Ummm.. thats not a mass!

[youngsaint]

It was you. OP means Original Poster.

Got it

 

[Onegin]

By that logic people who are bothered by attending Mass shouldn’t attend it either. People who are bothered by fasting in Lent shouldn’t do so. People who are bothered by fasting for an hour before Communion shouldn’t do it. Such thinking lets us off the hook for everything!

That really isn’t an accurate comparison because, while attending Mass and fasting in Lent are mandatory requirements in the life of every Catholic, going to a lay-run communion service is not. It would be more accurate to say that attending a communion service is akin to a personal devotion; if that devotion “bothers” someone then they are probably best not engaging in it, and instead choosing one that is more apt to aid them in their own spiritual growth.

 

[Magdalena09]

I don’t have an opinion one way or the other as to whether or not “communion services” are beneficial or not…

…but maybe I do now that I think about it. Because if it is licit and valid and if you are able to receive the Eucharist which is the source and summit of our very faith… I can’t imagine how this would not outweigh peoples’ distaste for a woman reading the gospel or any other such personal preferences.

 

[ProVobis]

By that logic people who are bothered by attending Mass shouldn’t attend it either. People who are bothered by fasting in Lent shouldn’t do so. People who are bothered by fasting for an hour before Communion shouldn’t do it. Such thinking lets us off the hook for everything!

You got me there.

I was using the term “spiritual advantage” in the spirit of Canon Law on the Sacraments but you’ve brought up some valid points on why and where maybe it should be extended.

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non﷓catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[Ignatius]

See here for the Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest.

What document is that citing? That just doesn’t look right to me.

 

[otjm]

What document is that citing? That just doesn’t look right to me.

The directory is the document.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What document is that citing? That just doesn’t look right to me.

The document is called the “Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest”. It’s written by the Vatican, specifically the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship.

There is a corresponding national adaptation put out by the USCCB’s Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy entitled “Gathered in Steadfast Faith”, but I don’t know if it is online anywhere.

 

[Ignatius]

The directory is the document.

Ah, so it is not a Church document then?

 

[Ignatius]

The document is called the “Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest”. It’s written by the Vatican, specifically the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship.

There is a corresponding national adaptation put out by the USCCB’s Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy entitled “Gathered in Steadfast Faith”, but I don’t know if it is online anywhere.

Vatican documents always have titles, usually in Latin. What is the name of the document from which this text was translated?

 

[benedictgal]

Vatican documents always have titles, usually in Latin. What is the name of the document from which this text was translated?

Please look at the reference I posted from Redemptionis Sacramentum. In the section on Extraordinary Functions of the Faithful, you will see a segment called Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of the Priest, or something similarly named.

These can be done, but, they should not be the norm. The document specifically states that the bishop should make every possible effort to get a priest to the affected area. Furthermore, Holy Communion does not necessarily need to be distributed at these SCAPs.

 

[Magdalena09]

Here is what I found:

“Because a Parish is essentially a Eucharistic community, it should have a priest who has the “utterly irreplaceable” role of offering Mass for the faithful (Cf. John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, 26). Some of you are confronted with the situation of not being able to provide a priest for every community that has traditionally had one. As an interim and emergency measure, for Catholic doctrine would admit no other judgment, it has become necessary in some places to conduct a Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest, and for this the Holy See has issued appropriate norms (Cf. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Directorium de celebrationibus dominicalibus absente presbytero). Such situations offer only a temporary solution.”

it’s from vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1993/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19930605_alabama-ad-limina_en.html

 

[Just_Lurking]

Vatican documents always have titles, usually in Latin. What is the name of the document from which this text was translated?

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.

 

[LoyalViews]

So, how “orthodox” is it to deny the legitimacy of a ritual explicitly approved and promulgated by competent church authorities? How “orthodox” is it to deny the role of women when such roles have been approved by the Church?

Well, that is not really what I meant. I much prefer the TLM then the Novus Ordo… and I have never been the this kind of service. I have heard of them, oh yes … I have seen them in church bulletins, but I think I sent the wrong message out in my last post, sorry if I may have confused you.

 

[JohnT58]

In the absence of a priest on Sunday a communion service is permissable (see previous post). It is also valid for a lay person leading such a service to wear an alb. So actually it was wrong of you not to attend the remainder of the service as it is a valid replacement for mass when the priest is absent and thus fulfills the Sunday requirement.

Actually you seem to be wrong on a couple of points. There is provision for a service in the absence of a priest. However, ordinarily this should be conducted by a deacon, and preference should be given to him over a lay person. However if a deacon is unavailable, a lay person may lead the prayer by virtue of the common priesthood. At both types of service, communion, brought from a mass at another parish, may be distributed.

As only a deacon could proclaim the Gospel, only he could have lead a service containing the Liturgy of the Word.
The lady in question in the OP should have conducted a service with either morning or evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, not try to mimic a sham of a mass as described in the OP. The poster was perfectly entilted to walk out IMO.

Check out the guidelines for such a service:seasp.org/images/uploadedImages/SCAPBulletinInsert1.pdf

 

[Phemie]

Actually you seem to be wrong on a couple of points. There is provision for a service in the absence of a priest. However, ordinarily this should be conducted by a deacon, and preference should be given to him over a lay person. However if a deacon is unavailable, a lay person may lead the prayer by virtue of the common priesthood. At both types of service, communion, brought from a mass at another parish, may be distributed.

If appointed by the Bishop usually after being recommended by the pastor.

As only a deacon could proclaim the Gospel, only he could have lead a service containing the Liturgy of the Word.

That only applies during Mass. In a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest a layperson who’s been appointed to lead this may certainly read the Gospel.

The lady in question in the OP should have conducted a service with either morning or evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, not try to mimic a sham of a mass as described in the OP. The poster was perfectly entilted to walk out IMO.

Check out the guidelines for such a service:seasp.org/images/uploadedImages/SCAPBulletinInsert1.pdf

 

[Magdalena09]

Actually you seem to be wrong on a couple of points. There is provision for a service in the absence of a priest. However, ordinarily this should be conducted by a deacon, and preference should be given to him over a lay person. However if a deacon is unavailable, a lay person may lead the prayer by virtue of the common priesthood. At both types of service, communion, brought from a mass at another parish, may be distributed.

As only a deacon could proclaim the Gospel, only he could have lead a service containing the Liturgy of the Word.
The lady in question in the OP should have conducted a service with either morning or evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, not try to mimic a sham of a mass as described in the OP. The poster was perfectly entilted to walk out IMO.

Check out the guidelines for such a service:seasp.org/images/uploadedImages/SCAPBulletinInsert1.pdf

Didn’t you read the whole thread? The guidelines have already been posted.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As only a deacon could proclaim the Gospel, only he could have lead a service containing the Liturgy of the Word.

According to the rules, when a layperson reads the Gospel in a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest, he or she omits the greeting, “The Lord be with you,” before the Gospel, as that greeting is proper to a priest or deacon. There is no provision for a layperson to alter the order of service by omitting the Gospel.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

At both types of service, communion, brought from a mass at another parish, may be distributed.

Well, it could be communion from a prior Mass at that parish as well.

As only a deacon could proclaim the Gospel, only he could have lead a service containing the Liturgy of the Word.

Incorrect. The documents on this matter allow a layperson (male or female) to read the Gospel and even read a homily prepared by a priest. Links and quotes for these rules are already posted in this thread.

The lady in question in the OP should have conducted a service with either morning or evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, not try to mimic a sham of a mass as described in the OP. The poster was perfectly entilted to walk out IMO.

While no one is required to attend a communion service, it is a valid option on Sundays for parishes without an available priest.
There are a few problems with the way the service was conducted but I wouldn’t necessarily call it “a sham of a mass.”

 

[jmcrae]

The lady in question in the OP should have …]

The lady in question should have done exactly what her pastor instructed her to do - neither more nor less - and I have no doubt in my mind that that’s exactly what she did.

It boils my blood that, merely because it was a woman, it is assumed that she usurped the role for herself, and then just made something up as she went along.

 

[lakotak]

You did the right thing, these “communion services” (which btw is a Protestant term) are borderline heretical, especially a women leading a group in prayer from the altar! People will start saying why not make them Priests? Read Chapter two of First Timothy!!

And a woman should never read the Gospel in public.

BTW they don’t count for your Sunday obligation whether you stay or not, one is obligated to attend the Sacrifice not recieve Communion.

Hi

Just a question here. There is a morning service at my parish and sometimes the priest cannot come and a sister, Daughters of Charity, leads the service, reads the Gospel and gives communion that comes from the tabernacle of the Church. Is this wrong too?