Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Paul II Warns Against Trend to "Clericalize the Laity"
Zenit News Agency ^ | September 23, 2002

Posted on 09/23/2002 10:50:50 PM PDT by NYer

Laments Confusion About Roles During the Liturgy

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 23, 2002 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II warned against the tendency to "clericalize the laity," which has resulted from erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council.

When greeting a group of bishops from western Brazil in Rome for their once-every-five-year visit, the Pope said in his address that today there is a "confusion of functions," which originates in erroneous theological interpretations.

"Among the objectives of the liturgical reform, established by Vatican Council II, was the need to have all the faithful participate in liturgical ceremonies," the Holy Father told the bishops Saturday.

"However, in practice, in the years following the council, in order to fulfill this desire, the confusion of functions in regard to the priestly ministry and role of the laity was arbitrarily extended," he explained.

Symptoms of this confusion are "the indiscriminate and common recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer," "homilies given by lay people" and the "distribution of Communion by the laity."

These "grave abuses often originated in doctrinal errors, especially in regard to the nature of the liturgy, of the common priesthood of Christians, of the vocation and mission of the laity, but also in regard to the ordained ministry of priests," the Pope stressed.

The Holy Father said that one of the consequences of this phenomenon is "the lack of observance of certain ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of 'substitution,' the tendency to 'clericalize' the laity, etc."

Although "the liturgy is the action of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, of his body and his members," it is true that "not everyone has the same function, because not everyone participates in the same way in the priesthood of Christ."

John Paul II confirmed that the faithful who are not ordained may "carry out some tasks and functions of cooperation in pastoral service" only "when they are expressly appointed by their respective consecrated pastors, in keeping with prescriptions of the law."

He clarified that the members "of the diocesan pastoral or parish council have only a consultative vote and, for this reason, may not be considered deliberative."

The Pope emphasized that the bishop "must hear the faithful, clergy and laity, to form an opinion," but "the latter may not formulate a definitive judgment on the Church," as "it corresponds to the bishop to discern and pronounce himself, not on a mere question of conscience, but as a teacher of the faith."

In this context, the Holy Father also referred to the "re-establishment of the permanent diaconate of married men," which "constitutes an important enrichment for the mission of the Church."

This service must "always be limited to the prescription the law, given that the exercise of full ministerial authority corresponds to priests," avoiding "ambiguities that might confuse the faithful, especially in liturgical celebrations."


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; Current Events; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2002 10:50:50 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Siobhan; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; ...
John Paul II confirmed that the faithful who are not ordained may "carry out some tasks and functions of cooperation in pastoral service" only "when they are expressly appointed by their respective consecrated pastors, in keeping with prescriptions of the law."

I hope some of the US bishops heed these words. Of late, certain dioceses are according far too much responsibility to their laity.

2 posted on 09/23/2002 11:01:59 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I hope some of the US bishops heed these words.

For someone who is quite active as a lay person I agree with you.

3 posted on 09/23/2002 11:03:49 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer; american colleen
The excuse I keep hearing is that in extrordinary times, such as duress and a priest shortage, the laity can be used. Well, I know of one priest, who left the Episcopal church when they started ordaining women, who ALWAYS hands the Ciborium to a woman. That parish ALWAYS has both species and as they have two deacons.... It bothered me at the time and someone in the parish DID write a letter pointing out that this was in violation, but they were told - in the bulletin - that we are in extrordiary times, yada, yada, and basically, we'll do what we want.

This is one on the many reasons why I left that parish.
4 posted on 09/24/2002 6:30:13 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
That parish ALWAYS has both species

Hmmmmm ... our parish, as do all of the others within this diocese ALWAYS have both species, even for daily mass. I never questioned it. How unusual is this?

5 posted on 09/24/2002 7:09:00 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
How unusual is this?

I thought both species was now the norm until I started reading the Vatican II documents. The parish where I've been attending lately has both species at some Masses and and not at others. But, no lay person EVER distributes the Body. NEVER. Monsignor P would never allow it. That parish has three priests, so there's no excuse. My parents' has two and both are older, sick men. For a time this spring one was in the hospital with blood clots in his legs and the other in Minnesota drying out. There's a whole lot more to that story, but another time.
6 posted on 09/24/2002 7:19:25 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
OK, my question is what is right or wrong with offering the Eucharist under both species? The parish I grew up in uses both species as long as I can remember, and a man or a woman can distribute them. The one I belong to now (and this is a much more orthodox parish, which I am thankful for) doesn't offer the wine, and I think only men handle the Ciborium. Can anyone explain why this is appropriate or not?
7 posted on 09/24/2002 7:21:02 AM PDT by GenXFreedomFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Catholicguy
The reform of the "reform" continues. More or less beginning a few years ago with the rejection of ICEL's proposed "new" translation and then with the Vatican's loud and clear objection to Weakland's desecration of the Milwaukee Cathedral, we now find JPII agreeing that Orders have consequences...
8 posted on 09/24/2002 7:31:57 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXFreedomFighter
The general norm was that the Precious Blood (PLEASE, NOT "the wine") is only distributed on particular special occasions, such as First Communions, weddings, confirmation Masses, etc. and on certain feast days.

Recently the norm was expanded to include Sunday Masses, at least in the USA. There's nothing wrong with it--however, there are certain concerns that have to do with the general respect for the Eucharist which come into play in certain parishes.
9 posted on 09/24/2002 7:36:25 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GenXFreedomFighter; All
Here is the reply of Father John Hardon (+ RIP) whose answers are reliable!

Q. Why are Catholics sometimes permitted to receive Holy Communion under both species and sometimes only permitted to receive the consecrated Host?

-G.M.E., Massachusetts

A.According to the Code of Canon Law, "Holy Communion is to be given under the form of bread and wine or under both kinds in accord with the norm of the liturgical laws or even under the form of wine, alone in case of necessity" (Canon 925). The Second Vatican Council has encouraged the reception of Holy Communion under both forms. Yet since the Vatican Council, there have been various qualifications which limit the administration of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and wine. The reason for this restriction is the liability to abuse of the Blessed Sacrament where the whole congregation, at every Mass, would receive from the chalice. Not the least of these abuses is consecration of such an abundance of wine that a large quantity of the Precious Blood is left over after Mass. Sacrilegious disposition of the consecrated chalice is not uncommon in some places. As a result, the normal procedure is to restrict the reception of communion under both species only to special occasions, such as weddings or certain solemn feasts. Moreover, the priests may administer Holy Communion by intinction. Here they dip the consecrated Host into the chalice and say to the communicant, "The Body and Blood of Christ."

10 posted on 09/24/2002 8:24:38 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
>>>that we are in extrordiary times

Everyone who wants to disobey the Church claims we are in extraordinary times. Its like a refrain, just repeat over and over until the end of time.

patent

11 posted on 09/24/2002 8:40:19 AM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: patent
Everyone who wants to disobey the Church claims we are in extraordinary times.

This was said in a parish with two priests and two deacons, a convent, and a four-family flat full of sisters just a few blocks away.

I don't get how this is extrordinary. Maybe the high IQ and voice training is getting in the way.
12 posted on 09/24/2002 8:45:09 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Desdemona; patent; All
The following is an interesting article....

FULL ARTICLE HERE

the following segment is interesting ..........

The New Norms for Holy Communion
The new official norms for the Communion Rite promise to bring new clarity to how the Church expects her sacraments to be observed.

The new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR), the rules for celebration of Mass in the revised Roman Missal, had stressed the requirement that Eucharistic bread be unleavened.

The new US Norms for Communion in Both Kinds permit the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when necessary:

When recourse is had to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion ... their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. (Norms §28)


The norms do not discourage intinction:

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. (Norms §24)


Extraordinary Ministers are not to assist at the fraction rite:

As the Agnus Dei or Lamb of God is begun, the bishop or priest alone, or with the assistance of the deacon, and if necessary of concelebrating priests, breaks the Eucharistic bread.
Other empty chalices and ciboria or patens are then brought to the altar if this is necessary. The deacon or priest places the consecrated bread in several ciboria or patens and, if necessary, pours the Precious Blood into enough additional chalices as are required for the distribution of Holy Communion. (Norms §37)


Only after the fraction rite do the extraordinary ministers approach the altar.

If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they approach the altar as the priest receives Communion. After the priest has concluded his own Communion, he distributes Communion to the extraordinary ministers ... (Norms §38)


The procedure for the reception of Communion by extraordinary ministers follows the rules in the new IGMR:

The practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion waiting to receive Holy Communion until after the distribution of Holy Communion is not in accord with liturgical law. (Norms §39)


Contrary to Father Hovda's instructions:

The reverence due to the Precious Blood of the Lord demands that it be fully consumed after Communion is completed and never be poured into the ground or the sacrarium. (Norms §55)


Extraordinary ministers may consume what remains of the Blood of Christ if the diocesan bishop gives permission. (Norms §52) According to a letter from Cardinal Medina, this is permitted "given the grave and overriding need to safeguard the Precious Blood".

The Norms themselves make no provision for Extraordinary Ministers to purify the vessels; however, a separate decree from the Congregation states that

for grave pastoral reasons, the faculty may be given by the diocesan bishop to the priest celebrant to use the assistance, when necessary, even of extraordinary ministers in the cleansing of sacred vessels after the distribution of Communion has been completed in the celebration of Mass. This faculty is conceded for a period of three years as a dispensation from the norm of the Institutio Generalis, editio typica tertia of the Roman Missal.


In parishes where innovations for the celebration of Mass promoted by Hovda, Huck, Irwin, et al., have been practiced, people may need to be told that the Norms require (in the words of Father Hovda) "a radical break with our immediate past and our entrenched habits".

Some may find change difficult. Liturgists who relentlessly promoted schemes for "a radical relocation of the experience of transcendence" -- with its underlying defective sacramental theology -- may find it particularly difficult. But Catholics who long for more reverent worship will welcome the new norms that put the "experience of transcendence" back where it has always belonged.

13 posted on 09/24/2002 9:03:48 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they approach the altar as the priest receives Communion.

Well, this one is broken regularly. They walk up during the Agnus Dei.
14 posted on 09/24/2002 9:14:42 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
The reform of the "reform" continues. More or less beginning a few years ago with the rejection of ICEL's proposed "new" translation and then with the Vatican's loud and clear objection to Weakland's desecration of the Milwaukee Cathedral, we now find JPII agreeing that Orders have consequences...

<> This isn't a reform of the reform. It is a correction of error.<>

15 posted on 09/24/2002 9:23:15 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
Intinction seems to have practical advantages, but I have yet to see it done.
16 posted on 09/24/2002 9:36:18 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
this one is broken regularly

Abuses are of two sorts. One is from ignorance, the other, from malice! Unfortunately, there are many from the latter!

17 posted on 09/24/2002 10:08:42 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; ultima ratio
Odd. On the Fessio thread you seem to think that 'there were no errors made.'

Did I convert you?
18 posted on 09/24/2002 10:10:54 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Intinction seems to have practical advantages

It approaches the Eastern Rite method of "spooning". I was in awe of the Eucharistic reverence at an Eastern Rite wedding I attended.

19 posted on 09/24/2002 10:13:03 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
I am more and more convinced that many liberal priests are Zwinglians but will not admit it. Their doctrine of the Eucharist is less reverent than Calvin's, whose doctrine is not at all what I originally thought it was. Calvin, by the way, had little respect for Zwingli, because he thought of him as a mere rationalist, an over simpifier of mysteries.
20 posted on 09/24/2002 10:28:22 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson