Hugging or kisses spouses during mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmvbxx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrDavid96 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you note that the sign of peace and family relationships have nothing to do with each other. It actually makes clearer to me what a priest friend of mine preached on not too long ago.

He told us that the Mass was about getting us ready for heaven. He said that in heaven, we will all be there together and that we will not be bound by family relationships but that we would all be members of the one family of God. I grated my teeth as I heard him preach this and was very angry because I still miss my mom after 16 years. I also wondered how widowers and widows would take this. Your post drove home the fact that, in the final analysis, it’s not about blood relationships, per se. It is about the relationships we have in the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for making that point and for helping me to see that my friend, my best friend, was not been the insensitive person I thought he was being.
 
JimG said:
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.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that it can’t. Not until a few generations have passed and we lose all the “baggage” attached to the sign of peace. For my own part, I’ve been trying for years to teach just my own parishioners what the sign-of-peace is all about. While we’ve made some progress, it’s something that I have been unable to get across. That’s why I finally said “enough already” and just stopped adding the sign of peace to the rite of peace. Even now, there are still some who insist on doing it during the Lamb of God, and still those who insist on wanderring around during the Lamb of God (not many, but a few).
 
benedictgal said:
It’s interesting that you note that the sign of peace and family relationships have nothing to do with each other. It actually makes clearer to me what a priest friend of mine preached on not too long ago.

He told us that the Mass was about getting us ready for heaven. He said that in heaven, we will all be there together and that we will not be bound by family relationships but that we would all be members of the one family of God. I grated my teeth as I heard him preach this and was very angry because I still miss my mom after 16 years. I also wondered how widowers and widows would take this. Your post drove home the fact that, in the final analysis, it’s not about blood relationships, per se. It is about the relationships we have in the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for making that point and for helping me to see that my friend, my best friend, was not been the insensitive person I thought he was being.
Click to expand...
Look at it this way: what he was saying is that your relationship with your mother, will be so much stronger in heaven than it ever was on earth. That’s the point I believe he was trying to make.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Look at it this way: what he was saying is that your relationship with your mother, will be so much stronger in heaven than it ever was on earth. That’s the point I believe he was trying to make.
Click to expand...
I just sent him an email stating that I was eating crow smothered in Arby’s BBQ sauce! 😃 Thank you for helping me to see the point he was trying to convey.
 
JimG said:
Exclusion is not so much the issue as turning a communal sign into a personal (and thus by nature exclusionary) sign.
Click to expand...
Thank you for responding to my post.

I can understand people’s qualms about giving friends and relatives different signs of peace than strangers. It is difficult to prove equality and communion with each other when one person receives a hug yet another a handshake. But I always figured that the point of the sign of peace was to simply give peace, and peace can be given through different signs. I never felt excluded from the community when couples or close friends would give each other hugs, so long as at least one person gave me the sign of peace, whether it be a handshake or a hug.

And like I said, I always shake the hands of the strangers around me. I don’t treat the sign of peace like a personal exchange.
 
FrDavid96 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, I guess from my perspective I am just considering which is more prudent right now… Going ahead with strictly correct liturgical behaviour (either I hug and kiss everyone, or everyone gets handshakes) or for the time being, just avoid scandal. Quite honestly a tough call from my keyboard.

I would like to say that I do agree with another poster, this needs to be solved by some form of catechisis. Perhaps this kind of thing would be best tied to the new missal which is upcoming (actually I didn’t bother looking to see whether or not the kiss of peace has been “reformed” in it).

It would be best if this kiss could best express Christ’s peace coming from the alter, but I seriously doubt very many Catholics understand this point… In fact until I saw this thread, read up on some of the posts here and investigated the GRIM as a result it’s quite honestly an apsect of the Mass I hardly thought about my self.

Anyway, thanks again for your wonderful posts.
 
I don’t really see what is wrong with hugging or giving a chaste kiss to family members or friends so long as it is not something you would be uncomfortable accepting from a stranger. Different people, though, have different levels of comfort (even within a family). The sign of peace really is about recognition that we all need to receive and give peace and reconciliation from/to our neighbors and community as Jesus did to us.

I find it far worse than a family exchanging warm hugs when people take the sign of peace as a time to wander around the church shaking hands with everyone and significantly interrupting the flow of Mass. The GIRM is clear that the sign of peace should be exchanged only by people who are physically nearby. Does anyone else observe and find disturbing the chaos that happens when many people move randomly about the church shortly before communion?
 
FrDavid96 said:
My personal opinion is that it can’t. Not until a few generations have passed and we lose all the “baggage” attached to the sign of peace. For my own part, I’ve been trying for years to teach just my own parishioners what the sign-of-peace is all about. While we’ve made some progress, it’s something that I have been unable to get across. That’s why I finally said “enough already” and just stopped adding the sign of peace to the rite of peace. Even now, there are still some who insist on doing it during the Lamb of God, and still those who insist on wanderring around during the Lamb of God (not many, but a few).
Click to expand...
In the absence of leadership, chaos reigns, and reproduces itself. Few places in recent Catholic history is this more evident than in the so-called sign of peace. I have seen this alleged liturgical gesture “progress” - from making eye-contact and exchanging a near-silent “peace be with you” with those to your right and left - to the free for all that has become the norm in many parishes today.

I think it’s responsibility of each priest to encourage a certain level of decorum within his Mass. It has been my understanding that in the OF Mass, the priest has the option to limit the time allotted to the sign of peace, or eliminate it entirely. By going directly from the Right of Peace to the Agnus Dei, the focus of the Mass - as a vehicle for the worship and glorification of God - is preserved.

After the Mass has ended, the faithful can proceed to the parish hall for refreshments or if they wish, straight to their cars to offer the sign of peace.
 
Just get rid of the thing - no kiss of peace, no issue. And no never ending ridiculous discussions going on for pages and pages. :rolleyes:

There really is no reason for it. The Mass is beautiful and complete without it. I am so hopeful for the new translation of the NO, I’ve heard that it is at least being moved to be outside the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Wow - just think - no more parading priests. No more walking up and down aisles. No more going on and on and on and on while the organist tries his darndest to get people to stop by starting the Sanctus. :rolleyes:

Honestly - just get rid of it. Our parish has survived it - I’m sure others can as well.

~Liza
 
In my parish the sign of peace is hardly the perpetrator. From inappropriate music to hand holding to the band huddeling up with arms around each other during the our Father. To a hand jive during the “tradding my sorrows” closing song.

That all being said, I am married with three kids four and under. I kiss my wife and my kids then shake hands sometimes awkwardly with the left as there is a baby in my arms with anyone surrounding me. Never have any of us left anyone out. (quite an accomplishment to get a 3 and 4 year old to arbitrarily shake hands with strangers and talk)
The plus for us is that during this Mass we almost always sit next to people we know in some way. While I peck my wife the kids are busy giving peace to each other and our neighbors. As a group we handle this very well.

However and I am suprised this has not been brought up yet… What to make of the proposed moving of the sign of peace?

I think we can infer from the fact that it is being moved that it is still going to be in the Mass. When reading the quote from the Holy Father about it it seems that the concern of the sign was becasue it was almost part of the eucharist. moving it would allieviate some of these concerns. that in my opinion is what will happen.
Personally I dont see anything wrong with making a sign of peace as long as it is not ridiculous. There was one point that it is to be shared with all the same. It cannot and should not be shared by every single person with every single person in the Mass, so it seems to me that point is moot.
 
Moving the sign-of-peace is something that is NOT being done in the new translation.

Whether or not this MAY happen at some future date is a matter of speculation. Certainly, the Holy Father has expressed his personal opinion that he has thought about whether or not this should be done. He expressed as much in his book Spirit of the Liturgy (as Cardinal, as we all know). His own thoughts on the issue have led some to speculate that he might change it as pope, and such speculation has led to many rumors that he is changing it.

The new missal is more-or-less a done deal. It is finished except for some final editing and printing. The sign of peace has not been changed.
 
FrDavid,

Do you think it is because people have sometimes lost sight about the meaning of the Mass in general? I know in my general search/path back to the Catholic Church I have found people, even my relatives, that don’t know that much about it?

Having said that, you might have converted me. I will try to explain it to my husband.

God Bless!
 
I’m an American currently in Korea and everything is very simple, we just bow to each other. It’s quick, easy and no one is excluded.
 
BRZ said:
I’m an American currently in Korea and everything is very simple, we just bow to each other. It’s quick, easy and no one is excluded.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think this gesture is a perfect solution. And it is a gesture that would not disrupt the sign of unity during the flu season like ommitting the handshake during that time. The bow is also more reverent than a handshake or a wave. All we would then need is for instruction coming from the USCCB explaining the meaning of the Sign of Peace and giving us the sign that we are to use.

What do the rest of you think? Just a simple Agree or Disagree.
 
pnewton said:
Hand-shaking is just a cultural symbol that is far from universal even in America. The Scripture even uses the term “kiss of peace”. I am curious, according to the Church, has this ever been described as being a hand-shake only, or has a hug or kiss ever been proscribed behavior? I only ask as I really believe in speaking where the Church speaks and not creating additional conditions and rules where the Church is silent. Otherwise, all we are doing is exchanging opinions, when we ought to allow each to act in accord to their own prudence.
Click to expand...
In the Byzantine liturgy, the kiss of peace rubric specifies the deacons kiss each other on the shoulders, and the priests kiss each other on the shoulders. (some local uses alter it to the cheeks.) Goes WAY back… 4th century.
 
BRZ said:
I’m an American currently in Korea and everything is very simple, we just bow to each other. It’s quick, easy and no one is excluded.
Click to expand...
Certainly, this is a excellent method, for the reasons you cited. It is also very similar to the original rubric I was taught many years ago as a Catholic school student.

During Lent, I began assisting daily OF Mass with a small community of faithful. When the priest invited us to offer the sign of peace, I made eye contact with the person to my left and quietly said the words “peace be with you”. Then repeat with the person to my right. What I discovered was that that the rubric is contagious and folks voluntarily added a slight bow when exchanging the sign with someone who is standing a bit more distant. I expect that it will naturally develop into a totally non-verbal exchange at some point.

After the Mass has been dismissed, the priest wishes us a good day and begins the exit hymn. After he has left the room, the faithful are free to exchange any greeting they wish.

Blessed be God.
 
Aramis said:
In the Byzantine liturgy, the kiss of peace rubric specifies the deacons kiss each other on the shoulders, and the priests kiss each other on the shoulders. (some local uses alter it to the cheeks.) Goes WAY back… 4th century.
Click to expand...
You know, I might be OK with doing that.

I could probably name many who wouldn’t be, though. :confused:
 
mick321 said:
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.
Click to expand...
“Others lament that they’re not getting their fair share of the action”??? I haven’t seen any lamenting and this implies that those participating in this thread who go to Mass alone are grieving and crying. I care about the Mass. After reading your post I thought that I’ll just stay at the back now, where I won’t bother anyone. After all, why do they need me? I don’t want to lament. I don’t want to be a wet rag and insist on getting my share. It implies selfishness. I don’t think anyone in this thread who goes to Mass alone has implied or indicated in any way that they are being selfish by wishing to be included in a part of the Mass in which they should be included.

This isn’t a high school boys’ locker room we’re discussing here. This is church, during Mass. There is a big difference. I really feel insulted by your post. “Fair share of the action”? That is not a nice thing to say. Really.

Then you say “we have a duty to be sensitive to the feelings of these folks too” but I don’t see any sensitivity to those who you say are lamenting about not getting their fair share of the action!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top