Movement in the Sign of Peace movement movement [Fr. Z]

[zab]

Matrix,

Your post makes you sound as if you are not especially charitable. Aren’t we called to show filial love to our fellow Christians- this stands outside of this simple issue of the sign of peace.

I disagree. You can be a charitable person without being the most sociable person.

 

[Solomon_Wisdom]

There are some good reasons to move it before the offertory - it not only perhaps matches what may have been done in the early church, but fills the scriptural exhortation to make peace with one’s neighbor before approaching the altar.

Some good reasons for keeping it the way it is are:

• It does match with hundreds of years of tradition to keep it in this place - such an abrupt change would require new text for the mass and potentially lose some of the current beautiful, scriptural language (Jesus saying to his disciples “Peace I leave you, my peace I give to you” seems to make more sense after the Eucharistic Prayer than before it.) This would not be an “organic” development in the rite.

• We do not fraction the host right when the scriptural words of institution indicate that it would be done - it happens much later. It is not always necessary for the mass to be chronologically consistent with scripture.

• The kiss of peace seems to flow naturally out of praying the Our Father at that point. Maybe your family had a fight in the car on the way to church (like that never happens) and you’ve just finished saying “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Giving a sign of peace (or truce?) just after really hammers that one home.

• The kiss of peace where it is now should be an immediate, final reminder to all that receiving Communion is a communal act. Moving it to much earlier runs the great risk of turning communion into a Me-And-Jesus moment, especially with the tendency of many to receive rank-and-file, go back to a pew, and kneel with their eyes clamped shut and ears tuned out.

Thankyou for that - I found that made me think much more about this topic.

 

[JimG]

As mentioned by several others, the sign of peace has been a part of the liturgy for a thousand years, and in its current location within the Mass. When the priest says, “May the peace of Christ be always with you,” that is part of a long liturgical tradition.

If we then turn to our neighbors, friends, family, or other parishioners, and confirm this by saying “the peace of Christ be with you,” there is nothing in that liturgical moment that by its nature particularly calls for kisses, hugs, or even handshakes. It is simply an extension of the rite of peace just completed by the priest.

It seems to me that the rite can be reformed to its original meaning without being moved. But since its liturgical meaning seems to have been lost in the past 40 years or so, that may be hard, though not impossible, to do.

 

[benedictgal]

As mentioned by several others, the sign of peace has been a part of the liturgy for a thousand years, and in its current location within the Mass. When the priest says, “May the peace of Christ be always with you,” that is part of a long liturgical tradition.

If we then turn to our neighbors, friends, family, or other parishioners, and confirm this by saying “the peace of Christ be with you,” there is nothing in that liturgical moment that by its nature particularly calls for kisses, hugs, or even handshakes. It is simply an extension of the rite of peace just completed by the priest.

It seems to me that the rite can be reformed to its original meaning without being moved. But since its liturgical meaning seems to have been lost in the past 40 years or so, that may be hard, though not impossible, to do.

Actually, the location of the Sign of Peace comes from the Ambrosian Rite, which, if memory serves, might still be in use. Right before the offertory, as indicated in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Antiphona post Evangelium.

Deacon: “Pacem habete”. R. “Ad te Domine” (cf. the response Soi Kyrie in the Little Synapte and elsewhere in the Constantinopolitan Rite. In early Manuscripts the form here is: “Pacem habete. V. Corrigite vos ad orationem”. R. “Ad te Domine”. Lejay considers that the kiss of peace once came at this point.

V. Dominus vobiscum, etc.

Oratio super sindonem. (This prayer may have dropped out of the Roman Rite and may account for the “Oremus” with no prayer to follow at this point.)

The Offertory.

Thus, there is a historical precedent for this, as Pope Benedict, himself noted.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Under the change, the sign of peace, which now takes place moments before the reception of communion, would come earlier. Arinze said the change might help create a more solemn atmosphere as the faithful are preparing to receive communion.

From this article to God’s ear!

 

[ASD]

“Often, the significance of this gesture is not fully understood,” Cardinal Arinze noted. "It is thought that it is an occasion to give a high-five to friends. Rather, it is a way of saying to the person beside you that the peace of Christ, really present on the altar, is also with all men.

There are some good reasons to move it before the offertory - it not only perhaps matches what may have been done in the early church, but fills the scriptural exhortation to make peace with one’s neighbor before approaching the altar.

…it would be such a shame to lose the sign of peace. It’s the one time during Mass where we show a sign of that filial love to, and have a brief interaction with, our fellow Christians.

Those seem like very different rationales or interpretations.

What Cardinal Arinze says matches the plain meaning of the relevant words and gestures in the TLM/EF. It’s the peace of Christ flowing from the altar. A good example of how well the TLM makes clear what’s actually happening.

So, where does the idea that we should understand the kiss or sign or peace at Mass in terms of Matthew 5:23-24 come from?

Similarly regarding the third interpretation. Are there Church documents that say that’s what it’s all about?

CATECHESIS IS THE BEST REFORM.

Amen.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[ASD]

So, where does the idea that we should understand the kiss or sign or peace at Mass in terms of Matthew 5:23-24 come from?

Not sure where that edit button went. If I could edit, I would add

Why should we think that the person who happens to be beside me in a pew is the person whom Mt 5:23-24 challenges me to reconcile with?

 

[brigid12]

I’d prefer the Pax to remain where it is, but drastically reduce the exercising of the option to have the people extend it to one another. (In other words, the priest says: “The peace of Christ be with you always.” / “And also with you.” then right into the Fractio and the Agnus Dei.)

The reasons I have for this are two:

1. This has been the traditional location of the Pax in the Roman Rite for over a thousand years. Keep it here, but correct its use.
2. While the option is not being exercised, use the time to educate the faithful (via homilies, post-Communion-prayer announcements, bulletins, etc.) about what the Pax is (and is not!), how it is done in the E.F. of the Mass, how it should be done in the O.F. of the Mass, and what this rite signifies. THEN exercise the option, on occasion, when the people know how to do it right.

CATECHESIS IS THE BEST REFORM.

That catechesis needs to include the priests also! At least that may cut down on disobedience from them somewhat.

 

[tptram]

I would hope that it will be move earlier, before the offertory.

Tak

 

[anon77300002]

I will stand behind our blessed Pope 100% on this one. Just as our RCIA teacher (I’m a sponsor) says, that the reason for Mass is NOT to socialize but to worship GOD! That’s why I have fallen away from holding hands, and instead just folding my hands in prayer while saying the Lord’s Prayer. Of course it’s only polite to be congenial toward your fellow “man”, but do it before and after Holy Mass.

 

[MarieVeronica]

It’s really not superfluous because the Sign of Peace is not intended to be a “meet and greet” action, even though in some churches it seems as if that is what people are doing. I prefer it to stay where it is and proper instruction on it given from the pulpit. I am lucky in my parish because generally people are not in the habit of moving from their places or crossing the aisles, (although there is the occasional exception) and our priests do not leave the sanctuary. I think putting it earlier in the Mass would make it seem more of a “meet and greet” rather than a reconciliation with one’s brothers and sisters. However, whatever the Pope decides will be fine with me, as he is the boss in these matters.

Good points, Carolyn. You’re indeed blessed to be in a parish where the “Sign of Peace” isn’t overdone.

SIGH. I guess I’m getting old. lol. I can remember a few years… BEFORE the “Sign of Peace” was introduced and it didn’t seem necessary. I’m not adverse to it. Just to having a hand shoved in my face… when I’m kneeling in adoration of my Lord.

The “Sign of Peace” goes on too long at my parish.

 

[DebChris]

I would hope that it will be move earlier, before the offertory.

Tak

This is where I also would like it, as mentioned in my earlier posts. See the CCC for Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass.
“If when you bring your gift to the altar you remember that your brother has a grievance against you…”
It can be disconcerting when we are in the most solemn part of Mass to break for the sign of peace and then immediately return to the same attitude of adoration before Communion.
I think the pope has been thinking about this for a long time. I seem to remember something in his earlier writing on the Eucharist.
I do not remember any sign of peace during Latin Mass or even in the first few years following Vatican II.
I trust the pope as to the proper timing.

 

[George_C]

Like I said, it’s the one part of Mass I could do without.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Tonight at the candlelight Mass, the dreaded “thing” happened to me during the exchange of Peace: same thing that too often happens during the forced-hand-holding during Our Father at some Masses: guys (men), you really do not know your strength. What is your point exactly when crushing my fingers together with brute force? Why do you need to do this? Did no one tell you that most females do not have the same muscle strength, including in their hands, that males do? I’m not a weakling, but I’m so tired of men overdoing it for both of these. I didn’t feel I was being given Peace! I feel as if I’m in battle, and the enemy has just shown me his (very unpleasant, unwelcome) grip! :hypno:

For the most part, this gesture for me has become meaningless. (Except obviously for inducing injury) Since there is a particular person in another parish with whom I need reconciliation, it would be more appropriate for me to attend one of their masses, approach her, make peace with her. (Yes, I agree that is the gospel message which should have become the liturgical intent: make peace with your estranged brother before the table of the Lord.)

Alternatively, if it must be kept, I think it would be nice – if it’s decided to extend it to strangers – to greet those strangers as one enters the church. Peace Be To You was Christ’s greeting to his apostles. The early Christians greeted each other with a sign of peace – not just randomly or artificially in the middle of some celebration, but upon first seeing them. So as not to disturb others before Mass, it could be whispered as you enter, see a particular person, greet them quietly or place a hand on their shoulder. It is not my favorite idea. I’d rather do away entirely with something that for me has become awkward, but at least it would make a little more sense than the exchange in the pews.

 

[ASD]

This is where I also would like it, as mentioned in my earlier posts. See the CCC for Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass.
“If when you bring your gift to the altar you remember that your brother has a grievance against you… Mt 5:23-24]”

OK, I’m doing the repetitive, annoying, “Yea, but …” thing.

I’m interested to know where the idea that we’re supposed to understand the kiss or sign of peace in terms of Mt 5:23 comes from?

At first I thought you were citing CCC 1345 to indicate that Justin says so. But, Justin doesn’t mention any rationale when he says, when “concluded we exchange the kiss,” so clearly you were not citing Justin as authority for the Mt 5:23 interpretation of sign of peace at Mass.
Does anybody know what the grounds are for interpreting the kiss or sign of peace during Mass in terms of Mt 5:23?
It doesn’t make much sense to me. Since so many people are surrounded by family and neighbors at Mass, it seems like we could just as easily cite Mt 5:46: For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?

TIA, ASD​

Sermon on the Mount

 

[japhy]

I’m interested to know where the idea that we’re supposed to understand the kiss or sign of peace in terms of Mt 5:23 comes from?

This article challenges that idea as well.

 

[Brendan]

OK, I’m doing the repetitive, annoying, “Yea, but …” thing.

I’m interested to know where the idea that we’re supposed to understand the kiss or sign of peace in terms of Mt 5:23 comes from?

At first I thought you were citing CCC 1345 to indicate that Justin says so. But, Justin doesn’t mention any rationale when he says, when “concluded we exchange the kiss,” so clearly you were not citing Justin as authority for the Mt 5:23 interpretation of sign of peace at Mass.

You would be entirely correct in noting that the “sign of peace” has little to do with Mt 5

Here is Redemptions Sacramentum on the subject

The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters…

Matthew 5:23 is fulfilled in the Penitential Rite. THAT is the time when we declare our wrongs to not only God, but to our brothers and sisters and make peace for our wrongdoings.

The “Sign of Peace” is a recognition that God’s Peace is among us. That Christ Himself has reconcilled all of Humanity with the Father.

 

[ASD]

Thanks.

It seems pretty clear: Although the idea that we could understand the kiss or sign of peace in terms of Mt 5:23 might be understandable, it is not supported by relevant documents. It’s like an urban legend or something.

My hobbyhorse: How in the world did it ever come up? The NO/OF was supposed to make everything so clear to everybody! The post-conciliar Church is supposed to be way past all kinds of folk religion and folk interpretations.

More repetition: I just can’t get over the irony or paradox. It’s outrageous. Like a five year plan, an economic prosperity plan, forced on us from above.

ASD​

Catholic Revolution: New Wine, Old Wineskins

 

[anon77300002]

Who should we extend the peace to?
This article make me stop and think.:

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Tomassi.htm​

l
Here is the part that pertains to this discussion:
The Construction of the New Mass
Some Funny Things Happened
Near the Roman Forum: Part II
by Romano Tommasi - Summer 2002
"...The second “restored” rite is that of the Sign of Peace. The instructions for the New Roman Missal say: “Before they share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for each other.”13 This is a ritual which has a tripartite significance: (1) The faithful exchange a sign (2) for peace and unity in the Church and the human family (3) indicating love for one-another. Yet what is the reality in every Catholic Church in the world? (1) The faithful and non-Catholics always exchange the Sign of Peace within the new Mass. No document has forbidden, or even suggested, that this is erroneous. (2) The current sign is therefore one of greeting and welcoming, but does not imply in the least a spiritual peace between persons present. (3) If you consider love the same as being friendly, the third objective is attained. There is not any evidence that the peace offered is considered by the faithful as an agape. Hence there is no reticence in offering it to those in mortal sin, nor will an official document be found to order, or even suggest, that the state of grace is necessary for the exchange of agape/love/charity.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Matrix,

Your post makes you sound as if you are not especially charitable. Aren’t we called to show filial love to our fellow Christians- this stands outside of this simple issue of the sign of peace.

It’s not that I’m not charitable, I just have issues with physical boundaries and with strangers touching me, due to having Asperger’s Syndrome. It takes me a while to warm up to people I don’t know, so I’m just not a very touchy-feely person.