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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
babochka said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think I would like that also.
 
May the sign of peace, rest in peace. (Unless you really have something against your brother to be reconciled before mass. Probably as originally intended anyway)
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
What will happen to the Sign of Peace?

If the priest says, “Let us offer each other the Sign of Peace,” I will offer it to those around me.

If the priest does not say, “Let us offer each other the Sign of Peace,” then I will not offer it to those around me.

It’s the priest’s role to decide whether or not we have the Sign of Peace in the congregation. It is my role to follow his lead.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a question of obedience — it’s an invitation, not a command, and the manner of exchanging peace is entirely up to the individual, and to local custom.
 
I suspect that it will be a very long time before physical contact during the sign of peace becomes acceptable again.
 
But ‘the sign of peace’ doesn’t HAVE to be a physical handshake, right? A bow, a smile, can offer those without any physical person-to-person contact, right?
 
stpurl said:
But ‘the sign of peace’ doesn’t HAVE to be a physical handshake, right? A bow, a smile, can offer those without any physical person-to-person contact, right?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I suspect “local custom” (as it is stated in the Roman Missal) will tend toward a nod, a smile, a verbal greeting, but no handshakes. At least at first.

Nowhere does it say the Sign of Peace must involve physical contact, and I’m 100% fine with that.
 
The Kiss of Peace has always been a problem. Some say it was what motivated the separation of men from women, which was discontinued after Vatican II. (seriously, it is in the 1918 code of canon law which was in effect until after V2)

And then there was the Pax, a 13th century attempt to take control of it. And yes, this was during the timeless liturgy that lasted for 1000 years without change. :roll_eyes:

This discussion has made it clear to me that it should be preserved. Many here still have to learn its lesson, that unity with Christ is about unity with someone who did not grasp at equality with God, but emptied himself to become like us. If the person next to you is a distraction from your preparations for union with Christ, with the whole body of Christ, there could well be something wrong with how you are preparing.
 
Look, I remember the liturgy in 1955 with folks having their noses stuck in books and mumbling. I think that the Church NEEDED the sign of peace to instill community into the service. People need to come a little outside of their zones of comfort and greet others. Now, I hope we can continue to greet others in the congregation with the sign of peace but without spreading germs.

Cardinal George forgive me, but sometimes a protracted celebration is appropriate.
 
Nepperhan- there is such a range of behavior during the SOP that you’re comment strikes me as purely idealistic. Plenty of people have been ignoring people immediately behind or in front of them so they can hug their family members, while others just look for their pals as if strangers don’t matter. Maybe in a society with stronger customs and norms it could work (e.g. Japan?). We just don’t have the necessary consistency. It sometimes puts a certain goofiness into a sacred event. Sometimes it’s done well, but the bar needs to be a little higher. It’s sort of like an experiment that did not work as well as was hoped for.
 
“People need to come a little outside of their zones of comfort and greet others. “
This is a diagnosis for imposing someone’s will on others based on an opinion, without consideration for the situation of that other person. The sign of peace is an invitation, not a requirement.
This is just as “off” as if I were to suggest that, “People really need to be more reserved and hermit-like”. (Just like me of course, because that is how I am)
Recognition of others is fine if people agree to do so.
The interruption and walking around/back slapping/high-fiving/kissing silliness seems a bit far from the “Reconcile with your brother” aspect.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
OR it could be that people are not distracted from union with Christ, are not ‘ignorant’ of the idea of unity with Christ, do not view others as something to ignore, etc. etc.

It could be that people who want to justify a particular innovation and demand a particular gesture are trying to do so because they simply feel that it ‘validates’ their opinion of how people ‘should be’. IOW, they’re cherry picking Scriptural references and virtue-shaming because they think that everybody should feel and judge the gesture based on their own proclivities.
 
Nepperhan said:
. People need to come a little outside of their zones of comfort and greet others.
Click to expand...
This is not why we are there, to come out of our zones and greet others.

The sign of peace is not a greeting, like a how are you, good to see you but a passing on of the Peace of Christ, which is not the same as the peace that this world offers.
 
Emeraldlady said:
But it would be the end of one of the earliest liturgical traditions. One that Jesus Himself articulated.
Click to expand...
It would continue to be in the Mass as always, the laity would just not participate in the same way,.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
But it would be the end of one of the earliest liturgical traditions. One that Jesus Himself articulated.
Click to expand...
It would continue to be in the Mass as always, the laity would just not participate in the same way,.
Click to expand...
It’s fundamental purpose as Jesus intended was to remind people just before receiving His Sacrifice, that to be worthy of reception we must be fully committed to love of our neighbour and not just love of God. How ironic would it be that objection to its use was to do with negativity towards others who don’t do it the way one thought it should be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top