M
mommyof4
Guest
I agree.
- Status
T
TimOliv
Guest
Another rant about EMHCs? Why don’t we just tell people that going to a Methodist Church meets your Sunday obligation. After all, its still Jesus, its all good.
Or we consolidate parishes so that they are serviced by priests. Not to serve as Communion Distribution Centers where Priests drop off a “haul” of consecrated hosts once a week.
D
davy39
Guest
Do I detect some sarcasism here? Do you really believe that if you go to a Methodist church and receive communion, that you recieve the blood of Christ? Ridiculous. The only time we have a communion service at our parish is during Holy Week when our priest is extremely busy. There is nothing wrong with this. Usually the deacon takes care of this. In our diocese, we have closed and consolidated many parishes, and we still have a priest shortage. Maybe this will improve someday. We have one priest and two deacons to take care of about 2,500 active parishoners, so don’t say that they are using EMHCs just for the novelty of it. I don’t distribute at Mass or go on sick calls because I’m a wanna-be priest. I believe I’m helping the Church take care of the people, at least in our area. End of Rant.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
Hi, yes, not avoiding your question, just forgot about this thread.
I agree that in order to resolve our priest crisis, we as an entire church (read: not just clergy or just laity) need to enter into some prayerful dialogue about just what the priesthood is, what ordination means, etc. And then act on it. It’s going to be slow, divisive, and painful, because the Holy Spirit will have an opportunity to call us to conversion. And if we do it right, there won’t be any clear winners or losers, just a lot of humility and work to begin. I think we haven’t really done it yet because if we do it wrong, we will have another major split in the church.
But yes, I disagree that “the best thing rome did in recent months was to openly restrict who could purify the sacred vessels.” If anything, its going about things backwards. The act, in itself, doesn’t define priesthood, or anything about it. It sends yet another mixed message about the role of lay people in the liturgical life of the church, and especially about women. People were shouting “yippee, fewer EMHCs/sacristans/whatever because this is for priests to do.” But really, the action is reserved to the ordained and also instituted acolytes (a lay role). But then to dig further, we find that the lay ministry of acolyte is reserved to men without a real reason given. So one must presume that there is something suspicious here about how the church views women - thus the mixed message, which will only (rightly) fuel a stronger push from feminist theologians for the church to explain itself. But if the part of the church who does the official explainin’ feels threatened, they will just hide in silence or in a reactionary statement (as has happened in the past), and we get nowhere toward resolving the crisis.
So yeah. I disagree.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Actually, we don’t need to have anything to define the priesthood. The priesthood was instituted by Christ and we have 2,000 years of tradition behind it. There has never been any question over what role the priesthood had in the church.
The difference is that now, people are not praying for vocations, and they are most certainly not nurturing the vocations of their children. This is where we have a drop off in numbers.
In short, if there is a church, for example, that cannot be served by a priest but to have the Eucharist dropped off every so often so that the church can offer “Communion Services” then that church should be CLOSED.
That’s just how it goes. Absence of a priest does not mean we make up new offices in the church.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/EXTRMIN.HTM
D
davy39
Guest
Did you even read my answer to your previous post? Evidently not. If you close every church that doesn’t have a resident priest, we’re not going to have many churches, at least in our diocese. How are you going to tell the homebound that they won’t be able to receive Communion, because the priest is busy, and we don’t have any more EMHCs? Is this really what you want?
M
manualman
Guest
I DID read your post and think you miss something. You presume that we all have a RIGHT to a local parish and the sacraments. In reality, those things are blessings from God.
When the faith of the community is insufficient to foster new vocations, something is wrong. It is not helping the matter to establish priest-less parishes and imply that living in a culture that lacks the faith needed to produce vocations has no consequences. If the faith isn’t there, then consequences follow. Ever watch what happens to kids who never have to face the consequences of their behavior? I have. It’s practically the norm in our culture today. And its no prettier in adults than in kids.
It might just be tough love to limit parishes to the number that can be provided with priests. This approach will likely lead to a drop in the number of nominal catholics for a while. So be it. Better than maintaining a crippled institution that does not convey the truth to people who refuse to hear it anyways. Some innocent faithful catholics will suffer in the process. Communal sin always has that effect. Sad, but true.
Maybe when we have to chose between skipping mass and driving an hour each way every Sunday, we will choose the hard road and start sending the right message to our sons. That faith is WORTH sacrifice and comes before convenience. Then the next generation will be smaller, but will make enough vocations to grow again.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Tim, I’m just greatful you are not in any authority in my diocese.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
The same logic could be used to say, “You presume we have a RIGHT to a local priest.” As if WE “make vocations”!
Vocations are always a calling and a mysterious blessing from God. Might it be that God is either: not calling as many to priesthood, or calling many whom we do not accept because we have too stringent of requirements.
I still stand by my theory that we will not see a renewal of the church and a sustained increase in vocations, etc. until we accept the challenge of openly re-evaluating the priesthood.
M
manualman
Guest
You might want to observe what is happening to vocations in dioceses where orthodox catholic teaching is emphasized and heterodox dissent is denounced by the bishop. It’s pretty exciting - to me anyways.
God’s will versus our free will is a mighty deep topic that certainly applies to vocations. From what I understand of it, I agree with you only to the extent that God may indeed be calling fewer to the priesthood simply because there are fewer today who have accepted the kind of faith required to live the call. A Good Father makes his kids learn by NOT removing bad consequences from bad choices.
God’s will versus our free will is a mighty deep topic that certainly applies to vocations. From what I understand of it, I agree with you only to the extent that God may indeed be calling fewer to the priesthood simply because there are fewer today who have accepted the kind of faith required to live the call. A Good Father makes his kids learn by NOT removing bad consequences from bad choices.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
As someone from a rural part of the country but a diocese with 28 seminarians (meaning we will be able to increase our Priests by over 25% in just a few years), this is balderdash. We need to preserve as many parishes as possible with the expectation and hope that we will have more Priests in the future.
First, in my area, we have many rural Catholics served by primarily by Deacons (not nominal Catholics) who responded to the call to serve their neighbors who are unable to travel an hour each way to a parish with a Priest. The implication that these Deacon’s are trying to be something they are not is appalling. These older men would cheer if they had a Priest and I’m sure it is one of their most fervent and common prayer. In short order, many of these parishes will soon have a newly ordained Priest. The statement that this will affect mostly nominal Catholics is a lie.
Second, rural areas are aging and include some of the best Catholics in America. To close the parish in their late years, diminish the only real community they have ever had is so heartless and mean as to be not of Christ.
Third, these people need the Eucharist as much as you do. Your comment seems to think they are glad they don’t have a Priest to serve them. If you have ever talked to someone who experienced losing their Priest or only have one who comes on Sunday but isn’t there to serve them during the week? Your lack of sympathy is appalling. The recent announcement in Iowa is a tragedy but your attitude adds insult to the hurting.
Now to the point of this thread, I disagree wholeheartedly. There isn’t a growing cancer but a new revival going on in our parishes. There is greater fidelity to tradition, Eucharistic Adoration is on the upswing, family and individual participation in devotions is increasing, we are having a surge in seminarians, Bishops are being leaders to correct the harm done by the “Spirit of VII” and so on.
With regard to more communion services, I am in a parish that has historically had two Priests. Now we have one. Because of the demands of a single Priest and a surge in daily communicants, our Deacon fills in with Communion services when the Priest is called to another duty as in being with the sick or bereaving. While not as good as having a Mass, the communion service allows those people in our parish who daily pray for all us to come together and do what they do for us every day. I would never dream of losing their prayerful efforts. And for me, it is comforting to know that any day I can recieve the Eucharist that something will be held at the appointed time and not a note that says “Sorry, no food today. Come again”.
With regards to EMHC’s referring to themself as EM’s, lighten up. We all use shorthand to describe what we do. This is not some intent to assert they are something they are not.
From the Catechism:
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Progress is not always a good idea - if one is in danger of heading over a precipice, progress backwards or sideways seems to be called for. OTOH, going forward over a precipice is entirely proper if one intends to descend a cliff face, & is adequately equipped.
What is wrong with the word or the concept “reform” ? Anything ? Protestants do many “Catholic” things - so let’s stop praying: that’s something they do, a great deal
Howabsurd that would be. To avoid doing X because rotestants do X, is not very sensible. There is more than one kind of reform - some are better for the Church than others. Besides, the Council of Trent talked about reformation a lot - yet it can hardly be described as having been philo-Protestant. I don’t know: maybe the Fathers of Trent were indeed secret Protestants; but it’s not clear how such an idea can be sustained. Maybe trafficking in indulgences is a sign of being truly Catholic, which the Fathers should never have tried to suppress: somehow, that is not easy to believe. ##
What’s the difference 
?
…cont’d…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
…cont’d & over]
While clericalisation of the laity is an evil, so too is the form of clericalism that regards the laity as supercargo in the Church, without which it would be much better off. I don’t see anything to choose between these perversions of the nature of the Church. ##
That depends on how “X is essential to the Church” is understood - some things there are that the laity cannot do: equally, there are things no clergy can do. I don’t understand why there has to be any of this rubbish which implies either is more “important” or necessary than the other; it’s a ridiculous approach to the nature of the Church: either calling in the Church should help the other - not belittle it. This striving for superiority is sheer poison - it has nothing do with Christ; as the gospels make plain, & St.Paul
What is essential, because the Church would not be, let alone be well, without it, is the grace of Christ. Without that, all else is of no worth whatever.
BTW:
“St. Andrew Kim Tae-gon was Korea’s first Roman Catholic priest. In the early 17th century, Roman Catholicism in Korea was primarily introduced by laypeople. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that Korea saw its first missionaries arrive only to find out that the people there were already practicing Christianity.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kim_Taegon
It’s not clear that is avoidable, if there is a lack of priests - surely that is preferable to usurping the activity of the priest; as only the priest can confect the Eucharist, & as there is a shortage of priests, I don’t see what (if anything) is wrong w. communion services
BTW - the shortage of priests may perhaps be more acute than it was, but there was a shortage before Vatican II: there are maps in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia of “no-priest areas”. One reason for the shortage is probably the recovery of the permanent diaconate (a desirable move, surely, as it redresses the tendency to look on the diaconate as only a step to the priesthood); had the p.d. not been reinstituted, probably many of those who are now deacons would not be clerics at all, or would have become priests.While clericalisation of the laity is an evil, so too is the form of clericalism that regards the laity as supercargo in the Church, without which it would be much better off. I don’t see anything to choose between these perversions of the nature of the Church. ##
That depends on how “X is essential to the Church” is understood - some things there are that the laity cannot do: equally, there are things no clergy can do. I don’t understand why there has to be any of this rubbish which implies either is more “important” or necessary than the other; it’s a ridiculous approach to the nature of the Church: either calling in the Church should help the other - not belittle it. This striving for superiority is sheer poison - it has nothing do with Christ; as the gospels make plain, & St.Paul 
The priesthood has less than nothing to do with superior status - to think it does, lays the Church open to calls for the ordination of women - not unreasonably. It has everything to do with service, everything to do with living the mystery of the Cross - nothing to do with self-assertion. Self-assertion is good only to be crucified - not encouraged.
What is essential, because the Church would not be, let alone be well, without it, is the grace of Christ. Without that, all else is of no worth whatever.BTW:
“St. Andrew Kim Tae-gon was Korea’s first Roman Catholic priest. In the early 17th century, Roman Catholicism in Korea was primarily introduced by laypeople. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that Korea saw its first missionaries arrive only to find out that the people there were already practicing Christianity.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kim_Taegon
Anyone agree or disagree?.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Thank you, Orionthehunter! I really feel that our rural areas are the ones to suffer the most from the priest shortage. And as you said, I see so many loyal Catholics in these rural areas - “nominal” indeed!
D
davy39
Guest
Very good, Orionthehunter!! We think along the same lines, but you have a better way of expressing yourself. Thanks for the backup!
T
TimOliv
Guest
You are all absolutely right. The Holy Father says that we should not have churches with lay administrators and that we need to scale back our use of EMHCs but all of you are absolutely right. Perfectly in keeping with the attitude of “we know what Jesus meant better than Rome”
And Rome wonders why we keep losing Catholics to Protestant Churches. Reasons such as this. Blurring the lines between clergy and laity. This is the problem.
And Rome wonders why we keep losing Catholics to Protestant Churches. Reasons such as this. Blurring the lines between clergy and laity. This is the problem.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Do not accuse me or the others who disagree with you that we are somehow heretics or desire to Protestantize the Church.
Permanent Deacons are not laity. They are ordained and have had conferred on them a form of Holy Orders. They serve at the pleasure of the Bishop and perform critical functions approved by Rome. They do weddings, funerals, baptism’s and communion services.
Regarding EMHC’s, I have no idea what abuse is going on in your diocese. In our diocese, I seldom see them used when it isn’t appropriate. One has to remember that the Holy Father says that it is preferred that the Eucharist be offered in both forms on Sunday. In a Parish with one Priest and no deacon, this is impossible without EMHC’s. When we have EMHC’s, we are listening to the Holy Father.
T
TimOliv
Guest
I never said anything about Deacons. So I don’t know why you included your first paragraph.
Nor do I have a problem with laity serving in their appropriate capacity.
Laity, even through the statements made by the Holy Father, are still permitted to purify sacred vessels (provided they are installed Acolytes).
Nor am I talking about your church offering both species of the Eucharist. I’m afraid, my friend, you are putting words into my mouth.
I refer you to the original post of this thread. This thread deals with churches that do not have priests but are administered by lay Parish Directors or Parish Administrators who, in lieu of a priest, counsel parishioners and perform the other non-sacramental functions of a parish.
My issue with EMHCs does not deal with parishes such as the one you are describing, but in ones where the ONLY services offered by a church are communion services performed by EMHCs.
So really, I don’t know why you thought I was lashing out at Deacons, I never made mention of them.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Thank you for clearing that up. I am going to become an EMCH this winter, and I’m really excited about it!:bounce: One of my jobs will be to take the eucharist to the local hospitals and to the homebound and hospice patients. In no way what so ever do I want to “take over” the role of the priest. I just want to do what I can to minister to the people in my community.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think the term “progress” is scarier than the term reform. Reform has always had good meaning, except for one famously bad instance (St. Peter Damian, for example, is the Doctor of Reform and St. Gregory VII brought about what became known as “Gregorian Reform.”)
On the other hand:
2 John 9 Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
Plus the syllabus of errors has “progress” throughout:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
On the other hand:
2 John 9 Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
Plus the syllabus of errors has “progress” throughout:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
- Status