When is a Mass not a Mass?
Blogged by James Preece on 20th September 2008
From the Holy Cross Parish Newsletter...
Mass intentions for the coming week:
Sat 20th 6.30 pm Fred Knapp Thurs 9 am Harold Ward
Sun 10 am Pat Hyland Fri Holy Name 9.15 am Bill Kemp
Holy Name 11.30 am Chris Herbert Sat 9 am The Parishioners
Mon 9 am Service of the Word and Holy Communion 6.30 pm Mary Jones (RIP)
Tues 7 pm Service of the Word and Holy Communion Sun 10 am Jill Kemp
Wed 9 am Michael Whincop (A) Holy Name 11.30 am Fred Higginson
[link]
Spot the two pseudo Masses? Service of the Word and Holy Communion. So let's see, there are readings and then people receive communion. No danger of confusing that with Mass then!
The Church does allow non-ordained faithful to lead celebrations on a Sunday...
In some places in the absence of priests or deacons,(90) non-ordained members of the faithful lead Sunday celebrations. In many instances, much good derives for the local community from this useful and delicate service when it is discharged in accordance with the spirit and the specific norms issued by the competent ecclesiastical authority.(91) A special mandate of the Bishop is necessary for the non-ordained members of the faithful to lead such celebrations. This mandate should contain specific instructions with regard to the term of applicability, the place and conditions in which it is operative, as well as indicate the priest responsible for overseeing these celebrations.
It must be clearly understood that such celebrations are temporary solutions and the text used at them must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
[link]
My understanding of this, is that it refers to parts of the world where there is an absence of priests. I'm thinking remote African villages where a priest visits twice a year if they are lucky. I'm pretty sure it doesn't refer to weekday masses, but, let us be generous in our interpretation. Let's imagine it refers to a part of Hull where there is a priest living in a presbytery next to the Church. Let's imagine it includes days when there is no obligation to attend mass. Let's imagine "absence of priests" means "several priests within driving distance"
"A special mandate of the Bishop is necessary for the non-ordained members of the faithful to lead such celebrations"
It would be distinctly ungenerous to interpret the whole paragraph as referring to weekday masses and then pull a 360 when it comes to the mandate from the Bishop saying, "oh yes, but that's only for Sundays".
Has there been a special mandate from the Bishop?
I'm going with.... um.... let me think... No.
No, Because there's nobody would be so daft as to write to the Bishop saying: "Dear Bishop, Sorry to bother you but I don't want to cancel my weekday Masses and I haven't actually asked any of the priests in my area if they can cover but would it be okay if lay people ran a service instead? What's that? Sure, I'll send some texts over for you to approve right away."
What's happening here is "Women and married men can't be priests so let's try to find a way for them lead services and give out communion". Then we can 'prove' that women and married men can do these things just as well as a celibate priesthood.
The whole thing stinks.
I hope that the other priests of the West Hull deanery will ask Fr Pat about this and perhaps pass on their concerns (if they have any) to the Bishop.
Make us happy...
Share via Facebook
Bookmark with Delicious
Digg it!Related Items:
This Item Tagged With:
- Dodgy Masses
- Fr Patrick Day
- Holy Cross Cottingham
- Liturgical Abuse
- Services of the Word and Holy Communion
Reader Comments
zosia said...
hey
we have a married priest at our church - he is an anglican convert, and possibly one of the best things to ever happen in our church...a real blessing to have.
hope the three of you are well
Zx
James said...
Sloppy language by James there... there's an anglican convert married priest around our way too. I've never met him but by all accounts a decent chap.
I shouldn't have lumped married priests in with women priests like that. Women priests are an impossibility while married man priests are quite possible.
What I meant, is that on the whole the Church doesn't allow married men to become priests. So liberal parishes are using the whole 'Service of the Word and Holy Communion' thing to help them get a foot in the door.
Great to hear from you by the way!
Much love and hugs from us all.
James
The Cellarer said...
At the risk of being 'The Pedant' and not 'The Cellarer' the Eastern Rite's in the Catholic Church have married priests unlike us in the Latin Rite. Many choose to remain celibate, I've heard Fr Thomas Loya on 'Light of the East' Radio talk about this - and their bishops are always unmarried, they are often from monasteries rather than parishes.
Gerard said...
The only thing you can fault with the newsletter is that it "said Masses during the week" and not Masses and Services.
If you study practically every document on receiving Holy Communion frequently, published by the Vatican Documents since 1960, the emphasis is put on people being able to so, outside of Mass, even to the point, if you take them literally, people knocking on the door and asking for Communion at any time. (The document you quote is specifically refering to the absence of a priest on a Sunday. Weekdays are not Sunday!)
Likewise, as you love the rules, NO priest should celebrate Mass more than once a day unless there is a serious pastoral need. The case you quote wouldn't fulfil that, and so priests cant just conveniently come from elsewhere. (To be consistent you can't interpret ONE document, and one rule literally, and ignore all other documents and rules!)
Therefore, the question is how do you fulfil the desire, and if I read the Vaticans own documents correctly, the right, of people to receive Communion outside of Mass. (And in the not so old days I saw people coming to church shortly before early Mass began, and recite the Our Father and receive Communion and leave before Mass - presumably for work - precisely because receiving Communion is a good thing.)
As to the form of service, and who leads it, they are different questions, but the document you slavishly quote is clearly refering to the absence of a priest on a Sunday. Please read every Vatican document on receiving Communion frequently, and outside Mass, and present a new case!
I have no idea who you are, in any real sense, or Father Pat, but I think: 1. in christian charity, you shouldn't single him, or his parish, for criticism, or comment, on the www, and, at least speak in general terms of such things without direct reference to persons or places (especailly as you might be wrong in your criticism and almost certainly will never know the full story), and 2. recognise that the frequent reception of Holy Communion is encouraged, and the priest concerned is ensuring that, outside of Mass, even if you don't like it, or have not read ALL the relevant documents.
James said...
I'm pretty sure my blog entry stands on it's own, and haven't the time to reply to your whole comment, but I feel I should make it very clear that I have never said that I have a problem with frequent reception of Holy Communion outside of mass.
Gerard said...
Well what exactly is your issue - there has to be some form of liturgy before HC if NOT Mass, and different people can Minister it.
It still doesn't answer why you can name and shame actual people and parishes on the www, where is the christian charity in that? And how can you be certain your have judged rightly?
James said...
Gerard, I think we are all agreed that the Church is (and should be) generous in her provision for Holy Communion. We are also all agreed that when people cannot get to mass because they are housebound or if there are no masses that they can get to, the Church should make provision for these people. Be that by Extraordinary Ministers who go out to the housebound or laypeople who lead services of Holy Communion.
I have no problem with any of that.
However, there is a mass at Holy Cross at 6.30pm. So there is provision for the laity to receive communion that day.
Are you suggesting, that the laity preside over Services of Word and Holy Communion to provide the convenience of more than one opportunity to receive communion per day? At what point does that stop? Shall we have laypeople leading such services every hour on the hour, Quarant' Ore style?
It is not for me to decide on the necessity for a lay lead service, nor is it for Fr Pat. The document states quite clearly that 'A special mandate of the Bishop is necessary for the non-ordained members of the faithful to lead such celebrations'.
I know that no special mandate from the Bishop has been given, because my wife was present at a study day when a lady asked if the Diocese would be providing training in how to lead such services. Fr Gerard Robinson (the Diocesan MC who regularly works closely with the Bishop) stated quite clearly that such training would not be given because it would not be required because such services should not be happening anywhere in the Diocese at this time.
The Bishop has not given any indication that he feels Mass is so hard to get to that it is necessary to have these services. Yet here are these services.
I know, because I have attended Fr Pat's masses and heard Fr Pat's homilies, that he is in favour of married/women priests. I know, because I have attended Fr Pat's Christmas and Easter general absolutions that his Modus Operandi is to find a place where something is allowed as an exception and then use very dubious logic to claim that the exception applies.
Here's an example of logic he has explained to my face: Sin is a sickness, so everybody can receive the sacrament of the sick anytime, through the sacrament of the sick you can receive absolution without confessing sins, so, he can give absolution without hearing any sins.
Fr Pat is playing the same game again. He is taking the exception and applying it over and over so that married men and women can stand at the front and lead services that very closely resemble masses (at least, as much as Fr Pat's masses).
I can't prove all that from two lines on a newsletter. I know all that already from eyewitnesses and personal experience. The lines from the newsletter just serve as a handy illustration, this is a blog, not a court case.
As for 'Naming and Shaming', I've been over this a billion times already. Priests are public figures who hold a public office. You don't become the England football manager and then expect not to find yourself in the newspaper. You don't become a priest and then expect that what you preach from the pulpit will be kept a secret. In fact, I'm pretty sure the whole point is that we are supposed to go out and tell others what we have heard.
Fr Pat is free to disagree with the Church and not have it blogged, all he has to do is keep quiet enough about it that members of his congregation don't randomly bump in to me in the street and say "You'll never guess what Fr Pat did last Sunday!". Simple.
I really don't think it contradicts Christian charity to publicly respond to a public ministry. I'm not pointing and laughing at a mistake, ha ha he fell on a banana skin. I'm taking part in a public conversation, just as you are, right now, on this blog.
Does it contradict Christian charity for you to publicly criticise my blog post?
Gerard said...
Firstly YOU choose to write a blog, sharing YOUR views, criticising others, and YOU invite comments. So no, my accepting YOUR invitation is to do what you ask/invite not an unchristian act.
Secondly your original blog is about NONE of the things, implicitly or explicitly, that you mention in reply to me.
Thirdly, I don't think a priest is a PUBLIC person in the way a politician is - he is not elected to serve a particular constituency, but called to service by God. He is primarily answerable to his bosses God,and the Bishop - in that order, and I think St Pauls counsels against christians doing certain things in public for fear of scandal. So I would say, myself, that unless you write about such things in a generic sense , i.e not identifying a particular priest or parish, which isn't possible for you now, you should make his Bishop aware of abuses and leave it to the Bishop to sort out. The Priest is not an elected official, but is answerable for his actions.
Your real issue seems to be women ministers, and I can tell you I am in a Diocese with hundreds of lay ministers, primarily female I think, and no one is secretly trying to suggest women should be ordained. Although things have changed in the Church, at one time your wife would not have been able to read in Church and if she did it would have been outside the sanctuary, and so I see you can accept some changes if they are to your taste and liking!
With regards the Sacrament of the Sick it is strictly for the sick, and infirm, and it an abuse to celebrate it with someone who is not sick or infirm. (All sacraments are sacraments of healing, and Confession is the place for dealing with healing from sin - not the S of the S, although it is part of a proper celebration of the sacrament for the real sick - and the Mass too is an healing Sacrament open to all in need of healind but not the S of S!)
Service of Word and Communion, or whatever service is approved, should not strictly be celebrated in a Church where Mass will be celebrated that day. (Although frequent Communion is encouraged and in my first post I mentioned people who had Communion before Mass. I would still maintain though a very liberal reading of what documents I have read could lead people to ask for Communion on request, but it impractical and probably not meant that way.)
Males can receive the Ministries of Acolyte and Lector at present but Male and Female Extraordinary Ministers are permitted by Rome. Is it not good your wife can read?
James said...
Gerard,
Firstly, I wrote a perfectly clear blog entry stating quite clearly that I think these services were being used a back door to married/women laity routinely leading mass like services.
You said "recognise that the frequent reception of Holy Communion is encouraged, and the priest concerned is ensuring that, outside of Mass, even if you don't like it"
When did I say anything against frequent reception of Holy Communion? I didn't.
In your most recent comment you say: "Your real issue seems to be women ministers, and I can tell you I am in a Diocese with hundreds of lay ministers, primarily female I think, and no one is secretly trying to suggest women should be ordained."
When did I say that?
How about you stop second guessing at my hidden secret 'issues' and take my words at face value. I said...
What's happening here is "Women and married men can't be priests so let's try to find a way for them lead services and give out communion". Then we can 'prove' that women and married men can do these things just as well as a celibate priesthood.
And that is what I meant. I didn't criticise frequent communion and I didn't criticise women (unless listing them alongside married men constitutes criticism).
Gerard said...
As most "sanctuary jobs" were traditionally reserved to men, and with the exception of ordained ministry, married or not, if we use your strange logic that any freedom to use women or married men as ministers, in any circumstance, could be seen as a backdoor way to married or women priests is daft. (The fact that the priest you mention thinks women priests would be o.k. doesn't mean everything he does is a sinister attempt to achieve that. Get real!)
In most diocese S of W and C are pretty standard, and probably mostly using women. However, if I understand what guidelines there are each service should involve three people. The leader , never to be called a presider, and the Reader, and the EM of HC. One would assume if a woman, or married man, can distribute HC in other circumstances, and even at Mass, it is illogical to say they can't at S of W and C.
Permanent Deacons in this country are predominantly married men, and can do everything but the S o S, and Confession. Married men in "Mass like" liturgies is not the issue - most deacons I assume MInister at Mass.
I might also add that possibly because of limited catechsis most lay people don't seem to appreciate the Solemn Liturgy of Good Friday is NOT Mass, and so if we use your logic we shouldn't have it. The question is not whether a service is like Mass, but whether women and married men can be commissioned to distribute HC. (Another of your correspondents suspects your wife is an EM, and doesn't think women should read - the challenge we face is not secret plans to ordain married men and women but to challenge false liberal and traditional positions.)
I note you don't respond to my challenge as to whether or not you personally James, whoever, have the right to publicly name and shame individuals on the WWW, who are not in any strict sense subject to your personal judegement and discipline. I could argue that as a Christian you are answerable to the community, and Jesus explicitly says so, as do the writers of espistles, and so if I know YOU persoanlly sin I could name and shame you, but that is not the way to deal with it. Priests are NOT elected officials, subject to that type of scrutiny, but they are subject to authority, and that is where you should address legitimate complaints.
berenike said...
Gerald, I don't suspect, I know, that Ella is an EEM: neither she nor James make a secret of it. As I think I said, I have baited James (who has shown great great patience and good humour) on this subject before.
James said...
Gerard,
Having read your essay, I can find two main points worth responding to.
1) If we use your strange logic that any freedom to use women or married men as ministers, in any circumstance, could be seen as a backdoor way to married or women priests is daft.
Any freedom to use women or married men as ministers could be used as a backdoor way to married or women priests, though thankfully, in the majority of cases, I don't think it is.
In this particular case, I think it is being used in that way. I can't prove it, that is why I say that I hope the other priests will ask him about it and pass on their concerns if they have any.
It is my opinion, based on what I know of the situation. This my blog. People put their opinions on their blogs. Get over it.
2) I note you don't respond to my challenge as to whether or not you personally James, whoever, have the right to publicly name and shame individuals on the WWW, who are not in any strict sense subject to your personal judgement and discipline.
I refer you to Thomas Aquinas who writes...
With regard to the public denunciation of sins it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or secret. On the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know of his sin, lest they be scandalized. Wherefore such like sins should be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Timothy 5:20): "Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear,"
And also...
Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
Gerard said...
James,
So in my replies I have given lots of examples where I agree with you, but you don't have the courtesy, or commonsense?) to acknowledge that.
On the basis of what YOU, James, who doesn't happen to have the wisdom to know the hearts of others, decide you can judge every action of one person on the basis of something you know about them.
(In terms of most things the Conference of Bishops decide on the acceptability, or not, of things in their territory and there is a National Liturgy Office publication for such services - the only serious question is whether they can be on a Sunday, and the ones you object to were not!)
Can you reflect upon the fact that possibly your own self appointed role as a church police office, and your own individual chioce to blog on things where you might not know the whole situation, might be just as foolish and dangerous as a priest who literally cycles to church.
As your issue is apparently, in this particular blog, about someone trying to prepare the world for married and women priest at a "Mass like service" I dont see how you can dismiss as irrelevant my reference to Married Permanent Deacons, the majority of them probably, who minister at Mass, and the Solemn Liturgy of Good Friday, which most Catholics, very sadly, don't distinquish from Mass at which a married or female EM could assist.
Please acknowldge here in your blog that you have heard me say I am not arguing for or seeking women priests, but I am solely challenging your right to name and shame particular priests and parishes, when your duty would be to bring it to the attention of the lawful authority, and your ability to rpedicate a persons whole life on what you know of some oftheir views, and finally, that you can see that there are lots of circumstances in which married Man can minister at Mass, and and that women could at "Mass like services" e.g. Good Friday.
James said...
Gerard,
I have shown a great deal of courtesy in bothering to reply to your comments. If I had any common sense I would have given up by now.
What do you mean by acknowledge? You haven't acknowledged the reasons I gave from Thomas Aquinas for feeling it was sometimes necessary for a person to publicly disagree with a priest. You challenged me (your words) but you seem now to have gone very quiet on that issue.
I'm sorry that I dismissed your point about permanent married deacons but it really is an irrelevant point. You could also have mentioned the married Catholic priest in a parish not twenty miles from where I am sitting. I have no problem with these things and never said I did.
Your listing a further multitude of situations where exceptions are allowed proves nothing. I gladly acknowledge, as you say, that that there are lots of circumstances in which married Man can minister at Mass, and and that women could at "Mass like services" e.g. Good Friday.
So what?
My problem is with the abuse of multiplying "exceptional" cases over and above those so designated.
Especially when, as is often the case, laypeople are mislead in to thinking that the Church has somehow changed her mind and decided to now grant them some facility which previously was denied.
The confusion on this is demonstrated every time there is a large event with many priests present you either get priests sat watching while laypeople distribute communion (wrong) or laypeople can be heard complaining that they are not being allowed to carry out their ministry.
These Services of the Word and Holy Communion are just the most recent plans in a long string of plans that have said "there is an exception that allows X, therefore X is allowed, therefore we will have X all the time" and "the Church used to forbid laypeople from X but now X is allowed".
It's his standard procedure. What you are doing is hearing that Jack the Ripper has plunged a knife in to another victim and saying "We should consider the possibility that he was performing a triple heart bypass".
As for my 'self appointed role as church police office', I have appointed myself no such thing. I do not arrest people or attempt to administer any kind of justice and I claim no authority to do any such thing.
Redemptionis Sacramentum says...
In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.
Note that it doesn't say "Bishops and Priests should do all they can but laypeople should keep their heads down and refrain from complaining".
Gerard said...
Actually, I think in publishing your blog and inviting comments it would be discourteous of you not to respond. You have chosen this as your ministry and outlet - not me for you!
I think quoting Thomas Aquinas as your authority for what you are doing is odd, as I feel sure in his days the www didn't exist, and I doubt he meant any thing other than a quiet charitable word with the priest concerned or, if necessary reporting him to the Bishop. You are naming and shaming to the world, not in charity gently correcting a brother. I am questioning your belief in your own judgement and your right to use this method.
You use the domino principle to defend your approach - if you don't stop "this" now everything will fall! You use the example of commissioned ministers distributing communion in the place of ordinary ministers who are present, but there are NO exceptions allowed for that to happen.
It is you that moves the goal posts! Because of the way this system works I can't see your original blog as I write, but I am sure you questioned why other priests couldn't celebrate Mass at the time the Services were listed - you DID NOT in your original blog question why two services that day were necessary, but now to argue a case with me you have done so. I say again look at what you originally wrote and see ho wit differs from what you argue with me.
I still maintain you cannot presume to know why those services are listed on the basis of the priests views. May I give you an example of something I know has happened?
In most parishes most weekday Masses are in the morning and are predominantly attended by senior members of the community who will not come out at night, and in such a parish if you move Mass to very early (7?) or evening the majority of those who normally come won't and maybe the number dips from 15 - 20 to 2, and so the majority get nothing! A priest I know offered the majority of the regular elderly people a service at their regular time, led by an EM, and celebarted mass at a better hour for him when he had business/pastoral he had to doat the normal (9.30?)Mass time. Is that a sliipery slope or pastoral sensitivity to people who are the long the life blood of a parish who cherish the Eucharist, and would prefer Mass? I don't know why your priest did it, but neither do you!
I ask you again to look the MANY things I agree with you on. I challenge your right to name and shame, and your self proclaimed ability to know the full reasoning of a person mind and heart on the basis of knowing some thing and publicly pass judgement on others.
You have the right to correct error, but you should leave it to the proper authority to solve, and not be your own version of the News of the World.
I might add that I think in Canon Law no individual or organisation should proclaim itself as Catholic in publications etc, and presumably the www, without the express permission of the Bishop. Have you got it? You are fairly explicity claiming this is a "Catholic" site.
May I present you with a challenge?
Please write to your Bishop and explain what abuses you see, and tell him how YOU have chosen to deal with it. Please ask him directly, if he would wish you, and both he and the priest concerned are subject to his authority, to continue with this method of addressing the issue i.e naming individual priests and parishes you think are in error on the www? Ask him if you should continue with this approach. Tell him how the suggestion of writing to him came about.(I might add I think I know what a Bishop who cares for priest and laity would do!)
And as a loyal son of the Church, and a loyal subject of your Bishop, please publish both your letter to him, and his reply. That why you are submitting to an obedience greater than your own percieved knowledge and wisdom.
May I ADD I have no contact with your diocese whatsoever and no personal knowledge of the priest or anyone in your diocese.
James said...
Gerard,
I wrote to my Bishop and he was kind enough to arrange a one to one discussion with me. I feel it would be unfair for me to discuss on a blog what was said in private (it's different, you see, to what is said in a homily) but I think I can safely say that I have not since gone off and done anything he asked me not to do.
Perhaps you could write to him yourself and ask him why?
Aquinas talks about a public sin and a public denouncement. Fr Pat's newsletter is on the www, why not respond to it on the www? Would it be better to stand up in the middle of his mass and interrupt his homily?
I don't think my blog template or my head can take much more of this endless conversation.
I have nothing more to add to it, and you are starting new conversations about whether Cannon law allowes a baptised Catholic to refer to himself as Catholic on a website. Talk about moving the goalposts!
You do not seem to understand the purpose of blog comments, which is to allow you to comment on the blog. You seem to think it is appropriate to use them to demand I answer your every question.
I have humoured you long enough...
James
Gerard said...
I understand perfectly what a blog is, and I also understand the duty of a christian in public discourse.
I see your friend Amy (?) writes about new equipment and things.
There is a difference between you refering to people and places to praise them, and you judging peoples secret intentions, and naming and shaming those you think are in error. The kindnest, and most christian thing you could do, is refer to the events without naming people/places.
I very seriously doubt that you said to your Bishop I am going to expose priests publicly that you fail to discipline. Obviously you could lie, but I suspect you said I am good at IT and I am going to do a blog. I dare you to say catergorically that you told the Bishop the nature of your blog, and I suspect you cannot do so James, not for secrecy, but because of honesty. (I doubt any Bishop who gave a person actual PERMISSION to name and shame would retain the confidence of his priests and laity - thats why I doubt he knows from you what you actually do here.)
Also generally confidentially doesn't kick in over a general chat, but it would if serious and consequential things were discussed but that doesn't seem to be your forte.
I didn't say Canon Law says a person cannot say they are Catholic, but that people who are going to PUBLISH things specifically as Catholics need the permission of their ordinary. Your website specifically says Catholic i.e that is why it exists. (Its not about your golf club, family holidays but faith matters, but rules YOU should observe don't have the same weight!)
I have a serious personal question for you: are you, or are you training for, or contemplating the Permanent Deaconate. It is part of the Order of Priesthood, principally reserved for celibate men, but you have no problem with married ones whatsoever, and you seem to approach rules on the basis of what you think like. why the leniency there?
I challenge you once again as a loyal, practicing Catholic, to ask specifically your Bishop if he supports all of your blog AFTER YOU TELL HIM THE NEGATIVE STUFF YOU WRITE. I fear, big time, you told him it was a touchy feely thing and not tabloid journalism. But you are Catholic and loving it - you wouldn't condemn one man, and do your own thing !
James said...
Gerard,
PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT ON MY BLOG
I set up the domain, I pay the web hosting, I deigned the template and built the content management system. I write the content that for good reasons or bad attracts visitors who link in which gets Google interested which brings more visitors.
In short, this is my speech platform that I have developed with my time and effort. This is as much my platform as if I printed my own newsletter and handed it out. This is not Wikipedia, this is not the BBC News, this is not the Diocesan Newspaper. This is James Preece's blog. Do you see political parties going to all the effort to print and hand out leaflets and then allowing the opposing party to write their counter arguments on the same leaflets? That is effectively what I am doing. I have built up an audience and I am giving you a slot to speak to them.
I am under no obligation moral or otherwise to give you any space here whatsoever. Many blogs do not have comments enabled at all. I allow you to leave comments partly because I am interested in what you have to say but also because I want to be fair and leave a space for opposing points of view. I could delete all these negative comments but I do not. This is incredibly generous of me, imagine if Pope Benedict invited Richard Dawkins to give the homily in St Peter's Basilica. That is what's happening here. James Preece is inviting Gerard to speak on his blog.
You, however, have totally and utterly abused this privilige. You have SHOUTED, you have insisted on answers to questions which are entirely off topic from the original blog post and you have made several 'challenges' which is another way of saying 'demands'.
Finally, having criticised me so strongly for making guesses about peoples motiviations, you now accuse me of effectively lying to my Bishop by somehow not telling him the whole truth.
In short, comments are here so you can comment, not so that you can have a free publishing platform. If you want one of those, I direct you to blogger.com.
If you wish to continue this conversation, send me an email, a polite one. If you attempt to continue it here I will not remove your comments, I will devowel them.
(you are of course, welcome to leave comments on other blog entries in the future)
Gerard said...
I forgot General Absolution is limited to very specific circumsatnce , in England almost too specific to have any relevance, and should be with the permission of the ordinary, and, if that is not possible, he should be informed about it afterwards. However, in our Country it is difficult to see when it would be needed at all.
James, you and I, i think, have more that unites us than divides us, but I would stil question the way you use your blog.
berenike said...
I think, Gerard, a BIG problem is that there are intentions next to the Communion services. For example. Don't need to read no more documents to know that.
Gerard said...
Actually there are NOT intentions for the S of W. Its is a poor layout but all the intentions are for Masses. may be thats why you won't read other documents. I am confident that James (?) would have pointed out such a major error!
berenike said...
Uff, that's a relief. Thanks for pointing that out! One less lunacy to weep into my cold-cure about.
Now, as you have read all these documents; why do exhortations to the frequent and pious reception of the Sacraments trump those setting out how the liturgical prayer of the Church is to be conducted?
Gerard said...
I am not sure anyone said they do.
If there is Priest, who hasn't celebrated Mass already, have Mass. If not Holy Communion,at whatever form of liturgy is sanctioned, could be distributed by an ordinary minister i.e an ordained one. Or in their absence an extraordinary one :a Commission Acolyte or a person suitably trained and commissioned. (The acolyte or other lay person being extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.)
berenike said...
Right. So you say there are all these documents encouraging frquent reception of Holy Communion. You'd agree that they probably assume the kind of approach St Francis de Sales takes: not sinning and not neglecting your other duties and not causing scandal come before frequent communion.
Now the norms show that lay-led Communion services in lieu of Mass are clearly meant to be exceptional instances.
The same with receiving Holy Communion outside of Mass - this used to be much more common than it is, (consider Cure of Ars) and is discouraged in more than one documentary place (but I'd have to go surfing to find you the references - probably either somewhere in the Council documents, in the new or old GIRMS, in Sacramentum Caritatis, or some such place).
The same goes for EEMs (I've baited James more than once on that, but then it occurred to me that perhaps Ella is taking Communion to the sick). You are right in pointing out that actually, a "consistent" (can't find good English word) reading of the GIRM suggests that women shouldn't read. I saw a new church in Rome in 2000, ugly but well-thought out, where the lectern was outside the sanctuary (as in the Byzantine rite) which means that if they have women reading they are at least outside the sanctuary.
So:
Communion services are supposed to "extraordinary"
Communion outside Mass is discouraged
EEMs are to be "truly extraordinary"
I don't see how disregarding three quite clear principles is not going against what we might call the Salesian principle. Hardly "sentendo cum Ecclesia", is it?
Gerard said...
I am not suggesting that anywhere in recent/current documents it says women shouldn't read.
I also understand "extraordinary" in Vatican speak doesn't me what we mean.
And I personally have not read ONE document discouraging frequent communion, or Communion outside of Mass, the only disputed thing is the form of service it should take place in, I think. Even on a Sunday, in many places in the world, there is NOT Mass, but there is Communion.
The struggle is not to lose sight of the Eucharist being a "fruit of the Mass", for want of a better term. If there were NO Mass there can be NO Eucharist, but the same problem can arise when some people don't see the essential link between the Mass and Exposition. Its all about education.
In the absence of an ordained Minister someone needs to Minister Communion, and I am not aware that it cannot be a woman, and by virtue of the fact it is not n ordained person,it must be a lay person.
berenike said...
"I am not suggesting that anywhere in recent/current documents it says women shouldn't read."
Well, I am, but it was just a side swipe to wind you up.
"I also understand "extraordinary" in Vatican speak doesn't me what we mean."
I don't what you mean by it, but in Vaticanspeak it means what I meant it to mean in my previous comment.
I didn't say that anyone was discouraging frequent Communion, merely that, daily or more-than-once-a-week Communion is not an imperative demanding the ignoring of all other norms. Am not going to argue about weekly Communion because I have never thought about it.
If I get the time (this is my post breakfast tea-drinking moment) I will trawl for some quotes for you, but to be honest I am drowning and not swimming in work, so it may be some time (like a month).
Gerard said...
I am not intersted in baiting James, as I said in my comment on General Absolution,which I don't think he's read, and in fact most other comments, I agree with most of what he says, but primarily disagree with his right to name and shame on the www and the fact he attributes the use of S of W and C to the priest desire for women and married priests, which cannot be construed, from having such services, and the lack of logic he seems to have in saying it is meant to weaken the stance of the church on women and married men in the priesthood.