Then it seems to be an issue of catechesis, not liturgy or unfriendliness.
But it isn’t a protestant outlook. Im not protestant and i dont come from a protestant background. This is the peace of Christ and He gives His peace to us, we should be happy, not talkative but happy. In other Catholic traditions the peace is handed down to the people from the altar. If we hold His peace and pass it on, should it not be in happiness? Happiness has been a loose term here, i don’t mean the laughter and conversation and dancing, i mean a gentle happiness, it should be treated special, not just kept inward. In my church people show a calm gentleness which makes me feel good inside knowing that they show the peace of Christ. If an outsider comes in they should also witness his peace in us so that we are a light.
I will refuse to shake hands if I know I’m contagious. Monday I was at daily Mass because I was teaching a baptism prep class right after. My throat was sore, I was congested and I knew that my hands were most likely covered in cold viruses. At the sign of peace I nodded to the two women behind me and when one put out her hand I said “Sorry, I have a cold.” Her friend immediately understood and I heard her explain to the woman what I had said. These were not strangers, they were women I’ve worshipped with for over 15 years.
In a real sense, yes I think it is in the sense that others approaches to me or you are utterly unimportantThe presence of the sacraments does not excuse limp handshakes and the stony stare ahead. I am not looking for a party during mass, but courtesy and at least acknowledgement of greeting. Is that too much to ask?
That sounds reasonable to me. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I was fatalistic entirely (I’ll take a risk of illness within reason), but if someone is glum week after week, that’s not because they have flu. It’s so widespread a glumness, it can’t possible be multiple tragedies suffered all round the congregation at the same time. (ps. I wouldn’t say all, just many)
Actually, no one has established that this is a fact. Some people have expressed this opinion, but several other posters have expressed opposite experiences. I’ve personally shaken hands with probably thousands of people through out the years and I can’t think of any person who I felt was overtly rude. I have had an occasional complete stranger try to hug me and once an old creepy, old guy kiss me on the cheek.
I think people who complain that other people aren’t cheerful enough or that their handshakes are too flabby are being silly and quite hypocritical when they complain that the other person isn’t exhibiting charity.It is absolutely pointless to tell people they should be happy. Is it possible to make yourself happy by an effort of will? Does it always work to try to think happy thoughts? No, and no. We are not responsible for our moods, because we do not have anything like complete control over them. It is therefore not possible for us to have an obligation to be happy.
Read that statement over again and think about it. It’s googled so it must be happening?
The sign of peace is meant to be a genuine sign of peace, not merely a symbolical gesture. About the sign of peace, Pope Benedict XVI said that the sign “has great value,” especially in demonstrating the church’s responsibility to pray for peace and unity in a world too often troubled by division, violence and hatred. However he called for “greater restraint” to ensure it doesn’t become a distraction. He also expressed the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another part of the Mass, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar, which would serve as a significant reminder of the Christ’s insistence that we be reconciled with one another before presenting our gifts to God…
No, when John XXIII died, the TLM was still the only form of the Roman Rite. The TLM rubrics (as last updated by John XXIII in 1960) do not allow such a thing.
Unless you – believing the Mass of Paul VI to be within the constant Latin liturgical tradition – consider the historical foundation of the Sign of Peace, which I have already explained multiple times in this thread:
The Sign of Peace has nothing to do with us or our neighbors. It has everything to do with Christ. He offers us peace, not we ourselves.
thanks!
You are confusing things… The sign of peace is a reminder of Christ’s insistence that we be reconciled with one another before presenting our gifts to God. Again, about the sign of peace, Pope Benedict XVI said that the sign “has great value,” especially in demonstrating the church’s responsibility to pray for peace and unity in a world too often troubled by division, violence and hatred. However he called for “greater restraint” to ensure it doesn’t become a distraction.
Yes, the inclusion of this ceremony in the liturgy seems to be loosely connected to Matt. 5, 23-24, although the verses do not include the word “peace” anywhere.
Jesus commanded us: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift."–Matt. 5: 23-24
Obviously God is the origin of peace. But the question at hand is the sign of peace in the ordinary form of the Mass, which is for both the clergy and laity to offer one another a sign of peace. Obviously if a husband and wife are angry at one another at mass, it would be wrong to go to communion with anger and un-forgiveness in their heart, so the sign of peace is a good opportunity to reconcile before receiving Christ.
The point is that you must reconcile with those you are quarreling with before you come an receive communion. Christ was very stern about those who come to Him with unforgiveness in their heart for their neighbor. If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?
So in essence, your argument is that the Sign of Peace in the Mass of Paul VI is a total break (read: rupture) from the previous 1360 years of liturgical tradition? Well, I disagree.
I’m not arguing, I’m simply explaining that the sign of peace should be more than just a symbol, but a genuine gesture among the people in the pews.
Offering someone a warm smile or a sign of peace is a reminder for the laity that we are a community of believers, and that we pray “Our Father” not “My Father”. I think it’s also a good practice for the laity to show charity among themselves, to then go out into the world and to meet the non-Christian to share the love, truth and grace we receive at mass, with those who are are hungry for the love of Christ.
Again, obviously God is the source of love and peace. But one must be careful not to adopt the way of thinking of the Pharisees, who meticulously fulfilled all the rules and regulations of the law, fasted twice a week, gave money to the poor, spent much time in the temple and performed all the prescribed religious sacrifices, thinking they were close to God; yet Jesus told them they were far from God, because they had no love for neighbor and were quite proud of themselves.
It’s proven to be the case there is quite a common perception on here too, on this small representation of the catholic population here on this forum. And even more so, that the glumness is actually acknowledged which is explained away as ‘solemnity’. Facial expressions are recognized universally around the world, a smile is warmth, a supercilious look is one of condescension, an inverted mouth is sadness, faces and moods can be read all over the world from every race. And common perception would have it that a glum look is classed as unfriendly. Unfriendly is the perception, we’re talking on the level of perception and interpretation.
Well I certainly never have that problem in my parish
Solution: all of you move down to Florida with us! 