Hugging or kisses spouses during mass

[zab]

Absolutely. However, the key to this discussion is that the sign of peace you exchange with one person must be the same sign you exchange with others. Otherwise you are creating distinctions. Kisses, hugs, bows, handshakes, just make it the same for everyone. You can express affection for your spouse or children outside of the sign of peace. The sign of peace is an INAPPROPRIATE time for personal affectionate gestures.

Until the church makes known what common sign of peace the faithful should give, I don’t think that one can rightfully declare an innocent sign of peace as INAPPROPRIATE. What I believe is inappropriate is what you have implied is acceptable, that is, forcing a hug on an acquaintance or a stranger because it is the common gesture that one has chosen to give to everyone.

 

[pnewton]

I can’t help but point-out the spirited discussion about the sign of peace is stil focusing (in some posts) on the relationship of the people exchanging it.

Yes,but what a great discussion. It has actually been one of the more informative threads that I have found in a while. I must say I have gained a better perspective.

On a related note, I get the pleasure of determining the length of this exchange. After about ten seconds, I start the Agnus Dei intro.

 

[LittleSoldier]

only one further note, the kiss of peace (or culturally appropriate gesture of peace) is supposed to be extended to those around us, but what I see here is that the family exhanges hugs and kisses, but often makes no gesture at all to other unrelated people around them, which kind of defeats the meaning. This can and does, because people speak about it all the time especially RCIA members, leave widowed and single people, visitors or new people feeling left out. Folks will even run out of the pew to hug other relatives, ignoring anyone else they pass.

I am disabled and widowed, although still young (way before retirement age). To be honest, during the Sign of Peace I stand there like a stupid idiot because I am in the front reserved pew and everyone is hugging and kissing their family members and friends. There’s nobody in front of me because I’m in the first pew. When I turn to the side or around I see people interacting in their little circles. I’m not in a circle. I guess I’m just a “dot.”

Sometimes it feels like I have to scream out “Hey!! Look at me!!” or jam an arm in between people displaying and displaying and displaying affection to family members and friends.

How am I supposed to feel at unity with people who ignore me, who don’t want to shake hands with me, who only want to be with their family and friends?

What makes it worse is that I had to have a finger amputated and others appear to feel uncomfortable if they touch that hand. It’s just a finger! I can only wonder what happens to people who have gone through really disfiguring surgery.

If I see someone alone I will make my way over to give a sign of peace (a handshake and words of peace). It takes me longer to make that journey but I can’t abide the sight of people alone during Mass and being ignored during the Sign of Peace.

It makes me feel very lonely, embarrassed, and sad and sometimes it makes me cry to know that I am not accepted as being as worthy as others who are blessed with family and friends, although I know others at Mass are ignored, too. So I tend to draw back into myself, give up the idea of unity (which I believe is very important during Mass) and turn it into a spiritual and physical union between myself and God.

 

[jmvbxx]

It is horrible to read that certain members of the congregation are being excluding during the sign of peace but this how nothing to do with what “sign” is being used but rather the particularly un-Christian behaviour of those in the parish. This is something that should be brought up with the parish priest and subsequently addressed by him with the community.

Again, I do kiss my wife on the cheek and I shake anyone’s hand I can reach. I do not wish anyone more or less peace than the next and one “sign” is no more time consuming than the other.

Lastly, I concur that unless your local bishop defines what the appropriate sign is for your geographic region it would be ill-advised to follow the advice of anyone in this thread. The person writing is going to bring their own personal perspectives (and barriers) and they are in no position to be making a determination on the validity anyone else’s “sign”.

 

[FrDavid96]

The exclusion of giving the sign of peace to those other than family and loved ones is a totally different topic.

They are excluded precisely because they are being treated differently.

Once again, in order to discuss the mechanics of the sign of peace, we will get nowhere until posters can understand what the ritual moment is all about. This is like discussing how to receive communion (and no, I do not mean tongue vs. hand), but having no understanding that It is the Body of Christ.

Before discussing the mechanics, the entire discussion itself has to be rooted in an understanding of what this ritual/liturgical moment actually means. And as I keep saying, that is the part that keeps getting ignored.

The mechanics are secondary–that much is obvious by the fact that the gesture is not universal, but depends upon local culture. This is why Rome leaves the method to be determined by the conference of bishops of each country. But at the same time, discussing the mechanics from the point-of-view of misunderstanding what the sign of peace means only makes these posts go 'round and 'round in circles.

Discussing the sign of peace from the perspective of “this is how I behave with my family” versus “this is how I behave with mere aquaintances or strangers” misses the point entirely; even worse than missing the point, it actively misdirects the conversation away from the real issue.

 

[FrDavid96]

Until the church makes known what common sign of peace the faithful should give, I don’t think that one can rightfully declare an innocent sign of peace as INAPPROPRIATE. What I believe is inappropriate is what you have implied is acceptable, that is, forcing a hug on an acquaintance or a stranger because it is the common gesture that one has chosen to give to everyone.

What you’re not getting here is that the actions we’ve seen described are not in fact a sign of peace. They are something else (personal affection, family affection, etc.), which some people mistakenly think to label a “sign of peace.” There is a difference.

 

[jmvbxx]

What you’re not getting here is that the actions we’ve seen described are not in fact a sign of peace.

I feel that I need to refer to you directly. As is clearly defined in the Church’s teachings (Redemptionis Sacramentum #72)

“As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”

You are not in a position to make any determination or pass judgement in any way on what is appropriate in anyone else’s parish/archdiocese/region/country/etc.

I respect your opinion but you are presenting your opinions as statements of fact, which they are not.

 

[pnewton]

I guess I am a product of my Baptist heritage, not in the sense one greeting people during worship, but in what Scripture says. Since I first heard of the Sign of Peace, this one passage has stuck with me:

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
This is significant for me in that my greatest loss of peace comes from within my own family. I have occassionally gone to Mass with an unsettled arguement with my wife. We sit there in our own private seethe, wanting to get out of it, but sometimes finding it difficult. The Sign of Peace has always been our own line in the sand, where we tell Satan, “This far and no farther.” It has never failed yet, regardless of the cause, that we have failed to offer each other peace and then approached the Blessed Sacrament reconciled with each other. What is significant is that the type of exchange has never mattered. Often it has been no more than a a mouthed peace from a distance.

I would like to think if I ever had cause to be at odds with anyone in the congregation that I could offer a peace of reconcilliation to that person.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes,but what a great discussion. It has actually been one of the more informative threads that I have found in a while. I must say I have gained a better perspective.

On a related note, I get the pleasure of determining the length of this exchange. After about ten seconds, I start the Agnus Dei intro.

I’ve chosen not to add it alltogether. I’ve given up on trying to explain it, and so too have many other priests I know of. The irony is that the personal displays of affection exhibited in other parishes provide ample reinforcement for me when I explain why I don’t add it anymore. At first, people used to say “we miss the sign of peace;” now, they say “we went to such-and-such on vacation, and NOW we understand why you don’t do it.” They weren’t seeing the problems until they stopped thinking of them as “the normal experience”–now they notice.

 

[revert_jen]

It is horrible to read that certain members of the congregation are being excluding during the sign of peace but this how nothing to do with what “sign” is being used but rather the particularly un-Christian behaviour of those in the parish.

Actually, it does have to do with what sign is being used. Kissing and hugging take longer than handshaking or bowing, and time runs out. Maybe you are a fast kisser, but most people take much longer. I don’t think people mean to be exclusive, it’s just that there’s only so much time, and it is more important to them to embrace their families than to show a sign of peace to a stranger. Leaving longer before starting the Agnus Dei woudn’t help much, because by the time you’ve stood there looking around for 20 seconds (or however long) for someone to whom you can offer God’s peace, you’re much more in the mood to crawl into a shell than to continue to stand there waiting for anyone’s notice. And after the huge flurry of embraces, the rushed handshake for the stranger as the Agnus Dei starts is much better than nothing but is still a bit like being picked last for dodgeball.

I was glad when we stopped doing it for H1N1 too. It removed an awkward and very isolating part of the Mass. But we started again. (OTOH, now at least people aren’t muttering through half of the Agnus Dei.)

–Jen

 

[jmvbxx]

Jen,

I’m sorry that you’ve felt excluded during this part of the mass. I have never experienced anything close to what you are describing at mass.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve always found the exchange of the signs of peace as a very important opportunity for parishioners to come together as a community and share something as intimate and important and desiring peace for one another.

 

[zab]

What you’re not getting here is that the actions we’ve seen described are not in fact a sign of peace. They are something else (personal affection, family affection, etc.), which some people mistakenly think to label a “sign of peace.” There is a difference.

What you’re not getting… is that I do get it. Why has the church not specified the gesture that we are to use? Could it be that there are more than one way to show a sign of peace?

 

[revert_jen]

What you’re not getting… is that I do get it. Why has the church not specified the gesture that we are to use? Could it be that there are more than one way to show a sign of peace?

As I understand you and Fr. David, you are talking about different things.

Fr. David is saying that the chuch has not specified what gesture to use because there are legitimate regional variations. So, everyone at a given Mass in Japan might bow to each other, but in Savannah, everyone might hug each other, and in Maine it might be handshakes.

You are saying that that means you can treat different members of the congregation differently. And you certainly can, there is nothing to prevent it. What Fr. David is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that the same person using different signs for different people obscures the purpose of the liturgical gesture, which is to show unity within the assembled congreation.

What if you used one sign of peace to your friends, and another to those you didn’t like? You could see that that would not be a good sign of peace in the congregation. The difference between that and using one sign for those you love, and another for those you don’t know, is only a matter of degree, not of kind.

–Jen

 

[benedictgal]

I feel that I need to refer to you directly. As is clearly defined in the Church’s teachings (Redemptionis Sacramentum #72)

“As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”

You are not in a position to make any determination or pass judgement in any way on what is appropriate in anyone else’s parish/archdiocese/region/country/etc.

I respect your opinion but you are presenting your opinions as statements of fact, which they are not.

However, if you note in the GIRM, in no. 82, the USCCB has not given any indication as to how the Sign of Peace is to be exchanged between the faithful. Thus, Fr. David is well within his right to state what he has stated.

 

[FrDavid96]

What you’re not getting… is that I do get it. Why has the church not specified the gesture that we are to use? Could it be that there are more than one way to show a sign of peace?

The conference of bishops for each country is supposed to do so. In the case of the US, they have not. They have in a sense, avoided the issue–although I’ll qualify that by saying that there is also a pastoral element to “avoiding” it because the US contains such a diversity of sub-cultures; not only in terms of ethnicity but also geographically (people interact differently in New Orleans than they do in rural New England).

This does not mean that the moment is a free for all, as some try to claim. “If it doesn’t say what we must do, they we do whatever we want” is not sound liturgy.

Yes, of course there are more than just one way to do a sign-of-peace (again, see my earlier post). As I keep trying to explain, if one is asking the question “what should I do?” from the perspective of how to express family or other close relationship, then it is not a sign of peace at all–it is something different. This moment in the Mass is called the “sign of peace.” It is not called the “sign of family relationship” or “sign of future marriage” or anything else. Therefore, trying to discuss the issue from that perspective misses the point entirely.

From the GIRM
The Rite of Peace

1. The Rite of Peace follows, 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.

Please note what the GIRM says “the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.” Ecclesial communion, not family relationship.

Would you kindly point-out to me, because I’m obviously missing it where the GIRM speaks of the sign of peace as being a moment of family (in the literal sense of the word) relationship?

It is a sign of peace. It is just your opinion that a kiss between spouses is not the sign of peace.

 

[revert_jen]

I’m sorry that you’ve felt excluded during this part of the mass. I have never experienced anything close to what you are describing at mass.

Thanks!

I’m sure a lot of the people in my own congregation haven’t experienced it either. Most people, who are not attending church alone, probably don’t know it’s even happening. I mean, it’s hardly something you can point out to people. (“Hi, I don’t know if you noticed, but you and your husband spent the entire sign of peace hugging each other and your children. I’m here by myself, and I just spent the time with my hand ready for action and a wistful smile on my face, but there was nobody to shake hands with me. By the way, I believe there’s a dodgeball game later.”) snort

But I know exactly what LittleSoldier was talking about. You’re a dot surrounded by circles, when you’d like to be part of a mesh.

–Jen

 

[FrDavid96]

I feel that I need to refer to you directly. As is clearly defined in the Church’s teachings (Redemptionis Sacramentum #72)

“As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”

You are not in a position to make any determination or pass judgement in any way on what is appropriate in anyone else’s parish/archdiocese/region/country/etc.

I respect your opinion but you are presenting your opinions as statements of fact, which they are not.

Please read my first (detalied) post on this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6674298&postcount=21

You’re claiming that I am saying something which I am not.

 

[jmvbxx]

Thus, Fr. David is well within his right to state what he has stated.

He is absolutely entitled to his opinion but this is a forum in a virtual space and is thus going to read by people from many different regions.

My original point is that no one’s posts, or opinions, here should be treated as statements of fact or as guidelines on what behaviour is appropriate.

That said, I do completely support Fr David’s comments concerning the importance of being mindful of what each element of the mass signifies and keeping our behaviours within reasonable bounds.

 

[LittleSoldier]

They are excluded precisely because they are being treated differently.

Once again, in order to discuss the mechanics of the sign of peace, we will get nowhere until posters can understand what the ritual moment is all about. This is like discussing how to receive communion (and no, I do not mean tongue vs. hand), but having no understanding that It is the Body of Christ.

Before discussing the mechanics, the entire discussion itself has to be rooted in an understanding of what this ritual/liturgical moment actually means. And as I keep saying, that is the part that keeps getting ignored.

The mechanics are secondary–that much is obvious by the fact that the gesture is not universal, but depends upon local culture. This is why Rome leaves the method to be determined by the conference of bishops of each country. But at the same time, discussing the mechanics from the point-of-view of misunderstanding what the sign of peace means only makes these posts go 'round and 'round in circles.

Discussing the sign of peace from the perspective of “this is how I behave with my family” versus “this is how I behave with mere aquaintances or strangers” misses the point entirely; even worse than missing the point, it actively misdirects the conversation away from the real issue.

I think you’ve hit the nail square on the head with this post. The emphasis should be on UNITY, not so much on the actual ways that unity is expressed. We are celebrating together. We’re at the Lord’s Supper! All of us! Even that 97 year old widower sitting two rows away, who keeps to himself. Even if I take his hand and he makes no noticeable reply, it is still very important that he be aware that he is loved and is part of the group of people who are celebrating the Last Supper.

Mass is a celebration of the sacrifice Jesus made and a sharing of His Body and Blood. Everyone in the church is part of the wonderful partaking of the gift Jesus gave us. Everyone. Even me. Even that elderly man.

The Sign of Peace seems to have changed from a Sign of Peace (which indicates unity) to a celebration of the family, so there are little pockets of people all over the church who are celebrating peace, but only within their own cliques. I don’t see much in the way of reaching out to those who really need interaction with other people; who really need to be made part of this unity. One could easily say that is those peoples’ own problem, but I don’t agree. If we are to act as Jesus would, we should remember:

Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. [Matthew 25:45, Douay-Rheims Bible]

Every single time a person is ignored, Jesus is ignored. Every time a person doesn’t take the time to hold out a hand in peace, friendship, and unity, Jesus has been excluded. To have that happen in His Church, during His Mass, is horrible. I know some people don’t take this whole Sign of Peace thing seriously but I take every part of the Mass with complete seriousness. It is very important that everyone be included. If someone holds out their hand in peace and their action is refused, that is sad but I know it happens. But at least the gesture was made and the prayer for unity and peace has been made. I’m fairly certain that the person to whom the gesture was made understands what has happened. I’m absolutely positive that God understands.

 

[jmvbxx]

You’re claiming that I am saying something which I am not.

I apologize if I’ve misunderstood you. I was referring to this quote from reply #51 “Since that’s not the (or “a”) sign of peace”