A cancer in our churches...

TimOliv · #1 Nov 17, '06, 1:47 pm

Perhaps "cancer" is too strong of a word now that I think about it. However, I am noticing a growth that if we keep leaving it alone will lead down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=20205

There is this feeling, I am noticing, that people think that since things changed in the Second Vatican Council, this is a call to reform the church every waking moment. But reform sounds a bit too protestant, so let's just say we are "Progressing" the church. We are moving forward.

What I'm seeing, instead, are lay parish directors who love to admit that they take on the duties of a pastor in all aspects except sacraments. I'm seeing EMHCs (incorrectly) referring to themselves and being referred to as Eucharistic Ministers.

Quote:

The ordinary minister of the Eucharist is a bishop, priest or deacon. When such ministers are not sufficient, lay persons may be designated to distribute Communion to the faithful (cc. 910,230.3).

I am seeing churches offer more communion services than masses, and everyone is okay with that.

People will cite the shortage of priests. They will say that handing over the church to laity is ESSENTIAL to its survival. I say it is to the detriment of the church.

The best thing Rome ever did in recent months was to openly restrict who is able to purify sacred vessels. EMHCs (with the exception of Installed Acolytes) have no business doing this.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Happy_Hour87 · #2 Nov 17, '06, 1:51 pm

Agree

MrS · #3 Nov 17, '06, 2:27 pm

ChemicalBean · #4 Nov 17, '06, 2:49 pm

Disagree.

TimOliv · #5 Nov 17, '06, 2:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

Disagree.

Care to expand on that?

Eileen T · #6 Nov 17, '06, 8:40 pm

I was once talking with a fellow parishioner and said that if our parish became a "priestless" one, I would probably move towns.

She told me I had a very narrow attitude, whatever that was supposed to mean.

Missa Solemnis · #7 Nov 17, '06, 8:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimOliv

Perhaps "cancer" is too strong of a word now that I think about it. However, I am noticing a growth that if we keep leaving it alone will lead down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=20205

There is this feeling, I am noticing, that people think that since things changed in the Second Vatican Council, this is a call to reform the church every waking moment. But reform sounds a bit too protestant, so let's just say we are "Progressing" the church. We are moving forward.

What I'm seeing, instead, are lay parish directors who love to admit that they take on the duties of a pastor in all aspects except sacraments. I'm seeing EMHCs (incorrectly) referring to themselves and being referred to as Eucharistic Ministers.

I am seeing churches offer more communion services than masses, and everyone is okay with that.

People will cite the shortage of priests. They will say that handing over the church to laity is ESSENTIAL to its survival. I say it is to the detriment of the church.

The best thing Rome ever did in recent months was to openly restrict who is able to purify sacred vessels. EMHCs (with the exception of Installed Acolytes) have no business doing this.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I completly agree, and when it comes to the Mass and Our Church...there is no "too harsh" term for uneeded "progression".

Vatican II may not have been THE problem....but it was what opened the doors of the Church to all kinds of spiritual diseases.

Even Paul VI who many people account for the most radical changes after VII said that, "The smoke of Satan has entered the House of God." Perhaps Pope Paul VI saw errors seeping into his Church after VII but couldnt quite define what was causing them.....until it was to late.

Let's pray for a miraculous healing.

Veritas41 · #8 Nov 17, '06, 8:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimOliv

There is this feeling, I am noticing, that people think that since things changed in the Second Vatican Council, this is a call to reform the church every waking moment. But reform sounds a bit too protestant, so let's just say we are "Progressing" the church. We are moving forward.

What I'm seeing, instead, are lay parish directors who love to admit that they take on the duties of a pastor in all aspects except sacraments. I'm seeing EMHCs (incorrectly) referring to themselves and being referred to as Eucharistic Ministers.

I am seeing churches offer more communion services than masses, and everyone is okay with that.

People will cite the shortage of priests. They will say that handing over the church to laity is ESSENTIAL to its survival. I say it is to the detriment of the church.

The best thing Rome ever did in recent months was to openly restrict who is able to purify sacred vessels. EMHCs (with the exception of Installed Acolytes) have no business doing this.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree with you. I think there is too much blurring of the line between clergy and laity, maybe as an overreaction to the clericalism of earlier times. I think dissenters push this sort of thing and others sort of go along for the ride, not really thinking about what they're doing. I think a lack of good catechesis among Catholics is part of the problem - many don't really understand what the liturgy's about, the theology of the Mass, the priesthood, etc.

blessedtoo · #9 Nov 17, '06, 11:30 pm

Quote:

I was once talking with a fellow parishioner and said that if our parish became a "priestless" one, I would probably move towns.

I would also!

**LilyM** · #10 Nov 18, '06, 12:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedtoo

I would also!

Me three - praise be I live in an area where priests and sacraments are both in ready supply.

aimee · #11 Nov 18, '06, 5:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimOliv

Perhaps "cancer" is too strong of a word now that I think about it. However, I am noticing a growth that if we keep leaving it alone will lead down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=20205

There is this feeling, I am noticing, that people think that since things changed in the Second Vatican Council, this is a call to reform the church every waking moment. But reform sounds a bit too protestant, so let's just say we are "Progressing" the church. We are moving forward.

What I'm seeing, instead, are lay parish directors who love to admit that they take on the duties of a pastor in all aspects except sacraments. I'm seeing EMHCs (incorrectly) referring to themselves and being referred to as Eucharistic Ministers.

I am seeing churches offer more communion services than masses, and everyone is okay with that.

People will cite the shortage of priests. They will say that handing over the church to laity is ESSENTIAL to its survival. I say it is to the detriment of the church.

The best thing Rome ever did in recent months was to openly restrict who is able to purify sacred vessels. EMHCs (with the exception of Installed Acolytes) have no business doing this.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree.

TimOliv · #12 Nov 18, '06, 6:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eileen T

I was once talking with a fellow parishioner and said that if our parish became a "priestless" one, I would probably move towns.

She told me I had a very narrow attitude, whatever that was supposed to mean.

With much regret, I think Americans take on this attitude of self entitlement. They send petitions to the Vatican, because they think that they can hold their membership over the Pope's head. Essentially, they threaten to go on strike.

They gather their numbers and try to make changes without vatican approval, little mini-revolutions which they are confident will win over the Holy See.

These revolutions come as drastic as Lay Parish Directors, using Blue as a liturgical color for Advent, incorporating "Liturgical Dance" into the regular routine of the church.

(I am aware that Liturgical Dance is permitted for those cultures in which dance is a very important part, but some churches saw this as an opportunity to act Pentecostal).

If I am going to go to a Church where the "Pastor" is a lay woman who is going to provide counseling and is going to lead "Communion Services" on Sunday. Why don't I just go Methodist and quit pretending?

Or, and this is the move I'd prefer, I'll just not subscribe to this "Progressive" movement and acknowledge it for what it is. A new name for Reformers who think that the more liberal something is, the better.

Elzee · #13 Nov 18, '06, 6:13 am

I agree. You can add the term LEM (Lay Ecclesial Minister) that our U.S. Bishops adopted awhile back to the whole mess of blurring the lines between clergy and laity. I love the small changes Pope Benedict is attempting, but I have to admit I really wish a crackdown would occur, even it if means fewer bishops and priests for awhile. .

mommyof4 · #14 Nov 18, '06, 6:23 am

Fine. No more churchs run by laity. Just ordain more priests, and the problem is solved.

By the way, we just found out that 5 of our local parishes (all within 50 miles of each other) are being closed due to the priest shortage. They are being consolidated into the one larger church so just one priest can run it all.
Bishop announces Le Mars Area Catholic Cluster to form one new parish

Monday, November 13, 2006

Members of the six parishes comprising the Le Mars Area Catholic Cluster, will join together into one new parish. A letter to parishioners from Bishop R. Walker Nickless of the Sioux City Diocese was read by local priests at the Nov. 11 and 12 masses, announcing the formation of one new parish corporation, in response to the Corporate Resolutions of January 2006.
The resolution evolved from the long range strategic plan developed in October 2004 by members of the Parish Finance and Cluster Councils of Our Lady of Assumption Parish, Merrill; St. Joseph Parishes in Ellendale, Le Mars, Neptune, and Struble; and St. James Parish, Le Mars; whose goal is "To Make Faith Our Most Prized Possession."

http://www.lemarssentinel.com/story/1177213.html

TimOliv · #15 Nov 18, '06, 6:32 am

Ordain more priests? Sounds like an awesome plan to me.

Or perhaps we should just allow Lay Ministers to consecrate.

Why not? They are all ready doing the counseling, the parish administration and leading services. Ask one of them and they will say the only thing they need a priest for is to drop off consecrated hosts once a week.

But Tim, what about the poor people in the parishes with no priests?

Sorry, the answer isn't just let the laity run them. The Lord will never let us run out of Ministers of the Eucharist. We will always have "enough" priests. Whether there are enough by OUR standards, well, probably not.

And churches will consolidate so that they can have priests serve them. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

We are not Methodists, we are not Baptists. We should not be of the logic of "anyone who signs up for it at the church entrance may now lead services."

No one ever said sacrifice was fun. Offer it up.