Advice to homilists: Please get to the point in six or eight minutes

[Elizabeth502]

Forget the fancy music, forget the long homilies, forget the holding of hands during the sign of peace.…just work to increase genuine reverence for Christ in the Eucharist…and then see how everything changes.

1 - Who has advocated for holding hands during the sign of peace? The subject of this thread is homilies. You just introduced a straw man.

2 - Regarding your apparent objection to everything except the words of consecration and distribution of communion, apparently Rome doesn’t agree with you.

From the Catechism:

**Words and actions **
1153 A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God’s children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them, so that the seed of the Kingdom can bear its fruit in good soil. The liturgical actions signify what the Word of God expresses: both his free initiative and his people’s response of faith.

1154 The liturgy of the Word is an integral part of sacramental celebrations. To nourish the faith of believers, the signs which accompany the Word of God should be emphasized: the book of the Word (a lectionary or a book of the Gospels), its veneration (procession, incense, candles), the place of its proclamation (lectern or ambo), its audible and intelligible reading, the minister’s homily which extends its proclamation, and the responses of the assembly (acclamations, meditation psalms, litanies, and profession of faith).
1155 The liturgical word and action are inseparable both insofar as they are signs and instruction and insofar as they accomplish what they signify. When the Holy Spirit awakens faith, he not only gives an understanding of the Word of God, but through the sacraments also makes present the “wonders” of God which it proclaims. The Spirit makes present and communicates the Father’s work, fulfilled by the beloved Son.

**Singing and music **
1156 ***“The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as a combination of sacred music and words, it forms a necessary or integral part of solemn liturgy.”***20 The composition and singing of inspired psalms, often accompanied by musical instruments, were already closely linked to the liturgical celebrations of the Old Covenant. The Church continues and develops this tradition: “Address . . . one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart.” "He who sings prays twice."21

1157 Song and music fulfill their function as signs in a manner all the more significant when they are "more closely connected . . . with the liturgical action,"22 according to three principal criteria: beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly at the designated moments, and the solemn character of the celebration. In this way they participate in the purpose of the liturgical words and actions: the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful:23
How I wept, deeply moved by your hymns, songs, and the voices that echoed through your Church! What emotion I experienced in them! Those sounds flowed into my ears distilling the truth in my heart. A feeling of devotion surged within me, and tears streamed down my face - tears that did me good.24
1158 The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness of the People of God who celebrate.25 Hence “religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services,” in conformity with the Church’s norms, “the voices of the faithful may be heard.” But "the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from the Sacred Scripture and from liturgical sources."26

 

[irishpatrick]

Reverence to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is a little more than superficial changes.

Sometimes a temple sacrifice is unacceptable to Our Lord…
usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Jeremiah&ch=7

I think you likely realize I am speaking a authentic reverence, and not the type people will give for show.

Honestly, I do wonder sometimes why so many Catholics (including incredibly devout and faithful Catholics like there are here) do not appear to give our Lord the attention He deserves. If Jesus walked into a local Catholic Church, every person would honor, revere and worship Him as our God and Savior–but there He is in the Tabernacle and then later during the Consecration, and you would think (the way people act) that Communion was nothing.

Everything the faith contains, prayers, Mass, Priests, Nuns, Churches, Saints, Mary, Scripture, etc…it is all there for one thing, and that is to point to Jesus Christ and our redemptive salvation brought by Him. Yet, that exact same Person (Jesus Christ) is there with us throughout the Mass, and yet a non-Catholic would have a very difficult time discerning that truth.

People look for Jesus in all sorts of places and ways–yet there He is in the Eucharist in every Catholic Chruch across the globe.

 

[irishpatrick]

1 - Who has advocated for holding hands during the sign of peace? The subject of this thread is homilies. You just introduced a straw man.

2 - Regarding your apparent objection to everything except the words of consecration and distribution of communion, apparently Rome doesn’t agree with you.

From the Catechism:

Come on, I never rejected anything. I know that all of the other elements are quite important and they all have their proper place and role within the Church and within salvific history. I am simply saying that Jesus is right there for us, we do not have to make this complex, He is right there!

I have said many times that the readings are very important (I even sighted St. Jerome), and I accept the Mass in all its parts as the holiest prayer we have been given. I also have said homilies can be productive if done well–yet where you and I disagree is on the central importance of the homily. While I agree homilies can be good and productive, a Catholic would still receive the same Graces if there was no Homily. I also expressed my support simply for generally shorter Homily, for both spiritual and pratical reasons: (1) People simply do not listen after ten minutes; (2) A well thought-out Homily should be concise and to the point with all fluff taken out. The six-ten minute time span is more than enough.

I also am not one who thinks Mass should be shortened. Rather, I feel Communion should be lifted higher. To me, it is really very simple: either the Eucharist is truly Christ, or it is not. Since we know the Eucharist is Christ, that means that no matter how many hours we spend studying the Bible, no matter how much time we pray or go to Our Lady, none of that equals the encounter we have with our Risen Lord every single time we receive Communion. Everything we do within the faith should be pointing to Christ in some way or another, and yet He is there for us (truly there, God is truly there) in the form of the Eucharistic Species. Praise Jesus for such an amazing truth.

I obviously agree with what you posted from what Rome says. Yet, interestingly, Rome has also made it clear that during daily Mass a Homily is not an absolute requirement, and even during Sunday Mass the Homily can be dropped for a very good reason. Rome wants a Homily to be included for every Sunday Mass, but it is NOT an absolute. However, there is no wiggle room regarding the absolute requirement for Bible readings and for Communion. So, again, while Homilies are important and can be productive, even Rome agrees they are not required for daily Mass and can under a good reason be dropped on Sunday Mass. IMO, that places Homilies in a category of importance, yet of less importance than the readings and Communion—and that has been my central point all along, that the Homily is not a critical element of the Mass.

I go to frequent daily Mass–sometimes there is a short homily, sometimes no homily at all. I walk out of the Church with the same Graces either way because I have heard the Word of God with my ears, and then I received the Word of God (Jesus) into my Body during Communion.

 

[wynnejj]

I think you likely realize I am speaking a authentic reverence, and not the type people will give for show.

Honestly, I do wonder sometimes why so many Catholics (including incredibly devout and faithful Catholics like there are here) do not appear to give our Lord the attention He deserves. If Jesus walked into a local Catholic Church, every person would honor, revere and worship Him as our God and Savior–but there He is in the Tabernacle and then later during the Consecration, and you would think (the way people act) that Communion was nothing.

Everything the faith contains, prayers, Mass, Priests, Nuns, Churches, Saints, Mary, Scripture, etc…it is all there for one thing, and that is to point to Jesus Christ and our redemptive salvation brought by Him. Yet, that exact same Person (Jesus Christ) is there with us throughout the Mass, and yet a non-Catholic would have a very difficult time discerning that truth.

People look for Jesus in all sorts of places and ways–yet there He is in the Eucharist in every Catholic Chruch across the globe.

Yes, but the way that you are expressing it is more an emphasis on the cart before the horse. You are putting the benefits of the Holy Eucharist before the horsepower to deliver the benefits to its target audience. Where I think your message falls flat is the idea that one can almost turn away from their Bible studies if one just concentrates on reverence for & frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Jeremiah 7 is interesting because it suggests that allowing multiculturalism of competing gods & ideologies to infect temple worship invalidates the sacrificial offering as an insult of lip service. It is an abuse of temple worship to allow the goddess of fertility and the culture of death of the innocence to infect temple worship. It suggests that the cult of the goddess of fertility involves families offering cakes in the shape of the pagan star as an alternative “bread of life”. It is a requirement that people individually and collectively recognize that there are competing religions infecting their liturgy. It talks about social justice for all, including the innocence. Most of all, it talks about RIGHTEOUS INTOLERANCE of multiculturalism of idolatry, else your worship is just lip service with presumption that you will be saved because this is the temple of the Lord - rah, rah, I belong to the Church. Secular humanism is synonymous with practical idolatry according to the “Catholic Catechism” by Father John A. Hardon, S.J.

It is interesting about the phrase “den of thieves” mentioned in Jeremiah, which is referenced by Jesus when he whipped the money changers in the temple exchanging Roman coin for Hebrew coin for temple offerings. “My house is a house of prayer for all, but you have made it a den of thieves.” Welcome all, but do not allow money matters to pervert temple worship. I call it “fungible fundamentals” where money matters determine what messages are being professed publicly in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Our temples must teach RIGHTEOUS INTOLERANCE and not play numb & dumb through passive acceptance of the multiculturalism of idolatry - that is, man-made ideologies.

The way things are going in the Catholic Church today, one would think that the Holy Eucharist is actually a poison. Maybe it is for hypocrites & vipers permitting multicultural religious philosophies to infect their minds & hearts. Isn’t there a suggestion in the liturgy of the Holy Eucharist that the consecration might not acceptable to the Lord, when it asks to have the sacrifice accepted?

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes, but the way that you are expressing it is more an emphasis on the cart before the horse. You are putting the benefits of the Holy Eucharist before the horsepower to deliver the benefits to its target audience. Where I think your message falls flat is the idea that one can almost turn away from their Bible studies if one just concentrates on reverence for & frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Jeremiah 7 is interesting because it suggests that allowing multiculturalism of competing gods & ideologies to infect temple worship invalidates the sacrificial offering as an insult of lip service. It is an abuse of temple worship to allow the goddess of fertility and the culture of death of the innocence to infect temple worship. It suggests that the cult of the goddess of fertility involves families offering cakes in the shape of the pagan star as an alternative “bread of life”. It is a requirement that people individually and collectively recognize that there are competing religions infecting their liturgy. It talks about social justice for all, including the innocence. Most of all, it talks about RIGHTEOUS INTOLERANCE of multiculturalism of idolatry, else your worship is just lip service with presumption that you will be saved because this is the temple of the Lord - rah, rah, I belong to the Church. Secular humanism is synonymous with practical idolatry according to the “Catholic Catechism” by Father John A. Hardon, S.J.

It is interesting about the phrase “den of thieves” mentioned in Jeremiah, which is referenced by Jesus when he whipped the money changers in the temple exchanging Roman coin for Hebrew coin for temple offerings. “My house is a house of prayer for all, but you have made it a den of thieves.” Welcome all, but do not allow money matters to pervert temple worship. I call it “fungible fundamentals” where money matters determine what messages are being professed publicly in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Our temples must teach RIGHTEOUS INTOLERANCE and not play numb & dumb through passive acceptance of the multiculturalism of idolatry - that is, man-made ideologies.

The way things are going in the Catholic Church today, one would think that the Holy Eucharist is actually a poison. Maybe it is for hypocrites & vipers permitting multicultural religious philosophies to infect their minds & hearts. Isn’t there a suggestion in the liturgy of the Holy Eucharist that the consecration might not acceptable to the Lord, when it asks to have the sacrifice accepted?

I suppose I should just cease posting on this thread, it seems I must be a very poor writer. I have said many times that the readings are critical, which would obviously mean that Bible studies are very important and productive. It is just my view that people today have, for better or worse, been heavily Protestanized in the USA. Protestants raised Bible study to a near sacramental level, and people often state how “fed” they are in those Churches because they have many Bible studies. Catholics are not Protestants, we have all the fullness and all the gifts Jesus gave the world, and the absolute summit and center of the faith is Jesus, and He is truly Present for us in the Eucharist.

IMO, the Mass is NOT about us–it is about Jesus.

IMO, Bible study is very important and should be done–yet Bible study is not an absolute, it is not critical for the sake of our salvation.

I feel many other people have put the cart before the horse, in that Jesus is the center–period! Jesus is the center–period. Jesus is the center–period. Scripture teaches us about the Lord, it teaches us how we should live and we should hold Scripture very high because it is the revealed Word of God. Yet, Scripture points us to Jesus–and Jesus is already with us in the Eucharist.

If Catholics, in large numbers, put their Bibles down, and spent the same amount of time kneeling before the Lord in adoration–the world would be completely transformed. Or, even better, if Catholics, in large numbers, brought their Bibles to adoration and read Scripture while sitting and kneeling before the Lord, everything would change so quickly it would make our heads spin.

Many people do not have the education to help them fully understand Scripture if they did study it…many cannot read, many simply do not want to do that. Yet, if those same people went to adoration, they would receive Graces beyond anything a Bible study can provide.

Recall that St. Jerome said, “ignorance of Scripture, is ignorance of Christ.” Yet, one does not have to be in a Bible study to know the Scriptures, all they have to do is go to Mass regularly and listen to the readings.That is what the majority of early Christians did. For 1600 years there was no personal Bibles.

Imagine how the world and the nation would change if every parish had perpetual adoration. Wow!

 

[FAB]

Advice to homilists: Please get to the point in six or eight minutes
by Peter Finney, Jr. … Catholic News Service

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103239.htm

"The Pew Foundation looked at why young adults are leaving the church, and the first reason the study gave was poor preaching,"

This article suggests that the crux of the issue of poor preaching causing youth to leave the church is a matter of style over substance.

Whereas the point of “keep it simple & short” is a good principle, there is a more critical factor:
Keep it relevant to our society with practical advice about applying principles with respect to both God’s Vision & God’s Boundaries.

My opinion, the Sunday sermons that I hear do not tend toward the most relevant issues of our day that are destroying society by destroying families. While the sermons are good about describing the Do’s, they neglect to describe the Don’ts.

In seminaries, there has been a much greater emphasis on the homily and as a result preaching has gotten better. As A homilist, I was trained to keep it between 8-12 min. Personally 8 Min is OK put depending on the readings can be to short. The problem often is not the length but the preparation. I will admit that to many deacons and priest do homilies on the fly, letting the “spirit” move them. This does a disservice to the Word as well as the congregation. Keeping it simple, I think also does a disservice. It takes me about 12-15 hours to prepare a homily. Beginning with first reading, then praying, formulating, writing, re-writing and practicing.
Part of the formula is for the congregation to listen. The words of the homilist are guided by the Holy Spirit. Proper attention should be given.

 

[wynnejj]

Irishpatrick… Did Jesus in his lifetime just know all there was to know about the Old Testament teachings during his formative years? Did not Mary & Joseph teach Jesus the fullness of the OT oral tradition, whereby with a strong prayer life and complete worship of Our Father, he came to know His Mission. Jesus is the center, period, suggests the Jesus just knew His Mission. That’s a little more than the idea that Jesus was like any other man except for sin.

Our children get their oral tradition through parents, Catholic school, and homily interpretation of Sunday scriptures. All three are failing young persons. The Catholic Church in many countries is a dysfunctional family that young persons leave at the first chance they get. All I’m saying is that the homily, focused on the scripture and describing how scripture relates to today *** without omissions *** is an appropriate and necessary venue to shore up the oral tradition.

In order to worship Jesus, one must not worship a false Jesus due to a false characterization of Jesus by action or omission in our oral teachings. One such false message is Love with Tolerance, when the message of Jeremiah is one of Love with Righteous Intolerance. It is this message that is missing when characterizing Jesus and His Word from the Sunday pulpit. One can say that the parents must fill that role, or the Catholic schools must fill that role. I say all three must fill that role comprehensively and not selectively choosing what aspects of Jesus character to teach.

 

[irishpatrick]

Irishpatrick… Did Jesus in his lifetime just know all there was to know about the Old Testament teachings during his formative years? Did not Mary & Joseph teach Jesus the fullness of the OT oral tradition, whereby with a strong prayer life and complete worship of Our Father, he came to know His Mission. Jesus is the center, period, suggests the Jesus just knew His Mission. That’s a little more than the idea that Jesus was like any other man except for sin.

==> Jesus is God and everything that ever was came through and for Him. Jesus was never “just like any other man.” He did live and suffer like other men, yet He was always both true man and true God.

Our children get their oral tradition through parents, Catholic school, and homily interpretation of Sunday scriptures. All three are failing young persons. The Catholic Church in many countries is a dysfunctional family that young persons leave at the first chance they get. All I’m saying is that the homily, focused on the scripture and describing how scripture relates to today *** without omissions *** is an appropriate and necessary venue to shore up the oral tradition.

==> I have said many times (not sure why this point is not taking hold), that homilies can be productive and that they are important. Yet, homilies are NOT critical–one can learn about Jesus without homilies and one can certainly receive salvation without homilies.

In order to worship Jesus, one must not worship a false Jesus due to a false characterization of Jesus by action or omission in our oral teachings. One such false message is Love with Tolerance, when the message of Jeremiah is one of Love with Righteous Intolerance. It is this message that is missing when characterizing Jesus and His Word from the Sunday pulpit. One can say that the parents must fill that role, or the Catholic schools must fill that role. I say all three must fill that role comprehensively and not selectively choosing what aspects of Jesus character to teach.

**==> The problem here is that you and others tend to think that the homilies given provide this, most do not and most never will. Most homilies could be cut in half and the message would still be given. The argument of the OP is simply making homilies shorter. I support that, you do not. Okay, so we disagree. No big deal for us to disagree, it happens all the time.

==> Personally, for many reasons, many I have stated on this thread, I am happy to know someone is thinking of making homilies shorter. The readings are the true Word of God, the homily is NOT. Communion is the Incarnate Word of God, the Homily is NOT. Homilies can be dropped from Mass, the readings and Communion cannot. **

**==> We must also be very careful not to let people fall into a cult of personality with Priests who give flowing and booming homilies that sound impressive and come across as oh-so scholarly and correct. This has happened more than it should. The Mass is about Jesus, not about the Priest. In fact, the Priest actually acts in the person of Christ when he says the Words of Institution, during which the bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood. The Priest is not acting in the person of Christ when he says the Homily.

==> During every Mass miracle takes place–yet we very often act as if that is just expected, or just so must altar magic. Yet, the bread and wine become Jesus’ actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity during every Mass–that is a miracle that happens every Mass. **

==> Be honest, if you had a choice between having Jesus come to visit you personally, or listen to a Priest give a Homily, which would you choose? Which would you find more amazing, more humbling, more beneficial?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Does anyone really, really believe that the sermon, long or short, engaging or boring, has any real bearing on the reason young persons are leaving the Church?

Yes and no.

Yes: We need to remember that up until recently there weren’t a lot of options open to people for what to do on a Sunday morning. Church was a social as well as religious experience. Today Sunday Mass competes with every possible sporting event being televised, every store in creation open, late night Saturday events, etc. If people don’t feel engaged on Sunday morning they are indeed more likely to sleep in or do something else.

No: Ultimately its a lack of proper understanding of Mass, poor faith formation, and the erosion of faith in society that leads people to make these decisions.

How does this compare to eras before Humanae Vitae and the sexual revolution within the Church?

Fr. Andrew Greeley made the argument in the 1980’s that Humanae Vitae was the #1 cause of falling Mass attendance.

 

[FAB]

Does anyone really, really believe that the sermon, long or short, engaging or boring, has any real bearing on the reason young persons are leaving the Church?

.

No. The challenge is much more complicated than just bad homilies.

 

[wynnejj]

Yes and no.

Yes: We need to remember that up until recently there weren’t a lot of options open to people for what to do on a Sunday morning. Church was a social as well as religious experience. Today Sunday Mass competes with every possible sporting event being televised, every store in creation open, late night Saturday events, etc. If people don’t feel engaged on Sunday morning they are indeed more likely to sleep in or do something else.

No: Ultimately its a lack of proper understanding of Mass, poor faith formation, and the erosion of faith in society that leads people to make these decisions.

Fr. Andrew Greeley made the argument in the 1980’s that Humanae Vitae was the #1 cause of falling Mass attendance.

When I was formed as a Catholic, I was told that failure to miss Sunday Mass without a serious reason - e.g., illness or emergency - was a mortal sin. In fact, the fear of the Lord factor played very prominently in my faith formation. It played very prominently in Saint John Vianney’s sermons / homilies. The priests were a father figure who were not afraid to correct those under their care. Today, one feels like their in a single parent situation whose custody battle is dependent on playing to the wants of the kid, instead of the kid’s needs. I believe that Humanae Vitae is central to the custody battle.

 

[irishpatrick]

When I was formed as a Catholic, I was told that failure to miss Sunday Mass without a serious reason - e.g., illness or emergency - was a mortal sin. In fact, the fear of the Lord factor played very prominently in my faith formation. It played very prominently in Saint John Vianney’s sermons / homilies. The priests were a father figure who were not afraid to correct those under their care. Today, one feels like their in a single parent situation whose custody battle is dependent on playing to the wants of the kid, instead of the kid’s needs. I believe that Humanae Vitae is central to the custody battle.

Missing Mass without a serious reason is still a grave sin.

Fear is a great motivator, it just gets a bad reputation by a culture who wants things their way.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

When I was formed as a Catholic, I was told that failure to miss Sunday Mass without a serious reason - e.g., illness or emergency - was a mortal sin. In fact, the fear of the Lord factor played very prominently in my faith formation. It played very prominently in Saint John Vianney’s sermons / homilies. The priests were a father figure who were not afraid to correct those under their care. Today, one feels like their in a single parent situation whose custody battle is dependent on playing to the wants of the kid, instead of the kid’s needs. I believe that Humanae Vitae is central to the custody battle.

Problem is that today people just don’t believe that missing Mass is grave matter. Priests do still try their best to convince people of that fact but they just don’t believe it.
I think the whole “playing to their wants vs. needs” thing is a bit overly simplistic.

 

[wynnejj]

No. The challenge is much more complicated than just bad homilies.

In fact, I have very few homilies that I would consider a bad homily in the sense of a bad message. I object to longstanding glaring omissions in the subject matter of the homilies.

 

[wynnejj]

Problem is that today people just don’t believe that missing Mass is grave matter. Priests do still try their best to convince people of that fact but they just don’t believe it.
I think the whole “playing to their wants vs. needs” thing is a bit overly simplistic.

Many Catholics want contraception and cohabitation. These are controversial subjects that rarely are covered due to concern for driving people away. Personally, I’ve never heard a Sunday sermon on the subject. I think it is simple to see how priests avoid controversy by playing to their wants instead of their needs. Like any parent who can be manipulated, they lose credibility as a moral authority.

 

[FAB]

In fact, I have very few homilies that I would consider a bad homily in the sense of a bad message. I object to longstanding glaring omissions in the subject matter of the homilies.

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the homily. It is to take the readings of the day and apply them to today’s world and what out actions as Catholics should be. They are not a political forum. If applicable it can address politcal and social issues, but only through the teachings of the church. It is not a place for the preacher to share his personal opinion, and if it does, needs to be expressed as such so not to mislead from Church Teaching.
The omiisions perhaps need to be addressed in a different forum.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Many Catholics want contraception and cohabitation.

Artificial birth control is indeed popular amongst Catholics. Cohabitation is less so.

These are controversial subjects that rarely are covered due to concern for driving people away. Personally, I’ve never heard a Sunday sermon on the subject.

I’ll bet very few have heard a Sunday homily on glutony either. Sunday homilies usually try to address people where they’re at and find a way to nudge them forward. Sunday homilies are to mixed crowds and have limited time to make a point. Complicated issues aren’t necessarily best addressed in such forums.

I think it is simple to see how priests avoid controversy by playing to their wants instead of their needs. Like any parent who can be manipulated, they lose credibility as a moral authority.

Overly simplistic. Life and preaching is a bit more complicated than that.

 

[wynnejj]

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the homily. It is to take the readings of the day and apply them to today’s world and what out actions as Catholics should be. They are not a political forum. If applicable it can address politcal and social issues, but only through the teachings of the church. It is not a place for the preacher to share his personal opinion, and if it does, needs to be expressed as such so not to mislead from Church Teaching.
The omiisions perhaps need to be addressed in a different forum.

My focus is not about criticizing homily subjects for not pushing a Pro-Life candidate.

My focus is the avoidance of subjects *** in principle *** because they are controversial.

Most notably the subject of contraception & cohabitation.

I have never heard a homily on the subject.

I did hear a homily about a couple seeking marriage being denied in their own parish due to cohabitation, but being married in our parish.

There have to be scriptural readings that lend itself during the course of the liturgical year that lend itself to this all important subject in our sexually revolting society.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We had another very long homily on Sat. evening.

Our Pastor really should be a professor in the Seminary. He’s a brilliant man, it’s obvious he’s a true scholar, and he knows a lot about a lot of stuff.

But he likes to hear himself talk, he’s not very well organized, and he truly believes that a 60 min. Mass is just not enough time for us to spend with the Lord. So he lectures us for 30-45 minutes. I always feel that I should be taking notes. He’s brilliant, though, and an entertaining speaker, but it’s just that the homily overshadows the rest of the Mass, and gets everyone restless and bored, and impatient for him to stop.



With many others on this thread, I feel that the Mass should be more about Jesus, less about the priest himself, or even his homily. We are there to hear the Gospel proclaimed and partake of the Eucharist, not to be adoring fans of the priest/professor.

What really galls me is that some fools in the vigil Mass will start applauding after his homily!!!



I really, really, detest that and I think if he didn’t secretly love it, he’d say something like, “Please don’t applaud in church, it’s not appropriate.”

 

[James924]

latinmassomaha.org/Sermons.html

I listened to a couple of the sermons and they were excellent. One was 20 minutes long and, the other was 10 minutes. The first one was on Saint Maria Goretti with special attention to her killer’s conversion and addiction to pornography that sparked the episode. The second one was a treatise on anger.

If you think that one was good, this past Sunday’s will knock you off your feet. It was about the importance of prayer for salvation and on perseverance of prayer. It was easily in my top ten from these two FSSP priests. Though it might be a few days before it is uploaded. You can dig back into their previous ones and find great ones on all sorts of taboo topics that we’re usually starved of. Father Gordon has some great ones on working on Sundays and modesty in dress and premarital relations, etc etc etc. Fr Brancich’s are great too.