Words of communion service same as words at mass

[steamboatp]

Hello,

I live in a small town with only one Catholic church, St. Mary’s. Sometimes I drive to other churches, but that’s kind of inconvenient. On Ash Wednesday, I missed both of the masses at St. Mary’s, so I went to a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes at St. Mary’s parish center (not the church) that evening.

I became angry because a lay woman was leading the service with some of the SAME WORDS as a priest would have said at Mass. I noticed that when she said, “The Lord be with you”, the congregation responded with, “and also with you” (the old translation). I suspect that people subconsciously used the old translation to distinguish between the situation of responding to a lay woman vs. responding to a priest in the mass.

After I received ashes, I got especially angry because stood on the platform next to the altar (though not behind the altar) and held up the host and said something like, This is the Lamb of God; blessed are those called to his supper. I chose not to receive communion.

When I was walking down the sidewalk after the service, I overheard a couple of college-age guys saying something like, “well I’m not going to back her qualifications”. I suspect this meant that they felt uneasiness similar to mine.

The next morning I sent the pastor an email saying I was confused about what exactly the service was. He responded simply (but in a friendly way) that it was a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes. (Canon law limited him to saying two masses per day, which he had already done.) I was tired of being angry, and stressed out from work, so I just said thanks for the clarification and let the topic drop.

I still feel a bit uneasy, though. I guess the service was technically legal, but in my opinion it was way outside the spirit of the rules. Should I take some kind of action at this point?

Thank you for your help!

 

[CB_Catholic]

Hello,

I live in a small town with only one Catholic church, St. Mary’s. Sometimes I drive to other churches, but that’s kind of inconvenient. On Ash Wednesday, I missed both of the masses at St. Mary’s, so I went to a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes at St. Mary’s parish center (not the church) that evening.

I became angry because a lay woman was leading the service with some of the SAME WORDS as a priest would have said at Mass. I noticed that when she said, “The Lord be with you”, the congregation responded with, “and also with you” (the old translation). I suspect that people subconsciously used the old translation to distinguish between the situation of responding to a lay woman vs. responding to a priest in the mass.

After I received ashes, I got especially angry because stood on the platform next to the altar (though not behind the altar) and held up the host and said something like, This is the Lamb of God; blessed are those called to his supper. I chose not to receive communion.

When I was walking down the sidewalk after the service, I overheard a couple of college-age guys saying something like, “well I’m not going to back her qualifications”. I suspect this meant that they felt uneasiness similar to mine.

The next morning I sent the pastor an email saying I was confused about what exactly the service was. He responded simply (but in a friendly way) that it was a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes. (Canon law limited him to saying two masses per day, which he had already done.) I was tired of being angry, and stressed out from work, so I just said thanks for the clarification and let the topic drop.

I still feel a bit uneasy, though. I guess the service was technically legal, but in my opinion it was way outside the spirit of the rules. Should I take some kind of action at this point?

Thank you for your help!

I think the best action you can take at this point is to cool down, and next time don’t get angry until you are sure there is something to be angry about. You e-mailed the Pastor and got your answer–this was a Communion Service with Liturgy of the Word and Distribution of Ashes. Perfectly fine. What kind of action do you want to take, anyway?

I think your decision not to take Communion was probably a wise one, considering your frame of mind and attitude toward your sister in Christ leading the service–but that really is between you and God.

 

[zenith15]

I have to agree with Carolyn here. I don’t really see why you would be so angry regarding such a service–it sounds as though the rules were followed. Would you have been similarly upset had it been done that way by a male layperson, or was it just the fact that it was a layperson in general?

 

[Leegal]

We, the public, may not receive more than two communions per day – at Mass.

We cannot receive at Mass and then receive again at a Communion service later because the Mass fulfilled the duty – but the opposite is true. If you received at a Communion Service and then later found a Mass – you could receive at a second time, at the Mass. Or if in danger of death. This prevents overscrupulosity and the abuse of the sacrament in some misguided scruples.

Canon 921 and 921 § 2.

A priest is exempted when he has to say more than two Masses. My priest/pastor is the only priest. We have 3 Masses on Sunday. I’ve been to the two of them; I expect he does the Spanish Mass later as he’s fluent and there is no one else to perform the Mass.

The exception is the priest may say 3 Masses when he has no one else to say Mass, but that applies to Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. The priest was correct, as he is limited to two Masses since Ash Wednesday was not a Holy Day of Obligation.

Canon 905 § 2.

An altar server who has to serve 3 Masses cannot receive at the third.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The OP has a right to be angry. This was clearly more than a communion service. Lay people, whether they be male or female, have zero right to use words and phrases of the ordained. “The Lord be with you” is specifically reserved to ordained men.

 

[Leegal]

The OP has a right to be angry. This was clearly more than a communion service. Lay people, whether they be male or female, have zero right to use words and phrases of the ordained. “The Lord be with you” is specifically reserved to ordained men.

Aside from the fact that the priest was truly prohibited from taking communion a third time, I too have my doubts about the communion service with a lay woman. I think it would have been better for the priest to announce ahead of time that there could only be two Masses (if he had no other priest) so that everyone would know what time the two Masses would take place – and dispense with this communion service in which the lay person officiated – if that’s the right word.

 

[Leegal]

I think at a communion service the lay person cannot say the Eucharistic prayer – only the prayer of Thanksgiving.

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0999.asp

I realize the absence of vocations has led us to this point, but I think I would be upset.

 

[Marocchino]

This is what happens when we expressly disobey the words of a bishop who wrote epistles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul clearly outlined the role of women in the Church and it does not include the functions that this particular woman was carrying out. Feminism has invaded most parishes – another reason why I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

I live in a small town with only one Catholic church, St. Mary’s. Sometimes I drive to other churches, but that’s kind of inconvenient. On Ash Wednesday, I missed both of the masses at St. Mary’s, so I went to a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes at St. Mary’s parish center (not the church) that evening.

I became angry because a lay woman was leading the service with some of the SAME WORDS as a priest would have said at Mass. I noticed that when she said, “The Lord be with you”, the congregation responded with, “and also with you” (the old translation). I suspect that people subconsciously used the old translation to distinguish between the situation of responding to a lay woman vs. responding to a priest in the mass.

After I received ashes, I got especially angry because stood on the platform next to the altar (though not behind the altar) and held up the host and said something like, This is the Lamb of God; blessed are those called to his supper. I chose not to receive communion.

When I was walking down the sidewalk after the service, I overheard a couple of college-age guys saying something like, “well I’m not going to back her qualifications”. I suspect this meant that they felt uneasiness similar to mine.

The next morning I sent the pastor an email saying I was confused about what exactly the service was. He responded simply (but in a friendly way) that it was a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes. (Canon law limited him to saying two masses per day, which he had already done.) I was tired of being angry, and stressed out from work, so I just said thanks for the clarification and let the topic drop.

I still feel a bit uneasy, though. I guess the service was technically legal, but in my opinion it was way outside the spirit of the rules. Should I take some kind of action at this point?

Thank you for your help!

When taking Communion to the sick, it is proper (even required) for the layperson to say “This is the Lamb of God…” so there’s nothing about those words that restrict them to being said by a priest.

The ritual for Communion has yet to be updated, so it still has the old words, even though the new ones can be used in their place.

The point though is, again, that these words are not restricted to a priest or a deacon.

The same holds for “The Lord be with you” (although the ritual says “The peace of the Lord…” as one of the options.)

So there’s nothing that you describe that’s outright against what the Church allows or disallows.

A Communion service led by a layperson needs the permission of the bishop. Was that permission given? Unknown. But still, doing something without the required permission (while wrong in itself) does not mean that there is anything wrong with the actual words used in the ritual.

 

[revert_jen]

I’m sure someone who knows more about this will correct me, but I thought you weren’t supposed to have communion services on weekdays, or really at any time except when there wouldn’t be a priest at Sunday Mass.
RS #166:

…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.

Also, from the USCCB: “When daily Mass is scheduled in a parish, it is usually not appropriate to schedule a Liturgy of the Word with Distribution of Holy Communion.”

Also, woman or man, there should not have been anyone “leading the service” as far as I can tell.
RS #165:

…It will be preferable, moreover, when both a Priest and a Deacon are absent, that the various parts be distributed among several faithful rather than having a single lay member of the faithful direct the whole celebration alone. Nor is it ever appropriate to refer to any member of the lay faithful as “presiding” over the celebration.

So I tend to think that a) if there were two Masses that day, there should be no communion service, and b) even if there were to be a communion service, there should not have been someone leading it (unless it were a priest or deacon).

From a quick look at a couple of documents, it seems like the general idea is that if you can’t attend Mass at your own parish, you should find a parish where you can attend Mass, unless that is impossible (because you are too poor or too sick or something).

But since the practice is discouraged rather than prohibited, really your best option would be never to attend another of these services. If the parish advertised Mass, and then had this instead, that would be a serious cause for complaint. But if they advertised it for what it was, and you chose to attend it, the only real cause for complaint (and I’m not saying it’s small) was that the wrong words were used. However, unless you happen to have a copy of “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass” it will be difficult to give specifics of what was wrong. I wasn’t able to find it online, although I did find the following which does not strictly apply but does seem relevant:
Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest #39:

A layperson who leads the assembly acts as one among equals, in the way followed in the liturgy of the hours when not presided over by an ordained minister, and in the case of blessings when the minister is a layperson (“May the Lord bless us …”; “Let us praise the Lord …”). The layperson is not to use words that are proper to a priest or deacon and is to omit rites that are too readily associated with the Mass, for example, greetings — especially “The Lord be with you” — and dismissals, since these might give the impression that the layperson is a sacred minister.

So yes, you were right to feel uncomforable, but no, there is probably nothing you can/should do about it, except next time, either get yourself to Mass, or (since Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation) stay home.

–Jen

 

[corsair]

A couple of points to remember;
1 - no one is required to recieve communion every time, even at Mass.
2 - A communion service is NOT Mass and does not substitute for it. In other words, if you have a choice between a Mass and a communion service, alway choose the Mass as it fulfills your obligation. If a Mass is not available then just go home.
3 - If you were angry by the time for communion, it is best to just try for a Spiritual communion.

Well, thats my 2 cents worth.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The OP has a right to be angry. This was clearly more than a communion service. Lay people, whether they be male or female, have zero right to use words and phrases of the ordained. “The Lord be with you” is specifically reserved to ordained men.

What phrases did she use that she wasn’t supposed to use? Outside of “The Lord be with you” which is a minor infraction and probably done out of ignorance, what else was wrong?

It would appear that the OP simply isn’t used to communion services and might have misunderstood what was happening.

 

[Anna_Claire]

The lay presider did nothing wrong. The rite is acceptable and was appropriate. That being said, communion was not necessary at that time. Liturgy of the Word and distribution of ashes would have been enough.

 

[YoungTradCath]

What phrases did she use that she wasn’t supposed to use? Outside of “The Lord be with you” which is a minor infraction and probably done out of ignorance, what else was wrong?

It would appear that the OP simply isn’t used to communion services and might have misunderstood what was happening.

Because said mistake indicates that either there was no written text to be read from or that the woman just chose not to read it exactly if there was one. Can the situation be rectified in the future? Absolutely.

 

[rhiannonh]

Would it help you calm down a little bit more as such if you went to that church again and simply sat through the service in prayerful observing mode. Then you might get to understand what they do?

If you are used to going to a full sung service etc then one that is low key in comparison may be unsettling etc and might be just about familiarity. Yeh it okay to feel angry etc and its good that you’ve registered the anger in you.

It just might help you to go back at an ordinary every day service and get to know it slightly. It could well be that all the differences was just too much to take on board?

You said you are tired of being angry? Can you give your anger to God amen?

 

[Anna_Claire]

Because said mistake indicates that either there was no written text to be read from or that the woman just chose not to read it exactly if there was one. Can the situation be rectified in the future? Absolutely.

The rite for liturgy of the word with communion has not been updated with words from the new roman missal. I don’t know when that will happen. I bring communion to the hospital and follow a formula. I’m not sure I should change the words that are given for this rite but i have…only because some people were noticing and correcting me. It was a distraction.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Because said mistake indicates that either there was no written text to be read from or that the woman just chose not to read it exactly if there was one. Can the situation be rectified in the future? Absolutely.

She could have been reading from a text that was prepared with those words or perhaps she simply read the wrong line (it can get confusing with all the options). Either way, “the Lord be with you” is not exactly the words of consecration or simulation of any sacrament so it would be out of proportion to be greatly upset about it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The rite for liturgy of the word with communion has not been updated with words from the new roman missal. I don’t know when that will happen. I bring communion to the hospital and follow a formula. I’m not sure I should change the words that are given for this rite but i have…only because some people were noticing and correcting me. It was a distraction.

But it’s just a new translation, not a reformulation. No matter how badly you translate, you can’t get “The Lord be with you” out of any Latin except “Dominus vobiscum.” My point is that the current (in the future to be replaced) translation of the communion service does not contain that phrase to begin with if a lay person is doing it.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I became angry because a lay woman was leading the service with some of the SAME WORDS as a priest would have said at Mass. I noticed that when she said, “The Lord be with you”, the congregation responded with, “and also with you” (the old translation). I suspect that people subconsciously used the old translation to distinguish between the situation of responding to a lay woman vs. responding to a priest in the mass.

I do not suspect the latter. It’s probably just people returning to their habits and reverting to something familiar (“and also with you”) in the face of something unfamiliar (lay presider), rather than deliberately or subconsciously protesting the fact that she was using the wrong text for the circumstances. I probably would, considering I have never had the misfortune of having to attend a communion service in lieu of a proper and valid Mass. You know how typical laypeople are like.

After I received ashes, I got especially angry because stood on the platform next to the altar (though not behind the altar) and held up the host and said something like, This is the Lamb of God; blessed are those called to his supper. I chose not to receive communion.

It is natural that you are angry. I would be, too. However, I fear your angry may stem from your assumption that the lay minister was trying to usurp the role of the priest. It is possible, as NewEnglandPries has mentioned, that she was simply using the wrong texts, and could be a newbie who was unfamiliar with the role of a presider at a service and recited it without realising the gravitas of what she did. It is true that there are many nutcases who wish to undermine the hierarchy of the Church, but it is very uncharitable of us to assume that a fellow brother or sister in Christ has that same radical disposition.

The next morning I sent the pastor an email saying I was confused about what exactly the service was. He responded simply (but in a friendly way) that it was a Communion service with the Liturgy of the Word and the distribution of ashes. (Canon law limited him to saying two masses per day, which he had already done.) I was tired of being angry, and stressed out from work, so I just said thanks for the clarification and let the topic drop.

Did you even notify him that the wrong lines were used? We should not expect him to tell you any more than what he already did if you did not make it clear what exactly you were confused about. He probably thought you were asking about the intended nature of the service, and not about a particular (or any) abuse committed at the communion service.

In any case, I implore that you exercise charity in your judgement. The most effective course of action now is to raise the issue with the lay minister and the pastor, so they are aware of the problem and can ensure that it will not happen again. Fraternal correction done with humility - especially in this season of Lent - is one of the most loving deeds we can perform for one another as fellow Catholics.

 

[Anna_Claire]

But it’s just a new translation, not a reformulation. No matter how badly you translate, you can’t get “The Lord be with you” out of any Latin except “Dominus vobiscum.” My point is that the current (in the future to be replaced) translation of the communion service does not contain that phrase to begin with if a lay person is doing it.

Well my formula does have “the Lord be with you” and it’s from the Vatican website. And why wouldn’t it be ok for a lay person? It’s not a formal blessing.