This is worrisome

[benedictgal]

“Now, the diocese in question could be using this last section as a loophole; however, the real kernel is the segment I noted in red. With 160 deacons, I don’t think that this would constitute a true absence of sacred ministers. This particular section would best be applicable to missionary outposts where the priest comes in on a staggard basis (like in a missionary territory)”

You’re forgetting how it notes ‘local circumstances’, something a bishop has the authority to oversee and determine.

Even if 160 deacons are available, that does not mean they are all available or capable of bereavment ministry.

Regardless, this takes us away from the point of the thread.

It is not worrisome or problematic to utilize the non ordained for some funeral rites. Some lay ministers are commissioned specifically for such ministry.

I’d also note it points out that priests should be present at ‘some’ sacrifice to themselves. The parish I work in averages about 4 funerals a week…so that means he has to do a wake 4 nights a week, 1 funeral a morning (maybe taking Monday off), and a trip to a cemetery. Somewhere in there he can run the parish, visit the school, see the shutins, and possibly say a daily mass.

I’d also note that a good number of people are comfortable being led in prayer by the non-ordained faithful. Frankly, I’d take many of the lay ministers I know over some of the deacons (keeping in mind that most of the lay ministers have the same education as the deacons, they just lack ordination).

Benedictgal is confusing the issue by bringing up the document regarding the collaboration of the ordained and the non-ordained. That document specifically reprobates the idea of the non-ordained ‘play acting’ like the ordained, a problem to be sure.

However, let’s be clear, the church herself provides prayers to be used by the non ordained in all of the situations listed above in regards to the funeral rites. The church drew the line of licitness and most follow it.

I know people get fired up about the environment of ‘anti clericalism’…but the opposite can be true in some of these postings, there seems to be an aversion to allowing a layperson carry out duties that they are allowed to do.

Frommi, perhaps you didn’t read was highlighted, bolded and indicated in red. The priest should be present to assist at these liturgies. What the OP is indicating is not some missionary outpost. The priests should not be abdicating their responsibilities, nor should the deacons, for that matter.

At the Cathedral, we would hold at least 85 weddings a year, with some weekends maxing at 4 (on top of the regular Sunday Masses and the Neocats). The rector celebrated most of these Masses himself, including the funerals during the week (some of which occurred on his day off–he made up for time-off later). The rector is very faithful to his calling and is a true testament to the priesthood. While he served at the Cathedral, he never complained because, as he told us on several occasions, he is there to minister to the flock given to him. He is one of the finest priests we have in the diocese.

By the way, the document that I quoted is not someone’s opinion. It is a bona fide Church document releaed by the Congregation for Clergy and, it is still in force, meaning that this 11-year old text has not been abrogated. Given Pope Benedict’'s stance, it is highly unlikely that this document will be rescinded.

 

[frommi]

Frommi, perhaps you didn’t read was highlighted, bolded and indicated in red. The priest should be present to assist at these liturgies. What the OP is indicating is not some missionary outpost. The priests should not be abdicating their responsibilities, nor should the deacons, for that matter.

At the Cathedral, we would hold at least 85 weddings a year, with some weekends maxing at 4 (on top of the regular Sunday Masses and the Neocats). The rector celebrated most of these Masses himself, including the funerals during the week (some of which occurred on his day off–he made up for time-off later). The rector is very faithful to his calling and is a true testament to the priesthood. While he served at the Cathedral, he never complained because, as he told us on several occasions, he is there to minister to the flock given to him. He is one of the finest priests we have in the diocese.

By the way, the document that I quoted is not someone’s opinion. It is a bona fide Church document releaed by the Congregation for Clergy and, it is still in force, meaning that this 11-year old text has not been abrogated. Given Pope Benedict’'s stance, it is highly unlikely that this document will be rescinded.

I didn’t say the document wasn’t valid…it simply doesn’t apply in the local circumstances here.

There is no inappropriate overlap of responsibilities here.

You don’t like it, I get that. That doesn’t make it wrong (anymore than a spanish song at a papal mass).

 

[THurifer2]

I’ve met a lot of the lay folks who do these wakes, and they are not ‘wannabe clergy’, that’s just an unfair assessment of what they do.

I think one’s preference for these things is more in how you were brought up, and possibly your relationship with your parish priest.

Again…the thread is about whether or not it’s troubling to use laymen and laywomen in some of these roles for funeral rites.

Let’s be clear, this is not an ‘extraordinary role’ for them. There is no ‘ordinary minister’ of the wake or of the rite of committal. The books are quite clear about this.

So, there is nothing ‘wannabe’ about this. If trained appropriately and with the right formation, the ministry they perform is valid and licit.

My grandmothers funeral vigil was started by a “lay vigilist” I interupted her and more or less took over…she was giving sort of a “homily” that was full of errors. So when I took over I politely backtracked her “homily” and corrected her. My brother (who is an evangelical) said "what the He… has happened to the Catholic church…wheres the priest? "…THe woman was not happy but I didn’t want my grandmother to start rolling over.

 

[Lepanto]

If trained appropriately and with the right formation, the ministry they perform is valid and licit.

But is it a good idea?

 

[benedictgal]

But is it a good idea?

No, it is not, for the same reasons Rome listed in the 1997 document that I quoted. The problem with the interpretation given by frommi is the fact that he seems to think that it is perfectly fine for the laity to take over something that really doesn’t belong to them. Inasmuch as there are provisions made for the laity to lead some of these services, this is done with the mindset that there is a serious lack of clergy who can perform these duties.

What the OP described does not fall under that category, unless the person is living out in the wilds of Alaska or in some lone missionary outpost.

The most important duty of a priest is to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Along with this comes the administration of the Sacraments and the pastoral care of the flock entrusted to him. The document I quoted reinforces this fact and Rome makes very clear those instances where it is allowable for the faithful to assist the ordained ministers.

I would suggest to the OP that when writing to the Cardinal, the document that I quoted should be used as a point of reference.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Lepanto asks:
But is it a good idea?

Ah, that is indeed the question! ‘Allowed’ is really a very low hurdle!

A lot of people to take the position that unless something is specifically forbiden, it must be allowed, and if its allowed, its good enough.

Its sort of like the requirement to receive communion at Easter: technically, it’s enough, its allowed. But surely we can do better.

And the women-- pardon me, ‘womyn’-- from my area who are taking the training to assume greater roles in the Church are attention starved spotlight seekers who have [in my hearing] referred to their communion services as ‘Mass’: “Oh, Father is sick this week, so I’ll be saying Mass…”

 

[benedictgal]

Lepanto asks:
But is it a good idea?

Ah, that is indeed the question! ‘Allowed’ is really a very low hurdle!

A lot of people to take the position that unless something is specifically forbiden, it must be allowed, and if its allowed, its good enough.

Its sort of like the requirement to receive communion at Easter: technically, it’s enough, its allowed. But surely we can do better.

And the women-- pardon me, ‘womyn’-- from my area who are taking the training to assume greater roles in the Church are attention starved spotlight seekers who have [in my hearing] referred to their communion services as ‘Mass’: “Oh, Father is sick this week, so I’ll be saying Mass…”

Just because something is “allowed” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a good thing. Furthermore, the document I quoted was very clear about the circumstances in which such activity is permissible. I guess some people just don’t read the documents carefully.

Something else, Sam that I need to note. I did not feel at all comfortable in leading the Rosary for my grandmother’s wake. It was most alarming that the pastor couldn’t come or at least send the deacon along. My PV couldn’t make the drive back because, due to Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery’s weird regulations, everything was in reverse. The funeral Mass was in the morning, the Rosary was in the evening and then we had to travel to San Antonio for burial at 9AM, which really messed things up for everyone.

I did buy a copy of the funeral rites and prayed the Rosary in the same manner that my old Rosary group used (with scriptural meditations–Luminous, this time because it was on a Thursday). I explained to the folks that it was most appropriate, at least for me, to use these mysteries because it was my grandmother who really taught me how to love the Triduum. Anyhow, after the Rosary and Litany, we sang a Marian hymn and I thanked everyone for coming. That was it.

Just like I have an aversion to Communion Services (I will lead one, though, because having seen what my fellow parishioners had done, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself), I will not be too quick to volunteer to do one of these. I’m not the one the grieving family needs. The pastor is. I can be out in the pews of the funeral home and console the grieving after the service, but, it is the priest who must fulfill his responsibilities.

Something else should also be considered. When my mother died, our pastor (who has since died) focused more of his efforts on my father. Since our pastor was a widower who was a late vocation, he felt that the spouse needed more attention. That was fine. Even though he and I did not connect, the fact that he was there was what mattered. He and I did work together on the funeral liturgy (with help from my parish -at the time- in Austin, where two dear priest friends of mine were on the phone with me throughout most of that horrible weekend).

The bottom line is that the priest (or deacon) doesn’t have to specialize in bereavement ministry to just be present for the souls under your care. Just the fact that the priest is there and standing by you is itself a comfort. When the priest delegates this to the laity, he is no longer fulfilling his duty to the flock; nor is the deacon.

 

[quiet52]

from OutinChgoburbs:

It would not kill a diocese that contains 160 deacons within its walls to make sure they do funeral duty. It might give retired clergy who are stillambulatory, priests and deacons, something to do.

Write your cardinal. Simply tell him how much it means when a loved one has died to have a real member of the clergy present, and not some pseudo-wannabe-clergy.

We need to be careful about the expectations we place upon our priests and deacons.

Many, if not most, deacons have a full-time secular job. Their obligations are first to their families, then to their job, and then to the needs of their parish. It is unrealistic to expect them to be available for each and every funeral duty – to ignore families and their own need to rest on evenings, and to take leave from work to preside at daytime funeral services. The retired deacons may be more available, but again, they do have other obligations.

As for expecting our pastor to be available for each vigil service (usually evenings) – so if he has a parish council meeting every 2nd Wednesday of the month, and finance council every 4th Thursday, and bible study 1st Wednesdays (etc.) – you want him to ignore these obligations so he can attend the vigil services at the mortuary or church?

Sometimes the pastor (and other clergy) are able to visit with grieving family members at times other than the future rites.

 

[frommi]

Just because something is “allowed” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a good thing. Furthermore, the document I quoted was very clear about the circumstances in which such activity is permissible. I guess some people just don’t read the documents carefully.

Something else, Sam that I need to note. I did not feel at all comfortable in leading the Rosary for my grandmother’s wake. It was most alarming that the pastor couldn’t come or at least send the deacon along. My PV couldn’t make the drive back because, due to Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery’s weird regulations, everything was in reverse. The funeral Mass was in the morning, the Rosary was in the evening and then we had to travel to San Antonio for burial at 9AM, which really messed things up for everyone.

I did buy a copy of the funeral rites and prayed the Rosary in the same manner that my old Rosary group used (with scriptural meditations–Luminous, this time because it was on a Thursday). I explained to the folks that it was most appropriate, at least for me, to use these mysteries because it was my grandmother who really taught me how to love the Triduum. Anyhow, after the Rosary and Litany, we sang a Marian hymn and I thanked everyone for coming. That was it.

Just like I have an aversion to Communion Services (I will lead one, though, because having seen what my fellow parishioners had done, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself), I will not be too quick to volunteer to do one of these. I’m not the one the grieving family needs. The pastor is. I can be out in the pews of the funeral home and console the grieving after the service, but, it is the priest who must fulfill his responsibilities.

Something else should also be considered. When my mother died, our pastor (who has since died) focused more of his efforts on my father. Since our pastor was a widower who was a late vocation, he felt that the spouse needed more attention. That was fine. Even though he and I did not connect, the fact that he was there was what mattered. He and I did work together on the funeral liturgy (with help from my parish -at the time- in Austin, where two dear priest friends of mine were on the phone with me throughout most of that horrible weekend).

The bottom line is that the priest (or deacon) doesn’t have to specialize in bereavement ministry to just be present for the souls under your care. Just the fact that the priest is there and standing by you is itself a comfort. When the priest delegates this to the laity, he is no longer fulfilling his duty to the flock; nor is the deacon.

It’s not a ‘delegation’ of a duty to have a lay minister lead these rites.

And there is a big difference between a communion service and leading the rosary at a funeral home.

A communion service falls more in line with your arguments about missionary outposts than bereavment ministry does.

Heck, the rosary evolved as a way for the uneducated to pray the psalms…priests were always educated. And the rosary is not something that could be considered a ‘funeral rite’. It’s a devotional practice that many bereaved consider important after the death of a loved one.

There is nothing wrong with the use of laypeople for these services. This is one of those pastoral judgment areas that bishops and pastors make the decision on. You have to abide by that. It’s one thing to complain if someone shows up kicks aside the casket and gives a rollicking sermon about the wonders of women’s ordination, but that’s not what happens 99.9999999 percent of the time.

We are all under the spiritual care of our individual bishop, but he can’t be everywhere at once (he’s not Jesus), so he sends us pastors. The pastors have the same human limitations.

I would challenge folks to not look at every lay ministry as a response to a lack of vocations, but as a response to an authentic calling to serve God’s people in a parish. Even if the seminaries were bursting at the seams tomorrow and every parish had 5 priests, there is no reason to think that well trained laymen and laywomen could not continue to be effective in the ministry of consolation.

 

[Joannm]

Our priests usually go to the funerl home in the afternoon to do the wake service because they usually are too busy in the evenings. They don’t really spend much time there. The MInistry of COsolation meets with the family to plan the funeral. We are lucky becuase we don’t have too many funerals and wakes, but some parishes I know have 3 or 4 a week and they need the assistance of the Minitstry of COnsolation to lead the wake service, especially if they only have one priest.

BTW I haven’t seen the rosary done in lieu of a wake service in years and years. We always do the service in the Order of Funerals. I guess it must be a regional or cultural thing.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…Again…the thread is about whether or not it’s troubling to use laymen and laywomen in some of these roles for funeral rites.

Let’s be clear, this is not an ‘extraordinary role’ for them. There is no ‘ordinary minister’ of the wake or of the rite of committal. The books are quite clear about this.

So, there is nothing ‘wannabe’ about this. If trained appropriately and with the right formation, the ministry they perform is valid and licit.

From the Order of Christian Funerals:
“Presiding Minister
14. Priests, as teachers of faith and ministers of comfort, preside at the funeral rites, especially the Mass; the celebration of the funeral liturgy is especially entrusted to pastors and associate pastors. When no priest is available, deacons, as ministers of the word, of the altar and of charity, preside at funeral rites. When no priest or deacon is available for the vigil and related rites or the rite of commital, a layperson presides.”

And: “215. In the absence of a parish minister, a friend or member of the family should lead those present in the rite of committal.” So the layperson is an extraordinary presider.

A similar area I find worrisome, from the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.”

 

[frommi]

From the Order of Christian Funerals:
“Presiding Minister
14. Priests, as teachers of faith and ministers of comfort, preside at the funeral rites, especially the Mass; the celebration of the funeral liturgy is especially entrusted to pastors and associate pastors. When no priest is available, deacons, as ministers of the word, of the altar and of charity, preside at funeral rites. When no priest or deacon is available for the vigil and related rites or the rite of commital, a layperson presides.”

And: “215. In the absence of a parish minister, a friend or member of the family should lead those present in the rite of committal.” So the layperson is an extraordinary presider.

A similar area I find worrisome, from the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.”

I will grant that by definition a layperson is always “extraordinary” in that they are not ordained.

However, the passages you cite have never been intrepreted (to my knowledge) as stringently as the one’s that cover the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion.

And I’m not sure what lectors have to do with this conversation.

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

Even if we had a plethora of vocations, using lay presiders at wakes is not something that would be ‘wrong’.

For example, a lot of the folks who journey with the dying are members of the laity. Nurses, hospice workers, some hospital chaplains. It’s just as valuable for some families to have those folks intimately involved with the funeral rites as a priest.

Not outside of their roles.

It seems like everytime the laity get trained or empowered to do anything people start harping on the ‘clericalization of the laity’. In this case, that’s a straw man argument.

No straw man - real threat. These laity want to be “seen.” Most of them are women who demand the ordination of women.

More recent documents from our bishops have pointed to the laity as ‘co-workers’ in the vineyard. This is a good expression for ministry to the bereaved. A lay associate is perfectly capable of presiding and preaching at the vigil wake. An ordained minster has an ‘ordinary’ role in presiding at the funeral mass, and either can certainly preside at the rite of committal.

Remember, funeral rites are not a ‘sacrament’. There is no real ‘ordinary’ minister for them per se outside the context of a Euchartisic celebration.

I understand Benedictgal’s desire to have a cleric preside at all aspects of her loved one’s funeral rites. This is of great value to her. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with a parish making a different decision about how ministry to the bereaved will be handled.

Emphasis mine. There was nothing “inherently wrong” about having EMHCs. But a lot of the times the deacon is completely excluded from a normal Mass except at the Eucharistic Doxology.

I didn’t say the document wasn’t valid…it simply doesn’t apply in the local circumstances here.

There is no inappropriate overlap of responsibilities here.

You don’t like it, I get that. That doesn’t make it wrong (anymore than a spanish song at a papal mass).

The papal Masses accomodate thousands of people from different cultures. The US has been given both the CCC and Redemptoirst Sacramentum to thoughtfully avoiding any inappropriate actions. However, I would dare say that at least 40% of people who call themselves Catholic would not even know what is happening to the clergy, nor would they care. If they want to be front & center, they will jump for it.

My grandmothers funeral vigil was started by a “lay vigilist” I interupted her and more or less took over…she was giving sort of a “homily” that was full of errors. So when I took over I politely backtracked her “homily” and corrected her. My brother (who is an evangelical) said "what the He… has happened to the Catholic church…wheres the priest? "…THe woman was not happy but I didn’t want my grandmother to start rolling over.

Perfect example. This woman was of no consolation to you, was she. She was a distraction.

We need to be careful about the expectations we place upon our priests and deacons.

Many, if not most, deacons have a full-time secular job. Their obligations are first to their families, then to their job, and then to the needs of their parish. It is unrealistic to expect them to be available for each and every funeral duty – to ignore families and their own need to rest on evenings, and to take leave from work to preside at daytime funeral services. The retired deacons may be more available, but again, they do have other obligations.

As for expecting our pastor to be available for each vigil service (usually evenings) – so if he has a parish council meeting every 2nd Wednesday of the month, and finance council every 4th Thursday, and bible study 1st Wednesdays (etc.) – you want him to ignore these obligations so he can attend the vigil services at the mortuary or church?

Sometimes the pastor (and other clergy) are able to visit with grieving family members at times other than the future rites.

Deacons are responsible for the care of the parishioners outside of Mass. My husband has a secular job and takes all the vigils in his parish and helps a priest friend of ours out. We knew from the start that he would be pulled in a lot of directions, but he loves what he does. And there are retired priests available to celebrate the funeral Mass. He also teaches Marriage Prep, Baptism Prep, and Benediction services. None of these things that very long.

I’ve met a lot of the lay folks who do these wakes, and they are not ‘wannabe clergy’, that’s just an unfair assessment of what they do.

I think one’s preference for these things is more in how you were brought up, and possibly your relationship with your parish priest.

Again…the thread is about whether or not it’s troubling to use laymen and laywomen in some of these roles for funeral rites.

Let’s be clear, this is not an ‘extraordinary role’ for them. There is no ‘ordinary minister’ of the wake or of the rite of committal. The books are quite clear about this.

So, there is nothing ‘wannabe’ about this. If trained appropriately and with the right formation, the ministry they perform is valid and licit.

I could train a dog to do a committal rite, and he’d probably do it more faithfully and reverently that a lot of laypeople I know.

This is going to be a huge mistake that will come back & bite us in the butt in 30 years, like the “Clown Masses” who took their cues from Godspell, not the rubrics.

 

[frommi]

People in this thread are making this sound like a new innovation, when it truly isn’t.

There is also some misunderstanding about the role of a deacon…they aren’t responsible for the care of souls ‘outside of mass’. That reduces the priest to a sacramental minister, which many of you are loathe to do.

I’ve been to funerals where the priest presider is of little consolation to the family…I’ve seen laypeople lead bad wakes.

Those examples are matters of personality, not of appropriateness for whomever to be performing the rite.

This is NOT worrisome

 

[Lepanto]

As for expecting our pastor to be available for each vigil service (usually evenings) – so if he has a parish council meeting every 2nd Wednesday of the month, and finance council every 4th Thursday, and bible study 1st Wednesdays (etc.) – you want him to ignore these obligations so he can attend the vigil services at the mortuary or church?.

Yes. Assuming that all of these business meetings are even necessary in the first place, the priest should delegate someone responsible to go in his place to them. The point is to free up the priest to do priestly functions. Finance meetings, though they may be important, can easily be attended by a delegate.

 

[benedictgal]

People in this thread are making this sound like a new innovation, when it truly isn’t.

There is also some misunderstanding about the role of a deacon…they aren’t responsible for the care of souls ‘outside of mass’. That reduces the priest to a sacramental minister, which many of you are loathe to do.

I’ve been to funerals where the priest presider is of little consolation to the family…I’ve seen laypeople lead bad wakes.

Those examples are matters of personality, not of appropriateness for whomever to be performing the rite.

This is NOT worrisome

First of all, I strongly believe that the misunderstanding stems from your part. Along with the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest’s solemn obligation is to the pastoral care of the flock assigned to him. This includes administering the sacraments and offering pastoral care. Pastoral care involves visiting the sick, burying the dead and helping the bereaved.

The fact of the matter is that when you start opening the door further for laity “inclusion”, you are widening the possibility for liturgical abuse (as indicated in posts by OutInChgburbs, Thurfer and others. Pax Vobiscum is certainly right on the money. She also has first-hand experience because her husband is a deacon.

Incidentally, that 1997 document that I quoted is certainly appropriate for the discussion at hand. While you say that there is “nothing new”, a lot of situations have cropped up that continuously need to be addressed. Note what the document says:

To ensure that such collaboration is harmoniously incorporated into pastoral ministry, and to avoid situations of abuse and disciplinary irregularity in pastoral practice, it is always necessary to have clarity in doctrinal principles. Therefore a consistent, faithful and serious application of the current canonical dispositions throughout the entire Church, while avoiding the abuse of multiplying “exceptional” cases over and above those so designated and regulated by normative discipline, is extremely necessary.

Just because something is allowable doesn’t necessarily mean that you have carte blanche to do this whenever and however you please. In this document, the Church has given the instances where laity participation is allowed:

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.

Yes, I have quoted this before; however, it is important to carefully re-read. The situation explained by Pax Vobiscum certainly doesn’t justify using the laity for this purpose. This only applies if you are in some missionary outpost where the priest comes along every now and then.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes. Assuming that all of these business meetings are even necessary in the first place, the priest should delegate someone responsible to go in his place to them. The point is to free up the priest to do priestly functions. Finance meetings, though they may be important, can easily be attended by a delegate.

That is true. The sacramental care of the parishioners outweighs the other responsibilities that a priest may have, including Parish and Finance Council meetings and, even Bible study classes. While these activities are important, they can certainly be handled by the laity. Sacramental and pastoral care issues are an entirely different matter. The priest was ordained to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and minister to the flock entrusted to him. This must come first.

 

[frommi]

First of all, I strongly believe that the misunderstanding stems from your part. Along with the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest’s solemn obligation is to the pastoral care of the flock assigned to him. This includes administering the sacraments and offering pastoral care. Pastoral care involves visiting the sick, burying the dead and helping the bereaved.

The fact of the matter is that when you start opening the door further for laity “inclusion”, you are widening the possibility for liturgical abuse (as indicated in posts by OutInChgburbs, Thurfer and others. Pax Vobiscum is certainly right on the money. She also has first-hand experience because her husband is a deacon.

Incidentally, that 1997 document that I quoted is certainly appropriate for the discussion at hand. While you say that there is “nothing new”, a lot of situations have cropped up that continuously need to be addressed. Note what the document says:

Just because something is allowable doesn’t necessarily mean that you have carte blanche to do this whenever and however you please. In this document, the Church has given the instances where laity participation is allowed:

Yes, I have quoted this before; however, it is important to carefully re-read. The situation explained by Pax Vobiscum certainly doesn’t justify using the laity for this purpose. This only applies if you are in some missionary outpost where the priest comes along every now and then.

[Edited]

The document came out in 1997 and individual bishops have implemented it as they have seen necessary.

You are defining the ‘extraordinary’ circumstances as being applicable only to missonary outposts. A number of bishops do not agree with you

What makes your judgment more prudent than theirs?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I must say I have seen several people critique Benedictgal for quoting Church documents and yet I cannot fathom why this would be a bad thing. She is presenting to those who have ears to hear the authentic teaching of Christ through His Church. Certainly, one might differ as to the interpretation of a document, and in such cases a discussion, based upon facts and reason, must be had so as to defend one’s interpretation. However, there seems to be a tremendous hostility to even the mere quotation of these documents.

I am eternally grateful to Benedictgal for enlightening me with some of the riches of the Church as she posts these quotations. She is helping me to grow more and more into the image of Christ by coming to know what He has wished to tell us through His holy pastors.

It seems as though perhaps she is quoting things that others would rather not come to know. Perhaps these persons wish to be faithful to the Church, but they do not want to know where the Church differs with them on some issues so that they are not put in the position of having to give up their opinions or dissent from the Church. This is the only reason I can think of why one would possibly be upset with someone for quoting official documents that pertain to particualr problems. If this is the case, I strongly urge all such persons to give their entire selves to Christ, where they will find so much greater joy than in the meager and passing opinions and privleges that they wish to cling to.

I do not mean to direct this at any one person, and I certainly cannot judge the depths of the hearts of those who do object to these quotations. Perhaps in my human frailty I have failed to perceive other reasons for which one may react in this way. I wish all involved the best in Christ.

Peace and God bless!

 

[John_Lilburne]

I will grant that by definition a layperson is always “extraordinary” in that they are not ordained.

However, the passages you cite have never been intrepreted (to my knowledge) as stringently as the one’s that cover the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion.

And I’m not sure what lectors have to do with this conversation.

The ordinary minister to proclaim the first reading is not an ordained minister. It is a layperson, an instituted minister, an Instituted Lector. A priest proclaiming the first reading does so as an Extraordinary Minister.

I worry more about the breach of extraordinary minsters proclaiming the first reading, when instituted lectors are present. I think this is a more widespread problem. There is an unfortunate lack of stringent interpretation, enforcement and good example.

The liturgical books say particular people should do particular jobs. This should be followed, whether they are lay or ordained. If it is ignored in the case of the first reading, people should not be too surprised if it is also ignored with Holy Communion and presiding at funeral rites.