Our Seminarian is Distributing the Eucharist During Communion, Is This an Abuse?

[benedictgal]

What you’re quoting is the GIRM which pertains to MASS. The seminarian is free to read the Gospel in a communion service.

However, he is not to use the terminology that is restricted to both you and the deacon, such as “The Lord be with you”.

 

[cknick]

I was reading the USCCB interpretation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, and it cautions Bishops to not easily fall away from adopting new forms lest they confuse the faithful. Between this forum and my other forum about filling common cups, that is exactly what has happened. The faithful have become confused in many respects. This is causing them to question their clergy, pastors and Bishops.

 

[estesbob]

Inasmuch as the diocesan bishop does have the competency, and no one is denying that, such services should not be permitted unless there is a compelling reason. The reason why this issue came up in RS was that these have been done (and continue to be done) at a rate that is not justified. There should be no reason why a parish should have a communion service unless there is compelling justification for it. These things have been happening all too often to the point that they are the norm rather than the exception.

It appears to be the norm in my diocese-in fact it was the norm in the dioceses i came from. i am leaving now for our Monday Morning Communion service and in about 30 minute will hold Our Lord and Savior in my hands and then follow his admonition to eat his body. Norm or not i am joyful I can do this this morning.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

These things have been happening all too often to the point that they are the norm rather than the exception.

That may be your understanding, but the local bishop has been entursted by the Church to make those decisions.

 

[benedictgal]

That may be your understanding, but the local bishop has been entursted by the Church to make those decisions.

But, the fact remains that RS was written, with the collaboration of several discasteries, because abuses kept popping up, such as the weekday Communion services. Certainly, that was enough for Rome to sit up and take notice and specifically state that these should not be freely granted and that there had better be a compelling reason to do so.

Now, for those who inisist on their legitimacy: if you want to receive Our Lord on a daily basis, why not check your diocesan website to see if there are neighboring parishes that have a Mass on the particular day your services is being held and go there, instead? That is what I normally do.

 

[estesbob]

But, the fact remains that RS was written, with the collaboration of several discasteries, because abuses kept popping up, such as the weekday Communion services. Certainly, that was enough for Rome to sit up and take notice and specifically state that these should not be freely granted and that there had better be a compelling reason to do so.

Now, for those who inisist on their legitimacy: if you want to receive Our Lord on a daily basis, why not check your diocesan website to see if there are neighboring parishes that have a Mass on the particular day your services is being held and go there, instead? That is what I normally do.

Kinda difficult when you live in the mountains and the closest other town is 30 miles away.

 

[Phemie]

Kinda difficult when you live in the mountains and the closest other town is 30 miles away.

30 miles? I guess it’s all relative. To me that’s a very short drive, one that I make to pick up an ice cream cone on Sunday afternoon. The closest parish for me when there’s no Mass here is 368 miles away.

 

[estesbob]

Kinda difficult when you live in the mountains and the closest other town is 30 miles away.

30 miles in the Mountains is a long way! At my texas office 30 mles is a piece of cake!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But, the fact remains that RS was written, with the collaboration of several discasteries, because abuses kept popping up, such as the weekday Communion services. Certainly, that was enough for Rome to sit up and take notice and specifically state that these should not be freely granted and that there had better be a compelling reason to do so.

As previously stated, whatever your thoughts on the matter are, it is the local bishop who is given the authority to make the decision. As long as the priest is following the guidelines set down by his bishop there is no “abuse” taking place.

 

[benedictgal]

As previously stated, whatever your thoughts on the matter are, it is the local bishop who is given the authority to make the decision. As long as the priest is following the guidelines set down by his bishop there is no “abuse” taking place.

With all due respect, Father, the local ordinary does not have the right to overrule what is written in RS. Granted, he is the chief liturgist for his diocese; however, he cannot go against what an authoritative document of the Church says.

 

[zab]

With all due respect, Father, the local ordinary does not have the right to overrule what is written in RS. Granted, he is the chief liturgist for his diocese; however, he cannot go against what an authoritative document of the Church says.

You seem to imply that he has said something to the contrary.

 

[John_Lilburne]

With all due respect, Father, the local ordinary does not have the right to overrule what is written in RS. Granted, he is the chief liturgist for his diocese; however, he cannot go against what an authoritative document of the Church says.

Which part of RS are you implying that the bishop would be going against? It has:
“[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.”

You seem to interpret “must not easily grant permission” as “must never grant permission”.

It has: “[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during
Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the
Priest celebrant’s Communion.”
It says “normally” not “only”.

It has: “[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not
deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed,
and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who
is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to
deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that
the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”

The bishop has to make the assessment of whether to deny communion to those wanting it at a weekday communion service. And while he must not “easily grant permission” for Communion then, it is a complicated decision he makes.

 

[benedictgal]

Which part of RS are you implying that the bishop would be going against? It has:
“[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.”

You seem to interpret “must not easily grant permission” as “must never grant permission”.

It has: “[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during
Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the
Priest celebrant’s Communion.”
It says “normally” not “only”.

It has: “[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not
deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed,
and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who
is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to
deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that
the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”

The bishop has to make the assessment of whether to deny communion to those wanting it at a weekday communion service. And while he must not “easily grant permission” for Communion then, it is a complicated decision he makes.

John, the problem is that this opens up a whole can of worms. In my diocese, ,when the priest has a day off, the parish will hold a communion service (either led by a deacon or the laity). There is no real compelling reason why this should happen. While we do have mission parishes in the diocese (mostly for the colonias), even these do not have communion services. Nonetheless, each of the parisehs and colonia missions does have Sunday Mass. And, they are also taken care of with Mass for Holy Days of Obligation.

For awhile, my parochial vicar had done this when he served as a rector (had communion services for his day off); however, he has had a strong change of heart on the matter and chewed me out a long time ago for leading one (I did it because the laity conducting them were doing it all wrong). Since then, I’ll avoid it like the plauge. I would rather drive clear across town, or cross the bridge and walk into Nuevo Laredo, Mexico (which I have done) and go to Mass than a communion service.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

John, the problem is that this opens up a whole can of worms. In my diocese, ,when the priest has a day off, the parish will hold a communion service (either led by a deacon or the laity). There is no real compelling reason why this should happen. While we do have mission parishes in the diocese (mostly for the colonias), even these do not have communion services. Nonetheless, each of the parisehs and colonia missions does have Sunday Mass. And, they are also taken care of with Mass for Holy Days of Obligation.

Same thing here. We do have a mission church in the area that has mass only at 11am on a Sunday. No communion service at any other times or on any other days. They don’t even offer confession or Mass on Hole Days of Obligation (other than Sunday of course ). For those, you’re directed to go to the parish it’s a mission of, which is about 20-30 minutes away.
The parish I go to, which is about 20-30 minutes away, has the communion service on the priest’s day off, Monday. I can now only think that it’s to appease the retirees that are prominent in the parish. Especially since the parish doesn’t have anything for Saturday other than the Sunday vigil mass, which the retirees are the primary attendees. I couldn’t imagine them going to church twice in one day, especially when they complain to Father that his homily went a little long and they missed out on the early bird specials at the restaurants. I think he gets them back though by going longer when they complain; his longer homilies always seem to mention how people would like to get out of mass early.

I’m actually grateful that we don’t have the abuses that I’ve read about on these forums. All I’ve really noticed was no holy water during all of Lent, and now this regarding communion services on a weekday.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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."

Bold - enough said.

 

[benedictgal]

Bold - enough said.

With all due respect, Father, the phrase that follows the section that you quoted is just as important:

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." ***

Thus, the Church has already given specific parameters and conditions. “Must not easily grant” is very different from “may not easily grant”. Daily Mass is not compulsory nor obligatory, unless, a Holy Day of Obligation falls during a weekday. Sunday, however, is. That is the big difference.

 

[zab]

The answer to the OP’s question is that the seminarian is not necessarily participating in an abuse. We do not have enough information to make that determination.

But I might add that it has been an observation in this archdiocese that some priestless parishes seem to have gotten the false impression that a Communion Service is just as good as the Mass and that they do just fine without a priest. And based on that observation, our previous pastor decided to do away with the Communion Service that was scheduled for the pastor’s day off. And our present pastor has kept this practice as well.(We only have one priest in residence). He believed that we should experience a loss, not have a false belief that a Communion Service was just as good or better than the Mass. It was also an opportunity for our parish to participate in other rites of the church that included Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and benediction when the deacon was present.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

With all due respect, Father, the phrase that follows the section that you quoted is just as important:

Thus, the Church has already given specific parameters and conditions. “Must not easily grant” is very different from “may not easily grant”. Daily Mass is not compulsory nor obligatory, unless, a Holy Day of Obligation falls during a weekday. Sunday, however, is. That is the big difference.

Must not easily grant does not equal cannot grant. It is the exclusive judgment of the Ordinary.