Daily Communion Services at Home?

[SRLAUREL]

Personally, I think the original post was bogus. There are a number of reasons for this. Inconsistencies: 1) the poster says he picks up hosts daily, yet claims he has no time to get to Mass except in the evenings; 2) the poster claims his pastor say three Masses a day and does not have time for a fourth (sorry, but where does a priest say three Masses a day, and why have someone lead a Communion service if everything is so well covered?); 3) he mentions prison ministry, and only later changes the story to ministering to the ill; 4) the pastor is now asking him to do a Communion serivce DAILY despite the availability of Masses in the parish and surrounds? Nope,no pastor would do that. 5) the poster claims to vest in an alb at home; does he also borrow this daily from the parish or does he simply keep it too day in and day out for his own personal use. There are other reasons which I will not bore you with.

However, If the story is true, posters who labelled this act illicit are correct. One may NOT bring Eucharist home (note the difference in the canonical prohibition, “bring home” vs the phrase, “bring to one’s home”). One may not without special permission bring Eucharist home with one. The exceptions include, 1) bringing communion to someone who is ill in the same house (in which case, one does one’s job with that single host and nothing more), 2) houses which are also religious houses, hermitages, and the like which have private chapels and/or the right to reserve Eucharist given by the local Ordinary. In these latter cases, the pastor’s permission is insufficient. One must also have a tabernacle, etc, in such a case 3) Bishops’ own private chapels (same requirements apply).

I must say, there are so many situations in which a lay presider could do wonderful things and assist overworked clergy by leading a Communion service in nursing homes and the like, that the practice of doing this in his own home on a daily basis when he claims to be able to get to Church to pick up hosts seems tremendously selfish to me. It is also contrary to the nature of Eucharist and Church per se. Occasional Communion services are appropriate for parishes when a priest will not be available for a single day, but day in and day out it is an abuse and loses (or at best, risks losing) the essential contact with the Mass where the hosts were consecrated.

To answer the original poster’s question (again assuming the story is true): well you should be uneasy doing a Communion service publicly everyday. It is an abuse of the practice. Are you planning on preaching daily too? The Word is also to be broken open at a Communion service, so are you going to do that? Do you feel competent in this matter? Most of us would not, especially day in and day out, and would understand that reflection to be an indispensible part of the communion service. Oh right, the final inconsistency, the original poster does not seem to know what is different about Communion services celebrated in private (a hermitage, for instance) and in public (or institutional), where the most important thing is not following the rubrics comfortably or reverently (important as these are), but the actual ministering to the assembled congregation in Word AND Sacrament.

 

[benedictgal]

Personally, I think the original post was bogus. There are a number of reasons for this. Inconsistencies: 1) the poster says he picks up hosts daily, yet claims he has no time to get to Mass except in the evenings; 2) the poster claims his pastor say three Masses a day and does not have time for a fourth (sorry, but where does a priest say three Masses a day, and why have someone lead a Communion service if everything is so well covered?); 3) he mentions prison ministry, and only later changes the story to ministering to the ill; 4) the pastor is now asking him to do a Communion serivce DAILY despite the availability of Masses in the parish and surrounds? Nope,no pastor would do that. 5) the poster claims to vest in an alb at home; does he also borrow this daily from the parish or does he simply keep it too day in and day out for his own personal use. There are other reasons which I will not bore you with.

However, If the story is true, posters who labelled this act illicit are correct. One may NOT bring Eucharist home (note the difference in the canonical prohibition, “bring home” vs the phrase, “bring to one’s home”). One may not without special permission bring Eucharist home with one. The exceptions include, 1) bringing communion to someone who is ill in the same house (in which case, one does one’s job with that single host and nothing more), 2) houses which are also religious houses, hermitages, and the like which have private chapels and/or the right to reserve Eucharist given by the local Ordinary. In these latter cases, the pastor’s permission is insufficient. One must also have a tabernacle, etc, in such a case 3) Bishops’ own private chapels (same requirements apply).

I must say, there are so many situations in which a lay presider could do wonderful things and assist overworked clergy by leading a Communion service in nursing homes and the like, that the practice of doing this in his own home on a daily basis when he claims to be able to get to Church to pick up hosts seems tremendously selfish to me. It is also contrary to the nature of Eucharist and Church per se. Occasional Communion services are appropriate for parishes when a priest will not be available for a single day, but day in and day out it is an abuse and loses (or at best, risks losing) the essential contact with the Mass where the hosts were consecrated.

To answer the original poster’s question (again assuming the story is true): well you should be uneasy doing a Communion service publicly everyday. It is an abuse of the practice. Are you planning on preaching daily too? The Word is also to be broken open at a Communion service, so are you going to do that? Do you feel competent in this matter? Most of us would not, especially day in and day out, and would understand that reflection to be an indispensible part of the communion service. Oh right, the final inconsistency, the original poster does not seem to know what is different about Communion services celebrated in private (a hermitage, for instance) and in public (or institutional), where the most important thing is not following the rubrics comfortably or reverently (important as these are), but the actual ministering to the assembled congregation in Word AND Sacrament.

I agree with 99% of your post with the exception of your last sentence. It is important to follow the rubrics and norms even in a Communion service because there are certain things that reserved for clergy alone. These include the greeting of “The Lord be with you”, not imparting a blessing and, not seating oneself in the presidential chair (unless the one conducting the Communion service is a deacon–this is in the norms and was confirmed to me by my parochial vicar). When I volunteered to help out with a Communion Service (while the priests were away for an Advent retreat), I reviewed the norms and I even researched to make sure that what I was about to do was the correct form. This is in keeping with Redemptionis Sacramentum which calls for laity leading such services to not bring any confusion to what was happening.

Nonetheless, you made some very excellent points. However, I am curious as to wheter the OP is male or female. If female, this would certainly throw out the suggestion to become a permanent deacon.

 

[SRLAUREL]

I agree with 99% of your post with the exception of your last sentence. It is important to follow the rubrics and norms even in a Communion service because there are certain things that reserved for clergy alone. These include the greeting of “The Lord be with you”, not imparting a blessing and, not seating oneself in the presidential chair (unless the one conducting the Communion service is a deacon–this is in the norms and was confirmed to me by my parochial vicar). When I volunteered to help out with a Communion Service (while the priests were away for an Advent retreat), I reviewed the norms and I even researched to make sure that what I was about to do was the correct form. This is in keeping with Redemptionis Sacramentum which calls for laity leading such services to not bring any confusion to what was happening.

Nonetheless, you made some very excellent points. However, I am curious as to wheter the OP is male or female. If female, this would certainly throw out the suggestion to become a permanent deacon.

Well, I am not sure what I said that actually contradicted any of this. I referred to ministering Word and Sacrament which a lay presider is certainly called upon to do. This would include what I mentioned: a reflection on the lections of the day, and the communion rite itself. I agree with you about rubrics and things being reserved to clergy alone. But thanks for the 99% comment, etc! I believe the OP is male, but again, that the situation outlined is bogus. I hope I am correct. Better bogus than really occuring somewhere.

 

[SRLAUREL]

Well, I am not sure what I said that actually contradicted any of this. I referred to ministering Word and Sacrament which a lay presider is certainly called upon to do. This would include what I mentioned: a reflection on the lections of the day, and the communion rite itself. I agree with you about rubrics and things being reserved to clergy alone. But thanks for the 99% comment, etc! I believe the OP is male, but again, that the situation outlined is bogus. I hope I am correct. Better bogus than really occuring somewhere.

Ah I do see what I said regarding rubrics. Sorry, I should have been clearer. The OP referred to practicing to that he had all the rubrics down and was completely comfortable. he spoke of vesting in an alb. He spoke of things that are apparent and in some senses, superficial when compared to the SUBSTANCE of what is being done, namely MINISTRY to and within God’s Church. My comment only had meaning within that specific context, not as a general reflection on being attentive to and observant of rubrics, etc. All my best to you.

 

[Belfarmer]

A couple of appropriate quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum
I find them self explanatory.

*165.] It is necessary to avoid any sort of confusion between this type of gathering and the celebration of the Eucharist.[271] The diocesan Bishops, therefore, should prudently discern whether Holy Communion ought to be distributed in these gatherings. The matter would appropriately be determined in view of a more ample co-ordination in the Bishops’ Conference, to be put into effect after the recognitio of the acts by the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. 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.

[166.] Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday. Priests are therefore earnestly requested to celebrate Mass daily for the people in one of the churches entrusted to their care.*

 

[Evan]

Under Canon Law, to celebrate Mass (at least in the OF or Novus Ordo form that most of us attend) the priest MUST have at least one other person present except for grave reason. The prohibition on ‘private masses’ actually is a prohibition on his celebrating Mass without anyone else present.

I’m curious about this. Which Canon expresses this prohibition?

I remember Fr Egan saying the JPII had asked priests to dedicate the mass they offer on their day off (the private masses they say) to an increase in vocations to the priesthood. Is there another form of the mass used when a priest says his daily mass and there is no mass scheduled in the Church?

 

[Phemie]

I’m curious about this. Which Canon expresses this prohibition?

I remember Fr Egan saying the JPII had asked priests to dedicate the mass they offer on their day off (the private masses they say) to an increase in vocations to the priesthood. Is there another form of the mass used when a priest says his daily mass and there is no mass scheduled in the Church?

It’s not exactly forbidden and two canons seem to conflict:

**Can. 904 Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic sacrifice the work of redemption is exercised continually, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed, daily celebration is recommended earnestly since, even if the faithful cannot be present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests fulfill their principal function.

Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.**

Now, how broadly is ‘just and reasonable cause’ interpreted?

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not exactly forbidden and two canons seem to conflict:

**Can. 904 Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic sacrifice the work of redemption is exercised continually, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed, daily celebration is recommended earnestly since, even if the faithful cannot be present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests fulfill their principal function.

Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.**

Now, how broadly is ‘just and reasonable cause’ interpreted?

I’m not a canon lawyer (nor do I play one on TV ), but, Canon 904 could be interpreted to mean that this would occur during times of persecution, where the gathering of the faithful would be very hard to come by, since persecution also carried with it the very real possibility of martyrdom. Blessed Miguel Pro probably had to celebrate a private Mass in order to consecrate enough hosts to carry to the communion stations he clandestinely established in Mexico during the mid 1920s.

Yes, he said Mass in people’s houses; however, because of the persecution, it was difficult for many people to fulfill their Sunday obligations; therefore the Mexican clergy had to be reasonably creative as to how to minister to the faithful. Blessed Miguel is a very good example of this as he would arrive to his destinations dressed up as anything from a mechanic to a dandy (complete with flower on lapel and a cigar hanging from his mouth) to a poor peasant. Of course, underneath, he had his vestments and Mass kit.

Nonetheless, back to the OP’s question, he or she is still not justified in doing what he or she was doing in having a Communion service at home. That whole issue just raises so many red flags, as has already been discussed in this thread.

 

[Phemie]

Originally I intended to do it for perhaps a month to learn the ritual. But after a month I decided to just continue and I have with the approval of my pastors. Yes, I would attend a Mass, a public communion service or even Liturgy of the Hours if one was in any way available to me, but none are.

This daily practice has provided the incentive for me to read and reflect on the daily Scripture readings, to pray, and to receive Holy Communion.

I have asked each of my pastors (3) since I started if it’s OK to continue. The first two simply said “that’s great – continue.” My current pastor was even more encouraging and asked if I would consider leading it at the parish instead of my house. As it is, he celebrates three daily Masses and just dosen’t have the time to celebrate a fourth.

I really don’t want to stop, but I’m a bit anxious about doing this five days a week in public. What do you all think?

What you are doing is going into the church and helping yourself to the Body & Blood of Christ. Nobody has a right to do that and I don’t care what liturgy you wrap around it.

Celebrations of the Word with Communion are only supposed to happen in churches when it’s not possible to have Mass, and on weekdays only if there is no possibility of Mass being celebrated either the Sunday before or the following Sunday – this is obviously not the case in your parish which has 2 daily Masses. I can’t imagine a pastor approving of what you’re doing or suggesting that you celebrate a Liturgy of the Word with Communion on days when he’s already celebrating two Masses.

If there is such a need for an extra liturgy, why not have Evening Prayer?