"Fulfilled in Your Hearing", is full of junk.

[dcdurel]

“Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which the bishops of this country teach priests what the homily is supposed to be about, is full of junk.

It starts off ok, when it is quoting Church documents, but when it quits quoting them, then it turns to pure stupidity that has nothing to do with teaching and preaching the Gospel. No wonder we are not being fed. The bishops have no idea what the content of the homily is supposed to be about. Obviously they have no idea what the Gospel is. Somehow they think that reading the scriptures and giving an exegesis of them is equivalent to teaching and preaching the Gospel.

Am I wrong?
I’ll bet not to many people answer, because of dissidents like Raymond Brown ( who claimed to teach bishops and priests) and others and who influenced Catholic thought in this country, most of us have never been taught exactly what the Gospel is. The dissidents try to teach the Gospel is only scripture and our interpretation of it.

Actually the Gospel is everything the Church teaches, believes and lives. Because everything the Church teaches, believes and lives comes from the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. Thus, when we proclaim the Catholic faith we are proclaiming the Gospel. When we teach the teachings of basic Catechisms, we are teaching the basic teachings of the Gospel.
Because the entire Gospel the apostles taught and preached is contained under the four hierarchy of truths flowing from the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer.

 

[YinYangMom]

Under what Papal authority do you claim your perspective is correct and the USCCBs is ‘junk’?

What Vatican resources can you site which prove their position wrong?

Which parts do you have specific problems with -
I. The Assembly
II. The Preacher
III. The Homily
IV. Homiletic Method
or the Epilogue???

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Because everything the Church teaches, believes and lives comes from the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached.

But Catholics are not in fact sola scriptura, meaning we don’t just depend on the Bible. We have sacred Tradition as well.

For example, how to elect a new pope is not in the Bible whatsoever, let alone in the Gospels. Saints feast days are not in the Bible or Gospels. And what to give homilies about is not in the Bible or Gospels.

I haven’t read “Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, so I cannot comment on it directly. But I do know that some things you may not like, but you just got to go with it. You may not feel you’re getting something particular out of a homily, but somebody else may be getting the help that they needed.

There are bad homilies and there are good homilies. But when it comes to insulting the US Bishops, that’s getting into bad territory. Granted, if the Bishops started teaching that abortion is a good thing, you could pull back then, but God won’t let that happen. Sometimes you have to accept things you don’t like that come from authority above you. There are many saints who were saints for putting up with things they didn’t like.

Have faith that God will guide His church. He promised us He would and that it would be around until the end of time. And that is in the Bible! :bible1:

 

[Pug]

Do you have a link to the fulfilled in your hearing article?

Do you feel the same about the Old Catholic Encylopaedia article about Homily?

 

[Genesis315]

Shouldn’t the homilee relate to the lessons of the specific reading?? That’s what the OPs post seems to be claiming is bad.

 

[YinYangMom]

Pug:

Do you have a link to the fulfilled in your hearing article?

usccb.org/plm/fiyh.htm

 

[stanley123]

“Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which the bishops of this country teach priests what the homily is supposed to be about, is full of junk.

Am I wrong?
.

I wouldn’t be able to answer your question, unless I had some specific examples of the junk that you are referring to. It would help if you would give a few quotations or excerpts of what it is that you think is junk in this document.

 

[dcdurel]

“Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which the bishops of this country teach priests what the homily is supposed to be about, is full of junk.

The first pure junk is this statement under
"III The Homily"
under
"Faith as interpretation" it says:
"Faith can be defined as a way of seeing or interpreting the world"

Where in the world did they get that pure junk. Everyone sees the world differently to some exent, and someone with faith in Jesus and His Gospel will see the world differently from an unbeliever, but what does that have to do with the definition of faith?
Faith is believing what God has revealed. And we know what He has revealed through His Church. The definition they give has nothing to do with God and nothing to do with His teachings. What is written here is pure junk.

Lets pay attention to the next idea.
"The Christian response to the world is one of acceptance and affirmation"

Where in the world does that come from? It does not come from any Gospel teaching, any Christian teaching, any Church teaching, it does not come from scripture or Tradition. It does not come from God.

Do a google search on “acceptance and affirmation” and almost all you get is “acceptance and affirmation” of the gay lifestyles.
“Acceptance and affirmation” are buzzwords for accepting the sexual practices of homosexuals and lesbians.

Folks, what we have here on the bishops web site, on this supposedly teachings on what the homily should be for our good priests, is a homosexual agenda. The writer of this article was obviously familar with the homosexual agenda.
Is it all that unusual?
After all, from the arrest records of recent past bishops we know that 10 of them were homosexuals. And that is only because their misbehavior has got them in trouble with the law. Based on these figures of only the ones who got caught, some people speculate that at least 25% to 35% of the bishops are practicing homosexuals. That may explain where this “acceptance and affirmation” come from. It may also explain why they don’t get rid of practicing homosexual priests in the seminaries.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I know it gets really hard sometimes, but you have to remember that the entire Catholic church is made up of sinners! You sin. I sin. Priests sin. We don’t like it, but we gotta live with it and try to make it better one person at a time, ourselves first of all!

To accuse all the US Bishops of having a homosexual agenda is to accuse God of not looking after his church. No where did they say “accept homosexuality as good”. You just made a speculation based on a connection between commonly used words. And accepting “speculation” (especially about how many homosexual priests are out there) as fact is a bad idea, especially if one wants to remain Catholic. People speculate about how Catholics worship Mary and the Pope and after JP2 death, people speculated on how it might be the beginning of the end of the Catholic church.

I think you need to take a moment to consider if every single US Bishop is completely off track of the Catholic faith or if you personally are reading a little much into this.

 

[ekim61]

dcdurel:

The first pure junk is this statement under
"III The Homily"
under
"Faith as interpretation" it says:
"Faith can be defined as a way of seeing or interpreting the world"

Where in the world did they get that pure junk. Everyone sees the world differently to some exent, and someone with faith in Jesus and His Gospel will see the world differently from an unbeliever, but what does that have to do with the definition of faith?
Faith is believing what God has revealed. And we know what He has revealed through His Church. The definition they give has nothing to do with God and nothing to do with His teachings. What is written here is pure junk.

Lets pay attention to the next idea.
"The Christian response to the world is one of acceptance and affirmation"

Where in the world does that come from? It does not come from any Gospel teaching, any Christian teaching, any Church teaching, it does not come from scripture or Tradition. It does not come from God.

Do a google search on “acceptance and affirmation” and almost all you get is “acceptance and affirmation” of the gay lifestyles.
“Acceptance and affirmation” are buzzwords for accepting the sexual practices of homosexuals and lesbians.

Folks, what we have here on the bishops web site, on this supposedly teachings on what the homily should be for our good priests, is a homosexual agenda. The writer of this article was obviously familar with the homosexual agenda.
Is it all that unusual?
After all, from the arrest records of recent past bishops we know that 10 of them were homosexuals. And that is only because their misbehavior has got them in trouble with the law. Based on these figures of only the ones who got caught, some people speculate that at least 25% to 35% of the bishops are practicing homosexuals. That may explain where this “acceptance and affirmation” come from. It may also explain why they don’t get rid of practicing homosexual priests in the seminaries.

You’ve taken this completely out of context to justify your agenda.

 

[RyanL]

While I have not been thrilled with the approach of the USCCB’s tactics WRT fighting the culture war or defending the Church, we must be fair and present the document as it is.

From Section II, The Preacher:

“Preachers accept their limitations not by making the pulpit a sounding board for their personal doubts, anxieties or problems, but by offering people a Word which has been spoken to their lives and inviting these people to think and ponder on that Word so that it might speak to their lives as well…What the Word of God offers us is a way to interpret our human lives…Some years ago a survey was taken among a group of parishioners. They were asked what they hoped to experience during a sermon. When the results were in, the answer was clear. What the majority wanted was simply to hear a person of faith speaking. Ultimately, that’s what preaching is all about; not lofty theological speculation, not painstaking biblical exegesis, not oratorical flamboyance. The preacher is a person speaking to people about faith and life.”

In fairness, I think this is absolute crapola. Since when has the preaching of the Word been contingent on “popular consensus”? Theology and exegesis have been given a back seat to the personal experience of the priests, which may or may not have anything to do with the scriptures. Improving oratory styles to keep parishoners awake and interested is condemned as “flamboyance”, and scholarly work is cast in a disparaging light. Why? Why not give us theology, exegesis, and varied oratorical styles? They are right to condemn “speculation…painstaking biblical exegesis…[and] flamboyance”, but they don’t give the flip side of the coin! They don’t talk about how it is the responsibility of the priest to give us serious theology, actual exegesis, and orations worth hearing. Quite frankly, this is the only place many Catholics hear anything about theology or biblical exegesis.

To Continue, with Section III, The Homily:

“Nor does the homily primarily concern itself with a systematic theological understanding of the faith. The liturgical gathering is not primarily an educational assembly. Rather the homily is preached in order that a community of believers who have gathered to celebrate the liturgy may do so more deeply and more fully - more faithfully - and thus be formed for Christian withess to the world.”

Again, I am not impressed. Read: Don’t discuss systematic theology, and don’t use the pulpit to teach anything. What are they supposed to do, then? Use a story about how when they were a child someone was nice to them, then encourage us to be nice as well? This is the same kind of homily that has driven droves of Catholics into Fundimentalist congregations, where exegesis and theology are discussed consistantly! Enough of this “fuzzy feeling” junk. Give me Father Corapi over Father Vanilla Ice Cream any day!

I also agree that their definition of “faith” is lacking. I would define faith as follows:
“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will.”

I would not define it as, “a way of seeing or interpreting the world.” This is modernistic / relativistic hogwash.

Finally, they are right in saying that we should have homilies that bring out the “personal situations” presented in the readings in order to lead us to contemplation of how the Word can be made manifest in our own lives, but this document seems to place this not so much as a primary theme, but rather as the sole purpose of every homily to the exclusion of theology, exegesis, and catechesis. I believe this to be a grave mistake that needs to be quickly corrected, for the sake of the Catholics who grow up never knowing their faith.

God Bless, and may He lead us all to conformity with Him,
RyanL

 

[dcdurel]

“Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which the bishops of this country teach priests what the homily is supposed to be about, is full of junk.

There is so much junk in this article “Fulfilled in Your Hearing” I could spend days writing down the errors and misinformation.

It says:
"Since the purpose of the homily is to enable the gathered congregation to celebrate the liturgy with faith the preacher does not so much attempt to explain the scriptures as to** interpret the human situation through the scriptures"**

Again, this is NOT Church teaching, NOT Gospel teaching, not Catholic teaching. This idea is found no where in the bible, no where in Catholic Church teaching, no where in apostolic Tradition. It does NOT come from God but from men.

It says, "the preachers purpose will be to turn to these scriptures to interpret people’s lives in such a way that they will be able to celebrate the Eucharist - or be reconciled with God or one another…"

Again, this is not Catholic teaching, not God’s word, not found in scripture, apostolic Tradition. These ideas are NOT part of divine revelation. These ideas are opposed to what the Church really teaches. This is NOT the purpose of the homily.

Vatican II and the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) and Canon law, the Roman Catechism and the New Catechism all give the purpose of the homily, and this ain’t it.

 

[Pug]

usccb.org/plm/fiyh.htm

Thanks, YinYangMom! I think it is just me who goes insane finding anything on that site. I couldn’t read the article, though. I left it to download overnight, but it failed (I’m on dialup). I hate pdf stuff! It almost never works if the article is long!! :banghead:

 

[Ignatius]

“Fulfilled in Your Hearing”, on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which the bishops of this country teach priests what the homily is supposed to be about, is full of junk.

It starts off ok, when it is quoting Church documents, but when it quits quoting them, then it turns to pure stupidity that has nothing to do with teaching and preaching the Gospel. No wonder we are not being fed. The bishops have no idea what the content of the homily is supposed to be about. Obviously they have no idea what the Gospel is. Somehow they think that reading the scriptures and giving an exegesis of them is equivalent to teaching and preaching the Gospel.

Am I wrong?

How can we tell, you didn’t provide a link.

 

[rwoehmke]

I have been around “the horn” on this issue. If nothing else my lifes experience has taught me that sharing Faith is not theology, or cathechism, but witnessing how God has intercepted ones life. There are theologians who “know it all” and still can end up in hell because knowing theology is knowing about God, but it is not knowing God. When I have asked people about various talks, sermons, etc. what they remember best are usually not the academic stuff, but the guts of the speakers interaction with God. I have always had the opinion that Satan probably has more knowledge of Theology than contained in all the books ever published, but he does not have a positive personal relationship to his creater. He knows it all and is still doomed to spend eternity in hell. The secret to salvation is in the doing of God’s will and not in the esoteric knowledge about Him. That is not to say that knowing the facts of one’s Faith is not important and quite interesting only that all that knowledge does one no good unless it is lived out as a personal relationship with God. Who else but our priests and bishops should be expected to show us the Way by their lives and how they live them. Our Bishops are not as stupid as you make them out to be, nor are they quite as smart as I would like them, but they are who God has chosen to be our shepherds. Pray for respect for your shepherds.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I feel the current “norm” (followed sometimes, ignored others) of the homily relating to the readings, particularly the Gospels, is the correct one and the one that should be continued with. I’ve heard horror stories of priests preaching a “series” of homilies on, say, (one real example) the Lord’s Prayer. Well and good, right? Each week, however, was supposed to be devoted to one word! That’s Week 1, “our”, Week 2, “Father,” Week 3, “Who,” etc., until the priest just kind of lost interest and it petered out. Another priest read from different parts of canon law. No preparation required, obviously, he just go up and read from the canon law book. Someone finally hid the book. Also, in the seventeen years that I’ve been a Roman Catholic, I’ve heard only one consistently good preacher/homilest (Monsignor Leo Gomez of the Diocese of Gallup, New Mexico). None of the rest compare to him and I would compare him favorably with the Baptist preachers of my youth. Our priests need to learn, in seminary, how to DELIVER a good sermon, as well as prepare one. They need to pick up some tips from our Protestant brethren.

 

[katieq]

Wow, oh wow. Where do I begin… Firstly, I don’t think you have an actual understanding of the meaning behind the statements that you are so strenuously denouncing.

1. As rwoehmke stated, theology by definition is "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the univeres…it is a field of study " If you consider it, if our priests were each to give a complete theological discussion on each gospel readin, not only would the homilies stretch to an hour or two long, but the parishoners would (as a whole) leave confused and wondering what it was they just heard. Just think if some of our modern theologians tried to shrink their talks/books into a 1/2 hr speach.
2. No onto your original statements. To begin I would like to mention that the use of the wording “full of junk”, “stupidity”, etc. is not only disrespectful (as I am sure the bishops have had far more training than you in this area), but also weakens the credibility, if any of your argument.
3. "Faith can be defined as a way of seeing or interpreting the world" is followed shortly by these two lines “Our ‘faith’ in the way things are has lead us to live in the world in a way that cooresponds to what we believe about it. The Chrisitan interpretation of the world is not as a hostile and evil place, but as a creation of a loving God who did not allow it to destroy itself, but sent his Son to rescue it.” Your interpretations of this single line are not supported by the rest of the text.
4. The previous verse, as the other’s you mentioned must be read in context (let us be careful not to make the same mistake as some of our seperated brethren and only focus on the verse or sentence that supports our opinion, rather than reading and integrating the entire piece). In addition, it seems faulty logic to base you’re argument for the bishops “supposed” intention for the phrase “acceptance and affirmation” off of a google search. There is no basis for assumption that this is designed to further a homosexual agenda. You, and only you, have implied such an intent. The phrase itself has numerous usages.
5. It is not the idea that we all “the world differently to some extent”, but that as Christians, we see the world through the eyes of our faith in God. It is obvious from the purpose of this reading that the “faith” in question is that of Christianity (through Catholic teachings).
6. Finally (for this post is lengthy enough as it is), you must take into consideration what this writing is intended for. It is intended (and this is clear by reading the forward), to remind priests of the importance of homily preparation beforehand and to give advice on how to improve quality of homilies at a national levell. Not as a complete and exact instruction on precisely how each homily should be said and exactly what should be included. It is intended as a helpful tool, not a homily in itself. So, yes, I believe you are wrong.

God bless,
l

 

[RyanL]

katieq,

As one of those who happens to agree with dcdurel, I would like to make the following points:

I would like to mention that the use of the wording “full of junk”, “stupidity”, etc. is not only disrespectful, but also weakens the credibility

Does this also apply to *my *use of the word “crapola”?

…theology…is "…a field of study " If you consider it, if our priests were each to give a complete theological discussion on each gospel readin, not only would the homilies stretch to an hour or two long, but the parishoners would (as a whole) leave confused and wondering what it was they just heard.

Right, and I addressed this in my post. The fact remains, however, that there is no endorsement of any theological discussion in the letter. As most Catholics *only *get fed at mass, they are starving - for lack of theological understanding of the Bread of Life, for example. Let’s look at the following Gallup poll of Catholics:

Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

29 percent think they are receiving bread and wine which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and, in so doing, are expressing their attachment to His person and words.

10 percent understand their action to be receiving bread and wine in which Jesus is present.

and 23 percent hold that they are receiving what has become the Body and Blood of Christ because of their personal belief.

Now tell me that you’re going to look at that and say that we need less theology in a homily?!?

"Faith can be defined…

This is not the definition of the Catechism or Holy Mother Church, which is exactly the point of the post! They aren’t listening to Holy Mother Church, but rather they are simply “making stuff up”! Define it however you like, but it’s not orthodox and that’s why we have so many problems in the States!

the bishops “supposed” intention for the phrase “acceptance and affirmation” off of a google search

Not my argument. I’ll stay out of it.

It is obvious from the purpose of this reading that the “faith” in question is that of Christianity (through Catholic teachings).

Is it really so obvious? Where, praytell, are the exclusively Catholic teachings you’re talking about in this article, or where are the priests extolled to preach Catholic doctrines and dogmas? Couldn’t this have been written by a Lutheran, say? It’s this same lack of rigerous standards of doctrinal orthodoxy that is weakening the backbone of the US Catholics.

It is intended as a helpful tool…

It has failed.

So, yes, I believe you are wrong.

Roger that.

May God bless you (and please understand that it’s the viewpoint I take issue with, and not you personally) and keep you, and hold you in the palm of His hand,
RyanL

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

The previous verse, as the other’s you mentioned must be read in context (let us be careful not to make the same mistake as some of our seperated brethren and only focus on the verse or sentence that supports our opinion, rather than reading and integrating the entire piece). In addition, it seems faulty logic to base you’re argument for the bishops “supposed” intention for the phrase “acceptance and affirmation” off of a google search. There is no basis for assumption that this is designed to further a homosexual agenda. You, and only you, have implied such an intent. The phrase itself has numerous usages.

I didn’t want to copy you all over again, so I just took a bit. Well said!

 

[stanley123]

dcdurel:

Lets pay attention to the next idea.
"The Christian response to the world is one of acceptance and affirmation"

Do a google search on “acceptance and affirmation” and almost all you get is “acceptance and affirmation” of the gay lifestyles.
“Acceptance and affirmation” are buzzwords for accepting the sexual practices of homosexuals and lesbians.

Folks, what we have here on the bishops web site, on this supposedly teachings on what the homily should be for our good priests, is a homosexual agenda. After all, from the arrest records of recent past bishops we know that 10 of them were homosexuals. And that is only because their misbehavior has got them in trouble with the law. Based on these figures of only the ones who got caught, some people speculate that at least 25% to 35% of the bishops are practicing homosexuals. That may explain where this “acceptance and affirmation” come from. It may also explain why they don’t get rid of practicing homosexual priests in the seminaries.

If this is true, as you say it is, then I would agree that it is junk.