Who is "authorized" to proclaim the Gospel Reading?

[struxton]

I am a lector at our parish and am also a fluent Spanish speaker. During last night’s Ash Wednesday bilingual service I got pressed into reading the Gospel (yikes!)

Seems that our pastor who can speak Spanish was in the hospital undergoing tests and our Deacon, who doesn’t speak Spanish, was going to “run” the communion service (already consecrated host was available from the previous 6:00 p.m. mass).

When asked to read the Gospel in Spanish I was surprised and stated that the Deacon could read the gospel in English. The head of our liturgy planning ministry was emphatic in having the Gospel read in Spanish because this was a bilingual service and the Deacon was in agreement.

The rationale they used to justify my reading the Gospel was that the Deacon would give me a special blessing (huh?) before I read it.

I did ask, “Are you SURE this is in accord with the GIRM?” and they said yes because I was receiving a blessing before reading.

So, I still have misgivings about what I did and I would like a definitve answer. If I did wrong, I will need “authorized” backup material so I can (discreetly) inform these two individuals of their error. It’s a delicate situation because the head of litury planning believes that gender inclusve lectionaries should be used (ugh!).

Thanks for the prompt reply.

 

[stbruno]

Relax.This was not a mass but rather a Liturgy of the Word service…no problem at all. In fact, a Extraordinary Eucharistic minister could do the whole thing without even a deacon present. You were perfectly fine in reading the gospel. It is only during a mass when the gospel must be proclaimed by either the celebrant(priest) or deacon.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This section of the GIRM makes no reference to the situation you described:

• 1. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.*
     usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3b

This paragraph does speak of deputizing individuals to perform liturgical functions, but specifically excludes those proper to a priest or deacon:
107. The liturgical duties that are not proper to the priest or the deacon and are listed above (cf. nos. 100-106) may also be entrusted by a liturgical blessing or a temporary deputation to suitable lay persons chosen by the pastor or rector of the church.89 All should observe the norms established by the Bishop for his diocese regarding the office of those who serve the priest at the altar.

Furthermore, when a minister is available to perform his duties, it is not fitting to depute these to one not instituted or ordained to that order, which is somewhat demonstrated by this norm:

• 1. If a deacon is present at any celebration of Mass, he should exercise his office. Furthermore, it is desirable that, as a rule, an acolyte, a lector, and a cantor should be there to assist the priest celebrant. In fact, the rite to be described below foresees a greater number of ministers.

*The duties of a lector are also enumerated, with mention for the prayer of the faithful of what a lector may do with no deacon present. These still do not mention the possibility of a lector reading the Gospel.
*196. The lector reads from the ambo the readings that precede the Gospel. If there is no psalmist, the lector may also proclaim the responsorial Psalm after the first reading.

1. When no deacon is present, the lector, after the introduction by the priest, may announce from the ambo the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful.
2. If there is no singing at the Entrance or at Communion and the antiphons in the Missal are not recited by the faithful, the lector may read them at the appropriate time (cf. above, nos. 48, 87).

To be fair, all those directives apply to Mass, when there will without a doubt be an ordained minister present to proclaim the Gospel. Still, liturgical guidelines usually have so many exceptions foreseen in them that I would think it would be mentioned if a lector could legitimately proclaim the Gospel for any reason in that setting. The guidelines for a communion service without a priest should provide for laypeople proclaiming the Gospel, since there is a good chance that there may be no clergy present, but because of the above body of legislation, especially that a deacon needs to do his job if he’s present, I don’t think this could be done with him there. I’ll try to find those norms to be sure.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

From the Vatican’s Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest:

• 1. When a deacon presides at the celebration, he acts in accord with his ministry in regard to the greetings, the prayers, the gospel reading and homily, the giving of communion, and the dismissal and blessing. He wears the vestments proper to his ministry, that is, the alb with stole, and, as circumstances suggest, the dalmatic. He uses the presidential chair.*

Just as in the Mass, a deacon at a Communion service is to exercise his ministry.

 

[decn2b]

A lector is someone who has been instituted into one of the four minor orders of priesthood. Lector, Acolyte, Porter, Exorcist. The latter two have been supressed. In the old days I believe after the minor orders came the Holy Orders or “ordination” of which I believe Subdeacon, Deacon, Preist, Bishop, ArchBishop, Cardinal etc. While I have totally butchered the order of Holy Orders could someone please post the correct line of Holy Orders so I am not stuck with spreading bad info?

 

[SMHW]

It would seem that the proper thing to do would have been to have provided printed copies of the Gospel in Spanish for the non-English speakers and then to have had the deacon read the Gospel in English.

Of course I don’t know how long ahead of time the deacon knew he would be responsible for the communion service or if there are copyright problems with the Spanish version of the Lectionary…

 

[plato3]

stbruno:

Relax.This was not a mass but rather a Liturgy of the Word service…no problem at all. In fact, a Extraordinary Eucharistic minister could do the whole thing without even a deacon present. You were perfectly fine in reading the gospel. It is only during a mass when the gospel must be proclaimed by either the celebrant(priest) or deacon.

Ditto,
I have been studying Spanish and can do fairly well with the Gospels now. However, in the past at Communion Services, I have had a good proclaimer read the Gospel in Spanish and I would read it in English.We have a large Latino presence at our services. Our Communion Services are bilingual. I still use an interpreter for the homily, when I preach at the Spanish Mass.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

decn2b:

A lector is someone who has been instituted into one of the four minor orders of priesthood. Lector, Acolyte, Porter, Exorcist. The latter two have been supressed. In the old days I believe after the minor orders came the Holy Orders or “ordination” of which I believe Subdeacon, Deacon, Preist, Bishop, ArchBishop, Cardinal etc. While I have totally butchered the order of Holy Orders could someone please post the correct line of Holy Orders so I am not stuck with spreading bad info?

Porter
Lector
Exorcist
Acolyte
Subdeacon
Deacon
Priest
Bishop

While subdeacon was a major order it was still not a sacrament - only deacons on up received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Archbishops, cardinals, primates, patriarchs, and monsignors have titles that refer to special jurisdictions and honors (there may be more titles, too, those are just the first to come to mind), but they do not denote another grade of orders.

For instance, a bishop and archbishop possess the exact same grade of orders; they both belong to the episcopal order. A cardinal, on the other hand, can be a bishop, priest, deacon, or layman, even purely theoretically a lay woman; that title does not necessarily convey any information about an individual’s orders (even though it almost always means he’s a bishop because current law requires that all cardinals be made bishops unless exempted by the pope).

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

plato3:

Ditto,
I have been studying Spanish and can do fairly well with the Gospels now. However, in the past at Communion Services, I have had a good proclaimer read the Gospel in Spanish and I would read it in English.We have a large Latino presence at our services. Our Communion Services are bilingual. I still use an interpreter for the homily, when I preach at the Spanish Mass.

Based only on what I’ve posted it doesn’t seem like this should be done. Could you point me to the documentation that allows it (I don’t think you’re trying to fool anyone, but sense what I’ve read seems to contradict you I’d like to see where you’re coming from)?

 

[gelsbern]

Minor Orders
Porter
Lector
Exorcist
Acolyte

Major Orders
Subdeacon
Deacon
Priest

A bishop is consecrated as a bishop, not ordained, and there is no sacrament associated with becoming a bishop.

Baptism
Pennance
Commuinion
Confirmation
Annointing of the Sick
Marriage
Holy Orders

Once a priest always a priest, even if they call you Bishop.

 

[otm]

gelsbern:

A bishop is consecrated as a bishop, not ordained, and there is no sacrament associated with becoming a bishop.

Baptism
Pennance
Commuinion
Confirmation
Annointing of the Sick
Marriage
Holy Orders

Once a priest always a priest, even if they call you Bishop.

Wrong. It most certaily is part of the ordination process and is the fullness of the sacrament of priesthood. Someone might be called bishop, but until he is consecrated/ordained bishop, the most he could be would be a priest. So, too, are deacons ordained. They are ordained to the deaconite, and it is part of the Sacrament of priesthood.

 

[gelsbern]

On this we can both in good conscience agree to disagree as it has never been put in concrete.

newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm

NUMBER OF ORDERS

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, can. 3) defined that, besides the priesthood, there are in the Church other orders, both major and minor (q.v.). Though nothing has been defined with regard to the number of orders it is usually given as seven: priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers. The priesthood is thus counted as including bishops; if the latter be numbered separately we have eight; and if we add first tonsure, which was at one time regarded as an order, we have nine. We meet with different numberings in different Churches, and it would seem that mystical reasons influenced them to some extent (Martène, “De antiq. eccl. rit.”, I, viii, l, 1; Denzinger, “Rit. orient.”, II, 155). The “Statuta ecclesiæ antiqua” enumerate nine orders, adding psalmists and counting bishops and priests separately. Others enumerate eight orders, thus, e.g. the author of “De divin. offic.”, 33, and St. Dunstan’s and the Jumièges pontificals (Martène I, viii, 11), the latter not counting bishops, and adding cantor. Innocent III, “De sacro alt. minister.”, I, i, counts six orders, as do also the Irish canons, where acolytes were unknown. Besides the psalmista or cantor, several other functionaries seem to have been recognized as holding orders, e.g., fossarii (fossores) grave diggers, hermeneutoe (interpreters), custodes martyrum etc. Some consider them to have been real orders (Morin, “Comm. de sacris eccl. ordin.”, III, Ex. 11, 7); but it is more probable that they were merely offices, generally committed to clerics (Benedict XIV, “De syn, dioc.”, VIII, ix, 7, 8). In the East there is considerable variety of tradition regarding the number of orders. The Greek Church acknowledges five, bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers. The same number is found in St. John Damascene (Dial. contra manichæos, iii); in the ancient Greek Church acolytes, exorcists, and doorkeepers were probably considered only as offices (cf. Denzinger, “Rit. orient.”, I, 116).

Which of the Orders are Sacramental?

All agree that there is but one Sacrament of Order, i.e., the totality of the power conferred by the sacrament is contained in the supreme order, whilst the others contain only part thereof (St. Thomas, “Supplem.”, Q. xxxvii, a. i, ad 2um). The sacramental character of the priesthood has never been denied by anyone who admitted the Sacrament of Order, and, though not explicitly defined, it follows immediately from the statements of the Council of Trent. Thus (Sess. XXIII, can. 2), “If any one saith that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain steps, advance is made to the priesthood, let him be anathema.” In the fourth chapter of the same session, after declaring that the Sacrament of Order imprints a character “which can neither be effaced nor taken away; the holy synod with reason condemns the opinion of those who assert that priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power”. The priesthood is therefore a sacrament.

With regard to the episcopate the Council of Trent defines that bishops belong to the divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them (Sess. XXIII, c. iv, can. 6, 7). The superiority of bishops is abundantly attested in Tradition, and we have seen above that the distinction between priests and bishops is of Apostolic origin. Most of the older scholastics were of opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g., Billot, “De sacramentis”, II), though the majority of theologians hold it is certain that a bishop’s ordination is a sacrament. With regard to the sacramental character of the other orders see DEACONS; MINOR ORDERS; SUBDEACONS.

 

[Al_Masetti]

As a layperson, and owing to a shortage of priests/deacons/ eucharistic ministers, I was trained, installed as a eucharistic minister, and authorized to perform Communion Services. [Any eucharistic minister can do them, if trained and authorized by the pastor.]

As part of the Communion Service, I read the Gospel… although I did not preach.

Generally did it about once or twice a week for a year. Max was four times in a week, when I had to fill in for someone else.

 

[plato3]

Andreas Hofer:

Based only on what I’ve posted it doesn’t seem like this should be done. Could you point me to the documentation that allows it (I don’t think you’re trying to fool anyone, but sense what I’ve read seems to contradict you I’d like to see where you’re coming from)?

It’s wonderful that you have a great interest in the faith. I think you answered correctly when you said that your norms apply to the Holy Mass. The Communion Service is not a Mass and as the other deacon said, a lay person can read the Gospel in a Communion Service. In my case, I read the Gospel in English and the faithful who do not speak English, were able to hear it in their own language. The apostles did not need this help, when everyone heard the word of God in their own language. During Spanish Mass, a lay person interprets my homily to those who are not fluent in English. In a sense the same thing is happening at the Communion Service. We have a deacon that was reading the Gospel in the Mong language, before he was Ordained. None of the pastors were fluent in Mong. These are not your everyday situations. The local ordinary (Bishop) is the authority when things like this pop up. The GERM does not cover every situation.

May God bless you for your concern.

Deacon Tony SFO

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

struxton:

I am a lector at our parish and am also a fluent Spanish speaker. During last night’s Ash Wednesday bilingual service I got pressed into reading the Gospel (yikes!)

Seems that our pastor who can speak Spanish was in the hospital undergoing tests and our Deacon, who doesn’t speak Spanish, was going to “run” the communion service (already consecrated host was available from the previous 6:00 p.m. mass).

When asked to read the Gospel in Spanish I was surprised and stated that the Deacon could read the gospel in English. The head of our liturgy planning ministry was emphatic in having the Gospel read in Spanish because this was a bilingual service and the Deacon was in agreement.

The rationale they used to justify my reading the Gospel was that the Deacon would give me a special blessing (huh?) before I read it.

I did ask, “Are you SURE this is in accord with the GIRM?” and they said yes because I was receiving a blessing before reading.

So, I still have misgivings about what I did and I would like a definitve answer. If I did wrong, I will need “authorized” backup material so I can (discreetly) inform these two individuals of their error. It’s a delicate situation because the head of litury planning believes that gender inclusve lectionaries should be used (ugh!).

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I would think that if the Deacon read the Gospel in English and you translated it. That would have been the better way to do it.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I do not think you should have read the Gospel.

Just because it is a Communion Service, not a Mass, does not mean there are no rules.

According to the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass” n. 29: “The Liturgy of the Word now takes place as at Mass.”

So the rules, like a deacon reading the Gospel, apply just as much to a Communion Service as a Mass.

The deacon should have proclaimed the reading, even if his pronunciation was poor.

 

[Al_Masetti]

John Lilburne:

I do not think you should have read the Gospel.

Just because it is a Communion Service, not a Mass, does not mean there are no rules.

According to the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass” n. 29: “The Liturgy of the Word now takes place as at Mass.”

So the rules, like a deacon reading the Gospel, apply just as much to a Communion Service as a Mass.

The deacon should have proclaimed the reading, even if his pronunciation was poor.

Are you making this up? Or do you have actual factual knowledge?

 

[John_Lilburne]

Al Masetti:

Are you making this up? Or do you have actual factual knowledge?

No, I am not making this up. There is a liturgical book, approved by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship on 21 June 1973 called “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass”.

It is in The Rites Volume One, published by Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN 0-8146-6015-0, pages 633-698.

Another copy was published by E.J. Dwyer, in Sydney, Australia, ISBN 0-85574-401-4 in 1975.

The Latin edition is called “De Sacra Communione et de Cultu Mysterii Eucharistici Extra Missam”. The text of n. 29 is on page 17: “Fit deinde celebratio verbi, quae eadem ratione ac in Missa peragitur.”

This has been translated as “The Liturgy of the Word now takes place as at Mass.” This if from
"Rite of Distributing Holy Communion Outside Mass

1. The Long Rite with the Celebration of the Word"

There are other options. Beginning with n. 42 there is a “The Short Rite with the Celebration of the Word”. Here the instructions are “44. Omitting the celebration of the word of God, the minister or other person should read a short scriptural text referring to the bread of life. … John 6:54-55 … John 6:54-58 … John 14:6 …”

 

[gelsbern]

Just for clarification and I hate that this has to come from me because I would think that most catholics in union with Rome would have caught this.

Eucharistic ministers are ordained (deacons, priests etc)

Minister of Holy Communion are lay people.

Unless you have recieved holy orders, you are not a eucharistic minister, you are a Extraordinary (not the normal) minister of Holy Communion

 

[Brendan]

Al Masetti:

As a layperson, and owing to a shortage of priests/deacons/ eucharistic ministers, I was trained, installed as a eucharistic minister, and authorized to perform Communion Services. [Any eucharistic minister can do them, if trained and authorized by the pastor.]

A Eucharistic Minister, by definition is a priest or a bishop.

Not even a Deacon is a Eucharistic Minister. But a Deacon is a Minister of Holy Communion.

The Minister of a Sacrament is the one who calls the Grace of that Sacrament into being (Confect) . In the Case of the Eucharist, the only one who can confect the Sacrament is a priest or a bishop. Thus a lay person or deacon can never be a Eucharistic Minister, Extraordinary or otherwise.

A Minister of Holy Communion, communes the Sacrament, that is distributes it.

If you look in all the Vatican documents, it will refer to that role as a Minister of Holy Communion.

In addition, Redeptoris Sacramentum specifically reserved the term ‘Eucharistic Minister’ to priests.

And no, this is not nit picking, it is core to a proper understanding of the Sacrament.