Vatican II’s affirmation of the “priesthood of the laity” led to a new understanding of the relationship between the laity and the ordained members of the Church. Vatican I emphasized papal primacy and infallibility and painted an image of the Church’s hierarchy as a pyramid. The vision of the Church’s hierarchy as a pyramid, with the pope at the top, the bishops right beneath, then the priest, left the masses, the laity, at the very bottom. As John Ford puts it, the problem with this image of the hierarchy is that it “implied a correlative understanding of the ministries of the person(s) at each level” (299). In this model, the laity play a passive role: they are recipients of the sacraments and teaching, but do not play any significant role in shaping the life and vision of the Church. In contrast, Vatican II envisioned the hierarchy, not as a pyramid, but as a communion. While affirming the structural hierarchy, the Church empowered the laity to share “in the one priesthood of Christ” (LG 10), which even includes playing a role in the formulation of doctrine (LG 12). Furthermore, the Council called the laity to “share in the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ” (AA 2) in the Church through participation in activities such as teaching the catechism, pastoral care, and administering the resources of the Church (AA 10).
The emphasis on the “priesthood of the laity” has led to new understandings of the various ministries of the Church and how they relate to one another. In this model, the ordained priest still enjoys particular duties, serving as “pastoral minsters of Word and sacraments in a local eucharistic community” (M 30), but his duty includes empowering the lay people to fulfill their own priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions in the Church and in the world. In effect, this vision of the Church collapses (and perhaps even inverts) the pyramid scheme: the pope, the bishops, the priests, and deacons, though fulfilling their respective duties, also serve the laity and empower them to fulfill their vocation to be “leaven in the world” and witnesses to the gospel.
7 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Doesn’t this all imply ‘Oh Oh’… I guess the previous pope’s dictums weren’t infallible.
This is the whole wickedly slippery slope of Catholicism for me. I know I’m a schismatic, but how wonderful to drop the lingo..and say: ‘It seemed good to us at the time… but we were wrong. We’re older and wiser now.’
Comment by Roger Flyer November 1, 2007 @ 4:07 pmI also don’t get why the ‘catholic’ church has rescinded its ‘catholic’ roots. That of the ‘collective’ ie catholic voice of the apostles. How did one voice (Peter’s) get so big. Wasn’t he a fisherman? shouldn’t we hear from the tax collector? and the rabbi? and the other rabble rousers turned disciples?
Comment by Roger Flyer November 1, 2007 @ 4:10 pmThe priesthood of the laity has been a constant teaching of the Church along with the sacramental priesthood. This is from the pre-vatican II 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “Having come through Baptism to the supernatural life, being members of the Christian society and adopted children of God, the laity belong to the ‘chosen race’, the ‘royal priesthood’ (1 Peter 2:9) formed of all those who are born again in Christ.”
And when did a pope ever make a pronouncement that denied the common priesthood of the baptized?
Comment by Freder1ck March 9, 2008 @ 10:44 pmOkay? Are you responding to something in particular about my post? Are you suggesting that Vatican II’s affirmation of the laity wasn’t a turning point in the tradition? Come on now that is just not an honest reading of Roman Catholic history.
Comment by roflyer March 9, 2008 @ 11:51 pmAlas, comboxes are not the ideal medium for subtleties, but a blunt reply oft corrects a sweeping claim. Catholic history is not as monolithic as you presume.
Comment by Freder1ck March 10, 2008 @ 1:21 amI don’t presume that Catholic history is monolithic. I really don’t understand your complaint about this post. I’m saying nothing new or original here. Virtually all interpreters of Vatican II ecclesiology say the same type of thing I’m saying here.
Comment by roflyer March 10, 2008 @ 1:29 amI’m mainly responding to the first comment in the combox.
Comment by Freder1ck March 10, 2008 @ 7:35 am