What will happen to the sign of peace once Public Mass resumes?

[stpurl]

Um, what?
My point was that the majority of people who have posted about the sign of peace have been respectful; you only mentioned ‘one or two” posters who spoke of it as needing to be gone, etc. That’s it. I have no idea why you are apparently asking the forum world if you are ‘not allowed’ to ‘speak.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Um, what?
My point was that the majority of people who have posted about the sign of peace have been respectful; you only mentioned ‘one or two” posters who spoke of it as needing to be gone, etc. That’s it.

I am allowed to respond to any one I like. I responded to those two posters. Because I can. So I did. I have no idea what you are going on about.

 

[stpurl]

I have no idea what you mean. So I’ll just bid you good night.

 

[Dovekin]

A bow of the head and a smile to those around one (especially with social distancing likely to be the case for months if not years)

I have no problem with that.

done either right before the penitential rite at the beginning of Mass, or after the homily and before the creed, or even to close the Prayers of the Faithful, to my mind would be so much more appropriate from a liturgical standpoint. All of these places emphasize the communal aspect of worship, all take place right before or right after a spoken community prayer, the first before a community penance, the second before a community creed, and the last after a community prayer. In such places in the liturgy a sign of peace at those times would heighten the sense of community in a very positive way, and bring people together exactly as envisioned by those who find the current option dear to them.

If a “spoken community prayer” is the right lead in, its current placement is the most appropriate place. It follows the prayer Jesus taught us, that affirms God as our father, and each of us as brothers or sister of Jesus and each other. Between this community prayer and communion seems like the best spot to me. Unless you think community and communion are unconnected ideas.

 

[Diaconia]

We’re going with a smile or wave.

A greeting of peace without touching each other.

Deacon Christopher

 

[BornInMarch]

Maybe parisoners will need to wear latex gloves.

 

[stpurl]

But in the places I mention, there is both a kind of built in ‘pause’ and an affirmation that does not ‘break the focus’ the way the current optional SOP does.

First: The penitential rite. To exchange a bow and smile right before we all pray together is a community ‘speak’ followed by ‘community speak’ of the penitential rite followed in season by the Gloria. There is no awkward shift of speaking as community and then almost immediately (and often trampling over each other into the Lamb of God) and then tramping down to communion. It starts us all off together and we then spend the rest of the Mass with a deeper focus on us as ‘communion’.

Second: After the homily, and before the creed; we have all listened to the Word, reflected, we turn to give each other the peace (community speak) followed by the Creed (community speak). We then offer our gifts at the altar (and see, how often do people remark on Jesus ‘words of “if you go to the altar with gifts and remember you have a grievance against your brother, stop, reconcile with your brother first”. Doesn’t it make more liturgical SENSE to follow Jesus who spoke of offering GIFTS at the ALTAR to have the peace before WE offer gifts at the altar???P)

Or again, at the end of the prayers of the faithful, how easy it would be to end with, “we offer now a sign of peace to each other”. And then we bring gifts to the altar.

Whereas now, we’ve brought our gifts (but we haven’t offered peace). We have assisted at the consecration (but we haven’t offered peace). We pray the Our Father and the Doxology and THEN we offer peace? At like almost the last possible second before communion? How rushed and disjointed it is.

 

[Dovekin]

It is neither rushed nor disjointed as it is now. It flows from the Our Father, where we forgive and are forgiven, where we have trespassed and trespassed against, to our communal participation in communion.

There can be reasons to use it at other times, and it has been placed differently, but those reasons are never as good as the reasons for having it as part of the Communion rite.

 

[stpurl]

In your opinion. Again, if it works out for your parish right now, fine. But it is still an option, and it really is in its current placement not positioned scripturally and has been over the last 50 years in its placement subject to so many abuses that it was actually studied with a view to possibly not keeping it an option at all. The fact that it remains an option shows that there is still hope for its significance as you understand it to be recognized, but certainly does not preclude its placement elsewhere or even for it to be removed entirely.

It does make me wonder though at the constant charge of ‘rigidity’ to ‘traditionalists. See, throughout this whole topic, even those traditional viewed people, with one or two exceptions, have either said more or less, “so long as it’s given in the proper spirit, fine” or “it could be positioned better but oh well”.

However, there have been a majority of people who have not only said, ‘it is PERFECT where it is, how dare anybody claim otherwise, it’s a liturgical highlight, it’s totally necessary where it is, don’t take it away, don’t put it elsewhere’. . .

I mean, who is being rigid HERE?

 

[Dovekin]

I doubt there is a majority for my position, but I am certainly rigid on this. It is what we have, and it certainly is scriptural, so we should understand it.

See, throughout this whole topic, even those traditional viewed people, with one or two exceptions, have either said more or less, “so long as it’s given in the proper spirit, fine” or “it could be positioned better but oh well”.

This is not how I would characterize comments from the traditionalists on this thread. They have tended more to being dismissive, ie there is no point to this, it belongs somewhere else, etc. It has been difficult to get anyone to consider it in terms of its spirituality; most comments have been about it being a handshake. Which is ok until it drifts into “it is only a handshake” or “one of a series of meaningless distractions” or “I just want to be left alone.”

 

[LisaB]

This is not how I would characterize comments from the traditionalists on this thread. They have tended more to being dismissive, ie there is no point to this, it belongs somewhere else, etc. It has been difficult to get anyone to consider it in terms of its spirituality; most comments have been about it being a handshake. Which is ok until it drifts into “it is only a handshake” or “one of a series of meaningless distractions” or “I just want to be left alone.”

I fail to see how these comments are unexpected or surprising, given they are from traditionalists. It’s no secret many if not most traditionalists would rather not have the communal sign of peace.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, this is how I feel also. I will do what the priest says.

Personally I do not like the sign of peace but that does not mean I will not obey when it comes time for the sign of peace and I believe most Catholics who do not like the sign of peace are the same way. They will do what the priest instructs.

Disliking and obeying IMHO are two different things.

If only everyone took notice of the “abuses” mentioned in Article 6 c) of the Circular Letter The Ritual Expression of the Gift of Peace at Mass. I still see all of these at various times.

c) In any case, it will be necessary, at the time of the exchange of peace, to definitively avoid abuses such as:

• The introduction of a “song for peace”, which is non-existent in the Roman Rite.
• The movement of the faithful from their places to exchange the sign of peace amongst themselves.
• The departure of the priest from the altar in order to give the sign of peace to some of the faithful.
• That in certain circumstances, such as at the Solemnity of Easter or of Christmas, or during ritual celebrations such as Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Sacred Ordinations, Religious Professions, and Funerals, the exchange of peace being the occasion for expressing congratulations, best wishes or condolences among those present.

 

[Polak]

How about just making eye contact and say “Peace be with you”. Why do we need to bow or nod or elbow bump or anything like that?

I’ll nod and say peace.

Interestingly my priest said before a mass that we are not actually supposed to say ‘peace be with you’ when offering the sign of peace, just make the sign/gesture.

Has anyone heard anything similar?

 

[Maximian]

It is a socially awkward thing to do a

It’s also a liturgically awkward thing to do. For the whole congregation to get involved, it turns into an event which is quite incongruous with the Agnus Dei which follows, with its apocalyptic and sacrificial connotations leading up to the Sacrifice on the altar itself. The general bonhomie which it induces at this juncture is quite insensitive.

 

[Dovekin]

OR “the apocalyptic and sacrificial connotations” are badly misunderstood if they conflict with the bonhomie.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Mrchatsworth:

It is a socially awkward thing to do a

It’s also a liturgically awkward thing to do. For the whole congregation to get involved, it turns into an event which is quite incongruous with the Agnus Dei which follows, with its apocalyptic and sacrificial connotations leading up to the Sacrifice on the altar itself. The general bonhomie which it induces at this juncture is quite insensitive.

My thoughts exactly.

Buks:

I’ll nod and say peace.

Interestingly my priest said before a mass that we are not actually supposed to say ‘peace be with you’ when offering the sign of peace, just make the sign/gesture.

Has anyone heard anything similar?

Never heard this before. At first I rolled my eyes when I read this, but it actually makes some sense. Some of the more effervescent SOP situations feel more like being in a receiving line at a cocktail party.

I didn’t condone this then, and I don’t condone it now, but when I was in high school, some of the male students thought the SOP at weekday Mass was a big joke, and one time they all started walking around the church, shaking hands with everybody they could, neighbor or not, like they were politicians working the crowd. The Sister who was our religion teacher blew her stack!

Incidentally, when I used to serve the Latin Novus Ordo, the priest would say “pax te” to the servers.

 

[Maximian]

I think one has to ask oneself “Here I stand at calvary with Christ suffering on the cross. Is what I am doing appropriate?”

 

[Nepperhan]

It’s also a liturgically awkward thing to do. For the whole congregation to get involved, it turns into an event which is quite incongruous with the Agnus Dei which follows, with its apocalyptic and sacrificial connotations leading up to the Sacrifice on the altar itself.

Well, that’s every Mass in my parish. The parishioners enjoy the communal greeting and common celebration of the liturgy. It is an emotional expression of community.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Folks will be reluctant to even want to do it, and nobody wants to have to overthink how they’ll handle the awkward situation of feeling obligated to offer and / or receive the sign of peace when they don’t want to. So hopefully it will just be eliminated.

 

[Dovekin]

I think one has to ask oneself “Here I stand at calvary with Christ suffering on the cross. Is what I am doing appropriate?”

I think one has to ask oneself: Is the priest about to say “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.”?