The rubrics and General Instruction of the revised Roman Missal indicate that it is also preferable for the laity present at Mass to receive Holy Communion from host consecrated at the Mass they attend and not from the tabernacle.
This little tidbit of information is in great dispute as it concerns the laity but cannot be in dispute as it concerns the priest--not receiving at Mass communion from the tabernacle consecrated at a previous Mass. But is it in dispute for the laity by traditionalists?
But apart from that, since the recovery of permanent deacons and subsequently or at the same time the development of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, Holy Communion from the tabernacle is given to people now independent of Holy Mass and in contrived circumstances that I find very concerning.
For example, there is now a formal liturgical book for "Communion in the Absence of a priest" which can be led by a deacon or lay minister. There is the liturgy of the word and then the Rite of Holy Communion. Many Catholics are pleased as punch about these services because these don't need a priest and the service is shorter and one still "gets" Holy Communion!
I would much prefer Morning or Evening Prayer and if a deacon is present Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Lay people can certainly lead Morning or Evening Prayer. But you do need a deacon for Benediction.
Communion apart from Mass should be rare and for emergency purposes only or for the housebound and hospitalized.
In the past when only priest could "give" Holy Communion, the housebound parishioner was lucky if they could receive once a month and normally on First Friday.
Today with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, they receive much more frequently and sometimes exclusively from these lay ministers.
But I have witnessed in the past where some Eucharistic Ministers self communicate when they can't get to a daily Mass or Sunday Mass and that many people expect Holy Communion on demand each day!
Thoughts?
12 comments:
Sadly, my parish has a long standing practice of holding a "communion service" at 6:00 AM, rather than a Mass. I have not attended, and will not.
Question: Does the tabernacle contain only consecrated hosts? If not, is there a container of those consecrated, and those not consecrated? I ask because at Mass, the deacon goes to the tabernacle (in the chapel, not in easy view form my pew) to collect the container of hosts. As the "communion services" are held in the chapel, this question would affect the result. It has been my understanding that only a priest can consecrate the host, so a deacon running the "communion service" would, I assume, need already consecrated hosts.
What a mess!
Simple solution: don't hold "communion services."
Yes, only a priest can consecrate the host so there has to be sufficient number in the tabernacle for everyone who receives at a "communion service." It is ridiculous that there is a communion service in a parish that has daily Mass and even more ridiculous that it occurs in a parish that has Sunday Mass even if no daily Mass. Has anyone heard of Morning Prayer in the name of God? This is what I mean by Communion on demand and contriving situations for it--it is ridiculous.
My parish offers a daily 9:00 Mass. Like many, I cannot be there at 9:00, though I know it is a well attended Mass. However, I will not attend a "communion service", which in my view is not nearly a substitute for Mass.
I begin my day, each day, every day, with the Rosary.
Wonder if they are as excited about frequent Confession?
rcg
The American way is to focus on "rights," rather than on "duties." Since when you have a right, it imposes a duty on someone else, this is another way of saying that Americans are selfish. My right to birth control, my right to get it free from the Church, my right to have Communion under both kinds whenever I feel like it, etc., etc., etc. Nothing there about duty except the Church's duty to grant me my rights.
It is not wrong that we focus on rights. What is wrong is that we allow the politicians to churn so many bribes into rights.
This is what I was trying to say earlier when I said the removal of the altar rails has blurred the ideas of what communiion really is. The breaking down of the barriers between the Clergy on the Altar and the Laity in the pews, whether a good idea or not on other levels, has resulted in a corresponding breaking down of reverence for the Eucharist.
I would never attend a Communion service becasue I don't see the point. If I could go to Mas I would, if I can not, I can prayer as I already do. I would never receive from a EMHC, even if Home Bound, because I do not believe I am worthy to touch the Consecrated Host, and therefore do not believe other Laity to be worthy of it either.
By the way, click on the picture at the top of the post. 1) Glass Chalices (abusive); 2) Some sort of item, possiblly sacrifices from the congregation, at the foot of the Altar (abusive); 3) Horrible vestments on the con-celebrants, including 1 in tennis shoes (maybe not abusive except in terms of respect for Our Lord); 4) Choir and Piano up front (not abusive but distracting); 5) Stage like Sanctuary and Theater in the Round Altar (just plain ugly).
...to clarify: the focus on rights is consistent with our focus on limiting the power of government. Our founders knew from their studies of history that it is in the nature of governments to grow themselves, and that they do so by seizing power. Just the nightmare we see being played out now.
"But I have witnessed in the past where some Eucharistic Ministers self communicate when they can't get to a daily Mass or Sunday Mass"
Of course, this self-communication is a serious abuse, and is explicitly prohibited--for instance, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, as I recall, where the term "Eucharistic minister" itself is prohibited. Because only priests and deacons are actually Eucharistic ministers. Laymen are "extraordinary ministers of holy communion". Perhaps "communion ministers", but certainly not Eucharistic ministers, not even "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist".
And in the same document, bishops are counseled not to permit communion services during a week when holy communion is available at the Sunday Mass. Perhaps the only time a communion service is unexceptional is on Sunday in a mission where Mass is unavailable.
On the more general question, can there be any doubt that having Mass anytime, anywhere on any pretext, devalues peoples' regard for the Holy Sacrifice itself? Certainly, Holy Mass seemed more precious when it was allowed on Sunday morning, not on just any old social occasion where a few Catholics happened to get together.
I also wonder whether anticipatory Masses on Saturday evening don't devalue the Day of the Lord. (I've heard of one English bishop who asked his priests to cut back on anticipatory Masses as much as possible.)
Wouldn't it be better to have First Vespers on Saturday in preparation for the Sunday divine liturgy, as the Orthodox do? I've heard that Orthodox priests--who by oath at their ordination are responsible for avoiding profanation--frequently will question someone before giving Holy Communion if they don't recognize them as having been at Vespers the previous evening. (Have no idea whether this practice is actually prevelant,)
I'm in an isolated parish. Our Pastor is also responsible for other parishes that are only accessible by air so his visits to those communities are planned for a couple of weeks at a time and several weeks in advance. If he's going to be gone for more than 2 Sundays, he tries to arrange for a replacement but often that's not possible and so we find ourselves having a Liturgy of the Word with Communion on Sunday morning (the next are March 4 & 11).
Some who attend daily Mass tried hard to get that Liturgy of the Word with Communion celebrated every day but that was nixed by a former pastor.
It's clear though, from conversations I've had with those who attend the Sunday liturgy that if there was no Communion they wouldn't come. That saddens me because they don't understand the importance of getting together and praying as a parish. For two years we tried to celebrate Evening Prayer once a week, on the one day when there was no Mass. Only a handful would attend and those weren't the ones who normally attend daily Mass, those daily attenders attended E.P. once and left saying "What prayer? All we did was sing and there wasn't even a rosary said." There is no understanding of the difference between private devotion and the official prayer of the Church.
By the way, it should be said that the EMHC who leads the Rite of Communion does self-communicate per the instructions in "Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest" (US) and "Sunday Celebration of the Word with Communion" (Can.)
For example, there is now a formal liturgical book for "Communion in the Absence of a priest" which can be led by a deacon or lay minister. There is the liturgy of the word and then the Rite of Holy Communion.
In my diocese, the former bishop banned "Communion services", even by deacons, except by particular indult (which I don't think he ever gave)(Deo gratias!).
I would much prefer Morning or Evening Prayer and if a deacon is present Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Agreed - with respect to the Divine office/Liturgy of the Hours. I'm not, however, fond of the practice of combining the Divine Office with a devotion - as laudable as it is - such as Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. In my experience, the practice confuses the focus - especially on the feast of a saint - and complicates the rubrics for ceremonial observance (i.e., the liturgical rites). If they are combined at all, the rite of Exposition and Benediction should be done outside the Divine Office - either immediately before, or immediately after.
Lay people can certainly lead Morning or Evening Prayer.
Yes: this is one of the most unexplored liturgical riches of Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Would to God that religious and laity were stepping up and taking the responsibility for praying (singing, actually) the daily official prayer of the Church in the churches themselves. When the clergy are able to join them, great! - especially on feast days, and vested for solemn rites.
But you do need a deacon for Benediction.
True, but an instituted acolyte may - in the absence of a priest or deacon - expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament.
Communion apart from Mass should be rare and for emergency purposes only or for the housebound and hospitalized.
Communion within the context of the Most August Sacrifice itself ought to be the norm, of course. But if memory serves me, canon law (or at least liturgical law) explicitly grants the right to the Faithful to receive Holy Communion at any time (from an ordinary minister) that is not otherwise inconvenient (e.g., 2:43 AM).
Post a Comment