Mass good friday

[John_Lilburne]

From the liturgical book, Ceremonial of Bishops, Chapter 10 “Celebration of the Lord’s Passion” which is on Good Friday:

“HOLY COMMUNION
324 After the veneration, the cross is carried by a deacon to its place at the altar and the bishop returns to the chair. …
325 Then without any procession a deacon, wearing the humeral veil, brings the ciborium with the blessed sacrament to the altar. Two acolytes with lighted candles accompany the deacon, and they place their candles near or on the altar.
During this time the bishop and all present rise and remain standing in silence.
326 The deacon places the ciborium on the altar and uncovers it. Then the bishop, with the deacons assisting him, comes from his chair (cathedra), genuflects, and goes up to the altar. …
328 When the giving of communion has been completed, a deacon may take the ciborium to a place prepared outside the church or, if circumstances require, may place it in the tabernacle.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 111).

The Roman Missal has for Good Friday:
“Part Three: Holy Communion
21. The altar is covered with a cloth and the corporal and book are placed on it. Then the deacon or, if there is no deacon, the priest brings the ciborium with the Blessed Sacrament from the place of reposition to the altar …”
(Roman Missal, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1985, page 167).

 

[Sixtus]

I was at mass today and I keep running into this similar situation where the priests sit by and let the decon do all the work. He is permeant deacon married with children. he loves to do what really only the priest should be doing. Today he wore the special garment and carried the remainder of comunion away while one priest sat down and did nothing and the other cleared the alter. Does this sound funny to any of you? he also was the person to do the Jesus part of the narration of the passion not either one of the 2 priests who simply sat by doing nothing.

The only issues I would take are the fact that you allege there was mass on Good Friday and your allegation that Communion was distributed.

According to the Church, mass is not celebrated on Good Friday.

Neither is it orthodox to receive Communion during the Good Friday Passion. We know some priests permit it, but it is not consistent with the Liturgical celebrations of the Church.

If the Sacrament was distributed then it would not have gone back to the Tabernacle.

 

[lak611]

The only issues I would take are the fact that you allege there was mass on Good Friday and your allegation that Communion was distributed.

According to the Church, mass is not celebrated on Good Friday.

Neither is it orthodox to receive Communion during the Good Friday Passion. We know some priests permit it, but it is not consistent with the Liturgical celebrations of the Church.

If the Sacrament was distributed then it would not have gone back to the Tabernacle.

Receiving Holy Communion is acceptable. It is part of the service. The Hosts were consecrated at the Maundy Thursday Mass and kept in a separate tabernacle at the Altar of Repose.

 

[Sixtus]

Lack wrote:

Receiving Holy Communion is acceptable. It is part of the service.

I think you will find that it is accepted practice in some areas and among some clergy but it is not approved by the Church.

This signifies that Christ’s body was broken on Good Friday. It should not be broken twice

 

[Sixtus]

Lack wrote:

Receiving Holy Communion is acceptable. It is part of the service.

I think you will find that it is practiced in some areas and among some clergy but it is not approved by the Church.

The Eucharist is a commemoration of the Last Supper. We celebrate the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday, not Good Friday. This practice of receiving Him has crept into the Church [along with other abuses] but it does not have approval.

This signifies that Christ’s body was broken on Good Friday. It should not be broken twice

 

[agapewolf]

This is incorrect. There are 3 parts to the Good Friday service.

Liturgy of the Word
Veneration
Communion

there is no consecration, but there IS receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Sixtus]

This is incorrect. There are 3 parts to the Good Friday service.

Liturgy of the Word
Veneration
Communion

there is no consecration, but there IS receiving the Eucharist.

There may be but it is still an abuse that has crept into the Passion of Good Friday. It is not orthodox and should not happen. Priests should not declare themselves Bishops. They should practice orthodox catholism.

If you are going to break Christ twice, why not go the whole hog and celebrate mass… or is that an abuse too far!

Youi will be telling me next that receiving Him in the hand is approved by the Pope!!!

 

[Sixtus]

This is incorrect. There are 3 parts to the Good Friday service.

Liturgy of the Word
Veneration
Communion

there is no consecration, but there IS receiving the Eucharist.

How can there be? Receiving Him on Good Friday is incorrect.

He is not there to be received on Good Friday. The Sacred Hosts are on the Altar of Repose to signify His presence in death. If He is dead, He is not alive. Therefore He is not available for us to receive Him. Unless you are saying ‘He did not really die’!

It is still an abuse that has crept into the Passion of Good Friday. It is not orthodox and should not happen. Priests should not declare themselves Bishops. They should practice orthodox catholism.

If you are going to deny His presence in death, why not go the whole hog and celebrate mass… or is that an abuse too far!

Youi will be telling me next that receiving Him in the hand is approved by the Pope!!!

 

[Tedster]

How can there be? Receiving Him on Good Friday is incorrect…
It is still an abuse that has crept into the Passion of Good Friday. It is not orthodox and should not happen. Priests should not declare themselves Bishops. They should practice orthodox catholism.

Then how do you explain this Church document?

1. All celebration of the sacraments on this day is strictly prohibited, except for the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick. Funerals are to be celebrated without singing, music, or the tolling of bells. (Paschale Solemnitatis, January 16, 1988)

 

[YADA]

The rubrics proolgated by the Bishops [UCCB] expressly outline the Good Friday Liturgy which includes the distrubution of the Eucharist.

How can you [Sixtus] and, by what authority, claim this practice to be illicit? please provide a sourcec document for your assertions…

 

[lak611]

Then how do you explain this Church document?

From the same document you mentioned, Paschale Solemnitatis, it says this: "63. The celebration of the Lord’s passion is to take place in the afternoon, at about three o’clock. For pastoral reasons, an appropriate time will be chosen in order to allow the people to assemble more easily, for example, shortly after midday or in the late evening, however not later than nine o’clock. [67]

1. The order for the celebration of the Lord’s passion (the liturgy of the word, the adoration of the cross, and Holy Communion) that stems from an ancient tradition of the Church should be observed faithfully and religiously and may not be changed by anyone on his own initiative." adoremus.org/PaschaleSolemnitatis.html#anchor270734

 

[beckers]

From the same document you mentioned, Paschale Solemnitatis, it says this: "63. The celebration of the Lord’s passion is to take place in the afternoon, at about three o’clock. For pastoral reasons, an appropriate time will be chosen in order to allow the people to assemble more easily, for example, shortly after midday or in the late evening, however not later than nine o’clock. [67]

1. The order for the celebration of the Lord’s passion (the liturgy of the word, the adoration of the cross, and Holy Communion) that stems from an ancient tradition of the Church should be observed faithfully and religiously and may not be changed by anyone on his own initiative." adoremus.org/PaschaleSolemnitatis.html#anchor270734

Don’t forget #

1. The priest sings the invitation to the Lord’s Prayer, which is then sung by all. The sign of peace is not exchanged. The communion rite is as described in the Missal.
   During the distribution of communion, Psalm 21 or another suitable song may be sung. When communion has been distributed, the pyx is taken to a place prepared for it outside of the church.

 

[porthos11]

How can there be? Receiving Him on Good Friday is incorrect.

Says who? The Liturgical books and rubrics explicitly command Communion on Good Friday. To omit Communion is the abuse.

 

[Psalm45_9]

The communion part was known in the past as “Mass of the presanctified.” That term is generally not used today because it can cause some people to think that there is Mass on Good Friday. Prior to 1955, there would have been two large hosts consectarted on Maundy Thursday, the 2nd one would have been processed and put into the altar of repose. On Good Friday, the priest would place it on the altar, pour water and wine into the chalice and consume it as though it were Mass. The faithful did not recieve communion, except in the instance of viaticum. We have basically turned Good Friday into an elaborate communion service.

 

[tcraig]

down under,

It sounds as if you have the bad luck to be in a parish with multiple abuses by the priests. I understand your coming online to ask the question “is this correct”? When one constantly experiences liturgical abuses, it’s often difficult to recognize the stuff that is done right.

From my own experience (having been in the same situation) I have found that deacons are normally quite good as following the rubrics properly and not overreaching their position. I think that you would be quite astonished at how much a deacon can legitimately do.

I hope things straighten up at your church. It can be quite demoralizing to one’s faith …

 

[down_under]

down under,

It sounds as if you have the bad luck to be in a parish with multiple abuses by the priests. I understand your coming online to ask the question “is this correct”? When one constantly experiences liturgical abuses, it’s often difficult to recognize the stuff that is done right.

From my own experience (having been in the same situation) I have found that deacons are normally quite good as following the rubrics properly and not overreaching their position. I think that you would be quite astonished at how much a deacon can legitimately do.

I hope things straighten up at your church. It can be quite demoralizing to one’s faith …

I went and talked to a different priest today one not directly related to the matter. he was visiting for easter. basiclly what I am seeing here is what I now know to be a deacon who wanted to be a priest earlyer in life but got married. So he is being a good deacon, but like the other abuses in our church he is walking a fine line. he does not consicrate. but he mixes the water and wine. little things that are just a little bit over board. he wears deacon undergarments then puts a priests out garment over them so you cannot see the difference. We have 2 priests neither one wears a collar or formal priest attire during or after mass. they say the children wont approach them if they do. The deacon wears a collar though. is this right. how should I know. If the priests don t know who they are. how is the deacon to know. In perth the perment deaconate is very new. he has only been a deacon for 3 or 4 months. other then the roll he plays at mass he does not serve any other funtion yet. although this easter we saw promise. they made him the MC he only wore deacon attire no over garment. and he was in his element. there was no confusion. he kept everything flowing smothly (alter boys incence) and still managed to stay out of the way of the mass the rest of the time. although he still mixes the water and wine before giving the chalace to the priest that I have never seen before. I have seen other deacons but not ones that did things like that. does anyone have any comments or the ability to shed further light on the subject. glad to here all comments.

 

[lak611]

but he mixes the water and wine. The deacon wears a collar though. is this right.

The deacon is supposed to pour the wine, add the water and then give the chalice to the priest. That is proper. The deacon is also allowed to wear a collar. Neither of these are abuses.

 

[tcraig]

I went and talked to a different priest today one not directly related to the matter. he was visiting for easter. basiclly what I am seeing here is what I now know to be a deacon who wanted to be a priest earlyer in life but got married. So he is being a good deacon, but like the other abuses in our church he is walking a fine line. he does not consicrate. but he mixes the water and wine. little things that are just a little bit over board. he wears deacon undergarments then puts a priests out garment over them so you cannot see the difference. We have 2 priests neither one wears a collar or formal priest attire during or after mass. they say the children wont approach them if they do. The deacon wears a collar though. is this right. how should I know. If the priests don t know who they are. how is the deacon to know. In perth the perment deaconate is very new. he has only been a deacon for 3 or 4 months. other then the roll he plays at mass he does not serve any other funtion yet. although this easter we saw promise. they made him the MC he only wore deacon attire no over garment. and he was in his element. there was no confusion. he kept everything flowing smothly (alter boys incence) and still managed to stay out of the way of the mass the rest of the time. although he still mixes the water and wine before giving the chalace to the priest that I have never seen before. I have seen other deacons but not ones that did things like that. does anyone have any comments or the ability to shed further light on the subject. glad to here all comments.

Mixing the water and the wine is a proper function of a deacon.

As for a “priest’s outer garment”, perhaps you are thinking of a dalmatic? It’s a kind of long-sleeved tunic, in the seasonal liturgical color, and is proper for a deacon to wear. It’s different from a priest’s chasuble. Not all deacons wear them, so it’s possible that you haven’t seen one before. A deacon can also wear a Roman collar.

 

[MusicMan]

Although I maintain that downunder would have more success by reading up on the Diaconate (there are a gazillion threads on CAF and a gazillion questions on EWTN), in his defense, unless one knows the difference between a chasuble and a dalmatic, they look virtually the same.

Often, deacons do not wear the dalmatic because they are quite expense vestments, and the permanent Diaconate is still so new that not every parish will have a deacon all the time. It’s hard to justify purchasing a dalmatic for every season if you may not have a deacon in six months or a year. Deacons are permitted to serve at Mass vested in an alb with the stole over the left shoulder, omitting the dalmatic. Of course, if a dalmatic is available, the deacon should wear it.

Downunder, it doesn’t sound like this deacon of yours is walking any fine lines. It sounds like he is doing exactly what the Church expects of him. Please do some research so that this ceases to upset you.