Is it bad that I don't take part in the sign of peace?

[stpurl]

In some parishes, quite common. Mine is one of them. The priest comes down and goes down one side aisle halfway down the church (approximately 30 pew rows) shaking hands and chatting etc., both sides. The altar server or servers go down the other side aisle and/or middle aisles doing the same. The people throughout the church move, some as many as 4-5 pews down, shaking hands, laughing, and, among at least 70% of the crowd, most over 50, EVERY.ONE. is at the same time flashing the peace sign up high, over and over, like the flashing light over a motel. IOW, it is very popular and ‘opting out’ is not an option because the ushers and usherettes WILL come down the aisles as well and you’d better have your hand out to be pumped or they will come into the pew and ‘shake’.

You know, I’m a pretty social person. I actually don’t really like that I’m often confined by duties or illness or whatever and can’t get out as much as I would like. I like people. I like Mass. I don’t really have a problem per se with the idea of exchanging a sign of peace, even a handshake (when my arthritis is not acting up, or with people who give gentle shakes), especially with children.

But for heaven’s sake, when the usher stands up to announce the Sunday of the year, Welcome to Saint Do-Si-Dos, please stand and greet the people around you and our gathering hymn is “Gather us in”, we have already ‘met’, so to speak. We’re already a community. We’re supposed to be united in prayer already.

I get that. I like that.
I get that some people are extroverts. Good for them.
I get that some are introverts. Good for them.

I just don’t get that one group of people gets shamed if they are not gung ho in favor of the most over-the-top interpretations of an OPTIONAL part of the Mass.

Because you never, I repeat never, hear people say, "Mr. Jones just bows his head at the sign of peace. That’s perfectly fine’.

Or “Mr Smith stands there quietly at the sign of peace. That’s perfectly fine.”

Because both of those ARE perfectly fine.

No, everybody has to say, “Oh, well, Mr. Jones needs to get out of his comfort zone. So what if he’s uncomfortable shaking hands? If people want to shake hands, he should shake”.
Nobody says, "the people around Mr. Jones who want to shake hands when he wants to just nod need to step out of their comfort zones and consider the feelings of others. If Mr. Jones wants to nod, then they should accept that nod.

 

[Calliope]

No, I think Thomasbradley312 is saying that even if he does shake hands with them, the pretense is over when Mass is over and our new-found friends walk out the door without acknowledging the new friendship (or purported brotherhood). He’s making the point that the whole “Sign of Peace” wherein we are “reconciling with our brother” is a bit of a fake experience. At least that’s how I feel!

Then maybe the issue isn’t eliminate the SOP because you don’t really care about your fellow parishoners, maybe the issue is to work on actually caring so that the SOP has real meaning.

 

[frarmandofm]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (in the U.S.) makes it clear that if the priest directs us to offer each other the sign of peace, we are to offer each other the sign of peace. It doesn’t say it is optional for us to follow the direction of the priest.

 

[frarmandofm]

an OPTIONAL part of the Mass

The option belongs to the priest.

If he chooses not to direct us to offer the sign of peace to each other, we don’t. That’s perfectly fine and follows the GIRM.

If he chooses to direct us to offer the sign of peace to each other, we offer the sign of peace to each other. That’s perfectly fine and follows the GIRM.

The choice whether to participate is not ours to make.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Judas Iscariot also rejected the sign of peace and look where he ended up.

Interesting comment. Can you explain a little more.

I can’t think of a place in the Scriptures where Judas refused the sign of peace but I could be wrong.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

My custom is to avoid OF masses - they’re too hard to follow. I fully give the sign of peace to our Lord at OF masses as is my very local custom.

 

[QwertyGirl]

No.
That is the point I’m making.
I will shake their hand at the SOP, and then walk out the door and they don’t even look at me. If anything it is fake and a deception.

I think it is symbolic for the concept of making peace, in general.

Now if you know the person, and you are at odds with them, and you shake their hand anyway with no intention of making peace, then THAT would be fake and a deception.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I think this question is at the heart of the slight awkwardness of the SOP for me. Am I reconciling with my brother, or am I basically saying “hi” to my neighbor? I feel like the formality of saying “peace be with you” indicates something serious, but essentially what I am doing is greeting my neighbors in the pews. And I am sure they are perfectly nice people – I just often don’t know them. I wish them well – but in no way am I reconciling with them, since they are perfect strangers (usually).

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Really if I want to get to know my fellow parishioners better, the thing to do would be to talk to them at coffee hour. But we don’t have one…

 

[OraLabora]

I think this question is at the heart of the slight awkwardness of the SOP for me. Am I reconciling with my brother, or am I basically saying “hi” to my neighbor?

It’s more than that. It is acknowledging that we are members of the same body, the Body of Christ. Even if we are not acquainted with our neighbour, he or she is part of the same body.

And I am sure they are perfectly nice people – I just often don’t know them. I wish them well – but in no way am I reconciling with them, since they are perfect strangers (usually).

But part of the same body. The nose might seem a stranger to the ear, but both are part of the same body. Both contribute to its well-being. Sometimes we can sense something is not right with our neighbour, and we can use that moment to pray for them. As another said perhaps a very warm and sincere greeting to someone who is going through a rough time or is bereaved might mean the world to them.

For years an elderly couple sat in the same pew as I do at Mass. We never really spoke to each other except to offer each other peace and maybe nod hello when they sat down. Then one Sunday, as they sat down before Mass started, they told me it was the last time we’d have the chance to greet each other, as they were getting too old to manage their property in the country, and would be moving to a senior’s residence in the city. This touched me very deeply, and I assured them I would pray for their well-being.

It is such an opportunity to demonstrate our communion into the Body of Christ. It’s why it is a liturgical act, unlike coffee hour. At coffee hour we will naturally tend to gravitate towards people with whom we have affinity. The “kiss” of peace affords us the opportunity to acknowledge that each and every one of us is equal in value to Christ, and part of His body, even if it is someone we wouldn’t be inclined to speak to at coffee hour.

It thus has the opportunity to be a grace-filled moment if we can put our anxieties aside for the 15 seconds or so it takes to acknowledge our immediate pew neighbours.

 

[stpurl]

Your sign of peace may differ from mine. Are you really trying to say that if a person does not do something at Mass (no matter his or her own state of health, stressors, illnesses, etc) that he is disobeying the priest?

How does one determine exactly what is a sign of peace? Must it be visible clearly? Is a prayerful posture a sign of peace? Why or why not?

 

[stpurl]

Sure it does.
But it seems to me that what you’re really saying is, "In the pew at Mass, what is demanded of people is visible evidence that all individuals are actively showing a ‘sign of peace’ to as many as demand it. Not accepted as a sign of peace is a person’s prayerful gesture, i.e. standing with head bowed in prayer. Not accepted is the truth that some persons have physical or emotional disabilities or anxieties making the ‘visible gestures’ difficult to impossible; those do not matter, only the physical appearance of ‘making the sign of peace’ matters.

I’m sorry, but to me this verges on tyranny --even though the practice is optional, and there is no one specific required gesture, apparently the majority of people here think that a person, no matter what the person’s state of health or physical handicaps might be, absolutely must, for the sake of appearance engage in activities which the person finds painful, which the person may not indeed ‘feel’ but is forced to pretend to do so, all to suit the ‘comfort zone’ of those who themselves do not wish to allow a ‘sign of peace’ toward those who ‘look different’ or ‘act different’.

Look, maybe a person who doesn’t want to do a sign of peace because right now he really is struggling to love his neighbor is truly wrong (not that any of us is perfect, of course), but tell me, is forcing that person, simply for the sake of appearance, because in his heart he is still struggling and does not ‘feel peace’ or ‘wish peace’ at that moment in the Mass, not simply adding ‘wrong’ on top of wrong?

When I was growing up, it was called 'the ends" (the appearance of conformity) justify the means (shaming, demanding, forcing compliance). . . and I was told that wasn’t Catholic teaching.

I sure hope that’s still the case.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Being of the opinion that some people get carried away with the Sign of Peace is one thing, and it’s an opinion I generally share. But this here I think is getting carried away in the opposite direction:

About bowing or smiling or whatever else not to offend pew neighbour who wants to shake your hand before holy communion. Actually sorry but let them be offended. It’s offending our Lord we should be concerned about. The Agnus Dei has started and I am praying with my hands in a praying shape and that’s my duty, not worrying whether person who has turned body away from our Lord on the sanctuary to attempt to shake my hand is offended.

Who are you to tell us what offends Our Lord when we have the words of Our Lord himself telling us the exact opposite of what you’re saying here (c.f. Matt 5:23-24)? We are to leave our offering at the altar, find our brother, and reconcile with him before commencing with the oblation to God. He doesn’t say to go ahead and continue with your offering at the altar and then reconcile with your brother later because interrupting the sacrifice is disrespectful to God the Father. For context, Our Lord said this shortly after the Beatitudes during his Sermon on the Mount, and immediately after he told us “that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.”

This goes for the others in this thread who have articulated a preference that the Sign of Peace come during some other time of the liturgy. The Pax was placed where it was placed by Holy Mother Church for a good reason: just as Our Lord instructs us in the Gospel to leave the oblation at the altar and go reconcile with our brother right away, we leave the oblation of the Eucharist already consecrated, extend the pax to our brothers, and then resume the sacrifice. The location of the Pax in the liturgy smack dab in the middle of the Canon of the Mass isn’t some 20th century novelty either. I invite you to attend a Missa Solemnis in the Extraordinary Form and observe when the Pax is given among everyone in the chancel. You can’t miss it: it’s a ritualistic hug of the shoulders and double kiss on the cheeks immediately after the Agnus Dei. Better yet, go visit a Dominican priory during a Solemnity celebrated in the actual Dominican Rite.You might get lucky and see them bring out ornate pax bredes that are ritualistically kissed by everyone present.

Does the Pax interrupt the Liturgy of the Eucharist/Mass of the Faithful? It sure does. It does so by divine design!

 

[CilladeRoma]

@OraLabora and @AlbertDerGrosse~

AMEN!

 

[OraLabora]

Not accepted as a sign of peace is a person’s prayerful gesture, i.e. standing with head bowed in prayer. Not accepted is the truth that some persons have physical or emotional disabilities or anxieties making the ‘visible gestures’ difficult to impossible; those do not matter, only the physical appearance of ‘making the sign of peace’ matters.

I’ve not said what form the sign must take. Where I am, a quick handshake is customary. As I’ve said I respect those who do not want physical contact, nor do I offer it if I’m contagious.

There is room for common sense. A nod/bow/smile/brief “peace be with you” or similar phrase costs absolutely nothing, but acknowledges our brethren’s sharing in communion in the Body of Christ.

There is no place for rudeness just prior to receiving grace from the holiest of holy sacraments. None. If the other person won’t acknowledge your gesture, it’s on him or her. It’s no excuse not to offer it. If you’re the anxious one, and don’t return my gesture, i won’t take it personally nor judge you, but will share the peace with you in heart and prayer.

What grates is folks who say that because the odd person may have anxiety we should scrap it altogether. FWIW i can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times my extended hand has been refused.

 

[PeterT]

michaelArc:

I guess it’s your choice, but people may see you as being a pariah or infected by disease.

See this is a problem I have.
People thinking anything about someone and making a judgement about them. Let’s focus on the Lord.

Yes, let’s focus on Him by doing what was requested in persona Christi by the presiding priest, “Let us offer each other the sign of peace.”

Note that the priest did NOT say, “Let us offer each other the sign of peace if you so desire.”

The priest is directly telling us to offer each other the sign of the peace, so we need to be obedient to that command and offer those nearest to us a sign of peace. And the sign of peace doesn’t have to be a handshake. It could just be a warm smile and a friendly nod or wave of the hand, or just a polite bow. One doesn’t even need to move around in the pew to get closer to other people offering the sign of peace.

The point being, if the priest tells us to offer each other the sign of peace, we should do so without complaint or even awkwardness.

 

[pnewton]

I just don’t get that one group of people gets shamed if they are not gung ho in favor of the most over-the-top interpretations of an OPTIONAL part of the Mass.

Who said that one needed to be “gung"ho?”

The most I have seen is that one ought to make an effort to obey the church on the matter. This shouldn’t be controversial.

 

[Mary888]

I hope people don’t think I’m rude

If someone offers to make peace with you and you ignore them because you don’t see them because you’re staring at the altar, yes it’s rude and proud. Personal piety is personal prayer, at home or at Church when it’s empty, but the Mass is praying together with other people.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, let’s focus on Him by doing what was requested in persona Christi by the presiding priest, “Let us offer each other the sign of peace.”

Note that the priest did NOT say, “Let us offer each other the sign of peace if you so desire .”

Indeed. From the GIRM:

154… At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity. While the sign of peace is being given, one may say, Pax Domini sit semper tecum (The peace of the Lord be with you always) , to which the response is Amen .

That doesn’t sound optional to me. What is optional is the Conference of Bishops deciding if the sign of peace (by the laity) is to be offered or not. In Canada, it is done. I’ve only seen it omitted for very rare reasons, such as a viral epidemic, or where there are few people spread out in a large church, which would make it awkward.

Sign of peace trivia: if a deacon is part of the liturgy, it falls on him to call on the people to offer each other the sign of peace. Otherwise the priest does it.

 

[stpurl]

I am not advocating that people should simply reject the sign. I am saying that, as you note, a nod, smile, etc. should be considered sufficient. But in many cases in the US (I except Canada; I live in the US) those things are not sufficient, and as you probably note from the tenor of the posts, responses have gradually gone from, “you should respond to people, the request, at the option of the priest, is based on Scripture and even if it feels awkward one can respond with a gesture comfortable to you”. . .(something which I myself advocated) to flat out, finger-pointing, shaming, “The PRIEST COMMANDS it, you must do it, you rude and Pharisitical person, this is practically a mortal sin, so hateful, so unChristlike, no excuses”. . .blah blah.

There is a huge difference between one or two people who honestly, if mistakenly, feel uncomfortable and would rather focus on God (they feel). . . and who could, and most likely have, been gently guided to seeing a Christological dimension in the practice to the point where they too could respond with a smile or nod of understanding, and the draconian tongue-lashings of those who feel that they must at all costs ‘make these people conform’.

Your posts and many others have been respectful, thought-provoking, and based on understanding of those with whom you might disagree. A couple of others. . .not so much.

It’s hard on message boards to convey tone. I’m sure some of my words that I think gentle or amusing have not come across that way to everyone.

But I really don’t think (this is just my opinion) that it is ‘bad’ if an individual does not ‘shake hands’ at the peace. And I do tend to give a person the benefit of the doubt–if I look to someone and they are contemplating folded hands, or turned away, I don’t think, "How rude of them not to give a physical appearance of peace sharing’, I think, "For whatever reason this person is not ‘responding’, I give to the Lord and I wish this person peace’.

Doesn’t build up bad feelings, doesn’t assume the worst, and even if not visible, there’s peace going out, and in time, I daresay, being returned.