The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Where to put the sign of peace?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Publication date:
December 12, 2008
Section:
G1. News 
-- CNS/Karen Callaway: Joe Deflin, youth director at St. Therese Chinese Church in Chicago, shares the sign of peace with children during Sunday Mass.One of the most popular features of the Catholic Mass, yet one that also figures prominently among the pet peeves of many bishops, liturgical experts and even ordinary Mass-goers, may soon be relocated.
In response to a worldwide consultation requested by Pope Benedict XVI, the U.S. bishops have recommended moving the sign of peace from its present location just before Communion to an earlier point in the Mass -- after the scripture readings and before the offertory, or the presentation of gifts.
Msgr. Anthony Sherman, who heads the U.S. bishops’ office on liturgy, said it’s up to the pope to decide if, and when, the change will be made.
As things stand, Mass-goers exchange the sign of peace immediately after praying the Our Father, shortly before receiving Communion. In theory, liturgists say, the gesture is intended to communicate that the peace of Christ, accomplished upon the altar by the consecration of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, extends to the unity of the church and of all humanity.
Critics complain, however, that in practice the handshakes, embraces and chit-chat that ripple through congregations at the sign of peace often seem more at home in a church social or a cocktail party than in the key moment before the Eucharist.
“Sometimes it’s like the Packers just scored a touchdown,” said Msgr. Roy Klister, rector of St. Francis Xavier Cathedral in Green Bay, Wis., and a member of the board of the Society for Catholic Liturgy. “People are hugging, high-fiving. ... It’s lost any real connection to the rite of Communion.”
In some form, a “kiss of peace” has been part of the Catholic Mass since antiquity. Prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), however, it was not an everyday feature of the liturgy. Reviving the sign of peace, experts say, was part of the council’s emphasis on “full, conscious and active” participation by the laity.
Almost immediately, it became one of the most contested elements of the new Mass. In 1967, then-Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, an early leader in liturgical reform, reported getting letters of protest “that would curl the hair of the most reactionary prelate.”
In the mid-1990s, the U.S. bishops requested permission from the Vatican to move the sign of peace to before the offertory -- which was, experts say, its original setting prior to changes in the Roman liturgy in the fourth century. It’s also where the sign of peace still falls in the Ambrosian Rite, the ancient form of the Mass celebrated in some regions of northern Italy and Switzerland.
The Vatican deferred that request, citing the need for stability. During the John Paul years, the lone exception was given to the Neocatechumenal Way, a “new movement” in the church, which received permission to place the sign of peace before the offertory.
The push for wider reconsideration, however, never went away. At the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist, bishops from around the world recommended an assessment of whether the sign of peace should be moved. In the meantime, rulings have attempted to rein it in; a 2004 Vatican document called for people to exchange greetings only with “those who are nearest and in a sober manner,” and said the priest should not generally leave the sanctuary.
Beyond the argument from tradition, experts offer two other theological reasons for moving up the sign of peace: First, that doing so would better reflect Christ’s injunction in Matthew 5:23, that one should be reconciled with one’s brother before offering a gift upon the altar; second, that many Orthodox and Protestant churches place the sign of peace before the offertory, so moving it could be seen as an ecumenical gesture.
In reality, however, the push for relocation is probably driven more by a practical instinct that the sign of peace too often is a distraction from preparation for Communion.
“Pastoral concern outweighs liturgical purity at this point,” said Msgr. John Burton of Camden, N.J., chair of the board of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, who said the sign of peace would be “more effective” in a different spot.
Notre Dame de Namur Sr. Kathleen Harmon of the Institute for Liturgical Ministry in Dayton, Ohio, however, said there are also powerful theological reasons for keeping it where it is. Placing the sign of peace after the consecration, she argued, puts the accent on seeing peace as something accomplished through Christ; moving it up, she said, makes it seem more like something human beings do on their own.
Trying to curb abuse of the sign of peace by changing its location, Harmon said, amounts to “solving a practical problem by making a liturgical decision.” What’s needed instead, she said, is catechesis about what the gesture really means -- a challenge that pastors and liturgists will face, she warned, no matter where it falls.
If a change is made, many liturgists hope it’s bundled into an impending new translation of the Mass rather than being presented in piecemeal fashion.
“For most people, this would be quite a significant change in the pew,” Burton said. “It’s best to do that all at once.”
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.
National Catholic Reporter December 12, 2008
Make real change--Allow
Make real change--Allow Priest to marry.
Ambrose
Amen. Priests should have
Amen. Priests should have the choice to marry. Married men should be able to be ordained.
And, most of all, we need women priests.
"Critics complain, however,
"Critics complain, however, that in practice the handshakes, embraces and chit-chat that ripple through congregations at the sign of peace often seem more at home in a church social or a cocktail party than in the key moment before the Eucharist."
- This is very true, at least in my local parish.
I'm speaking as one who has gone often to the new Mass, and has also served as subdeacon in sung, Traditional High Masses.
In the Traditional Rite, the 'kiss of peace' is there before Communion, but is done in a quiet, VERY reverent manner that doesn't cause distraction from the rest of the Sacrifice of the Mass. In my local parish with the new Mass, the sign of peace creates quite a distraction, with quite a bit of gee and haw, side conversation, etc. Three weeks back, in my row one man turned to another behind him, gave a high five with a very audible "what's up, n*gga!"
Had congregations treated this more reverently, I doubt this would ever have become a problem.
It is strange that no one
It is strange that no one considers a sign of peace post communion, perhaps near the instruction, "Go! The Mass has eneded." YEs, after communion has been shared. I had once heard an instructor say that the command, "Go! The Mass has ended," really was an exhortation, "Go! Live the Mass." What was that Latin phrase on the statute of Ignatius Loyala? "Go! Set the world on fire?"
They recognized him in the
They recognized him in the breaking of the bread. It makes sense to me that we share peace with one another as a sign that we recognize in one another the Body of Christ. What has happened on the altar has a direct effect on us as well. It can be both a prayerful moment and one filled with joy and excitement. The Lord is here! Come, Lord Jesus!
This whole controversy is,
This whole controversy is, in microcosm, symbolic of what's ripping the
Church apart today.
We have the conservatives, who'd really be quite content if we all filed into
the sanctuary, mumbled the responses, perhaps in Latin, and never interacted
with one another until we went out to cut each other off in the parking lot.
Then we have the progressives, who'd make it something next to a free-for-all.
And just about everyone misses the point.
At the Sign of Peace we acknowledge ONE ANOTHER as "The Body of Christ."
Granted, use of the n-word is questionable...it being essentially (in many
contexts) a very NON-PEACEFUL term. But as we know in others it is acceptable,
among peer groups. However, citing it is another case of the conservative
choosing the extremes to have their way.
They have stuck the label "liturgical abuse" on all sorts of thing which, frankly,
the Deity probably doesn't care about one bit. All in the name of having their
own way. (In fact they've co-opted the term "abuse," which was at the root of a
much bigger issue in the Church, to make it sound worse than it is, or ever was.)
To say that the priest ought not to leave the area of the altar during the
Sign of Peace is absurd. To suggest that people ought not to pass some meaningful
words such as "How is your mother feeling?" is equally absurd.
That's what "Peace" is all about. It's hard to be at loggerheads or at war with
someone after you ask about their mother's health.
And if the Sign of Peace is the occasion for someone to make "Peace" with someone
they've been in conflict with---- even if they have to walk across the aisle to
do so, SO BE IT! THAT is NOT a "liturgical abuse." That's what it's for.
I wonder how a story gets
I wonder how a story gets its birth in this publication. This story is presented with 12 different sides to it. It's easy as a journalist to not present a point. It's a repeated pattern in the NCR and the reader looks for where the inception of the issue came from but can never find it.
I have both enjoyed the
I have both enjoyed the activity of the handshake of peace as well as been annoyed by it; I have gone so far as worried about germs passing with people with colds! :)
I like both arguments and wonder if the whole problem could be settled just by giving some prayful silence just after the moment that has become an "event.". In fact we need more moments of quiet reflection to help keep us centered in the sacred and profound mystery that is beyond our many words and chatter: a time of quiet and "be still and know that I am" is all that is needed: here, after readings, after communion as we need More quietude and silent listening.
What makes anyone think that
What makes anyone think that moving the sign of peace is going to solve the problem of our being distracted from the the prayer that is the mass? I think the US bishops are not seeing the forest for the trees. If the congregation becomes too "distracted" during the sign of peace, moving it to a different point in the mass is not going to quiet people down. So the message now being sent is "the noisyness and high-fiving that occurs is OK in the new location of the sign of peace because reflecting on the scriptures and preparing an offering are just not important parts of the mass."
In the Episcopal/Anglican
In the Episcopal/Anglican Holy Eucharist, the sign of peace is just before the offertory, and does not interrupt the flow of the sacrificial/sacramental portion of the service. Although I'm sure the Vatican office in charge of liturgy would never admit it publicly, I bet they looked at the BCP to see how others have integrated the sign.
I am the one in the picture.
I am the one in the picture. I think that the sign of peace could be semi-disruptive to prayer before communion, and as you could see in the picture above, some people have exchanged peace signs, high-fives, or other casual greetings. I see nothing wrong when I smile as I offer my hand to my neighbors. Yet, I do agree that we may have lost the true meaning for this exchange. We should display peace to our brothers and sisters upon receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. We should drop any grudges or ill feelings before receiving communion. The sign of peace was supposed to emphasize solidarity, but it has somehow become a social event. I like the exuberance that we have toward extending our hands to people around us (even strangers). However, the symbolic act should not detract from the special reverence we Catholics have for the Eucharist.
The sign of peace is a beautiful act, but I would not mind seeing it moved within the Mass.
Why not as mass begins. Now
Why not as mass begins. Now we are true neighbors and worshiping as one,as at the last supper.
Converting from Anglicanism
Converting from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, three things bothered me:
* The location of the Peace, it disrupts the Sacrifice.
* Holding hands during the Lord's Prayer feels so awkward. In my Episcopal parish, the prayer was said solemnly while kneeling. But in the Catholic parish, it is less solemn and said standing and holding hands. It feels much less prayerful.
* Most importantly, the lack of reverence paid to the Blessed Sacrament. The tabernacle is located in a side room, once I noticed a couple people (out of hundreds) kneel briefly while passing it, then I began doing the same. It makes much more sense to have the tabernacle with the altar, though this gets difficult if we insist on having a free standing altar / table.
I have not yet been received into the Roman Church, however, I don't think I could bring myself to take Communion standing, in the hand, from a Eucharistic minister. It just isn't right. This is my Lord Jesus Christ here! This fundamental point seems to have been lost (I recently read a survey that said 70% of Catholics don't believe the Sacrament *is* God, the dogma of transubstantiation) and the lack of respect doesn't help.
I don't mean to just come into the Catholic Church and start complaining about the way things are run. I made the move both because I am tired of the hierarchy trying to turn The Episcopal Church into a Unitarian-Universalist Church and because I believe that we must be one in Christ, we must have one Church, not just mystically but visibly as well and that Church is the Roman Catholic Church.
So when you approach Jesus, show Him some respect please. It's not a time for chit-chat or blind actions -- just following everyone up to your weekly Eucharistic meal. Actually do so prayerfully and meekly. Genuflect, kneel to almighty God.
And to the bishops, please move the Peace to before the Sacrifice.
Post new comment