Bro J,
Why do you think the Church is a democracy? Most decisions are still made by the bishop or priest in my area. The only nod to democracy, that I can think of recently, was the MP that said the EF was to be celebrate wherever there was a stable population. I do not see it as a bad thing to take in consideration the needs of the people one ministers to.
The bad thing I see here Newt, is having the laity vote on whether CITH is appropriate.
Oh yes. That would be bad if it happened.
Actually, I was coming at this not from a democratic angle, but a pastoral one. If the bishop is getting reports that there are problems, then he can suspend CITH. If he’s not getting these messages, then he can leave it be.
I would agree with you insofar as you are talking about abuses. However, in the particular matter of CITH, or say the purification of Sacred Vessels by the laity, my point is that it was never the right of a Bishop before the 1960’s to determine that based on the desires of his diocese, he was going institute CITH, standing, in both species, and then was going to have the laity gather after Mass in the sacristy and purify the vessels.Actually, I was coming at this not from a democratic angle, but a pastoral one. If the bishop is getting reports that there are problems, then he can suspend CITH. If he’s not getting these messages, then he can leave it be.
This is not democratic. This is his right as bishop. We have not always told bishops what to do in their dioceses. Prior to Vatican II, the Apostolic See rarely had anything to say in the individual dioceses, not because they didn’t have the authority, but because it had no interest.
It was with John XXIII that we see this on-going communication between local ordinaries and the Apostolic See on many more matters. The Apostolic See has always acknowledge the authority of the local bishop and that has not changed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let me begin with the last part first. A pope has the right to enact any law that he wants or abrogate any law without the consent of the faithful. That has not been called into question, not by me. You have read enough of my posts to know that I am a firm believer in obedience without questions.
As you know, I do enjoy your posts. They are not based on emotion, unfortunately like your humble servant, but on rule and law. I still end by expressing my opinion that it was not in the best interest of the treatment of the Blessed Sacrament for the Pope to relegate the authority of the manner of distribution to the Bishops. I believe it creates a patchwork of jurisdictions and practices as diverse as the number of diocese in the U.S. and abroad and I do not believe that is a good thing. To take this explanation further would be just to re-hash already hashed arguments on the matter.Let me begin with the last part first. A pope has the right to enact any law that he wants or abrogate any law without the consent of the faithful. That has not been called into question, not by me. You have read enough of my posts to know that I am a firm believer in obedience without questions.
Given that this matter has been left to the bishops to decide, then we the faithful should also obey and leave it to the bishops to decide. It’s part of our obedience to the pope. If the pope says that the bishops should make this decision, it would be contrary to obedience for me to question his decision to do so. As one who has vowed to obey him without questioning, without expressing an opinion unless I have the persmission to do so, without asking for explanations, I simply shrug my shoulders and say, “OK, he’s the pope.” My growth in holiness does not depend on CITH or COTT, but on muy obedience to the pope. The former is a practice, the latter is a vow.
As far as purifying the chalice and patten, the rules are very clear that it has to be done by: acolyte, deacon, priest or bishop. No one else should be doing it. There comes that thing called obedience again.
Finally, since the decision is left to the diocesan bishop, if the diocesan bishop decides to go by consensus, his personal preference, or the feedback that he gets from the priests’ synod, that’s up to him to decide. He has been given that authority. In fact, the only thing that is new here is the priests’ synod. We didn’t have those in the past. The reason was that we did not need them. There were very few secular priests. Most priests belonged to religious orders; therefore, they were governed not by bishops, but by abbots and priors. The bishops governed the few secular clerics under them and the laity. Abbots and priors always enjoyed and still do, a great deal of autonomy and power. Except, today they have power over a smaller number of priests, because most priests are not religious.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I don’t know about anyone else, but I can deal with this. You’re expressing an opinion and you have the right to do so. I do not. I have no right to any opinions except those that the pope, the bishop and my superior allow me to have. But that’s was a choice that I made, wasn’t it? I mean, that was the choice that I made when I entered my community. But I do respect your opinion.
Interesting. Good discussion for another thread. I would like to hear more about this.
Bro. JR, I do understand what you mean by “taking care of” here. But just to point it out, the laity do have an obligation to support the Church, the most common way is to give money during collection. And this in a way takes care of the parish priest, though not a direct taking care of as you are mentioning here.
In a Carhtusian house, called a Charterhouse, the vocation of the brother, along with a life of silence, solitude and prayer there is the duty to take care of the Fathers. The brothers prepare their meals and serve them their meals in their cells, clean the house, do their laundry, bring in the income that suppports the house, pay the bills, maintain the premises, make sure that the Fathers have everything that they need so that they do not have to be distracted with anything, protect the Fathers from any outside distractions such as noise, telephones, visitors, news from the outside world, they even cut their hair. When a Father is old or sick, the brothers nurse them until they recover or die, so that the other Fathers never have to leave their cells to deal with the old and the sick. Their life is one of total service to the Fathers. They worry about nothing else in the outside world. The only contact that the brothers have with the outside world is when they have to do something for the good of the Fathers.
Of course Bro. JR. Like I said, I know what you mean by “taking care of”. I just want to point out that we the laity do also, in a very small way, take care of our parish pastors (or the priest of the parish we are registered to) by supporting the Church financially. Also, some people do go the extra mile when they volunteer either for the parish ministries, or even to help around the parish. In our parish, we had volunteer do gardening and even carpentry work for our parish priest. For free.In a Carhtusian house, called a Charterhouse, the vocation of the brother, along with a life of silence, solitude and prayer there is the duty to take care of the Fathers. The brothers prepare their meals and serve them their meals in their cells, clean the house, do their laundry, bring in the income that suppports the house, pay the bills, maintain the premises, make sure that the Fathers have everything that they need so that they do not have to be distracted with anything, protect the Fathers from any outside distractions such as noise, telephones, visitors, news from the outside world, they even cut their hair. When a Father is old or sick, the brothers nurse them until they recover or die, so that the other Fathers never have to leave their cells to deal with the old and the sick. Their life is one of total service to the Fathers. They worry about nothing else in the outside world. The only contact that the brothers have with the outside world is when they have to do something for the good of the Fathers.
So when I say that there is a difference between them and the laity in a parish, that’s what I mean. The laity does not give up everything to live a life of total service to the parish priest. This is a very special vocation and found among the Carthusians and I believe the Dominicans, but don’t take my word on that one. I think that Dominican brothers do other things too, besides take care of the priests. The Carthusian brothers do not.
I had a good friend among the Carthusians. He was a priest. He’s deceased now. I always wrote him letters advising him to remain in the Charterhouse, because if he became a Franciscan the first thing that the other brothers would say to him would be: “I don’ think so.”
You see, our priests remain brothers. We don’t have the priest/brother distinction, except in matters of sacraments. Their community is structured differently.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
“CITH” isn’t a doctrinal issue. The “Other bad things” very much are doctrinal questions. The laity should have NO SAY about changing things that can’t be changed.
One has to be careful using the highly overused phrase “pastoral needs” lest one open the Pandora’s box of the post-conciliar wish-list. I noticed you qualified yourself in the parenthetical (emphasis added). Good save.
And excellent posting, Chris_Jackson. Thank you.
(the appeal to canons 1321-4 dealing with situations of necessity/emergency: posting #59 on this thread)
Does anybody have a citation for this? I have tried to study this issue for many years, and I have never come across a direct comment by Pope John Paul II on the topic. I think that people are simply assuming that he must have made this judgment. But as I wrote in posting #59, he (and others) simply ignored the objection.
I think this is erroneous, Bro JR. Can you give a citation on this thesis? Yes, the pope can change canon law unilaterally. This is normally done via a Motu Proprio: “A statement of the pope’s personal initiative that carries the force of law”. But while Canon Law stands he is still bound, in elementary justice, to follow it. The Pope is the custodian of the Church: he does not own it. the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope. Therefore even the Pope must operate along certain lines.
I agree with your take on delegated authority, Bro JR. I raise the point of the newspaper article condemning Mgr Lefebvre because the Cardinal issuing it was not in the chain of authority delegated to do so. There is, or was, a widely-repeated notion that Mgr Lefebvre was excommunicated by the pope. I reply that this was not the case. You will notice also in Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum that the decree lifting the excommunication identifies it as having been issued by Cdl Gantin, not Pope John Paul II. I am not saying here that Pope John Paul II disagreed with Cdl Gantin’s decree; I am merely reminding readers of the facts.