A Kiss is Never Just a Kiss
When the U.S. bishops meet in Chicago June 15-17, 1995, they will discuss
and vote on a proposal to move the kiss of peace from its current location
after the Lord's Prayer to a new location in the eucharistic liturgy. The
proposal places the sign of peace before the presentation of gifts (which
used to be called the offertory). If the bishops adopt this proposal, they
may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The kiss of peace was restored to the Roman missal in 1970 as part of the liturgical
reforms initiated by Vatican II. In the United States, the kiss of peace
is rarely a real kiss. Rather the congregation is asked to exchange a
sign of peace, which for most people is a handshake. Family members, lovers,
or close friends might kiss or embrace or touch cheeks in the continental
fashion. But the vast majority of people in the assembly shake hands,
Wa gesture that Americans are more comfortable with.
When the kiss of peace was restored to the liturgy, many people at first
found it disconcerting. From their earliest years they had been trained
not to talk in church. Suddenly in the middle of the most sacred part of
the mass they were being told to kiss or shake hands with the people around
them.
Most Catholics soon accepted the practice, and for many it is one of
the high points of the liturgy. In some congregations, the exchange of
peace is a quick, quiet, token gesture among strangers. In other congregations,
it is an explosive and joyful event that goes on for some time as friends
exchange greetings.
But some complain that although the sign of peace is a good idea, its
place before Communion is distracting and irreverent. Some bishops appear
to share this view. They argue that before Communion the congregation should
be preparing to receive the body and blood of Christ and not greeting one
another. The people should be facing toward Jesus and not toward one another.
In its crudest form, this argument smacks of an individualistic piety
that sees the Eucharist as something between "me and Jesus" with the other
people in the congregation only being distractions. Some of the people
who complain about the kiss of peace even object to singing at Communion
because it distracts them from preparing to receive Jesus and from making
their private thanksgiving. Those defending the present location of the
sign of peace respond, "Is there any better preparation for Communion than
expressing our love for our neighbors?" The kiss of peace is seen by them
as a gesture of unity and communion that will be sacramentalized in Communion.
In order to sort through these arguments, it is necessary first to examine
the nature of symbolic gestures and then to examine history of the kiss
of peace in the Roman liturgy.
Human beings communicate in a number of ways: through the written words,
through spoken words, through music, through art, and through gestures.
Gestures are nonverbal, symbolic actions used by one person to communicate
with another person. A police officer directing traffic uses gestures to
communicate with drivers in their cars. Drivers, either through training
or through observation, have learned how to interpret these gestures.
The meaning of a gesture is not always clear to the person to whom the
gesture is addressed. When I was a high school, a new teacher from Germany
asked for volunteers to put the homework assignment on the black board.
When no one raised his hand to volunteer, he said, "I want to see some
fingers." The students immediately showed him some fingers whose meaning
he luckily did not understand.
Gestures can have different meaning in different contexts. Extending
the right arm in a class room means the student wants to be called on,
extending it at an auction means you are making a bid, extending it at
a Nazi rally means something else.
Often when the meaning of a gesture is not clear, people add words to
make the meaning clearer. If you walk into a bar and hold up two fingers,
the meaning is clarified if you say "Peace," or "Two beers," or "A table
for two." Words also help interpret gestures in a liturgical setting.
The meaning of many gestures is culturally determined. Gestures can
even have exactly the opposite meanings to different people. To wear a
hat in a synagogue is a sign of respect; to wear a hat in a Catholic church
is a sign of disrespect unless you are a bishop.
In Casablanca, "a kiss is just a kiss," but in real life it is more
complicated. A kiss, an embrace, and a handshake are examples of gestures
used to communicate some meaning. They are forms of nonverbal communication,
symbolic gestures. The meaning these symbolic gestures is not always self-evident.
A kiss can have many meanings depending on the persons who kiss, the
place, the time, and the culture. Depending on the circumstances a kiss
can be an invitation to a sexual encounter, a greeting, a good-bye, an
expression of a special (spousal, familial) relationship, an expression
of sympathy to someone in pain, an expression of reconciliation (kiss and
make up), an act of aggression (if the kiss is unwanted), or even an act
of betrayal (as with Judas). It can also be a sign of subservience as in
kissing feet.
Similarly a hand shake can have many meanings: "hello," "good-bye,"
a sign of agreement (let's shake on it), an indication of a promise or
commitment, a sign that a conflict is not personal (shake hands and come
out fighting). It can also be a sign of congratulations (when getting a
diploma) or a sign of reconciliation. Handshakes can take place between
strangers or intimate friends.
What is the meaning of the sign of peace in its present location in
the liturgy? Coming as it does after the Lord's Prayer, some would see
it as a sign of reconciliation: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those who trespass against us...." The sign of peace fulfills that prayer
through an action--we show that we forgive each other and are at peace
with one another. Following this interpretation, some priests introduce
the sign of peace by saying, "Let us show that we are at peace with one
another" although these words are not in the liturgical texts. The new
Sacramentary proposed by the International Commission on English in the
Liturgy does give as the second option: "As children of the God of peace,
let us offer one another a sign of reconciliation and peace." The third
option is: "Brothers and sisters, let us offer one another the peace of
the risen Christ."
The prayer that immediately precedes the sign of peace does not speak
of mutual forgiveness or reconciliation. It is an unusual prayer, one of
the few prayers in the Eucharistic liturgy addressed to Jesus. Most prayers
in the Eucharist are addressed to God, that is to the Father. This prayer
quotes the words of Jesus in John's gospel giving his peace to his apostles
at the Last Supper. In John's gospel, he then speaks of not being distressed
or fearful. He speaks of reconciliation elsewhere, not here. The prayer
asks Jesus to "look not on our sins, but on the faith of your church, and
grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for every and
ever." The prayer does not even ask for forgiveness, it asks that Jesus
simply ignore our sins.
The presider then says, "The peace of the Lord be with you always."
These are not words requesting forgiveness from the congregation, nor are
they words expressing the priest's forgiveness of the people for their
sins against him. Thus we are not talking about mutual reconciliation.
Rather the words sound like a blessing or a prayer: Peace be with you.
He is asking that peace, a gift of Jesus, be with the congregation.
The presider or deacon then says, "Let us offer each other the sign
of peace." Although numerous clerics have attempted to always turn the
sign of peace into a sign of reconciliation, most of their efforts have
failed and rightly so. There is a tendency among some clerics to believe
that sin and reconciliation must be brought up during the liturgy every
60 seconds or the people of God will forget that they are sinners in need
of forgiveness. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving, and petition must be constantly
interrupted with a remembrance of sin. This is clearly at work here in
turning the sign of peace into a sign of reconciliation or a mini-penitential
rite.
The people in the assembly don't buy it. Despite what the priest might
say, most people in the congregation do not see the sign of peace in its
present location as a sign of reconciliation. There are exceptions: The
family that had an argument in the car on the way to church; the parish
ripped by racial tension; the old enemies who accidentally sat next to
each other. But the average person turning to his neighbor is not thinking
of his sins against that neighbor or of that person's sins against him.
In many cases he does not even know the person's name.
How does the assembly view the sign of peace? Too often during the kiss
of peace, people are simply saying hello to their neighbors. Some, like
the presider, are wishing the gift of Christ's peace on their neighbors.
They are bestowing a blessing. They say, "Christ's peace be with you."
They do not say, "Let's be at peace with each other." The exchange is done
with smiles of joy, not with tears of regret. The kiss of peace can also
be a physical gesture indicating an openness to communion with one's neighbors
with whom one will be united in Christ through Communion.
The Pastoral Introduction to the Order of the Mass proposed by the International
Commission on English in the Liturgy gives one of the best interpretations
of the kiss of peace in its present location:
The exchange of peace prior to the reception of communion is an acknowledgment
that Christ whom we receive in the sacrament is already present in our
neighbor. In this exchange the assembly acknowledges the insistent Gospel
truth that communion with God in Christ is enjoyed in communion with our
sisters and brothers in Christ. The rite of peace is not an expression
merely of human solidarity or good will; it is rather an opening of ourselves
and our neighbors to a challenge and a gift from beyond ourselves. Like
the Amen at communion, it is the acceptance of a challenge, a profession
of faith that we are members, one with another, in the body of Christ.
Should the sign of peace be moved or stay where it is? Before considering
that question, it is helpful to look at the history of the kiss of peace
and its place in the liturgy.
Kissing and hugging is an old tradition among Christians. After telling
the Corinthians to live in harmony and peace, St. Paul tells them to greet
one another with a holy kiss. In Romans, after greeting a series of people,
Paul writes, "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All of the churches of
Christ send you greeting." Thus to the divided Corinthian community he
makes it a sign of reconciliation, but to the Roman community it expresses
greetings of affection and love. Peter tells his readers to greet one another
with the embrace of true love. He then immediately concludes his letter
with "Peace to all of you who are in Christ." The kiss was sometimes, but
not always a sign of reconciliation.
Kissing at Christian liturgies also has a long history. According to
the ancient custom, adults were baptized and then confirmed by the bishop
who immediately welcomed the new Christian with a kiss. Catechumens were
not to give or receive the kiss of peace. According to Joseph Jungman,
the famous Jesuit historian of liturgy, this was the Christian appropriation
of a secular practice when a kiss was the sign of initiation into a fraternity
or society (The Early Liturgy, p. 128). Thus the Christians took
a secular practice and incorporated it into the sacrament of initiation
where it took on added meaning. While the practice died out in secular
society as culture changed, its meaning in the Christian community continued
although it degenerated through German influence to a tap on the cheek.
The first record of a kiss in the Eucharistic liturgy goes back to the
oldest recorded description of the liturgy in the "First Apology" of Saint
Justin in the mid-second century. Justin describes the liturgy of the word
as including readings from the "memoirs of the apostles or the writings
of the prophets." Instructions and exhortations from the presider follow
the readings and then all "rise together and pray." He also reports that
"Having ended the prayer, we salute one another with a kiss." Then the
gifts are brought forward. Thus the kiss occurred immediately after the
prayers that concluded the liturgy of the word. Today this would mean placing
the kiss of peace after the prayers of the faithful.
What did this kiss mean in a mid-second century liturgy? Justin does
not explain it, but it is worth noting that he does not use the word peace.
Nor does he use the word reconciliation. The word "salute" implies some
kind of greeting or acknowledgment of each other. One possibility is that
the kiss at this point is a holdover from the time when the liturgy of
the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist took place at separate times
and places. The liturgy of the word would have taken place on Saturday,
on the same day the synagogue met. The liturgy of the Eucharist would be
celebrated on Sunday, the day of the Lord's resurrection. The kiss could
have concluded the liturgy of the word before people left. When the two
liturgies were combined, the kiss was kept after the prayers ending the
liturgy of the word.
Whatever its origins, the kiss began to be interpreted and explained
in different ways. This is not surprising since a kiss is a symbolic expression
open to different meanings.
Kissing at the conclusion of prayers appears to have been a common Christian
custom. It could have been as spontaneous as a family today hugging and
kissing each other after saying the rosary together. Tertullian (d. 230)
asks, "What prayer is complete without the holy kiss?" He saw the kiss
as a seal of the prayer that preceded it. Like the "Amen," it represents
assent to what has gone before.
Matthew's gospel (5:23-24) provided an alternative meaning for the kiss:
"If you bring your gift to the altar and there recall that your brother
or sister has anything against you, leave your gift at the altar, go first
to be reconciled with your brother or sister, and then come and offer your
gift." Although Matthew does not mention a kiss, it is easy to see how
preachers would put this text together with the kiss of peace that took
place right before the gifts were brought to the altar. Thus a new meaning
was given to an old gesture.
Joseph Jungman reports: "The original place of the kiss of peace was,
in reality, at the end of the service of reading and prayers rather
than at the start of the Sacrifice-Mass. According to the ancient Christian
conception, it formed the seal and pledge of the prayers that preceded
it. But after the service of readings and prayers had been joined to the
celebration of the Eucharist, regard for our Lord's admonition (Matthew
5:22 f.) about proper dispositions in one who wishes to make an offering
would probably have led to placing the kiss of peace (as guarantee of fraternal
sentiment) closer to the moment when one is 'bringing his gift before the
altar.'" (The Mass of the Roman Rite, p. 480).
How did the kiss get moved from the end of the liturgy of the word to
its present location after the Lord's Prayer and before Communion? The
Roman liturgy may have picked up this practice from the African liturgy
where some historians think the Lord's Prayer originally concluded the
prayers of the faithful and thus was followed by the kiss. When Africans
moved the Lord's Prayer to after the breaking of the bread and just before
the Communion (because of "give us this day our daily bread..."), the kiss
went with it. St. Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) explains the kiss of peace
as an enactment of the petition, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive...."
Thus it became an expression of reconciliation immediately prior to Communion.
But the first indication of a new location for the kiss in Rome was
in 416 when Pope Innocent I wrote to the bishop of Gubbio telling him that
he should follow the Roman custom of having the kiss at the end of the
Eucharistic prayer. The bishop had been following the more ancient practice
of having it "before carrying out the mysteries."
Innocent's reason for placing the kiss after the Eucharistic prayer
is interesting: "By it the people give token of consent to everything performed
in the mysteries and celebrated in the church." As with Tertullian, the
kiss is a seal or guarantee of the prayer that has just been recited. And
what greater prayer is there than the Eucharistic prayer, so the kiss goes
at the end of it. Innocent did not see the kiss as a sign of reconciliation.
At the time of Pope Innocent I, the Lord's Prayer was recited after
the breaking of the bread immediately before Communion. Gregory the Great
(590-604) rearranged the Communion liturgy moving the Lord's Prayer to
immediately after the Eucharistic prayer, followed by the embolism ("Deliver
us, Lord, from every evil..."). The kiss followed the embolism, quite a
distance from the Eucharistic prayer it was supposed to be sealing. On
the other hand, the Roman practice now followed the African of having the
kiss after the Lord's Prayer although in Rome the Lord's Prayer now occurred
before the breaking of the bread. Coming after the Our Father ("forgive
us our trespasses as we forgive..."), the kiss now took on a reconciliation
theme. The prayer for peace ("Lord Jesus Christ...") before the greeting
of peace appeared first in Germany in the 11th century replacing older
prayers for peace and was adopted in the Missal of Pius V.
The kiss of peace kept being bounced around. In the pre-Vatican II high
mass the kiss of peace was after the Agnus Dei where the last petition
is "grant us peace." The kiss of peace came after the Agnus Dei despite
the fact that the Pax Domini ("The peace of the Lord be always with you")
was before the Agnus Dei. After Vatican II the kiss of peace was returned
to its Gregorian location following the Pax Domini but before the breaking
of the bread.
The variety of practices in the Christian churches is almost endless.
In some Eastern liturgies the kiss of peace occurred before the Eucharistic
Prayer but after the presentation of gifts. In others it took place after
the Nicene Creed to indicate an affirmation of the creed. In others, the
priest's or bishop's hand is kissed before receiving Communion from him.
In contemporary Anglican, Lutheran, and Protestant liturgies the kiss is
returned to the end of the liturgy of the word. Simply for ecumenical reasons,
returning the kiss of peace to its ancient position has merit because it
would put the Roman liturgy closer to the practice in the Eastern and Protestant
liturgies.
By the time of Gregory the Great, the kiss of peace was being seen as
a natural preparation for Communion. Even when Communion was received by
the sick or others outside of mass, the kiss of peace would be exchanged
before Communion. In some places those who did not receive Communion could
not exchange the kiss of peace. But in some monasteries where the congregation
only received Communion at the Sunday Eucharist, the kiss of peace became
the high point of the daily liturgy. A common restriction on the kiss of
peace was that only men could give it to men, and only women could give
it to women. This rule was easy to keep in churches where the sexes were
separated, a custom also practiced in the synagogue.
By the tenth century the kiss of peace developed a hierarchical flavor.
The kiss began with the bishop and descended through the ranks of the clergy
to the laity in the congregation. No one can pass on the kiss of peace
until he has first received it from above. This practice led to unedifying
disputes among the clergy over who would receive the kiss of peace first.
Thus the kiss of peace became a symbol of hierarchical power and precedence,
a perversion of its original meaning.
When a priest presided alone, the practice evolved into kissing the
altar and then passing the kiss of peace to the people. By kissing the
altar, which symbolizes Christ, the priest symbolically receives the kiss
of peace from Christ which then passes through the congregation. In France
the symbolism was more graphic because the priest kissed the host before
passing on the kiss of peace. This "passing on" is similar to the practice
on Holy Saturday where the flame (the light of Christ) from the Paschal
candle is passed through the congregation.
Today the priest no longer kisses the altar prior to extending the kiss
of peace so the idea of passing on something he receives is lost. To forbid
people in the assembly from exchanging the sign of peace until they have
somehow received it from the priest is today seen as too "clerical" and
contrary to the view of the church as the people of God sharing a common
priesthood through baptism. As a practical matter, passing the kiss of
peace along in a large church takes time. So for theological and practical
reasons this practice has been dropped.
Whether the priest should only exchange peace with those in the sanctuary
or whether he should go into the assembly to exchange the kiss of peace
is a debated point. Some argue that he has already extended peace to the
entire congregation and need not give it to any in the assembly. But if
this is the case, why does he extend the sign of peace to people in the
sanctuary? On this issue, liberals and conservatives are opposed to moderates.
Liberals, reacting to the "pass it along" model of the kiss, argue that
the people do not need the priest to help them exchange peace with each
other. Conservatives are reluctant to leave "priest territory," that is
the sanctuary. Moderates simply respond to the people who seem to enjoy
receiving the kiss of peace from the presider. Their moving back and forth
also breaks down the artificial barrier between the sanctuary and the assembly.
Almost two thousand years of liturgical practice shows that in the Catholic
church a kiss is never just a kiss. Rather it is a symbol into which has
been poured many different meanings. What does this tell us about the proposal
to move the kiss of peace? Six points are worth noting:
First, the kiss of peace has been moved before and there is nothing
wrong with moving it again for a good reason.
Second, the kiss has been given different meanings by the Christian
community in different periods of its history. There is nothing wrong with
endowing it with new meaning today if it fits our current Eucharistic understanding
and practice.
Third, the most ancient practice is to have the kiss at the conclusion
of the liturgy of the word. The Roman and African practice was unusual.
In a community where history and tradition are important, the ancient placement
must be given serious consideration, especially when it is used by other
churches. The most ancient practice supports the proposal to move the kiss
of peace to the conclusion of the liturgy of the word.
Fourth, in its original form, the kiss of peace was not a sign of reconciliation.
In a community where history and tradition are important, attempts to always
turn the kiss of peace into a sign of reconciliation must be questioned.
The most ancient practice does not support the idea of the kiss of peace
as a sign of reconciliation. On the other hand, less ancient interpretations
of the kiss of peace as a sign of reconciliation are not necessarily invalid.
Nor are interpretations of the kiss of peace as a symbol of unity and love
invalid. The community has a right to give symbols new and different meanings.
Fifth, the kiss was originally seen as a seal or guarantee of the prayer
just recited. Like the "Amen," it is a congregational affirmation, a pledge
to incarnate in their lives what they have heard in the liturgy of the
word. In this sense, it is much more like "shaking on a deal" than "kissing
and making up." It symbolizes the people affirming and renewing the community's
covenant proclaimed in the liturgy of the word. An essential part of that
covenant is reconciliation, but reconciliation is not the only message.
Whether or not this original meaning of the kiss can be recaptured is uncertain,
but this interpretation would have a better chance of being understood
if the kiss were at the conclusion of the liturgy of the word rather than
anywhere else in the liturgy.
Sixth, most people in the assembly currently see the kiss of peace either
as a blessing they bestow on each other or simply as a chance to say hello
to their neighbors. Attempts to change this view are probably not going
to succeed as long as the liturgical text remains unchanged and as long
as the kiss remains where it is.
So, should the kiss of peace be moved? A joint study by the bishops'
Committee on the Liturgy and the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions
revealed some dissatisfaction with the current place of the sign of peace
and recommended it be moved. The recommendation presented to the bishops
at their November 1994 meeting proposed moving the kiss of peace "to its
more ancient position after the Liturgy of the Word and at the beginning
of the Liturgy of the Eucharist" (emphasis added).
This is a surprisingly inaccurate statement coming from such a knowledgeable
source. As we have learned from Joseph Jungman, it would be more accurate
to describe the more ancient position as "at the end of the Liturgy
of the Word and before the Liturgy of the Eucharist." The point
is not as trivial as it first appears. Does the kiss of peace conclude
(look backward to) the liturgy of the word, or does it begin (look forward
to) the liturgy of the Eucharist? Or is it a neutral hinge between the
two?
The proposal goes on to quote Matthew 5:23-24 ("if you bring your gift
to the altar...") in defense of moving the kiss of peace. The proposed
text has the priest introduce the sign of peace with the following or similar
words:
The only saving grace is that the actual words are not mandatory. Thus
a presider could refer to something in the day's Scriptures while introducing
the sign of peace. For example: "Jesus told us, 'Love one another as I
have loved you.' To show our love for one another, let us extend to one
another the love and peace of Christ." Or another example: "Jesus came
to establish his Father's kingdom, a kingdom of justice and peace. As a
community we commit ourselves to working for justice and peace. The peace
and justice of Christ be with you always. Let us pledge peace and justice
to one another."
But if the bishops really want to always use the kiss of peace as a
means of implementing Matthew 5:23-14, then they should move the penitential
rite to the end of the liturgy of the word and conclude the penitential
rite with the kiss of peace. In this rearrangement, the penitential rite
would be seen as a response to the call for repentance and reconciliation
as proclaimed in the scriptures and the homily. There is a lot to be said
for such a rearrangement which is used in the Zairian liturgy approved
by Rome. It follows the pattern of "proclamation and response" which is
a fundamental liturgical principle. The downside (or upside depending on
your point of view) is that the homilist would be encouraged by this structure
to always conclude his homily with a references to sin, forgiveness, and
reconciliation.
If the bishops want to always make the kiss of peace a sign of reconciliation,
another possibility is moving it to the end of the penitential rite at
its current location at the beginning of the liturgy of the word. Such
a move, however, would give the penitential rite more emphasis than most
people believe it deserves, and it reverses the pattern of "proclamation
and response" to "response and proclamation." If we are truly reconciled
and at peace this soon in the liturgy, why listen to the word of God?
Finally, some people believe that the kiss of peace is liturgically
unsalvageable and would like to have it occur before the liturgy begins.
Here it would revert to its secular meaning as a greeting or part of an
introduction. Many parishes have already introduced a greeting, initiated
by a lay person before the priest enters the assembly. Since it occurs
before the liturgy starts, there is no law against doing this. Such a greeting
fosters a sense of community. When properly done, it introduces strangers
to one another or allows greetings between friends who have not yet spoken
to each other. This is not the time for families and friends who came to
church in the same car to shake hands!
Besides fostering community, this introductory hand shake also helps
people understand that the kiss of peace is not just saying hello. It is
different. You say hello to someone you have not yet spoken to, but you
exchange the sign of peace with everyone (family, friends, and strangers)
even if you had a long chat with them before the liturgy.
Liturgists point to other reasons for moving the kiss of peace. Currently
the Communion rite contains too many prayers and actions that overpower
the breaking of the bread so that it is hardly noticed. Eliminating these
prayers and moving the kiss would simplify the Communion rite and give
greater attention to the breaking of the bread, an important symbolic gesture
from apostolic time.
The bishops should vote to return the kiss of peace to the end of the
liturgy of the word. It should go after the prayers of the faithful which
is its most ancient position.
How the kiss will be interpreted by the clergy and by the people will
be interesting to watch. As a symbolic gesture it will still be open to
many interpretations. Its interpretation will be heavily influenced by
how it is introduced by the presider. If the bishops' proposal is any indication,
it will be introduced as a sign of reconciliation and not as a seal and
pledge. Augustine will triumph over Tertullian and the more ancient tradition.
Matthew will triumph over John.
Some impact on interpreting the kiss of peace may come from the prayers
of the faithful which will immediately precede it. If the prayers speak
of peace, the approach to peace in the prayers will flow over to impact
the interpretation of the kiss of peace. These prayers may influence how
the priest introduces the sign of peace. In the long run, the people who
write the prayers of the faithful could have more influence than the bishops
over how the kiss of peace is interpreted.
Will the bishops at their June meeting vote to move the kiss of peace?
Those who respect ancient traditions will vote for it. Those who place
a high value on ecumenism will vote for it. Those who think the present
location is disruptive and irreverent will vote for it. Those who are afraid
of upsetting their people with a change will vote against it. Those who
are afraid of upsetting Rome by proposing a change will vote against it.
Those who believe the change is motivated by a "Me and Jesus" mindset will
vote against it. Those who would like to see the sign of peace as an expression
of loving communion rather than reconciliation will vote against it. Those
who are confused will probably vote against it too.
If the Liturgy Committee loses the vote on making the move mandatory,
it will propose making the move optional. This would allow the presider
to decide which location is best for his community (hopefully in consultation
with his community). This is probably the best decision. After a few years
we can see what works best. While to some an option may be confusing, in
fact it is an invitation to creativity. What meaning do we want to give
this symbolic gesture today: a sign of reconciliation, of love of neighbor,
of unity in Christ, of communion with our sisters and brothers in Christ,
of Christ's presence in our neighbors, of the assembly's pledge and commitment
to the word of God, of openness to Christ's presence in our neighbor? Attempts
to mandate one meaning for the whole church may be premature at this point.
It would be better to wait and see where the Spirit lead the community.
After some years of experience and reflection, we might find the meaning
that is best for us today.
But even as an option, the proposal will have to be approved by Rome
where the Congregation for Divine Worship has indicated little enthusiasm
for further reforms of the Eucharistic liturgy. On the other hand, Rome
has already given the Neo-Catechumenate Movement permission to move the
kiss of peace to after the prayers of the faithful. It would be strange
if Rome denied the American bishops the same privilege.
For a report on the action taken by the bishops on the kiss of peace
at their June 1995 meeting, see NCCB Spring 1995 Meeting.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, April 15, 1995
Copyright © 1995 by America
Press
All rights reserved
"Christ reminds us that before we bring our gift to the altar,
we must be reconciled with one another. Together let us be reconciled in
Christ, who puts our hearts and minds at peace."
The priest then extends his hands and gives the greeting of peace: "The
peace of the Lord be with you always." After the people respond "And also
with you," the priest then uses the following or similar words: "Let us
offer one another a sign of reconciliation and peace." The text explicitly
identifies the kiss of peace as a sign of reconciliation. Thus my conclusion,
the bishops appear to be getting ready to do the right thing for the wrong
reason. Once again Augustine and his sense of sin triumphs.
See also