Ummm.. thats not a mass!

[peary1]

It’s been long established by Rome (I believe the relevant provision is in the Code of Canon Law) that ANY layperson may vest in an alb, for any reason or no reason. The alb is NOT restricted to ordained persons but is permitted to all the baptised faithful, so no-one is acting like a priest in wearing one. You’re thinking of the cassock, a different garment altogether.

And the order for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest certainly allows for whichever person is leading the Celebration - who in the absence of a deacon can legitimately be a layman or lay woman - to read the Gospel of the relevant Sunday.

Certainly a lay leader is not to sit in the presider’s chair, nor to give a homily, nor to recite the Eucharistic prayer, nor to give blessings in the manner of a priest (and there’s no indication that the leader in the OP’s case was ‘acting like a priest’ in any of these forbidden ways). However, the Gospel is an integral part of such services and won’t be omitted should a deacon not be present to read it, but rather read by a layperson.

Remember these Sunday Celebrations are NOT Masses, and not being Masses it poses no problems whatsoever that the Gospel be read by a layperson, any more than any other non-Mass prayer service containing Gospel readings would be problematic if such readings were done by laypeople. It’s not like there was a priest available to read it, nor presumably a deacon either.

I know exactly what the poster was referring to because I experienced it myself. I thought I was attending Mass and it turned out to be a Communion liturgy - ok, I can accept that with no problem. But one of the nuns came out wearing the alb, a chausable and whatever, it seemed, she could get her hands on before coming out to the sanctuary. Not only did she kiss the altar, she gave a quick penitential rite, she also stood at the podium used by the priest to read the gospel and gave out communion. I was really turned off by this, and decided never to go back to such a service. We have six priests in our parish, and it seems quite absurd not to have daily Mass where at least one of them can celebrate it.

 

[LilyM]

I know exactly what the poster was referring to because I experienced it myself. I thought I was attending Mass and it turned out to be a Communion liturgy - ok, I can accept that with no problem. But one of the nuns came out wearing the alb, a chausable and whatever, it seemed, she could get her hands on before coming out to the sanctuary. Not only did she kiss the altar, she gave a quick penitential rite, she also stood at the podium used by the priest to read the gospel and gave out communion. I was really turned off by this, and decided never to go back to such a service. We have six priests in our parish, and it seems quite absurd not to have daily Mass where at least one of them can celebrate it.

Yes, you may have had six priests, but that’s not an end of the issue. It sometimes happens that diocesan obligations (or obligations to their religious order if they are members of a particular order) require as many priests as possible to be present together at meetings and whatnot.

In such cases it’s common practice for all bar one priest to attend, and for that one priest to cover the required masses and other duties. So it would be quite easy for a predicament to arise if that one priest suddenly takes ill or is called away to give last rites to someone or something. So don’t judge your parish too harshly on that count.

Otherwise, the chasuble, the kissing of the altar, and the penitential rite certainly broke the guidelines of a Communion Service, so you did the right thing.

For her to read the Gospel or distribute communion, though, were not at all abuses, they were legitimate things for someone leading a service to do.

She read from the podium? In most churches, in my experience, one and the same podium (it’s actually called a lectern) is used by lay readers to proclaim the readings and Psalm AND for the priest to proclaim the Gospel. So if this was the case in your church, there was nothing wrong with her reading the Gospel at that lectern, as it was not exclusively reserved for the priest’s use.

There is NO indication from the OP that anythign like most of these deviations from the norms occured in their case other than the one - that the altar was kissed. Nor that there were any priests or deacons available.

 

[Ignatius]

The Latin name is “Directorium de celebrationibus dominicalibus absente presbytero, Christi Ecclesia”.

From the end of the document:

On 21 May 1988 this Directory, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship, was approved and confirmed by Pope John Paul II, who also ordered its publication.

Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship
Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ
2 June 1988.

Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, OSB
Prefect

+Vergilio Noe
Titular Archbishop of Voncaria
Secretary

It was published on June 10, 1988, in Notitiae 263.

Thank you. That is the kind of authentic reference I was looking or. Unfortunately so many times I’ve seen statements that ‘it’s from the vatican’ and it turns out to be nothing more than some dissident groups agenda driven “norm”.
With so many dissident groups promoting their documents as ‘official’, it would be most helpful if this website were to provide exactly that documentation and references as you have done.
i.e.

“Directorium de celebrationibus dominicalibus absente presbytero, Christi Ecclesia”.

On 21 May 1988 this Directory, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship, was approved and confirmed by Pope John Paul II, who also ordered its publication.

Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship
Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ
2 June 1988.

Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, OSB
Prefect

Thank you.

 

[JohnT58]

Ok, seems I need to stand corrected. Though, it was always explained to me that that reading and preaching the Gospel were reserved for priests and deacons. That being said, I see a further danger of diminishing the role of the priest here. As with a lot of other things, exceptions for extraordinary circumstances gradually become the norm. The only reserved rol for the priest it seems is conscecrating the hosts?

 

[Phemie]

Ok, seems I need to stand corrected. Though, it was always explained to me that that reading and preaching the Gospel were reserved for priests and deacons. That being said, I see a further danger of diminishing the role of the priest here. As with a lot of other things, exceptions for extraordinary circumstances gradually become the norm. The only reserved rol for the priest it seems is conscecrating the hosts?

Within Mass, reading the Gospel is the Deacon’s ministry but a priest’s ministry if there is no Deacon.

For some parishes in my diocese ‘Sunday Celebrations in the absence of a Priest’ are the norm, simply because we don’t have enough priests to be able to send one to each little remote community that has Catholics. Just this week my pastor had to fly to a remote spot to celebrate a funeral. He’ll be there over 2 Sundays so they will have Mass and when, he leaves, they should have enough Consecrated Hosts to last them until Easter when a priest will fly in again - if the weather cooperates.

We are lucky enough to have a young priest staying in our community on sabbatical and he was able to celebrate Mass for us while our pastor is away. Otherwise, while our pastor is away we’d be the ones celebrating ‘Sunday Liturgy of the Word with Communion’ as it is called in our Canadian Ritual.

 

[DorianGregorian]

The problem with this, is that it takes away the point of the Eucharist. It is not simply a gathering, or a meal, or a way Jesus + gave Himself for us to eat. The Eucharist is directly tied in with the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, the two go hand in hand.

Now of course if someone is in danger of death and there is no time, the words of Consecration (Hoc est enim Corpus Meum…Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei) could be said over the bread and wine and transubstantiation would take place. However to understand this as a narrative, instead of an action is a Protestant error. My point here is the Eucharist exists because the Sacrifice of the Mass exists.

These so called ‘communion services’ separate the Sacrifice from the Eucharist, which is harmful to the faith of Catholics and contrary to Session 22 of the Council of Trent. Also because these do not satisfy the Sunday obligation, there is really no need to go if you can’t get to a Mass. These ‘services’ only came about because of the laity’s misunderstanding of the Mass following VII and the hierarchy losing it’s spine and willing to oblige bad Theology.

 

[Digitonomy]

Also because these do not satisfy the Sunday obligation, there is really no need to go if you can’t get to a Mass.

If you don’t “need” the Eucharist at that time, then you are correct there is no “need” to go.

DorianGregorian:

These ‘services’ only came about because of the laity’s misunderstanding of the Mass following VII and the hierarchy losing it’s spine and willing to oblige bad Theology.

The practice of distributing the Eucharist to those unable to make it to mass is a very longstanding one. I’m not enough of a historian to say whether a prayer service of any sort was typically held at the point of distribution, nor can I say for certain whether it was ever common practice before recently to distribute at a church if say the priest had died or was absent from the area.

 

[otjm]

Ok, seems I need to stand corrected. Though, it was always explained to me that that reading and preaching the Gospel were reserved for priests and deacons. That being said, I see a further danger of diminishing the role of the priest here. As with a lot of other things, exceptions for extraordinary circumstances gradually become the norm. The only reserved rol for the priest it seems is conscecrating the hosts?

And within Mass, that is correct (Gospel and homily) - only the priest and deacon, and if the deacon is present, the Gospel by the deacon.

However, this was not a Mass.

And Last I heard, they are the offical witness at marriage (not laity); Confirmation is reserved to the bishop and by specific permission, to the pastor but not to associate priests or to the deacon, and the priest, not the deacon, can give absolution; and except for emergency, only a priest or deacon baptizes; the homily is in the provence of the priest, and by occasion, the deacon but not others; and the Sacrament of the Sick is reserved only to the priest.

As to further diminishing the role, no, the roll is not diminished, as the priests still have their traditional roles. Much has been said about the laity distributing Communion during a Mass, and that would be off-topic (there are other threads on it); however, distributing Communion which has been confected at another Mass is not as far out of line as one would sometimes put it.