For 46,000 Catholics, it was a Mass like no other, with the altar standing on centerfield at a ballpark and the presiding clergyman arriving in a bulletproof vehicle.
But Pope Benedict XVI’s Mass in the nation’s capital Thursday was also different from a typical service in another way: Lay people were not asked to distribute Communion, which was administered exclusively by 300 priests and deacons.
Organizers of the Mass at Nationals Park were only following the letter of church law. But to some Roman Catholics, the ceremony was symbolic of what they see as Benedict’s desire to erect clear boundaries between clergy and lay people.
“What he wants to do really is to reinforce the old categories and classifications ”” different roles for different people,” said David Gibson, author of books on Benedict and the future of the U.S. church.
I wondered when the “Why can’t the Catholics be more Episcopalian?” angle was going to be worked into a news story about this trip.
I can understand their frustration. As a reasserting CANA Anglican (hope that provides enough qualifications 🙂 ) I left the Roman Catholic church a few years back for many reasons including the low role of the laity in the leadership of the local church. As a result of the present practice, most Catholics are not able to take responsibility for their local church because they have little say compared to the parish priest. Many of them who do, get involved in church related organizations line Regnum Christi, the charismatic renewal, Communion and Liberation etc. The Anglican approach to vestry leadership provides for a more involved congregation, in my limited experience, then a Catholic one. The Anglican approach is prone to misuse, but I think that is fares better in the long run by driving responsibility to all believers, not just the priest.
Actually, in our Diocese, Pope Benedict is being very much like an Episcopalian in this instance. Our diocesan gatherings (like Convention) only use clergy for distribution of the elements – following the guidance that laity are to be used “in the absence of a sufficient number of priests and deacons.”
I do like the traditional Celebran, Deacon, Subdeacon role in Anglo-catholic parishes, though – the 3 orders of parish-based ministry serving at the altar, which I’ve always seen as anchoring the whole ministry of the parish at the table. Of course, subdeacons don’t officially exist, and they were in minor orders in the Middle Ages, but still . ..
Dirk Reinken
The problem is that too many parishes have certainly gone outside the boundaries mentioned by dcreinkin. So what is actually borderline abuse of the practice is seen as the norm.
As much as one would like to, one cannot separate Episcopalian practices from Episcopalian outcomes.
Bravo for the Holy Father!
In an era where relatively few choose the priesthood, giving the ordained the honor of distributing the elements at a Papal Mass exalts the position of priests and the sacrifices they make. Certainly these men will remember this event for the rest of their lives and their role in it as they minister to others.
Ok, so lay people did participate, but this news outlet still managed to find an element of conflict to sell newspapers. Buried between the anti-papal writer and a gay marriage, women as priests advocate, it is in fact noted that lay people are extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament. There were plenty of the ordinary ministers, so no need of the extraordinary. The papal Mass ran like papal Masses generally run, with enough priests and deacons around to administer the Sacrament expeditiously.
The real problem is that “lay ministry” has come to mean liturgical functions, teaching Religious Education, serving on committees (God help us all!), and other internal church functions. The authentic ministry of the laity is to bear Christ into the world we live in day by day. Lay folks can certainly do all those other things fruitfully. Without enough priests, it’s would be a pain if the rest of us couldn’t assist in distributing Communion. I’ve heard wonderful tales from folks who take Communion to sick and shut-in people. It’s good. But it shouldn’t distract from the real ministry of lay people, which is to bear witness to Christ in the world.
OTOH, maybe the real problem is a change of focus from ministry as service to ministry as power, or, perhaps, as occasion for feeling good about yourself.
And a question: when I became Episcopalian in 1970, the priest along gave both the Host and the Cup. By the time I became Catholic in ’87, lay people could administer the chalice, but not the Host. Is that still the case? If so, here’s an area Catholics are more “liberal” than Episcopalians. 🙂
I’ve never liked the practice of lay people offering either the Host or the chalice at the Eucharist. That should be reserved for ordained clergy only. Of course, if ++Jensen has his way, it’ll all be done by laity. All of these innovations such as celebrant facing the congregation, and lay servers undermine the sacrament and show an ignorance of the intentional symbolism of the liturgy. Read Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy” to find out how it should be done and why.
No. 8 Words Matter: In my experience, it is still the case that lay people can administer the chalice but not the Host.
#8, and #10 – the canons were changed in the ’90s to permit lay administration of either the consecrated bread or wine. I remember being harshly questioned by a conservative Roman Catholic theologian about why our prior practice indicated the bread was somehow more holy or more real than the wine, since we both believe that receiving in either kind offers the same benefits as receiving in both kinds.
I think there are interesting observations in this thread about how empowering lay ministry often means letting more laity serve liturgically rather than empowering them to be ministers of the reconciling ministry of Christ (catechism) in the world. I feel its important to include laity in various liturgical roles since I understand all ministry to be rooted in the offering of the Eucharist, but we often stop there when that should be just the beginning. I also think lay roles in the liturgy help to clarify what the deacon’s and priest’s particular charisms are. Administering the elements, which should always been done with reverence, doesn’t seem to require a priestly charism. Give me two deacons in my parish, and i”ll happily assign the laity to other roles. Until then, when it’s just me, and we’ve got 100 people at the rail, I think lay participation in the distribution is just fine.
Dirk Reinken
No. 11, thank you for the clarification about the canons. It would seem then that it is mostly tradition that keeps administration of the bread reserved to the clergy while laity administer the chalice. I completely agree that we tend to lose sight of the great ministry of the laity to the world when focusing too much on who gets to do what in liturgical services.
I was a Eucharist Minister in the Catholic Church when I was just out of High School. The priest regularly had me scheduled to serve the wafers at one station while he was at another. Of course, we didn’t have many priests at that church, so EMs were needed. I’ve been at other churches where I’d asked about that ministry, but was told they didn’t have them, since there were enough priests to serve at the Mass.
I also served as a LEM in Episcopal Churches. Until our children came along, and my wife requested (!) that I give up the church ministries until they were older and didn’t require quite so much attention.
Pax
Jim Elliott <><
It is a wonderul thing that Jesus didn’t follow any Liturday when he ministered to his disciples. In the following +2000 years that followed things got a little burdensome.
Liturday? you mean liturgy? Like the Passover Seder? And the ceremonies for the other feast/fast days? Or the ceremonies in the Temple and synagogue (such as when he stood to read the lesson for the day from the haf-Torah)? Or when he set up the Eucharist in the context of the Seder?
I think He participated in a wide range of Jewish liturgies, if that is what you mean.
oops, meant to add:
I think He participated in a wide range of Jewish liturgies, if that is what you mean, [i]which then became the basis for the Christian liturgies up to the present day[/i].