I have asked the question before and I’ll ask it again. Are we returning to the false mentality of the 1970’s and a superficial reading of Vatican II’s documents which seem to blur the role between the clergy and laity and in fact laicized the clergy and clericalized the laity?
Today, it seems we are once again instilling into lay Catholics that in order to actually participate in the Church they have to be involved in churchy ministries. That is a lie.
Don’t get me wrong. I respect the differences in the EF and OF Mass and thus in the OF Mass, I am in favor of lectors, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (especially so the homebound can receive Holy Communion more frequently) cantors, choirs, ushers/greeters and altar servers. I have no problem with women in any of these ministries.
Let me say this too, in the EF Mass at the our Cathedral Basilica and my parish, we have a lay lector read in English the Epistle and Gospel simultaneously as the priest at the altar read these. The priest introduces each and says or chants the first few words.
I am open to an lay installed lector simply to chant or read the Epistle and a permanent deacon to chant or read the Gospel at the Tridentine Mass. Perhaps a new category of Mass could be made that is called semi-low that allows lectors and deacons to have a role with a hybrid of what might be chanted or spoken and the deacon having a role similar in the OF Mass.
However, let’s talk about well-known Catholic laity who are failing the Church big time in terms of what Vatican II actually taught the laity to do and that is to evangelize their secular lives and bring a Catholic perspective and ethos to it. That means being counter-cultural at times and radically opposed to some aspects of one’s participation in the public square. That is called evangelization even to the point of a white martyrdom if need be or even a red martyrdom.
What if President Biden fully embraced his Vatican II Catholicism, not only by being an usher at his local parishes, maybe the Chairperson of the Pastoral Council and maybe even offering Holy Communion at Mass and in hospitals. Let’s say he’s in charge of the Social Ministry outreach of his parishes.
But then in his public office as President, he embraces publicly and without apology the anti-Christ aspects of the Democrat Party’s platform on abortion, infanticide, gender ideology and opposition to the Church’s role in the world to stand up to and exorcise anti-Christ elements in the public square, being faithful to Christ not necessarily successful in this endeavor.
Would not that be the best lay ministry of the current President? Would he be more effective at leading Catholics to the truth and inviting those who are seeking the truth to find it in the Catholic Church so that their lives too may help form the public square and sanctify the secular?
If you wish, in order not to be sexist, insert Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s name for President Biden.
25 comments:
If ministry is seen as something that descends from the nature of ordination to the non-ordained, then you might have a case.
Ministry, however, orgiginates from the dignity of the Baptized, so the suggestion that this is a "clericalization" of the laity is not apt.
Calling lectors, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (especially so the homebound can receive Holy Communion more frequently) cantors, choirs, ushers/greeters and altar servers "churchy ministries" seems a little demeaning. They ARE legitimate and necessary ministries and functions that are associated, rightly, with the Church.
Churchy need not be viewed as demeaning but merely a descriptive of the nature of these. And yes, it is their baptismal call. But let's be clear all clergy and religious come from the laity! We are not from Mars, we are people too!
We've emphasized these ministries at least in the USA ad nauseam but failed to teach the laity about Vatican II's emphasis that the laity bring Catholicism to their homes, work places and public square. How else do you explain a Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden who claim to be good Catholics yet fail in critical areas of the Church's Social Justice body of teachings, as it concerns respect for human life from womb to tomb?
Joe and Nancy, I presume, are pious Joes and Marys at Mass but there is a disconnect from the foundation element of the Church's social teachings as it concerns the right to live of the innocent unborn. How did that happen?
Explaining Joe and Nancy is quite easy. "Politics is the art of the possible."
Where priests come from - and, be honest, you and I have met a few that MUST have come from another planet - doesn't matter.
(And please tell reCAPTCHA that after I click 7 fire hydrants, it ought to know that I'm not a robot! *{|:->)
The Church is supposed to be faithful to Christ and His teachings and not be concerned with secular politics. Joe and Nancy merit excommunication, not just being barred from committing sacrilege by presenting themselves for Holy Communion. Bishops and priests like Father Kavanaugh are a huge part of the problem.
As if Fr. Kavanaugh had any authority to bar Pelosi or Biden from receiving communion...?
Fr. K:
"(And please tell reCAPTCHA that after I click 7 fire hydrants, it ought to know that I'm not a robot! *{|:->)"
I agree with you, but only 7! I usually have to do a lot more, which is why I do not comment here as much as I would like to! Google's re-captcha never works right unless you use Google's own Chrome browser through which they can spy on you.
Fr. McD:
"...in the EF Mass at the our Cathedral Basilica and my parish, we have a lay lector read in English the Epistle and Gospel simultaneously as the priest at the altar read these."
Simultaneous translation, what horrors! Reminds me of the narrators in the pulpit (before these were removed) around when the Novus Ordo came to be. That is not only treating the liturgy like an idol, but actually disrupting its prayerfulness. At least wait till the priest is finished, or do it during the sermon if it needs to be done at all.
If one is really concerned about "understanding" the Mass, then why not even use a video projector with the vernacular text projected on a screen through the whole Mass? Do not the people have the vernacular text in their pews should they want it? Or just have them bring their own bilingual Missals, in Spanish, German, English, etc, and Latin.
Rather than ever more variation fracturing a unified Church, how about something radical such as one Mass for everybody worldwide?
But, in the vernacular since translated Missals are not a worldwide thing, nor can many afford such throughout much of the Catholic world. Most Cardinals today do not know Latin, nor do many priests, nor does the current Pontiff and his pals.
Latin needs to be taught from earliest age for true fluency, and near nobody does that today. The laws and codes should stay Latin as well as the Mass, but as a baseline for translation. Gone are the days of my grandfather taught Latin in a one room schoolhouse in the snowy woods, along with the doctor traveling by horsedrawn sleigh and buggy.
But, one Mass for anywhere in the world....please.
Anonymous Kavanaugh at 4:34 PM,
Inept dodge. Answer the question
As Americans, It's been drilled into us for so long that Church and State are separate, that is likely where Joe/Nancy's disconnect originates. On Sunday, you flip on the Church switch and flip it off when leaving. We've been trained to compartmentalize and leave church where we found it when re-entering secular society.
To me, it is grossly unfair to denigrate Fr. Kavanaugh the way the Anon commenters do. If you read his words carefully, he is not part of the "problem". Fr. and I might have different tastes in liturgy, however, from the perspective of fundamentals, I just don't see the chasm that some repeatedly choose to reference.
ByzRus, I agree and disagree with you. I think that it is true that many pre-Vatican II laity who came across as very pious at church and as good, practicing Catholics fulfilling Church law often did have a disconnect in their private life, such as carousing and drunkenness, long term affairs, mistreating employees if they had a business and often criminal activity. I suspect they went to confession regularly for most of these things.
I can't image, though, a pre-Vatican II Catholic who is was a public sinner flaunting going to Communion when he knows that it would be so controversial to do so and bishops are complaining!
Fr. AJM, you're points are very good and valid regarding pre-Vatican II Catholics and for that matter, I suspect a goodly number of post-Vatican II Catholics also fall into this category with many bypassing confession.
Regarding the President and Speaker, their politics and faith are obviously at odds with one another and they both seem to deal with that circumstance by not dealing with it. It's an approach that resonates with their constituents yet, frustrates and antagonizes their bishops. If the bishops act, the integrity of the sacrament is upheld, the President and Speaker will be martyred and the Church will be condemned. I'm sure many bishops are not looking forward to such a confrontation however, perhaps that's what being counter-cultural calls us to do.
Father,
Almost every Catholic person, pre Vat2 and post Vat2, had, and or still has, some "disconnect in their private lives" if one was to judge that Catholic strictly by every Church teaching on the books.
Byz - I appreciate your comments.
Father Kavanaugh,
Then why do you vote for the Abortion Party whose anti-life agenda is not a secret?
ByrRus,
Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with Nancy, Joe or Father Kavanaugh. That concept merely means the State cannot establish a state Church. A Catholic cannot separate their personal morality from their vote. If they do, they have no morality but are practitioners of "situation ethics." Harry S. Truman, the last truly Democratic president, had plenty to say on the subject.
ByzRus,
I disagree with some of what you wrote above. Regarding Fr K and the various “anonymous” some either rightly or wrongly claim are Fr K, I believe there are, at times, some fundamental issues at stake and not mere differences in liturgical preferences and tastes. What I detect at times is a willingness to compromise, if not partial embrace, with aspects of pagan, secular humanism - that are simply SO anti-Christian - eg a big dose of historicism - that social and cultural and a lot of religious phenomena are determined by history - and an unhealthy dose of postmodern relativism....and an almost irrational disregard of some centuries long Church traditions and practices...
Where I disagree with some others on this blog is to regard Fr K, Mark Thomas and Anonymous 2 as politically typical Leftards .... From the perspective of genuinely leftist members of my extended family, all 3, or each of those 3 named, would not be regarded as persons genuinely , politically, left of centre.
Byz - I doubt that "separation of Church and State" is what underlies the motives of anyone who says he/she is a Catholic, yet supports abortion. Most, if not all politicians, know that "separation" is really "non-establishment."
I really do think it is far simpler than that. In order to accomplish what they see as good for the larger community through politics, a person has to be elected to office, whether that is President or Dog Catcher. It would not be possible for them to reach office without their stand for abortion rights. The Art of the Possible.
Anon 5:11 - There can be instances when a person may choose to vote for passage of a law that does not comport with his/her personal moral views. A legislator may vote to allow the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes even if that legislator is morally opposed to its use. A teetotaler may elect, in good conscience, to vote for the sale of alcohol in some place, even if that person thinks the use of alcohol is immoral. Were the legislator to vote "No," he/she would not be elected to or re-elected to office and, hence, have no legislative say over other matters.
Anon @ 5:11
Thank you for your thoughts. While I understand the notion of a "state church" relative to the referenced separation, I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to illustrate that while a Catholic should not separate their personal morality from their vote, many do for the reasons I mentioned above. Probably, part of the "many" are those such as the President, who were part of the party before morality became part of its narrative and agenda.
Father K,
Yet you continue to vote for a party committed to destroying the unborn. A horrific position for a person allegedly committed to “peace and justice.” Jesus said “venite ad me omnes.” Your vote is an abomination.
Anon - 5:25 - I'd like to know where you think I have compromised with or embraced pagan secular humanism.
As for your assertion that I exhibit, "irrational disregard of some centuries long Church traditions and practices...", I will respond "Not true." I do not believe that the fact that a tradition or practice is centuries old is a sufficient criterion to maintain that tradition or practice. "We've always done it that way before" can be an unhelpful or, maybe, dangerous foundation for acting today.
I would agree that antiquity does not in itself guarantee authenticity, and that tradition is not static. However, reformers from the 16th to the 20th centuries, Protestant and Catholic, always had an eye on 'restoring' what they imagined was the 'purer' practice of the early Christian centuries. In the Catholic Church this wasn't too noticeable until the 1960s but then it was applied with a vengeance.
This form of 'archaeologism' was of course highly selective, and 'restoration' was often a disguise for rank innovation.
Fr MJK,
Can I ask you a question?
To what degree do you find yourself in agreement with the following statement:
“We have to the think of truth, categories and even reality as being socially and linguistically constructed according to the power interests of groups advantaged by such constructions - ie: white, western - often wealthy and almost always heterosexual -males”.
Based on reading a number of your comments on this blog over the past year or so, I’d say you are probably, to a significant degree, in agreement with that statement...or at least, quite influenced by that sort of thinking - (and I admit that is just my observation and opinion...)
I believe Catholics are still better off being influenced, philosophically, by the thinking and works of Aristotle and Aquinas, than those of Foucault and Derrida.
I hate the pernicious, moral relativism of many of those on the Left in politics and of many “progressives” in our Church.
But what I hate is irrelevant; what I fear for is the sort of future my children and grandchildren will live in...
This insane moral relativism is contributing to the present accelerating decline of the West.
Anon 8:10 - "We have to the think of truth..."
What are you considering to be "truth."
If by truth you mean Divine Revelation, such as Sacraments are means of grace, that forgiveness of sins and reconciliation between enemies is possible, or that Redemption is through Christ alone - I am 100% NOT in agreement with the notion that Truth is constructed.
If by truth you mean that which is known through science, such as the sun is the center of our solar system, that genes transmit inherited traits, that chlorophyll allows plants to absorb energy from light, then I would agree to the degree that such truths are shown to be mutable by further research.
If by truth you mean something else, then I would have to know what you are calling truth in order to be able to reply further.
Fr K,
I suggest you check out Fr Hunwicke’s blog (Mutual Enrichment) for some recent very interesting discussion re “Science”.
Post a Comment