We Are Different Parts...
Posted by: tony on 10/02/2006 10:36 AM
Updated by: tony on 10/02/2006 12:18 PM
|
Expires: 11/02/2006 12:00 AM
|
...but all one body. So says St. Paul and Todd at Catholic Sensibility.
But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. (I Cor 12:24b-26)
That puts Todd in good company, as far as I'm concerned.
He writes (Todd, not St. Paul :)):
Tony commented in yesterday's Bride and Groom post about Eucharistic ministers, ordinary and otherwise. It wasn't really the point I was trying to make, which was that if a Catholic is somehow honored by an extraordinary (in the example given) role, it is an opportunity to the entire Body to share the joy.
Like Tony there are some good liturgical discussions I choose not to resist. I think there's a lot of needless fussing about lay roles in distributing the Eucharist.
"Too many lay people," some say.
"Myob, if it's outside your parish," I think.
I don't. We are all parts of the same body. If one part is malfunctioning, it hurts the whole body. Saint Paul even recommends rebuking a wayward brother. And taking it to the whole community (the Vatican) after your local options have been exhausted.
Long-established practices have guided parishes and their pastors over the years. Sunday morning at my parish, with ninety minutes (too short a time!) in between starting times for Masses, decisions have been long-established that we use lay people to distribute Communion in significant numbers for the significant numbers who come to Mass.
90 minutes?!?!? Good heavens! Between our 8:00am and 9:30am Mass, we are lucky to get 15 solid minutes, and we still manage to celebrate a faithful liturgy.
Maybe Todd is liturgist in a "megachurch", but I wonder if you need 90 minutes between acts in a Broadway production with a cast of thousands.
(Correction: Whoops... I misread that 90 minutes between masses, it's actually 90 minutes between starting times. My apologies for the previous two paragraphs of snark.)
And I have to wonder how long, "long established" has been. For almost 2000 years, priests distributed Holy Communion, and the faithful didn't have any problem with it. Eucharistic ministers (extraordinary, or in the case of my parish and Todd's, ordinary) are a fairly new innovation. I'd guess in the last 30 years or so.
So let's see. Replacing a long established procedure with a mych longer established procedure doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
(I said) "What has happened with both EME's and readers is that it has become a 'part' in the 'play'. It is something they are qualified to do and by extension, you are not."
This is a pretty big assumption to follow if one hasn't experienced the withering stares of superiority from every sanctuary in the land. While it's entirely conceivable a few narcissists have invaded the pulpit and altar--maybe some are ordained--most people I know have a healthy respect for their role, a deep devotion to Christ, and a high regard for their parishioners whom they serve. I think sense of ministry trumps any other intent at least 99% of the time.
I would like Todd to imagine that a new pastor comes to his parish. A pastor who eliminates all of the EMEs. I think Todd would have to admit that the loudest screeching would probably come from those whose "roles" had been "usurped".
If that is not the case, then the ministers are in it for the right reason. I think a good test of a proper ministerial attitude is when you are told your ministry is no longer required.
Todd and St. Paul brought up the analogy of the human body. St. Paul takes it a little further:
Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body. (Cor. 1:14-20)
Like the human body, we all have roles that are appropriate to the body of Christ. Should the colon not like the dirty job he's doing (that he is uniquely designed for) should he give it up? What if the colon would prefer to be a heart? The heart is a much more noble organ, associated with love and courage. What would happen if the colon decided he would prefer to be an "extraordinary heart" and pump blood right alongside of the heart? Could the body survive with two hearts and no colon?
What if the hand decided it wanted to be an "extraordinary foot"? If the feet were cut off, then one could walk on his hands, but if it's not necessary, it's just silly.
|
