Name: Father Christopher J. Rossman
A Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in KS currently assigned as the Associate Pastor of Prince of Peace parish in Olathe, KS.
BLOG: Contemplating Life
BLOG: Ego vos elegi
BLOG: The Heart of a Seminarian
BLOG: White Around the Collar
CATHOLIC: Catholic PrayerNet
WEB: Do No Harm: Research Ethics
WEB: Kenrick-Glennon Seminary
WEB: My Kenrick Web Site
today
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
Contrary to popular belief I am not dead. It has been a busy couple of weeks though. I want to begin my discussion on the triple role of the Catholic priest. However, with Prince of Peace school starting this week and three regional council meetings next week I have decided that I will begin making posts again on September 2nd. So, basically, as was suggested in my last post by one of my readers I am going to take the rest of August off and begin fresh and new at the start of September. Until then...God bless.
I know its been awhile since I made a post and its going to be a few days longer. I am leaving tomorrow morning for 3 days with my graduation class from Kenrick. I'll be back on Saturday and will start my posts on the tri-role of the priest that next week. Until next time...God bless.
In my blog entry on July 9th I addressed an incident I faced challenging the role of priest as a teacher. This got me thinking about the role of the Catholic priest. The Catholic priest shares in the threefold mission of Christ: that of teacher, priest and shepherd. A Catholic priest serves 'In Persona Christi Capitis' ( in the person of Christ the Head) and as such share in the headship and ministry of Christ. As I was thinking about this I decided that I would spend the next three blog entries blogging on each of these ministries and responsibilities of the Catholic priest.
I want to give a little background on the priest and his position in the Church as a foundation for these next three blogs. The Church speaks of the two priesthoods of Christ. The first is royal priesthood and this is a priesthood shared by every baptized and confirmed Catholic. Those belonging to the royal priesthood, also called the common priesthood, have an important role to play in the Church. "The common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1547).
The second priesthood, the hierarchial or ministerial priesthood, is that of the ordained ministry and is at the service of the common priesthood. The ministerial priesthood is bestowed by the sacrament of Holy Orders. There are three degrees of Holy Orders: bishop, priest and deacon. Each have a special role in the the service to the common priesthood. The bishop and priest share in the the ministerial priesthood of Christ whereas the deacon is intended to help and serve the bishop and priest. With that in mind, I am going to focus on the bishop and priest as they share in the ministry of the Person of Christ the Head.
The ministerial priesthood is ordered in the ministry of bishop and of priest. The bishop is said to have the received the "fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders" (CCC, para. 1594) meaning he is a successor of the Apostles and is the visible head of Church. It is the bishops, in union with the Holy Father, that govern the Catholic Church. It is only the bishop who can ordain a man to the priesthood. The priest shares in the ministerial responsibilities of the bishop and serves as a co-worker with the bishop. It is their ministy as teacher, priest and shepherd that we will focus on in these next entries.
Obviously, with the discussions we have had recently, my first entry on this subject will be on the role of priest (when I refer to the priest this will also include the bishop as they both share in the ministerial priesthood) as teacher. Until next time...God bless.
Wow! The response to my last post on the role of the priest as teacher was impressive and also very comforting. I didn't really question my responsibility as a priest to be a teacher of the flock but it is nice to know that good, solid Catholics agree with that role of a priest.
The reason I haven't followed up is that I am preparing to take 20 teens from our parish to a youth conference in Springfield, MO. This is my 5th year of attending this conference but is the 1st year for Prince of Peace so I have been handling alot of the specifics. As a result I have not been able to blog like I usually do.
I will be leaving on Thursday morning for the youth conference and will be away until Sunday. I am leaving again Monday for a class retreat and will not return until Wednesday. So, I will not be making a blog entry again until sometime after July 24th. Until next time...God bless.
I am deviating from my discussion on the sacraments to address an interesting situation I encountered the other day. At the end of Mass the other morning someone in the congregation began singing Immaculate Mary. This is not something we do every day after Mass rather something that happens completely randomly although it is always the same person in the congregation who begins the hymn (I do not know who it is and it doesn't matter). We don't have music at our daily Masses so its is rather odd to sing any songs. We do, however, sing Immaculate Mary at the end of Mass on Marian feast days and Saturdays in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mother. This has been a tradition in the Church for hundreds of years. After this Mass I told the people about the Church's tradition and that if we sang it every day then the hymn doesn't have any significance. I had about a dozen persons come to me in the sacristy after the Mass to thank me because they had felt the same. It wasn't these people but another person that came in the next day that compelled me to write this blog entry.
This person entered the sacristy after the Mass and proceeded to tell me that I had no right to dictate when and what we sing at the Mass. When I explained that I was simply informing everyone of the Church's tradition with singing a Marian hymn she responded by telling me, among other things, that it wasn't my place to be telling people what do do. She then proceeded to state that she was tired of priests who felt that they needed to 'set people straight' about the world and what the people are doing wrong. She gave the example of a priest who had given a homily about how we've come to ignore the presence of Satan in the world and that our doing this was a empowering Satan. She said this priest didn't have the right to chastise people for their thinking. Then, she had the audacity to challenge me on my homily about the reasons for the lack of reverence in the Real Presence....how ironic. According to her, I had no right to 'scold' the people for how they receive the Eucharist or what we are doing that is effecting our reverence.
As she was lecturing me, I repeatedly pointed out that it IS the responsibility of the priest to teach the people even if that includes pointing out our shortcomings and those things we are doing that go against the will of God (notice I used 'us' and 'we'). I asked her what she thought priests should be teaching the people. She replied that we should be teaching of God's love and mercy and forgiveness to which I replied that we do that as well. Again, she returned to priests having the audacity of criticizing the people. I stated that when I give my homilies I ALWAYS include myself and make that clear often times by specifically saying so. So we went back and forth for about ten minutes with her theme continuing to be that it is not my place to tell her how to live, what to do or not to do and what a person is doing wrong. Our conversation ended when she told me that I was a bad priest and that God would judge me on the Last Day for my actions today and in my 'teachings.' The conversation basically ended because I told her I was offended at that comment and that our conversation was over.
Now, my biggest issue here is not with the singing of a Marian hymn or when we do it. In fact, it isn't even something I would list as an issue at all. My issue is with her belief that a priest has no right to tell the faithful they are sinful persons or that there are things we are not doing that we should. I am not even taking issue with her. It is this belief that it is that my 'place' as a priest is to preach the Gospel message and celebrate the sacraments not to preach the errors of the faithful that I have issue with. I have a VERY strong opinion about this belief, which is not unique to only this lady but is becoming a common issue brought up to other priests as well. I have some deep convictions as to what I see as being the role of the priest toward the people. However, before I give my thoughts I would like to hear your thoughts. I am curious as to what you think the role of the priest is as a shepherd of his people and what form their role should take as a teacher of the faith. I look forward to your comments and I will post my thoughts in my next blog entry. Until next time...God bless.
At 7:00 PM CST today the blog site had its 10,000th visitor!!! How cool is that.
Blogging has been such an enjoyable (mostly), exciting, educational and wonderful experience these last 2+ years (33 months to be exact). We've covered ALOT of topics, had many discussions about the faith and in my opinion this blog has become a great evangelization tool.
We have readers from every continent except Antartica. We have readers from 58 countries throughout the world. We average about 25 hits a day which is great. We have readers who are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and even a Buddhist reader. I have had the opportunity to reach out to and to meet people from all over the world through this blog.
Sometime in the next week or so I will do a blog entry and take sort of nostalgic look back at what we've done in the past 2+ yrs. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know we made 10,000 readers!!! Here's to another 2+ years and another 10,000 readers! Until next time...God bless.
Recently, someone stated to me that the 7 sacraments of the Catholic Church are made up and either have no foundation whatsoever in scriptures or are grotesquelly distorted from what Jesus intended. This person is extremely anti-Catholic and ocassionally approaches me with these challenges. A number of times in the past, when I have undeniabley shown that a teaching of the Church comes from Christ himself, this person has responded by swearing at me and insinuating that I am a 'minion of Satan' to use his own words. I do not take offense to his attitude. As a matter of fact, I actually kind of enjoy it because when he gets like that I know I've defended the faith to the point that he can't counter the Truth and must resort to childish insults. While, I doubt I will ever change this person's views of the Catholic faith (although God can accomplish anything if we only let him) I do feel it necessary to defend the faith because that is my responsibility as a priest.
So, I thought in the next few blogs I would discuss the 7 sacraments of our faith, their origins in scripture and how they have been a part of the faith since Christ established the Church. Because this person is an evangelical Protestant, I rely on scriptures primarily to prove the sacraments. However, when I need to, I also point out their existence since the very first faith communities were formed. I usually point this out when he cites that the Protestant church does not believe in such foolishness. I tend to counter that I can understand why they don't believe it them since the Protestant churches were only formed 400 years ago.
I will begin next time with the sacrament of Baptism, which may be the easiest to explain. Nearly all Protestant churches baptize and the Catholic Church recognizes those baptisms. Interestingly, some Protestant churches do NOT recognize Catholic baptisms. That ought to be fun to explain. Until next time...God bless.
I want give my conclusions regarding my blog entries, the blog comments & my observations in the past couple of weeks. These observations don't necessarily explain the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. At the same time, the symptons mentioned in each of these observations aren't the primary reason in the decline either. My last two observations are as follows:
I came to the conclusion, and Rome is in agreement on this, that the return of the communion rail is not only impractical but also could have a negative consequence; mainly a reduction in the number of persons who receive communion or even attend Mass. To begin with, most parishes are not even designed to accomodate the addition of a communion rail. I know Prince of Peace is not. My home parish is not either. The re-education of nearly two generations of persons is also a major factor. We have seen the difficulty of properly educating people on changes in the practice of the faith by the aftermath of poor teaching on the changes of Vatican II. The return of the communion rail would also entail discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers. Lastly, no one has been able to explain to me a practical reason for the desire for the return of communion rails and I do not agree that it will increase reverence.
Whether it is because of the return of the communion rail or simply the return to only clergy distributing Communion, there are a number of problems with discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers. By discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers, the priests and deacons would be the only persons to distribute communion. This is highly impractical. Take Prince of Peace for example. We have 13,000 parishioners but in reality have 900 to 1,300 at each Mass for an average total of about 6,000 actively practicing parishioners. Using 1,000 as the average attendance at a Sunday Mass with a strict time of 3 seconds per person it would take Fr. Frank and I at least 25 minutes just to distribute Communion. In a perfect world, the time it takes to distribute Communion should not be a factor. In reality, however, today's people are not likely to accept this and the solution for them many of them is simply not to attend Mass period. While it is true that we should not put a time constraint on the Mass it is also true that we must be mindful of the lives of our parishioners and their other responsibilities. The Mass schedule itself is often dictated by the needs of the people. It may have been practical forty years ago when we had three times the priests we have but it isn't practical anymore. For example, in 1965 the Archdiocese of Kansas City in KS had 135,000 Catholics and 381 priests (130 diocesan and 251 religious) which comes out to 1 priest for every 354 Catholics. In 2007, the archdiocese had 199,246 Catholics and 167 priests (105 diocesan and 62 religious) which comes out to 1 priest for every 1,193 Catholics - over three times as many Catholics per priest than just forty-two years ago. And as far as active priests we only have 73 diocesan priests and 38 religious priests serving in parishes. So in truth we have 1 priest for every 1,795 Catholic. The reality is that there are not enough priests to properly minister to the Catholic people and this means we need laypersons to help.
While the issues are very complex, what is evident is that there are some very important decisions to be made that will have radical and potentially dangerous consequences. It is vital that before making a broad spectrum opinion or decision about something, every possible aspect as well as its benefits and especially its consequences must be considered. That is why it seems sometimes that Rome moves so slow in responding to issues. The truth is that they are making decisions that impact the souls of millions of people and that is not something to be done hurridly or taken lightly.
This will be my last post on this subject...for awhile at least. I want to encouage people to continue to add comments or insights however. I have a feeling we will be revisiting this topic again sometime soon. Until next time...God bless.
In the past couple of week, as we have been discussing the various aspects that may have contributed to the decline in belief in the Real Presence, I have been very observant of the atmosphere and actions at the Mass. This has especially been the case with the distribution of Communion. As I have observed Communion these past couple of weeks I have come to a couple of conclusions. I will present two of them today and two of them in my next post.
I stand firm in my belief that the way in which one receives Communion is not reflectant upon their reverence nor is it the major cause of decline in the belief in the Real Presence. I saw persons receiving in the hand that seemed to have a sense of awe on their faces at being able to cradle Jesus himself in their hands. I also saw persons receive in the hand that looked as if they were being given a piece of pie at the family picnic. I saw persons receive on the tongue that had their eyes closed and seemed to be in a prayerful state and I saw others receive on the tongue that looked like the only reason they were receiving on the tongue was because they wanted to seem pius to others. These are just my perceptions and observations. I am not judging anyone and I have no idea of the state of nor disposition of their souls. However, these actions are what many are basing as their proof that receiving in the hand is the primary cause of the unbelief in the Real Presence.
Having said that, my second conclusion is that I would support the reception of the Eucharist only on the tongue if Rome were to withdraw the dispensation the U.S. has for receiving in the hand. I would support it not just out of obedience to Rome but because I have witnessed a couple of things that have concerned me. I have noticed particles of the Eucharist that, although I try to remove them before presenting the consecrated host, sometimes get on people's hands and there is a grave danger of these falling to the floor. I see this as not a lack of reverence by the person rather because either the person did not realize there was a particle on his/her hand or the person did not realize that even that small particle is Jesus Christ himself. Another thing I noticed is that many people receive in the hand and yet have dirty, filthy hands. Again, this is not necessarily a sign of irreverence (although I think it is a sign of bad hygiene) but it is inappropriate. Lastly, there are always cases each week when a person almost or actually does drop the consecrated host. Sometimes this is because they don't seem to be paying attention and other times it is simply because they are clumsy or don't get a good grip on the host. These are all factors that I believe lend great support to receiving on the tongue. Citing a lack of reverence, however, is not the sole justification for withdrawing the dispensation.
I will continue next time with my final two reasons. As you can see, though, the general opinions as to the problems with this decline in belief and the actual practical 'solutions' to these problems are very much different. Just because something seems like a good idea or the appropriate solution when being thought out doesn't mean it will work practically. In fact, it might have the opposite effect. Until next time...God bless.
We continue our discussion on the belief in the Real Presence and the factor that are contributing to this decline. I want to thank you for your continuing comments regarding this. It is an extremely important topic for our Church today and one that needs our continual attention. Last time I spoke on the contraversy of receiving communion in the hand. I want to quote an article from the Catholic News Service that was published on Jan. 31 of this this year. This article said: The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the Vatican official, made the suggestion in the preface to a book about the Eucharist by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan...In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, "The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ -- God in our midst -- must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration...I think the time has come to evaluate these practices (receiving Communion in the hand) and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice," Archbishop Ranjith said. So this issue is something that is being considered by the Vatican. However, the article also says that, while the Vatican believes there is a correlation between receiving in the hand and a decline in reverence, it believes that this has been a "gradual and growing weakening of the attitude toward reverence" again emphasizing a lack of and need for better catechesis and not that the practice itself should have never been allowed in the first place. Please continue commenting on this issue because I think we need to continue to understand the factors and implications involved here. I want to briefly shift to something I noticed in the differences in my reasons for the decline and those of the emailer. I noticed this because of your responses (again another reason to continue to comment on these issues). One thing that stuck out in these responses was that they were focused on the actions and liturgical elements of the Mass and not on the decisions of the Vatican II Council. I think this is very important. I have attended a number of extraordinary Masses and I can see how it attracts many people who feel a special sort of grace and reverence in the celebration of this Mass. One thing that seems almost universal in these responses is not that the reasons given by the emailer are right or wrong but that the differences between the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Mass does have an impact on some of the people. The emailer, however, believed that the changes made by Vatican II with regards to the Mass were wrong and that the ordinary form of the Mass implimented after Vatican II is at fault. His belief, as I mentioned in the original blog, was that Vatican II and the bishops themselves were responsible for this decline because of their decision to change the Mass. My readers, however, have been pointing out various practices within the Mass are the factors and not the council itself. For example, the practice of receiving in the hand is actually not something that even remotely came out of the Second Vatican Council and was not discussed until 1969 and even then only by request of some of the bishop conferences. I think you, my readers, are much more on target than the emailer. While the emailer brought these three elements up as reasons, he did so to prove that Vatican II is at fault for this decline in reverence. Another example of the emailer's misrepresentation of Vatican II is the change of Mass from the Latin to the vernacular (English in our case). He felt that this was another fault of Vatican II. The council, however, approved limited use of the vernacular. Paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states: ...since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants... It wasn't until 1970 that general use of the vernacular for all parts of the Mass was granted in full. Again, Vatican II is not at fault for the use of English in the Mass nor do I believe that English is at fault period. I find it inconceivable that Vatican II can be the source of all the faults of the Church today as some advocate. Some believe that no longer using Latin in the sacraments is the cause. Some believe that the changes to the Mass are destroying the Church. Other even believe that it is the hierarchy of the Church that is to blame. I think all these generalized opinions are broad excuses for particular problems of today. I also want to point out that the Church has faced these problems for centuries and that many of the issues of the Church today are not unique or new products of the modern world. That, however, is a topic of discussion for another blog. As long as I continue to get comments on the decline in the Real Presence, I will be happy to continue this discussion. It certainly makes my deciding what to write alot easier although it does require me to do some in-depth research. I enjoy doing that too so until next time...God bless.
