- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
Within reason. Nothing was unreasonable here.
So now the problem is the number of times the word was said? Fist pounding isn’t my favorite style. But maybe that part wasn’t as bad as represented. Regardless I’m not sure it rises to the level of complaining to the bishop.
Shouldn’t Catholics at Mass be like minded? The kind of people who should be at Catholic Mass are people who will listen to Catholic morality preached. Mass isn’t an outreach to the heathen. It can be as celebrated today. But that isn’t its primary purpose.
Different styles do work for different people. So why is it you say this one is unacceptable if it does work for some people?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
What a pastor should be asking is “What can I do – with and under the Bishop and following every allowance and latitude he makes available – to expand provision of the sacraments and of pastoral outreach to those whose conditions prevent them from coming to our place of worship.” Obviously, this includes a fulsome use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as part of a robust ministry to the shut-ins of a parish.
The last thing a pastor should be asking is “What can I do to make frequent reception of the Eucharist more difficult…above all to those who rely upon others to bring the Eucharist to them because they cannot get to It.”
The last thing a pastor should be asking is “What can I do to make frequent reception of the Eucharist more difficult…above all to those who rely upon others to bring the Eucharist to them because they cannot get to It.”
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Because for other people who may be more fragile, it may put them off. As Saint Benedict said about the abbot, he will have to account for souls lost through his actions (or inaction) on judgement day.
Imagine a repentant sinner having hit rock bottom walking through the door of the church for the first time in many years, looking for a way out of his misery, and the first thing he hears is that he’s on a path straight to hell. He says “I knew it, there’s no hope for me, no point wasting my time here”. He came not looking for condemnation for his sin which he already knows is wrong, he came looking for medicine to cure him of it.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Not exactly. He decided that he would not appoint the EMHC’s (not their visits, they can still visit). He decided, in his pastoral judgement, that he would not appoint EMHCs to represent him. That’s his decision to make.KMG:
Straw man. It is not either/or. The decision the priest made is in effect to eliminate the additional EHMC visits, not his own.
There are no EMHCs unless he appoints them. This is not an office in the Church, it is a temporary deputation–nothing more than that. If he decided to do it himself, that’s entirely his right to decide.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The word “right” in this context grates.
It strikes me that the pastor has a responsibility to his flock, above all. He is responsible for souls, and is responsible as the person through whom sacramental grace flows to his flock.
Anything he does should be with that in mind. The quote from Pope Benedict is terrific. It places the emphasis where it needs to be: making sacramental grace frequently accessible to those who need it perhaps the most, but have the least physical access to it.
He needs to put that responsibility above all. It is his right to figure out the best way to achieve his responsibility, but he shouldn’t be parsimonious with sacramental grace and should be willing to enlist licit help if he can’t meet the needs himself.
It strikes me that the pastor has a responsibility to his flock, above all. He is responsible for souls, and is responsible as the person through whom sacramental grace flows to his flock.
Anything he does should be with that in mind. The quote from Pope Benedict is terrific. It places the emphasis where it needs to be: making sacramental grace frequently accessible to those who need it perhaps the most, but have the least physical access to it.
He needs to put that responsibility above all. It is his right to figure out the best way to achieve his responsibility, but he shouldn’t be parsimonious with sacramental grace and should be willing to enlist licit help if he can’t meet the needs himself.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If he feels he can meet that need himself, and he has no need to appoint EMHCs, it’s not for people on the internet to be judging him based on nothing more than one person’s comments.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I agree we are only hearing one side of the story, but it appears from the OP that there is considerable consternation in the parish and hurt feelings among the home-bound, which should indicate that a first cordial meeting with the priest outlining concerns and offering help to seek solutions would not be out of place.
When I was a young whippersnapper I was prone to biting off more than I could chew as well. I suspect this may be the case here.
Of course, hearing from a home-bound elderly or ill parishioner how much weekly reception of the Eucharist comforted him or her, when he does his rounds, may end up softening his heart faster than anything that could be said in a meeting, cordial or otherwise.
R
Rau
Guest
It seems he decided to do it (exclusively) with the result (presumably foreseeable) that he would get to each person once every month or two, and that no one else could bring communion between his visits.
The priest’s “right” to decide that is not being challenged or debated - the question in discussion is whether - on the face of it - that might be a questionable pastoral decision (in light of the consequences)?
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
And perhaps receiving an actual visit by the priest, by the one who was ordained to be the minister of the Eucharist, and having the opportunity to confess and opportunity for Anointing of the Sick, and receiving the blessing of that priest and seeing his pastoral concern for them, might just be cause to realize what they were missing when they did not have that same opportunity.
There is no denying it. It is better for the sick person to receive Holy Communion from the priest than from an EMHC. Apparently, it’s going to take some time for some people to see that.
R
Rau
Guest
He is not being judged - we don’t know his name let alone anything about him. We don’t know real facts. We have a “story” provided by the OP to which we essentially respond as a “hypothetical”.
Now it’s true that the EMHC at this parish might all be mismanaging their ministry, not affording it proper respect, etc etc etc. Or maybe this priest is so super efficient that there is truly no benefit in appointing EHMC. If that’s so, such renders the Priest’s actions explicable and that should be acknowledged.
But posters like me are responding to the scenario as presented and concluding this (hypothetical, if you like) priest could be making a poor decision.
R
Rau
Guest
You present this fact as though it were of relevance to the matter in debate; as though someone were arguing the counter position. No one is. You misrepresent the arguments of others. You oppose what is NOT being said rather than address what has been said. That’s poor conduct in a debate.
Then please quote us the person who denied that a visit by a priest for communion is better than one by the EHMC. You can’t - we all agree on that point. It was never the point in debate.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
That post is a videoclip. Please quote the poster so we can see it and who said it.
And perhaps at some stage you will address the point posters have actually made repeatedly. That the question of visits is not “either/or”.
Ahhh, wait. I found what you refer to… Here is Don’s full quote:
“To state that it is better to receive the Eucharist from an ordinary minister as opposed to an extraordinary minister is simply wrong – above all when it means that the person is prevented from receiving the Sacrament.
It is completely wrong to say that receiving Communion once per month is sufficient when it can easily be done more frequently by use of the means of pastoral care available today, thanks to extraordinary ministers.”
Now your claim was: “It is indeed undeniable that it is better for a sick person to receive Holy Communion from a priest than from an EMHC.”
That is a statement I’d support (and I suspect all would) not because the Eucharist is superior when handed by the priest, but because the priest is present pastorally. NOONE on this thread proposes the priest should not be present - what is proposed is that it is good for others to bring communion when the priest is unable. A point you are yet to address.
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Okay. But suppose the home-bound in this case are so upset with the priest that they refuse to see him? Or what if they are still salty about the priest getting rid of the EMHC’s, but they agree to see the priest anyway. Then, before they receive the Eucharist, they confess to the priest that they think he’s too green to be of any use. Are they truly sorry for their uncharitable thoughts about the priest? Or should the priest refuse them absolution and move on?
I know, those last two questions I wrote are somewhat silly. But CAF is a silly place.
Last edited:
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I am the one who said that receiving the Eucharist from a Priest is not better than receiving it from an Extraordinary Minister. Because it is true
Over the course of my priesthood, I have received Communion from Popes. As Master of Ceremonies for my diocese, I have received Communion from Cardinals, Archbishops, my own Bishop, other Bishops, and Abbots as I tended my functions in their pontificated Masses. I have received Communion from Priests and from Deacons when I have assisted at Eucharists presided by others while I was sitting in choir. I have also received the Eucharist from Sisters and Lay Extraordinary Ministers when I was in hospital and while undergoing physical therapy.
Each time I received the Eucharist, whether it was administered by the Pope or by a Lay Extraordinary Minister, I received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That – and that alone – is what is of significance. That I received the Lord. The minister, whoever he or she is, pales into insignificance next to that
Any diocesan priest who does not understand that, or conform himself to that, needs to put himself on his knees before his Bishop, before whom he has promised his obedience – and then abide by whatever the Bishop decides need be done to fix a priest with such a mindset. Because such a priest is in need of an intervention from his Bishop for failure in his stewardship in providing pastoral care to those who are the more in need.
When I was in the hospital, it made no difference to me if the person bringing me the Eucharist each day was a cleric or an Extraordinary Minister. All that mattered was that I received the Bread of Life. Period
The hospital had a rotation of Extraordinary Ministers. One lady arrived in her turn one day, bringing the Sacrament on her rounds of the hospital rooms – and when she recognised me as the priest in charge of the liturgy office, she asked if I would not prefer that she called for a cleric to come. I asked her if she did not, in fact, hold the year long mandate from the Bishop, required in the diocese. She responded that she did. I said, “There is no need to call for someone else. You are a minister of the Church, for as long as it pleases the Bishop to renew your mandate. I am happy to receive the Eucharist from your hands”
It is nothing short of absurd that people should be starved of Eucharist when they are in urgent need of it – as, again, Pope Benedict said in his penultimate World Day of the Sick address. They should be provided with frequent Communion, which assuredly is not once per month or even less. Least of all when, through the collaboration of Extraordinary Ministers, those people can be receiving weekly and even daily
Last edited:
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
cont’d
I remember those unfortunate days when we would make Communion calls once per month…we did them on the First Friday of the month where I was. They were a dark time compared with what we have today. We did not have Extraordinary Ministers then. Now we do. Far from being curtailed, even more use for them – and for Lay Ecclesial Ministers – should be occurring.
The parish priest, who has the cura animarum, has the responsibility for the pastoral care of the souls confided by the Bishop to his care – a responsibility he must discharge personally or through another when he is impeded. While the Sacrament of the Sick and the Sacrament of Reconciliation require minimally the ontological character of the Priesthood; administering Communion to the sick most assuredly does not. Conferring blessings upon the sick does not. Other elements of pastoral care for the sick and dying do not
I remember those unfortunate days when we would make Communion calls once per month…we did them on the First Friday of the month where I was. They were a dark time compared with what we have today. We did not have Extraordinary Ministers then. Now we do. Far from being curtailed, even more use for them – and for Lay Ecclesial Ministers – should be occurring.
The parish priest, who has the cura animarum, has the responsibility for the pastoral care of the souls confided by the Bishop to his care – a responsibility he must discharge personally or through another when he is impeded. While the Sacrament of the Sick and the Sacrament of Reconciliation require minimally the ontological character of the Priesthood; administering Communion to the sick most assuredly does not. Conferring blessings upon the sick does not. Other elements of pastoral care for the sick and dying do not
K
KMG
Guest
When a person is sick and in a hospital or homebound, if a priest comes, the priest…who is in persona Christi, unlike the Extraordinary Minister…can provide pastoral care a layman cannot. He can provide Penance, which may well be necessary in certain cases before Communion. He can anoint.
So yes…far better 1 priest a month than a layperson every week.
So yes…far better 1 priest a month than a layperson every week.
K
KMG
Guest
As for blessings of the sick…no comparison between the blessing a priest with his sacerdotal character can confer, and that of a layman. No comparison whatsoever.
- Status