Mass Confusion #2

[Homestarlover85]

i dont even really understand the question

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Homestarlover85' date='Oct 16 2004, 04:45 PM'] hey Cur of Ars...
who is that in your picture [/quote]
He is my patron Internet saint, JOHN MARY VIANNEY A.K.A. Cure of Ars.



If you would like to learn about him go here;

[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj18.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj18.htm[/url]

[Cure of Ars]

Phatcatholic I found this info;


[quote]Finally, the offering of a sign of peace (formally called the "Kiss of Peace") boasts an even greater tradition. St. Justin the Martyr (d. 165) in his First Apology (which provides one of the earliest written accounts of the Mass) described the offering of a sign of peace after the readings and introductory prayers, but before the offertory prayers. Tertullian (d. 150) regarded the Kiss of Peace as a "seal" placed upon the prayers offered. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechetical Lectures also recorded how the deacon would call for the congregation to exchange a sign of peace. Moreover, St. Cyril explained, "Do not suppose that this kiss is like those given by mutual friends in the marketplace. Such a kiss this is not. This kiss blends souls one with another, and woos for them forgetfulness of every injury. This kiss, then, is a sign of the intermingling of souls and of the banishment of every remembrance of injury. It was in this regard that Christ said, ‘If you are offering your gift at the altar, and while there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the altar and go out first and be reconciled to your brother; and then come up and offer your gift.’ The kiss, therefore is reconciliation, and because of this it is holy. Just so, where the blessed Paul cried out, saying, ‘Bid one another welcome in a holy kiss’ and Peter, "In a kiss of charity.’"

Seen as a natural prelude before the reception of Holy Communion and an affirmation of the whole meaning of the Mass, Pope Innocent I in a letter to the Bishop of Gubbio (416) mandated that the Kiss of Peace occur after the consecration. Later, Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) set the exchange of the Kiss of Peace after the Our Father.

Because of the growth of the size of congregations over the centuries, how the Kiss of Peace was exchanged evolved. By the 10th century, the Kiss of Peace began at the altar and then emanated to the congregation. By the 13th century a kissing board or "Pax board" (osculatorium) was introduced which the priest kissed and then this was passed through the congregation with each kissing it. Eventually, the sign of peace was offered only during the High Mass as an embrace between the priest, deacon and subdeacon. In the low Mass the priest would simply kiss the alter and say, "Pax tecum" followed by the response, "Et cum spiritu tuo."

In the Novus Ordo, the Kiss of Peace has been restored to its more traditional practice. The priest may invite the congregation to offer to each other a sign of peace "according to local custom." Note that the priest does not have to invite the congregation to do so; the verbal exchange between the priest and the congregation of "The peace of the Lord be with you always" followed by "And also with you" may suffice for this ritual. The actual sign of peace may include a handshake, embrace or even a kiss for a loved one.

These gestures should be taken seriously and performed reverently. They are physical actions which help us form a proper spiritual disposition and reverence during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/98ws/ws980507.htm"]http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/98ws/ws980507.htm[/url]

[phatcatholic]

awesome, thanks Cure.

if anyone has anything else, please share

[popestpiusx]

[quote]In the Novus Ordo, the Kiss of Peace has been restored to its more traditional practice. [/quote]

As I said before, it's not a restoration. It still had limited use in the Tridentine Mass. Plus, if they really want to restore the ancient practice then they need to do it in full instead of just an empty gesture. The peace of Christ could only be extended to those who were able to do so, supernaturally; that is, those ina state of grace and in full communion with the Church. Catechumens and non-Catholics, as well as those doing pubic penance for mortal sin, were not permitted to be there for that part of Mass. Here is a commentary by Fr. Romano Tommassi on this subject:

The second “restored” rite is that of the Sign of Peace. The instructions for the New Roman Missal say: “Before they 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 each other.”13 This is a ritual which has a tripartite significance: (1) The faithful exchange a sign (2) for peace and unity in the Church and the human family (3) indicating love for one-another. Yet what is the reality in every Catholic Church in the world? (1) The faithful and non-Catholics always exchange the Sign of Peace within the new Mass. No document has forbidden, or even suggested, that this is erroneous. (2) The current sign is therefore one of greeting and welcoming, but does not imply in the least a spiritual peace between persons present. (3) If you consider love the same as being friendly, the third objective is attained. There is not any evidence that the peace offered is considered by the faithful as an agape. Hence there is no reticence in offering it to those in mortal sin, nor will an official document be found to order, or even suggest, that the state of grace is necessary for the exchange of agape/love/charity.

I make these observations because supposedly the “sign of peace” is a “restored” rite from the “Tradition of the Fathers.” [b]It must be said that the rite exists in all the liturgies of Christendom.14 The Apostolic Tradition, The Constitutions of the Twelve Apostles, Ordines Romani and countless Fathers bear unanimous witness to this practice. Its significance, however, is in the expression of communion. The exchange of peace could be given only by orthodox Catholics in good standing in the patristic Church.[/b] In fact, there were several different ranks within the Church itself. First were the pagans outside the Church. Not being baptized, they could not share in Christ’s peace. They could not even be admitted into the Church during the sacred mysteries (as in the Roman Missal of Pius V’s dismissal of the catechumens at the Creed, they would be forced to exit with the catechumens), so that they could not receive the peace.

Secondly, the unbaptized catechumens were unable to exchange a “holy kiss” of peace in the Holy Spirit until the Easter vigil.15 In fact, they could not even pray with baptized Christians until they themselves were baptized.16

Next were the heretics and schismatics. Although baptized, they were denied Communion and the Sign of Christ’s peace since they were cut off from the bosom of the Church. They too would not be allowed to witness the sacred mysteries.

Yet the list of personae non gratis does not stop there! Those having committed mortal sin were relegated to a closed–off place in the back of the church, or even outside of the building, and so too were always denied the Sign of Peace.17 In the Roman Rite, only after the completion of formal canonical Penance during Lent could they receive absolution on Holy Thursday in order to once again take their place with the congregation and so exchange the bond of communion and love which they had lost through the commission of mortal sin.18

This noble reality of communion and love is expressed in the new Roman Missal, but it is adulterated since its application does not take into account the historical context of the Sign of Peace. Nor has there been implemented a proper way to restore the ritual while retaining its rich significance.

Footnotes:
14 JUNGMANN, JOSEPH, The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development, vol. 1, p 328.

15 See Tradition Apostolica of the so-called Hippolytus. See also Constitutiones Apostolicae of the 4th cent.

16 16 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia, ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, 5 vol., Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998. Edizione Italiana. (vol 4, pp. 44-45). Available in English as the Handbook for Liturgical Studies published by Pueblo.

17 Ibid., vol 4, pp. 118-124.

18 Manuscript LIBER SACRAMENTORUM ROMANAE AECLESIAE ORDINIS ANNI CIRCULI (Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/56) (SACRAMENTARIUM GELASIANUM), Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, cura Pontificii Athenaei Sancti Anselmi de Urbe Edita Moderante L.C. Mohlberg, Series Maior Fontes vol. 4, Casa Editrice Herder, Roma 1960. Capitulum [XXXVIII], # 339-63 (Latin only).

[phatcatholic]

wow, were people really segregated like that in the ancient church? i guess i'm kinda shocked by that

Edited October 18, 2004 by phatcatholic

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 18 2004, 04:23 PM'] wow, were people really segregated like that in the ancient church? i guess i'm kinda shocked by that [/quote]
From the time of Christ to the creation of the Novus Ordo there was a distinction between the Mass of the Catechumens (the first part) and the Mass of the Faithful (Starts at the Offertory). The catechumens were not permitted to stay for the last part. Separating the public penitants disapperaed with public penance (and for good reason I think). The separation of all non-Catholics from the second part was practically ceased because it was nearly impossible to enforce, though I don't know exactly when the official Church policy changed or ceased to be enforced.