We talked a few times about the proposal by Pope Benedict to move the sign of peace to a place more appropriate in the mass. For example, someplace where it does not result in a free for all hug fest that is very distracting from the Eucharist we are about to receive. At least I have always felt it is a distraction where and how is is implemented. Apparently 66% of the U.S. Bishops agree with me. I got this little tidbit from Jimmy Akin.
I was just reading the newsletter of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship (formerly the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy) and ran across this item:
Survey of the Sign of Peace at Mass
The Committee [for Divine Worship] reviewed the findings of a survey requested of the USCCB by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments regarding the placement of the Sign of Peace at Mass. Of the 89 Bishops who responded, 66% supported moving the Sign of Peace after the Prayer of the Faithful and before the Presentation of the Gifts, 32% recommended retaining the Sign of Peace at its current location before the Agnus Dei, and 2% offered alternative opinions. A report from the USCCB was submitted to the Congregation’s then-Prefect, Francis Cardinal Arinze.Cool. Good to hear that there is some motion on this and that the bishops seem to be responding favorably.
Sixty six percent want to move it. Good. What I really want to know is the 2% “alternative” opinions. Those could be fun, don’t you think? Like if one of the Bishops said “Take the sign of peace and …” Well you get it. We have been down this road before, no need to repeat it.
Thirty two percent are happy just the way things are, no surprise there. I don’t suppose it would take Nostradamus to divine which of the Bishops are ineffably content.. How much you want to bet that many of these same 32% have favored every other abuse/reform that has come down the pike over the last 40 years. I guess they had to draw the line somewhere.
January 6, 2009 at 3:03 am
I have thought that as a public display of the deep love we Catholics have for one another, we should move the sign of peace out to the church parking lot and celebrate our inclusiveness either right before or after mass. Everyone will see then that we are a welcoming church. Then there would be also room for high fives, flashier peace signs, more intimate kisses, back-slapping…and the pastors could get in more hand shakes…and feel less morose about the declining Sunday collections.
January 6, 2009 at 3:30 am
Lose it.
Please.
— Mack
January 6, 2009 at 4:46 am
The outcome of a poll always depends on how the question is phrased. What would the result be if the question were “Should the sign of peace be elimated?” I don’t see that that was included in the options. Yet, in my parish, there is no schmoozefest, Deo Gratias! Would that that were the norm. BTW, just the sound of the phrases “Presentation of the Gifts” and “Prayer of the Faithful” sound so utterly depressing, I need my TLM to restore me. Kit
January 6, 2009 at 5:15 am
Not sure how meaningful the “Peace of Christ” is before the consecration…unless now it is just “peace” from one to another. It’s disappointing that it will be moved instead of done properly. Now it will just be done improperly at a different part of the Mass, and that doesn’t really help.
I wish they’d keep it where it is and do it right.
January 6, 2009 at 11:26 am
1. Moving the Sign would be beneficial for helping people maintain focus during the most sacred of sacred moments of the Mass by removing a serious distraction.
2. The command of Christ – Matthew 5:23-24 – reminds us how fundamentally important it is that we must be reconciled to God and neighbour before approaching the sacred mysteries. Why not move the Sign of Peace to the end of the Penitential Rite before the Gloria? If we seek an obvious reminder that the Sign refers to the peace that only God can give, would it not be prudent to move the Sign to a location in the Liturgy where God extends His mercy, forgiveness and peace through the priest to the people? If we must revel in that peace, the singing of the Gloria could then be the natural place where our exhuberant gratitude could be expressed to the One alone Who deserves our praise and thanksgiving (“…and on earth peace to people of goodwill.”). During Lent and Advent when the Gloria is not sung, the more reflective mood of the Liturgy and the lingering Kryie would likely moderate any excessive displays of affection.
January 6, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I wonder how many people who want to move the Sign of Peace, 1) have the slightest idea why it is where it is, 2) have the slightest idea how it’s done properly, 3) would cease complaining about all the handshaking if it were moved, and/or 4) are the same people who complain about changes to the Mass.
Until the problem of this ritual is addressed at its root, it will never really be solved, and discussions about it will be no more well-informed than this one. I’m sorry to have to lay it out like this, but… well, see above.
January 6, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The problem is the “free-for-all” hugfest notion of the sign of peace. Moving the hugfest to another part of the Mass just doesn’t do a thing.
Are we going to move the sign in the EF as well?
January 6, 2009 at 1:27 pm
My point exactly.
January 6, 2009 at 1:28 pm
The problem is the “free-for-all” hugfest notion of the sign of peace. Moving the hugfest to another part of the Mass just doesn’t do a thing.
Are we going to move the sign in the EF as well?
January 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm
David,
You have a point but I think there is more too it. Even those who 1) have the slightest idea why it is where it is, 2) have the slightest idea how it’s done properly, 3) would cease complaining about all the handshaking if it were moved can easily how disruptive to the mindset before communion it is now
I agree with you that is is in large part about the how. That said, I think moving it is perfectly appropriate given its practical impact.
If someone has a hang-over, I know that the root of the problem is drinking too much the night before. That said, should I deny him the aspirin in the morning?
January 6, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“If someone has a hang-over… should I deny him the aspirin in the morning?”
No, but it’s a one-time occasion. Should they expect aspirin from you every morning for the rest of their lives?
I rest my case.
January 6, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Should we also move other parts of the liturgy which are commonly abused?
Many priests ad-lib the penitential rite, so let’s just move it to a different place where the ad-libbing won’t be as disruptive.
I can’t believe I am hearing, “Doing the rite right is too haaaaaard. Let’s move it instead.”
January 6, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Let’s just do away with it! Who sits next to people they don’t care for anyway.
January 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Matthew 5:24.
I don’t want to lose it entirely. Move it to before the offering of the gifts.
Nicole
January 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm
The “2%” probably represents the Maronite Catholic bishops and, yes, thy do have a reverent alternative. In the Maronite Divine Liturgy, the Sign of Peace is before the Consecration, which signifies that we are making peace with each other before Jesus is physically present with us in the Eucharist. The Sign of Peace flows from the altar through the priest who encloses the hands of the servers with his hands and the servers bring that Sign to the ushers and in turn to the congregation. Most reverent!
In our parish, children serve as peace bearers. The 1st to 5th graders usually take on this aspect of communal worship. But it is not uncommon for the youngest to join their older siblings and imitate them. Nothing more beautiful than to watch a 2 year old make a profound bow towards the altar and with hands folded, carry the peace to the first person in each pew.
January 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Moving the “sign of peace” to before the offertory would create a more respectful atmostphere for the Eucharist and the awesome mystery we are about to partake and better these words of Jesus: “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Mt 5:23-24).
January 6, 2009 at 9:17 pm
If moving the “sign of peace” would truly make more sense theologically, then it ought to be moved in both forms.
Can someone please explain how changing WHEN the act occurs will mysteriously alter HOW it occurs?
I guess if we want people to receive Communion reverently, we should just change when the distribution of Communion occurs.