Friday, 21 November 2008

Pope Thinking to Change the Place of the Peace

I understand it will come just before the offertory as is the present practice of Anglicans.

A high-ranking Vatican official says Pope Benedict XVI is considering introducing a change to the Mass liturgy.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Vatican office for sacraments, says the pope may move the placement of the sign of peace, where congregation members shake hands or hug.

Arinze told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview published Friday that the pope has asked bishops to express their opinions and will then decide.

Under the change, the sign of peace, which now takes place moments before the reception of communion, would come earlier. Arinze said the change might help create a more solemn atmosphere as the faithful are preparing to receive communion.

The AP

posted by Jeffrey Steel at 9:35 PM

Comments on "Pope Thinking to Change the Place of the Peace"

 

Blogger Andrew Teather said ... (21 November 2008 22:14) : 

It would make good sense. Msgr Bruce Harbert has suggested this for some time, but the current revision of the Novus Ordo into English has it at the current position. As this is a change to previous revisions and as the draft is the 'final' one, it may seem as though our Holy Father has a good window now to change it before the rite is ratified and the books are printed. As one with four 'final' editions of the Pauline Missal on his bookshelves, each pertaining to different orders, a decision now would seem helpful.

 

Blogger Gregory of Langres said ... (21 November 2008 22:14) : 

Presumably this is a follow-up from the suggestion that the bishops might consider this change after the Synod two years ago. The resulting document, Sacramentum Caritatis, had this suggestion footnoted.

 

Blogger Matthew the Curmudgeon said ... (21 November 2008 23:26) : 

If it is to change position Good Pope Benedict could change how it should be done. I don't shake hands in any church
and never will. Hugging, within proper boundaries is acceptable.
The first time I experienced it in a Catholic Church I was visiting, I had flashbacks to liberal protestant churches of the '70's. I almost freaked out!

 

Blogger Stefan said ... (22 November 2008 00:05) : 

Wonderful news! Hopefully, Romeward-looking Anglican churches such as S Mary's Bourne St will follow suit. It's an unwanted distraction in the place it is now.

I'm sure even the Holy Father realises that often the peace is seen as a bit of fun! Kids will never cease to see shaking hands (with as many people around them as possible) as great fun. Watch any bunch of cathedral choristers at the time, and you'll know what I mean! It never bothered me, really - but that's because in my cathedrals it has always been at the Offertory. In front of Christ in His Sacramental Presence, however - another matter...

(Fr?) Matthew: not sure if you'll know what I am talking about, but at the above church the clergy and servers perform a very proper-looking ritual greeting involving placing hands on each others' shoulders, and leaning forward to briefly bow twice, once over each shoulder - I'm sure there is a name for this.

 

Blogger ex_fide said ... (22 November 2008 13:13) : 

Stefan,

That's how the Peace is given in the altar party. With joined hands, they bow to each other once. Then the one giving the peace (say the celebrant) puts his hands flat on the shoulders of the person receiving it (say the deacon), who places his hands underneath the other person's elbows and they bow towards each other as if to kiss each other on the left cheek.

In my church, after "Pax domini sit semper vobiscum" and the response, the celebrant gives the peace to the deacon and subdeacon (or MC at a Sung Mass) and that's it. The kiss of peace has been exchanged by the miniters on the people's behalf and nothing further is needed. As visitors remark "you don't have the peace here". Actually people just kneel down straight away for the Agnus Dei.

I'm sure the Holy Father has realised that the vast majority of people these days spend about half an hour working their way around the church asking about so and so and chatting while the priest is desperate to get on with the Mass. I'm sure people do eventually get back to their places and prepare to receive Communion with news of Marjorie's new grandchild ringing in their ears or whatever. The phrase "let us offer one another a sign of the peace" always fills me with dread, I think it's a quite unnecessary innovation and one thing that I don't like about the new Mass.

As it is, it could be moved, for the sake of reverence to the Eucharist but to the detriment of the continuity of the Latin rite.

 

Anonymous Catholicus said ... (22 November 2008 23:38) : 

Andrew Teather writes about 'our Holy Father'. Does this mean that he has returned to the Roman Catholic Church?

 

Blogger Frair John said ... (23 November 2008 06:19) : 

I've always found where Rome put the Peace to be a weirdly distracting. To have to rein in the congregation by starting the Agnus Die seemed to be an abuse of the prayer.

 

Blogger Joseph said ... (23 November 2008 22:49) : 

All nonsense. The Sign of Peace is where it is for good theological reasons. The Christ who condescends to be present on the altar after the consecration is the same Christ who is present to us in each other and whom we acknowledge by the Sign of Peace. It is not to ignore his sacramental presence but to celebrate it! And of course, he is already sacramentally present in RC churches in the tabernacle, so wherever you have the SofP it could be said to be ignoring that presence. We tend to be rather more practical about these things in the RC church and not have an over-precious obsession with 'artificial' piety.

 

Blogger Little Black Sambo said ... (24 November 2008 16:17) : 

The Peace is only a distraction in its usual place if it is done throughout the congregation and in an unseemly fashion.

 

Blogger Joseph said ... (25 November 2008 09:46) : 

Quite so ....

 

Anonymous TomH said ... (25 November 2008 17:28) : 

Well, Joseph, from one Roman Catholic to another I think you may not be in the majority, and accusing those who think the current placement of the sign of peace is a distraction of "artificial piety" is uncharitable.

I don't care for the placement of the sign of peace but I wouldn't accuse you of being a "liberal fanatic" because you do.

I appreciate your "pro" vote for things as they are but that opinion is neither ubiquitous in Roman Catholicism nor does it represent some standard of "orthodoxy". It is simply the way things are in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite....for now.

 

Blogger Joseph said ... (25 November 2008 22:52) : 

Thank you TomH. On re-reading my comments, they are, perhaps, uncharitable. I apologise. In fact, I would welcome a move of the SofP to the 'Anglican' position but am happy with it as it is for that is clearly the mind of the Church - much more important than my opinion.

 

Blogger Hawkins said ... (26 November 2008 06:14) : 

I would rather see the sign of peace earlier in mass, as it is in the Anglican rite. I do not like the touchy, feely, manner in which it is so often done in parishes near me, not to mention my own parish. I believe it breaks the continuity of the solemness of the mass. Pardon me, is mass ever solemn anymore. It must be somewhere. Maybe at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington Texas, Father Allan Hawkins.

 

post a comment