Heckler at Mass after weird lay preaching

[bjryman]

Fortunately I’ve never seen this. I also don’t see what good it will do. If one has a problem with what is going on, talking to the person in charge and then going up the chain of command is the proper response.

It sounds like what this person was attempting was some form of Lectio Divina which is a wonderful practice, but not appropriate in this context.

I agree Karen. I am co-chair of RCIA at our parish, and we conducted the medatative, scripture based Lectio Divina during a special Saturday Morning “mini-retreat”. Even in that environment, it is a very different process for folks to absorb that really never ponder the scripture, or engage in meditation.

It is completely inappropriate in a Mass environment, as is lay preaching in the “homily” time slot. Appears like this parish is overeaching in a Progressive movement kind of way

Peace
bruce

 

[bjryman]

I am in the Marines and normally I make the same sort of 1-1, lowest level, fraternal correction type of recommendation. Push down, subsidiarity, etc.

But notice the second sentence in the original post: . " it happens 4-6 times/year."

Implying multi year.

Nuts to that, it’s the pastor…and worse, he apparently has set up a long running pattern among parishioners.

This is a substantial defect in the pastors use of the Homily, and it’s time to “pop the flare” to the Bishop.

There’s no reasonable doubt. Wasn’t a mistake…wasn’t a lapse. It’s part his program.

The Bishop deserves to know this.

“Oh let’s hope he’ll change” has gotten us in a heap of a mess on other matters, no?

Absolutely Edward…the actions may be good intentioned, but this is far afield from the local commander taking control of an changing battlefield condition. There is no question about the structure, content and role playing with the Roman Catholic Mass venue

 

[Matthew_Holford]

That is not unusual in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I know a priest that sometime does that during the NO homily.

I feel compelled to ask because no one else has: what is “NO homily”? NO is usually used as an abbreviation for Novus Ordo, and that term is normally applied to the forma ordinaria of the Roman Rite. However, you are talking about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus, I don’t know if you mean Novus Ordo or not. If you do, what relevance has it with the Eastern Catholic Churches? I ask because I’m perplexed and genuinely don’t know what you mean.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

That happened when I was in college once. Some nuns decided that they were going to give the sermon, which actually involved interpretive dance by said nuns. The priests were standing outside church afterward stopping everyone and telling them that mass was invalid and they’d have to go again later.

One seriously has to question the knowledge or understanding of these priests. “Some nuns decided …”; dance; Mass was invalid.

The priest celebrant of the Mass or the rector of that church should decide, not the nuns. Nuns and other lay people should not give the homily so why did the priest(s) allow it? Why did the priest(s) allow the dancing; probably didn’t vet the homily that shouldn’t have been permitted.

Then after the fact the priests tell the people no Mass happened and they hadn’t received the eucharist. The Mass certainly contained liturgical abuses and was illicit but it wasn’t invalid.

 

[Brywan]

The Mass certainly contained liturgical abuses and was illicit but it wasn’t invalid

Yes–as long as during the liturgy of the Eucharist there was 1) a valid priesthood 2) valid matter and 3) valid consecration: Then Jesus Christ was present at that Mass, body, soul and divinity…

Again, liturgical abuse of the homily DOES NOT make the Mass** invalid**. And if Jesus Christ would humble Himself to be present in those circumstances, why would anyone else want to get up and walk out? I would think you would want to keep Him company in His sufferings at the foot of the cross…

Just MHO

Brywan

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Mass certainly contained liturgical abuses and was illicit but it wasn’t invalid

Yes–as long as during the liturgy of the Eucharist there was 1) a valid priesthood 2) valid matter and 3) valid consecration: Then Jesus Christ was present at that Mass, body, soul and divinity…

And, 4) intent of the priest

Again, liturgical abuse of the homily DOES NOT make the Mass** invalid**. And if Jesus Christ would humble Himself to be present in those circumstances, why would anyone else want to get up and walk out? I would think you would want to keep Him company in His sufferings at the foot of the cross…

Just MHO

Brywan

I agree, I wouldn’t walk out but I think I’d be making an appointment to see the priest.

 

[3DOCTORS]

If I had been there myself, I would have been very taken aback - especially if I was a visitor to this parish. My reaction would have been:

1. Whoa - this is a liturgical abuse! (And should be reported to the bishop if it occurs on a regular basis, as others have already mentioned.)
2. Would not have walked out, because it’s still Mass. Now had the priest allowed a layperson to attempt the Liturgy of the Eucharist, then I would have given the whole thing up as a bad job and made my exit.
3. If the inappropriate “homily” (i.e., inappropriate in the context of a Mass - it might have worked in a faith sharing group or other context) was over and the rest of the Mass proceeded normally, I would try to keep in mind that:
   
   A. The Sacrament of the Eucharist doesn’t depend on the state of the priest to be valid as
   long as the matter and the prayer are valid, and
   
   B. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, while not magically transforming a non-gifted seminarian
   into a brilliant homilist the second he becomes a priest, is what gives him (and no one
   else in most circumstances) both the right and the obligation to give the homily at Mass in the Roman Rite. And - someone correct me if I don’t word this right - doesn’t it also
   give him the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that someone not ordained would not have?
   I mean, yes, God works through our humanness, so the priest isn’t going to always
   have “the tongue of an angel” in every word, but if he has prayed and asked God to
   guide what he says, God would do so, right? And we laypeople should be approaching
   Mass with our hearts and minds properly disposed as well - then maybe there would be
   fewer complaints about “boring” homilies?
4. If I were a regular parishioner and had experienced this multiple times: From what the OP has said, sounds like there is a “politically correct” (sorry to overuse that phrase, but can’t think of anything else off the top of my head) element in the parish that the priest may be attempting to placate.

In conclusion - I will never attempt an outline again without the bullet points feature!!!

 

[Brywan]

And, 4) intent of the priest

I agree, I wouldn’t walk out but I think I’d be making an appointment to see the priest.

Agreed!!!

 

[Carl_Van]

For far too long these progessivist abuses have been tolerated in the liturgy, while good Catholics who have been working very hard to bring some semblance of sanity back to the Church have been treated as schismatics and nostalgic dreamers. Liturgies containing these types of abuses, even though they might be valid, are a danger to the faith, plain and simple. I remember back when I first started attending the Traditional Latin Mass (diocese approved 1962 indult Mass) back in the 1990’s, I was declared “excommunicated” by a group of female extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, there was absolutely no attention paid, however, to the many abuses occuring in the diocese. There was a time when I went to Confession, for instance, and the priest was “creative” and made up his own “absolution”. I ended up having to re-confess these sins and receive a proper absolution. This kind of one-sided persecution of the faithful is wrong and a danger to the faith. One can fall off the beam on either end.

JMJ
Carl Vanderwouden

 

[Matthew_Holford]

… I was declared 'excommunicated" by a group of female extraordinary ministers of holy Communion …

I just had to laugh at the so poorly informed attitude of these priest-wannabes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am co-chair of RCIA at our parish, and we conducted the medatative, scripture based Lectio Divina during a special Saturday Morning “mini-retreat”. Even in that environment, it is a very different process for folks to absorb that really never ponder the scripture, or engage in meditation.

It is completely inappropriate in a Mass environment, as is lay preaching in the “homily” time slot. Appears like this parish is overeaching in a Progressive movement kind of way

Peace
bruce

I am also aware of the uses of Lectio Divina in prayer groups and retreats, held in or out of a sanctuary and tabernacle, and conducted very often by lay people; I have been in many such settings. Frankly just the fact that this woman used such poor judgment in misappropriating an activity intended for a different format, into a Mass, was troubling to me while I listened to her “homily.” Very troubling. In addition to everything else that has been said about lack of priestly oversight before the Mass in question, the “homilist” herself was an inappropriate appointment if she doesn’t understand the integrity of the Mass, and how you must not interchange casually from prayer groups to study groups to sacramental occasions and the Mass setting itself. Yes, ultimately the priest is responsible – each one of them, when they agree to this ‘experiment.’ Had the priest reviewed for content, perhaps he would have caught and vetoed her approach, but on the other hand, every one of these regular 12+ homilies has been inappropriate in its style, as well as content. Perhaps all the priests do review (I doubt it); if so, they’re approving a shocking amount of garbage (If enough bad judgment is used to challenge the GIRM to begin with, what would make us believe that poor homilies, and/or poor deliveries of those when rehearsed in front of priests, would be likely to be vetoed, and then scrapped?)

I think it’s more likely, given the bold nature of these occasions, that even if the priests do vet, they exercise no or little veto.

Sometimes when I’ve seen inappropriate decisions made by priests at other parishes, such priests can also hardly be praised for being good homilists themselves. But that’s what’s puzzling. Again, these are excellent homilists. They do their best. They prepare. Their styles match their personalities (and therefore are especially effective in delivery). And I make a particular point of thanking each of them after his Mass (for saying Mass) and almost always commenting favorably on his homily – telling him briefly why/how it spoke to me.

Why fix what isn’t broken?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Sacrament of Holy Orders, while not magically transforming a non-gifted seminarian into a brilliant homilist the second he becomes a priest, is what gives him (and no one else in most circumstances) both the right and the obligation to give the homily at Mass in the Roman Rite. And - someone correct me if I don’t word this right - doesn’t it also give him the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that someone not ordained would not have? I mean, yes, God works through our humanness, so the priest isn’t going to always have “the tongue of an angel” in every word, but if he has prayed and asked God to guide what he says, God would do so, right? And we laypeople should be approaching Mass with our hearts and minds properly disposed as well - then maybe there would be fewer complaints about “boring” homilies?

Yes. I was thinking along these same lines yesterday, before I saw this post tonight. That is the other thing that really, really annoys me. While the liturgy is not a performance per se, there is a certain expectation about the key roles, and who is filling those roles. If you went to a (let’s say free) concert that claimed to feature a certain singer whose work inspires you, and for no good reason the featured singer decided suddenly to sit down or stand in the wings, announcing that he “just wants to give someone else a chance,” you would feel justifiably annoyed. And more so if the stand-in “being given a chance” bombed.

Beyond the GIRM (although clearly that should be the focus), there’s something dishonest about the sneakiness of such a ploy. Note that these bad substitutes are never pre-announced. They are sprung on an unsuspecting congregation. But it’s not that I feel cheated because of “performance” reasons, but precisely because of what 3DOCTORS says about the expectations of the listeners – their disposition to “hear” (biblically) the priest as the messenger of God’s word. He has been appointed by Christ’s representatives; it is not the substitutes who have been appointed, and he has not been empowered to initiate appointments on his own… The pseudo-homilists have been appointed to fulfill their equally important but different roles in the world. I do not understand why lay people don’t get it, that you are not “less important” if you are not a priest. JP2 said that the laity is called to sanctity. Sanctity is not affected by preaching vs. not preaching. We have had lay saints in the past and will continue to have them in the future (I hope!). Many non-ordained men and women in religious orders, who have been canonized, have been extremely clear in their writings that one’s spiritual value and community importance is not linked to one’s role. Our spiritual state is linked to our fidelity to God’s laws, not to our external roles. We are “important” (to the whole Christian community) to the degree that we are faithful to Christ’s precepts and to our individual, legitimate callings through which the Holy Spirit does speak.

Indeed, poster, it is theological that we expect the priest to be in a unique role to explain The Word, by virtue of his Holy Orders and by virtue of his being *in persona Christi *(which is not limited just to the confessional). And while you already understand that Holy Orders does not in itself bestow eloquence, seminary itself provides training, and that training is different from the training or experience of a lay retreat moderator. The fact that the congregation is disposed to hear/accept/ponder words from the presiding priest, and that opportunity is removed from them arbitrarily by that same priest, is really a grave offense i.m.o. In so removing himself, he is denying the congregation a grace opportunity that is embedded in the celebration itself, with him providing the continuous and unifying thread. His preaching is integral to the experience of the whole celebration as a continuous grace moment. I appreciate that deacons can also preach but again there is an expectation of even what a deacon represents as an authorized preacher of the Word.

 

[Farsight001]

One seriously has to question the knowledge or understanding of these priests. “Some nuns decided …”; dance; Mass was invalid.

The priest celebrant of the Mass or the rector of that church should decide, not the nuns. Nuns and other lay people should not give the homily so why did the priest(s) allow it? Why did the priest(s) allow the dancing; probably didn’t vet the homily that shouldn’t have been permitted.

Then after the fact the priests tell the people no Mass happened and they hadn’t received the eucharist. The Mass certainly contained liturgical abuses and was illicit but it wasn’t invalid.

I think there might have been a bit more going on that made the mass invalid, but I don’t remember well enough. And knowing the nuns, they had some significant pull in the area and would have been quite willing to abuse it. It would have been the prudent decision to wait till the nuns weren’t around to tell people.

 

[TBolt1000T]

Just reading about this is like someone putting a knife through my heart…

If it were me, I’d walk out that door and never look back. Find a more traditional parish. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t. Like others said, I’d also report the abuses to the bishop, and I’d do it immediately.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think there might have been a bit more going on that made the mass invalid …

OK, just assumed the Mass may have been valid based on the info you gave. Lots of things can make Mass illicit; few things invalidate it. Unless, you’re going to tell us that one of those nuns was the celebrant

 

[3DOCTORS]

. . . the priest as the messenger of God’s word. He has been appointed by Christ’s representatives; it is not the substitutes who have been appointed, and he has not been empowered to initiate appointments on his own… The pseudo-homilists have been appointed to fulfill their equally important but different roles in the world. I do not understand why lay people don’t get it, that you are not “less important” if you are not a priest. JP2 said that the laity is called to sanctity. Sanctity is not affected by preaching vs. not preaching. We have had lay saints in the past and will continue to have them in the future (I hope!). Many non-ordained men and women in religious orders, who have been canonized, have been extremely clear in their writings that one’s spiritual value and community importance is not linked to one’s role. Our spiritual state is linked to our fidelity to God’s laws, not to our external roles. We are “important” (to the whole Christian community) to the degree that we are faithful to Christ’s precepts and to our individual, legitimate callings through which the Holy Spirit does speak.

It’s all right there in 1 Corinthians 12 - Different gifts, same Spirit.

People are seeing the issue of layperson/priest in a human way, not the way God sees it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s all right there in 1 Corinthians 12 - Different gifts, same Spirit.

Perfect. Volumes of truth in one phrase.

People are seeing the issue of layperson/priest in a human way, not the way God sees it.

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!

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Having a lay person preach during Mass is an incredible liturgical abuse. In addition to the quote from the GIRM, let me add this from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,[142] “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.[143] In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.[144]
​

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?​

 

[Cirdan_XII]

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.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

At the risk of being initially unhelpful, whether the bishop’s words are appropriate as a homily depend on…whether his words are appropriate as a homily
I see nothing wrong with the priest using someone else’s homily, as long as he has prayerfully discerned that it is a good and appropriate homily. On the other hand, the bishop’s letter is not likely to be on the topic of the readings for that day. There is some leeway, however, for the priest to give a shortened homily, and then use the remaining time for other important matters such as a letter from the bishop, or the annual finance report.

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, that is problematic. Not only from a canon law point of view, but can a Lutheran pastor really give a good Catholic homily?