Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Mass Confusion #2


Cure of Ars

Priest omits the exchange of an individual sign of peace  

44 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Ok same rules, the above question is not an opinion poll. There is a right and wrong on the basis of what the Church does and doesn’t allow in the liturgy. It is basically a quiz. I just thought it would be fun to see how much the Catholics on Phatmass as a group know the rules for the liturgy of the Mass. The questions are from Jimmy Akin’s book Mass Confusion. I will give the right answer in a couple of days. Please show some restraint and don’t give the answer away and please only look the answer up after you have given your answer. I know personally that this is one area that I don’t know much about and I guess this is my way of learning about it.

(this is regarding U.S. Status)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read on this not too long ago in the GIRM and from the US Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, though the wording of the question on here seems a little funny to me lol

Edited by StColette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops....i'm a little on the slow side today....hmmm....maybe i should get some sleep.....

Edited by Andrea348
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is the priest in this example prohibiting the congregation from exchanging a sing of peace, or is he omitting it from his own behavior (is he personally refraining)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiat_Voluntas_Tua

This happen's at a very very very reverant Old School Church in downtown KC, Our Lady of Good Councel.

Totus Tuus,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is worded strangely. Are you asking if the sign of peace is required, permitted, etc. or if the priest is required or permitted (et al.) to omit it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

our priest used to leave it out, but still he said some other thing in place of it, i cant remember what. im nearly sure the answer is allowed, because in the misslet, it giveds the priest the option, i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is Permitted :D

This is what the book Mass Confusion says;


[quote][quote]Rite of Peace:  Before the share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for one another. 

The form the sign of peace should take is left to the conference of bishops to determine, in accord with the culture and customs of the people [GIRM 56b] [/quote]

Regarding the use of sign of peace, the General Instruction states:

[quote]Then the priest says aloud the prayer, Lord Jesus Christ.  After this prayer, extending then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace: The peace of the Lord be with you always.  The people answer: And also with you then the priest may add: Let us offer each other a sign of peace.  All exchange some sign of peace and love, according to local custom.  The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers [GIRM 112].[/quote]

Since the text states that [i]“Then the priest may add…”[/i] and not “then the priest says…” the individual exchange of a sign of peace is optional. It is not a liturgical abuse for a priest either to call for or to omit the invitation for the people to exchange signs of peace among themselves. [/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya know, i'm not sure if Akin's understanding of the words "may add" is enough to prove that the priests can omit the sign of peace. here's why.

first, in 56B, the first paragraph says that before we share in the bread we show each other a sign of our love. its understood. this is what we do, we offer each other a sign of our love and then we share in the same bread. there doesn't seem to be any room here for the sign of peace to not take place. applying this understanding to para 112, it could just as easily be said that the sign of peace occurs no matter what, its just that the priests has choice rather or not to say some words to initiate it.

just b/c the priest "may add: <let us offer each other a sign of peace>" that does not necessarily mean that the sign of peace itself may or may not occur. to me, this just means that the priest may or may not say some words to intiate the sign of peace. the sign of peace will occur regardless (as evidenced by 56B)

what do you all think? i'm thoroughly confused by the whole idea that a priest is permitted to take out the sign of peace

pax christi,
nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...