Unusual Lenten practice #2

[Catherine_k]

At daily mass last week, instead of offering the sign of peace, the priests asked us to pray for someone with whom we are not at peace.

Is this an acceptable Lenten practice? (substitution in the liturgy)?

 

[Elizium23]

The Sign of Peace may be omitted entirely. The proper place to request we pray for someone would be in the Prayers of the Faithful. If the priest tried to wedge it in instead of the Sign of Peace, then that wasn’t OK.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100316_sac-riti-comunione_en.html

The Priest in the Communion Rites

Sign of peace

The physical sharing of the pax is not an obligatory component of the liturgy.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

The priest is required to get the Bishop’s permission to add or remove anything in the liturgy.

 

[MsgrPlante]

The reason for the placement of the Sign of Peace in the Liturgy is so that before we come forth to receive the Body of Christ we may have the occasion to reflect on the Mystical Body of Christ to which we belong. If the the parish church is large with a relatively small number of people seated half a dozen pews from one another, the pastor my wish to use the season of Lent to deepen the meaning for the Sign of Peace among his congregation. Then again, the pastor may have observed that the congregation is divided into factions so that people greet only certain parishioners and ignore some others, therefore he may hope that this Lenten adaptation may lead the factions toward a greater unity in Christ. In any event, I think it best to presume that the pastor has good intentions for this change rather than to imagine he is playing fast and loose with the rite.

 

[ANNE_2]

At the Latin Mass there is no disruption of concentration or disruption of prayers to God, by people being forced to shake hands with those around them.

Even though I like the Mass in English, I don’t like the disruption in the middle of the Mass.
It’s noisy and distracting.

It would be much better if we shook hands after Mass, outside rather than in the presence of the Tabernacle.

I don’t turn around and merely smile at those sitting next to me - minimizing disruption.

EWTN does not have human disruption at their Mass, neither does the Pope at the Vatcian.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wonder why reaching our our neighbors, whom Christ asked us to love as we love ourselves, are considered a distraction.

 

[TheMc]

At daily mass last week, instead of offering the sign of peace, the priests asked us to pray for someone with whom we are not at peace.

Is this an acceptable Lenten practice? (substitution in the liturgy)?

While the sign of peace may be omitted, something else may never be added in it’s place.

 

[TheMc]

At daily mass last week, instead of offering the sign of peace, the priests asked us to pray for someone with whom we are not at peace.

Is this an acceptable Lenten practice? (substitution in the liturgy)?

While the sign of peace may be omitted, something else may never be added in it’s place.

•Canon 846.1 (1983)
o The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.