Words of communion service same as words at mass

[hannajomar]

It sounds as though the woman was an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or EMHC. Men and women are permitted to be EMHC’s. At my parish, of about 20 EMHC’s, 2 are men. Both of those men are there with their wives.

A Holy Communion service is a form of Liturgy of the Church. Yes, it is very possible for a EMHC to overstep their position, but what you described is allowed. We do say, “the Lord be with you.” And we also say “This is the Lamb of God…” before distributing Holy Communion. I should specify, I distribute Holy Communion in nursing homes, and have never been involved in a service outside of that environment. But I don’t see why it would be any different.

To any men who have a problem with this, my only suggestion is that you become a priest, deacon or EMHC. Then us women wouldn’t be needed to do this. I am not a feminist. I agree, it would be better for men to be lectors and alter servers. But if none are willing and my pastor asks me to do this, I will honor his request.

 

[Anna_Claire]

It sounds as though the woman was an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or EMHC. Men and women are permitted to be EMHC’s. At my parish, of about 20 EMHC’s, 2 are men. Both of those men are there with their wives.

A Holy Communion service is a form of Liturgy of the Church. Yes, it is very possible for a EMHC to overstep their position, but what you described is allowed. We do say, “the Lord be with you.” And we also say “This is the Lamb of God…” before distributing Holy Communion. I should specify, I distribute Holy Communion in nursing homes, and have never been involved in a service outside of that environment. But I don’t see why it would be any different.

To any men who have a problem with this, my only suggestion is that you become a priest, deacon or EMHC. Then us women wouldn’t be needed to do this. I am not a feminist. I agree, it would be better for men to be lectors and alter servers. But if none are willing and my pastor asks me to do this, I will honor his request.

Your post was a positive one until I read your last paragraph. I am stunned by the number of posts on this site that are against women being involved in liturgy…and im not talking about the priesthood.

 

[hannajomar]

Your post was a positive one until I read your last paragraph. I am stunned by the number of posts on this site that are against women being involved in liturgy…and im not talking about the priesthood.

We might need another thread to tackle this…

 

[hannajomar]

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.

The text I have does say “the Lord be with you.” Do you have a link or something so I can compare what I have to what you have?

 

[Ohana]

We have a communion service quite regularly one day of the week led by a young man. It often includes a penitential rite - usually the confiteor- without the “absolution phrase” usually said by the priest. We have readings, a brief homily that he reads followed by prayers of the failthful and the sign of peace and communion. There is nothing that even suggests that he is concecrating the hosts as it is very clear that these were concecrated at a previous mass by the priest. These are all done in a respectful and reverent manner. All seem to be appropriate to a community of believers. I do not get that there are any infractions in all this. We are quite a conservative parish.

 

[John_Lilburne]

For a lay minister from “Rite of Distributing Holy Communion Outside Mass”:

"If the minister is not a priest or deacon, he greets those present with these or similar words:
Brothers and sisters,
the Lord invites us (you) to his table
to share in the body of Christ:
bless him for his goodness.
The people answer: Blessed be God for ever.

Another form of greeting, no. 189, may be chosen.

Any other customary forms of greeting from scripture may be used."

(The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, pages 649-650. Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass).

It has, on page 689:

"2. FORMS OF GREETING
189.
The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

The people answer:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

or:
And also with you."

For the ceremony approved for the U.S.A. in “Book of Blessings”, Chapter 52, “Order for the Blessing and Distribution of Ashes Ash Wednesday”. The instructions are:

“1662 A lay minister greets those present in the following words:
Praised be the God of grace, mercy, and peace. Blessed be God for ever.
R. Blessed be God for ever.”

(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page 622.)

This ceremony is not in the Latin edition of the Book of Blessings. I am only aware of it being part of the U.S.A. edition.

So the argument could go: this ceremony was in the U.S.A. and so following ceremony approved for this country for distributing ashes, only one greeting is given, to be used by a lay minister.

An alternative argument would be: this ceremony is the Rite of Distributing Communion Outside of Mass. The official liturgical book gives wide latitude in the greeting with terms such as “these or similar words” and “Any other customary forms of greeting from scripture may be used.”

 

[1AugustSon7]

1. Since when were women allowed to supplant male roles in the Church such as doing anything like leading the Church in a ceremony? You can’t possibly tell me there were no worthy men to perform such a role in the parish.
2. Since when was a Communion Service not either Holy Mass or Extreme Unction or some other sort of viaticum? I am completely shocked to learn that apparently now I have to distinguish between “communion service” and holy Mass. Can someone give me a history lesson here as to this? Is it peculiar to Ash Wednesdays?

 

[Anna_Claire]

1. Since when were women allowed to supplant male roles in the Church such as doing anything like leading the Church in a ceremony? You can’t possibly tell me there were no worthy men to perform such a role in the parish.
   Pardon me but there is a word for this comment…“bigotted”** are you really calling yourself Catholic and Christian?**
2. Since when was a Communion Service not either Holy Mass or Extreme Unction or some other sort of viaticum? I am completely shocked to learn that apparently now I have to distinguish between “communion service” and holy Mass. Can someone give me a
   history lesson here as to this? Is it peculiar to Ash Wednesday?
   You are fortunate indeed if you never have had to experience a communion service. We should only need this rite if there is no priest available for Eucharistic celebrations. Even then it sends the wrong message that communion is the only important part of the mass.

?

 

[CB_Catholic]

1. Since when were women allowed to supplant male roles in the Church such as doing anything like leading the Church in a ceremony? You can’t possibly tell me there were no worthy men to perform such a role in the parish.
2. Since when was a Communion Service not either Holy Mass or Extreme Unction or some other sort of viaticum? I am completely shocked to learn that apparently now I have to distinguish between “communion service” and holy Mass. Can someone give me a history lesson here as to this? Is it peculiar to Ash Wednesdays?

Have you been away from the Church for a while and are just coming back? Or haven’t you been paying attention to things? These things have been occurring for the past 40 years or so, and they are not illicit. I am “shocked” there are people that don’t know about Lay Leaders of Prayer and Communion Services in the absence of a priest unless they haven’t been around the Church for a while or live in isolated circumstances.

You may be indignant, but these things are perfectly legal.

 

[steamboatp]

Wow, there are quite a lot of posts in a short time! Thank you, everyone for your sound advice. Thank you for sharing your thoughts- it really helps me. Also, the detailed legal info is great.

I do have several clarifications / answers to make.

@ C B Catholic
I was not angry at the lay minister as a person. It could have been another lay person and I still would have been angry.

@ zenith15
I would still have been angry if it were a male layperson, but probably not quite as angry. I could not stop from thinking, she sounds like a priest. People could easily think, oh, all the priest does is say particular words. She is saying some of those words, therefore why can’t women be priests.

My thoughts continued, despite my efforts to stop them: the reason women can’t be priests is because Catholic theology says there is an intrinsic connection between fatherhood and the sacramental priesthood. Thus the reason women can’t be priests is because women can’t be fathers. Most people don’t know that; therefore they say the reason must be an excessively conservative, if not outright sexist cultural milieu that the Catholic Church has supposedly created.

Anyway, without lots of explanation, people could easily come away from this service with the impression that women could be priests if the Catholic Church “wanted” to allow it.

@Filii Dei
No, I did not notify the pastor about suspected abuses, because I don’t know much about the details of the liturgy, and I prefer to think that the pastor does care about following the Church’s rules. Only if he gave me a callous answer did I intend to give specifics. Since he told me that canon law prohibited him from saying more than two masses a day, that shows he cares about the Church’s rules. Therefore I do not presume to correct him on such matters. I did want to convey, though, that at least one person was confused by the service.

 

[hannajomar]

1. Since when were women allowed to supplant male roles in the Church such as doing anything like leading the Church in a ceremony? You can’t possibly tell me there were no worthy men to perform such a role in the parish.

There’s plenty of worthy men. They just don’t tend to perform these roles at my parish. I’ll call out my husband on this one. He was in this parish for 15 years before we got married. He was asked several times if he would be a lector or EMHC, and always refused, just because he didn’t feel like it. Within months of our marriage, I came home from a daily Mass and told him, “I’m becoming a EMHC and you’re going to be a lector.” The pastor asked me, and I volunteered both of us. I basically badgered him into it. Now he is one of 2 male lectors out of a dozen. The problem is not with women, it’s with men.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I could not stop from thinking, she sounds like a priest. People could easily think, oh, all the priest does is say particular words. She is saying some of those words, therefore why can’t women be priests.

What words in particular?

 

[Filii_Dei]

No, I did not notify the pastor about suspected abuses, because I don’t know much about the details of the liturgy, and I prefer to think that the pastor does care about following the Church’s rules. Only if he gave me a callous answer did I intend to give specifics. Since he told me that canon law prohibited him from saying more than two masses a day, that shows he cares about the Church’s rules. Therefore I do not presume to correct him on such matters. I did want to convey, though, that at least one person was confused by the service.

I understand your frustration. However we would only be doing our pastor a disservice by not bringing to his attention the issues that we believe to have noted. There is no need to be afraid to asking him silly questions. If we happen to be wrong, he could clarify any misconceptions you may have had about the communion service. If we do happen to be right, then he would be able to take the necessary steps to enforce liturgical orthodoxy. As you note, he did reply you in a friendly manner, so there is good reason to believe that he would be able to address any of your concerns with similar charity.

As lay people, we have a responsibility to ensure that correct liturgical procedure is followed, because we must always demand a proper, reverential liturgy. However - and I stress that I am not trying to fault your desire for correct liturgy - if we do not act on this at all, I fear that any misplaced frustrations may only continue to build up, and all because of a misunderstanding on proper liturgical procedure. It would be most unfortunate and certainly detrimental to your spiritual peace.

 

[Dicerning]

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.

I agree except if the lay person said " the lord be with" you then right there is reason to be concerned. That expression belongs exclusively to those in orders. This would indicate to me that the lay leader has been improperly trained. Hopefully this person didnt give out a. Solemn blessing as well.

I am glad I live where we have an abundance of clerics.

 

[Anna_Claire]

I agree except if the lay person said " the lord be with" you then right there is reason to be concerned. That expression belongs exclusively to those in orders. This would indicate to me that the lay leader has been improperly trained. Hopefully this person didnt give out a. Solemn blessing as well.

I am glad I live where we have an abundance of clerics.

We have already made it clear that the words are fine. Don’t go there.

 

[Ohana]

I really do not get the brouhaha over the use of The Lord be with you and the response, and with your spirit. DH and I say that to each other from time to time. I don’t think the Church would restrict this to priest/deacons only. That just does not make sense. It would be another thing if they were doing a faux consecration, but that is not even hinted at here. A communion service is still to be reverential and including some of the words said in Mass brings a recollection of when the hosts were consecrated to my mind.

I have never seen a person assigned to do a communion service who was not someone the pastor knew well and had confidence they would hold a respectful service. Be that woman or man.

Frankly I think this is one of the ways the Church is being shaped to bring home that we need to be ministering to each other. Only some are privileged to lead a prayer/communion service, but we do so in other ways by intercessory prayer, visiting the sick,providing meals following funerals, and encouraging the discouraged. Yes, a priest is on call 24/7, but he needs some time off also. The community can and should step up to carry out some of the tasks, including some liturgically appropriate acts.

 

[Dicerning]

We have already made it clear that the words are fine. Don’t go there.

I am most sorry. Could you please inform me who “we” is.
Additionally could you point me in the direction of what church documents helped you arrive at your answer?
I am currently taking a sacramental theology refresher course this semester and need to assure what I heard I class regarding presiding opening dialog and the required clerical state of those who use the words. I swear that the documents require the opening of the dialog something along the lines of " brothers and sisters god invites us to his table…". When the presider is not a cleric.

Certainly all of us involved in the liturgy understand the theological significance of the opening dialog. The only correct response to " the lord be with you" is “and with your spirit”. The congregation’s response is directly tied with acknowledging the clerics unique relationship to the “spirit” of the priest/deacon, the very core of his being, where he has been ordained in the spirit to become the sacramental sign of Christ the priest or in the deacons place Christ the servant. My professors told me that the only person who can open with " the lord be with you" is a man In holy orders.
Here is a couplenof links to help clarify this for you. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2522080/posts
catholicexchange.com/the-introductory-rites-no-mere-greeting/

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I am most sorry. Could you please inform me who “we” is.
Additionally could you point me in the direction of what church documents helped you arrive at your answer?

I think the poster is referring to post #26 in this thread.

 

[Dicerning]

I think the poster is referring to post #26 in this thread.

I have read that and have the rites volume 1 in hand I believe option 2 is for a cleric only. Based on the theology surrounding the response to “the lord be with you”.

With that in mind if we are to use the rites volume 1 then we must assume that only men can lead a communion service as on page 649 the greeting option states, "if the minister is not a priest or deacon HE greets those present in these or similar words. " But we know this isn’t true.

Option 2 on pg 689 is the clerical option only. Now we all know this section of rights doesn’t prohibit women because of common sense. Using this same common sense we can also observe by the mere fact of distinguishing the clerical introduction from the laity introduction we must assume that option 2 on page 689 is meant for clerics because of its similarity to the option 1.

 

[Ohana]

How do you separate the generic “he” meaning anyone, from the specific “he” meaning a male. We have moved away from inclusive language so it is hard to tell. Or are we just to assume the primacy of men (specifically male men).