Hugging or kisses spouses during mass

[mick321]

mick321,

Thanks so much for answering my question.

YOU’RE WELCOME!

I guess that really doesn’t settle anything for me lol.

AT LEAST YOU WILL KNOW WHERE TO FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR.

I guess my problem is that my family expects a more intamite greating, not to do so would actually cause a scandal within the family.

YOUR FAMILY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE O.F. MASS.

And they already think I’m a religious wack job as it is

REST ASSURED THAT YOU WILL FIT RIGHT IN.

In the course of this thread we have heard from posters who insist that their unrestrained indulgence in physical contact is nobody’s business but their own. Others lament that they’re not getting their fair share of the action…

I think there is another side to this that’s worth mentioning. In Mass, we are often seated in close proximity to those who may not be personal friends or family members. Not everyone is comfortable with a full-contact sign of peace. As Catholics, I think we have a duty to be sensitive to the feelings of these folks too.

 

[RB2]

Hey Mick, you surf?

 

[mick321]

Hey Mick, you surf?

Everyone gets everything he wants.
I wanted a barrel, and for my sins, they gave me one.
.

 

[zab]

In the course of this thread we have heard from posters who insist that their unrestrained indulgence in physical contact is nobody’s business but their own.

Others lament that they’re not getting their fair share of the action…

I think there is another side to this that’s worth mentioning. In Mass, we are often seated in close proximity to those who may not be personal friends or family members. Not everyone is comfortable with a full-contact sign of peace. As Catholics, I think we have a duty to be sensitive to the feelings of these folks too.
Come on now, mick, where did you see that? I’ve been reading and contributing to a large part of this discussion and no where did I read that. It must be buried somewhere.

 

[FrDavid96]

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 that’s what I keep getting at here: if the sign of peace does vary depending upon to whom one is giving it, then it digresses into being not-a-sign-of-peace because one is making a distinction between persons–and that is the exact opposite of the meaning behind this gesture in the first place.
In the world outside the Mass, it’s only natural that we greet people differently depending upon our relationships with them. The Mass, and most especially the peace, is when we are supposed to be expressing the very idea that we are setting those differences aside in favor of our communion (both communion and Communion). How can we be at the same time emphasizing the distinction and still denying any distinction? That’s why it just doesn’t make any sense–once one actually takes a step back and truly looks at what it means.

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

I don’t know what the rubrics say for the Extraordinary Form–I can’t read the Latin enough to scan the GIRM (ie what we now call the GIRM) to look for it. What I can say is that from my own experience attending the Latin Mass, I’ve always seen the “Pax Board” used. There is a “board” of some sort–it might be simple or elaborate (even solid sterling) about the size of a paperback book. The pax board is passed around and everyone kisses it. In other words, other than passing the board from one person to the next, there’s no direct interaction between people.

I do know that the pax board was one way of doing the sign of peace, I do not know if there were other ways. Do an internet search for “pax board” and you’re likely to see some great images. Many of them are in museums today.

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe that there is a problem in trying to find a suitable way to make this work for the faithful. Otherwise we would have been instructed on how to do it by now. Unlike monasteries, the parish congregation is made up of all sorts of different situations, and people of every age, including small children that need to be tended to.

Yes. The USCCB has yet to define any particular way to do this–even though the GIRM says that they are to provide such a definition. As I said earlier, my personal opinion is that they are trying to be pastoral about it (in my cynical moments, I think they’re avoiding the issue). Regardless of their motivation, the lack of any specific rubric causes chaos–what we see discussed on this thread is a good representation of the Church at large (at least in the US/Canada). We need some firm guidance (indeed outright norms) on this, but unfortunately, that’s lacking. I hope that someday soon, the USCCB will settle this, or perhaps Rome will settle it for them. I’m hoping, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[crazzeto]

But that’s what I keep getting at here: if the sign of peace does vary depending upon to whom one is giving it, then it digresses into being not-a-sign-of-peace because one is making a distinction between persons–and that is the exact opposite of the meaning behind this gesture in the first place.
In the world outside the Mass, it’s only natural that we greet people differently depending upon our relationships with them. The Mass, and most especially the peace, is when we are supposed to be expressing the very idea that we are setting those differences aside in favor of our communion (both communion and Communion). How can we be at the same time emphasizing the distinction and still denying any distinction? That’s why it just doesn’t make any sense–once one actually takes a step back and truly looks at what it means.

The difficulty I was only hinting at here, but got at later on is what happens when doing as you suggest would cause scandle. Let me explain my situation, I belong to a family which you might say, lives in many worlds. I was born in Lima Peru, my mother was born and raised there (by italian parents), my father was also born there but raised more american (all over the world, his step father was an airforce officer).

My parents originally intended to raise us all there, but as things went we found our selves moving to Detroit MI when my siblings and I were very young. Where this all fits in is, in Masses there it’s more typical to be a little more intamate durring the sign of peace than people would be comfortable with here in the States. Well enough as long as the family decides to adapt to where we are and go with it which we have, but more for people outside the family than in.

Inside the family it’s still more intimate, i.e. more what I would expect to see else where in the world. If I were to suddenly change my behaviour within my family it would be taken as a rebuke. While I get everything you’re saying, at the same time I’m also sure that the sign of peace isn’t meant to be a rebuke.

Edit
Thanks for what information you provided on EF, I’ll look it up.

 

[FrDavid96]

The difficulty I was only hinting at here, but got at later on is what happens when doing as you suggest would cause scandle. Let me explain my situation, I belong to a family which you might say, lives in many worlds. I was born in Lima Peru, my mother was born and raised there (by italian parents), my father was also born there but raised more american (all over the world, his step father was an airforce officer).

My parents originally intended to raise us all there, but as things went we found our selves moving to Detroit MI when my siblings and I were very young. Where this all fits in is, in Masses there it’s more typical to be a little more intamate durring the sign of peace than people would be comfortable with here in the States. Well enough as long as the family decides to adapt to where we are and go with it which we have, but more for people outside the family than in.

Inside the family it’s still more intimate, i.e. more what I would expect to see else where in the world. If I were to suddenly change my behaviour within my family it would be taken as a rebuke. While I get everything you’re saying, at the same time I’m also sure that the sign of peace isn’t meant to be a rebuke.

Edit
Thanks for what information you provided on EF, I’ll look it up.

This is what I keep getting at. In your post, you’re “defending” your own family dynamics rather than discussing the sign of peace as a liturgical moment. That’s typical of what I see posted here.

The sign of peace is not about family (literal sense) relationships. Until we can all get past the false notion that the peace is about our individual relationships, we won’t get anywhere in the conversation.

 

[crazzeto]

This is what I keep getting at. In your post, you’re “defending” your own family dynamics rather than discussing the sign of peace as a liturgical moment. That’s typical of what I see posted here.

The sign of peace is not about family (literal sense) relationships. Until we can all get past the false notion that the peace is about our individual relationships, we won’t get anywhere in the conversation.

I think you sort of missed my point though, by rejecting the act I turn the sign of peace into a point of contention. I’m not so much defending what my family does as correct, rather pointing out a real world reality.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think you sort of missed my point though, by rejecting the act I turn the sign of peace into a point of contention. I’m not so much defending what my family does as correct, rather pointing out a real world reality.

What I’m saying (and hence the quotes around “defending”) is that you’re defending your position about the sign of peace from the perspective of a discussion about family dynamics and family “customs.” These have nothing to do with the liturgical moment of the sign of peace. It’s putting a round peg into a square hole.

 

[crazzeto]

What I’m saying (and hence the quotes around “defending”) is that you’re defending your position about the sign of peace from the perspective of a discussion about family dynamics and family “customs.” These have nothing to do with the liturgical moment of the sign of peace. It’s putting a round peg into a square hole.

I fully appriciate your position, but was the GRIM written with the intention of causing grave family scandal? Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact I whole heartedly agree with basically everythign you say, but when you’ve already been accused of choosing to live a dark sad life for embrasing your Catholic faith I guess it tends to weaken somewhat one’s resolve to be an aboslutist on every matter of liturgy.

 

[Sarah_Angel]

I have a question.

To those who are against hugging/kissing people during the sign of peace, do you assume that those who do are doing so just to display affection and therefore have little intention on giving peace to those around them?

Whether I give a handshake or a hug, I am giving them peace. I am not wishing one person more peace than another person. I hug my parents and some close friends during the sign of peace (unless I have to crawl about the pews to get to them, then I give them a handshake), but that doesn’t mean that when I give people a handshake it means that my peace to them is worthless or less special. I only give them handshakes either because they’re too far away for a hug or because neither of us would feel comfortable hugging each other. I always look at the people I’m shaking hands with a smile and eye contact, and I try to get all the people around me.

I don’t think it’s fair to judge what kind of signs people use, so long as they’re not excluding anyone. I think exclusion is the real issue, and as long as we’re not excluding anyone around us in our peace-making, we are sharing the body of Christ, and that’s what’s important.

On another note, I would be sad if they abolished the sign of peace. One of my favorite moments at Mass was when I was touring Austria and Czech Republic with my public university’s choir. Even though most of us weren’t Catholic, we were given the opportunity to sing at a Mass near Saltzburg. It was so spiritually refreshing to give peace and be given peace by people who I see all the time but rarely/never at Mass.

 

[PatriceA]

I have a question.

To those who are against hugging/kissing people during the sign of peace, do you assume that those who do are doing so just to display affection and therefore have little intention on giving peace to those around them?

Whether I give a handshake or a hug, I am giving them peace. I am not wishing one person more peace than another person. I hug my parents and some close friends during the sign of peace (unless I have to crawl about the pews to get to them, then I give them a handshake), but that doesn’t mean that when I give people a handshake it means that my peace to them is worthless or less special. I only give them handshakes either because they’re too far away for a hug or because neither of us would feel comfortable hugging each other. I always look at the people I’m shaking hands with a smile and eye contact, and I try to get all the people around me.

I don’t think it’s fair to judge what kind of signs people use, so long as they’re not excluding anyone. I think exclusion is the real issue, and as long as we’re not excluding anyone around us in our peace-making, we are sharing the body of Christ, and that’s what’s important.

On another note, I would be sad if they abolished the sign of peace. One of my favorite moments at Mass was when I was touring Austria and Czech Republic with my public university’s choir. Even though most of us weren’t Catholic, we were given the opportunity to sing at a Mass near Saltzburg. It was so spiritually refreshing to give peace and be given peace by people who I see all the time but rarely/never at Mass.

 

[zab]

This is what I keep getting at. In your post, you’re “defending” your own family dynamics rather than discussing the sign of peace as a liturgical moment. That’s typical of what I see posted here.

The sign of peace is not about family (literal sense) relationships. Until we can all get past the false notion that the peace is about our individual relationships, we won’t get anywhere in the conversation.

Father,
We cannot get past the false notion of what the Sign of Peace is about until we have been properly taught what the Sign of Peace is and how to do it. When I read about how the Kiss of Peace and how it is done in an abbey, I began to see it more clearly. Here is an exerpt:

The priest used to kiss the altar—and in some churches the chalice, the paten, or even the host—before giving the peace, to show where it came from. “The kiss of Peace is a glorious symbol of the communion of the faithful with each other and with Christ,” writes Pius Parsch,

For the kiss comes from the altar, from Christ; that is Christ kisses the sharers in the Holy Sacrifice; the kiss goes from mouth to mouth and unites all the faithful in an intimate unity, a unity in Christ. Thus, that which the Holy Sacrifice and Holy Communion are to effect is beautifully represented by the kiss of peace.(8)

The kiss of peace is a sign of order, of the tranquility of order, of the oil of Divine Life which descends in order from Christ through the various ranks of His Church. It seems to me that in most churches today it fails rather completely to be this. It is perhaps a good sign of chaotic, horizontal “good fellowship,” but not of the peace of Christ. A reform of the reform will have to find a way of solving this problem.

Like another poster, I had been under the impression that the sign of peace was more in reference to the gospel passage,
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.
We have certainly read comments on these threads where we should have need to offer peace to those around us. But if I am learning this correctly, that is not what the Sign of Peace is about. It is about Christ’s peace comeing out to us from the altar. And if this sign of peace is not initiated from the priest or deacon at the altar it should not be done at all.

 

[zab]

I fully appriciate your position, but was the GRIM written with the intention of causing grave family scandal? Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact I whole heartedly agree with basically everythign you say, but when you’ve already been accused of choosing to live a dark sad life for embrasing your Catholic faith I guess it tends to weaken somewhat one’s resolve to be an aboslutist on every matter of liturgy.

I just don’t see how it is even possible to give the Sign of Peace as it is intended until everyone has been properly instructed. Even those who have a better understanding of it are still faced with situations in which one will shake hands and another wave and another bow their head, so they also at times will not give the same sign to all.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it’s fair to judge what kind of signs people use, so long as they’re not excluding anyone. I think exclusion is the real issue, and as long as we’re not excluding anyone around us in our peace-making, we are sharing the body of Christ, and that’s what’s important.

Exclusion is not so much the issue as turning a communal sign into a personal (and thus by nature exclusionary) sign.

On another note: when my wife was alive she was a quite ebullient and outgoing person, who loved hugs and kisses–just never at Mass. At the sign of peace, she would squeeze my hand, and say “Peace be with you, Jim,” and I would respond in kind. A similar greeting was given to those around us. There have been some comments in the thread that anything but a hug or kiss with a spouse at that moment would be weird. But how is holding the hand of the one you love, weird?

In any case, it may be too late, or impossible, to turn the sign of peace back into a communal liturgical sign. After it was first introduced, it changed very rapidly from a communal greeting into a personal exchange. I don’t know if there is any way of restoring it.

 

[zab]

Exclusion is not so much the issue as turning a communal sign into a personal (and thus by nature exclusionary) sign.

On another note: when my wife was alive she was a quite ebullient and outgoing person, who loved hugs and kisses–just never at Mass. At the sign of peace, she would squeeze my hand, and say “Peace be with you, Jim,” and I would respond in kind. A similar greeting was given to those around us. There have been some comments in the thread that anything but a hug or kiss with a spouse at that moment would be weird. But how is holding the hand of the one you love, weird?

In any case, it may be too late, or impossible, to turn the sign of peace back into a communal liturgical sign. After it was first introduced, it changed very rapidly from a communal greeting into a personal exchange. I don’t know if there is any way of restoring it.

I believe the person wrote that “shaking hands” with his wife was weird.
Now lets examine what you wrote. I doubt that you offer the sign of peace to a stranger by name so that would be different that offering the sign of peace to those you love and know.
How is “holding the hand of the one you love” not an expression of endearment?

It just seems that we want to tear apart what everyone else does rather than sticking to explaining what the Sign of Peace really is and how it should be done.

 

[FrDavid96]

I fully appriciate your position, but was the GRIM written with the intention of causing grave family scandal? Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact I whole heartedly agree with basically everythign you say, but when you’ve already been accused of choosing to live a dark sad life for embrasing your Catholic faith I guess it tends to weaken somewhat one’s resolve to be an aboslutist on every matter of liturgy.

What I’m saying here is that one has nothing to do with the other. Certainly, the GIRM was not written to cause grave family scandal. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the subject at hand. As I keep saying, family relationships have nothing to do with the sign of peace–nothing at all. The entire subject is completely irrelevant.

Only because people misunderstand the sign-of-peace do they try to make it into something about family (spouses, friends, classmates, teammates, etc. etc. etc.).

Please note that I’m using the third person here. I’m not saying “you” misunderstand it, I’m saying that the subject itself is misunderstood.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,
We cannot get past the false notion of what the Sign of Peace is about until we have been properly taught what the Sign of Peace is and how to do it. When I read about how the Kiss of Peace and how it is done in an abbey, I began to see it more clearly. Here is an exerpt:

Like another poster, I had been under the impression that the sign of peace was more in reference to the gospel passage,
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.
We have certainly read comments on these threads where we should have need to offer peace to those around us. But if I am learning this correctly, that is not what the Sign of Peace is about. It is about Christ’s peace comeing out to us from the altar. And if this sign of peace is not initiated from the priest or deacon at the altar it should not be done at all.

I would not say that this is an “either or” (peace from the altar, or peace with the neighbor). Personally, I would say it’s a “both and.”

The more we think about this, the more we realize that in an ideal world (which won’t exist on this earth), there shouldn’t be any distinction between peace with Christ and peace with neighbor. So I would not exclude the symbolism of reconciliation with ones neighbor from the meaning of the sign of peace.

 

[JimG]

I believe the person wrote that “shaking hands” with his wife was weird.
Now lets examine what you wrote. I doubt that you offer the sign of peace to a stranger by name so that would be different that offering the sign of peace to those you love and know.
How is “holding the hand of the one you love” not an expression of endearment?

It just seems that we want to tear apart what everyone else does rather than sticking to explaining what the Sign of Peace really is and how it should be done.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to tear apart what anyone else does. What I described is itself a personal greeting, and it’s true I don’t offer everyone the sign of peace by name. Which is why I’m wondering if there is in fact any way that the sign of peace can ever be restored to a liturgical rather than a personal function.

(PS: In my parish when people offer their hand, it is typically something less than, or at least not quite the same as, a regular handshake.)

Ever since the restoration of the communal sign of peace to the congregation, it has become more a personal greeting, less a communal greeting. As to how that could be changed now, I have no idea.