K
KMG
Guest
The laity have more than the right to let “opinions” be known. They can appeal to a bishop, and to Rome.
And Rome HAS intervened in seemingly local affairs.
And Rome HAS intervened in seemingly local affairs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
commenter
Guest
Don R
I may not always agree with your interpretation of the data in doubtful matters where more than one interpretation is permitted, but I found you always presented the data relevant to the discussions on CAF. I may disagree with your opinions - for instance, about EWTN - but I always trust your judgment on matters where the Church has left only one option, and have changed my opinions on some matters.
Your participation in CAF is valuable, though we may not often recognize it. We live in the world of My Sacred Opinions, often based on second hand info that we don’t know how to apply or evaluate, or if this is the proper context. That is the problem with internet, it gives you a limited information enough to kill docility but not enough for wisdom.
I may not always agree with your interpretation of the data in doubtful matters where more than one interpretation is permitted, but I found you always presented the data relevant to the discussions on CAF. I may disagree with your opinions - for instance, about EWTN - but I always trust your judgment on matters where the Church has left only one option, and have changed my opinions on some matters.
Your participation in CAF is valuable, though we may not often recognize it. We live in the world of My Sacred Opinions, often based on second hand info that we don’t know how to apply or evaluate, or if this is the proper context. That is the problem with internet, it gives you a limited information enough to kill docility but not enough for wisdom.
C
commenter
Guest
Actually, laity are called to unconditional docility. But so are clergy and religious. Docility has come to mean, in American English, passivity. But it should mean being open to learning and applying, learning and conversion.“And what the laity think is not of remote interest to me – they must submit themselves in unconditional docility to the authority of my decision and that of the Bishop of the diocese.”
This statement could be interpreted as representing the worst aspects of clericalism.
“Unconditional docility” is not demanded of Catholics. Were that the case, then anything a bishop or priest decides would be beyond question. That has never been Catholic teaching or practice. There are indeed rights and protections afforded to the laity under ecclesiastical law and Church practice. To say that “unconditional docility” is the condition of the laity is seriously problematic.
What would be the exact opposite of unconditional docility? The “snowflake” culture that prevails at American higher education. I taught one semester (in the Education Department!) and found the graduate(!) students resisting having to learn anything they did not already know, the exact of being open to conversion to anything other than peer pressure. This would be the opposite of sainthood.
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
No, they are not called to “unconditional docility.” Show us where that is mandated in Canon Law.
C
commenter
Guest
Apparently the Church allows the subdiaconate to be resumed, at least in certain EF based religious orders. I am guessing there are no permanent subdeacons, but I wonder if there could be permanent deacons in FSSP, etc.At Solemn Masses, deacons read the gospel and subdeacons read the epistle, although priests often play their roles.
Did deacons read the gospel before Vatican II, if a transitional was present? Even if a bishop was present?
I suspect rare parish Masses would have had a transitional deacon present, especially since I think it is only in recent decades we have seen deacons doing their year right in field work in a parish.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
When actual abuses are happening, yes, Rome can and has stepped in.
But, again, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the legitimate use of EMHC. We can all have our opinions, but ultimately, it is up to the Bishop to institute the norms for his diocese, and he does not need my, or any other lay person’s, approval.
But, again, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the legitimate use of EMHC. We can all have our opinions, but ultimately, it is up to the Bishop to institute the norms for his diocese, and he does not need my, or any other lay person’s, approval.
K
KMG
Guest
The bishop’s norms must be in conformity with Rome’s laws.
C
commenter
Guest
Phillipians 2: 1- 15No, they are not called to “unconditional docility.” Show us where that is mandated in Canon Law.
K
KMG
Guest
Catholic laity have every right to protest liturgical abuses, and to appeal to Rome.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Exactly!
So, basically, what you are saying is that you do not believe that Bishops will do the right thing?
Is that the gist of it?
So, basically, what you are saying is that you do not believe that Bishops will do the right thing?
Is that the gist of it?
K
KMG
Guest
Catholic teaching does not say, bishops will always do the right thing.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
We had the occasional case where someone wrote to the Holy See.Catholic laity have every right to protest liturgical abuses, and to appeal to Rome.
The Holy See in each instance affirmed the Bishop…and directed the lay person writing that they were by directive of the Holy See obey their Bishop.
K
KMG
Guest
I have no doubt that is your experience. Mine was different. Everyone has anecdotes. Point remains, the laity have rights.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.No, they are not called to “unconditional docility.” Show us where that is mandated in Canon Law.
K
KMG
Guest
That canon does NOT preclude the very real possibility that a pastor may do something abusive. That is why ALL laity have a right to appeal pastoral decisions to higher authorities. They are not required to remain silent and to accept everything.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
And when the appeal is denied, they have no recourse but to accept in Christian obedience…that their obedience is the Will of GodThat canon does NOT preclude the very real possibility that a pastor may do something abusive. That is why ALL laity have a right to appeal pastoral decisions to higher authorities. They are not required to remain silent and to accept everything.
A
Augustinian
Guest
The so-called abuses that you are referencing as the usage of readers and EM’s to assist in the Mass, could easily be addressed by the laity directly.Catholic laity have every right to protest liturgical abuses, and to appeal to Rome.
If no one volunteered for the ministry, if people thought it was inappropriate or even a “sacrilege” for a layman to read the epistle or distribute communion- they wouldn’t go to the training and later come back a thousand time to actually fulfill the ministry.
But that hasn’t been the case at all- most places have plenty enough volunteers for the duty.
K
KMG
Guest
Nobody on this thread has questioned that…though the final appeal is always to the Holy See of course, not to one’s ordinary.
The point was that you called the opinions of the laity “pointless,” and that was inappropriate.
The point was that you called the opinions of the laity “pointless,” and that was inappropriate.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Precisely.We are not talking about an actual abuse though, we are talking about the use of EMHC, whose use is at the discretion of the Pastor, under the guidance of the Bishop. My opinion on whether or not they are needed is not required.
Moreover, the Parish Priest has no obligation to advise his canonical subjects for the reason
K
KMG
Guest
That is correct, a pastor is not obliged to give reasons for anything to the faithful.
That doesn’t make such an attitude prudent, helpful, or respectful of the faithful.
The faithful, in any case, do not hold “perfectly pointless” views. They have every right to question their pastor and to appeal to higher authorities when they see abuses.
Please also note that the attitude of “you may not question your priest” is exactly one of the main reasons why in the USA the scandal of clerical sexual abuse became as serious a nightmare as it did.
That doesn’t make such an attitude prudent, helpful, or respectful of the faithful.
The faithful, in any case, do not hold “perfectly pointless” views. They have every right to question their pastor and to appeal to higher authorities when they see abuses.
Please also note that the attitude of “you may not question your priest” is exactly one of the main reasons why in the USA the scandal of clerical sexual abuse became as serious a nightmare as it did.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.