Is Shaking hands a "No No"?

[Jennifer_G]

This last point is true!

Where I was able to attend Mass today it was easy enough and understood that nodding to the person the next pew over in a simple prayerful gesture of peace upon their soul and yours in kind sufficed.

You do not have to move all around and shake hands like a meet & greet.

We never used to do it in our Lutheran church, but only started a few years ago. It’ll start off ok, but then 30 seconds later, everyone’s filing into the aisles wanting to shake hands and chat with their friends 10 rows behind them. Too chaotic… (I’ve seen some Catholic churches do the same exact thing)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He certainly mentions it in his book, " The Spirit of the Liturgy". In reference to the missal used in Zaire (the Congo), which is the
Roman rite with the addition of certain elements of the Christian East. The then Cardinal Ratzinger said," In line with what is said in Matthew 5:23-25, the sign of peace is exchanged, not before Communion, but before the Presentation of the Gifts, which would be desirable for the whole of the Roman rite, insofar as the sign of peace is something we want to retain.

Peace!

That’s where I’d like to see it shifted to!

 

[Like]

He certainly mentions it in his book, " The Spirit of the Liturgy". In reference to the missal used in Zaire (the Congo), which is the
Roman rite with the addition of certain elements of the Christian East. The then Cardinal Ratzinger said," In line with what is said in Matthew 5:23-25, the sign of peace is exchanged, not before Communion, but before the Presentation of the Gifts, which would be desirable for the whole of the Roman rite, insofar as the sign of peace is something we want to retain.

Peace!

Thanks for posting this, I knew I had read this somewhere but, forgot where that was.
And, I too wish the sign of peace were moved.
I also think it would be more accepted with the laity. **Please, Please, don’t hit me! **For I only mean if it has to remain in the Mass, then put it somewhere else, OK?
Now, has anyone seen a follow up on this?

 

[Newbie2]

You are contradicting yourself. You think your priest should follow the rubrics, but you don’t think he should have to follow the rubrics that say he should not leave the sanctuary.
dioceseofgallup.org/bishop/liturgy/GIRM/liturgydirectives.htm

That’s not what I wrote or meant, I didn’t say that he should not leave the sanctuary; sorry if I implied that.

Apparently our priest (among others) feels a pastoral need to go out and participate. The bishops in our diocese who have visited our parish have not objected; so it appears that it’s an OK practice, right?

Wouldn’t they instruct him to do otherwise if they felt he was not “in line” with what he should be doing?

 

[rlg94086]

That’s not what I wrote, I didn’t say that he should not leave the sanctuary; sorry if I implied that.

Apparently our priest (among others) feels a pastoral need to go out and participate. The bishops who have visited our parish have not objected; so it appears that it’s an OK practice.

It’s not okay. It just means the bishops don’t care if the rubrics are followed. That is unfortunate.

 

[NMJenny]

And, I too wish the sign of peace were moved.
I also think it would be more accepted with the laity. **Please, Please, don’t hit me! **For I only mean if it has to remain in the Mass, then put it somewhere else, OK?

I agree completely–at the present location, the sign of peace is a distraction at a time when our whole attention should be focused on Our Lord, Whom we will shortly be receiving in Holy Communion.

IMHO, logically, the sign of peace belongs somewhere in the Liturgy of the Word…

 

[Newbie2]

Whoh, that was a quick reply, rlg; I did make an edit.

So who is in charge of interpreting the rubrics, rlg or the bishops in our diocese? On what basis are you making your assumption, and it is an assumption, right?

How do you know that there is not a legitimate pastoral need, as per the rubric, in our parish?

 

[sphilomena]

We occasionally have someone give the “Peace sign” to another maybe a couple of rows away. We’ll do it within the choir when we physically can’t reach the other person, and are usually very discreet with the sign.

Maybe it’s me or my parish, but I don’t see a problem with our priest coming down and offering a handshake or hug or other sign of peace to those in the first or second row, as long as it doesn’t impose on the flow of the mass.

He’s part of our parish community too…why shouldn’t he share in our mutual exchange of peace with a physical handshake or hug?

I don’t want to imply that the rubrics should be ignored, but our priest does this all the time, the bishops know it and apparently don’t have a problem with it.

It’s right for our parish, and I’m sure many others, while other parishes it wouldn’t work. I admit that I sort of bristle at the suggestion that we should all do **everything ** exactly the same way in every parish, in some sort of lockstep.

Yes, of course, rubrics/standards have to be followed, but there has to be room for local expression in our celebration of the mass. If mass gets too “stodgy”…well, that’s another issue…I won’t go there. It’s just nice to see some little variations from parish to parish, provided there are no abuses, of course.

-N2

The priest is not to leave the altar and it’s in writing, the GIRM? What you mention is so problematic, that a certain thing doesn’t bother you… That is not what determines how the Mass proceeds - someone’s likes or dislikes, even the priest’s.

I often think of the parallel with the military, where I have spent my whole life. What if discipline fell apart, each one did as he/she pleased? The whole organization would fall apart. Well, discipline in the Church has disintegrated, and I’ve had a few decades to see the “before and after”!

Sorry, just saw a followup where the GIRM is quoted.

 

[Thursday1]

Which eastern church have you seen this in?

I saw it at a Maronite Divine Liturgy I attended. Maybe it was just that church. . .

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Thursday1]

Ignatius:

No, it’s not part of the Mass.

Do I have to post from the GIRM again?
GIRM:

The Rite of Peace

1. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

It is part of the Mass.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[rlg94086]

Whoh, that was a quick reply, rlg; I did make an edit.

So who is in charge of interpreting the rubrics, rlg or the bishops in our diocese? On what basis are you making your assumption, and it is an assumption, right?

How do you know that there is not a legitimate pastoral need, as per the rubric, in our parish?

Indeed, I don’t know if there is a legitimate pastoral need in your parish. But, I highly doubt it. More than likely you just have bishops who don’t know or don’t care about the rubrics. It happens a lot unfortunately.

 

[Like]

I agree completely–at the present location, the sign of peace is a distraction at a time when our whole attention should be focused on Our Lord, Whom we will shortly be receiving in Holy Communion.

IMHO, logically, the sign of peace belongs somewhere in the Liturgy of the Word…

Mahalo Jenny, I don’t have access to the TLM & my parish is a bit too liberal. We recently renewed our vows celebrating our 50th. & there was/is a elderly couple (like we arn’t) who are extremely nice & loving. Anyway, because the sign of peace is just before receiving our Lord, this lady, upon returning to their pew always stops at us & gives a big hug and I feel if the sign of peace were moved this might not happen. It seems there is no getting away from her as the wife is in a wheelchair & I always stand beside her. I wish Father would say something that might curb the action.

 

[NMJenny]

Yá’át’ééh, Rich (that’s “hello” in Navajo, btw–I live in Navajo country )

There’s no access to the TLM here either–unless you want to take a five hour drive. Will this change after Sept.14? I’d like to think so, but to be honest, I really doubt it…:crying:

 

[DJgang]

I agree completely–at the present location, the sign of peace is a distraction at a time when our whole attention should be focused on Our Lord, Whom we will shortly be receiving in Holy Communion.

IMHO, logically, the sign of peace belongs somewhere in the Liturgy of the Word…

I am so glad that someone is mentioning this, because I thought it was “me”…

In the Episcopal church, the Eucharstic Prayer is not broken up with the peace…, since I’ve been attending the Catholic Church, I absolutely can’t stand the sign of the peace…I almost want to crawl in under the pews, it’s so ackward, it’s like you have to shift your mentality for a few seconds.

I was just thinking about starting a topic of discussion about this…it’s been bothering me so…

 

[anniemart]

I’ve come to realize that sometimes it’s hard to sincerely offer the sign of peace when you’re sitting next to someone who for the most of the previous half hour was dialing for dollars in his nose.

Despite this, the sign of peace should always be an act of charity for our brother and sister whether we offer it to just one person or to everyone in the half dozen or so pews behind us. I believe also that Our Lord meant this simple act to be a precursor to what we should be doing on a grander scale outside of mass.

 

[Like]

I am so glad that someone is mentioning this, because I thought it was “me”…

In the Episcopal church, the Eucharstic Prayer is not broken up with the peace…, since I’ve been attending the Catholic Church, I absolutely can’t stand the sign of the peace…I almost want to crawl in under the pews, it’s so ackward, it’s like you have to shift your mentality for a few seconds.

I was just thinking about starting a topic of discussion about this…it’s been bothering me so…

 

[Like]

Yá’át’ééh, Rich (that’s “hello” in Navajo, btw–I live in Navajo country )

There’s no access to the TLM here either–unless you want to take a five hour drive. Will this change after Sept.14? I’d like to think so, but to be honest, I really doubt it…:crying:

No TLM in Farmington area?

 

[Newbie2]

Indeed, I don’t know if there is a legitimate pastoral need in your parish. But, I highly doubt it. More than likely you just have bishops who don’t know or don’t care about the rubrics. It happens a lot unfortunately.

Again, you’re making an assumption, based on…well…what? Your opinon, not any knowledge of our parish. Which is fine, as
this is a forum…we’re entitled to our opinions.

But to say that our bishops likely don’t know or don’t care about the rubrics is pure speculation…and that’s a pretty serious broad-based painting to do.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say there was an elderly, disabled, divorced, etc. person who really gets a lift from getting a sign of peace from the Priest every week. Would that be OK? It appears so from the rubric, no?

So really, you and I don’t know for certain. Our priest may have discussed it at length with the bishops, and they may have considered, prayed about it, and come to a consensus that it is acceptable. Maybe not.

Sorry, don’t mean to be critical, but it seems a bit Pharisee-like to value a rubric over a ligitimate pastoral concern. Don’t get me wrong, I know what you’re saying in that if one lets certain things go, they why bother having a GIRM at all?

But is appears that there is some leeway written in the rubric i.e. pastoral concerns, that would allow for such a practice. That doesn’t mean that every parish should take advantage of it, but for some, it works, for some, it doesn’t.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, you’re making an assumption, based on…well…what? Your opinon, not any knowledge of our parish. Which is fine, as
this is a forum…we’re entitled to our opinions.

But to say that our bishops likely don’t know or don’t care about the rubrics is pure speculation…and that’s a pretty serious broad-based painting to do.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say there was an elderly, disabled, divorced, etc. person who really gets a lift from getting a sign of peace from the Priest every week. Would that be OK? It appears so from the rubric, no?

As you say, it’s up to your priest and bishop, so I’m not sure why you are asking me. IMO, no. The priest’s purpose is not to “give a lift” to people, and he already gave them the sign of peace at the same time he gave the sign of peace to the whole assembly.

So really, you and I don’t know for certain. Our priest may have discussed it at length with the bishops, and they may have considered, prayed about it, and come to a consensus that it is acceptable. Maybe not.

Sorry, don’t mean to be critical, but it seems a bit Pharisee-like to value a rubric over a ligitimate pastoral concern. Don’t get me wrong, I know what you’re saying in that if one lets certain things go, they why bother having a GIRM at all?

But is appears that there is some leeway written in the rubric i.e. pastoral concerns, that would allow for such a practice. That doesn’t mean that every parish should take advantage of it, but for some, it works, for some, it doesn’t.

All I said is I doubt that they are doing it for “pastoral concerns.” Since you don’t know if that is the reason they are doing it, you are also making assumptions.

 

[Newbie2]

As you say, it’s up to your priest and bishop, so I’m not sure why you are asking me.

I’m asking for the sake of discussion. You definitely have an opinion on the matter, and I wanted to hear if your opinion would change if certain conditions were met, that’s all. But, I’ll “assume” from your answer that you’d prefer not to opine further.