How do you feel about the Sign of Peace?

[Corki]

We have to be willing to touch the sick as a sign of faith.

Where are you getting that from? It’s not Church teaching - especially if the sick are contagious or if you are vulnerable.

It is a work of mercy to care for the sick but that doesn’t mean physically touching every one that you encounter.

 

[ringil]

This may be a nice lovey-dovey story but the Sign of Peace is disruptive.

There is no Sign of Peace in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or in the Byzantine Rite, and in the Ambrosian Rite, it is wisely positioned at the Offertory (which is more in line with Scripture) and even in the modern Roman Rite, is optional.

Shall we then say that we shall not dare receive Christ in the other rites or forms because there is no handshaking lovefest there?

Events in the lives of the Saints are “Lovey Dovey”?

 

[Corki]

The sign of peace is part of being part of the community in Christ.

We as a community unite ourselves to the Eucharist, not individually.

We as a community unite ourselves to the Mass. We unite to the Eucharist individually.

According to Church Law the Eucharistic Celebration is more properly celebrated with at least one other participant and not alone, unless the celebrant is thereby unable to attend the Eucharist. Prior to 1917 there had to be a grave cause why the priest would celebrate alone.
See ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur151.htm

That’s true even now. I don’t think there is the “grave cause” restriction but whenever possible there is to be at least one person besides the priest at every Mass.

The Mass is not a private devotion, but a communal celebration

It’s not private but it is personal **as well as **communal. In many writings on the Liturgy, you see discussions about the vertical and horizontal aspects of the Mass. The horizontal is the communal; the vertical is the personal (me and God). Both must be present and in order for the Mass to be balanced, one should not overpower the other. That’s why there is emphasis on such things as silence, the use of the “I” pronoun and personal interior disposition. It is a communal celebration but not ONLY a communal celebration. It is first and foremost an individual participaton in the Sacrifice.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Corki

We as a community unite ourselves to the Mass. We unite to the Eucharist individually.

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1352 The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer - the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration - we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:

In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. The whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

Jim

 

[Corki]

Corki

Jim

I am not sure what you are trying to say. All quotes and no personal comment.

Anyway, nothing you posted contradicts what I said. We unite communally to the Mass - including the Eucharistic prayers. We unite to the Eucharist individually - either when we receive Communion or by making a spiritual Communion.

The shared sign of Peace is a hybrid. We are offering it individually to other individuals one at a time. It is not really a community focused part of the Mass since each person is only sharing with a small subset of the community. However, it is not part of the vertical aspect of Mass either. It is unique.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Corki

I am not sure what you are trying to say. All quotes and no personal comment.

Just presenting the Church teaching that the Celebration of the Eucharist is communal, not individual.

Anyway, nothing you posted contradicts what I said. We unite communally to the Mass - including the Eucharistic prayers. We unite to the Eucharist individually - either when we receive Communion or by making a spiritual Communion.

Not what the Vatican document says, but Oh well.

The shared sign of Peace is a hybrid

.

There is no community aspect to it? …Why is it specifically in the Rubrics ?

We are offering it individually to other individuals one at a time. It is not really a community focused part of the Mass since each person is only sharing with a small subset of the community. However, it is not part of the vertical aspect of Mass either.

The purpose of expressing the Sign of Peace is to foster community within the congregation celebrating the Mass.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

It’s called 'the Kiss of Peace" in the original Apostolic Mass, and no, it can’t be “dispensed with.” It is one of very few elements of the Mass that is the core that was given to us by the Apostles. Things have been added in later generations - the Creed, the readings from the New Testament, for example, but the Kiss (or sign) of Peace is part of the original that comes from the Apostles. It can be moved around, or reduced, but not taken out.

You are referring then, to the Peace of Christ offered by the priest to the people; you are correct, that can generally not be removed.

But a future Pope or Council could certainly remove it. As I had pointed out, there is no command of Christ that requires it in the Mass. It is a tradition (small ‘t’) of the Church. But like many small ‘t’ traditions, it can be removed. The Pope or a Council has the authority to do so (unlike the Penitential Rite, which was command by Christ in Matthew 5:23-24)

Since the priest is offering us the Peace of Christ, it is theologically more appropriate that Christ be on the altar when this happens.

The option for the faithful to extent a sign of peace to each other is certainly optional, as as pointed out by others, is legitimated excluded from Mass by the celebrant or deacon.

 

[Corki]

Corki

Just presenting the Church teaching that the Celebration of the Eucharist is communal, not individual.

Yes, the Celebration of the Eucharist (the Mass) is communal. We participate as a community in the Mass. **Uniting **with the Eucharist is individual. The Mass is not the Real Presence - the Eucharist is. We unite with the Eucharist at Communion.

Not what the Vatican document says, but Oh well.

Where does it say any different?

There is no community aspect to it? …Why is it specifically in the Rubrics ?

It is an option in the rubrics. Many things in the rubrics are not community focused. I am not sure I get your connection.

The purpose of expressing the Sign of Peace is to foster community within the congregation celebrating the Mass.

Jim

Unless you have some inside informaton, I disagree that that is the purpose. If it is, it fails miserably in its implementation. The sign of peace, when used, is to be offered somberly and only to those nearest. That doesn’t “foster community”. Those nearest are going to usually be one’s family and the people who sit close to you every week. Community isn’t fostered by a quick handshake and a 2 second exchange. I think it’s purpose is to **symbolically **extend the sharing of the peace that is offered between the priest and the congregation immediately prior. In fact, since our response to the priest’s offering of peace is done in unison, that part is more of a community act than the individual handshakes are. The shared sign of peace is a gesture, not a mechanism to a greater goal (fostering community).

 

[triumphguy]

Talking about scripture for a moment: Every time Jesus healed he touched and/or used spittle and mud to enact the healing: even when the woman with the hemorrhage got healed she had to touch the hem of his cloak.

He didn’t high five the healed person, but He did touch them.

Yes this is a pink and fluffy saying, but it’s also true: The only hands Jesus has now are our hands!

BTW our Church - and probably the whole diocese - has hand cleansers inside the lobby.

 

[Student09]

So you go to Church without the Faith that Jesus healed the sick? If you don’t believe you don’t have the protection of God. In all the years I’ve gone to church I’ve never once gotten sick. I have never gotten sick because I have faith that a Church is a place of worship and not an infirmary.

Some people have better immune systems than others. Unless you know that you have an autoimmune disease, it could actually just be that you have a good immune system.

The attitude that “you just have to have faith and bad things won’t happen to you” (implying that people who get sick or suffer lack faith) is more Protestant than Catholic. Along with having overtones of the “health and wealth gospel” which is contrary to the true Gospel, it suggests that faith is something we do, rather than an infused virtue - a gift from God - as the Church teaches.

St. Damien of Molokai volunteered to go work in a leper colony, not because he had faith that he would not get leprosy, but because it needed to be done and he was willing to risk himself. He did contract leprosy and died of it, and the Church canonized him, so obviously it does not consider him to have lacked faith.

Miracles are possible but they are a gift from God, not something we earned. Thank God for giving you such good health and stop judging others who are trying in prudence to protect themselves.

 

[Corki]

Talking about scripture for a moment: **Every time **Jesus healed he touched and/or used spittle and mud to enact the healing: even when the woman with the hemorrhage got healed she had to touch the hem of his cloak.

He didn’t high five the healed person, but He did touch them.

Not every time, but most of the time. There are several healings that did not involve touch at all - Jairus’s daughter, the Centurion’s slave, the woman with the hemmorage, Lazarus, etc.

However, the healing power of Jesus is not really relevant to the shared sign of peace.

BTW our Church - and probably the whole diocese - has hand cleansers **inside the lobby **

Not really helpful unless everyone processes to the hand sanitizers before the Sign of Peace and once again before Communion.

 

[Ohana]

OK, here comes a slightly off-target rant:

My Mother used to tell us that we had to eat a peck of dirt before we died which was her version of the current 5-second rule. I am sure I ate my share and have not died yet. I have not even gotten sick that I know of by something I ate (except that turkey burger but I am not going into that!)

As a medical professional I have to say if you are immuno-compromised, then you do need to be careful and people should be sensitive to whether people want to hold hands or not. Most of us can pick up the clues readily enough.

On the other hand, this germ phobia is getting out of hand. We all need to be exposed to germs or we do not develop protection from them. Our bodies are really marvelously made - we were given the equipment, so to speak, of resisting illness. It does not work so well if we don’t exercise it.

We are all more likely to get a cold or flu from our children or grandchildren (little petrie dishes!) than from holding an adult hand in church. There is a reason that new primary school teachers are sick a lot the first year or so! That is about when the immunity they have acquired through their own illnesses in childhood kind of wears off.

By all means, get your flu shot, take vitamins, wash your hands through two recitations of the happy birthday song, and use hand sanitizer from time to time. But for heaven sake, stop feeling as if you are at death’s door is you touch another person.

Hugs to you!

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Where are you getting that from? It’s not Church teaching - especially if the sick are contagious or if you are vulnerable.

It is a work of mercy to care for the sick but that doesn’t mean physically touching every one that you encounter.

The laying on of hands is a teaching of the Church. We are baptized into the priesthood, as says so the Rites of the Catholic Church, it is our duty as Christians to treat the sick and the afflicted as clean. To fear someone because they are sick or have a deformity or look weird is no mercy to that person and it is no mercy to God.

It is a lack of faith to be going to Church and being concerned about illness.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Some people have better immune systems than others. Unless you know that you have an autoimmune disease, it could actually just be that you have a good immune system.

The attitude that “you just have to have faith and bad things won’t happen to you” (implying that people who get sick or suffer lack faith) is more Protestant than Catholic. Along with having overtones of the “health and wealth gospel” which is contrary to the true Gospel, it suggests that faith is something we do, rather than an infused virtue - a gift from God - as the Church teaches.

St. Damien of Molokai volunteered to go work in a leper colony, not because he had faith that he would not get leprosy, but because it needed to be done and he was willing to risk himself. He did contract leprosy and died of it, and the Church canonized him, so obviously it does not consider him to have lacked faith.

Miracles are possible but they are a gift from God, not something we earned. Thank God for giving you such good health and stop judging others who are trying in prudence to protect themselves.

So you don’t actually believe in the miracles of Christ or the Holy Spirit? You have doubts in your mind that you are unwilling to admit; saying God can’t do this, God can’t bless me. And he doesn’t because your mind is filled with doubts that your unwilling to admit. You have to give yourself wholeheartedly to God, turn not away from him for one instant then you will believe. You have to make your life one of constant prayer, not one stray thought from God then that will take all the doubt out of your mind. You have to quit your job and leave your family and devote your life to Christ. Take away everything that diverts your attention from the Saviour. No more television, no more movies, no more video games, no more activities that do not pertain to Christ. No more American way of life–that will take away all your doubt. Live like a Priest, live like a monk, live like a Nun.

Miracles are possible and they are a gift of God but you must earn them with the sacrifice of your own life. God only performs miracles to those who deserve miracles. As you can recall Jesus said, No sign or wonder shall be performed for this wicked generation. Stop to think. Am I included in this wicked generation?

 

[Corki]

Wow, you have a lot of different things mixed all together here.

The laying on of hands is a teaching of the Church. .

Yes it is. It is one of the charisms of the ordained. It has nothing to do with sharing the sign of peace.

We are baptized into the priesthood, as says so the Rites of the Catholic Church,

Yes but not the ministerial priesthood.

it is our duty as Christians to treat the sick and the afflicted as clean.

This doesn’t mean we ignore a person’s illness.

To fear someone because they are sick or have a deformity or look weird is no mercy to that person and it is no mercy to God.

Who said anything about fearing someone or looking at him/her weird?

It is a lack of faith to be going to Church and being concerned about illness

As has been pointed out to you earlier, this is not Catholic teaching. There are some Protestant denominations that teach that getting sick is a sign of a lack of faith. If you have a reason to avoid those with contagious illnesses (such as a compromised immune system) you don’t discard that concern at the Church door.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What harm does it do to say …Peace be with you.

 

[Corki]

What harm does it do to say …Peace be with you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Corki;

Unless you have some inside informaton, I disagree that that is the purpose. If it is, it fails miserably in its implementation.

It’s not inside information, but from The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II,

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

The entire purpose of the reform of the Mass at the Vatican II Council, was to move people from sitting in the pews as mere observers, to have a more active role in order to become more of a community.

The sign of peace, when used, is to be offered somberly and only to those nearest. That doesn’t “foster community”. Those nearest are going to usually be one’s family and the people who sit close to you every week.

Actually, it should be be offered to those around you, not just your family members.

Community isn’t fostered by a quick handshake and a 2 second exchange.

Right, it should have meaning when offered, and it does help break down the walls between us.

Like it or not, it’s part of the Rubrics and I don’t see it ever going away in my life-time.

So, get use to it.

Jim

 

[Corki]

Corki;

It’s not inside information, but from The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II,

The entire purpose of the reform of the Mass at the Vatican II Council, was to move people from sitting in the pews as mere observers, to have a more active role in order to become more of a community.

You said it was the purpose of the shared Sign of Peace. Now, you have switched to saying that it’s the purpose of the reform of the Mass.

Instead of repeating the quote from SC, why don’t you post or give the reference to the portion of SC or other Church document that states that the purpose of the shared sign of peace is to promote community?

Actually, it should be be offered to those around you, not just your family members.

But we don’t move around. At every parish I have ever lived in or visited, most people sit in more or less the same place week after week. How does shaking hands with the same 4 or 5 people repeatedly translate into any better community?

Right, it should have meaning when offered, and it does help break down the walls between us.

It does have meaning. I just don’t see it being very effective at breaking down walls. But I don’t usually perceive many walls between the people who are attending Mass together.

Like it or not, it’s part of the Rubrics and I don’t see it ever going away in my life-time.

It’s in the rubrics as an option. Many parishes don’t do it. My own just recently reinstated it after serveral years of skipping the option.

So, get use to it.

I don’t have a problem with it. I just think that some people put too much emphasis on what it really an optional, minor part of the Mass. When you see some people saying that substituting a smile and nod for a handshake is a sign of faithlessness or that Jesus ordained the sign of peace be a permanent part of the Mass, that’s going too far.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

Sometimes I just make a sign of Dove! I lace my thumbs Together , and oh so gracefully flutter my hands… It’s nice when I’ve had time to glue white feathers to my hands prior, but it is a bit time consuming…