How do you feel about the Sign of Peace?

[sedonaman]

I don’t like it either. I think it’s grossly over-sentimental and I feel it’s very contrived. It breaks the train of prayerful thought.
…

I agree. As a result, it has become the de facto high point of the Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, so the Sign of Peace is definitely a nice sentiment. But I really don’t enjoy shaking people’s hands. Especially in the winter with cold and flu season. It would be one thing if it was AFTER taking the Eucharist, but it’s not. So you watch someone sneeze, then s/he shakes your hand, and then you go up, get the Eucharist in your hands, and in goes the Body of Christ and all of your fellow parishioners’ germs.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Imagine living in the time of the Apostles, when the rubric was to kiss each other on the cheek during the Sign of Peace - and they hadn’t even invented Lysol hand-wipes, yet!

Everyone is acting like this is some kind of recent innovation, or as if it were an optional part of the Mass. It is not. It is one of the parts of the Mass that cannot be removed, because it comes down to us from the Apostles.

 

[triumphguy]

Nice sentiments but no thanks. Christ is on the altar par excellence and that mode of presence takes precedence over the other forms, such as in the assembly. The Church does not equate the Eucharistic presence with the assembly and neither do I.

The Assembly IS the Body of Christ

St. Augustine used to say “Receive what you already are” - if it’s good enough for St. Augustine it’s good enough for me:thumbsup:

From the CCC

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1329 The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

In the Gospel of John what does Jesus do at the Last Supper, break bread or wash feet?

The Gospel writer obviously found Jesus’ action of serving, touching and washing his disciples worthy of note.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I’m fairly neutral about it, but if you’re really concerned about germs, keep your hands together and give the people around you a smile and a shallow bow. Just keep it sober and solemn. The celebration of the Eucharist is still the centre of the mass, after all.

 

[YoungTradCath]

As previously mentioned its not contrived. Its part of the ancient liturgies of both the East and West.

Ah, but the EF is not the only form of Mass that’s existed in the Church for the past 2000 years.

The sign of peace need not be a handshake. It can be just verbal.

Yes Father, I know. I respect it as part of the ancient traditions of the East and the West. I think it should be retained for that reason.

There have been many, many, many types of masses in the Church over the past 2000 years, and it is ignorant to say otherwise. I agree. Perhaps I should have said in the Latin liturgical tradition.

What I meant in saying “contrived” is that the expression commonly used (the “Hey Jim, peace be with ya” handshake) when the Sign of Peace is used is contrived. It seems fake and sentimental and overtly secular. I think the Sign of Peace should be retained, but it should be heavily modified from its current common expression, and perhaps only done on major feast days. Can we agree, at least in principle?

Contrast the meet 'n greet commonly used with, perhaps, the traditional kiss of peace between clerics and a simple head bow between the laity. Both can be called the Sign of Peace, but they are not the same thing, and they don’t feel the same.

 

[grasscutter]

Holy Hot Topic Batman!

Even though it’s completely unnecessary, I will put in my :twocents:. It has nothing to do with viruses and germs for me, I (because I’m introverted and not inclined to touchy-feely stuff) just cringe and steel myself to participate even though I think the intent is lovely. I wouldn’t be sad to see it changed.

At my parish, the Sign of Peace is way exuberant!

 

[Filii_Dei]

What I meant in saying “contrived” is that the expression commonly used (the “Hey Jim, peace be with ya” handshake) when the Sign of Peace is used is contrived. It seems fake and sentimental and overtly secular. I think the Sign of Peace should be retained, but it should be heavily modified from its current common expression, and perhaps only done on major feast days. Can we agree, at least in principle?

Not to intrude, but I hope I can share my experiences here. What I identify here is not an issue intrinsic to the Sign of Peace, but how people practice it. I have seen in other countries that they perform the Sign of Peace in a more dignified manner, by giving each other a respectful smile and a bow, in keeping with the solemn nature of the mass. Perhaps that is a viable solution? The USCCB needs to publish the appropriate guidelines to indicate to the laity of the importance of reverence in mass, until such a time that the liturgy is revised again.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not to intrude, but I hope I can share my experiences here. What I identify here is not an issue intrinsic to the Sign of Peace, but how people practice it. I have seen in other countries that they perform the Sign of Peace in a more dignified manner, by giving each other a respectful smile and a bow, in keeping with the solemn nature of the mass. Perhaps that is a viable solution? The USCCB needs to publish the appropriate guidelines to indicate to the laity of the importance of reverence in mass, until such a time that the liturgy is revised again.

This is exactly what I mean.

 

[A_G]

The Sign of Peace is wonderful, and it never bothers me.

Now those who have a contagious illnesses, should stay home and not risk affecting the health of others. There is no sin in this. If one truely feels guilty about missing Mass due to an illness, they should mention it at confession.

If you attend Mass and feel uncomfortable during the Sign of Peace due to fear of germs, I don’t see anything wrong keeping a little bottle of hand sanitizer or clean wipes in your pocket.

 

[porthos11]

The Assembly IS the Body of Christ

But not in the same way the Eucharist is. We adore the Eucharist; we do not adore the assembly.

In the Gospel of John what does Jesus do at the Last Supper, break bread or wash feet?

The Gospel writer obviously found Jesus’ action of serving, touching and washing his disciples worthy of note.

So? All that is good. But why limit your reading to John? Three other Gospels plus a Pauline letter have the breaking of bread in narratives that sound almost exactly like each other, clearly a Tradition worth repeating by three distinct New Testament authors.

This is the reason I dislike the Sign of Peace at this particular point; it draws our attention away from the Eucharist.

 

[Student09]

I think it is disruptive and makes things uncomfortable that otherwise might be fine, between parishioners. Sometimes I am deep in prayer / meditation and v sensitive and emotional during mass. It feels weird to break that and also think ok now everyone is awkwardly saying hi to the girl who was crying at mass.

That’s happened to me too. I no longer hate the Sign of Peace the way I used to, but I still find it distracting and I think it diverts attention from Jesus at a crucial moment in the Mass. Also, it bothers me that it often runs into the Agnus Dei, so while the choir is singing, asking God to have mercy on us, and we should be preparing our souls for Holy Communion, people are shaking hands with each other and saying, “Hey, how’s it going,” etc. What does that say about our priorities?

 

[jmcrae]

This is the reason I dislike the Sign of Peace at this particular point; it draws our attention away from the Eucharist.

It has nothing to do with what we dislike (or like) or how we feel, or about germs, etc. This is one of the elements of the Mass that is, in fact, a Traditon of the Apostles, and thus MAY NOT BE OMITTED - it must take place, in some form - and its purpose is, in fact, to “distract us” from having a “me and Jesus” experience at Mass that excludes consciousness of our fellow parishioners - it is in response to the commandment that we are to make peace with one another before approaching the Sacrifice.

Obviously it is a symbolic gesture, since those with whom we truly need to make peace probably don’t sit next to us at Mass - however, it reminds us in a tangible way that before we can receive Holy Communion, we must be at peace with our neighbors - it’s not only about “me and Jesus” - it is about “us and Jesus” and it is about “me and you and Jesus.” This is deliberate.

 

[Student09]

It has nothing to do with what we dislike (or like) or how we feel, or about germs, etc. This is one of the elements of the Mass that is, in fact, a Traditon of the Apostles, and thus MAY NOT BE OMITTED - it must take place, in some form - and its purpose is, in fact, to “distract us” from having a “me and Jesus” experience at Mass - it is in response to the commandment that we are to make peace with one another before approaching the Sacrifice.

Where are you getting this information? There is no sign of peace or anything similar in the EF.

 

[jmcrae]

Where are you getting this information? There is no sign of peace or anything similar in the EF.

Yes there is; it is in a very reduced form and takes place only between the members of the clergy, but it is there.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It has nothing to do with what we dislike (or like) or how we feel, or about germs, etc. This is one of the elements of the Mass that is, in fact, a Traditon of the Apostles, and thus MAY NOT BE OMITTED - it must take place, in some form - and its purpose is, in fact, to “distract us” from having a “me and Jesus” experience at Mass that excludes consciousness of our fellow parishioners - it is in response to the commandment that we are to make peace with one another before approaching the Sacrifice.

Obviously it is a symbolic gesture, since those with whom we truly need to make peace probably don’t sit next to us at Mass - however, it reminds us in a tangible way that before we can receive Holy Communion, we must be at peace with our neighbors - it’s not only about “me and Jesus” - it is about “us and Jesus” and it is about “me and you and Jesus.” This is deliberate.

Um. Except that… it’s an option, so it can be omitted. Right?

 

[jmcrae]

Um. Except that… it’s an option, so it can be omitted. Right?

It’s only optional on weekdays.

 

[Student09]

Yes there is; it is in a very reduced form and takes place only between the members of the clergy, but it is there.

Can you direct me to some kind of official documentation on this? I attend the EF every Sunday and I’ve never seen it.

 

[triumphguy]

But not in the same way the Eucharist is. We adore the Eucharist; we do not adore the assembly.

True - we serve the assembly! It’s hard to serve them if we can’t even greet them!

So? All that is good. But why limit your reading to John? Three other Gospels plus a Pauline letter have the breaking of bread in narratives that sound almost exactly like each other, clearly a Tradition worth repeating by three distinct New Testament authors.

I’m not limiting it to John. I’m merely pointing out that in John, arguably THE most spiritual of the gospel writers, the action Jesus did at the last supper was one of service to HIS creatures!

This is the reason I dislike the Sign of Peace at this particular point; it draws our attention away from the Eucharist.

Aux contraire! It should draw our attention TO the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is a feast, a celebration, not a private devotion.

…and let me be the first to offer you a sign of peace:thumbsup:

 

[YoungTradCath]

Can you direct me to some kind of official documentation on this? I attend the EF every Sunday and I’ve never seen it.

It only happens at high masses. Never at missas cantatas or missas recitatas. It looks like a very light embrace. It isn’t a handshake. I wouldn’t call it a “stripped-down” version or whatever someone called it, but it isn’t as happy-go-lucky all over the place as what we have normally in the OF.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Can you direct me to some kind of official documentation on this? I attend the EF every Sunday and I’ve never seen it.

I think he means when this happens:

The priest prays:

To us sinners, also, thy servants, hoping in the multitude of thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with thy holy apostles and martyrs: with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecily, Anastasia, and with all thy saints, into whose company we pray thee admit us, not considering our merit, but of thine own free pardon. Through Christ our Lord; through whom, O Lord, thou dost create, hallow, quicken, and bless these thine ever-bountiful gifts and give them, to us.

Then later on:

Per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. R. Amen.

He makes the sign of the cross three times over the chalice with the particle of the host, saying:

Pax Dómini sit semper vobíscum.

R. Et cum spíritu tuo.

Then a little bit after the Agnus Dei:

If the kiss of peace is to be given, the priest kisses the altar, and giving the kiss of peace, says:

Pax tecum.

R. Et cum spíritu tuo.

sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/ord.htm

That’s my source.