Can someone explain these changes

[Bob_Aliano]

From the Roman Missal:
**128. **Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds:
Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a Deacon or minister.

Thank you for responding, I just noticed the question, far too late to properly respond. It isn’t the Sign of Peace/Kiss of Peace that I object to rather it’s the abuse that has crept into the act. I don’t get the impression at our OF parish that anyone is truly wishing me God’s Peace, it’s more like a seventh inning stretch, a recess in the Mass to let off some steam. We even have people traveling about the church to greet fiends, highly disruptive.

 

[joandarc2008]

so…you don’t have an answer to my question of your claim?

I was not aware we were in a debate - but in this case it would be basic history - Vatican II was in 1962. From there the fact that Pope JP II was from Poland and had the full knowledge of the languages of the Eastern Block from having grown up and speaking them allowed him to understand the vernacular in different ways then academic. If you look at most of the changes you will find that the least number of changes are being made to those missals in the Romance languages.

But as for your documentation here you are:

Here

Here

and there are several others just search the site and have fun - it is a pretty basic fact of the last fifty years or so - and when I am defining linguistic ability I am meaning as it affects the non-Romance languages which may be where we are having our disconnect - God bless.

 

[diggerdomer]

IVatican II was in 1962.

Vatican II took place from 1962-1965.

I don’t think any of the links you shared indicated Pope John Paul II was a superior linguist, which was my question. Did they? Of course Pope John Paul II knew Polish…but all Eastern Block languages? Really? That would be amazing!

 

[diggerdomer]

From the Roman Missal:
**128. **Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds:
Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a Deacon or minister.

So based on the GIRM, any example or clarification on when it’s not “appropriate”?

Meaning…what gives the Deacon or Priest the latitude to determine such?

 

[Pregustator]

Wow. Someone actually lives in a parish that has experienced enough of the “reform of the reform” to cause her confusion and concern. Amazing.

I must live in the single most backwards diocese in America as I have seen thus far no evidence, whatsoever, of any sort of a shift to the right, liturgically, devotionally, or otherwise. It’s still 1978 where I am. For some of you, however, it seems like it’s 1478 where you are.

I’ve read so many of you posting about the changes occurring–Masses celebrated ad orientem, Masses in Latin, Masses versus populum, but with six candles and a cross on the altar–yet in my diocese, no one is even talking about the new Roman Missal yet! Nothing has changed here…at all.

Anyone else out there feeling left out of the “reform of the reform” so far?