Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations

[Malkin71]

Yes…absolutely… Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) in no way dictated many of the changes that happened to occur.

Yet it did teach some essential principles for liturgical renewal and reform, completely in continuity with Tradition, such as the full active conscious participation of the faithful.

Have “abuses” occurred? No doubt. The implementation of VII was by most accounts imperfect, initially. We’re still working on it. And this applies to all areas, not just liturgy.

Regardless, it’s still an ecumenical council which is the highest form of teaching authority we have as Catholics, so we can’t dismiss the Council based on how fallible people and communities may have, thus far, appropriated the teachings.

Not to go off topic the New Mass was not intended by Vatican II. It was created by Protestants and Arch Bishop Burgini. Micahel Davis published a book on it. “Liturgical time bombs in Vatican II.”

Also Life Magazine in the late 1960’s confirms it. In the book you can get the issue number for the Life Magazine article.

 

[diggerdomer]

In the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church You recieve Holy Communion by both forms, the Host is bread that is inside the Chalace with wine. You recieve it on a spoon in your mouth.

The Grim does not apply to The Devine Liturgy.

Have you ever attened one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church?
J.P.II said the The Eastern rite is the other lung of the church.
Do you have any knowldege of the Eastern Rites and how many there are?

I was referring to the universal law of the Roman Catholic Church. I apologize if you were not, and if my remarks were thererfore off base.

Yes I have been to a number of Eastern Catholic liturgies. Have you? And why do you ask?

I admit I don’t known exactly how many distinct Eastern Rites there are. I know there area number (7?) of liturgical families, and a number (20-22?) of Rites.

Do you know more than this?

Thanks for any info. And by the way…what does this have to do with the thread we’ve been discussing?

 

[Malkin71]

I disagree. If JPII issued some law subsequent to his promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he would either have to revise the Code or make a specific exception to it.

I’ve never heard or read of anything alluding to this. Can you please clarify your claim?

The 1984 and 1988 Muto Proprio was to the Latin Mass or Before the Current Muto Proprio
The EXTRODINARY FORM was known as the indult Mass.

 

[diggerdomer]

Not to go off topic the New Mass was not intended by Vatican II. It was created by Protestants and Arch Bishop Burgini. Micahel Davis published a book on it. “Liturgical time bombs in Vatican II.”

Also Life Magazine in the late 1960’s confirms it. In the book you can get the issue number for the Life Magazine article.

What?

If you’re referring to the current Catholic Mass, the rite of Paul VI, then obviously you’re completely off base by saying it was created by Protestants. I mean…duh…it was promulgated by the Vatican so how could it be a creation of Protestants?

if you’re referring to something else you’ll have to clarify what you’re referring to because not being a Protestant I admit I’m not familiar with it.

 

[Malkin71]

I was referring to the universal law of the Roman Catholic Church. I apologize if you were not, and if my remarks were thererfore off base.

Yes I have been to a number of Eastern Catholic liturgies. Have you? And why do you ask?

I admit I don’t known exactly how many distinct Eastern Rites there are. I know there area number (7?) of liturgical families, and a number (20-22?) of Rites.

Do you know more than this?

Thanks for any info. And by the way…what does this have to do with the thread we’ve been discussing?

Simple The GRIM does not apply to them and the “UNIVERSIAL” way of recieving Holy Communion can not be preformed there. You would insult them by holding out your hand to recive Our Lord there. Also the risk of the Blood of Christ being spilled on the ground.

If you been to The Devine Liturgy you would know this.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Holy Father has said that Active participation was ment to be internally not Externally.

Never heard this before. Do you have any source to back this up?

 

[Malkin71]

What?

If you’re referring to the current Catholic Mass, the rite of Paul VI, then obviously you’re completely off base by saying it was created by Protestants. I mean…duh…it was promulgated by the Vatican so how could it be a creation of Protestants?

if you’re referring to something else you’ll have to clarify what you’re referring to because not being a Protestant I admit I’m not familiar with it.

I will get you the information on it also and the tabernacle. I will get both and the article tomorrow cause it is getting late and I have to get up in the morning. I will continue this tomorrow.

In the mean time have a good night.

 

[Malkin71]

Never heard this before. Do you have any source to back this up?

I can get that for you as well. You might get the reply sooner from others on this list.

 

[diggerdomer]

Simple The GRIM does not apply to them and the “UNIVERSIAL” way of recieving Holy Communion can not be preformed there. You would insult them by holding out your hand to recive Our Lord there. Also the risk of the Blood of Christ being spilled on the ground.

If you been to The Devine Liturgy you would know this.

Regarding reception of communion, yes, as I noted, I was only talking about the Roman Catholic rite. I thought you were too. Were you not? Sorry, again, for any confusion my mistake may have caused.

You never did answer my questions, as I answered yours. Have you been to other Rites/ liturgies? The ones I’ve been to (Byzantine and Melkite Rites) we received communion in the hand, so I really don’t know what you mean by insulting them. If you can clarify I’d appreciate it. And there was no concern about spilling the Blood of Christ.

Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

I can get that for you as well. You might get the reply sooner from others on this list.

Thanks. Looking forward to it.

 

[diggerdomer]

I will get you the information on it also and the tabernacle. I will get both and the article tomorrow cause it is getting late and I have to get up in the morning. I will continue this tomorrow.

In the mean time have a good night.

Thanks, Peace, and good night to you too.

 

[CradleCath]

Yes. The ones who let the crisis get this far.

There are Very good Priests out there. When I attend The E.F. here in Pittsburgh Fr. Ken Myers gives powerful sermons about the nonsense that goes on in the different Parishes.

By reading the topics on this forum gives clear evidence about the current situation in the vocations. You can almost tell what side of the line they are on.

According to the rubrics of the O.F. you are allowed to have lay ministers. But, you can still have reverence by properly using them correctly, I.E. knwong their roles on when to come to the Altar or when they are not needed. Like if there are under a certan amount

people at a Mass and instructing them not to open and get the Chalace from the Tabernnacle.

There is a Excellent book called “Mass Confusion” from Catholic Answers. I have it and reccomend it. And when you read it you will see.

Thanks for the book recommendation. That’s one I haven’t read.

Lay eucharistic ministers have become such a familiar sight in our churches today, that we have ceased to be aware of their proper place, we’ve been “desensitized”.

“Inaestimabile Donum” states: "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long."

Of course, the loophole that’s been used to expand the role of the EEM beyond what the Church ever intended, is the last sentence in the above phrase.
God help us if we should have to stay at Mass “excessively long”.

BTW., in my former parish, the list of Eucharistic Ministers was LONG, yet we had to beg for people to man our House of Bread & serve food to those who didn’t have enough. It seems that the people prefer the up-front “ministries”???

 

[Ockham]

Of course, the loophole that’s been used to expand the role of the EEM beyond what the Church ever intended, is the last sentence in the above phrase. God help us if we should have to stay at Mass “excessively long”.

BTW., in my former parish, the list of Eucharistic Ministers was LONG, yet we had to beg for people to man our House of Bread & serve food to those who didn’t have enough. It seems that the people prefer the up-front “ministries”???

It also seems those people are going to fight like hades to retain their improper prominence in our churches.

 

[PaulinVA]

It also seems those people are going to fight like hades to retain their improper prominence in our churches.

Ockam, just for the record, I know a lot of EMHCs that are …reluctant…to perform this ministry and do it because they are asked. They don’t want a need to go unfullfilled, but they wonder why the priests, deacons, and seminarians can’t handle it.

I’m sure being an EMHC is a point of pride for some; for others it doesn’t feel right but they do it because someone has to.

 

[Malkin71]

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.

Here is the answer for osv

osv.com/TCANav/TCAQuestionoftheDay/June23272008/tabid/6266/Default.aspx

Let me correct and add something. Only for an Extreme REASON, and EXTRODINARY REASON can somone other that a Priest Bishop or Deacon can open the Tabernacle.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here is the answer for osv

osv.com/TCANav/TCAQuestionoftheDay/June23272008/tabid/6266/Default.aspx

Let me correct and add something. Only for an Extreme REASON, and EXTRODINARY REASON can somone other that a Priest Bishop or Deacon can open the Tabernacle.

Thanks. That’s one person’s opinion on a Q&A site though, not quite the same as official Church teaching. I agree with everything he says except HIS emphasis on the word “extraordinary.” That’s his opinion

The Church has an approved Ritual for “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass.” It’s not an extraordinary form of worship, at least there’s nothing written in it that suggests it is. It might not be the normal form of Eucharistic worship (i.e. tthe Mass) but it’s not out of the ordinary (think taking communion to the sick, viaticum, communion services during the week when a priest can’t be present).

Anyway, the Rite clearly states that the minister goes to the tabernacle (place of reservation) to get the consecrated hosts. The “minister” leading this Rite may be ordained or lay. While ordained may be preferred, that doesn’t mean lay people exercising this approved liturgy are doing anything “extraordinary.” The word simply isn’t there. YEs, the preferred minister is either a priest or deacon. Next, an acolyte. But it notes that the local Ordinary may allow other lay people to perform this ministry too–not in “extraordinary” or “extreme” cases but when he deems it a pastoral benefit for his flock.

Individual bishops, then can determine how rare or common they want this practice to be, based on the welfare of his diocese. If he wants to consider it extreme or extraordinary circumstances that’s fine. But it’s not required.

 

[CradleCath]

Wait, I may have misunderstood what I read.

It IS universal law (the GIRM) that communion may be received either on the tongue or in the hand.

If you think this is not right, please explain how the GIRM (universal law of the Church) is wrong, and on what authority.

Oh, for crying out loud. Pope John Paul issued an INDULT to ALLOW CITH. It is not the norm, nor is the use of Altar Girls. For someone who constantly refers to the GIRM, the rubrics, etc., etc…to the point where you seem to be like the Pharisees who were so involved with the LETTER of the Law, that they forgot about it’s spirit…you don’t seem to be aware that many of the practices of the Church, today, are NOT Church dogma, doctrine or even teachings. Examples, EEM’s used in ordinary circumstance, girls serving on the altar, Communion in the Hand, etc., etc

BTW. In my previous parish, we are NOT ALLOWED to kneel for Communion or to receive it on our knees.

 

[diggerdomer]

t many of the practices of the Church, today, are NOT Church dogma, doctrine or even teachings. Examples, EEM’s used in ordinary circumstance, girls serving on the altar, Communion in the Hand, etc., etc

I am sorry, I don’t understand how we could say the things you note are not Church teaching. If the Church allows and regulates the practices you note, which She does, how else should we refer to them if not as part of “church teaching”? What word is preferable to you?

BTW. In my previous parish, we are NOT ALLOWED to kneel for Communion or to receive it on our knees.

Sorry to hear it. That’s the kind of thing why I think Church rules are important. The Church clearly does not allow banning kneeling as a posture in that circumstance. I’m not intending to be legalistic, and I don’t think the Church is, I think the rules are important because, I hope, they are ways the Church tries to ensure unity and worship and not subject our worship to individual whims that may not be true to the Church’s intent and tradition. Again, sorry to hear you had that experience, that’s a shame.

 

[Malkin71]

I disagree. If JPII issued some law subsequent to his promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he would either have to revise the Code or make a specific exception to it.

I’ve never heard or read of anything alluding to this. Can you please clarify your claim?

1984

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDW62IND.HTM

QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS
Indult for Use of Roman Missal of 1962
Congregation for Divine Worship
The following is the text of a Circular Letter sent on 3 October 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

Most Rev. Excellency:

Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:

—concerning the way in. which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council

—concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;

—concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.

The result of the consultation was sent to all the bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185 December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

This concession, indicative of the common Father’s solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.

I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem.

Yours devotedly in the Lord

Augustin Mayer, Pro-Prefect
Virgilio Noe Secretary
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
22 October 1984, page

L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation
L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

 

[Malkin71]

I disagree. If JPII issued some law subsequent to his promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he would either have to revise the Code or make a specific exception to it.

I’ve never heard or read of anything alluding to this. Can you please clarify your claim?

1988

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/ECCLESIA.HTM

ECCLESIA DEI
Pope John Paul II
Apostolic letter given on July 2, 1988.

1. With great affliction the church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.[1]
2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the church,[2] even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his church.

1. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[4]
2. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[5]

But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church.[6]

1. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the church’s tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the ecumenical councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.[7]

However, it is necessary that all the pastors and other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty unity in variety: of that blended “harmony” which the earthly church raises up to heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Please click on the link to read the full text.

The reason, the text is too long to post.