Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations

[Malkin71]

Me too. But we’re in a different time, world, and Church now. Many of the things that the priests did are now done by laity. This is not a scandal, this is something the Church has authorized.

If this occurs on a Sunday, this is a serious problem that might be directly contrary to the Church’s teaching. It is essential that Catholics gather on Sundays to worship (precept of the Church). If there’s a priest who refuses to allow such a service, he’s in direct contradiction to the Catholic faith.

I can understand, one some levels, why you might propose this. But do you have any facts to back up this claim? Just wondering. My experience has never led me to believe this. Thanks.

Look into Parishes that are Traditional and you will see.

 

[diggerdomer]

qqq

 

[diggerdomer]

Y
P.S. Only a Ordained Minister, I.E. Bishop, Priest, Deacon can open the Tabernacle.

I will get the source.

Please do, because what you’re claiming is not taught by the Catholic Church. If you disagree, show me where in current Catholic (Magisterial) teaching you know this, because all my life (cradle Catholic) I’ve seen and known that this is not true.

I’m anxiously awaiting your correcting my 45+ years of Roman Catholicism.

 

[diggerdomer]

Look into Parishes that are Traditional and you will see.

Sorry, this doesn’t help. In my understanding, any Catholic parish is “traditional” by the virtue of being Catholic. If we’re Catholic, we profess the same Creed, celebrate the same sacraments and liturgy, and adhere to the governance of the Pope.

Or do you know more than I do, and that there are certain parishes or priests or bishops who are “more Catholic” than others?

Has anyone else here read “Animal Farm”?

 

[Malkin71]

Hard to tell what you’re saying. Please read your posting and if there is any clarification let us know. What I read conflated some of my remarks with what I assume are some of yours.

Of course the Church changes. The Church today is obviously not the same in all respects as it was in the time of Jesus Christ.

Do you disagree?

I was not saying anything about specific teachings that you mention; I think that might be a separate thread if you want to pursue discussion on those issues. But if you think it’s appropriate to follow up on any of the issues you brought into the thread with your posting, fine, just please give us a little more info about what exactly you’d like to discuss.

The Holy Sacrafice of Mass evolved since the Last Supper. A book that is recommened by the Pope “The reform of the Roman Liturgy” It talks not “change” but a gradual evolvement of the Mass.

Not to get off topic. When you say “us” are you a Moderator on this forum? The last time I looked it said Trial Membership like mine?

 

[diggerdomer]

Guess what you are right about E.M.H.C. not supposed to purify the vessels. Another example of “Give an inch and take a mile”

I also believe that allowing Altar Girls/Women is also hurting vocations. I am curious. Do you agree?

Personally, I don’t agree that having female altar servers hurts vocations. In some respects, we need (name removed by moderator)ut from sociologists or other who might do such academic studies (in my opinion) to let us know if we’re right or wrong.

In fact, I think having female “lectors” and altar servers enhances vocations, because it gets more people involved with liturgical ministries, which (again imho) I think would encourage them to reflect more deeply on their Christian vocation (be it lay or ordained, single or married, etc.).

 

[Malkin71]

Sorry, this doesn’t help. In my understanding, any Catholic parish is “traditional” by the virtue of being Catholic. If we’re Catholic, we profess the same Creed, celebrate the same sacraments and liturgy, and adhere to the governance of the Pope.

Or do you know more than I do, and that there are certain parishes or priests or bishops who are “more Catholic” than others?

Has anyone else here read “Animal Farm”?

To alot of people the Word “Traditional” means The E.F. of Mass. The Ruberics are different. Only Altar BOYS are present on the Altar. NO LAY MINISTERS! Also there are different forms of Liturgy. There is the Divine Liturgy. There are also different rites who are in Communion with Rome. Also the Orthodox have the same Sacraments and are Apostolic as are we.

I never claimed to “Know more that you”.

What do you mean by, “More Catholic”?

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry for writing in the wrong place.

The Church does not change. That is the sin of Modernism. If you belive what you said do you believe the church should change its stance on Abortion, Homosexuality and allowing women to be Priests?

It is late at night. I mean during the weekday morning Mass. He would never allow that. If he can not be there He has a Priest fill in.

The Church does change. Or, it doesn’t. Depending on what we mean by “Church” and “change.”

No one (imho) could argue that the Church does not change if they were to compare the Church today compared with the Church of the late 1st century (from what we know of it).

Of course, the truth does not change, and the Church is the pillar of truth, so in that respect one could maintain that the Church does not change.

On the separate issue, personally I’d say good for you (in most respects). Celebration of the Mass if of course the highest form of Catholic worship. But if it’s not available, what are the options when Christians desire/need to gather and pray as they have always done from the beginning?

 

[diggerdomer]

To alot of people the Word “Traditional” means The E.F. of Mass. The Ruberics are different. Only Altar BOYS are present on the Altar. NO LAY MINISTERS! Also there are different forms of Liturgy. There is the Divine Liturgy. There are also different rites who are in Communion with Rome. Also the Orthodox have the same Sacraments and are Apostolic as are we.

I never claimed to “Know more that you”.

What do you mean by, “More Catholic”?

Thanks for your clarification on how you understand “traditional.” My understanding of “traditional” goes back 2000+ years. I infer (and I might be wrong) that your understanding only goes back 500+ years? Is that right?

Thanks

 

[diggerdomer]

To alot of people the Word “Traditional” means The E.F. of Mass. The Ruberics are different. Only Altar BOYS are present on the Altar. NO LAY MINISTERS! Also there are different forms of Liturgy. There is the Divine Liturgy. There are also different rites who are in Communion with Rome. Also the Orthodox have the same Sacraments and are Apostolic as are we.

I never claimed to “Know more that you”.

What do you mean by, “More Catholic”?

Another note–my understanding is that while the original 1962 Missal did not allow female “altar servers” the current teaching of the Church is that those who wish to celebrate the Roman Catholic Eucharistic liturgy according to the “extraordinary form” are still bound to allow for female “altar servers” as that is part of the current Church law.

While I’ve attended EF celebrations, I’ve never asked anyone locally for their thoughts…but from all I’ve read this is true.

Just some more musings.

 

[diggerdomer]

T. Also the Orthodox have the same Sacraments and are Apostolic as are we.

This is completely separate and distinct from anything on this thread. It has nothing to do with the “forms” the Roman Catholic liturgy, or Roman Catholic lay ministry vs. priestly vocation.

 

[Malkin71]

Personally, I don’t agree that having female altar servers hurts vocations. In some respects, we need (name removed by moderator)ut from sociologists or other who might do such academic studies (in my opinion) to let us know if we’re right or wrong.

In fact, I think having female “lectors” and altar servers enhances vocations, because it gets more people involved with liturgical ministries, which (again imho) I think would encourage them to reflect more deeply on their Christian vocation (be it lay or ordained, single or married, etc.).

I would not want (name removed by moderator)ut from sociologists. I work in the field. The majority of them are very critical of The Catholic Church and its beliefs and stances on male Priesthood.

Look into how many men are going into the "Traditional’ Seminarys, I.E., F.S.S.P., Clear Creek, and Institute of Chist the King. Their Semanarys are full are compared to others. There was an article on New Oxford Review about how a Conservative Bishop and Diocesis have more men going into the Priesthood than a Liberal Diocesis with a Liberal Bishop.

If you opinion is corrorect about having female “Lectors” and Altar Girls/women enhances vocations. Why are Parishes closing?

 

[Malkin71]

The Church does change. Or, it doesn’t. Depending on what we mean by “Church” and “change.”

No one (imho) could argue that the Church does not change if they were to compare the Church today compared with the Church of the late 1st century (from what we know of it).

Of course, the truth does not change, and the Church is the pillar of truth, so in that respect one could maintain that the Church does not change.

On the separate issue, personally I’d say good for you (in most respects). Celebration of the Mass if of course the highest form of Catholic worship. But if it’s not available, what are the options when Christians desire/need to gather and pray as they have always done from the beginning?

Simple Go to Mass!

 

[Malkin71]

Thanks for your clarification on how you understand “traditional.” My understanding of “traditional” goes back 2000+ years. I infer (and I might be wrong) that your understanding only goes back 500+ years? Is that right?

Thanks

My understanding goes back 2000 years. What are you refering to by 500 years.

 

[Malkin71]

This is completely separate and distinct from anything on this thread. It has nothing to do with the “forms” the Roman Catholic liturgy, or Roman Catholic lay ministry vs. priestly vocation.

Did you mean Rites. The Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has two forms Ordinary and Extra Ordinary.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would not want (name removed by moderator)ut from sociologists. I work in the field. The majority of them are very critical of The Catholic Church and its beliefs and stances on male Priesthood.

Look into how many men are going into the "Traditional’ Seminarys, I.E., F.S.S.P., Clear Creek, and Institute of Chist the King. Their Semanarys are full are compared to others. There was an article on New Oxford Review about how a Conservative Bishop and Diocesis have more men going into the Priesthood than a Liberal Diocesis with a Liberal Bishop.

If you opinion is corrorect about having female “Lectors” and Altar Girls/women enhances vocations. Why are Parishes closing?

I don’t have a negative preconceived idea of sociologists. I presume that they are sincere and competent, e.g. the work that CARA does.

Great to hear that “traditional” seminaries are doing well, though I have some concern about how different people use the word “traditional.” For example…are they all in full communion with the Catholic Church? Do they all understand that the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Catholic liturgy is the norm, and the “Extraordinary Form” is the exception, as Benedict XVI teaches? Do they accept Church teaching that communion can be received either on the tongue or in the hand? That the normal posture is standing but kneeling is acceptable for those who choose to deviate from the norm?

Parishes are closing (from what I know) because of demographic shifts, which includes fewer people identifying solidly with one religious tradition.

 

[diggerdomer]

My understanding goes back 2000 years. What are you refering to by 500 years.

I may have misread and/or misinterpreted your posts. If that’s the case please accept my sincere apology.

My inference (which of course may be in error) was that you were lobbying for the Tridentine Rite as the preferred Roman Catholic liturgy.

The Tridentine Rite is, of course, about 500 years old. The Catholic tradition, on the other hand, obviously goes back 2000+ years.

If I misread or misunderstood your points or position, please accept my sincere apology.

 

[Malkin71]

Another note–my understanding is that while the original 1962 Missal did not allow female “altar servers” the current teaching of the Church is that those who wish to celebrate the Roman Catholic Eucharistic liturgy according to the “extraordinary form” are still bound to allow for female “altar servers” as that is part of the current Church law.

While I’ve attended EF celebrations, I’ve never asked anyone locally for their thoughts…but from all I’ve read this is true.

Just some more musings.

You mean celebrating The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS. The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS Follows the 1962 Missal and Rubrics and does not allow Lay Ministers to serve on the altar save Altar Boys. Can you show me where you read it? I would love to read and show it to the Priest who is the head of our Latin Mass Community here. Since he can perform both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of Mass. He is well informed.

The ORDANARY FORM OF MASS does allow women to be E.M.H.C., Lectors and Altar Servers.

 

[diggerdomer]

You mean celebrating The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS. The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS Follows the 1962 Missal and Rubrics and does not allow Lay Ministers to serve on the altar save Altar Boys. Can you show me where you read it? I would love to read and show it to the Priest who is the head of our Latin Mass Community here. Since he can perform both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of Mass. He is well informed.

The ORDANARY FORM OF MASS does allow women to be E.M.H.C., Lectors and Altar Servers.

My understanding, from a post I read on a separate listserv from a canon lawyer, is that the restriction on “altar servers” is something that has changed (among many other things) liturgically since 1962, and that change is independent of which “form” is liturgically celebrated.

I’m certainly no expert in this area, but this is something I’ve read from a well known canon lawyer. Let me see if I can find more definitive clarification.

 

[Malkin71]

I don’t have a negative preconceived idea of sociologists. I presume that they are sincere and competent, e.g. the work that CARA does.

Great to hear that “traditional” seminaries are doing well, though I have some concern about how different people use the word “traditional.” For example…are they all in full communion with the Catholic Church? Do they all understand that the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Catholic liturgy is the norm, and the “Extraordinary Form” is the exception, as Benedict XVI teaches? Do they accept Church teaching that communion can be received either on the tongue or in the hand? That the normal posture is standing but kneeling is acceptable for those who choose to deviate from the norm?

Parishes are closing (from what I know) because of demographic shifts, which includes fewer people identifying solidly with one religious tradition.

The “Traditional” Semanarys train for the EF form. Where you recieve Communion kneeling and on the Tongue.

Not all places in the world recieve communion in the hand. By the way did you know it is an indult to recieve in in the hand? I do believe Poland You have to recieve it on your Tongue. Did you know F.S.S.P. was created by J.P.II to train men in the Tridentine Form of the Mass.

Do not be to criticle of The Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Both are valid forms of the Mass.