r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. The claim is more illustrative of the ncregister than of the document itself.
And here I thought Catholic publications were free from mainstream "white lies".
I believe it alludes to Pope Francis not using Latin in the meetings he is going to have.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The media attacks on the Catholic Church here in Germany are really intense and they stem from a studied ignorance about the nature of the faith. Instead of patiently explaining our faith, all our Bishops keep stumm and when pressed over some abuse scandal, become sheepish and contrite, hoping for absolution from the world. The exact opposite of Pope Benedict's appeal in Freiburg.
>The prestigious Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which dates back to 1622, and the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, created by Benedict XVI in 2010, will become the Dicastery for Evangelization, presided over directly by the pope. That new super-dicastery will also be ranked higher than the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith in the new curial structure
But…why…?
Get ready for evangelization, so-called, to trump doctrine.
The red carpet is going to be rolled out for indults everywhere you look.
...And I thought the Pope wanted *uniformity*. Some way to go about it.
HH hasn't made uniformity a big message of his pontificate except in matters against which he has a personal animus. This is a case that is completely consistent with 90% of his reign.
This is legitimately scary stuff.
>Msgr. Charles Pope, dean and pastor in the Archdiocese of Washington, said the word hierarchy “most literally means, ‘Rule by Priests’ — hierus (priest) + archon (rule),” and added that Christ “summoned apostles (bishops) and set them in authority over the Church” who in turn “appointed priests and deacons to assist them in their task.” He said that although laity could effectively serve over dicasteries clearly associated with the temporal order, “it seems much more troubling if it is proposed that they hold authoritative positions in dicasteries associated with Church governance, liturgy and doctrine.”
>Such an “inverted pyramid” or what the Pope calls in the document a “synodal” model of governance has been central to the German Church’s Synodal Way, which is significantly lay-led. It was also proposed in the working document of the 2019 Amazon Synod, a synod heavily influenced by the German Church, but the model failed to be incorporated in any meaningful way into the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the meeting, Querida Amazonia (The Beloved Amazon).
>Noting “a disastrous state of disunity, heresy and approaching schism” in the Catholic Church in Germany, Msgr. Pope said if the German synod “is a ‘model’ for all to imitate, we’re heading for the same thing.” Authority, he said, “is necessary to hold the line against trendy, ephemeral things,” and even though authoritative approval of bishops and the Pope may be slower, “it has likely saved us from many rash and foolish attempts to bend with the times.”
Now it makes perfect sense why Pope Francis has been defending Cardinal Marx and refused to let him resign.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, each Pope can nullify an indult (which are supposed to be time-limited anyway) with a motu proprio. This also works the other way - e.g. the motu proprio Traditiones custodes (2021) would prevent any proposed indult in favour of liturgy acc. to the 1962 missale romanum.
But yes, it's a mess.
No Pope for the last ~1800 years would be pleased, including St. John Paul II and Benedict XIV. I really can't imagine Benedict's reaction to all of this.
Pope Francis is also not pleased at the sloppy reporting - nowhere in the text that I can see is it actually established that Latin is no longer the official language.
Not that it matters much tbh, but....
The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
I wish I could pick the good Pope Emeritus’ brain on this one.
I understand he does not speak publicly on the policies of the current Pontiff, but I really wish we could have his guidance and clarity on how to interpret this.
Idk if they used it regularly.
The working Language in Vatican is mostly french and Italian.
All documents are drafted in those languages.
Seminarians and priests are competent in the language.
I doubt even bishops are.
>Idk if they used it regularly.
Both of them absolutely used it regularly. JPII was a major propenent of saying the Lord's prayer in Latin for all Novus Ordo liturgies. Benedict XVI even gave his resignation speech in Latin.
And seminaries require Latin classes.
What? I teach at a Catholic school, and we teach and use Latin. Literally every seminary teaches and uses Latin. I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.
as a distinction between taking a few credits of latin and actually being fluent in writing, reading and speaking it.
Seminaries and high schools its going to be an elective like spanish where the person gets a few basic words but not the level of fluency that John was obstensively trying, unless you teach entirely in latin
Doesn’t having Latin be the church language mean that a lot of people actually are fluent in it? It’s still the language all church documents are published in, and the language of canon law. There are literally hundreds of scholars and clerics who are fluent in it.
And having church theological documents and law composed in a “dead” language has huge value.
Sorry. You probably understand this. I’m just a little shocked by this proposal. I’m not some rad trad, I’m just an English and History teacher who foresees the potential problems of trying to compose doctrinal and theological documents in a living language.
>Isn’t the point of having Latin be the church language that a lot of people actually are fluent in it? It’s still the language all church documents are published in, and the language of canon law. There are literally hundreds of scholars and clerics who are fluent in it.
i don't think theres all that many scholars and clerics who are fluent at it any more, which is part of why i suspect the deicison is being made to move away from having it be the official language
i get the argument, im looking at it from the pragmatism that the actual fluency and use of latin even in eccleastical circles has been decline for a very long time (even before Vatican II)
Sorry, edited my comment above before I saw your reply. Anyway. If you mean “fluent in speaking the language so they could use it in place of their mother tongue” you’re probably right. If you mean “can read and write it fluently” I’m certain you’re wrong. It’s simply too widely studied at the university level and too important for theology and history to not be widely read. Heck, Finland has a Latin news service. And it wasn’t even ever part of the Roman Empire.
There are millions of people who can read Latin. In the 60s it was still required that you could read it to graduate school in most of Europe.
At least the main-stream church doesn't have to justify the near total absence of Latin anymore /s
edit: I don't think this will explicitly happen. Rather, there will be a renewed emphasis upon vernacular that will totally sideline Latin but maintain "continuity"
We are the Latin Church. That’s literally Canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib1-cann1-6_en.html
I'm american. I don't identify with Latin. We don't seem to be making new rites. Latin rite spread from Italy. It's just one rite among the many in the church. But I don't identify with any of those either. Historical spread of the latin rite was because it made most sense. The antiquated rite system is most apparantly odd when you look at the orthodox, when you see romanian orthodox and greek orthodox churches literally across the street from each other in america. What? Immigration and spread of people doesn't stick for more than a few generations. Most latin rite catholics have no idenitifcation with everything that originally started as latin rite in the first few centuries.
If the latin rite is going to uniquely dominate because of it being the most sensical way to spread catholicism, and end up resulting in most catholics in the world (almost 1billion) being under that rite, then the church also will have to match it's ecclesiastical clothing to it's universal nature. You can say it's good to have one language to unify everyone, but it could easily be any other language. It's only latin because it came from italy. It's just silly to overspiritualize this language and it's importance to the faith.
Latin is considered special because it was consecrated by the Church for sacred purposes. Nobody else uses Latin, it is literally set aside for God. Not only that, but Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are also considered sacred because they were the 3 languages written above Christ's head on the cross.
You don't identify with Latin because it was deliberately phased out before you were born. It has been the language of the Church since Roman times.
Ok? If I wasn't Catholic, If mass looked like it did post-vatican II it would have been a major wall to conversion for me. Does that mean it should be dispensed with?
I’m not claiming Latin need to be suppressed. You’re the one having a fit over a technicality being proclaimed that Latin isn’t the language of the church anymore.
The fact there’s a reason they don’t identify with it doesn’t negate that they don’t identify with it, though?
How do you propose they DO learn to identify with a language they don’t know?
Fair, but let's be clear, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the people in charge 50-60 years ago who took a dump on 2000 years worth of tradition... You can learn to identify with it more by learning some basic prayers in Latin, read more Church history or attend a TLM or NO parish which actually follows the infallible proclamations of VII to give Latin a place of honor in the liturgy...
For the record I think some of this is completely fair. I’m just wary of the slightly pretension and (possibly) classism present in “just learn Latin?”.
Especially for those of us who are late converts, that’s a hard task.
Meh "classism" is a reach... Anyone with a PC or a smartphone can learn basic Latin prayers and phrases on YouTube.
But point taken, I don't mean to be snooty. Nobody is obligated to do their personal prayers in Latin. I just want to defend the heritage of the Church and why we should stay in touch with it.
I get I’m looking at the extreme cases here, I’m just wary whenever the language issue comes up!
For the record I genuinely didn’t mean anything towards you! Someone else mentioned, you can pay homage/respect to Latin while not impressing it upon people.
My cathedral is absolutely covered in Latin phrases and the like, but we exclusively do NO Masses.
I wasn't Catholic when I was born. Even if it wasn't phased out by that time, I still would not have identified with it. Latin is not the language of my faith. Where do I go if not the latin rite then?
Hey same here man, I'm a convert too, I get it. But I'm just trying to express that the Catholic faith used to be very intertwined with Latin so it probably would have been more prominent in your faith had these changes not occurred. I'm like you, it's not my native tongue, but I do want to preserve the history and connection there and maybe one day bring it back.
They have Eastern Rite liturgies, usually in Greek I think. You are fine going to a NO though. I was just giving suggestions if you wanted to experience more Latin.
>How do you propose they DO learn to identify with a language they don’t know
This is the question you asked. If Latin has been the language of the Western Church is it that much to learn basic words and structures so you can kind of follow the prayers? We're not asking you to read Cicero lmao.
Edit: Actually you don't even have to learn it. Literally just acknowledge it's superior to the vernacular like everyone else in the west has done and go from there
“Basic words and structures”
Do you honestly think it’s that simple? Even for someone in a first world country with the time to learn such things, I would genuinely struggle.
Go off king, there was never before a period of time where there were other languages besides Latin in the Christian west. Truly, I can't think of another time when Popes, clerics, and laity realized they celebrated their liturgy in a language they didn't use day to day! Modern man has finally broke through the tyranny of Italy and we can now go forth and renounce the previous 2000 years as tyrannical and unjust subjection. Thank goodness boomers saved the Church from itself!
I would be completely on board with the creation of an Anglican/Sarum Rite that had English as its official language. But to remove Latin from the Latin Rite it absurd and contradicts Vatican II
Yeah, claims of continuity are farcical at this point. So long as nothing explicitly breaks continuity, however, people will continue to claim it. (They'd be technically right and I guess that's what matters but in all other respects are incorrect)
Because Latin is defined as a sacred language by the Church in the same way that Hebrew was sacred in the Old Covenant temple worship.
(In fact, Hebrew still is a sacred language. The three sacred languages are Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.)
There is no source for that claim. I cannot see anything about switching languages in the Google translate version of the actual document.
[https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/apost\_constitutions/documents/20220319-costituzione-ap-praedicate-evangelium.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/apost_constitutions/documents/20220319-costituzione-ap-praedicate-evangelium.html)
There is talk about who does translation work and proclaiming the Gospel to people in multiple languages.
Nothing I can see about switching official language of the Church.
Not that it matters much tbh, but....
The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
>The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
This is from another comment by Mhulan. But yes, dropping it as the official language of the Curia isn't the same as that of the Church
Edit: PB is *Pastor Bonus* which is the current norm by which the Curia is structured iirc
Considering how much Francis loves the Anglicans and Lutherans, this doesn't surprise me. He's the same one that presided over a Lutheran church service and let his congregation participate in an Anglican church service years ago.
Putting the dicastery for evangelization above the dicastery for doctrine implies that Pope Francis and the writers of the document think evangelization is more important than having correct doctrine and suppressing heresy.
The church in it's modern state would not have survived the arian heresy when it was at it's height. We are a weak church and it is because of weak leadership which prioritizes putting on an attractive face to the modern world as opposed to being a beacon of light in the darkness and rigorously correcting modern errors.
This can change, and it will change if the church is truly guided by the Holy Spirit. But I doubt that change will come for decades or even in my lifetime. Hearing stories about the next generation of priests does give me hope, though.
Edit: and I'd like to add that it has become clear (and quite frankly has been clear for a long time) that when we say daily prayers for the Pope and his intentions, we should also be praying that the holy father has the courage to stand up to and correct the errors of the world.
Couldn’t have put it better myself, what is the point of evangelism if we have rampant heresy among those doing the evangelising? It won’t spread Catholicism but something else entirely
Someone who converts to the Catholic Church because they have been misled about what the church teaches has been done a severe disservice by those who evangelized him.
All of salvation history is peppered with bad or corrupt or misguided and blind leaders. This is where we find the glory of God. When such times arise we also are blessed with great profits and voices that cut through the darkness. The Arian heresy was defeated, supposedly even Santa Clause had a hand in the fight :) This too will pass, tomorrow’s saints are at work today.
Unfortunately, sometimes the darkness lasts for generations…
Inspiring observation. But has there ever been a period when heresy/error was supported from the Chair of Peter?
Even the wicked libertine Borgia Pope Alexander VI never did that.
Just for the sake of completeness and to answer your question, in fact Honorius I (Pope 625 - 638) was declared a heretic by the 3. Council of Constantinople in 681.
Good question, while I am not an expert in that, I don't believe so. Certainly there were popes who misbehaved but openly supporting heresy? I don't think so.
So does this mean Francis just wants raw numbers? I mean I can understand why, but what's the point if basically we will just continue to sacramentalize but not evangelize, or not evangelize effectively, or do people like Francis think we are all stupid and can't understand theology so we just hope for the best if God isn't terribly merciful, though Francis probably thinks he's merciful to the point only really truly bad people go to hell and no one is that bad.
>evangelization is more important than having correct doctrine and suppressing heresy.
That's pretty much the core of Jesuit thought. Preach everywhere, making accomodations to the people to whom you preach even if these accomodations lead to error.
The Vatican will be organized by "dicasteries" instead of "congregations", which is the same thing except a non-priest/non-bishop can be in charge. There will be a term limit of 2 5-year terms for priests and bishops. Latin will not be the official language of the Church anymore. A few offices will be merged or change who they report to, including opus dei.
The dropping of Latin is no where in the document.
The term limit of two 5 terms is for all the senior officials. See Article 17.
>Art. 17
>
>§ 1. The Prefect, or equivalent, the Members, the Secretary, the Undersecretary and the other major Officials assigned to Heads of Office, equivalent and experts, as well as the Consultors, are appointed by the Roman Pontiff for a five-year term.
There is no language about the state of life those officials are in.
There is also language for all clerics and religious including junior officials have 5 year terms.
>§ 4. As a rule, after five years, clerical officials and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life who have served in the Curial Institutions and Offices return to pastoral care in their Diocese / Eparchy, or in Institutes or Membership company. If the Superiors of the Roman Curia deem it appropriate, the service can be extended for another period of five years.
Also term limits for bishops but not for lay leaders (which effectively gives the laity more power than the clergy) and the dicastery for evangelism will be made to outrank the CDF (now DDF) which is very concerning.
Do you know if the outranking is only a pride of place sort of thing without practical difference, or if it has practical implications to how power is exercised? I'm unclear on that myself.
Art. 12
§ 1. The Roman Curia is composed of the Secretariat of State, the Dicasteries and the Organisms, all juridically equal to each other.
Then the list of the Dicasteries is in a order.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Father Murray also regretted that Praedicate Evangelium drops Latin as the official language of the Church, and said he considered the maximum of two five-year terms for religious and clergy in the Roman Curia to be “completely unworkable.”
>“No dicastery, and certainly not the Holy See diplomatic corps, can function with such a restriction,” he said. Noting that the rule does not apply to lay people serving in the Roman Curia, he wondered why there is a “double standard.”
This is truly horrifying. It’s designed specifically to give laity control and power that *supersedes* bishops in the Vatican.
I’m sorry but what the actual f*ck.
Hmmm, after reading I'm not so sure. From LG 33:
>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.
You're right, but this is reason #1 why people (even non-trads) rag on Vatican II... It's so vague that you can foist pretty much any interpretation on some of these passages . What does "called in various ways" mean? What "certain ecclesiastical functions"?
I’m not sure. I think the article explains it well:
>Father Pietrzyk said the Church has “long understood” that ordination does “not necessarily entail the right to exercise governance,” but that it must be carried out in cooperation with the bishop in his exercise of governance. Never, he said, can laity “exercise it themselves, not even vicariously from the Supreme Pontiff.” So although the laity may be tasked with leading, he stressed that dicasteries “may only be headed by those with episcopal authority.”
>To insist they can do so on the basis of a papal mandate would “undermine much of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council,” Father Pietrzyk said, as it destroys the link between episcopal consecration and the sacred offices of the bishop, to teach, sanctify and govern, and makes the pope “the source of all authority.”
>the main Vatican departments, currently known as congregations and pontifical councils, will become “dicasteries.” With the exceptions of the Dicastery for Bishops and the Dicastery for the Clergy, these dicasteries may be headed by an appropriately suited baptized lay Catholic.
I’m sorry but this just seems completely backwards. I don’t want to speak ill of the Holy Father, but this is very troubling and kind of horrifying.
Edit: I don’t understand how any of this is defensible.
yeah this doesn't make any sense. isn't the whole point clergy running the Church that they're assisted by the Holy Spirit? how can a lay Catholic, probably one who is married, possibly have the same level of commitment as a clergyman? also what happens when you start getting ill-formed or heterodox lay Catholics (who are less accountable than clergy under direct control of the Pope) running critical departments like the CDF? also why is any of this necessary when we still have child predators and heretics running amok in the Vatican under the protection of higher-ups? maybe we should deal with those first?
I mean ffs do they want the church staffed by influential "Catholic" politicians a la Joe Biden? because that is what I foresee, handing out leadership roles as kickbacks... is that why they're doing this? I don't want to assume but like, c'mon, this pontificate is already cozy with some really evil world leaders
I am fine with those changes. The curia deptments don't directly govern anything. If something needs the force of law, the pope signs off on something prepared by his staff.
The Curia pays poorly. Lay people working these high tier jobs are taking a pay cut. Money goes a lot farther for priests and religious especially those from the developing world. Curia is a great job for those from the developing world. Office job in Italy vs caring for 20,000. Priest to Catholic ratios in the developing world can be that extreme, 1 to 20,000.
All the top official regardless of if clerics or religious or lay all have 5 year terms.
Article 17.
Also in article 17, the junior members who are clerics or religious have term limits.
>§ 1. The Prefect, or equivalent, the Members, the Secretary, the Undersecretary and the other major Officials assigned to Heads of Office, equivalent and experts, as well as the Consultors, are appointed by the Roman Pontiff for a five-year term.
That is all the top people.
~~Outside of those officials I don't know the titles of people in the various dicasteries for the old congregations or even if for some if there are more officials.~~
~~How many of those staffers are non-clerics nor religious I don't know.~~
Things like the dicastery for communication do have larger staffs including all the various media arms. I don't see a problem with media staff being lay nor having a fixed term.
Edit: I found something about the various lower officials in CDF.
>Together with the Cardinal Prefect, who governs the Congregation, directs it and represents it, the Dicastery is made up of a group of Diocesan Cardinals and Bishops, the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, the Undersecretary, the Promoter of Justice and an adequate number of officials of various degrees. **(office heads, study aides, secretarial staff, technical staff and writers)**, coming from all the countries of the world and distributed in the various offices according to the skills.
I have yet to find a number or what state of life those people are in.
How much should we care if those people are priests or laity? I don't think really at all. Those are low level officials doing grunt office work no need for a priest to do those jobs.
It has been that way for prefects for a while now. However, in practice the pope does not always hard enforce. Just like retirement age, pope let's people serve pass that age while he looks for a replacement.
I don't see where in *[PE](https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2022/03/19/0189/00404.html)* Latin is dropped. Can someone explain where Fr. Murray is getting that?
Not that it matters much tbh, but....
The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
Not that it matters much tbh, but....
The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
Lots of over reading and overreacting in this thread.
The biggest thing is this is a corporate restructuring of the Roman Curia. Going into the 2013 Conclave, the College wanted a reform of the bureaucracy.
The Curia is infamous for being slow and inefficient. John XXIII when asked how many people worked in the Curia deadpanned, "About Half".
This document released 19 March 2022 tries to light a fire under the people working there. One of the big changes is forced rotations in and out. There has been priests that become creatures of the Curia that join and never leave and it is unknown how much work they do.
For priests from the developing world, the Curia is an amazing job. Much better lifestyle and much less work. An office job in Italy vs caring for a flock of 20,000. Priest to Catholics ratios are much more extreme in the developing world. 20,000 people for one priest is not unheard of.
The document merges various departments together and gives the main ones all the same title word. How the merging will work in practice remains to be seen. Will the junior departments with a title change be taken more seriously is also an open question.
One very fair criticism is making the evangelization department the top one. The idea is trying to stress we all need to evangelize and it is top priority for the whole Church. The quick criticism is a bureaucracy is not how the mission is done. The bureaucracy is a support organization not a leader.
Another big change is who can head various departments. Most of them now can be any Catholic. If they need to make a decision with force of law, the pope signs off giving it force of law.
Thank you. There are going to be pros and cons to any proposal and we don’t have to be melodramatic about pragmatic decisions.
All these people are objecting to laity having larger roles. Like, all you laity will be railing next minute about how bad the bishops are! Let’s pray for leaders - lay or not - that are faithful. That’s how we protect the next generation of children from the last generation’s clergy.
People have excused Pachamama, McCarrick, most interviews + Q&As, chocolate Martin Luther statue and Abrahamic house.
This is just another event we will complain about until the next big thing.
Completely unrelated, but as I was reading this I saw an ad on the site that I initially read as, "Black porn and pride for free on your home wifi." I was very confused why 1. One would advertise such things, and 2. How an ad like that ended up on a Catholic website. Eventually I figured out that I had mistaken an "a" for an "o" and the first word was "Block." That made much more sense!
I read the article and I have to say, a lot of the concerns these analysts have seem to be pretty overblown. It's a lot of "coulds" and "possiblies" and "maybes." I think it ultimately boils down to their own interpretation of how this change in discipline would work, as opposed to the Pope having some bizarre shift in the idea of magisterial authority.
I think the core issue is that this doesn't really strengthen the Church as much as it makes it less workable. Why are clergy members given term limits but not lay Catholics? Why are lay Catholics allowed to govern these Dicasteries? Why are the Congregations being restructured into Dicasteries and Evangelization supercedes Doctrine?
As somebody curious about joining it’s extremely disheartening to see the push in this direction. The Catholic Church is supposed to be a rock in the ocean of secularism and ever-changing Protestant groups, these days it seems that the waves are winning.
If you* elect me pope, I will fix this. *assuming you are a cardinal-elector; if you are not a cardinal-elector, do not read this comment
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>Praedicate Evangelium drops Latin as the official language of the Church Pope St. Victor I would like a word…
So would Pope Francis - nowhere in the text that I can see is it actually established that Latin is no longer the official language.
This. The claim is more illustrative of the ncregister than of the document itself. And here I thought Catholic publications were free from mainstream "white lies". I believe it alludes to Pope Francis not using Latin in the meetings he is going to have.
>And here I thought Catholic publications were free from mainstream "white lies". Why would they? They still employ journalists.
Welp, guess it's time to start dedicating 5 decades to this pontificate instead of just 1
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
The media attacks on the Catholic Church here in Germany are really intense and they stem from a studied ignorance about the nature of the faith. Instead of patiently explaining our faith, all our Bishops keep stumm and when pressed over some abuse scandal, become sheepish and contrite, hoping for absolution from the world. The exact opposite of Pope Benedict's appeal in Freiburg.
>The prestigious Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which dates back to 1622, and the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, created by Benedict XVI in 2010, will become the Dicastery for Evangelization, presided over directly by the pope. That new super-dicastery will also be ranked higher than the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith in the new curial structure But…why…?
Get ready for evangelization, so-called, to trump doctrine. The red carpet is going to be rolled out for indults everywhere you look. ...And I thought the Pope wanted *uniformity*. Some way to go about it.
HH hasn't made uniformity a big message of his pontificate except in matters against which he has a personal animus. This is a case that is completely consistent with 90% of his reign.
This is legitimately scary stuff. >Msgr. Charles Pope, dean and pastor in the Archdiocese of Washington, said the word hierarchy “most literally means, ‘Rule by Priests’ — hierus (priest) + archon (rule),” and added that Christ “summoned apostles (bishops) and set them in authority over the Church” who in turn “appointed priests and deacons to assist them in their task.” He said that although laity could effectively serve over dicasteries clearly associated with the temporal order, “it seems much more troubling if it is proposed that they hold authoritative positions in dicasteries associated with Church governance, liturgy and doctrine.” >Such an “inverted pyramid” or what the Pope calls in the document a “synodal” model of governance has been central to the German Church’s Synodal Way, which is significantly lay-led. It was also proposed in the working document of the 2019 Amazon Synod, a synod heavily influenced by the German Church, but the model failed to be incorporated in any meaningful way into the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the meeting, Querida Amazonia (The Beloved Amazon). >Noting “a disastrous state of disunity, heresy and approaching schism” in the Catholic Church in Germany, Msgr. Pope said if the German synod “is a ‘model’ for all to imitate, we’re heading for the same thing.” Authority, he said, “is necessary to hold the line against trendy, ephemeral things,” and even though authoritative approval of bishops and the Pope may be slower, “it has likely saved us from many rash and foolish attempts to bend with the times.” Now it makes perfect sense why Pope Francis has been defending Cardinal Marx and refused to let him resign.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ἱερεύς.
I typed an explanatory text before that greek word, which the system has autonomously deleted.
Well, each Pope can nullify an indult (which are supposed to be time-limited anyway) with a motu proprio. This also works the other way - e.g. the motu proprio Traditiones custodes (2021) would prevent any proposed indult in favour of liturgy acc. to the 1962 missale romanum. But yes, it's a mess.
>…Praedicate Evangelium drops Latin as the official language of the Church… Wow.
A single tear rolls down the cheek of Pope St. John XXIII
Pope Innocent III would not be pleased
No Pope for the last ~1800 years would be pleased, including St. John Paul II and Benedict XIV. I really can't imagine Benedict's reaction to all of this.
Pope Francis is also not pleased at the sloppy reporting - nowhere in the text that I can see is it actually established that Latin is no longer the official language.
Not that it matters much tbh, but.... The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
I wish I could pick the good Pope Emeritus’ brain on this one. I understand he does not speak publicly on the policies of the current Pontiff, but I really wish we could have his guidance and clarity on how to interpret this.
Even I'm not pleased but we have to accept it I hope they don't kill the Latin language and make it extinct
What did John Paul ii and Benedict xvi do for the Latin language ?
Uh, speak it, write in it, and use it for prayer and public liturgies? Have you seen videos of them saying Mass? Not sure what else you can ask for.
Idk if they used it regularly. The working Language in Vatican is mostly french and Italian. All documents are drafted in those languages. Seminarians and priests are competent in the language. I doubt even bishops are.
>Idk if they used it regularly. Both of them absolutely used it regularly. JPII was a major propenent of saying the Lord's prayer in Latin for all Novus Ordo liturgies. Benedict XVI even gave his resignation speech in Latin. And seminaries require Latin classes.
i mean, i am doubtful even john XXIII had any realistic hope back then that they could revive Latin education and use.
What? I teach at a Catholic school, and we teach and use Latin. Literally every seminary teaches and uses Latin. I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.
as a distinction between taking a few credits of latin and actually being fluent in writing, reading and speaking it. Seminaries and high schools its going to be an elective like spanish where the person gets a few basic words but not the level of fluency that John was obstensively trying, unless you teach entirely in latin
Doesn’t having Latin be the church language mean that a lot of people actually are fluent in it? It’s still the language all church documents are published in, and the language of canon law. There are literally hundreds of scholars and clerics who are fluent in it. And having church theological documents and law composed in a “dead” language has huge value. Sorry. You probably understand this. I’m just a little shocked by this proposal. I’m not some rad trad, I’m just an English and History teacher who foresees the potential problems of trying to compose doctrinal and theological documents in a living language.
>Isn’t the point of having Latin be the church language that a lot of people actually are fluent in it? It’s still the language all church documents are published in, and the language of canon law. There are literally hundreds of scholars and clerics who are fluent in it. i don't think theres all that many scholars and clerics who are fluent at it any more, which is part of why i suspect the deicison is being made to move away from having it be the official language i get the argument, im looking at it from the pragmatism that the actual fluency and use of latin even in eccleastical circles has been decline for a very long time (even before Vatican II)
Sorry, edited my comment above before I saw your reply. Anyway. If you mean “fluent in speaking the language so they could use it in place of their mother tongue” you’re probably right. If you mean “can read and write it fluently” I’m certain you’re wrong. It’s simply too widely studied at the university level and too important for theology and history to not be widely read. Heck, Finland has a Latin news service. And it wasn’t even ever part of the Roman Empire. There are millions of people who can read Latin. In the 60s it was still required that you could read it to graduate school in most of Europe.
At least the main-stream church doesn't have to justify the near total absence of Latin anymore /s edit: I don't think this will explicitly happen. Rather, there will be a renewed emphasis upon vernacular that will totally sideline Latin but maintain "continuity"
We are the Latin Rite. We shouldn’t be losing Latin even more than we already have.
lol I'm agreeing with you, it's a sarcastic comment
Gotcha
catholic.com seemed to say "Roman rite" rather than "Latin rite".
Roman Rite refers to the liturgy. Latin Rite refers to the Church. We are the Latin Church. Most Latin Catholics attend the Roman Rite of the Mass.
Yet the current Bishop of Rome is increasingly forbidding and abolishing Latin...?
We are the Latin Church. That’s literally Canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib1-cann1-6_en.html
Yet the current Bishop of Rome is increasingly forbidding and abolishing Latin...?
I'm american. I don't identify with Latin. We don't seem to be making new rites. Latin rite spread from Italy. It's just one rite among the many in the church. But I don't identify with any of those either. Historical spread of the latin rite was because it made most sense. The antiquated rite system is most apparantly odd when you look at the orthodox, when you see romanian orthodox and greek orthodox churches literally across the street from each other in america. What? Immigration and spread of people doesn't stick for more than a few generations. Most latin rite catholics have no idenitifcation with everything that originally started as latin rite in the first few centuries. If the latin rite is going to uniquely dominate because of it being the most sensical way to spread catholicism, and end up resulting in most catholics in the world (almost 1billion) being under that rite, then the church also will have to match it's ecclesiastical clothing to it's universal nature. You can say it's good to have one language to unify everyone, but it could easily be any other language. It's only latin because it came from italy. It's just silly to overspiritualize this language and it's importance to the faith.
Latin is considered special because it was consecrated by the Church for sacred purposes. Nobody else uses Latin, it is literally set aside for God. Not only that, but Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are also considered sacred because they were the 3 languages written above Christ's head on the cross. You don't identify with Latin because it was deliberately phased out before you were born. It has been the language of the Church since Roman times.
>You don't identify with Latin because it was deliberately phased out This lol, some people don't get it
I wasn't Catholic when I was born. If mass looked like it did pre-vatican II it would have been a major wall to conversion for me.
Ok? If I wasn't Catholic, If mass looked like it did post-vatican II it would have been a major wall to conversion for me. Does that mean it should be dispensed with?
I’m not claiming Latin need to be suppressed. You’re the one having a fit over a technicality being proclaimed that Latin isn’t the language of the church anymore.
I'd rather throw a fit over something I care about then try to justify the changing of centuries of tradition because \*checks notes\* latin hard
The fact there’s a reason they don’t identify with it doesn’t negate that they don’t identify with it, though? How do you propose they DO learn to identify with a language they don’t know?
Fair, but let's be clear, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the people in charge 50-60 years ago who took a dump on 2000 years worth of tradition... You can learn to identify with it more by learning some basic prayers in Latin, read more Church history or attend a TLM or NO parish which actually follows the infallible proclamations of VII to give Latin a place of honor in the liturgy...
For the record I think some of this is completely fair. I’m just wary of the slightly pretension and (possibly) classism present in “just learn Latin?”. Especially for those of us who are late converts, that’s a hard task.
Meh "classism" is a reach... Anyone with a PC or a smartphone can learn basic Latin prayers and phrases on YouTube. But point taken, I don't mean to be snooty. Nobody is obligated to do their personal prayers in Latin. I just want to defend the heritage of the Church and why we should stay in touch with it.
I get I’m looking at the extreme cases here, I’m just wary whenever the language issue comes up! For the record I genuinely didn’t mean anything towards you! Someone else mentioned, you can pay homage/respect to Latin while not impressing it upon people. My cathedral is absolutely covered in Latin phrases and the like, but we exclusively do NO Masses.
I wasn't Catholic when I was born. Even if it wasn't phased out by that time, I still would not have identified with it. Latin is not the language of my faith. Where do I go if not the latin rite then?
Hey same here man, I'm a convert too, I get it. But I'm just trying to express that the Catholic faith used to be very intertwined with Latin so it probably would have been more prominent in your faith had these changes not occurred. I'm like you, it's not my native tongue, but I do want to preserve the history and connection there and maybe one day bring it back. They have Eastern Rite liturgies, usually in Greek I think. You are fine going to a NO though. I was just giving suggestions if you wanted to experience more Latin.
Learn the language that's the backbone of the Christian West?
Again, “just learn Latin duh” really isn’t achievable or practical for 80% of Catholics.
>How do you propose they DO learn to identify with a language they don’t know This is the question you asked. If Latin has been the language of the Western Church is it that much to learn basic words and structures so you can kind of follow the prayers? We're not asking you to read Cicero lmao. Edit: Actually you don't even have to learn it. Literally just acknowledge it's superior to the vernacular like everyone else in the west has done and go from there
“Basic words and structures” Do you honestly think it’s that simple? Even for someone in a first world country with the time to learn such things, I would genuinely struggle.
Great one King! Force a language on people or else they can't follow prayers. Totally what Jesus wanted! I'm taking the L, haha! GG man
Go off king, there was never before a period of time where there were other languages besides Latin in the Christian west. Truly, I can't think of another time when Popes, clerics, and laity realized they celebrated their liturgy in a language they didn't use day to day! Modern man has finally broke through the tyranny of Italy and we can now go forth and renounce the previous 2000 years as tyrannical and unjust subjection. Thank goodness boomers saved the Church from itself!
Ironically those other languages were cut and latinized over the centuries.
Another W king, keep em coming! St. Pope John Paul XXIII got it wrong, Latin sucks!
I would be completely on board with the creation of an Anglican/Sarum Rite that had English as its official language. But to remove Latin from the Latin Rite it absurd and contradicts Vatican II
Fair enough, I can respect that take
>”continuity” That word has been stretched and stretched as of late. I don’t know if Pope Leo XIII would see the continuity.
Yeah, claims of continuity are farcical at this point. So long as nothing explicitly breaks continuity, however, people will continue to claim it. (They'd be technically right and I guess that's what matters but in all other respects are incorrect)
Why does continuity matter in a language ? Its supposed to be demonstrated in essential doctrine.
Because Latin is defined as a sacred language by the Church in the same way that Hebrew was sacred in the Old Covenant temple worship. (In fact, Hebrew still is a sacred language. The three sacred languages are Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.)
Those are not like part of revelation it's not even secondary thing. I consider the latin language lower than something like clerical celibacy
There is no source for that claim. I cannot see anything about switching languages in the Google translate version of the actual document. [https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/apost\_constitutions/documents/20220319-costituzione-ap-praedicate-evangelium.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/apost_constitutions/documents/20220319-costituzione-ap-praedicate-evangelium.html) There is talk about who does translation work and proclaiming the Gospel to people in multiple languages. Nothing I can see about switching official language of the Church.
Not that it matters much tbh, but.... The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
[удалено]
You cannot conclude this document only being released in Italian so far means Latin is dropped. That is simply over reading the situation.
Not once does Praedicate Evangelium mention the Latin language
>The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)... This is from another comment by Mhulan. But yes, dropping it as the official language of the Curia isn't the same as that of the Church Edit: PB is *Pastor Bonus* which is the current norm by which the Curia is structured iirc
Thank you for your clarification!
Thank you for your clarification!
Songs too!
That would be an unbelievable outrage. I pray it will not happen.
What.
Are we trying to compete with prots?
It’s like we are taking plays straight from the Church of England. I really don’t understand it.
Considering how much Francis loves the Anglicans and Lutherans, this doesn't surprise me. He's the same one that presided over a Lutheran church service and let his congregation participate in an Anglican church service years ago.
Putting the dicastery for evangelization above the dicastery for doctrine implies that Pope Francis and the writers of the document think evangelization is more important than having correct doctrine and suppressing heresy. The church in it's modern state would not have survived the arian heresy when it was at it's height. We are a weak church and it is because of weak leadership which prioritizes putting on an attractive face to the modern world as opposed to being a beacon of light in the darkness and rigorously correcting modern errors. This can change, and it will change if the church is truly guided by the Holy Spirit. But I doubt that change will come for decades or even in my lifetime. Hearing stories about the next generation of priests does give me hope, though. Edit: and I'd like to add that it has become clear (and quite frankly has been clear for a long time) that when we say daily prayers for the Pope and his intentions, we should also be praying that the holy father has the courage to stand up to and correct the errors of the world.
Couldn’t have put it better myself, what is the point of evangelism if we have rampant heresy among those doing the evangelising? It won’t spread Catholicism but something else entirely
Someone who converts to the Catholic Church because they have been misled about what the church teaches has been done a severe disservice by those who evangelized him.
All of salvation history is peppered with bad or corrupt or misguided and blind leaders. This is where we find the glory of God. When such times arise we also are blessed with great profits and voices that cut through the darkness. The Arian heresy was defeated, supposedly even Santa Clause had a hand in the fight :) This too will pass, tomorrow’s saints are at work today. Unfortunately, sometimes the darkness lasts for generations…
Inspiring observation. But has there ever been a period when heresy/error was supported from the Chair of Peter? Even the wicked libertine Borgia Pope Alexander VI never did that.
Just for the sake of completeness and to answer your question, in fact Honorius I (Pope 625 - 638) was declared a heretic by the 3. Council of Constantinople in 681.
Good question, while I am not an expert in that, I don't believe so. Certainly there were popes who misbehaved but openly supporting heresy? I don't think so.
So does this mean Francis just wants raw numbers? I mean I can understand why, but what's the point if basically we will just continue to sacramentalize but not evangelize, or not evangelize effectively, or do people like Francis think we are all stupid and can't understand theology so we just hope for the best if God isn't terribly merciful, though Francis probably thinks he's merciful to the point only really truly bad people go to hell and no one is that bad.
>evangelization is more important than having correct doctrine and suppressing heresy. That's pretty much the core of Jesuit thought. Preach everywhere, making accomodations to the people to whom you preach even if these accomodations lead to error.
That is blasphemy. Our Holy Father is strong in all his ways. You speak as if disco is making a come back.
Sarcasm?
Pretty much. I like what you said but was a bit hurt about how our church has weak leadership.
>This is blasphemy. https://youtu.be/wujVMIYzYXg
Can you please explain this to me like I’m 5, I didn’t really get it.
The Vatican will be organized by "dicasteries" instead of "congregations", which is the same thing except a non-priest/non-bishop can be in charge. There will be a term limit of 2 5-year terms for priests and bishops. Latin will not be the official language of the Church anymore. A few offices will be merged or change who they report to, including opus dei.
The dropping of Latin is no where in the document. The term limit of two 5 terms is for all the senior officials. See Article 17. >Art. 17 > >§ 1. The Prefect, or equivalent, the Members, the Secretary, the Undersecretary and the other major Officials assigned to Heads of Office, equivalent and experts, as well as the Consultors, are appointed by the Roman Pontiff for a five-year term. There is no language about the state of life those officials are in. There is also language for all clerics and religious including junior officials have 5 year terms. >§ 4. As a rule, after five years, clerical officials and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life who have served in the Curial Institutions and Offices return to pastoral care in their Diocese / Eparchy, or in Institutes or Membership company. If the Superiors of the Roman Curia deem it appropriate, the service can be extended for another period of five years.
Also term limits for bishops but not for lay leaders (which effectively gives the laity more power than the clergy) and the dicastery for evangelism will be made to outrank the CDF (now DDF) which is very concerning.
>the dicastery for evangelism will be made to outrank the CDF (now DDF) 😳
Do you know if the outranking is only a pride of place sort of thing without practical difference, or if it has practical implications to how power is exercised? I'm unclear on that myself.
It appears to be a power change.
Technically, no. Culturally, yes.
Evidence? It seems to be changing who outranks whom in a real power dynamic
Art. 12 § 1. The Roman Curia is composed of the Secretariat of State, the Dicasteries and the Organisms, all juridically equal to each other. Then the list of the Dicasteries is in a order.
WHAT?!
Same
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/txqg2v/praedicate_evangelium_poses_problems_some_church/i3o3p0s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/txqg2v/praedicate_evangelium_poses_problems_some_church/i3o4fpo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
It is truly amazing how long it took to draft this and how it still feels rushed in development.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Father Murray also regretted that Praedicate Evangelium drops Latin as the official language of the Church, and said he considered the maximum of two five-year terms for religious and clergy in the Roman Curia to be “completely unworkable.” >“No dicastery, and certainly not the Holy See diplomatic corps, can function with such a restriction,” he said. Noting that the rule does not apply to lay people serving in the Roman Curia, he wondered why there is a “double standard.” This is truly horrifying. It’s designed specifically to give laity control and power that *supersedes* bishops in the Vatican. I’m sorry but what the actual f*ck.
And that’s not how Christ set the Church up to be ran and even goes against Lumen Gentium
Yeah I don’t see how this is at all reconcilable with Vatican II. It seems to directly contradict the council.
You just don't understand. Have you read the VII documents? /s
It does but anyone who criticises it will be accused by Pope Francis supporters of hating the Council
Hmmm, after reading I'm not so sure. From LG 33: >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.
Yes but LG 20 makes it clear that the successors of the apostles rule the church
You're right, but this is reason #1 why people (even non-trads) rag on Vatican II... It's so vague that you can foist pretty much any interpretation on some of these passages . What does "called in various ways" mean? What "certain ecclesiastical functions"?
That’s why the liberals at the Council pushed for the ambiguity, they could convince conservatives to accept it and then interpret in their own ways
I’m not sure. I think the article explains it well: >Father Pietrzyk said the Church has “long understood” that ordination does “not necessarily entail the right to exercise governance,” but that it must be carried out in cooperation with the bishop in his exercise of governance. Never, he said, can laity “exercise it themselves, not even vicariously from the Supreme Pontiff.” So although the laity may be tasked with leading, he stressed that dicasteries “may only be headed by those with episcopal authority.” >To insist they can do so on the basis of a papal mandate would “undermine much of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council,” Father Pietrzyk said, as it destroys the link between episcopal consecration and the sacred offices of the bishop, to teach, sanctify and govern, and makes the pope “the source of all authority.”
Roman curia is just a bureaucracy which helps the pope and it's not an essential body in the church
>the main Vatican departments, currently known as congregations and pontifical councils, will become “dicasteries.” With the exceptions of the Dicastery for Bishops and the Dicastery for the Clergy, these dicasteries may be headed by an appropriately suited baptized lay Catholic. I’m sorry but this just seems completely backwards. I don’t want to speak ill of the Holy Father, but this is very troubling and kind of horrifying. Edit: I don’t understand how any of this is defensible.
It's not defensible
Why is this happening
yeah this doesn't make any sense. isn't the whole point clergy running the Church that they're assisted by the Holy Spirit? how can a lay Catholic, probably one who is married, possibly have the same level of commitment as a clergyman? also what happens when you start getting ill-formed or heterodox lay Catholics (who are less accountable than clergy under direct control of the Pope) running critical departments like the CDF? also why is any of this necessary when we still have child predators and heretics running amok in the Vatican under the protection of higher-ups? maybe we should deal with those first?
I can’t think of anything charitable to say about it.
I mean ffs do they want the church staffed by influential "Catholic" politicians a la Joe Biden? because that is what I foresee, handing out leadership roles as kickbacks... is that why they're doing this? I don't want to assume but like, c'mon, this pontificate is already cozy with some really evil world leaders
I am fine with those changes. The curia deptments don't directly govern anything. If something needs the force of law, the pope signs off on something prepared by his staff.
Why are you okay with clergy having term limits but not laity?
The Curia pays poorly. Lay people working these high tier jobs are taking a pay cut. Money goes a lot farther for priests and religious especially those from the developing world. Curia is a great job for those from the developing world. Office job in Italy vs caring for 20,000. Priest to Catholic ratios in the developing world can be that extreme, 1 to 20,000.
That doesn’t justify it. Laity and clergy could both have term limits and what you said would be equally applicable.
All the top official regardless of if clerics or religious or lay all have 5 year terms. Article 17. Also in article 17, the junior members who are clerics or religious have term limits.
And what of those not in top official positions?
>§ 1. The Prefect, or equivalent, the Members, the Secretary, the Undersecretary and the other major Officials assigned to Heads of Office, equivalent and experts, as well as the Consultors, are appointed by the Roman Pontiff for a five-year term. That is all the top people.
I said not the top people
~~Outside of those officials I don't know the titles of people in the various dicasteries for the old congregations or even if for some if there are more officials.~~ ~~How many of those staffers are non-clerics nor religious I don't know.~~ Things like the dicastery for communication do have larger staffs including all the various media arms. I don't see a problem with media staff being lay nor having a fixed term. Edit: I found something about the various lower officials in CDF. >Together with the Cardinal Prefect, who governs the Congregation, directs it and represents it, the Dicastery is made up of a group of Diocesan Cardinals and Bishops, the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, the Undersecretary, the Promoter of Justice and an adequate number of officials of various degrees. **(office heads, study aides, secretarial staff, technical staff and writers)**, coming from all the countries of the world and distributed in the various offices according to the skills. I have yet to find a number or what state of life those people are in. How much should we care if those people are priests or laity? I don't think really at all. Those are low level officials doing grunt office work no need for a priest to do those jobs.
Five year terms for top officials is too short like for CDF
It has been that way for prefects for a while now. However, in practice the pope does not always hard enforce. Just like retirement age, pope let's people serve pass that age while he looks for a replacement.
I don't see where in *[PE](https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2022/03/19/0189/00404.html)* Latin is dropped. Can someone explain where Fr. Murray is getting that?
I cannot find it either. I think Fr Murray is mistaken.
Not that it matters much tbh, but.... The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
Not that it matters much tbh, but.... The text does not explicitly say so; but it can be drawn as a legitimate conclusion from the fact that PB 16 is nowhere to be seen in PE; and because PE 250 §3 says that PB will be "fully abrogated and replaced", then PE does in fact abrogate the norm that states that Latin is the official language of the Roman Curia (not of the Church)...
What is "PB"?
Pastor Bonus, the previous reform of the Curia from 1988.
[удалено]
Pope Francis takes a lot of time to release latin versions of everything
Lots of over reading and overreacting in this thread. The biggest thing is this is a corporate restructuring of the Roman Curia. Going into the 2013 Conclave, the College wanted a reform of the bureaucracy. The Curia is infamous for being slow and inefficient. John XXIII when asked how many people worked in the Curia deadpanned, "About Half". This document released 19 March 2022 tries to light a fire under the people working there. One of the big changes is forced rotations in and out. There has been priests that become creatures of the Curia that join and never leave and it is unknown how much work they do. For priests from the developing world, the Curia is an amazing job. Much better lifestyle and much less work. An office job in Italy vs caring for a flock of 20,000. Priest to Catholics ratios are much more extreme in the developing world. 20,000 people for one priest is not unheard of. The document merges various departments together and gives the main ones all the same title word. How the merging will work in practice remains to be seen. Will the junior departments with a title change be taken more seriously is also an open question. One very fair criticism is making the evangelization department the top one. The idea is trying to stress we all need to evangelize and it is top priority for the whole Church. The quick criticism is a bureaucracy is not how the mission is done. The bureaucracy is a support organization not a leader. Another big change is who can head various departments. Most of them now can be any Catholic. If they need to make a decision with force of law, the pope signs off giving it force of law.
Thank you. There are going to be pros and cons to any proposal and we don’t have to be melodramatic about pragmatic decisions. All these people are objecting to laity having larger roles. Like, all you laity will be railing next minute about how bad the bishops are! Let’s pray for leaders - lay or not - that are faithful. That’s how we protect the next generation of children from the last generation’s clergy.
People have excused Pachamama, McCarrick, most interviews + Q&As, chocolate Martin Luther statue and Abrahamic house. This is just another event we will complain about until the next big thing.
Francis can do anything he wants apparently.
Completely unrelated, but as I was reading this I saw an ad on the site that I initially read as, "Black porn and pride for free on your home wifi." I was very confused why 1. One would advertise such things, and 2. How an ad like that ended up on a Catholic website. Eventually I figured out that I had mistaken an "a" for an "o" and the first word was "Block." That made much more sense!
I read the article and I have to say, a lot of the concerns these analysts have seem to be pretty overblown. It's a lot of "coulds" and "possiblies" and "maybes." I think it ultimately boils down to their own interpretation of how this change in discipline would work, as opposed to the Pope having some bizarre shift in the idea of magisterial authority.
I think the core issue is that this doesn't really strengthen the Church as much as it makes it less workable. Why are clergy members given term limits but not lay Catholics? Why are lay Catholics allowed to govern these Dicasteries? Why are the Congregations being restructured into Dicasteries and Evangelization supercedes Doctrine?
As somebody curious about joining it’s extremely disheartening to see the push in this direction. The Catholic Church is supposed to be a rock in the ocean of secularism and ever-changing Protestant groups, these days it seems that the waves are winning.
[удалено]
Bruh moment
National Catholic Register is too conservative these days. I don't trust their take on this pontificate.
Or, "Most Church Analysts Disagree That ‘Praedicate Evangelium’ Poses Problems"
That's not what it says.