C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
I nod and smile to those left and right, and anyone who turns around. No handshaking. I don’t care if others do, and they shouldn’t care if I don’t.
- Status
R
Rasoleil
Guest
Only once did I try not to participate, because I man in front of me was sneezing, coughing, and blowing his nose throughout Mass. So when it came time to the Sign of Peace, he extended his hand out to me, but I told him that I was sick and didn’t want to get anyone else sick ( Yes, I lied, and tried to give him a subtle hint of his own situation), but he said that he didn’t care and shook my hand. I really expected him to honor my request ( I was trying to be diplomatic b and not actual refuse his handshake by making an excuse, but that obviously didn’t work), but he didn’t. So, after shaking his wet, germ-infested hand, I immediately slipped out of the pew and washed my hands thoroughly in the restroom, and glad the church had one.
A
aroosi
Guest
Still pretty gross but maybe he had allergy and knew he was not contagious.
Last edited:
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
I figure if people don’t want germs, they jolly well better go to Latin Mass…
B
Brendan
Guest
You forgot a key element of that quote, that it " signifies peace, communion and charity "
A sign, in Catholic theology, is that which points towards a greater reality than itself. It is not the reality, but that which points towards it. It would be erroneous to confuse the two.
A street sign might point towards a particular street, but it is not the street itself. A billboard on a theatre might indicate a play, but it is not the play itself.
I understand that you can see the distinction, but many on this thread do not. They confuse the sign of unity, with being an act of unity, a sign of communion to being in communion, when that is NOT what the Church teaches.
Thus the OP choosing not to participate in the SIGN, is not rejecting the REALITY. The two are different things.
The signs are certainly important, as Christ Himself offered many signs that pointed towards His Divinity, and The Church rightly uses signs in the liturgy.
But all are to point us towards the reality, not be goals themselves. One who already recognizes the Divinity of Christ would have no more need to seek signs from Him. Likewise, if one already recognizes the Peace of Christ present in the Kiss of Peace just offered by the priest, and recognizes the Unity and Communion present in the upcoming Eucharist, what need is there to seek out signs, why not just concentrate on the Reality?
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Just go to an EF mass. They don’t do any of this and high mass is beautiful if you want music.
Also, no felt banners, no altar girls, altar rails with communion on the tongue. There’s really no down side.
Also, no felt banners, no altar girls, altar rails with communion on the tongue. There’s really no down side.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
I’m autistic and really don’t like people touching me. Having people turn around and try to shake my hand when the idea is to make peace with who have interactions with I find disturbing.
Yes, you are my brothers and sisters in faith but I’m busy shaking my real brothers hand cause I stole his Lego again. I don’t know you, turn back round and shake your own families hand for your mistakes. I don’t know you.
Yes, you are my brothers and sisters in faith but I’m busy shaking my real brothers hand cause I stole his Lego again. I don’t know you, turn back round and shake your own families hand for your mistakes. I don’t know you.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Just a thought to comments that it would be rude not to shake someone’s hand if it is extended you. I agree it would be but I almost never extend my hand to someone until I have turned their way and have eye contact and am pretty sure they are going to accept my sign of peace. This is especially on Sundays when it is crowded because people are turning here and there and every which way. Whst might be taken as rude could just be someone’s not noticing everyone.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Um. Well. After all the quoting about “the Conference of Bishops,” I should probably point out that bishops’ conferences have no standing in canon law.
Synods held by bishops, even local synods, do have some standing. Your own bishop or archbishop can make binding rules for those under his jurisdiction, within limits.
But a conference organization sending out papers does not have legal authority; they are just putting out guidelines. If your bishop signs onto a paper or votes for a resolution, he is also just giving guidelines.
That said, obviously most priests have to go by all their bishop’s wishes and guidelines. But that is for practical reasons, not legal ones.
Individual laypeople are not bound by this stuff at all.
Synods held by bishops, even local synods, do have some standing. Your own bishop or archbishop can make binding rules for those under his jurisdiction, within limits.
But a conference organization sending out papers does not have legal authority; they are just putting out guidelines. If your bishop signs onto a paper or votes for a resolution, he is also just giving guidelines.
That said, obviously most priests have to go by all their bishop’s wishes and guidelines. But that is for practical reasons, not legal ones.
Individual laypeople are not bound by this stuff at all.
Last edited:
N
Nikolaite
Guest
There’s really nothing wrong with abstaining for personal devotional reasons. In fact, our Archbishop commanded that the shaking of hands at the Sign of Peace be discontinued back during the H1N1 scare. The majority of the people stopped for the one Sunday it was announced, but it started up the next Sunday the same as always. The Archbishop has never lifted the prohibition that I know of.
Other than that, there is no requirement that I know of which compels a lay person to participate in the gesture.
N
Nikolaite
Guest
The Sign of Peace or Kiss of Peace during Mass was traditionally reserved to the clergy. It is not a necessity that the laity participate. It’s a novelty.Thomasbradley312:
It’s not about making friends. It’s about being in communion with the entire Body of Christ, which includes His Church’s members.
F
frarmandofm
Guest
According to the GIRM (in the United States), it it not optional on the part of the laity. If the priest directs us to offer each other a sign of peace, we follow his instructions.
If by “novelty”, you mean “something that is illicit or need not be followed”, that’s not correct. It’s a lawful part of the Mass as stated in the Roman Missal.
If by “novelty”, you mean “something new”, yes it is relatively new. Just like the Leonine Prayers were a novelty a century ago, and the Mass of Pius V was a novelty four hundred years ago.
F
frarmandofm
Guest
If a person refuses to offer any sign of peace after being directed to do so by the priest, yes it is disobedience.
We are not required to shake hands, embrace everyone around us, etc. However, a nod of the head, a wave of the hand, eye contact - some sort of acknowledgment of the people around us - is certainly “offering each other a sign of peace”.
Refusing to acknowledge the presence of the people around us is not.
Say the black and do the red.
S
stpurl
Guest
I appreciate your answer. As to me personally, I do offer ‘a’ sign of peace (usually a nod, yes I will shake hands if a child runs up to me with hand outstretched even if I suffer from painful arthritis).
Yes, in general I am all for ‘say the black do the red’.
That being said, I do not believe that when the priest (or deacon) says, “let us offer each other a sign of peace” (if he indeed opts to do so; my former bishop did NOT choose the option when he said Masses), that he is laying this down as a command.
"Let us offer’ is not the kind of imperative on the order of, “you must do this action, or say this word” especially since there is no specific ‘sign’ that is mandated.
And let us (notice, this is not a ‘demand’ but a request) consider some mitigating circumstances:
A person with autism who struggles with being touched. Even with parents making sure the community ‘knows’ and seating him or her in a place where no one SHOULD be coming to do so, there are always those who have their own ‘boundary issues’ who somehow manage to ‘breach’ and try to ‘pump’. Is this truly a sign of peace that the autistic person MUST allow under pain of sinful disobedience?
A person who comes to church worn to a frazzle, facing the impending death of a loved one, barely able to keep from breaking into uncontrollable weeping, carefully placing himself or herself ‘out of reach’ to those nearby not out of disdain but out of consideration, lest they be upset if suddenly his/her control slips, who gets ‘tagteamed’ by those who just cannot stand seeing someone whom they see ‘all alone’, suddenly rushing in, 'grabbing for hands, demanding 'peace, 'don’t be shy, we’re friends here, 'why the long face, this is Mass, SMILE FOR HEAVENS" SAKE". . .
Is that poor person mandated under pain of sin to SMILE and shake and glad hand those others?
I do not think that in the case of those it would be disobedience if they could not give a physical sign to people who themselves were being disobedient (the ones who ignored the request of the person and parents to please not touch a child who was experiencing difficulty with touch), or if their physical or emotional state left them at least temporarily unable to give a physical sign ‘demanded’ (i.e., ‘you gotta shake my hand’) when they were either perfectly prepared with a nod, or due to emotional distress were suddenly ‘shocked’ by something unforeseen.
Actually as I said, I do not think that even if a person were to not respond to others around them that they would be actually ‘disobeying the priest’ at all. They might in some cases be guilty of bad manners, or have a wrong idea and be responding to that wrong idea improperly, but without realizing they were wrong or improper. That isn’t disobedience per se.
Yes, in general I am all for ‘say the black do the red’.
That being said, I do not believe that when the priest (or deacon) says, “let us offer each other a sign of peace” (if he indeed opts to do so; my former bishop did NOT choose the option when he said Masses), that he is laying this down as a command.
"Let us offer’ is not the kind of imperative on the order of, “you must do this action, or say this word” especially since there is no specific ‘sign’ that is mandated.
And let us (notice, this is not a ‘demand’ but a request) consider some mitigating circumstances:
A person with autism who struggles with being touched. Even with parents making sure the community ‘knows’ and seating him or her in a place where no one SHOULD be coming to do so, there are always those who have their own ‘boundary issues’ who somehow manage to ‘breach’ and try to ‘pump’. Is this truly a sign of peace that the autistic person MUST allow under pain of sinful disobedience?
A person who comes to church worn to a frazzle, facing the impending death of a loved one, barely able to keep from breaking into uncontrollable weeping, carefully placing himself or herself ‘out of reach’ to those nearby not out of disdain but out of consideration, lest they be upset if suddenly his/her control slips, who gets ‘tagteamed’ by those who just cannot stand seeing someone whom they see ‘all alone’, suddenly rushing in, 'grabbing for hands, demanding 'peace, 'don’t be shy, we’re friends here, 'why the long face, this is Mass, SMILE FOR HEAVENS" SAKE". . .
Is that poor person mandated under pain of sin to SMILE and shake and glad hand those others?
I do not think that in the case of those it would be disobedience if they could not give a physical sign to people who themselves were being disobedient (the ones who ignored the request of the person and parents to please not touch a child who was experiencing difficulty with touch), or if their physical or emotional state left them at least temporarily unable to give a physical sign ‘demanded’ (i.e., ‘you gotta shake my hand’) when they were either perfectly prepared with a nod, or due to emotional distress were suddenly ‘shocked’ by something unforeseen.
Actually as I said, I do not think that even if a person were to not respond to others around them that they would be actually ‘disobeying the priest’ at all. They might in some cases be guilty of bad manners, or have a wrong idea and be responding to that wrong idea improperly, but without realizing they were wrong or improper. That isn’t disobedience per se.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Is it the same with “Let us pray”? Is it ok to just sit and ignore the priest?
Actually I think it is ok. If you have a good reason.
The same applies to the sign of peace. If you have a good reason, do not do it. If you do participate, make sure it is a sign of peace, not an intrusion on the people around you.
The only thing “bad” is that you are not participating, and if you do not want to participate, what is the point of being there? If you cannot discern the Body of Christ that is worshipping with you, it may be to your condemnation. The rite is done to offer ourselves to one another, as Christ offers himself to us. Participation is part of why you come to Church, but if you do not care…
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
That is an odd question. Why do we go to Mass? for the Sacrifice of Christ. I understand what you are saying that we need to recognize that the people around us are part of the Body of Christ worshipping with us, but that can be done without shaking their hands or even the sign of peace. I have been to Masses where the priest skips it. In the TLM it only happens at the altar and from what I understand not all Divine Liturgies have the sign of peace either.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
See, now this is an example, to me, of seeing just one facet of Mass.
A priest can offer Mass ‘all by himself’ and it is still a valid Mass. Mass can be offered to a community of one, one hundred, one thousand; still Mass.
Focusing on ‘the body of Christ worshiping alongside us’ as being the reason for participating at Mass itself–well, that’s like saying that if we went to Mass ‘alone’ it would be pointless. And that’s just wrong.
I do see why people can wish for either the EF or for an OF offered at a parish where the priest foregoes the optional sign of peace (a reasonable pastoral decision perhaps for a parish where more than one person has physical, emotional, or other issues yet, despite not being able to offer ‘perceived’ gestures or words of peace may still be fully capable of ‘participating’ and of worshiping 'with the Body of Christ around them."
Unless I loudly announce to those around me at the Sign of Peace, “Hey, rabble, I don’t want to touch you, I don’t care about you”, those around me have no idea whether, should I not shake hands, or reply, I do not do so because I might be ill, upset, misinformed, or whatever.
And shouldn’t we be assuming the best of intentions on the part of people? Really?
We’re told that we shouldn’t ‘assume’ the worst of those who do not present themselves for communion.
Why do we automatically assume the worst of those who might not ‘respond’ in the way we ‘demand’ of them?
Why assume that the woman who draws back from an outstretched hand does so because she’s a ‘germaphobe’ or ‘doesn’t want to be with others, haughty, stuckup’?
Or that the man who mumbles and doesn’t meet our eyes as he turns away does so because he is ‘repelled’ by people, or ‘wants to focus on God but doesn’t CARE about anybody else’?
Why don’t we instead think, "I don’t know why this person is not ‘shaking hands’ with me, or not looking at me’, but just assume, “For whatever reason, this person’s peace does not involve physical interaction right now. God’s peace to them.” and then
stop focusing on the exchange and move on.
A priest can offer Mass ‘all by himself’ and it is still a valid Mass. Mass can be offered to a community of one, one hundred, one thousand; still Mass.
Focusing on ‘the body of Christ worshiping alongside us’ as being the reason for participating at Mass itself–well, that’s like saying that if we went to Mass ‘alone’ it would be pointless. And that’s just wrong.
I do see why people can wish for either the EF or for an OF offered at a parish where the priest foregoes the optional sign of peace (a reasonable pastoral decision perhaps for a parish where more than one person has physical, emotional, or other issues yet, despite not being able to offer ‘perceived’ gestures or words of peace may still be fully capable of ‘participating’ and of worshiping 'with the Body of Christ around them."
Unless I loudly announce to those around me at the Sign of Peace, “Hey, rabble, I don’t want to touch you, I don’t care about you”, those around me have no idea whether, should I not shake hands, or reply, I do not do so because I might be ill, upset, misinformed, or whatever.
And shouldn’t we be assuming the best of intentions on the part of people? Really?
We’re told that we shouldn’t ‘assume’ the worst of those who do not present themselves for communion.
Why do we automatically assume the worst of those who might not ‘respond’ in the way we ‘demand’ of them?
Why assume that the woman who draws back from an outstretched hand does so because she’s a ‘germaphobe’ or ‘doesn’t want to be with others, haughty, stuckup’?
Or that the man who mumbles and doesn’t meet our eyes as he turns away does so because he is ‘repelled’ by people, or ‘wants to focus on God but doesn’t CARE about anybody else’?
Why don’t we instead think, "I don’t know why this person is not ‘shaking hands’ with me, or not looking at me’, but just assume, “For whatever reason, this person’s peace does not involve physical interaction right now. God’s peace to them.” and then
stop focusing on the exchange and move on.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
If you just look forward at the altar and not acknowledge it you aren’t being disobedient. You just are not acknowledging the stuff going on around you.
F
frarmandofm
Guest
You are not acknowledging the people…the members of the Mystical Body of Christ who are around you.
So you’d be OK with me standing during the entire Mass even when the Roman Missal calls for me to sit or kneel…or any other act of disobedience to what the Roman Missal calls for…as long as I look forward at the altar? If I did that, I wouldn’t be disobedient, right?
D
Dovekin
Guest
Exactly. If we are not going to participate in the sacrifice of Christ, why are we going? This is the way it is being done, why absent yourself from a, b, c or d? If you have a good reason, don’t participate. But the point of going is to participate.
I agree, you are seeing only one facet. The service is not a sequence of unrelated events. There are a thousand options, but the particular ones chosen for the day are the ones for that day. If you come to participate, participate. If you want it to be exactly what you want it to be, join the liturgy committee, get ordained, or do whatever it is you have to do to change it. You can even tell gruesome stories of mangled arthritic hands and recalcitrant misanthropes if it helps.
But when you come, come to participate. Do not intrude on people when you offer peace, but be open and giving as best you. Christ is with you, and with those around you. Try to live up to the opportunity you have been offered.
- Status