Glad-handing in the middle of Mass #4, follow-up on previous 3. Investigating its post-Vatican II developments and what Benedict said in 2007 after the 2005 synod on the Eucharist . . .

In 2002 a Catholic U. graduate student delivered a history of the kiss of peace in the mass, along the way comparing “Roman” with Anglican and several Protestant liturgies, when all were “nearly identical.”

Closest to each other were Roman and Anglican, with the only notable difference being when in the mass the kiss of peace was found. Romans did it after the Eucharistic Prayer, the consecration, Anglicans in their 1979 Book of Common Prayer before.

Thereby hangs a tale.

Benedict XIV had something to say about it in his APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS.

A lot, in fact in the aftermath of the 2005 Synod of Bishops, when there had been discussion about the need for “greater restraint” in this gesture, which “can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion.”

Benedict: “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 neighbors . . . “

So. Shaking hands with all the neighbors? Not quite, said our second-most-recent pope, speaking in tones of, you might say, fatherly concern.

Baylor U. Prof. Michael P. Foley expanded on the subject in his Whence and Whither of the Kiss of Peace in the Roman Rite, citing the 2005 synod in its greeting of peace having “in certain cases,” assumed “a dimension that could be problematic,” as for example “when it is too prolonged or even when it causes confusion.”

Benedict again in his exhortation:

Taking into account ancient and venerable customs and the wishes expressed by the Synod Fathers, I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord's insistence that we be reconciled with others before offering our gifts to God (cf. Mt 5:23 ff.) . . .

Not just before communion, no.

Michael P. Foley again:

In his post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI . . . mentions the sign of peace becoming “exaggerated” by emotion and causing “a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion” [and] calls for “greater restraint” and “sobriety” in the gesture.

It’s not a new problem:

Indeed, dissatisfaction with the rite of peace is as old as its reintroduction. In 1978, Bruce Harbert noted, “The sign of peace . . . is often either distant or chilly or trivialized to the level of a superficial chumminess.” [From his “The Church, the Kingdom and the English Mass,” The Clergy Review.]

The problem is, you might say, ecumenical. Other denominations have moved one or other “peace ritual” into their services and found similar problems.

A Lutheran theologian speaks of “real incoherence and inappropriateness” in his community’s Sharing of the Peace, describing it as “mawkish, unbecoming, and pointless.”

A Presbyterian minister:

“The longer I am in ministry, the more convinced I become that the church simply does not know what to do with tradition of ‘passing the peace.’”

Some Anglicans . . .

. . . bemoan a “touchy-feely element” that has crept into their kiss of peace, an element “which assumes the right to intrude on another person’s defensible space” and promotes “a whole pseudo-communitarian ideology” reinforced by a “cult of raw spontaneity.”

Let’s hear it for articulate expression!

The Anglican Church in Canada, “combining wryness and formality, reminded its flock that the peace is a “sign of reconciliation,” not “a foretaste of the coffee hour.”

Oh my. Say it again, Virginia Dare.

Michael P. Foley:

Suffering at the hands of sentimental, unseemly, and meaningless demonstrations of peace appears to be so common in different Christian circles that it may, ironically, be one of their stronger ecumenical sources of commiseration and solidarity. [!]

Further:

We ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties.

Pity the poor parish priest!

The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again.

The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning.

Yes!

He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes it.

Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director.

Yes and double yes.

Note:

The kiss of peace is not obligatory; it is done as opportunity presents itself. In these cases . . . each exchanges greetings with those nearby, without leaving one’s place and creating a distraction. [!]

Is it optional? May the priest remove it?

Yes, it’s optional, based on the discretion of the priest celebrant at Mass . . .

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that the priest celebrant asks the congregation to exchange the sign of peace “when appropriate” (GIRM 154).

It’s at the discretion of the priest celebrant whether it is appropriate . . .

More later on the subject, with attention to options for the reluctant worshiper and speculation why a priest would be reluctant to call it off and so few do . . .