Page 19 - 3.faith-ministry

19

17), and this begins to undermine the ‘traditional dichotomies’ between ‘clerical and

lay, religious and secular, institution and charism, (and) ordained and non-ordained’
that had hitherto defined the Church (Rausch 2003:60). For Zeni Fox the concept of

the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (LG §10) moves the Church closer to the ‘total
ecclesiology’ first conceived by Yves Congar in which the laity are perceived to have

a full and active part in the life of the Church (2003:125). This era of the laity dawns
as they are tasked to co-operate and work in unity with their pastors (LG §32, 33) as

they take up their own vocation within the world (LG §31). In so doing so they are
mandated by their baptism which becomes the foundation not only of mission and
communion within the Church, but also a principal source of ministry (Gaillardetz

2003:26-31). Indeed as the laity exercise the priestly office of Jesus 31 notions of
‘egalitarian discipleship’ emerge to challenge apostolic leadership (Schneiders cited

in Rausch 2003:59), and the early church accent upon the pneumatological charism
of the many once more stands in contrast with the priestly character of the few
32
(Schillebeeckx 1985:121-123) .

Gaillardetz is critical of Vatican II for being unable ‘to articulate a complete, internally
coherent ecclesiology’ (2003:26). A significant problem is that the theology of the laity

is not fully developed, and the tension between the clergy and the laity remains
unresolved. Prior to the Council Congar identified that the laity were reduced by what
amounted to a theology of absence in that they were identified principally by negation

(in that they were not clergy), rather than what they were (cited in Fox 2003:129). He
maintains that in spite of the Council the distinction between clergy and laity remains

un-resolvable, and there is a need for a more complete ecclesial structure that
focuses not on status but rather upon community and ministry needs (cited in

Hagstrom 2003:168). For Hagstrom this tension centres upon how we understand
the secularity of the laity. He outlines that within the Council a typological

understanding of the lay vocation opposes an ontological interpretation that is aligned
to mission and salvation. The former understanding makes secularity little more than
the life situation of the laity, a mere sociological fact. The latter position makes it a

theological necessity (2003:152-172). This distinction is important for as Beal argues,

31
LG §10.
32 Rausch likewise highlights how Vatican II reclaimed the “charismata”, or gifts of the Holy Spirit as the basis for
lay participation in the universal priesthood (2003:56-57).