MUST I refrain from handshaking or hugging?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
The sign of peace is not an awkward moment. Physical contact is not required. You simply look at a person, even a family member, keep your arms down or hands folded and give a slight bow to them saying peace be with you. How is that awkward? There is no place in Mass for hugging, handshaking, backslapping, kissing or waving. Its not a family get-together night out.
Click to expand...
Well then I suppose I’m just one of those weirdos who enjoys it. :roll eyes: The bowing, waving and whatnot I find peculiar. Others I know (and they all seem to congregate here to complain) prefer to be a bit stiffer.

For some in the congregation, it may be the only time in the week they are touched by another person.
 
You should not be hugging anyone, including family, during the sign of peace, which suffers much abuse especially in the United States. That’s not what the rite is about.

Please see: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403223.htm

From Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis:

The sign of peace
  1. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who “is our peace” (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one’s immediate neighbours (150).
(Emphasis mine).
 
Around here, during flu season, the priest will often say at the appropriate time, “Let us now verbally exchange a sign of peace.”
 
CommonWeal said:
You should not be hugging anyone, including family, during the sign of peace, which suffers much abuse especially in the United States. That’s not what the rite is about.

Please see: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403223.htm

From Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis:

The sign of peace
  1. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who “is our peace” (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one’s immediate neighbours (150).
(Emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
Are you in or near Portland?
 
We haven’t been exchanging the Sign of Peace at Mass, either. We normally don’t at weekday Masses, by the way. Several months ago, our priests announced that it was due to the flu epidemic and that the choice was based on the opinions of doctors they had consulted. I don’t mind. I figure that it will make exchanging the Sign of Peace more meaningful when the flu season is over.

God bless you.🙂
 
Our former, older pastor, Monseigneur Mouton, dispensed with the hand shaking, sign of peace, during Lent, which is the time of year when our immunity is lowest and germs are plentiful. I found it to be a wise idea. I use a hand sanitizer before Holy Communion when I think that there’s a chance of becoming infected, and always before distributing the host or cup.

On our trip to the Holy Land in 2012, being germ conscious on the airplane and out in public, I used a hand sanitizer on my hands and outer nostrils to be safe. A large percentage of those on our Pilgrimage became ill, one went directly to her physician after we landed, yet I who usually catch everything, remained healthy. Our physician told my husband, who saw him for an upper respiratory infection after the trip, that my using Purell helped keep me well.

I think that refraining from the “sign of peace” during Lent is a good idea.
 
CommonWeal said:
You should not be hugging anyone, including family, during the sign of peace, which suffers much abuse especially in the United States. That’s not what the rite is about.

Please see: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403223.htm

From Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis:

The sign of peace
  1. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who “is our peace” (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one’s immediate neighbours (150).
(Emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
Sorry my friend. I will hug my husband at the sign of peace and say I love you. That is an affirmation of community, the one that started at home many, many years ago! Got the GIRM, but it is my church too1
 
I would do as the bishop instructed. If, as in one case pointed out, the instruction was to give a “verbal” sign of peace, I would not disobey that instruction.
 
It’s not uncommon at our parish for the congregation to simply turn to their neighbor, smile and say, ‘Peace be with you’, with or without some hand gesture-- most often the two fingered ‘Peace’ sign, or the finger-over-thumb Sign of the Cross and kiss (the gesture, not an actual kiss on another person’s cheek).
 
Ohana said:
Sorry my friend. I will hug my husband at the sign of peace and say I love you. That is an affirmation of community, the one that started at home many, many years ago! Got the GIRM, but it is my church too1
Click to expand...
Maybe, but from experience we know that by sitting around couples, you’re low on their priority list for getting any handshakes or greetings. You may get them eventually but it seems like it becomes an empty gesture at that point just to fill the time.
 
ccmcmg said:
The priest tonight (and last week) did not direct us to offer the sign of peace. We did not, but alas, almost the entire congregation did it anyway; we gave the sign of peace to those who asked us.
Click to expand...
If the priest doesn’t initiate the sign of peace then for the laity to do it is an empty gesture. The sign of peace isn’t an opportunity for us to show solidarity or well-wishes to others, it is the peace of Christ that flows from the altar. It needs to be initiated by the priest for it to have any meaning.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe, but from experience we know that by sitting around couples, you’re low on their priority list for getting any handshakes or greetings. You may get them eventually but it seems like it becomes an empty gesture at that point just to fill the time.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Spoken4 said:
It’s not uncommon at our parish for the congregation to simply turn to their neighbor, smile and say, ‘Peace be with you’, with or without some hand gesture-- most often the two fingered ‘Peace’ sign, or the finger-over-thumb Sign of the Cross and kiss (the gesture, not an actual kiss on another person’s cheek).
Click to expand...
The practice at many parishes is simply to turn to those around you and say “Peace be with you.” It is a perfectly fine sign of peace and the same sign can be offered to family members and spouses. In any cases, the same sign of peace ought to be offered to everyone. It is a liturgical action, not a familial action.
 
JimG said:
The practice at many parishes is simply to turn to those around you and say “Peace be with you.” It is a perfectly fine sign of peace and the same sign can be offered to family members and spouses. In any cases, the same sign of peace ought to be offered to everyone. It is a liturgical action, not a familial action.
Click to expand...
You’re right, but there is so much confusion about this gesture, even amongst the clergy, that the meaning of it is lost and it looks like it is seen by many as some sort of expression of your own personal love for people around you, or as a kind of ‘community bonding’ activity. The CDW have tried to rein in the excesses of the gesture, but this seems to be blatantly ignored by much of the laity and clergy alike.

It’s an optional part of the Mass anyway, so perhaps the best thing would be to just got rid of it.
 
Ohana said:
Sorry my friend. I will hug my husband at the sign of peace and say I love you. That is an affirmation of community, the one that started at home many, many years ago! Got the GIRM, but it is my church too1
Click to expand...
Hugging your husband and telling him you love him at the point in the Mass where everyone is supposed to extend the Peace of Christ to each other is kind of off point.
For one, its Christ’s Love that you are extending to one another, not “My Love”.

Hugging one person, but not the others is not an affirmation of community. Why not do the sign in a communal way, like everyone else?

May I suggest that the Church is not me or mine, but ours and us?
 
I’ve got a mixed opinion on this. I think that there is nothing wrong with hugging a family member. However, there is the ‘chain reaction’ concept to consider. Someone else sees you hug or shake hands with your family member, then that person shakes hands with someone else, then you’ve got flu germs flowing despite the priest’s announcement trying to prevent the flu from spreading.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
This is a great sadness for me, does Christ have the flu, how can we refuse him?
Click to expand...
Christ wouldn’t have the flu. The cup bearer is supposed to properly wipe the cup of potential germs after each and every person partakes. The concern is that with the flu spreading, the priest has a responsibility to his flock, not because Christ may have the flu, but the concern about those around him not being 100% accurate of wiping the cup clean of any harmful germs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top