Leaving out the handshake at the sign of peace?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carmelitenovice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s sadder when no one shakes your hand when they can. I’ll bet there are many people who feel slighted during that part of the Mass. Just saying.
I have had that happen when someone has a cold or they were afraid of catching a cold during the season. No big deal. I have also had a couple of people angrily glare at me when I offered my hand. Still no big deal. I said a little silent prayer for them instead. That’s the one big turn-off of the daily Mass on EWTN, leaving out the sign of peace.
 
The GIRM says “the priest . . . says,” not “the priest may say . . .” Again, nothing indicates that it is optional.

What IS optional, is how the sign of peace is given by the congregation.
It seems to be the same in all parishes. You turn to the left and that person is already shaking hands with those on his left. Then you turn to the right and find that person is shaking hands with those on his right. You turn around with the person in back of you and he has his back to you. And then you just miss the one in front of you who extended his hand to you. Never fails. :D:D
 
Optional or not, it’s always rather sad when it is omitted.
I think it’s sad when it’s omitted. Particularly when it’s omitted because people think they will catch germs. Good job they’re not French, and germs didn’t seem to bother Mother Theresa.

As a convert, I went to Mass for some time before I was able to receive the Eucharist. The sign of peace was something that made me feel part of things.
 
The Canadian version of the Roman Missal says:
  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.
For that you have to look at GIRM 153 & 154
153 After the Lord’s Prayer is concluded, the Priest, with hands extended, says alone the embolism Libera nos (Deliver us, Lord). At the end, the people acclaim,* For the kingdom.*
154. Then the Priest, with hands extended, says aloud the prayer Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti (Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles) and when it is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he announces the greeting of peace, facing the people and saying, The peace of the Lord be with you always. The people reply, And with your spirit. After this, if appropriate, the Priest adds, Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
The Priest may give the Sign of Peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so that the celebration is not disrupted. He may do the same if, for a reasonable cause, he wishes to offer the Sign of Peace to a small number of the faithful. According to what is decided by the Conference of Bishops, all express to one another peace, communion, and charity. While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, The peace of the Lord be with you always, to which the reply is Amen.
82 tells you where & how, 153 tells you if & when.

Because of what it is there is no option to offer a different sign to your spouse from what you offer to your pew mate. If we are in a parish where the Sign of Peace is exchanged, it’s a hand shake with my kids and my hubby just as it is with anyone else in my pew.
 
Hello friend!!

I wish my church would omit it!! lol I once saw a women pick a festering sore and it started bleeding. Yuckie!! I don’t know what to say. LOL:p
 
What version is that? Because on the Vatican website it says:

The Canadian version of the Roman Missal says:

I don’t see anything in there suggesting that it is optional.
The GIRM as approved by the USSCB.

You are confusing two aspects of Mass.\

The first is the actual Rite of Peace. The priest states “The peace of the Lord be with you always” and we respond “And with our spirit”.

That is a part of every Mass and is not option. That is the actual “Rite of Peace”

What follows is an optional Sign of that Peace. See GIRM 153 and 154.
That sections governs the optional addition to the Rite of Peace.
 
The sign of peace is not required at all times, but it is not strictly “optional” either. The Missal at this point says, “Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds: Let us offer each other the sign of peace.” Some people, then, have argued that the phrase “if appropriate” makes the sign of peace completely optional at the priest’s whim, because the priest can simply decide that since he does not like the sign of peace and doesn’t think it should have been introduced into the Mass in the first place, it is never appropriate…
So Mark, exactly WHO does decide then?

Absent specific instructions from the CDWDS and the local Ordinary, who makes the decision and what criteria is the person mandated to use?
 
Hi:

I suppose I should ask the priest this but I never get the chance:

There are a couple of very holy priests in our local churches. Both are relatively new to our area. They are the type who follow the Missal to the letter.

Except:

they both fall silent at the time it is said, “let us show one another a sign of peace”.

At those times, most of us just fall silent and wait for the next part. Some people will quietly shake hands as usual with the people nearest them.

In the Missalettes, the sign of peace is mentioned. Why are these priests leaving it out? Are they right to do so? (I’m sure they have a good reason, these are not the type of men to just do their own thing with the Mass?)

What gives?

Thanks in advance.
It is optional. As other posters have shown in GIRM 154:

*154. Then the priest, with hands extended, says aloud the prayer, Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti (Lord Jesus Christ, you said). After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and saying, Pax Domini sit simper vobiscum (The peace of the Lord be with you always). The people answer, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, Offerte vobis pacem (Let us offer each other the sign of peace. *

Also Father Z explains it well here: wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-the-sign-of-peace-is-optional-can-i-opt-out/

Then, also, there are times when it is appropriate not to have the sign of peace. Times I have known of such as there was a horrible flu outbreak in our area and the Bishop asked the priests not to have parishioners shake hands, daily mass if the priest needs to shorten mass and in schools. My son’s high school does not do the sign of peace. High schoolers, yes, they get loud and carried away and silly at times. He didn’t go to Catholic grade school, so I can’t speak for that age.
For that you have to look at GIRM 153 & 154
82 tells you where & how, 153 tells you if & when.
.
One is in chapter II, the other is in chapter IV

God bless 🙂
 
So Mark, exactly WHO does decide then?

Absent specific instructions from the CDWDS and the local Ordinary, who makes the decision and what criteria is the person mandated to use?
The priest, but this must be done in accord with the spirit of the liturgy and the mind of the Church, according to which it seems apparent that the sign of peace is intended to be an ordinary part of the typical Mass. As I have discussed before (e.g., [1], [2]), “Church law, with rare exceptions, is written for an audience which is presumed to be mature, faithful, well-meaning, and to have good taste and good intentions, at least usually.” That there are no guidelines provided for when the sign of peace is “appropriate” does not mean that the Church intends for there to be no criteria at all. Similarly, the GIRM might say that at a certain point in the Mass “a suitable hymn” may be sung, but this does not mean that we think each priest can say of any song whatsoever, “Well, I like it, which makes it ‘suitable’ by my standards.” Or rather, when priests, in so doing, take advantage of permissive language and stray beyond the mind of the Church too frequently, then Rome is forced to issue corrections, reproaches, and sometimes even concrete norms. This has happened repeatedly in the realm of music, which shows the outcome of a breakdown in the smooth functioning of the liturgical system.
 
I think it’s sad when it’s omitted. Particularly when it’s omitted because people think they will catch germs. Good job they’re not French, and germs didn’t seem to bother Mother Theresa.

As a convert, I went to Mass for some time before I was able to receive the Eucharist. The sign of peace was something that made me feel part of things.
You make some good points. I agree. I also think it’s very sad when the sign of peace is left out because the expectation is that people will act inappropriate. People are not animals and they shouldn’t be treated as such. If inappropriate behavior is the reality then the pastor needs to catechize his flock. EWTN should consider changing their policy in this area.
 
From my understanding it is optional but hardly ever omitted. I wish it would be omitted more often, especialy at my college chapel. The whole congregation starts jabbering and walking across the sanctuary to hug anyone they know. They won’t even quiet down and go back to their seats until the chior starts the Agnus Dei.
 
I HATE the sign of peace. I have severe rheumatoid arthritis and shaking hands is extremely painful, my hand then swells and is inflamed for hours after church. If I don’t shake hands, I get the snooty people telling me how unchristian I am and I am not “participating”. …so, I shake hands, feel nauseous from pain, and come home and take more pain medicine.

see, there’s always another side to every story:D
 
Hi:

I suppose I should ask the priest this but I never get the chance:

There are a couple of very holy priests in our local churches. Both are relatively new to our area. They are the type who follow the Missal to the letter.

Except:

they both fall silent at the time it is said, “let us show one another a sign of peace”.

At those times, most of us just fall silent and wait for the next part. Some people will quietly shake hands as usual with the people nearest them.

In the Missalettes, the sign of peace is mentioned. Why are these priests leaving it out? Are they right to do so? (I’m sure they have a good reason, these are not the type of men to just do their own thing with the Mass?)

What gives?

Thanks in advance.
That would be quite fine with me especially when the person behind you is coughing and sneezing 😦
 
I HATE the sign of peace. I have severe rheumatoid arthritis and shaking hands is extremely painful, my hand then swells and is inflamed for hours after church. If I don’t shake hands, I get the snooty people telling me how unchristian I am and I am not “participating”. …so, I shake hands, feel nauseous from pain, and come home and take more pain medicine.

see, there’s always another side to every story:D
Good grief. Smile, put your right hand over your heart and bow your head to those who want to shake your hand. Or you could just close your eyes with your hands up to your face. The corporal sign of peace should not be eliminated because individuals aren’t willing to take steps to safeguard themselves from “snooty people telling me how unchristian I am.” 😦
 
Good grief. Smile, put your right hand over your heart and bow your head to those who want to shake your hand. Or you could just close your eyes with your hands up to your face. The corporal sign of peace should not be eliminated because individuals aren’t willing to take steps to safeguard themselves from “snooty people telling me how unchristian I am.” 😦
Good advice Exorcist.
 
Our practice in our parish, is that we simply vow to the people around us and say Peace be with you, as a sign of peace. Maybe the priest is made a simple bow to the congregation and leaving.
 
Good grief. Smile, put your right hand over your heart and bow your head to those who want to shake your hand. Or you could just close your eyes with your hands up to your face. The corporal sign of peace should not be eliminated because individuals aren’t willing to take steps to safeguard themselves from “snooty people telling me how unchristian I am.” 😦
or not go. that’s what my son did after leg surgery and while in a brace another parishioner kicked him in that leg and told him it didn’t matter if he was in a brace or just had surgery, he should still kneel (didn’t matter that the brace was locked and he literally couldn’t bend it.) he hasn’t been since. good Christian charity…
 
The corporal sign of peace should not be eliminated because individuals aren’t willing to take steps to safeguard themselves from “snooty people telling me how unchristian I am.” 😦
Personally I think the sign of peace would have more significance if it were done outside the church, in the parking lot, for example. After all, Christianity isn’t confined to within the walls of a church building.
 
[edited]

We all know, that is easier said than done. It has become pretty much expected that you shake hands. When in a crowd and the shaking starts it is hard to do something different. People are still going to expect a handshake. Some would probably even after you bow.

Rheumatoid arthritis is very painful.

God bless.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top