A diocese by diocese comparison. How does your diocese stack up? (US dioceses only)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Orionthehunter said:
Did you see this the Ratio of Adherents per Priest:

Boston (MA): One Priest for every 8,912 Catholics
Ft. Worth (TX) 10,000
Galveston–Houston (TX) 10,170
Orange (CA) 10,776
Los Angeles (CA) 12,675
El Paso (TX) 13,388
San Bernardino (CA) 13,987
Dallas (TX) 14,049
Brownsville (TX) 15,993
Las Vegas (NV) 19,998

No wonder they have problems in those dioceses. Without Priests, there are no sacraments. Without Sacraments, there is a void of Grace. Without abundant grace, there is sin.
Click to expand...
Ordain women and married men and the problem is solved !!!
Why do we continue to prefer male celibacy to the availability of the Eucharist ? It’s all so medieval !!!
 
Bob_Byrnes said:
Ordain women and married men and the problem is solved !!!
Why do we continue to prefer male celibacy to the availability of the Eucharist ? It’s all so medieval !!!
Click to expand...
Wome have never been, are not, and will never be priests. It has been infallibly declared by the late Pope John Paul II.

As for married priest, yes it is a discipline but, if you look at protestant denominations, they have the same problem even with married clergy. Plus the pay for a Catholic Priest is lower than for prostantant clergy.
 
wilkerl said:
Unlike all the other postings, I must say my diocese is a #10. Why? Well, we have two great priests. One is a former Lutheran minister and he loves the Catholic Church and appreciates how blessed he is to be a Catholic priest, he has taught us that appreciation. He knows the Bible and we learn so much about the history of the church from him. He’s a learned man. Our other priest is Mexican and studied in Rome. He’s a very spiritual man and we are also blessed to have him. We have a large Mexican Spanish speaking population in our diocese. So this is perfect for us.

We are traditional, but then we are flexible. We have a teen mass with piano, drummer, flute, and guitars. The other masses are more traditional music. All masses have different choirs with different styles. Our congregation sings out. Who said Catholics can’t sing?

We take communion on our tongue or in our hands. We sip the wine from a chalice. In that sense we remain traditional as well.
We have recently built a large church to house the large congregation. Although it is very beautiful and preferable, I would have been just as in love with our church if we’d stayed in the old church for all of the above reasons.

I must say that I enjoy visiting other churches and as I travel a lot, I get that opportunity. I’ve been to churches in Italy, England, Alabama, Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania and most recently Georgia, and I have to say I found them all stellar. In Texas and Pennsylvania I attended churches which must have been built and designed in the late sixties. They used banners a lot and they didn’t have the feel of a Roman Catholic Church. However, once the mass began, those things really didn’t matter.

Well, for what it’s worth, that is my opinion on my diocese and most dioceses that I have attended in the last four years I’m proud to say in their behalf.

Blessings to all,
wilkerl
Click to expand...
You “sip the wine” from the chalice. :confused:
 
Oops, correction noted as only the priest has The Chalice. The cups we sip from are metal (in the shape of a chalice). I suppose I was pointing this out so as to differentiate from the “paper cups” another nearby church was using - a much more liberal church than ours, I’ve heard. Some people have strong feelings about this difference for or against. I think they miss the whole point of the mass.

wilkerl
 
wilkerl said:
I suppose I was pointing this out so as to differentiate from the “paper cups” another nearby church was using - a much more liberal church than ours, I’ve heard. wilkerl
Click to expand...
:eek: That is an abuse! I thought that nothing could be worse than glass chalices and clay chalices. Obviously, I was mistaken. :bigyikes:
 
wilkerl said:
Oops, correction noted as only the priest has The Chalice. The cups we sip from are metal (in the shape of a chalice). I suppose I was pointing this out so as to differentiate from the “paper cups” another nearby church was using - a much more liberal church than ours, I’ve heard. Some people have strong feelings about this difference for or against. I think they miss the whole point of the mass.

wilkerl
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, these are serious abuses that need to be rectified. It’s not a matter of being conservative or liberal… it’s simply not permitted at all!

The matter at hand is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The currently allowed practices are to receive the precious blood either from a chalice made out of a solid and unbreakable precious material (preferably gold), or to receive by intinction, where a priest (and only a priest, not a Extraordinary Eucharistic minister) dips the Host into the wine and places it on the tongue either by hand or with a golden spoon. The problem is that these other methods open up Communion for possible desecration of the Precious Blood. Using multiple small cups presents the possibility of spillage from pouring. Using a material like glass could be a disaster if it were to accidentally break. And the paper cups… good grief, this is desecration on a mammoth level! A small amount of the Precious Blood will remain trapped at the bottom of the cup, or be absorbed into the cup itself. It would become nearly impossible to properly dispose of it, even if you ignore the sacreligious nature of it! If we as Catholics truly believe in the Real Presence (and this, of course, is one of the absolutely defining distinctions of Catholicism), then it is essential to treat the Body and Blood exactly the same as if Jesus was personally standing in front of us in the flesh. This is, in fact, one of the reasons Pope Benedict recently issued Summorum Pontificum which ended restrictions on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The pope is fed up with many of the various abuses in the Mass, and he is hoping that some of the reverence of the old Mass will rub off on and influence the new Mass.
 
How so? As I really have no opinion of it one way or the other, I’d like to know your rationale.

I will say this, however. I prefer the formality of the metal goblet as it would have been what Christ passed around at the Last Supper. Paper was hard to come by 2000 years ago afterall. Also, I’m a traditionalist by nature. On the other hand, I can understand people perhaps wanting a sanitary way to receive the blood of Christ. I’m sure there are those who probably never receive the wine for the simple reason they don’t like sharing a cup with others and they truly miss it. So I have empathy for them if that’s their reason. I know I’ve avoided it when I’m been sick and wondered if others had the good sense to do so as well.
 
Rolltide said:
If I am not mistaken, these are serious abuses that need to be rectified. It’s not a matter of being conservative or liberal… it’s simply not permitted at all!

The matter at hand is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The currently allowed practices are to receive the precious blood either from a chalice made out of a solid and unbreakable precious material (preferably gold), or to receive by intinction, where a priest (and only a priest, not a Extraordinary Eucharistic minister) dips the Host into the wine and places it on the tongue either by hand or with a golden spoon. The problem is that these other methods open up Communion for possible desecration of the Precious Blood. Using multiple small cups presents the possibility of spillage from pouring. Using a material like glass could be a disaster if it were to accidentally break. And the paper cups… good grief, this is desecration on a mammoth level! A small amount of the Precious Blood will remain trapped at the bottom of the cup, or be absorbed into the cup itself. It would become nearly impossible to properly dispose of it, even if you ignore the sacreligious nature of it! If we as Catholics truly believe in the Real Presence (and this, of course, is one of the absolutely defining distinctions of Catholicism), then it is essential to treat the Body and Blood exactly the same as if Jesus was personally standing in front of us in the flesh. This is, in fact, one of the reasons Pope Benedict recently issued Summorum Pontificum which ended restrictions on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The pope is fed up with many of the various abuses in the Mass, and he is hoping that some of the reverence of the old Mass will rub off on and influence the new Mass.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I didn’t know that was passed down as a ruling from the magisterium, which is probably what you are saying.

When a priest, a figure of authority in the church, allows something like that, I would normally trust his authority. That priest, by the way, is no longer in that parish and has been replaced by a very conservative priest. I’m aware of this because some people who are now in our parish say they have left because of the new priest.
Well, they aren’t getting paper in our church.

wilkerl
 
This area also has a very diverse population with some families having been in the around here several generations. Our seminarian classes are usually not as diverse though. It seems that we always get a good portion of early thirties men who spent some time in the military first (of course we have a large population of military families around here too).

The countries that are highly-represented in our immigrant population here are mostly those with a history of lower education levels either because of long-standing poverty in the country or a history of war or political strife. We do have a large Korean population which traditionally values education, but the Christians among them seem to be Presbrytrian for the most part.

Here is our latest seminarian class.
cecilia97 said:
Here are the 36 seminarians in Galveston-Houston’s 2007 class.

diogh.org/VocationOffice/seminarians.htm

Many Hispanic names and Vietnamese names, as is usual for us, but you never can tell if that means they’re recent immigrants or have family going back generations in the US. I love our diocese…I wouldn’t agree with earlier posters that we’re having problems. I’ve been to Masses all over the country and I find the liturgies in Houston to be highly reverent, on the whole. We’re used to ministering to people from diverse backgrounds and we’re holding our own against the Joel Osteens of the world. 😉

We’re not having a new influx of immigrants here. It’s just only recently become news that the rest of the country cares about. And unfortunately, lots of the immigrants coming from Central and South America are not Catholic these days.
Click to expand...
 
Bob_Byrnes said:
Ordain women and married men and the problem is solved !!!
Why do we continue to prefer male celibacy to the availability of the Eucharist ? It’s all so medieval !!!
Click to expand...
Not really. Having been a member of the Lutheran church (ELCA) for almost 15 years, I can say that there is a vocational crises in the protestant world too. Clergy on the whole aren’t paid well considering the hours expected. It is a difficult job for a family–they are always under inspection. I have known several women who have left the clergy either completely or for an extended break because of the difficulty of raising a family while doing a 24/7 job. I also know several divorced clergy which is a scandal to the congregation and heartbreaking to see happening right in front of you. And this is not just one little Payton Place–we were active members of the church and know clergy from all over a large metropolitian area and from other denominations also.
 
Rolltide said:
For what it’s worth, you have to scroll down to near the end of the report to see table with the rankings of ALL dioceses, in alphabetical order.
Click to expand...
Rolltide, Could you please give me the link for the rankings. The one given would not open for me.

Thank you,
wilkerl
 
wilkerl said:
Oops, correction noted as only the priest has The Chalice. The cups we sip from are metal (in the shape of a chalice). I suppose I was pointing this out so as to differentiate from the “paper cups” another nearby church was using - a much more liberal church than ours, I’ve heard. Some people have strong feelings about this difference for or against. I think they miss the whole point of the mass.

wilkerl
Click to expand...
Paper cups or disposable plastic cups (we are talking teeny one sip size) are very common in protestant churches. Especially for highly-attended services like Easter. The altar guild doesn’t want to have to wash all the teeny glass cups that would be used. These churches also have special trays with little holders of all the little cups and special funnels to fill the cups. This may be what the parish near yours was using.

Spillage is usually not a problem because of all the special devices. The problem is in people “taking” the precious blood and communing themselves. And then having these disposable cups just thrown away with drops of the blood still in them. Also, in protestant churches, these trays were not on the altar during the “consecration”, so they were not really consecrated (if you consider the minister’s blessing to be a consecration of sorts). I cannot image a Catholic altar piled high with these trays while the priest consecrates the elements.

Thanks be to God that this parish has received a more Orthodox priest. Hopefully the priest that allowed this will receive instruction so that he doesn’t allow abuses like this again.
 
In all the services I have attended with those little teeny weeny thimble sized “cups” the stuff in them has been JUICE and NOT
the PRECIOUS BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

If paper were to be used how would you cleanse OUR LORD from the fibers when you throw them into the garbage? It saddens me to even hear of these abuses of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST’S BODY and BLOOD.
 
Rolltide said:
If I am not mistaken, these are serious abuses that need to be rectified. It’s not a matter of being conservative or liberal… it’s simply not permitted at all!

The matter at hand is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The currently allowed practices are to receive the precious blood either from a chalice made out of a solid and unbreakable precious material (preferably gold), or to receive by intinction, where a priest (and only a priest, not a Extraordinary Eucharistic minister) dips the Host into the wine and places it on the tongue either by hand or with a golden spoon. The problem is that these other methods open up Communion for possible desecration of the Precious Blood. Using multiple small cups presents the possibility of spillage from pouring. Using a material like glass could be a disaster if it were to accidentally break. And the paper cups… good grief, this is desecration on a mammoth level! A small amount of the Precious Blood will remain trapped at the bottom of the cup, or be absorbed into the cup itself. It would become nearly impossible to properly dispose of it, even if you ignore the sacreligious nature of it! If we as Catholics truly believe in the Real Presence (and this, of course, is one of the absolutely defining distinctions of Catholicism), then it is essential to treat the Body and Blood exactly the same as if Jesus was personally standing in front of us in the flesh. This is, in fact, one of the reasons Pope Benedict recently issued Summorum Pontificum which ended restrictions on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The pope is fed up with many of the various abuses in the Mass, and he is hoping that some of the reverence of the old Mass will rub off on and influence the new Mass.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches have used intinction for 1900 years and it hasn’t caused a problem in all that time. Mainline protestant denominations use “multiple cups” but usually now for their older members who cannot come up to the sanctuary to receive communion, but I do not believe these should be used at Mass. I have never liked the idea of the “cattle lines” mentality where people “line up” in walking conveyor lines to receive the Lord. I still would rather kneel at a railing to receive the Lord. This is just one more loss of the sense of the Sacred in the Catholic Church.
 
Sr_Sally said:
Paper cups or disposable plastic cups (we are talking teeny one sip size) are very common in protestant churches. Especially for highly-attended services like Easter. The altar guild doesn’t want to have to wash all the teeny glass cups that would be used. These churches also have special trays with little holders of all the little cups and special funnels to fill the cups. This may be what the parish near yours was using.

Spillage is usually not a problem because of all the special devices. The problem is in people “taking” the precious blood and communing themselves. And then having these disposable cups just thrown away with drops of the blood still in them. Also, in protestant churches, these trays were not on the altar during the “consecration”, so they were not really consecrated (if you consider the minister’s blessing to be a consecration of sorts). I cannot image a Catholic altar piled high with these trays while the priest consecrates the elements.

Thanks be to God that this parish has received a more Orthodox priest. Hopefully the priest that allowed this will receive instruction so that he doesn’t allow abuses like this again.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, Catholics believe that consecration requires a validly ordained Priest with appropriate faculties granted to him by a validly ordained Apostolic Bishop.
 
Sr_Sally said:
Also, in protestant churches, these trays were not on the altar during the “consecration”, so they were not really consecrated (if you consider the minister’s blessing to be a consecration of sorts).
Click to expand...
If we are taking the liberty of saying that the Protestants may be “consecrating” hosts in the Catholic sense, the bread and wine need not be on the altar. When a Latin priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is whatever bread or wine he intends to consecrate in his presence. Generally I don’t think it’s proper to consecrate bread and wine not on the altar, but it would still be valid to do so.

Most Eastern churches take a more restrictive approach, and only that bread on the diskos and the wine in the chalice is consecrated - there can sometimes be more than one of these.
 
Number 7!! Although I don’t think that is accurate. We do not have a solid youth program in the diocese, and it seems easier to be highly ranked if you are in a predominately non-Catholic area.
 
Rank of priests to adherents, Sioux City, IA, #6. But I don’t know what that means.😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top