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

I am taking a stab in the dark but I would guess that the general sign of peace could be when we all say, “And also with you”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Oct 12 2004, 09:44 PM'] I am taking a stab in the dark but I would guess that the general sign of peace could be when we all say, “And also with you”. [/quote]
well, 56b says that the faithful show their love for one another. is not the response "also w/ you" just a sign of love to the priest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 13 2004, 12:13 AM'] well, 56b says that the faithful show their love for one another. is not the response "also w/ you" just a sign of love to the priest? [/quote]
Whose to say that the "showing love to one another" has to be the sign of peace. If it is not initiated by the Priest, then it is up to the faithful to initiate. This would create even more chaos than the sign of peace already creates. It does not have to be used. I say ditch it. It just makes for a circus anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it when the priest skips the "sign of peace" because then I do not loose the focus at the climax of Mass.

At the climax, the source of the Mass, is there on the Alter about to be elevated, Heaven is about to shake with Glory, and then I have to look away to shake some one's hand who will not even look me in the eye usually...

I know it is premitted, and maybe it is a good practice, but I find it distracting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 13 2004, 01:50 AM'] Whose to say that the "showing love to one another" has to be the sign of peace. If it is not initiated by the Priest, then it is up to the faithful to initiate. This would create even more chaos than the sign of peace already creates. It does not have to be used. I say ditch it. It just makes for a circus anyway. [/quote]
but 56b says "[i][b]show some sign [/b][/i]of their love for one another" and it speaks of this sign as if it is just understood that this is what happens. also, everyone knows that the sign of peace to one another comes after the peace exchanged between the priest and the faithful. so, i don't see all the "chaos" that you envision. really, you can say "ditch it" all you want, but i have yet to see anything that gives a priest the permission to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 12 2004, 11:13 PM'] well, 56b says that the faithful show their love for one another. is not the response "also w/ you" just a sign of love to the priest? [/quote]
My understanding is that when the priest says, “Peace be with you”, Christ is the one saying this because the Priest acts in persona Christi. Jesus is speaking through the priest. And when we respond, “and also with you” this is ultimately directed not to the priest but to Christ through the priest. And because Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body, these words are directed to the whole body of Christ.


From what I understand the sign of piece is to fulfill what Jesus commanded when he said,

[quote]Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.  (Matt 5:24)[/quote]

So by saying “and also with you” we in part fulfill Jesus command to reconciling ourselves to the body of Christ (our brother and sisters) and while the individual sign of peace is good I would say that it is not necessary because it was already done in a general way when we responded to Christ’s words, “Peace be with you”.

I can understand why some don’t like it because people miss the point and think that we are just saying hi to one another and when this happens the focus is off Christ when we are almost at the climax of the Mass.

Let me give a disclaimer, I don’t know where I got this from but I think that it is true from my understanding of what is going on at Mass. I could be wrong.

Edited by Cure of Ars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 12 2004, 07:25 PM'] 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 [/quote]
It is not permitted to omit the "sign of peace," but the essential element of the "sign of peace" in the Roman Rite is the initial exchange between the priest celebrant and the entire congregation; thus, the exchange of the "sign" between the members of the congregation, and between the priest celebrant and the other ministers, is optional. Only the essential element of the "sign," i.e., the exchange between the priest acting in the person of Christ the head and the entire congregation, is required.

God bless,
Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"then the priest MAY add..." Other than posture, there is no occurance of the people engaging in some action without direction. Also, it helps to look at what the "reformers" were working with when they included this in the Novus Ordo. There has always been an exchange of peace at Mass, but it was restricted to the celebrant and his attendants. This was maintained, but with the option to extend it to the faithful. It is optional, and an option that is best left unobserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 14 2004, 02:21 AM'] "then the priest MAY add..." Other than posture, there is no occurance of the people engaging in some action without direction. Also, it helps to look at what the "reformers" were working with when they included this in the Novus Ordo. There has always been an exchange of peace at Mass, but it was restricted to the celebrant and his attendants. This was maintained, but with the option to extend it to the faithful. It is optional, and an option that is best left unobserved. [/quote]
The sign of peace was such an important part of the early liturgies, that the newly baptized thought that it was a sacrament in itself....divorcing the people from the liturgy didn't happen until around the 10th or 11th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The sign of peace was such an important part of the early liturgies, that the newly baptized thought that it was a sacrament in itself[/quote]

Do you happen to have a source? This sounds a bit far fetched.

[quote]divorcing the people from the liturgy didn't happen until around the 10th or 11th century. [/quote]

Divorcing people from the liturgy? Now that's an interesting and loaded accusation. Care to clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 13 2004, 11:55 PM'] It is not permitted to omit the "sign of peace," but the essential element of the "sign of peace" in the Roman Rite is the initial exchange between the priest celebrant and the entire congregation; thus, the exchange of the "sign" between the members of the congregation, and between the priest celebrant and the other ministers, is optional. Only the essential element of the "sign," i.e., the exchange between the priest acting in the person of Christ the head and the entire congregation, is required.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
apotheoun,

you probably are right about this, but do you have anything i can read that backs up your point, just for my own educational purposes?

i would definitely appreciate it.

thanks,
nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homestarlover85

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Oct 12 2004, 09:44 PM'] I am taking a stab in the dark but I would guess that the general sign of peace could be when we all say, “And also with you”. [/quote]
hey Cur of Ars...
who is that in your picture

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...