Searching for Origninal source on "Pope requests Sign of Peace review" story

I really wish that the daily edition of L’Osservatore Romano was available IN ENGLISH on the internet WITH full archived versions. That’s a tall order, because at the moment, only the Italian original is available and that only for the current day. At least we can be thankful that the current Weekly edition is available in English.

The problem is that we then have to be content with second hand sources for the original articles, such as this report from the Associated Press which was picked up by Cathnews (wait for it) via an American Website ( Fr Z is carrying the story via Andrea Tornielli. Unfortunately, because the full editions of LOR are not available in their archives on line, neither is the original interview with Cardinal Arinze which is the source of the story.

Oh well, we will have to take Associated Press and Andrea Tornielli on trust on this one then.

On the issue itself, however, I am with Fr Z. on this one. Where the sign of peace is now is where it always has been in the Roman rite, and it belongs with the emphasis on “peace” at that point in the Liturgy (“I leave you peace, my peace I give you”…, “The Peace of the Lord be with you always”…, “Lamb of God, grant us peace”). Funny how some traditionalists – because of an understandable aversion to the manner in which the exchange of peace is often carried out – are so keen to see this “inorganic”, “unilateral” alteration made to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite when they are usually so keen on the unchangeable nature of the liturgy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Searching for Origninal source on "Pope requests Sign of Peace review" story

  1. Bob Catholic says:

    Herr Schutz,

    I have no source but did the Holy Father not flag this issue in Sacramentum Caritatis where footnote 150 states:

    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.); cf. Propositio 23.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Er, I suspect those “some traditionalists” you talk of, would rather the whole exercise of inorganic change represented by the promulgation of the novus ordus, have been something that never took place.

    In that context, surely it’s more than a bit of a cheap shot to cry “who are these hypocrits?”

  3. Schütz says:

    Marco: Of course! We were all expecting it. But that’s an old news story. The new news story is that it is happening, but we can’t read the original announcement about this in LOR because it isn’t availabe online or in English.

    Trad Anon: Welcome back. My grandmother used to say “You can spit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets full the quickest.” Kinda relevant to this discussion. You can’t wish the Ordinary Form away. It’s here to stay. Given that, surely the object of any Traditionalist cause would be to see the OF evolve in a way that is more faithful to the original intention of the Council Fathers, ie. more in conformity with the EF. I’m not calling Traditionalists “hypocrits”, but I am suggesting that the way they play the game is a little odd.

  4. Peregrinus says:

    Actually, Fr Z doesn’t say that the Peace “is now is where it always has been in the Roman rite”; he says that it “has been where it is in the Roman Rite [b]for a very long time[/b]”.

    I’m no expert, but if I recall correctly it used to be just before the offertory, in the Roman rite as in the Ambrosian and Gallican, and as it still is in all the Eastern traditions. That it what Pope Benedict is referring to in [i]Sacramentum Caritatix[/i] when he mentions “ancient and venerable customs”.

    I don’t know at what point it was moved in the Roman rite, but I recall reading that there was a transitional phase in which the Roman rite marked the Peace twice; once at the offertory and again before the Agnus Dei.

    There have been a number of changes in the celebration of the Peace in the Roman Rite, not only in its placement in the broader liturgy but in the mode of celebration. Originally a kiss, it became an embrace, and then a rather stylised embrace; originally exchanged by all the congregation, it came to be restricted to the celebrants, acolytes and choir clergy. Then it was confined to High Masses only, and for practical purposes it all but disappeared. There was argument over some of these changes at the time; in particular at one point Rome had to be quite forceful over its preference for just before the Agnus Dei. It’s not entirely clear to me why Fr Z considers these changes “organic”, but a restoration of the former position would be “artificial”.

  5. Past Elder says:

    If it were more in conformity with the “EF” it wouldn’t exist at all except at Solemn High Mass, and never at Masses for the dead.

    Calling something that didn’t even exist until roughly forty years ago the “Ordinary Form” of a centuries-old right isn’t playing the game a little oddly?

    If you think the intent of the “traditionalist” cause is to see the “OF” evolve more in conformity with the “EF”, or that conformity with the “EF” was the intent of the Council Fathers with the “OF”, you understand neither.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.