Sign of Peace- Move it?

[japhy]

I think the Sign (or Kiss) of Peace should remain where it is in the Roman Rite. It is not so much inspired by Matthew 5:23-24, as is generally the case with the Kiss of Peace in the Eastern Rites.

In the Roman Rite, the Kiss of Peace is a Paschal act, derived and flowing from the presence of Christ on the altar in the Eucharist. Read informative blog postvery from two years ago.

That being said, I think priests should more liberally exercise the option to omit the giving of the Peace among the congregation where and when they find it is more of a distraction and less of a genuine liturgical act.

 

[elgar]

Beautiful! I was going to suggest moving it to the parking lot. But I see your sentiment beat me to it!

Seriously, the way it is now and where it is now proves to be such a disruption. The fraction rite and the Agnus Dei are a very holy and solemn occasion. It’s not just simply Father filling up the patens there during that moment.

It is a total distraction. How many times do I need to greet my neighbor in the pew? It’s like asking someone how they are doing over and over again. Save it for coffee hour or the parking lot. It is tokenism and really lacks depth. It was meant (with the novus ordo) as a gesture and has turned into an out-of-control talk fest. Our former priest (Episcopal) remained at the altar and waited for the noise to die down.

 

[basenji]

It is a total distraction. How many times do I need to greet my neighbor in the pew? It’s like asking someone how they are doing over and over again. Save it for coffee hour or the parking lot. It is tokenism and really lacks depth. It was meant (with the novus ordo) as a gesture and has turned into an out-of-control talk fest. Our former priest (Episcopal) remained at the altar and waited for the noise to die down.

My apologies. In my earlier post I should have pointed out at that my parish, Father actually leaves the sanctuary (and the Lord unattended!) to wander around and shake hands with people during the Sign of Peace. It’s the just an abrupt and awkward segue to the then reverent fraction rite and Agnus Dei.

 

[Edward_H]

Beautiful! I was going to suggest moving it to the parking lot. But I see your sentiment beat me to it!

Seriously, the way it is now and where it is now proves to be such a disruption. The fraction rite and the Agnus Dei are a very holy and solemn occasion. It’s not just simply Father filling up the patens there during that moment.

The parking lot is a better idea. Reminds me of my Protestant father telling me about his Catholic friend visiting a parish in Florida. After mass, the fellow greeted father by saying “Father, that’s the best Protestant service I’ve been to in a long time”. My father still gets a kick ouf of that one.

 

[Timothysis]

It is a total distraction. How many times do I need to greet my neighbor in the pew? It’s like asking someone how they are doing over and over again. Save it for coffee hour or the parking lot. It is tokenism and really lacks depth. It was meant (with the novus ordo) as a gesture and has turned into an out-of-control talk fest. Our former priest (Episcopal) remained at the altar and waited for the noise to die down.

I think you entirely miss the point. The purpose of the sign of peace is to offer, with the Eucharistic Christ present on the altar, the peace of Christ as He offered it to those whenever he said “Peace be with you.” If the celebration of the sign of peace has turned into a “out-of-control talk fest,” then that is something that needs to be addressed by your pastor. It is certainly NOT something that is "tokenism and really lacks depth."

 

[Love_Divine]

i think we should keep it where it is ~ i don’t like change for the sake of change

I think it’s fine where it is because there’s less distraction with people handing out communion going up to the altar. I’ve never noticed it turning into an out of control talk fest, as people begin singing Lamb of God at this point.

I just find it an awkward moment when going to church alone and waiting for the people around me to finish with their families.

My apologies. In my earlier post I should have pointed out at that my parish, Father actually leaves the sanctuary (and the Lord unattended!) to wander around and shake hands with people during the Sign of Peace. It’s the just an abrupt and awkward segue to the then reverent fraction rite and Agnus Dei.

I remember I was visiting a church when I was young and the priest did this and shook my hand. It was the highlight of my day.

 

[japhy]

Father actually leaves the sanctuary (and the Lord unattended!) to wander around and shake hands with people during the Sign of Peace.

That’s generally not permitted by the rubrics (see below) and technically unnecessary, since the priest just said to the whole congregation, “The peace of the Lord be with you always.”

GIRM 82: “It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.”

GIRM 154: “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary.”

 

[basenji]

That’s generally not permitted by the rubrics (see below) and technically unnecessary, since the priest just said to the whole congregation, “The peace of the Lord be with you always.”

GIRM 82: “It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.”

GIRM 154: “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary.”

Japhy: Rubrics? Hmm. As a caveat: This priest is from Seattle…

 

[Corki]

I think you entirely miss the point. The purpose of the sign of peace is to offer, with the Eucharistic Christ present on the altar, the peace of Christ as He offered it to those whenever he said "Peace be with you." If the celebration of the sign of peace has turned into a “out-of-control talk fest,” then that is something that needs to be addressed by your pastor. It is certainly NOT something that is "tokenism and really lacks depth."

Actually, the GIRM gives this description of the reason for the Rite of Peace.

1. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

It is not the priest recreating Jesus’ salutation. It is the priest asking for peace on behalf of the Church. And, when appropriate, for us to echo that entreaty.

The required part of the Rite is simply the Priests “Peace be with you.” and the response “And also with you.” What comes afterward is completely optional. When it lacks depth in how it is carried out by the faithful, the option to omit it is a valid choice.

 

[Beachcomber]

I really didn’t know that the priest isn’t supposed to leave the sanctuary (according to the GIRM). Every Mass I’ve ever been to, the priest is all over the place during the handshake of peace. It surprised me when this citation to the GIRM was posted. Guess the priests ‘didn’t get the memo,’ as it were.

And speaking of related occurrences, there are always people who continue with the handshaking and moving around well into the rest of the Mass, as father is preparing to begin the communion. It’s like they’re ignoring him.

 

[The_Reginator]

When studying to become Catholic I had a great children’s book that helped me to understand the Mass.
That was for the EF, but the OF is still the Mass.
What really got me excited was finding how the Mass builds and builds up to the moment of consecration and our reception of our Lord.
To stop at this important time to shake hands, while the Lord of the universe is on the altar, just doesn’t make sense. We turn away from God and wish peace on friends, relatives, and strangers too.

Matthew 5:23-24 “therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
If this is the reasoning behind the ‘kiss of peace’ amongst the congregation, how are we reconciling anything with total strangers? (For all we know we could be ‘reconciling’ ourselves with unrepentant rapists.)

The Sign of Peace has been at its present location for centuries. The problem is that it was given as an option for the whole congregation to exchange peace amongst themselves at that point in the Mass. Why do I call it a ‘problem’? Because it can, and apparently has occasionally, resulted in ‘abuses’ such as the priest wandering away from the altar.

 

[porthos11]

Insofar as we want to retain the Sign of Peace among the people, the ideal place is at the Offertory as in the Ambrosian Rite.

As for my preference, it should just be eliminated altogether, and kept at the “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”/“Et cum spiritu tuo” dialogue.

 

[OraLabora]

I’d keep it where it is, but remove the “give each other a sign of peace” part.

Or if a sign must be given: hands together in the prayer position, and bow to your immediate neighbours. No handshakes and especially, no moving about. It’s just as meaningful as a handshake, but more reverent. It’s what I do when I don’t want physical contact; for example 3 weeks ago I had a cycling accident and sprained my wrist when I went down and didn’t want it aggravated by a firm handshake.

 

[paradocent]

This thread rests on sand. What are you doing? “I think it’s okay”; “I think it could change”; who do we think we are to be talking this way?

Our role as the latest incarnation of the Church Militant is to receive the traditions of the Church from our forebears and hand them down, intact, to our descendants (cf. 2 Thess 2:15). By what right do we disinherit them because we have an idea? It seems staggeringly arrogant to start thinking of ourselves as liturgical mechanics, qualified to tinker with this, to tinker with that, limited only by whether we think it’s a good idea or not, to think in terms of “we can fix the Mass,” for no better reason than because we have—what? An idea? A conceited sense that we know better than the last generation?

How much trouble could have been avoided with a little humility on the part of the consilium! How much trouble begins with a well-intentioned idea!

 

[The_Reginator]

This thread rests on sand. What are you doing? “I think it’s okay”; “I think it could change”; who do we think we are to be talking this way?

Our role as the latest incarnation of the Church Militant is to receive the traditions of the Church from our forebears and hand them down, intact, to our descendants (cf. 2 Thess 2:15). By what right do we disinherit them because we have an idea? It seems staggeringly arrogant to start thinking of ourselves as liturgical mechanics, qualified to tinker with this, to tinker with that, limited only by whether we think it’s a good idea or not, to think in terms of “we can fix the Mass,” for no better reason than because we have—what? An idea? A conceited sense that we know better than the last generation?

How much trouble could have been avoided with a little humility on the part of the consilium! How much trouble begins with a well-intentioned idea!

Insofar as we want to retain the Sign of Peace among the people, the ideal place is at the Offertory as in the Ambrosian Rite.

As for my preference, it should just be eliminated altogether, and kept at the “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”/“Et cum spiritu tuo” dialogue.

For hundreds of years the Mass had the sign of peace at the same location it is today in the OF.
Priest: “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”
Server/Congregation: “Et cum spiritu tuo”

So yes we are prideful in thinking that we can change this. But in fabricating a new Mass it was changed. A year or two ago there was a discussion on these forums about the timing … I believe it came out of something from the Vatican. (?)

 

[porthos11]

For hundreds of years the Mass had the sign of peace at the same location it is today in the OF.
Priest: “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”
Server/Congregation: “Et cum spiritu tuo”

So yes we are prideful in thinking that we can change this. But in fabricating a new Mass it was changed. A year or two ago there was a discussion on these forums about the timing … I believe it came out of something from the Vatican. (?)

I agree with you. That’s why even if we are to retain the Pax at its current point, just keep it at “Pax Domini sit semper…” and omit the “Let us offer each other…” part. Just as it has been for hundreds of years. EWTN already does this, and in complete conformity with liturgical law.

 

[bmadamsberry]

This thread rests on sand. What are you doing? “I think it’s okay”; “I think it could change”; who do we think we are to be talking this way?

Our role as the latest incarnation of the Church Militant is to receive the traditions of the Church from our forebears and hand them down, intact, to our descendants (cf. 2 Thess 2:15). By what right do we disinherit them because we have an idea? It seems staggeringly arrogant to start thinking of ourselves as liturgical mechanics, qualified to tinker with this, to tinker with that, limited only by whether we think it’s a good idea or not, to think in terms of “we can fix the Mass,” for no better reason than because we have—what? An idea? A conceited sense that we know better than the last generation?

How much trouble could have been avoided with a little humility on the part of the consilium! How much trouble begins with a well-intentioned idea!

Because it’s fun to speculate, to discuss. It’s not a matter of pride, it’s more of a thought experiment. Just like the question “what would you do as president” isn’t prideful, it’s a thought experiment.

 

[lynb]

Our church places the sign of the cross just after the General Intercessions, which I think is very appropriate. And it doesn’t then interfere with/break up the solemnity of the Eucharist.

 

[frjsummerville]

In both the Lutheran and Anglican liturgies, the sign of peace is immediately after the Liturgy of the Word (Mass of the Catechumens)… so you have homily, hymn, Nicene Creed, intercessions, then the peace. Therefore it happens immediately before the Offertory. The whole point being based on Matthew’s text where we are admonished to make peace with our sisters and brothers before bringing our offering to the altar.
I have served in parishes where folk just communicate the Pax to their immediate neighbors; and others where it turns into a mini-social time. Either extreme seems to miss the point. I teach folk that it is a time of reconciliation…to show that this is a holy community where we can put aside our differences and share in the Eucharist together.
Unfortunately, I think many don’t “get it.” But we keep trying!
Fr. Joey+

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis about the Sign of Peace:

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 neighbor s (150).

Now, there was talk, as late as 2005 or so, at the beginning of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, to move the Sign of Peace to the offertory in a manner similar to what the Neocatechumenal Movement uses for its liturgies. In fact, this was the one concession that Pope Benedict granted to the movement. However, no further mention was made of this possible chance since then.