Frantic handshaking during Mass

[Faithdancer]

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.

No explanation necessary- Amen!

 

[pnewton]

I looked up a couple of definitions of “sign” and found nothing about touching. …I can understand how those who absolutely have to touch may not be able to feel communitas without touching. However, aren’t they only thinking of their own needs then, if they insist on their “right” to touch others who don’t need or invite touching?

I think you are really assuming things I did not say. I totally agree that:

1. Signs do not require touch.
2. No one has to touch to commicate.
3. No one has a right to touch others who do not want to be touched.

No one is arguing these rather obvious points.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think you are really assuming things I did not say. I totally agree that:

1. Signs do not require touch.
2. No one has to touch to commicate.
3. No one has a right to touch others who do not want to be touched.

No one is arguing these rather obvious points.

Cool, glad you agree. However, there does seem to be a current of thought- not on your part- that sign can only mean handshake, and communication in Mass requires physical contact. I would say that touching and physical contact are certainly a form of communication, involving the physical sensation of touch which we share with the animals. However, to feel a sense of community with the entire Church worldwide, all Catholics living or dead, all the angels and saints- this communitas cannot of necessity depend on touch at all, but rather involves operation of the highest power of the human soul, a power which is exclusive to man, angels and God alone- the intellect.

 

[pnewton]

However, there does seem to be a current of thought- not on your part- that sign can only mean handshake, and communication in Mass requires physical contact.

It is not the only form of communication and there are good reasons why some people do not wish to touch. However, I do think it the human touch can convey a better reality of community that nods do not, just like visual aids work better than speech alone, and Sacraments bolster faith and help open the avenues of Grace *because *they can be touched, tasted, seen and heard.

 

[Faithdancer]

Interesting poll result here: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/quaeritur-sign-of-peace-is-an-undignified-and-self-serving-sacrilege/

And I’ve copied and pasted the up to the minute results below. I don’t know anything about the readership of this blog, however, Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems quite balanced in his opinion preceding the poll.

The “sign of peace” during Mass in the Ordinary Form… (3735 total voters)

I tolerate it. (40%, 1,487 Votes)
I dread it as it approaches and think of ways to avoid it. (32%, 1,197 Votes)
I like it and am happy to do it. (14%, 528 Votes)
I don't care one way or another. (8%, 299 Votes)
I hate it so much I won't go to Mass where it is done. (6%, 224 Votes)

 

[Vico]

It is not done in my Byzantine Catholic Church liturgy. It is recommended by some Apostles and Saints:

Matthew 5:23–24 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren send greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26 Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.

1 Peter 5:14 Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you that are in Christ.

Justin Martyr, 150 A.D., “Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.”

St. Augustine of Hippo (Africa), Sermon 227: “After this, the 'Peace be with you’ is said, and the Christians embrace one another with the holy kiss. This is a 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.”

 

[pnewton]

Interesting poll result here: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/quaeritur-sign-of-peace-is-an-undignified-and-self-serving-sacrilege/

And I’ve copied and pasted the up to the minute results below. I don’t know anything about the readership of this blog, however, Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems quite balanced in his opinion preceding the poll.

I don’t put any value on a poll in an article with, Sign of peace is an “undignified and self-serving sacrilege”? WDTPRS POLL. The opinion in the editorial is not balanced, but rather opposed to the way the sign of peace is conducted. And it is done on a site frequented by Traditional Catholics more than the mainstream Catholic. Let me quote:

Since in the Ordinary Form the congregational sign of peace is an option left entirely to the discretion of the priest celebrant, until we accomplish a restoration of liturgical decorum my preference would be to opt out of the congregational sign of peace.

It would be nice for Catholics to use it, instead of the foolishness that is often exemplified. But to claim that a simple hand-shake “is a horrifically distracting, undignified and self-serving sacrilege that is actually prohibited” may be an over-statement.

There is nothing balanced in giving a negative opinion and then polling that subject. It may be fun and get the results that one wants, but it is useless information.