Is Shaking hands a "No No"?

[servantofall]

Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all of this dicussion about shaking hands during the sign of peace, that when one finally meets Jesus face to face he says I remember you, I sat next to you at mass and tried to shake your hand during the sign of peace and you refused. Just my 2 cents .

 

[NMJenny]

No TLM in Farmington area?

None, Rich–our bishop won’t allow the TLM anywhere in his diocese. I’d have to drive all the way into Albuquerque to attend the only indult TLM in New Mexico…:crying:

 

[sphilomena]

Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all of this dicussion about shaking hands during the sign of peace, that when one finally meets Jesus face to face he says I remember you, I sat next to you at mass and tried to shake your hand during the sign of peace and you refused. Just my 2 cents .

I think Jesus is more concerned that we adore and worship Him, especially since we have just witnessed the Consecration. It is so awful (for me) to have some intimate moments with Jesus coming onto the altar, and then to hear talking and laughing to destroy that focus on Him. I remember when there was reverence during the whole Mass.

 

[Aramis]

The sign of peace was a more ancient part of the Mass that over time had become restricted to the clergy. With the reforms of Paul VI it was restored. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many Eastern liturgies have the people exchange the kiss of peace.

The Ruthenians do not.

The closest the Ruthenian DL of St John gets is the priest intoning “Peace be with All!”, with a response of “And with your spirit!”

 

[jrnami]

I can’t believe this thread.

 

[Like]

I can’t believe this thread.

And what part do you not believe?

 

[jrnami]

And what part do you not believe?

How ridiculous it is.

 

[Like]

How ridiculous it is.

Sorry but, whats ridiculous about it?

 

[jrnami]

Sorry but, whats ridiculous about it?

How absurd it is.

 

[Like]

How absurd it is.

I don’t like playing this guessing game.
Why don’t you just lay out your beliefs on the subject? Are you pro or con?

 

[Newbie2]

It must be absurbly rediculous.

Yes, do tell, why? This is the Traditional Catholocism forum, and these sort of things concern people.

 

[jrnami]

It must be absurbly rediculous.

Yes, do tell, why? This is the Traditional Catholocism forum, and these sort of things concern people.

It is a very sad reflection on Traditionalists to be so petty, what a turn off.

 

[Brendan]

The Ruthenians do not.

The closest the Ruthenian DL of St John gets is the priest intoning “Peace be with All!” with a response of “And with your spirit!”

I recently attended a Chaldean Divine Liturgy. They do have an exchanged Kiss of Peace.

It worked like this.

The Priest said “Peace be with You”, the Deacon then replied “And with your Spirit”. The Priest and the Deacon then touched each other hands ( sort of like sliding the fingertips together).

The Deacon then did that with each of the Altar Boys. The Altar boys then went out and did that with the first person in each pew.

The first person in each pew then did that with the person next to them, and then down each pew.

Very solem, and no words were spoken. No one interacted with anyone other than the person immediately to the right and left of them.

It also made more liturgical sense that what happens in your average NO parish. It is the Peace of Christ being exchange, not our personal ‘peace’. And it come from the Priest, in persona Christi.

 

[tcraig]

I’ve been noticing that some people at the church I normally attend daily mass. They wear veil at mass, and around the “Our Father” prayer, they kneel down. When we all shake hand and say “Peace be with you”, they ignore this part and never look up to look at anybody.

Does this has something to do with some folks who like the Latin Mass?

These people may or may not attend the TLM. However, it appears that in reacting to what may be legitimate abuses in the NO masses in your area they are in turn abusing the mass themselves.

The proper posture at the Our Father is to stand. There is no requirement to hold hands or make daisy chains, but it is proper to stand.

Additionally, at the Sign of Peace (an option that the celebrant can choose or not choose) we are to offer a each other a sign of peace. This does not have to mean hugging, kissing, jumping over aisles, etc. As many have already stated a simple smile and “Peace be with you” will suffice.

Liturgical abuses should be taken seriously, but people should be careful that they, too, aren’t guilty of it.

And while reverence at mass is important, the people you described come across as a bit unfriendly and more “holier than thou”. That may not be their intention, of course, but actions do speak quite loudly.

 

[otjm]

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.

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.

Well, let’s take a look at the GIRM; it specifically sets out some circumstances in which the priest may leave the sancutary - funerals and dignitaries.

Please note: I make no suggestion that the situation discussed comes within these guidelines, and I don’t want to go down the path that rules are meant to be broken, or have so much leeway that they ar honored in their absence.

Also note the comment from Cardinal Arinze, when questioned about whether people returning from Communion had to stand until the last one received (which it appeared the GIRM required) or could kneel or sit; he said they could kneel or sit, and that Rome did not intend to control posture that rigidly (even though a literal reading of the GIRM seemed to indicate that).

 

[rlg94086]

Hi otjm,

It looks to me like we have no disagreement here. I have not said that there is absolutely no reason for the priest to leave the sanctuary. In fact, I quoted the GIRM in my previous post, which says…

But for a good reason, on special occasions, the priest may offer the sign of peace to others. These are to be understood as expressions of hospitality, respect for cultural diversity, and responses to unique pastoral need

What I notice though is that many priests and bishops seem to like to turn “special occasions” into a daily or weekly occurance.

Regarding posture, Cardinal Arinze’s comments were directed to the posture of the communicants, not the priest. The priest does not have as much latitude when it comes to posture. There are times he must kneel, bow and gesture. They are spelled out pretty well.

Pax,
Robert

Well, let’s take a look at the GIRM; it specifically sets out some circumstances in which the priest may leave the sancutary - funerals and dignitaries.

Please note: I make no suggestion that the situation discussed comes within these guidelines, and I don’t want to go down the path that rules are meant to be broken, or have so much leeway that they ar honored in their absence.

Also note the comment from Cardinal Arinze, when questioned about whether people returning from Communion had to stand until the last one received (which it appeared the GIRM required) or could kneel or sit; he said they could kneel or sit, and that Rome did not intend to control posture that rigidly (even though a literal reading of the GIRM seemed to indicate that).

 

[otjm]

Hi otjm,

It looks to me like we have no disagreement here. I have not said that there is absolutely no reason for the priest to leave the sanctuary. In fact, I quoted the GIRM in my previous post, which says…

What I notice though is that many priests and bishops seem to like to turn “special occasions” into a daily or weekly occurance.

I don’t disagree with you that there are circumstances as such.

Regarding posture, Cardinal Arinze’s comments were directed to the posture of the communicants, not the priest. The priest does not have as much latitude when it comes to posture. There are times he must kneel, bow and gesture. They are spelled out pretty well.

Pax,
Robert

That is true, that it was directed to the laity. However, the underlying issue is how rigidly, or not, any specific rubric is interpreted. I do not suggest that they should be interpreted loosely. However, for anyone who suggests that they must alwasy be interptreted as absolutes, the Cardinal’s comments should possibly give one pause.

 

[stmaria]

There is no doubt in my mind that within the next two years Pope Benedict will move the Sign of Peace to another part of the Mass. [Edited by Moderator]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701411.htm
Catholic News Service

"Pope Benedict said the sign of peace at Mass “has great value,” especially in demonstrating the church’s responsibility to pray for peace and unity in a world too often troubled by division, violence and hatred.

While Catholics at Mass should exchange a sign of peace with those near them, he also called for “greater restraint” to ensure the moment does not become one of irreparable distraction.

The pope said, “I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place (in the Mass), such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord’s insistence that we be reconciled with others before presenting our gifts to God.”

 

[RMD]

There is no doubt in my mind that within the next two years Pope Benedict will move the Sign of Peace to another part of the Mass. I also believe will we see the words of Consecration changed. “for all” will be changed back to the correct transalation “for many”. I also believe that the words “Mystery of Faith” will be returned to the words of Consecration. They are after all the very words of Christ given to the apostles.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701411.htm
Catholic News Service

"Pope Benedict said the sign of peace at Mass “has great value,” especially in demonstrating the church’s responsibility to pray for peace and unity in a world too often troubled by division, violence and hatred.

While Catholics at Mass should exchange a sign of peace with those near them, he also called for “greater restraint” to ensure the moment does not become one of irreparable distraction.

The pope said, "I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place (in the Mass), such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord’s insistence that we be reconciled with others before presenting our gifts to God.
"

Christ did not use the words ‘Mystery of Faith’ in any of the accounts of the Last Supper, in any of the Gospels.

 

[stmaria]

Christ did not use the words ‘Mystery of Faith’ in any of the accounts of the Last Supper, in any of the Gospels.

Not everything the Church teaches comes from scripture, some is handed down from Tradition. The words “mystery of faith” in the Consecration were given by Christ to the apostles. They were removed by Pope Paul at the urging of Father Annibale Bugnini. In his book* The Refom of the Liturgy*, Father Bugnini** falsely **claims that, “mystery of faith” in the formula for the consecration of the wine in the Roman Canon: is not biblical; occurs only in the Roman Canon; is of uncertain orgin.”pg 454

Catechism council of Trent catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml
Form of the Eucharist
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179 catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php
414 You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. . . . In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "mysterium fidei,"is found interposed among His words. . . . Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed. . . . From the expression, moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the question, namely “mysterium fidei,” certain people have thought to draw a protection against error, saying that in the sacrament of the altar the truth of the body and blood of Christ does not exist, but only the image and species and figure, inasmuch as Scripture sometimes mentions that what is received at the altar is sacrament and mystery and example. But such run into a snare of error, by reason of the fact that they neither properly understand the authority of Scripture, nor do they reverently receive the sacraments of God, equally “ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God” [Matt. 22:29]. . . . Yet “mysterium fidei” is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than is believed. For the species of bread and wine is perceived there, and the truth of the body and blood of Christ is believed and the power of unity and of love.
415 We must, however, distinguish accurately between three things which are different in this sacrament, namely, the visible form, the truth of the body, and the spiritual power. The form is of the bread and wine; the truth, of the flesh and blood; the power, of unity and of charity. The first is the “sacrament and not reality.” The second is “the sacrament and reality.” The third is “the reality and not the sacrament.” But the first is the sacrament of a twofold reality. The second, however, is a sacrament of one and the reality (is) of the other. But the third is the reality of a twofold sacrament. Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as is found in, the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them. . . .