Sign of peace goes rather to the extreme. People walking out of their pews to shake hands, it seems, with everyone in the church. It is good to hear that this practice is ALLOWED and not MANDATED which means I get to share myself with others in my community....but, as I was taught and have thought still goes on in Roman Catholic churches is that you are to only give the sign of peace to only those with-in your pews' area..ie...The people in your pew, the pew behind you and the pew in front of you....Not the pew 2 rows or 3 rows back!!..I saw this today at my church and it looked like people having an arm wrestling match and people trying out for the track team for the olympics!! A lot of people got out of their pews and when it came time to get back to their pews, many of the people had not made it back to their pews yet when the priest had started saying the next prayer...Then you could see people running, yep running to get back to their pews for the next prayer. And people in wheel chairs being pushed to the side for blocking the walk way with their chairs...these runners were huffing and puffing their lungs out as they ran...Worse yet was the problem of people jumping and squeezing their way past the people who were already back to the pew with the runners having missed a couple of words of the next prayer.... I found all of this to be disrespectful to the priest, myself and others in the congragation.....I will be honest that yes, I myself have left my pew a few times to give the sign of peace to people 2 pews behind or to the side of me....but I today realized how wrong I was in doing so...Anyone have this problem or situation during your mass?

-- JACOB (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), May 11, 2003

Answers

No, Jacob, I can't say in all honesty that we have people running around huffing and puffing in our Masses here.

Maybe it's a new sport - The Ecclesiastical Race, sponsored by the Benedictine Monks, Purveyors of Medicinal Wines! :-))

(seriously, though, we do only shake hands with those beside, immediately in front, or immediately behind us)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 11, 2003.

jacob,

that would be carrying the sign of peace to an extreme. talk to your priest and if he feels this is so then he can make an announcement to the congregation.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 11, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, folks. I hope that you will find the following interesting ...

The liturgical regulations to be followed at Mass are mainly encoded in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), which is printed in the front of the Sacramentary (the prayer-book on the altar). The GIRM has gone through several editions, including the first one (1969). A new GIRM edition, considerably revised over the last one (1975), was published in Latin in 2000. An official English translation was very recently approved and is on the Internet at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' site. [If anyone wants a link, please ask.]

The older GIRM editions had the following to say about the "Rite of Peace:"
56. Since the Eucharistic celebration is the Paschal banquet, it is right that the faithful who are properly disposed receive the Lord's Body and Blood as spiritual Food as he commanded. This is the purpose of the breaking of Bread and the other preparatory rites that lead directly to the communion of the people:
a. Lord's Prayer ...
b. Rite of peace: before they share in the same Bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for one another. The form the sign of peace should take is left to the conference of bishops to determine, in accord with the culture and customs of the people.

112. ... the priest says aloud the prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ." After this prayer, extending then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace: "The peace of the Lord be with you always."
The people answer: "And also with you."
Then the priest may add: "Let us offer each other a sign of peace."
All exchange some sign of peace and love, according to local custom. The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers.

In their 1969 local "adaptations" to the GIRM, the U.S. Bishops added the following:
56b. Sign Of Peace
The Conference of Bishops has left the development of specific modes of exchanging the sign of peace to local usage. Neither a specific form nor specific words are determined.

As many people are aware (and as mentioned by Jacob), this rather brief directive did not prevent some improper behaviors from occurring. In response to many complaints from the faithful (so I have heard), the GIRM of 2000 says much more about the Rite of Peace. (In this edition, the U.S. adaptations are incorportated.) The new translation reads as follows:

82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

154. ... the priest, with hands extended, says aloud the prayer, Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti (Lord Jesus Christ, you said). After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and saying, Pax Domini sit simper vobiscum (The peace of the Lord be with you always). The people answer, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, Offerte vobis pacem (Let us offer each other the sign of peace). The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity. While the sign of peace is being given, one may say, Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum (The peace of the Lord be with you always), to which the response is Amen.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

S.A.R.S. has solved this dilemna for us in our diocese. Now everyone is asked not to make human contact and to merely verbally offer each other a sign of peace.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 12, 2003.

I've never noticed anyone running back to their seats. I've seen people step out of their row of seats to cross the isle to give someone a hand shake of peace, but nothing more. It would be a huge distraction if people did walk all over the place giving peace.

But what about those individuals who do not participate in the offering of peace? I've noticed on several occasions one woman never offers her hand and just sits and closes her eyes. I know this has offended a few people and I've told them not to worry, perhaps she's more along the lines of a traditionalist. Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, but just trying to figure it out myself. I just think it's wrong not to participate in the offering of peace. It's like she thinks she's better than the rest of us and doesn't need to offer or get peace from the congregation. Anyone else see someone not participaing in the offering of peace? Anyone know why some dont participate?

-- Choas (Choas@nomail.com), May 12, 2003.

Chaos,

I agree that the woman might be reflecting on her own, as in the old rite the priest would say "pax Domini sit semper vobiscum" or "the Lord's peace be with you always", and no-one performs any gesture towards their neighbor unless you consider staring straight ahead in silent prayer a group activity. She may be continuing along these lines, and if so that's o.k. Or maybe she's just cranky, who knows? :- )

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 12, 2003.

Ed(Catholic4444) said that in his diocese they could only verbally wish each other peace, and could not have human contact because of SARS. That's really a shame. I'm just thinking how sad it is to not be able to touch another human being. Today I attended a retreat for children with Special Educational Needs in preparation for them receiving First Eucharist. One of the children was a little boy with severe autism. He had no speech but made loud noises, no attention-span and was very disruptive. The little boy appeared to show little or no response when the children were being shown/told things. The lady I was with took the little boy's hands, looked into his eyes and said 'Jesus said you are VERY special, Jesus loves YOU perfectly' He looked at her, threw his arms around her and hugged her. He then stood up, came straight over to where I was sitting with a little girl and hugged me tightly before going to sit back down. What an amazing moment! That little hug was worth more to me than that little boy will ever know.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 12, 2003.

What a beautiful story Sara. It shows how far a little tenderness can go.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 12, 2003.

There is nothing worse than *knowing* (because you just saw it), that the little child who just wiped his runny nose with his hand is going to shake your hand. I have also seen people going a few rows up and back to shake hands. I belong to the old-fashioned group that goes to Mass to pray, not necessarily to be part of a social gathering (that should be after Mass). I also find Baptisms, Confirmations, and First Communions during Mass rather disruptive and taking something away from the Mass itself. Since I usually stand in the back (out of habit now, with children), I also happened to see yesterday one of those lector/ eucharistic minister newsletters that even broached the subject of celebrating Marriages during regular Masses. No thanks.

I usually (because my youngest one gets somewhat cranky by that time anyway) go into the adjoining hall (we don't have a cry room) and am able to miss that part, beginning with the Our Father (I think the holding hands is more or less forced on people as well). I don't like to leave like that, but many people seem to think that it's bad if you don't want to hold hands.

Other times a more polite way (say if you're in the middle of the pew and can't leave) to avoid it is just to say "I have/am getting over a cold". People can understand that, and those who have children will thank you for being considerate.

Another option might be to attend a Mass in a more metropolitan area. I notice that the smaller the parish, the more friendly people are, and the more likely they are to embrace the holding hands/sign of peace concept. Big cities, people are more likely to keep to themselves. Just my observation.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 12, 2003.

The sign of peace is disruptive. It would have made sense to begin the mass with it. It would have made sense to put it at the end - the Go in Peace. As is, it's disruptive.

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhen@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.

Yes Ed, a little tenderness does go a long way. I felt Jesus' presence in that little boy. He works in many mysterious ways, I'm sure. Little signs like that reaffirms one's faith and Jesus' love for us. We had Mass also today, and one of the Sisters had brought some visual aids as symbolism, candles, a loaf of bread, wheat, pictures, floating sunflowers in a dish of water. All signs of life, of God's creation. No matter how little intellectual knowledge those children have, they recognise the beauty of God's creation, and they feel the love of Jesus, the Holy Spirit works in them.

I believe that every now and then, at times in our lives when we really need Him, the Lord sends us some little sign to show us that He loves us. He is the one 'constant' in our lives, the only one we can truly rely on. He has held us in the palm of His hands.

GT, In my opinion it's very proper that Baptism, Confirmation and First Eucharist are celebrated during Mass. As these are the three Rites of Christian Initiation, it is apt that the Church Community welcome them into the Church. If a new baby was born into your own family, wouldn't you want to celebrate and everyone to come and meet the baby? We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, I'm always very happy to meet new members of my 'Church family'

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 12, 2003.

Sara, actually no, I would prefer private baptisms, as they used to be performed. If someone wants it done at Mass, it should be done at the end of Mass, so that people can leave without missing the rest of Mass. Personal choice--some might like having it at Mass, but people should be allowed to decide.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 12, 2003.

To me, the "sign of peace" is one of the most important symbols of the Mass. If you're too good or too reverent or too pious to take part in wishing "all" those around you, "Christ's peace," then what else can you possibly be doing there? Why bother with Church at all. It goes to the core of being a Christian or following Christ.

What can be more Christ driven than the "sign of peace."

If you can't appreciate the "sign of peace" for what it is and if you have to over-analize the validity of the act, then perhaps you might be just a little "too Catholic" for your own good.

The first words of Christ when he was with his disciples after he was raised from the dead was simply . . . Peace be with you!

It wasn't . . . why did you forsake me. He wished them Peace. What a comfort and a relief that must have been, can you imagine the depth of the guilt they must have felt and the immense sign of relief it must have been to hear those words.

When the second great commandment calls us to "Love our neighbor as ourselves," what can possibly stand in the way of turning to your neighbors at Mass and wishing them . . . Peace! Prayer and reverence will always have their place, but if they take precidence over the act of recognizing your neighbors in the Mass, then what can you possibly be praying for.

I firmly believe, that your (and my) salvation depend deeply upon participating in the "sign of peace;" not only in the Mass, but in all walks of life.

The sign of Peace, a disruption? NOT IN MY PEW!

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 12, 2003.

I agree with Leon. The Sign of Peace is to do with being reconciled with our neighbour, before going to receive the Eucharist. The parts of the Mass aren't decided upon indiscriminately, there's always a sound reason for something being included in the Mass, and the timing of it. Just as there are sound reasons for the Sacraments of Initiation taking part within the whole local Church Community, eg during the Sunday Masses. The Church puts a strong emphasis on home/parish/school for catechesis of children being initiated into the Church. Many people would rightly be scandalised if we were to say to adults, welcome to the Catholic Church but please don't annoy or distract me by joining us during Mass. It's no different with children. 'Let the little children come unto me!' What joy to welcome new people into the Church, for each time it happens the Body of Christ is built up!

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 13, 2003.

The sign of peace is an outward sign at mass of our duty to extend the teachings of Christ to others.

Too many people come to mass to "log time".

Sara and Leon, AMEN!!!

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 13, 2003.

Ave MARIA IMMACULATA

Dear Friends,

I would like to say Religion is meant for practising and not for research.

One might seek as many clarifications and informations required, at the same time remembering,that our Religion is a super natural one. Not every detail of it is explainable using mere human logic, under standing,faculty,insight,_expression,etc.

Understanding of every detail is NOT mandatory for salvation but,Practising the simple teachings of the Church IS MANDATORY for our salvation.

We should feel content with the "Rome has spoken",and accept it whole heartedly without un necessary questioning. Certainly,here by Rome we mean "The Eternal-ROME" the Mistress of the Apostolic- TRADITION.

This is what our LORD meant when He asked us to accept the Kingdom of Heaven like children.

In every action of our Mother Church -- Her Language,Liturgy,prayers,vestments,etc. there is a mystical meaning which we are not expected to understandfully. But , we should accept and follow them that we may gain Graces from them.

On the Cross, the reason for our LORD's sentence( I.N.R.I) was written in Latin, Greek,Hebrew languages.

Later, He directed the First Pope to reside in Rome and not in Jerusalem. ( Remember that incident, when St.Peter was trying to flee Rome,Jesus appeared carrying the Cross and entered Rome.)

Thus , Latin and Rome became associated with the Church by Divine wish. It is very easy to understand this. Later,the Church when it codified the HOLY MASS it incorporated Latin. The " Kyrie......." of the Holy Mass is in Greek. All these have been done by the Church according to Divine inspiration.

Our LORD and our HOLY MOTHER who appeared so many times to the Saints in the last 20 centuries were only Pleased with the Tridentine HOLY MASS. This is only expected because it was Our Lord who established and said the first Mass. It was by the intercession of our Lady the First Pope St. Peter was inspired to say the first Holy Mass.

What do we have to complain about ?

HOW can we think we could improve??? it? Isn't it an audacity on our part?

We should accept it with all humility that we can muster and say "DEO GRATIAS"

Absolutely, there is no room for even considering a thought of any change,for the HOLY MASS has been Canonised in 1570 A.D.

If one doesn't restrain his thinking, but only follows his reckless reasoning soon he will end up as a heretic and lose his Faith.

THE HOLY MASS:

* The Holy Mass was instituted by our Lord and was taught to His apostles by Him.

*It is the Re-Enactment of Calvary.

*All the Saints from St.Stephen to St. Padre Pio canonised in 2002 AD said/heard this Mass and became Saints with the graces derived from it.

*The Holy Mass was codified and CANONised(i.e. made Eternal Law in the Council of Trent) by the pope St.Pius V on 14 July 1570 AD. Hence ,the Mass is also known as'Tridentine Mass' or the 'Mass of All Times'. (Refer to: Apostolic constitution "Quo Primum" dated 14.7.1570)

* Canonisation; is authorisation for any priest to say this HOLY MASS until the END of Time.( Refer to Bull --Quo Primum Tempore for details)

* This MASS was celebrated uniformly, every day, in every Church in the world for over 1939 years, till 1969 AD.

* The enemies of the Church ,under diabolic influence intended to destroy this Holy MASS, as Martin Luther used to say "Destroy the Mass to destroy the Catholic Church".

* The internal enemies of the Catholic Church hijacked the V--2 Council by their numerical strength, and turned it away from its original agenda set by Pope PIUS XII.

* In an attempt to destroy the Holy Mass of all Times, they introduced a new formulation called 'New mass' giving strange excuses. ( One can say that this act itself is treachery and illict.)

# The New mass

* The new mass was formulated by SIX Protestants, namely--- George, Jennifa,Shepherd,Sunad, Smith, Turian along with Fr.Bugini

* When the New mass was demonstrated in the Cistine chapel on 24.10.1967 to the Council Fathers, 43 out of 180 rejected it. 4 of them did not vote and 62 of them expressed reservations. Only 71 out of 180 voted for it.

But,the New mass was declared 'Accepted' against against the law Without the TWO THIRD MAJORITY required for a passage. (That much for the feigned democratic leanings of the modernist.)

* Shortly afterwards ,Msgr. Bugini ,the founder of the New mass was releived of all his authorities for the reason he had all along been a FREE MASON

* * * Why do we need to accept a" Protestant Formulation" directed bya FREE MASON ??? That too against the Canonised HOLY MASS , and against the PERPETUAL ORDER enacted by the Pope St.Pius V ? What about the punishment threatened in this order ?

CONTRAST:

THE HOLY MASS:

According to the Teachings of thhe Council of Trent:(DZ -- represents "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" by Denzinger)

1.The Mass is the Re-enactment of Calvary and just not a narrative of the Last supper,--- itself a pre-enactment of Calvary. [ DZ-938]

2.Mass is not essentially a Meal. [DZ-948]

3.Mass is not a community gathering.[DZ-955]

THE New mass:(From the definition of New mass--- Institutio Generalis$7,of the Roman Missal,1969)

1.A narrative of the past event,(without a sacrificial character.)

2.It is a meal.

3.It is a community gathering.

** Thus the New mass derives fundamentally from the teachings of Cranmer, Martin Luther and is close to the Calvinist mass.

** Deceitfully ,none of the V--2 documents require the Priest to face the people, and conduct the proceedings in native language without Latin.

** It is Man centred .

What graces can one hope to receive when the Sacrifice of Calvary is NOT

re-enacted in this new formulation ???

FRUITS:

The V-2,provoked the greatest upheavel in the history of the Catholic Church.

Every aspect of the Catholic life has been over thrown and nothing remains stable.What are the fruits of the New mass?

1.How many new conversions did we have after the new mass?

2. Are the seminaries over flowing with vocations?

3.Has the discipline,obedience to the Vicar of Christ increased among the clergy?

4.Have the faithful turned saintly?

5.How many Saints have been raised because of the New mass after 1969 ??

*** ST. Padre Pio declined to say the new mass.

** According to Cardinal Ratzinger,the Prefect of the Congregation of Faith ".....The New mass is fabricated, and is open to on the spot production."

* The New mass is a VEHICLE of HERESY,and the Holy Orders are in jeopardy!

'As time goes by,everyone will be able to say the new mass without ordination', according to the N.O.clergy

**** Now all of us must follow the example of St. Padre Pio ,the Saint of our Times single mindedly.--Give up the futile research of V--2, its managers and spend our energies to secure our salvation,to re -build the Church.

*** The HOLY MASS has been saved from extinction according to Divine Providence, by the Archbishop Lefebvre. We must co-operate with SSPX so that Rome frees the Mass at the earliest, so that more souls are saved,--- the souls of our dear ones,etc.

* * * The HOLY MASS will certainly be freed since Our MOTHER promised at Fatima that HER IMMACULATE HEART will Triumph at the end.

However ,this will happen only after the Collegial Consecration of Russia to theIMMACULATE HEART of MARY.

(i.e)The Pope has to order the Collegial Consecration, and consecrate Russia byname,as ordered by Our Lady.

Thus, the Church would once again acknowledge the Great DIGNITY of Our Heavenly MOTHER, and make up for the slights of V-2, and the insults of the modern age.

Now let us pray ,sacrifice and work that This Day is advanced,to our life times itself.

A.M.D.G.

Arul

-- Ari (A@why change.com), May 13, 2003.

Ari, --Your zeal is apparent and commendable, but your judgment is simple pettifoggery. All your evaluations of Vatican II, and our Holy Mass in the vernacular are insubstantial, as the Holy Spirit stands behind both. Nothing has happened to our love for the Holy Mother of God, nor the Creeds, nor our prayer & repentence. Holy Mass is perfectly celebrated in our parishes. We are Catholics here, Ari!

''The The enemies of the Church under diabolic influence intended to destroy this Holy MASS'', according to you and the upstart archbishop. While the Holy Spirit, giving His blessings to this valid and HOLY Church Council amounted to nothing? Gave up His Church, to her enemies under diabolical influence?

Faithful Catholics today love and worship God in our Church without any envy or doubt about your love & worship. You have the Tridentine Missal, and may carry it next to your heart if you wish, Ari. But the hatred you feel toward us; the 2nd Vatican Council and our subsequent Pontiffs is un-Catholic and totally sinful. Particularly since you take it upon yourself, to enter a Catholic forum for the purpose of inciting rebellions. We all have resisted over many months the demoralizing attacks of several others of your ''faith''. If you think you'll break down resistance with your misguided judgment, think again. Just go away and don't come back.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 13, 2003.

All Catholics to arms, the sword of the Rosary in hand let us wage war on hell

In a Message for Feast of Vesakh VATICAN CITY, MAY 9, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See invited Buddhists to work together for world peace and to pray for this gift. The proposal was made by Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, in a message sent to Buddhists worldwide for the annual feast of Vesakh.......the rosary represents a most effective means of fostering contemplation of Jesus Christ. For Buddhists, the Mala is used to overcome the 108 sinful desires in order to reach the state of nirvana. >>

BLESSED BUDDHA

His belly's all bloated. His skin's weirdly coated, Too fat to be toted He sits.

But Fitz has been quoted, All Cathlics have noted, That Buddha is nice And hot-shits.

The Vatican's voted All priests be demoted Who love Blessed Mother To bits.

The Holy See wroted, To all the devoted, "Nirvana's not really The pits."

Once, Peter did floated. On souls, always doted But seems to have Now, called it quits.

For Fitz has been quoted, You Cathlics take noted...

IT'S TIME TO PUT ON FIGHTING- MITTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 13, 2003.

* This MASS was celebrated uniformly, every day, in every Church in the world for over 1939 years, till 1969 AD.

Is that so?

I wonder:

Eastern Rites Today By Fr. William Saunders Given the historical development of the Eastern Rites, we can quickly survey their present status in the Church. Today, the various Eastern Rites are organized under the four eastern patriarchates. (The following information was gleaned from the Catholic Almanac.) The Alexandrian Rite is officially called the Liturgy of St. Mark. (St. Mark is traditionally considered the first bishop of Alexandria.) Their present liturgy contains elements of the Byzantine Rite of St. Basil and the liturgies of Sts. Mark, Cyril, and Gregory Nazianzen. This parent rite includes the Coptic Rite and the Ge'ez Rite. The Coptic Rite, which is situated primarily in Egypt, reunited with Rome in 1741 and uses the Coptic and Arabic languages in its liturgies. The Ge'ez Rite, based primarily in Ethiopia, Jerusalem, and Somalia, reunited with Rome in 1846 and uses the Ge'ez language in their liturgies. The Antiochene Rite is the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem. This parent rite includes the following rites: The Malankar Rite is located in India, reunited with Rome in 1930, and uses the Syriac and Malayalam languages in its liturgies. The Maronite Rite, located primarily in Lebanon, Cyrpus, Egypt, and Syria but with large populations of the faithful also in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, and Canada, has remained united with Rome since the time of its founder St. Maron, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in its liturgies. The Syrian Rite is located primarily in Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, with healthy communities in Asia, Africa, Australia, and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1781, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in its liturgies. The Armenian Rite, technically a distinct rite, derived from the Antiochene Rite and is an older form of the Byzantine Rite. Although it uses a different language, this rite is technically called the Greek Liturgy of St. Basil. This rite has jurisdictions primarily in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, France, Greece, Romania, Armenia, Argentina and the United States. The Armenians reunited with Rome during the Crusades, and the ritual liturgical language is Classical Armenian. The Chaldean Rite, also technically a distinct rite, also originated from the Antiochene Rite. This rite is also divided into two rites: The Chaldean Rite, located primarily in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and the United States, reunited with Rome in 1692, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in the liturgy. The Syro-Malabar Rite, located in India, claims to have originated with St. Thomas the Apostle, and uses the Syriac and Malayalam languages in the liturgy. Although the Syro-Malabar Rite was never in formal schism, for centuries no communication occurred between them and Rome until the time of the missionaries in the 1500s. The Byzantine Rite, the largest Eastern Rite, is based on the Rite of St. James of Jerusalem with the later reforms of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. These rites employ the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This parent rite comprises many rites, which are themselves highly ethnic oriented. The Albanian Rite, centered in Albania, reunited with Rome in 1628 and uses Albanian as its liturgical language. The Belarussian (formerly titled Byelorussian) Rite, centered in Belarussia with large populations in Europe, North and South America, and Australia, reunited with Rome in the 1600s and uses Old Slavonic as their liturgical language. The Bulgarian Rite, centered in Bulgaria, reunited with Rome in 1861 and uses the Old Slavonic language in the liturgy. The Croatian Rite, based primarily in Croatia with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1611 and employs Old Slavonic as a liturgical language. The Greek Rite, which is centered in Greece and Turkey with congregations also in Asia Minor and Europe, reunited with Rome in 1829 and uses the Greek language in the liturgy. The Hungarian Rite, situated in Hungary with significant populations throughout Europe and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1646 and uses Greek, Hungarian, and English in their liturgies. The Italo-Albanian Rite, mainly in Italy with congregations in North and South America, never separated from Rome and uses the Greek and Italo-Albanian languages in the liturgy. The Romanian Rite, centered in Romania with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1697 and use Modern Romanian in their liturgy; in 1948, they were forced to join the Romanian Orthodox Church in Romania, but since the fall of communism, the Catholic Romanian Rite has regained independence. The Russian Rite, located mainly in Russia and China with congregations in Europe, Australia, and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1905 and use Old Slavonic as a liturgical language. The Georgian Rite, based in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, reunited with Rome in 1329, severed ties in 1507, then in 1917 broke with the Russian Orthodox Church and again reunited with Rome as the Georgian Byzantine Rite, and has struggled for survival ever since, especially during Communist oppression; the Georgian language is used in their liturgy. The Slovak Rite is based in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Canada, and uses Old Slavonic in its liturgy. The three largest of the Byzantine Rites are the Melkite, Ruthenian and Ukrainian. The Melkite Rite has strong congregations in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, United States, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. The Melkites reunited with Rome during the Crusades but due to impediments caused by the Moslem occupations more officially reunited in the early 1700s and use Greek, Arabic, English, Portuguese, and Spanish in the liturgy. The Ruthenian or Carpatho-Russian Rite is based in the Ukraine and the United States with strong congregations in Ukraine, United States, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Australia, and North and South America. The Ruthenians reunited with Rome in the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 and the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. They employ Old Slavonic and English in the liturgy. Finally, the Ukrainian Rite has large populations in the Ukraine, Poland, the United States, Canada, England, Australia, Germany, France, Brazil and Argentina. The Ukrainians reunited with Rome about 1595. However, Stalin forced the Ukrainian Rite Catholics to enter the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, but since the independence of the Ukraine, they have reunited with Rome. This rite uses Old Slavonic and Ukrainian. In the Diocese of Arlington, we have three Eastern Rite Catholic Churches: Epiphany of our Lord Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite in Annandale under the jurisdiction of the Eparchy of Passaic, N.J.; Holy Transfiguration Melkite Rite in McLean of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, Mass.; and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Byzantine Ukrainian Rite in Manassas of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia, Pa. Also, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, the Byzantine Rite communities in the United States funded a chapel which is adorned with beautiful icons. All Roman Catholics are welcome to attend the Divine Liturgy at these Eastern Rite Churches (which does indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation) and may receive Holy Communion. Particulars of Canon Law, however, do regulate marriages between a Latin Rite and an Eastern Rite Catholic. In all, these rites remind us of the universality of our Roman Catholic Church and the rich liturgical traditions we share as Catholics. Fr. Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.

A very effective response, Enrique.
Good to see you again after quite a long absence!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

How did we get to hear from a question about the "Sign of Peace" in the Mass?

Sometimes, I can't believe what goes on in here!

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 15, 2003.

My favourite phrase is for once justified "oh the irony!" You have restored my faith in humour Leon.

-- kiwi (""""@can't spell either .com), May 15, 2003.

Cute e-mail address, Kiwi! "Can't spell either."
You can start improving by spelling "favorite" and "humor" correctly. [I'm "jest kidding," you descendant of Brits, you.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

I don't know if these links actually have Mass sites near Mobile, AL, but I thought it was worth the try anyways. There are a few places you can look to for listings of Tridentine Masses in your area. First is the Society of St. Pius X, who many consider to be in schism, but current negotiations with Rome will let us know (maybe not any time soon), as to whether or not an agreement has been reached. My personal thought is that they are not in schism and I know I will be reprimanded for this. But, their site is www.sspx.org . Second is the Ecclesia Dei Commission website. This is the groups established by the Pope to study the matter of the Tridentine Mass and to promote it (although many are critical of whether or not they actually do anything to promote it). Site is www.ecclesiadei.org . I hope this helps you at all. I have no clue where in AL Mobile is, but hopefully you can find something through pages like these. Good luck! In Christo Mariaque, Katie

-- katie (ksweig@hotmail.com), June 02, 2003.

ed, you go to far

your use of falsified documents to make such insinuations that the vatican and pope are under the control of a demonic order are too much. you excomunicate yourself from the church. dont give me this ive never been officially deemed excommunicated because the moment you call the Lords one church evil you cut yourself from the sacred heart of Jesus.

your words are false, a bane to the Lord. i pray you mend your ways before you incur the wrath of God. until you have healed yourself to the immaculate heart begone foul servant of schism. reap no more joy from calling yourself catholic while seeking to destroy the church.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

well, i join the club of parishioners whose priest feels free to jump off the altar and press the flesh.

worse still, he got lost in the liturgy just around about the consecration -- so i may have received the body or blood of someone else.

oh, and he told us that that St John 20:23 meant that if we should forgive other people their transgressions because otherwise we would carry some kind of stain (?!!) as would they. i always thought this is why i go to confession.

i am told that there is a Cistercian Monastry nearby. it is closed but the public, so i am told, can listen to Mass from outside the walls. i am now seriously considering going there in the vain hope that there migt be at least one Catholic amongst the brotherhood.

i can be charitable and think that our priest is just overworked - as many of them are. but i have just about have enough of praying for protestants (how many sing-songs must we have) and listening to personalised homilies. his stand-in of a few weeks ago was some university hippy that made several brief statements on the War in Iraq -- I had gone there to mee My Saviour, not listen to a load of political nonsense.

everytime i eneter the Church these days i double- check that it is the picture of Pope John Paul II that hangs over the door. one day i expect that it will be a picture of Martin Luther.

sorry about the whinging, but sometimes.......

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 09, 2003.

really really sorry; but i am so frustrated by all of this. why does no-one take it seriously anymore.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 09, 2003.

i should also mention that, after Mass, i bumped into a fellow parishioner at the nearby gas station. this guy, who did the collection at Mass, had seemed so friendly during the Mass -- plenty of big friendly smiles and he was sitting directly behind me.

this "friendliness" continued at the gas station, to the point where i realy felt a little bit suspicious - i know that some people are tactile but there are limits. now, i am not much to look at but i know that the average homosexual is like a dog on heat at most times; and lo and behold, when i asked another of the priests, the one i like, he confirmed that this old gent was a homosexual.

just a marvellous way to finish of a Mass, wouldn't you say. knowing that you have been eyed up by some geristric homo throughout -- and then being hit upon within minutes of the Mass ending.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 10, 2003.

really really sorry; but i am so frustrated by all of this. why does no-one take it seriously anymore

satan, trying to bring down the true church of Christ, thats why.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 10, 2003.

We have the Lord truly physically present to us only for a few moments during the Mass, and our friends and family anytime we want to approach them. I can't imagine anyone that could actually see Jesus Christ standing on the Altar, desiring to socialize with their friends, or family. I think it is a matter of whether or not you truly understand that Christ is truly there, and then, to ignore Him for anything else would be ....well, you figure it out. God bless. Tom

-- Thomas Fayette (evangel1@allvantage.com), October 05, 2003.

Thomas,

Hello? Anyone home? If I remember correctly, and I do :-) in the old Tridentine rite the "pax Domini sit semper vobiscum" comes AFTER the consecration, the same as in the current rite of mass. There's therefore no difference in order or intent between the two rites. The only thing different is that the current rite attempts to bring us together as a Christian community, as opposed to acting like individuals with a common purpose, in this it succeeds much better than the old, wouldn't you agree?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 06, 2003.

Frank,

That is without a doubt the *worst* defense of the new mass I've ever read.

Brings us together as a Christian community?

What does that een mean?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 06, 2003.

There is no "new mass", and never could be. There is only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Anyone who claims otherwise should abandon the pretense of being Catholic, and simply find a new name for their new denomination.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 06, 2003.

As long as there are people alive who still remember the "old Mass", there will be an "old Mass". There are things to admire about it, just as there are things to admire about the "new Mass". In the future there may be other changes in the way Mass is celebrated.

Just because someone remembers something fondly as being better doesn't necessarily make them disrespectful or wrong.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 06, 2003.

Jake,

Please. After reading the Litany of Humility, I think you are offering me FAR too much praise! But thank you. An insult from a schismatic must be equivalent to a prayer from a saint.

I think Thomas was trying to criticize the current rite of mass for the position of the "sign of Peace", which hasn't changed, so I don't see why he or you are complaining. But then, you need to complain about SOMEthing, or you wouldn't exist, would you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 06, 2003.

I think you are offering me FAR too much praise! But thank you.

Don't mention it. By all means, if it makes you fee better, you're welcome.

An insult from a schismatic must be equivalent to a prayer from a saint.

I agree! I consider your (collective) daily jabs, for instance, as tender kisses from Our Lady, and a fulfillment of Our Lord's promises. I'm only too happy to receive them!

I think Thomas was trying to criticize the current rite of mass for the position of the "sign of Peace", which hasn't changed, so I don't see why he or you are complaining.

You're right. It's exactly the same. What was I thinking?

But then, you need to complain about SOMEthing, or you wouldn't exist, would you?

For purposes of this forum, no. I guess not.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

There is nothing worse than *knowing* (because you just saw it), that the little child who just wiped his runny nose with his hand is going to shake your hand.

There *is* something worse than that. That hand which shook the hand of the little boy with the runny nose is about to receive Our Lord directly into it. That is, if you take Communion by hand and if the Mass was valid.

I mean, how could someone be put off by shaking the hand one who recently wiped his nose on it, but think nothing of allowing Our Lord to be placed directly into it?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 07, 2003.

So here we are, seconds from receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the high point of human worship, the coming communion with God who is Love...and we're upset because we have to turn around and acknowledge the existence and presence of others in the congregation??????

What part of "Catholic Church" (universal community) don't you understand?

If you were there with your family and best friends, wouldn't you want to exchange your loving peace with them?

Or is Catholic worship a strictly private affair and our own aesthetic TASTE more important the Christian charity????

I hear people COMPLAIN about their fellow parishoners...but do these same people PRAY FOR THEM? Do you know them? Do you take them out to breakfast, offer to have them over for dinner? Get to know them and befriend them and thereby help them mature in their lives of grace and Catholic living?

One thing is extreme glad handing... a circus. But far more typical is the short, perfunctory greeting and acknowledgement of those immediately around you.

If anything Catholics need to work MORE on the sign of Peace - to make it what it truly ought to be, rather than what it can degenerate into for lack of education and Catholic maturity.

We ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPERS PEOPLE! IF YOU DON'T KNOW OR CARE FOR THESE ANONYMOUS FELLOW CATHOLICS, WHO WILL?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

So here we are, seconds from receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the high point of human worship, the coming communion with God who is Love...and we're upset because we have to turn around and acknowledge the existence and presence of others in the congregation??????

Yes. Plenty of time for glad-handing and coffee clutches after Mass. Also, if I'm not mistaken, you don't have to participate in the rite of the shaking of the hands. I very well could be wrong. By the grace of God, I haven't been to the Novus Ordo in 11 years.

If you were there with your family and best friends, wouldn't you want to exchange your loving peace with them?

Not if I really believed that Christ Himself was really & truly present just a few feet away, no. I can see/hug/kiss them anytime.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

Regina, I must admit I didn't even think about receiving Communion, as I am usually in the foyer with a somewhat noisy little one and have to step out every so often anyway, so miss it.

Jake, I was going to say the same thing, although not all Masses have coffee and donuts (they call it "fellowship" at our parish) afterwards. Most people talk before and after Mass anyway.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 07, 2003.

So, basically, you are a heathen, who happens to have a taste for Latin?

You're supposed "love" and devotion to Our Lord is such that you can't be bothered with your neighbor?

Sounds like someone hasn't been reading the Epistle of St John recently! Or do you only have it in Latin and therefore don't understand that you can't claim to love God whom you can not see, if you don't love your neighbor whom you do see?

You think preparing your soul to receive our Lord is something which precludes extending warm and honest blessings of peace on your neighbor? I wonder how truly prepared you are for true communion?

Or do you think heaven will be a private affair between you and Our Lord?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

Regina,

There *is* something worse than that. That hand which shook the hand of the little boy with the runny nose is about to receive Our Lord directly into it. That is, if you take Communion by hand and if the Mass was valid.

I really am sad to see you guys act so hateful towards the mass! I know I've posted in the past that in the early church not only was communion offered in the hand, in some areas people were given whole chunks of consecrated host to use later in the week. Some even felt if OFFENSIVE to have the host be touched by a metal such as gold instead of only the human hand. The church you love is a snapshot of the church that existed in the Middle Ages, not what "always has been" or some nonsense like that. The more you guys post the more sure I am that Vatican II was very timely indeed.

That hand which shook the hand of the little boy with the runny nose is about to receive Our Lord directly into it.

That's right and Thank God! If the little boy WITH the runny nose is going old enough to receive communion, he hopefully does too! What is WRONG with you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

So, basically, you are a heathen, who happens to have a taste for Latin?

Well, if not wanting to take part in an optional handshaking ritual makes me a heathen, then...yeah. I guess I am.

Mother Angelica doesn't have the Shaking Of The Hands at her Masses; even throws a prayer or two in Latin (gasp!) in there to keep the money rolling in from little old ladies. Is she a heathen, too?

You're supposed "love" and devotion to Our Lord is such that you can't be bothered with your neighbor?

At that particular time and place? Yes. Absolutely. No doubt whatsoever.

Sounds like someone hasn't been reading the Epistle of St John recently! Or do you only have it in Latin and therefore don't understand that you can't claim to love God whom you can not see, if you don't love your neighbor whom you do see?

I have both the Engligh & Latin versions. I don't claim not to love my neighbor, I just think it's right & proper during Mass, with the Presence of Christ on the altar to show more love for Him. It's really very simple.

You think preparing your soul to receive our Lord is something which precludes extending warm and honest blessings of peace on your neighbor?

Without a doubt. Yes.

Or do you think heaven will be a private affair between you and Our Lord

Whether or not I ever get there will have little to do with whose hands I shook in life, I assure you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

in the early church not only was communion offered in the hand, in some areas people were given whole chunks of consecrated host to use later in the week.

...and so if this was done in the early Church (which I doubt), why not now? I mean, if the new mass is supposed to be a "return" to that time, what's the problem?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

You basically snidely suggest that your taste is more important that the rite - and since you don't like the sign of peace, you suppose it has no other meaning and role except to annoy you.

So because you like Latin, and you like the Tridentine ritual, it's OK. But the moment YOU don't like something, you pick and choose to call it bad or heresy.

Rather than try to think with the mind of the Church, YOU set yourself up as judge of council and pope.

Rather than try to obey, YOU decide what rite you'll follow, according to the principle: what makes me feel good, must be good.

Well, if you THINK that giving an exchange of greetings and peace to your neighbor has nothing to do with worship and reception of Our Lord, then explain to me exactly why Catholicism has placed an emphasis on community rather than on the individual.

More and more of us are begining to see that you so- called "traditionalists" not only don't know or understand what has been handed on, but you are actually accepting the underlying arguments of the Protestant revolt - thinking that you're holier than the Pope and therefore don't need to obey him.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

My issue with people who are ill shaking hands (and it was I who mentioned the "little boy" earlier in the post, though adults are just as guilty of the same behavior), is that it would be nice if everyone would have a little bit of consideration for our neighbors.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying, "Peace be with you! Sorry, I have a cold, or I'd shake hands." That is mere courtesy, not making the other person uncomfortable about wondering what they or their children are going to catch next. Some people get ill very easily, and I don't think anyone here would feel nice about making someone ill.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 07, 2003.

You basically snidely suggest that your taste is more important that the rite - and since you don't like the sign of peace, you suppose it has no other meaning and role except to annoy you.

No, I don't know what its purpose is, but it does not "annoy me." It can't. It's not my problem. I left that (and a lot of other) nonsense in Novus Ordo Land 11 years ago. I do know that it's not a part of the Rite, strictly speaking. (You dodged the question on whether you think Mother Angelica is a "heathen with a taste for Latin." Do you?)

So because you like Latin, and you like the Tridentine ritual, it's OK. But the moment YOU don't like something, you pick and choose to call it bad or heresy.

If it's bad or heretical, sure.

Rather than try to think with the mind of the Church, YOU set yourself up as judge of council and pope.

Have I? Which Council? Which Pope? Please show me where I have judged either one.

Well, if you THINK that giving an exchange of greetings and peace to your neighbor has nothing to do with worship and reception of Our Lord, then explain to me exactly why Catholicism has placed an emphasis on community rather than on the individual.

HA! I was hoping you could explain it to me!! That's a good question, though. Why has worsip become man-cantered, and why is this a good thing? What have been its fruits? how is it better?

More and more of us are begining to see that you so- called "traditionalists" not only don't know or understand what has been handed on

Handed on? From whom? From whence did they get it?

but you are actually accepting the underlying arguments of the Protestant revolt - thinking that you're holier than the Pope and therefore don't need to obey him.

If I were to break into a sppontaneous bout of handshaking, backslapping, and and "how 'ya doin" right before Communion, this would satisfy your requirements for being obedient?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

off.

-- @ (.@@.@), October 07, 2003.

There is nothing wrong with the Tridentine rite per se. Nor is there anything wrong with the Novus Ordo per se. If you follow the rites as they are intended to be said, with the due diligence and respect and participation as required, there is no heresy or schism, no loss of worship or destruction of the Church (Ecclesiae in greek, which means community).

If you accept as valid the Tridentine rite, then you must follow the rite as it is authorized by the Church - ditto if you follow the Novus Ordo (as it is authorized, not as it could possibly be twisted or contorted).

In the T-rite the congregation is mum and non-involved. In the Novus Ordo we are to actively participate. If you attend a Novus Ordo rite and refuse to participate in the rubrics, you are doing grave harm to you and others. Ditto if I attended a T-rite and refused to follow its rubrics.

But if you, because you prefer one rite presume to pass judgement on another - simply because you don't like it - then you're a heathen. If Mother Angelica or anyone came out with the belief that one rite only is valid, she or they would be a heathen too. For what is a heathen other than the one who does not believe in the fulness of the faith? Paganus - Latin for country bumpkin.

Now in the Tridentine rite there is no sign of peace. You take this as somehow superior, rather than merely different. Perhaps that follows some axiom I am unaware of. But if so, based on what principle? Fruits? Or post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning?

I look around at local T-rite parishes and lo and behold, the flowing of peace, charity, and communal love amongst the Tridentine rite folk doesn't impress one! Where are you in the evangelization of the culture? Where are you in the Pro-Life movement or the drive to promote the faith? Now is not the time to circle wagons.

Last I checked, people who attend Novus Ordo masses don't find it obligatory to first denigrate their ancestors' and parents' rite as intrinsically evil, or stupid based on the Gospel maxim: by their fruits you shall know them. That's too easy an argument to fake - Traditionalists triumphantly point to moral decline in the West after 1965...utterly failing to account for the moral flourishing in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe under the aegis of the Novus Ordo!

Amazingly, though what's good for the goose is not good for the gander: they are mum about the disaster which befell the Church after 1570 - rise of anti-clericalism, anti-Catholic nation states, masonry and loss of the cultural elites (kings and nobles), repression of the Jesuits, loss of the missions, near annihilation of the Church in most European countries, Napoleonic wars, captivity of the Popes, rise of Protestantism and atheism...communism, world wars 1 and 2 and the beginning of the sexual revolultion which began in the 1950's!

All these awful things happened AFTER the Tridentine rite was made the only rite for 90% of all Catholics (those of the Latin rite). And it was global phenomenon. The Novus ordo however has not resulted in uniform and global moral and dogmatic disaster.

Yet to be consistently among the T-rite brethren you almost have to have your horror stories, you have to burn straw men in effigy, smuggly suggest the Pope is nice but wrong, and assert as fact the moral depravity of your neighbors whom you disdain.

And Our Lord is worshipped... in Latin or English or Spanish, and people approach him and receive Him every day the world over. If you loved your rite and left it at that, I'd have no complaint. But the moment you attack other rites... that day you open a can of worms over your own head.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

The Novus ordo however has not resulted in uniform and global moral and dogmatic disaster.

That's the crux of the matter, and a point upon which we'll never agree.

As regards Mother Angelica, I don't know what she believes (and I'm no fan, in case you hadn't guessed). What I do know is that she has no Shaking Of The Hands at her Masses. You seem to regard and vigorously defend this action as essential. So, my question really should have been: Is she wrong? If so, why, and if not, why not?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

The [rite of the Mass approved by Paul VI in 1969] ... has not resulted in uniform and global moral and dogmatic disaster.

Truer words were never spoken than yours, Joe. Only those with an intellectual defect -- one that lets them use the logical fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" ["after this, therefore because of this"] -- would argue with you.

The reasons for the sign of peace not being given at Masses televised on EWTN are two:

1. Those who celebrate Mass believe that the sign should be transferred, by the Church, to a place just before the offering of gifts (in accord with Jesus's words: "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.")

2. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal clearly make it the priest's option [not the people's option] whether to invite the congregation to share a sign of peace. This was clearer in the translation of the older editions (used until last year) than in the translation of the 2000 edition (now being used).
Old: "112. ... he gives the greeting of peace: 'The peace of the Lord be with you always.' The people answer: 'And also with you.' Then the priest may add: 'Let us offer each other a sign of peace.' [If he does, then] All exchange some sign of peace and love, according to local custom. The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers."

New: "154. ... The people answer, 'Et cum spiritu tuo ...' Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, 'Offerte vobis pacem' [literally, 'Offer each other peace']. The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers ..."

The Latin phrase translated as "may" (old) and "when appropriate" (new) is "pro opportunitate." This is an idiomatic expression found in many Church documents, wherein it connotes the idea of "optional" (in this case, according to the priest's choice/judgment).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 07, 2003.

Regina,

What isn't understandable, to me, is that we don't seem to mind that Our Lord's *entire* Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is about to be placed into a hand which has been sneezed into.

This is the part I don't get. Christ didn't come to visit the saved, they have no need of it. He came to help those most in need of his help, the lost, sinners, lepers, Christ turned his back on no one, and did not want his followers IMO thinking they were too good for someone else.

It is not somehow "disrespectful" for someone who is sick and could have used this as an excuse to stay home to go to church to be with the Lord. Also, in case you are unaware, the person who has germ- infested hands ALSO has a germ-infested mouth. Are you saying that someone who is sick is to *unclean* to receive Christ? I doubt it. I think you are making a value judgement against your fellow man, saying he is UNWORTHY to receive Christ for some reason.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

Regina,

What isn't understandable, to me, is that we don't seem to mind that Our Lord's *entire* Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is about to be placed into a hand which has been sneezed into.

This is the part I don't get. Christ didn't come to visit the saved, they have no need of it. He came to help those most in need of his help, the lost, sinners, lepers, Christ turned his back on no one, and did not want his followers IMO thinking they were too good for someone else.

It is not somehow "disrespectful" for someone who is sick and could have used this as an excuse to stay home to go to church to be with the Lord. Also, in case you are unaware, the person who has germ- infested hands ALSO has a germ-infested mouth. Therefore you should be Just as offended if they are taking communiom by mouth. Are you saying that someone who is sick is to *unclean* to receive Christ? I doubt it. I think you are making a value judgement against your fellow man, saying he is UNWORTHY to receive Christ for some reason.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

I'm apparently not doing a good job of explaining what I mean. Let me try one last time.

This isn't about me thinking someone is unworthy to receive Our Lord, or about how a sick person shouldn't receive Our Lord. I have no right to say the former about anyone, for no one is more unworthy than myself, and as to the latter, I say if you're sick, you need Christ all the more!

The point I was trying to make is this: If we think our little hands deserve better than a booger riddled hand, doesn't Our Lord's entire Flesh and Blood deserve better too?

My arguement against Communion in the hand has very little to do with cold germs, in all honesty. I believe that, if we aren't accepting ordinary food at Communion, our outward actions shouldn't look as though we were. When I eat in a restaurant, I eat what I've been served, myself. The waiter doesn't feed me. Being fed Our Lord's Flesh and Blood directly from the consecrated hands of a priest demonstrates the seriousness of the Sacrament, and that it's not just ordinary food we are receiving. It demonstrates humility and surrendering to God. It sets us apart from heretics who regard their "communion," which they take by hand, as only a *symbol* of God.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 08, 2003.

Regina,

When I eat in a restaurant, I eat what I've been served, myself. The waiter doesn't feed me. Being fed Our Lord's Flesh and Blood directly from the consecrated hands of a priest demonstrates the seriousness of the Sacrament, and that it's not just ordinary food we are receiving. It demonstrates humility and surrendering to God.

That's fine that you are reverent to God. The Jews were the same way, and couldn't do some things while unclean, etc. What made our relationship with Christ different than the Jews of the Old Testament's relationship with God is the *personal* nature of the relationship. You can approach your faith in any way you want, but if all you think about when you think of Christ is respect and fear, you IMO are really missing the big picture.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Regina,

to make one point perfectly clear, i take communion on the tongue, mostly because i feel it is more respectful. perhaps that is just nostalgia as well though.

HOWEVER, i dont think that we can condemn people for taking communion in the hand. why not? because Christ himself most did not place the bread into the mouth of each disciple. if Christ is our ultimate example, then i dont think we can condemn one of his actions as wrong. just a thought...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 08, 2003.

Frank

What made our relationship with Christ different than the Jews of the Old Testament's relationship with God is the *personal* nature of the relationship.

Of course, but similarly we don't (or should never) approach Our Lord in Holy Communion with an "unclean" soul. Now, no one's soul is completely clean, but if one is in a state of grace (through a true sorrow for sins, good Confession and penance), Our Lord desires with profound love for us to approach Him.

We need to focus on the personal relationship each of us has with Him, too. But I think the idea of a "personal relationship" goes too far today. For instance I was taught in school, "Jesus is our friend who loves us." Is this true? Absolutely. The Best and Truest Friend we will ever have. But it's an incomplete lesson and it suggests that Christ and His children are on the same equal footing that we are with our friends here on this Earth. We aren't.

You can approach your faith in any way you want, but if all you think about when you think of Christ is respect and fear, you IMO are really missing the big picture.

That certainly isn't all I think about. But by the same token, if all one thinks about when he thinks of Christ is a "pal" (and I'm not suggesting you do, Frank, honestly) or something along those lines, they miss the big picture, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul,

HOWEVER, i dont think that we can condemn people for taking communion in the hand. why not?

I don't "condemn" people, just the practice.

because Christ himself most did not place the bread into the mouth of each disciple. if Christ is our ultimate example, then i dont think we can condemn one of his actions as wrong. just a thought...

But, as I explained to Paul in the "banned topic?" thread, Christ insituted the Holy Priesthood at the Last Supper. Therefore, the Apostles taking the Bread (big B) from Him and eating It is exactly the same way it is done at Mass. As the Apostles did, the Priest "takes and eats" too.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 08, 2003.

Regina,

Just as an FYI, when I was looking up the eucharist in the hand quote by St. Basil I came across this from St. Justin Martyr, explaining Christian practice of the day:

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

I think you'll find then that there's a pretty good history of being a community in the early church as well, and therefore don't think you should disdain it. It obviously USED to occur, why wouldn't you wish to be a REAL tradtionalist and return to it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Sometimes, it's funny to get a glimpse at what you REAL traditionalists are up to.

Be not afraid? I'd be very afraid if I were you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 09, 2003.

Jake,

What scares you about that Catholic revival? I would have preferred the priest to be dressed in the traditional black shirt/white collar, but I have no problems with Catholics expressing their faith outside of the Mass in the fashion described. Unless I am missing something.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), October 09, 2003.

I have no problems with Catholics expressing their faith outside of the Mass in the fashion described

I know.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 09, 2003.