Sign of peace-for misericordie

[Mysty101]

misericordie:

OKAY here goes AGAIN since it seems that what I wrote on OBEDIENCE was totally ignored and unaddressed. Anyway, I repeat every word.

We are talking about the obedience the laity are instructed to give regarding the norms of the liturgy. The same obedience is due to all the norms—not only the ones with which you agree.
And speaking of ignoring—what about this?

from the GIRM*
*

*The Rite of Peace
*

**82. …
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.

from the USCCB

The Our Father

is followed by the Exchange of Peace, the gesture which we express through a prayerful greeting of peace, that we are at peace, not enmity, with others. This exchange is symbolic The Vatican tells you to follow your Bishop, and the Bishop tells you to exchange the sign of peace (notice this does not even offer the Priest the option). Can you please tell me exactly how you think you are “right” in refusing to offer some sign of peace when you attend the Novus Ordo Mass?

 

[Fergal]

Oh please lose the smiliees!! The thread is becoming ridiculous. I am seriously following it and getting very distracted. The return of a little decorum would not go amiss… Please Misericordie???

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

We are talking about the obedience the laity are instructed to give regarding the norms of the liturgy. The same obedience is due to all the norms—not only the ones with which you agree.
And speaking of ignoring—what about this?

NOTE: The “conferance” of Bishops cannot tell each bishop in HIS OWN diocese what to do in every instance. As one Bishop said the other day here in the USA, "I respond to the Holy Father, not the “conferance of Bishops.” smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_4_1v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_106v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_135.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_131.gif

 

[misericordie]

misericordieQuote:
Originally Posted by Mysty101
We are talking about the obedience the laity are instructed to give regarding the norms of the liturgy. The same obedience is due to all the norms—not only the ones with which you agree.
And speaking of ignoring—what about this?

NOTE: The “conferance” of Bishops cannot tell each bishop in HIS OWN diocese what to do in every instance. As one Bishop said the other day here in the USA, "I respond to the Holy Father, not the “conferance of Bishops.” smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_4_1v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_106v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_135.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_131.gif

 

[bear06]

Fergal:

Oh please lose the smiliees!! The thread is becoming ridiculous. I am seriously following it and getting very distracted. The return of a little decorum would not go amiss… Please Misericordie???

Obviously it’s hard to hear when you’ve got your fingers in your ears and you’re going la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la… I guess it’s hard to read when that’s happening too.

 

[rayne89]

Ok whether it’s opinional or not (I’m not stepping in the middle of that one), can someone tell me (from those who do not care to participate in the sign of peace by shaking hands) why they do not want to shake hands with the person in the pew next to them. I’m am sincerely curious about the why in this.

 

[Mysty101]

misericordie:

NOTE: The “conferance” of Bishops cannot tell each bishop in HIS OWN diocese what to do in every instance. As one Bishop said the other day here in the USA, "I respond to the Holy Father, not the “conferance of Bishops.” %between% %between% %between% %between%

I repeat
*

*The Rite of Peace
*

1. …
   As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.
   The pope did give the bishops the authority to establish a norm, and if this is the norm, and the celebrant chooses to have the congregation offer each other the sign of peace, than this is a valid instruction, and should be followed in the same manner as any other instruction from the celebrant which is included in the norms or rubrics. It is not optional to the individdual. What is optional is the choice to ignore an instruction, which is not the correct attitude for community worship.*

 

[Mysty101]

rayne89:

Ok whether it’s opinional or not (I’m not stepping in the middle of that one), can someone tell me (from those who do not care to participate in the sign of peace by shaking hands) why they do not want to shake hands with the person in the pew next to them. I’m am sincerely curious about the why in this.

That was discussed either here or elsewhere.

Two main reasons—germs, but some also consider it a distraction or taking the focus off Jesus and giving it to the congregation.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Where did I say it was a rubric??

You state that those words comprise a command from the U.S. Bishops. And quite frankly, they don’t. They’re just a general notation about what generally goes on at U.S. parishes.

Were it meant to be a direction, it would actually imply that the Sign of Peace is given right after the Our Father, when this is actually not the case at all. (There’s more prayer by the priest, followed by the Pax Domini . . .)

Not only that, but the text you quote from isn’t even an authoritative, binding, legislative document issued from the U.S. Catholic Confernece. It’s a “bulletin insert,” merely a reflection on the principles and usages of gestures, in general, in the liturgy.

Sorry, it’s optional. Cite for me one authority who explicitly says it isn’t.

Note, too the wording of the GIRM:

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples.

This rubric does not give a Conference of Bishops the permission to enforce the Sign of Peace. Rather it gives them the authority to determine the way this Peace is expressed by the people, should the priest make use of this option. Again, look at the wording. Not, “whether or not the sign is given,” but “as for the sign of peace** to be given**,” i.e. what type of sign.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And just to clarify: As it stands, the bishops have not, as per paragraph 82 of the GIRM, made a particular form of the sign of peace obligatory for Catholics.

 

[Mysty101]

Who said anything about an obligatory form?

This discussion is about refusing to give a sign of peace when the celebrant instructs the congregation to exchange a sign of peace.

 

[rayne89]

Mysty101:

That was discussed either here or elsewhere.

Two main reasons—germs, but some also consider it a distraction or taking the focus off Jesus and giving it to the congregation.

Ok I may get flamed by the non hand shakers but if these are the reasons I think they’re pretty weak.

Germs? You’d get more germs opening the door in a public bathroom. Your car keys have more germs than a public toilet. (I was surprised too, but after all we probably do set them down everywhere and drop them on the floor.) Do you also not shake hands with people your newly introduced to because they may have germs.

The detracting from the focus on Jesus, well maybe but that doesn’t seem like a very strong arguement either unless your at one of those parishes where people spend ten minutes roaming around the church shaking everyones hands, or the priest is touring around the church shaking hands. Than I would see a valid point. On average I think we shake about 4-5 peoples hands outside our family. That takes maybe 2 minutes. We are supposed to act like the body of Christ right? Would Jesus not want us to spend 2 minutes of the Mass greeting each other with peace?

It just sounds like some people are digging their heels in against it without a justifiable reason. Anyone have any other reasons?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

This discussion is about refusing to give a sign of peace when the celebrant instructs the congregation to exchange a sign of peace.

So you acknowledge the fact that the preist (or deacon) is not obliged by the rubrics to say Offerte vobis pacem?

You’re only saying that, when such is added at the discretion of the priest, we the congregation are obliged to follow through with it?

In that case, you are 100% correct.

To refuse to give the sign of peace would not only be uncharitable, but I strongly suspect it would be contrary to liturgical law and/or spirit, and so at least venially sinful.

That having been said, the “sign of peace” need not necessarily be exchanged via a handshake or other physical gesture. One could just simply nod, and say “Peace be with you.”

However, if one knows, or has reason to believe, that his neighbor would be offended by, say, not giving a handshake, then surely Christian charity also demands that swallow his pride and give the darn handshake? (For the same reasons, however, one should make sure his neighbor is not compelled to do something he is uncomfortable with.)

I really don’t see what there is to argue here.

Now, if the bishops did take it on themselves to legislate a universal sign of peace for the U.S., then there would be no lee-way at all and we’d all be obliged to follow the added rubric accordingly, despite our own personal feelings on the matter.

 

[Mysty101]

DominvsVobiscvm:

I really don’t see what there is to argue here…

Did you read the entire thread??

I started it here because it was off-topic in another thread The original discussion was about someone totally refusing to give any sign of peace when the celebrant instructed the congregation to exchange a sign of peace.

The point of this thread was that it was only an option for the celebrant, but not for the congregation, once the celebrant or deacon gave the instruction. This is why I cited the GIRM and the USCCB.

 

[Mysty101]

PS Did you even read my posts #56 & 67? I really hate wasting time repeating myself.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

No, I did not read the original thread. I did read every post in this thread, though. And I understood that a few issues were being debated, one of which was whether or not the priest has to have the faithful offer the sign of peace.

I guess I was mistaken.

Would you, then, agree with what I wrote above in my last post?

 

[Mysty101]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Would you, then, agree with what I wrote above in my last post?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_5_111.gif
(a couple of minor differences)

To refuse to give the sign of peace would not only be uncharitable, but I strongly suspect it would be contrary to liturgical law and/or spirit, and so at least venially sinful.

I suppose the matter could be sinful, as I did say, but I would never speculate on whether a sin were committed in any situation- only God can know the heart of man

However, if one knows, or has reason to believe, that his neighbor would be offended by, say, not giving a handshake, then surely Christian charity also demands that swallow his pride and give the darn handshake? (For the same reasons, however, one should make sure his neighbor is not compelled to do something he is uncomfortable with.)

I would hope no one would be offended by a nod or smile, instead of a touch. I personally offer my hand, but I am not offended if someone just smiles or nods in return, especially during the cold and flu season.

 

[otm]

rayne89:

Ok I may get flamed by the non hand shakers but if these are the reasons I think they’re pretty weak.

Germs? You’d get more germs opening the door in a public bathroom. Your car keys have more germs than a public toilet. (I was surprised too, but after all we probably do set them down everywhere and drop them on the floor.) Do you also not shake hands with people your newly introduced to because they may have germs.

The detracting from the focus on Jesus, well maybe but that doesn’t seem like a very strong arguement either unless your at one of those parishes where people spend ten minutes roaming around the church shaking everyones hands, or the priest is touring around the church shaking hands. Than I would see a valid point. On average I think we shake about 4-5 peoples hands outside our family. That takes maybe 2 minutes. We are supposed to act like the body of Christ right? Would Jesus not want us to spend 2 minutes of the Mass greeting each other with peace?

It just sounds like some people are digging their heels in against it without a justifiable reason. Anyone have any other reasons?

Let’s try a few.

shyness
stubbornness (that’s not the way we used to do it)
misguided theology (vertical in opposition to horizontal, rather than vertical and horizontal)
“Me and Jesus” syndrome, the attitude that others are a “distraction”
Northern European (reserved) as opposed to Southern European (flamboyant) personality
anal retentive personality, somewhat related to the previous line
fear of germs
reduced/impaired immunity system
phobias; fear of being touched, claustrophobia, zenophobia (fear of strangers), agrophobia (fear of groups)
legalistic, coupled with a disdain for the Pauline rite as opposed to the Tridentine rite.
a skewed attitude towards what constitutes piety.

Hope that helps.

 

[Mysty101]

PS

DominvsVobiscvm:

No, I did not read the original thread. I did read every post in this thread, though. And I understood that a few issues were being debated, one of which was whether or not the priest has to have the faithful offer the sign of peace.

I guess I was mistaken.

Probably not mistaken—maybe confused by someone trying to use a premise for one side to draw a conclusion for the oposing side. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_3.gif

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I suppose the matter could be sinful, as I did say, but I would never speculate on whether a sin were committed in any situation- only God can know the heart of man.

I was referring to whether the act in general was sinful; I wasn’t judging any particular person.

If a person willingly violates a Church directive, he commits at least venial sin.