How do you feel about the Sign of Peace?

[Guadalupita]

JMJ Christ has Risen Alelluia !! I have an archive of -Karl’(name removed by moderator)mentary- regarding Holding Hands at Mass; and I have another question of the LIturgy. ? SHAKING HANDS? I Do Not do this & I say the sign of Peace & add Christ be with you. I get mannnyyy gestures even with the Parishioners who know of me. I have more to say on this but not for now. I keep my body gestures as solemn as possible. I say it is not in the rubrics of the Liturgy. Can you give me a quick answer that I can pass on when I am/or maybe approached on this ? Am I wrong in not doing this ? against my brother? What would Jesus say ? Please give me an answer. Tnks for your time. In HIS service. peace & joy !!

 

[Corki]

almost 300 posts and no agreement. Sure can tell this is the internet. I would hate to think that some people ranting here treat others like this in real life.

Unsubscribing now.

The OP asked for opinions. Why would you expect agreement? It’s like getting mad because we can’t agree if red or green is a better color.

 

[englishredrose]

You are not wrong in not doing so and in time your brothers will know you are not excluding them as such but just the way you are if you can share you perferences nonconfrontational. peace be with you

 

[Rolltide]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says:

The Rite of Peace follows [the Our Father and the Prayer "Lord Jesus Christ you said to your Apostles, ‘I leave you peace…’], by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament. As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner. (G.I.R.M. # 82)

In other words, although it is not explicitly stated, offering a handshake to those nearest you (with the exception of a funeral Mass, where the rite can be legitimately extended to a greater number), may be permitted, if it is the “local custom” established by your bishop. However, other signs are also permitted, such as a verbal sign of peace.

 

[Digitonomy]

There is nothing wrong with shaking hands as part of the Sign of Peace. The Vatican has chosen not to specify a particular gesture or action here, so that this part of the mass may be inculturated with a gesture appropriate to the culture where the mass is taking place.

Here is what the GIRM (#82) says:

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by
Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the
peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only
to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

You didn’t say what country you are in. In the US, I don’t think the USCCB has established any specific gesture. If you want to give a hug, or not touch at all, you are free to do so.

However, keep in mind that others are used to shaking hands, and will find it odd that you are doing something different. They may jump to conclusions about your reasons for not doing what they assume the Church instructs. And there’s not much you can do about it - the middle of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is not the time for you to be educating your neighbors about the legitimate choices the GIRM offers you.

So if you choose not to shake hands, I think it would be charitable on your part to sit some distance away from others, where a nod and a warm smile across the distance will seem appropriate to everyone as a sign of peace. That way your unusual choice and your neighbors’ ignorance will not combine to disturb the peace this part of the mass is meant to reaffirm.

 

[Phemie]

There is nothing wrong with shaking hands as part of the Sign of Peace. The Vatican has chosen not to specify a particular gesture or action here, so that this part of the mass may be inculturated with a gesture appropriate to the culture where the mass is taking place.

Here is what the GIRM (#82) says:You didn’t say what country you are in. In the US, I don’t think the USCCB has established any specific gesture. If you want to give a hug, or not touch at all, you are free to do so.

Keep in mind that this is a ritual gesture and the same sign should be extended to all those to whom you offer the Sign of Peace. So, either hug all, shake hands with all or don’t make any physical contact with anyone.

 

[jmcrae]

But not between the congregation - this is my point. It is the sign of peace within the congregation that is the distraction. Some people make such a fuss! Perhaps if we were given some instruction to remember WHO is the focus of the Mass, there might be more decorum and less distraction.

It is not a “distraction” unless you allow it to be. As others have pointed out, its placement after the Our Father allows us to remember who it is that we must forgive, in order to be forgiven of our trespasses, as we have just finished praying to do.

It is not very often that God answers our prayers so immediately.

I suspect that fear of germs is only an excuse - I’ve never seen anyone hesitate to shake hands during a business deal when money and services are being exchanged - somehow, when it’s money rather than holy peace that is being offered, germs are not an issue.

 

[Digitonomy]

Keep in mind that this is a ritual gesture and the same sign should be extended to all those to whom you offer the Sign of Peace. So, either hug all, shake hands with all or don’t make any physical contact with anyone.

Hmmm… I’m not sure I agree. If there are only three members of the congregation, I would be inclined to shake hands with the person sitting next to me, and give a friendly nod to the person sitting across the aisle.

Following your guidance, I should pick one of the following:

1. 
   *]Desist from my usual practice, and not shake hands with the person next to me, so as to give equality to my greeting of the other person closest to me,
   *]Follow my usual practice of shaking hands with the person next to me, but ignore the one other person attending mass, even though they are close by,
   *]Stride across the aisle in the middle of mass to shake the hand of the other person, since I did so with the person next to me. I assume I should genuflect coming and going?
   
   None of these seem as natural as my usual approach. What documents are there that instruct me to accept your suggestion, and do they offer any guidance as to which of the three options would be preferred?

 

[Veronica97]

Not that you’re doing anything wrong by not shaking hands…in fact, if you have a cold you should definitely not shake hands. But one thing you might want to consider is that human beings need touch, especially those who are lonely and hurting (the widowed and elderly, especially). You may be the only one to touch them all week. I have noticed that when I shake hands with the elderly people around me, sometimes I can see the warmth and appreciation in their eyes. Occasionally it seems they don’t want to let go…
Just a thought…

 

[Godric2]

I believe the Sign of Peace is best before the Eucharistic Prayer, and I understand the Holy Father has raised this possibility.

I prefer it introduced as ‘Let us offer one another a sign of CHRIST’S peace’

I don’t like it going on very long.

I don’t mind it.

Thats my view

The Proficiscere

 

[Brendan]

Does the General Instruction for the Roman Missal call for it?

I would clarify that the GIRM gives it as an option. It can be included or not at the discretion of the celebrant (or technically, at the discretion of the Deacon)

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I would clarify that the GIRM gives it as an option. It can be included or not at the discretion of the celebrant (or technically, at the discretion of the Deacon)

That’s really interesting… I’ve never been to an OF without it.

It appears that there are lot of options in the GIRM. It’s interesting to see which ones get used all the time (like the sign of peace) and which ones never get used (like the maniple).

• PAX

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

That’s really interesting… I’ve never been to an OF without it.

It appears that there are lot of options in the GIRM. It’s interesting to see which ones get used all the time (like the sign of peace) and which ones never get used (like the maniple).

• PAX

I’ve been to many OFs without it. The priest stated what the one poster did - that it’s an option and not an order. He opted to go without it. Made for a more reverent Mass, too.

 

[TimothyH]

That’s really interesting… I’ve never been to an OF without it.

It appears that there are lot of options in the GIRM. It’s interesting to see which ones get used all the time (like the sign of peace) and which ones never get used (like the maniple).

• PAX

The sign of peace spreads GIRMs, therefor I am for it.

-Tim-

 

[hclws]

St. Francis kissed the leper, “and that which was bitter became sweet.”

And the leper revealed himself as Christ.

Maybe the sign of peace is a challenge to us to reach out and embrace the Christ that is within us all: the Christ we are soon to meet in the Eucharist.

If we can’t greet Christ in the pew next to us, how can we dare consume Christ in the Host?

AMEN.

 

[BenedictFTW]

It is not a “distraction” unless you allow it to be. As others have pointed out, its placement after the Our Father allows us to remember who it is that we must forgive, in order to be forgiven of our trespasses, as we have just finished praying to do.

It is not very often that God answers our prayers so immediately.

I suspect that fear of germs is only an excuse - I’ve never seen anyone hesitate to shake hands during a business deal when money and services are being exchanged - somehow, when it’s money rather than holy peace that is being offered, germs are not an issue.

I think you are being unfair and judgemental. The title of this thread is 'How do you feel about the Sign of Peace?" The very real fear of germs is not an excuse. It is reasonable, rational and logical, actually!

Excuse for what?

I also think it is a distraction. However, I do still comply with it in Mass so as not to cause offence to my neighbour. I just wish it was in a different time-slot instead of in the middle of the Consecration. And I would suggest that everyone washes their hands the second they get home.

I don’t do business deals with anyone, but I guess if I had to shake hands with a stranger, I would feel exactly the same. I always carry a small bottle of hand sanitiser with me. OK, call me paranoid. Maybe I am.

 

[Brendan]

Here are the relevant GIRM notations

154 The Priest may give the Sign of Peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so that the celebration is not disrupted.

1. After the Priest has said the prayer for the Rite of Peace and the greeting The peace of the Lord be with you always and the people have replied, And with your spirit, the Deacon, if appropriate, says the invitation to the Sign of Peace. With hands joined, he faces the people and says, Let us offer each other the sign of peace. Then he himself receives the Sign of Peace from the Priest and may offer it to those other ministers who are nearest to him.

 

[BenedictFTW]

Here are the relevant GIRM notations

Thank you for this. I learned something from this thread.

I saw a priest recently leave the altar and go down to a group of people to offer them all the sign of peace. He even hugged some and they him! I was not impressed. It just felt wrong. I do trust that feeling. The GIRM backs me in this one. The priest should certainly never leave the sanctuary, as it is a great distraction and disruption. It is also ‘father friendly’ in the extreme - putting the feelings of people above those of Jesus on the altar!

 

[pismopal]

Does the General Instruction for the Roman Missal call for it? Yes! Thus it is liturgically correct, saying to the contrary is spreading falsity. You can choose to obey or disobey the instructions, that it is why we have been granted free will.

No…it doesn’t, actually and that is most of my problem with it.

 

[Cristiano]

No…it doesn’t, actually and that is most of my problem with it.

I assumed that you just missed the exact quote from Brendan. Just because something is optional that does not mean that it is liturgically correct, on the contrary if it were liturgically incorrect it would be forbidden. Do you have a problem with what the GIRM states, or do you have a problem with the priests that choose the GIRM?