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

[choose_to_love]

" . . . two groups . . . those who love Christ, and those who love the outward gestures"

Are you serious? How in the world is this not considered offensive? Are you parodying yourself, and I am not getting it?

 

[Dovekin]

" . . . two groups . . . those who love Christ, and those who love the outward gestures"

Are you serious? How in the world is this not considered offensive? Are you parodying yourself, and I am not getting it?

Yes, but I am parodying @HomeschoolDad, not myself. The division he made into those who like and those who do not like the new things assumes that one’s attitude toward “the new things” (all of which are outward gestures) is important enough to divide people up.

And yes, I found that division offensive. I explained later that I do not think all supporters of the EF are proponents of rubricism.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

" . . . two groups . . . those who love Christ, and those who love the outward gestures"

Are you serious? How in the world is this not considered offensive? Are you parodying yourself, and I am not getting it?

I, too, found this… how shall I put it?.. a very interesting observation.

I don’t know if it will be profitable, to speculate on why the Holy Spirit allowed the Mass to stay this way, the way to which you object (“outward gestures”), all those hundreds of years, and then, at long last, in 1969, we started worshiping the way Our Lord wants us to. I’m not sure how we got so many vocations, or for that matter, so many saints, during all those hundreds of years, if the Mass was so far removed from what glorifies God best.

The claim was “We live our lives “old-fashioned” because, for one thing, it worked ”

It did not. That there have always been wars only underlines that fact.

I said it worked. I didn’t say it was perfect. Do we not have wars now? This country has been in a continuous state of war for almost twenty years. Some are claiming that China deliberately created the coronavirus and/or deliberately sent it throughout the world by way of “spreader agents”. If that were true, would that not be an act of war? Already more Americans have died than those who died in Vietnam. Dead is dead.

choose_to_love:

" . . . two groups . . . those who love Christ, and those who love the outward gestures"

Are you serious? How in the world is this not considered offensive? Are you parodying yourself, and I am not getting it?

Yes, but I am parodying @HomeschoolDad, not myself. The division he made into those who like and those who do not like the new things assumes that one’s attitude toward “the new things” (all of which are outward gestures) is important enough to divide people up.

And yes, I found that division offensive. I explained later that I do not think all supporters of the EF are proponents of rubricism.

Nowhere did I suggest that those who “like the new stuff” are any less Catholic, or love Our Lord any less, than those who prefer more traditionalist “outward gestures”.

I think I made it clear that this need not threaten unity in the Faith. We have distinct rites that express the spirituality of different people in different times and places. Until now, those have been mostly in the East. They are a testament to diversity, not disunity. The two Masses (Novus Ordo/OF and Traditional Latin Mass/EF) may be morphing into two distinct rites of the Western Church. We also have a distinct Anglican-inspired rite of sorts (yes, I know, “Anglican Use”, not “Anglican Rite”). They have rubrics that matter to them, for various historical and spiritual reasons. So do Latin Rite traditionalists. Nobody is second-guessing anyone’s faith or holiness.

 

[Buks]

Without continuity don’t you get infinite splintering, like Protestants?
The Church irons all this out. You can choose the ordinary or Latin or Eastern Rite or others that may be approved.
From my experience in the ordinary form, things once in a while get a little off-course. My parish had a priest that freelanced in a pretty big way with Eucharist prayers, and he also happened to be the one that pushed the SOP to the extreme (always told us to get out of the pew and move around).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If what we hand on is only a commitment to the teachings of Paul and the Church, and does not include a commitment to Christ and the Holy Spirit, we are not being faithful.

I’m sorry, I find that an odd thought. How can you be faithful to the Church and not be faithful to Christ and the Holy Spirit at the same time since Christ gave us the Church and the Holy Spirit leads the Church.

If you are faithful to the Church, you are then faithful to Christ and the Holy Spirit. If you are faithful to Christ and the Holy Spirit, you are faithful to the Church…

 

[stpurl]

But why on earth are you attempting this kind of false dichotomy? Why are you assuming that I am only talking about ‘adherence to traditional moral codes?” Why are you assuming that holding fast to all the teachings (and the quote you attributed from me clearly shows I said that, ALL the other teachings that the Church upholds) and outright stating that I’m not ‘including a commitment to Christ and the Holy Spirit? Really, what an incredibly hurtful assumption. And people wonder why, when this kind of attitude is presented as reasons to ‘distrust’ those pesky trads, that trads might get a bit defensive. Seriously.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Oh, no, I wasn’t making an error. It IS ironic that you think that ‘you’ get to define tradition and ‘you’ get to choose.

No, I’m not defining tradition whatsoever. That’s above my paygrade. I’m here defending the Church of today. I can’t think of any time ever in my life that I expressed any kind of rejection or objection about Church teaching. I think you previously described us as sycophant something or other.

After all, under Pope Francis the whole SOP was studied, precisely because of the many abuses that came about and in places are still there, and first, it was recognized as an OPTION, not a requirement in Mass (somewhat negating your idea that it is a Jesus tradition that had been ‘lost’ and restored), and second, its place where it is was recognized as awkward and thus, it —being the OPTION it is—can still be either omitted or replaced at some point as the OF continues its growth. After all, we had the changes from 2011. Good old Spirit-induced changes which I thoroughly cheered.

And as always seems to happen in these threads, my position has been revised in order to make me look like I’m saying something I’m not. I first posted in response to a couple of posters wanting the SOP gone as being a modern novelty with no value in the Mass.

 

[Dovekin]

St Paul spends a bit of time contrasting Law and Spirit. These reflect two ways of understanding something, two hermeneutics. Like the two ways of understanding the Kiss of Peace.

This discussion of the Kiss of Peace has called it a distraction, disruptive, belittling it as a silly minute, etc. At last you seem to be grasping that this attitude is offensive to those of us who consider it part of our ritual remembering of Jesus.

If these things do not apply to you, do not act as if I am saying they do. I am only criticizing those who turn liturgy into a sequence of meaningless gestures. People who consider it a distraction. I am not talking about all those who prefer the EF, just some of them. Don’t tell me you are not one of them; if you are not one if them, the comments do not apply to you.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Broadly speaking, I think this breaks out into two groups — those who love Christ, and those who love “The outward gestures”:

Etc., etc.

This fruit seems to have been rotting in the sun. What a bunch of sanctimonious claptrap. Do you pray to God with that mouth?

My apologies to anyone who was offended by my post. I tried something in an effort to make a point, and apparently people do not understand it.

 

[stpurl]

Well It is possible that what you posted has more layers than you might realize. And I called you NOTHING. The fact that you seem so eager to keep on saying that I called YOU something I did not, while complaining that people have twisted YOUR words, is also ironic.

And as you can plainly see in my post, while I note the SOP is an option (which the Church has clearly stated), I didn’t state it had ‘no value’ or demand it be ‘gone’.

It IS modern in that prior to 1969 it did not exist in the Mass for many centuries. But after all the St Michael and Leonine prayers were ‘modern’ too. They were used for a while, retired, and now in places are being used again. Something being ‘modern’ doesn’t make it wrong.

As with a lot of innovations and experiments and practices in the last 50 years or so, there are things which have noble purposes in theory but which, when put in practice, have unfortunate side effects. That doesn’t mean that the original purposes were wrong; it means that the implementations were flawed. And implementations being flawed don’t mean they were done poorly or badly. For example, the decision of the USCCB to allow an indult for Friday abstinence outside of Lent was done with a noble purpose; to allow people who were vegetarians to offer something up instead, as well as giving people who already gave up meat the chance to give even MORE to the Lord.
In practice due to unfortunate ambiguity in statements, the majority of Catholics in the US believe that not only do they not have to give up meat on Fridays outside of Lent, they don’t have to offer any penance or other good work on Friday at ALL. And because of that they have become confused and scandalized and prone to accept all kinds of craziness about Friday abstinence. Because something which was a ‘mortal sin’ before suddenly ‘isn’t’, they have been conditioned to think of all Catholic practices as optional, not really important, ‘made up to help the fishing industry’ in this case of abstinence, etc. They scorn ‘tradition’ by conflating it to ‘once eating a hot dog sent you to hell”.

Fairly recently England and Wales dropped the indult. I hope we do the same in the US. I think that the implementation was fatally flawed for the US indult, again, not maliciously, but that in this case ‘going back to’ the Catholic NORM which is year-round Friday abstinence would be very helpful.

 

[Canvas]

I think that physical contact will be discouraged for the forseeable future.

 

[Dovekin]

They scorn ‘tradition’ by conflating it to ‘once eating a hot dog sent you to hell”.

See, you understand the concept. People scorn tradition when they talk about the Sign of Peace as a “silly minute” or call it “a distraction.”

Or is your remark meant to describe all Catholics? Should I be offended because you are criticizing Catholics, of which I am one?

Personally, I agree with you. We should go back to the Catholic norm of always having the Kiss of Peace.

 

[stpurl]

I think that people who speak of the Sign of Peace as a ‘silly minute or distraction’ are speaking of the current 50 year old Sign of Peace as done in the OF in the US (mostly) which in their experience has been abused to the point that it has (for them, in their churches, at some point in those 50 years) become ‘silly’ and ‘distracting’.

In 50 years a rather sizable anecdotal cadre of Catholics have experienced, often over decades, a sign of peace which involves much noise, laughter, movement, and even giddiness among many —they have seen Father and his servers come down from the altar where Father has just consecrated the Eucharist, has presided over us while we said the Our Father, and then come down, often going throughout the whole church, reaching across people, laughing, joking, talking, hugging, kissing, and then after often more than 5 minutes of this, while people are positively bullied into ‘shaking’ and pointedly snubbed if they do not—Father and the servers go back up onto the altar and immediately start saying, “Lamb of God’, and then getting ready for communion.

While people are still talking through the Lamb of God, still making hurried comments to finish up the important things they were discussing at the sign of peace, like how little Harvey and Harriet are doing, or whether so-and-so is going to do such and such.

I do not think that the SOP should be done away with. But I do believe that the placement in the Mass, while it was well-intentioned, is not and has not worked to provide the average person in the pew with the message of what the sign of peace IS.

Whereas if the sign of peace took place at another point: Perhaps at the very start of Mass, just before the people all say a penitential rite and where the symbolism of making peace with our neighbor would be quite clear; perhaps after the homily and just prior to the Creed, where again, the symbolism of our offering peace before we all stand together to state what we believe—surely these points at Mass would be far better suited to our offering peace to our neighbors.

 

[Dovekin]

I think that people who speak of the Sign of Peace as a ‘silly minute or distraction’ are speaking of the current 50 year old Sign of Peace as done in the OF in the US (mostly) which in their experience has been abused to the point that it has (for them, in their churches, at some point in those 50 years) become ‘silly’ and ‘distracting’.

Do you recognize how similar these comments are to ‘once eating a hot dog sent you to hell”? Except the comments about silliness are about our holy liturgy, while those about hot dogs are just about a discipline. That was the point I was making.

surely these points at Mass would be far better suited to our offering peace to our neighbors.

Why would these moments be more appropriate than the moment when we who were scattered are gathered into one? The moment when we celebrate our union in the one loaf, the one cup? What do you think Communion is?

 

[stpurl]

No, the comments are not similar at all.

The sign of peace is and remains an option where it is right now. Not a requirement.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And as you can plainly see in my post, while I note the SOP is an option (which the Church has clearly stated), I didn’t state it had ‘no value’ or demand it be ‘gone’.

Which is why I addressed my response on that to the posters who had expressed that sentiment about the SOP.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

There are those Catholics who would like it to be gone but not because it has not value but because it has lost it’s reverence, especially considering the point of Mass that it happens.

 

[stpurl]

I think you mentioned only one or two who made such comments.

 

[stpurl]

Yes; as with so many well-intentioned ideas, the practical application has had glitches.

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) 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.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think you mentioned only one or two who made such comments.

What is your point? Am I not permitted to respond to some people?