AmericanPapist Comments
Does having a Deacon perform the Liturgy of the Word and then distributing previously consecrated hosts constitute Mass?
It fulfills the requirement,but it is a communion service,not a Mass, because there was not a consecration only a prayer service....for some, this is one step closer to eliminating the Holy Mass all together and then allowing room for the desecration spoken of by the prophet Daniel, also a visionary.
It fulfills the obligation,but it is only a prayer service
Your explanation from the canon law seems to leave a loop-hole, by reccommending something is better than nothing.
fh: No.
Mary: wrong all the way through.
ED...wrong all the way through? not really. .Isn't it a prayer service? and arenot they are saying that it is better to pray even if there are no priests ?. I agree with you,but it seems the Church is doing this anyway, so what is your point?
OK - first of all, I saw the article too. However, there was a correction - 1) it is NOT Mass (Mass is when there is a priest and he consecrates the Eucharist) 2) when there is no other option but the communion service it does NOT fulfill the Sunday obligation because the obligation for the Sunday, in that particular case is dropped.
I think Daniel knows what he is talking about since it came directly from God.
Mary, perhaps you should read the article.
Thank you Paul Madrid. I Did. Perhaps you could read Daniel.
I don't know if the pray service satisfies a parishioners duty or not under existing Church law. However, since Mass is not available to them, it would appear that they are blameless. Tom
I would think it is better than no assembly at all. It is a reminder to dedicate Sunday to the service of the Lord and an occasion to be united to listen to the Word.
In parts of the world where the priest is seen only once or twice a year, such weekly Sunday assemblies are what keeps the faith alive.
Does being excused from the Mass excuse you from gathering for the Liturgy of the Word?
CCC:
2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the Mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.
The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.
The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.
Greetings.
IANACL, but I read the post from Peters the Elder. As I understand the situation, since there is no Mass available, there is no "Sunday obligation" to satisfy. One is not obliged to attend Mass is there is no Mass to attend!
I do not know if the local bishop can impose an obligation to attend the prayer/communion services. But if he does, it is separate from the "Sunday obligation".
Tough situation up there!
I just chuckle at how few people seem actually to read the linked article before opining away. Smiles.
I have, Mary/SNAPPAL, but Daniel has nothing to do with the fact that the other liturgies of the Church do not substitute for the Mass nor the obligation to attend one every Sunday and holy day save a grave reason.
I'm baffled here. Just what horse does Mary/SNAPPAL have in this race? Just what is it about the article and Ed's correction of one the errors in it that is so contentious?
Commenting by HaloScan
