Local churches, in Northern Ireland, draw up plans for priestless Masses

[tom2f]

Since I, as an Eucharistic Minister (Extra-ordinary Minister of Holy Communion) have already served as the minister (?) of a few Communion Services in our small, rural parish (one priest, two Deacons) when a Deacon was unable to serve, I can’t help but believe this may become more common in areas with few priests. I’m sure it always has happened in many mission settings. Over the years, I have also led a “Holy Hour” of the Exposition and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament three times now. Nothing special in me, I’m just more willing than some other “EMHC’s” to stand up in public and lead prayers. Any lay person can do this and it would be only ignorance of the parish members if they are “confused”. In my case, I always introduce myself, describe my role as filling in for a Deacon, and tell the group to consider making themselves available for this work. I don’t deliver homilies (though I have commented on some historical fact of the Gospel). The Deacon’s service takes about 25 minutes, with homily, and mine take about fifteen (if I remember the Lord’s Prayer before communion).
I would add that here in the Southwest, the early missionaries trained people to do just this because of the months between visits by a priest.

 

[latin_rite]

Priests have NEVER been allowed to marry. There is nothing in the Scriptures allowing ANY ordained man to marry. At any place. Any time.

Having said that, married men have been allowed to become priests.

There is a BIG difference.

Where does God forbid preist to marry?
And what is the difference between a preist who was married before entering priesthood. And one wanting to marry after entering? Is the non married priest somehow more holy? Is he more loved in the eyes of God? No, there is no difference.

 

[Corki]

Where does God forbid preist to marry?
And what is the difference between a preist who was married before entering priesthood. And one wanting to marry after entering? Is the non married priest somehow more holy? Is he more loved in the eyes of God? No, there is no difference.

Sure thre is a difference and it’s found in the Sacred Traditions of the Church. Once ordained, a man has an impediment to marriage. Even in the Eastern Churches, which have always (as far as I know) had married priests, they must marry before ordination or remain celibate. Once ordained, a man should not be spending his energy on finding a wife. It’s not about holiness but about appropriateness.

Besides, married clergy is not an answer to a shortage of priests.

 

[zenith15]

Priests have NEVER been allowed to marry. There is nothing in the Scriptures allowing ANY ordained man to marry. At any place. Any time.

Having said that, married men have been allowed to become priests.

There is a BIG difference.

Doesn’t it say in the New Testament that Deacons, etc should be “husbands of one wife”, etc? And wasn’t Peter married? Along with a number of earlier Popes? If such is the case, then why were they allowed to marry? Why would Christ Himself pick a married man as leader of His church?

 

[IanGE]

Priests have NEVER been allowed to marry. There is nothing in the Scriptures allowing ANY ordained man to marry. At any place. Any time.

Having said that, married men have been allowed to become priests.

There is a BIG difference.

Prior to the fourth century priests and bishops were usually married men. When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, it wasn’t long before someone read in the small print that priests were exempt from tax. This was aimed at the old religion where priests were full-time temple priests, earning their revenue from reading oracles in sacrificed animal entrails and such. Christian priests were working men who chaired services in their free time. Constantine himself noticed a considerable drop in revenue around 336AD and realised that all sorts of influential business people were joining the new Roman religion to take advantage of the tax loophole. He therefore brought in a new law forcing anyone who became a priest to either hand over their business to the church or to his nearest lay relative, who had to pay tax, of course. That failed because Bishops handed over their business and estates to the local church, which was headed by themselves. So bishops continued to live on their estates tax-free. Worse, they started nominating their sons to succeed them as bishops. This practice hit the church, who couldn’t nominate their own candidates as bishops. The church tried a few tactics, all of which the bishops managed to evade. Eventually, celibacy was brought in for bishops and because of the impracticality of married priests (who had to “put away” their wives if they were promoted to bishop), celibacy was laid across the board to all clergy. I believe that was in the tenth century but monks and nuns (and priests) continued to marry up to the 15th century when the church got real tough.
In the 80s, the Church of England introduced women priests and the protestants protested. The Pope allowed two married CofE priests to become Catholic priests and several followed, I believe.
I am surprised that the church, with all its resources, hasn’t investigated the causes of the priest shortage. Its too easy to blame celibacy (although I do, too) but I think the current shortage of priests affects all churches, even those with married priests. Maybe the youth of today have chucked God out with the bath water? The Archbishop of Canterbury has forecast that Atheism will overtake Christianity by 2030 - in England, anyway.
Its no good blaming the Holy Spirit because nearly all Christian sects are reluctant to let the Holy Spirit take over. Even the Pentecostals: I went to one service and thought I could let go and praise my God in tongues. But worshipers looked askance, even horrified at me. I was told that tongues were reserved for special services like healing. The Holy Spirit don’t go much on being controlled, He’ll just push off.. I know, cos Charismatic meetings that are planned down to the last Amen soon go dry. Yes, its difficult to let go let God, but discipline and trust are graced with Spiritually blessed meetings.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why not bring in priests from Latin America and Africa?

 

[markomalley]

Prior to the fourth century priests and bishops were usually married men.

I’m going to make one small addition to help clarify that statement:

Prior to the fourth century priests and bishops were usually ALREADY married men.

If Holy Mother Church decides to relax the discipline to allow Latin Rite married men to be admitted to the presbyterate without having to receive a dispensation I will have no problem with that whatsoever. As you point out, there is ample historic precedent for that. In addition, we see that on occasion right now with men who have converted and served as ministers in their former ecclesial communities receiving dispensations.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

I think the debate about married priests and the history lessons of celibacy among the clergy are taking the thread off topic. Married priests aren’t coming any time soon. (Unless they are from a Protestant background, which for some bizarre reason, to which I’ve never seen a reasonable answer, seems to be ok among the Roman Rite.)

In the absence of priests, celibate or otherwise, we need to be prepared for the changes that are, make no mistake, definitely coming in a few years time. Lay people will have to take more responsibility for the pastoral, liturgical, spiritual, communal life of their Church if they want it to survive and grow in a cynical and secularized consumer society.

 

[Santi2]

Why not bring in priests from Latin America and Africa?

Costs incurred when you have supply priests from abroad. Also, if most of those priests come from religious orders, the arrangement can only be short-term unless the Diocese hand over the charge of the Parish to the order.

 

[Phemie]

Why don’t Catholics use the Liturgy of the Hours in such cases? That’s what Anglicans do.

Sadly, the Liturgy of the Hours is not well known by the people in the pews.

I would much rather have Morning Prayer than a Liturgy of the Word but my parish wouldn’t stand for it. And without Communion, few would bother to attend. There is a poor understanding of corporate worship and praise of God and there is practically no understanding of the Liturgy of the Hours other than ‘it’s something Fr. is required to do because he’s a priest.’

 

[tom2f]

:shrug:Amen to Phemie, as I have tried for several years to expand the dwindling group we have at our 0700 Morning Prayer. When I joined the group had about a dozen members. Slowly dying and moving, we are now reduced to three regulars. Sunday bulletin notices, Lenten activites, nothing moves anyone to join us. We even have offered the books of Christian Prayer to people when the few (literally 2) have ever shown up. They take the book and never return. And this a liturgy second only to the mass itself.

Understand that I do not think ANY communion service can ever replace the Holy Mass!

 

[Corki]

I think the debate about married priests and the history lessons of celibacy among the clergy are taking the thread off topic. Married priests aren’t coming any time soon. (Unless they are from a Protestant background, which for some bizarre reason, to which I’ve never seen a reasonable answer, seems to be ok among the Roman Rite.)

In the absence of priests, celibate or otherwise, we need to be prepared for the changes that are, make no mistake, definitely coming in a few years time. Lay people will have to take more responsibility for the pastoral, liturgical, spiritual, communal life of their Church if they want it to survive and grow in a cynical and secularized consumer society.

The reason it’s ok is the same one that made it ok in the early centuries of the Church. Marriage is not an impediment to Holy Orders. There are many reasons the Church has decided to keep celibacy as the norm for priests - some spiritual, some just practical. If it helped at all with the priest shortage, the help would be temporary. After all, even many Protestant denominations have seen shortages of clergy and they don’t have a problem with them being married.

Why not bring in priests from Latin America and Africa?

Latin America is having it’s own priest shortage. In the US, there are lots of priests who come from Africa and from Eastern Europe. I know every seminary class in our diocese has had at least a few foreign priests ever since I moved to TX. There are some practical issues. The priests need to be trained in the US languages - English and usually Spanish. They often need to complete college educations. While virtually all of the seminaries in the US require at least a bachelor degree, that’s not true world-wide. And they need to be sponsored by their sending diocese - you can’t just go and recruit in another Bishops diocese. But you are right, we used to be considered a mission country and most of our priests came from abroad (Ireland, Italy and Poland notably) and it looks like we are getting to that point again. I don’t know if Ireland is better or worse off in this regard. There are numbers about priests per unit of population but that doesn’t take into account the differences in population density, infrastructure and distance. I do believe the US has been at least somewhat more successful than Ireland in increasing applications to the seminaries in the last decade.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

When they say local churches, I presume they mean small churches in the country-side. How about churches in larger towns and cities? Are they well staffed, or are they short-handed too? Would consolidating some of the smaller parishes help? You might be able to cut costs that way, and you could then have a priest at a single larger church which was attended by more parishoners who came from a somewhat farther distance.

 

[zenith15]

I go to a large suburban parish. Even so, at most of the committees I am part of, there are only a small handful of people trying to do work meant for many more, and being burnt out in the process. You see the same few people doing the same things all over. It’s so sad to see such a large parish and so few people wanting to get involved. In the past two years we have had two African priests, one from Nigeria and the other from Uganda. Our parish has only had one priest graduate from seminary in over twenty years.

We publish all kinds of bulletin notices and have booths outside mass and ministry fairs to get people to participate and almost no one will participate in anything.

 

[Phemie]

I go to a large suburban parish. Even so, at most of the committees I am part of, there are only a small handful of people trying to do work meant for many more, and being burnt out in the process. You see the same few people doing the same things all over. It’s so sad to see such a large parish and so few people wanting to get involved. In the past two years we have had two African priests, one from Nigeria and the other from Uganda. Our parish has only had one priest graduate from seminary in over twenty years.

We publish all kinds of bulletin notices and have booths outside mass and ministry fairs to get people to participate and almost no one will participate in anything.

Before our diocese was suppressed 3 years ago, it had been in existence about 60 years in various incarnations and in that time has only produced one priest and that about 12 years ago.

 

[yukonbrad]

Where does God forbid preist to marry?
And what is the difference between a preist who was married before entering priesthood. And one wanting to marry after entering? Is the non married priest somehow more holy? Is he more loved in the eyes of God? No, there is no difference.

Quite true, in fact in James it is noted that a Bishop (and by extension a priest) should “be married only once”. The concept of celibacy (and poverty) came about as a means to curb abuses of power in the early church (Bishops owning large tracts of land, passing on thier title to thier children etc.)

 

[Phemie]

I have no problem with gathering, but “lay services?”

Correct. Catholicism is a priestly, sacrificial religion, after its High Priest, Jesus Christ.

It shouldn’t become the norm. If this was the norm where I lived, I would stay home and pray as a family and go to Mass when, if ever, a priest showed up. I could probably live with an ordained deacon leading some kind of prayer, but any less feels like playing church.

It shouldn’t be ‘the norm’, it should be very extraordinary that parishes don’t have priests. But, I’m as guilty as the next mother for not having even considered that my sons could become priests or rather having thought about it and shuddered at the thought that I then might not become a grandmother. In either case it was never put in front of them as a possibility.

As for playing church, there is no such thing. The Church is more than just the Mass. There are many liturgies that can be led by the lay people including the Liturgy of the Hours, the Funeral Liturgy, the Marriage Liturgy (though that one is much rarer than the Celebration of the Word), the Baptismal Liturgy, etc.

Personally, I would rather not see Communion offered at these Celebrations of the Word and I know that my Bishop opts to get a replacement priest if the parish is likely to be without a priest for more than one Sunday, but since Communion is allowed, it’s not for me to tell the Bishop that he’s wrong.

In Canada, the Rite for the Sunday Celebration of the Word is different from simply the beginning of the Mass. The sequence of certain things is different (though not of the readings). It starts with the Sign of the Cross and Greeting as do most liturgies then there is the introductory remark: Today, we, the people of God,
gather to hear and respond to God’s word,
to return praise and thanks,
[and to share Christ’s sacrament.]
We look forward to that day
when we will once more celebrate the Eucharist,
as Christ commanded us to do in his memory.
Our community makes its worship
in union with the Church throughout the world,
with N. our Pope, N. our bishop,
our pastor, Father N., who is unable to be with us,
and with our brothers and sisters in neighbouring parishes
who keep holy this day
in the celebration of the Lord’s sacrifice and supper.

This makes it very clear that we are not at Mass and that Mass is something we miss.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

The reason it’s ok is the same one that made it ok in the early centuries of the Church. Marriage is not an impediment to Holy Orders. There are many reasons the Church has decided to keep celibacy as the norm for priests - some spiritual, some just practical. If it helped at all with the priest shortage, the help would be temporary. After all, even many Protestant denominations have seen shortages of clergy and they don’t have a problem with them being married.
.

I’m not arguing for or against married clergy. The point I was making is that despite all the scholarly debate we may have here, and I know all about the precedent for married clergy, the apostolic tradition of the Orthodox etc…the fact remains we are in no position to do anything in that regard. If one remains pragmatic and realistic about it you would have to concede married priests as a rule (for married Catholics at any rate) aren’t coming any time soon. Lay people are in a position to contribute in other , very real and practical ways however.
There, we are now not talking about how laypeople can take a greater role in the maintenance and perhaps even the survival of their local church, as per the title of the OP, but rather the married priest debate which is continued ad nauseam on other threads.

 

[Tigg]

Since I, as an Eucharistic Minister (Extra-ordinary Minister of Holy Communion) have already served as the minister (?) of a few Communion Services in our small, rural parish (one priest, two Deacons) when a Deacon was unable to serve, I can’t help but believe this may become more common in areas with few priests. I’m sure it always has happened in many mission settings. Over the years, I have also led a “Holy Hour” of the Exposition and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament three times now. Nothing special in me, I’m just more willing than some other “EMHC’s” to stand up in public and lead prayers. Any lay person can do this and it would be only ignorance of the parish members if they are “confused”. In my case, I always introduce myself, describe my role as filling in for a Deacon, and tell the group to consider making themselves available for this work. I don’t deliver homilies (though I have commented on some historical fact of the Gospel). The Deacon’s service takes about 25 minutes, with homily, and mine take about fifteen (if I remember the Lord’s Prayer before communion).
I would add that here in the Southwest, the early missionaries trained people to do just this because of the months between visits by a priest.

Has your bishop given permission for this? There is danger here and in some areas (NY, for instance,) the bishops have banned lay communion services except on Sundays. Now I understand we are speaking about urgent need and extraordinary circumstances here, but according to RS, no one single lay person may give the appearance of presiding over a Eucharistic celebration:

Q: Is it lawful for a layperson to officiate at a Communion service? If so, is it lawful for a layperson to give a homily during this Communion service?

A: If it becomes necessary for a celebration to be carried out in the absence of a priest, then no one person should “officiate” or “preside.” The recently released instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

**“It is necessary to avoid any sort of confusion between this type of gathering and the celebration of the Eucharist. . . . It will be preferable, moreover, when both a priest and a deacon are absent, ** that the various parts be distributed among several faithful rather than having a single lay member of the faithful direct the whole celebration alone. ****Nor is it ever appropriate to refer to any member of the lay faithful as ‘presiding’ over the celebration” (RS 165).

Regarding preaching at these celebrations, only the bishop may give permission for a layperson to preach—and only under extraordinary circumstances, such as the absence of sacred ministers.

“The homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the priest or deacon during Mass. As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law. . . . All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local ordinary, and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are priests or deacons” (RS 161).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501qq.asp

 

[HollyDolly]

Priests have NEVER been allowed to marry. There is nothing in the Scriptures allowing ANY ordained man to marry. At any place. Any time.

Having said that, married men have been allowed to become priests.

There is a BIG difference.

Some of the Holy Apostles had been married,and I think it was St.Paul who mentions in one of his letters about a bishop being married.It was not derogitory,but discussed a bishop’s duties I believe.Celibacy was not required really until later on, though there were various moves to make it manditory. Eventually it was. And it maybe that part of it was due to the Cathars, whose leaders, the parfaits(in French),or perfects in english went out
and traveled in pairs and preached to the people,and the women taught and nursed the sick, and often gathered together in groups to form their version of a convent if you will. Most ordinary people felt they were holy and good christians, as their lives contrasted with that with many of the clergy, and I’m not talking about any married priests that might have been around.There were plenty back in the Middle Ages who drank,chased women, amassed lots of money from benefices,etc. and were supposed to be celibate.