SPLIT: Women leading communion services

[Phemie]

In one such parish near me, it was phony. It was a response to female voices in the parish that wanted to have “liturgical participation.” (I want that, too; that’s why I participate by receiving communion during Mass. ) In this church, it was also an excuse to allow lay women to preach. The women involved wore surplices. I felt extremely uncomfortable at the one such service I attended, and never attended again. It just felt wrong, and manufactured. There was a normal daily weekday Mass in the morning, celebrated by one of the several resident priests; this “service” substituted for one of the other Masses on that day; that’s all it was. It had nothing to do with shortage of priests.

It’s too bad that that parish chose to do this. I wonder though, when you say the women wore surplices, do you perhaps mean albs? Or did they really wear a cassock and a surplice?

When we led Evening Prayer, while doing pastoral training, the leader and the assistant were always vested in albs, the garment proper to any baptized person and certainly proper to the leader of prayer. When we led E.P. in our parish we didn’t vest because, without catechesis by the pastor, we knew it would be misinterpreted as women wanting to ‘play at being priests’, the furthest thing from our minds.

 

[Moscati]

My parish has a Communion service instead of daily Mass on Mondays, because we only have one priest and he has that day off, like many others have said. But it is always run by one of our deacons–they are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. It seems to me like there’s no real need to have lay people do it (irrespective of their gender).

 

[Phemie]

My parish has a Communion service instead of daily Mass on Mondays, because we only have one priest and he has that day off, like many others have said. But it is always run by one of our deacons–they are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. It seems to me like there’s no real need to have lay people do it (irrespective of their gender).

That’s all well and good but I hope you realize that there are many, many parishes where deacons are unknown. When I last checked there were none at all in the three dioceses in my province. In 56 years as a Catholic, worshipping in dozens of parishes across the country, I’ve only been in one that had a transitional deacon for a while and one that had the occasional service of a permanent deacon who spoke the language.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

yes, I understand the abuse. But that doesn’t mean that it is not a legitimate, valuable practice for those places that truly do have a shortage of priests. I was pointing out the real reason why the Church established the possibility of a “Sunday service in the absence of a Priest” which is what it is really called and all that it should be.

Any parish that has priests in residence, has a real daily Mass and then also has a communion service is seriously confused and I agree that the priests need their heads knocked together!

…except that what you and many others here may not know, is that their occurence in some parishes became a tacit invitation for parishes that did indeed have not just one priest available every Sunday, but several, in residence (not shared).

In one such parish near me, it was phony. It was a response to female voices in the parish that wanted to have “liturgical participation.” (I want that, too; that’s why I participate by receiving communion during Mass. ) In this church, it was also an excuse to allow lay women to preach. The women involved wore surplices. I felt extremely uncomfortable at the one such service I attended, and never attended again. It just felt wrong, and manufactured. There was a normal daily weekday Mass in the morning, celebrated by one of the several resident priests; this “service” substituted for one of the other Masses on that day; that’s all it was. It had nothing to do with shortage of priests.

 

[benedictgal]

My parish has a Communion service instead of daily Mass on Mondays, because we only have one priest and he has that day off, like many others have said. But it is always run by one of our deacons–they are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. It seems to me like there’s no real need to have lay people do it (irrespective of their gender).

However, these communion services, regardless of who is leading them, should not be a regular occurance. Please see my initial post wherein I cited the relevent section of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

In my diocese, there are parishes who will forgo having daily Mass when the pastor is on his day-off. Now, just to clarify: only six parishes in my diocese have a pastor/administrator and a parochial vicar. All of the rest are one-priest parishes.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’d like to comment on the implied misogny in the title.

Leaving aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of holding Communion services, how does the fact that women may lead them alter the way they are viewed?

In other words, surely the title should have been’ Laypeople leading Communion services’. That is the point at issue. Specifying or implying that women leading the services is the underlying problem is sheer prejudice.

Correct. Just as the thread about women receiving communion should actually have been about laypeople reciving communion. It’s the result of fuzzy thinking. The question of who can do what should be the same for non-ordained men and for women.

 

[benedictgal]

Correct. Just as the thread about women receiving communion should actually have been about laypeople reciving communion. It’s the result of fuzzy thinking. The question of who can do what should be the same for non-ordained men and for women.

Actually, this thread was a spin-off from another one. The OP posed the question to me and it was extracted from that particular thread and made to stand alone.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s too bad that that parish chose to do this. I wonder though, when you say the women wore surplices, do you perhaps mean albs? Or did they really wear a cassock and a surplice?

My bad. Meant an alb. And it definitely smacked of “playing at priests” (“dress-up”). When you’re a child, “dress-up” as a rehearsal for adult roles is developmentally appropriate. When you’re an adult, it frankly makes the adult in costume (without the authority or title behind it) look like a child.

 

[Phemie]

My bad. Meant an alb. And it definitely smacked of “playing at priests” (“dress-up”). When you’re a child, “dress-up” as a rehearsal for adult roles is developmentally appropriate. When you’re an adult, it frankly makes the adult in costume (without the authority or title behind it) look like a child.

I’m sorry you feel that way. An alb is neither a costume nor a priestly garment, it’s a baptismal garment. It denotes no title nor authority. It’s appropriate for ministers to wear it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m sorry you feel that way. An alb is neither a costume nor a priestly garment, it’s a baptismal garment. It denotes no title nor authority. It’s appropriate for ministers to wear it.

Then quoting your words back to you, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by your ealier post:

When we led Evening Prayer, while doing pastoral training, the leader and the assistant were always vested in albs, the garment proper to any baptized person and certainly proper to the leader of prayer. When we led E.P. in our parish we didn’t vest because, without catechesis by the pastor, we knew it would be misinterpreted as women wanting to ‘play at being priests’, the furthest thing from our minds.

(Emphases mine)

 

[Phemie]

Then quoting your words back to you, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by your ealier post:

When we led Evening Prayer, while doing pastoral training

, the leader and the assistant were always vested in albs, the garment proper to any baptized person and certainly proper to the leader of prayer. When we led E.P. in our parish we didn’t vest because, without catechesis by the pastor, we knew it would be misinterpreted as women wanting to ‘play at being priests’, the furthest thing from our minds.

(Emphases mine)
It was precisely reactions like yours that we wanted to avoid. We know that people view an alb as a priestly garment, even if it isn’t. We knew that if we vested our leaders of prayer it would be misinterpreted. After a year of prior catechesis + 6 months of celebrating it we were still having a problem convincing people that Evening Prayer was ‘prayer’, let alone that an alb wasn’t ‘Father’s clothes’.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Use of the alb avoids the dress code problem mentioned in the other thread.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So it looks as if there’s a split opinion: some think that the wearing of an alb by both genders in liturgical settings, in a leadership position (not merely as a post-baptismal symbol), and although priests are available and in residence, is appropriate and “avoids problems,” while others find it misleading & unsettling to a congregation. I guess when it comes to the context of role, I find myself in the latter camp.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[thistle]

So it looks as if there’s a split opinion: some think that the wearing of an alb by both genders in liturgical settings, in a leadership position (not merely as a post-baptismal symbol), and although priests are available and in residence, is appropriate and “avoids problems,” while others find it misleading & unsettling to a congregation. I guess when it comes to the context of role, I find myself in the latter camp.

Hope that clarifies.

In our parish church no unordained person wears an alb.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Thank you! Glad to know I’m not completely from left field here.

 

[Moscati]

That’s all well and good but I hope you realize that there are many, many parishes where deacons are unknown. When I last checked there were none at all in the three dioceses in my province. In 56 years as a Catholic, worshipping in dozens of parishes across the country, I’ve only been in one that had a transitional deacon for a while and one that had the occasional service of a permanent deacon who spoke the language.

I didn’t realize they were quite that rare. I’ve only regularly attended two parishes (on opposite sides of the country), and both had permanent deacons. My current parish has two. Thanks for the perspective!