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

[ethelzguy]

This past Sunday the priest gave a homily where he said we ought to give a proverbial “kiss of peace” wherever we went, even to our boss at work. My boss was sitting in the pew in front of me. He turned around and gave me a quizzical look, and I shook my head.

That could be the “Kiss of Death”, career-wise

 

[EasterJoy]

That is not organic growth.

The Roman Rite eventually discarded the kiss of peace as it is today, it naturally came to a point where it no longer needed it as such. Overall the Roman rite favored prayful silence, and interior active participation.

When this liturgical practice was introduced, with a host of other changes, the very characteristic of the Roman rite changed.

Organic growth is the natural and slow development of the liturgy. It means respecting the liturgy as it was given to you, and merely adding or taking away prayers in order to enhance the liturgy according to its characteristics. Indeed these characteristics can even change, but over time in a slow and organic development.

The dramatic changes which occurred in the late 60’s were anything but organic. If they were organic we would not have two separate masses. Whereas with the Classical mass the 1962 missal is considered to be the same mass that St. Pius V would have known. These changes in the masses were merely revisions, they were not the creation of an entirely new mass.

Yet with the creation of the Paul VI’s mass, it was exactly that, the creation of a new mass. Many will try and point to the early liturgical practices of other rites or the early Church in order to justify the authenticity of the changes, but just because it has been done before does not mean that it had respected the integrity and nature of the Roman rite. One merely has to experience both the NO and the EF to notice the distinct differences in the liturgy, clearly the later was a dramatic change from the earlier, and both have a distinctly different nature.

You might ask why is it so important to respect organic growth? The answer to that question is lex orandi lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of faith. Each and every prayer, repetition, movement and rubric is based of a theological teaching of the Church. Within our mass is preserved the work of dozens of bishops and even saints. To violently rip out their prayers is in essence to discard their wisdom. Not to mention it does not respect the work of each and every generation who took the liturgy and placed their own mark upon it. Each prayer was carefully written, and revised with each and every generation. To violently rip out these prayers is to discard that wisdom which each generation had. Think of all the generations which have touched upon the mass since the time of St. Gregory the Great, our liturgical father. And indeed it is worth preserving their efforts, for in each generation the Church was experience something different, and their work will reflect their experiences. It is this notion of organic growth and development which makes the EF so rich!

You speak as if the two forms of the Mass are in opposition. They are not. The liturgical reforms of Vatican II were entirely within the authority of the Church. It is not appropriate to teach that they were not.

Exerpts from LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970 (Boldface and underline mine: EasterJoy)

….**In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

…This fear is unfounded.** In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. **It is not appropriate **to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite…

…**There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. ** What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

 

[Freshman88]

You speak as if the two forms of the Mass are in opposition. They are not. The liturgical reforms of Vatican II were entirely within the authority of the Church. It is not appropriate to teach that they were not.

Exerpts from LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970 (Boldface and underline mine: EasterJoy)

….**In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

…This fear is unfounded.** In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. **It is not appropriate **to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite…

…**There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. ** What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

I have not argued against any of these things.

I have not mentioned contradiction, they do not contradict each other.

I have not argued for the total exclusion of the new mass.

I have not said that there are two rites, but two masses, two missals, two uses.

I am not calling into question the need for liturgical reform, reform is always needed, but must be done within the framework of organic growth.

In any case none of this address the concern of organic growth.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have not argued against any of these things.

I have not mentioned contradiction, they do not contradict each other.

I have not argued for the total exclusion of the new mass.

I have not said that there are two rites, but two masses, two missals, two uses.

I am not calling into question the need for liturgical reform, reform is always needed, but must be done within the framework of organic growth.

In any case none of this address the concern of organic growth.

With all due respect, sir, the framework within which liturgical reform is to be done is not within your authority to dictate.

You wrote: “Organic growth…means respecting the liturgy as it was given to you…The dramatic changes which occurred in the late 60’s were anything but organic. If they were organic we would not have two separate masses.” You also said that “with the creation of the Paul VI’s mass, it was exactly that, the creation of a new mass.”

A) According to the Holy Father, we do not have two separate Masses. We have a two-fold use of a single rite. Therefore, it is not proper to say that Paul VI’s mass is a new Mass. It is not.

The Holy Father re-iterated in his letter to the bishops that “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” You imply exactly the opposite.

B) By saying that organic growth is respectful and going onto say that the liturgical reform after Vatican II was anything but organic, you imply that the changes were not respectful. That is your take on it, but it is a rather serious charge for a layperson to make against the Council. You have some chutzpah, sir.

 

[Freshman88]

With all due respect, sir, the framework within which liturgical reform is to be done is not within your authority to dictate.

I am not dictating anything, the notion of organic growth is not my creation.

A) According to the Holy Father, we do not have two separate Masses. We have a two-fold use of a single rite. Therefore, it is not proper to say that Paul VI’s mass is a new Mass. It is not.

This isn’t logical. Each use has its own mass, with its own set of rubrics and prayers. They are indeed different, perhaps it would be more correct to use the world “use”, but with each use is a different mass.

The Holy Father re-iterated in his letter to the bishops that “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” You imply exactly the opposite.

The phrasing is unclear. Which mass is he discussing?

B) By saying that organic growth is respectful and going onto say that the liturgical reform after Vatican II was anything but organic, you imply that the changes were not respectful. That is your take on it, but it is a rather serious charge for a layperson to make against the Council. You have some chutzpah, sir.

Yes, they were not respectful and yes, I do have some chutzpah.

Are you surprised that a traditionalist would have conflicting views with the Holy father who was known as a liberal during the council?

 

[EasterJoy]

…yes, I do have some chutzpah.

Well, at least we agree on something.

 

[I_Believe]

I have not argued against any of these things.

I have not mentioned contradiction, they do not contradict each other.

I have not argued for the total exclusion of the new mass.

I have not said that there are two rites, but two masses, two missals, two uses.

I am not calling into question the need for liturgical reform, reform is always needed, but must be done within the framework of organic growth. …

But you have been identified as one who holds tight to Traditon, and you indicated your preference for reverence, piety, and humility while before the Real Presence.

Satan doesn’t like you, and he will manipulate those, who through ignorance of his trickery, will administer his demonic attack for him, albeit unknowingly. Pray for them.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

• St. Athanasius, AD 373

 

[Spiller]

One of the few things that really blows about EWTN’s daily Mass is that they omit the kiss of peace. It’s nice to see it now and then when a visiting bishop celebrates the Mass.

While perhaps optional, I think a reverent kiss of peace is an exceedingly important part of the Mass.

 

[Spiller]

At my parish, we go directly to the Agnus Dei and skip the “sign of peace”. It has gotten to the point with me that, when I visit other parishes, I just close my eyes until the “sign of peace” is over.

It’s too bad your parish omits this optional yet important part of the Mass…

 

[Spiller]

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.

That’s some good insight.

That’s why I think it’s CRITICALLY important for some sort of meal/snack/coffee social after Mass.

That’s why the EF of the Mass seems to flounder around here – they don’t hang out a bit with each other after Mass and build a real community of friends…

 

[Freshman88]

That’s why the EF of the Mass seems to flounder around here – they don’t hang out a bit with each other after Mass and build a real community of friends…

It’s really hard to make an EF community when so many of the parisohners have to travel so far.

In any case, it is the duty of the pastor to create a vibrant community, not the kiss of peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

But you have been identified as one who holds tight to Traditon, and you indicated your preference for reverence, piety, and humility while before the Real Presence.

Satan doesn’t like you, and he will manipulate those, who through ignorance of his trickery, will administer his demonic attack for him, albeit unknowingly. Pray for them.

There isn’t a human that the devil does not wish to prey upon, so obviously he doesn’t like any of us. Likewise, Christ loves all and thirsts for every soul. Still, it is fair to say that there are particular ones by whom the evil one would be particularly delighted to score a coup against grace, so to speak.

There is also nothing the devil would like more than to sow dissention over that which can and should promote unity, such as the simultaneous existence of the EF and the OF. Let us never forget that we present more than one front upon which he may launch his attacks. Heaven forbid that he use his successes against some of us to lull the rest into complacency. We are all on the “front line” in that respect.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

• St. Athanasius, AD 373

This is true, but let us not confuse tradition and Tradition, as sometimes seems to happen on this sub-forum.

Pray for us all.

 

[ethelzguy]

That’s some good insight.

That’s why I think it’s CRITICALLY important for some sort of meal/snack/coffee social after Mass.

…

Agreed. Our parish has both. I can live without it, just like holding hands during the Our Father.

But, our parish does both, so rather than make some kind of statement, I hold and shake hands alike. I don’t expect that God will punish me for doing so…he has plenty of other things to punish me for

 

[puzzleannie]

.

Speaking of organic growth, didn’t the early Church have the “kiss of peace” in the liturgy for centuries? And that the sign of peace is based on this practice?

yeah we have it here, too, a burden for anyone not “from here” esp. those of us of Germanic or Anglo extraction who do not do PDAs.

 

[Timothysis]

Are you surprised that a traditionalist would have conflicting views with the Holy father who was known as a liberal during the council?

Ahh…so you are basically saying that since the Holy father “was…a liberal during the council” YOU, by being a capital T Traditionalist, know better than the man who was elected to be the successor of the Apostle Peter.

Its as clear as an unmuddied stream, now…

BTW, you’ll pardon me if I don’t kiss your ring, huh?

 

[Freshman88]

Ahh…so you are basically saying that since the Holy father “was…a liberal during the council” YOU, by being a capital T Traditionalist, know better than the man who was elected to be the successor of the Apostle Peter.

Its as clear as an unmuddied stream, now…

BTW, you’ll pardon me if I don’t kiss your ring, huh?

Oh please! I merely pointed out that it isn’t surprising that a traditionalist would have a different opinion on certain events.

Why is everyone so quick to make personal attacks? come on now.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh please! I merely pointed out that it isn’t surprising that a traditionalist would have a different opinion on certain events.

Why is everyone so quick to make personal attacks? come on now.

I’m just worried for a fellow Catholic who feels that Benedict XVI isn’t “traditionalist” enough for them. I don’t know of a cardinal likely to have been elected who was more traditional than he. Although we all hope and pray that election will not be taking place any time soon, there won’t be any cardinals elevated by a pre-Vatican II Pope who will be there to elect his successor, either.

Hang in there and be as peaceful as you can through it all. Maybe your purgatory is now.

 

[I_Believe]

There isn’t a human that the devil does not wish to prey upon, so obviously he doesn’t like any of us. Likewise, Christ loves all and thirsts for every soul. Still, it is fair to say that there are particular ones by whom the evil one would be particularly delighted to score a coup against grace, so to speak.

There is also nothing the devil would like more than to sow dissention over that which can and should promote unity, such as the simultaneous existence of the EF and the OF. Let us never forget that we present more than one front upon which he may launch his attacks. Heaven forbid that he use his successes against some of us to lull the rest into complacency. We are all on the “front line” in that respect.

This is true, but let us not confuse tradition and Tradition, as sometimes seems to happen on this sub-forum.

Pray for us all.

I agree with all you say here. I wasn’t referring to the post he was repliying to, which was yours.

I’ve read posts on at least 3 other forums from those who say they don’t post here anymore. Not because they feel they have been run off, but because of the impossibility of having a civil discussion here on the TC forum.

What bothers me most is that first time visitors to the CA forums see this stuff. I’d be willing to bet that if this sub-fora was closed, we’d see an increase in new registrations.

Or perhaps the Mods could identify the problem topics and ban them for good.

 

[ethelzguy]

Or perhaps the Mods could identify the problem topics and ban them for good.

Ah, but there’s the rub. It seems that no matter the topic, the traditionalist crowd always seems to move the discussion to the same ol’ same ol’…“the Church has gone to hades in a handbasket since Vatican II”…choose your subtopic…communion, language, communion rails, or handshakes at peace-time.

Or more recently, “Pope so-and-so is/was a LIBERAL”…

 

[peregrinus_WA]

It’s too bad your parish omits this optional yet important part of the Mass…

That is your opinion.

Most, if not all, that go to the parish because they want to, not because it is close. For example, my commute to the parish is 20-24 miles each way based on which way I go.