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

[de_profundis]

After Mass, one of them asked my dad what was up with the Rock eyebrow (any WWE fans in these forums could smell what my dad was cooking).

Haha, classic

 

[ChemicalBean]

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.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

Agreed—thanks for posting—even more reasons than I considered.

Any changes to the GIRM, just add more areas for confusion. Some argue that changes can only be made with a total revision–I agree. Some also go further and do not acknowledge anything not in the GIRM.

Lux

 

[JPUSC]

They should leave the sign of peace to the clergy in the sanctuary, just like in the Tridentine Mass.

It was never really one of my favorite parts of the New Mass and most people don’t know the scriptural meaning behind it. I certainly didn’t.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Personally, I hope the “sign of peace” is moved… to earlier in the Mass.

We always have a “meet and greet” with those around us, just prior to Mass starting… so the later “sign of peace” seems superfluous anyway.

Beyond the point where all should be kneeling, there are often some ushers who feel it their “duty” to go row by row… shaking hands. It is more than disconcerting… to be kneeling before my Lord and Creator… and suddenly have an ushers hand extended nearly into my face.

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.

 

[DebChris]

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.

Well written. I am fine with whichever decision the Pope chooses to make. We both agree that about the importance of reconciliation between one another, the importance of forgiveness.
There are two beams to the cross. The vertical flow of Grace and the horizontal reaching out to one another.

 

[DebChris]

I just thought about another reason for moving the Sign of Peace to immediately after the prayers of Petition. In the early Church, those who had not yet been baptized were asked to leave the church before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This practice is used with RCIA candidates in many parishes. The sign of Peace would provide a good sendoff as they go to learn more about the Faith.
As I said before, there is the scriptural admonition to reconcile with one another before bringing our gifts to the altar.
I also see the lull in the Mass that takes place as the altar servers gather everything that is needed for the Consecration.
Of course, this is not my decision to make.

 

[japhy]

I just thought about another reason for moving the Sign of Peace to immediately after the prayers of Petition. In the early Church, those who had not yet been baptized were asked to leave the church before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This practice is used with RCIA candidates in many parishes. The sign of Peace would provide a good sendoff as they go to learn more about the Faith.

The catechumens were asked to leave before the Creed and the Prayer of the Faithful. The first acts of catechumens once they had been baptized was participation in the Prayer of the Faithful (exercising their priestly ministry of intercession).

As I said before, there is the scriptural admonition to reconcile with one another before bringing our gifts to the altar.

Which is why the Extraordinary Form of the Mass begins with the Penitential Rite before the altar is approached.

I also see the lull in the Mass that takes place as the altar servers gather everything that is needed for the Consecration.

What do you mean by “a lull in the Mass”?

 

[DebChris]

What do you mean by “a lull in the Mass”?

I actually think that is a good question. I just didn’t have a better word to use. During this time, the priest is waiting at the altar while servers to gather everything together that is necessary for the Eucharistic meal.

 

[benedictgal]

I actually think that is a good question. I just didn’t have a better word to use. During this time, the priest is waiting at the altar while servers to gather everything together that is necessary for the Eucharistic meal.

It is not a “lull”. It is the time of offering our own gifts to the Lord while the priest is preparing for the Eucharistic sacrifice. A priest friend of mine says that this is an important time for the faithful because they are making their own sacrifice of their treasure and it should be respect. That is why it peeved him when his pastor would make announcements during this time (while my friend was concelebrating with him).

 

[japhy]

During this time, the priest is waiting at the altar while servers to gather everything together that is necessary for the Eucharistic meal.

There doesn’t always have to be something “going on” at Mass, just like there doesn’t always need to be sound (words or music).

To move the Sign of Peace to this part of the Mass so that the people have “something to do” while the priest and altar servers are preparing the altar is bad liturgy.

 

[DebChris]

There doesn’t always have to be something “going on” at Mass, just like there doesn’t always need to be sound (words or music).

To move the Sign of Peace to this part of the Mass so that the people have “something to do” while the priest and altar servers are preparing the altar is bad liturgy.

There are more important reasons already noted. I just see that part as a matter of timing, removing the focus from the servers and keeping it on the altar. Again, it is not my decision to make. I am happy regardless of the final decision.

 

[lizaanne]

I would caution all of you … it’s become a free-for-all now because we’ve let it (and I blame “music directors” for not knowing what the GIRM says about the Agnus Dei). If this gets moved to the start of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the free-for-all? You ain’t seen ‘nuthin’ unless our priests exercise their ability to move the Mass along.

And in parishes where Father wanders around outside the sanctuary, pressing the flesh like a politician during the Sign of Peace, well - all bets are off there.

~Liza

 

[FrRJBoyd]

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.

Very well put!

Peace comes from God; we do not bestow it upon ourselves. Keep the pax where it is, but change the manner in which it is given in the O.F. Mass. The gestures from the T.M. could be introduced into the Ordinary Form of the Mass, so that all would see peace descend from the altar, through the priest, to the servers, representing all of the faithful. If you have to have everyone involved, take a page out of the Maronite liturgy and let the servers give the pax to someone in the front of the church and let it spread from there in an orderly and dignified fashion.

 

[japhy]

Very well put!

Thank you, Father.

Peace comes from God; we do not bestow it upon ourselves.

Well, even in the O.F., we don’t exchange the sign of peace with one another until the priest has said, “The peace of Christ be with you always” (in effect, his giving of the peace to us). But I doubt if people recognize it as such. A physical method (such as I saw in the Maronite liturgy I watched Wednesday evening) would make it much clearer.

I recently read in Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy that a theme of the liturgical movement as it existed at the end of the 19th and through the beginning of the 20th centuries was a reform of liturgical piety rather than liturgical rites: “Liturgical piety … seeks to reform … the spiritual dispositions and practices of the Catholic faithful.” I’ll get the full quote and reference later today.

 

[Feanor]

Whatever the Pope wants to do is fine with me.

 

[Lizziebel]

Hopefully we will still continue to have just a moment to greet each other with a sign of peace (be it a kiss on the cheek, a handshake, or a simple wave), as it is the one time during Mass where such interaction occurs. It’s important, and it would be a shame to lose that.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

If they have to have any sort of “ominum gatherum”, I’d rather it was limited to the little greeting just before Mass begins that some churches/parishes encourage. After the Sign of the Cross? I’d rather the focus was on the altar and on Christ. I’m not a fan of the Sign of Peace in any form, mostly because I’m not the most sociable person to begin with, and secondly… especially in cold and flu season, I’d really rather not share people’s pathogens (though one priest, during cold season, actually said the handshake wasn’t necessary if you weren’t feeling well or if you just weren’t comfortable with it).

 

[Feanor]

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.

 

[Lizziebel]

That’s exactly the reason 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. My husband and I don’t know very many at his/our parish (though this has changed a bit since I started RCIA). At Mass, the only social greetings we tend to exchange outside the sign of peace is a handshake with the priest afterwards on occasion. It makes sense, as with large parishes I’m coming to find people don’t really get much chance to know each other. So it is good to have something. Maybe that’s partly because I come from a denomination that tends to have small, close-knit parishes.

I tend to be on the shy side, but it’s still nice to have a little social interaction and sense of community. Even if that just means a smile and a wave to people sitting nearby, rather than shaking hands and risk giving/getting whatever’s going around at this time of year!