People Behaving Badly At "sign Of Peace"

[Perigrina]

I came across an interesting article on the history of this part of the Mass:

 

 The "sign of peace" is generally called the "kiss of peace," or in Latin, simply, the "pax" (pronounced like the English "pox.") In the traditional rite it is given by the priest to the Deacon at solemn Mass. Although called a "kiss," it is really more of an arms length embrace. The priest says, "peace be with thee," and the deacon responds, "and with thy spirit." The deacon then passes this gesture on to the subdeacon, and in turn to the other clergy. The pax may also be given to a crowned head of state. Bishops and princes occasionally receive the pax at low Mass.

 

    In the early Church the pax was exchanged at the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful, just prior to the Offertory. This seems to be in response to our Lord's caution that we be at peace with our brother before offering our gift at the altar (Mt. 5). St. Hypolitus, one of the early authors of the Roman Mass, excluded the unbaptized from the from the rite on the grounds that "their kiss is not yet pure." Hypolitus had the men greet only other men, and women only other women.

 

    By the early middle ages the pax was moved to a point somewhat before Communion and was received as a preparation for Communion by those who would receive sacramentally. The physical contact appears to have gotten out of hand, so that instead of embracing one another the communicants kissed a tablet or plate known as a pax-brede. The brede was first kissed by the celebrant and then carried by one of the ministers of the altar to a point where those approaching for Communion might kiss it. Some of the medieval pax-bredes are quite ornate, often being engraved in ivory or gold, or being elaborately painted. They varied widely in form, some being about the size of a small paten, with others being fairly large and tablet shaped. Today the pax-brede is still used to bring the pax to prelates and princes at low Mass.

 

    Toward the end of the middle ages the pax went from being a preparation for Communion to being a substitute for It, given to those who did not receive. Thus, even in twentieth century missals, we have the direction to omit the pax on those days when virtually everyone is expected to receive Communion (Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil) and in those Masses when nobody other than the priest receives (Good Friday and funeral Masses).

 

    By the sixteenth century, the pax had become a source of discord, with people vying for the honor of receiving it before the others. (See inset, below.) Debates would break out over who received it first the last time, or who was more worthy to receive it this time. There are documented accounts of physical violence breaking out, and legal action being brought to restrain the over-enthusiastic. In some cases, the pax-brede itself was used as a weapon! It is not surprising, then, to find the rubrics of the Tridentine missal restricting the pax to a more mild-mannered ceremony among the clergy.

 

more at:  http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/qa061994a.html

 

That sure puts my irritation at overly enthusiastic hand-shaking into perspective. :)

[Credo in Deum]

I always think of it this way.  While on Calvary, did St. John turn around to Mary and say; "howdy neighbor?"  I know, I come of as mean spirited pharisee when I say this, however, I feel we have so many hours in the week we can do this hand shake of peace to our neighbor, why do we need to do it at Mass?  Why can't we all just be in one place for an hour and turn all of our attention to Christ and adore God in a solemn manner? 

[Ash Wednesday]

That is a pretty fascinating history. 

 

I never was a big fan of having the pax just before the agnus dei -- at least how people would sometimes act during it. The worst offenders were the masses I went to on college campus and liberal parishes where people turn it into social hour.

 

Generally the masses I go to make it tolerable. People are reserved, they give a smile and bow but for the most part the priest keeps the mass going and moves on to the agnus dei within a reasonable time.

 

One thing I like about living in England is that they don't get huffy if you want personal space and they don't hold hands during the Our Father so I don't have to worry about someone throwing their hand into my personal space expecting me to hold it. At times in day-to-day life I get homesick for some outgoing American friendliness because I find the British to be very reserved at times, but during the mass I love it. :)

 

 

Edited June 21, 2014 by Ash Wednesday

[Perigrina]

I always think of it this way.  While on Calvary, did St. John turn around to Mary and say; "howdy neighbor?"  I know, I come of as mean spirited pharisee when I say this, however, I feel we have so many hours in the week we can do this hand shake of peace to our neighbor, why do we need to do it at Mass?  Why can't we all just be in one place for an hour and turn all of our attention to Christ and adore God in a solemn manner? 

 

I think the "sign of peace" expresses this truth which St. John stated:

1 John 4:20 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 

If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

And also this teaching of our Lord:

 

Matthew 5:23-24 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 

So 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 to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 

 

It is not that we are turning our attention away from God, but acknowledging that loving God requires loving our neighbor.

 

One thing that struck me about the passage cited in the OP was that, even though the practice was being horribly abused, the Tridentine reform did not get rid of it.  This practice was seen as valuable enough that it ought to be retained in a modified form, rather than abolished.  I see that as an indication of its importance.

 

(Because Solemn High Mass is so rare in our time, it is not unusual that even trads might not realize that this is the normative form of the Tridentine Mass. So technically the EF does have a "sign of peace". )

[Credo in Deum]

I think the "sign of peace" expresses this truth which St. John stated:

1 John 4:20 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 

If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

And also this teaching of our Lord:

 

Matthew 5:23-24 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 

So 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 to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 

 

It is not that we are turning our attention away from God, but acknowledging that loving God requires loving our neighbor.

 

One thing that struck me about the passage cited in the OP was that, even though the practice was being horribly abused, the Tridentine reform did not get rid of it.  This practice was seen as valuable enough that it ought to be retained in a modified form, rather than abolished.  I see that as an indication of its importance.

 

(Because Solemn High Mass is so rare in our time, it is not unusual that even trads might not realize that this is the normative form of the Tridentine Mass. So technically the EF does have a "sign of peace". )

 

 

You're right that the practice seemed important enough to retain it, and through the ages it evolved to be between the priest, deacon, and sub-deacon (IMO a great way to do it since it helps us remember that the priest as our Fr. does everything on our behalf; plus it does not distract those who are focused on the Liturgy.)   The question now should be; why after all of this formulation of the sign of peace, are we now going back to the method that didn't work?  Why can't we just let the priest, deacons, and sub deacons do this on our behalf? 

 

I do not have a problem with the sign of peace, nor do I prefer not to do it because I hate my neighbor.  I prefer not to do it, because I 1) do not want to break my neighbors concentration on the prayer which is the Mass and 2) because I want to respect the wishes of those who would like their personal space.  I feel the current sign of peace in the OF almost forces people to participate.

[Perigrina]

You're right that the practice seemed important enough to retain it, and through the ages it evolved to be between the priest, deacon, and sub-deacon (IMO a great way to do it since it helps us remember that the priest as our Fr. does everything on our behalf; plus it does not distract those who are focused on the Liturgy.)   The question now should be; why after all of this formulation of the sign of peace, are we now going back to the method that didn't work?  Why can't we just let the priest, deacons, and sub deacons do this on our behalf? 

 

I do not have a problem with the sign of peace, nor do I prefer not to do it because I hate my neighbor.  I prefer not to do it, because I 1) do not want to break my neighbors concentration on the prayer which is the Mass and 2) because I want to respect the wishes of those who would like their personal space.  I feel the current sign of peace in the OF almost forces people to participate.

 

I have to admit that I do not like the way it is practiced in the OF, but I think it is a good thing in principle.  It is not supposed to be an interruption of prayer but a part of the prayer.  Look at how many times the EF Mass contains the expression "Dominus vobiscum".  Technically, that is addressed to the people, but it is still part of the prayer.

 

It is not possible for the OF to incorporate the "kiss of peace" in the same way it is done in the EF because the normative way to celebrate the OF is with one priest.  

[Credo in Deum]

I have to admit that I do not like the way it is practiced in the OF, but I think it is a good thing in principle.  It is not supposed to be an interruption of prayer but a part of the prayer.  Look at how many times the EF Mass contains the expression "Dominus vobiscum".  Technically, that is addressed to the people, but it is still part of the prayer.

 

It is not possible for the OF to incorporate the "kiss of peace" in the same way it is done in the EF because the normative way to celebrate the OF is with one priest.  

 

Then I say leave it for the OF Sunday Masses when there is at least a deacon present.  Every Sunday OF Mass I've been do has had a deacon. 

[Perigrina]

Then I say leave it for the OF Sunday Masses when there is at least a deacon present.  Every Sunday OF Mass I've been do has had a deacon. 

 

I suspect that the presence of deacons varies according to region.  I'm going to try to do a poll.

[Perigrina]

I cannot figure out how to do polls.  I set it up in the poll manager but do not see how to post it.

[Credo in Deum]

Hmmm.  I've never done one before.  We're both in foreign territory.  Where is dairygirl when you need her?

 

What were going to be the poll options?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

I thought the poll itself could simply be answering yes or no to the question: Is there usually a deacon present at your Sunday Mass (OF)?  And people who wanted to say what region they lived in could do so in the comments.

[CountrySteve21]

Can't the sign of peace be omitted? 

[Perigrina]

Can't the sign of peace be omitted? 

 

Yes, it is optional.  As I recall, the Oratorians do not use it when celebrating the OF.

[Fidei Defensor]

Can't the sign of peace be omitted? 

It is omitted at the Mass I attend daily.

[CountrySteve21]

Lucky! I just find it kind of distracting; I'm trying to focus on receiving our Lord, not on my brethren. Enjoying their company is for after Mass.

 

PAx