Mass matters

[Myles Domini]

Hey Phatpham

There's been a lot of interesting litrugical debate as of late here at phatmass which I for one have found most interesting. Anyways, I came across St Justin Martyr's comments on the liturgy in his 1st apology and it got me thinking about the sign of peace (particularly when I mulled over the comments that Benedict XVI made about the 'Zaireian rite' in 'Spirit of the Liturgy').

To recap lets quote St Justin

[quote]But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.[/quote]--St Justin Martyr, 1st Apology chapter LXV

Naturally, St Justin's words will evoke familiar imagery for all the Catholics on this board. However, we can note an interesting difference in the positioning of the sign of peace. As in the current Zaireian rite of the Roman ritual family the sign of peace preceeds the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer). My question, naturally, is would it not be more appropriate to reform the reform by placing the sign of peace where St Justin tells us it once was?

Moreover, St Justin's words remind us that until recently the 'sign of peace' equated to the 'kiss of peace', which I have personally exchanged on many an occassion because my uncle is Ethiopian Orthodox and that is how he greets me. Personally, I believe the hand shaking is out of place within the context of the Holy Mass. Not only is it less dignified than the kiss of peace but since it is easier to do you end up with people reaching over the pews to do it. I believe that the restoration of the kiss of peace would be to the benefit of all. Feasibly you can only offer it to the people either side of you and it conveys the solemnity and sacredness of the liturgy. A handshake can be offered to anyone on the street but a kiss, usually, means something more. It shows familiarity it evokes images of family and thus could act as a reminder that through the 'one bread we become one body'.

Your thoughts phatpham?

PS) For now I wont start the debate about the proper role for the deacon in the liturgy according to St Justin as opposed to that of extraordinary ministers of communion.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Interesting. I like the idea of a "kiss of peace" because I think it fits better with Scripture when trying to outline parts of the Mass, and I'd like the idea of moving it insofar as to return emphasis to the Eucharist (and community through the Eucharist), rather than merely expressing Christian unity (which leads to distractive practices like hand-holding and/or imitating the priest during the Pater Noster).

But I don't think I don't enough Liturgical history to comment any further, or suggest anything definitively. There is a true sense of organic growth in the Liturgy as the Church grows in faith, but I confess my ignorance on the history of many gestures within the Mass.

[avemaria40]

I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it's awesome to wish each other peace and to welcome people in.

[Cam42]

Myles,

I agree that the terminology should return to the "kiss of peace." Here is my take though.....

I would remove the communal sign, for several reasons.

1. Length of the sign
2. Loss of sacrality of the time
3. Is it a matter of participatio activa or participatio actuosa?
4. The communal response to the priest at the altar is sufficient to get the point across.

With that being said, I am also not a fan of hand shaking....it seems to secular to me for some reason. I would much rather see the traditional hands over forearm/hands under forearm position. It is a a sign of respect/submission to the persons around the other. Is it formal, sure, but then again, so is the Mass. The Mass is not supposed to be a "homey" kind of experience.

As far as the placement goes, I think that authentic development has placed it where it is, so leaving it there is acceptable...

My two cents and my opinion.

[Noel's angel]

plus, some people have sweaty hands....

[philothea]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Aug 14 2005, 04:58 PM'] I am also not a fan of hand shaking....it seems to secular to me for some reason.  I would much rather see the traditional hands over forearm/hands under forearm position.  It is a a sign of respect/submission to the persons around the other.  Is it formal, sure, but then again, so is the Mass. The Mass is not supposed to be a "homey" kind of experience.
[right][snapback]684967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I found the it weird and kind of startling when I began attending mass, this break to shake hands and be, er, neighborly with people in the nearby pews. To this day it always feels out of place. I could see it at the beginning, or at the end, maybe... but right in the middle of the eucharistic prayers. It's a complete change of context and tone, and it's distracting.

I don't know anything, though. Just offering my uneducated opinion.

[cmotherofpirl]

There is still ongoing discussion about moving the Sign of Peace to an earlier point of the Mass.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Aug 14 2005, 04:59 PM']plus, some people have sweaty hands....
[right][snapback]684968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Eep. I hate that. When I serve at mass, I get nervous, and my hands get sweaty, so I always have to whipe them off.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Aug 14 2005, 04:58 PM']2.  Loss of sacrality of the time
3.  Is it a matter of participatio activa or participatio actuosa?
[right][snapback]684967[/snapback][/right][/quote]
can you explain what these two mean? thanks

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 16 2005, 07:40 PM']can you explain what these two mean? thanks
[right][snapback]687037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Sure, for #2.

It seems to be a disjointed time to stop the flow of the Liturgy to have everyone leave a preparation for the reception of Holy Communion and shake hands, converse, etc....then regroup and try to focus on the Liturgy. It has been my experience that when the "communal sign of peace" is forgone, then focusing on the Blessed Sacrament is easier to do.

#3.

Participatio activa v. Participatio actuosa. I have discussed the meanings of the terms on other threads, so I won't get into that, but I will say this: If one is participating to simply shake hands and "go through the motions" then he is not necessarily participating in the proper spirit of the sign of peace. If he is engaging the sign of peace in an inward manner and not necessarily shaking hands, then he could be coming to a closer kiss of peace with the Lord and those around him.

Basically, it is the outward action v. the inward action. Which is more important? And which is perceived to be more important? They are not equal...that is the hint.

[Lil Red]

i don't like the hippy wording "and also with you". could we please say the correct phrase, "and with your spirit"!!!!!

[hierochloe]

What's with the sweaty hand shaking in the first place? It's the [i]kiss[/i] of peace! How is shaking hands the same as a KISS? Lol people would really start watching who they sit next to at Mass......

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Aug 14 2005, 04:59 PM']plus, some people have sweaty hands....
[right][snapback]684968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, what I'm concerned about are all those people who cough and/or sneeze in the hand they shake with. A few years ago, the Toronto archdiocese stopped doing it due to the SARs outbreak.

[peach_cube]

I voted no.

I think the placement is fine. Although I wouldn't complain if it was moved.

The form is fine as well. Different cultures use different forms, I believe that in the Far Eastern cultures the sign is shown with each side of the church turning towards the other and bowing. Kissing is not a universally accepted cultural greeting. Therefore I am not sure that it should be forced to be accepted.

[son_of_angels]

In the Sarum Use a kiss of peace was shared before the approach to the altar and the "Aufer a nobis" prayer. Using the Novus Ordo, I think it would be fitting to include it after the absolution and before the Kyrie. This would mark the clear movement in the focus of the liturgy. Of course if I had my way the Kyrie would be said at every Mass and the Prayers before it would be said towards the altar only between the priest and the ministers.

The pax at the fraction was, in medieval times, done only between the clerics at the altar, whilst an image or icon of Christ was passed through the Choir and people for veneration. Why not bring this tradition back of "passing the pax."

Edited August 21, 2005 by son_of_angels