Auxiliary Bishop's Mass Today

[kafka]

Today, at the sign of peace he did something interesting.

He said something to the likes:

The early Christians would omit the sign of peace during Lent as a reminder that there is no peace without repentance and conversion.

And so everyone took a moment of reflection and the Lamb of God prayers commenced without any sign of peace. It was striking.

On a side note, after Mass I finally got the chance to thank the Aux. Bishop for donating his own personal library to the parish library which I often use. He was delighted, and so was I. Its great being a Catholic and meeting a successor of the Apostles.

[Aloysius]

the sign of peace may be ommitted at any mass, it is optional. I am not sure about his facts regarding early Christians during lent, sounds a little dubious, but I very much like the idea of ommitting the sign of peace during lent (then again, I'd personally like it ommitted in every mass if it's going to just be a bunch of informal handshakes, seems like a business meeting)...

[Nihil Obstat]

Even if it's not historically accurate... and it may or may not be... it's still something very deep to think about.
Very cool.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1800738' date='Mar 8 2009, 08:23 PM']Even if it's not historically accurate... and it may or may not be... it's still something very deep to think about.
Very cool. [/quote]
agreed.

I'm not sure where the Bishop got that idea about the early Christians from though I do know he is well read (I've seen his library). In any case what he did and said today was true and fitting, since there is no true peace in individual life or in collective life without repentence from sin and error and a new life of truth and good deeds.

[cmotherofpirl]

I heard it was going to be relocated to the beginning of Mass.

[CatherineM]

Pope Benedict definitely wants to relocate it because he doesn't feel that it sets the proper tone right before the distribution of communion. That's certainly the case in our church. It's practically like a football game when it should be solemn. The Basilica here does a greet at the beginning, and the kiss, so it is a lot of shaking of hands. I think it would work much better earlier.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1800821' date='Mar 8 2009, 10:56 PM']Pope Benedict definitely wants to relocate it because he doesn't feel that it sets the proper tone right before the distribution of communion. That's certainly the case in our church. It's practically like a football game when it should be solemn. The Basilica here does a greet at the beginning, and the kiss, so it is a lot of shaking of hands. I think it would work much better earlier.[/quote]
I think the start of Mass would be more appropriate.

[kafka]

I dont think moving it at the beginning of the Mass would solve any problems. In my opinion that would be hypocritical. The kiss of peace could be done humbly and reverently by the faithful as it was generally done in the early Church, or as it was done when only the clergy in the sanctuary did it before our times. Yet the way it is done now is a reflection of the irreverence and lack of humility among the faithful during Mass, and before the sacred mystery of the Eucharist and also a lack of correction by the clergy. It could be done differently than shaking hands, like placing each other's hands on the shoulders and a silent touch of foreheads, or perhaps a reverent whisper or something of the like.

Edited March 9, 2009 by kafka

[Aloysius]

it is in this place because that is where the Kiss of Peace is in the old rite; of course, when it is simply the priest and the deacon and sub-deacon, the kiss of peace fits perfectly well without disrupting the mood... because 1) it's not a handshake, 2) it's more of a ritual and less of a greeting and 3) it's not among the whole laity who use it as a time to meet and greet... I suppose I overlapped those points, oh well.

the Ambrosian Rite (which has already extremely influenced the Pauline Mass (Novus Ordo) anyway, Paul VI being a former Archbishop of Milan) anticipates the sign of peace to the beginning of mass. Pope Benedict XVI has, I believe, asked the Congregation for Divine Worship to study the issue of whether this anticipation could be done in the Novus Ordo Missae too...

[kafka]

I'm not well versed in the Liturgy, yet it seems to me that the kiss of peace is in the right place, yet what is offensive is the way in which it is done by the faithful like I expressed above, before you Al. It is a priveledge that the laity is able to do it, and look at the travesty we've made of it.

Edited March 9, 2009 by kafka

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' post='1800886' date='Mar 8 2009, 11:42 PM']I'm not well versed in the Liturgy, yet it seems to me that the kiss of peace is in the right place, yet what is offensive is the way in which it is done by the faithful like I expressed above, before you Al. It is a priveledge that the laity is able to do it, and look at the travesty we've made of it.[/quote]

It interrupts the flow of the liturgy.

[Aloysius]

I agree. If it were ritualized and less social; like the Roman Embrace in the Old Rite, whether or not it included a kiss on the cheek, it could very well fit there. moreover, it should be limited only to those immediately near you, none of this stretching around to get every family member and every aquaintance. it should be a solemn ritual of wishing peace upon others.

[Nihil Obstat]

Here's a thought RE: the sign of peace.

Instead of moving it, would it not be ideal for us to regain the symbolism and reverence that were supposed to be attached to it? So instead of moving it, why not change the action associated with it (not a handshake) so that it becomes seperate from our regular secular greetings, and becomes something special.

[Aloysius]

I am sure that is being discussed in the study being done now by the Congregation for Divine Worship; but I think it extremely more likely that they'll just move it because, well, do you really think the Church will be able to reel in the current emotional/social aspects of the practice? though its current place is the longstanding historical place (from very ancient times), the fact that there is precedent to anticipate it in the Ambrosian Rite makes it a possibility and, honestly, it's a necessity in today's culture. I don't have faith that the practice could be sufficiently ritualized; pretty much the only place modern peoples feel comfortable facing each other in a ritualized way is in marriage.

but that would be a good analogy were we to try to regain a sense of the sacred in this ritual; every person you face to say "Peace be with you" to, this act should be in a similar vein to the groom/bride saying to each other "I take thee as my lawfully wedded spouse" or however it's said, the words should be a ritual, the gesture should be a ritual.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1800907' date='Mar 8 2009, 10:55 PM']Here's a thought RE: the sign of peace.

Instead of moving it, would it not be ideal for us to regain the symbolism and reverence that were supposed to be attached to it? So instead of moving it, why not change the action associated with it (not a handshake) so that it becomes seperate from our regular secular greetings, and becomes something special.[/quote]
agreed. Did you see my post above?

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1800924' date='Mar 8 2009, 11:05 PM']I am sure that is being discussed in the study being done now by the Congregation for Divine Worship; but I think it extremely more likely that they'll just move it because, well, do you really think the Church will be able to reel in the current emotional/social aspects of the practice? though its current place is the longstanding historical place (from very ancient times), the fact that there is precedent to anticipate it in the Ambrosian Rite makes it a possibility and, honestly, it's a necessity in today's culture. I don't have faith that the practice could be sufficiently ritualized; pretty much the only place modern peoples feel comfortable facing each other in a ritualized way is in marriage.

but that would be a good analogy were we to try to regain a sense of the sacred in this ritual; every person you face to say "Peace be with you" to, this act should be in a similar vein to the groom/bride saying to each other "I take thee as my lawfully wedded spouse" or however it's said, the words should be a ritual, the gesture should be a ritual.[/quote]
I dont see why the laity cant do it like the clergy used to do it in the Latin right. The giver of the kiss of peace places his hands on the shoulders of the reciever, the reciever places his hands below the elbows of the giver, and they lightly touch foreheads. The giver says "Peace be with you" and the reciever says 'and also with you' The giver could always be the person on one's right. It isnt rocket science. All it would take is a few sessions for the faithful to learn it.

And if this is all too confusing well then just let the clergy do it, or let the temporal authority of the Magisterium decide a modified form that is more reverent than a mere shaking of hands, etc.