Pope approves “priest-less” masses?
I guess that’s one way to read this story on the gala planned for the end of the Year for Priests:
Vatican City, Aug 14, 2009 / 10:19 am (CNA).- The Congregation for the Clergy, headed by Cardinal Claudio Hummes, announced this week that the Pope Benedict XVI plans to close the Year for Priests by convoking a huge meeting of priests from around the world between June 9-11 in Rome.
Every Catholic priest in the world—there are around 407,000—is invited to the meeting, which will have the theme of “Faithfulness of Christ, Faithfulness of the Priest.”
Maybe the nuns can fill in that Sunday? If the Vatican investigation clears them…This actually echoes the experience here in New York during last year’s papal visit, when all New York priests were supposed to come to Yankee Stadium to help distribute communion for the Yankee Stadium finale. That would have effectively left parishes without the Sunday Eucharist, and a few pastors said thanks but no thanks.
Res ipsa loquitur, as Jack McCoy has been heard to say, the thing speaks for itself.
Since a good many priests have wives, I hope the Pope is inviting them too. This could be good for Italian tourism in 2010.
Maybe all Catholics are supposed to go, if that is where the Eucharist is.
Would a billion tourists be good for Rome?
David
It’s good of you to point out this obviously silly announcement. I felt the same way when the pope invited the youth of the world to World Youth Day. I mean who is going to mow the lawns – how many shopping malls will be put out of business when all the teenagers go to Spain in two years! What are those idiots in the Vatican thinking.
A particularly nice touch is the session to be held at St. Mary Major. No doubt its distinguished Arch Priest, Cardinal Law will preside.
Is anybody minding the store over there?
Sean, you are SO right–the Eucharist is exactly the same as mowing lawns! And there aren’t enough people to mow lawns as it is, so if even a few go, lawns everywhere will have to go without…
In any case, St. Jean Vianney is the model here, and he would have left his parish to go.
Oh, wait. No, he wouldn’t. Wait, my head is starting to hurt…
FYI, June 9-11 appears to be a Wed – Fri. Many folks in our parish apparently believe that priests do nothing on weekdays, so I’m not sure what the issue is …
Maybe the real opening will be for deacons…
And they deserve a year, too. Or at least a synod, in my book.
Hi, David G., I’m guessing most deacons would rather stay with the poor in their own communities. We’d rather have the pope come to visit us.
Jim has a point, up to a point. With a mass–sorry about the pun–departure on Saturday morning those who are flying west should be able to make the Vigil mass in their parishes later the same day. Those who are flying east may find they have a more challenging schedule. But how about this. Apparently when August 15 falls on a Saturday or a Monday, the feast of the Assumption is not a a holy day of obligation. (Why is this?) Well could it not be arranged that when an event to which all priests are invited takes place in Rome on Friday or Saturday or Sunday or Monday then the Sunday in that sequence is not a holy day of obligation.
JP: I suspect you are right.
JG: To look at this seriously, I think designating a priest representative (or two) from each diocese might be best in that you’d be more likely to get close to universal representation, and they could all fit in a big church. (What are there, about 2,000 dioceses?) The real onus in this is on priests from the developing world, who would never make it normally. Perhaps wealthier diocese could sponsor priests from poorer and more remote places.
When JP2 (not our JP) was in Mozambique in 1988, the civil war made travel difficult and dangerous. One village that wanted to attend the papal mass in the north could not, so they designated one nun to make the difficult trip to represent them all. It was a powerful story.
David,
Perhaps I should speak plainly. Many of us sense – or believe – there is often an unnecessary and unjustified animus to the Holy Father and the Vatican expressed by you and others on these web pages. This post is an example. It is – in a word – petty. This is a perfectly innocent and reasonable announcement that you seem unable to keep from making fun of. Why?
Sean, thanks for speaking plainly. And my apologies, as I should have been up front: I’m a big jerk. That’s really the explanation. And unlike you and others here, I don’t approach things with an open mind, checking my biases at the door and letting only charity and the facts guide me–and the belief that everything the Holy Father and the Vatican do is a gift direct from heaven, and everything priests and nuns and lay people do is not necessarily.
Oh, and the fact that I figure this is a blog and a few shorter and somewhat lighter pieces are a nice change of pace, and the fact that we all pretty well cover the waterfront in terms of praise and criticism and we are “liberal” in allowing comments and feedback–unlike, oh, well, conservative blogs, just for example.
407,000 priests in Rome at the same time.
That’s a lot of incense.
Vatican Woodstock?
“Apparently when August 15 falls on a Saturday or a Monday, the feast of the Assumption is not a a holy day of obligation. (Why is this?) ”
I think it’s out of a sense of not wanting to put too much of a burden in folks (really). It’s the same reason that there are only four (I believe) holy days of obligation in the US that don’t fall on a Sunday. (Perhaps there are more, but that’s all I can think of). IIRC, the universal Roman Calendar has something like ten.
David: You make a plausible suggestion, but I think the bishops might want to send two priests of their choice and perhaps go along with them. I can see difficulties there.
Obviously I do not know the history of this idea, but it seems not to have been thought through, much as the attempted rapprochement with the Pius X Society looks like something not thought through, to name but one other instance.
“I do not know the history of this idea”
My guess is, the general idea is to stuff St. Peter’s Square to the bursting point with priests, with a vew to taking photos of the spectacle, which will run on the front page of every diocesan newspaper, and videos, which will run on EWTN, possibly on Fox News, and perhaps some other outlets if it happens to be a slow news day. The overall aim, of course, is to create the impression of a numerous, enthusiastic, vibrant priesthood.
From the point of view of pumping up seminary applications – it can’t hurt. Who knows, it might even help.
To comment in a more serious vein: I would think it could be a very moving experience to be among priests from so many cultures, languages and local customs. If it raises awareness that the church really is vibrant in Africa and Asia, that’s a good outcome.
Why would anyone be surprised at this? Rome already leaves hundreds if not thousands of parishes without priests — permanently.
Hi, Ann, unfortunately (because I really like the smell of pipe tobacco and smoke) I don’t smoke a pipe.
If I may say so, though – that you immediately googled Mother Clair, and juxtaposed her leadership of the visitation with her apparent favored status with Cardinal Rigali, may be indicative of the sort of thing she is hoping to avoid by not publicizing the identity of every curial official involved in the project.
“Rome already leaves hundreds if not thousands of parishes without priests — permanently.”
The local diocese, not Rome, assigns its clergy. If there were more priests, it seems likely that there would be fewer priestless parishes. As I mentioned, I’m pretty sure that’s why the Holy See is cooking up this shindig next June.
The inability to justify staffing a parish with a priest for a long period of time is actually a pretty compelling reason to consider merging the parish with one or more others.
Alright, maybe I’ve been putting funnier stuff than pipe tobacco and smoking it – I thought Ann Olivier had made a comment about googling Mother Clair. But now I don’t see it. Ann, sorry if I’m making you as confused as I apparently am.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, I’m in the wrong topic. Sorryl, everyone!
On a lighter note…Does the phrase “For Pete’s sake” have anything to do with St. Peter, by chance? I have no idea, and perhaps I’m being Catholic-centric.
Then again, if that is the case, perhaps Pauwels is being anti-Catholic…
My late mother was Protestant and was known to use the expression “For Pete’s sake.”
As a lifetime Catholic, however, I tend to use the phrase “For Krise sake…”
:)
“The inability to justify staffing a parish with a priest for a long period of time is actually a pretty compelling reason to consider merging the parish with one or more others.”
Actually, it is not. It is just another reason to start seeking alternative sources of candidates for the priesthood. Either parish is community (and a size conducive to promoting that) and Catholicism is eucharistic …. or we may as well start considering congregational Protestantism as our model.
If all of the priests went to Rome, Catholics would quickly realize that we can function quite well with lay presiders and “Jesus via UPS.” Then what?
Now now kids; not nice to be so snarly –
One the one hand David, it is just a simple announcement of a large meeting in Rome; Pope Benedict has apparently decided that will be a nice way to show his appreciation for the priests. Obviously not every priest in the world can or will attend.
On the other hand Sean, David is obviously just having some fun with the announcement, so lighten up.
“My guess is, the general idea is to stuff St. Peter’s Square to the bursting point with priests, with a vew to taking photos of the spectacle, which will run on the front page of every diocesan newspaper, and videos, which will run on EWTN, possibly on Fox News, and perhaps some other outlets if it happens to be a slow news day. The overall aim, of course, is to create the impression of a numerous, enthusiastic, vibrant priesthood.”
In brief it might be described and as a contrivance for another Petrocentric photo op.
“perhaps Pauwels is being anti-Catholic…”
Oh, for Pete’s sake, you’re such a jerk :-)
“In brief it might be described and as a contrivance for another Petrocentric photo op.”
When in Rome …
I find it interesting that, David, that you make no mention of deacons, who appear to have presided at Eucharist before the church’s conciliar age and were only forbidden from doing so quite late.
Back then, you could have a year of the deacon(deaconesses?)
Scott, actually I did mention it at August 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am.
Thanks for the correction, but I meant in your post. It’s okay, like the sisters of yore and many today, we’re used to doing much of the pastoral heavy-lifting. However, we’re unique in that we’re not liked much either by conservatives or progressives. It must mean there is vitality to our service.
Hi, Scott, as I’m sure you know (but perhaps not everyone here does) however the church was ordered in the fogs of the past, deacons can’t celebrate the Eucharist today, for reasons that go way beyond canon law.
Jim
Were those Eucharists celebrated by Deacons valid?
Since it was before Nicea I, there were no canons and certainly no unified code of canon law, which did not exist until the 20th century. So, issues of validity are anachronistic.
I am not really griping at David, but the restored diaconate is very often an afterthought. Again, that’s okay deacons just keep doin’ what we do, which is to serve in any way we are needed, just as so many religious, especially sisters, have done and continue to do. Recognition is not the name of the diakonia game.
Scott
I did not ask whether the Eucharists were licit, that is permitted by law, but whether they were valid, that is were they genuine Eucharists.
Joseph G: I don’t know. I am certain, though, that as the order of deacon is presently constituted, deacons cannot preside at the Eucharist.