A tongue in cheek letter in The Times last week suggested that, if the Church (of England) was stopping the sign of peace in the interests of helping control the spread of swine flu, then the correspondent might consider starting to attend again. And recently I had a (good-natured) conversation with a Catholic who described attending Mass in a parish other than her own - where the priest comes all the way down one aisle to give the sign of peace to members of the congregation and all the way back down the second aisle to do the same. My interlocutor spoke highly of the fact that the priest involved could recall her name when he would have known her as a parishioner something like 15 years ago. My first thought was to wonder where this particular priest had been in recent years - considering the provisions of the revised version of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal 2000 that the priest should always remain in the sanctuary at the sign of peace, and the agenda of "mutual enrichment" expressed in Pope Benedict XVI's letter accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which would discourage such a de-sacralisation of the signs of the Liturgy. My second thought was to wonder at the liturgical formation, or lack of, of my interlocutor.
I subsequently reflected on the meaning of the sign of peace, particularly in the Roman Rite, where it is placed within the Communion Rite. Other Liturgical rites place it just before or just after the preparation of the gifts, and, after a suggestion from the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist a suggestion to move the sign of peace to that point in the Roman Liturgy is under consideration by the relevant Vatican dicastery. However, the historical development of the Roman Rite has placed it differently, and I think that gives the sign a different meaning. Accordingly, I rather hope that the Vatican will not decide to move the sign of peace, though one can see theological, historical and ecumenical reason to do so.
The practice of the sign of peace in the High Mass of the Extraordinary Form indicates that it is about the peace of Christ being communicated (deliberate choice of word) from the Divine Presence on the altar to the Church, represented in the hierarchy of her ministers. It is not about being friendly to your neighbour, which is simply to reduce the Liturgical sign to a sociological sign. [Side note: but how many of our people see it as no more than this? And how many of our priests?] The Ordinary Form develops this, perhaps, by including the members of the congregation in the sign. I have started to think that we should view the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion, which prepares those who are able to receive for the act of sacramental communion, and catechise accordingly. This does respect the nature of the Liturgy itself - even when the sign of peace is not exchanged among the congregation the immediately preceeding prayer and the dialogue - The peace of the Lord be with you always/And also with you - expresses the essential content of the sign of peace. And by raising its status in the eyes of the people, it would meet the pastoral need currently being seen as being met in the blessing given to non-recipients who approach the priest in the Communion procession. I think it would demand, though, a review of the way in which the sign is exchanged between members of the congregation; some form of more explicitly sacral sign is needed. And the optional nature of the sign of peace in the Ordinary Form might be used to preferentially include the sign of peace in circumstances where many people are not able to receive sacramentally and, with suitable catechesis, enable them to enter into communion in so far as they are able.
My thoughts were pre-empted to an extent by Fr Ray's post on Communion Blessings, and you can find a comment from me among those at this post.
Some time ago now, I was put on the spot at lunch in a conversation with an Anglican priest. He indicated, very charitably, that he felt quite hurt by the Catholic Church's refusal of communion to Anglicans when they attended Mass. I took advantage of the delay provided by a mouth full of food to gain some thinking time before replying, anxious to be equally charitable yet honest in my reaction! My reply was to suggest that, for the Catholic, the question of truth and of holding to the same content of faith had a bigger part to play in the conception of ecclesial communion than it did for the Anglican.
In the context of the discussion of blessings at communion and of an understanding of the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion, I think this idea of truth as a component of communion is valuable too. Communion is not just about letting people feel included socially, which is what I fear the blessing at communion often achieves; for those who are not able to receive sacramentally, it is about achieving the degree of spiritual communion that is possible in the circumstances. And I think this would be better achieved by abandoning the practice of blessings at communion and instead catechising on the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion accessible to those who are not able to receive sacramentally.
8 comments:
I see what you are getting at when you speak of the Sign of Peace as an act of spiritual communion, but I think it is confusing. An act of spiritual communion, traditionally speaking, is a prayer to Christ that He may dwell in the person who at that time is unable to receive Him sacramentally. In a sense it is even more "personal" than sacramental communion because that is also a communal act.
I am unhappy with the Sign of Peace, and this has grown in me. Years ago I was all for it and preached on it. Now I think it is a nonsense. The bonhommie and waving across the sanctuary makes me sigh. I was just discussing it the other day along with some other featues of Catholicism today. So many things - such as moral relativism - are now so much a part of our normal Catholic life that I doubt we will ever be able to deal with them properly. The phrase trying to "put the genie back in the bottle" comes to mind. The Sign of Peace - for me - symbolises all that is wrong with contemporary Catholicism and as far as I am concerned the sooner we return to the old usage (of this) the better.
I have tended to understand the sign of peace as indicating our being at peace with/reconciled with our neighbour before receiving our Lord in Communion. I have always found it hardest when next to someone I detested- and consequently a moment of grace.
Patricius:
Thank you for your comment. I think your experience does suggest a strength in the celebrating of the sign of peace as it occurs in the Ordinary Form.
I think understanding the sign of peace in the way in which you suggest ... may go better with a sign of peace that is exchanged immediately after the offertory. The wording of the 2000 GIRM n.82 is that "the faithful offer some sign of their ecclesial communion and mutual love for each other before communicating by receiving the Sacrament".
"Mutual love" does have an implication of "reconciliation" - but is it perhaps suggesting something of grace, of communion received from God.
I am not sure whether the GIRM's orientation of the sign of peace towards Sacramental communion supports or undermines my suggestion of viewing it as a kind of spiritual communion.
I appreciate the point made by Patricius, but it reminds me of something that happened when I was in the seminary (years ago) when a fellow student had a big bust up with another and they found themselves next to each other in the choir stalls at Mass. At the sign of peace one turned to the other and said, "peace be with you" and the other replied, "And EVEN with you!". (True story)
Well, I can see the benefit of being called to be reconciled, but grace is given when needed if we are open to it, and all manner of things are used by the Holy Spirit. I don't think this is a sound argument for keeping the Sign of Peace (as it is) in the Mass. There are other things to consider, such as the movement around the church, even tripping over benches to greet someone you know well. There is also a temptation to make "political" use of it -for the sake of some advantage later. These are likewise not sound arguments for removing it entirely, but they do indicate the need for reform. So far the attempted reform has not worked which is why I say that something now so deeply ingrained in people will be difficult to deal with.
Just recently, following the example of one of the bishops and a parish priest nearby I suggested that people should not shake hands to avoid propblems with swine flu. I took medical advice on it. I said "I will not be asking you to offer the Sign of Peace, but at the same time I am not forbidding it, but we have to be careful". I told them that I had taken medical advice. My remarks were ignored by the vast majority. I spoke to a nurse who came to Mass. She said "They will rebel, Father". She had seen similar things in the medical centre. However, as I say, instructions were given some time ago not to cross the aisle and wave at people. This has been almost universally ignored. It has ceased to be a liturgical act (if it ever was one) and is now something else with whatever motives - good or bad - that accompany it. I remain unconvinced of its real benefit.
I won't complain about the sign of Peace but do get irritated about what I have witnessed somewhere -before Mass you are invited to turn to your immediate neighbours and introduce yourself. This becomes very noisy ,then you are told to be silent as Mass is beginning. If one likes to pray before Mass this is disruptve yet, if you do not participate, it is awkward. There is no alternative but to come to Mass as the bell is rung or go elsewhere. I do a mixture of both now.
I understand the "Domine, non sum dignus" ("Lord, I am not worthy") to be an act of spiritual communion. Making the Sign of Peace perform the same function I think would be redundant.
Anonymous:
This sounds just awful! I wonder that people go along with it
To other commenters:
Thank you for contributing to a discussion I have found useful. I think I am ending up wanting to say that the sign of peace, while not an act of spiritual communion per se, should be considered as being more akin to that than to an act of reconciliation. But, having just come back from Mass, I just thought the few dear souls present simply had no idea, no idea at all, as to what it meant!
Reminds me of a story my dad told us. One of his aquaintances (he had many) attended mass for the first time in years. He had not seen the handshake before. When the stranger next to him turned and offered his hand he was a little perplexed, thinking this was somebody who knew him. He camoflagued his confusion by shaking the hand and saying, "Hello. How are you? I haven't seen you in ages."
Post a Comment