A lay person can do it IF no priest or deacons are available. So if a priest or deacon is present at the Mass lay people are prohibitted from reading the Gospel and giving the homily. If a priest or deacon is not available, with permission of the diocesan bishop in repeating circumstances or permission of a priest in emergency circumstances (i.e. priest at last minute can’t show), lay people can read the Gospel and give a refection at a communion service.
Reasonable distance is dependent on the person going that distance. 10-15 minutes may be reasonable for a person that can drive that distance, but it is an astronomical distance for a poor family who can not afford a car or a 90 yr old person that can no longer drive but can walk to the local church. Communion services are intended to give ALL the faith the opportunity to receive Jesus’ body, soul and divinity when a priest is not available.
If anyone other than a priest or deacon or bishop is giving the teaching, message or whatever it is not, by definition, a homily. There is a prescribed ritual for a communion service in the absence of a priest or deacon, and it does permit a lay person, even a woman in case of necessity, to read the Gospel (although a man should be asked for preference) and to read some type of published reflection or message about the readings. The rules for Mass are the rules for Mass and the rules for a communion service are those rules.
Ideally, the priest should be the one administering Holy Communion. I really think that, although it is not necessary for validity of the Eucharist, there should be a priest there. The priest is acting in personae Christi- the person of Christ- and that is something given to no layman (or woman in this case…).
Sacra Tridentina Synodus would be calling for a daily Mass to be celebrated in every parish, it would not be envisioning a daily Lay lead Communion service.
I’m sure such a thing was unknown at that time, except perhaps in mission territories. We have to bear in mind that the various rites were written with various situations in mind, and then adapted according to local circumstances. RCIA is an example. Where priests are responsible for several parishes and missions it just may not be possible for a daily Mass in each location, even if the bishop gives permission for more than one Mass a day. Most towns here, if they have more than one parish, try to make sure that there will be at least one Mass each day convenient for Catholics in that town, and quite often my daily Mass is a funeral.
I did not have the whole document. What I had referred to the faithful receiving daily communion and did not make any mention of mass. Does it specifically refer to there needing to be a mass?
I recall a story about a village in China that had not had Mass in 45 years. When a priest finally did return, over 2000 people attended his first Mass. They continued the faith through rosary groups and teaching. But when the priest came back, Christ came back- in the Eucharist. The presence of the priest is essential. By supporting “communion services” led by the laity, we risk losing a full understanding of the holy office of a priest.
My now 90 yr old grandfather taught me that I should receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus as often as possible.
And, as the OP has suggested, even the more orthodox members of the church aren’t quite sure what to make of it; we risk not only losing an understanding of the nature of the priest, but also of the holy sacrifice of the mass (although I suppose your position implies that anyway, Caesar
).I will try and locate the document. Based on the date it was during a time when the faithful did not necessarly even receive Holy Communion every Sunday. They tended to go to Mass but did not receive every time. A priest would celebrate Mass every day but usually in private and I’m guessing again based on the date that the document was trying to encourage priests to celebrate daily Mass with the faithful present, instead of privately.