Frantic handshaking during Mass

[clem456]

Still not enough? St Augustine said (emphasis mine): “Then, after the consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of God, because He wished us also to be His sacrifice, a fact which was made clear when the Holy Sacrifice was first instituted, and because that Sacrifice is a sign of what we are, behold, when the Sacrifice is finished, we say the Lord’s Prayer which you have received and recited. After this, the ‘Peace be with you’ is said, and the Christians embrace one another with a holy kiss. This is the sign of peace; as the lips indicate, let peace be made in your conscience, that is, when your lips draw near to those of your brother, do not let your heart withdraw from his.”

A kiss? Lips drawing near to your brother?!



Notice that Augustine does not believe this practice detracts from the re-presentation of Cavalry. If it’s good enough for Augustine, it’s good enough for me.

 

[Faithdancer]

I cannot not be part of the Body of Christ, Actaeon: I was baptised. Hermits were and are also parts of the Body of Christ. Charles Foucauld, who lived in the desert amongst the Tuaregs for 15 years, celebrating Mass alone and often not having another Christian within hundreds of miles was also part of the Body of Christ. The secret Christians in Islamic countries, who sometimes don’t have contact with another Christian for decades after their secret baptism in a tent with a bowlful of water are also parts of the Body of Christ.

Until it says otherwise in the missal, no physical contact between parishioners during required at Mass. And the liturgical wording in the Roman Catholic Church is “sign of peace,” not kiss of peace or handshake of peace or back slap of peace or leaping NFL chest bump of peace or…

After the Mass is an entirely different matter. The same goes, imo, for liturgical dancing, btw.

 

[PatriceA]

I hear what you are saying, Patrice, and as I think I said in the original post, I don’t care if others want to shake hands. The issue is with those who thrust their hand in close and stare at me, despite my obvious posture. I always smile and bow, but it’s not enough for some folks. I think at some point it can become invasive. I also don’t need to hold hands during the Our Father, that practice is not in the Missal and it can also be overdone, to the point where people run to the end of the pew and grasp someone else’s hand impulsively. Why is it okay to invade someone’s personal space during Mass?

Like I said, I continue to ignore the really invasive parishoners. I’ve gotten over being responsible for their reaction to they stepping over the boundaries when contact is not welcomed by me.

And like I said earlier, the person not wanting to shake hands, sometimes it has NOTHING to do with a phobia of germs as one previous poster said. It has nothing to do with thinking one is better than someone else. Many times it can be because the person that doesn’t want to shake hands is survivor of abuse OR even has a physical condition that warrents not shaking hands. I have a friend that has MS, most days you would never be able to tell she has MS, but when she is suffering, her hands are the most affected and touching or shaking hands would be intolerable for her. People need to understand that a rejection of a handshake at the sign of peace is not always personal, or shouldn’t have to be “explained”. Accept that the person on the rejecting side of the handshake may very well have good reason NOT to shake hands and isn’t required to explain why.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A kiss? Lips drawing near to your brother?!



Notice that Augustine does not believe this practice detracts from the re-presentation of Cavalry. If it’s good enough for Augustine, it’s good enough for me.

You do know that Christ and the Apostles were from the Middle East, right?





http://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/bush_kiss_arab_king.jpg

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are really a few solutions to this phobia of germs:

1. carry hand sanitizer and use it before you use your hands again
2. don’t put your hands to your mouth again until you can wash them (what a great opportunity to start receiving on the tongue!)
3. explain to people who try to shake your hand that you have a phobia of germs and mean them no disrespect (and that you wish them peace).

Now, it’s a given that when there is a pandemic outbreak going around, the greeting of peace should be limited to a verbal greeting… but that’s not a justification to avoid the norms year round in all places.

To be clear: the handshake is the normative gesture of peace and goodwill in the west (because it shows that the person offering the handshake is not holding a weapon and is lowering their guard by extending their hand away from any weapons they may be holding). In the east, a bow was used because in hand to hand combat a handshake is a mode of attack.

So the point of that is that you are violating social norms. Generally, the reasons people violate these norms are twofold (niether of which apply to you specifically, but may be how you’re coming off):

1. I’m better than you and will not lower myself to shake your hand
2. You are a dirty person and I might get sick by shaking your hand.

Obviously both of these sentiments are VERY offensive to the person on the receiving end of such treatment, which is why it would seem to behoove you that if you can’t get over your phobia of germs that you EXPLAIN to people trying to shake your hand that you’re not insulting them, but that YOU have a phobia about it that you can’t get over.

Originally from Acteon

POINT: Not wishing to shake hands does **not **mean the person has a germ phobia. Ask any person suffering from arthritis how it feels to ‘shake hands’. They don’t care about **germs, **they don’t want to shake because it is painful. Not just then at Mass but for hours, days, and weeks afterward.

You really want to go around advocating that in the name of love you should be cavalier about inflicting **pain and suffering **on people, just to satisfy your personal opinion that **only a ‘western’ handshake is the so-called proper norm of giving or receiving peace in church? **And demonizing the person who has a **different gesture, even mentioned in the rubrics **(such as a bow and a nod) by calling them germaphobic, hateful, socially inept, rude offensive, and claiming that **they **only refuse to shake because they think others are dirty??

I don’t really think that is what Christ is advocating for us to do. Your intentions might be noble, but you have focused so much not on the idea of peace but on your insistence of it being **one gesture only, **and in refusing to admit that any other gesture is appropriate, and in insisting those who wish to use another gesture are not just wrong in their thought, but in their actions, attributing **evil and hateful intentions **to them. . .that your whole argument collapses.

I don’t have any problem with people shaking hands who want to. But I have spent nearly 56 years on earth and my understanding of giving peace, for spiritual and physical reasons, is a nod, smile and bow, and for you to tell me that it doesn’t matter what I think, according to you I am a germaphobic hateful socially inept clod who thinks others are all beneath her by not shaking hands. . . well, it just boggles my mind. Gracious, I’m not perfect, but when you want to tell me where I am doing wrong, tell me what I am really doing wrong. Don’t accuse me of doing wrong when I’m not!!

 

[JimG]

I have noticed an interesting trend at my own parish. The handshake seems to be a declining practice, while a nod to the neighbor accompanied by “peace be with you,” is increasingly common.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

I’m not going to make it through all the pages of this thread, but I’ll add my 2 cents in case something similar hasn’t already been added:

I am frustrated by the sign of peace. I would be much more comfortable without it, or with a simple nod to the person to my left and right. It is a combination of the distraction of it all and the germs that bother me. When the swine flu arrived, I started not shaking hands at all (as best I could - some people don’t pay attention to non-verbal cues). I would also bring hand sanitizing wipes and use one just before communion - I’d use it and pass it down the line of my family (because even if you don’t shake hands, your hands are on the pews that have been recently handled by other people). But after a while, I started feeling uncomfortable - as though I might be giving off (unintentionally) an air of superiority. People might be offended by me cleaning my hands after touching theirs, kwim? So I decided just to go with the flow and shake the hands of those around me. I’m trying to look at it as an act of charity, and not worry about what I like or don’t like.

Of course, I am still concerned about germs, so I handle it differently now. Around the time of the Lord’s Prayer (maybe a little before), I take a handi-wipe, and sanitize my own hands for the sake of those I’ll be touching. Then I keep the wipe clutched in my left hand while I shake everyone else’s hands. It is then very easy to surreptitiously give a little wipe to the fingertips of the shaking hand (or more - but the fingertips are the part that will touch the host and put it in my mouth) without being blatant about it. And if someone does notice, they probably noticed me doing it before hand, and rather than be offended, they might appreciate that I am thinking of protection both ways.

 

[grandfather]

The Tridentine Mass dates back to the 1600s, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom dates back to 400AD. And we have the Kiss of Peace in the Divine Liturgy.

This is partially true. Many or most elements of the Tridentine Mass are much more ancient than the 1600s. At the time of Pius V there were liturgical abuses and liturgical liberties being taken. He recognized the problem and the need for discipline, a careful following of rubrics and universal norms. The Mass that he promulgated was not a novel invention, but essentially the same as the ancient Mass, with all the same elements. His purpose was to get everyone back on the same page.

This can not be said of the new Mass of Paul VI however. In some ways it is similar to the traditional form of worship and in others it is very different.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some of us have had not so great experiences one way or the other, but I still trust that most people are understanding and will be able to see peace in another’s actions whether it’s with a handshake or a nod.

And my apologies if I got too caught up in the personal in earlier responses. Mea culpa. Yet another example of why God gave us two ears and one mouth. . .I need to listen twice as much as I talk.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is partially true. Many or most elements of the Tridentine Mass are much more ancient than the 1600s. At the time of Pius V there were liturgical abuses and liturgical liberties being taken. He recognized the problem and the need for discipline, a careful following of rubrics and universal norms. The Mass that he promulgated was not a novel invention, but essentially the same as the ancient Mass, with all the same elements. His purpose was to get everyone back on the same page.

This can not be said of the new Mass of Paul VI however. In some ways it is similar to the traditional form of worship and in others it is very different.

The problem today is not the form of Liturgy but that the significance of the Kiss of Peace has been lost on many people. We need better catechesis.

 

[Actaeon]

I cannot not be part of the Body of Christ, Actaeon: I was baptised. Hermits were and are also parts of the Body of Christ. Charles Foucauld, who lived in the desert amongst the Tuaregs for 15 years, celebrating Mass alone and often not having another Christian within hundreds of miles was also part of the Body of Christ. The secret Christians in Islamic countries, who sometimes don’t have contact with another Christian for decades after their secret baptism in a tent with a bowlful of water are also parts of the Body of Christ.

Okay, allow me to be more clear about that one phrase that you took out of the context from the rest of the post. The phrase you quoted:

If you’re not going to be part of the Body of Christ

Would be properly understood in the context of my post as:

If you’re not going (to mass with the intention) to -]be part of/-](participate in the corporate eternal worship of) the Body of Christ…

The point I was making was clear: that the catholic church is not about individuals approaching Christ who just happen to be in the same room at the same time, it is about a union of all the faithful accross all places and times to join in the one, final Passover sacrifice on the cross. I’m sorry that my wording caused you to zero in on that one phrase in a way that caused confusion for you regarding the statement that my post was actually making

 

[7_Sorrows]

This I know, but again, the handshaking competition is a recent development. It was not present pre-Vatican II, nor is it done at any Tridentine Masses I’ve attended. And my point, again, is that it crosses the line when it becomes aggressive and invasive toward those who simply want to fold their hands and bow and smile. Just because I don’t want to be clutched at, doesn’t mean I don’t feel the fellowship and good will. Why is that so hard for some to understand?

you are really making me laugh! the handshaking competition is a funny way to put it.
i understand what you mean that we are able to feel the fellowship and good will and a sense of being a church community without the frantic handshaking. just being together as a community and celebrating the Mass is fellowship. we can greet and chat before or after Mass.

 

[Actaeon]

And like I said earlier, the person not wanting to shake hands, sometimes it has NOTHING to do with a phobia of germs as one previous poster said. It has nothing to do with thinking one is better than someone else.

Read my post again, I was not referring to what the person was ACTUALLY thinking, but referring to what message might be being received and why some people are acting offended towards the OP.

Obviously she doesn’t think she’s better than others, or that they live in a dirty fashion… but she IS encountering some offended people, so obviously there is an unintended message being passed along. To bluntly ignore that reality is just going to keep her in a position where she offends people and/or gets accosted for handshakes.

Many times it can be because the person that doesn’t want to shake hands is survivor of abuse OR even has a physical condition that warrents not shaking hands. I have a friend that has MS, most days you would never be able to tell she has MS, but when she is suffering, her hands are the most affected and touching or shaking hands would be intolerable for her. People need to understand that a rejection of a handshake at the sign of peace is not always personal, or shouldn’t have to be “explained”. Accept that the person on the rejecting side of the handshake may very well have good reason NOT to shake hands and isn’t required to explain why.

Au contraire, in this case you are taking my post out of context. What I said was clearly directed at ONE person in ONE circumstance (thinking that it isn’t appropriate and that it’s a good way to spread disease). I gave no indication that what I said was directed as a general rule and that people with physical handicaps should be made to shake hands. Why would you take a post clearly directed at ONE person and try to make what I said some assertion of a general rule???

And actually, it would STILL be wise, physical handicap or not, to explain why one does not shake hands… because, again, when there is a societal norm as to what constitutes our gesture of good will and peace, and someone goes countercultural to bow (refusing to shake hands), then yes, there are MANY times that that action UNINTENTIONALLY sends a wrong signal.

 

[Actaeon]

Sorry, but I attended Mass pre-Vatican II in the early 60s and I don’t believe there were any of these here carryin-ons! Gotta agree with Grandfather. And no offense, but it doesn’t really matter to me what the custom has been in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because I’m Roman Catholic. We split quite awhile back, although granted it was over other issues, such as the Filioque clause…

First, what Constantine said was the Eastern Rites, not the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Rights are part and parcel of ONE church, along with the Latin Rite of the church.

Second, while you “attended mass” pre-Vatican II days, that in no means constitutes the sum of the history of worship in the Catholic church. I’m surprised to see how many people forget that there were several forms of the mass BEFORE the Tridentine form.

As I already posted it, and since you’ve stated falsely several times that the sign of peace doesn’t have historical precedent in the Catholic Church, I’ll redirect you here for information documenting the sign of peace and it’s presence (and importance) in the mass before the Tridentine form.

 

[Faithdancer]

Okay, allow me to be more clear about that one phrase that you took out of the context from the rest of the post. The phrase you quoted:

If you’re not going to be part of the Body of Christ

Would be properly understood in the context of my post as:

the catholic church is not about individuals approaching Christ who just happen to be in the same room at the same time, it is about a union of all the faithful accross all places and times to join in the one, final Passover sacrifice on the cross.
​

I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. Some people just don’t feel the necessity to grab onto others, or to be grabbed onto, to engage in spiritual communion. Their feelings should be respected. As someone else pointed out, some parishioners ignore non-verbal cues because they are caught up in their own need to touch and be touched. That, imo, is self-centered.

And btw, just because many people in a congregation are accustomed to doing something doesn’t make it a “norm.” To establish a norm requires episcopal action.

From catholic.com/documents/liturgical-abuses

"People cross the aisles to exchange the sign of peace, ushers go up and down the aisles extending it to people in each pew, and the priest seems to go romping all over the Church. Should this happen?

It is appropriate “that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.” “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful” (72; cf. GIRM 82; IGMR 154).

EDITORIAL NOTE: The IGMR is the Latin original of the GIRM. The latter contains additional adaptations approved by Rome for the dioceses of the United States. GIRM 154 contains an adaptation regarding the priest exchanging the sign of peace:
The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary (GIRM 154).​

 

[Faithdancer]

As I already posted it, and since you’ve stated falsely several times that the sign of peace doesn’t have historical precedent in the Catholic Church, I’ll redirect you here for information documenting the sign of peace and it’s presence (and importance) in the mass before the Tridentine form.

Can you please direct me to where I wrote that? Not trying to be confrontational, I seriously can’t see where I wrote that “the sign of peace doesn’t have historical precedent in the Catholic Church.”

There seems to be a lack of consensus on the meaning of “sign” as well. To some it means a “handshake,” to others it means a visual gesture of the hand and/or body, to others it means a kiss on the lips, and to others it may be any of these actions and more.

 

[Faithdancer]

I have noticed an interesting trend at my own parish. The handshake seems to be a declining practice, while a nod to the neighbor accompanied by “peace be with you,” is increasingly common.

Good deal, JimG!

 

[Faithdancer]

I thought it was optional.

In fact, when I was at the funeral Mass for my former pastor (which was said by the bishop), he did not choose to have people offer each other a sign of peace. Which was fine with me, not because I don’t like to offer peace, but because in most (not all) of the places I have been (obviously, not every parish in the U.S. and world) the sign of peace is not limited to an exchange of peace such as a sober nod, a handshake, a bow, whatever, but does indeed involve people leaving the pews, crossing the aisles, talking loudly, flashing ‘peace signs’, hugging and kissing and running around to see grandma and grampa up on the altar who have gone up to be EHMCs. . .the EMHCs themselves high-fiving and blackslapping. . and all of this during the AGNUS DEI yet. if it weren’t for the fact that the AD was usually sung, nobody would even notice it with all the noise, and certainly few pay attention as it’s ‘background’ to the important ritual of community involvement.

Actually, friend, I would indeed prefer the ‘kiss of peace’ in a sober fashion, done with the persons right next to you (left and right), not the people in front or behind, the next pew over, etc. That way we MIGHT be able to concentrate on the Agnus Dei appropriately, and people would still perform this rite if it MUST (it is optional) be done.

Now obviously if my years of experience had involved people giving the sign of peace in a quiet, reverent manner, I would probably look FORWARD to the sign of peace as a normal, loving, integral part of the Mass (even though it is optional). Probably many people reading this have had this experience and wonder–might not even believe–that anybody else’s experience could be so different.

But it can be. It shouldn’t be, but it can be.

Most of us really do not want a sign of peace totally gone forever (well, only on the days when it’s been the worst!). Really. We just want to have it done, not according to OUR will, but according to the standards of the Church, and not ‘what has become the parish custom of all out stampeding and hullaballoing’).

If there exist one or two people in your parish who might, now and then, cross the aisle to greet an old friend or somebody who has been sick and recently recovered, please BE ASSURED that we are NOT SAYING that these people are ‘inappropriate’ or doing things wrong.

Even those who routinely do this because they’ve become accustomed to ‘Parish McFriendly’ aren’t culpable as they really don’t know they are NOT supposed to careen across the Church, throw their kids up in the air, or have a booming conversation about football season prospects.

We just want a gentle, gradual, pastor-led ‘education’ which will guide the people to doing the Sign of Peace according to Hoyle, so to speak. . .and clearing up the MESS which exists in some (not all) parishes on a regular, semi-regular, or occasional basis.

Very reasonably argued, Tantum Ergo, I salute you!

 

[PatriceA]

Read my post again, I was not referring to what the person was ACTUALLY thinking, but referring to what message might be being received and why some people are acting offended towards the OP.

Obviously she doesn’t think she’s better than others, or that they live in a dirty fashion… but she IS encountering some offended people, so obviously there is an unintended message being passed along. To bluntly ignore that reality is just going to keep her in a position where she offends people and/or gets accosted for handshakes.

Au contraire, in this case you are taking my post out of context. What I said was clearly directed at ONE person in ONE circumstance (thinking that it isn’t appropriate and that it’s a good way to spread disease). I gave no indication that what I said was directed as a general rule and that people with physical handicaps should be made to shake hands. Why would you take a post clearly directed at ONE person and try to make what I said some assertion of a general rule???

And actually, it would STILL be wise, physical handicap or not, to explain why one does not shake hands… because, again, when there is a societal norm as to what constitutes our gesture of good will and peace, and someone goes countercultural to bow (refusing to shake hands), then yes, there are MANY times that that action UNINTENTIONALLY sends a wrong signal.

I absolutely am making a general rule, as the ONE person is not the exception. If you read ALL the posts in this thread you will see that there are MANY people that are in the OP’s shoes and your post clearly can be applied to ALL that have been in those shoes. You are the one that is trying to make this thread about one and only one person. I believe I on the other hand was trying to get everyone to consider that the person they are about to exchange the sign of peace with that is rejecting their handshake may very well have their good reasons for doing so and they are under absolutely NO obligation to explain why. You don’t have the right to know why I may reject your handshake, I am under absolutely NO obligation to tell you why I’m not shaking hands. Its NONE of your business or anyone else’s that find themselves in a similar situation when someone doesn’t want to exchange the sign of peace by physical contact. As a survivor of an abusive situation, I’m certainly not going to stand there in the middle of mass and explain to someone that I’m not shaking hands with them because of my past. Nor should someone that has an illness or health issue have to explain to someone when they are not comfortable with sharing that information. To require an explanation by the person not want to shake hands in the middle of mass is absolutely absurd.

 

[Actaeon]

And btw, just because many people in a congregation are accustomed to doing something doesn’t make it a “norm.” To establish a norm requires episcopal action.

Of course that applies to liturgical norms… but not to social norms, and handshakes are a SOCIAL norm in the West (as I stated before). Giving some sign of peace is the liturgical norm, while what constitutes a sign of peace in a culture is a social norm.

In the middle east, it was (and still is) a kiss.
In much of the east, it was a bow (deflecting ones eyes from someone, trusting them not to attack)
In the west, it is a handshake (demonstrating that you clearly do not hold a weapon in your dominant hand).

Someone can violate a social norm, such as not returning a handshake proferred, without breaking a liturgical norm… but when violating that social norm produces offense, generally the person who violated the norm would be the one who should understand why violating a norm is significant and why it might sometimes entail explanation to avoid confrontation (like someone siezing your hand).

From catholic.com/documents/liturgical-abuses

"People cross the aisles to exchange the sign of peace, ushers go up and down the aisles extending it to people in each pew, and the priest seems to go romping all over the Church. Should this happen?

It is appropriate “that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.” “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful” (72; cf. GIRM 82; IGMR 154).

EDITORIAL NOTE: The IGMR is the Latin original of the GIRM. The latter contains additional adaptations approved by Rome for the dioceses of the United States. GIRM 154 contains an adaptation regarding the priest exchanging the sign of peace:
The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary (GIRM 154).

Oh yes, and I fully agree with all contained in this element… however, that’s not what is at the heart of the matter that I’m trying to get to (since we all agree that abusing the sign of peace and treating it like social gathering time is wrong). The point I have been making is that violating social norms, such as refusing to shake hands in the west, CAN send the wrong message, and if one wishes to avoid confrontation, it is inherent upon those who violate the norms to explain why they do so. Otherwise they can continue to deal with the associated confrontations that generally surround acts of social deviance (NOTE: that is not a derogatory term, it is a psychology term applied to violations of social norms such as refusing to shake hands, hugging strangers, etc)

Can you please direct me to where I wrote that? Not trying to be confrontational, I seriously can’t see where I wrote that “the sign of peace doesn’t have historical precedent in the Catholic Church.”

These are your quotes:

“This I know, but again, the handshaking competition is a recent development. It was not present pre-Vatican II, nor is it done at any Tridentine Masses I’ve attended”

Sorry, but I attended Mass pre-Vatican II in the early 60s and I don’t believe there were any of these here carryin-ons!

There seems to be a lack of consensus on the meaning of “sign” as well. To some it means a “handshake,” to others it means a visual gesture of the hand and/or body, to others it means a kiss on the lips, and to others it may be any of these actions and more.

Again, this comes down to social norms, because what constitutes a “sign of peace” is different in different areas. Bowing is, simply put, not a standard sign of peace in the west (particularly in America). The standard social sign of peace and goodwill in the west is the handshake.

To highlight the importance of social customs in certain symbolic actions, let’s look at genuflection… do you know why we genuflect on the right knee instead of the left? Because generally people are right leg dominant and therefore placing their right knee on the ground makes them a little slower to rise to standing, making them temporarily vulnerable as they would have difficulty fighting off an attack from a kneeling position. A genuflection to a king was opening oneself to being vulnerable before someone, showing that you would reduce your defenses and not be able to attack easily… as such, kneeling to a king was always done with the right knee down, and that establishes the form of genuflection that we know to this day. Social norms are integral to many parts of the mass, and can (eventually and after episcopal action) become liturgical norms, such as the genuflection has.