Does your priest like to walk around during the homily?

[GeneB]

Our priest will leave the pulpit and walk around a little. He never reads his homily and he gives some outstanding ones. We thank God for him everyday.

 

[decn2b]

I
Really, this forum is so full of condemnation it’s getting tiresome! Who do you people think you are?

Kettle meet pot------Pot meet Kettle.

 

[Lucania]

No he dosen’t. I think it would be too distracting if he did, in my humble opinion .

 

[scylla]

I am glad we have good retired priests in my parish, which doesn’t have a resident priest.

We have one very reverent and faithful priest, who made the mistake of mentioning EWTN and actually teaching the faith.

Now they are reluctant to schedule him, I work with the office and see how they avoid scheduling him. It is a shame as he knows that he must tiptoe around the pastoral administrator to avoid being rejected altogether. This has happened with another retired priest who is off the schedule.

We don’t have a priest walking around problem, we just have a parish that is run by a lady who wants women priests and this hurts our parish life a bit.

We haven’t had a vocation in more than 15 years, yet we had no problem getting a vocation or two when we were half the size and had a good faithful priest in charge.

Having priests walk around, interesting homilies etc… is not the problem. We just need people willing to be faithful Catholics and priests willing to teach it.

Lets not complain, but teach what is supposed to be done and what faithful Catholics should do.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Kettle meet pot------Pot meet Kettle.

Okay, good to have some humor to defuse possible conflagrations.

Seriously, while once or twice people have allowed their opinion to perhaps be expressed rather. . .shall we say, strongly. . .I have to ask ‘condemnation’? Not really. We are as members of the congregation who love our priests concerned not just that they ‘do the right thing’ for **our ** benefit (I believe it was Cardinal Arinze who emphasized the importance of people needing to hear valid, licit Masses from their priests), it is for **their ** benefit above all. As priests and shepherds responsible for their flock, they bear a heavy burden which should not be made heavier by us. . .or by they themselves. And real abuses (and ignoring GIRM instructions is abusive) will have a greater impact on the priest (however good his intentions might be) because he is responsible for the welfare of his flock.

It’s like other trusted relationships (doctor, for example). If you cannot trust your doctor to be reading or understanding exactly what your medicine or medical condition is all about, even if there are ‘similarities’, then you risk minor complications at best, death at worst! A doctor who takes it upon himself to downplay an illness by giving it a lesser known name, or even just mentioning one lesser symptom rather than the whole complex, because “the poor person might feel upset knowing how sick he is” risks the person developing worse illness, more complications, even personal catastrophe/hastened death, all because the doctor either ignores or ‘reinterprets’ the Hippocratic oath because he thinks he knows better.

And spiritual death is a lot worse than physical death.

I have no doubt at all that the individual priests mentioned by posters are good, holy, spiritual men of great worth, and that we are lucky to have priests at all. But. . .we all know that it doesn’t really matter how much good a person does if it is down ‘outside of’ God. Even though it may seem to some a ‘trifling’ matter to have people ‘move’ when the rubrics say you shouldn’t be, or to do a particular gesture when the rubrics say no, it really isn’t trifling. One doesn’t usually make quantum leaps into evil; one starts by taking little tiny steps away from good. Multiple all those little steps that ‘seem’ to be so trifling, and what do you get?

We as humans are not prone to obedience at the best of times, and this culture and society, predicated on ‘me-ism’ is one of the worst for fostering the idea of the importance of obedience and humility. Maybe in the grand scheme of things it won’t be ‘that important’ that Father X, or Bishop D, put their own personal style (and we all have a distinct personality, which is not a bad thing), made their personal decision to act differently from the rubrics (independence is not necessarily a bad thing), made their personal decision to speak different words (because they liked their own interpretations better or felt ‘called’ to do so) etc.

But maybe it will. I’d rather err on the side of caution (hopefully with charity even though it seems that often people confuse ‘charity’ with ‘never disagreeing with another’).

God bless our priests and bishops and give them strength, courage, humility, obedience, faith, hope, and the ‘real’ love of which our Lord has spoken.

 

[Joysong]

Tantum ergo:

we all know that it doesn’t really matter how much good a person does if it is down ‘outside of’ God. Even though it may seem to some a ‘trifling’ matter to have people ‘move’ when the rubrics say you shouldn’t be, or to do a particular gesture when the rubrics say no, it really isn’t trifling.

I asked another poster for the source showing where the rubrics require a priest to give the homily solely at the lectern. There was no response. And I see an allusion in your post that perhaps the priest is not adhering to rubric, though you may have been speaking generally, not specifically.

Once again, I ask for the source, for in reading the GIRM, there was not a word in mention of this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[SMHW]

Yes, my pastor moves around during his homily.

In the case of our parish it is a matter of architecture. The church is circular and while the altar is situated in the very middle of the church, the ambo and the chair are not. Our pastor and one of our regular visiting priests usually give their homilies while slowly circling the altar.

 

[lizaanne]

Our Church is in the round (built in the 1920’s, a gorgeous example of Art Deco architecture). I don’t mind if the priest walks around, as long as he does not leave the sanctuary. In fact I prefer that to one who stands still and reads from the ambo - that puts me to sleep usually.

Our Church:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2826/35art2.jpg

~Liza

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One of my favorite sites on CA is “This Rock” and I pulled these paragraphs from an issue:

Here is the URL : catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

The priest may omit the homily only on weekdays that are not holy days. On Sundays and holy days he must give a homily (Sacrosanctum Concilium; CIC 767); it should relate the readings to one another and indicate how their message can be applied to the lives of his parishioners (Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntianidi; Inter Oecumenici). No priest can substitute announcements, financial reports, or pleas in place of the homily, nor add such things to it. Of course the Holy See isn’t going to make a fuss if he takes a couple of sentences at the end of the homily to make an announcement, tell how much is in the building fund, or mention a second collection.

Nobody who is not a priest, deacon, or bishop can give the homily at Mass; nobody who is not ordained can give a “talk” or “reflection” in place of the homily (CIC 766–768). Although some few groups like the Society for the Propagation of the Faith have a dispensation to speak on behalf of an order or mission at the time appointed for the homily, it is never permitted without that dispensation—not even if he (or, worse, she) gives a short homily before launching into the appeal. An ordained minister gives a homily structured on certain guidelines; that’s it.

**Incidentally, he may not leave the sanctuary during the homily (GIRM 97). **

It is true that on trying to ascertain exactly what GIRM 97 says, I have found that, for eample, in the diocese of Gallup, New Mexico, the bishop has taken GIRM 97 to mean that the priest may speak from the ambo or another ‘approved’ place. However, even here, it is another ‘approved’ place which indicates from what I’ve seen and heard that it is another ‘stationary’ place. Otherwise it would be approved
‘places’ as in ‘walking all through the entire church’, ‘walking to the altar’; ‘walking to the choir loft’, ‘walking to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. rows back from the altar’.

Hope that helps!!

 

[The_Draconarius]

Once again, I ask for the source, for in reading the GIRM, there was not a word in mention of this.

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 136:

The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily.
The impression would seem to be that the priest is stationary, elsewise we might find, “…in another series of suitable places…”

Someone else suggested that the priest sit down to preach. Priests are to preach standing while bishops preach seated, in recognition of their office as teachers. From the Ceremonial of Bishops, 142:

Then, all sit and the bishop gives the homily. He may use the miter and pastoral staff. He gives the homily seated in the chair (cathedra), unless he prefers some other place in order to be easily seen and heard by all.
Again, it would seem the bishop should be stationary.

 

[decn2b]

Our Church:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2826/35art2.jpg

~Liza

WOW the square thing hanging above the altar looks like the scoreboard above the court at madison square garden.

You could keep score on that thing AND sell advertisement.

Whats the score??? Jesus 1000 Bad guys 0.

Put a jumbotron on it and people could watch replays of Mass.

It is indeed an interesting Church.

I can hear the organist doing revilee dum dum dum dum …dum dum…CHARGE! Like at Pro Basketbal games.

 

[lizaanne]

decn2b - I won’t comment on how disrespectful your comments are regarding my place of worship, instead I will educate you:

It is called:

**The Baldachino (a canopy which covers an altar)

**A baldachino, which means canopy, weighing 4,000 pounds,
is suspended from the ceiling directly above the main altar
by eight bronze chains. The traditional purpose of this
canopy, while also decorative, is to protect the altar from
dust or other matter falling from the ceiling. It is constructed
of exquisitely carved oak covered with gold leaf. Local artists
decorated it in polychrome and gold.

The baldachino was originally draped in red silk damask with
gold tassels. This covering was replaced with stained-glass
panels depicting tongues of flame, a Pentecostal reminder
of the twelve Apostles. At each corner are the same symbols
of the Gospel writers that are also found on the Charity
Crucifixion Tower: the human face, the eagle, the calf and
the lion. The baldachino serves as a huge lighting fixture
illuminating the Sanctuary below. There are three separate
light circuits for the baldachino, allowing dramatic light
variations on the beautiful altar beneath. In addition, it
provides support for the sound system with four
loudspeakers attached to its upper corners.

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3558/37rq8.jpg

~Liza

 

[lak611]

(your priest hasn’t decided to give the homily from the back of the Church has he? I went to Mass once and the priest said he felt like a change of scenery…to his defense though, I’m not sure he was totally with it).

Well, the only time that I have heard a priest give the homily from the back of the church is for Palm Sunday Mass. That’s the way it is supposed to be done, though. The Gospel and homily are done in the back at the start of the Mass before the procession. Every Palm Sunday Mass has been like that.

 

[Joysong]

Incidentally, he may not leave the sanctuary during the homily (GIRM 97).

Tantum ergo,

I think you may be using an older version of the GIRM, for the 2003 does not have this for #97.

Draconarius,

I see that your reference #142 is the correct up-to-date number.
This did not show up in section III which pertained solely to the homily. For the large number of priests who speak in the sanctuary, and from what I have noted from a few here regarding children’s liturgies, I will not be one to call them reprobate. There are many nuances that may have been thoroughly explained to priests by their bishops that we are not privy to, and I seriously doubt all of them are in error. And if they are, through no fault of their own understanding, the responsibility lays at the bishops’s door.

I withhold my judgment regarding interpretation. Particularly, since #142 does say, “when appropriate, in another suitable place.”

Whose interpretation is more apt to be correct, yours or mine? or the Bishops who study and know the requirements of the GIRM? Maybe those who find this practice objectionable could write their bishops and get back to the rest of us who may have no problem with it at all …
… as long as it’s a good homily.

Thanks so much for helping with this, Draconarius. I appreciate it.

 

[Caesar]

Whose interpretation is more apt to be correct, yours or mine? or the Bishops who study and know the requirements of the GIRM? Maybe those who find this practice objectionable could write their bishops and get back to the rest of us who may have no problem with it at all …
… as long as it’s a good homily.
.

Because of course we both know faithful the Bishops have been to the GIRM in the past…

 

[Joysong]

Caesar, I amended my post somewhat to allow that priests may be totally in the right if they have received permission from the Bishop in an instructional conference.

I’m not sure how you meant your last post, whether ironically, or in earnest. Knowing your characteristics in the past, I sense that you distrust anything that a bishop says, but I could be wrong.

Back to the priest …

We ought not to judge for we know not the instructions they have been given. And if it DID come from higher up, well then, these are the lawful shepherds of the Church, and if the majority of them approve it, then I accept it, for it is not a serious matter of faith or morals, and I hardly believe it could be called a grave abuse.

Maybe we could turn our attention to more worthy matters.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 136:
The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily.The impression would seem to be that the priest is stationary, elsewise we might find, “…in another series of suitable places…”

Someone else suggested that the priest sit down to preach. Priests are to preach standing while bishops preach seated, in recognition of their office as teachers. From the Ceremonial of Bishops, 142:
Then, all sit and the bishop gives the homily. He may use the miter and pastoral staff. He gives the homily seated in the chair (cathedra), unless he prefers some other place in order to be easily seen and heard by all.Again, it would seem the bishop should be stationary.

That was me. You’re quite right, it seems the priest must stand, even at the celebrant’s chair.

 

[jmcrae]

WOW the square thing hanging above the altar looks like the scoreboard above the court at madison square garden.

That’s called a “baldaccino,” and all good Catholic Churches have one, if they can afford it. I feel sorry for you, if you have never seen one before.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s called a “baldaccino,” and all good Catholic Churches have one, if they can afford it. I feel sorry for you, if you have never seen one before.

I was going to mention, it’s quite “traditional.”

 

[lak611]

That’s called a “baldaccino,” and all good Catholic Churches have one, if they can afford it. I feel sorry for you, if you have never seen one before.

I am more used to them looking like this one here, in a church with a high altar and tabernacle on the altar. Most of the newer churches do not have them.