From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pastoral letter
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:54:52 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-15354]: clones

In article <By1BIM.C0t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   If you mean the Catholic Church, yes, it is a top-down Church.  The
>authority comes down from God to the bishops, then down to the priests
>and the people (God->bishops->priests->people).  The problem I have
>with a church in which the authority comes from the people is that it
>seems to imply that _God's_ authority comes from the people
>(people->priests->bishops->God).

The Catholic Church is very top down, but whether it was instituted that
way or became that way due to historical circumstances is subject to
debate, I think.

Another hidden assumption you seem to have above is that the priests
and bishops must be between the people and God.  What's wrong with
God->people->priests->bishops ?

>   This becomes even more evident when the people are able to change
>the church's doctrines.

Many doctrines, particularly moral precepts, arise out of and are
applicable to particular cultures at particular points in history.
When the context changes within which those doctrines had meaning,
the doctrine must be changed too.  Not everything the Church teaches
is immutable truth.  One of the great theological achievements of this
century (IMHO) has been the growth of the understanding of how historical
circumstances condition the Church's teaching and influence doctrinal
formulations.

>>rhetorical questions, but to blithely disregard the expressed opinions
>>of the laity and many priests as unworthy of notice is, IMO, not in
>>keeping with Paul's teachins about the various parts of the Body of
>>Christ.   Without the people there is no Church.
>
>   Wrong.  Without Christ there is no Church, but your point is moot
>anyway, because there are and will always be (don't forget the Church
>Triumphant) people in the Church.  Yes, there are various parts of the
>Body of Christ.  But as I recall, Paul says this: "Are all apostles?
>are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"  The
>answer to these rhetorical questions is the same: no.  The bishops are
>those who are called to be teachers, not the laity (don't say "what
>about catechists, etc.?"; they have no authority except from their
>bishops).

As Catholics, we do not believe that bishops have what's known as
"infused knowledge,"  i.e. our Lord's teachings are not engraved into a
man's mind when he's consecrated a bishop.  He has to learn them the
same way we all do: through prayer and study.  Also, you draw too
sharply the distinction between teachers and learners.  Vatican II
called for dialogue not only with the world but within the Church itself
between the bishops and priests on the one hand, and the faithful on
the other.  All Catholics share in the dialogic teaching and learning
process by which the Church comes to fuller understanding of Christ and
his truth.

Likewise, in saying the laity have no authority to teach except from
their bishops, you misrepresent the genuine role the laity have in the
Church's salvific and evangelical mission, clearly taught by the Council
Fathers at Vatican II.

You may want to read the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) as well as the Decree on the Apostolate
of the Laity.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic