Is anyone else bothered

[Jerry_Parker]

I am bothered! Even though I am still a Lutheran, the state of the Roman Catholic Church and of its worship distresses me. When I was in my twenties I had much involvement with Roman Catholicism, singing in choirs, cantoring, being in R.C. student groups, etc. The beautiful 1962 Latin Mass was something to love and to cherish, and the 1965 Missal, with its much more decorous and accurate English and its retention of most of the Mass of Pope John XXIII (i.e. the 1962 Missale Romanum), had not made the radical departure from the Tridentine Mass that occurred in 1970. However, with the Novus Ordo of 1970 of Pope Paul VI and the abandonment of R.C. tradition, I felt too alienated to continue to participate.

The dreadful, pop music that go with the 1970 Mass certainly does not help matters! Ickiness and amateurism, often near apostasy, are the order of the day!

The new liturgies, whether in French or in English, just appal me. There is no Traditionalist Latin Mass group anywhere close to here in the Abitibi region in Quebec, at least none so far as I have discovered. Given my isolation from Lutheranism or from the Eastern Orthodoxy, I perhaps would embrace Roman Catholicism if the R.C. Church were not so utterly banal and ugly in its worship and so flippant about theology and devotions.

The isolation here is hard to endure (after having lived in Montreal, which has more options for a Christian), but to try to worship under prevailing conditions in the R.C. Church is such a grind, so emotionally, liturgically, and devotionally sterile, that I have to go for an option that would please me less, in many matters, than the Traditionalist R.C. movement, but at least I do not feel as if I am being slapped down with the barren emptiness of Novus Ordo worship in the parishes here.

There is the Uniate Byzantine rite to consider, and I do ponder it as an option, but what really I would crave, as a Western Christan, is to have a return to the Mass of 1962 or, failing that, of 1965. The loss of active congregations has much to do with the sheer ugliness and triteness of worship that has ensued since the Second Vatican Council.

The “New Age” proclivities of so much of the Church are in the case of many dioceses, such as that of Rouyn-Noranda, such an abomination that, for that reason alone, one must shun them as quasi-paganism. The blame for that kind of confusion and infidelity surely lies, in very large par, with the liturgical anarchy that has come about with the inadequacy of the Novus Ordo itself.

I am certain, despite what so much of the clergy says to the contrary, that it is the state of R.C. worship and of the theological, pastoral, and moral laxity of the uncaring, egotistical, and increasingly poorly educated clergy and its bishops and priests impose upon lay folk, that has caused guys like me to “vote with our feet” by absenting ourselves from the disaster that characterises most (though thankfully not all) of the R.C. Church. It is a “cop-out” to say that one should bear with all of this for the sake of obedience to the institutional wreck of the R.C. Church. To do so vitiates me and others too much even to consider participating in the R.C. Church, at least in the absence (as here) of a Traditionalist presence and alternative.

 

[Stewmont]

by the fact that there seem to be two separate “brands” of Catholicism, regular and “Traditional”, as evidenced by the existence of a separate “Traditional Catholicism” forum?
I thought one of the marks of the True Church was that it was “One”. Is there really unity of faith in the western Church right now?

Yes and no.

On the one hand it’s absolutely wonderful! A great many treads used to be ruined on the liturgical forum with the “just attend a TLM and everything will be oki-doki” hit and run postings. That doesn’t happen anymore, thanks be to God.

On the other hand it’s sad to see people actually type “Traditional Catholic” as if it was actually some sort of separate rite or church within the Catholic Church. That divisiveness clearly runs contrary to the Gospel. It also, in my opinion pretty much ensures that the “Traditional Catholics” will be a small fringe group within the Church with no real power of influence.

 

[Stewmont]

I am bothered! Even though I am still a Lutheran, the state of the Roman Catholic Church and of its worship distresses me. When I was in my twenties I had much involvement with Roman Catholicism, singing in choirs, cantoring, being in R.C. student groups, etc. The beautiful 1962 Latin Mass was something to love and to cherish, and the 1965 Missal, with its much more decorous and accurate English and its retention of most of the Mass of Pope John XXIII (i.e. the 1962 Missale Romanum), had not made the radical departure from the Tridentine Mass that occurred in 1970. However, with the Novus Ordo of 1970 of Pope Paul VI and the abandonment of R.C. tradition, I felt too alienated to continue to participate.

The dreadful, pop music that go with the 1970 Mass certainly does not help matters! Ickiness and amateurism, often near apostasy, are the order of the day!

The new liturgies, whether in French or in English, just appal me. There is no Traditionalist Latin Mass group anywhere close to here in the Abitibi region in Quebec, at least none so far as I have discovered. Given my isolation from Lutheranism or from the Eastern Orthodoxy, I perhaps would embrace Roman Catholicism if the R.C. Church were not so utterly banal and ugly in its worship and so flippant about theology and devotions.

The isolation here is hard to endure (after having lived in Montreal, which has more options for a Christian), but to try to worship under prevailing conditions in the R.C. Church is such a grind, so emotionally, liturgically, and devotionally sterile, that I have to go for an option that would please me less, in many matters, than the Traditionalist R.C. movement, but at least I do not feel as if I am being slapped down with the barren emptiness of Novus Ordo worship in the parishes here.

There is the Uniate Byzantine rite to consider, and I do ponder it as an option, but what really I would crave, as a Western Christan, is to have a return to the Mass of 1962 or, failing that, of 1965. The loss of active congregations has much to do with the sheer ugliness and triteness of worship that has ensued since the Second Vatican Council.

The “New Age” proclivities of so much of the Church are in the case of many dioceses, such as that of Rouyn-Noranda, such an abomination that, for that reason alone, one must shun them as quasi-paganism. The blame for that kind of confusion and infidelity surely lies, in very large par, with the liturgical anarchy that has come about with the inadequacy of the Novus Ordo itself.

I am certain, despite what so much of the clergy says to the contrary, that it is the state of R.C. worship and of the theological, pastoral, and moral laxity of the uncaring, egotistical, and increasingly poorly educated clergy and its bishops and priests impose upon lay folk, that has caused guys like me to “vote with our feet” by absenting ourselves from the disaster that characterises most (though thankfully not all) of the R.C. Church. It is a “cop-out” to say that one should bear with all of this for the sake of obedience to the institutional wreck of the R.C. Church. To do so vitiates me and others too much even to consider participating in the R.C. Church, at least in the absence (as here) of a Traditionalist presence and alternative.

As a Protestant are you aware of how offensive it is to characterize the entire Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church?” Further, do you know just how offensive it is to use the term “uniate” to describe ANY Eastern Catholic tradition?

 

[CradleCath]

Agreed.

Also, CradleCath, where did you go? I’m wondering about post #56, if what you said was a typo, (or if you really meant that SSPX attendees aren’t Catholic, which is what it looks like to me). I imagine it wasn’t a typo since you don’t use the most charitable language regarding people who attend their Masses anyway, e.g. ‘cut & run’ etc, however, I’ll wait for your reply. Thanks.

I have out-of-town company spending the weekend in my home, to answer your first question.

And no, I don’t mean that SSPX attendees aren’t Catholic. Following is the post that I believe you’re discussing.

There are many things that “bother” me, first & often foremost is the tendency to equate traditional Catholicsm with the SSPX/SSPV movements.

It is done quite often on this thread…fi one mentions a preference for Communion on the tongue, Mantillas, etc. they are referred to as a schismatic & SSPXer.

Traditionalism in the Catholic Church…according to the very definition of 'traditional"… cannot be connected to schismatic movements.

I mean exactly what I said when typing the above quote. One must be in communion with the Pope to be considered Catholic. Period. From what I have read, the institutional SSPX is not in Communion with the Pope & is rejecting his offers return to the fullness of the faith.

As for traditional Latin Catholics who attend their Mass because it is the only reverent Mass they can find. …well, I could not do that. Through 40 years of watching various abuses at Mass, 40 years of sometimes crying during the Novus Ordo that I was forced to attend, I never gave serious thought to attending another Church. Maybe you can explain how you could do that & I don’t mean that question to be argumentative. I just don’t understand.

Tradtitional Latin Catholics, in the Latin rite, do NOT regularly attend non-Catholic Churches. We do not go to a Methodist or Lutheran service to meet our Sun. obligation… nor do we attend an SSPX “Mass”. In order to be considered a Traditionalist Catholic, one nust be in communion with the Pope. The SSPX denigrates the Holy Father, disobeys him & I want nothing to do with them.

If you can prove me wrong re the above, please do so. Until that happens, my post stands as written above.

 

[Col317]

On and on we go… maybe I’m the only Catholic to say this so far, but it should be said. Jesus Christ is present with us in the Eucharist during Mass in the Catholic Church, so anything else is of less importance to that. We are One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I pray that those caught up in “lesser things” will realize that they are just that. If there were a “perfect way” to worship, then it is done only in Heaven. We have but to hope and look forward to the time when we are fully united with Christ in Heaven and when we see the beautific vision. Again, let’s focus on the Eucharist. Christ does not want us to be separated. Christ does not want the Catholic Church divided. He does not want our separated brethren divided from us. Let’s put aside these arguments and set about the work of building the kingdom of God. Yes, we need to talk about these things, but only in so much as we are gentle and humble with one another, encouraging and building each other up.

Col317

 

[brotherhrolf]

I consider myself to be a solid traditional Catholic. I attend a reverent NO cathedral parish. I also drive 25 miles one way and have done so for the last 25 years.

I am not so sanguine about “lesser things”. I could drive a few miles to my local geographic parish and be subjected to rock music, “fellowship” equivalent to my local Baptist church, and a genuine disregard that Our Lord is present on the altar. It’s not the church I grew up in.

Col317 - there is no moral equivalancy. You are correct that Our Lord is indeed present but that doesn’t preclude silent prayer before Mass (can’t do that at my local geographic parish where it’s OK for the ushers to talk out loud about which hemorrhoid medication is best); having to listen to Protestant worship music; the Protestant “meet and greet” at the beginning of Mass; ad infinitum.

I made my First Communion fifty years ago. Fifty years ago I could go to ANY Catholic church and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be the same. You can’t say that today in terms of liturgy. Our Lord is indeed present on the altar but the way His children act is not what it was 50 years ago.

“Lesser things”? Sorry. I don’t agree with you nor does my cathedral parish which has grown from 200 members in 1983 to 2,000 families today. We must be doing something right for a downtown parish with few people living in the geographic boundaries. That speaks volumes to me that so many would flock to orthodoxy. The manner in which we worship is not some “lesser thing”.

I am a Roman Catholic. My Irish ancestors suffered for their Catholicism. Were it not for Our Lord being present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my local geographic parish would be just another Protestant church on the highway.

If you really believe in “unam, sanctam, Catholicam eccelsiam” then the “lesser things” count and have counted for the last 40 years.

 

[Freshman88]

A great many treads used to be ruined on the liturgical forum with the “just attend a TLM and everything will be oki-doki” hit and run postings.

Just keep an eye out for my posts

On the other hand it’s sad to see people actually type “Traditional Catholic” as if it was actually some sort of separate rite or church within the Catholic Church.

Different rite? Some could easily make the argument … Different form? Certainly so.

That divisiveness clearly runs contrary to the Gospel.

The Church has always been liturgically diverse. Even if the TLM was a separate rite, their would be nothing wrong with that.

It also, in my opinion pretty much ensures that the “Traditional Catholics” will be a small fringe group within the Church with no real power of influence.

This is an excellent observation. That’s why I prefer “Form”, we’re able to have more influence that way… muahahahahah.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

by the fact that there seem to be two separate “brands” of Catholicism, regular and “Traditional”, as evidenced by the existence of a separate “Traditional Catholicism” forum?
I thought one of the marks of the True Church was that it was “One”. Is there really unity of faith in the western Church right now?

Well, I understand why you’re bothered; a Church divided is no Church at all.

But what can we tell you? People have different beliefs.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[ConservativeOne]

There is a separate Traditional Catholicism forum because it recognizes the fact that not all of us in the pews back in the late 60’s embraced the NO. We submitted to the Magesterium of HMC. For better or worse, like it or not, HMC is significantly different from the church I grew up in.

My conscience was formed before Vatican II. I am very much a “Baltimore Catechism” kind of guy. Many today would call me scrupulous. That’s OK. It is how I was raised.
,
I am thankful that God, in His Infinite Wisdom, offered me an opportunity to sing in the cathedral choir in 1983. We drive 25 miles one way and have driven since 1983. I’m not hung up on a Latin Mass. I am hung up that the Mass be reverent.ssed out with the bathwater all those years ago…

I’m so glad to hear someone who experienced same. I played guitar myself in school during those years of changes in the Mass after being raised, like yourself, on the Baltimore Catechism…(Remember “hootenanny” Masses?) While it’s easy to just reply in the vernacular, I’m so glad I still remember my Latin Mass replies and choir hyms verbatim !
Deo Gratias !

 

[Col317]

Well, I understand why you’re bothered; a Church divided is no Church at all.

But what can we tell you? People have different beliefs.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Blade,

If there is a spectrum ranging between strict adherence to Catholicism and relativism (which says that all religious beliefs are equally valid paths to God, essentually), I would have to place you more towards the relativistic side. Granted, this is a simplistic view, but I’m basing it on 3 or more posts I’ve read from you. I’m not condemning you, but it does concern me that you seem to be both Catholic and yet relativistic. Our Church is a Church, whether it’s divided or not, not because of what we did, but because Jesus founded it. Jesus said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers”. We must trust our Lord that He is still praying for us, that our faith may not fail and that we too may strengthen our brothers. If this is a war against Satan, we cannot throw in the towel just because the Church is divided. We must regroup into One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and give Satan a war. Of course, we already know that Jesus has won the war for us, but to say that our division means we are “no Church at all” is to throw in the towel. Do not give up, Jesus is praying for us.

Col317

 

[kleary]

Yes,

I am bothered.

I have complained before to Catholic Answers about this, that this forum not be called “Traditional Catholicism”…it can be seen to brand Catholic practices as “traditional” verses others that are not “Catholic” that people call “modern”.

The forum should be renamed something like “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” forum- which is limited as it should rightly be- to the “Traditional Roman Rite” now called the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”.

Once this correction is made I am sure many will not be bothered.

Ken

 

[Col317]

Yes,

I am bothered.

I have complained before to Catholic Answers about this, that this forum not be called “Traditional Catholicism”…it can be seen to brand Catholic practices as “traditional” verses others that are not “Catholic” that people call “modern”.

The forum should be renamed something like “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” forum- which is limited as it should rightly be- to the “Traditional Roman Rite” now called the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”.

Once this correction is made I am sure many will not be bothered.

Ken

Ken,

Perhaps instead of renaming the forum they could just get rid of the confusion by… getting rid of the distinction (and the entire “Traditional Catholicism” thread). We don’t need additional forums to discuss so-called “traditional” or, some claim, “Traditional”, Catholicism. We should be discussing the only Catholicism that there is, since there is only One.

Col317

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Blade,

If there is a spectrum ranging between strict adherence to Catholicism and relativism (which says that all religious beliefs are equally valid paths to God, essentually), I would have to place you more towards the relativistic side. Granted, this is a simplistic view, but I’m basing it on 3 or more posts I’ve read from you. I’m not condemning you, but it does concern me that you seem to be both Catholic and yet relativistic. Our Church is a Church, whether it’s divided or not, not because of what we did, but because Jesus founded it. Jesus said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers”. We must trust our Lord that He is still praying for us, that our faith may not fail and that we too may strengthen our brothers. If this is a war against Satan, we cannot throw in the towel just because the Church is divided. We must regroup into One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and give Satan a war. Of course, we already know that Jesus has won the war for us, but to say that our division means we are “no Church at all” is to throw in the towel. Do not give up, Jesus is praying for us.

Col317

Relax, dude. I never said I gave up. And I never will. I can give up on the *people *in the Church, but I can never give up on the Church itself because I’m still here.

Besides, you know that quote Dante Aligheri said? Something about the hottest place in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral, I think ?]. It was along the lines of that… well, he’s not kidding:

I am simply fascinated by religion–all of them, and it’s made me pretty universal in thought, so it’s hard to keep a nice balance into my head. Not sure if that makes sense, so I’ll leave it at that.

Just know that I have not given up… not yet.

 

[Col317]

Relax, dude. I never said I gave up. And I never will. I can give up on the *people *in the Church, but I can never give up on the Church itself because I’m still here.

Besides, you know that quote Dante Aligheri said? Something about the hottest place in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral, I think ?]. It was along the lines of that… well, he’s not kidding:

I am simply fascinated by religion–all of them, and it’s made me pretty universal in thought, so it’s hard to keep a nice balance into my head. Not sure if that makes sense, so I’ll leave it at that.

Just know that I have not given up… not yet.

Well, on the actions of loving God and fighting Satan there is next to no room for relaxing. My point was that our Church is not held up by you, Blade, or me… it’s held up by Christ. Whether you leave or not, it’s held up by Christ. Please don’t leave, though. Rather, solidify your hope in Christ and strive to remain far from neutral. Also, try not to “keep a nice balance”, that’s another way of saying you’re neutral. Your mind, body, and soul should all be given to Christ. The classroom would have you think that you need to be polically correct or “universal in thought” but really that means "please, don’t push your religion on us… here, here’s the lowest denominator we’ve come up with and it’s fine with everyone here… "… don’t buy that. Sure, learn all you can, but (as my screen name reminds me) do everything in word or deed in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Seeing your reply coming, I will tell you in advance that this is me relaxed. I’m just a relaxed, yet intense, kind of person.

Col317

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Well, on the actions of loving God and fighting Satan there is next to no room for relaxing. My point was that our Church is not held up by you, Blade, or me… it’s held up by Christ. Whether you leave or not, it’s held up by Christ. Please don’t leave, though. Rather, solidify your hope in Christ and strive to remain far from neutral. Also, try not to “keep a nice balance”, that’s another way of saying you’re neutral. Your mind, body, and soul should all be given to Christ. The classroom would have you think that you need to be polically correct or “universal in thought” but really that means "please, don’t push your religion on us… here, here’s the lowest denominator we’ve come up with and it’s fine with everyone here… "… don’t buy that. Sure, learn all you can, but (as my screen name reminds me) do everything in word or deed in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Seeing your reply coming, I will tell you in advance that this is me relaxed. I’m just a relaxed, yet intense, kind of person.

Col317

You are also a very funny person, and I like that. It’s rather interesting that my presence makes no difference to the Church, yet you, along with others, want me to stay.

Not only that, but you seem to take this battle seriously. Even now, I don’t think it’s Satan fighting. It’s just us-- not all of us, but many of us.

Now, of course, my mind, body, and soul are with God, but my brain isn’t (yes, there is a difference ).

Oh! And forget the school! (People push their religions on each other anyways. It’s a constant battle every day! ) This is on my own time, and is done, not just for me, but for others, in hopes of teaching as a career.

 

[CradleCath]

On and on we go… maybe I’m the only Catholic to say this so far, but it should be said. Jesus Christ is present with us in the Eucharist during Mass in the Catholic Church, so anything else is of less importance to that.

Being of “lesser” importance does not equal being of NO importance. I believe that a penitent & sacrificial Mass might well be very important to God. A Mass during which the “assembly” celebrates a “Communal Meal”, aka the Last Supper, is not the same as a mass in which Christ offers himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine. Important? I think so.

A Mass which calls the constant movement of the laity “active participation”…a Mass during which the greeters are “greeting”, the EEM’s are in & out of their seats & vying for the best position up front, the lay lectors busily ruffling their “notes” well, I’m not sure that’s what Christ had in mind when He said, “Do this in memory of Me”.

Then, of course, there is the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity. Some of us don’t think that Christ had EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers in mind when He said to His apostles, “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. While you are correct that this usurping of the privileges of the ordained priesthood…by the laity…is a lesser thing than our faith in the Real Presence, it still matters & I believe that it is offensive to Our Lord.

The latest polls show that only 30% of Catholics believe that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist. The Church has some real problems & saying that they aren’t important doesn’t really make that true.

 

[Frosty]

 

[Col317]

 

[pnewton]

And speaking of statistics, I am surprised that no one picked up on this made-up statistic.

And somehow it’s the SSPX that has the 99.9% Mass attendance rate and a general lack of confusion regarding all things Catholic. Even the children know their faith.

This really is a big “duh”. Of course the percentage is high when those who are SSPX are defined as those who attended Mass there. I have seen this before (ususally used by anti-Catholics) where Catholics are defined as anyone who has been baptized Catholic and never renounced their faith. SSPX, on the other hand is defined as those who attend an SSPX chapel. Of course they have 100% attendence.

I really think this whole argument lacks perspective anyway. The Catholic Church is one, even though there are many rites. So another form has nothing to do with lack of unity, any more that a choice of Eucharistic Prayers. I really wish everyone would be more supportive of the traditionally minded among us. If we can reach out to teens and charismatic Catholics, we surely can understand these who have so much to give to the Church.

 

[CradleCath]

My views on EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers are pretty much the same as the views of the Vatican & the documents of Vatican II. You might want to read :

INSTRUCTION

ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA
VATICAN CITY 1997

Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be **excessively **prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is **supplementary and extraordinary **(101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law.

**To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— the habitual use **of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

Granted, the obvious thing to say in reply to that is that we could just have a longer Mass. I would have no problem with that myself. Still, however, I don’t see how Christ’s Body distributed by Christ’s Body (the Church) is an offense to Christ the head. Could you please explain?

I would appreciate it if you would give me the reason that you think Christ was deemed a priest Himself…in the order of Melchisedec…& why He ordained only His apostles when He said to the 12 at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of Me”…And, of course there is the “Keys to the Kingdom” statement…granting His Apostles the right to forgive sin in His name. He could have established the Eucharist & the Sacrament of Penance on a mountain with hundreds of His disciples present. He didn’t. He could have given the 5,000 that were present when He perfomed the miracle of the loaves & fish…the responsibility of Transubstantiating the bread & the wine, but He didn’t. He called a special few. Why do you think He excluded His large body of disciples? Should those of us who cannot consecrate the incidentals pass them out? It’s not for me…I’ve been asked 3 times to serve as an EEM & I politely declined saying I’d rather work in the house of bread, filling plates for the hungry & the homeless. I find that most EEM’s use their position as a boost to their self-esteem & that isn’t a good reason to distribute Communion even if regular use of EEM’s was allowable…which it isn’t. I’ve also found that pastors use the position to give the more complaing & interfering members of the parish “something construtive to do that will keep them out of mischief”. In fact one pastor actually told me that.

The routine scheduling…sometimes 6 months in advance…of EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers goes against the teachings of Vatican II & of the post conciliar Popes.

To me, it seems, the Church authority has already deemed this something that is acceptable in the liturgy so I believe it to be so.

No, Church authority has NOT deemed this acceptable. I suggest that you read the whole Document that I linked you to. It will show you the place of the laity & the place of the priest in today’s Church. You’ll have to scroll down a ways to find the teachings on EEN’s, but I think you’ll be quite surprised about the "Church’s authoritative teachings"on the difference between the ordained Priesthood & the priesthood of the faithful. For God’s sake, literally, let our priests be the priests.