Women leading Communion Services--Does it give the wrong impression?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t believe the Church says anywhere that non-ordained or non-instituted religious males (or females) have any preference in the liturgy over non-religious persons as they too would be EMsHC. Further, there is no preference between non-ordained/instituted male and female religious in the liturgy.

Finally, there is no direction from the Church that suggests a communion service may not take the place of (for example) a daily Mass under a multitude of situations.

“In my opinion a Communion Service should not be conducted for a daily Mass.”

There is a document from Rome that gives the preference of who should assist with the distribution of Holy Communion and it would extend to Communion Services in my opinion.

 

[Paten]

“In my opinion a Communion Service should not be conducted for a daily Mass.”

There is a document from Rome that gives the preference of who should assist with the distribution of Holy Communion and it would extend to Communion Services in my opinion.

Do you happen to know the name of said document? I have no idea why non-ordained/instituted religious should serve as EMsHC before non-religious who are also neither ordained nor instituted. The same for suggesting male religious somehow take precedence in this sort of case over female religious.

 

[Phemie]

When I conduct a communion service there are things I take great pains to avoid which have no mention in the ritual including:

Sitting in the priest’s chair

That that is a no-no is clearly indicated in our Canadian “Sunday Celebration of the Word and Hours”.

Giving any sort of “reflection”

We only do it if the priest has written one for us in advance.

Use of the orans posture

In our training to be leaders of prayer we were trained to use the orans posture for any prayer to God, i.e. the Opening Prayer, Prayer After Communion.

Standing directly behind the altar unless absolutely necessary
Everything is done from the chair except the Communion Rite.

Any use of humor or showmanship.

I hate that in a priest I want it even less in a lay leader.

I begin each cs with a note about the time and location of the nearest Mass. I also follow the official ritual verbatim. A prayer for vocations is always part of the intentions. A CS need not be a negative experience, quite the contrary actually! Sadly pride often gets in the way, from both those conducting the CS and those who feel the need to add their own “conditions” to CSs.

 

[lintpick1]

I think that women presiding over communion services is the next sickening step toward “womenpriests”. First they want girls to be altarboys, then they want to read the readings, then they want to be eucharistic ministers, now they want to preside over communion services. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

 

[jmcrae]

I think that women presiding over communion services is the next sickening step toward “womenpriests”. First they want girls to be altarboys, then they want to read the readings, then they want to be eucharistic ministers, now they want to preside over communion services. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

As I said above, don’t worry. It’s not even possible for that to happen.

 

[drafdog]

As long as it is clearly a communion service, there should be no confusion. That a woman is asked to preside is indication only of the lack of dedicated laymen to take the roll.

I’m not sure why, in light of Gal 3:28, there is such an adamant refusal to consider the idea of ordaining women. Clearly Reb Paul, writing on behalf of the Most High, did not see a problem with it.

Matthew

 

[mdgspencer]

I have both good and bad things to say about this. Isn’t it better to provide the eucharist in a parish on a day when the priest is absent for good reason than not to provide it to the people at all? This is the situation in my mind, in theory at least. However, I have seen some problems when lay people in my parish give communion services, whether they are men or women. (They give them every Wednesday, which is the one day our priest has a day off.) One thing is that they can show that they have limited theological training. One of them in our parish permanently turned me off when she said that Saint Luke did not write the Gospel of Saint Luke in her “reflection.” She questioned the varacity of Scripture on another occasion too. Others have made themselves the center of attention in various ways (though usually not terribly flagrantly), something that redirects attention from God to themsleves. (Not that many priests do not do the same in many dioceses.) In short, I think it can be fine, but the parish priest should give strong guidance when it comes to such services.

 

[benedictgal]

I have both good and bad things to say about this. Isn’t it better to provide the eucharist in a parish on a day when the priest is absent for good reason than not to provide it to the people at all? This is the situation in my mind, in theory at least. However, I have seen some problems when lay people in my parish give communion services, whether they are men or women. (They give them every Wednesday, which is the one day our priest has a day off.) One thing is that they can show that they have limited theological training. One of them in our parish permanently turned me off when she said that Saint Luke did not write the Gospel of Saint Luke in her “reflection.” She questioned the varacity of Scripture on another occasion too. Others have made themselves the center of attention in various ways (though usually not terribly flagrantly), something that redirects attention from God to themsleves. (Not that many priests do not do the same in many dioceses.) In short, I think it can be fine, but the parish priest should give strong guidance when it comes to such services.

That’s why I decided to take the bull by the horns and do one myself. I was so tired of all of the mistakes and lack of training that I figured if I did one according to how it should be done, it might prove helpful and instructional.

Inasmuch as I completely agree with the lack of theological training, I would hope that not everyone who does this is going to spew out some bad remarks. But, they do happen. That’s why I figured I was safe to use something Pope Benedict wrote rather than something benedictgal thought up.

No, I don’t do use the Chair at all. I sit in the first pew because that is where I belong. I use the altar only when I have to use it. And no, I don’t particularly like doing them, but, I would rather have it done right and teach other EHMCs to correctly follow the rubrics than witness something bad.

Incidentally, I attended a deacon’s first communion service (I had planned the liturgy for his ordination to the permanent diaconate). I was horrified when he went on to read the entire Eucharistic prayer (except for the consecration). It was terrible. I told my deacon and he said he would talk to him. I hope things got better.

 

[estesbob]

I think they are more than acceptable. Women are more than qualified to run communion services. Speaking on the readings is also not a bad thing. Most have the relevant spiritual/theological degrees and training to explain the readings to others.

We had a woman lead a communion service at our church a couple of weeks back and to be honest I didnt give it a second thought. Instead of a sermion she read that days reflection out of the Magnificat.

 

[Phemie]

There is no directive from the Church that limits CSs to only Sundays or other holy days of obligation. Sadly that does open the use of CSs to certain abuses.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 164, 165 & 166 says this about Sunday Celebrations of the Word in the Absence of a Priest: “Sunday celebrations of this specific kind, however, are to be considered altogether extraordinary” and goes on to say "The diocesan Bishops, therefore, should prudently discern whether Holy Communion ought to be distributed in these gatherings. " Then for good measure it adds: “Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday.”

I think these 3 articles of the document make it clear that a communion service on Wednesday because it’s Father’s day off is not supposed to happen.

 

[Paten]

I think these 3 articles of the document make it clear that a communion service on Wednesday because it’s Father’s day off is not supposed to happen.

I don’t.

But then again it’s not up to me, it’s up to the local ordinary.

 

[benedictgal]

Redemptionis Sacramentum 164, 165 & 166 says this about Sunday Celebrations of the Word in the Absence of a Priest: “Sunday celebrations of this specific kind, however, are to be considered altogether extraordinary” and goes on to say "The diocesan Bishops, therefore, should prudently discern whether Holy Communion ought to be distributed in these gatherings. " Then for good measure it adds: “Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday.”

I think these 3 articles of the document make it clear that a communion service on Wednesday because it’s Father’s day off is not supposed to happen.

Phemie, in my case, the bishop took the whole kitten caboodle of priests to an out-of-town retreat. I think only one or two statyed behind (along with those priests who are part of an order). Bishop and company were gone for a whole week and there aren’t enough of the religious order priests around to fulfill the needs of all of the parishes. Therefore, I think that our bishop exercised his authority to allow for these communion services since they were all away from the diocese.

Now, we do have deacons, but, as I noted earlier, many of them hold day-jobs and, because there are some Masses celebrated during lunch times, having a service during their work times is a little complicated. Of course, for those of us who work, it’s a challenge as well. But, in situations just like the one I described, we do what we can.

 

[roanoker]

This is a fascinating thread. But, forgive me as a Presbyterian, just what do EHMC and CS stand for? Their are so many abbreviations on this forum that those of us who are not catholics have a hard time following the train of thought. Mayber there could be a glosssary available…Thanks…

 

[John_Lilburne]

Church documents give a preference for using men to lead Communion Services (CS).

Firstly they should be lead by a priest or deacon, if they are available.

The next preference is to use an instituted acolyte, another male only position. From the liturgical book, Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, n. 17:
“17. It belongs first of all to the priest and the deacon to minister holy communion to the faithful who ask to receive it. … It also belongs to an acolyte who has been properly instituted to give communion as a special minister when the priest and deacon are absent … The local Ordinary may give other special ministers the faculty to give communion whenever it seems necessary for the pastoral benefit fo the faithful and no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available. [Footnote 8 See SCDS, Instr. Immensae caritatis, January 29, 1973, 1, nos. I and II]”

The footnoted document about EMHC (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, who used to be called “special ministers”) also has this, about the bishop being about to appoint EMHCs for when “no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available”.

This 1973 document also had: “IV. The fit person referred to in nos. I and II will be designated according to the order of this listing (which may be changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary): reader, major seminarian, man religious, woman religious, catechist, one of the faithful – a man or a woman.”

So again the male preference: “reader, major seminarian, man religious” all males.

So by having a women lead the communion service, the parish priest has only done the correct thing if he does not have a deacon, instituted acolyte, instituted lector, major seminarian and man religious available, as the appointed person to lead it. This is assuming that the local Ordinary (bishop) has not changed the designated listing.

(The 1973 Insturction Immensae caritatis is in the book
Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, pages 650-654).

 

[Paten]

This is a fascinating thread. But, forgive me as a Presbyterian, just what do EHMC and CS stand for? Their are so many abbreviations on this forum that those of us who are not catholics have a hard time following the train of thought. Mayber there could be a glosssary available…Thanks…

EMHC = extraordinary minister of Holy Communion
CS = communion service

 

[Paten]

Church documents give a preference for using men to lead Communion Services (CS).

Firstly they should be lead by a priest or deacon, if they are available.

The next preference is to use an instituted acolyte, another male only position. From the liturgical book, Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, n. 17:
“17. It belongs first of all to the priest and the deacon to minister holy communion to the faithful who ask to receive it. … It also belongs to an acolyte who has been properly instituted to give communion as a special minister when the priest and deacon are absent … The local Ordinary may give other special ministers the faculty to give communion whenever it seems necessary for the pastoral benefit fo the faithful and no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available. [Footnote 8 See SCDS, Instr. Immensae caritatis, January 29, 1973, 1, nos. I and II]”

The footnoted document about EMHC (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, who used to be called “special ministers”) also has this, about the bishop being about to appoint EMHCs for when “no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available”.

This 1973 document also had: "IV. The fit person referred to in nos. I and II will be designated according to the order of this listing (which may be changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary): reader, major seminarian, man religious, woman religious, catechist, one of the faithful – a man or a woman."

So again the male preference: “reader, major seminarian, man religious” all males.

So by having a women lead the communion service, the parish priest has only done the correct thing if he does not have a deacon, instituted acolyte, instituted lector, major seminarian and man religious available, as the appointed person to lead it. This is assuming that the local Ordinary (bishop) has not changed the designated listing.

(The 1973 Insturction Immensae caritatis is in the book
Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, pages 650-654).

No way. There is no hierarchy to EMsHC except those who are instituted and those that are not. It’s not defined in the GIRM, RS or in Holy Communion Outside Mass.

While I applaud you in being able to dig-up Immensae Caritatis, I would suggest that at least this part of the document is inoperable given the language of the aforementioned documents.

I also will point out that it is inconsistent. Readers (first in line amongst EMsHC in this case) but not instituted lectors are allowed to be either female or male, so a woman would be first in the queue if she was a reader at the Mass but last if she was not? That’s ridiculous.

If this section of Immensae Caritatis was operable it would very rarely make sense (in the USA at least) to ever have non-religious female EMsHC.

 

[rjs1]

SOmeone will chime in…but I certainly heard recently that Communion services are no longer to be “routine” or even commonplace. I hope and pray that B16 will nix laypersons for “presiding” over communion services. We need to get back to the basics.

Oh, please, please, please. I hope you are correct!

What makes us assume that we have a guaranteed right to a Holy Communion service when there is no priest available? This is a relatively modern phenomenon which I find very disturbing.

If no priest is availbable then we should make a spiritual communion in front of the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle.

God is letting us know that there IS a serious shortage of priests. This is NOT solved by allowing laymen or women to do more and more of the tasks that only priests did. It WILL be solved by a penitential, prayerful Church, where the laity live devout prayerful lives and pray constantly for vocations.

 

[John_Lilburne]

So by having a women lead the communion service, the parish priest has only done the correct thing if he does not have a deacon, instituted acolyte, instituted lector, major seminarian and man religious available, as the appointed person to lead it. This is assuming that the local Ordinary (bishop) has not changed the designated listing.
.

I suppose “has only done the correct thing” is overstating the case. But my point was that the document does have a preference for male Extraordinary Ministers, at least for men religious and instituted ministers.

Perhaps the Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (2 June 1988) is clearer:
“30. In the absence of both a priest and a deacon, the pastor is to appoint laypersons, who are to be entrusted with the care of these celebrations, namely, with leading the prayers, with the ministry of the word, and with giving holy communion.
Those to be chosen first by the pastor are readers and acolytes who have been duly instituted for the service of the altar and of the word of God. If there are no such instituted ministers available, other laypersons, both men and women, may be appointed; they can carry out this responsibility in virtue of their baptism and confirmation. [footnote 25: See CIC, can. 230, 3.]”.

So after an instituted acolyte, I think there is a clear preference for an instituted reader. He should be made an EMHC and lead the ceremony. My understanding of “reader” in Immensae Caritatis is that it is referring to an instituted reader. Perhaps the Latin original would be clearer, if someone has access to Acta Apostolicae Sedis 65 (1973), pp. 267-268.

On the other hand, in this 1988 document there is no mention of men religious, as opposed to women religious. It gives no preference for lay men, as opposed to lay women, if they are not instituted ministers.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Say the parish priest can choose a man or woman to lead the Communion Service. Any man has the possibility of becoming an instituted acolyte. No woman has this possibility.

So, all else being equal, shouldn’t the priest choose the man?

The Church has these instituted ministers, and restricts them to men. In the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 28, it has “But in celebrations presided over by the bishop it is fitting that such ministerial functions be carried out by formally instituted acoltyes …”. The same for insituted readers, in n. 31. So these ministries should be encouraged.

So even if a man is not instituted, it creates a preference for him, because he has the possibility of being instituted.

The same argument can be made with ordination. Any man has this possibility, no woman has.

 

[Phemie]

I also will point out that it is inconsistent. Readers (first in line amongst EMsHC in this case) but not instituted lectors are allowed to be either female or male, so a woman would be first in the queue if she was a reader at the Mass but last if she was not? That’s ridiculous.

While I’m home and can’t provide a specific cite, I have seen the word reader and lector used interchangeably when the context was “Instituted Lector” in some documents.