Eucharistic service without a priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The other byzantine parish in town had an incident a few years ago in which the prest had a heart attack (?) during the Saturday evening liturgy.

Given that their Sunday liturgy is at the same time as ours, and there were only the two priests with faculties in town and no deacons, nor time to fly in a priest, our bishop took the extraordinary step of authorizing the subdeacon (an actual ordained subdeacon) to preside over the Presanctified Liturgy on Sunday . . . !!!

I presume that, as usual, he vested as a subdeacon to do so . . .
 
TomH1 said:
find it sad and disheartening that there are some lay people who find the need to play at being priest and more so that their priests enable it to happen.
Click to expand...
Given that the Church has provided for a prayer service in the absence of a priest where previously consecrated Hosts may be distributed, this is an offensive comment.
 
Here in New Zealand, at many parishes on Sunday, and at many normal parishes during the week, we have what is called a “Liturgy of the Word with Holy Communion”.

The Liturgy of the Word is the same as at Mass, and after that a layperson or Deacon distributes already blessed holy communion. In some small towns in NZ, this is the case for some or most Sundays of the month.

I live in a city, and my suburban parish has Mass everyday except Monday, but there is a town of a couple of hundred people around 3 hours away. It has a Catholic Church that has Liturgy of the Word with Communion three/four times a month and Mass once a month.

This type of service is allowed.

A layperson cannot bless the eucharist.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
Given that the Church has provided for a prayer service in the absence of a priest where previously consecrated Hosts may be distributed, this is an offensive comment.
Click to expand...
No, it is not an offensive comment. It was not intended to be one. As Eleanor Roosevelt would say it is up to you whether it is offensive or not. Indeed, the Church does provide rites which can be led by a layman and where a layman can distribute Holy Communion. However, some laymen treat the occasion to behave as if they were a priest wearing albs, crosses on chains, standing on the altar, etc. none of which is envisaged. Some people do like to play at being priest and I am entitled to find that sad and disheartening.

I also believe that these services are unnecessary on weekdays. I also know of bishops who have banned them for this very reason. They are also really unnecessary on Sundays but I can understand them being held on Sundays. What saddens me most about that is the fact there are not enough priests. What I do not have a problem with is laymen dressed as laymen, behaving a laymen and carrying out the Church’s rites as prescribed.
 
TomH1 said:
However, some laymen treat the occasion to behave as if they were a priest wearing albs, crosses on chains, standing on the altar, etc. none of which is envisaged. Some people do like to play at being priest and I am entitled to find that sad and disheartening.
Click to expand...
How often have you actually seen such a thing?
 
TomH1 said:
. However, some laymen treat the occasion to behave as if they were a priest wearing albs, crosses on chains, standing on the altar, etc. none of which is envisaged
Click to expand...
  1. Wearing an alb is perfectly acceptable. Actually, it’s appropriate.
  2. What is wrong with a cross on a chain? That’s a personal choice, and acceptable.
  3. I’m going to assume you mean standing in the sanctuary, since I’m guessing no one is actually standing on the altar. And where would you expect them to be standing when conducting a Communion service?
 
TomH1 said:
I find it sad and disheartening that there are some lay people who find the need to play at being priest and more so that their priests enable it to happen.
Click to expand...
I will repeat: I find that to be an offensive comment. No one I know of is “playing priest” and there are a goodly number of parishes which have no priest; the priest may come by from another parish to say Mass once a week or less.

If there are laity who step over the proper coundaries it is up to the bishop to correct the problem; not for us to make a general slur.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
I will repeat: I find that to be an offensive comment.
Click to expand...
That is your problem as you choose to treat it in that way.
otjm said:
not for us to make a general slur.
Click to expand...
It is not a general slur. You very clearly are not reading what I write. Nowhere have I said that every layman who conducts such services does this.

I have the right to be saddened and disheartened by those who do. I shall not change those feelings because you want to accuse me of doing that which I am not.
 
TomH1 said:
I have the right to be saddened and disheartened by those who do. I shall not change those feelings because you want to accuse me of doing that which I am not.
Click to expand...
You still have not answered my question about how often you have actually seen this happen!
 
thistle said:
40.png
TomH1:
I have the right to be saddened and disheartened by those who do. I shall not change those feelings because you want to accuse me of doing that which I am not.
Click to expand...
You still have not answered my question about how often you have actually seen this happen!
Click to expand...
Nor have we been told where.
 
It would appear that Rome does not like Communion Services.

" In the Instruction on the Eucharist issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on March 25, 2004, we read:
  1. It is necessary to avoid any sort of confusion between this type of gathering (Communion Service without Mass) and the celebration of the Eucharist. The diocesan Bishops, therefore, should prudently discern whether Holy Communion ought to be distributed in these gatherings.
  2. 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."
 
thistle said:
It would appear that Rome does not like Communion Services.
Click to expand...
Like?
I do not think that word is entirely appropriate when considering matters of the providing Christ’s body to the faithful.

Prefer is appropriate. It is not a question of like or dislike, it is a matter of doing what is possible in absence of a priest to celebrate Mass.
 
vz71 said:
Like?
I do not think that word is entirely appropriate when considering matters of the providing Christ’s body to the faithful.

Prefer is appropriate. It is not a question of like or dislike, it is a matter of doing what is possible in absence of a priest to celebrate Mass.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion. I will stick with the word “like”.
 
thistle said:
That’s your opinion. I will stick with the word “like”.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is that the church does not ‘like’ the faithful to receive Christ outside the presence of a priest?

How odd.

It places you in the uncomfortable position of claiming that a long standing tradition, one that has been from the very beginning, is disliked.
 
Jragzz123 said:
Is it allowed for lay people to preform a eucharistic service. At my catholic center a girl raises the eucharist and says “This is my body”. I feel like this is not okay.
Click to expand...
People can have (and are strongly encouraged) to have Eucharistic services in the absence of a priest. I don’t believe “this is my body” is appropriate except for an ordained priest if I remember correctly. There are particular rubrics for Eucharistic services. A priest acts in the person of Christ, so ‘this is my body’ has a special significance during the Liturgy of the Eucharist that does not correspond with a layperson.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
TomH1 said:
Actually, it’s appropriate.
Click to expand...
Because the alb is the garb of the baptized; it is not clerical. For a lay person performing a liturgical function, such as leading a Communion service, it is the appropriate garment. Vestments would not be appropriate.
TomH1 said:
And where would you expect them to be standing when conducting a Communion service?
Click to expand...
You’d expect the leader of a service to hold up the host and say, “Behold the Lamb of God … etc.” from the main part of the congregation? That seems to be an odd choice – why would you think that would be appropriate?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top