Why Is the "sign of peace",during mass,turning into a prolonged party?

[Militant_Ellen]

I’m significantly ignorant,and my anamnesia,is perplexed.I
think I may have a predisposing "sour puss"out look but I’m trying to understand.Thanks!

 

[ralphinal]

I’m significantly ignorant,and my anamnesia,is perplexed.I
think I may have a predisposing "sour puss"out look but I’m trying to understand.Thanks!

My thoughts are two-fold on this. First , many Catholics was community in their Church. They do not want to make extra time for it, or cannot. Therefore, they look to taht time in the mass to meet and greet. Second, they do not know that the only reason they are there is the Eucharist. They see this as more important, the “Body of Christ” while ignoring the Body of Christ.

 

[Cat]

My thoughts are two-fold on this. First , many Catholics was community in their Church. They do not want to make extra time for it, or cannot. Therefore, they look to taht time in the mass to meet and greet. Second, they do not know that the only reason they are there is the Eucharist. They see this as more important, the “Body of Christ” while ignoring the Body of Christ.

Although the Eucharist is the main reason why I am at Mass, it is not the only reason I am there. I am also there for the Liturgy of the Word, and the “assembling together” with my Christian brothers and sisters as commanded in the Letter to the Hebrews.

 

[EasterJoy]

My thoughts are two-fold on this. First , many Catholics was community in their Church. They do not want to make extra time for it, or cannot. Therefore, they look to taht time in the mass to meet and greet. Second, they do not know that the only reason they are there is the Eucharist. They see this as more important, the “Body of Christ” while ignoring the Body of Christ.

There is some truth to this. At our parish, there is a point before Mass starts in which people are invited to introduce themselves and greet those around them…because the sign of peace is not when that is supposed to happen!! Anybody who thinks those actions redundant is not getting it.

The idea of the sign of peace is to recognize the Christ in each other, to be made aware of what it is to be the Body of Christ, to be made aware that we have come together “in communion”, made one in Christ’s sacrifice, in preparation for Holy Communion.

Although the Eucharist is the main reason why I am at Mass, it is not the only reason I am there. I am also there for the Liturgy of the Word, and the “assembling together” with my Christian brothers and sisters as commanded in the Letter to the Hebrews.

This post reads as if you hold to a common misconception: that is, that the liturgy of the Word is somehow an “extra” in the Mass. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are two parts of one single act of worship. To “be there” for Mass is to “be there” for all of it.

CCC 1346
…The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist together form “one single act of worship”; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.

CCC 1103
…In the Liturgy of the Word, the Holy Spirit “recalls” to the assembly all that Christ has done for us…The Holy Spirit who thus awakens the memory of the Church then inspires thanksgiving and praise (doxology).

 

[puzzleannie]

because priests don’t do what ours does, signal choir to begin Agnus Dei, fortissimo

went to Mass at Our Lady of Lebanon shrine, whatever rite that is, part was in Syriac, part English, but what struck me is that OF and exchange of peace was at the beginning w/ penitential rite, which seems much more logical to me, and seemed organically to fit there, where the ritual seems a disruption where it comes in the NO.

 

[Cat]

There is some truth to this. At our parish, there is a point before Mass starts in which people are invited to introduce themselves and greet those around them…because the sign of peace is not when that is supposed to happen!! Anybody who thinks those actions redundant is not getting it.

The idea of the sign of peace is to recognize the Christ in each other, to be made aware of what it is to be the Body of Christ, to be made aware that we have come together “in communion”, made one in Christ’s sacrifice, in preparation for Holy Communion.

This post reads as if you hold to a common misconception: that is, that the liturgy of the Word is somehow an “extra” in the Mass. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are two parts of one single act of worship. To “be there” for Mass is to “be there” for all of it.

CCC 1346
…The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist together form “one single act of worship”; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.

CCC 1103
…In the Liturgy of the Word, the Holy Spirit “recalls” to the assembly all that Christ has done for us…The Holy Spirit who thus awakens the memory of the Church then inspires thanksgiving and praise (doxology).

No, I don’t believe that the Liturgy of the Word is “extra.” The Holy Mass is one act of worship, the best way for humans to worship God.

But when someone says that the only reason we are at Mass is to receive Eucharist, then that makes me think that they mistakenly think that all the rest is “extra.”

 

[EasterJoy]

because priests don’t do what ours does, signal choir to begin Agnus Dei, fortissimo

went to Mass at Our Lady of Lebanon shrine, whatever rite that is, part was in Syriac, part English, but what struck me is that OF and exchange of peace was at the beginning w/ penitential rite, which seems much more logical to me, and seemed organically to fit there, where the ritual seems a disruption where it comes in the NO.

I think that immediately before Holy Communion is an excellent place for the sign of peace if the sign of peace is properly understood by the assembly. That is, our brothers and sisters are not a distraction to our communion with the Lord, for our communion with the Lord must necessarily be communion with them, too!

Because the whole Mass is a single act of worship, though, it could be put anywhere and still make sense to me. I could see where the sign that any petty differences are put aside as we recognize Christ in each other and join to make our lives one in his Sacrifice could go very nicely within the penitential rite, too, as sort of a starting point for our entering into the heavenly Liturgy…for how can strife approach Heaven?

Of course, if the sign of peace isn’t properly understood, it doesn’t matter much where you put it. You’ve lost part of the point of what Mass is all about. In that case, I’d put it where it makes people who don’t get it the most uncomfortable, so they might have some reason to examine what on earth it is doing there! (But I’m mischievous that way. )

 

[Windmill]

N.B. The sign of Peace is optional. If it gets too far out of hand, the priest can skip the part where he says, “Let us give each other the Sign of Peace.” It’d just be a pre-arranged thing with the choir - jump in immediately after, “The Peace of the Lord be with you.”

 

[ethelzguy]

N.B. The sign of Peace is optional. If it gets too far out of hand, the priest can skip the part where he says, “Let us give each other the Sign of Peace.” It’d just be a pre-arranged thing with the choir - jump in immediately after, “The Peace of the Lord be with you.”

This is correct according to my Sacrementary.

It says “The congregation may exchange a sign of peace, according to local custom”. If the local custom is to keep moving along, then it meets that description. If the priest makes the aisles, it meets that description as well.

 

[ralphinal]

No, I don’t believe that the Liturgy of the Word is “extra.” The Holy Mass is one act of worship, the best way for humans to worship God.

But when someone says that the only reason we are at Mass is to receive Eucharist, then that makes me think that they mistakenly think that all the rest is “extra.”

I see two parts of one divine Worship. However, I should point out that, to me, the Liturgy of the Word SUPPORTS the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Without the former, there is no latter. Both are needed for a valid Mass.

 

[EasterJoy]

I see two parts of one divine Worship. However, I should point out that, to me, the Liturgy of the Word SUPPORTS the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Without the former, there is no latter. Both are needed for a valid Mass.

That is just it. The Church teaches that the Mass is a single act of worship, a single act of remembering. Whenever we “do this in memory of Me”, our action always unfolds within the two parts. There is no Mass “without one” part, either way.

But I write in way of clarification, not in way of disagreement with you. As you wrote, both are needed, so I don’t think we are in disagreement.

The sign of peace is optional, for it is a recognition, rather than an accomplishment, of that unity which is renewed, offered and nourished by the action of the Mass. The life of the baptized is made one in the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the altar, with or without the sign of peace.

Where the recognition is not there, IMHO, the options are to remedying that through catechesis or to omit the sign. That is properly discerned by the priest.

 

[Windmill]

If the priest makes the aisles, it meets that description as well.

ethezguy,

We must take care not to isolate a text. The same document, the GIRM, states in paragraph No. 154:

"Then the priest, with hands extended, says aloud the prayer, ‘Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti’ (Lord Jesus Christ, you said). After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and saying, ‘Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum’ (The peace of the Lord be with you always). The people answer, ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’ (And also with you). Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, ‘Offerte vobis pacem’ (Let us offer each other the sign of peace).

“The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a *good *reason, on *special *occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity. While the sign of peace is being given, one may say, ‘Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum’ (The peace of the Lord be with you always), to which the response is Amen.”

**(emphasis mine)

**The “sanctuary” is distinguished from the “nave” as the area immediately around the altar.

 

[Freshman88]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

 

[Cat]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

No, it isn’t.

 

[rwoehmke]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

I would suppose that is one way of looking at itand you have a right to your opinion. However when I look back in time at the Rood Screens, past Church layouts and a congregation whose only role was to stand silent and listen, I feel something important had been lost in seeking absolute reverence. Even frequent reception of the Eucharist was not encouraged. Mass became something belonging to the clergy and the religious with the laity basically cast in the role of passive observers relegated to silent prayer at best.

The Mass without communion rails, sign of peace, etc. is not centered on us, the laity. It is centered on Jesus Christ our high priest with the rest of us, whether clergy, religious, or laity gathered in community(read unity) around and with him who we worship.

Of course we each have our role to play in that worship, most of us are lay people, at least one is an ordained priest, and so forth. I personally have nothing against communion rails, receiving on the tongue, etc. but the point still is that the Holy Mass is still a communal celebration of a sacrifice in which we eat of that who is sacrificed. While it is true a lay presence is not absolutely required, our presence there impacts every single one of us gathered around the Lord present both in Word and in Sacrament at that celebration as well as those who join us around the world in offering that same single sacrifice.

I cannot imagine that Jesus who touched and healed lepers, asked that children be allowed to approach him, who ate with sinners and the unclean, washed the filthy feet of his disciples would require a barrier between us.

 

[ethelzguy]

ethezguy,

We must take care not to isolate a text. The same document, the GIRM, states in paragraph No. 154:

**(emphasis mine)

**The “sanctuary” is distinguished from the “nave” as the area immediately around the altar.

We must be reading from different Sacrementaries. But, mine isn’t Latin either…mine is English NO.

 

[Timothysis]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

What a condescending tone…

 

[I_Believe]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

Exactly. With the priest facing the faithful, the Mass is instructional and especially with the Consecration, it’s almost like a demomstration of “how it was done one Thursday night”.

Is the NO still superior to a Protestant prayer service ? Absolutely.
Does it compare to the Mass of St Pius V ? Not in the slightest.

The sign of peace takes the focus from God to ourselves. And then we are expected to immediately resume a humble demeanor and pray one of the most wonderful prayers we can pray.

It is a distraction and it’s inclusion adds nothing to the Liturgy.

JMO

 

[EasterJoy]

Ad populam, sign of peace, removal of altar rails… its all centred on us now.

Exactly. With the priest facing the faithful, the Mass is instructional and especially with the Consecration, it’s almost like a demomstration of “how it was done one Thursday night”.

Is the NO still superior to a Protestant prayer service ? Absolutely.
Does it compare to the Mass of St Pius V ? Not in the slightest.

The sign of peace takes the focus from God to ourselves. And then we are expected to immediately resume a humble demeanor and pray one of the most wonderful prayers we can pray.

It is a distraction and it’s inclusion adds nothing to the Liturgy.

JMO

Let us see. You turn to the person next to you, a person whose life is united with yours, made one in the death of Christ by your common baptism and hidden in Christ in order to make one holy offering, and you find them a “distraction.” I keep hearing this sentiment, and from the very people who decry the attitude of “me, me, me.”

The sign of peace is not “Hey, Joe, good to see you!” but Holy Communion is also not “me and Jesus.” We become what we receive: the Body of Christ. We become one, not just with the person next to us, but with the entire Body of Christ: the entire Church Militant, the entire Church Suffering, the entire Church Triumphant. One Church, made one in Christ by his death and Resurrection. For some Catholics, there is a greater barrier to faith in trying to accept that Christ is truly present under the “accident of humanity” than that he is present par excellence under the accidental appearances of bread and wine.

If you get that, though, then probably the sign of peace adds nothing to the liturgy. You don’t need any reminder that the person next to you is anything BUT a distraction, that they and you are one in the work that is liturgy, one in baptism, one in Christ, if it is divine liturgy at all. Nevertheless, a quite a few of us would not be hurt by the liturgical work of that little ritual reminder…if only we could be troubled to remember what that little ritual signifies.

 

[consumedconvert]

I can’t answer this question because I’ve never seen it turn into a party in my Diocese.

We wave, shake hands with those closes, say “Peace be with you,” exchange meaningful looks. It’s a time of great love, of palpable peace. It’s a great preparation for Holy Communion.