Have we always had homilies in their current form?

[Roguish]

(I’m not sure if this really belong in this thread, but I couldn’t find any other thread that was clearly more suitable. The question I’m about to ask could be viewed as having to do with changes to the liturgy over time, so I hope it’s okay for me to ask it in this thread.)

My question is: Has the homily always been part of the mass, or is it a later addition? And has its nature changed over time?

My reason for asking this question, is that – if I may say so – I often (certainly not always) find that the tone and/or content of the homily is a bit too “mundane” for my taste, and detracts from what I would call an appropriately reverential atmosphere during mass. I’ve been wondering if this has always been the nature of the homily, or that the informality and popular tone that seems to be common (or at least acceptable) now has crept in over the years.

I’ve looked at what the GIRM and Canon Law specify about the homily:

“It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.” (GIRM 65)

“in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living are to be expounded from the sacred text throughout the course of the liturgical year.” (Canon 767)

It seems to me that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[coachdennis]

You are right, it does leave room for interpretation…

because God is using his instruments, his priests, to communicate his message and interpretation and application of that message to a specific congregation at a specific moment in time. God works through the priest and the priest’s talents and skills at communicating and also works through their lack of skills

As a teacher, I sympathize with the role of priests in preparing and delivering homilies. On a typical Sunday a priest can face a congregation of people that range from toddlers to the elderly, different economic levels, vastly different educational levels, and different maturity in faith. Somehow, we expect the priest to speak to the hearts of ALL of them every Sunday.

Yes, different priests have different styles and trust me, I am the first to “complain” about a bad homily – but I try to keep the above in mind. Also an added thought, God chose the man in the pulpit – he did not choose me to preach. Who am I to question God’s choice?

 

[anixx]

(I’m not sure if this really belong in this thread, but I couldn’t find any other thread that was clearly more suitable. The question I’m about to ask could be viewed as having to do with changes to the liturgy over time, so I hope it’s okay for me to ask it in this thread.)

My question is: Has the homily always been part of the mass, or is it a later addition? And has its nature changed over time?

My reason for asking this question, is that – if I may say so – I often (certainly not always) find that the tone and/or content of the homily is a bit too “mundane” for my taste, and detracts from what I would call an appropriately reverential atmosphere during mass. I’ve been wondering if this has always been the nature of the homily, or that the informality and popular tone that seems to be common (or at least acceptable) now has crept in over the years.

I’ve looked at what the GIRM and Canon Law specify about the homily:

“It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.” (GIRM 65)

“in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living are to be expounded from the sacred text throughout the course of the liturgical year.” (Canon 767)

It seems to me that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Homily has always been part of the Mass. Look at scripture:

On the road to Emmaus, Christ explains the Scriptures, then breaks bread (the Eucharist). Saint Paul would preach for hours on a given scriptural text, before the actual celebration of the Eucharist. The first Christians, when gathering would read Scripture, one would preach, and only afterwards would they break bread. So there has always been the two parts of the Mass: The liturgy of the word and the Liturgy of sacrifice.
By the IV-Vth century we have the great saints, Ambrose and Augustine, who also preached at Mass.
After the settling of Christian faith, ie when it became tolerated, and the Church could preach freely the Gospel, the ones who were not baptized, yet, were asked to leave the church before the beginning of the Liturgy of the sacrifice. So they would hear the homily and then go home.
The current state of homily is quite ambiguous. There should always be scriptural interpretation according to what the Church teaches. Not some go to bed stories, or preaching false teachings. It is also a place where the faithful is instructed in the Faith.

 

[Roguish]

Thanks for your comments.

I understand that we’ve always had homilies, and I agree that it’s valuable to have a priest adapt his message to the congregation.

But still I wonder if we’ve always had them in their current form, i.e. has the scope for what a homily should be always been so vague and broad?

You see, at my regular parish the liberties that priests take with the homily go quite far, in my opinion. To give you just one example: the priest is often a visiting missionary who takes ample time to deliver his own life story, an overview of the state of affairs of his specific mission, sometimes including financial details etc., and possibly a request for aid. Inevitably the whole thing takes on the tone of a fundraising speech or pep-talk, and usually commences and ends with applause (sic) from the parishioners. Typically the priest does establish a bit of a connection with the readings at some point, but it tends to feel as if it’s tacked on for good form and certainly doesn’t have the emphasis.

Now, I’m not shouting “liturgical abuse”. As Anixx commented, “The current state of homily is quite ambiguous”, so how could I? I’m just wondering if it was always like this, or that this has changed over the course of the decades or centuries. (I was born post-VC2, so I have no first-hand experience of what it was like in “the old days”.)

 

[anixx]

Thanks for your comments.

I understand that we’ve always had homilies, and I agree that it’s valuable to have a priest adapt his message to the congregation.

But still I wonder if we’ve always had them in their current form, i.e. has the scope for what a homily should be always been so vague and broad?

You see, at my regular parish the liberties that priests take with the homily go quite far, in my opinion. To give you just one example: the priest is often a visiting missionary who takes ample time to deliver his own life story, an overview of the state of affairs of his specific mission, sometimes including financial details etc., and possibly a request for aid. Inevitably the whole thing takes on the tone of a fundraising speech or pep-talk, and usually commences and ends with applause (sic) from the parishioners. Typically the priest does establish a bit of a connection with the readings at some point, but it tends to feel as if it’s tacked on for good form and certainly doesn’t have the emphasis.

Now, I’m not shouting “liturgical abuse”. As Anixx commented, “The current state of homily is quite ambiguous”, so how could I? I’m just wondering if it was always like this, or that this has changed over the course of the decades or centuries. (I was born post-VC2, so I have no first-hand experience of what it was like in “the old days”.)

This should be your first sign that something is wrong. The soul must be moved towards good by the homily. If you read the homilies from great preachers and saints, you’ll find in them sound Catholic teachings, clarity of words and spoken to the heart of things.
Why are you accusing me of saying liturgical abuse!? Well it is ambiguous. You yourself said that it leaves room for interpretation.
Speaking to the heart doesn’t mean going along with the status quo of things. It doesn’t mean praising people in their state of mortal sin, or just not saying anything that might upset them. The priest is there to lead people to God, not to a cult of his own personality. And, btw, no one was shouting here. This is on a very calm tone.

 

[Roguish]

Why are you accusing me of saying liturgical abuse!?

I didn’t mean to I guess my punctuation was a bit subtle. I should have set the sentences apart more clearly. What I meant to write was: “I am not shouting “liturgical abuse”. End of sentence, full stop. And the reason for that is, as Annix commented, that the current state of homily is quite ambiguous.”

Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything.

This should be your first sign that something is wrong. The soul must be moved towards good by the homily. If you read the homilies from great preachers and saints, you’ll find in them sound Catholic teachings, clarity of words and spoken to the heart of things.

Exactly. So that’s my question: how did it get to be okay for the homily to digress so far from being a gospel reflection?

Speaking to the heart doesn’t mean going along with the status quo of things. It doesn’t mean praising people in their state of mortal sin, or just not saying anything that might upset them. The priest is there to lead people to God, not to a cult of his own personality.

I couldn’t agree more.

And, btw, no one was shouting here. This is on a very calm tone.

I know, brother. My phrase about the shouting was a hyperbole meant to refer only to myself, but I can see I put it in a rather clumsy way that made it sound as if I was defending myself against you or someone else. Bad wording on my part. Apologies once again!

 

[Jon_S_1]

(I’m not sure if this really belong in this thread, but I couldn’t find any other thread that was clearly more suitable. The question I’m about to ask could be viewed as having to do with changes to the liturgy over time, so I hope it’s okay for me to ask it in this thread.)

My question is: Has the homily always been part of the mass, or is it a later addition? And has its nature changed over time?

My reason for asking this question, is that – if I may say so – I often (certainly not always) find that the tone and/or content of the homily is a bit too “mundane” for my taste, and detracts from what I would call an appropriately reverential atmosphere during mass. I’ve been wondering if this has always been the nature of the homily, or that the informality and popular tone that seems to be common (or at least acceptable) now has crept in over the years.

I’ve looked at what the GIRM and Canon Law specify about the homily:

“It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.” (GIRM 65)

“in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living are to be expounded from the sacred text throughout the course of the liturgical year.” (Canon 767)

It seems to me that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

You can read lots of homilies online of different priests, bishops, Saints, etc, all the way back to the early centuries.

 

[anixx]

I didn’t mean to I guess my punctuation was a bit subtle. I should have set the sentences apart more clearly. What I meant to write was: “I am not shouting “liturgical abuse”. End of sentence, full stop. And the reason that is, as Annix commented, that the current state of homily is quite ambiguous.”

Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything.

Exactly. So that’s my question: how did it get to be okay for the homily to digress so far from being a gospel reflection?

I couldn’t agree more.

I know, brother. My phrase about the shouting was a hyperbole meant to refer only to myself, but I can see I put it in a rather clumsy way that made it sound as if I was defending myself against you or someone else. Bad wording on my part. Apologies once again!

Thank you for clearing that up! As for your question. Things got so bad, since many pick and choose what to believe. It’s something like: The Pope is in Rome, what does he know of our needs? We know better. Since the priest himself may not believe in the Catholic Church, the floodgates for heterodoxy and heresy are wide open. And this is reflected in the homily. He may read all the news articles, psychology books and other worldly literature, but not Scripture, the Catechism, the Catholic literature, in general. It is a clear sign of one not knowing his faith. We must assume this, for the other possibility I wouldn’t dare take into consideration, that he actually rejects the faith, even though he knows it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks for your comments.

I understand that we’ve always had homilies, and I agree that it’s valuable to have a priest adapt his message to the congregation.

But still I wonder if we’ve always had them in their current form, i.e. has the scope for what a homily should be always been so vague and broad?

You see, at my regular parish the liberties that priests take with the homily go quite far, in my opinion. To give you just one example: the priest is often a visiting missionary who takes ample time to deliver his own life story, an overview of the state of affairs of his specific mission, sometimes including financial details etc., and possibly a request for aid. Inevitably the whole thing takes on the tone of a fundraising speech or pep-talk, and usually commences and ends with applause (sic) from the parishioners. Typically the priest does establish a bit of a connection with the readings at some point, but it tends to feel as if it’s tacked on for good form and certainly doesn’t have the emphasis.

Now, I’m not shouting “liturgical abuse”. As Anixx commented, “The current state of homily is quite ambiguous”, so how could I? I’m just wondering if it was always like this, or that this has changed over the course of the decades or centuries. (I was born post-VC2, so I have no first-hand experience of what it was like in “the old days”.)

If you have a lot of visiting priests from other countries, I would find it very important and appropriate for them to inform people of happenings in the UNIVERSAL church. I would also have no problem with him sharing their need for support. We are one body and if some of our body is sick or cold or hungry or attacked we should know about it and attend to it.

 

[Roguish]

If you have a lot of visiting priests from other countries,

Just as clarification: the missionaries I was talking about are not visiting from other countries. They are locals; I live in a missionary country

Furthermore, it was just an example. At my parish we also have regular priests, and they take liberties (as I see it) with the homilies in rather different ways. I just wanted to give one example.

I would find it very important and appropriate for them to inform people of happenings in the UNIVERSAL church. I would also have no problem with him sharing their need for support.

I completely agree. But should this be done during the homily?

Anyway, regardless of whether we feel that it should or shouldn’t, my main question is still whether we have always felt that the homily was an appropriate platform for this, or that this has been a development. The many great homilies handed down to us from great bishops, saints, and doctors, are typically true gospel reflections or exhortations to an authentic Christian life – and that is quite different from the homilies that I have in mind in raising this matter for discussion.

By the way, occasionally very good homilies (i.e. true gospel reflections) are given too, at my parish. But they’re not the majority.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Just as clarification: the missionaries I was talking about are not visiting from other countries. They are locals; I live in a missionary country

Furthermore, it was just an example. At my parish we also have regular priests, and they take liberties (as I see it) with the homilies in rather different ways. I just wanted to give one example.

I completely agree. But should this be done during the homily?

Anyway, regardless of whether we feel that it should or shouldn’t, my main question is still whether we have always felt that the homily was an appropriate platform for this, or that this has been a development. The many great homilies handed down to us from great bishops, saints, and doctors, are typically true gospel reflections or exhortations to an authentic Christian life – and that is quite different from the homilies that I have in mind in raising this matter for discussion.

By the way, occasionally very good homilies (i.e. true gospel reflections) are given too, at my parish. But they’re not the majority.

Well I do think the homily is an appropriate time to inform the assembled church of something. If not then…when? Think of the days without websites or mail service.

We have like 59 homilies of St Jerome. 59! Are we to think that is a reflection of the tens of thousands he gave, or is it just a snippet of a few home runs?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Also, I get it. There are some bad homilies out there and sadly some heretical ones. That’s not what I think any of us our speaking of…more of the structure and bounds of a homily. Obviously heresy would always be out of bounds.

 

[L_Marshall]

Homilies were common in the patriarchal era. We have homilies by St. Augustine, and St. John Crysosdom.

At some point in the Middle Ages, they fell out of favor. Instead, priests would instruct their congregation, and this would be more catechetical than a homily (which reflected on the scripture). Priests usually instructed their congregation in the Creed, and other prayers.

Within a few hundred years, homilies became more common again. We have the homilies of St. Jean Vianney (the Cure d’Ars) to prove this.

I’m not sure of dates, or reasons for any of this, perhaps someone more historically inclined could expand upon these ideas.

That having been said, I highly encourage everyone to look into the homilies of these great saints.

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks for your comments.

I understand that we’ve always had homilies, and I agree that it’s valuable to have a priest adapt his message to the congregation.

But still I wonder if we’ve always had them in their current form, i.e. has the scope for what a homily should be always been so vague and broad?

You see, at my regular parish the liberties that priests take with the homily go quite far, in my opinion. To give you just one example: the priest is often a visiting missionary who takes ample time to deliver his own life story, an overview of the state of affairs of his specific mission, sometimes including financial details etc., and possibly a request for aid. Inevitably the whole thing takes on the tone of a fundraising speech or pep-talk, and usually commences and ends with applause (sic) from the parishioners. Typically the priest does establish a bit of a connection with the readings at some point, but it tends to feel as if it’s tacked on for good form and certainly doesn’t have the emphasis.

Now, I’m not shouting “liturgical abuse”. As Anixx commented, “The current state of homily is quite ambiguous”, so how could I? I’m just wondering if it was always like this, or that this has changed over the course of the decades or centuries. (I was born post-VC2, so I have no first-hand experience of what it was like in “the old days”.)

Perhaps as your country sees an increase in vocations to the priesthood there will be less need for missionary preachers and more parishes will have assigned priests who won’t be committed to the missions or involved in the difficult work of obtaining support for their good work. However, as a mission country, this may take many years. You might speak to your pastor about this issue and suggest that the request for funds be made after communion following the period of Thanksgiving.

On another point, I find some of the Gospel readings are more easily preached than others. Some, like the parables or the Sermon on the Mount are tailor-made for homilies that reflect on the Gospel and make it relevent to today’s Catholics. Others are more challenging. In those cases the priests do sometimes stumble, especially inexperienced priests or those who don’t have an innate skill for public speaking. Some are experts in Church history or the Fathers of the Church while some are less so. This too can be due to inexperience. As they grow in their own personal faith and continue their personal study this also improves.

I also love the homilies from the saints and others who have gone before us. Unfortunately, many are well above the heads of the people in the pews. Until catechesis improves, it will be difficult to give many of these homilies as the people just don’t have the background necessary to understand their full message. Skilled priets, however, can use these homilies as inspiration for their own talks that they frame in a meaningful way for the congregants.

New Advent: Since Origen’s time homily has meant, and still means, a commentary, without formal introduction, division, or conclusion, on some part of Sacred Scripture, the aim being to explain the literal, and evolve the spiritual, meaning of the Sacred Text.

You can read the oldest existing version of a homily here: newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm
The Second Epistle of "Clement " to the Corinthians (Clement did not actually write it.)

 

[johnnyc176]

How about St. Paul’s homily in Acts 20:7-12? Paul was on a roll but poor Eutychus fell asleep and fell out of the window and died. But Paul said alright everybody nothing to worry about he’s okay. And after Mass Paul still continued talking!

 

[janeway529]

Homilies were originally “dialogues” (its meaning in Greek) between those who preached and to those who were preached, not so much as listening to a speech that many see today. This is why you may see bishops, priests, or deacons preaching not from the ambo or pulpit, but from the sanctuary or the aisles.

 

[Filioque]

If what you are asking is the present position of the Homily after the Gospel, or the legislations regarding it. Here is a short history.

After the Council of Trent, the Church required among Latin Rite Catholics that a homily instructing the Faithful on the Gospel and Epistle or some aspect of the Faith be preached on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation. The custom is that it be done after the Gospel and before the Creed. It is optional on weekdays and minor feasts.

While the position it takes now is provided for in the Missal, there are allowable exceptions. Prior to the Council of Trent, and the Early Church it was preached prior to or after Mass, in many places. It is permissible to do that today. It was the custom as Sunday in the Middle Ages was a time when everyone gathered in the town, both those who lived in and outside of the town to have Masses in the morning, a market to allow the people to have something to eat, and then a sermon, sometimes lasting two to four hours. In some towns in Europe you can still see the ambo on the outside of the Church, While the Gospel was read or sung by the Deacon at the Ambo inside the Church, the afternoon Sermons and announcements were given to all those gathered outside. Of course customs depended on local needs, and climate.

While it was always best to have a homily attached to the Mass, (usually in the present position) on Sundays and Major feasts, there were times when it was not adhered to, making the legislation of Trent and other local Councils prior to Trent have to address the issue.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent was intended as a guide for priests on topics to preach on throughout the year. I have a copy of the Roman Ritual from 1610 which has appended sermons to be preached in the Diocese it was published in (Southern France) to ensure that priests had a guideline on what to preach on each Sunday and Feast.