Is the layman equipped with Sacred and Written Tradition any less than clergy?

[drforjc]

People in USA always like to question authority, and the Church is no exception. We don’t have a big tradition of respecting and deferring to the priests’ judgment as some other countries do. And a lot of conservatives don’t like it when the priests aren’t as conservative as they are. In addition, with so many Protestants around insisting that you don’t need the priest and you can just read the Bible and go straight to Jesus, some of the thinking tends to rub off on Catholics, especially when said Catholic encounters a priest espousing some view (such as more tolerance for gays or illegal immigrants) that said Catholic personally doesn’t agree with.

I think you’re using “conservative” when you really should be using “orthodox” = holding to right doctrine.

Another thing to consider is the truly awful seminary formation that some priests received in some locations, notably in certain decades. In many places there has been great improvement in that regard, though not necessarily everywhere.

Sad to say, the fact of having had seminary training does not guarantee solid formation in each and every individual case. It is possible to teach (and learn) heterodox theology.

Obviously there are many, many good, well-formed priests out there and that’s wonderful.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think you’re using “conservative” when you really should be using “orthodox” = holding to right doctrine.

Whatevs

 

[reggieM]

Yes, priests are generally more educated in Tradition and Scripture. And I definitely believe in seeking their counsel in matters. What I do not believe in, is acting like we aren’t able to know the faith, so just blindly trusting them against our own knowledge.

Asking priests for support of their instructions, when our conscience urges us, is Godly. And no priest (or laity) should discourage that.

I think, answering your question, we are required to know the Deposit of Faith. There can be no new teachings added to it. What we learn in religious education is basically the defined dogmas of the Faith. It is what we proclaim in the Creeds. Yes, there are finer points, and we may not cover every issue and then need to consult sources (Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is one such source). But we absolutely must uphold the Deposit of Faith.
If we found, for example, a Catholic deacon claiming that the Ascension did not happen (as I did personally, not long ago - and I confronted him about that) - then we must uphold the teaching handed down to us (Nicene Creed states “he ascended into heaven”).
So, there’s nothing Protestant about being well-informed about the truths of the Faith and upholding them. Even if an angel from heaven came and taught us something different, we would have to resist.

 

[rcwitness]

I think, answering your question, we are required to know the Deposit of Faith. There can be no new teachings added to it. What we learn in religious education is basically the defined dogmas of the Faith. It is what we proclaim in the Creeds. Yes, there are finer points, and we may not cover every issue and then need to consult sources (Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is one such source). But we absolutely must uphold the Deposit of Faith.
If we found, for example, a Catholic deacon claiming that the Ascension did not happen (as I did personally, not long ago - and I confronted him about that) - then we must uphold the teaching handed down to us (Nicene Creed states “he ascended into heaven”).
So, there’s nothing Protestant about being well-informed about the truths of the Faith and upholding them. Even if an angel from heaven came and taught us something different, we would have to resist.

 

[otjm]

Whatevs

Well, actually, no, it is not “whatever”.

The Church is both liberal and conservative; and can be said to be neither, as the Church simply seeks to follows Christ.

there are plenty of people in the pews who don’t want to hear anything about what is termed the “social Gospel”, and which the church has had a great deal to say. they call themselves "conservative’, but what they are is cafeteria Catholics; they want to hear preaching (not homilies) about gay sex and gay marriage and divorce and remarriage and fornication among the young, but don’t want to hear that we might have some duty to those being persecuted and driven from their homes.

We also have the reverse; other Catholics want to hear about immigration, and global warming, and killing baby seals and harvesting trees, but don’t want any more beating on the drum about sexual ethics, and are sick and tired about comments about abortion.

They too, although styled as liberal Catholics, are cafeteria Catholics.

Being orthodox means accepting the whole pie, not the wedges one might like, and dismissing the wedges one does not like.

 

[commenter]

I think, answering your question, we are required to know the Deposit of Faith. There can be no new teachings added to it. What we learn in religious education is basically the defined dogmas of the Faith. It is what we proclaim in the Creeds. Yes, there are finer points, and we may not cover every issue and then need to consult sources (Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is one such source). But we absolutely must uphold the Deposit of Faith.
If we found, for example, a Catholic deacon claiming that the Ascension did not happen (as I did personally, not long ago - and I confronted him about that) - then we must uphold the teaching handed down to us (Nicene Creed states “he ascended into heaven”).
So, there’s nothing Protestant about being well-informed about the truths of the Faith and upholding them. Even if an angel from heaven came and taught us something different, we would have to resist.

Laity can certainly get some of the preparation on their own, by reading, and courses. But priests and deacons get “formation”, which we don’t get. They also have the grace of the sacrament, which we don’t get.
You are correct, the sacrament of Holy Orders is no guarantee of fidelity, any more than the sacrament of Marriage is for me, to be a good partner. But it goes a long way. If we familiarize ourselves with orthodox content, that is crucial.

If a priest or deacon preaches or teaches something that seems not orthodox, that is a much bigger problem than if he expresses that privately.

Being equipped to recognize error when we find it, and being equipped to respond properly are 2 different kinds of equipment. In severe cases of false teaching, which are a lot less common than a few decades ago, best to notify that person’s supervisor.

If an angel offers false teaching, I am not sure how their chain of command works.

 

[poche]

Is the Layman able to know and uphold the Deposit of Faith (Sacred and Written Tradition), guided by the Holy Spirit, just as clergy?

If the person studies what the Church teaches and respects the magisterium then why not?

 

[commenter]

If the person studies what the Church teaches and respects the magisterium then why not?

As a layman, I “uphold” the Church’s teaching - it affects my actions - in my life as a husband, father, worker, citizen, neighbor, parishioner, and volunteer. The priest and deacon also “uphold” it in those aspects too, but they also preach it, a different kind of upholding that I don’t do.

The bishop and the pope uphold it in those ways, but also on occasion uphold it on another level as successors of the apostles.

On occasion a trained layperson may detect what seems like false teaching from someone who is ordained. My first response is to give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe my own understanding is incomplete; needs prayer and thinking about it. If dissent is definite here, and repeated, if you know the person ask for an explanation. If that is not possible, or inadequate, still do nothing. But if it repeated, and it is serious matter, communicate to their supervisor, briefly and charitably.

Previous posters have mentioned the importance of education. Well, ok, but the amount of education does not necessarily equate with the level of fidelity, for laity or ordained persons. I have known people who have advanced degrees in theology, who obviously know the Church’s teaching on a matter, but choose to teach something else.

 

[Reuben_J]

Laity can certainly get some of the preparation on their own, by reading, and courses. But priests and deacons get “formation”, which we don’t get. They also have the grace of the sacrament, which we don’t get.
You are correct, the sacrament of Holy Orders is no guarantee of fidelity, any more than the sacrament of Marriage is for me, to be a good partner. But it goes a long way. If we familiarize ourselves with orthodox content, that is crucial.

If a priest or deacon preaches or teaches something that seems not orthodox, that is a much bigger problem than if he expresses that privately.

Being equipped to recognize error when we find it, and being equipped to respond properly are 2 different kinds of equipment. In severe cases of false teaching, which are a lot less common than a few decades ago, best to notify that person’s supervisor.

If an angel offers false teaching, I am not sure how their chain of command works.

Well said - the chain of command.

It is for this reason that the laity always defer to a priest. In my personal experience, I find this structure is very important guideline in my ministry - recognizing that I must submit to the priest and in turn he gives me his blessing. Often times we work together, where I would use my talent and experience from my marriage vocation and my priest would recognize and respect that but it is always in the understanding that we have our roles respectively.

Meaning to say that the laity can and do much for the Church and many of them are very educated and proficient in the knowledge of the faith but they are not ordained. They are not priests and that makes the difference.

 

[poche]

As a layman, I “uphold” the Church’s teaching - it affects my actions - in my life as a husband, father, worker, citizen, neighbor, parishioner, and volunteer. The priest and deacon also “uphold” it in those aspects too, but they also preach it, a different kind of upholding that I don’t do.

The bishop and the pope uphold it in those ways, but also on occasion uphold it on another level as successors of the apostles.

On occasion a trained layperson may detect what seems like false teaching from someone who is ordained. My first response is to give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe my own understanding is incomplete; needs prayer and thinking about it. If dissent is definite here, and repeated, if you know the person ask for an explanation. If that is not possible, or inadequate, still do nothing. But if it repeated, and it is serious matter, communicate to their supervisor, briefly and charitably.

Previous posters have mentioned the importance of education. Well, ok, but the amount of education does not necessarily equate with the level of fidelity, for laity or ordained persons. I have known people who have advanced degrees in theology, who obviously know the Church’s teaching on a matter, but choose to teach something else.

Nestorius was teh patriarch of Constantinople, yet he excommunicated priests who taught that Mary is teh Mother of God. One of the reasons that abortion is the law of the land in this country is because of the spiritual direction of priests who compared the Catholic objection to abortion to Catholic to Catholic objection to eating meat on Friday. That was not a mistake in understanding what they wer saying. their superiors knew what they were saying and teaching It was not a secret. That was the way it was.

 

[commenter]

Nestorius was teh patriarch of Constantinople, yet he excommunicated priests who taught that Mary is teh Mother of God. One of the reasons that abortion is the law of the land in this country is because of the spiritual direction of priests who compared the Catholic objection to abortion to Catholic to Catholic objection to eating meat on Friday. That was not a mistake in understanding what they wer saying. their superiors knew what they were saying and teaching It was not a secret. That was the way it was.

People who read the Bible sometimes come to bad conclusions or wild misinterpretations. That possibility of human error does not mean it is bad to read the Bible. People who get married in Church sometimes turn out to be bad spouses at times. Again, that possibility does not disprove that sacrament. People who follow Sacred Tradition can make mistakes (usually by focusing on certain aspects, and ignoring other aspects). This does not mean Sacred Tradition is no longer authoritative.

The same is true with the sacrament of Holy Orders. Does it grant perfection? No. Is it the only way people can learn the Catholic Faith. No. But it offers an additional grace to preach, to deacons and priests. It offers a special grace to bishops as successors to the apostles. Part of being an intelligent, informed, and **equipped **layman is to take all that into account.