Author Topic: "Lay ministries" within the NO. Churc (Read 1553 times)

tlmforme · « **on:** March 02, 2011, 06:26:57 PM »

I am a person who "endured" the NO. Mass, for 40 LONG YEARS, because I had no choice. I was raised in the pre-Vatican II Latin Catholic Church. We did not have an indult Mass within 100 mis., so we just sat through abuse after abuse. I found myself missing Mass for things that I see now were just excuses. My husband, also a Cradle Cath raised in the Church before the council, no longer attends Mass at all.

As soon as the Mass of '62 was offered near here, I started attending that parish & he comes on Christmas & Easter.....but I KNOW he'll come back in time.

My question concerns what upset me the most (if I can pick between CITH, the loss of our nuns, the wreckovation of our Churches, etc. ) I think that it would be the endless "Lay Ministries". I sense such vilification of the Latin Mass & those who attend it, that I wonder if many of our "Lay Ministers" have built their self-image around the fact that they can "play priests" with their "service" as Lectors, Readers, RICA leaders, Liturgists, etc., etc.

At my old NO. parish I worked in the food kitchen dishing up plates for the poor, the ill, the drug addicts, alcoholics & homeless, people who really needed us. One of our main goals was to make each person we served realize that he/she MATTERED. Getting ANYONE to help was like pulling teeth. HOWEVER, we had, at least 6 EEM.s on the altar whether we needed them or not. They were SCHEDULED, for heaven sakes & our usual Mass attendance was around 300. We didn't need 6 EEM's at all & if the Blood of Christ was not served, we needed them even less.

I think that many (not all) NO. people just don't want to give up their IMPORTANT POSITIONS.....espcially those that are "Up Front". I also believe that this "LAY AMCHURCH" has hurt the priesthood terribly.

What are your thoughts?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:41:58 PM »

Quote

I think that many (not all) NO. people just don't want to give up their IMPORTANT POSITIONS.....espcially those that are "Up Front". I also believe that this "LAY AMCHURCH" has hurt the priesthood terribly.

The lay people were made to feel important , because the Apostate church had to use them to fill im the vast gaps left by the exodus of thousands of priests , nuns and brothers.

TraceG · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:11:55 PM »

It's called pride

LM · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:55:48 PM »

Quote from: tlmforme

I am a person who "endured" the NO. Mass, for 40 LONG YEARS, because I had no choice. I was raised in the pre-Vatican II Latin Catholic Church. We did not have an indult Mass within 100 mis., so we just sat through abuse after abuse. I found myself missing Mass for things that I see now were just excuses. My husband, also a Cradle Cath raised in the Church before the council, no longer attends Mass at all.

As soon as the Mass of '62 was offered near here, I started attending that parish & he comes on Christmas & Easter.....but I KNOW he'll come back in time.

My question concerns what upset me the most (if I can pick between CITH, the loss of our nuns, the wreckovation of our Churches, etc. ) I think that it would be the endless "Lay Ministries". I sense such vilification of the Latin Mass & those who attend it, that I wonder if many of our "Lay Ministers" have built their self-image around the fact that they can "play priests" with their "service" as Lectors, Readers, RICA leaders, Liturgists, etc., etc.

At my old NO. parish I worked in the food kitchen dishing up plates for the poor, the ill, the drug addicts, alcoholics & homeless, people who really needed us. One of our main goals was to make each person we served realize that he/she MATTERED. Getting ANYONE to help was like pulling teeth. HOWEVER, we had, at least 6 EEM.s on the altar whether we needed them or not. They were SCHEDULED, for heaven sakes & our usual Mass attendance was around 300. We didn't need 6 EEM's at all & if the Blood of Christ was not served, we needed them even less.

I think that many (not all) NO. people just don't want to give up their IMPORTANT POSITIONS.....espcially those that are "Up Front". I also believe that this "LAY AMCHURCH" has hurt the priesthood terribly.

What are your thoughts?

There is definitely a movement within the Church that uses a corruption of the "priesthood of the people" to invert Her hierarchical nature, creating a structure where it becomes a lay run "Church" including blurring the difference between the ordained and the laity.

tlmforme · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:09:59 AM »

I don't think that the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity was caused by the great exodus of priests post Vatican II. I think that it was part of the "active participation" agenda at Vat. II. It seemed as if the hierarchy post council thought that one's feet or mouth or both had to be moving in order to "actively participate".

At the Latin Mass, my mind, heart & soul are moving.....praying the age old prayers with the priest, working to become closer to God, to hear Him, to do my best to participate in the Sacrifice being made on the Altar.

I have been around so many NO. Catholics who are downright hostile to the TLM. Could it be that they don't want to give up their "titles".

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/05/opus-dei-bishop-robert-finn-cleans.html

Quote

An excerpt:
Several months into the job, Bishop Robert W. Finn has made changes in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph that some people feared and others hoped for.

After taking over in late May, Finn:

Replaced the leadership team of his predecessor, Bishop Raymond J. Boland.
More than halved the diocese’s funding of a longstanding center that trained Catholic laypersons to help in their parishes. Stopped publishing the column of a theologian [Rev. Richard McBrien] often at odds with the Vatican, a move that caused an outcry from some readers of the diocesan newspaper.

It caused more than an outcry from the people who are Liturgists, permanent deacons, EEM's, Lectors, etc.

I was born in 1941 & attended Mass daily from the time I was 5 yrs. old until I was 17.......then, every Sunday & Holy Day, Mission, Novena, etc. after the babies started coming.
During all that time, I saw TWO old ladies who prayed the rosary during Mass. (They were very odd women, two sisters that the children called the Church Mice. They were at Church ALL OF THE TIME. They kind of hovered around, one didn't see them at first, but sooner or later they'd meekly shuffle by.)

As far as I'm concerned we participate more actively at the TLM.

I can't help but wonder....we Trads are constantly accused of being "holier than thou", yet we don't feel a need to be in the Sanctuary playing priest. :scratchchin:

TraceG · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:19:31 AM »

Quote from: tlmforme

I don't think that the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity was caused by the great exodus of priests post Vatican II. I think that it was part of the "active participation" agenda at Vat. II. It seemed as if the hierarchy post council thought that one's feet or mouth or both had to be moving in order to "actively participate".

At the Latin Mass, my mind, heart & soul are moving.....praying the age old prayers with the priest, working to become closer to God, to hear Him, to do my best to participate in the Sacrifice being made on the Altar.

I have been around so many NO. Catholics who are downright hostile to the TLM. Could it be that they don't want to give up their "titles".

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/05/opus-dei-bishop-robert-finn-cleans.html

Quote
An excerpt:
Several months into the job, Bishop Robert W. Finn has made changes in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph that some people feared and others hoped for.

After taking over in late May, Finn:

Replaced the leadership team of his predecessor, Bishop Raymond J. Boland.
More than halved the diocese’s funding of a longstanding center that trained Catholic laypersons to help in their parishes. Stopped publishing the column of a theologian [Rev. Richard McBrien] often at odds with the Vatican, a move that caused an outcry from some readers of the diocesan newspaper.

It caused more than an outcry from the people who are Liturgists, permanent deacons, EEM's, Lectors, etc.

I was born in 1941 & attended Mass daily from the time I was 5 yrs. old until I was 17.......then, every Sunday & Holy Day, Mission, Novena, etc. after the babies started coming.
During all that time, I saw TWO old ladies who prayed the rosary during Mass. (They were very odd women, two sisters that the children called the Church Mice. They were at Church ALL OF THE TIME. They kind of hovered around, one didn't see them at first, but sooner or later they'd meekly shuffle by.)

As far as I'm concerned we participate more actively at the TLM.
I can't help but wonder....we Trads are constantly accused of being "holier than thou", yet we don't feel a need to be in the Sanctuary playing priest. :scratchchin:

I must say your post only makes me think more of my opinion of the pharisee asking, telling Jesus to perform a miracle. Just my opinion that many within the n.o. are the same demanding a miracle to be made.

"yet we don't feel a need to be in the Sanctuary playing priest"...I'm am totally not worthy at all.

tlmforme · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:59:40 AM »

Quote

I must say your post only makes me think more of my opinion of the pharisee asking, telling Jesus to perform a miracle. Just my opinion that many within the n.o. are the same demanding a miracle to be made.

I'm not sure of your meaning here. Are you say that I'm being a pharisee by by doubting that some of these lay ministers are "ministering" for the wrong reasons?

Quote

"yet we don't feel a need to be in the Sanctuary playing priest"...I'm am totally not worthy at all.

[/quote]

No one is worthy, even the priest prays at the foot of the Altar to be made worthy of entering the Holy Place where the Tabernacle resides.

Maybe you could clarify. I'm probably being paranoid :furtive:

TraceG · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:12:59 AM »

I dont think you are being paranoid

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2011, 11:05:51 AM »

Tlm,

I think your instincts and observations are, in large part, correct. Besides the negative impact on the laity these reforms caused, they even more negatively impacted the priesthood. Part of the holy lure of the priesthood had been that the priest alone had the right to handle the Sacred Species, the altar rails reminded him that he was performing a Holy Sacrifice alone and set apart from the laity, etc.

Today the lay people are authorized to do almost all of his duties besides consecration and absolution. So all he feels he is really good for is to consecrate. Thus you see "communion services" where the priest consecrates the bread and takes off so the laity can have a "service". Confession has been so downplayed that a small % of the NO laity go at all and in the more liberal parishes general absolution is granted. The sense of sin has been so diluted that the laity don't really see the need for the priest as a confessor.

You are left with a deluded laity who see the Mass and the parish as divisions of power, standing, prestige, etc. They see themselves as equal to the priest in decision making, and in some cases the lay boards bully the priest into getting their way. They entrench themselves in the choir and CCD programs and the priest is afraid to touch them lest he cause unrest and rebellion. Thus you have conservative priests moved to parishes who feel they have to endure folk and rock Masses and modernist CCD courses or else face the wrath of the pantsuit brigade and their minions. The Bishops are most concerned with keeping everything low profile and peaceful, so at the hint of complaints from the lib laity they abandon the conservative priests and tell them to go along to get along. If a conservative NO priest is to change the atmosphere at his parish to a Catholic one, he is forced to go painfully slow, little by little. And, if he is successful at all, he is then transferred and if the new priest is a lib, the parish goes right back into disarray.

The liberal laity are loud, outspoken, and revolutionary in nature. They are used to getting their way through threats and making noise. In contrast, the devout amongst the NO are typically more humble in nature and concerned with holiness and progressing in the spiritual life. In the NO scheme, these holy folks are typically thrust aside as the serfs of the NO parish as they don't play the power game. Their wishes are ignored or despised. Since throwing childish fits is not in their nature, they get no attention and eventually stop coming or find Tradition.

In order for a true NO reform to occur you are going to need courageous Bishops who have the faith along with the same sort of priests who will be willing to undergo a martyrdom at the hands of these radicals and still press on with righting the ship no matter what the consequences. Unfortunately, human nature is such that, out of human respect, most clergy will simply continue to go along to get along. Fighting these types over an extended period suffering gross calumnies, slanders, threats, boycotts, media campaigns, persecution from your fellow clergy takes a herculean amount of grace and perseverance.

tlmforme · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:41:04 PM »

stevusmagnus]Tlm,

I think your instincts and observations are, in large part, correct. Besides the negative impact on the laity these reforms caused, they even more negatively impacted the priesthood. Part of the holy lure of the priesthood had been that the priest alone had the right to handle the Sacred Species, the altar rails reminded him that he was performing a Holy Sacrifice alone and set apart from the laity, etc.[/

Today the lay people are authorized to do almost all of his duties besides consecration and absolution. So all he feels he is really good for is to consecrate. Thus you see "communion services" where the priest consecrates the bread and takes off so the laity can have a "service". Confession has been so downplayed that a small % of the NO laity go at all and in the more liberal parishes general absolution is granted. The sense of sin has been so diluted that the laity don't really see the need for the priest as a confessor.

You are left with a deluded laity who see the Mass and the parish as divisions of power, standing, prestige, etc. They see themselves as equal to the priest in decision making, and in some cases the lay boards bully the priest into getting their way. They entrench themselves in the choir and CCD programs and the priest is afraid to touch them lest he cause unrest and rebellion. Thus you have conservative priests moved to parishes who feel they have to endure folk and rock Masses and modernist CCD courses or else face the wrath of the pantsuit brigade and their minions. The Bishops are most concerned with keeping everything low profile and peaceful, so at the hint of complaints from the lib laity they abandon the conservative priests and tell them to go along to get along. If a conservative NO priest is to change the atmosphere at his parish to a Catholic one, he is forced to go painfully slow, little by little. And, if he is successful at all, he is then transferred and if the new priest is a lib, the parish goes right back into disarray.The liberal laity are loud, outspoken, and revolutionary in nature. They are used to getting their way through threats and making noise. Have you noticed how many of them are women? It makes me ashamed that so many of my own gender seem to want to "run the show".

In contrast, the devout amongst the NO are typically more humble in nature and concerned with holiness and progressing in the spiritual life. In the NO scheme, these holy folks are typically thrust aside as the serfs of the NO parish as they don't play the power game. Their wishes are ignored or despised. Since throwing childish fits is not in their nature, they get no attention and eventually stop coming or find Tradition.

In order for a true NO reform to occur you are going to need courageous Bishops who have the faith along with the same sort of priests who will be willing to undergo a martyrdom at

Quote

the hands of these radicals and still press on with righting the ship no matter what the consequences. Unfortunately, human nature is such that, out of human respect, most clergy will simply continue to go along to get along. Fighting these types over an extended period suffering gross calumnies, slanders, threats, boycotts, media campaigns, persecution from your fellow clergy takes a herculean amount of grace and perseverance.

GREAT POST!!! :applause: In the NO. parish I attended before the Motu Proprio gave us a Latin Mass close enough to attend, the pastor asked me THREE times to be an EEM. The first two times, I just sort of mumbled an excuse. The third time, I told him that:

1. The LAST thing the parish needed was another EEM.
2. I could never touch the Body of Christ, that I believed that was his "ministry".
3. That the idea the fact that the Sancturary is deluged with laity, is not in tune with Catholicity.

It was good that the parish with the Latin Mass emerged, as I was pretty much considered a Leper after my little speech.

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2011, 08:11:08 PM »

In my experience, Most EEM's have no real appreciation for the dignity of their office (to the extent that it is an office) because they have no real understanding of the nature of Christ's presence in the Host or of the real role and dignity of the priest hood. Many do see the priest as a "sacrament machine" for them, churning out validly consecrated hosts and little more. Even if you accept the assumptions of the docuмents establishing their use, there are WAY too many of them doing way to much.

It is relatively easy to e a Eucharistic minister or a lector at the 10:0 AM Sunday Mass. It is much harder to engage in the really lay ministry of bringing Christ to other lay people by serving the poor and other "uncool" people. If people had to spend five years (heck, even six months) doing that before the could engage in a liturgical role ordinarily appropriate to a priest or deacon, there would be far few mini-priests clamoring for the job.