Now here's something to stir your passions — and bring the trads down out of their trees roaring their terrible roars — our resident Irish-Catholic, aged, liberal, reforming pot stirrer, George Ripon, rips into any number of Sacred Cows — popes and bishops. Let her rip, George. Come back and tell us what you think of George Ripon's proposals in our forum...

Lay Celebration of the Eucharist…

This of course is not a new proposal but like others its ongoing because our Church continues to do nothing about the shortage of priests. Its been raised by many pro-reformers in recent articles in Catholica, Fr. Kevin Murphy and Vince Exley among others. I was prompted to re-visit my items previously published in Online Catholics (113 & 114). (Thanks to Catholica for maintaining OLC archives.) The subject gets raised by some Sydney Anglicans from time to time though not that I recall recently and probably not by their Archbishop. My original title was "Lay Presidency at the Eucharist" but on reflection I felt that this was too formal so I opted for the above.

We start as always, at the Last Supper where Jesus and the twelve apostles gathered for the Jewish Passover. He blessed the bread and wine and offered it to them as His Body and Blood which would be sacrificed for all. Before dealing with present problems I think its worth reflecting on the significance of what occurred there. Jesus was the link between God and humankind and as the culmination of the redemption approached He established the way in which He (as God) would always be available "on call" to His people. Just as food and drink sustain the physical body so the blest bread and wine would be food for the spirit and available "as often as you do this". There was no involvement of the Church authorities, they were, in fact, otherwise engaged at the time.

Historically, as we know, only the apostles were present and with all due respect they were not a very intellectual body. In describing what Jesus did I try hard to avoid terms like authorised, empowered or commissioned, seeing these as concepts dear to the "Magisterium". Rather to all He said "Do this in memory of Me". In the context of a shared spiritual meal they could invoke His presence for the blessing-of those present. The reception of this form of prayer is found in the Acts of the Apostles at 2:42, "the faithful devoted themselves .... to the breaking of the bread and the prayers". Later at v46 "day by day attending the temple together and breaking bread in their houses". So we have a distinction between formal prayer in the temple and the "Breaking of Bread" in the home. Essentially it was a simple process to provide under the form of food and drink special spiritual nourishment. That was then.

Over the centuries however, with theology and tradition the process has developed into the Mass as we know it today. Theologians wrestled with Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. A common language, Latin (not the language of Jesus) was introduced. From my Irish-Catholic upbringing the reason given for Latin was that if we went overseas the Mass would be in the same language as at home! The fact that we still would not understand it was irrelevant. Anyhow the format became established with celebration restricted to a male celibate priesthood. Priests were subject to a 6-7 year academic formation routine mainly orientated to theology, philosophy and Canon Law. To those who refer to the Last Supper as the first ordinations I raise the question, how many of the apostles would have qualified? So we have come a long way since the Acts and Paul [11 Cor. 11:23].

George argues it is too difficult at this time to push the issue of female ministers — what do you think?

Before getting to the grist of my proposal a word to women readers. I am very conscious of the hurt experienced by women it their treatment by our male-dominated church. Nevertheless it this stage I am proposing a male role for the new ministry of lay presider. The anti-woman bias in the church leads me to believe that we have a slightly better chance of a hearing for male candidates at this time. An article of mine on the role of "Women in Priestly Ministry" his been published in the September issue of ARCVoice. I also included comment on this role in an article on "The Diaconate" [ARCVoice March '09].

How do we persuade the Bishops to change?

So now we get to the nitty-gritty, how we select candidates and how we persuade the Bishops to change. Taking the easy one first the Parish Pastoral Council — every parish should have one — would nominate suitable willing parishioners, (Viri Probati — Leaders of Integrity) and refer the names to a Diocesan body. Neither the local bishop nor the parish priest (if any) would have in automatic power of veto. Blessing and support would be preferable. A short period of part-time training, say six months(?) in liturgy and scripture would follow after which the candidate would be commissioned. The role would be Eucharistic celebrant only, no preaching, no counselling and definitely no confession. The availability of these ministers could quickly get us back to the time when most parishes would have had a Saturday and Sunday PM Mass as well as AM Sunday, perhaps two in bigger parishes. The role as I see it now would be voluntary ideal (at this stage) for retired men but also available to those still in the work-force willing to serve. Week-end rosters would be prepared by the Pastoral Council.

To avoid confusion I stress that the role is not just a job for someone with time to spare. Aspirants should have a deep love of "Church" and personal spirituality and be willing to make an appropriate commitment.

Now for the hard bit, moving the Bishops to change is a real challenge. For a pro-reformer I do at times have sympathy for our masters in Rome. For many centuries the church at grass roots level has been governed by male celibate clergy and it has worked well. Then in a generation, as we approached the end of the twentieth century, vocations dropped off dramatically. As a result the average metropolitan parish with a Parish Priest and an Assistant lost the Assistant and now many of the remaining Parish Priests are being asked to take on a neighbouring priestless parish. As with the rest of us none of these priests are getting any younger. I do at times wonder if Rome realises how serious the problem is and what our bishops on their parishioner-funded 'ad limina' visits are reporting to the Vatican authorities? I would like to thank that our bishops would be demanding answers to the problems on behalf of the "People of God" back home in the pews.

Jesus promised "the gates of hell would not prevail"!

In a changing world our leadership seems far removed from reality. Jesus promised that "the gates of hell would not prevail". I see it as a mistake to think that irrespective of what Rome does, does badly or fails to do, "All shall be Well". It's not the time to relax in a comfort zone. If we can't have priests in the present form we must consider other options. If Rome is dead set against married clergy (male or female) they must give us, the people, alternatives. Jesus through the Apostles gave the Church the power to make new laws which would be ratified in Heaven. So the church can change and if ever there was a time to do so it must be now. So why not , in consultation with the people, develop a new form of Eucharistic Ministry? I believe the resources currently deployed on resurrecting the diaconate would be far better spent on establishing such a mew ministry. After all most of the duties proposed for deacons are already being carried out by Pastoral Associates — the vast majority of whom are women.

So back to the Church Authority. My own perception is that those in charge are horrified at any form of progressive change and from their point of view this is a major one. I can hear the cries, "This would be the end of church/priesthood and civilisation as we know it. God knows what they (the people) will want next? Maybe God does know!". Anyhow why run away from open consultation and debate? Why not listen to the 'People of God' [Lumen Gentium Ch 2, section 9]. Here Paul VI, Servant of the Servants of God, refers to "a chosen race, a royal priesthood". Sadly when push-comes-to-shove it's generally the faithful who get the push and much of Vatican II gets the shove. It's worth recalling that the first celebrants were the working-class apostles followed later by those in charge in the homes of the believers. The Church is always keen to appeal to "Tradition" when it suits, so why mot here and now?

I have already made passing reference to our bishops with the hope that they might vigorously raise our concerns in Rome. I was however saddened when I read the commentary by Paul Collins summarising the response of the Bishops to the Catholics for Ministry petition. A petition by 16,800 Catholics addressed to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference sought support for married male priests, the return of married ex-priests and consideration for the ordination of women. The response indicated that the bishops were working on the problems but that "the issues were largely beyond the competence of the Conference". So who speaks for us and what is the role of our bishops and the Bishops Conference?

Bishops got a serve from his holiness the other day as he ordained five new bishops for Vatican jobs. "Don't pursue self interest" he said and The Guardian (UK) headlined it "Pope Benedict bashes the Bishops". Concerns not entirely clear but here perhaps a respectful reminder to him that the vast majority of current bishops were directly appointed by him or his predecessor JPII. So can we expect the support of our own bishops for lay Eucharistic Celebrants? If they were elected by the people I would be confident of progress.

I am indebted to Catholica for recent publication of my articles on "Elected Bishops", "Priestless Parishes" and what I regarded as the "Yahweh" nonsense. Also thanks to ARCVoice for publishing my items on "The Diaconate", "Elected Bishops" and "Women in Priestly Ministry", however at times I get close to despair on whether we will ever see significant change in our Church. This feeling gets worse as I see the latest vibes from Rome. Rumours of back to communion on the tongue, dropped references to "The Sacred" and "Reverence" — a slight on us in the pews — open promotion of Latin Masses and the priest 'ad orientam' a euphemism for turning his back on the people.

As I try to reach a conclusion another Vatican gem caught my eye from CathNews (18/09) "Priests cannot be replaced by the laity: Pope". In the year of priests his Holiness seems anxious to drive a wedge between the remaining priests and the people. So it seems that if we are to see change we — liberals, reformers or troublemakers however we are described — will need to persist in our efforts. Perhaps, like Job [42:3-6] I have said enough, for the moment!!

Image Credits:
The headline image has been sourced from : www.catholicvirginian.org. Clicking on the other images will take you to the original source.

©2009 George Ripon

[Index of Commentaries by George Ripon] | [Index of Commentaries by Occasional Contributors]