How do you feel about the Sign of Peace?

[Cathryn]

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!

In the United States the priest may do this for good reasons, on special occasions:

General Instructions of the Roman Missal:

#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.** 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 small number of the faithful near the sanctuary.** According to what is decided by the Conference of Bishops, all express to one another peace, communion, and charity. While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, The peace of the Lord be with you always, to which the reply is Amen.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I remember at one Mass I attended (special Mass for a certain relative), the bishop was offering it. Since he was visiting and didn’t know the people, someone from my family (who had the first row) requested that he doesn’t shake their hands during the sign of peace. It had been said that he liked to walk around shaking hands, so this was prevention. I was a little surprised because not only did he honor that request, but he eliminated the sign of peace entirely. It was a good day.

 

[pismopal]

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?

False premise… actually I don’t have a problem with either. It is not called for in the rubrics( reference;Mass Confusion by James Akin ) and I like many of my pew mates avoid it out of choice. If I had a problem with the Church I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort and going to mass by myself.

 

[Phemie]

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?

1. 
   In your hypothetical situation the priest who is calling for people to share a sign of peace is looking for them to go walkabout since there’s no other way to do it.
   
   Which brings up my other pet peeve – why is it when 5 Catholics show up for daily Mass they have to practically hide from each other and sit as far as possible from the altar and from each other? Why can’t all five sit in the first pew and act like a community?
   
   But my comment was more directed at those who are in the habit of hugging &/or kissing their spouse/relative and shaking hands with others. It’s not the time for PDAs.
   
   The Canadian GIRM says:
   

   1. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats 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.

   In the dioceses of Canada, the sign of peace is given by a handshake or a bow. However, it is appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

 

[TimothyH]

The Canadian GIRM says:

1. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats 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.

In the dioceses of Canada, the sign of peace is given by a handshake or a bow. However, it is appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a and in a sober manner.

No rule book will ever stop me from saying “I love you” and giving my two daughters a kiss on the forehead or cheek while our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is present on the altar.

I’ve looked for him in the rule books. I’ve tried to find Jesus there but I can’t. Maybe someone can point him out to me.

-Tim-

 

[pnewton]

No rule book will ever stop me from saying “I love you” and giving my two daughters a kiss on the forehead or cheek while our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is present on the altar.

I’ve looked for him in the rule books. I’ve tried to find Jesus there but I can’t. Maybe someone can point him out to me.

-Tim-

There is no such rule and never will be. Never fear. The GIRM is about making worship both orderly and genuine. There is no dichotomy between following the GIRM and following Jesus.

 

[Cathryn]

Which brings up my other pet peeve – why is it when 5 Catholics show up for daily Mass they have to practically hide from each other and sit as far as possible from the altar and from each other? Why can’t all five sit in the first pew and act like a community?

“Catholic” means universal, so we can sit anywhere we want in the whole church and still be one.
I love the 2nd row right side. Most others don’t. No one in front of me. I can see everything the priest does. Daily Mass people usually find their favorite spots. I love being close to the altar, most others have their own preferences. I don’t like watching the back of peoples heads.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’ve looked for him in the rule books. I’ve tried to find Jesus there but I can’t. Maybe someone can point him out to me.

It might be a tough road for you as a Catholic if you see a conflict between the “rules” of the Church and Jesus…

• PAX

 

[Brendan]

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?

I don’t see any ‘choosing the GIRM’ involved; either the priest or the deacon calls for the sharing of a sign of peace, or they do not. EIther way, the instructions given in the GIRM are “chosen”.

Either are liturgically correct in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

In other forms, and in other Rites (such as the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, or the majority of the Eastern Catholic Rites, it would be liturgically incorrect to add it, or to offer it in a different way.

For example, in the Chaldean Church, the sign of peace is offers by a slight finger to finger ‘slide’. The priest offers that to the deacon, the deacon to the altar boys, and then the altarboys go along the aisle and offer it to the faithful at seated in the aisle seats. They, in turn, offer it the people to their immediate side, until it goes fully down the pew.

Any different would be liturgically incorrect.

So just to be clear, in the Ordinary Form of the Latin RIte, in can be offered or not, either are liturgically correct.

 

[Brendan]

There is no such rule and never will be. Never fear. The GIRM is about making worship both orderly and genuine. There is no dichotomy between following the GIRM and following Jesus.

I would agree, after all, the Holy Spirt inspired the Vatican I Council to issue this instruction on the nature of the Church,

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Pastor Aeternus

If the Holy Spirit agrees with the above statement, and guided the Church, without error, to make it, it would be difficult to claim that Christ differs.

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t see any ‘choosing the GIRM’ involved; either the priest or the deacon calls for the sharing of a sign of peace, or they do not. EIther way, the instructions given in the GIRM are “chosen”.

Either are liturgically correct in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

In other forms, and in other Rites (such as the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, or the majority of the Eastern Catholic Rites, it would be liturgically incorrect to add it, or to offer it in a different way.

For example, in the Chaldean Church, the sign of peace is offers by a slight finger to finger ‘slide’. The priest offers that to the deacon, the deacon to the altar boys, and then the altarboys go along the aisle and offer it to the faithful at seated in the aisle seats. They, in turn, offer it the people to their immediate side, until it goes fully down the pew.

Any different would be liturgically incorrect.

So just to be clear, in the Ordinary Form of the Latin RIte, in can be offered or not, either are liturgically correct.

You are right, I was typing too fast and a missed a couple of words in the sentence that you highlighted, I apologize for creating confusion. My point is that if a priest chooses to follow any option that is expressly allowed in the GIRM then he is doing what is correct. The poster was having an issue with the sign of peace because it is not mandatory in the GIRM; however, as soon as you have an allowed option you must accept it if the priest or the deacon chooses to use it.

 

[nickybr38]

Do you also avoid receiving the Blood of Christ?

I should think a handshake is the least of your concerns if the thought of germs bothers you.

For me, I receive the Blood of Christ AND I shake hands freely and happily. This is my family. If they make me sick, so be it.

 

[Big_Feet]

Do you also avoid receiving the Blood of Christ?

I should think a handshake is the least of your concerns if the thought of germs bothers you.

For me, I receive the Blood of Christ AND I shake hands freely and happily. This is my family. If they make me sick, so be it.

Well said.

 

[englishredrose]

actually nicky some people do by taking the host and dipping it into the chalice themselves. this was actually instructed when we had the serious flue stuff over last few years.

I don’t, I simply receive but there are some

 

[Big_Feet]

actually nicky some people do by taking the host and dipping it into the chalice themselves. this was actually instructed when we had the serious flue stuff over last few years.

I don’t, I simply receive but there are some

This is a grave abuse. The priest should not be allowing this. If this is to be done, HE alone should be doing it.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Do you also avoid receiving the Blood of Christ?

I think you are asking if he avoids receiving from the Chalice, since the Blood of Christ is present in the Host, too. And if he does avoid the Chalice, there would be absolutely no problem, as it is not necessary to receive from the Chalice at all.

• PAX

 

[nickybr38]

I think you are asking if he avoids receiving from the Chalice, since the Blood of Christ is present in the Host, too. And if he does avoid the Chalice, there would be absolutely no problem, as it is not necessary to receive from the Chalice at all.

• PAX

Of course. Pardon my slip. I am aware that it’s not necessary. I was making no judgment, just asking a question.