My local parish stops sign of peace

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think the OP’s priests actually stopped the sign of peace as a part of the liturgy. That part remains in the liturgy–the point at which the priest turns to the congregation and says “peace be with you,” and the congregation responds, “and also with you.” It is also in the Tridentine liturgy.

Here’s the difference: the “Rite of Peace” always occurs (after the Our Father), but the “Sign of Peace” is the part that may or may not be added if the celebrant considers it opportune.

 

[FrDavid96]

Seems like it would be better to instruct the people how to behave during the sign of peace rather than cancelling the sign of peace.

Yes, it would. And speaking from personal experience, I tried over and over again to explain the Sign of Peace. When I finally realized that no matter how I tried to explain it, some people would still abuse the moment, I came to the conclusion that the only thing I could do at that point was to stop adding the Sign of Peace to the Rite. Many other priests have had similar experiences, and came to the same conclusion.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of priests who do not add the sign of peace would say “if people would do it properly, and with due reverence, I would once again add it.” As far as the priests I’ve discussed this with, they are all of that mindset.

 

[GerardSchlundt]

It’s not just a disruption, it’s an evil.

I think you use the term evil a little too loosely. The rite of peace exists is part of the liturgy, and may have been poorly placed in the N.O., but its there.

The problem is more what people DO during that rite. As our pastors calls it, some people start shaking hands like a politician in heat.

What is worst than the rite, are people who are more Catholic than the pope.

 

[elts1956]

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 Sign of Peace is not a part of the liturgy, but I “think” an innovation from after Vatican II in an attempt to remind people of the early Jewish Christian communities giving the kiss of Peace at the beginning of the Mass. ??

 

[FrDavid96]

The Sign of Peace is not a part of the liturgy, but I “think” an innovation from after Vatican II in an attempt to remind people of the early Jewish Christian communities giving the kiss of Peace at the beginning of the Mass. ??

Actually the Sign of Peace was a permitted addition to the Mass even before Vatican II–the difference was that this option was rarely exercised, and as I understand it, was not to be done in Masses for the dead, and never on Holy Thursday (because of Judas’ betrayal by a kiss). The method was different, and usually employed a “pax board.”

 

[FrDavid96]

This is from the original Catholic Encyclopedia, which is also a resource here on Catholic Answers. Note the publication date of 1913

Excerpt from the entry “Pax in the Liturgy”
Besides this episcopal or sacerdotal salutation, the words Pax tecum, Pax vobis, or Pax vobiscum are used in the Liturgy at the kiss of peace. On such occasions the Liturgy contains prayers or collects ad pacem (cf. Kiss; Cabrol in “Dict. d’archeol. et de liturgie”, s.v. “Baiser de Paix”, where all references are given).

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pax+in+the+Liturgy

Excerpt from “Kiss”
In Rome, however, the kiss of peace was more closely united to the Communion, and it must have followed shortly after the Pater Noster as it does at present.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Kiss

Vatican II did not “introduce” the sign of peace, it was there (at least as an option) long before the Council ever met.

 

[Frosty]

Yes, it would. And speaking from personal experience, I tried over and over again to explain the Sign of Peace. When I finally realized that no matter how I tried to explain it, some people would still abuse the moment, I came to the conclusion that the only thing I could do at that point was to stop adding the Sign of Peace to the Rite. Many other priests have had similar experiences, and came to the same conclusion.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of priests who do not add the sign of peace would say “if people would do it properly, and with due reverence, I would once again add it.” As far as the priests I’ve discussed this with, they are all of that mindset.

Although the Sign of Peace was never the free-for-all described by so many on this forum in the parishes of my diocese that I have attended, there always seemed to be those people who just couldn’t stay in their own pew or who had to blow kisses to everyone in sight. It was often talked about from the pulpit, in parish bulletins and the Diocesan newspaper. Oddly enough, the worst offenders were the older members of the parishes! Finally, about half a dozen years ago the pastors began either having the choir, or the priest himself, begin the Agnus Dei no more than a minute after inviting us to give each other the Sign of Peace. Basically just enough time to look to either side or the persons behind. It was amazing how quickly most people caught on. Of course, it didn’t happen overnight or work as well in every parish. However, on the whole people now do stay in their own pews, there is no noisy disturbance and the one minute time limit still holds. In my own parish, there are probably more people who simply smile and say quietly “peace be with you” than there are those who actually shake hands with their neighbours. I don’t know the reason for this but it is something that has evolved only in the last year since our new pastor arrived.

 

[OhMalley]

The first time I ever heard of the sign of peace being referred to as a distraction was on this forum. Far as I know we celebrate Mass as a community of faith…I’d miss it if it were stopped in my parish.

I very much agree. The sign of peace as currently manifested in the OF is one of many reasons why I prefer the OF over the EF.

 

[OhMalley]

Although the Sign of Peace was never the free-for-all described by so many on this forum in the parishes of my diocese that I have attended, there always seemed to be those people who just couldn’t stay in their own pew or who had to blow kisses to everyone in sight. It was often talked about from the pulpit, in parish bulletins and the Diocesan newspaper. Oddly enough, the worst offenders were the older members of the parishes! Finally, about half a dozen years ago the pastors began either having the choir, or the priest himself, begin the Agnus Dei no more than a minute after inviting us to give each other the Sign of Peace. Basically just enough time to look to either side or the persons behind. It was amazing how quickly most people caught on. Of course, it didn’t happen overnight or work as well in every parish. However, on the whole people now do stay in their own pews, there is no noisy disturbance and the one minute time limit still holds. In my own parish, there are probably more people who simply smile and say quietly “peace be with you” than there are those who actually shake hands with their neighbours. I don’t know the reason for this but it is something that has evolved only in the last year since our new pastor arrived.

I have never seen a problem with the sign of peace where the pastor actually made the effort to catechize his flock on the right protocol.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

Actually, the ‘sign of peace’ between congregants is an innovation which is not part of the liturgy. I am very happy that the parish I attend has ceased to do this and other unorthodox prctices.

 

[Jea9]

I have been traveling for my job as a PTA and have been going to Mass in different places. Right now I’m in NM, in the Las Cruces diocese and since I’ve had pretty awful experiences at both churches in this diocese, I’m concluding that something must be off w/ the Bishop here. I don’t know that for sure, and maybe I’m coming to a rash conclusion. Where I live in SE Colorado, we have very similar problems w/ the sign of peace. I don’t think it’s bad in and of itself, quite the contrary, but I DO think that it’s placement is not that great. Especially when you’re at a parish where the music seems to be the most important thing. The sign of peace seems to last for a long time and it’s loud, and very distracting. And then they go into a version of The Lamb of God that is atrocious. OK, sorry that’s off topic. But, I think that there are plenty of things that distract us from the beauty of what is happening during the Mass, and we don’t need to add to it at the moments just before we receive Our Lord.

FWIW, I hope those of you who are in a parish where everyone respectfully shows the sign of peace, realize how blessed you are.

PS If any of you live in the NM area, help me understand the mess that happens here! I hope that it’s only at the two parishes I’ve been to!

 

[Frosty]

I have never seen a problem with the sign of peace where the pastor actually made the effort to catechize his flock on the right protocol.

As I said, the Sign of Peace was never the free -for -all described by so many on these forums. However, towards the end of the 1990’s, for some reason, in certain parishes some people began leaving their pews and walking across the aisles to exchange the sign. leaning over two or more pews in front or back to do the same. or turning a simple greeting into a chat time. This was NOT typical or the entire congregation(s) but it did alarm and disturb the pastors and the Bishop who were always striving for beautiful, reverant liturgies. The thing is, this practice was started by some of the older parishoners ( I mean those who grew up pre-Vatican II) and they did know the correct protocol, or should have. It was only natural that pastors decided that reminders had to be made of how to conduct oneself during the Sign of Peace and the significance of the act. Most people listened, but, as always, there were those few who were resistant.
I repeat, the exchange of the Sign of Peace has never been a major issue in this diocese but using catechesis to try and nip a potential problem in the bud surely can only be applauded?

 

[OhMalley]

Actually, the ‘sign of peace’ between congregants is an innovation which is not part of the liturgy. I am very happy that the parish I attend has ceased to do this and other unorthodox prctices.

Actually it’s part of the rite. An optional part indeed but hardly an “innovation” or an “unorthodox practice” as some would like to suggest.

 

[OhMalley]

As I said, the Sign of Peace was never the free -for -all described by so many on these forums. However, towards the end of the 1990’s, for some reason, in certain parishes some people began leaving their pews and walking across the aisles to exchange the sign. leaning over two or more pews in front or back to do the same. or turning a simple greeting into a chat time. This was NOT typical or the entire congregation(s) but it did alarm and disturb the pastors and the Bishop who were always striving for beautiful, reverant liturgies. The thing is, this practice was started by some of the older parishoners ( I mean those who grew up pre-Vatican II) and they did know the correct protocol, or should have. It was only natural that pastors decided that reminders had to be made of how to conduct oneself during the Sign of Peace and the significance of the act. Most people listened, but, as always, there were those few who were resistant.
I repeat, the exchange of the Sign of Peace has never been a major issue in this diocese but using catechesis to try and nip a potential problem in the bud surely can only be applauded?

Indeed. And if catechesis doesn’t work then the pastor doesn’t have the respect of his flock.

 

[Expat_Barbara]

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.

I find some responses here particularly the above, disturbing.

In some cultures the Catholic church is terribly inhospitable. One would not go into some one’s house and ignore them! Likewise the host would not ignore the visitor so why on earth when there is a visitor in the parish, would one ignore them? It is rude.

I am an expatriate living in a Caribbean country where the Sign of Peace is seen as an integral part of the Mass.Whilst members of the church greet each other and the choir sings, the priest actually leaves the altar and makes his way through part of the congregation. Everyone is made to feel as though they ‘belong’.

Before the final blessing, the animator after making the announcements, asks if there is anyone celebrating a birthday or an anniversary which is then acknowledged by the congregation. Visitors and new parishioners are also acknowledged and welcomed at that time.

Surveys have revealed that people visiting a church for the first time and are made to feel welcome prefer to return to that church rather than go to one where they have been ignored. Simply put, it’s called ‘loving people into the church’.

 

[FrDavid96]

Indeed. And if catechesis doesn’t work then the pastor doesn’t have the respect of his flock.

No. You can’t make a sweeping generalization like that.

Sometimes the pastor is up against other influences which are trying to undermine the integrity of the Liturgy, and makes his job of catechesis all the more difficult.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I have no problem with stopping the sign of peace during this time of concern and uncertainty about the flu. On TV they were saying about how some schools were going to try to keep the kids safe and some of the cvomments were to not high 5 and touch hands. They were even passing out hand sanitizer. Why would a simple nod and smile not suffice?

 

[Katrinka_Yobotz]

I would like to add that I, and many others who have expressed a preference that the Sign of Peace be excluded, are not taking this position because we do not like it or do not desire to be at peace with others or any of the other reasons cited by those advocating the inclusion of this option in the liturgy or expressing consternation of those who do not favor it.

Rather what motivates people like me is when it takes place. I would have no problem if the sign of peace were moved to another part of the Mass either before the consecration or after communion. That is because for many like me, we are focusing our minds and on the miracle that just took place on the altar; focusing on the vertical; to God. When the sign of peace comes, that distracts us from vertical orientation and causes of to focus on those around us, however briefly that may be, it breaks the chain of thought and meditation and it is difficult for many to pick up that thread afterwards.

Unlike any other activity, Mass, while public and member of the community are gathered in one place, is a thoroughly private experience. It is not entertainment, it is not a community event, it is not a performance, It is worship. Nothing is more private and personal than worship. Thus, unlike any other activity people engage in, Mass is utterly unique. Many have lost sight of this in recent decades and hence we see “innovations” and misplaced “creativity”.

The above is also why it is important that Mass be celebrated in a consistent manner. There are few things more distracting that someone doing something differently. Frequent changes to how Mass is celebrated often causes the mind to wander for many people. When my mind wanders, I do not get as much out of the Mass.

By the way, the Congregation for Divine Worship is currently considering moving the sign of peace to some other point in the Mass. I pray that the Holy Spirit will give them the grace of wisdom to evaluate this and make a determination that will benefit the faithful.

That was the best comment here on the topic. Many have strayed from their Catholic faith because they don’t understand the Real Presence. There have been many things that have contributed to this, including eliminating the consecration bells, Protestant songs (the wine and bread of compassion, sharing and gathering, for example), as well as inserting the sign of peace durng the Consecration.

I had recently been reflecting on the profound respect and solemnity we exhibit during Eucharist Adoration, and wondered why we don’t act that way every time the Consecrated Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Holy Sacrament on the altar. Once the Consecration takes place, I don’t want to leave my knees, even for the Our Father prayer, and especially not to focus on those around me.

We need to return to demonstrating our faith in the breathtaking miracle we witness and partake of. The sign of peace should be before the Consecration or after the Consecrated Hosts are placed in the tabernacle.

 

[FrDavid96]

That was the best comment here on the topic. Many have strayed from their Catholic faith because they don’t understand the Real Presence. There have been many things that have contributed to this, including eliminating the consecration bells, Protestant songs (the wine and bread of compassion, sharing and gathering, for example), as well as inserting the sign of peace durng the Consecration.

I had recently been reflecting on the profound respect and solemnity we exhibit during Eucharist Adoration, and wondered why we don’t act that way every time the Consecrated Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Holy Sacrament on the altar. Once the Consecration takes place, I don’t want to leave my knees, even for the Our Father prayer, and especially not to focus on those around me.

We need to return to demonstrating our faith in the breathtaking miracle we witness and partake of. The sign of peace should be before the Consecration or after the Consecrated Hosts are placed in the tabernacle.

While I agree with the substance of what you’re saying, we do need to remember that in the pre-Vatican II Mass, the optional sign-of-peace did occur after the Our Father. The moment itself is not a modern innovation. The abuse of the sign is certainly is, but not the timing. See my earlier post where I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913–the Pax is after the Our Father. That’s a good 50 years before Vatican II.

Pope Benedict (as Cardinal) suggested moving the sign of peace to the offertory. Perhaps he will do this. Personally, I hope that he will.

On the other hand we might also look at it from the point of view that he now has the authority to change the timing, and in 4 1/2 years of having that authority, he has refrained from doing so. Maybe this means that the right moment hasn’t presented itself (like a complete revision of the GIRM), maybe it means that he feels that he wants to delay such a change until he’s been Pontiff a little longer, maybe it means that now that he has a different perspective (that of Pope rather than Cardinal), he has reconsiderred his position. All of that is mere speculation, and we cannot attempt to know his motivation unless he chooses to share that with us. Yet the fact remains that it is it least reasonable to say that it is possible he might move the Pax.

 

[allybear]

I’d much prefer to see it moved, because even when I’m just at Mass with my husband, I find it distracting in its current location, and during the school year, I am a catechist. We have our classes Sunday morning, followed by Mass, and the classes are supposed to sit together, with the families in the pew behind or next to their children. It is a real distraction for the kids - between shaking hands with each other, with their families, and with me, they’re all fired up right before receiving Holy Communion. Yikes!