After this, and having seen this, and watched the embedded video clip .... I really am considering adopting a policy of not giving or accepting the sign of peace at Mass. I may adopt the eye-contact-combined-with-shake-of-the-head that I use when approached by canvassers in the street. My concern is not one about distractions as the moment of Holy Communion approaches, as I can kind of cope with that.
From a rubrical point of view, the sign of peace is optional ( ... "may"... ). And, over the last week or two, I haven't been able to convince myself of any other view than one that asks: "Does anyone here have even the vaguest understanding of what this is about?"
So I think I just prefer to avoid any involvement in it at all ....
9 comments:
zero says
When I first read this post I thought you would be best to kneel down straight away and pray- and then I watched the brilliant video which seemed to suggest the same!
When I attend a NO Mass, I shake the hand right next to me and quickly face forward.
It's pretty awful when you have to worry about protecting your personal space while at Mass.
Our solution was finally to attend our FSSP chapel. We were tired of leaving Mass in a state of angst over one thing or another.
But isn't there the danger that people will feel snubbed/confused and become distracted? Instead of being filled with a sense of shared brotherhood or community they are going to be wondering why you refused to shake hands. You may even, inadvertently, cause them to become resentful: hardly the mood to be approaching the sacrament.
We are interdependent and our actions ripple out from us. Would suppressing one's own desires and preferences in this instance create greater harmony amongst the congregaration?
As the Americans say, what would Jesus do?
Is this a matter of obedience?
If the celebrant says "Let us offer each other the sign of peace", then one has to do as the celebrant instructs, doesn't one?
I don't like it, it is very disruptive (especially at school Masses) and I'm not sure of its significance. However, it is not for me to say what is and what is not left out of the Communion Rite. "Say the black do the red" would suggest I make a sign of peace according to local custom such that my neighbour would recognise my "sign of peace".
I'm not convinced by this voluntary opt out from the sign of peace. Surely I am over exaggerating my own importance within the Body by so doing?
I have agonised over this and would be interested in your reply. Perhaps your eye contact and nod is best.
Thank you all for the comments
Zero: this might well be a better, more practicable way of doing things.
Adrienne: Being me, I suspect I would find attending the EF frustrating for quite different reasons. The problem doesn't, for me at least, arise intrinsically from the nature of the OF, but from a poor celebration of the OF.
Francis: true, certainly in the short term; but I expect that people in the churches at which I attend Mass would eventually get used to the idea that I preferred not to shake hands, and accept it. My reactions on some occasions must, though inadvertent, be very visible and very obvious anyway ...
Rita: I will post my Eucharistic Adoration catechesis from a couple of years ago in a moment, and then you will perhaps understand why the invitation "Let us share a sign of peace" annoys me as much as it did yesterday evening - and the lady who turned round in front of me just after that invitation must have seen a reaction written all over my face! The observation with regard to obedience is a fair comment; but it is more about what I can cope with, rather than wanting to make a public protest.
Do Inuit rub noses at this point of the mass?!
I did a brief piece of internet research and found that there are other Catholics who object to this practice (or maybe, it's only the people who object who blog about it).
Of course, Joe, you are right: as you are are part of a community, people would just know that you preferred not to shake hands. And it might turn out that quite a few others would (not) do the same so it wouldn't be regarded as anything other than a personal preference.
As for obedience, I suppose somebody like a well-trained Jesuit might argue that 'Let us..' is a suggestion rather than a command! Perhaps the response should be: How about we don't.
Francis:
Yes, I suspect that the bloggers who comment on it are disproprotionately those who have difficulties with it.
As for the Jesuits: they might get away with that in the English translation. But the orginal Latin - which is the definitive version or "editio typica" in Vatican parlance - reads: "Offerte vobis pacem". I think - real Latinists please correct me in the comms box if I have got this wrong - that this is an imperative, though gentler in the Latin than it would be if directly translated into English.
Maybe, Joe, you could put plasters on most of your fingers and people may excuse you from shaking hands, without appearing rude.This is what one of my teachers -who I now suspect had OCD- did on parents evenings so he didn't have to shake the parents hands.
Actually,come to think of it, the older gentleman sitting behind me last week ,just kept looking at his prayer book- the lady with him did offer me the sign of peace.
there was an amusing letter in the Times today about shaking hands and the spread of swine flu. The writer suggested that as the autumn spike in swine flu approaches to test transmission rates maybe people with surnames A-N continue to shake hands and those from M-Z (yes that's what's written)stop and the rates of rise in swine flu could be observed to see how they differ.
It made me think, what about if the parish priest in parishes where some of your comments come from were to put a note in the newsletter that "sign of peacers" sit on the right, those against on the left?!
Post a Comment