Frogman--I wish I were in your parish instead of mine where social interaction seems to take precedence over everything. For many parishioners, mass is the excuse for having dinner afterwards or having a party. I'm not kidding. I've started the Agnus Dei immediately following the sign of peace because it would go on forever, sometimes even before the priest is ready at the altar just to make sure people know to stop. In many cases, I've gotten through the entire Agnus Dei with people still shaking hands, hugging, kissing, etc. At funerals, the former pastor would walk down the aisle and shake EVERYBODY's hand that was in the church.

How to make it fit? Omit the congregational sign of peace. The only required part is "V/ The peace of the Lord be with you always. R/ And with your spirit." That is the rite of peace. After that, the priest may go directly to the agnus dei.

Other than skipping it, the best thing I can tell you is to work on the overall atmosphere of reverence. Make the church building and the Mass feel so holy and reverent that anything more than a simple handshake would feel like a violation of that very sacred space. Bring back that Eucharistic amazement and awe.

Long term solution? Yes. Should it work? I'm sure of it.

Ben Yanke: Reference?

I'm not sure there's anything we can do as musicians, so it probably isn't worth our worry.

And, even if the invitation is omitted, there's nothing to stop people in the pews from exchanging a sign of peace unbidden. They just will anyway.

Actually, contrary to what I said above, it's also in the GIRM, no 154.

Amen, Chrism. Thank you.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses, guys. Some context, in light of other comments along these lines:

I'm having a hard time personally interpreting the Sign of Peace as making any sense at all in the overall structure of the liturgy. How does it make sense to me, as a worshiper? What place does it have just before the Agnus Dei? Given an authentic understanding of the Mass as a prayer and the Sacrifice, what is its justification?

More to the point, once we understand the broader category of the Sign of Peace in its proper context, what form should the sign of peace take here in America? Should it be handshaking? Should it be something else?

Given that the GIRM delegates the implementation of the sign of peace to the interpretive power of the bishops' council (GIRM 54) --- and presumably, ultimately, the bishop --- properly interpreting when the sign of peace is appropriate will not take Vatican III.

"I'm having a hard time personally interpreting the Sign of Peace as making any sense at all in the overall structure of the liturgy."

Really? Wow.

This is symptomatic of a common trad error. They often emphasize the vertical over the horizontal (rightly so!) but then ignore the horizontal aspect of the liturgy altogether.

You are communing WITH people. It is not right to commune with a man whom you hold in contempt. The Kiss of Peace originated in that all communicants had to greet each other, and if one man refused to greet another, they were asked to settle the matter between them or were both dismissed from the Liturgy.

I had a friend who was a victim of abuse from a close relative, and had only recently begun to process her hatred of this relative over the abuse. She often attended liturgy (Lutheran) with her family, and could not commune because of her resentment of this person. No one was stopping her, but she knew she would "eat and drink judgment" unto herself if she went to the altar rail next to this person.

It is a grave and serious matter to be at peace with those communing with you. I propose that the current liturgical practice is in fact too shallow, though I have no better option. How often does the traditionalist commune with hatred in his heart against the cantor singing "Pan de vida" or without forgiveness to the liturgist with whom he just tussled? We often forget that hatred, gossip, withholding forgiveness are all right up there and part of "you shall do no murder."

If anything, the current practice has weakened any sense of community. "I shook hands with my family, so I'm at peace with EVERYONE!" Then you run to your car, greeting no one on your way. A colleague recently blew up over a very minor slight, and sent an e-mail to myself, as well as my whole parish staff, about how I was incompetent, injurious, should be fired, etc. It could easily print at 2 pages. He ended this rant, "In His Peace." Something is wrong here.

I would agree that the excesses in the peace greeting have caused me to wonder if it should be moved elsewhere in the liturgy. As currently practiced, it is more a greeting and glad/handing session than a sign of peace. I once began the "Lamb of God" chant to keep a visiting priest from turning the peace sign into a circus. It didn't do any good, he left the altar and, I suppose, a good time was had by all.

There is an ancient manner of passing the pax which we practised for many years at our Lady of Walsinghm: The pax is shared between priest and deacon who then pass it one-on-one to the acolytes who pass it singly to the choir, a representative of which will then pass it to a person in the nave and the congregation will then pass it around, one person to one person. Thus, it is (as t'was meant to be) the celebrant's or bishop's pax which has made it's special way to all present. This has quite a bit of history behind it and makes OH so much more sense than the free-for-all mini-socials which happen in too many places. They are disruptive of the liturgical decorum and continuum; and make no theological sense in comparison to the above paradigm.
Another ancient practice which would enhance the pax would be to revive the ancient custom of passing the pax board from celebrant to ministers to choir to people - one person to the next until it has made its rounds. There is a lot of sense in both these practices. There is certainly no sense at all in people running up and down and across aisles or having to shake hands (not really passing the peace) with everyone within an eight or ten foot radius.
Passing the peace was one of the nicest things that the Council restored to the mass. It's truly sad, though, that like so much else, it was implemented by people who really (this is obvious) didn't know what it was, nor what they were doing. They were all just amateurs who crashed in and made it up as they went along