Pope Benedict XVI may change the sequence of the Catholic Mass, including the sign of peace exchanged between worshippers, in order “to create a more meditative climate” of worship, a senior Vatican official said.
Cardinal Francis Arinze said the pope had asked all bishops for their views on whether the sign of peace, which is currently shared before Communion, should be moved to an earlier point in the Mass.
Makes sense to me.
Or they could keep it where it is in the position it was in in the ancient liturgy BUT just have the priest bid the peace to the people, receive their verbal response, and then continue immediately with the Agnus Dei rather than the “hug and chat fest of Father walking up and down the aisle” while the Blessed Sacrament is consecrated on the altar.
In my former Episcopal parish, where we had “the peace” in the 1979 prayer book position, I had parishioners who referred to it as ‘half-time’. I am glad in my 1928 BCP parish we don’t have it at all. Everyone can glad-hand in the narthex and at coffeehour.
Agreed, #2!
As in all matters liturgical, a little education of the congregation would help. We need to understand that the peace is not a political rally, or family reunion, or catching up with one another after a week’s (or longer if they are Episcopalians) absence. In the 1979 Prayer Book, the peace is placed appropriately after the Confession of Sin and the Absolution. I much prefer that to the Roman Catholic practice which may have made sense in the Middle Ages and after Trent (remember the peace was given in all Solemn High Masses and commonly in monastic communities), but doesn’t today. I happen to think the peace can be a powerfully spiritual act in the liturgy which represents Christ’s reconciling act of peace on the Cross. Unfortunately, for all too many, it’s just another reason to make snarky remarks about what they don’t like about liturgy.
Well, I was about to write “ax the peace” but now I feel that that would just show my ignorance. 🙂
Or my snarkiness. 🙂
I also agree with #2. This is what happens, multiple times, in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Ax the peace.
“All we are saying, is give ‘peace’ a chance.” — John Lennon, recently forgiven by the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7744282.stm]Vatican newspaper [i]L’Osservatore Romano[/i][/url].
The Roman Catholic liturgists have long been dismayed that the passing of the peace is placed at the end of the Mass. In fact, they were upset when the Episcopal Church gave allowance in the BCP for having it at the end of our service. It gave them less support for lobbying to place it where it had historically been located.
Perhaps: So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
I’m currently taking a class on the Roman Missal at Catholic University of America, and let’s just say it’s been really interesting hearing some of the inside scoop. A number of bishops here in the US, while they might support such a change, feel that it might be a bit much to handle given the new English translation of the Missal that’ll be coming out (which, btw, is much better than the current translation). Plus, some are also concerned that it might simply be the beginning of much larger changes to the [i]Missale Romanum[/i].
I’m with #11 — I always understood that the Peace was (symbolically, at least) the opportunity to reconcile yourself with anyone in the congregation you had a dispute with, so that both of you could receive communion.
At Church of the Holy Communion, we use the Anglican Service Book (Rosemont Missal). It offers the peace in the “Roman” place between the Fraction and Agnus Dei. At the Fraction the “particle” of the host is placed in the chalice, thereby reuniting that which is “severed” in Crucifixion (Flesh and Blood). Therefore, it a “moment” of resurrection. And we remind our people that the first words of the Risen Lord were “Peace be With You.” The celebrant chants the peace, the congregation chants the response. The celebrant, deacon and subdeacon exchange the “kiss” of peace (two of us have beards and there ain’t no real kissin’!) … and then we all sing the Agnus Dei. It is beautiful, scriptural, and it does not disrupt the liturgy. Glad that the Holy Father sees things our way! (since we most often see things his).
WHAT a sensible idea. Whenever someone asks why the Orthodox don’t “do” that thing in the liturgy, there’s a ready answer: Look at churches that *have* it. Yes, many centuries ago it was in the eucharist, and seeing what it looks like now shows precisely why the CHurch said “Yes, it’s a good idea, but it doesn’t work.”.
Well, I hate to disappoint evan miller here, but I do favor retaining the passing of the peace, in its historic place as the hinge between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Altar/Table. That is, in the middle of the eucharistic service, which is the spot where it appears already in Justin Martyr, writing in ROME, in the middle of the second century (see Justin’s First Apology, chapter 61).
However, I do agree that this is a part of the service that is much abused and misused and misunderstood. And the remedy for that is better teaching and better liturgical leadership by the clergy, who bear the responsibility for instructing the faithful on how the liturgy is supposed to be done. I have served more than one small charismatic TEC or Anglican congregation where at the exchange of the peace, it had become customary to hug every single person persent. Needless to say, that is NOT the point of this liturgical gesture. Suffice to say that we are exchanging the peace OF CHRIST. What we say is “the peace OF THE LORD be with you…”
Yes, it does represent a chance for parishioners who are at odds for some reason to make up before sharing in communion together, and Bryan’s citation of Matthew 5:24 is very apt: we should be reconciled BEFORE offering our gifts at the altar (as the Pope fully understands). But clearly this is mostly a symbolic gesture. Two deeply estranged people within the congregation aren’t going to mend fences quickly, just by shaking hands or whatever in the middle of the liturgy. But it does give a chance for showing the desire and intention to be reconciled before proceeding, which is the point, or so it seems to me.
One practical, very utilitarian comment. In churches blessed with lots of children, and where children are allowed to receive communion, it’s very common and useful for the exchange of the peace to be used as sort of a time out, for parents to fetch their kids. That is, in churches where the children are dismissed early on to go to Sunday School or some sort of children’s worship time, this break in the service allows the chance for parents to get the kids and let them share in the second half of the service. And that is a very pragmatic benefit to having the peace in its “proper” historic position, after the prayers of the people (and the general confession for Anglicans), but before the offertory.
Is the practice often abused? Unquestionably. But as always, the solution to such liturgical abuse is not to cease use of the problem feature, but to recover its proper and intended use.
David Handy+
Okay, Fr. Handy, you win. It’s just that in every parish I’ve been in, it’s been disruptive to the flow of the service, with lots of general gabbing associated with it. It has also been followed by a laundry list of announcements, further interrupting the flow.
Purely anecdotal: since crossing the Tiber, I’ve been subjected to a number of LifeTeen masses. The peace is indeed “halftime,” that point where the teens all run around hugging each other, chatting and gossiping about tomorrow’s math test and whatnot. For the life of me, I just don’t understand how this whole “LifeTeen” thing got started, or why on earth its been allowed to stay around.
evan (#17),
I understand, and I sympathize. As I’ve already acknowledged, the practice is often abused and misused. I’m not denying that for one moment.
FWIW, I think this is mostly a cultural problem, i.e., that isn’t a problem intrinsic to the liturgy itself, but only to how it gets done in practice in some places, where there are widely differing cultural expectations of what is “proper” in a worship service.
I think there are MANY people who share your feelings, evan, including RCs like Catholic Mom above. I know more than a few people for whom the passing of the peace is the biggest single problem they have with the 1979 BCP and one of the main reasons why they prefer the 1928 version. And my point is that not a few of them are Anglo-philes, if not transplanted imports from England themselves.
Namely, the typically effusive American style of greeting strangers is obviously just “not the way it’s done” in England, where people tend to be generally more reserved. And of course, as Anglicans, the way things are done in the mother church is naturally seen by many as the “proper” way.
David Handy+
Other than being native born, I’m pretty much as you describe, Fr. Handy. I actually like Rite I very much, although I’m equally fond of the 1928 BCP (sorry, I know you don’t care for it much). 1662 is a bit to Protestant for me (and I loathe the hybred “Anglican Prayer Book”).
Considering that the Latin was, roughly, “The peace of the Lord be with you,” and the response, “And with thy spirit,” I have a hard time understanding all the handshaking and hugging. What will the RCs do when they begin saying “And with your spirit?”
Many years ago when I explained the “Peace Be With You” formula to my non-practicing Baptist uncle, he said his response would be “Peace on you, too !” As we were having Sunday dinner at the time, we all nearly choked on our food with laughter, all except his wife ( a Catholic ) who was rather irate.
In my faraway youth I don’t remember the Peace involving pawing one another. Not sure when it came it, but the germs have a field day.
I’ve been doing this “peace” thing now for thirty years, and it does seem to me that the problem is more that it has gotten out of hand. Back in my first real parish, people stayed in their pews; were I am now, people swarm all over the church. All is in contrast to what I experienced at a Malankara church, where the peace radiated out from the altar and passed swiftly to the back of the church. I understand that’s the way Anglicans first did it too.
There’s a natural break built into the 1979 liturgy at the place where the peace sits now, and I find it interesting that Rome is discussing moving to the same order. If the peace is going to be disruptive, at least that’s a better place for the disruption.
The peace at the offertory is in the Ambrosian rite; before the communion is typical of the Roman rite for many centuries. I see no particularly good reason to change where it is now. What should be suppressed is the unseemly hug-fest that erupts in the congregation. Say “And with your spirit” and then shut up and pray.
austin,
the problem is that after the people respond with “And with thy spirit,” the priest usually adlibs something to the effect of “And now please exchange the peace of the Lord with your neighbor,” and the chaos begins. Sticking to the rubrics would help, but I agree with you – give the appropriate response and procede with the liturgy.
nwlayman wrote in #15, “Whenever someone asks why the Orthodox don’t “do†that thing in the liturgy…”
Note that in the Antiochian Archdiocese the practice of exchanging peace right before the creed has been revived. In my parish the clergy make very sure the liturgy moves right along, and there is at most time to greet two or three people right next to you. I don’t find it disruptive.
Re # 12
Kevin,
[blockquote] Plus, some are also concerned that it might simply be the beginning of much larger changes to the Missale Romanum. [/blockquote]
From your keyboard to God’s in-box. The so called reform of the Western Liturgy that dates to the 1960’s is widely regarded as having been badly handled. (That’s the charitable interpretation.) A “reform of the reform” is urgently needed. And from his writings it is clear that the current Pope understands this. If (please God) he lives long enough, I expect some real reforms from the Holy See. B-16 is highly regarded by most of us on the Orthodox side of the fence. He speaks our language and we see in him a kindred spirit even if we remain divided by serious theological differences.
On which note “the peace” was dropped from the Orthodox liturgy gradually over a period of many centuries. This “organic” development came about for many of the reasons people have noted above. Today, as far as I know only the Antiochian Archdiocese here in N. America has made some effort to revive the practice.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Off topic — but vaguely relevant
But I really enjoyed the comments by the Pope reported in this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?_r=1&hp;Particularly ….
[blockquote] In quotations from the letter that appeared on Sunday in Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading daily newspaper, the pope said the book “explained with great clarity†that “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.†In theological terms, added the pope, “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.†[/blockquote]
We don’t say “and with thy (or even “your”) spirit.” We say “and also with you.” Pretty bland, but there it is. Then the priest says something along the lines of “let us share with one another a sign of Christ’s peace.” That consists of shaking the hands of everybody around you. There’s quite a little fast social calculating necessary to figure out how far you should lean out to shake. Personally, I could seriously live without it.
About the time this peace business involved kissing your neighbors left and right, my patience went down the drain. Or hugging. Somewhere in the distant past, it may have had something to do with church, but it now appears a touchy-feely TECification. Larry
Apparenty pagan critics of the early church thought of the peace as a type of orgy. Just because it is done poorly does not mean it needs to go. I hear a lot of bad preaching but…..
Catholic Mom- While we don’t use it now, the new English translation of the Mass, due by Advent 2012, uses “and with your Spirit.” At my Catholic parish, most people seem reluctant to even shake hands, must less chit chat during the Peace. That said I hope the Holy Father decides to move to a place that is less disruptive to the flow of the Mass.
#26,
Actually the priest isn’t really adlibbing that much. The Latin of the 2002 Missal has the deacon or priest say [i]Offérte vobis pacem[/i]. The official translation (at least the proposed new one) renders it as “Let us offer each other the sign of peace.”
LongGone, You’re right. There are Antiochian parishes that do. I haven’t seen it too different from my Episcopalian days, though. If you have a parish where it flies, good job. You’re a rare bird! Bishop Kallistos Ware does it when he celebrates. One of the few times I dare to disagree with a big gun like him. My opinion (not that it means much) is that this is like the practice in Acts of the “Bretheren owning all things in common”. I have a hunch this state of affairs lasted about an hour and a half. They realized very quickly it was a great idea, but…..
I used to be bothered by the ‘passing of the peace’ during the service. I was standoff-ish at my core. But I heard it said once that for some people worshiping in the pews around us, it is quite honestly the only time they may have any physical contact with another human being since the service the week before. I worship in a church with an older population- many elderly people who’s families are far away, and they now live alone. I not only tolerate the peace during the service, but also (now) I look forward to it. What a wonderful opportunity to be His hands to a brother or sister who is alone, to make a connection, even if it’s a brief and simple handshake. Just please don’t turn the ‘peace’ into the announcement olympics!
For those to whom the passing the peace seems a little too 1968, what about the following:
Priest: [i] The peace of the Lord be always with you. [/i]
Congregation: [i] And also with you. [/i]
Individual congregants would then greet each other this way:
[i] The Lord be with you. [/i]
[i] And also with you. [/i]
The approach avoids the tedious repetition of “peace” (which the priest alone would use) and relies of a familiar liturgical greeting with which we all should be comfortable. Nothing trendy. Nothing strained. Nothing cliched.
Yet the congregants’ greeting to each other (“The Lord be with you”) nonetheless echoes the priest’s greeting, “The peace of the Lord be always with you.”