Clericalization of the Laity/Q. for JReducation

[JReducation]

Perhaps this is an aside. But I wonder just how useful the political labels of liberal/conservative are to describe people within the Catholic Church? Fr. Richard Neuhaus recommends the terms noncontinuists and continuists–those who believe that Vatican II represents a break in the Sacred Tradition of the Church and run either left or right with it (for instance, Call to Action on the left and SSPX on the right) and those who believe that Vatican II was a continuation of that Sacred Tradition, who may of course lean either left or right.

However, when speaking of the Hierarchy in particular, such labels are as dangerous as they are inaccurate, because they are so very divisive. Perhaps I’m being redundant, but why would we want to drag the bickering world of politics into our view of our Catholic hierarchy? Besides the skillfully overlooked fact that the majority of the Hierarchy undoubtedly follow the dictates of their informed consciences without regard for the left/right paradigm, there is another point to be considered. Who are we to label one bishop conservative and another liberal? Permit me a step further. Who are we to label one bishop good and another bad? Isnt’ that judging another Man’s servant?

I like to think of the Church as a rather broad bridge, with plenty of room for barefoot Franciscans and high-profile convert seeking Opus Dei–or, if you prefer, room for Simon the Zealot and Matthew the Tax Collector–and nary a conflict in loving and supporting them both. You can fall off the right or you can fall off the left. But the guy on the right who has fallen off is no more on the bridge than the guy on the left who has fallen off.

An aside to the aside: I’m not even sure terms like “liberal” or “conservative” work for the political views of a great number of people in the Church. Suppose just for a moment that I agreed entirely with my greatly respected and rather outspoken Cardinal Metropolitan’s view of politics. I would be a cut-and-dry no-compromise abortion opponent, supporter of amnesty for illegal migrants, opponent of “homosexual rights,” supporter of safety-net programs for the poor, opponent of the death penalty and the Iraq War, and supporter of local governments over federal government. What do I call that?

Pardon my rambling asides.

I think you have made an excellent point. The labels that people on CAF use to speak about the Church don’t fit the Church at all. A perfect example is the post to which you just responded.

The poster is allegedly a traditionalist, yet seems to be alleging that there are conspiracies among the hierarchy, clergy and religious to lead the laity astray. If I were to correctly use the term Traditionalist, tradition has it that the authority of the hierarchy is not called into question. Even in ordinary matters, the Holy Father, Bishops, pastors and major religiosu superiors are to be obeyed, becasue they are legitimate figures of authority. Until the legitimacy of their authority is disproven, there is no room for disobedience without commiting the sin of pride.

To allege that there has been conspiracy on the part of those with legitimate authority in the Church is in fact an act of rebellion, which is incosistent with Tradition.

On the other hand, those of us who say that the laity cannot assume roles that are proper to the clergy, such as trying to govern the clergy and that to do so is an act of clericalism are considered moderns. When in fact, this has been a tradition in the Church dating back to the Apostles.

All disputes regarding doctrine, liturgy, religious life, sacraments, canon law, property, even jurisdiction, were always resolved by clerics, not by lay men and women.

The Church has opened the door to allow the laity to express their concerns. But it has not opened Pandora’s Box and declared that evveryone is now an authority over every cleric or religious. Unless ordered by their legitimate superiors to act or cease an action, the clergy and religious do not owe any kind of obedience to the laity. They must respectfully listen and respond in charity.

So the terms that we’re using here are not consistent with the way that the Church functions.

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

---

Take a good look at the protestant denominations and how far some have fallen. It is that way of thinking that has led them in that direction.

So which would you push off the bridge, the Fransican or the Opus Dei priest?

I always thought it was the rejection of the visible sign of unity, the Papacy, that got them there.

That is, I thought it was the rejection of the Popacy which led to a gradual drifting and a rejection of more and more doctrines of the Christian faith which led to greatly increased vulnerability to the shifting cultural winds of doctrine, which led to compromise on virtually every moral issue.

Not the acceptance of a certain diversity, including some that support safety nets for the poor, some who don’t, some who supported the invasion of Iraq, some who didn’t, some who support a graduated income tax system, some who don’t, etc.

As I recall, the definition of Catholic is “Universal,” which is not to say exactly everybody, but a colorfully numerous number of different kinds of people–not just the ones who lean my particular political or social direction.

 

[JReducation]

Some of these points remind me of the Da Vinci Code.

Some people should never go to the movies. They begin to see conspiracies all over the place.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

So which would you push off the bridge, the Fransican or the Opus Dei priest?

I always thought it was the rejection of the visible sign of unity, the Papacy, that got them there.

That is, I thought it was the rejection of the Popacy which led to a gradual drifting and a rejection of more and more doctrines of the Christian faith which led to greatly increased vulnerability to the shifting cultural winds of doctrine, which led to compromise on virtually every moral issue.

Not the acceptance of a certain diversity, including some that support safety nets for the poor, some who don’t, some who supported the invasion of Iraq, some who didn’t, some who support a graduated income tax system, some who don’t, etc.

As I recall, the definition of Catholic is “Universal,” which is not to say exactly everybody, but a colorfully numerous number of different kinds of people–not just the ones who lean my particular political or social direction.

I’m thinking you hit that nail squarely on it’s head.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Some of these points remind me of the Da Vinci Code.

Some people should never go to the movies. They begin to see conspiracies all over the place.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

I think you have made an excellent point. The labels that people on CAF use to speak about the Church don’t fit the Church at all. A perfect example is the post to which you just responded.

The poster is allegedly a traditionalist, yet seems to be alleging that there are conspiracies among the hierarchy, clergy and religious to lead the laity astray. If I were to correctly use the term Traditionalist, tradition has it that the authority of the hierarchy is not called into question. Even in ordinary matters, the Holy Father, Bishops, pastors and major religiosu superiors are to be obeyed, becasue they are legitimate figures of authority. Until the legitimacy of their authority is disproven, there is no room for disobedience without commiting the sin of pride.

To allege that there has been conspiracy on the part of those with legitimate authority in the Church is in fact an act of rebellion, which is incosistent with Tradition.

On the other hand, those of us who say that the laity cannot assume roles that are proper to the clergy, such as trying to govern the clergy and that to do so is an act of clericalism are considered moderns. When in fact, this has been a tradition in the Church dating back to the Apostles.

All disputes regarding doctrine, liturgy, religious life, sacraments, canon law, property, even jurisdiction, were always resolved by clerics, not by lay men and women.

The Church has opened the door to allow the laity to express their concerns. But it has not opened Pandora’s Box and declared that evveryone is now an authority over every cleric or religious. Unless ordered by their legitimate superiors to act or cease an action, the clergy and religious do not owe any kind of obedience to the laity. They must respectfully listen and respond in charity.

So the terms that we’re using here are not consistent with the way that the Church functions.

JR

Reminds me of our society in general, and I guess that’s no surprise when you think about it. Words don’t mean what they used to, all sense of reason has gone completely out the window, right is called wrong, wrong is called right, no one knows which end is which…

 

[Walking_Home]

So which would you push off the bridge, the Fransican or the Opus Dei priest?

I always thought it was the rejection of the visible sign of unity, the Papacy, that got them there.

That is, I thought it was the rejection of the Popacy which led to a gradual drifting and a rejection of more and more doctrines of the Christian faith which led to greatly increased vulnerability to the shifting cultural winds of doctrine, which led to compromise on virtually every moral issue.

Not the acceptance of a certain diversity, including some that support safety nets for the poor, some who don’t, some who supported the invasion of Iraq, some who didn’t, some who support a graduated income tax system, some who don’t, etc.

As I recall, the definition of Catholic is “Universal,” which is not to say exactly everybody, but a colorfully numerous number of different kinds of people–not just the ones who lean my particular political or social direction.

---

Whether Franciscan or Opus Dei — it is irrelevant. An unorthodox priest falls off the bridge on his own. We need to be knowledgeable enough — Not to be led astray–and Not to follow them down. Yes — Catholic means universal—but it does not mean – it is open for people to manipulate the Church as they wish.

 

[JReducation]

So which would you push off the bridge, the Fransican or the Opus Dei priest?

I always thought it was the rejection of the visible sign of unity, the Papacy, that got them there.

That is, I thought it was the rejection of the Popacy which led to a gradual drifting and a rejection of more and more doctrines of the Christian faith which led to greatly increased vulnerability to the shifting cultural winds of doctrine, which led to compromise on virtually every moral issue.

Not the acceptance of a certain diversity, including some that support safety nets for the poor, some who don’t, some who supported the invasion of Iraq, some who didn’t, some who support a graduated income tax system, some who don’t, etc.

As I recall, the definition of Catholic is “Universal,” which is not to say exactly everybody, but a colorfully numerous number of different kinds of people–not just the ones who lean my particular political or social direction.

Let’s look at this very interesting comparison that you have intoduced here.

1. FRANCISCANS: a mendicant order of Brothers, with relatively few priests and a founder who was not particularly interested in promoting the priesthood, but in promoting the Gospel life. Very non traditional for its time, even considered to be a left wing group who promoted equality among all men, including equality between priests and lay men within the order, to such an extent that priest were not allowed to use the title Father for a very long time. Only Francis was allowed that title and he was a lay brother. Today they are recovering their roots, leaving parishes, dropping the title father for ordained friars. They have a rule that has a papal bull on it that protects it from being changed by anyone except the Pope. Any new Franciscan communities are not part of the Order, but are free standing communities, to protect the order’s original integrity and to protect the integrity of the new community. A community that has always forbidden its friars ever to question the authority of the Church, especially bishops and priests. A community which between Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans, Regular Franciscans has over one million members around the world all devoted to following the Gospel according to their Holy Father Francis.
2. OPUS DEI: A community of secular priests, lay men and women who consecrate their lives to live in constant prayer and adoration of the Eucharist. Whose members make vows, but do not form a religious congregation or order, but are a public association of the faithful. Whose ministry is to sanctify the secular world through their daily work within the world, such work of sanctifying the world by living in the world is God’s Work which in Latin is Opus Dei. A society where priests who are members are revered, unlike Franciscans, who make their priests clean toilest and cook or do laundery like every other friar. A society that has contributed to the sanctification of the secular world through it lay members and its secular priests. An organization that is considered very traditional in its Liturgy, reverence for priests and place of the laity within the society.

Considering that both Franciscans and Opus Dei have contributed to the sanctification of the world and have brought many graces to millions within the Church and outside the Church, I vote keep them both because they compliment each other.

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

---

Whether Franciscan or Opus Dei — it is irrelevant. An unorthodox priest falls off the bridge on his own. We need to be knowledgeable enough — Not to be led astray–and Not to follow them down. Yes — Catholic means universal—but it does not mean – it is open for people to manipulate the Church as they wish.

Precisely correct. As do unorthodox laymen. Assuming, of course, that they are truly unorthodox, which is to say truly heretical and/or in grave sin.

 

[Walking_Home]

Precisely correct. As do unorthodox laymen. Assuming, of course, that they are truly unorthodox, which is to say truly heretical and/or in grave sin.

---

And many a time the unorthodox laymen–have been fed by unorthodox clergy.

 

[consumedconvert]

Let’s look at this very interesting comparison that you have intoduced here.

1. FRANCISCANS: a mendicant order of Brothers, with relatively few priests and a founder who was not particularly interested in promoting the priesthood, but in promoting the Gospel life. Very non traditional for its time, even considered to be a left wing group who promoted equality among all men, including equality between priests and lay men within the order, to such an extent that priest were not allowed to use the title Father for a very long time. Only Francis was allowed that title and he was a lay brother. Today they are recovering their roots, leaving parishes, dropping the title father for ordained friars. They have a rule that has a papal bull on it that protects it from being changed by anyone except the Pope. Any new Franciscan communities are not part of the Order, but are free standing communities, to protect the order’s original integrity and to protect the integrity of the new community. A community that has always forbidden its friars ever to question the authority of the Church, especially bishops and priests. A community which between Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans, Regular Franciscans has over one million members around the world all devoted to following the Gospel according to their Holy Father Francis.
2. OPUS DEI: A community of secular priests, lay men and women who consecrate their lives to live in constant prayer and adoration of the Eucharist. Whose members make vows, but do not form a religious congregation or order, but are a public association of the faithful. Whose ministry is to sanctify the secular world through their daily work within the world, such work of sanctifying the world by living in the world is God’s Work which in Latin is Opus Dei. A society where priests who are members are revered, unlike Franciscans, who make their priests clean toilest and cook or do laundery like every other friar. A society that has contributed to the sanctification of the secular world through it lay members and its secular priests. An organization that is considered very traditional in its Liturgy, reverence for priests and place of the laity within the society.

Considering that both Franciscans and Opus Dei have contributed to the sanctification of the world and have brought many graces to millions within the Church and outside the Church, I vote keep them both because they compliment each other.

JR

Amen.

At this point I must admit that the contrast did not occur originally to me. I read an interview with the head prelate of Opus Dei, and he casually contrasted his Prelature with the Fransican Order.

 

[consumedconvert]

---

And many a time the unorthodox laymen–have been fed by unorthodox clergy.

Indeed, both Call to Action and SSPX come to mind. The interesting thing, the thing that grants great peace of mind, is that if one is careful to preserve close communion with the Chair of Peter, one will never be led into heresy.

 

[Walking_Home]

uote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
And many a time the unorthodox laymen–have been fed by unorthodox clergy.

Indeed, both Call to Action and SSPX come to mind. The interesting thing, the thing that grants great peace of mind, is that if one is careful to preserve close communion with the Chair of Peter, one will never be led into heresy.

---

Whatever situation exists between Rome and the SSPX — you will not find where Rome has referred to the SSPX as unorthodox.

By the way-- it is really naive to believe that by being in close communion with the Chair of Peter will keep you from heresy. One can be in close communion – but subject to unorthodox teachings via a catechist, priest and/or bishop --can lead a person to follow heresy.

 

[consumedconvert]

---

Whatever situation exists between Rome and the SSPX — you will not find where Rome has referred to the SSPX as unorthodox.

By the way-- it is really naive to believe that by being in close communion with the Chair of Peter will keep you from heresy. One can be in close communion – but subject to unorthodox teachings via a catechist, priest and/or bishop --can lead a person to follow heresy.

The point of my post is that a Catholic always knows where to turn for a certainty of orthodoxy. Obviously a mistaken catechist et al. can lead one astray, but not if one is careful to maintain close communion with Rome and to believe what Rome teaches abpit faith and morals and never contradict what Rome teaches about faith or morals.

If a catechist et al. contradicts Rome, one knows who to follow.

That’s one of the greatest things about being Catholic IMHO

 

[consumedconvert]

---

Whatever situation exists between Rome and the SSPX — you will not find where Rome has referred to the SSPX as unorthodox.

Recall the excommunication decree.

Excommunicate, yes. Heterodox…

Well, perhaps we’re getting into semantics here.

 

[Jeanette_L]

The point of my post is that a Catholic always knows where to turn for a certainty of orthodoxy. Obviously a mistaken catechist et al. can lead one astray, but not if one is careful to maintain close communion with Rome and to believe what Rome teaches abpit faith and morals and never contradict what Rome teaches about faith or morals.

If a catechist et al. contradicts Rome, one knows who to follow.

That’s one of the greatest things about being Catholic IMHO

It is the responsibility ultimately, of the individual to learn his/her faith. If one always follows Rome, the teaching of the Church, which there really is no excuse anymore now that we have such a wonderful Adult Catechism to study, we will not be led astray. This is our guarentee from Christ.

When we start following this one and that one, one opinion after another, never looking to see where Peter weighs in, we will always find ourselves having wandered from the right path.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Whatever situation exists between Rome and the SSPX — you will not find where Rome has referred to the SSPX as unorthodox.

By the way-- it is really naive to believe that by being in close communion with the Chair of Peter will keep you from heresy. One can be in close communion – but subject to unorthodox teachings via a catechist, priest and/or bishop --can lead a person to follow heresy.

The point of my post is that a Catholic always knows where to turn for a certainty of orthodoxy. Obviously a mistaken catechist et al. can lead one astray**, but not if one is careful to maintain close communion with Rome and to believe what Rome teaches abpit faith and morals and never contradict what Rome teaches about faith or morals. **

If a catechist et al. contradicts Rome, one knows who to follow.

That’s one of the greatest things about being Catholic IMHO

---

That takes knowledge doesn’t it. It takes work on our part – to become knowledgeable in what the Church teaches. Unfortunately --many who profess a close communion with Rome – Are being deceived by catechists, and priests. This is the state of our current Church.

 

[JReducation]

---

That takes knowledge doesn’t it. It takes work on our part – to become knowledgeable in what the Church teaches. Unfortunately --many who profess a close communion with Rome – Are being deceived by catechists, and priests. This is the state of our current Church.

Don’t you think that you’re seeing conspiracies where none exist?

Also, don’t you think that one should first examine the intent of the individual?

When questioning a person’s motives for saying certain things or not saying, don’t you think it’s fair to assume innocence first?

We do not see people’s heart and intentions as God does. We have to be careful not to make judgement calls that can hurt people who have no intention to hurt us or others.

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
That takes knowledge doesn’t it. It takes work on our part – to become knowledgeable in what the Church teaches. Unfortunately --many who profess a close communion with Rome – Are being deceived by catechists, and priests. This is the state of our current Church.

Don’t you think that you’re seeing conspiracies where none exist?

Also, don’t you think that one should first examine the intent of the individual?

When questioning a person’s motives for saying certain things or not saying, don’t you think it’s fair to assume innocence first?

We do not see people’s heart and intentions as God does. We have to be careful not to make judgement calls that can hurt people who have no intention to hurt us or others.

JR

---

What universe are you living in JReducation. One that wants to keep people in the dark as to what really is going on in the Church. If we stop making judgement calls — might as well hand the world over to Satan.

 

[consumedconvert]

---

That takes knowledge doesn’t it. It takes work on our part – to become knowledgeable in what the Church teaches.

Indeed. The Compendium of the CCC is a great place to start, as is the rather large CCC. HMC has provided very excellent resources for us. Now even ONLINE at vatican.va! I’ve got to chuckle sometimes. What must Peter in heaven think of the CCC online! Not in his wildest dreams did he see this coming! What hath God wrought?