Homilies should teach the faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcdurel

Guest
It is well known among Catholics that most are very ignorant of the basic teachings of the faith. Catholics are not being taught basic moral doctrine.
For years I have heard the cause of this problem is bad homilies or bad priests, or Catholics who have been influence by the culture, or who refuse to learn the faith.
In my opinion none of these reasons are the primary cause.
The vast majority of priests are very good. One only has to listen to them give talks to RCIA groups or other groups in the Church and it is obvious they are far more knowlegable than the average Catholic when it comes to understanding the faith. And it can’t be the culture, because Catholics changed the culture of pagan Rome. They assume correctly, that at least the basics should be taught at mass.
From talking to priests themselves and asking them why they don’t teach more they tell me they are taught that the homily must be only on the readings. Father Frank Pavone said once complained that he could not get priests to talk about abortion at mass because “it is never in the readings”.
This seems to me to be the cause of the problem. Catholics are not being fed teachings because, everyone, not just priests, are under the impression that the homily must only relate to what was explicitly in the scripture readings of the day. But, because scripture does not teach doctrine no one learns anything. Scripture illuminates doctrine and is useful for teaching in that sense, and teaches salvation history and tells us about Jesus, but it does not teach by itself nor is it a sure norm for teaching the faith. Once the faith has been taught, then scripture is great for nourishing the faith and illumnating the faith. But it must be taught first.
Jesus commanded His apostles to teach and preach, not comment on scripture.
I think we should all look up all the Church documents which tell of the necessity of teaching (catechesis) at mass, and connect that to the catechism, which the Pope and the General Directory for Catechesis call a “sure norm for teaching the faith.” This is because only the Catechism presents a summary of the Apostolic Tradition, in which teachings have been handed down clear and explicit. Since the Catechism says
1074. “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows.” [[13]](file:///E:/WP51/Daddy/Apologetics/Apol.%20St.%20Peter/Catechism%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church.html#9G13) It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God. “Catechesis is intrinsically linked with the whole of liturgical and sacramental activity, for it is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that Christ Jesus works in fullness for the transformation of men.” [[14]](file:///E:/WP51/Daddy/Apologetics/Apol.%20St.%20Peter/Catechism%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church.html#9G14)
It is evident that the homily cannot just be a commentary on scripture or an exegesis on scripture, like most of us get. It must be a place of catechizing (teaching) according to the Catechism. And the General directory for Catechesis and the Pope say the Catechism, not scripture, is a “sure norm for teaching the faith”
The Pope also seemed to condemn the idea that an exegesis on scripture is the same as preaching the gospel and he called that “biblicalism” in his encyclical “Faith and Reason”.
In my opinion, this new idea (to most people) that homilies must contain teaching and these teachings must be based on the catechism should be spread everywhere and widely and made clear to everyone. Otherwise I fear most Catholics will continue to be ignorant of the faith and look elsewhere to be fed and they will continue to think there is nothing wrong with sin, and the family breakdown in this country.
 
We used to have a young priest at our parish who was an exception to what you describe. He was able to accomplish this in two ways. One, he made no bones about the fact that he did not feel obligated to deliver a short homily just to get people out of Church early. He advised everyone to get comfortable and when he was done, he was done. Second, no matter what the reading was, he almost always managed to not only make it applicable on a spiritually practical level, but also to bring in an apologetics angle where some facet of the faith that was misunderstood or under attack was explained clearly, charitably, and without apology (it didn’t hurt that he had a good sense of humor). Despite (or because of) all this, he was a VERY popular homilist. During the apologetics section of his homily you could see others sitting in rapt attention. There is a hunger for this out there! It’s not that other homilists can’t do the same, it’s just that they don’t for whatever reason–they think doctrine is divisive, they are afraid of holding people too long, they are too busy to develop and draw out the finer points, they think “everybody knows all this and will be bored”, whatever. I wish I knew.

As an amatuer apologist myself, I know that you can take almost any reading an draw an apologetics or doctrinal point from it. If I can do so, so can anyone.
 
Thank you both! This is one of my grouses, and has been ever since becoming a Catholic six years ago. As an evangelical Protestant, I was used to sermons which (a) lasted a minimum of half an hour, (b) were in theory entirely exegetical and (c) never failed to teach doctrine. Mind you, the doctrine they taught was almost entirely and invariably soteriological, frequently ending up with an altar call, but I never failed to be impressed by the way in which the driest portions of Leviticus or a random psalm could be made to yield up a message about giving one’s life to Jesus.

The only priest I’ve heard on a regular basis who could do this was a chap we had for less than a year - not the parish priest, but assisting. He was a convert from Anglicanism, and his homilies were brilliant - frequently teaching about the Blessed Sacrament, as well.

Sue
 
I too wish that homilies contained more treasures of our faith (our great moral / ethical teachings, the deeper meaning behind our sacraments, our devotions: ancient and modern, our history). When I read the homilies of the Church Fathers sometimes I feel as if my heart will explode within my chest because they are giving me so much wisdom. This may be a strange observation but, it seems to me that where I live, the closer you get to the city and the realities more existent there (e.g., poverty, homelessness, racism, crime, drug addiction, etc.) the more “real” the preaching gets. For a period of time my family attended a Church in the inner city where our priest constantly transmitted to us the treasures of the Church and exhorted us to be holy. We also consistently experienced this at other churches in the downtown area (and we have been to most “urban” churches in our area because we like to, occasionally, worship in some of the most treasured churches (the oldest and most wonderful architecturally) of our city. It seems that, as you get into the “burbs” where life is generally more comfortable, the homilies get a little more comfortable too. I myself don’t want to be comfortable. I want to be vigilant and I want my pastor to help keep me on guard.
 
Poor deacons, you left us out again. For the most part, we have served many years in our parishes before Ordination. We have taught the faith in R.C.I.A. and Conformation. We are well aware of the level of understanding of the faith in our community. Many parishes do not get a priest every week. Each year the number of permanent deacons increases. Some friends of mine went on a long trip and looked for daily and Sunday Masses in every town that they visited. They were amazed at how few priests they saw. In one two week period, they were no priests and only on one weekend did they find a deacon doing a Sunday service. Along with discussing what homilies should teach, we are called to pray for vocations. The way things are going, some are just happy to have a homily.

May God bless you,
Deacon Tony SFO
 
I agree that homilies should be teaching moments. The GIRM says the homily should be an exposition (not a repeating or surface commentary) on either the readings OR the ordinary of the Mass OR the proper of the Mass. Somehow this got translated into a mandatory commentary on the readings! Go figure.

The seminaries, just about all of them, teach the seminarians that the homily should be based ONLY on the readings, with exceptions for the great feasts, weddings etc. The result is that 99.99% of the RC’s in this country are not “fed”. This is a protestant term, but regardless, it applies. This is why RC’s consistently vote for pro-abortion politicians, have basically dropped out of attending Sunday Mass (Chicago, New York & Boston Mass attendance rates are in the teens) and divorce & re-marry (adultery) in astounding numbers.

We must be reminded from the pulpit that God does want us to do good and avoid evil, that it is important to Him that we do His will. If we aren’t reminded of this by hearing the full gospel repeatedly explained to us at Mass, then it is only natural to conclude that IT IS NOT IMPORTANT to avoid mortal sin by, e.g., not attending Sunday Mass or by voting for pro-abort politicians, or going to pornagraphic “PG” or worse movies.
 
Joe, I agree entirely. But, I repeat, it is not the priests who are bad. The priests are great. Please do not blame the priests.
I will start with what I have found out. The Catechism states:
132… The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
Notice that of “all forms of Christian instruction” the “liturgical homily” should hold “pride of place.” This means it is the primary place for instructing (teaching, catechesis). Then it mentions that this instruction is nourished by scripture. Scripture does not instruct, but it does nourish what was instructed. But we must be instructed first. Notice what else the Catechism says:
1074. " ‘The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows.’ [13] It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God."
Notice that it is the liturgy which is the “privileged place for catechizing.” Catechizing simply means teaching. This simply means that the liturgy, esp. the homily is main place for teaching (catechizing) the faithful. The homily is NOT to be only a commentary on scripture.
Notice the next line of the catechism:
1075. Liturgical catechesis aims to initiate people into the mystery of Christ ( It is “mystagogy.” ) by proceeding from the visible to the invisible, from the sign to the thing signified, from the “sacraments” to the “mysteries.” Such catechesis is to be presented by local and regional catechisms. This Catechism, which aims to serve the whole Church in all the diversity of her rites and cultures, [15] will present what is fundamental and common to the whole Church in the liturgy as mystery and as celebration (Section One), and then the seven sacraments and the sacramentals (Section Two).
This mentions liturgical catechesis, which is the teaching (catechizing) about the mass and the sacraments. Then it says that the catechisms, local, regional and this Catechism present what is fundamental on these subjects.
Thus, the first two parts of the Catechism I quoted show that the homily is primary place to teach the faith, the last shows that the catechisms present that teaching. No where does the Church or the bible say that scripture presents the fundamental teaching of the Church. Scripture is useful for illuminating and nourshing that teaching, but it does not present fundamental teachings.
What about the other teachings other than the mass and sacraments. We now know that the homily and liturgy is the primary place of teaching, and that the Catechism presents the teaching on the mass and sacraments, but what is the foundation for the other teachings?
The Directory for Catechesis, put out by the Church recently to guide everyone on how to teach says that the Catechism is:
" – ‘a sure norm for teaching the faith’: (421) the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a clear response to the legitimate right of all the baptized to know from the Church what she has received and what she believes; it is thus an obligatory point of reference for catechesis and for the other forms of the ministry of the word."
Thus again, we see that it is the Catechism that the Church gives as a “sure norm for teaching the faith.” Not scripture. Scripture is not a sure norm for teaching the faith. It is a sure norm for learning salvation history, but not teaching. It is great and wonderful for “nourshing the faith”, and “illuminating” the teachings of the Gospel, as the Church says else where, but not teaching. Therefore at mass it is obligatory that we receive Catechesis, and this Catechesis must use as its point of reference the Catechism.
 
We are blessed with three priests at our Jesuit parish. But in my 11 years as a Catholic I can’t say I’ve learned much from homilies. There is little teaching. I think it is taken for granted that “everyone knows that already” when they most obviously do NOT. (One pastor has been quite emotionally urging us to vote, and vote our CONSCIENCE but nothing really specific. We have a marriage initiative on the ballot here, too, so you’d think he would say a little something about that.)

I tend to drift off when the pastor reads his homily. And it often seems like a “canned” homily written by someone else. Is there in fact a supplier of prewritten homilies? I’d think with a 3-priest rotation, a guy could come up with his own.
 
My brother is a priest (and he is a new member to these forums).
His homilies are not read, simply spoken without notes! When he does use notes, it’s usually either quoting the Catechism or Scripture.

go with God!
Edwin
 
Just a comment from one who preaches. When I prepare my homilies they are just that: homilies. What is a homily? It is a short, pithy explanation of how to put the readings into our daily lives. What this means for me is that a homily must first be practical. It must be something that everyone can relate to, can fit into their lives, can actually find relevant.

Homilies are not to be theological dissertations (in fact, neither were sermons!).

With that in mind, I try to fit the readings into the teachings of the Church so that I offer both a foundational teaching and a practical way of living out that teaching.

Let me give an example. Recently we had the reading about the 10 lepers. All were healed, but only one came back to thank Jesus. The thrust of my homily was on developing an “attitude of gratitude” – that our very lives must be constantly thanking God for all He has done for us. I then gave the congregations practical examples of ways to do this.

Yes, homilies start from the readings – and develop a practical way in which to live out the readings. But they can certainly encompass more than just what is in the readings. One can always work in the Eucharist, confession or whatever else needs to be stressed in terms of basic Catholic teaching.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
caroljm36:
We are blessed with three priests at our Jesuit parish. But in my 11 years as a Catholic I can’t say I’ve learned much from homilies. There is little teaching. I think it is taken for granted that “everyone knows that already” when they most obviously do NOT. (One pastor has been quite emotionally urging us to vote, and vote our CONSCIENCE but nothing really specific. We have a marriage initiative on the ballot here, too, so you’d think he would say a little something about that.)

I tend to drift off when the pastor reads his homily. And it often seems like a “canned” homily written by someone else. Is there in fact a supplier of prewritten homilies? I’d think with a 3-priest rotation, a guy could come up with his own.
Click to expand...
Carol, yes there are homiletic services. I was in the seminary and saw them. Nothing inherently wrong with using them unless they don’t bring out what the Church calls for which is
“The Homily 65. The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from 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.”

This is from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. So this says that there are three choices when the priest/deacon develops his homily, not just one. In fact, the homilist could go his whole liturgical life without ever preaching on the readings as it is only one choice of three. He could preach for years on the Creed alone. Or any other part of the ordinary or proper of the Mass. Sections 132 and 1088 of the CCC also state how catechetics is an integral part of the Mass/homily. But it is not mandated that he preach on the readings. This is what they taught me in the seminary in the 80’s and they are still doing it.

The priest is obligated to define what conscience is and is not especially during this election season. What its function is, how it is properly developed and how it has to follow God’s will as we know it through the teachings of the Church. It’s good that he at least said that, but it still leaves the average Sunday Catholic wondering exactly how to follow his conscience when deciding whether to vote for a pro-abort politician who is for all manner of social programs, increased spending for the poor, etc, who is running against a pro-life politician who wants less social spending, more defense spending and is in principle in favor of capital punishment.

Until the bishops and priests start addressing these political/moral issues in principle from the pulpit (without mentioning any candidate’s names) we are going to continue seeing pro-abort, gay rights and embryonic stem cell research politicians winning. At least there’s the chance if most Catholics voted with a well formed, certain conscience that some of these politicians opposed to the natural law would start losing.
Joe
 
Part of the problem is that giving a good homily is a gift, and all too few priests have that gift. It is the same for teaching. We all have, most likely, endured some abysmal teachers, and survived any large number of mediocre teachers; and probably, many of us can recall one or maybe two really inspiring teachers. I have been around for longer than I really care to admit, and I still can count on two hands (and not use all my fingers) the number of priests who were truly inspiring. And there are a whole lot more who are best described as pedestrian.

If a priest was to really dig into the scripture, in a year’s worth of readings, he would probably hit most of the major doctrinal issues of the church. Too often, the priests don’t seem focused on that.

Anyone care to consider how much “burn out” has to do with this?
 
The General Instruction on the Roman Missel says about the homily: “It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day…”
It is not clear from this alone what “an exposition of some aspect of the readings” really means.
But it certainly means more than a commentary. But from this alone no one can get a good idea of what the Church means.Thus we must go to other official Church directives, especially the Catechism, and other teachings of the Pope or those approved by the Pope. And they all say that the homily is primary place for TEACHING and this teaching must use the CATECHISM as an OBLIGATORY point of reference. All this is not some minor point of doctrine or practice. What the priest says at the homily affects the whole country. Priests are the most important people in this country. They are the only people that most Catholics will trust for their moral guidence, and rightly so, for they are the primary means of bringing God’s word to us, and only God’s word is all good and without error and can be totally trusted. I am totally convinced by talking to priests themselves that problem of ignorant Catholics which leads to immoral Catholics is NOT the fault of priests. 99% of priests are great, wonderful, knowlegable and usually the best and most moral men in the community. They are irreplaceble. The problem is that all of us, at one time had a repulsion to Church teaching, which led us to fall back on scripture, mostly our personal interpretation. Now, because of the immorality which leads to family breakdown and abortion, caused by not knowing Church teaching on contraception, divorce, fornication, etc., that we see that Jesus was right when He said to “listen to the Church.” But now we are stuck on scripture alone. Now most Catholics no longer know that the teachings in the Catechism ARE the word of God. They think only scripture is the word of God. They don’t realize the basic teachings in the Catechism come from the apostles, who learned from God. Thus these teachings ARE the Word of God. And it is impossible to learn these teachings from scripture. All scripture can do is to “illuminate” and “nourish” the teachings and be a “witness” to the teachings, if we have first learned them from the Church. I used quotes for “illuminate” and “nourish” and “witness” because this is how the Church has always described scripture in relationship to the teachings that have been handed down, in the Church councils, catechisms and encyclicals. I have never found anywhere that the Church or the bible that scripture is a norm or basis for teaching the basics of the faith. It is called “useful for teaching” in Timothy, but never a norm, basis, or foundation for teaching. The Church says in the Catechism:
108. "Still, the Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’ " Catholicism is not Protestantism which is a religion of the book. The Catholic Gospel comes from hearing what the apostles taught, not from reading salvation history and making up our own Gospel. The faith still must be taught. We cannot teach ourselves the faith. Faith comes from hearning, not reading. Thus we must go back to the basics and learn from the Church. But no one will listen my opinion or your opinion. So we must find out, summarize and quote the official and trustworthy Church teachings about what the content of the homily should be. Then spread those official Church teachings to everyone, especially the bishops.
 
This is a direct quote from the Pope’s encylical “Fides et Ratio”
Code: 
  One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,(73) the Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles”.(74) Scripture, therefore, is not the Church's sole point of reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” (75) derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.(76)

How many Catholics have this false view of "biblicism" condemned by the Pope:
"which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically."
How many Catholics have this false idea that make the “reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth.”

We have this false view, because at one time we all wanted it. We did not want to hear doctrine, esp. doctrine on contraception. Now that we have several studies which ALL show that those who don’t contracept, but use natural family planning have a divorce rate of between 5% to 1% , we have decided we want Church teaching again. Well, since we lay Catholics caused the problem, we have to solve the problem. So lets study and search for official Church teachings which demand that catechesis (teachings) be given at the homily and which make it obligatory that these teachings use the Catechism as a “sure norm for teaching the faith”.
And lets us tell the priests and bishops we are sorry for not believing Jesus when He said to “listen to the Church”.
 
most of the posts on this thread are too long and wordy, lots of vague generalities with no meat, like a lot of homilies
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
most of the posts on this thread are too long and wordy, lots of vague generalities with no meat, like a lot of homilies
Click to expand...
Ouch! but then, that was a pithy comment… :clapping:
 
Funny, I’ve never heard any of our priests mention the word “catechism” and never saw one until my husband got me an old copy of the Baltimore Catechism which he grew up with. I was designated a “catechumenate” in RCIA but we never used a catechism or talked about one. It was mostly feel-good stuff, the teacher (who was pretty young) talking about her own conversion mostly.

You’d think it would have been a text. Is this a Jesuit thing or is it that way everywhere? Are they afraid to alienate people by using it? I confess I’ve been passive about getting the new one, but then, NOBODY ever talks about it at Church either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top