Hugging or kisses spouses during mass

[FrDavid96]

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”

Here is the entire text and context

Post 50 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6676012&postcount=50
If someone exchanges the sign of peace any differently with a spouse than with a total stranger on the other side, then that is precisely what has happened: the meaning of the sign of peace has been lost. That is what I have been trying to explain.

When one kisses a spouse at the sign of peace, it is no longer the sign of peace, it has become a moment of personal affection. That is the problem we now find ourselves faced with here.

Post 51 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6676019&postcount=51
Since that’s not the (or “a”) sign of peace, I have to dis-agree.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

I know there are social situations that are extremely awkward that we sometimes find ourselves in, but there’s something about someone at Mass, holding out a hand in peace, unity, and friendship, but nobody taking it that dwarfs those other situations.

It’s really embarrassing to stand there with my hand (sans finger, if that’s the hand I have to use), moving my arm around while everyone around me is hugging each other. And I stand there with egg on my face, turning red with humiliation and finally giving up.

But after reading some of the posts in this thread it’s become clear to me that it’s my responsibility to find those people who are being ignored and given them the Sign of Peace. I don’t want to dwell on my embarrassment. During Mass I cry anyway - not from shame but from joy. And I don’t care if anyone sees me. I used to, but Mass is far too important for me to be upset about others’ reactions to my tears.

So - from now on, I will find those people and I hope everyone else does, too.

 

[zab]

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

It is my understanding and it is my intent that a sign of peace to my neighbor is no less a sign of peace than that to my spouse even though the manner in which it is expressed is different.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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 get and respect what you are saying Fr. David. However at this point I also feel the need to include my husband in communion as he cannot receive communion. He longs too and feels a little frustrated in having to wait. I want him to feel that he is the Body of Christ as well. He is going to RCIA in the fall–along with me as I was never confirmed. He has been initiating the hug and I don’t want to correct him on this as of yet when there are so many more important things we are learning right now (coming from 20+ years in Protestant churches). The hug is brief–as brief as a handshake and we make sure to shake everyone’s hand around us–even reaching over quite a bit to accomplish this. We want to get to know EVERYONE is our new church home. Since this isn’t official Church teaching…am I wrong to put off this issue? It’s something that I will explore later on in RCIA I’m sure…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I get and respect what you are saying Fr. David. However at this point I also feel the need to include my husband in communion as he cannot receive communion. He longs too and feels a little frustrated in having to wait. I want him to feel that he is the Body of Christ as well. He is going to RCIA in the fall–along with me as I was never confirmed. He has been initiating the hug and I don’t want to correct him on this as of yet when there are so many more important things we are learning right now (coming from 20+ years in Protestant churches). The hug is brief–as brief as a handshake and we make sure to shake everyone’s hand around us–even reaching over quite a bit to accomplish this. We want to get to know EVERYONE is our new church home. Since this isn’t official Church teaching…am I wrong to put off this issue? It’s something that I will explore later on in RCIA I’m sure…

I understand why you hug your husband. Personally, I would hug mine too if he hadn’t passed on. A brief hug between spouses and/or children and an honest, sincere handshake with the words “Peace be to you” (especially if the handshake is given with both hands) or something like that are probably equal in my eyes. And I really can’t fault those who hug their children. If I were a child and my parents didn’t hug me I might feel left out. When I was growing up, the only time my father hugged me was when I initiated a hug during the Sign of Peace. He would grin and look embarrassed, but at least it was something and it did make me feel closer to him. If I had tried to hug him at home he would probably have run away screaming.

When my Mom hugged me I felt love because she really meant it. But I think her message was not one of peace and unity, but a personal expression of love. The Sign of Peace is not the time for that.

We can really express honest love without hugging people we don’t know yet by giving them a really good handshake and a smile. What’s important is the communication of peace, love, and unity. I know that the few times a person has taken the time to grasp my hand with both of his and look me in the eyes and say “I wish you peace” I know he really means it.

My concern is for those who are left out or who are offered a “dead fish” handshake while the same person who is offering the dead fish has hugged and kissed his/her spouse with obvious affection. If spouses hug and kiss, oblivious to those around them and ignore people who are standing there, helpless and alone, there is something wrong.

Somehow we need to show everyone that we are as one. Last night I got a strange picture in my mind of everyone acting like robots, turning to those around them and shaking their hands for three seconds exactly and then moving on to the next person to shake his/her hand for three seconds exactly, and so on. There’s something really yucky in that.

I’m finding it very difficult to express what I mean.

Spouses are going to hug. I think it’s probably natural. The message given by that hug should be one for peace and unity with alI the people present, not a personal “I love you.” I also think that as long as every single person there for Mass is approached by those around him/her and offered a warm handshake along with good wishes and is actually looked at while the words are being said, that gets the message across and isn’t that the whole purpose?

 

[FrDavid96]

I get and respect what you are saying Fr. David. However at this point I also feel the need to include my husband in communion as he cannot receive communion. He longs too and feels a little frustrated in having to wait. I want him to feel that he is the Body of Christ as well. He is going to RCIA in the fall–along with me as I was never confirmed. He has been initiating the hug and I don’t want to correct him on this as of yet when there are so many more important things we are learning right now (coming from 20+ years in Protestant churches). The hug is brief–as brief as a handshake and we make sure to shake everyone’s hand around us–even reaching over quite a bit to accomplish this. We want to get to know EVERYONE is our new church home. Since this isn’t official Church teaching…am I wrong to put off this issue? It’s something that I will explore later on in RCIA I’m sure…

If you were standing in front of me right now, my response would be to explain why it’s important to exchange the sign of peace with everyone else in the same way (husband and stranger). I’ve already done that several times on this thread so I won’t repeat it again. In your situation, I would also add that being in RCIA, you’re still in a learning process and that becoming familiar with the Mass takes time–both in terms of words/gestures and meaning.

The term “official Church teaching” isn’t quite an appropriate phrase to use here in this context. Please allow me to explain. “Teaching” usually refers to doctrine and not rubrics, although some rubrics are part of the teaching (example, only the priest says the words of consecration is both doctrine and rubric.) On this thread, we’re talking about a rubric which does not directly go to any kind of doctrine/teaching (sure, we can say that “peace” is doctrine, but that’s getting way too philosophical for our purposes).

At the same time, what is indeed the official liturgical norm/law of the Church is what we’ve seen quoted from the GIRM–and that is that the sign-of-peace is a sign of ecclesial communion. Since any particular gesture which treats people differently based upon any criteria we use–whether that’s family relationship, friendship, or even something like skin color (which we would all obviously agree would be a violation of the spirit of the sign of peace) goes against the notion of complete unity, it would be “against the norms” although I use that phrase with some caution.

I keep referring readers here back to my first long post (I think it was #25). As I said from the beginning here, we are getting bogged down in a discussion of the mechanics of the sign of peace, but not discussing the real important issue which is the meaning behind it. I do wish we could get around to that part.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:

The sign of peace

1. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who “is our peace” (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one’s immediate neighbor s (150).

I hope this helps to bring some perspective to the topic.

 

[crazzeto]

Fr David,

I understand what you’re saying though I guess I’ll out my self as being one of those whom contribute to the chaos. Accepting all that you say, I would add however that the mechanics used to express the liturgial notion of “the sign of peace” in many cases may actually vary depending upon the person your’e greating for many.

But to be honest, my purpose in writing this isn’t to argue with you about this particular point. Honestly I would feel more than a little silly questioning your wisdom on this matter, particularly give the fact that I am mearly reading the GRIM (got it up in PDF right now actually) without any useful or necessary instruction someone like your self would have received at semenary.

The reason why I’m posting actually, is to aks whether you know what are the norms (if any) for the Tridentine Mass. I’ll admit to having never attended one yet (I wish to actually, but I just haven’t been able to ). Does tradition fill in the void found in the GRIM? Or are the Ruberics actually different (at all?) due to it being a different mass? I guess for me this would really help clarify the matter.

Thanks for any insights you may provide,
God bless

 

[JimG]

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

The great irony is that what was intended liturgically as an expression of ecclesial unity, has for many become an “awkward and isolating” part of the Mass.

It is at this moment that the congregation seems to separate out into little groups: here a husband and wife exchanging a kiss, there a family engaged in mutual hugs, there a widow or a single person standing alone, waiting for it to be over. Once, attending Mass alone, I was standing behind a couple who took a moment to exchange a kiss of endearment. It was short, but it made me feel rather like an intruder into their personal life.

Judging from the comments here, it seems the sign of peace has a number of uses: repairing minor family rifts, expressing affection for spouses or children, greeting friends or strangers. Those are all good things, of course, but none of them are the intended meaning of a liturgical sign of peace.

To the extent that the sign of peace has become an awkward and isolating part of the Mass for some parishioners, it has become the opposite of its liturgical intent.

 

[benedictgal]

The great irony is that what was intended liturgically as an expression of ecclesial unity, has for many become an “awkward and isolating” part of the Mass.

It is at this moment that the congregation seems to separate out into little groups: here a husband and wife exchanging a kiss, there a family engaged in mutual hugs, there a widow or a single person standing alone, waiting for it to be over. Once, attending Mass alone, I was standing behind a couple who took a moment to exchange a kiss of endearment. It was short, but it made me feel rather like an intruder into their personal life.

Judging from the comments here, it seems the sign of peace has a number of uses: repairing minor family rifts, expressing affection for spouses or children, greeting friends or strangers. Those are all good things, of course, but none of them are the intended meaning of a liturgical sign of peace.

To the extent that the sign of peace has become an awkward and isolating part of the Mass for some parishioners, it has become the opposite of its liturgical intent.

I suppose that is why the Holy Father wrote what he wrote.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I keep referring readers here back to my first long post (I think it was #25). As I said from the beginning here, we are getting bogged down in a discussion of the mechanics of the sign of peace, but not discussing the real important issue which is the meaning behind it. I do wish we could get around to that part.

I underlined this as in it and in your other posts I can sense your frustration. What if before the start of Mass the Celebrant would have the gathering greet one another, as a sign of welcome? I am aware of parishes that do this, and think it is a great way to help create the feeling of coming together to worship as community. When I am at a Mass where that occurs, I greet those around me but not those who came with me; no need to do that.

Then the Sign of Peace during the Mass takes on its special meaning and purpose, of being a sign of the community of believers, who, as you said earlier, discard any personal feelings they may have toward one another and accept all there as brothers and sisters in Christ’s peace. At that time we share the peace of Christ with all those around us; how we do that is generally irrelevant, as it is the sincerity of faith behind it, not the mechanics of it, that are important.

One other note. When I notice someone who is a couple of pews away, alone and not close to anyone else, or someone who I have not seen before, I will make an extra effort to reach out to them (literally, since I am tall and have long arms) so they will not feel left out. I recall a passage that goes something like: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me”. If we do not make that effort in the presence of Jesus, when will we?

 

[benedictgal]

I underlined this as in it and in your other posts I can sense your frustration. What if before the start of Mass the Celebrant would have the gathering greet one another, as a sign of welcome? I am aware of parishes that do this, and think it is a great way to help create the feeling of coming together to worship as community. When I am at a Mass where that occurs, I greet those around me but not those who came with me; no need to do that.

Then the Sign of Peace during the Mass takes on its special meaning and purpose, of being a sign of the community of believers, who, as you said earlier, discard any personal feelings they may have toward one another and accept all there as brothers and sisters in Christ’s peace. At that time we share the peace of Christ with all those around us; how we do that is generally irrelevant, as it is the sincerity of faith behind it, not the mechanics of it, that are important.

One other note. When I notice someone who is a couple of pews away, alone and not close to anyone else, or someone who I have not seen before, I will make an extra effort to reach out to them (literally, since I am tall and have long arms) so they will not feel left out. I recall a passage that goes something like: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me”. If we do not make that effort in the presence of Jesus, when will we?

The problem with this “meet and greet” issue, as I have experienced it, is that it sets us off on the wrong foot. The Mass is not about us; it is about God. The time before Mass should be set aside for interior prayer, recollection and preparation for the sacred mysteries that are about to unfold before us. When we have this “meet and greet” scenario, it turns into something noisy and it’s not the most conducive environment for beginnig something sacred. If we want to be welcoming, we could very well do this at coffee and donuts after Mass.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is cultural. What ever is appropriate to your culture is probably fine, and Columbians are probably naturally more demonstrative than North Americans.

However, I agree with the apologist’s answer, because I think it is inappropriate in church, especially when couples are hanging onto each other not only during the sign of peace, but during the service in general. Sexual affection for one another should not be displayed in any public forum, particularily not church!!

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

At that point in the Mass, I characteristically turn to my wife FIRST, put my hand on her shoulder and kiss her on the cheek. Her practice is to smile and turn her cheek to me.

I’ll be frank, folks, sometimes when the day hadn’t been going all that well theretofore between us, I have been mighty glad for that smile and that opportunity. It has sort of seemed that it all served the intended purpose.

 

[zab]

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:
The sign of peace

1. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who “is our peace” (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one’s immediate neighbor s (150).

I hope this helps to bring some perspective to the topic.

That is a great quote from Pope Benedict XVI. And while he warns of the need for greater restraint in the gesture which can be exaggerated…, he does not mention that the gesture used should be the same for all. I think that would be an important thing to set straight in order to avoid any misunderstanding about it. I agree that the Sign of Peace is sometimes exaggerated and that includes handshaking up and down the aisles.

 

[prolifewife]

I quickly hug/kiss my husband (and family if they are with us). But we make a point to share the sign of peace with as many persons as we can reach during that time. We make a special effort to include the elderly and singles. I’m fine with this, and I’m fine if they deleted it from the mass entirely. Either way.

 

[catharina]

I can’t be the only one who remembers the sign of peace as the kiss of peace.
Pre-Vatican II and still in certain instances, the kiss of peace was/is part of the liturgy.
It was exchanged between priests and deacons on the altar in view of all.

It is used still by the bishop who ordains to the ordinands.
How did this practice ever become “questionable” to anyone?

 

[OraLabora]

The problem with this “meet and greet” issue, as I have experienced it, is that it sets us off on the wrong foot. The Mass is not about us; it is about God. The time before Mass should be set aside for interior prayer, recollection and preparation for the sacred mysteries that are about to unfold before us. When we have this “meet and greet” scenario, it turns into something noisy and it’s not the most conducive environment for beginnig something sacred. If we want to be welcoming, we could very well do this at coffee and donuts after Mass.

This is an important point. One purpose of the Mass is to place you into the presence of the transcendent God. The time before Mass is vitally important to remove you from the realm of the profane and draw you into the realm of the sacred. My wife’s Anglican parish is a greet-and-meet church where it’s a big free-for-all before the service. There is no opportunity to collect your thoughts, pray, or meditate. I thought it was a distinctly “Protestant” thing until I attended Mass at a Catholic parish that I don’t frequently attend, and it was the same thing. On the other hand, at my home parish, people pray quietly before Mass and at the Benedictine abbey where I normally attend, I tend to spend the time in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament at the side chapel for that purpose but the church itself is also quiet.

At the weekday Mass I attend frequently at St Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal (at 7 am) it is very quiet before Mass and I usually read the Office of Readings in the half-hour before Mass.

In short, I agree with you completely that the church should be quiet at all times; it is a sacred place, not the bingo hall.

 

[benedictgal]

This is an important point. One purpose of the Mass is to place you into the presence of the transcendent God. The time before Mass is vitally important to remove you from the realm of the profane and draw you into the realm of the sacred. My wife’s Anglican parish is a greet-and-meet church where it’s a big free-for-all before the service. There is no opportunity to collect your thoughts, pray, or meditate. I thought it was a distinctly “Protestant” thing until I attended Mass at a Catholic parish that I don’t frequently attend, and it was the same thing. On the other hand, at my home parish, people pray quietly before Mass and at the Benedictine abbey where I normally attend, I tend to spend the time in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament at the side chapel for that purpose but the church itself is also quiet.

At the weekday Mass I attend frequently at St Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal (at 7 am) it is very quiet before Mass and I usually read the Office of Readings in the half-hour before Mass.

In short, I agree with you completely that the church should be quiet at all times; it is a sacred place, not the bingo hall.

I am reminded of what the previous Secretary of the CDWDS, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth, said in St. Louis back in 2008:

in many places this led to the amalgamation of the sanctuary with the assembly, the clericalization of the laity and the filling up of the sanctuary with the noisy and distracting presence of a large number of people. One could say that virtually Wall Street moved into the sanctuary.

In my parish, it has become a “tale of two parishes”, if you will. My pastor, as good and well-meaning a man as he is, insists on doing the “meet and greet” before Mass. He then asks if anyone is visiting for the first time, celebrating a birthday or an anniversary and so on and so forth. It does seem as though Wall Street has moved into the building because the chatter begins. Then, he goes to the back for the entrance processional.

Our parochial vicar, on the other hand, sets the tone by going out and praying before the Blessed Sacrament. You could barely hear a peep out of the faithful. People are actually quiet and they are praying. Then, he retires to the sacristy, vests and goes to the back to begin the entrance procession.

I am not a cold fish. I am not against meeting and greeting people. However, the Mass, let alone, the church, is not the place for this activity. That is why we have coffee and donuts and potluck suppers.

 

[JimG]

I can’t be the only one who remembers the sign of peace as the kiss of peace.
Pre-Vatican II and still in certain instances, the kiss of peace was/is part of the liturgy.
It was exchanged between priests and deacons on the altar in view of all.

It is used still by the bishop who ordains to the ordinands.
How did this practice ever become “questionable” to anyone?

The way that the kiss of peace was done at the altar by the celebrants is not questionable at all. Perhaps the congregation could do it in the same way as those celebrants.

 

[catharina]

The way that the kiss of peace was done at the altar by the celebrants is not questionable at all. Perhaps the congregation could do it in the same way as those celebrants.

My point exactly.
It was and it is a holy tradition.
I recall when the OF began, there was very little “socializing” at the sign of peace.