Peace

[presbyter]

GIRM 2002 - 266

The priest gives the sign of peace to the minister, if appropriate .

Pro opportunitate sacerdos dat pacem ministro

Rubric 128 in the 2002 Missal (which we await in translation)

Deinde, pro opportunitate, diaconus, vel sacerdos subiungit: "Offerte vobis pacem."

It is optional.

[presbyter]

Even the Collins Sunday Missal makes it clear that it is optional:

"Then the deacon or the celebrant may add....."

not "adds" or "must add".

[presbyter]

http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2508bi1.html

I am not alone in knowing it to be optional.

[presbyter]

CTM:

•The peace is always exchanged, though the invitation which
introduces it is optional.


Whose interpretation is this? If there's no invitation, surely there's no sign of peace ......... which is what happens in some places.

Even Cardinal Arinze made the point that the sign was optional when he came to Westminster (not in the body of his text - unpublished answer to someone's question).

[docmattc]

I wonder how many parishes do not include the Sign of Peace in their celebrations of Mass.

I gather the curate (or 'Vicar Pastoral' as he's called on the newsletter) at my parents place doesn't include when he presides at their 8am Mass, on the basis that its too early in the morning for that sort of thing. I understand that a good proportion of the congregation are not chuffed with its omission and often exchange it (in a brief and sober manner!) in spite of the lack of invitation.

[Peter]

Do I remember rightly holding hands during the Peace at SS? That seemed a much better solution.

It's the way we've done it in my church for many years and a tradition that our new PP has agreed to continue. A few people seem uncomfortable with it but it's a powerful symbol of a community seeking to be at peace within itself and with God. This is especially the case if, as I seem to remember we did at SS, we all join in the prayer for peace, something my current PP prohibits even though his predecessor encouraged it. Being prevented from joining in after years of doing so has alienated several people from our congregation.

[presbyter]

we all join in the prayer for peace, something my current PP prohibits...

Well good for him. It is a presidential prayer.

[SOP]

I remember when the Sign of Peace first came in and people would grip hymn books tightly so they could not shake hands with a stranger. WE also just turned to one person, I think, at first but now it is totally out of hand and a huge distraction.

When I am at a church conference or a house Mass then it is appropriate to go round and it can signify peace between those present. However, it has reached a stage at my church that if you only exchange the sign of peace with people either side of you, you are anti-social and attract non-peaceful glares.

[alan29]

If I am at Mass with my wife we exchange a kiss on the cheek. Anyone else feel that a handshake is not always the most appropriate sign?
Alan

[lesley wright]

To be sure, shaking hands with your wife/husband would seem strange - but for a few years in our church people hugged and kissed one another so abundantly that reserved types like myself had no alternative but to hide behind a pillar. Thank God it's toned down under the present PP, a much less charismatic individual (but he does encourage us all to join illegally in the Prayer for Peace, and sometimes in the Doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer as well).
By the way, it is interesting to note that the Anglican Rite A has the Peace much earlier in the service; somewhere around the Intercessory Prayers and before the Preparation of the Gifts, if my memory serves me right.

[Sonoqui]

I too think the sign of peace has got a 'bit out of hand' - there are times when it seems to be more like 'liturgical gymnastics'.

For me, where it is now and the form it quite often takes in my church, it disrupts what should be a quiet and spiritual time in the Mass.

Would not a better place be at the end of Mass when the priest says 'Go in peace to love and serve the Lord'? Or at least somewhere round about then.

[John Ainslie]

For the way Pope Benedict thinks of the Sign of Peace, see Sacramentum Caritatis at para. 49:

We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one's immediate neighbours (150).

And footnote 150 says:

Taking into account ancient and venerable customs and the wishes expressed by the Synod Fathers, I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord's insistence that we be reconciled with others before offering our gifts to God (cf. Mt 5:23 ff.).

...which is where our Anglican friends have it. Whether the ultra-conservative Congregation for Divine Worship are taking up the Pope's request is debatable. If there was ever to be a 'reform of the reform', it would certainly feature.

[presbyter]

Whether the ultra-conservative Congregation for Divine Worship are taking up the Pope's request is debatable. If there was ever to be a 'reform of the reform', it would certainly feature.

SCDWDS states (Redemptionis Sacramentum)

[71.] The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist.[151] It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters.

My concern is that people do not understand the significance of "The Breaking of Bread" ~ and accompanying Lamb of God. The significance of this highly important ritual moment should not be lessened by protracted and over-exuberant gestures of peace.

There might be a case for saying, I suppose, that with the Sign of Peace in its present position, it abruptly shifts the focus from Christ to ourselves ..... but then, if we are indeed to "recognise him in the breaking of bread". we should have those dispositions listed by the SCDWDS.

I can see cogent reasons for placing the peace rite before the procession at the presentation of gifts (and in an early Roman Rite, that's where it is - see Catechism 1345 - Justin Martyr). As to whether or not it will migrate to this earlier position, we shall have to wait and see.

The Missal is not set in stone. Pius V tried to do just that with it but it was very slightly tweaked by a successor. There's no reason why Benedict could not apply similar adjustments to John Paul's 2002 edition of Paul VI's Missal.