|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Sign of Peace - Why?
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, it was made up. We really have no idea how it was practiced in ancient times. The reformers of the last century were guilty of the following liturgical sins (and I'll say again, God have mercy on their souls): archealogism, primitivism etc. and that this equalled authenticity. What they really did in the process was destroy over 1500 years of liturgical tradition.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, it was made up. We really have no idea how it was practiced in ancient times.
Do we really have no idea? From Augustine's sermon to the newly-baptized (found here, and admittedly the note indicates the original text may be corrupted, so that the translator has done his best):
quote:
Then, after the consecration of the sacrifice of God, because he wanted us to be ourselves his sacrifice, which is indicated by where that sacrifice was first put, that is the sign of the thing that we are; why, then after the consecration is accomplished, we say the Lord's prayer, which you have received and given back. After that comes the greeting, Peace be with you, and Christians kiss one another with a holy kiss. It's a sign of peace; what is indicated by the lips should happen in the conscience; that is, just as your lips approach the lips of your brothers or sisters, so your heart should not be withdrawn from theirs.
From Justin Martyr's First Apology (Chapter 65):
quote:
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.
From Cyril of Jerusalem ( Lecture XXIII)
quote:
Then the Deacon cries aloud, “Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.” Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends. It is not such: but this kiss blends souls one with another, and courts entire forgiveness for them. The kiss therefore is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and banish all remembrance of wrongs. For this cause Christ said, If thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against time, leave there thy gift upon the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. The kiss therefore is reconciliation, and for this reason holy: as the blessed Paul somewhere cried, saying, Greet ye one another with a holy kiss; and Peter, with a kiss of charity.
The Cathoic Encyclopedia seems to have a fair bit on how it was practiced.
[ 31. October 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
As an outsider dare I suggest that a relevant old text is Romans chapter 14: ("Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth").
Perhaps not.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
In the middle of a worship service we are invited to wish God's peace to other people and to have it wished to us. we have just confessed to not loving others as much as we should. why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
One thing that the peace does is to allow people who may never be touched from one week's end to the next to be touched by another human being.
Too often we are so busy feeling distressed about what the peace does or doesn't do for us, that we forget what it might mean for the other person involved. So many people never have loving touches -- people whose partners have died, for example.
One of the most revolting things that has happened to me in a church was shaking hands with a disturbed woman who had gone to the toilet just before the peace, and come back with hands still wet and maybe still even soapy. But I wonder who ever touches her, and how often she is welcomed into the circle of human community by someone taking her hand?
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
One thing that the peace does is to allow people who may never be touched from one week's end to the next to be touched by another human being.
Well, yes, but wouldn't it be far better if every person leading such a lonely life were welcomed into a church community by actions such as being invited out for coffee, having visitors to come and watch TV together or do a jigsaw together or have a cup of tea and a chat? With an appropriate level of physical contact (handshake, hug, or whatever) as part of the interaction.
I know the above and having the peace ritual in church services are not mutually exclusive, but the latter feels to me like a tokenistic act that - judging from the angst expressed by many in this thread - probably causes more trouble and discomfort than it's worth.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think that one thing about Sharing the Peace has become very clear from this thread: there is really no agreement about why we do it. In light of that, perhaps it'd just be better to say the words (celebrant: 'The Peace of the Lord be always with you' congregation : 'and also with you') and leave it at that. If you want that kind of interactive fellowship and community, or to welcome newcomers, or whatever, do it before or (preferably) after the service, or in the week. If you have a dispute with somebody that you need to put aside bfore approaching the altar with them, and you really can't do it before the service starts, feel free to go and do something symbolic like shaking their hand.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Agreed, Albertus. I've been thinking about this a bit more, trying to put into words my disquiet over the peace ritual. I think it's that ISTM like a classic example of the tendency to externalise and ritualise what should be matters of the heart.
Jesus instructed us to be reconciled to our brethren before we make our sacrifice to God. So, like the Pharisees with their many commands designed to keep us from sin, we institute a ritual that carries the outward form of being reconciled before we worship God but that can leave our heart utterly unchanged.
If the peace ritual does actually help with the internal transformation into people whose very nature is to seek reconciliation and not bear grudges, then let's keep the ritual. But does it help in this way? Or does it cause more problems than it resolves?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
That's an interesting point South Coast Kevin - I confess I've not thought of it that way. Food for thought, in truth!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
"Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought."
can't because they might look like Hare Krishnas? Can't because other people are too eager to xchange greeting? I Don't get it!!
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
"Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought."
can't because they might look like Hare Krishnas? Can't because other people are too eager to xchange greeting? I Don't get it!!
First, it is the imposition of a particular cultural approach to greeting; second, the practical delivery is often alien to the stated and original purpose; third, some individuals have personal histories or conditions where this form of greeting presents serious problems; fourth, some individuals find it at odds with their approach to prayer and participation in the liturgy; and fifth, on (happily, rare) occasions, the passing of the peace takes on an abusive and intrusive nature.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Looks like St Paul was wrong; All this stuff CAN separate us from the love of God??
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Looks like St Paul was wrong; All this stuff CAN separate us from the love of God??
I don't see how this follows, Roselyn, but we are really very good at separating ourselves from each other. As everyone is very different, finding what works is not easy, or automatic, or liable to imposition.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
don't want imposition, just have trouble understanding people's motivation I suppose.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
In the middle of a worship service we are invited to wish God's peace to other people and to have it wished to us. we have just confessed to not loving others as much as we should. why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
To many of us, sharing in God's peace has absolutely nothing to do with the ritual in question.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
And prior to that it happened earlier. But anyway, I don't think when it became almost universal across the denominational spectrum - which as you rightly say was in the 1960s - that it manifested itself in the extended and sometimes chaotic free for all found in some churches today. This is something unfortunate that has developed, but only in certain churches much more recently. I know in my locale it varies from no exchange at all to what seems like at least a 2 minute break!
One would think it might be possible to eliminate it where it is genuinely not wanted, and at least contain it elsewhere.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
And prior to that it happened earlier. But anyway, I don't think when it became almost universal across the denominational spectrum - which as you rightly say was in the 1960s - that it manifested itself in the extended and sometimes chaotic free for all found in some churches today. This is something unfortunate that has developed, but only in certain churches much more recently. I know in my locale it varies from no exchange at all to what seems like at least a 2 minute break!
One would think it might be possible to eliminate it where it is genuinely not wanted, and at least contain it elsewhere.
Where the custom is/was observed in the versicle and response form, the commixture happens at that moment, when a small particle of the host is broken off; the sign of the cross is made with it over the chalice before dropping it in. The celebrant tries to consume this particle in receiving the Precious Blood.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
But it certainly did exist and was practiced in the Church since the earliest days; the variance generally was not whether it was found in the liturgy, but where. And there is no question that the versicle-response between the celebrant and people is a vestige of what once involved interaction between worshipers.
That's why it's simply wrong to say it was "made up" 40 years ago. A ill-advised attempt to translate an ancient ritual that was once standard in the liturgy into contemporary cultural norms? Some may well think so, and not without good reason. But to say it's made up simply ignores just because it hadn't been practiced in Western churches for centuries, and had never been practiced in this precise form (shaking hands) is an overstatement.
I understand completely how the Peace, the way it is carried out in many churches, can be uncomfortable and meaningless for lots of people. For me, though, the choices aren't keep it or drop it. Rather, the choices are keep it the way we're doing it (which often is a social time), rethink how we're doing (which I would say means sticking to the formula with an appropriate and comfortable gesture) or drop it.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I spent a while looking for alternatives to the standard peace. I have reason for this, touch is not easy for me and touch during the peace particularly. They included
- The saying of the response while holding hands (this was done in a church where the whole congregation came out for communion
- passing a candle/clay dove or other item around a congregation perhaps using Put Peace into each others hand. This is admittedly only usable with small congregations
- I would suggest the using of the hands together and bowing to other people is also appropriate
- restricting it to immediate neighbours, the same ways as many Evangelical churches ask you to greet your neighbours.
- Give people a verse and response to say to each other.
There are more, those are just the ones I recall more than a decade later.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
Another variation is used in the Order of Julian of Norwich (Waukesha, Wisconsin): the Peace is given by the Celebrant to each of the other people present. Or in other places, the Peace starts with the Celebrant and radiates out through the congregation, with each person receiving the Peace from one other and then giving it to one other.
It can be stylized, too: hands together, bow to each other, brief embracing gesture (giver clasps other's shoulders lightly; recipient clasps giver's forearms or elbows lightly), then another bow.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[*]passing a candle/clay dove or other item around a congregation perhaps using Put Peace into each others hand. This is admittedly only usable with small congregations
This calls to mind the old medieval custom of the 'pax-brede', a stylised depiction (of the Crucifixion usually I think?) in precious metal that was passed around and kissed in turn.
Advantage - long tradition, avoids contact.
Drawback - exchange of saliva doesn't sound too hygienic, people might squabble over who gets to kiss first...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Pancho is partially right...people read too much into it, but it is the ardent defenders who have invented theology behind it who do so. They might as well just call it what it is in many churches: a free-for-all exhibition of socialization.
There was already a theology behind it before these free-for-alls came about. People on the thread have tried to explain what it is.
Like I said, if it's a free-for-all at your church that means it's time for a little talk from your pastor, a note in the bulletin, or the agenda at the next parish council/liturgy committee meeting.
Otherwise, it's a little like blaming hockey games for the existence of fist fights.
quote:
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
Almost anybody who knows me in real life would describe me as an introvert so it's not like I have no idea of the discomfort some people go through. I go through some of it myself!
What surprises me is how much some fellow "introverts" have seized on the Sign of Peace as a major stumbling at church. You would think just getting there, going out in public, then surrounding yourself with strangers for 1 to 2 hours would be the major challenge.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
I have expressed my reservations about the Peace up thread. This morning, I exchanged the Peace with someone who has recently lost a parent and suddenly it all made sense.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Always in trouble
Apprentice
# 14252
|
Posted
i actually googled 'sign of peace' looking for some comfort, as at the Anglican Christmas Eve Communion I attended recently, the vicar told us off to do it pre-sop and oppined 'some people were upset by it when it was introduced, ie not now' - anyway, all around me just said Merry Christmas. So much dust from my sandals, anyway.
So I was glad to find you all, and everyone looking so well,if I may say so, in this New Year. I am a backsliding Methodist who can't go to church because of the liturgy, the praise-singing - and especially the sop at Communion. It's good to know that it seems from the Blog that Anglicans and Methodists continue to have so much in common.
Two things I do believe from what i've read of this blog, (which has been most heartening) -
1. The sop is a problem of misuse of power - forcing people do physically what you can never have the freedom to do with their minds.
2. disabled/old people not getting felt up enough out of church - this argument is brought out regularly to validate sop, and is patronising, full of prejudice, and just plain creepy.
3. People outside - they know we all do this thing, and it Stops Them Going To Church - sadly, even when they've got there just for once, eg a wedding, christening etc. I have seen visitors avoiding the sop They are just not likely to return. Aren't we supposed to be welcoming people in? What happened to mission?
Aren't we supposed to be welcoming people in? Not becoming boutique conventicles! Whatever happened to mission?
Well, last Saturday was Covenant Sunday for Methodists, so I have promises to keep, and miles to go.
Thank you Shipmates very much for cheering me up with your free speech. Really, one would pay if one could.
--------------------
Always
Posts: 1 | From: Sussex | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Hmmm.
Perhaps in our culture we either need to be drunk or in a business meeting to be able to greet someone new with a handshake? If so, perhaps some wholesome alcoholic drink should be served before (or maybe even during) services, rather than tea afterwards? This wouldn't help the Methodists, but perhaps the CofE could consider it. Alternatively, perhaps in some churches attenders could simply be asked to share a smile with the folk around them. (But some people probably won't like smiling at strangers either.)
I've never been in a church where people appeared to be having problems participating in the Peace, but the churches I attend are probably more multicultural than most of the ones mentioned here.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hmmm.
Perhaps in our culture we either need to be drunk or in a business meeting to be able to greet someone new with a handshake? If so, perhaps some wholesome alcoholic drink should be served before (or maybe even during) services, rather than tea afterwards?
Er.... so you're saying we just need to have much larger helpings at Communion and have the Peace directly afterwards? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
I've frequently heard clergy announce the ritual by saying 'And now let us greet one another with the sign of the Peace', or something similar.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
"I don't want to shake hands with some stranger next to me in Church !"
Jennifer Paterson
and the best response surely ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I've never really understood why it's there. As it is practiced today it's devoid of any real meaning except as an opportunity to socialise during the liturgy, something it was never meant to be.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
as it's practised today, for sure ... but it's the responsibility of theological and pastoral educators to teach that this is an enactment of the in-breaking of the eschatological Reign, and if we can't share the demanding peace of God now we're provisionally fucked in the for evers ...
But there is no real prospect of it ever being what it's meant to be, never mind all the invented theology surrounding it used to justify its introduction during the liturgical reform. This is reason enough to scrap it (but then I would argue that the whole of the liturgical reform was flawed and thus should be scraped, though that's a subjexct for a different thread).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never been in a church where people appeared to be having problems participating in the Peace, but the churches I attend are probably more multicultural than most of the ones mentioned here.
I think this is the nub of the issue. As a British Anglican, my observation is that the combination of British reserve evident at some parishes - which can span the full gamut from indifference to frostiness - combined with an inability to say what we feel to those around can be a toxic mix.
Catholics seem to get it instinctively even though most are probably unaware of the instruction:
"According to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice .....signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is appropriate that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner. The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful."
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
If it be the case that it is not a greeting, but a ritual declaration of acceptance -- and I like that approach -- then somebody had better tell the clergy. I have heard most of the time the "Let us greet one another..." and even "make yourselves known to each other" and "don't forget to greet newcomers." It is hardly any wonder that it gets ludicrous at times.
But Ken is right about what non-churchgoers know. They seem to have an odd mental image of church services composed of snake-handling reality shows merging with scenes from the Da Vinci Code, mixed with a film clip of Pius XII from an Urbi and Orbi blessing from the 1940s.
As I noted above, I think that with the possible exception of the Caribbean, anglophones seem to be culturally incapable of passing the peace without disturbance and incoherence.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I have rarely seen any 'overdoing' of the sign of peace in an RC context.In the UK people generally shake hands with their immediate neighbours.If there is a close relationship they may embrace or kiss.In France,Germany,Italy, Spain
it is much the same.In Eastern Europe and the Middle East people generally bow to their immediate nighbours and that is it.
Sometimes but not often the priest will leave the sanctuary to greet parishioners.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not a greeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
If it be the case that it is not a greeting, but a ritual declaration of acceptance -- and I like that approach -- then somebody had better tell the clergy. I have heard most of the time the "Let us greet one another..." and even "make yourselves known to each other" and "don't forget to greet newcomers." It is hardly any wonder that it gets ludicrous at times.
I’ve never come across any of that coy, liturgically illiterate, sentimental, patronising, clericalist rubbish before. “Let us offer one another a sign of peace” and then get on with it, treating each individual the same whether or not you know them.
If introduced in that manner and followed by personal gossip, no wonder some here don’t like it. I wouldn’t like that total travesty of catholic liturgy and human relationships.
Common Worship (page 175) says "These words may be added “Let us offer one another a sign of peace”". No alternative is given or even the option of using "similar words". That’s what I’ve always heard. The RC missal has a nearly identical formula.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Venbede may then wish to frequent the Episcopalian temples of central Florida (New Smyrna Beach, Daytona Beach, Orlando) and upstate New York (Schenectady). From there, visits to Ontario Anglican churches in Burlington, London, Toronto, and Niagara can be easily arranged. Indeed, I might perhaps develop a useful second source of income by arranging church tours of such places.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
No need for foreign travel. It's bog standard practice in the C of E churches I frequent.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I was only trying to broaden venbede's range of experience. I fear that an excessive approach to the sop is not my warped imagination, but only experience. Clerical leadership can help limit this but my guess is that many like it and feel that it is a way of increasing lay participation. One rector told me that it is a great way to touch base with parishioners and hear their good news as it's often too busy after the service. Given the apparent exhilaration of many worshippers at this point in the service, I sometimes feel that I am grumpy and warped in not sharing their delight-- but I don't, and will likely continue to seek out the early morning service where it is less likely to take place, or where its impact is minimal.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Like long Bible lessons, long prayers, the passing of the peace was phased out in the early centuries and I think that it has just about out lived its usefulness again. Nobody knows why except a few clergy and people on the Ship of course. Personally, I think it will nearly impossible to catechize many Anglicans from commenting on each others shoes, jumping right back into a conversation they were having until right before the opening hymn, asking about their holiday, etc.,
Also, there will be one or two in the congregation who will remember their catechesis very well, and will only wish each other the Lord's Peace, but ironically, they will hardly be in love and charity with their neighbour who wishes them "Merry Christmas, love your shoes!" But of course burn in anger because someone wished them Merry Xmas at the Peace. It happens.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Would free gloves help?
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
That's beautiful, Ken. I wish I could "like" it, but how to tell the congo it isn't a pre-fellowship meet and greet?
Maybe it is, after all. I suppose that's why we need it.
Or we could revive the pax brede, and kiss it as alcoholic coeliacs do the chalice.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Ken's right. In my youth, the Peace was a versicle and response, nothing more. The move to a real expression of charity is, for us, one of the great improvements in liturgical practice over the last 30 years. It is not, and should not be, a mere extension of pre- and post-service chat. At our place, it's simple a "Peace be with you" or a slight variation on that. For someone recently bereaved, this can be extended to "Peace be with you in your sorrow"; if there's a new grandchild on the scene this becomes "Peace be with you at this time of joy", more so if the parents are also parishioners. But no more is the accepted rule.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I very rarely encounter raucous exchanges of the sign of peace, and that is likely to be an artifact of the parishes that I make regular homes or choose to visit on occasion. In these places, the peace is exchanged discreetly and relatively soberly, even if warmly (as I think it should be). This even holds true when the celebrant makes a brief foray down the centre aisle.
Of course, in my current parish home, the peace is merely a chanted versicle and response formula between celebrant and congregation, with an actual exchange of the sign of peace only amongst the sanctuary party and any clerics in quire -- using a pax-brede when the celebration is a missa cantata rather than a solemn mass.
I'm not in favour of omitting the exchange of the sign of peace amongst the congregation: when it's done in an appropriately serious and theologically informed manner it is an important part of the entire eucharistic rite, and in itself I would see it as a sacramental rite within the overall celebration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
In America, where the Peace becomes a problem seems to be in MOTR places with little understanding or appreciation of liturgy, a distinctly folksy style, and a de-emphasis on theology and on a theologically and liturgically informed laity. It's in these places that the liturgy comes to a screeching halt whilst people crawl all over the pews and aisles in an insistent eagerness to greet, shake hands with or hug everyone they see, and to engage in bits of chit chat, typically with the celebrant and any assisting ministers joining in the fray. This is what I hate, and what will result in my never setting foot in the place again. I'm talking of TEC here, by the way. I've never seen such antics in either ELCA or RC places, though there probably are parishes of those identities where the Peace goes awry.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
I do not think that it be precious to object to (my experiences only, of course, and this may not apply to others) instances of uninvited and unwelcome buttsqueezes, or energetic handshakes accompanied by an enquiry on my opinions over a hockey game. I have tried to temper my distaste for the practice by reminding myself that the abuse of a practice does not mean that it has no legitimate use. And, as I have noted in other posts, non-anglophones seem to be able to carry it off without giddiness and with a feeling of genuine fellowship. In honesty, I have only run into this on rare occasion in Canada and the US.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
