Heckler at Mass after weird lay preaching

[Matthew_Holford]

Also, and on a related matter, in our Church they occasionally do what they call a “pulpit swap”, which means that the Lutheran pastor from the Lutheran church which is located just across the car park will come and preach in our church. In return and later on the same day. our priest will go and preach in theirs. Our priest and their pastor are good friends and get on really well and also do a lot of other stuff together. This “pulpit sawp” happens two to three times a year. I never thought there was anything wrong with it but from what I’ve been reading here it sounds pretty problematic.

It is very problematic. Only a sacred minister (bishop, priest, or deacon) can give the homily. Technically, a Lutheran pastor is a lay person in the eyes of the Latin Catholic Church because the Church won’t recognise him as having valid orders. In addition it should be a Catholic sacred minister who gives the homily, teaching us the Catholic faith, not a non-Catholic minister.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Is this really so? Our priest occasionally reads a letter from our bishop instead of preaching a regular homily. Mind you I’m not complaining as our bishop writes very good letters. But seeing the bishop is not present in person, are his words appropriate as a homily?

I’m never sure why priests do this. Perhaps it provides an opportunity for not having to write a homily for that Mass??? There is a place in the concluding rites of Mass where the celebrant can give out notices; that, I think, would be a good point to read a bishop’s letter. Then again, some members of the congregation might miss out on the letter because some tend to leave directly after Communion. So, may be the priest reads it in lieu of the homily so that the whole congregation gets to hear it; even late comers have usually arrived in time for the homily.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Perfect. Volumes of truth in one phrase.

Totally. These people have neither a Biblical sensibility (orientation), nor one based on Catholic tradition. They are approaching the sacrifice of the Mass from a completely secular perspective ("me, me, I’m important too; let’s ‘share power’ "). This is not a condemnation of them as persons: it’s an indication of an attachment which conflicts with Catholic Christian truths as revealed in scripture, tradition, the lives of the Saints – not to mention an authentic life of prayer. I know this because I could be just as susceptible: the moment I let go of my prayer life (and regular confession!) is the moment I begin centering the world around myself, and my vision of my “importance” is artificially magnified. My perspective is clouded because my attachment shifts to self.

It’s a struggle! All of Christian life is. Those who approach Mass as if it were an experiment in democracy and “equality” are imposing an incongruous model on it. If their catechesis was poor (or, more likely – because many of these “preachers” are quite older and come across as independent of authority) they were catechized well and long ago, but have rebelled against that ever since. That is something that at the least should not be supported and encouraged by the priests, who know much better, or should.

Yes, all of our gifts, in the same Spirit, are equally important to the whole Body, but we don’t get to equate a gift with a role, or to exchange one role for another, seizing those roles for ourselves. And least of all should a priest cooperate with confusing gifts as roles, when it comes to the Mass. Lay people who don’t see such distinctions may be suffering from faulty spiritual vision, but ultimately it is the priests who are responsible, since they alone are authorizing these experiments.

My goodness: gifts indeed. How much are they needed in parishes! Particularly anything that will save a parish money! Just every parish is hurting, that I know of. Even the wealthiest parish near me is hurting. They’ve reduced their secretarial hours to 2 days/week, etc. And the parish in question has been in the red for quite some time. How about gifts of maintenance, of gardening, of cooking, of volunteer clerical help, printing services, floral and linen services. Don’t have cash for the collection? Many of us don’t, if we’re out of work. But if you don’t have cash, you may have time. Lay preaching will not pay the costs associated with running a parish!

Interesting, your perspective on prayer and attachment playing into this. What you say makes sense. I had thought maybe it was simply an “American Catholic” issue - you know - we like democracy in our government, we like equality and fairness, so we try to apply the same model to the Church. And it’s like apples and oranges. Not the same thing.

But I think your insight about prayer definitely needs to be looked at, too. I know that there are a lot of whiney people who don’t like Father’s homily or some part of it, or this or that - and I mean, I’m not saying there’s not room for suggestions made in a charitable way on some things, but some people get bent out of shape awfully easiliy… And I wonder if they spend in praying anywhere near the time they spend on kvetching.

Regarding the posts about bishops’ letters - in the diocese I’m from, if there was a bishop’s letter to be read to the faithful, I was always under the impression that the Bishop himself had instructed the priests to read it at homily time. Possibly different bishops and dioceses handle these things in different ways?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I really meant, 3Doctors, is that either/both can be at play. I do think the political sensibilities of the American Church are a signficant factor: they become both consciously and unconsciously part of the expectations about Mass (and general church) participation: equality, recognition, opportunity, “rights” and “power-sharing.” Matthew (above) and I got into the same side of the debate on this on a very different thread, in which clearly some of the CAF debaters could not divest themselves of such terminology, and of their insistence on a “theater” for that, which they expected the Mass to be.

I’m very clear that modern political concepts cannot be laid over liturgy. However, simply intellectually understanding these apples-and-oranges differences is not sufficient. Some or all of these lay preachers may understand the formal distinctions but not accept them, as an intellectual construct, or alternatively, may not be subordinating their intellect to their will, and to spiritual insight – which depends on prayer to flourish.

If I become too non-vigilant about my prayer life, I can fall into a trap of expecting a Mass to be a performance in which I am merely a spectator (which tempts one to react as a critic – a point you mentioned), rather than as an open, engaged (but largely silent) participant.

 

[CoffeeHound]

Can they even do that? I once had a priest who tried to ask people questions during his sermon. he eventually gave up after he realized that the blank 7:30-stares where all anyone had to say

I know a priest that does that with children. I think he teaches at the local Catholic school, so he knows the children well and knows what they know. He often starts homilies by asking them questions.

I’ve never seen a heckler, before, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Half of the time when I sit on the aisle near the back, I “prep” myself for what I would do if someone came running in to try to disrupt the Mass.

 

[svid]

Two incidences come to mind: First, years ago I attended a Mass in which the priest introduced a rabbi during the homily. The rabbi gave a talk, with a slide show about a group that promotes Jews & Christians co-operating in the Holy Land. This seems okay because the priest opened the homily, and also closed it with an announcement of a second collection for this group. The second affair, also years ago, involved the same priest. He introduced a ballet dancer (!) who danced as the homily. It was lovely and tasteful (i.e., modest) but hmm…

 

[3DOCTORS]

What I really meant, 3Doctors, is that either/both can be at play. I do think the political sensibilities of the American Church are a signficant factor: they become both consciously and unconsciously part of the expectations about Mass (and general church) participation: equality, recognition, opportunity, “rights” and “power-sharing.” Matthew (above) and I got into the same side of the debate on this on a very different thread, in which clearly some of the CAF debaters could not divest themselves of such terminology, and of their insistence on a “theater” for that, which they expected the Mass to be.

I’m very clear that modern political concepts cannot be laid over liturgy. However, simply intellectually understanding these apples-and-oranges differences is not sufficient. Some or all of these lay preachers may understand the formal distinctions but not accept them, as an intellectual construct, or alternatively, may not be subordinating their intellect to their will, and to spiritual insight – which depends on prayer to flourish.

If I become too non-vigilant about my prayer life, I can fall into a trap of expecting a Mass to be a performance in which I am merely a spectator (which tempts one to react as a critic – a point you mentioned), rather than as an open, engaged (but largely silent) participant.

Well put. I’m glad you brought out the prayer aspect as you did. I fall into the trap of being like Martha of Bethany a lot of the time and only seeing the “practical” issues - especially when I have my CAF hat on, LOL! I really appreciate the reminders to be like her sister Mary who sat at the feet of Our Lord and just spent time with Him, learning and appreciating and contemplating.

 

[Edward_H]

Regarding “pulpit swap”…just when I think I’ve heard the final example of ludicrousness concerning Holy Mass, I hear more.

Apart from the somewhat distant reference to marital infidelity, this priest is setting up an unhealthy contrast - as if there’s no risk, as if there’s just a little difference, as if there’s another side or viewpoint on that matter of helping us pursue sanctity. The Lutheran minister is not acting in the name of Christ, however well he can given give a sermon.

The priest isn’t there to give equal time; he’s there to sacrifice his life - giving all - for your sanctity.

If he thinks hearing a non-priest is more helpful to your sanctity then he needs to take that defect to the Bishop and ask for tutoring or for a relief.

Holy Christmas.

 

[Carl_Van]

@ svid, I was just wondering if you were aware of the following passage from the book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)

“Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, page 198)

I think that makes it very clear where the Holy Father stands on this issue “Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy.” I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with him on this one, God bless you

 

[svid]

Pax Christi, Carl Van. We agree that we’d rather not have dancing. But is it forbidden. The opinion of a Cardinal is significant, but not per se a Church rule. Is there an official rule on it? Let’s hope so. If it were up to me (yeah, right!) it would never happen.

Good news: there was no applause (whew!) and I doubt the celebrant had any of those purposes in mind: gnosticism, incantation or the like.

Bad news: intention is not the issue…

Good to meet you and chat with you.

Venice adoramus!

 

[sheepyfred]

This thread brings to mind an incident a couple of years ago in my parish…
In Canada, the approved postures in regards to the Consecration are to kneel at the Epiclesis and stand to proclaim the Mystery of Faith.
It should also be noted that in my small town parish, we have been very blessed to have been sheltered for a long time from the liturgical abuses/changes that a lot of other parishes have seen.
Well, we had a priest who was new to our parish and on his first Sunday here, he implemented changes to our posture, telling us that kneeling right after singing the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and staying kneeling until the Great Amen was “more reverent” and that “it doesn’t matter that the Bishop doesn’t do it, because we know that it’s more reverent” (and at a Parish council meeting, even indicated that even if the Pope were to say not to, he still would). Well that first Sunday, of course everyone automatically stood as we started singing “Christ has died”, and he stopped everything to remind everyone that we needed to be more reverent and kneel back down.
After a few Sundays, he had everyone doing it this way, and someone contacted the Director of Liturgy at the Archdiocese, who then called the priest (because the approved posture of our Archdiocese is to do it the way we USED to do it, not this way). I found out later, that the Archdiocese actually told him to stop this and go back to the approved posture. Well wouldn’t you know, the following Sunday, he waited until everyone had knelt down, and then proceeded to start a conversation with everyone, explaining that the Archdiocese had called him and that he was “very saddened” by the fact that someone would take the time to do that, and that he wanted our opinions on what we wanted to do.
It was like a bad dream, as people spoke up from the back of the church, saying they wanted to do it his way, and a couple other people asked him what the GIRM says, and what the rubrics say (to which he basically muttered a response about how it doesn’t matter what they say).
Of course, everyone kept doing it the way he asked us to, and a month later when the Archbishop and the Director of Liturgy both came out for Confirmation, we were still doing it that way. Oh to have been a fly on the wall for the conversation they must have had on their way home that day…
To this day, it all seems like a bad dream…

 

[m134e5]

Also, and on a related matter, in our Church they occasionally do what they call a “pulpit swap”, which means that the Lutheran pastor from the Lutheran church which is located just across the car park will come and preach in our church. In return and later on the same day. our priest will go and preach in theirs. Our priest and their pastor are good friends and get on really well and also do a lot of other stuff together. This “pulpit sawp” happens two to three times a year. I never thought there was anything wrong with it but from what I’ve been reading here it sounds pretty problematic.

Yes, this is *very *problematic. I sure hope he isn’t trying to consecrate the Eucharist as well- he is not a validly ordained priest and can’t do that. When you have priests sending the message that they are no different than anybody else, that they have nothing that people who aren’t Catholic (or Orthodox) priests don’t have, it is no wonder there is a shortage of priests. A priest is a priest forever- even into eternity, his soul has the indelible mark of Holy Orders. That Lutheran minister doesn’t have that particular indelible mark on his soul any more than the Dalai Lama has it.