Must the Gospel be read by a Priest or Deacon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter christcnection1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christcnection1

Guest
I am currently on a retreat at Maryknoll Lay Missioners, and my group is having Mass (which is actually taking place while I write this).

There are a number of issues which I question to be liturgical abuses; however, I must say that I am ignorant on some of them. One of the ones that concerns me most is the reading of the Gospel by a lay person. They are just like me, a missioner in training. They sit while they read (as does everyone); they were not blessed before the reading; they were not ordained.

First of all, is this a serious liturgical abuse? Second, does this invalidate a Mass?

What possible things “invalidate” a Mass when it comes to liturgical abuses?

For this reason, and other theological reasons, I do not feel in communion this group. It’s a real shame because I am not a divider; however, I feel strongly about respecting the rules/norms of a Mass and all the teachings of the Church. Therefore, I am writing these questions rather than participating in the “celebration.”

I am not bitter about it, but it does deeply bother me. Furthermore, it is not my desire to cause any rifts. There are many things I respect about these people; I consider them brother and sisters in Christ.

Peace and Blessings,

JB
 
christcnection

The gospel at Mass, is to be read by only a priest or deacon, as far as I know.

BTW, how is it that you’re posting this during Mass?
Shouldn’t you be at Mass?

Jim
 
No, the Gospel should be read out by a priest, Bishop, or deacon. If there is a homily, it should be preached by one of them, as well.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
christcnection

The gospel at Mass, is to be read by only a priest or deacon, as far as I know.

BTW, how is it that you’re posting this during Mass?
Shouldn’t you be at Mass?

Jim
Click to expand...
It’s Friday today. I try to go to Mass every day. Fortunately, I am not missing a Holy Day. If that were the case I would go to another parish for Mass.

The Mass I am referring to is happening upstairs right now. If that’s a violation like you said, in good conscience, I am not sure I can recieve Holy Communion with them. In a certain sense, this is a small act of protest, but even more so, symbolic of me not agreeing with their action(s).

I would happily be there if this was correct, and other liturgical pieces were correct. It’s just too much for me. I suppose we all have to know where to draw the line. Truly, I am not trying to be overly legalistic. The primary reason I am discussing the issue on CAF is to figure out where I stand.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable?
 
christcnection1 said:
It’s Friday today. I try to go to Mass every day. Fortunately, I am not missing a Holy Day. If that were the case I would go to another parish for Mass.

The Mass I am referring to is happening upstairs right now. If that’s a violation like you said, in good conscience, I am not sure I can recieve Holy Communion with them. In a certain sense, this is a small act of protest, but even more so, symbolic of me not agreeing with their action(s).

I would happily be there if this was correct, and other liturgical pieces were correct. It’s just too much for me. I suppose we all have to know where to draw the line. Truly, I am not trying to be overly legalistic. The primary reason I am discussing the issue on CAF is to figure out where I stand.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable?
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some of the Maryknoll’s, who have gone of the deep end of heresy. Generally, its been nuns, pushing radical feminist agendas.

Jim
 
I have only seen the Gospel read by a layperson once - at a Mass where the priest was not fluent in the language but knew enough to say the Ordinary of the Mass and had practiced the Collect, Prayer over the Gifts and the Postcommunion. The layperson was blessed by the priest before the Gospel-, the priest said “The Lord be with you” and “A reading from the Holy Gospel” as well as the end part “This is the Gospel…” but the layperson read the Gospel standing to the side. Not sure whether that practice was licit, but in any case, at least there was a reason for it. I don’t think it is justified if everyone speaks the same language.
 
I have seen the Gospel read by a layperson, but it wasn’t really a Mass. At sea we had a woman who read both the Gospel and a homily. I think she was called a lay reader (not sure?). The homily was written out for her in advance by a priest. We also received the Eucharist, which was consecrated and reserved for this purpose. I don’ t remember what we called it but it wasn’t Mass. It was all we had at sea, though.
 
A lay person reading the gospel is certainly illicit but it does not invalidate the Mass.
 
I thought quoting the General Instruction of the Roman Missal would be the easiest way to answer your question accurately.

59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his
absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.
66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.

Stillkickin
 
Dear christcnection1,

You were probably right in not receiving the Eucharist at that Mass; not because it was not licit, but due to your attitude. For the gospel says if you have something against your brother you are to lay your gifts at the altar and go and set things right with your brother before you receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

It appears from your past posts that you are shopping around; you mentioned that you attended the Franciscan Missionary group and now you are at Maryknoll group. While it is commendable that you want to serve the Lord, by speading the word. It is also important to have a view / a vision which is grounded in reality. I don’t know where you will go if youdo go off as a missionary, but there are places that have not seen a priest in a long time. And being a missionary is not just about attending church, i.e. the care of souls, but the care and concern for the physical person as well.

If you would like to discuss this with me; please feel free to PM me.

In Christ’s Love,

Br Mark, OSB
 
AJV said:
I have only seen the Gospel read by a layperson once - at a Mass where the priest was not fluent in the language but knew enough to say the Ordinary of the Mass and had practiced the Collect, Prayer over the Gifts and the Postcommunion. The layperson was blessed by the priest before the Gospel-, the priest said “The Lord be with you” and “A reading from the Holy Gospel” as well as the end part “This is the Gospel…” but the layperson read the Gospel standing to the side. Not sure whether that practice was licit, but in any case, at least there was a reason for it. I don’t think it is justified if everyone speaks the same language.
Click to expand...
I have a friend who does things by the book. He is a deacon candidate and instituted acolyte. there are no spanish speaking priests, so the bishop has given him faculties to read the gospel and give a homily. (He writes it out and has it approved first).

When done without permission, it would be illicit, but not make the actual sacrament invalid. Invalidity comes with the words of consecration, intent of the priest, or incorrect matter. (doritos instead of bread).
 
agapewolf said:
I have a friend who does things by the book. He is a deacon candidate and instituted acolyte. there are no spanish speaking priests, so the bishop has given him faculties to read the gospel and give a homily. (He writes it out and has it approved first).

When done without permission, it would be illicit, but not make the actual sacrament invalid. Invalidity comes with the words of consecration, intent of the priest, or incorrect matter. (doritos instead of bread).
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, what should happen in this case is for the priest to read the Gospel first in a language known to him ( English?), and THEN another person may read in the language of the congregation ( Spanish, or such).

The bishop would have no authority to allow a non-deacon, even a canidate, independetly from the priest.

The priest may prepare a homily and have it read in another langauge ( technically, this could include another writing it out and the priest approving it).
 
Brendan said:
Technically speaking, what should happen in this case is for the priest to read the Gospel first in a language known to him ( English?), and THEN another person may read in the language of the congregation ( Spanish, or such).

The bishop would have no authority to allow a non-deacon, even a canidate, independetly from the priest.

The priest may prepare a homily and have it read in another langauge ( technically, this could include another writing it out and the priest approving it).
Click to expand...
As an aside this actually happens in many indult Masses. The Epistle and Gospel are read either first on Latin then in the vernacular or read simultaneously.
 
I have only seen the Gospel read by a layperson once - at a Mass where the priest was not fluent in the language but knew enough to say the Ordinary of the Mass and had practiced the Collect, Prayer over the Gifts and the Postcommunion.
Click to expand...
I have also seen this occur, but would remark that if the priest had “practiced” the collect, super oblata and postcommunion, he should have “practiced” the gospel, as well. Lacking that, as has been suggested, he should have read it in his own language and then allowed the layperson to read, thus making it clear that there was still a ministerial proclamation at Mass. The laity notice such things and it causes them to realize the importance of such things.
 
Chatter163 said:
I have also seen this occur, but would remark that if the priest had “practiced” the collect, super oblata and postcommunion, he should have “practiced” the gospel, as well. Lacking that, as has been suggested, he should have read it in his own language and then allowed the layperson to read, thus making it clear that there was still a ministerial proclamation at Mass. The laity notice such things and it causes them to realize the importance of such things.
Click to expand...
That is true Chatter, but I think that for that week the Gospel was quite long, and the priest had been pressed into it at the last minute (as far as last minutes go- I think only one or two days before) While not defending this practice, the overall impression I think was also maintained since as I mentioned, the priest stood at the ambo and announced the Gospel and concluded and venerated it at the end, and the layperson was off to the side, reading as it were “by proxy” as if through a dummy (not the best choice of words on my part) He might have been reading it softly for all I know- at the distance I could not make out.
 
AJV said:
) He might have been reading it softly for all I know- at the distance I could not make out.
Click to expand...
that would have been an acceptable practice, the simultaneous readings of the Gospel
 
Br_Mark said:
Dear christcnection1,

You were probably right in not receiving the Eucharist at that Mass; not because it was not licit, but due to your attitude. For the gospel says if you have something against your brother you are to lay your gifts at the altar and go and set things right with your brother before you receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

It appears from your past posts that you are shopping around; you mentioned that you attended the Franciscan Missionary group and now you are at Maryknoll group. While it is commendable that you want to serve the Lord, by speading the word. It is also important to have a view / a vision which is grounded in reality. I don’t know where you will go if youdo go off as a missionary, but there are places that have not seen a priest in a long time. And being a missionary is not just about attending church, i.e. the care of souls, but the care and concern for the physical person as well.

If you would like to discuss this with me; please feel free to PM me.

In Christ’s Love,

Br Mark, OSB
Click to expand...
Hi Br Mark,

I am not exactly shopping around. I belong to the Capuchin Franciscan Lay Volunteers, and they are using Franciscan Mission Service to train me. I went on a week long retreat with several lay groups. This is where it occurred.

I have never experienced any problems with this group of Capuchins. I find their spirituality more orthodox on many fronts.

Beings a representative of Christ does indeed mean you care about the whole person, both spiritually and physically. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, this is not something to pull your hair out over; however, it is an important issue because it directly defies a clear Church rule. There is no reason it couldn’t have been followed.

I don’t feel a long PM is necessary at this time. Thanks for the help…

JB
 
That is true Chatter, but I think that for that week the Gospel was quite long, and the priest had been pressed into it at the last minute (as far as last minutes go- I think only one or two days before) While not defending this practice, the overall impression I think was also maintained since as I mentioned, the priest stood at the ambo and announced the Gospel and concluded and venerated it at the end, and the layperson was off to the side, reading as it were “by proxy” as if through a dummy (not the best choice of words on my part) He might have been reading it softly for all I know- at the distance I could not make out.
Click to expand...
OK, we’ll overlook it this ONE time–but tell him not to make a habit of it! :tsktsk:
 
In all situations, at any Mass, the Gospel can only be proclaimed by a Deacon (or higher). A layperson (man or woman) is not allowed to proclaim the Gospel at a Mass.

I know that lay people can proclaim the Gospel at Children’s Liturgy of the Word and Communion Services, also at Wakes and Vigil Services, things like that-but NOT AT A MASS.

Also, the homily (the talk after the Gospel reading) is ideally given by the celebrant, but can be given by the Deacon (or any other ordained). But not by a layperson. Never (at a Mass). And no tricks-tons of parishes call a Homily something else to get around that rule, or have the priest say a few words, then turn it over to someone else. No, no, no!

So, to answer your question, the Gospel (and the homily) must be proclaimed by a Deacon or higher.

BTW: I went to a church where the PP didn’t know the local language (long story). He read the Gospel in Spanish, and it was then translated by a lay person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top