How to receive from the priest when ushers make it impossible!?

[Cathryn]

Ushers shouldn’t direct people who to go to Holy Communion. I receive on the tongue and have found that priests seem to understand that folded hands means I receive on the tongue. I have been to churches where extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion seem to be thrown by my wanting Holy Communion on the tongue. One in particular kept looking at my hands like “Come on put them out there, we don’t do this around here”.

Given the choice between receiving from my Pastor or my Bishop at my parish’s Confirmation service, I have chosen my Bishop, even when my Pastor’s line became empty. My Pastor recognized that about 10 of us had a preference, and was happy that we were honoring the Bishop with a sign of respect for his office. When I receive from my Pastor rather that an extra-ordinary minister of Holy Communion, I do it as a sign of respect for his office also. As my Pastor, he represents Christ to me. I understand he is not acting in Persona Christi giving Holy Communion, but as a priest he represents Christ to me.

 

[Toribus]

A sensible person who is drowning is happy for someone - anyone - to throw them a rope. It would be more than a little odd, would it not, to waste even a moment’s thought on whether it was your preferred person throwing it?

We’re all drowning here, people. Holy Communion is the rope. To worry about who distributes it (providing the priest is fulfilling his responsibility and taking part in the distribution as much as he can) seems to me to be missing the point of the exercise entirely.

Lily, I understand the sentiment you are conveying. Indeed, it is enormously better to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament at all than not to receive. That said, this is not a situation of “have or have not” - we’ve already established that everyone here is free to receive communion if they wish.

The issue at question is whether one can receive from the consecrated hands of a priest, literally receiving Christ’s Own Flesh from Christ’s Own Hand, or participating in the liturgical abuse of numerous unconsecrated hands unnecessarily handling the Most Sacred Species.

Let me take your analogy and alter it slightly to make it a little more accurate. Suppose you are drowning and someone throws you a rope. You reach for it, but before pulling you realise that the person who threw it is a nine-year old child. This child has no hope of being able to simply support your weight, let alone pull you to safety - rather, while drowning and pulling the rope all you would do is pull this child in with you.

This is how I (and, I am sure, many others) would see the situation of numerous lay women routinely distributing the Most Blessed Sacrament, because it drags both the regular EMHC and those receiving from them into the error of clericalism. It eliminates the significance of the priest’s consecrated hands, as well as making it harder for regular communicants to properly discern the supreme value of this gift (after all, just anyone can go out there and do a three-weekend training course to pass it out, right?),

The other problem is with the ushers. As then Msgr (now Bp) Elliot points out in his book “Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite”, ushers place an undue burden on the faithful because it unfairly places pressure on them to receive when they otherwise would not have. What if someone while attending Mass becomes aware of a grave sin, or has not been able to confess in a while? Refusing to follow the usher would cause an interruption and bring attention to them, which would lead the attention of others onto that person (wondering what s/he could have done to prevent communion).

 

[polkadots]

I do not wish to receive from a EMHC either male or female. And the analogy about people in foreign lands having no priest to give them the Holy Eucharist or the one about a drowning person are irrelevant.

I don’t think it is an irrelevant argument. We need more priests.

The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He is what makes a perfect communion, not the priest. The priest is not magical, he is holy through Christ. If Christ allows Himself to be ministered this way, then it is disrespectful to Him to criticize it in my opinion.

God bless!

 

[polkadots]

The issue at question is whether one can receive from the consecrated hands of a priest, literally receiving Christ’s Own Flesh from Christ’s Own Hand, or participating in the liturgical abuse of numerous unconsecrated hands unnecessarily handling the Most Sacred Species.

Let me take your analogy and alter it slightly to make it a little more accurate. Suppose you are drowning and someone throws you a rope. You reach for it, but before pulling you realise that the person who threw it is a nine-year old child. This child has no hope of being able to simply support your weight, let alone pull you to safety - rather, while drowning and pulling the rope all you would do is pull this child in with you.

This is how I (and, I am sure, many others) would see the situation of numerous lay women routinely distributing the Most Blessed Sacrament, because it drags both the regular EMHC and those receiving from them into the error of clericalism. It eliminates the significance of the priest’s consecrated hands, as well as making it harder for regular communicants to properly discern the supreme value of this gift (after all, just anyone can go out there and do a three-weekend training course to pass it out, right?),

I see what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the consecration of the priests hands what makes the sacrement valid, not how it is administered?

 

[Toribus]

I don’t think it is an irrelevant argument. We need more priests.

The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He is what makes a perfect communion, not the priest. The priest is not magical, he is holy through Christ. If Christ allows Himself to be ministered this way, then it is disrespectful to Him to criticize it in my opinion.

God bless!

Hi polkadots,

Christ also allows himself to be abused and desecrated by atheists and satanists. The fact that Christ permits us to mishandle His Most Holy Body demonstrates that some things are not proper simply because they are possible.

Now, it is true that Holy Mother Church allows Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to handle the Sacred Species, but she also sets very clear guidelines about when this may happen, how it is to be done, and how this concession is NOT to be interpreted. Any action in violation of these guidelines (laid down and properly interpreted by the supreme legislator on Earth) is an abuse of the law, the Church, and Christ.

This is where the criticism is being aimed - not at the fact that at certain times and places the Church has discerned that (for now) it is a prudent to allow laypeople to assist the true Eucharistic Ministers (ordained priests) in the distribution of the sacred species.

I see what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the consecration of the priests hands what makes the sacrement valid, not how it is administered?

The configuration of the priest (sacerdos) to Christ the Head and High Priest is what gives him the power to confect the sacrament (validity). The consecration of his hands sets them apart from the profane - they are now set apart from the hands of other men, for a sacred function. In this way, the hands of a priest are made sacred in their own right. This is why the Church for centuries did not allow anyone but sacerdi (priests and bishops) to handle the sacred vessels - they too are consecrated for a sacred purpose, and therefore must be handled only by hands similarly consecrated.

The universal indult granting permission for pastors to entrust laypersons with the distribution of the sacred species actually reinforces this ancient and continuous practice of the Church - laypeople are not now, never have and never will be able to licitly handle the Sanctissimi except by the dispensation of the Church. The abuse is that while the indult requires pastors to institute EMHCs only at times of objective necessity, after careful instruction (ie “go there, do this, DON’T do that”) and only for the immediate moment, these requirements are almost universally ignored.

So too with the use of ushers, which is what I was really driving at. Catholics are the first discerners of their own conscience, and must always be free to preserve their souls from harm by refraining from communion when not properly disposed (ie failure to observe the fast, confess mortal sins or otherwise duly prepare). Having ushers count heads down the line puts anyone who plans to refrain on the spot.

Edit: Sorry about the wall of text. I tend to go for thorough over concise, much to the chagrin of my spiritual director! I hope I haven’t been too fiery.

In Holy Father Dominic.

 

[polkadots]

Hi polkadots,

Christ also allows himself to be abused and desecrated by atheists and satanists. The fact that Christ permits us to mishandle His Most Holy Body demonstrates that some things are not proper simply because they are possible.

Now, it is true that Holy Mother Church allows Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to handle the Sacred Species, but she also sets very clear guidelines about when this may happen, how it is to be done, and how this concession is NOT to be interpreted. Any action in violation of these guidelines (laid down and properly interpreted by the supreme legislator on Earth) is an abuse of the law, the Church, and Christ.

This is where the criticism is being aimed - not at the fact that at certain times and places the Church has discerned that (for now) it is a prudent to allow laypeople to assist the true Eucharistic Ministers (ordained priests) in the distribution of the sacred species.

The configuration of the priest (sacerdos) to Christ the Head and High Priest is what gives him the power to confect the sacrament (validity). The consecration of his hands sets them apart from the profane - they are now set apart from the hands of other men, for a sacred function. In this way, the hands of a priest are made sacred in their own right. This is why the Church for centuries did not allow anyone but sacerdi (priests and bishops) to handle the sacred vessels - they too are consecrated for a sacred purpose, and therefore must be handled only by hands similarly consecrated.

The universal indult granting permission for pastors to entrust laypersons with the distribution of the sacred species actually reinforces this ancient and continuous practice of the Church - laypeople are not now, never have and never will be able to licitly handle the Sanctissimi except by the dispensation of the Church. The abuse is that while the indult requires pastors to institute EMHCs only at times of objective necessity, after careful instruction (ie “go there, do this, DON’T do that”) and only for the immediate moment, these requirements are almost universally ignored.

So too with the use of ushers, which is what I was really driving at. Catholics are the first discerners of their own conscience, and must always be free to preserve their souls from harm by refraining from communion when not properly disposed (ie failure to observe the fast, confess mortal sins or otherwise duly prepare). Having ushers count heads down the line puts anyone who plans to refrain on the spot.

Edit: Sorry about the wall of text. I tend to go for thorough over concise, much to the chagrin of my spiritual director! I hope I haven’t been too fiery.

In Holy Father Dominic.

Thank you for your explanation! I think I understand a but better now.

 

[SeanTom]

In my church, the presiding priest rotates in front of the communion lines. For instance, at the 9 a.m. Mass, one Sunday he will distribute from the center of the aisle, the next Sunday, again at the 9 a.m. Mass, he will distribute from the right side of the church - the following Sunday from the left side of the church. This gives everyone a chance to receive from the priest at least once every 3 or more Sundays, depending on how many lines there are. Everyone seems satisfied with this arrangement.

Christians are not perfect; but are forgiven by one who is.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

If there’s no difference between receiving from a layperson or a priest, then why weren’t EMCs the norm until well after Vat. II?

Here’s one opinion: because previouly the idea was inconceivable that a priest would confect the Hosts at the altar, and then delegate lay women to distribute them.

It’s weird: Why would he go to that trouble, then say, “here you go, darlin’, you give them out”? I assume Christ gave bread at the Last Supper directly. He didn’t say to Mary Magdalen: “Pass it 'round, will you?”

But post Vat. II, the laity, largely women, are marching on the altar, and supine, badly-formed priests, indoctrinated by modernist bishops, are throwing away their authority in the central rite of our religion, mistakenly confusing appeasment with caritas.

Can you see where this is heading?

**No priests for your church. **

(**What robust man wants to give up marriage, money and personal freedom to be a mere confectioner at a N.O. mass? **Assuming he can get past liberal vocation directors and please effeminate superiors to last through to his ordination.)

The bossiest lay members will distribute pre-consecrated hosts at a Communion service. Then your church will close. No priests = no mass = no church. Priests will be moved to the more lucrative churches, they die off, they have no replacements, then the parish is merged with more robust ones next to it.

If the diocese is liberal, it has a vocations crisis, which too-clever Bishops will try to fix with stop-gap permanent deacons. Except they can’t say Mass. No Mass = no church.

All because EMCs, women in the sanctuary, communion in the hand, lay lectors, the priest versus populum evangelise for the idea that the Mass is not a sacred and mysterious site any more; anyone can walk in the sanctuary now and face the congregation to be admired, deflecting attention from Him.

Wake up and see where your liberal clerics and laity are taking you.

I think we need to make a distinction between the validity of the EMHC ministry and the common abuse of overusing these ministers to the point of making them de facto “ordinary” ministers. The use of EMHC has nothing to do with “liberal” or “modernist” clergy. It was established by the Church because there was a NEED. We SHOULD work on correcting that need (e.g. promoting more priestly vocations). The problem is not the Church, but we the people who make up the Church. If “prestige”, “authority”, or “power” the reasons for someone wanting to become a priest, then we can do without that vocation. The priest is not merely a “confectioner” of the Eucharist and being the sole distributor of Holy Communion should not be a reason for someone wanting to become a priest either.

We, as parents and/or grandparents, need to promote vocations within our families. But now that families only have one or two children, who wants their child to become a priest? We NEED to promote vocations within our families. We NEED to pray for vocations with our children and grandchildren. We NEED to give witness of the Lord wherever we are. We, the laity, not the Church hierarchy, are responsible for the lack of vocations. The laity is as much a part of the Church as the clergy and promoting vocations is OUR responsibility.

As for the EMHC, their reason of being is to assist the priest on distributing Holy Communion, not to replace him. We should prevent their overuse, but NOT diminish their ministry. Putting down the laity is NOT the way to boost the priest’s dignity and ministry. And for the permanent deacons, lets thank God that we have them again. They ARE part of Apostolic Tradition (Acts 6:2-5; Tim 3:8-13) and many of the early popes were elected and elevated to the episcopate from the diaconate. Saint Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) WAS a permanent deacon. He was ordained to the diaconate with no intentions of ever becoming a priest and, yet, was founder of one of the greatest mendicant orders of our Church.

 

[cdanison]

If everyone attending any one of the five weekend Masses at my church decided to get in line to receive only from the priest, and ignored the EMHCs, our service would go on for about two hours each.
We are fortunate to have two priests, but also have four to six EMHC’s
depending on if the wine is offered at that days service.

I guess it is unfortunate that the majority of those volunteering for EMHC service are women. Not many men volunteer as I have seen.
Why does that make a difference?

 

[Toribus]

If everyone attending any one of the five weekend Masses at my church decided to get in line to receive only from the priest, and ignored the EMHCs, our service would go on for about two hours each.
We are fortunate to have two priests, but also have four to six EMHC’s
depending on if the wine is offered at that days service.

First, I suspect that communion wouldn’t last an hour if only the priest were distributing the Blessed Sacrament. The time taken would at least double, but as it stands communion is distributed too quickly - people need ample time to prepare, receive, and offer prayers of thanksgiving and contemplation.

Secondly, only the celebrating priest is required to receive the Precious Blood. If the people are to receive it at all, the best possible way is for the priest to intinct the consecrated host into the precious blood, and place the comingled species on the communicant’s tongue - this way a communicant receives under both species, with maximum reverence, and minimum risk of profanation (including mere accidents, like dropping the host or spilling the chalice).

That method also minimises the number of people coming into direct contact with Our Lord’s sacred vessels, something of particular interest to pastors in your country right now (oink oink).

I guess it is unfortunate that the majority of those volunteering for EMHC service are women. Not many men volunteer as I have seen.
Why does that make a difference?

The short answer is that it confuses the sense of the faithful in their understanding of proper ministry to and for God. All Catholics know (though some obstinately refuse to accept) that Christ chose only men to be priests. All Catholics should know (though through no fault of their own, were never taught) that the distinctly masculine character of priesthood exists not only in the major orders, but in all functions pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy - the acolytes, the lector, even the little altar servers should all be male. They do not have roles of their own divorced from that of the priest, but actually share in his ministry by assisting him in the sanctuary.

Coming back to EMHCs in particular, it’s enough that laypeople are handling the Blessed Sacrament. If, however, even a deacon (who is consecrated for service by the grace of Holy Orders) can’t handle the sacrament except when necessary to assist the priest, how much more a laywoman who has no business within the sanctuary at all? This comment generally offends the sensibilities of people these days as being sexist, mysoginistic, or outdated, but the fundamental truth is that God made man and woman different, and to man he gave the job of ministerial service.

EMHCs are an undesireable concession made in charity for the sake of pastors who find themselves in an unexpected and otherwise impossible situation, not a means to sneak women into roles they were never intended to perform. They were always intended to be the very last, desperate option, after priests, deacons, and even acolytes were exhausted. It could be argued that even teenage altar boys have more business distributing the Blessed Sacrament than a laywoman (though even then you’d be scraping the bottom of the barrel).

 

[EasterJoy]

It could be argued that even teenage altar boys have more business distributing the Blessed Sacrament than a laywoman (though even then you’d be scraping the bottom of the barrel).

I know you mean well, but surely you could think of a way to say that which sounds less as if you were in fact a misogynist.

Imagine that this female EMHC you were talking about were Our Lady, or one of the holy women like St. Veronica, or the women at the foot of the cross or first at the tomb, and try again.

The fact that none of these women were selected to be priests shows that the question has nothing to do with one’s level in “the barrel.” It has to do with having been given a particular character by Providence…not one that makes one automatically superior, but which makes one particularly suited to a particular role.

It is like saying that the best dad in the world is still not a mom. It doesn’t make dads unnecessary or less than or a poor substitute, nor does it demean the heroics of single dads who are doing their best and doing it better than their twelve-year-old nieces could, (if not the 18 year old ones). It means only that they aren’t a substitute, but something very different, that in spite of their efforts and real contribution to a need, an intended and real human dimension is missing.

That is a very different thing than what you’re implying.

 

[maryjk]

That method also minimises the number of people coming into direct contact with Our Lord’s sacred vessels, something of particular interest to pastors in your country right now (oink oink).

Why would that be of particular interest to pastors in the US?

There has been one death from Influenza A (also known as swine flu). Seasonal flu kills about 36,000 per year in the US.

There have been no cases of Influenza A being transmitted from pig to person. (the “oink oink” is offensive.)

 

[LilyM]

Why would that be of particular interest to pastors in the US?

There has been one death from Influenza A (also known as swine flu). Seasonal flu kills about 36,000 per year in the US.

There have been no cases of Influenza A being transmitted from pig to person. (the “oink oink” is offensive.)

Because swine flu has hit the US and if you want to KEEP the death toll at one person only, and not end up like Mexico, you’ve got to take preventative precautions. To stop the milk spilling, so to speak, rather than mop up the damage when it’s already spilt

 

[dnar]

A sensible person who is drowning is happy for someone - anyone - to throw them a rope. It would be more than a little odd, would it not, to waste even a moment’s thought on whether it was your preferred person throwing it?

We’re all drowning here, people. Holy Communion is the rope. To worry about who distributes it (providing the priest is fulfilling his responsibility and taking part in the distribution as much as he can) seems to me to be missing the point of the exercise entirely.

Wow Good example.

 

[Toribus]

I know you mean well, but surely you could think of a way to say that which sounds less as if you were in fact a misogynist.

Yes, I agree that there must be a way. I’m sorry for having pushed through with the point instead of waiting for after class, when I would have more time to weigh my language. I really don’t want anyone to think that women are some filthy, despicable group of people who must be kept away from the blessed sacrament at all costs - but it is imperative that the symbolic language of the Blessed Sacrament be preserved, including that derived from the people handling it.

Imagine that this female EMHC you were talking about were Our Lady, or one of the holy women like St. Veronica, or the women at the foot of the cross or first at the tomb, and try again.

By their holiness these great daughters of the Church (as well as her own beloved Mother) would, I suspect, prefer the Lord’s chosen symbolism be preserved. To be clear, it is my opinion that if Our Lady were to be attending Mass in our age, and a dire need for an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion were to manifest, she would only accept the role if no suitable male were available (ie baptised, in the state of grace, and sufficiently catechised to know what they’d be doing). This opinion is mine only, and absolutely open to correction, but right now I’m convinced that this is the case.

The fact that none of these women were selected to be priests shows that the question has nothing to do with one’s level in “the barrel.” It has to do with having been given a particular character by Providence…not one that makes one automatically superior, but which makes one particularly suited to a particular role.

I wish I could edit my post to remove the evidence of hasty writing, and instead point to your much better explanation here.

 

[Toribus]

Why would that be of particular interest to pastors in the US?

There has been one death from Influenza A (also known as swine flu). Seasonal flu kills about 36,000 per year in the US.

There have been no cases of Influenza A being transmitted from pig to person. (the “oink oink” is offensive.)

It’s only of interest because numerous diocesan ordinaries (ie bishops) have issued instructions “prohibiting” the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, mandating that Communion be given only in the hand.

This actually oversteps their authority, since no diocesan ordinary besides the Holy Father can overrule universal law (which assures the right to Communion on the tongue for all the faithful), but that’s not as important as the fact that it makes no sense.

Communion in the hand doesn’t decrease the risk of infection, it increases it. Nevertheless, I’m no cleric and I’m definitely not trying to incite disobedience amongst them.

 

[maryjk]

Because swine flu has hit the US and if you want to KEEP the death toll at one person only, and not end up like Mexico, you’ve got to take preventative precautions. To stop the milk spilling, so to speak, rather than mop up the damage when it’s already spilt

And the spread is caused by by contact. When the Priest touches my hand or my tongue with the Body of Christ, his hand doesn’t touch my hand or my tongue. In fact, when there has been a slip, it has always happened with he touches his hand to mine hand. It has never happened his hand to my tongue.

And none of this has anything to do with the posted topic. Which was “How to receive from Priest when ushers show you to another person.” It has dissolved into how terrible EMHC are, much like we knew it would.

 

[SeanTom]

And the spread is caused by by contact. When the Priest touches my hand or my tongue with the Body of Christ, his hand doesn’t touch my hand or my tongue. In fact, when there has been a slip, it has always happened with he touches his hand to mine hand. It has never happened his hand to my tongue.

And none of this has anything to do with the posted topic. Which was “How to receive from Priest when ushers show you to another person.” It has dissolved into how terrible EMHC are, much like we knew it would.

Some priests do touch the tongue and do touch the hand when distributing Communion. Also, some EMHC’s do touch the tongue and do touch the hand when distributing Communion. Often times it is not the ministers fault and can’t be helped.

I am an EMHC and I do my best to distribute the Body of Christ to the recipient without any touching of tongue or hand. I feel it a GREAT honor to be in this position. When I receive from an EMHC, I do not feel that I am not properly receiving Jesus’ Body into my body. Presentation is very important and should always be done with reverence - but more important is our understanding of who we are receiving when we take the Host. But overall, Reverence is key in both distributing and receiving the Host.

I am grateful that there are those EMHC’s who feel honored in distributing the Host; they are not doing this for self gratification or for any other reason but to assist the Priest during Holy Mass. If you have never served as an EMHC, you should - but only if you feel comfortable in doing so. It is a great feeling and you would certainly be doing the work of God in assisting your clergy. Please be kind when referring to EMHC’s, they are only trying to help where they are needed in the church. They could be content with sitting in the pews, but they were called to do more than that.

 

[Toribus]

Some priests do touch the tongue and do touch the hand when distributing Communion. Also, some EMHC’s do touch the tongue and do touch the hand when distributing Communion. Often times it is not the ministers fault and can’t be helped.

I am an EMHC and I do my best to distribute the Body of Christ to the recipient without any touching of tongue or hand. I feel it a GREAT honor to be in this position. When I receive from an EMHC, I do not feel that I am not properly receiving Jesus’ Body into my body. Presentation is very important and should always be done with reverence - but more important is our understanding of who we are receiving when we take the Host. But overall, Reverence is key in both distributing and receiving the Host.

I am grateful that there are those EMHC’s who feel honored in distributing the Host; they are not doing this for self gratification or for any other reason but to assist the Priest during Holy Mass. If you have never served as an EMHC, you should - but only if you feel comfortable in doing so. It is a great feeling and you would certainly be doing the work of God in assisting your clergy. Please be kind when referring to EMHC’s, they are only trying to help where they are needed in the church. They could be content with sitting in the pews, but they were called to do more than that.

Hi SeanTom,

I too am an EMHC - but only when it is necessary. In fact, there is no such thing as a “permanent EMHC” in the eyes of the church, every mention made of EMHCs in liturgical instructions and canons assumes that they are appointed on an ad-hoc basis, at individual masses where an unexpected need arises, and then dismissed.

I too feel it is a great privilege - but I feel this because it is one that no layperson should ever ordinarily have. I have great respect for the many EMHCs who volunteer not out of pride or the desire to “be somebody” in a parish, but as a generous response to a genuine need.

With that said, it is still important for us to realise that we as laity have no business handling the Body and Blood of Our Lord, regardless of how it makes us feel. The Church, in her wisdom, saw fit to restrict the handling of even sacred vessels (that is, the containers for Our Lord) to priests, let alone Our Lord himself, for most of history. In her wisdom she has also given (tightly regulated) permission for laypeople to assist in the distribution of the Most Blessed Sacrament when a dire need arises, and only then. Let us trust in her.

As pointed out above, the OP’s question has long been addressed. I think I’ll bow out here.

 

[SeanTom]

Toribus,

I agree with you all the way.

In our Diocese, an EMHC can only serve for a two year period. All EMHC’s must have a certificate from the Bishop before being accepted to distribute Communion. We also have a training session for all new ministers.

In many cases, it is not a matter of us wanting to be an EMHC as much as it is of being called by our Priests. With the shortage of priests now a days, this calling is of necessity rather than convenience - at least in the churches I am familiar with. We have over 1600 families in our church. We average 45 new converts coming into our church each Easter. We have 5 Masses each Sunday and a Mass each morning during the week. We have 3 priests and two deacons. And, I might add, they are kept very busy. Our confession lines are large.

I guess what it boils down to is that we have to do what we have to do to bring Salvation to those who are seeking it. If the priests need help from lay people, then so be it. We should do what we can to keep our churches filled and faith alive. Of course this is not to say that we should act in ways not in approved by the Holy See - but we be should be aware of the church’s authority and act accordingly. We want to build up our church and I feel sure our Pope and Bishops are considering all avenues, within reason, to do so, without violating the principles as handed down to us from Jesus.

God bless you,