Sign of Peace

[aj830]

I was listening to the Cardinal Arinze Podcast today and it featured a question about the sign of peace. Cardinal Arinze said it was a abuse to move around and that you should give the sign of peace to the person(s) to your left and right. My question is if someone turns around to offer me the sign of peace should I refuse? It just would seem kind of rude to do this.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

aj830:

I was listening to the Cardinal Arinze Podcast today and it featured a question about the sign of peace. Cardinal Arinze said it was a abuse to move around and that you should give the sign of peace to the person(s) to your left and right. My question is if someone turns around to offer me the sign of peace should I refuse? It just would seem kind of rude to do this.

I wouldn’t refuse to exchange the sign of peace with them. I also think this is going to take some (a lot) catechisis on the part of our priests to get it to sink in. I’m glad they’re reigning this in, it needs to be. I think the most appropriate place for it is right after the Confietor. You make peace with God (excepting mortal sin, which has to be done in confession), then your neighbor, then the Gloria.

 

[CARose]

It will be interesting to see if that’s where they put it in the next updates to the liturgy. I like the way you lay it out!

CARose

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I’ve got the perfect place they could put it. In the parish hall after Mass with a donut in one hand.

The congregational Sign of Peace is going to eventually be supressed. Why don’t they just do it now and get it out of the way? This persistent novus ordo navel gazing is wearing thin. :nope:

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I think what the Cardinal was saying is that this should be only exchanged with those in your immediate area. Left, right, front and back would be acceptable since you don’t need to “move around” which is really an abuse of this practice.

Deacon Ed

 

[Kielbasi]

Dr. Bombay:

The congregational Sign of Peace is going to eventually be supressed. Why don’t they just do it now and get it out of the way? This persistent novus ordo navel gazing is wearing thin. :nope:

I don’t think the Sign of Peace is going to be suppressed at all.

In some parishes, maybe even most parishes , its going to eventually fall into disuse and skipped(which is o.k., as its semi-optional at this point in time).

But in many places , its a fairly big to-do which would leave a pretty big space, a five minute interlude, to fill.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

I don’t think the Sign of Peace is going to be suppressed at all.

In some parishes, maybe even most parishes , its going to eventually fall into disuse and skipped(which is o.k., as its semi-optional at this point in time).

But in many places , its a fairly big to-do which would leave a pretty big space, a five minute interlude, to fill.

I’m taking the long view, K. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine but, yes, it will eventually be supressed. So will girl altar boys, Communion in the hand and lay people prancing all over the sanctuary.

As I’ve said before, these are nothing but trendy additions to the Mass, an attempt to make the Church conform to the world, that will eventually be recognized for what they are and relegated to the liturgical closet of shame alongside felt wall hangings, OCP music and those awful plain polyester vestments.

The liturgical silly season of the past 40 years is a mere speck in the grand panoply of Church history and will be little noted nor long remembered.

 

[msproule]

Kielbasi:

But in many places , its a fairly big to-do which would leave a pretty big space, a five minute interlude, to fill.

I cannot tell if you are trying to be sarcastic or not, but the extensive period allocated for the Sign of Peace in so many parishes is the very problem.

From the 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.
If all were to follow the instructions properly, the Sign of Peace would take the same (brief) period of time, whether in a huge parish full of people or in a small chapel with only a few.

I am sure there are plenty of other (more appropriate) things we could do with the remaining 4 minutes! I will make the first suggestion: Perhaps another 10 seconds (and I am being conservative) could be allocated for the Elevation during the Consecration.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Suggestion 2: Drop one lay person from the army of EMHCs and have the priest spend that 4 minutes distributing Communion.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

Suggestion 2: Drop one lay person from the army of EMHCs and have the priest spend that 4 minutes distributing Communion.

Isn’t that the big thing with lining up and receiving in the hand. Communion would take too long?
Cut the glad handing, simple smiles and perhaps a right then left handshake and we have time for Our Lord.

 

[Elzee]

Kielbasi:

I don’t think the Sign of Peace is going to be suppressed at all.

In some parishes, maybe even most parishes , its going to eventually fall into disuse and skipped(which is o.k., as its semi-optional at this point in time).

But in many places , its a fairly big to-do which would leave a pretty big space, a five minute interlude, to fill.

Maybe those five minutes could be taken up by allowing more time for Communion - fewer or no EMHC’s - priests or deacons only - and hey, we might even have time to kneel!

 

[plato3]

Father Mitch had a great show the other night on EWTN. He said that as long as we keep heated up discussions on posture Etc. the focus will remain off of Christ, which is the real tragedy.

 

[harinkj]

plato3:

Father Mitch had a great show the other night on EWTN. He said that as long as we keep heated up discussions on posture Etc. the focus will remain off of Christ, which is the real tragedy.

That’s true.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[AJV]

Dr. Bombay:

I’m taking the long view, K. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine but, yes, it will eventually be supressed. So will girl altar boys, Communion in the hand and lay people prancing all over the sanctuary.

As I’ve said before, these are nothing but trendy additions to the Mass, an attempt to make the Church conform to the world, that will eventually be recognized for what they are and relegated to the liturgical closet of shame alongside felt wall hangings, OCP music and those awful plain polyester vestments.

The liturgical silly season of the past 40 years is a mere speck in the grand panoply of Church history and will be little noted nor long remembered.

Why would you ever regard the Sign of Peace as a “trendy addition” to make the church conform? It is an ancient liturgical act. Just because many parishes turn it into socializing time does not make it useless. Consider the dignified manner in which some of our eastern brethren exchange the sign of peace. Truly solemn.

 

[catsrus]

Consider the dignified manner in which some of our eastern brethren exchange the sign of peace. Truly solemn.

Most parishes could take a page from that book. In the 2 out of 3 Catholic Churches I’ve attended since my conversion, I’ve seen people running around all over to shake hands, hug, and hi-5 each other. It’s distracting and noisey.

 

[netmilsmom]

plato3:

Father Mitch had a great show the other night on EWTN. He said that as long as we keep heated up discussions on posture Etc. the focus will remain off of Christ, which is the real tragedy.

EWTN or not, this is the attitude that has allowed so many innovations and abuses to run wild in our parishes.

First of all, those who have a problem with the innovations are doing just that, focusing on Christ, not each other.

Second, Father Mitch has not raised children. If one ignores misbehaviors to focus on the “Whole Child”, the behaviors just continue to build until a child is a problem. The liturgy is the same way. We have allowed these innovations in until the focus is on the community and not on the Eucharist.
Discussion only leads to improvement. Until forums like Catholic Answers came along, we didn’t know how uncomfortable other Catholics were with these innovations. Now is the time TO discuss these things. With knowledge comes power.

I am taken aback that this Priest would consider that those of us who have had to endure these innovations focus less on Christ than those that don’t. We have sat back quietly accepting all of the Historically Catholic postures taken away from us while the Modern innovations were smiled at.

We just want the Community in the Social Hall and the Mass in the church.

 

[JimG]

Kielbasi:

But in many places , its a fairly big to-do which would leave a pretty big space, a five minute interlude, to fill.

Whether a parish has the sign of peace or not, I don’t see where not having it would leave a big interlude. If there is no sign of peace, the Mass just continues immediately with the Agnus Dei.

 

[Elzee]

The priest at a local school discontinued it for awhile because it got a little out of control with the kids. He still said ‘Peace be with you’ and everyone responded back, but it was not extended to the shaking of hands. On the day he was going to ‘give it another try’ he told the students something to the effect of “* remember, you are sharing Christ’s peace with one another, not the latest news in your life. The focus should be on Christ, not you. If you can’t do this as the Church intended, we will omit it until you understand it.*” It worked.

 

[msproule]

plato3:

Father Mitch had a great show the other night on EWTN. He said that as long as we keep heated up discussions on posture Etc. the focus will remain off of Christ, which is the real tragedy.

I respect Father Mitch Pacwa very much. I did not see the episode to which you refer so I would be cautious to try and interpret what he said out of context. However, this is not a question of posture. Rather, I think it is a question of composure.

Here are some links to EWTN on the subject:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum6&recnu=25&number=450306

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=443678&Forums=8&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=sign+of+peace&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Dr.Bombay]

AJV:

Why would you ever regard the Sign of Peace as a “trendy addition” to make the church conform? It is an ancient liturgical act. Just because many parishes turn it into socializing time does not make it useless. Consider the dignified manner in which some of our eastern brethren exchange the sign of peace. Truly solemn.

Oh please. Spare me the “ancient liturgical act” canard. Never in history has the Sign of Peace (or Kiss of Peace) been what it is now, i.e. an opportunity to glad-hand and back-slap and take our focus off of Who, at that particular point in the Mass especially, should be our sole focus. Namely, Jesus Christ, present Body and Blood Soul and Divinity on the altar.

And just because a practice is ancient is irrelevant. Liturgy develops and to attempt to reverse that course by returning everything in the Mass to ancient practice is not development but corruption, as Cardinal Newman pointed out. Pius XII warned against this “wicked movement” in Mediator Dei.