A cancer in our churches

[manualman]

Orion, I think you either misunderstand my post or are attempting to twist my words into a straw man. Nowhere did I say that mostly nominal catholics would suffer. I clearly stated that the innocent faithful would suffer along with the lukewarm. This is perfectly consistent with church teachings on the communal effects of sin (i.e. sin hurts more than just the sinner). I can see how you might find my post hurtful if read the way we’ve been raised in our American culture that says that anything that is ‘unfair’ on a personal level is unjust on any level. Our culture does not believe in communal responsibility. But Catholicism DOES. And God HAS created us in such a way that we cannot AVOID all being affected when some or many sin or turn away from God in whatever form. Feel free to disagree. But don’t call me a liar.

It may be entirely appropriate for your bishop to keep open more parishes than can currently be staffed with a priest if he foresees that an upswing in progress will lead to adequate staff levels.

But I have done short term youth retreats in MANY rural parishes in northwest Wisconsin, Eastern North Dakota and southern Illinois. I’m quite familiar with the problem of the priestless parish. And I don’t think it is in the long term best interest of the people of God to establish routines that imply that there is no serious problem in the lack of priests. Weekly communion services that are nearly identical to a mass minus the Eucharistic prayer do nothing to convey the seriousness of missing the sacrifice of the mass. I’ve been to several dozen in different parishes and none of them have had any liturgical attempt to acknowledge the sadness of having no mass where once there was. We once lived in a time where rural folks out west and in the south went months between priests visiting and bringing them the eucharist, confession, baptism, marriages, etc. The faith not only survived, it thrived. Isn’t it worth considering the idea that the hardship suffered by folks without regular sacraments made them value them that much more? Made them appreciate the priesthood and convey that message to their children?

I hope I’m wrong and y’all are right. But I can’t shake the feeling that the approach I have seen is merely an enabling of the general apathy and faithlessness that got us into this mess of no priests in the first place. I fear it is just more of the same.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Orion, I think you either misunderstand my post or are attempting to twist my words into a straw man. Nowhere did I say that mostly nominal catholics would suffer. I clearly stated that the innocent faithful would suffer along with the lukewarm. This is perfectly consistent with church teachings on the communal effects of sin (i.e. sin hurts more than just the sinner). I can see how you might find my post hurtful if read the way we’ve been raised in our American culture that says that anything that is ‘unfair’ on a personal level is unjust on any level. Our culture does not believe in communal responsibility. But Catholicism DOES. And God HAS created us in such a way that we cannot AVOID all being affected when some or many sin or turn away from God in whatever form. Feel free to disagree. But don’t call me a liar.

It may be entirely appropriate for your bishop to keep open more parishes than can currently be staffed with a priest if he foresees that an upswing in progress will lead to adequate staff levels.

But I have done short term youth retreats in MANY rural parishes in northwest Wisconsin, Eastern North Dakota and southern Illinois. I’m quite familiar with the problem of the priestless parish. And I don’t think it is in the long term best interest of the people of God to establish routines that imply that there is no serious problem in the lack of priests. Weekly communion services that are nearly identical to a mass minus the Eucharistic prayer do nothing to convey the seriousness of missing the sacrifice of the mass. I’ve been to several dozen in different parishes and none of them have had any liturgical attempt to acknowledge the sadness of having no mass where once there was. We once lived in a time where rural folks out west and in the south went months between priests visiting and bringing them the eucharist, confession, baptism, marriages, etc. The faith not only survived, it thrived. Isn’t it worth considering the idea that the hardship suffered by folks without regular sacraments made them value them that much more? Made them appreciate the priesthood and convey that message to their children?

I hope I’m wrong and y’all are right. But I can’t shake the feeling that the approach I have seen is merely an enabling of the general apathy and faithlessness that got us into this mess of no priests in the first place. I fear it is just more of the same.

I better understand your point. As a person living in rural America with many friends and relatives in parishes sharing a single Priest, I do still beg to disagree with you. I am one who strongly believes that there are very real graces that come from the sacraments that can transcend all the evil in the world. I can’t make it without God’s help via His sacraments. For this reason, I feel obligated to do all I can to stand up for expanding the opportunity for others to get the sacraments and receive worthily. For this reason, I believe that the sacraments and especially the Eucharist needs to be as available as much as possible. It isn’t a symbol of something good. It is infinitely good in and of itself. I just can’t see that there is a net gain by is diminished access as a “lesson” or “punishment” for collective sin.

 

[Orionthehunter]

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.

You are quite correct. I apologize. I misread the Original Post to be what I believe is a too-often criticism of the increased obligation of the laity to perform a greater role in our Church. For instance, in our parish, when we had two Priests, one had the time to essentially run RCIA. Now that we have one Priest, we have had to rely on certain classes covered by laity. I was on the RCIA team for 5 years. I know we were not as good a teacher as a Priest. And I’m know we erred inadvertently. But, we always stressed that we are doing the best we could, for the candidates to read their homework, and question us when they thought we were in error. And when confronted, we did more homework and corrected it the next class if we were wrong.

I read a lot of threads here on CAF where there is legitimate criticism of RCIA leaders who teach error. Sometimes it is inadvertent and a symptom of prior poor catechesis and other times it is intentional. But the answer isn’t to kill the entire program. It is to improve catechesis and knowledge of the teachers. This takes time as the problem of poor catechesis didn’t happen over night.

Similarly, I misread the OP to be an attack on EMHC’s. In our parish, if we didn’t have EMHC’s on Sunday, we couldn’t recieve under both species. While not necessary to receive both species, the Vatican and USCCB have made it clear that this is their strong preference.

In short, I reacted without reading closely. I’m sorry.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps “cancer” is too strong of a word now that I think about it. However, I am noticing a growth that if we keep leaving it alone will lead down a road we shouldn’t be traveling.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20205

There is this feeling, I am noticing, that people think that since things changed in the Second Vatican Council, this is a call to reform the church every waking moment. But reform sounds a bit too protestant, so let’s just say we are “Progressing” the church. We are moving forward.

What I’m seeing, instead, are lay parish directors who love to admit that they take on the duties of a pastor in all aspects except sacraments. I’m seeing EMHCs (incorrectly) referring to themselves and being referred to as Eucharistic Ministers.

I am seeing churches offer more communion services than masses, and everyone is okay with that.

People will cite the shortage of priests. They will say that handing over the church to laity is ESSENTIAL to its survival. I say it is to the detriment of the church.

The best thing Rome ever did in recent months was to openly restrict who is able to purify sacred vessels. EMHCs (with the exception of Installed Acolytes) have no business doing this.

Anyone agree or disagree?

---

I agree 100%.

 

[Leeta]

Manualman and Tim Oliv,

I agree 100%.

Since when is it absolutely essential to receive Holy Communion under both species? You are putting words in the Holy Father’s mouth.
Since we have a priest shortage it would seem that luxuries like receiving under both species should go by the way until the parish has enough ordinary ministers.

I only receive under both species when the priest dips the Host in the precious Blood and gives It to us.
It is a priests’ and deacons’ vocation to distribute Holy Communion, not the laity’s.
Why mess around with lay people whose hands have not been anointed like the priests’ have? Also, half the time the EMHCs (priests don’t either) don’t take proper precautions to protect our Lord from being inadvertantly dropped. Also, as a mother of 7, I know how easily liquids spill and how much harder it is to clean up than solids, especially on carpet. (By the way, the carpet is supposed to be cut out and buried, if the Precious Blood is spilled on it.)
The priest can distribute both himself by intincture.
The use of EMHCs is all a ploy to get lay people running around the altar and handling the sacred species.
Yes, if folks had to wait longer to receive Holy Communion and were asked to pray as a parish for more priests after every Mass, it would certainly get boys’ attention. With so many EMHCs, why should anyone become a priest? The parish obviously acts like it doesn’t need more than one. As long as people are not inconvenienced, no one will consider it a problem.
I have seen it in my older sons. After going to such parish with lots of EMHCs at every Mass, even daily Mass ( with only 10 people), they tended to back off from it all. Yes, they still attended Mass, but they weren’t drawn to it.

(By the way, the oldest might be considering a vocation. One is being very mysterious and I did here him tell someone else he was discerning whether or not he had a vocation. Two weeks ago, both were at different retreats, one was on a silent Ignatian retreat.) And we no longer attend that parish, and it was supposed to be a conservative one.

Get rid of altar girls.
As a mother of 7 boys, I know how much they are turned off by girl things, until they reach the dating age and then you wish why still had an aversion to them. Boys are handicapped spiritually and need lots of help to keep the hold of toys and activity from overwhelming them. So serving Mass is perfect because they are active, but they do something important helping the priest who is so busy and especially holding the paten to protect our Lord. The most traditional Mass is the best for them because it is like the military, order is required or else.

Priests need to prioritize and give their parish and its sacramental needs prioity over concelebrating Masses for family friends’ weddings or funerals or constant pilgrimages to Europe, meetings, meetings, meetings or socials. Also, the sick of the parish should have priority.

Our old priest, Fr. A.J. Henkel, RIP, realized this. He took communion to all the sick himself and was there at every Mass on Sunday to help distribute Holy Communion , even when he didn’t celebrate it himself. At only one Mass on Sunday did he have one EMHC to distribute the Precious Body. Only on Holy Thursday did he offer both species and only with ordinary ministers. If he went on vacation, He was gone only a short time and he always had a substitute for Mass. No Masses were canceled. He would play golf on his vacation, but still celebrate Mass in the morning at the parish church.

 

[manualman]

Orion, glad we could clear that up a bit. I hear you on the value of the sacraments. But I’ve noticed, for example, that the church is moving away from just anybody off the street coming in to have their baby baptised. Why is that? Why is it that priests are starting to want parents to demonstrate intent and capability to raise the child in the faith before baptizing the child? The sacrament brings REAL grace, why not give it to anybody remotely interested?

I think there’s a balance to be had. You are absoutely correct that the eucharist is an essential and irreplaceable source of grace. But just like baptism, maybe it comes with personal AND communal responsibilities. Grace isn’t just a religious word for magic. It is a mysterious blend of the power of God and the consent of man’s will. Cool stuff that I’ve barely begun to comprehend.

I AM just shooting from the hip here. But all this is worth thinking about. Something really did bother me about the feeling I got in the priestless parishes I visited. This is the best I’ve been able to come up with on how to describe it.

God bless. Hope that fresh supply of seminarians keeps flowing!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Orion, glad we could clear that up a bit. I hear you on the value of the sacraments. But I’ve noticed, for example, that the church is moving away from just anybody off the street coming in to have their baby baptised. Why is that? Why is it that priests are starting to want parents to demonstrate intent and capability to raise the child in the faith before baptizing the child? The sacrament brings REAL grace, why not give it to anybody remotely interested?

I think there’s a balance to be had. You are absoutely correct that the eucharist is an essential and irreplaceable source of grace. But just like baptism, maybe it comes with personal AND communal responsibilities. Grace isn’t just a religious word for magic. It is a mysterious blend of the power of God and the consent of man’s will. Cool stuff that I’ve barely begun to comprehend.

I AM just shooting from the hip here. But all this is worth thinking about. Something really did bother me about the feeling I got in the priestless parishes I visited. This is the best I’ve been able to come up with on how to describe it.

God bless. Hope that fresh supply of seminarians keeps flowing!

I understand where you are coming from- an intent to have the Church be what it is meant to be. And I agree with the goal. And I agree that it requires greater fidelity of all to what the Church teaches. And I would probably support a great deal of changes that most would suggest to make it better.

But, I don’t agree that it starts with a strategy grounded in reducing access to the sacraments because of communal consequences of our individual sin. The sacraments are personal gifts to each of us to make us more Holy. We can’t become more Holy without the sacraments. They are the first instruments of change. Not the reward for change. Christ gave us the sacraments so we can change.

 

[latin_rite]

I’m a tradionalist. But i think it’s time the Church bitthe bullet and allowed priest to marry. there would be a massive turn around in priest numbers. Problem solved.