F
FAB
Guest
This entire thread is an issue of discipline
This entire thread is an issue of discipline
Discipline first comes from Rome, and Rome has the final say. Canonically, there is great concern shown for the rights of the faithful (Canon 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.). In this case the rights and responsibility of the parents are being challenged (Canon 226 §2. Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them.).Disipline issues come from the ordianry, those must also be observed.
What FrDavid was on a specific case. Although it could apply to other situations, the information recognized that the person involed was properly formed. This still falls into the relme of the ordinary
As it has been stated that is between 7 and 16, once againthe ordinary makes the decision for his diocese.
Adult Catholics are still requred to go through period of formation, the lenght varies from case to case.
.
These “self-important” directors are in most cases following the pastor’s direction and most likely the diocese, once again the disipline comes from the ordinary.
The ordinary of a diocese has full right to set policy, as a member of the faithful, we are called to follow those policies. Priest and those directors you chastise are doing the right thing.
Peace,
FAB
“Chastising,” Really FAB? Funny, I don’t *ever *hear parents going around stating that candidates who are taught by the parish religion programsshould not recieve a sacrament. In addition parents are not the ones disobeying a Canon Law. Bishops in a diocese may have guidlines but they still cannot break the Canon Law if a candidate is “duly disposed.” We are never called to follow a “policy” that clearly violates the Church teaching and Canon Law.CDNowak;5812721 said:1)
The ordinary of a diocese has full right to set policy, as a member of the faithful, we are called to follow those policies. Priest and those directors you chastise are doing the right thing.
FAB
So,are they really “doing the right thing” when they deny a candidate a sacrament before before even being interviewed? Since there are priests, catechists and Dioceses who don’t even know this part of their faith regarding “family,” then I am glad I don’t leave teaching my children the faith up to these people.
Truely I will pray for you who are home schoolers. You seem to have such a distrust of authority, that it leads to your doubt to even question your odinary and your priest. The greatest danger is that you educate your children with a very narrow view of the faith and you place in them that same questioning and same doubt.Discipline first comes from Rome, and Rome has the final say. Canonically, there is great concern shown for the rights of the faithful (Canon 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.). In this case the rights and responsibility of the parents are being challenged (Canon 226 §2. Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them.).
The notitia on the age of confirmation actually goes much further than the age, as to the limits of Diocesan policy to raise obstacle to those who are prepared to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. (“Consequently, when a member of the faithful wishes to receive this Sacrament, even though not satisfying one or more elements of the local legislation (e.g., being younger than the designated age for administration of the Sacrament), those elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments.”) Again, this official clarification notes that the age for the Sacrament is that of reason, and the bishop cannot withhold the Sacrament because he set a higher age.
You have raised the issue of whether parents of the current generation of adults were responsible for the failure in catechesis (my words). The fact that the agreeably poor state of Catholic knowledge of the faith stems from when virtually all Catholics received their instruction in school or CCD has gone unacknowledged.
I would also suggest you find your local Catholic homeschool group and actually meet some homeschoolers before you impute any more motives. (Or you could do the decent thing and assume the best).
Yup, I have such a distrust of authority that I am arguing from (the proper) authority. What you seem to be advocating is clericalism, an authoritarian (not authoritative) position that shows a lack of understanding of the nature and bounds of authority and obedience. My “narrow education” indeed leads me to “trust, but verify”, resulting not in blind obedience but willful obedience.Truely I will pray for you who are home schoolers. You seem to have such a distrust of authority, that it leads to your doubt to even question your odinary and your priest. The greatest danger is that you educate your children with a very narrow view of the faith and you place in them that same questioning and same doubt.
Peace,
FAB
Yup, I have such a distrust of authority that I am arguing from (the proper) authority. What you seem to be advocating is clericalism, an authoritarian (not authoritative) position that shows a lack of understanding of the nature and bounds of authority and obedience. My “narrow education” indeed leads me to “trust, but verify”, resulting not in blind obedience but willful obedience.
You continue to miss my point. If we put the [local regulation] above the spiritual and supernatural aspect of the [Sacrament], we become as the Pharisees, putting [local] law above [universal law and] human need. I also do not presume to speak for the Church as you seem to.You do realize that the authority that you question, is the very authority that writes and approve what you call the “proper” authority. Canon Law is written and from time to time rewritten by the Magisterium. It has been revised and rewritten after and since the Second Vatican Council and can be revised again. I am not talking of blind obediance, put the proper respect, loyalty and following the is due to your ordinary.
I rest my case.I don’t have to read thier minds, I can read thier posts.
By the way, since you seem to have a distrust in authority and trouble with obediance, I doubt that a monastic life would work well for you.
I’m not certain what case your are speaking of, but rest well.You continue to miss my point. If we put the [local regulation] above the spiritual and supernatural aspect of the [Sacrament], we become as the Pharisees, putting [local] law above [universal law and] human need. I also do not presume to speak for the Church as you seem to.
Peace,
FAB
(posted by FAB"…)
FAB, what you are not grasping is this: If guidleines set by a local parish, or diocese, disobey the Canon Law and violate the authority parents have in teaching, then the faithful must never be forced
FAB,BornCatholic7;5822981 said:(posted by FAB"…)
What you fail to grasp is your local ordinary is responsible to interpet, follow and enforce Canon Law. Why do insist on questioning the authority that he holds?
So are saying that God is limited in his works? Perhaps I can understand wanting to limit your odinary’s power, but God’s?
Peace,
FAB
That’s the issue. You seem to be under the impression that canon law is only a suggestion to the bishop, and it’s up to him to decide whether or not to follow it. You’ve said as much in this thread more than one time, especially in post 27 (and 47, 50. 100, 106 and now in 115–so this isn’t just my own imagination) Yes, the bishop interprets canon law, but he cannot change it. He can dispense, and there are times when the canons themselves leave certain decisions to the local bishop, that’s true as well.
But what you don’t understand is that if canon law says that a person is eligible to receive a sacrament because of A, B, and C, the bishop cannot refuse someone a sacrament because of additional local requirements not forseen in the canons.
No one here is questioning the bishop’s authority. However, you are trying to say that the bishop has more authority than he actually does. The bishop is still bound to obey canon law.