My local parish stops sign of peace

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephentlig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stephentlig

Guest
hiya guys, my local parish has decided to stop doing the sign of peace at mass. I do however feel they have no right to do so and was wondering if you could please set me straight on the subject.

the priests took it upon themselves to do it with no word from the archdioccese on it. I remember one time father david in this forum telling us that a priest has no right to decide what part of the mass to do and not to do.

below is the link to the small article in our local town newspaper.
a response from someone to put me on the right track here would be great.
it would certainly put my mind at ease thats for sure, as I am quite upset about it.

God bless
Stephen.<3
 
The congregation’s exchange of the sign of peace is an optional part of Mass. Any priest can choose to use it or not at his discretion. No permission from the archdiocese is needed to use it or not use it.

Some parishes have suspended it because of the risk of sharing infectious disease.

Some priests prefer not to allow it for a while if people get carried away with it (for example, noisily shaking hands with everyone they can reach rather than doing it in a subdued manner only with the people directly next to them, interrupting the reverence called for at Mass).

I don’t know the reasons at your parish, but since it is optional it doesn’t really matter.
 
Stephen:

I don’t know who decided if the Sign of Peace can be included at Mass. I can tell you, though, that our Pastor is responsble for two parishes (they are located about 1/2 mile apart from each other. One Church includes the Sign of Peace, the other one doesn’t. It would be interesting to find out the answer to your question. :confused:

Monica
 
I wish they’d drop it everywhere. It’s a big disruption.
 
It’s not just a disruption, it’s an evil. Let’s face it: the “Sign of Peace” injects anarchy into the Mass before the Blessed Sacrament. That one’s attention should be diverted from Christ in order to socialize, even for a moment, is scandalous in the extreme. Any pastor who gets rid of it is doing the work of God.
 
It is so that people can act “Christ like”, and give their peace to each other. It is not a bad thing.
At my Church we even shake hands with everyone at the beginning of mass as well.

I found this here: cptryon.org/ask/ask/signpeace.html
There is no better way to describe the custom of exchanging the greeting of peace at Mass than the words of St. Augustine in the 4th century:** “After the Lord’s Prayer, say ‘Peace be with you.’ Christians then embrace one another with a holy kiss. This is the sign of peace.” **
In the primitive church at Rome and in the Eastern Church, the kiss of peace was offered after the first part of the Mass and before the Eucharistic Prayer. Early baptismal documents also indicate that the exchange of peace was reserved only for the ‘faithful,’ and so catechumens were dismissed before the Prayer of the Faithful, which was followed by the Kiss of Peace.

In the Western Church the sign of peace was moved quite early to where it is as Augustine described it and where it is today. **The Western Church saw a close link between peace and communion–peace with one another before receiving the Prince of Peace. **

About your question, it is an optional part of mass, but maybe you could speak with someone to try and get it back. Or talk to the Priest about why he doesnt find it of importance.
 
kristanl said:
At my Church we even shake hands with everyone at the beginning of mass as well.
Click to expand...
I never understood the purpose of this either. I have been to some churches, visiting, and while I’m trying to say my Rosary or mentally prepare myself before Mass, I’m interrupted by the cantor telling everybody to ‘stand and greet those around you’. As if everybody sitting around talking wasn’t enough of a distraction…

No thanks.
 
As others have said, the sign of peace is an optional part of the Mass that a priest can include or exclude at will. At my parish, we only rarely have the sign of peace.

Personally, I find it quite distracting because at that moment, I am filled with the wonder that the Holy Eucharist there on the altar is now the actual Body of Blood of Christ, and I am meditating on the awesome miracle when suddenly someone is tapping me on the shoulder trying to shake my hand. Wait, what was I thinking about before that interruption…
 
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the rest of the baptized present to be a distraction with regards to Holy Communion, especially people who decry the individualism of the present age.

Considering the rest of the assembly to be a “distraction” to your personal prayer totally missed the difference between liturgical prayer and private prayer. The Mass is a liturgical act of worship, an act in which the assembly acts as one. It is not a private act of worship. The other people present are not some kind of necessary evil that we’re supposed to ignore the best that we can. They are the other members of a symphony of prayer, of which we are only one part, and with which we share a common duty of total concentration and concerted participation. Our notice of the obvious presence of the small number of the Church triumphant should only add to the awe-inspiring nature of the Mass, as we recognize in them a visible sign of the full participation that is at every Mass, and which includes the entire Church: militant, suffering, and triumphant, in all places, and in all times. We should notice the others at Mass as the violins, following the conductor, notice the wood winds and the percussionists. Christ, truly present, by the power of the Holy Spirit, gathers all of these to Himself as a single offering, united by His saving Death and Resurrection, made pleasing to God the Father. Now that is awesome!

I am, however, totally sympathetic with the practical opinion that the Sign of Peace can distract the assembly from their communal work of worship by tempting some into irrelevant interpersonal communication. In spite of its deep meaning, the Sign of Peace can have the unfortunate effect of putting the symphony off-tempo. I can see why it is sometimes omitted. I just think that it is very important that we not lose sight of the communal nature of liturgical prayer. If the Sign of Peace is more than a particular assembly can manage, then that is too bad, but it does happen. The symphonic aspect of the assembly’s worship has to be protected.
 
ncregister.com/daily/16325/

There’s been talk about moving the sign of peace to a less disrupting time in the Mass. This was suggested at a recent Synod. The US Bishops requested for it to be moved to the beginning of Mass but that was not approved as of yet. Many places this is done but that is an abuse as we all know we cannot add to or change the mass on our own. In the above article mentions the moving to before the offertory. Hopefully something will be done.
 
patwolford said:
I never understood the purpose of this either. I have been to some churches, visiting, and while I’m trying to say my Rosary or mentally prepare myself before Mass, I’m interrupted by the cantor telling everybody to ‘stand and greet those around you’. As if everybody sitting around talking wasn’t enough of a distraction…

No thanks.
Click to expand...
I agree… I wish they would get rid of it at my parish…
 
I rather hug than shake hands. Some churches that I have attend, shake hands before Mass, some do in between.

Sylvia
 
EasterJoy said:
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the rest of the baptized present to be a distraction with regards to Holy Communion, especially people who decry the individualism of the present age.

Considering the rest of the assembly to be a “distraction” to your personal prayer totally missed the difference between liturgical prayer and private prayer. The Mass is a liturgical act of worship, an act in which the assembly acts as one. It is not a private act of worship. The other people present are not some kind of necessary evil that we’re supposed to ignore the best that we can. They are the other members of a symphony of prayer, of which we are only one part, and with which we share a common duty of total concentration and concerted participation. Our notice of the obvious presence of the small number of the Church triumphant should only add to the awe-inspiring nature of the Mass, as we recognize in them a visible sign of the full participation that is at every Mass, and which includes the entire Church: militant, suffering, and triumphant, in all places, and in all times. We should notice the others at Mass as the violins, following the conductor, notice the wood winds and the percussionists. Christ, truly present, by the power of the Holy Spirit, gathers all of these to Himself as a single offering, united by His saving Death and Resurrection, made pleasing to God the Father. Now that is awesome!

I am, however, totally sympathetic with the practical opinion that the Sign of Peace can distract the assembly from their communal work of worship by tempting some into irrelevant interpersonal communication. In spite of its deep meaning, the Sign of Peace can have the unfortunate effect of putting the symphony off-tempo. I can see why it is sometimes omitted. I just think that it is very important that we not lose sight of the communal nature of liturgical prayer. If the Sign of Peace is more than a particular assembly can manage, then that is too bad, but it does happen. The symphonic aspect of the assembly’s worship has to be protected.
Click to expand...
Very good post. Although I wouldn’t mind if they did away with the sign of peace altogether and certainly not move it to the beginning of Mass. Aside from the fact that some people get carried away in socializing at this time instead of taking the opportunity to offer a sign of peace. it is sometimes a very painful experience when certain men squeeze my hand so tight. In my younger days, I used to have a somewhat firm handshake. I hope that I did not cause as much pain for others as what I sometimes experience now. Sometimes it hurts so bad that I cannot hold back a moan. Now I am more sympathetic to others and try not to be as firm with my handshake.
 
Stephentlig said:
hiya guys, my local parish has decided to stop doing the sign of peace at mass. I do however feel they have no right to do so and was wondering if you could please set me straight on the subject.

the priests took it upon themselves to do it with no word from the archdioccese on it. I remember one time father david in this forum telling us that a priest has no right to decide what part of the mass to do and not to do.

below is the link to the small article in our local town newspaper.
a response from someone to put me on the right track here would be great.
it would certainly put my mind at ease thats for sure, as I am quite upset about it.

God bless
Stephen.<3
Click to expand...
Stephen,
It’s important to keep in mind that the priest cannot add or remove or change anything in the Mass on his own authority. That’s the key phrase. There are some parts of the Mass which can be added or removed by the priest, but that applies only because the Church has already specified that these parts may be added/removed.

What a lot of Catholics don’t realize is that the Church says that the sign of peace may be added to the Mass if the priest feels that it’s opportune. Here’s what the Latin actually says:
Deinde, pro opportunitate, diaconus, vel sacerdos, subiungit
Roughly, that means “next, if it seems opportune, the deacon, or priest, may add”
‘Let us offer each other the sign of peace’

In other words, the sign of peace is only added at the priest’s discretion. The Rite of Peace itself is always done, but the sign of peace is an optional part of that.

I hope that clears things up at least a little.
 
I don’t understand the hatred of the sign of peace.

I’m traditionally-minded and actually rather like it. In my parish people don’t go “overboard” - just a handshake, a smile, and “peace be with you”. Everybody seems very sincere, friendly, even loving. I don’t see how it’s disrespectful to the Body of Christ to show love for your brethren with a non-disruptive handshake and simple prayer, particularly since the Church herself has allowed for it.

I’ve read some pretty big abuses of it on this forum, like it’s some sort of “happy hour” in the middle of Mass, but in my church, and I suspect most, it seems pretty harmless.
 
John92 said:
I don’t understand the hatred of the sign of peace.

I’m traditionally-minded and actually rather like it. In my parish people don’t go “overboard” - just a handshake, a smile, and “peace be with you”. Everybody seems very sincere, friendly, even loving. I don’t see how it’s disrespectful to the Body of Christ to show love for your brethren with a non-disruptive handshake and simple prayer, particularly since the Church herself has allowed for it.

I’ve read some pretty big abuses of it on this forum, like it’s some sort of “happy hour” in the middle of Mass, but in my church, and I suspect most, it seems pretty harmless.
Click to expand...
John,
It’s not the sign of peace itself which I have difficulty with–it’s the misuse of it. You are very fortunate to be in a parish where it’s done properly, but unfortunately that’s not the case for most places. I know there will be those who say that if it’s explained to people, they’ll do it the right way. That’s simply not true for some people. Those who have it in their minds to be disruptive at that moment, will continue to do so, no matter who tells them what.
 
Our parish does it “properly,” but I don’t like it. Just a matter of personal preference, but it just seems kind of disingenuous to make everyone shake hands and say something that they otherwise wouldn’t say. It feels like a meaningless gesture. I guess I should try to think of it as sacramental in and of itself, but it still seems like forced pleasantries to this soon-to-be convert… FWIW, I didn’t like it in the Episcopal Church either. It’s the only “awkward” time at Mass, to me.
 
SonofMonica said:
Our parish does it “properly,” but I don’t like it. Just a matter of personal preference, but it just seems kind of disingenuous to make everyone shake hands and say something that they otherwise wouldn’t say. It feels like a meaningless gesture. I guess I should try to think of it as sacramental in and of itself, but it still seems like forced pleasantries to this soon-to-be convert… FWIW, I didn’t like it in the Episcopal Church either. It’s the only “awkward” time at Mass, to me.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would offering the Peace of Christ to a fellow Christian seem meaningless? If one does not profoundly wish peace upon every other member of the Body of Christ, one has to ask why. That seems a rather serious deficit in understanding and/or attitude.

I mean, you do want to spend eternity with these people don’t you? You do thirst for their total conversion to Christ as much as you thirst for your own conversion right? Or you at least want to want that, no? None of us has all of our desires in the right place, after all. Still, we ought to at least want to desire that God’s will be done, to desire what God desires. We have to start by recognizing that the other people in the pews are the stuff that saints are made of, and the only stuff that saints are made of. We are made of the same stuff, and probably in a less developed state. Humility demands us to recognize this.

Maybe you think of it merely as a pleasantry, and maybe that is the problem. That isn’t what the Sign of Peace is for. It is meant to be a solemn recognition of Christ’s life in and Christ’s deep desire for the other person. We approach Holy Communion in the recogntion that it is the means of nourishing your mutually-held life in Christ. It is a recognition of that you share the only life you have that means anything with that other person, even though you don’t know them. You know enough: that Jesus thirsts to have them be one with you, as He is one with the Father. That is enough. You don’t have to even like them. You only have to desire to completely love them, to have them entirely won to Christ. After all: the Christian life is nothing if not a communal life!

The love of God, after all, only becomes difficult when it starts to involve the real people that we actually have to live with. That is also when it becomes real.

Still, one does not have to like the various parts of the Mass, either. It helps, but it isn’t a necessity. One just has to do one’s best to cooperate fully with what the Mass is meant to accomplish. To find enjoyment in what obedience demands is icing on the cake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top