Pope Calls Laity to Responsibility in the Church

[Brendan]

From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
If you’re going to try and explain that full and active participation means sitting in the pew and reading along with your missal, I have to point out how the Bishops have made the changes of active participation which the laity are part of today.

I would recommend Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. He has a full chapter on what 'full and active participation" means. He examins it in light of the Latin promuldated by the Council "participatio actuosa ". He defines the actio of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. According to Pope Benedict, we participate in the actio of the Liturgy of the Word when we listen attentively and consciecely to the Word proclaimed.

Likewise, we participate in the actio of Liturgy of the Eucharist when we fully and consciecely give ourselves as a sacrifice in conjunction with the Sacrifice that the priest offers at the Altar.

Pope John Paul II offered a simialr assessment in his 1998 ad lima address to the US Bishops

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active.

In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

This certainly does not exclude a person engaged in a ministry at Mass, but one who is silently listening and praying is also fully, consciously and actively participating in the Mass as well.

 

[wisedom]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Without the Laity the CHurch ceases to function and exist? We now determine the life of an Eternal God? We can kill God? We can destroy the Mystical Body of Christ!? Buzzer If just ONE faithful Catholic is alive, the gates of Hell have not prevailed. Do you not believe the words of Our Lord? Are we about to jump into the mistake of the Jews? Do we not recall the lesson of Elijah, lamenting he was the only one left and God informed him that He had preserved 7000? “But for the Elect sake, those days shall be shortened…” Don’t get stuck on the building. The Church goes far beyond whether or not someone has a place to be the next American Idol.

You’re right though, we can’t be isolated to the pews and serve this mission of evangelizing the world. We have to leave the pews at some point, exit out the front door, and go do it. It has nothing to do with what happens IN Mass.

Bring the Gospel to the world and you’ll bring the world to the Gospel. Start trying to bring the world into the Mass, and watch it flounder and flop around like a dying fish, turning into a community rock-band “church” jamboree of humanistic death of the soul. Just like it has. Utopian junk is NOT our point. We are here to become Saints, and in doing so, create the damned. If we are not seeking to become Saints, we are tacitly seeking damnation. We do not become saints because we merely read something. We do not become saints because we have another meeting, spaghetti dinner, and a great cantor voice.

the magesterium had been hitherto declaring that the Church comprised the higher hiercharchy for the purpose of controlling the whole church, all the while treating with contempt the heart of the Church, aka the Laity… that is why the earlier poster would have said that without the laity also, there can be no Church…of course all members of the Church, whether laity or clergy form the one mystical Body of Christ, which is imperfect as of now, and it is my reasoning when Jesus Christ comes again, he will purify and perfect His Church!

Mara Natha (come Lord Jesus come)…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I go to the TLM so that answers that.

Then you’re called to go to the extraordinary form, while the rest of us called to the ordinary, which includes lay people participating as lectors and Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Jim

 

[starryheart]

Jim, you do realize you are being very insulting especially to those of us who attend the TLM, which you obviously are referring to, but also to those whose practice is not to have the laity in the sanctuary. Is this intentional?

Agree…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I would recommend Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. He has a full chapter on what 'full and active participation" means. He examins it in light of the Latin promuldated by the Council "participatio actuosa ". He defines the actio of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. According to Pope Benedict, we participate in the actio of the Liturgy of the Word when we listen attentively and consciecely to the Word proclaimed.

Likewise, we participate in the actio of Liturgy of the Eucharist when we fully and consciecely give ourselves as a sacrifice in conjunction with the Sacrifice that the priest offers at the Altar.

Pope John Paul II offered a simialr assessment in his 1998 ad lima address to the US Bishops

This certainly does not exclude a person engaged in a ministry at Mass, but one who is silently listening and praying is also fully, consciously and actively participating in the Mass as well.

I would say go by what the Pope and Bishops ended up establishing in the Church by having the laity actively participate in doing the readings and ministering the sacraments when needed.

It’s nice to read about what Pope John Paul II sees as participation, and I’ve his explanation before, for not everyone is called to be lectors or EMHC’s, but he doesn’t exclude the laity from these.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, you do realize you are being very insulting especially to those of us who attend the TLM, which you obviously are referring to, but also to those whose practice is not to have the laity in the sanctuary. Is this intentional?

I’m not referring to those who attend the TLM, but those who desire that the Church return to the TLM as the ordinary and push the agenda throughout this forum.

It’s not you, so no insult is intended or should be taken.

Christ’s calls some to the TLM, others he calls to the Novus Ordo.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Without the laity, there is no Church on earth, there wouldn’t even be any point for Christ establishing it, let alone suffer and die for us.

Heck, no need for the Apostles either. Who would they have evangelized ?

The Church is both mystical and visible.

We on earth are the visible Church.

Jim

But if every lay person on Earth disappeared, leaving only the clergy, there would still be a Church militant, would it not.

There still would be a “Church on Earth”.

I certainly agree that Christ did not intend nor establish a Church consisting of clergy alone, but your statement comes very close to claiming that the clergy are not, in fact, part of the Church or that the Church exists strictly for the laity.

The Church exists to bring all to salvation, clergy and lay alike. If there was not a single lay person on Earth, there would still be the need for the Church Militant, as the clergy cannot bring themselves to salvation.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

But if every lay person on Earth disappeared, leaving only the clergy, there would still be a Church militant, would it not.

There still would be a “Church on Earth”.

No there wouldn’t be a Church because the Church on earth was established by Jesus to carry his message to the world.

Without a world of people to bring the message to, what’s the point?

Jim

 

[MarMax]

Brendan

No there wouldn’t be a Church because the Church on earth was established by Jesus to carry his message to the world.

Without a world of people to bring the message to, what’s the point?

Jim

Laity = those in the visible structure of the Church who are not clerics. They’d take it to the people outside the Church, presently on a collision course for Hell.

And, as Brendan said, Clergy cannot save themselves. Cannot confess to themselves. Cannot anything unto themselves except celebrate the Mass. A Perfect Act of Contrition can be hard to come by, and not known for sure, leading to despair in weaker moments. Even if a confession is not perfect, it’s still going to result in absolution unless one is intending to sin more without the intention to not, though recognizing we are imperfect and fallen, and likely will… unfortunately.

:winter: << Dressed for the New Spring.

 

[Brendan]

I would say go by what the Pope and Bishops ended up establishing in the Church by having the laity actively participate in doing the readings and ministering the sacraments when needed.

It’s nice to read about what Pope John Paul II sees as participation, and I’ve his explanation before, for not everyone is called to be lectors or EMHC’s, but he doesn’t exclude the laity from these.

Jim

No one ever said that lectors and EMHC’s are excluded.

Te existance of those roles is a non sequitor. They, by themselves cannot be considered to be ‘full, active and conscience’ participation, as we are all called to that.

Likewise, if a bishop or pastor comes in and chooses not to use such roles,and even dismisses the choir and altar servers as well, he is denying no one of the ability to comply with the directives of Vatican II to fully participate at Mass.

The actio of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are still present, and those (according to Pope Benedict) are the *participatio actuosa *we are called to do.

 

[wisedom]

I did not say that, as you might have gathered if you actually read the post which drew the cited response. I’m actually very supportive of Pope Benedict XVI, and feel truly blessed that he is our Holy Father. Further, I am very supportive of what he is teaching in this message.

Since we want to accuse me of sacrilege (which is an offense against a sacred object, not a holy person), we should also throw in the usual charges of heresy and other grave offenses often lightly hurled here at others.

Just remember - it is gravely sinful to bear false witness, and there should be no doubt about that.

sacrilege implies violation of what is regarded as sacred, and going through the responding letter of the poster to you, you had said something like P.Benedict was trying to confuse others in the same way Jesus had done during his ministry (i recall this from memory, shall verify later i.e. tomorrow and confirm)… if you allege that Jesus was causing or trying to cause confusion with his teaching, is this not sacrilege which means violation of what is regarded as sacred, namely Jesus’ Teaching?..and also Jesus himself, whose name is sacred and is above all names?

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Pax.

I have been finding this discussion very interesting, but I think it’s been going off on a tangent — which may be what Pope Benedict is trying to address.

The tangent is the interpretation of “responsibility in the Church” to mean “in the church building” such as we are reading in these discussions (arguments) regarding participation at Mass.

I think when we reduce “responsibility” to what we do in our one hour a week during Mass, we are missing the point.

The call of Christ is to our whole lives.

The Pope’s call is to unity, communion and witness.

If we are arguing with one another here, what sort of witness to unity and communion is this?

Right here is where we are called to witness.

May Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan

No there wouldn’t be a Church because the Church on earth was established by Jesus to carry his message to the world.

Without a world of people to bring the message to, what’s the point?

Jim

Yes their would be. The mission of the Church is to save souls. The clergy would still be in need of the Sacraments, the on going message to LIVE the Gospel.

I think that is where your logic is failing, yes, the Church has a mission to carry the message to the world. But the world includes those who reside in the Church already. The Gospel is also to be lived; restricting the Church to a carrier of the message denies an element at the core of it’s mission. It calles all to conversion and to a continued reconversion of heart. If all that remained on Earth were clergy, the mission of the Church would remain, as the message of the Gospel does not stop after a person is Baptized, nor even after one recieves Orders, but it on going.

Why do you think the Pope has his own preacher? And has a confessor? Because even Popes are in need of the ongoing mission of the Church, and of the Sacraments.

Every week (or more) there is someone preaching the Gospel to the Pope calling him to live more and more in the image of Christ, calling for ever deeper conversion of heart; there is someone hearing his sins and offering absoltuon. Is that not the mission of the Church in a nutshell?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think when we reduce “responsibility” to what we do in our one hour a week during Mass, we are missing the point.

Precisely

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pax.

I have been finding this discussion very interesting, but I think it’s been going off on a tangent — which may be what Pope Benedict is trying to address.

The tangent is the interpretation of “responsibility in the Church” to mean “in the church building” such as we are reading in these discussions (arguments) regarding participation at Mass.

I think when we reduce “responsibility” to what we do in our one hour a week during Mass, we are missing the point.

The call of Christ is to our whole lives.

The Pope’s call is to unity, communion and witness.

If we are arguing with one another here, what sort of witness to unity and communion is this?

Right here is where we are called to witness.

May Christ’s peace be with you.

Yes, the Pope is calling us to unity, and for the laity to be co-responsible in the mission of the Church, which is to bring Christ to the world.

He also points out the Vatican II document, which outlines the role of the laity, which I posted and suggested that everyone read.

It is in the spirit of Vatican II Pope Benedict is speaking.

Jim

 

[triumphguy]

I would recommend Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. He has a full chapter on what 'full and active participation" means. He examins it in light of the Latin promuldated by the Council "participatio actuosa ". He defines the actio of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. According to Pope Benedict, we participate in the actio of the Liturgy of the Word when we listen attentively and consciecely to the Word proclaimed.

Likewise, we participate in the actio of Liturgy of the Eucharist when we fully and consciecely give ourselves as a sacrifice in conjunction with the Sacrifice that the priest offers at the Altar.

…l.

Actively participating in the Eucharist is no small matter. It;s not about being an altar server, or EMHC, or priest or deacon, it’s about conforming our lives top Christ so that we are “holy and blameless in his sight.”

It means we have to have purged our souls of mortal sin through confession before we receive.

It means we are willing to “become what we receive” (in Augustinian theology).

It means we enter into Christ’s passion and death and resurrection.

It means we are willing to take Christ out into the world.

Walking up and sticking your tongue out or holding your hands out are just the beginning (which is why I don’t get CITH vs OTT arguments)!

 

[wisedom]

But if every lay person on Earth disappeared, leaving only the clergy, there would still be a Church militant, would it not.

There still would be a “Church on Earth”.

I certainly agree that Christ did not intend nor establish a Church consisting of clergy alone, but your statement comes very close to claiming that the clergy are not, in fact, part of the Church or that the Church exists strictly for the laity.

The Church exists to bring all to salvation, clergy and lay alike. If there was not a single lay person on Earth, there would still be the need for the Church Militant, as the clergy cannot bring themselves to salvation.

Jesus Christ came to save the laity who is the heart of the Chruch and are sinners!

He did not come to save the clergy, the head of the Church, for they are without sin!

He came to heal those who were sick, not those who were healthy and did not need a doctor!(pl. refer Scripture for the correct words)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes their would be. The mission of the Church is to save souls. The clergy would still be in need of the Sacraments, the on going message to live the Gospel.

I think that is where your logic is failing, yes, the Church has a mission to carry the message to the world. But the world includes those who reside in the Church already. The Gospel is also to be lived; restricting the Church to a carrier of the message denies an element at the core of it’s mission. It calles all to conversion and to a continued reconversion of heart. If all that remained on Earth were clergy, the mission of the Church would remain, as the message of the Gospel does not stop after a person is Baptized, nor even after one recieves Orders, but it on going.

Why do you think the Pope has his own preacher? And has a confessor? Because even Popes are in need of the ongoing mission of the Church, and of the Sacraments.

But your hypothetical was that there were no people on earth other than the Bishops priests and deacons.

My point is that there would not be a Church because there would be no mission, which is why Christ established the in the first place.

Jim

 

[MarMax]

Jesus Christ came to save the laity who is the heart of the Chruch and are sinners!

He did not come to save the clergy, the head of the Church, for they are without sin!

He came to heal those who were sick, not those who were healthy and did not need a doctor!(pl. refer Scripture for the correct words)

Clergy are without sin? Shoot… sign me up Holy Ghost! Get me ordained so I can be perfect in Christ!

Sheesh… is THIS the sort of ridiculous understanding the spirit of Vatican II has wrought?

Insidious… evil. Wrong.

 

[Brendan]

Jesus Christ came to save the laity who is the heart of the Chruch and are sinners!

He did not come to save the clergy, the head of the Church, for they are without sin!

He came to heal those who were sick, not those who were healthy and did not need a doctor!(pl. refer Scripture for the correct words)

I do hope that you are being funny. The clergy certainly DO sin. Ask your priest, he will tell you that he has a confessor.