| 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, harrassment, 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; commonly called "Eucharistic Services" | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 23. April 2007, 23:55 (2,636 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:48 Post #121 |
![]()
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. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 15:57 Post #122 |
![]()
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. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 16:13 Post #123 |
|
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, 16:30 Post #124 |
![]()
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. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 27. June 2009, 16:38 Post #125 |
|
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, 16:53 Post #126 |
|
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, 18:12 Post #127 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 19:26 Post #128 |
![]()
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. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 19:37 Post #129 |
|
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, 20:11 Post #130 |
![]()
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... |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Sunday, 28. June 2009, 23:33 Post #131 |
|
Penfold A very sensible and incisive post. No explosion from me. Pax CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Tuesday, 30. June 2009, 20:58 Post #132 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 11:39 Post #133 |
|
From today's Sunday Times (Irish edition):
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 22. March 2010, 01:40 Post #134 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I had a phone call from a friend whose parish priest is off sick. He has two churches, each being covered temporarily by another priest (a different priest for each one). In the one that has a Saturday vigil, an active parishioner received a phone call. Due to circumstances beyond his control he could not get there to say Saturday Vigil Mass, due to an unexpected emergency. On the Sunday he has three Masses to say in three other locations. A lay person led a service of Word and Holy Communion. This was in a chapel of ease that had Mass the previous weekend and expects to have one next weekend. No other priest was avaible. An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion led a service of Word and Holy Communion for the people who had turned up expecting Mass. What is the correct procedure in such circumstances, bearing in mind they had Mass last week, and expect to have one next week? Most of the parishioners would be able to get to Mass elsewhere on the Sunday, and could have offered lifts. A few cannot travel far and some have to work on some Sundays, nursing, care homes and so on. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Monday, 22. March 2010, 07:51 Post #135 |
|
No idea what the rule-book says, Rose... but we have been told here before that we have an obligation to attend Mass on the Sabbath. * Firstly it would seem appropriate to explain to those attending expecting Mass that unless they have good reason, they should attend Mass elsewhere on the Sunday, unless that is impossible; * Secondly, as Christians, they should consider themselves duty-bound to assist others by giving lifts when they go on the Sunday; * Thirdly, if they really give a stuff about God, why would they want an excuse to NOT share His Mass with Him? After all, if you love a person and a meet-up goes wrong, don't you long to find a way of being with that person just as soon as possible? So why would you care less about God, if you claim to love Him??? * Fourthly, given those people have bothered to turn up and some may not be able to attend a Mass elsewhere on the Sunday, you could hold a Service of Word and Holy Communion, or even the Mass of the day sans Consecration. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:53 PM Jul 11