"Parish" vs. "Catholic Community of . . . "

[JimR-OCDS]

Well if the term Community is not proper, you better write to Rome and have them re-write the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because its used throughout, especially when describing the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Community is used both in the broad sense as well as the specific level, and is communicated as such, by the Bishops themselves.

My former Bishop, when speaking about the possibility of closing down parishes, said that as long as their was a “faith community” present in the parish, he would not shut the parish down.

So forgive me if I use the word “community,” when speaking about my parish.

I was apparently misled by my Bishop and the Catechism.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BTW, I did a search on “community” and found that Catholic Answers uses the term, just as many of us so called liberals do.

catholic.com/library/liturgical_abuses.asp

Just do a search on the word, “community” at the above link.

I’m sure it is used in many other places as well.

Jim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course you can. If one is not being spiritually fed by their priest, one has every right to find a parish where they ARE being fed. Yes, some priests ARE worth running from, and some ARE worth being chased out.

No, it’s God’s Church. I recdommend reading the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

 

[John_Hiner]

Well if the term Community is not proper, you better write to Rome and have them re-write the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because its used throughout, especially when describing the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Community is used both in the broad sense as well as the specific level, and is communicated as such, by the Bishops themselves.

My former Bishop, when speaking about the possibility of closing down parishes, said that as long as their was a “faith community” present in the parish, he would not shut the parish down.

So forgive me if I use the word “community,” when speaking about my parish.

I was apparently misled by my Bishop and the Catechism.

Jim

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Jim:

Do you see the problems I pointed out? I agree with you that the word “community” is used throughout the English documents. What gives pause is what this means and what it is taken to mean, and whether the two are the same. Imprecision is a phenomenon affecting English generally and the English spoken in the Church specifically. In a sense it is driven by advertising and by the popular culture, which eschew precision.

In Latin the Second Chapter of the Third Part of the Catechism is named “Communitas Humana.” The English translation renders this “The Human Communion.” In Paragraph 1687, the Latin, “Communitatis acceptio,” is rendered into English as “the greeting of the community.” Similarly, in Paragraph 1881, the Latin, “Unaquaegue communitas,” is rendered “each community.” I have not looked further, but it is clear that in the Catechism the translation takes the words “communion” and “community” as interchangeable – which in common usage, at least in the US, is doubtful.

I agree that the word “communion” has an appropriate use, especially regarding the Eucharist. The Church Triumphant is a true communion and the Church Suffering is securely approaching that happy state. We participate in that great unity in the Sacrifice of the Mass. However, we do not participate in it perfectly, and we share it least perfectly among those who are still living in this world. When we lose sight of these greater connections, our view of the language of the Church can become brittle and empty.

(Complicating the matter, the phrase from the Latin version of the Apostles’ Creed is “sanctorum communionem.” This comes from the Latin word “communio,” rather than from the word “commûnitas,” which is the word used in the various instances in the Catechism above. Yet the two words are translated into the same English word.)

(A quick search of the English version of the Catechism online does not yield even one instance of the phrase “faith community.” That phrase does appear in 34 English documents on the Vatican’s website.)

The question of being misled by one’s bishop is a delicate one. However, it seems that your former bishop may have been specifically distinguishing “faith community” from “parish.” If the two ideas were the same, then his argument would have been, if there is a parish in the parish, I will not close it. Seemingly he meant to differentiate between the two, and “faith community” was at most a part of what was meant by “parish.”

(Did the Bishop, in fact, close any parishes using this standard? If not, do you think what he meant was “I will not close any parish?” If so, why do you think he phrased it as though there were a standard?)

My previous comments were in response to your statement “there is nothing inherently wrong with [the phrase “faith community”]. We can discuss the word “community” as used in the Church as a separate matter, but are we agreed that “faith community” is at best a slang term of questionable meaning?

By the way, have you read any of Dr. Scott Peck’s works on “community” and “pseudo-community” (e.g. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (1998))? His writing may give us an idea of the specialized meanings of the English word, where it might differ from “communitas” as used in the Vatican.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well John, I’m not going to argue with you about this because I don’t have the expertise to do so. You seem to know what you’re talking about, so I would suggest you write the the US Bishops and have them change how they have been using the word, “community” and the term, “faith community.”

As for my Bishop. He did close down one parish because the so-called “faith community” was too small to support the building, which was in great need of repair. However, there was a storm of protest with a take over of the building by current and former parishioners, and a New Bishop, gave in and kept it open. However, that’s another subject.

Jim

 

[John_Hiner]

Well John, I’m not going to argue with you about this because I don’t have the expertise to do so. You seem to know what you’re talking about, so I would suggest you write the the US Bishops and have them change how they have been using the word, “community” and the term, “faith community.” . . .

Jim

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Jim:

I will be glad to be of use to the Bishops in any way. There is hope that this sort of problem will begin to be better comprehended, if the norms for priestly formation are followed. This is an excerpt from the Program of Priestly Formation adopted in 2005:

The curriculum of studies of college seminarians must include a grounding in the liberal arts and sciences, including studies in the humanities. Special attention is to be given to classical and foreign languages. A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should be given the emphasis that the Church accords it. Particular attention must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians can demonstrate that they have acquired that “knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of so many scientific sources and of the documents of the Church,” according to the insistence of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. [, USCCB, (2005), Paragraph 182Program of Priestly Formation (fifth edition)](C:\Documents and Settings\John Hiner\My Documents006\ProgramforPriestlyFormation.pdf) (emphasis added).

As the priests in the United States become more liberally educated, and become more conversant in Latin, the sort of misunderstandings that arise from English translations will become less troublesome. Easy access to the Latin typical editions will make it easier to interpret the English translations with their intended meanings. This may have the effect of making parishes more circumspect about the subtleties involved in this sort of linguistic drift and shear.

As priests (and bishops) become more sensitive to the need for care in these matters, I hope that the Faithful will become better able to bring the sort of active and engaged docility to their readings of the Catechism and other documents of the Church that will forestall misunderstanding. Simple things like attention to grammar must be cultivated; the general public disparages grammar, but Catholics must be proficient in it, if they are to take advantage of the deep and broad culture which the Church nurtures and through which she speaks for Christ.

This present need for improved education for priests is similar to the situation addressed by the Council of Trent, when explicit attention to the liberal and grammatical education of priests was first instituted. After a general degradation of education in the seminaries during the last half of the 20th Century, this recovery of Latin is needed to meet the demands placed on priests by Vatican II – significantly, the academic demands which Trent placed on priests are arguably placed on all of the Faithful by Vatican II; so the need for linguistic dexterity is probably general, if the hopes of the Council are to be realized. “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.” (Mark 16:17.)

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Higgins]

vern humphrey:

No, it’s God’s Church. I recommend reading the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

For those who might want to read that, here’s the link: 1 Clem

Really, epistle is kind of a misnomer, or at least misleading. In today’s terms this would likely be an Apostolic Exhortation. Epistles usually refer (of course) to those writings accepted into the canon of Scripture.

John

 

[JimR-OCDS]

John,
I appreciate your understanding for translation of Latin into English, however, the US Bishops, communicate in the vernacular.

The definition for community in our culture is from the dictionary;

com·mu·ni·ty /kəˈmyunɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-myoo-ni-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
2. a locality inhabited by such a group.
3. a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the): the business community; the community of scholars.

Within a parish, you have a community. That is, people who support the parish, do the work in the parish, etch. They socialize together, as well as pray together, inside and outside of the liturgy. They bury their dead and lookout for the sick in their community.

So in this context, I don’t think its incorrect for the Bishops to use the term, “faith-community” when speaking of the people within a parish. I think they are speaking as the literal definition of what constitutes a community implies.

I live in a small town with a small parish, only 375 families. The community aspect is more visible than when I lived in a city, with a large parish, of 4000 families. However, even in the larger parish, there is a sense of community among the members of the parish. It is from this perspective, that the Bishops speak and why I believe the use of the word “community” is valid.

Jim

 

[Catholic90]

No, it’s God’s Church. I recdommend reading the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Vern,
Well, you are playing at semantics here. People go to church to worship God. God does not need a church, but people do. It’s not the priest’s church!

People CAN and SHOULD find a church with a priest who feeds them spiritually. People are not required to suffer with a priest who is bad (and yes, there are bad priests … they are human, after all.)

 

[MelanieAnne]

We are a COMMUNITY, which means we are made up of ALL OF US. In the end, the entire CHURCH is that community, but perhaps we can deal with it more easily on a more local basis, such as a parish or a mission.

To me, anything less is un-Christian, but my definition is not determinative. So I will defer to my teachers. Sister Maura, my RCIA leader of days gone by, once spoke of the different Masses available at our parish. Since our parish is very large, we had a variety of choices. But she emphasized that, with all the different masses, ALL OF THEM were part of the COMMUNITY.

Perhaps little children annoy you. Then perhaps you shouldn’t attend the mass where they are most likely to be present, but if you do, you need to understand that THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

I truly do not understand why this even needs to be talked about. Jesus gave us so many examples. I trust we, in our “wisdom” would never presume to narrow them into something more in keeping with our comfort level!

The fact is that the WORLD is OUR LORD’s “vineyard” and our job is NOT just to deal with and accept those that come to our parish that seem OK to us, but also to accept those with whom we are not so familiar and not so comfortable! The BODY OF CHRIST is bigger than we think!

“Community” may be everyone you come in contact with!

Try to see people with “God-colored” glasses (a reference to “rose-colored” glasses, amplified!)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,
Well, you are playing at semantics here. People go to church to worship God. God does not need a church, but people do. It’s not the priest’s church!

People CAN and SHOULD find a church with a priest who feeds them spiritually. People are not required to suffer with a priest who is bad (and yes, there are bad priests … they are human, after all.)

I made that comment ("it is God’s Church) in response to this:

Originally Posted by Catholic90
Of course you can. If one is not being spiritually fed by their priest, one has every right to find a parish where they ARE being fed. Yes, some priests ARE worth running from, and some ARE worth being chased out.

We cannot chase out a priest – that is what the Corinthians did. If you feel you have a bad priest, you may (and should) petition the Bishop.

Remember, a significant number of people who object to their priest do so not because he is wrong, but because they are.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Jim:

I am losing the thread of our discussion. Let me “recap.”

We asked whether there was anything “inherently wrong” with the phrase “faith community.” I objected to its lack of grammatical coherence, lack of a clear meaning, and the creation of either inflated expectations of intimate fellowship or insufficiently demanding standards of unity.

You pointed out, correctly, that if we set aside the word “faith” and consider the American usage for “community,” then this word is descriptive of many groups within parishes, and in smaller parishes may fairly describe almost the whole parish.

Our judgments seem to differ about the appropriate response to this fair application of the “dictionary definition” of “community” to parishes. You fairly say that the American usage of the word describes what exists, so it is acceptable to use. You cite several American bishops as using this language.

I agree, in the sense that “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient.” If a person understands “community” in the American common usage, as describing even so loose an association as “the advertising community,” a group that shares few interests or beliefs and in which one finds little actual intimacy among persons, then I view it as unfortunate for this idea to be associated with life within a parish.

On the other hand, if one takes Dr. Peck’s meaning of “community” as a safe and stable group to which a person can bring his entire personality, and in which actual intimacy and shared understanding is possible, I disfavor the use of the term to describe parishes, because a person coming to a parish with this high expectation is likely to be disappointed. I do not think this disappointment should be invited to be attached to the Catholic Church – as it often seems to be.

This second point also applies in a different way. As has been mentioned, it is likely that people will make a connection between the word “community” and the word “communion” as in the “the Communion of Saints,” or “Holy Communion.” It seems dangerous to associate these instances of “true communion” with the loose, American sense of the word “community.” Association of the heavenly standards of union with the impersonal sense of “community” may dilute understanding of important concepts within the substance of the Faith.

This association is a danger when people read the Catechism. As you mentioned, the word “community” appears often in the Catechism. However, the words “community” and “communion” seem to be used interchangeably in the English translation. This risks a dilution of the aspirations for unity within the Church, if the word “community” is taken to indicate a loose association as the intended meaning within the Faith.

Hence, the objection to the word “community” is in two, opposite directions. The American usage both may lower the aspiration for true communion and may exaggerate what can be hoped for from life within a parish.

For these reasons, I disfavor the word “community” when describing parishes. However, with certain caveats, that usage could be acceptable to others.

All of this, however, is different from the consideration of the phrase “faith community.” More and more, as I read further, this phrase seems to be a translation of a German jargon word, “Glaubensgemeinshaft.” If this is the source of this term, then it seems even more problematic as a description of Catholic parishes; it specifically contemplates little agreement regarding beliefs, and envisions a group centered on a confluence of the pre-existing beliefs. This inverts the image of the Church as mother and teacher of the faithful and presents the parish as a confederation of people, whose beliefs, from whatever source, happen to overlap.

I hope that my comments have helped make some objections to these terms more accessible. It does not seem mere prejudice to oppose them. Similarly, the eagerness to seek community – in the more demanding sense – is both understandable and wholesome, both in parishes and throughout the Universal Church herself. In a way, this concern for true community within the Universal Church is the gist of the objections to the use of the terms.

The breathtaking sweep of these concerns, from the smallest group of two or three gathered together in the name of Christ to the billion living members and billions more of suffering or triumphant members of the Church, makes the phrase “Catholic parish” ironically charming. In American English usage, this phrase ties together the ideas of “limited in range or scope, provincial, or narrow” and “comprehensive, universal, broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests." This is one of the signs that the Faith of the Church is the truth; nothing less extreme could be.

Pax Christi vobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[JimR-OCDS]

John Hiner,

you present a highly intellectual argument for your position.

However, the normal world doesn’t communicate at this level.

When the Bishop called my Parish, a “faith-community,” what did he actually mean and what did the people like myself, understand him to mean?

To me, he was speaking about the members of the Parish, who are the reason that particular parish exist. The one’s who work together to make the parish work, at all levels from the various ministries, to the financial support of the parish.
In other words, the parish and the members work to serve each other, as they serve the Christ. They are sharing their lives with each other.

Although my parish is small, I did visit a parish in Marietta Ga, and I was very impressed with the sense of community among the members of that parish.

Anyway, this is my understanding of community, at the parish level and it seems to be how the Bishops speak of it.

Jim

 

[John_Hiner]

John Hiner,

you present a highly intellectual argument for your position.

However, the normal world doesn’t communicate at this level.

When the Bishop called my Parish, a “faith-community,” what did he actually mean and what did the people like myself, understand him to mean?

To me, he was speaking about the members of the Parish, who are the reason that particular parish exist. The one’s who work together to make the parish work, at all levels from the various ministries, to the financial support of the parish.
In other words, the parish and the members work to serve each other, as they serve the Christ. They are sharing their lives with each other.

Although my parish is small, I did visit a parish in Marietta Ga, and I was very impressed with the sense of community among the members of that parish.

Anyway, this is my understanding of community, at the parish level and it seems to be how the Bishops speak of it.

Jim

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Jim:

I think I *understand *what you are saying. (I also *feel *its bite.)

I will pray for the members of your parish and for the parish in Marietta, that many members find the way to heaven.

Nevertheless, I fear a basis of the “dictatorship of relativism” is acceptance of “normal” as “normative.”

Everything I have said flows from actual concern and was written without rancor or intended offence. I regret any pain or resentment my comments may have caused you or others.

I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God. For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith. For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing one another. In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord.
(Romans 12:1-11 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.).)

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

PS Unless you request a further reply from me, Jim, you may have the last word in this exchange.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I sometimes cannot help but wonder why we have so much time to nit pick over words and phrases and so little time to serve our fellow man. There is so much energy devoted to argument, making tiny little points and jockeying for position. Couldn’t all this energy be redirected more productively?

I guess I’ll stop reading, stop wondering about that, and just go do something more worthwhile.

 

[John_Hiner]

I had nits once, when I was in grammar school. It was irritating and boring while my mother picked them out of my hair and scrubbed me with that stinky soap. For three days she did this!

She seemed to think she was helping my classmates and me.

Idiot! Why couldn’t she go do something USEFUL!

Gratia nobiscum.

John Hiner

(My head itches – at least I find myself scratching it just now.)

 

[Kielbasi]

Technically, you are considered a “mission” of Saint Peter the Fisherman parish.

Maybe you know that for certain, if you are familiar with that section of Arkansas.

But I’ve heard of subdivisions of parishes being referred to as “chapels of convenience” and “worship sites” as well as “missions”.

Isn’t there a difference between those various terms?

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Of course you can. If one is not being spiritually fed by their priest, one has every right to find a parish where they ARE being fed. Yes, some priests ARE worth running from, and some ARE worth being chased out.

The parish I used to attend may or may not be my “Territorial parish” because I think there is a closer one which is not easily accessible through public transportation. That being said, I go to a chapel in a shopping center in downtown Boston. My old parish was extremely liberal and used questionable matter for the communion bread. The chapel I go to has four priests and is extremely orthodox. They reprint papal writings and Scott Hahn’s notes in the bulletin, they regularly reference the writings and recent statments of the Holy Father, and it is the only place I’ve heard indulgences mentioned in the homily. Also, they recently had a special Latin Novus Ordo mass sung in Gregorian Chant.

 

[Flopfoot]

No, it’s God’s Church. I recdommend reading the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Too long for me. Do you reckon you can summarise for me, giving the basic explanation of why we can’t “parish-hop”? I have heard it suggested on CAF before and since then I’ve tried to stick to my local parish, except in a few cases where I have been asked to help with reading or music ministry at other Masses, but I’m still not exactly sure why it is.
PS Sorry for being off topic

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No offense was ever taken in what you have written John. In fact I enjoyed and took with great interest what you said. Thank you!

My only point being is that Bishops speak to the people, the people listen. If the Bishops speak incorrectly, from the theological perspective, the people will be misinformed. On the other hand, if the Bishops are speaking within the context of compassion, love, and truth from their hearts, even their intellectual gaffs will have little consequence to the souls that they are shepherds over. Christ is the center of our faith and His will trumps intellectual arguments and academic posturing. My goal is the love God with my entire being, and to love my neighbor as myself. I understand what “faith-community” means in the experience of it. The people in my parish, are my friends, neighbors and we share our faith together. We take care of each other when we’re sick and we’re the one’s who pay the bills to keep our place of worship in existence. I think we’re trying to live out the gospel message as best we can. I also understand from what you have presented, the inaccuracy, from the literal sense, the terms “community and faith-community.” But I live in the experience, not in academic definitions.

God Bless
Jim