I am Church too

3 Responses

  1. David says:

    No-one has a monopoly on the Spirit. Just as the laity have a duty to listen to their bishops’ reasons for the new translation, the bishops have a greater duty to consider very carefully the reactions of the laity to the new translation. The duty is greater because the bishops have authority and power, while the laity are largely powerless in a formal sense. From what I’ve read, it seems that Cardinal Napier and Bishop Risi, speaking for the bishops, have almost out-of-hand pooh-poohed the negative reactions as being from the inexpert and the ingorant. This is very unfortunate because the laity don’t have a habit of complaining – not in such numbers. The Catholic Church has a well-established theology of the “sensus fidelium” , the “sense of the faithful”, which the bishops would do well not to dismiss out of hand: not in this day and age, where the laity are more educated than they have ever been.

  2. Rosemary Gravenor says:

    Right on David! and I am enormously sad alongside Miriam.

    Our Shepherds have had more than forty years to follow the implicit instructions of the Council (Vatican II) I quote: it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they (the faithful) are doing, actively engaged in the rite (read involved in establishing liturgy) and enriched by it.

    Elsewhere they write “Therefore, in all their apostolic activity, pastors of souls should energetically set about achieving (the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy) through the requisite pedagogy.

    Such teaching does not filter down to the laity it seems — otherwise we would have been informed and transformed for a positive response – which would have contained our input as any good teacher knows.

    Liturgy is also the way the People of God express their faith in and love for God.

  3. Martin Keenan says:

    Those quotations in comment 2 (from Sacrosanctum concilium nn. 11 and 14) are explicit instructions, not implicit ones and both (in so far as “explained” by the material within parentheses) have been radically misrepresented.

    “actively engaged in the rite” within Article 11 most certainly does not mean “involved in establishing liturgy”. The revision of the liturgical books was explicitly entrusted by the Fathers of the Council to “experts” (SC n. 25), and “bishops from various parts of the world [were] to be consulted” (ibid.). The regulation of the liturgy, as the Council affirmed, “depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop” (SC n.22).

    Pastors of souls were urged energetically to set about achieving “the full and active participation by all the people in the liturgy” (SC n.14) and not the restoration of the liturgy which (as I have explained) was confided to experts.

    Under the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no role within the process of liturgical reform was either implicitly or explicitly conceded to the laity or the lower clergy.

    If the bishops note comment which is uninformed, it is their duty to correct it, as they have sought to do through their various interventions. If the revision of the liturgical books was confided to experts (as it was), the translation of the same books into the vernacular is self-evidently a matter for experts too.

    The free-for-all mania which seems to be gripping various correspondents is not validated by indiscriminately appealing to the Holy Spirit. Re-read 1Co.12.

    As for the comment in the featured letter about those who “wrote with love on the pages of The Southern Cross”, my impression is more one of truculence and aggression in those letters than charity. That is what is truly sad.