Glad-handing at Mass #6. First, it's a mirror of the overall new-mass problem. For many not all a problem, that is, who should not be thrown under the new-mass bus by overly enthusiastic bishops.
Glad-handing demonstrates what’s wrong with the Novus Ordo mass, gets to the heart of the matter, namely reverence in worship, belief in the Real Presence, the whole ball game.
Benedict XVI said in his 2007 Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:
Certainly this sign [of peace] has great value [and] We can . . . understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration.
Even so, during the [2005] Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before reception of Communion.
A good thing, but:
It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one's immediate neighbours.
Thus spake not Zarathustra but Benedict XVI in the aftermath of the 2005 synod on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church's Life And Mission.
This good idea got lost in the shuffle, however, change of popes and all that.
Lockdown Covid style — thank God for small favors — did away with handshakes and leaning to the next pew or over it for the sake of supposedly sacred contact, and gave us instead, the hand wave at times so multiplied as to make one think of reeds shaken by the wind rather than bouquets of love and appreciation.
Just before communion at that, the ultimate earthly contact with the Lord and Redeemer.
Speaking of which, timing matters, in this case the timing of the sign of peace. It’s been an issue for ages, the latest being in 2014 when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments told Latin-rite bishops that the sign of peace would stay where it is.
It was early in the regime of Pope Francis when the idea was ruled out. However, the congregation said, "if it is foreseen that it will not take place properly," it could be omitted.
And when it is used, it should be done “with dignity” and with awareness that it is not “a liturgical form of "good morning," but a witness to the Christian belief that true peace is a gift of Christ's death and resurrection.”
And bishops were asked to study whether it might be time to find "more appropriate gestures" to replace a sign that uses "familiar and profane gestures of greeting."
They also “should do everything possible to end ‘abuses,’ such as
"The movement of the faithful from their places to exchange the sign of peace amongst themselves."
"The departure of the priest from the altar in order to give the sign of peace to some of the faithful."
Using the sign of peace “at Christmas, Easter, baptisms, weddings, ordinations and funerals to offer holiday greetings, congratulations or condolences.”
The bishops took note of an optional alterative, locating the exchange of peace before the offering in response to Jesus' exhortation in Matthew 5:23-24: "If you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
So. Sermon done with, ditto Creed and petitions, and then comes the offering, once called the offertory. But wait. Give your sign of peace. To the person next to you, having in mind a clearing the deck of hostility and resentment, whatever interferes with openness to all or doing the best you can. It’s a prayerful thing, a petition, wholly acceptable if done in consciousness of that and with due reverence.
Or: As opposed to “. . . the exchange of peace . . . after the consecration because it refers to "the 'paschal kiss' of the risen Christ present on the altar. . . . just before the breaking of the bread during which "the Lamb of God is implored to give us his peace."
And turning to each other and breaking through your growing awareness of what’s to come.
Or: Skip it entirely. Not a problem, said these bishops. It’s up to each of them in his diocese or even the single priest, who might find himself on the wrong side of his bishop assuming the bishop’s a stickler in the matter.
Holier than the church, we might say. Sheer personal preference.