Nonpriests administering ashes

[otm]

OutinChgoburbs:

What IS ticking me off is the dismissal of the two adult candidates with the one catechumen for the “breaking out the Word” session at Saturday’s Vigil mass for Sunday. But that’s another matter.

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but considering that neither the Candidates nor the Catechumens can partake in the Eucharist, and that the “breaking out of the Word” is designed for faith building, I am not sure what the issue is.

The dismissal serves three purposes: 1) it is for specific faith building around the gospel reading; 2) it acts to increase the hunger for the Eucharist (and this I get from comments by those dismissed); and 3 it serves to keep them visible to the parish (and therefore hopefully in their prayers).

It only occurs during part of the RCIA process, so it is not as though they have never been to a Mass, and are ignorant of what goes on when they are dismissed. I fail to see the harm.

 

[otm]

naroad:

I don’t need humility to recognize the loss of the sense of the sacred in the average Mass. What this Church needs is total reformation and the smoke of Satan to be pushed back out of the sanctuary. What this Church needs is men at the top not simpering pansies who won’t tell the truth to the faithful.

None of which has anything to do with lay people distributing ashes…

 

[otm]

“Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel” (what they do say) does not make me feel mortal.

Now, “Remember, Man, thou art dust and to dust thou shall return” (what I would like them to say) would.

I agree that the issue of mortality is not well contained in the first phrase; however, as Lent is a time of preparation for Easter, and the Gospel this first week from Mark sets forth Christ’s command to us which is essentially echoed in the first statement, it certainly seems to ring true with what we are called to do - the Greek term being Metanoia (or turning around).

I think those of us who are older may have taken the ashes in perhaps a too restricted meaning, of only referring to our death. Ashes throughout the Old Testament, and in the early Church, were also a sign of repentance; thus the ashes on the forehead and the first phrase are also true to the Lenten season.

And if nothing else, hearing a phrase that is jarring to the ears due to having only heard the second phrase for years may have the result of causing one to think more deeply, rather than less.

 

[byHisGrace]

naroad:

When did this practice become current? I went to an Ash Wednesday service and there was 2 priests, enough to handle the modest crowd. There were 6 “SIX” volunteers administering the ashes, this was not necessary. This modernist church is hell bent on turning us into protestants. I’m sick to death of priest handing over the reins when it is patently not necessary. I went out of my way to have the priest give me ashes. It’s like a social activity for most of these people to be involved in handing out the Eucharist and administering ashes, it makes me puke. The whole leadership of the American Church should be strung up for what has happened the past 35 years.

Naroad,
I would encourage you to find something else to get worked up over. I am an orthodox Catholic and not an EMHC. Your accusation of the motives of EMHC’s is very sad. “its like a social activity for most of these people…”…the whole leadership of the American Church should be strung up…".

You may not like the idea of EMHC’s…you may even think they’re used inappropriately…thats your prerogative…but to impugn their motives is not. I know many of the EMHC’s at our church who are incredibly humble and do a tremendous amount of work for our Parish that most people never see. They do not try to either draw attention to themselves or see it as a social activity. They keep saying yes when our Pastor asks them to help in different capacities. On Ash Wednesday, our Pastor and only priest who must manage two parishes and assist at a third had 4 Ash Wednesday services in addition to Mass at our Parish alone. He asked me to distribute ashes. I didn’t do it to prove something to anyone…I just said yes out of obedience to our Pastor. Many of our EMHC’s do the same…they’re simply obedient and saying yes to help our Priest. Any other motives you subscribe are terribly judgemental on your part.
May God Bless you!

 

[naroad]

I see and recognize the holy humble people that keep stepping up when asked and appreciate their service but my point is the sacremental nature of the Church is being diluted and negated by this hell bent “community” inclusiveness in sharing the priestly office. I for one don’t like it and never will.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The place where I helped out by imposing ashes (and also conducted Communion Services) had one 75-year old priest (with a heart condition).

He was committed to provide about 25 Masses per week at a church and at a remote chapel. There also were all-day Eucharistic Expositions, Stations of the Cross, confessions, counseling, praying over the sick. In addition, he ran a soup kitchen feeding approximately 500+ people per day (breakfast and lunch). He also visited people in hosptials and in jail and provided a Christian burial for the indigent. His entire budget was provided by donations (nothing from the diocese).

To administer all this, he had himself, one pernanent deacon and one permanent (full-time) Eucharistic Minister. He “borrowed” priests to help out from universities, retired priests, hospital chaplains, etc. Everyone except himself commuted. And if ANYTHING went wrong… traffic tieups, train problems, illness, then the entire schedule went underwater. And a lot of things did go “wrong”… one priest got called up by his reserve unit as a chaplain; the permanent EM died suddenly… and someone else “popped up” to take his place… And much more.

As a result, the congregation “generated” a number of Eucharistic Ministers and lectors who he trained and who pitched in to help out and do whatever was necessary. Visiting priests frequently commented favorably on how everyone pulled together without anyone saying anything to get the job done.

 

[mary_bobo]

naroad:

I see and recognize the holy humble people that keep stepping up when asked and appreciate their service but my point is the sacremental nature of the Church is being diluted and negated by this hell bent “community” inclusiveness in sharing the priestly office. I for one don’t like it and never will.

This is why we should pray hard for vocations. Some areas just do not have enough priests to go around. Would be nice if it were not that way.

 

[otm]

naroad:

I see and recognize the holy humble people that keep stepping up when asked and appreciate their service but my point is the sacremental nature of the Church is being diluted and negated by this hell bent “community” inclusiveness in sharing the priestly office. I for one don’t like it and never will.

You may feel that the sacramental nature of the church is being diluted, but I believe that you are simply enganged in a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” line of thinking. In other words, you are blaming a result (loss of reverence, or perhaps a blurring of the role of a priest) on EMHCs.

Actually, it would seem that the blame for either of those issues is not casued by EMHCs, but by a poor catechesis about doctrines, which started long before anyone proposed EMHCs. They are used in large part because of the drastic reduction in priests who left the priesthood in the 70’s and 80’s, coupled with the reduction in the number of men going into the priesthood, and both of those issues have much more compex causes than most people see.

You may choose to not like EMHCs, but your attitude towards them is leading you to judge their motives; and I don’t think you have enough information, let alone insight or wisdom, to be able to do that.
Further, I am not sure as to where you are sourcing your information as to what is included in the priestly office and what is not, but it doesn’t appear to be from anything the Church teaches officially. Rome has approved the use of EMHCs. If you are saying that Rome is watering down the priestly office, I would suggest to you that Rome is telling you what is or is not a part of the priestly office. Whatever Sister whatshername taught you in grade school was not necessaarily correct simply because she was a nun and said so. For centuries, churches had no tabernacle, and people would take the Eucharist home with them. We may judge today that this woiuld not be a bright idea now, and may not have been the best idea at the time (although it went on for centuries), but is an example that what is necessarily the function of the priest, and what has been relegated to the priest as a duty historically are not always the same thing.

 

[rciadan]

The ashes are not Communion. To refuse them to one who comes forward and displays penitence is abominable, I think. I prefer a priest. What I don’t like about the Extra-ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is that they don’t consider themselves “extra-ordinary” at all. I see them every week-that is ordinary. At my parish, after they are done in the back, they came and stand around the priest and compete for who is going to give you Communion! It is like running a “Eucharistic Guantlet”!

 

[puzzleannie]

if the reception of ashes from a lay person, a practice authorized by the rites of the Church, as long as the priest has blest the ashes, causes you to engage in an angry, self-righteous debate like the on on this thread, and to criticize those rites and the authority behind them, and to attack each other in what is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a marial arts exercise: the sacramental has done you no good, you have not entered Lent in a spirit of repentence and conversion, because you have not adopted the humility and docility and obedience that is the prerequisite for repentence and conversion. time to begin again and make the rest of Lent what it is supposed to be.