L
LRThunder
Guest
Father, definitely a priest, and sometimes he’s a parochial vicar.
- Status
F
frommi
Guest
He’s not a parochial vicar if he isn’t canonically assigned to the parish.Father, definitely a priest, and sometimes he’s a parochial vicar.
I’m just pointing out that if a priest only provides sacraments to a parish he’s not the pastor, he’s not the associate pastor…so sacramental minister is an appropriate way to characterize the ministry they provide.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Note the keyword: sometimes in my post.
po18guy
Well-known member
If not, why do it then? I must go with Cardinal Arinze on this one. Every time we laicize more of the priest’s traditional duties, we lose (vocations and members). Doesn’t the history of the church in the past 40 years show this? Yes, the poor implementation of V2 also hurt.
Christ’s peace.
F
frommi
Guest
I tend to think of it as a ‘both/and’ kind of situation. I know some people believe that the only way to get vocations is by making sure that the role has ‘specialness’ (the ability to do a great deal of things that no one else can do).
I just don’t think that’s accurate. If you’re only reason for answering God’s call is because you can do things other people can’t…that’s questionable logic in becoming a priest.
B
benedictgal
Guest
I don’t think that is what po18guy means. What he is addressing is the blurring of the lines and the envelope pushing that occurs in instances such as those cited in the OP.
The sacred clergy have a distinctively different duty than the faithful. Their sacramental ordination empowers them to do things that you and I cannot do. While we may pray with the deceased, we are not empowered to take sacramental care of their needs. Only the clergy can do that.
You seem to advocate letting the laity have a greater role in this. However, this line of reasoning forgets that the one to whom these duties belong is the priest and, to a certain extent, the deacon. That is what the document On Certain Collaborations addresses.
P
Pax_Vobiscum_57
Guest
I totally apologize. I should have known you were speaking tongue-in-cheek when I saw your avatar.Correct. I was merely being facetious.
(Although I have actually heard the term “Sacramental Minister” used to refer to priests.)
O
otjm
Guest
This has been an interesting discussion to read, if for no other reason than that it has been one of the more charitible ones I have read.
What I do see here is an insistence that use of laity at a wake or a burial is somehow a) a blurring of the lines between ordained and laity and b) the documents of the Church militate against this.
As to the first issue, it is not the laity who is blurring the lines, if there be any blurring. The official documents of the Church specifically allow laity to do this. The Church says so, not some radical nun or theologian. The Church has officially proclaimed this to be acceptable.
As to the second issue, all the documents of the Church need to be read together, most particularly those that deal with some commonality. We are getting into a “pick and choose the document you want” approach. The fact that one document advises against something in general does not disallow another document that specifically allows something in particular.
It is specifically allowed that for a non-liturgical function - prayers at a wake or a burial - they may be done by a priest, a deacon, someone specifically trained and/or deputized, or a memeber of the family or friend of the family. The Church has officially said this is officially allowed.
We may not like it. We may want the priest to be there. But the fact is that it is not always possible, and in some circumstances, may even be preferrable that the (specific) priest not be there.
The Church has even gone so far as to set out specific prayers/format for the lay person to use. Officially.
So if someone wants to write to the bishop or the Cardinal or Rome, then whoever writes should quote not only any document that would seem to militate against the use of the laity, but also quote that which specifically allows it.
Some priests can be tremendously supportive of the bereaved. Some are also well known for having caused some individuals to leave the Faith. The fact that a priest is ordained does not per se make them supportive of the bereaved, and given the circumstances of some families, may be more of a hindrance than a help.
But the bottom line is, the Church has officially approved of laity conducting the commital of the body at the cemetary, or leading prayers at the wake. We may not like it (it has been a rare funeral that I have been to in which the priest did not preside at these points) and my own personal preferance is that the priest be there.
But all this discussion of whether it should be allowed or not, particularly as the Church has specifically allowed it, seems to be nothing more than the use of documents to prop up our own personal preferances.
What I do see here is an insistence that use of laity at a wake or a burial is somehow a) a blurring of the lines between ordained and laity and b) the documents of the Church militate against this.
As to the first issue, it is not the laity who is blurring the lines, if there be any blurring. The official documents of the Church specifically allow laity to do this. The Church says so, not some radical nun or theologian. The Church has officially proclaimed this to be acceptable.
As to the second issue, all the documents of the Church need to be read together, most particularly those that deal with some commonality. We are getting into a “pick and choose the document you want” approach. The fact that one document advises against something in general does not disallow another document that specifically allows something in particular.
It is specifically allowed that for a non-liturgical function - prayers at a wake or a burial - they may be done by a priest, a deacon, someone specifically trained and/or deputized, or a memeber of the family or friend of the family. The Church has officially said this is officially allowed.
We may not like it. We may want the priest to be there. But the fact is that it is not always possible, and in some circumstances, may even be preferrable that the (specific) priest not be there.
The Church has even gone so far as to set out specific prayers/format for the lay person to use. Officially.
So if someone wants to write to the bishop or the Cardinal or Rome, then whoever writes should quote not only any document that would seem to militate against the use of the laity, but also quote that which specifically allows it.
Some priests can be tremendously supportive of the bereaved. Some are also well known for having caused some individuals to leave the Faith. The fact that a priest is ordained does not per se make them supportive of the bereaved, and given the circumstances of some families, may be more of a hindrance than a help.
But the bottom line is, the Church has officially approved of laity conducting the commital of the body at the cemetary, or leading prayers at the wake. We may not like it (it has been a rare funeral that I have been to in which the priest did not preside at these points) and my own personal preferance is that the priest be there.
But all this discussion of whether it should be allowed or not, particularly as the Church has specifically allowed it, seems to be nothing more than the use of documents to prop up our own personal preferances.
R
Ramman
Guest
As a lay minster in my parish, I take my responsibilities seriously. I find my role as a way to bring me closer to God through this sort of service. There are many things I never thought I would be called upon to do though. So far I have not been asked, nor has any other lay minister that I know of, to do anything that should be done only by a priest.
I serve as a Eucharistic Minister, a lector, and head of Hospitality.
I have formed, directed and led prayer groups, brought communion to the sick and homebound, and presided over Adoration among other things.
I have never felt like I was a Priest, nor have I sought to elevate myself to any importance. I am a servant of Christ, which according to the Gospels means I must place myself last. To lead, one must serve. You cannot serve properly if you do not humble yourself first. Otherwise, you are merely serving yourself, not God.
When Jesus got on his knees to wash the feet of his disciples, he took the role of the lowest servant in a household. He did so to show an example of what we must all do.
Jesus picked ordinary men to serve him in the most important roles. Our first Pope was a mere fisherman as were several of the apostles.
We are all called to be a priestly people, to serve God. When the early Church got so big, the apostles knew they could not handle everything. To alleviate the burden, the Deacons were created. These also were ordinary men chosen by the Spirit.
Today, more of us who are willing to accept what God calls us to do are going to serve our Church in more roles than ever before. The biggest surprise to me was when I was called to offer a communion service in lieu of a Mass as the priest who serves our mission church had an emergency and could not make it out to us.
Fortunately I had been properly trained for just such an emergency, but I never really thought it would happen! But, suppose it is to be expected when you have two priests to serve a very large parish and tree mission churches as well as filling in at a convent when needed.
I serve as a Eucharistic Minister, a lector, and head of Hospitality.
I have formed, directed and led prayer groups, brought communion to the sick and homebound, and presided over Adoration among other things.
I have never felt like I was a Priest, nor have I sought to elevate myself to any importance. I am a servant of Christ, which according to the Gospels means I must place myself last. To lead, one must serve. You cannot serve properly if you do not humble yourself first. Otherwise, you are merely serving yourself, not God.
When Jesus got on his knees to wash the feet of his disciples, he took the role of the lowest servant in a household. He did so to show an example of what we must all do.
Jesus picked ordinary men to serve him in the most important roles. Our first Pope was a mere fisherman as were several of the apostles.
We are all called to be a priestly people, to serve God. When the early Church got so big, the apostles knew they could not handle everything. To alleviate the burden, the Deacons were created. These also were ordinary men chosen by the Spirit.
Today, more of us who are willing to accept what God calls us to do are going to serve our Church in more roles than ever before. The biggest surprise to me was when I was called to offer a communion service in lieu of a Mass as the priest who serves our mission church had an emergency and could not make it out to us.
Fortunately I had been properly trained for just such an emergency, but I never really thought it would happen! But, suppose it is to be expected when you have two priests to serve a very large parish and tree mission churches as well as filling in at a convent when needed.
B
benedictgal
Guest
First of all, we need to get the right terminology. You are not a Eucharistic Minister. Only the priest and bishop are Eucharistic Ministers because only they have the authority to confect the Eucharist. You are an Extra-Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
Yes, Christ chose 12 men to be his Apostles. He conferred the ministerial priesthood on them the night of the Last Supper. These apostles (with the exception of Judas) conferred the priesthood to their successors. In Acts, seven men were set apart as deacons and ordained by the Apostles. We need to make that distinction. There is a huge chasm between the sacred ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful.
While it is certainly laudable that you are underataking a leadership role in your parish and that you believe that you are not ursurping the duties that rightfully belong to the priest, by virtue of his ordination, the distinctions need to be made perfectly clear.
On Certain Collaborations makes those distinctions clear. A previous post indicated that he/she thought that the blurs came from the Church’s end. I submit that they did not. The Church releases these documents. Unfortunately, the interpretation, as we have seen with many things that have come out of the Apostolic See, is very nebulous. Rome makes a statement and then the folks down the pipeline seem to see fit to push the envelope and blur the lines.
In our diocese, when a priest runs into an emergecy and cannot be at the wake or the funeral, he calls either another priest or a deacon. Lay ministers are hardly ever used. In fact, I’ve only been witness to one occasion where this has happened. Unfortunately, the woman got carried away and started preaching and saying some questionable things. Thank God she wasn’t there for the actual funeral, which the deacon wound up having to condct because the pastor was ill.
We just have to be very careful. The slope can (and does) get too slippery.
F
frommi
Guest
Ummm…there is no ‘sacrament of the funeral’…Christian burial is not a sacrament,
B
benedictgal
Guest
So then, frommi, are you saying that you and I can celebrate the Funeral Mass? The Mass, after all, contains one of the sacraments, the Eucharist, because it is confected during the Holy Sacrifice. Furthermore, the Mass is also a normal part of the Rite of Christian burial. Inasmuch as the deacon can officiate at the funeral liturgy (word service with the distribution of Holy Cmmunion), most of the time, the Mass is tied into the funeral. This is where the sacramental nature comes into play, frommi, because, you and I cannot celebrate a funeral Mass.
Judging from the tenor of your posts, you may not think that it matters to have clergy present for the funeral rites, but, it does make a great difference to a great many people. The grieving family needs to have the presence of the priest and/or deacon. One aspect of the wake involves the priest or deacon blessing the body with holy water and saying the appropriate prayers. Sometimes, a homily is preached by the clergy. These are things that, for all of the training in the world, a lay extra-ordinary minister cannot and should not do.
Oddly enough, we never had this kind of a fuzziness prior to 1965. Although I’m not blaming the Council, I am finding fault with the way many people interpret what the Council and the documents following it have “allowed”. Rome has already listed certain instances where certain collaborations are allowable. However, the Holy See has also indicated that the priests and deacons are not to abdicate their duties. This was made perfectly clear in the citation I quoted from the section concerning funeral liturgies. Furthermore, lay extra-ordinary ministers are to be used only in cases where there is a true absence of sacred ministers.
I repeat that what the OP has indicated certainly doesn’t fall under that category, especially since the diocese in question has 160 deacons.
F
frommi
Guest
There you go again…assuming what I’m talking about.
I’ve not suggested that the priest does not need to say the funeral mass. Nor am I saying that we don’t ‘need’ priests at these rites.
I have consistently pointed out that the wake, the committal, and a funeral outside of mass can be presided over by a lay man or woman. A layman or laywoman can give a homily/reflection at a wake, etc.
I’m pointing out again that the rites for a wake provide particular prayers for ‘other minister’ to use in the absence of a deacon. Holy water is not used at a wake, it’s used at the rite of reception at the church doors for the body. The prayers you speak of can be led by anybody.
And again, ‘true absence’ is something for a bishop to decide the ramifications of.
I just can’t understand why you have such a myopic view of the issue.
B
benedictgal
Guest
It is not a myopic viewpoint. If that were so, why would the Church make this statement:
The problem is that there are bishops who have stretched what the Church allows and contorted it to the point that Rome has had to intervene. Take the issue of the Sacrament of Penace, for example. You say, let the bishops have reign over what happens in their diocese. Well some things happened that required Rome to intervene. Remember that General Absolution is only allowed in the gravest of cases. Yet, the Austrialian bishops were allowing it to be dispensed freely until Pope John Paul II took them to the sacramental woodshed.
On Certain Collaborations came as a result of something similar. Things were getting out of hand with episcopal judgments and Rome, again, had to intervene.
You cannot say, with a straight face, frommi, that 160 deacons in a diocese constitutes a true absence of sacred ministers. No one can. Furthermore, it’s not as though the death rate were sky high in any diocese. Some parishes down here have maybe 1-3 funerals a week, some have 1-2 funerals in a month. Unless you are living in an area where the bubonic plague is running rampant or some catastrophic disaster hits on a routine basis, you are not at all likely to have 20-30 funerals a week in a given parish. You cannot also say with a straight face that a priest or a deacon is just too busy to preside over a wake or a rosary. Remember, one of the corporal works of mercy is to bury the dead. This comes as part and parcel of a priest’s pastoral ministry.
F
frommi
Guest
You certainly do NOT need a priest to preside over a rosary, that’s not even part of the rites we are discussing.
B
benedictgal
Guest
While that may be true, why would you not want to have the priest there? Or do you just want to have the laity have their moment in the sun? My parochial vicar rushed out after Mass on Sunday evening because he had a wake/rosary. It’s standard operating procedure in my diocese. In other dioceses, I suspect it generally falls to the deacon. Either way, the rosary is part of the wake and, I might add, around here, it is
That is a part of the document that perhaps you don’t take into account in your push to empower the laity. Furthermore, in Mexico, the priest is present for all of the funeral rites, from the wake/rorsary to the burial. Having been to quite a few across the Rio Grande, I’ve witntessed it.
F
frommi
Guest
It’s not a matter of ‘want’ for heaven’s sake! I’m not saying we should lock funeral home doors and keep a priest waiting at the curb. I’m pointing out that even in the presence of a priest, you could most certainly have a layperson lead a rosary. It’s a devotion completely outside of the funeral rites of the Catholic church that for some provides great comfort, but it’s not something that fits in the pattern of your general hypothesis.
My point remains the same, there is space in the funeral rites for the collaborative efforts of the church’s ministers to provide consolation to a family.
I think you need to stop trying to unring this bell. The involvement of the lay faithful is not something that is going away, even if seminaries were bursting at the seams. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many are so against such a thing. People have a desire to learn about the faith and to share that with others, there is nothing (nada) inherently wrong with that.
While some ministries exist that require one to have had hands laid on them at ordination, there are many that do not. There seems to be a concerted effort to obscure what the true meaning of sacraments are, what the funeral rites really are, and what a priest ‘should do’. And it’s all done in the name of an outdated model of ‘pray,pay, and obey’.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Since when is obedience an outdated model, frommi? Furthermore, certainly if the laity want to be involved in funeral minstry, they can host a meal after the funeral Mass or do something outside of the liturgy without having to usurp the role of the clergy.
You seem to insist on having the laity take over something that does not belong to them (only in extreme cases, as outlined by Rome). There are certainly other things that the laity can do without intefering in those duties that belong to the clergy. What part of the document On Certain Collaborations do you not understand?
po18guy
Well-known member
I rather doubt you will find even one priest who believes so. That is a calling from the ego, not from Christ. But, our American church has adopted/tolerated so many liturgical abuses that it must stop at some point. Aren’t Catholics the ones who actually believe in something?
F
frommi
Guest
I understand the document, please don’t insist that I don’t.
However, I have to use my local bishop as my reference point for things of this nature. Something you keep refusing to do (and you still haven’t explained how your pastoral judgment is somehow better than his…a good example of your insistence to take something that belongs to the ordained and make it your own…the spirit of governance).
I certainly am not insisting something ‘belongs’ to anyone. The question was whether or not the use of the laity was ‘worrisome’. My question is how can something permitted by law and rubrics be ‘worrisome’?
- Status