liturgical traditions of the Church. Also the proper way to do a sign of peace depends upon the culture of the Church. The handshake is prevalent in America because its a gesture of peace in the culture. I can imagine in Japan the proper way is to make a bow at one another.
 
The Sign of Peace has had its current position in the Roman liturgy since about the 4th/5th century. Most other Rites have it in its original position as St. Justin describes.
 
stephraim said:
The Sign of Peace has had its current position in the Roman liturgy since about the 4th/5th century. Most other Rites have it in its original position as St. Justin describes.
Click to expand...
Beginning sometimes in the renaissance time (before Trident) it become restricted to the clergy. This peace represents Christ peace through the Eucharist. Theologically only the clergy was supposed to be transmitter of this peace, the laity is passive receiver.

For this reason the original catechesis (at least in Hungary) in the sixties was that the rite of peace is the reconciliation with one’s neighbors. That would have proper place at the beginning of the mass.

Later, to promote the concept of people’s Church, it turned to promote the idea that the laity too is transmitter of Christ grace.

In the Church where I attend masses there is no such rite (neither in the new form; it is optional)
 
laszlo said:
For this reason the original catechesis (at least in Hungary) in the sixties was that the rite of peace is the reconciliation with one’s neighbors. That would have proper place at the beginning of the mass.
Click to expand...
I believe that was the reason for its inclusion, cf. Matt 5:23-24. That’s why it was placed before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Of course, in order to link the Pax even more closely to Matt 5, Rome moved it to its current position.
 
From what I was taught in liturgical history class, originally it was a real kiss, on the lips, but I haven’t been able to find documentation.
 
Joannm said:
From what I was taught in liturgical history class, originally it was a real kiss, on the lips, but I haven’t been able to find documentation.
Click to expand...
May Mass history books (Rado, Jungmann) say also that it was real kiss and get abused and suppressed during the Renaissance time. In the context as I understand the kiss was not necessarily kiss on lips, more as the eastern type cheeks to cheeks, as also in the traditional solemn Mass

The real question is weather it is the sign of reconciliation as in the Didache (from Matt 5:24) or the distribution of Christ’s peace. The first meaning is acceptable even after the Our Father (as we forgive those who trespass against us) , the second meaning is objectionable.
 
Joannm said:
From what I was taught in liturgical history class, originally it was a real kiss, on the lips, but I haven’t been able to find documentation.
Click to expand...
Hhmm I wonder if this is true, do those who love the sign of peace (in its current place in the liturgu) would be willing to practice this, since (if true) this is the original form.
 
The Kiss of Peace in the Roman Rite is not a “reconciliatory” one; it is not one of “making peace with one another”, but of acknowledging the peace of Christ.
 
Joannm said:
From what I was taught in liturgical history class, originally it was a real kiss, on the lips, but I haven’t been able to find documentation.
Click to expand...
Not on the lips but on the cheeks, left-right-left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top