On Mass intentions

A few days Innocent Duru, on an old post concerning Parochial Vicars, asked a question about the Holy Mass offered pro popolo, that is, for the people.

 

This obligation is given in the Code of Canon Law:

After a pastor has taken possession of his parish, he is obliged to apply a Mass for the people entrusted to him on each Sunday and holy day of obligation in his diocese [not every diocese observes the same days as obligatory]. If he is legitimately impeded from this celebration, however, he is to apply he is to apply it on the same days through another or on other days himself (canon 534 § 1).

Regrettably, this obligation seems to be observed more in the breach than in the norm, at least in places with which I am familiar. This is likely due, in no small part, to the practice of grouping several Mass intentions together at one Mass.

 

It has long been customary for the faithful to ask priests to offer the Holy Mass for particular intentions and to offer a small gift to the priest to help with his sustenance. The custom of Mass intentions is governed by the Code of Canon Law:

In accord with the approved practice of the Church, any priest celebrating or concelebrating is permitted to receive an offering to apply the Mass for a specific intention..

It is recommended earnestly to priests that they celebrate Mass for the intention of the Christian faithful, especially the needy, even if they have not received an offering.

The Christian faithful who give an offering to apply the Mass for their intention contribute to the good of the Church and by that offering share its concern to support its ministers and works.

Any appearance of trafficking or trading is to be excluded entirely from the offering for Masses.

Separate Masses are to be applied for the intentions of those for whom a single offering, although small, has been given and accepted.

A person obliged to celebrate and apply Mass for the intention of those who gave an offering is bound by the obligation even if the offerings received have been lost through no fault of his own (canons 945-949).

To assist the faithful in decided what offering should be made, the Province of Bishops is able to set the usual amount of the offering. The Bishops of the Province of Illinois set the offering at $10.00 per Mass. A person is able to offer the priest more or less to accompany a Mass intention, but a priest in this Province cannot request more than this amount and he should certainly not refuse a smaller amount.

 

The pastor of a parish is required to offer the Mass pro popolo, for his parishioners, because it is right and just for a father to pray for his family.

 

Father William Saunders has written an excellent article explaining the theology behind the offering of Mass intentions and stipends.

Good Idea | Bad Idea

Two articles (and one box of "speculations") in this morning's edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch cover yesterday's appointment of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke as Prefect on the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura: "Burke leaving St. Louis" and "Reaction to Burke's departure."

The coverage here and - to an even greater extent - elsewhere makes frequent mention of the "controversial" way - and even personality - of His Excellency. The so-called controversy surrounding several of the Archbishop's decisions is, of course, viewed as a negative thing and he is portrayed to be a "divisive" figure.

This particular quote caught my attention:

"I respect that the archbishop stood up for what he believed in, and I'll miss him," said Helen Adam of Richmond Heights. "But I won't miss the controversy."

We've heard similar things before about him other Bishops and priests, and it saddens me greatly.

It saddens me not because controversy is caused or upset with the Archbishop (people will be upset regardless of what he does; something people are only happy when they aren't), but because so many of the faithful do not want their priest or Bishop taking a firm stand for the faith of the Church, the faith of Jesus Christ, the same faith handed on for two thousand years. It is a very sad day indeed - perhaps even a despicable day - when priests and Bishops are not expected by even a small number of the faithful to uphold the faith of the Church.

Because the faith is not ours, not mine, neither we nor I can the faith. We can receive the faith - as did Saint Paul - and hand it on to others, just as we received it and not as we wish it was.

When considering aspects of the faith we are considering aspects of life and death, in the most serious form: eternal. And for this reason a pastor - if who truly cares for the souls entrusted to him - must act when he sees his sheep being led astray.

When a Bishop or priest finds himself in what the media terms a "controversy," I sincerely believe this to be a very good moment. Why? Because the media never terms it a "controversy" unless it concerns the true teaching of the Church being upheld.

I sometimes wonder if every Bishop or priest shouldn't find himself in at least one controversy each week. We certainly know that too many Catholics do not view the faith of the Church as a unified whole and, as such, may be placing their souls in danger. Pastors need to speak up more clearly - and even forcefully when need be, as Archbishop Burke has done - to see that the authentic faith of the Christ is presented without sugar coating, and exhort the faithful entrusted to their care to live their lives in conformity to the faith of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to "divisions" in the Church, it is not the Archbishop who is divisive; rather, it is who those who dissent from the true faith of the Church who are divisive. His Excellency seeks not to divide but to restore unity to the Church by leading the stray sheep back into the fold.

Then there is this quote:

"People who don't know him think of him as an intimidating steamroller who's intent on having his way," Rolwes said. "But to spend five minutes with him is to know that he is a humble, loving and gentle man."

I cannot recall ever personally meeting Archbishop Burke but I do know many who have met him, and all speak well of him (but that might be because my friends are not dissenters from the teaching of the Church).

It simply goes to show that we cannot judge the character of a man based on the representation of him found in the media. There is more to a man than the "style" of his celebration of the liturgy, his approach to serious pastoral "issues" and other things besides; there is more to a man than his office, and you can tell the character of man by how well he fulfills the duties of his office, without consideration for personal gain or loss.

Just as you cannot judge a layman on his appearance, neither can you judge a Bishop, priest or deacon.

A parochial what?

As a priest I am asked a good number of questions, many of which are repeated day after day, albeit by different people. One of the most common questions I field is, “What, exactly, is a parochial vicar?” In fact, someone found their way to my blog the other day by googling “what is a parochial vicar?”

It is a good question, really. In a certain sense, my “job” is to be a parochial vicar. What do I mean?

We know that the priesthood is neither a job nor a career, but is rather a way of life.

Many people are surprised when I say that I wouldn’t mind teaching in a university somewhere. When they hear this they often ask, “How can you be a priest and a professor at the same time?” The simple answer is that a priest is what I am, and, for me now, the office of parochial vicar is what I do.

Some priests happens to be pastors, others parochial vicars, others vicars general, others secretaries to Bishops, others are doctors or professors, etc., yet they are all priests. Every priest celebrates the sacraments, but not every priest is involved in the day-to-day life of a parish.

A Bishop cannot appoint someone to the position of parochial vicar unless the man is first of all a validly ordained priest (canon 546). But we still have not answered the original question.

First of all, we must know what a “vicar” is. A vicar is defined as “a person who acts in the place of another,” a “substitute,” or “a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another.” Each of these definitions work in our case.

Secondly, we must know what “parochial” means. The word is an adjective meaning “of or pertaining to a parish or parishes.”

The title of parochial vicar is relatively new, being introduced in the Code of Canon Law first promulgated in 1917 and again in 1983. Despite the new term, many priests are appointed as “associate pastors” or “assistant pastors.” The difficulty with the latter two titles is that there can only be one pastor of a parish. Any priests who assist the pastor are simply that: assistants. They do not share his authority, as the title of “pastor” suggests. Besides, parochial vicar sounds far cooler.

A parochial vicar, then, is a priest who is assigned to assist a pastor of a parish. The parochial ministers and teaches in the name of the pastor and together with the pastor (canon 548 - §1). A parochial vicar is, in a certain sense, “on loan” from the Bishop and can be called to perform another duty at any time; he does not enjoy the right of stability as a pastor does (canon 552).

A parochial vicar holds no jurisdictional authority within the parish in which he serves. He validly celebrates the Eucharist and hears confessions by virtue of his office as priest, but he needs the permission of the pastor to baptize infants and adults and to witness marriages (in many Dioceses, as in mine, this faculty is granted by the Bishop).

The Bishop may appoint a parochial vicar to assist in the totality of ministry to a parish (or parishes) or to a specific ministry within a parish or parishes (for example, prison ministry) (canon 548-§2).

The rights and responsibilities of a parochial vicar are not clearly defined by the Code of Canon Law but are rather left to the decree of appointment from the Bishop or to the “mandate of the pastor” (canon 548-§1).

I am happy to say that my pastor has not given me such a mandate, nor did the Bishop include such details in my appointment. He did, however, say to me when he spoke with me about the assignment, “You have energy and enthusiasm, and you work well with young people. If you like, you can teach in the high school.” Coming from the Bishop, that seems to be mandate enough.

Even so, by virtue of his office, a parochial vicar should assist the pastor in all areas of ministry within the parish (canon 548 -§2). The only exception here is the application of the Mass pro populo, for the people of the parish, which is always the responsibility of the pastor.

In the absence of the pastor, a parochial vicar may not make changes to the parish – unless authorized by the pastor. If a parochial administer is not appointed by the Bishop is the absence of the pastor, the parochial vicar sees to day-to-day management of the parish, but again the parochial vicar need not apply Mass for the people (canon 549). This would really only apply in extended absences of a pastor, such as a sabbatical.

A parochial vicar should live within the rectory of the parish to which he is assigned, unless other arrangements are made (canon 550-§1).

Perhaps best of all, a parochial is entitled to the same vacation time as a pastor: four weeks per year, including two Sundays (canon 550-§3).

In the end, as I like to say, a parochial vicar has all of the fun of being a priest, but without any of the responsibility. A parochial vicar is not responsible for finances, insurance, building maintenance, faculty and staff, budgets, etc. (all of the things they don’t teach you in the seminary). A parochial vicar enjoys the happiness and satisfaction of the life of a priest without the headaches of a pastor.

It is a great life, and I hope to remain a parochial vicar until death (unless I could be a professor or a secretary). The Bishop, though, assures me that I will not remain a parochial vicar for life.

I wonder if he’s only kidding?