Communion services

[GwenL]

This thread, post #4
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2338107&highlight=Sunday+Celebration+in+the+absence+of+a+priest+communion#post2338107

The same in the following, look for the pdf on order of service
catholicnh.org/parish/scap/

A ritual approved by a diocese has no weight in other dioceses. Do you have a link to a rite or ritual approved by the Holy See, or by a national conference of bishops?

 

[Phemie]

A ritual approved by a diocese has no weight in other dioceses. Do you have a link to a rite or ritual approved by the Holy See, or by a national conference of bishops?

The document “Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest” is not online. John Lilburne quoted extensively from it, giving chapter and article number.

Our own “Sunday Celebration of the Word and Hours” (CCCB), says

INVITATION TO COMMUNION

After the Lord’s Prayer, the minister genuflects, and taking a host from the ciborium raises it slightly.

The bread is never broken and the accompanying chant, “Lamb of God…” is never sung nor recited.

The minister says aloud:

Behold the Lamb of God
who takes away the sins of the world.
Blessed are those who are called to the banquet of the Lamb. (This is what’s in the Rite, we now say the version that’s in the Roman Missal).

The minister and the people say together:

Lord, I am not worthy …

The communion hymn then begins.

The minister receives Communion, saying quietly, “May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life.”

The minister then gives communion to the other communion ministers. They then go to their stations.

The Rite for the UK says

Communion
20

All prepare in silence to receive holy communion. Any additional vessels
required for the distribution of communion are brought to the altar and
prepared. The leader takes some of the consecrated bread and, extending it
towards the people, says one of the following invitations:
A) Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Blessed are those called to the banquet of the Lamb.

B) God’s holy gifts for God’s holy people:

  draw near to receive them with praise and thanksgiving.

Response: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

21

During the distribution of communion, a suitable song may be sung.

If the leader receives communion, he or she says inaudibly:

May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life.

Ministers of communion go to the communicants.

 

[JustCath]

. . . My experience has been that those most willing to conduct CSs are the absolute last people who should be doing so. Go figure.

Get out of here! You don’t say! Now you have me thinking I should try my luck in Vegas because that was my very first intuition. Who would have thought it!

 

[JustCath]

But that does in effect put members of the laity in leadership position above other members of the laity. Redemptionis Sacramentum states that when such a service takes place no one member of the laity should be seen to be in a leadership position as a result.

Shucks Brendan. But can’t you see how much they enjoy these services? Some people apparently even prefer these services to attending Mass. Mr. Theosis even said his “experience has been that those most willing to conduct CSs are the absolute last people who should be doing so.” What ever shall such parishioners (I hope I’m not insulting them by calling them parishioners) do if they can’t even be responsible for the Real Presence? Don’t you think it makes them feel like they’re really “part of the action?” And you would take this away from them?

 

[GwenL]

The document “Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest” is not online. John Lilburne quoted extensively from it, giving chapter and article number.

Our own “Sunday Celebration of the Word and Hours” (CCCB), says

The Rite for the UK says

We are not talking about SUNDAY celebrations in the absence of a priest. MrT posted a scenario with one individual holding a solo communion service every weekday. This, obviously, is quite distinct from a Sunday celebration with the entire community, that the diocesan bishop authorizes because there is no priest. Also, this is quite distinct from a communion service for the homebound, the ill in hospital, and prisoners.

 

[Phemie]

We are not talking about SUNDAY celebrations in the absence of a priest. MrT posted a scenario with one individual holding a solo communion service every weekday. This, obviously, is quite distinct from a Sunday celebration with the entire community, that the diocesan bishop authorizes because there is no priest. Also, this is quite distinct from a communion service for the homebound, the ill in hospital, and prisoners.

I thought we were more specifically discussing ‘self-communicating’ in a Communion Service. That is what I’m addressing. Any Communion Service I’ve been to has the leader of the Communion Rite self-communicating as it’s what’s called for in the Rite. Therefore, regardless of how I might feel at a parishioner having access to the Tabernacle to self-communicate whenever he feels like it, I cannot argue against it based on self-communication as some people have done.

 

[Tigg]

When did it become the Latin Catholic practice that one can’t go a day without communion?



More modernism!

EXACTLY!!! What confusion reigns!

 

[MrTheosis]

I agree that the Rite says that the person doing the Communion Rite consumes the Host after the Invitation to Communion.

The Canadian Ritual book calls for more than one person to do a Sunday Celebration of the Word with Communion.

Redemptionis Sacramentum also says:

In my parish there are four people trained to lead the whole service if necessary: 2 men, 2 women. Two of us are EMHCs, two aren’t (I don’t want to be one & I don’t think the other guy does either). There are two more EMCHs who are trained to simply do the Communion Rite – we don’t have many EMHCs who want to do this and even fewer who want to lead the whole celebration.

Usually we have one person leading Opening Rites and the Liturgy of the Word, an EMHC doing the Communion Rite and three readers.

A good catch… RS doesn’t set a requirement though. It states a preference. When I conduct a CS at the skilled nursing facility there are typically two readers – one for the epistle and one for the Gospel.

While I would follow the rite as written if I were in Canada, I think the prospect of having someone step-in and give communion to the person conducting the CS would be rather clumsy from a liturgical flow viewpoint.

You have to be a cleric or a commissioned EMHC and reader in my diocese in order to conduct a CS. That is a mandate.

I very much understand peoples’ reticence to conduct the entire CS. I find it very humbling and ultimately exhausting once it is complete. I suspect if I stopped feeling both emotions, I would stop conducting them.

The faithful really do need to take a deep breath and place their faith in the bishops and their pastors on this matter (and many others) and not on their personal interpretations of different Church documents – some which are very dated, obscure and no longer in force.

 

[MrTheosis]

But that does in effect put members of the laity in leadership position above other members of the laity. Redemptionis Sacramentum states that when such a service takes place no one member of the laity should be seen to be in a leadership position as a result.

“It will be preferable, moreover, when both a Priest and a Deacon are absent, that the various parts be distributed among several faithful rather than having a single lay member of the faithful direct the whole celebration alone. Nor is it ever appropriate to refer to any member of the lay faithful as “presiding” over the celebration.”

Training up members of the laity to deliver Liturgies of the Word with Communion does just that. It sets one member of the laity as directing the celebration.

This is a very short step from ending up having ‘lay ministers’ in the way our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ do in their Churches.

Unlike in Protestant Churches, in the Catholic Church the roles of the laity and the clergy are very, very distinct. As a Church we really need to be very careful not to blur the boundaries between laity and clergy. Liturgies of the Word with Communion, delivered by a lay person, do indeed contribute to the blurring of the boundaries between laity and clergy.

Anyone conducting a CS in the archdiocese I live in must at the very least be commissioned as an EMHC and a reader. They must also practice the rite in private and they must demonstrate their proficiency in front of their pastor before they are sent out on the assignment such as the one I have been given.

Conducting a CS is not something that is best played on the fly. It’s not a “learn by doing” proposition. It takes preparation.

You take precautions not to “blur the boundaries” by choosing the right people (I cannot overemphasize how important this is) and by training them well which includes a great deal of prayer.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Anyone conducting a CS in the archdiocese I live in must at the very least be commissioned as an EMHC and a reader. They must also practice the rite in private and they must demonstrate their proficiency in front of their pastor before they are sent out on the assignment such as the one I have been given.

Conducting a CS is not something that is best played on the fly. It’s not a “learn by doing” proposition. It takes preparation.

You take precautions not to “blur the boundaries” by choosing the right people (I cannot overemphasize how important this is) and by training them well which includes a great deal of prayer.

I am of a mixed mind on this. I am a sacristan/MC at our parish which means I assist at Mass. I do not have a problem with it as long as our Bishop allows it. But as a female I would not want to lead a CS-even with it all laid out-my own personal opinion. Although some day I may have to-as when I go to daily Mass I see very few men…

 

[Brendan_64]

The faithful really do need to take a deep breath and place their faith in the bishops and their pastors on this matter (and many others) and not on their personal interpretations of different Church documents – some which are very dated, obscure and no longer in force.

Dated, obscure and no longer in force?

Redemptionis Sacramentum is very much in force, not obscure by any means, and is actually only a few years old. It was brought out specifically to tackle incidents of abuses of the Liturgy with priests (and bishops) doing their own thing as regards services involving the Holy Eucharist.

As to documents being dated, it is not the prerogative of the laity, priests or bishops to decide this. They may have an opinion that a certain document is ‘dated’ but that’s all it is, their own personal opinion, and their personal opinion does not change the authority of instruction from Rome. Instruction from Rome is valid until such time as the Vatican decide otherwise, it is not up to laity, priests or bishops to decide this.

We are the Roman Catholic Church, not the (insert name of parish or diocese) Catholic Church. We are the universal Church, our Liturgy should be universal, regardless of whatever church you walk into, anywhere in the world. Different parishes and dioceses adapting the delivery of the Liturgy to meet what they perceive as the needs of their own specific parish or diocese is going against the spirit (if not the word) of the wishes of the Vatican as outlined in documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Brendan_64]

You take precautions not to “blur the boundaries” by choosing the right people (I cannot overemphasize how important this is) and by training them well which includes a great deal of prayer.

‘Right’ people or ‘wrong’ people, it makes no difference in this regard. If this is happening on a regular basis you are in effect setting up a lay-person in a semi-clerical role. You are blurring the boundaries.

 

[MrTheosis]

Dated, obscure and no longer in force?

Redemptionis Sacramentum is very much in force, not obscure by any means, and is actually only a few years old. It was brought out specifically to tackle incidents of abuses of the Liturgy with priests (and bishops) doing their own thing as regards services involving the Holy Eucharist.

As to documents being dated, it is not the prerogative of the laity, priests or bishops to decide this. They may have an opinion that a certain document is ‘dated’ but that’s all it is, their own personal opinion, and their personal opinion does not change the authority of instruction from Rome. Instruction from Rome is valid until such time as the Vatican decide otherwise, it is not up to laity, priests or bishops to decide this.

We are the Roman Catholic Church, not the (insert name of parish or diocese) Catholic Church. We are the universal Church, our Liturgy should be universal, regardless of whatever church you walk into, anywhere in the world. Different parishes and dioceses adapting the delivery of the Liturgy to meet what they perceive as the needs of their own specific parish or diocese is going against the spirit (if not the word) of the wishes of the Vatican as outlined in documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum.

I wasn’t speaking of RS…

I was speaking about a document like Paschales Solemnitatis. Every year around this time some people get bent out of shape over its contents yet the Holy See has formally granted variance to it. There are even better examples of documents that people dredge up around here that have not been in force for a long time.

FWIW, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the “Roman Catholic Church.” There are plenty of Eastern Catholics in perfect communion with the Pope who are in no way “Roman Catholics.”

 

[MrTheosis]

‘Right’ people or ‘wrong’ people, it makes no difference in this regard. If this is happening on a regular basis you are in effect setting up a lay-person in a semi-clerical role. You are blurring the boundaries.

So you say, based on your perception.

Thankfully the authority to make that decision does not rest with you. It rests with the local ordinary.

 

[Brendan_64]

FWIW, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the “Roman Catholic Church.” There are plenty of Eastern Catholics in perfect communion with the Pope who are in no way “Roman Catholics.”

We bow to the Bishop of Rome as our Pope, as such we are the Roman Catholic Church with the Pope and through him, the Vatican, as the supreme authority on Earth.

 

[Brendan_64]

So you say, based on your perception.

Thankfully the authority to make that decision does not rest with you. It rests with the local ordinary.

Who is required to follow the instruction of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which also states that the lay-person has a right to expect the Liturgy to be carried out in line with the instruction of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[MrTheosis]

We bow to the Bishop of Rome as our Pope, as such we are the Roman Catholic Church with the Pope and through him, the Vatican, as the supreme authority on Earth.

No. You are wrong.

The Church Universal is the Catholic Church.

The “Roman Catholic Church” merely defines the Western Half or Latin Rite.

The sort of comments you are making are the very type that offend Eastern Rite Catholics.

 

[Brendan_64]

No. You are wrong.

The Church Universal is the Catholic Church.

The “Roman Catholic Church” merely defines the Western Half or Latin Rite.

The sort of comments you are making are the very type that offend Eastern Rite Catholics.

So saying that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome is the supreme authority on Earth is offensive? The Pope occupies the Chair of St Peter and is the supreme authority on Earth. We bow to his authority (and that of the Vatican) so we are Roman Catholics.

You are wrong in saying that the term Roman Catholic Church is synonymous with Western Church or Latin Rite. Eastern Catholic Churches ARE part of the Roman Catholic Church. They are represented in the Holy See and the Roman Curia. They accept the Bishop of Rome as the supreme authority on Earth.

We ARE the Roman Catholic Church, or are you now telling me that the Bishop of Rome is not the supreme authority on Earth?

 

[MrTheosis]

So saying that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome is the supreme authority on Earth is offensive? The Pope occupies the Chair of St Peter and is the supreme authority on Earth. We bow to his authority (and that of the Vatican) so we are Roman Catholics.

You are wrong in saying that the term Roman Catholic Church is synonymous with Western Church or Latin Rite. Eastern Catholic Churches ARE part of the Roman Catholic Church. They are represented in the Holy See and the Roman Curia. They accept the Bishop of Rome as the supreme authority on Earth.

We ARE the Roman Catholic Church, or are you now telling me that the Bishop of Rome is not the supreme authority on Earth?

Please don’t ever try to speak for me…

Again, you are wrong.

The Vicar of Christ on Earth is the earthly head of the entire Catholic Church – including the many Eastern Catholic sui juris churches and not merely the “Roman Catholic Church” AKA the Western Church/Latin Rite.

There are many Catholic Christians in full/perfect communion with the Pope of Rome that are in no way “Roman Catholic.” To suggest the Pope of Rome is the earthly head of the “Roman Catholic Church” and not the entire Catholic Church is both ignorant and insulting.

The convention of trying to characterize the entire Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church” came from Anglican Protestants who tried to draw a distinction between actual Catholic Christians and what they considered themselves – “Anglo Catholics.”

 

[dshix]

Please don’t ever try to speak for me…

Again, you are wrong.

The Vicar of Christ on Earth is the earthly head of the entire Catholic Church – including the many Eastern Catholic sui juris churches and not merely the “Roman Catholic Church” AKA the Western Church/Latin Rite.

There are many Catholic Christians in full/perfect communion with the Pope of Rome that are in no way “Roman Catholic.” To suggest the Pope of Rome is the earthly head of the “Roman Catholic Church” and not the entire Catholic Church is both ignorant and insulting.

The convention of trying to characterize the entire Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church” came from Anglican Protestants who tried to draw a distinction between actual Catholic Christians and what they considered themselves – “Anglo Catholics.”

Stop quibbling over definitions, for goodness’ sakes. You are way off the topic of this thread.