Terminology: Layperson vs. Clergy

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
His Excellency The Most Reverend Rudolf Voderholzer, Bishop of Regensburg, recently stated at the “Katholikentag”, a large annual event in Germany with tens of thousands of attendees, that he was in favour of abandoning the term “layperson” as distinct from “clergy”, because he thinks it discriminatory and not in line with Vatican II’s declarations on the People of God. In German, the term “Laie” means “layperson” in a Catholic context, but common parlance has, over the years, used it to mean “a person who has no special training in a particular field”.

The Bishop thus proposed to replace the “discriminatory” term with “Weltchrist” (“a Christian in the world”), analogous to “Weltpriester” (a priest not part of a religious order).

Do you have any thoughts on this? 🤷
 
CutlerB #1
His Excellency The Most Reverend Rudolf Voderholzer, Bishop of Regensburg, recently stated……he was in favour of abandoning the term “layperson” as distinct from “clergy”, because he thinks it discriminatory and not in line with Vatican II’s declarations on the People of God.
Click to expand...
Vatican II in *Lumen Gentium (#33) emphasises:
‘Now the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth (2). Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself “according to the measure of Christ’s bestowal”.(197)

‘Besides this apostolate which certainly pertains to all Christians, the laity can also be called in various ways to a more direct form of cooperation in the apostolate of the Hierarchy (3*). This was the way certain men and women assisted Paul the Apostle in the Gospel, laboring much in the Lord.(198) Further, they have the capacity to assume from the Hierarchy certain ecclesiastical functions, which are to be performed for a spiritual purpose.”

So, “laity” is most in line with Vatican II and with Saint John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation *Christifideles Laici *(on the *Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) *1988, which stressed that:
“A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle.”(#3). Further, “the ‘Criteria of Ecclesiality’ for Lay Groups” as requiring “The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith, embracing and proclaiming the truth about Christ, the Church and humanity, in obedience to the Church’s Magisterium, as the Church interprets it.” #30, my emphasis].
  1. “Without doubt a mending of the Christian fabric of society is urgently needed in all parts of the world. But for this to come about what is needed is to first remake the Christian fabric of the ecclesial community itself present in these countries and nations.
“In the case of coming generations, the lay faithful must offer the very valuable contribution, more necessary than ever, of a systematic work in catechesis. The Synod Fathers have gratefully taken note of the work of catechists, acknowledging that they “have a task that carries great importance in animating ecclesial communities”(125). It goes without saying that Christian parents are the primary and irreplaceable catechists of their children, a task for which they are given the grace by the Sacrament of Matrimony. At the same time, however, we all ought to be aware of the “rights” that each baptized person has to being instructed, educated and supported in the faith and the Christian life.

“At this moment the lay faithful, in virtue of their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, are fully part of this work of the Church. Their responsibility, in particular, is to testify how the Christian faith constitutes the only fully valid response-consciously perceived and stated by all in varying degrees-to the problems and hopes that life poses to every person and society.”
 
Layman has had the same connotations in English for over a century - meaning either a person who is neither clergy nor religious in a church context, or lacking in professional training in a professional context.

There’s no need to invent new terms.

Note that Vatican II did eliminate the separation between non-ordained religious and laity for purposes of the sacraments.
 
The only change in title before the Lord I seek is “saint”.
 
Language is extremely important, just look at all the trouble a Catholic has to go through to explain the word “pray” to one who has no concept of the Communion of Saints!

That being said, whatever is proposed in Germany (in their vernacular) most likely won’t catch on here unless it gets to the Holy See, after which the definitions will go through translations at least two more languages on the way. Those languages may or may not capture the nuance of the meaning. Wash, rinse, repeat (think of getting Faustina’s Diary translated, and retranslated…).

In typical fashion, the folks in the US will learn about the new terminology and use it sometimes, but amongst ourselves and in explaining to others, we’re still going to use the old word: like “confession” instead of “reconciliation.” 😉
 
Petaro said:
The only change in title before the Lord I seek is “saint”.
Click to expand...
Good point!

Laity, or clergy (whether priest, deacon, religious brother, sister) all ascribe to reaching the goal of sainthood, and all share the common attribute as “sinner”.
 
Perhaps the good bishop should re-read the documents?

Christ Himself discriminated; he only chose 12 apostles; although He had numerous disciples; and the early Church also discriminated, by only choosing so many bishops, and only making some presbyters, and some deacons. And given the early Church was either taught by Christ, or by those who were taught by Christ, or by the third round (and thus were often in the presence of some ether taught by Christ or those taught by the ones taught directly), logic would indicate that Christ intended differentiation, or there would have been those who would have said that "the ones set apart) was discriminatory.

The good bishop seems to be thinking that discrimination is somehow inherently wrong.

Some is.

Some is not.

However, modern thought seems to have a bent that any discrimination is wrong - unless it is discrimination against political correctness. And woe betide those who would ever accuse the emperor of no clothes. :tsktsk:
 
Miserissima said:
Language is extremely important, just look at all the trouble a Catholic has to go through to explain the word “pray” to one who has no concept of the Communion of Saints!

That being said, whatever is proposed in Germany (in their vernacular) most likely won’t catch on here unless it gets to the Holy See, after which the definitions will go through translations at least two more languages on the way. Those languages may or may not capture the nuance of the meaning. Wash, rinse, repeat (think of getting Faustina’s Diary translated, and retranslated…).

In typical fashion, the folks in the US will learn about the new terminology and use it sometimes, but amongst ourselves and in explaining to others, we’re still going to use the old word: like “confession” instead of “reconciliation.” 😉
Click to expand...
THIS. Plus, there’s a certain Asian country (Japan, perhaps? I can’t remember which one exactly) that has done something similar because one term or phrase has a wholly different and vulgar meaning in their language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top