Kissing on the lips during the sign of peace

[Bookcat]

Redemptionis Sacramentum from the Holy See:

“72. It is appropriate ‘that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.’ ‘The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful.’ ‘As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people,’ and their acts are subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See.”

So very important is what has been “established” in particular place -and even recognized by the Holy See.

Certainly not jumping over pews to get to the guy in the other row --that is not something to be done!

 

[Elizium23]

Just keep in mind that it’s a liturgical action, not a family reunion! And also that the sign of peace ought to be offered to everyone in the same manner.

It was my habit to shake hands with the men and hug the women, and then we had a few rounds of Safe Environment Training, where I learned that full frontal hugs were boundary violations, and I realized how discriminatory it was to treat men and women differently, particularly at this liturgical moment, so I always make sure from then on to shake everyone’s hand equally.

 

[Bookcat]

Another take: zenit.org/en/articles/kissing-at-the-sign-of-peace

and the Catholic Answers staff Apologist blog on the question is here: catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/peace-be-with-you

 

[Bookcat]

Keys are 1. The nature of the sign (liturgical/ Christian not marital/ familiar). 2. sober 3. Only to those near by one. 4. Local custom is taken into account. 5.But it is up to the local Conference of Bishops to set the form (or perhaps at times the local Bishop). 6. Greater restraint -than often happens…

 

[babochka]

The Oriental Churches have traditional, standardized ways of passing the peace. That makes it a “no muss, no fuss” sort of thing.

I love the method of passing the peace that I have experienced in the Chaldean and Maronite churches. It certainly underscores that this is a ritual, which should express the reality that has already occurred; namely that we have made peace with our brothers and sisters in Christ before making our offering to God.

 

[malphono]

I love the method of passing the peace that I have experienced in the Chaldean and Maronite churches. It certainly underscores that this is a ritual, which should express the reality that has already occurred; namely that we have made peace with our brothers and sisters in Christ before making our offering to God.

Exactly my point.

 

[babochka]

Another take: zenit.org/en/articles/kissing-at-the-sign-of-peace

From the above article:

Keeping in mind the above documents we can say the following:
– If the bishops’ conference has legislated regarding the form of carrying out the sign of peace, and this legislation has received Roman recognition, then this form is obligatory.
– If the bishops have not legislated, then the sign should be carried out according to local custom, to those nearest, and in a sober manner.
– Local custom can vary. In some countries a bow and a smile is common, in others a handshake, in others joining one’s hands and bowing.
–** It could well be argued that in some cultures a brief kiss on the cheek among spouses is a fitting sign of peace while a handshake would be rather formal.** Local customs could well tolerate a difference of gestures for immediate family and toward others, with nobody taking offense.
In other words, there is no reason why the gesture has to be universal if local custom readily accepts differences, provided that unnecessary movement and exaggerated gestures are avoided.

http://engine.adzerk.net/i.gif?e=ey...NDUzOTI2OTY1NH0&s=p_1Ewj_v5ypm1olj-5g5Vhj01l0

I tend to go with this. While I would prefer a more ritualized version of the sign of peace, as done in the Oriental Churches, that is not what we have. We have vague guidelines, subject to interpretation by the bishops as well as individuals. The bishops interpretation of the guidelines have not precluded a kiss or hug among closer individuals. If I had an argument with my husband, I would not shake his hand as a gesture of peace between us. We would hug. In the Byzantine Catholic church, the faithful do not exchange a sign of peace. On the rare occasions in which I attend Mass with my family, I give a brief hug to my husband and children and shake hands with those immediately in front of or behind me. I sometimes attend daily Mass in a parish in which the standard seems to be a nod. When I’m there, I nod, but if someone extends a hand, I shake hands. I’ve rarely been in a parish in which the sign of peace is unduly prolonged or not conducted in a sober manner.

 

[Bookcat]

I tend to go with this.

See my “keys” up above.

And note “cheek” not lips. And note “could tolerate”… and there may have been later responses -often he has follow up clarifications and his response to is as per that date. And such is of an opinion. And of course note the lines just prior.

 

[ProVobis]

The Oriental Churches have traditional, standardized ways of passing the peace. That makes it a “no muss, no fuss” sort of thing.

From what I’ve seen of the Maronite practice, I really wish that would catch on in the Latin Rite. That is, if they’re going to have it at all, because it seems just like turning around in pews seems so unnatural and disconnected with the entire congregation.

 

[Neofight]

From Catholic Answers staff Apologist (and she makes use of one document from the Church within):

“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”(GIRM 82).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300671&highlight=kiss+of+peace

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=303622&highlight=sign+peace+married

At that it seems would make it okay. My marriage is sacramental, and I will continue to kiss my bride at each mass we attend in the unity as a married couple…if this is our biggest problem over piety and reverence, we are in pretty good shape!

 

[Bookcat]

At that it seems would make it okay. My marriage is sacramental, and I will continue to kiss my bride at each mass we attend in the unity as a married couple…if this is our biggest problem over piety and reverence, we are in pretty good shape!

The sign of peace is not a time for showing “maritial affection” really

but the “sign of peace” of “brothers” (in the biblical sense) in Christ during Liturgy.

 

[lalindsay225]

My family members always exchanged a kiss at the Sign of Peace, and shook the hands of those near us. It’s just how I was raised.

I will continue to give my son a quick kiss at the Sign of Peace, and my parents, if they happen to be with us. No one has ever objected, and I see no compelling reason to change now. And I would never dream of hurting my parents’ feelings by declining a kiss.

 

[jritenour]

Well, kissing on the lips isn’t exactly making out, so I think it is perfectly acceptable. We call it the sign of peace, but it is traditionally referred to as a kiss of peace. It is symbolic and ritualistic and how it is carried out varies from culture to culture.

I tend to agree with this. I kiss my wife on the lips, cheek or forehead (she is much shorter than me). We are not making out and it is soberly done. However, I think if you are in the midst of someone you know who will take great offense to his, it’s best to not offend if reasonably possible.

Peace.

 

[SecretGarden]

As long as it isn’t a french kiss or a type of kiss meant for the bedroom or a hotel room, I wouldn’t worry about it.

Sometimes we Catholics take ourselves too seriously. In this case, I see no problem with it.

 

[Bookcat]

GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

"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."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

---

What is expressed?

Family love on the biological level? No that is not the meaning.

Martial love? No that is not the meaning of the rite.

**Then what is expressed by that RITE? **

“the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament”

How is it expressed?

“the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.”

And note too – in a “sober manner”

and “only to those who are nearest to them”.

 

[Neofight]

"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."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

What is expressed?

Family love on the biological level? No that is not the meaning.

Martial love? No that is not the meaning of the rite.

The what is expressed by that RITE?

“the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament”

How is it expressed?

“the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.”

And note too – in a “sober manner”

and only to those nearest to them.

In my opinion (yes, we all have one, a most often none of them are infallible absolutes) your interpretation of the rite is flawed, in that it is so prudish it makes a simple but meaningful sign of affection (and yes, peace) vulgar…but again, to each his own, I will continue the practice .

 

[Bookcat]

GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

"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."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

---

What is expressed?

Family love on the biological level? No that is not the meaning.

Martial love? No that is not the meaning of the rite.

**Then what is expressed by that RITE? **

“the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament”

How is it expressed?

“the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.”

And note too – in a “sober manner”

and “only to those who are nearest to them”.

I refer readers also to the Catholic Answers Apologist links above for longer discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300671&highlight=kiss+of+peace

“The sign of peace is not intended to be a time for engaging in public displays of affection, however chastely those PDAs may be exchanged.” is noted in that link from CA staff.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403196&postcount=5

 

[Ophelia23]

“the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.”

And note too – in a “sober manner”

and “only to those who are nearest to them”.

Nowhere does this state one can not show the sign of peace with a kiss. This clearly states that it is a manner to be established (or eliminated, if an offensive practice is present) by the Conference of Bishops, in accordance with the cultural norms of the people. This is very intentionally left open ended and up to the Bishop’s discretion. Your interpretation is very aligned with your cultural norm, but not everyone else’s.

Further, the frequent reminder of a “sober manner” is so deeply subjective as well. To be sober about something means to be marked by the seriousness, gravity and solemnity of the celebration. Who is to say that a kiss can not be sober?

 

[babochka]

In my opinion (yes, we all have one, a most often none of them are infallible absolutes) your interpretation of the rite is flawed, in that it is so prudish it makes a simple but meaningful sign of affection (and yes, peace) vulgar…but again, to each his own, I will continue the practice .

 

[RoseMary131]

At that it seems would make it okay. My marriage is sacramental, and I will continue to kiss my bride at each mass we attend in the unity as a married couple…if this is our biggest problem over piety and reverence, we are in pretty good shape!