Sign of Peace

[Lux_et_veritas]

robertaf:

Do you mean because the length of time for the sign of peace is very long in some churches, there are those who want to get rid of it entirely?
Now, THAT IS throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not just instruct the folks?
The sign of peace during Mass goes back to the Apostles time.

Roberta,

It has less to do with the kind of time they take, than it does with the length of time the grand circus takes us away from the Lord. You completely missed, and twisted my point. I said that lenghtening the time of the Mass*** is not an issue*** based on the fact that many of us who object to the chaotic version of the sign of peace are more than glad to extend the Mass in order to receive Holy Communion on our knees at a Communion rail. How you are getting this idea that I am concerned with extending the Mass is beyond my comprehension.

It comes in the midst of the Eucharistic Prayer which in it’s entirety is addressed to whom? God and God alone. Can we not take the 20 minutes or so that it takes us to get through the Eucharistic Prayer and give it entirely to God? Must we focus on creation around us during that twenty minutes or can we reserve it for what a piece of heaven will be like - pure adoration of God and nothing else?

All I am suggesting (or supporting), is to move this gesture to the beginning of Mass some place and get it out of the Eucharistic Prayer where people have gone on abusing it. The vatican just pronounced that the sign of peace should be limited to those immediately around you, not on the other side of Church (the exact wording was to either side, which I took to include those in front or back, as well).

My Pastor addresses the issue of it having been a practice early on and why it was ended, and when. In part, he says…

Now, at this point in the old solemn high Mass there was given what was called The Pax, that is, a very formal, stylized gesture wherein the priest placed his hands on the shoulders of the deacon and then subdeacon and, inclined towards them, said, “peace be with you” to which the other answered, “and with your spirit.” At one time the people also did the same until then 13th century when the Pope ordered it to be discontinued on account of a decline of morals. In its place, a an image of Jesus crucified was passed among the church for all to kiss. When the Missal was reformulated after Vatican Council II, someone thought to reintroduce the sign of peace among the people. Thus was inserted this directive in the Missal: “if it is opportune, the deacon or priest may add, ‘Extend to yourselves the peace.’” We want to have a word about this.

The so-called ‘kiss of peace’ has roots in the NT (cf. Rm. 16:16). In the Church of long ago, and in cultural soil very different from ours, this gesture was certainly both meaningful and natural. In our modern American way, the kiss is a sign generally reserved for more intimate settings than public worship. In some other cultures the kiss is a more common sign of friendship, publicly given. What has become customary in our country in the rather cold, prim and proper handshake for this gesture at Mass falls momentously short of expressing the true significance of this gesture and may in fact miss the point entirely; the same might be said for the more ostentatious and somewhat mawkish ‘hug.’ What the congregation is asked to do–and this is a beautiful thing–is to wish each other the peace which is of Christ. This was not meant to become what is has nearly always come to be, namely, a sudden eruption of chaos into the otherwise orderly assembly of worshipers who ought to stand wholly riveted on the divine presence before them in the most Holy Eucharist. The sign of peace, as it is currently positioned and practiced, has been, according to my estimation, among the most significant factors to have eroded the sacredness, silence and indeed the practice of adoration that was once common in all Catholic churches. How ironic that at the very moment when the Lord is invoked to grant peace there results such disturbance and Eucharistic distraction among the people and that, as a further consequence, our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is ignored, or worse, treated sacrilegiously. I am reluctantly led to recall the infamous kiss of Judas Iscariot.

You can read the entire sermon he has on it here, to get all of this that I pasted in full context:

assumptiongrotto.com/Sermons/mass_talks_18.htm

Somehow, I get the impression by your posts that you seem to think that if people don’t express the sign of peace at Holy Mass, during the Eucharistic Prayer, and with all out hugs and chaos they so desire, then the people do not love their neighbor.

 

[GoLatin]

I don’t do it at all. I kneel and close my eyes.

 

[Michael038]

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

I agree.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

robertaf:

Greetings,

Have you ever thought of checking out SSPX?
I have know a few from there, I really think you would love it.
The folks I knew seemed to talk a lot like you do.
That was up in Spokane. I think they are all around the country.

Well, if the folks in the SSPX talk a lot like I do, that just goes to show that there are a lot of folks in the SSPX with high intelligence, wit and charm.

BTW, I don’t think you should be recommending people associate themselves with a schismatic group. That might be a sin (mortal even). Naughty girl. :tsktsk:

 

[jjwq2]

It is wonderful to hear some people have decided to do what I have decided to do. If I attend a Novus Mass, I kneel down during the sign of peace.Most people look at me like I have lost my head. However, I know that Jesus is truely present in the Blessed Sacrament on the altar at that time. He is the focus of my attention, not the people around me. Also, when a priest (hopefully in ignorance) leaves the altar to shake hands with people in the congregation, he is leaving Our Poor Lord alone on the altar. This is a great abuse! Also, people talking about their weekend and drawing their attention away from Jesus truely present are not treating Him as He deserves. He is God, is he not?

God Bless!

 

[kleary]

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.

Actually suppressing it is one of the best things to happen to the Novus Ordo if you are going to reform it.

In the Novus Ordo it is THE OPTION OF THE PRIEST who celebrates the Mass to allow the lay people to give each other some sign of Christ’s peace. In some parishes the priest totally omits this part.

In the Tridentine Mass only those in the Sanctuary give the sign of peace and only at Solemn Mass where there is priest, deacon and sub-deacon.

Ken

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Statement by the Synod Fathers, from the talks on the Eucharist:

Proposition 23

The Sign of Peace

The greeting of peace in the Holy Mass is an expressive sign of great value and depth (cf. John 14:27). However, in certain cases, it assumes a dimension that could be problematic, when it is too prolonged or even when it causes confusion, just before receiving Communion.

Perhaps it would be useful to assess if the sign of peace should take place at another moment of the celebration, taking into account ancient and venerable customs.

 

[InnocentIII]

JKirkLVNV:

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.

Our priest specifically states at the Sign of Peace “if you are standing next to someone give them a sign” thus ruling out moving around and hopefully turning around although this still occurs.

Sadly I think it will take more than catechesis. Last year I worshipped in a small mission church where we only had 7 regular worshippers. As we all knew each other very well it was very hard to prevent a general peace giving.

This was an abuse from the start. Originally it was part of the actions at the altar. It became general as part of the “we’ve got to include the congregation” type thing. Personally I don’t see any point in it especially in larger churches where people are just going through the motions with strangers. The whole “inclusion” thing needs to be radically rethought so that the inclusion is liturgically appropriate rather than just a superficial desire to give the congregation something to do.

 

[MrS]

Proposition 23 From the October Synod:

The Sign of Peace

The greeting of peace in the Holy Mass is an expressive sign of great value and depth (cf. John 14:27). However**, in certain cases, it assumes a dimension that could be problematic,** when it is too prolonged or even when it causes confusion, just before receiving Communion.

Perhaps it would be useful to assess if the sign of peace should take place at another moment of the celebration, taking into account ancient and venerable customs.

 

[johnnykins]

I remember 40 years ago when the Kiss of Peace was intoduced. Even then in the 5th grade I knew it was out of place. The fact that it could be a significant sign does not help the actual fact that it is downright silly in the vast majority of parish masses (I assume there must be some where it’s done as intended and conveys the intended message)

Fr. Pacwa often says the noon Mass at EWTN. Never, in my experience, has he used the Sign of Peace in any daily Mass in the 2+ years I’ve gone there. Indeed, I’ve never known of any priest at EWTN to use it at the noon daily Mass. EWTN provides the Adoremus Hymnal - which includes the rubrics. The rubrics are clear that the congregational Sign of Peace is OPTIONAL!!

The Sign of Peace by the congregation was, IMHO, a good idea that simply didn’t and doesn’t work.

 

[Orionthehunter]

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.

It is funny how we reach conclusions based on what we know. Did you know that at one time in the Church (middle Ages and for centuries) the Sign of Peace was such that nearly everyone shook hands w/ everyone. The purpose of this practice was a “teaching moment” as the parishes had become “sectionalized” where their was a rich section, a middle class section, a farmer section, and a poor section. It was a way for everyone to realize we were all “equal in God’s eyes”. The current practice of exchanging the Sign of Peace wth only those in your immediate area was instituted when Churches added pews and kneelers as the early practice was to stand and kneel on the hard floors.

I also have been told (this I am less sure of but according to family legend (something I’m not proud of) this is why some of my ancestors became Episcopal) that during the Civil War, as the Catholic Church in the South was against slavery, Bishops in the North instructed Priests to encourage a broad use of the Sign of Peace to insure that the races mixed and encourage support of abolition.

If these are true, they don’t seem very trendy Dr.

 

[thistle]

GIRM 56 b. does not specify what has to be done.

Rite of peace: before they share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and **offer some sign of their love for one another. **
The form the sign of peace should take is left to the conference of bishops to determine, in accord with the culture and customs of the people.

 

[AJV]

Orionthehunter:

It is funny how we reach conclusions based on what we know. Did you know that at one time in the Church (middle Ages and for centuries) the Sign of Peace was such that nearly everyone shook hands w/ everyone. The purpose of this practice was a “teaching moment” as the parishes had become “sectionalized” where their was a rich section, a middle class section, a farmer section, and a poor section. It was a way for everyone to realize we were all “equal in God’s eyes”. The current practice of exchanging the Sign of Peace wth only those in your immediate area was instituted when Churches added pews and kneelers as the early practice was to stand and kneel on the hard floors.

If these are true, they don’t seem very trendy Dr.

Ummm, not exactly. In the late Middle Ages, the faithful actually kissed a pax-brede- a board usually carved or with some religious imagery on it(and sometimes even a relic)- that was carried to them by a subdeacon (or another cleric of the minor orders) after it had been kissed by a priest. (To see a reproduction of a pax brede click here )
The emphasis being on receiving the peace of Christ that flowed from the Sacrament. (“Peace be with you and the Church”)

AFAIK the Kiss of Peace was not mentioned in the service books of the 17th century as being exchanged among the laity though in some places the kissing of the pax brede survived unitl the 1800’s . In the Latin rite from the 1800’s or so onwards except at the solemn, potifical or papal Mass where the Kiss of Peace was exchanged only among a few in the sanctuary only (celebrant, deacon, subdeacon, etc.) Of course, from what you say, it may have been an approved local custom at the time of the Civil War.

Pax tecum

 

[BayCityRickL]

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.

The sign of peace should not be refused, but I don’t think you have to shake hands. I’m one of the hygiene freaks who’d just as soon keep my germs to myself, and vice versa.

 

[maryj]

Lux_et_veritas:

I have to go back to what I originally said. I KNOW people who would not understand why the sign of peace suddenly disappeared and they would be deeply offended. This says nothing of their reverence towards the Eucharist, but simply acknowledges that there are people who do not understand the Mass in detail.

Maybe I did not make it clear enough that I was acknowledging that the sign of peace should be removed, with catechesis, to help people understand why contact with neighbor is not practical at this point of the Mass. Or, simply moved to another part of the Mass since it is hard to keep people coralled (it would be an endless battle).

At my parish we do not exchange the sign of peace. Here are the words of my pastor, Fr. Eduard Perrone, in one of his sermons on the topic of the Rite of Peace at Mass:

assumptiongrotto.com/Sermons/mass_talks_18.htm

Fr. Perrone speaks with elegance, what a teacher you have in your midst,quite a blessing,quite a blessing!! I’m 43 and the sign of peace has always been there, but if it was to leave or be moved I still have the most important thing, the presence of my Lord. Peace to all of you.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Orionthehunter:

It is funny how we reach conclusions based on what we know. Did you know that at one time in the Church (middle Ages and for centuries) the Sign of Peace was such that nearly everyone shook hands w/ everyone. The purpose of this practice was a “teaching moment” as the parishes had become “sectionalized” where their was a rich section, a middle class section, a farmer section, and a poor section. It was a way for everyone to realize we were all “equal in God’s eyes”. The current practice of exchanging the Sign of Peace wth only those in your immediate area was instituted when Churches added pews and kneelers as the early practice was to stand and kneel on the hard floors.

I also have been told (this I am less sure of but according to family legend (something I’m not proud of) this is why some of my ancestors became Episcopal) that during the Civil War, as the Catholic Church in the South was against slavery, Bishops in the North instructed Priests to encourage a broad use of the Sign of Peace to insure that the races mixed and encourage support of abolition.

If these are true, they don’t seem very trendy Dr.

Indeed.

If they are true.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I heard today from my sister that one of the results of the Bishops’ Synod may be that the Sign of Peace will be moved to another part of the Mass. Does anyone have a link to an article where that is mentioned?

This would be good news, especially if they moved it to the social in parish hall

 

[netmilsmom]

paramedicgirl:

This would be good news, especially if they moved it to the social in parish hall

 

[Orionthehunter]

AJV:

Ummm, not exactly. In the late Middle Ages, the faithful actually kissed a pax-brede- a board usually carved or with some religious imagery on it(and sometimes even a relic)- that was carried to them by a subdeacon (or another cleric of the minor orders) after it had been kissed by a priest. (To see a reproduction of a pax brede click here )
The emphasis being on receiving the peace of Christ that flowed from the Sacrament. (“Peace be with you and the Church”)

AFAIK the Kiss of Peace was not mentioned in the service books of the 17th century as being exchanged among the laity though in some places the kissing of the pax brede survived unitl the 1800’s . In the Latin rite from the 1800’s or so onwards except at the solemn, potifical or papal Mass where the Kiss of Peace was exchanged only among a few in the sanctuary only (celebrant, deacon, subdeacon, etc.) Of course, from what you say, it may have been an approved local custom at the time of the Civil War.

Pax tecum

I stand corrected as the Pax brede was an innovation of the Middle Ages away from teh traditional Kiss of Peace. However, this tradition died out and the church returned to the Kiss of Peace. This url gives some history on it. newadvent.org/cathen/08663a.htm

Regarding Bombay’s questioning whether it is true or not that the Kiss of Peace was at one time something expressed to people throughout the Church, I know it to be true. I don’t recall the book I was reading but it included a section about the how and why pews and kneelers were introduced into the Church. With the introduction of pews, there was a reform of the Sign of Peace to include only those in your immediate vicinity. Here were some things that actually happened in the early church.

During the offeratory, sheep, pigs, hogs and produce were actually brought up to the Priest as an offering. This is why we have the tradition of the Priest washing his hands prior to the consecration. The author also asserted that because of this reason, the tradition of women wearing gloves to Mass orginated.

Anyway, I digress. A beautiful explanation I read once about the order of the Mass is that it gives the worshipper a complete encounter with Christ. First, with the procession, the worshipper encounters the Priest in his priestly role as an ordained representative of Christ. Second, we encounter Christ in the reading of His Living Word. Third, we encounter Christ in our expression of unity with the Body of Christ with the faithful via the Sign of Peace. Fourth, at the climax of the Mass, we encounter Christ’s physical presence preemminently in the Eucharist.

Personally, I don’t consider the Sign of Peace as a distraction to the Mass. As someone who tires of the Protestant approach “it is all about MY personal relationship with Jesus”, the Sign of Peace pulls me out of a personal worship and reminds me of the very Catholic ideal that we are in this together as the Body of Christ. Because Mass is not a private devotion but a public worship., I urge those who don’t like the Sign of Peace or want to muffle its presence to look at it with a different perspective. When the Priest calls for us to give each other the Sign of Peace, I consider it my obligation to sincerely do my best to extend the Peace of Christ to my fellow faithful and communicate that I appreciate them as children of Christ and that I accept their request for forgiveness they expressed in the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass in the spirit of St. Cyril (4th Century Doctor of the Church).

"Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Myst., v, 3) speaking of the time between the washing of the celebrant’s hands and the Sursum Corda which introduces the Anaphora, or Preface, says, ‘Then the deacon cries out aloud: ‘Embrace ye one another and let us salute each other. . . . This kiss is the sign that our souls are united and that we banish all remembrance of injury’.’ "

This expression of forgiveness is especially meaningful in my family as we actually kiss. If after Mass, one of my daughters tries to bring up a past harm from her sister, I make a point to tell them that they have forgiven them at the Mass.

Finally, reverence doesn’t require one to be stoic or silent. I have occassion to attend Mass at my daughter’s high school a couple of times a month. When one considers the perspective that the Sign of Peace is an outward sign (so Catholic isn’t it!) of our unity as the Body of Christ, the enthusiastic and joyful and non-judgmental Sign of Peace expressed among these friends is extremely reverent (act of expressing deep respect, love, and awe).

 

[MrS]

paramedicgirl:

I heard today from my sister that one of the results of the Bishops’ Synod may be that the Sign of Peace will be moved to another part of the Mass. Does anyone have a link to an article where that is mentioned?

This would be good news, especially if they moved it to the social in parish hall

The may have to wait a bit… until some of the Mass attendees are through with their additional prayers after Mass. Our parish has a number of families who stay after Mass in quite prayer. It would be a sham, I mean shame, if they missed out on the fellowship in the parish hall.:whacky: