Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations

[diggerdomer]

So why does a lay person wear an alb for leading Stations but not for distributing Holy Communion?

Who knows. Local custom? There’s nothing prohibiting or requiring EMHCs to wear albs. Similarly with leading Stations.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

Privileged & exclusive??? I don’t think so. Try blessed, fortunate, lucky…whatever. Those who know what the Church really is/was…as opposed to those who don’t…YES!!

Another thing I’ve noticed about those of us who have lived Catholicism both before the council & after is: WE ARE SELDOM RUDE, SARCASTIC & CONFRONTATIONAL. It happens… especially when we’re pushed to the limit… but not nearly as frequently as it does with those who so jealously guard the Novus Ordo Mass & it’s trappings (i.e. CITH, EEM’s & Father Billy Bob strolling up & down the aisle “high-fiving” during the kiss of peace, etc., etc.).

So again, to my question, for those of us who apparently are not blessed or fortunate or lucky, what is the real Church?

Cheers

 

[Chiltepin]

Another thing I’ve noticed about those of us who have lived Catholicism both before the council & after is: WE ARE SELDOM RUDE, SARCASTIC & CONFRONTATIONAL. It happens… especially when we’re pushed to the limit… but not nearly as frequently as it does with those who so jealously guard the Novus Ordo Mass & it’s trappings

I have not found this to be the case. The confrontational characters I have encountered have actually been on the traditionalist side. In fact, some traditionalists can be quite confrontational with each other. Sometimes it is not enough to say, hey, I’m on your side! I’m sure these aggressive, “rude” modernists exist, I just haven’t seen any. I hope I don’t run into them.

I can tell you that the “I was around back then and you were not” tactic is seldom effective in convincing those who were not around. It is certainly helpful to discuss how things used to be, but I don’t find emphasis on who was around and who was not to be very helpful. I know most people who resort to this technique probably don’t mean to be putting up walls, but that is what ends up happening. We didn’t choose when we were born, God did. I’m not after you in particular, but this is something I see a lot. Each time I have seen it, it always fails to make connections and create sympathizers.

 

[Joannm]

So why does a lay person wear an alb for leading Stations but not for distributing Holy Communion?

For the same reason Lectors don’t…they are coming out of the assembly to serve. There was a point were EMHC did wear albs or robes but they were told not to at one point, not sure when. Wearing an alb for stations is not necessary but if the person is presiding then he or she could wear an alb.

 

[Ockham]

So again, to my question, for those of us who apparently are not blessed or fortunate or lucky, what is the real Church?

Cheers

The “real Church” is the one created by Jesus Christ which adheres to proper doctrine and tradition in way of scripture. The Protestant churches are fabrications by man and as Pope Benedict XVI pointed out they are not in full communion with Christ’s Church.

The Church does not teach Communion in hand while standing. This practice has been allowed due to modernists forcing it and threatening schism is not allowed to continue. The Church does not teach ad populus, vernacular, tabernacle to the side, lay people pretending to be priests, Christless crosses, pop music hymns or any of the other modernist distortions you so proudly boast.

And before you hide behind a bishop’s cassock, remember that bishops once allowed the sale of indulgences, witch burning, and transfer of child molesters. Only the Pope is infallible when speaking on dogma - bishops, even Austrian bishops, are not so lucky.

 

[missal]

I have not found this to be the case. The confrontational characters I have encountered have actually been on the traditionalist side. In fact, some traditionalists can be quite confrontational with each other. Sometimes it is not enough to say, hey, I’m on your side! I’m sure these aggressive, “rude” modernists exist, I just haven’t seen any. I hope I don’t run into them.

I can tell you that the “I was around back then and you were not” tactic is seldom effective in convincing those who were not around. It is certainly helpful to discuss how things used to be, but I don’t find emphasis on who was around and who was not to be very helpful. I know most people who resort to this technique probably don’t mean to be putting up walls, but that is what ends up happening. We didn’t choose when we were born, God did. I’m not after you in particular, but this is something I see a lot. Each time I have seen it, it always fails to make connections and create sympathizers.

Look, this is not a" technique". You are changing the subject. It’s not about ‘who was’ and ‘wasn’t born’- ‘when’- or ‘where’. The issue is “THE LAY MINISTRIES DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST…and, BEFORE THEY EXISTED- WE HAD NO PREIST SHORTAGE!”

Saint Pope Pius X- quote: “Modernism is the sewer of all heresies, and it is affecting dogma and the mind of clergy.”
View attachment 5405

 

[missal]

WE’RE baaaaaaaaaakkkkk!

According to Vatican News… Any Papel Mass where the Pope gives out communion must be received KNEELING, AND ON THE TONGUE! The Pope is trying to return to TRADITION!
OOOOPS THAT WORD AGAIN…TRADITION…

View attachment 5406

 

[Chiltepin]

Look, this is not a" technique". You are changing the subject. It’s not about ‘who was’ and ‘wasn’t born’- ‘when’- or ‘where’. The issue is “THE LAY MINISTRIES DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST…and, BEFORE THEY EXISTED- WE HAD NO PREIST SHORTAGE!”

Another thing I’ve noticed about those of us who have lived Catholicism both before the council & after is: WE ARE SELDOM RUDE, SARCASTIC & CONFRONTATIONAL. It happens… especially when we’re pushed to the limit… but not nearly as frequently as it does with those who so jealously guard the Novus Ordo Mass & it’s trappings

We do love our all caps in this thread don’t we. :sad_yes:

 

[PaulinVA]

No one has proven one way or another what has actually caused the drop in priestly vocations. There are several relationships that have been mentioned, but nothing that is actually causal.

So, if the assumption is that the Holy Spirit is indeed calling men to the priesthood and some of those men are refusing (or not hearing?), why is that? That is the question of this thread.

The fact that the thread is in the Traditionalist forum certainly gives the discussion a traditionalist flavor, that it’s all the fault of lay participation. This can be supported by certain statistics, but I’m not sure it’s a causal relationship.

The abuse scandal has indeed lowered the prestige of the priesthood, both inside and outside the Church.

The reported homosexualilst bent in some seminaries, even if anecdotal and not founded, I’m sure has an affect on some men.

The actual attitudes of the Gen X and Gen Y men certainly has a bearing on this discussion.

Does anyone know of any studies commissioned by the Church to ask men in the Church about their attitudes toward the priesthood?

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church does not teach Communion in hand while standing.

Are you serious? The Church teaches that the normative posture for reception of communion is standing. Receiving in the hand is fine as the Church teaches. The Church does not require it, though, no one can be denied communion because they want to kneel or receive on the tonue.

What church are you referring to, because it sure doesn’t sound like the Roman Catholic Church (unless it’s the Roman Catholic Church that you think should exist instead of what it really is)?

This practice has been allowed due to modernists forcing it and threatening schism is not allowed to continue. The Church does not teach ad populus, vernacular, tabernacle to the side, lay people pretending to be priests, Christless crosses, pop music hymns or any of the other modernist distortions you so proudly boast.

Wow, where does this come from? How does this relate to the subject at hand? Are you angry or upset or just venting?

And before you hide behind a bishop’s cassock, remember that bishops once allowed the sale of indulgences, witch burning, and transfer of child molesters. Only the Pope is infallible when speaking on dogma - bishops, even Austrian bishops, are not so lucky.

Again, wow, where are you coming from, what’s fueling what I perceive as your anger, and how is this relevant to the subject of this thread?

Best wishes…and prayer…

Cheers

 

[CradleCath]

People with self-inflated egos will defend their supposed entitlements and view any attempts to restrict their agendas with hostility and contempt. Look what happened in Austria when the Pope’s selection for Bishop of Linz was met with outrage.

Oh yes!! They must have their power & their titles, whether they be Cardinal or deacon or EEM or Liturgist or whatever.

 

[atassina]

Walked out. It would be better to go home and pray the stations privately then to stay and seemingly support this type of behaviour.

If the bishops approve this style of liturgy, why should I have left?

 

[TracyJ]

An article decrying the lack of priestly vocations in San Diego says:

Father Feinberg believes that reversing low priestly morale would encourage vocations. “Promote the dignity of the priesthood and stop undermining the authority of the clergy. I would also curtail many of the lay ministries that are replacing priests – things in the parish such as visiting the sick, instructing the converts, and administering the sacraments. If you undermine the clergy, how can you promote the priesthood?”

sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2006/0604rk.htm

I’m not a fan of all of the lay ministries that one finds in the Church today. Before Vatican II & the mass exodus of our clergy & religious, these duties were performed by the priests themselves. At that time, my own parish had 3 priests &, usually in addition to those, there were Seminarians that came to help during Holy Week, etc.

I have also noticed that some (not all) who embrace these ministries are totally against the Latin Mass. This is just my “take” on the situation. Can some of you share with me how you feel about Vocation Directors, parish secretaries, RICA educators, EEM’s, Liturgists, etc., etc. who are paid employees (volunteers) of the Church. And what do you think that does to vocations?? I remember well how relieved I was when my Father was dying & the Pastor of the Church came for the Last Rites. He, at age 76, would not have felt comfortable if they had sent an EEM & he was simply administered the Eucharist this often happens.

Without the Eucharistic Ministers my aunt would not have been able to receive Communion because there are not enough priests to come to each home.
I liked the Latin Mass because anywhere you went in the world, the Mass was the same,
however I bowed to the Pope’s instructions and learned to live with them.

 

[TracyJ]

No one has proven one way or another what has actually caused the drop in priestly vocations. There are several relationships that have been mentioned, but nothing that is actually causal.

So, if the assumption is that the Holy Spirit is indeed calling men to the priesthood and some of those men are refusing (or not hearing?), why is that? That is the question of this thread.

The fact that the thread is in the Traditionalist forum certainly gives the discussion a traditionalist flavor, that it’s all the fault of lay participation. This can be supported by certain statistics, but I’m not sure it’s a causal relationship.

The abuse scandal has indeed lowered the prestige of the priesthood, both inside and outside the Church.

The reported homosexualilst bent in some seminaries, even if anecdotal and not founded, I’m sure has an affect on some men.

The actual attitudes of the Gen X and Gen Y men certainly has a bearing on this discussion.

Does anyone know of any studies commissioned by the Church to ask men in the Church about their attitudes toward the priesthood?

I’ve never heard of such a study but it would certainly worth the time and effort. I also think that the Church should allow married men into the priesthood.
Any ideas why this idea is so stubbornly resisted?
I know about Paul’s dictum, but many of the apostles were married.

 

[TracyJ]

Without giving it too much credit, Hollywood’s portrayal of priests doesn’t help the seminary enrollment. Father Mulcahy on MASH may be the last priest character who wasn’t a child molester or other evil being. Teachers have a much higher incident rate but haven’t been branded as predators.

I personally have never known a priest who molested a child or anyone else. Also, my girlfriend and I visited the priests from time to time at the rectory and nothing happened that would interest Hollywood.
ANY molesters are too MANY, but there are plenty of priests who are NOT molesters, of that I am sure.

 

[Ockham]

If the bishops approve this style of liturgy, why should I have left?

My fear is the more we diminish the role of the priest the fewer we’ll have. Cause and effect. I love the Stations and have been lucky enough to have never seen them without a priest. Exposition and Benediction after the Stations is beautiful and powerful. I just can’t see how priestless Stations is a good thing.

The drastic changes brought forth since Vatican II are difficult to account for, but if we continue the way we’re going we’ll be out of priests and basically will morph into some Protestant offshoot.

 

[CradleCath]

No one has proven one way or another what has actually caused the drop in priestly vocations. There are several relationships that have been mentioned, but nothing that is actually causal.

So, if the assumption is that the Holy Spirit is indeed calling men to the priesthood and some of those men are refusing (or not hearing?), why is that? That is the question of this thread.

The fact that the thread is in the Traditionalist forum certainly gives the discussion a traditionalist flavor, that it’s all the fault of lay participation. This can be supported by certain statistics, but I’m not sure it’s a causal relationship.

The abuse scandal has indeed lowered the prestige of the priesthood, both inside and outside the Church.

The reported homosexualilst bent in some seminaries, even if anecdotal and not founded, I’m sure has an affect on some men.

The actual attitudes of the Gen X and Gen Y men certainly has a bearing on this discussion.

Does anyone know of any studies commissioned by the Church to ask men in the Church about their attitudes toward the priesthood?

For a full answer as to how this regional shortage of vocations came about, you might want to read “Good-Bye, Good Men” by Michael Rose.

amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448#

Plus, you might be surprised to know that" the latest disclosure of vocations by the Church’s annual statistics are surprising! Worldwide, the number of major seminarians stands at 110,000 up from the dismal low of 60,000 in 1975. In other words, we have had a 75% increase in the number of seminarians over the past two decades. The increase in vocations has even been seen in parts of the United States such as, in the dioceses of Arlington (VA), Denver (C0), Philadelphia ¶, Lincoln (NEB), and Peoria (ILL)."

Orthodoxy produces vocations. That’s just a statistical matter of fact. Simultaneously, traditionalist Catholic seminaries have also seen a boom in recent decades. The SSPX and FSSP are such examples, having increased their numbers tenfold since 1988. Wherever progressive liberalism (i.e. “modernism”) abounds, vocations die out. That is also a statistical matter of fact. (I suppose the good news in all of this is we can rest assured that clerical liberalism cannot adequately reproduce itself.)

From the “Catholic Knight”. (Scroll down)
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/03/vocation-crisis-priest-shortage.html

Does this mean no more Barney Masses!!: :dancing:

youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8

 

[TracyJ]

When young men see churches infested with lay ministers, women eucharistic ministers, altar girls etc, I think subconsciously they just think “I don’t want any part of this nonsense”

Only if they’re mysogynists.
And in that case, they would make very poor priests anyway.

 

[Jacafamala]

An article decrying the lack of priestly vocations in San Diego says:

Father Feinberg believes that reversing low priestly morale would encourage vocations. “Promote the dignity of the priesthood and stop undermining the authority of the clergy. I would also curtail many of the lay ministries that are replacing priests – things in the parish such as visiting the sick, instructing the converts, and administering the sacraments. If you undermine the clergy, how can you promote the priesthood?”

sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2006/0604rk.htm

I’m not a fan of all of the lay ministries that one finds in the Church today. Before Vatican II & the mass exodus of our clergy & religious, these duties were performed by the priests themselves. At that time, my own parish had 3 priests &, usually in addition to those, there were Seminarians that came to help during Holy Week, etc.

I have also noticed that some (not all) who embrace these ministries are totally against the Latin Mass. This is just my “take” on the situation. Can some of you share with me how you feel about Vocation Directors, parish secretaries, RICA educators, EEM’s, Liturgists, etc., etc. who are paid employees (volunteers) of the Church. And what do you think that does to vocations?? I remember well how relieved I was when my Father was dying & the Pastor of the Church came for the Last Rites. He, at age 76, would not have felt comfortable if they had sent an EEM & he was simply administered the Eucharist this often happens.

The families are in a mess today, too. I think it’s better to let the religious do as much as possible on the parochial level so that the lay can fix their own mess–on the domestic level.

 

[PaulinVA]

Plus, you might be surprised to know that" the latest disclosure of vocations by the Church’s annual statistics are surprising! Worldwide, the number of major seminarians stands at 110,000 up from the dismal low of 60,000 in 1975. In other words, we have had a 75% increase in the number of seminarians over the past two decades. The increase in vocations has even been seen in parts of the United States such as, in the dioceses of Arlington (VA), Denver (C0), Philadelphia ¶, Lincoln (NEB), and Peoria (ILL)."

Yes, the conservative diocese seem to be doing well. A lot of the recently ordained in Arlington are also late vocations, which I think helps.

Orthodoxy produces vocations.

That’s just a statistical matter of fact. Simultaneously, traditionalist Catholic seminaries have also seen a boom in recent decades. The SSPX and FSSP are such examples, having increased their numbers tenfold since 1988. Wherever progressive liberalism (i.e. “modernism”) abounds, vocations die out. That is also a statistical matter of fact. (I suppose the good news in all of this is we can rest assured that clerical liberalism cannot adequately reproduce itself.) I’m not sure 215 seminarians who don’t have a path to licit ordination are a factor in this, but if you want to think that, go ahead.

So, are you saying the vocations problem is only in the US diocese?