This is worrisome

[frommi]

No, I believe it was pilgrim who stated that there is obvious blurring ot the lines here." I never stated this as a question. I stated it as a statement. This is indeed the clericalization of the laity. Soon, nobody will be able to tell us from the Presbyterians.

lepanto, I was just shocked at your question. Do you really believe that the Consecration is a magic trick? What a terrible, sad, incorrect blaspheme against Jesus Christ.

It would be a blurring if what you were talking about required a cleric.

It’s a blurring of the lines when you put a lay woman at the altar and have her recite prayers proper to the priest.

It is not a blurring of any line when the rite itself makes it clear that “other ministers” may take the place of an ordained minister.

If that’s clericalization, then it’s our own bishops and the roman curia who approved the rites that you have to blame.

It befuddles me why people can’t see these things as ‘both/and’ types of equations…why are people so hot and bothered about priests utilizing committed lay faithful for tasks that are proper to them under certain circumstances.

More than a few bishops have pointed out the value of these people and their ministries. I’m sorry that some of you don’t share that same point of view, but this is not a springtime you can hold back.

 

[benedictgal]

The ultimate problem here is the fact that there is indeed a blurring of the ine lines in what the OP has stated. This is, in fact, what the document, On Certain Collaborations… was trying to mend.

This document makes very clear what can and cannot be done, even going down rite by rite. It makes very specific references as to when a layman can be employed. As I indicated in my previous post, the priest and/or deacon must make every effort, even if it involves some sacrifice, to carry out the funeral rites.

In my diocese, the funeral rites, from the wake to the burial, are all conducted by clergy. We only have 23 priests in our doicese and roughly the same number of deacons; however, none of them, for better, or for worse, shirks their pastoral duties. I believe that On Certain Collaborations was written with those diocese who are in outlying territories in mind, and not those in citise and metropolitan areas.

While one post did quote Canon Law regaring parish and finance councils, may I remind that person that the priest was not ordained to be first and foremost the CEO of his parish. Yes, he is needed there; however, his first order of duty is the celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the sacraments and pastoral care to the flock entrusted to him. That outranks everything else. Burying the dead is certainly important and should not be viewed so flippantly.

 

[JimG]

I might add that a pastor can act as head of the finance council without attending every meeting. The pastor oversees the entire parish, including all the committees. In our parish, if the pastor attended every meeting of every committee, he literally would not get anything else accomplished.

 

[frommi]

The ultimate problem here is the fact that there is indeed a blurring of the ine lines in what the OP has stated. This is, in fact, what the document, On Certain Collaborations… was trying to mend.

This document makes very clear what can and cannot be done, even going down rite by rite. It makes very specific references as to when a layman can be employed. As I indicated in my previous post, the priest and/or deacon must make every effort, even if it involves some sacrifice, to carry out the funeral rites.

In my diocese, the funeral rites, from the wake to the burial, are all conducted by clergy. We only have 23 priests in our doicese and roughly the same number of deacons; however, none of them, for better, or for worse, shirks their pastoral duties. I believe that On Certain Collaborations was written with those diocese who are in outlying territories in mind, and not those in citise and metropolitan areas.

While one post did quote Canon Law regaring parish and finance councils, may I remind that person that the priest was not ordained to be first and foremost the CEO of his parish. Yes, he is needed there; however, his first order of duty is the celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the sacraments and pastoral care to the flock entrusted to him. That outranks everything else. Burying the dead is certainly important and should not be viewed so flippantly.

You still have not answered to the idea that you are substituting your pastoral definition of ‘some sacrifice’ in place of a bishops.

If the bishop looks at the ‘on certain collaborations’ document and feels that using a layman or a laywoman is prudent in these situations, then it’s prudent. He’s the bishop and that’s his decision.

Your assertions are not backed up by the documents you cite. There is nothing in the rites that say “Priest, Deacon, or other minister (other minister applies to Siberia only).”

Again, you are substituting your own wants and desires for the pastoral judgment of the one who has the spirit of governance for your diocese.

I’m puzzled as to why you don’t recognize this in the tenor of your posts.

 

[benedictgal]

You still have not answered to the idea that you are substituting your pastoral definition of ‘some sacrifice’ in place of a bishops.

If the bishop looks at the ‘on certain collaborations’ document and feels that using a layman or a laywoman is prudent in these situations, then it’s prudent. He’s the bishop and that’s his decision.

Your assertions are not backed up by the documents you cite. There is nothing in the rites that say “Priest, Deacon, or other minister (other minister applies to Siberia only).”

Again, you are substituting your own wants and desires for the pastoral judgment of the one who has the spirit of governance for your diocese.

I’m puzzled as to why you don’t recognize this in the tenor of your posts.

JFrommi, you have not provided any proof to substantiate your claims, either. The truth of the matter is that lay extra-ordinary ministers are just that, extra-ordinary and should only be employed when circumstances are such that make it near impossible for ordained clergy to be present. These conditions are completely justifiable in a missionary outpost where clergy are few and far between. However, the situation described in the OP is certainly not the case.

Furthermore, your assertion would hinder and blur the line between clergy and laity. As laity, we cannot bless the ground on which the person will be buried. Nor can we impart a final blessing and commendation of the deceased. That is reserved to the clergy to do by virtue of their ordination. Inasmuch as there are prayers that can be said at the graveside by the laity, they are certainly not as efficacious as those recited by clergy.

The sacrifices that clergy should be able to make are when the funeral occurs during one’s day-off, as happened in the case of my PV. Today was his day-off, but, he celebrated the funeral Mass or a parishioner. Yes, time-off is important; however, he understands that his first duty is to his flock. In fact, when he served as rector of the Cathedral, he didn’t abdicate his responsibilities when funerals fell on his day-off. He celebrated the Mass and then took off the rest of the day.

 

[frommi]

JFrommi, you have not provided any proof to substantiate your claims, either. The truth of the matter is that lay extra-ordinary ministers are just that, extra-ordinary and should only be employed when circumstances are such that make it near impossible for ordained clergy to be present. These conditions are completely justifiable in a missionary outpost where clergy are few and far between. However, the situation described in the OP is certainly not the case.

Furthermore, your assertion would hinder and blur the line between clergy and laity. As laity, we cannot bless the ground on which the person will be buried. Nor can we impart a final blessing and commendation of the deceased. That is reserved to the clergy to do by virtue of their ordination. Inasmuch as there are prayers that can be said at the graveside by the laity, they are certainly not as efficacious as those recited by clergy.

The sacrifices that clergy should be able to make are when the funeral occurs during one’s day-off, as happened in the case of my PV. Today was his day-off, but, he celebrated the funeral Mass or a parishioner. Yes, time-off is important; however, he understands that his first duty is to his flock. In fact, when he served as rector of the Cathedral, he didn’t abdicate his responsibilities when funerals fell on his day-off. He celebrated the Mass and then took off the rest of the day.

I’m not suggesting that priests should not do a funeral because it is there ‘day off’.

The final commendation and farewell most often takes place in the church at a mass led by a priest.

We are talking about utilizing a lay person at (a) the wake and/or (b) the burial.

Again, both are acceptable.

I don’t have a desire to get into a ‘my pastor is better than your pastor’ type of argument here. It is commendable and laudable that your pastor is willing to take the necessary time to be present at the various funeral rites of his parishoners. That is simply not always the case.

I just want to make clear that both situations are acceptable.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not suggesting that priests should not do a funeral because it is there ‘day off’.

The final commendation and farewell most often takes place in the church at a mass led by a priest.

We are talking about utilizing a lay person at (a) the wake and/or (b) the burial.

Again, both are acceptable.

I don’t have a desire to get into a ‘my pastor is better than your pastor’ type of argument here. It is commendable and laudable that your pastor is willing to take the necessary time to be present at the various funeral rites of his parishoners. That is simply not always the case.

I just want to make clear that both situations are acceptable.

Acceptable? Maybe. But, pastorally appropriate? That is highly doubtful. You and I were not ordained to serve and minister to the faithful. The priests and deacons are. Their primary obligation is to the pastoral care of the souls entrusted to them. To not have the time to conduct the wake or the burial is quite sad. The document On Certain Collaboration… makes it very clear. The priests and deacons are supposed to celebrate these rites, even at a certain sacrifice.

The time of death and grieving is when most parishioners need the support of their clergy. It is the obligation of the clergy to be there for their flock. They simply should not abdicate their responsibility to the laity. That is irresponsible and most unpastoral.

 

[frommi]

Acceptable? Maybe. But, pastorally appropriate? That is highly doubtful. You and I were not ordained to serve and minister to the faithful. The priests and deacons are. Their primary obligation is to the pastoral care of the souls entrusted to them. To not have the time to conduct the wake or the burial is quite sad. The document On Certain Collaboration… makes it very clear. The priests and deacons are supposed to celebrate these rites, even at a certain sacrifice.

The time of death and grieving is when most parishioners need the support of their clergy. It is the obligation of the clergy to be there for their flock. They simply should not abdicate their responsibility to the laity. That is irresponsible and most unpastoral.

But you would admit that your making your own judgment on what is pastorally prudent here then?

 

[po18guy]

Our archdiocese is training the laity to do funeral vigils, burial services at church, and the rite of committal a the cemetary. Previously done only by clergy. I know some of the people who went for the training, and they are all feminist agenda driven.

Isn’t there enough trouble in the Church? This just smacks of another scandal, because the people I know who went there want women’s ordination.

This makes me very sad. We have 160+ active deacons in our archdiocese. I feel the need to write the cardinal, but not sure how to say it without sounding “uncharitable.”

Copy and paste your post as your letter. There is nothing uncharitable about it.

Christ’s peace.

 

[benedictgal]

But you would admit that your making your own judgment on what is pastorally prudent here then?

What I am saying is this. The document has already spoken rather clearly to this issue:

Article 12

Leading the Celebration at Funerals

In the present circumstances of growing dechristianization and of abandonment of religious practice, death and the time of obsequies can be one of the most opportune pastoral moments in which the ordained minister can meet with the non-practising members of the faithful.

It is thus desirable that Priests and Deacons, even at some sacrifice to themselves, should preside personally at funeral rites in accordance with local custom, so as to pray for the dead and be close to their families, thus availing of an opportunity for appropriate evangelization.

The non-ordained faithful may lead the ecclesiastical obsequies provided that there is ***a true absence of sacred ministers ***and that they adhere to the prescribed liturgical norms. (111) Those so deputed should be well prepared both doctrinally and liturgically.

What the OP described is certainly not the case and it appears as though the lay extra-ordniary ministers are used more for convenience sake than out of a bona fide necessity. The only valid true absence of sacred ministers would be if the diocese were some remote missionary outpost. Certainly, that doesn’t seem to be the case, based on what the OP has noted.

 

[Spirithound]

Other than “doing the magic” of confecting the Eucharist… *** ***

lepanto, I was just shocked at your question. Do you really believe that the Consecration is a magic trick?

(emphasis mine) I think the unhappy smiley indicates that Lepanto was not expressing his own feelings, as I have perceived him to be a very orthodox Catholic

 

[frommi]

What I am saying is this. The document has already spoken rather clearly to this issue:

What the OP described is certainly not the case and it appears as though the lay extra-ordniary ministers are used more for convenience sake than out of a bona fide necessity. The only valid true absence of sacred ministers would be if the diocese were some remote missionary outpost. Certainly, that doesn’t seem to be the case, based on what the OP has noted.

But you are still making your OWN judgment on what a ‘bona fide necessity’ is.

Even in areas that are not distant from civilization these circumstances can exist. What if a priest provides sacramental care for two parishes and funerals are scheduled at both on a particular day? Is that bona fide enough for you?

This is why judgment on these issues needs to be reserved to the local ordinary. He is probably the only person who can synthesize the needs of the people, his presbyerate, and the universal church into something that applies the norms faithfully.

 

[benedictgal]

But you are still making your OWN judgment on what a ‘bona fide necessity’ is.

Even in areas that are not distant from civilization these circumstances can exist. What if a priest provides sacramental care for two parishes and funerals are scheduled at both on a particular day? Is that bona fide enough for you?

This is why judgment on these issues needs to be reserved to the local ordinary. He is probably the only person who can synthesize the needs of the people, his presbyerate, and the universal church into something that applies the norms faithfully.

First of all, there was a reason why the document that I have repeatedly quoted was written. It came about because there were excessive over-interpretations and over-allowances to the prescriptions. In many cases, there wasn’t a true absence of sacred ministers and these duties were simply abdicated to the laity. The document makes perfectly clear the instances when such intervention by the laity is allowed. What the OP has indicated certainly fails to satisfy the criteria.

Frommi, you’ve made many comments, but, you’ve failed to provide any bona fide documents issued by the Holy See to substantiate any of your points. You have submitted opinions, but, nothing to support them.

 

[frommi]

First of all, there was a reason why the document that I have repeatedly quoted was written. It came about because there were excessive over-interpretations and over-allowances to the prescriptions. In many cases, there wasn’t a true absence of sacred ministers and these duties were simply abdicated to the laity. The document makes perfectly clear the instances when such intervention by the laity is allowed. What the OP has indicated certainly fails to satisfy the criteria.

Frommi, you’ve made many comments, but, you’ve failed to provide any bona fide documents issued by the Holy See to substantiate any of your points. You have submitted opinions, but, nothing to support them.

I’m not disagreeing with your document though.

I’m pointing out that it remains the province of the bishop to implement and make determinations regarding the law in this matter.

And there is no specific criteria in the document you keep quoting.

It’s kind of like the prescription for extraordinary ministers of holy communion…it says that the communion procession should not be unduly prolonged…well…what does that mean? 5 minutes, 10 minutes…how much is too much…it’s the province of the bishop.

That’s all I’m saying. As a layperson you don’t have a place to substitute your judgment for the bishops in this matter. If he has judged it to be prudent, that’s that. It’s that whole thing at ordination about receiving the ‘spirit of governance’.

So many assumptions are being made in this thread about the worthiness of ministers…the intent of documents…the governance of bishops.

But it still comes down to the same thing…it’s not up to anyone in this forum without a mitre to put these rites and documents into action.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not disagreeing with your document though.

I’m pointing out that it remains the province of the bishop to implement and make determinations regarding the law in this matter.

And there is no specific criteria in the document you keep quoting.

It’s kind of like the prescription for extraordinary ministers of holy communion…it says that the communion procession should not be unduly prolonged…well…what does that mean? 5 minutes, 10 minutes…how much is too much…it’s the province of the bishop.

That’s all I’m saying. As a layperson you don’t have a place to substitute your judgment for the bishops in this matter. If he has judged it to be prudent, that’s that. It’s that whole thing at ordination about receiving the ‘spirit of governance’.

So many assumptions are being made in this thread about the worthiness of ministers…the intent of documents…the governance of bishops.

But it still comes down to the same thing…it’s not up to anyone in this forum without a mitre to put these rites and documents into action.

Unfortunately, this document came about because there were those with mitres who made decisions that pushed the envelope too far. For example, the 2000 Circular Letter on Penance came as a result of the Australian bishops being taken to the sacramental woodshed by Pope John Paul II because of their wholesale granting of general absolution, even though the prescriptions for such had to fall under grave circumstances. Redemptionis Sacramentum also came about as a result of certain ordinaries and metropolitans not being able to get a handle on liturgical abuses. Both documents remind the ordinaries and the metropolitans of their primariy responsibilities.

Iin the case of the collaboration between ordained clergy and the laity, Rome certainly had to intervene because the lines were becoming too fuzzy. Certainly, funerals would count as a very blurry line if one holds to your line of reasoning. The document I’ve quoted also reminds bishops and archbishops of the primary responsibilities that they and their priests and deacons have to the faithful under their pastoral care.

 

[Lepanto]

(emphasis mine) I think the unhappy smiley indicates that Lepanto was not expressing his own feelings, as I have perceived him to be a very orthodox Catholic

Correct. I was merely being facetious.

(Although I have actually heard the term “Sacramental Minister” used to refer to priests. )

 

[po18guy]

Our archdiocese is training the laity to do funeral vigils, burial services at church, and the rite of committal a the cemetary. Previously done only by clergy. I know some of the people who went for the training, and they are all feminist agenda driven.

Isn’t there enough trouble in the Church? This just smacks of another scandal, because the people I know who went there want women’s ordination.

This makes me very sad. We have 160+ active deacons in our archdiocese. I feel the need to write the cardinal, but not sure how to say it without sounding “uncharitable.”

Francis Cardinal Arinze has much to say against blurring the line between the clergy and the laity. By applying these accommodating “band-aids”, are we not suppressing the realization of vocations even more? Until the priest shortage HURTS, young men will not feel as inclined to step up and serve the Lord.

Christ’s peace.

 

[frommi]

Correct. I was merely being facetious.

(Although I have actually heard the term “Sacramental Minister” used to refer to priests. )

What else do you suggest we call a priest who is not the pastor of a parish but who is present to say mass, hear reconciliations, etc?

 

[frommi]

Francis Cardinal Arinze has much to say against blurring the line between the clergy and the laity. By applying these accommodating “band-aids”, are we not suppressing the realization of vocations even more? Until the priest shortage HURTS, young men will not feel as inclined to step up and serve the Lord.

Christ’s peace.

This is an unnecessary blurring of the lines.

Laypeople and priests can minister side by side very effectively and very appropriately.

The use of the laity is not a band-aid.

 

[Lepanto]

What else do you suggest we call a priest who is not the pastor of a parish but who is present to say mass, hear reconciliations, etc?

“Father”