| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Priest-most Important Person In The Parish?; Two tier laity? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 11. October 2006, 23:24 (1,522 Views) | |
| Alan | Friday, 27. October 2006, 22:05 Post #16 |
|
There are several matters on which I wish to have an input in this subject. 1 Bishops. Since childhood which was before Vatican 2 I always remember that The Lenten and Advent Pastoral letters were always signed as "Daniel" then "Cornelius" Bishop of Cork and in my Present Diocese Brian" Bishop of Shrewsbury. So this is always the accepted Practice. I would never dare call our Bishop by his Christian Name, I will always show him the courtesy due to his Office. My PP I will address as Father in public and by his Christian name in private, I know many Priests now prefer to be addressed as Father (Christian Name). All PP's are responsible to the Bishop for what goes on within their Parish, whether it be Spiritual, Social or fundraising. No Lay Person is entitled to inform their "PP" that this is how it is done here. Some years ago, on receiving information that ourr PP was bein replaced The Chairman of the Pastoral Council convened a meeting to arrange a collection and presentation to our departing PP. I objected on the basis that only the New PP could invite the former PP back to such a presentation. Our Chairman told the council that I was talking rubbish. I requested that my objection was noted in the minutes and a date was made for the presentation. At our next meeting (with the new PP present) when approval of the minutes were asked for, I objected because my Objection to the previous decision had not been noted. So I was assured that the minutes would be amended. The new PP said no way as he was abolishing the Council for exceeding its authority. That is what should happen in every Parish where the laity exceed their authority. The PP is the only person responsible to the Bishop for what happens in the Parish. A good Parish committee is an aid to the PP nothing more. |
|
God Bless all who visit this forum, Alan. Add Catholic CyberForum to your favourites | |
![]() |
|
| Eve | Tuesday, 31. October 2006, 13:57 Post #17 |
|
Former Admin/Moderator
|
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=3517
|
| Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately? | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 31. October 2006, 14:09 Post #18 |
![]()
Administrator
|
According to the Universe, a reliable UK Catholic paper, the cardinal has written to all priests in the Archdiocese, claiming the accusations originated from disgruntled priests who have been accused or found guilty of abuse. What happened to courage and integrity? There is only one place for anonymous letters - the bin. If the priests who sent the letter are ever identified they should be put on trial. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Tuesday, 31. October 2006, 16:53 Post #19 |
|
I agree Rose. If there is any genuine grievance it is negated by anonymity. Also such anonymity will unfairly throw suspicions on many innocent priests. The affair does no favours to the Archdiocese in particular nor the Church as a whole. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Tuesday, 31. October 2006, 21:53 Post #20 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Well said, Derek and Rose! I came across this business last week or the week before. Something's not quite right about the whole affair. I can't put my finger on it. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 2. November 2006, 03:29 Post #21 |
![]()
Administrator
|
![]()
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Friday, 3. November 2006, 20:19 Post #22 |
|
Alan is right to refer this matter, in effect, to ‘obedience’. Obedience is not always easy to adhere to; which I personally have found in little matters to be the most difficult. For example at funerals I like a lot of smoke which I start up in the Sacristy after the Gospel. The priest doesn’t think this necessary even though it has always been done this way, so he restricts the timing of igniting the tablets, and I found to my surprise how difficult it was to obey (or rather not object mentally to) that very simple instruction. Now to be Grumpy – your text Rose; are you advertising books again (smile). PJD |
![]() |
|
| nelly k | Friday, 3. November 2006, 22:44 Post #23 |
|
I think this is a particularly nasty, underhand letter , who even knows if it is from Clergy anyone could have done this, even worse its someones final year, I hope he is getting Prayers and support, even if there are issues some surley should have the guts to be honest, or be humble , nelly |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 11. November 2006, 18:14 Post #24 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Re: loyalty to the hierarchy, I think it would help if we returned to the practise of using surnames for our bishops. Bishop Jones sounds more formal than Bishop Dan. Whenever I read comments about "Benedict" or "Cormac" I feel a little tetchy. Whatever we feel about a man's personality or character, his position must be respected. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 29. January 2007, 22:25 Post #25 |
![]()
Administrator
|
On another thread there is mention of declining respect for the clergy. For some years I have been concerned about the same issue. No good would come of a return to the days when clergy were feared, but - have they lost their rightful place in our parishes? I think a lot of Catholics feel it is for us to tell the priest what we want, and how we want him to administer the parish, and for the priest to obey. Has it gone too far? Did respect go when we started using clergy's first names, either just the name or prefixed with Father? I have my thoughts about respect by clergy. That one can wait. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Monday, 29. January 2007, 23:42 Post #26 |
|
Use of Christian or First names came into the business and workplace sometime before our clergy introduced the practice. I was probably one of the last employees to address my immediate boss as Mr....... However, I had probably dropped the "Sir". I understand that many business people were embarrassed when they visited North America to be expected to be on first name terms immediately. The Archbishop of Boston (Mass) is referred to during Holy Mass as "Archbishop Sean" |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 30. January 2007, 20:33 Post #27 |
|
There are many I know who really do not like people addressing their Priests by their Christian name. I don't like it myself and automatically refrain from doing so. Of course it is not sinful to make such addresses; but there is the little problem that many who don't like it either look down on their fellow lay person or indeed speak of them in terms that are hardly very endearing. You see they are tempted to say more than "I don't like it". As for respect - I think it is still there very much so - but then now I am going on as above because I think really that those who address the priest in such personal terms have lesss respect than those like myself who just say Father. Correct me please if you feel this is out of turn, or quite out of date. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Michael | Tuesday, 30. January 2007, 21:29 Post #28 |
|
just my tuppence worth, i don't think it makes the blind bit of difference whether we say fr peter or fr smith, you either treat someone with respect or you don't, i think most people on here would treat people with respect regardless of whether we used mr, fr or just addressing a friend by their name, |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 30. January 2007, 21:31 Post #29 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I have a relative who is a priest. In private circumstances I use his Christian name, as I have done since we were childhood friends. When I went to his church, after Mass, on Church premises, in the presence of his parishioners, I addressed him as Father. It is a matter of having a close family relationship with the man, and respect for the position of the priest. How could I ignore the fact that he is a priest, when I see him wearing a cassock? One of our parishioners approached the parish priest and said "How's my little ray of sunshine?" A minute later she addressed him as "me Duck". She now calls him Father. I suspect he had words. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 31. January 2007, 02:16 Post #30 |
![]()
Administrator
|
At a recent event when the Bishop came to discuss pastoral reorganisation, I noted that one man, a former monk, addressed the Bishop as My Lord. I addressed him as Bishop because I know that is his preferred mode. Not one other person called him anything, not even Father. Am I being old fashioned? If so, I do not hang my head in shame. There are occasions when it suits me to be "behind the times". |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |








3:43 PM Jul 11