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

[Emeraldlady]

If you had told people in 1955 that immediately after the pax vobiscum… et cum spiritu tuo , you would be expected to turn around and shake hands with everyone, they would have looked at you like you had lost your mind. Doubly true for communion in the hand, lay ministers, and so on. How things have changed.

I was born in 1962 but my very faithful parents moved in unison with the Church at the time. They were both very deeply invested in the body of the Church my Dad being parish treasurer, a member of the Knights of the Southern Cross and President of Parents and Friends for 3 schools at one time. My Mum being a teacher at a parish school and the sacramental co ord for 11 years and trained the altar boys. These are legit Catholics to me. And yet to you they betrayed Christ by conforming to the Mass we know today. Ok. Spin your spin. I don’t buy it.

 

[LisaB]

I attend the OF when I must, and the EF when I can. Through no fault of my own (distance, expense, and home duties) I cannot travel two hours each way to the EF every Sunday.

Obviously I don’t have a solution, but just wanted to say I feel for you. It’s a reality that EF is not readily available to everyone but every time I read this, it makes me sad for the person. I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have Latin Mass near me and no option to move. Prayers for you.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And yet to you they betrayed Christ by conforming to the Mass we know today.

I said no such thing.

 

[Emeraldlady]

they would have looked at you like you had lost your mind.

Emeraldlady:

And yet to you they betrayed Christ by conforming to the Mass we know today.

I said no such thing.

What do you think of my parents who didn’t look “at you like you had lost your mind.” when the Church changed the Mass. Explain my parents to me who just conformed?

 

[stpurl]

Not to jump in on Homeschool Dad, but his post specifically stated “1955” not ‘1969’. If your parents, in 1955, well before the start of Vatican II, had been told then by somebody in the pew behind them that right after the pax vobiscum. . .they would be EXPECTED to turn around and shake hands with everybody, they WOULD have thought you’d lost your mind. There was not a breath of a hint, in 1955, of the OF. Your parents might have, depending on where they lived, been open to the idea that maybe in future years some of the Mass, especially the gospel and epistle, would be in the vernacular. But to suddenly stop at one of the most solemn points in Mass and just start shaking hands with people then? They would have been incredulous. Remember, to them Mass was still Latin, Solemn or High, and had been for centuries, and nobody was even imagining a ‘new’ Mass.

Nobody was impugning your parents’ Catholicity or implying that they would not be as obedient to anything that it was SAID that the Church ‘declared’.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Not to jump in on Homeschool Dad, but his post specifically stated “1955” not ‘1969’. If your parents, in 1955, well before the start of Vatican II, had been told then by somebody in the pew behind them that right after the pax vobiscum. . .they would be EXPECTED to turn around and shake hands with everybody, they WOULD have thought you’d lost your mind. There was not a breath of a hint, in 1955, of the OF. Your parents might have, depending on where they lived, been open to the idea that maybe in future years some of the Mass, especially the gospel and epistle, would be in the vernacular. But to suddenly stop at one of the most solemn points in Mass and just start shaking hands with people then? They would have been incredulous. Remember, to them Mass was still Latin, Solemn or High, and had been for centuries, and nobody was even imagining a ‘new’ Mass.

Nobody was impugning your parents’ Catholicity or implying that they would not be as obedient to anything that it was SAID that the Church ‘declared’.

You said pretty much everything I was going to say in reply. Thank you.

When the New Mass, and the various changes leading up to it, were introduced, in a nutshell, people were told “this is the way it is going to be from now on, and you will accept it, and you will like it”. Catholics being Catholics, they obeyed. Unless I am missing a huge chunk of recent Church history, there was no groundswell of desire for change that preceded it — I don’t think many people were sitting in the pews grumbling “if only this were in English so we could understand it”. It all came from above, under the huge umbrella of “Vatican II”. Keep in mind that 1968 and 1969 were not exactly a placid time on the face of the earth. Mass demonstrations of all kinds, rioting, the Democratic convention, the Prague Spring, Vietnam, the drug culture, civil rights, women’s rights — the list goes on and on (apologies to Billy Joel). Humanae vitae came along, it wasn’t what people wanted to hear, and they revolted. (Obedience had its limits, and this hit married people in the most private aspect of their lives, not to mention that their non-Catholic neighbors were using birth control, so why can’t we?) Then came the New Mass. People hardly knew what to think. I think it’s fair to say a lot of them were in shock.

 

[Dovekin]

Not to jump in on Homeschool Dad, but his post specifically stated “1955” not ‘1969’. If your parents, in 1955, well before the start of Vatican II,

How about in 1945?

My father was a prisoner of war in Germany. When he spoke about it, he always said the guards were people just like them, living with the same lack of food and freedom they had. (but without Red Cross support) He was not anti-War in the 60s, but this lesson was in the music, like Universal Soldier.

My wife remarked, as we watched something about WW2 a few days ago, that she had never thought about there being Catholics in the SS. Imagine how the Catholics in the German army would have reacted to the thought that the person next to them was not a distraction or a threat. Imagine how the Catholic soldiers in Italy or Spain would have reacted, if one day they prayed together, then fought and killed each other the next day.

For some reason, they decided to bring back the Kiss of Peace as part of the reforms of the liturgy. If it in any way teaches compassion for those whom we can see, I am all for it. I do not understand those who resist the gesture. Perhaps they do not see the need to teach compassion? Idk

 

[Emeraldlady]

Not to jump in on Homeschool Dad, but his post specifically stated “1955” not ‘1969’. If your parents, in 1955, well before the start of Vatican II, had been told then by somebody in the pew behind them that right after the pax vobiscum. . .they would be EXPECTED to turn around and shake hands with everybody, they WOULD have thought you’d lost your mind. There was not a breath of a hint, in 1955, of the OF. Your parents might have, depending on where they lived, been open to the idea that maybe in future years some of the Mass, especially the gospel and epistle, would be in the vernacular. But to suddenly stop at one of the most solemn points in Mass and just start shaking hands with people then? They would have been incredulous. Remember, to them Mass was still Latin, Solemn or High, and had been for centuries, and nobody was even imagining a ‘new’ Mass.

Why do people continue to push the false history that everything just suddenly went from one thing suddenly one day to a complete other thing? There’s always been continual discussion in the Church about how to evangelise and how to make liturgically meaningful, the Thanksgiving Memorial that Jesus taught us at the Last Supper. There was no such seismic shift. It was an evolution.

As an example here is an instruction from the Congregation of Divine Worship issued in 1955 reorienting celebration of the Pascal Triduum to represent that of the early Church rather than the medieval innovations that had harmed the attendences. Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria

This is how it’s always been in the living Church. Watching and carefully attending to the best way to engage souls in the mystery of the Eucharist.

As for the Sign of Peace, that was also a return to the practices of the early Church reflected by Matthews record of Jesus words. “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). The GIRM explains “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” (GIRM 82).

The Apostolic Constitutions written in the 4th century instructed “let the bishop salute the church, and say, The peace of God be with you all. And let the people answer, And with your spirit; and let the deacon say to all, Salute one another with the holy kiss.”

So while your mate @HomeschoolDad is horrified and scandalised by the sign of peace, the rest of us happily embrace it as part of the traditional Church 2000 years and still going.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is how it’s always been in the living Church. Watching and carefully attending to the best way to engage souls in the mystery of the Eucharist.

As for the Sign of Peace, that was also a return to the practices of the early Church reflected by Matthews record of Jesus words. “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). The GIRM explains “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 ” (GIRM 82).

The Apostolic Constitutions written in the 4th century instructed “ let the bishop salute the church, and say, The peace of God be with you all. And let the people answer, And with your spirit; and let the deacon say to all, Salute one another with the holy kiss.”

So while your mate @HomeschoolDad is horrified and scandalised by the sign of peace, the rest of us happily embrace it as part of the traditional Church 2000 years and still going.

Putting aside yet more overblown adjectives — I am neither “horrified” nor “scandalized”, I just don’t care for the SOP and I am not the only person who sees it this way — what you say actually makes quite a bit of sense. Very well-put.

A small percentage of the faithful prefer the older liturgy, and I am among them. After Mass, you will never meet a friendlier, more sociable bunch of people. If you stop and “get snagged” by people, you could easily spend another whole hour just “shooting the breeze” about matters both religious and secular. The children play together in the churchyard. Often people go to lunch together afterwards. There is an email list, and whenever someone in the Latin Mass community (it’s diocesan and generously endorsed by the bishop) is sick, without a job, has circumstances requiring help, or what have you, an alert goes out and people rush to help. You don’t get much more sociable or agape than that. But during Mass, it’s “all business”. The piety is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Vocations are soaring among traditionalists. One could be forgiven for visiting the TLM and saying “now this is the way the Church is supposed to be”. Many say precisely that, and they keep coming back.

 

[choose_to_love]

Re: Catholics in WWII - - this is a little OT, but have you heard about or read Fr. Goldman’s In the Shadow of his Wings? It is amazing.

" I do not understand those who resist the gesture" I think most objections to it are the placement, as HSDad specifically explained upthread. Sign of Peace prior to entrance procession would be much more accepted than where it is now, or even between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. FWIW

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Congregation of Divine Worship issued in 1955 reorienting celebration of the Pascal Triduum to represent that of the early Church rather than the medieval innovations that had harmed the attendences

You are correct, there were liturgical changes that happened in 1955.at Holy Week. Pope Pius XII assigned Annibale Bugnini that responsibility.
They were not making the changes because they felt the previous Holy Week schedule was causing people harm but because they wanted it to line up with the gospel timeline more and I read somewhere it was difficult for people to make the early morning Saturday Mass once the industrial revolution happened…

Watching and carefully attending to the best way to engage souls in the mystery of the Eucharist.

Again true, though since the early centuries the Mass had been the same, there would only be minor changes happening. It wasn’t until 1969 that there was an actual change of the Mass, though definitely based on the TLM. The Mass of Pope Paul VI was a sudden change for the people, though correct, Bugnini had it in the works for quite some time.

As for the Sign of Peace, that was also a return to the practices of the early Church

The sign of peace never really left the Mass. In the TLM the priest still says, “The peace of the Lord be always with you.” It is just that it is either the server or the deacon speaking for the people who says, “and with your spirit”. In solemn high Masses it is the clergy then who greet each other.

written in the 4th century

Though the Apostolic Constitutions were rejected by the Church, you are right they do give us an idea of what early worship was like.

horrified and scandalised by the sign of peace, the rest of us happily embrace it as part of the traditional Church 2000 years and still going.

Agreed it is part of our 2000 year tradition. I do not think people are saying they are horriefied and scandalized by the sign of peace as much as they are horrified and scandalized by the lack of restrictions, reverence and the disorderliness that has accompanied it within the last several decades. In the early Church, they had men, deacons, who would stand about or watch about to make sure no one became disorderly.

It is that disorderliness that bothers people about the sign of peace. I suspect it would even bother Pope Paul VI if he saw it today. In the early Church, there would not have been any husbands and wives kissing during Mass as they would have sat on different sides of the Church, children would not have been high fiving each other, no arm wrestling, no walking around the Church to make sure you said hello to everyone, no discussions of the day and there would not have been any two finger 1960’s world peace sign given.

It is these behaviors that have come to be accompanied with the sign of peace in our liturgy today that have given it a bad name.

God bless

 

[Horton]

I believe we are all entitled to our own opinions regarding the sign of peace. For me, I rather not have. I don’t like the interruption of Mass, having to lean over others to get to that one person who MUST shake hands with every person in the pew, or being expected to shake hands with a person who has been hacking up a lung during the whole Mass. As I said, the concept of sharing a sign of peace is nice, I just prefer it not be done during the liturgy of the Eucharist or that it involve shaking hands.

It’s not the end of the world if it was taken out of the Mass.

 

[babochka]

Hoping for a comeback of the tradition (not ancient) “kiss of peace”.

You wouldn’t want it Eastern style?

 

[dscath]

Would be just as nice

 

[babochka]

. In the early Church, there would not have been any husbands and wives kissing during Mass as they would have sat on different sides of the Church, children would not have been high fiving each other, no arm wrestling, no walking around the Church to make sure you said hello to everyone, no discussions of the day and there would not have been any two finger 1960’s world peace sign given.

Maybe not the specific examples you give, but this sort of thing has always cropped up as an issue in Church. We tend to romanticize the past and assume that everyone was always reverent and focused on the liturgy, behaving appropriately, etc. The reality has been much messier.

Can I recommend some eye-opening reading to you? The book is Fr. Robert Taft’s “Through Their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It”. It can be kind of hard to come by these days, but here is an excerpt from a review of the book:

https://fathersofthechurch.com/2006/10/04/the-other-side-of-ancient-liturgy/

It’s a book by turns moving and entertaining. Father Taft sets out to give us a “bottom-up” view of the Byzantine liturgy, as it was experienced by the congregations of late antiquity, rather than explicated by the mystagogues. The situation was, as he points out, “not all incense and icons.”

Citing the Great Fathers, he evokes free-ranging congregations where young men and women trolled the crowd for romance. Chrysostom complained that the women at church were no different from courtesans, and the men like “frantic stallions.” Chrysostom also noted that people were talking throughout the liturgy, and “their talk is filthier than excrement.” Old Golden Mouth went on to report that the rush for Communion proceeded by way of “kicking, striking, filled with anger, shoving our neighbors, full of disorder.”

I’m not saying that disorder and bad behavior are good or acceptable, just that it is not new.

 

[babochka]

But a little more hand(and lips)-on.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Personally I believe it might be quite a while before it returns, if ever. I think this crisis may change the way a lot of things happen.

Maybe not the specific examples you give, but this sort of thing has always cropped up as an issue in Church.

Pretty sure it has. That would be the reason for the deacons or the men to stand about to make sure things did not get out of order. Like most things, rules and laws come about after seeing something happen that shouldn’t happen such as in Corinthians, the apostle Paul has to correct much of what was happening in his time.

You wouldn’t want it Eastern style?

Does just the clergy do this or does the entire congregation? Doesn’t it depend on each custom and culture if the congregation also participates?

 

[1cthlctrth]

For Masses that have the sign of peace, I recommend to smile and/or wave.

 

[Padres1969]

Honestly I don’t think it’s just churches. This may be the end of the handshake as we knew it.

 

[babochka]

Personally I believe it might be quite a while before it returns, if ever. I think this crisis may change the way a lot of things happen.

babochka:

Maybe not the specific examples you give, but this sort of thing has always cropped up as an issue in Church.

I imagine it has. I suspect that would be the reason for the deacons or the men to stand about to make sure things did not get out of order. Like most things, rules and laws come about after seeing something happen that shouldn’t happen such as in Corinthians, the apostle Paul has to correct much of what was happening.

You wouldn’t want it Eastern style?

Does just the clergy do this or does the entire congregation? Doesn’t it depend on each custom and culture if the congregation also participates?

Traditionally, it was done by the entire congregation, though that practice died out somewhere around the 10th century. I’ve heard of a somewhat small number of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes that have restored it, but I’ve only seen it once in person. I found it awkward.

Here’s an article from an Orthodox priest: Sealed With The Kiss - Orthodox Church in America

I am personally fond of the passing of the peace practiced in the Chaldean and Marionite Churchers. It is ritualized, orderly, and meaningful. It begins with the priest (or bishop), who passes the peace to the deacons, then to the subdeacons, etc., who then pass it to the first person in the congregation and each person passes it to the next.