| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Services of Word and Holy Communion; "Eucharistic Services" | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Thursday, 25. June 2009, 16:35 (260 Views) | |
| Fortunatus | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 11:45 Post #16 |
|
I take your point but I don't actually agree with you. We have a rota for EMs to take Communion to the sick. Since there are never more than three on any one day according to the current list I have to ask what our parish priest is up to. What has happened is that the creation of EMs has given priests the opportunity to back away from one of their prime responsibilities (IMHO) of visiting the sick. And what happens if an EM turns up with Communion and the recipient feels obliged in a state of considerable embarrassment to refuse for whatever reason? I agree that the housebound might be considered less likely than the average to get themsleves into a state of mortal sin (though why one should make that assumption I am not sure) but what if they feel the need to go to Confession anyway? The Church tells us that the two sacraments are linked; surely the one function the priest should not be delegating is his care for the spiritual well-being of the sick unless he absolutely has to. And "I've got a baptism immediately after Mass" is not a good enough reason, though I have heard it. The need for EMs in some parts of the world (and perhaps even in some parts of the UK though probably only a very small percentage of those that actually have them) has provided those who appear not to understand the difference between the ordained priesthood and the universal priesthood with the perfect opportunity to blur the distinction between the two. |
 |
 
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 14:04 Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Code of Canon Law Can. 943 |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 14:24 Post #18 |
|
Deleted User
|
When properly trained and commissioned by the Bishop I have to say Eucharistic ministers do a great job in visiting the sick. It is not an excuse for the priest to abrogate his responsibilities. In many parishes there were once things called, curates. It was the curate’s lot to visit the housebound and distribute Holy Communion to the long term sick in the Parish. The Parish priest might visit the better off end of the parish and may in dire emergency visit the not so well off but on the whole the housebound were fortunate if they saw either of them more than twice a month. Since the demise of curates the EMs have stepped into the breach and many housebound now receive communion at least once a week with a monthly visit from the priest unless he is invited, usually by the EM to make and extra visit in time of need. I also know from talking to many housebound that they have become very fond of 'their EM' who often has the time to chat and have a cup of tea that the curate with half a dozen more people to see did not. Also the EMs are often closer in age to the people they are visiting and the conversation can be more relaxed and social rather than polite and business like. Where I do see a problem is when EM's get to big for their boots and start trying to dictate to other parishioners. The solution is simple when they are next due for renewal the priest should not put their name forward. As a general rule I do not think EM's should serve for more than 6 consecutive years and should take a minimum of 2 years between each appointment, this would help offset the 'Top Dog' tendency. As in all things discretion should be permitted, after all if you do have a saintly EM who is loved and respected by all they should be allowed to carry on the good work. I also think that by having a limit on the term of appointments it encourages others to come forward because they do not have to break into a select club or worry that they will be tied to a never ending commitment. |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 14:48 Post #19 |
Administrator
|
Is this a special circumstance: Priest has one church with two communities, he lives next door to his parish church, the other is eight miles away on the same trunk road (A class) as the presbytery, he goes there once a week to say Mass. Total combined Mass attendance about 100. Good road system, no sick parishioners living on wild inaccessible moorland or on offshore islands. The bishop said rural communities should open their churches for traditional devotions. Two lay people said they want weekly Exposition, they got it. |
  Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 14:57 Post #20 |
|
Administrator
|
Such behaviour, I would consider unacceptable. Jesus did not restrict his attentions to the better off areas. In the parish where I grew up, in the town classified, officially, as having the highest percentage of slum dwellings in England, we all knew that the parish priest and his two curates visited the poorer areas, givng devoted service. In retirement Monsignor Hugh Atkinson of Lincoln, respected by practically everybody in that city, spent his days walking round the back streets and council estates around the church, Monday to Saturday, visiting sick parishioners, in his late eighties. Once a week a parishioner drove him to the better off areas. None were neglected. Any priest who came to visit me because I live in a detached home in "this exclusive much sought after area with rural views, and easy access to facilities" would be politely requested to send a caring priest. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:13 Post #21 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rose, again you are equating your experience to the general norms. I am clearly wasting my time again because you have decided, and you are right. I am just a young whipper snapper who has no experience of parish life has never read a book or talked to old priests, including Hugh Atkinson, who told me tales of the good old bad old days.  The Rose of York 
|
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:30 Post #22 |
|
Administrator
|
You are a priest, highly trained, there is much that you know that I do not know, and you will have read many more books than I, on spirituality, theology, Church history, Canon Law and other Catholic matters. Did we both know the same Monsignor Atkinson? The one at Lincoln was definitely parish priest in the early fifties, died in the late eighties. So far as I am aware he went to Lincoln as a curate, never left, became parish priest, vicar General, and in his eighties his curate became parish priest, Monsignor becoming his assistant. Monsignor never mentioned being in the RAF chaplain, though he may have been chaplain to local bases. He was buried from St Hugh's, by Bishop McGuiness, were you one of the concelebrants? A bit off topic, but interesting. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:38 Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes but as you will see I had deleted the reference to the RAF several minutes before you posted. I was confusing him with another Mgr Hugh who was also in Lincoln during his retirement. Mgr Atkinson was known to me when I was in the parish of Rutland as a student for the priesthood and we met at several diocesan events. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:53 Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
PS yes I was at his funeral but not as a concelebrant but as a late comer in the congregation, I am often late for funerals and hope to be late for my own.  |
|
|
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 17:12 Post #25 |
|
Is that common? I ask because I have never actually seen that sort of behaviour and reading the posts here where EMHC's perhaps seem to go beyond their roles, I get the feeling that it's more a case of other parishioners pushing them into it rather then the EMHC's seeking some sort of glory. |
|
Online Prayer - Night Prayer, Rosary and Lectio Divina Visit www.roomtopray.net for details of days and times | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 18:26 Post #26 |
|
Administrator
|
Since they were introduced I have attended four churches on a regular basis, at different periods. It happened in two, but I must point out that I experienced it as St X's, not at St Y's, until the priest we had at St X's went there as pp. It was only two of them, and their dictating was nothing to do with being EMHC's, it must have been their nature. I have known dozens of EMHCs, so knowing only two pushy ones indicates that dozens just did their task, without drawing attention to themselves, and they did not try to dictate in other matters. It's a bit like saying "I knew two priests who drank too much" and not mentioning the sober priests. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 18:37 Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think there is an element of this Mairtin. Most EMs are well intentioned and devout but my point was more a response to the claim that they get to big for their boots rather than an accusation. I do think that EMs are particularly vulnerable to being misunderstood or victims of their own sense of self importance and so should be required to serve for limited terms. I also, and here I light the blue touch paper, think that priests should have fixed terms of office in Parishes.  In many religious orders superiors have fixed terms which may be renewed once or in the case of some for half the length of a term (a term being 8 years). I think for parochial appointments 10 years which could be extended to 15 are long enough. It avoids priests becoming idols and getting the notion that they are irreplaceable. The challenge of moving is tough but the opportunity also gives the priest and the parish a chance to renew and refocus. Bishops are currently obliged to resign at 75 and parish priests are asked to do the same. I think PPs should stand down at 65 and take up assistant or chaplaincy duties, unfortunately in the current state of vocations this is unrealistic and so poor old chaps will be soldiering on for years, some with great effect and with greater conviction than those half their age. Unfortunately there are a great many who, through no fault of their own retreat behind a wall of EMs and green cardigans and being tired and weary after many years of valiant service are forced to continue to accept responsibilities and burdens which are unfair and too heavy to carry and so the parish stagnates and recedes into a stronghold of elderly parishioners with the young ether going elsewhere or just not coming. In parishes with a school there is some incentive for the young to become involved but once the children move on the parents often move on with them. EMs may get to big for their boots at times but priests also like the feeling of being indispensible and become caretakers of "Their Parish" rather than missionaries for the church of Christ. It is not their fault it is the system we have allowed to evolve and fixed terms would help to keep us all focused and on our toes and I believe that most priests would if not given the choice welcome the opportunity to renew and refocus their vocation. Ok I shall stand back and see the explosion of posts that may now follow... 
|
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 19:11 Post #28 |
|
Administrator
|
No explosion from me. If I had the authority I would limit the number of roles any one person carries out in a parish, and not just the liturgical roles. By carrying out multiple roles, those who dominate exclude the others, whom they then accuse of being unwilling to do their share. Bishops should retire at the age of 65. On objection is that it takes decades of experience to become a bishop, so they tend to be in their fifties when they reach episcopal rank. Funny how a young officer can progress to the most senior positions in any the armed forces young enough to put some service in before retiring at 55, but bishops soldier, or in some cases, dodder on until they can count their life expectancy on the fingers of one hand. Make them retire, send them out to do parish or chaplaincy work. I dare not suggest bishops retire fully and become Extraordinary Ministers, they would need to be laicised first. Ok Rose now stands back to await the explosion of posts that may now follow...  |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| CARLO | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 22:33 Post #29 |
|
Penfold A very sensible and incisive post. No explosion from me. Pax CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
|
|
|
| Derekap | Tuesday, 30. June 2009, 19:58 Post #30 |
|
I can only speak from my experience in the parish I was EMHC. Most of the EMsHC were already involved in some of parish activity and I can't recall anyone becoming to big for his/her boots. (Naturally, others might have thought one person was guilty!). |
| Derekap | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Mass , Liturgy, Sacraments, Priesthood · Next Topic » | |
3:58 PM Nov 23