The Liturgical “Sign of Peace”: Move or Remove?

The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
I'm betting this has been discussed more than once before, but my quick search didn't reveal anything.
Please feel free to redirect me!

Ever since BEFORE becoming a Roman Catholic exchanging the sign of peace right after the consecration had bothered me.
Just this morning I read the following 9+ year-old article:

The Liturgical “Sign of Peace”: Move or Remove?​

Some excerps:

At the request of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, a requisite inquiry into the timely appropriateness of the Latin Rite’s gesture of peace shared amongst the people during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass commenced almost a decade ago.
...
The anachronistic confraternal peace gesture takes the soul, mind, and body away from the necessary contemplative prayer, thought, and internal preparation in which one should be engaged immediately prior to the receipt of Holy Communion. In a few short liturgical seconds, one is re-directed from the rightful focus on Christ and the Father (the latter most directly through the recitation of Jesus’ own Pater Noster [“Our Father”]), and onto the people by way of the peace gesture.
Click to expand...

And for those of us who find this a distraction from trying to remain focused on what God is doing and how He is present:

The Vatican’s Circular Letter reaffirmed that the gesture is indeed optional, meaning that those who choose not to participate in the gesture when invited and those who intellectually disagree with its placement in the Mass are in no way challenging Church hierarchy on liturgical instruction.
Click to expand...

Dominus vobiscum,
Reg
 
It becomes a moment for chit-chat, and even gossip in my experience. Is not the creed and Lord's prayer enough to unite? I do not miss it and I will not miss it.
 
It needs to go. It's a distraction almost immediately before you go to the altar to receive the Body of Christ. (Launching into the announcements, the "liturgy of the bulletin", immediately after communion is almost as bad, announcements either belong before Mass or after the homily.)

One other thing that needs to be noted, amongst a group of young people, such as at a high school Mass, it becomes kind of a joke, the students think it's comical and can even use it as an excuse to act silly. I've seen it happen. When you think about it, it's really kind of campy. Yet I won't refuse it, if I am at the Novus Ordo, least of all if it is a multicultural congregation where refusal could be misinterpreted as racially charged.

There is no communal sign of peace at the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet one more reason, one of so many, why I prefer it to the Novus Ordo.
 
I trust the GIRM on this one.

82. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats 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.
Click to expand...
The Sign of the Peace is an ancient rite to ensure the reception of Eucharist in a state of grace. In the smaller villages of early agrarian societies, this was a critical gesture to uphold the commandment to love one's neighbor, including the town gossip, or the guy next to you arguing over property lines.

Rather than viewing the Sign of the Peace as a "distraction," think of it as an all-important and highly relevant ritual reminding us to shed any anger toward our neighbors before receiving Communion.
 
blackforest said:
I trust the GIRM on this one.


The Sign of the Peace is an ancient rite to ensure the reception of Eucharist in a state of grace. In the smaller villages of early agrarian societies, this was a critical gesture to uphold the commandment to love one's neighbor, including the town gossip, or the guy next to you arguing over property lines.

Rather than viewing the Sign of the Peace as a "distraction," think of it as an all-important and highly relevant ritual reminding us to shed any anger toward our neighbors before receiving Communion.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know when it fell out of use, and what changed about "early agrarian societies" with the inevitable petty human conflicts, that made it no longer desirable.

I see the GIRM as well-intentionedly wrong about this. It is not a question of doctrine, it is only practical direction for the Mass in our time, and the Church can err in such things, just as she did about creating a formalized infrastructure where sexual abuse could go unchecked (make sure everyone keeps their mouths shut and move the offender somewhere else). The Church's prudential judgment has been wrong many, many times. including, if you listen to the Novus Ordo advocates, from the time that Latin fell out of everyday use until 1969. That's an awfully long time for the Holy Ghost to allow the Church to put her faithful at an alleged spiritual disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
"Ancient." Well, the Latin Mass is also ancient. The only reason it has been raised in the hierarchy is because it has been observed by deacons, priests and bishops to be exactly that: a distraction. It can become a near occasion of sin, as family, the weather, sports teams, etc. are commonly discussed. Regardless of intent, I think it provides opportunity, perhaps even temptation to exercise our fallen nature, with results as mentioned above.
We are like sheep without a shepherd unless guided and kept 'on mission.' In my worthless opinion, the pastoral approach should include either be a designated formulaic prayer or a bow toward neighbor with hands held in prayer position. Why? In the case of the elderly or immune suppressed, it can transmit any and all viruses. Personally, due to my nightmare medical resumé, it can potentially kill, as I am immune suppressed after a stem cell (marrow) transplant. Speaking militarily, who wants to receive a purple heart due to friendly fire?
Let the discussion rage on...
 
po18guy said:
"Ancient." Well, the Latin Mass is also ancient. The only reason it has been raised in the hierarchy is because it has been observed by deacons, priests and bishops to be exactly that: a distraction. It can become a near occasion of sin, as family, the weather, sports teams, etc. are commonly discussed. Regardless of intent, I think it provides opportunity, perhaps even temptation to exercise our fallen nature, with results as mentioned above.
We are like sheep without a shepherd unless guided and kept 'on mission.' In my worthless opinion, the pastoral approach should include either be a designated formulaic prayer or a bow toward neighbor with hands held in prayer position. Why? In the case of the elderly or immune suppressed, it can transmit any and all viruses. Personally, due to my nightmare medical resumé, it can potentially kill, as I am immune suppressed after a stem cell (marrow) transplant. Speaking militarily, who wants to receive a purple heart due to friendly fire?
Let the discussion rage on...
Click to expand...
In my younger bachelor days, I found it incredibly distracting when I would have to exchange the SOP with an attractive young lady for whom I had an eye. I can't imagine I would be alone in this.

It's all part of a push towards communitarianism, as opposed to leaving each person alone to focus upon their communion with Almighty God. It's really pretty cringy, as in everyday life, people don't just go up and shake hands with random strangers.

Just go to the Traditional Latin Mass. You'll get all the "community" you could ever ask for, but in the vestibule and social hall, after Mass.
 
I agree that it is beautiful and traditional , but I was received into the NO and there I will remain - as long as it's offered.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I'd be curious to know when it fell out of use, and what changed about "early agrarian societies" with the inevitable petty human conflicts, that made it no longer desirable.

I see the GIRM as well-intentionedly wrong about this. It is not a question of doctrine, it is only practical direction for the Mass in our time, and the Church can err in such things, just as she did about creating a formalized infrastructure where sexual abuse could go unchecked (make sure everyone keeps their mouths shut and move the offender somewhere else). The Church's prudential judgment has been wrong many, many times. including, if you listen to the Novus Ordo advocates, from the time that Latin fell out of everyday use until 1969. That's an awfully long time for the Holy Ghost to allow the Church to put her faithful at an alleged spiritual disadvantage.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I see a vast gully of difference between liturgical preferences and declaring, "The GIRM is WRONG!!"

At any rate, since I don't think the OP article article provides fair context, here is the history of the practice. https://aleteia.org/2017/08/17/the-sign-of-peace-the-ancient-roots-of-the-greeting-we-make-at-mass/

po18guy said:
It can become a near occasion of sin, as family, the weather, sports teams, etc. are commonly discussed.
Click to expand...
Every facet of every day *can* become the near occasion of sin. In and of itself, this is not a reason to jettison an ancient liturgical practice. There are valid, viable options for those wishing to opt out of it.
 
blackforest said:
Respectfully, I see a vast gully of difference between liturgical preferences and declaring, "The GIRM is WRONG!!"

At any rate, since I don't think the OP article article provides fair context, here is the history of the practice. https://aleteia.org/2017/08/17/the-sign-of-peace-the-ancient-roots-of-the-greeting-we-make-at-mass/
Click to expand...

So what? Everyone who is enthusiastic about post-Vatican II liturgical practices is saying, in effect, the Church was wrong for about 1500 years. Why is it a bad thing to say the present practices are wrong, but not a bad thing to say that the past practices were wrong?

I'd be interested to know if Eastern Christian liturgies include a communal sign of peace. It's been a while since I went to such a liturgy, but I don't think they do. Did they once have it, and if they had it and removed it, were they wrong to do so, and should they be bringing it back?
 
Last edited:
Right? Wrong? The Vatican is not black and white on this issue. Both practices (participating in the Peace or abstaining) are licit.

My pet peeve is that when personal liturgical preferences get framed as absolutes, as the article is trying to do.
 
blackforest said:
Right? Wrong? The Vatican is not black and white on this issue. Both practices (participating in the Peace or abstaining) are licit.

My pet peeve is that when personal liturgical preferences get framed as absolutes, as the article is trying to do.
Click to expand...
It's badly-placed, and artificial on top of that. Even in the TLM, there was an exchange of peace, but it was the priest offering God's peace to the people, and peace exchanged back to the priest (via the acolytes as proxies for the congregation).

It's all part of the move towards making the Mass a communal, horizontal act of worship, and smacks of Protestant-style "fellowship". The TLM avoids this. At the TLM, you will get all of the "community" that you could ever ask for, but the faithful save it for the vestibule and social hall after Mass.

I'm not about to condemn it as evil in itself, but many people find it awkward and an unwelcome intrusion into the most holy of moments, when they are devoutly preparing to receive Our Eucharistic Lord. Opting out of it can be seen as rude and standoffish, and even racist if one is in a multi-ethnic congregation where some people are sensitive to such perceived slights.

So far as I am aware, it's not something that people were clamoring for in the pre-Vatican II years, wishing they could understand the Mass in their own vernacular, perhaps, wishing that they could take a moment before communion to greet their neighbors, no.
 
And yet you're opting out just fine with your TLM. People who resent the novus ordo Sign of the Peace while lacking the TLM option should bear in mind that there are aspects of the liturgy that anyone of us could nitpick - I take issue with a lot of OCP music, for example (ugh!). Part of me wishes I could click-and-drag my Mass preferences the same way I do a vegan take-out at a short-order restaurant. But there's a Bigger Picture emerging from all of this pettiness, yes? We attend Mass for the Eucharist, and that's what I try to keep my eye on . . .
 
blackforest said:
And yet you're opting out just fine with your TLM. People who resent the novus ordo Sign of the Peace while lacking the TLM option should bear in mind that there are aspects of the liturgy that anyone of us could nitpick - I take issue with a lot of OCP music, for example (ugh!). Part of me wishes I could click-and-drag my Mass preferences the same way I do a vegan take-out at a short-order restaurant. But there's a Bigger Picture emerging from all of this pettiness, yes? We attend Mass for the Eucharist, and that's what I try to keep my eye on . . .
Click to expand...

But that's harder to do, with the sign of peace interrupting one's Eucharistic devotion immediately before receiving communion. As you well note, going to the TLM gets around all of that.

People will be debating the SOP back and forth as long as there is an SOP.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
So what? Everyone who is enthusiastic about post-Vatican II liturgical practices is saying, in effect, the Church was wrong for about 1500 years. Why is it a bad thing to say the present practices are wrong, but not a bad thing to say that the past practices were wrong?

I'd be interested to know if Eastern Christian liturgies include a communal sign of peace. It's been a while since I went to such a liturgy, but I don't think they do. Did they once have it, and if they had it and removed it, were they wrong to do so, and should they be bringing it back?
Click to expand...
We are called to obedience in all things except sin.
 
blackforest said:
And yet you're opting out just fine with your TLM. People who resent the novus ordo Sign of the Peace while lacking the TLM option should bear in mind that there are aspects of the liturgy that anyone of us could nitpick - I take issue with a lot of OCP music, for example (ugh!). Part of me wishes I could click-and-drag my Mass preferences the same way I do a vegan take-out at a short-order restaurant. But there's a Bigger Picture emerging from all of this pettiness, yes? We attend Mass for the Eucharist, and that's what I try to keep my eye on . . .
Click to expand...
Where did this come from? Recent controversy? Out of the blue?
 
po18guy said:
We are called to obedience in all things except sin.
Click to expand...

There is no question of obedience here, unless it would be a priest whose bishop has specifically ordered him to make provision for an SOP in his Masses, and if he refuses, he disobeys his bishop.

There is no obligation to exchange the SOP with anyone. So far as I am aware, nowhere in any rubrics, instructions, or the like, is a member of the faithful in the congregation told they must do it. It's entirely optional.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
There is no question of obedience here, unless it would be a priest whose bishop has specifically ordered him to make provision for an SOP in his Masses, and if he refuses, he disobeys his bishop.

There is no obligation to exchange the SOP with anyone. So far as I am aware, nowhere in any rubrics, instructions, or the like, is a member of the faithful in the congregation told they must do it. It's entirely optional.
Click to expand...
Well meaning.
 
po18guy said:
Well meaning.
Click to expand...
It's well worth adding that in contemporary American culture, young people are actually discouraged from physical contact with anyone with whom they do not wish to have that contact. In times past, youngsters were forced to hug and even kiss relatives (and even close family friends much their senior), when, as a more open society has disclosed, from time to time that relative or friend was a pedophile, and was "getting a kick out of" this kind of contact with a child. And it's not just an issue of pedophilia. There are some people who are simply too "touchy-feely" for another person's tastes, whether towards certain individuals, or just people in general. Our society is coming to respect this, and it's a good thing. Forced physical contact is becoming a thing of the past (and not a moment too soon!). That was one good thing that came of the pandemic.

Richard Dawson's kissing of all the women on Family Feud would never fly today.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top