Question: on the lay reading of the Gospel at Mass

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

A parish near our seminary is notorious for flouting Church law on liturgy. But I have one question, based on what I've seen in the Code of Canon Law and other documents:

Just how serious an offense is it for a lay Catholic to read the Gospel during the Liturgy of the Word?

I originally believed it was very serious. Now I'm not so certain.

The GIRM says,

"SCRIPTURE READINGS

34. The readings lay the table of God's word for the faithful and open up the riches of the Bible to them.[33] Since by tradition the reading of the Scriptures is a ministerial, not a presidential function, it is proper that as a rule a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the one presiding read the gospel. A reader proclaims the other readings. In the absence of a deacon or another priest, the celebrant reads the gospel.[34]

35. The liturgy itself inculcates the great reverence to be shown toward the reading of the gospel, setting it off from the other readings by special marks of honor. A special minister is appointed to proclaim it and prepares himself by a blessing or prayer. The people, who by their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them, stand as they listen to it. Marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels itself."

Canon Law states:

"Can. 757 It belongs to priests, as co­operators of the Bishops, to proclaim the Gospel of God. For the people entrusted to their care, this task rests especially on parish priests, and on other priests entrusted with the care of souls. Deacons also are to serve the people of God in the ministry of the word, in union with the Bishop and his presbyterium.

Can. 758 By reason of their consecration to God, members of institutes of consecrated life bear particular witness to the Gospel, and so are fittingly called upon by the Bishop to help in proclaiming the Gospel.

Can. 759 The lay members of Christ's faithful, by reason of their baptism and confirmation, are witnesses to the good news of the Gospel, by their words and by the example of their Christian life. They can also be called upon to cooperate with Bishops and priests in the exercise of the ministry of the word."

Also, "ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST," the Vatican's clarification of the GIRM, states in Part 4, Article 2, part 4:

"Therefore, the faithful, especially members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life can be invited to collaborate, in lawful ways, in the exercise of the ministry of the Word."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question is not whether it is proper to have an ordained minster read the Gospel during the Liturgy of the Word. That is clearly stated in the GIRM. Rather, my question is whether a lay Catholic reading the Gospel is actually illicit.

The problem I have is that I fail to find the the language of law usually written to clarify when something is absolutely binding. For example, such words are indeed used in Canon 907: "Can. 907 In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."

I seems to me that there is some distance between "are not permitted" and "it is proper that" when interpreting Canon Law.

Again, I'll state that I am not asking whether the Gospel may be read by a member of the laity. I only ask: how serious is the offense, and is it of equal gravity with other liturgical laws such as Can. 907?

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), March 03, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Jeffrey.
You wrote: "It seems to me that there is some distance between 'are not permitted' and 'it is proper that' when interpreting Canon Law.

No. The Church did not intend for anyone to understand any document to say (or even hint) that a layperson can proclaim the gospel at Mass. I believe that you may be misunderstanding the word "proper." The intention was not to mean "normally correct (but with the possibility of exceptions)." Rather the intention was for the word "proper" to mean "specifically reserved to." That is the more formal meaning of the word "proper," as related to the word "property" (thing owned). Thus one could say that the reading of the gospel is "owned" by those who have been ordained.

You have quoted from Canon Law, which contained a negative prescription, and from the G.I.R.M.. What you will find is that the G.I.R.M. and rubrics make positive statements about what people are to say and do. They are intentionally written without negative statements, lest it become cluttered with thousands of prohibitions of improper activities. Thus, what the G.I.R.M. and rubrics do not direct or authorize should be assumed to be something that one must avoid.

Now, I can give you two clearer quotations than the old G.I.R.M. #34 that has troubled you a bit:

(1) The 1980 instruction, "Inaestimabile donum" says this ...
"The reading of the Gospel passage is reserved to the ordained minister, namely the deacon or the priest. When possible, the other readings should be entrusted to a reader who has been instituted as such, or to other spiritually and technically trained lay people.

(2) The 2000 G.I.R.M. (not yet officially in English) has the old #34 revised -- perhaps to avoid any possible ambiguity -- as the new #59 (which does not have words that can be translated "as a rule" or "it is proper that"):
"Munus lectiones proferendi ex traditione non est praesidentiale sed ministeriale. Lectiones ergo a lectore proferantur, Evangelium autem a diacono vel ab alio sacerdote annuntietur. Si tamen diaconus vel alius sacerdos praesto non sit, ipse sacerdos celebrans Evangelium legat; et si alius quoque idoneus lector absit, sacerdos celebrans etiam alias lectiones proferat."
My unofficial translation: "The function of delivering the readings is not, by tradition, a presidential one but a minsterial one. Therefore, let the readings be delivered by a lector, but let the gospel be proclaimed by a deacon or by another priest [i.e., other than the main celebrant]. But if there be no deacon nor another priest, let the celebrating priest himself read the gospel; and if there also be no qualified reader present, let the celebrant also deliver the other readings."

In light of all this, the responsibility should be crystal clear to all priests. Those who intentionally do not carry out this law are, in my opinion, guilty of serious sin. I will again mention, as I did in another context, that such things are "double sins" -- first, a sin of defiant disobedience (last of respect for one's ecclesiastical superiors), and second, a sin of bad example to the fellow clergy and laity who are present and are aware of the regulation that must be obeyed. Those observing a priest commit a sin can be gravely tempted, at a later date, to say, "Well, if Fr. So-and-so doesn't have to be obedient, I'll be darned if I have to be ..."

God bless you.
John
PS: The only case in which a layperson can read the gospel at Mass is when the priest is physically unable to do so (e.g., laryngitis, throat cancer), in which case the same or another layman may read the priest's written homily.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.


Jeffrey The Laypersons are forbidden to say the Gospel and that is quite clear to all of us unless they are permitted in instances that the Priests are unable for whatever legitamate reason. A deacon can also say teh Gospel as long as the Priest indicates this in front of the laypeople by a blessing on the Deacon physically. I have actually seen abuses in the past during last years Passion Sunday Mass. The Priest and 4 other readers were saying the Passion Gospel in a Round Robin manner. It was the most distracting thing I ever witnessed and was poorly done to boot. I have Vowed not to appear at this Priest's Masses ever again due to his bad habits of not adhering to the Church Laws and Customs as well as her GIRM. I have been through some painful times due to abuses of these kinds and have under pain refused to go to Mass in the past until these conditions passed through orders of the Bishop.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 04, 2002.

Fred,
The reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday is something very special in which laypeople can participate. Usually the congregation says words that were spoken by two or more people in real life. And there are usually two or more individuals (which could be lay men or women, perhaps a deacon) to take miscellaneous individual roles. Finally, the voice of Jesus is normally taken by the priest celebrant of the Mass. (After all, he is the "alter Christus.")

This kind of reading of the Passion was done even in the old rite of the liturgy prior to Vatican II. In my parish, the men's and boy's choirs (of which I was a member) used to chant the entire Passion in a Slavic language, with about ten different soloists taking individual roles. It was tremendously moving. I still have a tape recording from about 1963.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 04, 2002.


John

I don't have a problem with lay people being involved it is the lack of consistancy that troubled me and made the experience very confusing for many. When you have a hearing problem it makes matters even more confusing. Remember we do lose our hearing as we age too. It also was a poorly done sevice and that in itself ruined the mystery of it totally. It was not only me that was affected just imagine the problems the newcomers would have had. my wife was also disappointed in the way it was done as it was her first time hearing the service itself. Fortunately she did not lose faith because I reassured her that it is usually much better done with beauty. I think this has been overdone in this forum as it is. Let's pray this years is much better. Blessed be to GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 04, 2002.


To help the 'lurkers', all this is to keep the reading of the Gospel at Mass holy and special, not to interfere with every Christians requirement to preach the Gospel to all? To keep the specialness of ceromony and sacrament, not to slow down the charge laid on us all? Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), March 05, 2002.


It is the Priest who is Ordained for the Job of Proclaiming the word of GOD as spoken by Jesus. It is the only valid reason to the Priest doing the reading of the Gospel. Any other person who is not ordained will invalidate the meaning of the Reading and the up coming Homily.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 05, 2002.

Hi John,

You wrote:

"Finally, the voice of Jesus is normally taken by the priest celebrant of the Mass. (After all, he is the "alter Christus.")"

While I was on a trip, I went to mass on Palm Sunday a few years back. I am accustomed to hearing the Gospel read by multiple readers, but at this church, the words of Christ were read by a woman standing at the altar (as opposed to the priest). I don't know if this is mentioned in the GIRM, but wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

I'd better go back into my cave!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


According to my Missal the words of Christ in the passion readings and the Holy Friday is to be spoken by the Priest. It does not waver in any way to permit others to read the words of Christ. I would suspect that this is done solely to keep the reading of the Gospel by the Priest intact as the Girm has always maintained. Thanks be to God

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 02, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Mateo.
I wish that I could respond to your comments with certainty, but, alas, I do not have all the necessary materials handy.
The one thing I can say for sure is that the G.I.R.M. (at front of Sacramentary) does not have anything to say about the reading of the Passion.
My family has a Lectionary, but it is currently more than 350 miles from me! If the Church requires that the words of Jesus be read by a priest on Palm Sunday, that regulation would most likely be in the preface to the Lectionary or in the "rubrics" introducing the text of the Passion.

You quoted me as having written that "the voice of Jesus is normally taken by the priest celebrant of the Mass." I wrote those words based on what I have usually witnessed over the course of many years. I used the word "normally," because I could envision three exceptions:
(1) a priest being too frail or ill to read the role,
(2) a priest being unable to read well the vernacular language being used for the Passion text, and
(3) a choir singing the entire Passion. I have witnessed case #3 -- and in pre-Vatican-II days! -- since I was part of such a choir (men and boys). Now don't laugh too hard, but not only did a young layman with a great voice sing the part of Jesus, but I had a one-line solo for a few years (at perhaps age 10/11/12) taking the part of one of the women who bugged St. Peter in the courtyard!

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ