Homilies - Should they be a lesson on Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter spanky
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spanky

Guest
Prior to Mass yesterday, I reviewed the scriptures for the day and was looking forward to the homily. To me, the content of the homily as it relates to Matthew 16:13-20 was a no-brainer. Especially v 18-19:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Doesn’t this Gospel present the priest with a perfect opportunity to teach Peter’s role in the Church established by Jesus? Instead the priest seemed to think of several different ways to ask “Who do you say that Jesus is?” Don’t get me wrong…There’s great value in pondering “what is Jesus to me?” but how can we miss such an opportunity to provide biblical evidence for the Papacy?

I was simularly disappointed a few months ago by the same priest when expecting to hear something…anything about confession after John’s gospel when Jesus breathes on his apostles and tells them if you forgive the sins of others, they are forgiven.

Am I expecting too much in light of my more recent apologetic reading? Should I cut Father some slack? Is he assuming we know the biblical support for Catholic teaching or is he trying to suppress it?

Any thoughts?
 
Spanky,

While what you are asking is understandable, the direction from the Church in shifting from “sermon” to “homily” was that the homily should provide us with ways to live out the scripture readings in our own lives. That is, they are to be “homilies.” Catechesis does have a place in a homily, but they are not to be theological exercises.

This creates a difficult path for homilists to walk. In my own diocese the bishop has asked that we provide more catechesis in our homilies, and I certainly try to do that. But that is my diocese, your mileage may vary.

Deacon Ed
 
I couldn’t directly relate relate our homily to the readings, but the priest did bring up birth control, and many other topics. My 22 month old made following a bit difficult.

But as to the confession and John’s gospel, well it was read on Divine Mercy Sunday, so the homily was geared more to that, and it was read again on Pentecost, and that homily was geared more to that.

Our parish does have a program called “Lunch with Scripture and Tradition” led by one of our priests, and if you can’t make it during the day, we are also offering “Desert with Scripture and Tradition”, which is more apologetic oriented.
 
Deacon Ed:
Spanky,

While what you are asking is understandable, the direction from the Church in shifting from “sermon” to “homily” was that the homily should provide us with ways to live out the scripture readings in our own lives. That is, they are to be “homilies.” Catechesis does have a place in a homily, but they are not to be theological exercises.

This creates a difficult path for homilists to walk. In my own diocese the bishop has asked that we provide more catechesis in our homilies, and I certainly try to do that. But that is my diocese, your mileage may vary.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I believe they go hand in hand.

The truth with love

not

truth without love
love without truth
 
Deacon Ed:
…the homily should provide us with ways to live out the scripture readings in our own lives. That is, they are to be “homilies.”
Click to expand...
I understand. I’m just venting I guess. What a chance though, for 1000 parishioners to learn of Peter, the rock in whom our Church is built. I’d gather that most in my generation at this parish has not been taught this unless they watch EWTN or something…
 
40.png
spanky:
Prior to Mass yesterday, I reviewed the scriptures for the day and was looking forward to the homily. To me, the content of the homily as it relates to Matthew 16:13-20 was a no-brainer. Especially v 18-19:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Doesn’t this Gospel present the priest with a perfect opportunity to teach Peter’s role in the Church established by Jesus? Instead the priest seemed to think of several different ways to ask “Who do you say that Jesus is?” Don’t get me wrong…There’s great value in pondering “what is Jesus to me?” but how can we miss such an opportunity to provide biblical evidence for the Papacy?

I was simularly disappointed a few months ago by the same priest when expecting to hear something…anything about confession after John’s gospel when Jesus breathes on his apostles and tells them if you forgive the sins of others, they are forgiven.

Am I expecting too much in light of my more recent apologetic reading? Should I cut Father some slack? Is he assuming we know the biblical support for Catholic teaching or is he trying to suppress it?

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I preached on the same topic. “Who do you say that I am?” In this busy world people are forgetting who He is.
plato3 (Formerly Deacon Tony-had to change names due to computer problem)
 
40.png
spanky:
Prior to Mass yesterday, I reviewed the scriptures for the day and was looking forward to the homily. To me, the content of the homily as it relates to Matthew 16:13-20 was a no-brainer. Especially v 18-19:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Doesn’t this Gospel present the priest with a perfect opportunity to teach Peter’s role in the Church established by Jesus? Instead the priest seemed to think of several different ways to ask “Who do you say that Jesus is?” Don’t get me wrong…There’s great value in pondering “what is Jesus to me?” but how can we miss such an opportunity to provide biblical evidence for the Papacy?

I was simularly disappointed a few months ago by the same priest when expecting to hear something…anything about confession after John’s gospel when Jesus breathes on his apostles and tells them if you forgive the sins of others, they are forgiven.

Am I expecting too much in light of my more recent apologetic reading? Should I cut Father some slack? Is he assuming we know the biblical support for Catholic teaching or is he trying to suppress it?

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hey Spanky - we’re on the same wavelength - my EXACT thoughts on the EXACT same two gospel readings. :banghead:
I thought it was just me.
My parish heard the same ‘who is Jesus to me’ homily. What a missed opportunity to connect the OT reading and the Gospel to show how our church was founded, AND show how it applies to our Catholic lives and living our faith. I don’t see why priests can’t weave the ‘homily’ and ‘sermon’ together, especially on such obviously ‘Catholic-relevant’ scripture passages like the two you mention above. Our priest talks for maybe 5 minutes - who says Mass has to be exactly one hour (as long as your parish isn’t running back to back Masses). Why not go just 5 minutes over and speak for 10 minutes? That really isn’t that long.
 
I think, in the instance of the Petrine Covenant in Matthew’s Gospel, that homilists should touch on both (“Who do YOU say that Jesus is?” and the Petrine Covenant)…but then I was raised Baptist and still, after 17 years as a Catholic, I cannot get over the relative brevity of Catholic sermons! 🙂
 
For those of us with a love for apologetics, we might feel that more teaching ought to be given from the pulpit, but the homilest is concerned with imparting living the life of a Catholic not with what we all should have learned in Sunday school, Catholic school, CCD, RCIA, etc.

The homily is not a pedagogic tool, by and large, but rather words of encouragement to the faithful who ought to already know about Peter and the papacy and other issues.

As Catholics we are to take on ourselves the responsibility of knowing Church teaching, which is why we ought to be reading the Catechism and other solid Catholic writings, such as those by the Saints. If people aren’t doing those things they are only cheating themselves out of their own faith.

Our priests have encouraged our people to read, to attend Scripture and small groups for prayer and other such activities. They cannot make anyone attend nor can they re-teach us during Mass what we ought to know from our own efforts to learn and understand our faith.
 
40.png
Della:
Our priests have encouraged our people to read, to attend Scripture and small groups for prayer and other such activities. They cannot make anyone attend nor can they re-teach us during Mass what we ought to know from our own efforts to learn and understand our faith.
Click to expand...
That’s a great point and I agree we should be more self-motivated in our faith.
But, in regard to scripture study, small groups, etc. many parishes offer little or nothing in the way of adult catechesis. Many parishes are too overworked and understaffed to devote time to adult catechesis; or they instead choose to spend their time and staff talents almost soley on ‘community building social events’ that do not even begin or end with prayer.
 
40.png
Della:
For those of us with a love for apologetics, we might feel that more teaching ought to be given from the pulpit, but the homilest is concerned with imparting living the life of a Catholic not with what we all should have learned in Sunday school, Catholic school, CCD, RCIA, etc.

The homily is not a pedagogic tool, by and large, but rather words of encouragement to the faithful who ought to already know about Peter and the papacy and other issues.

As Catholics we are to take on ourselves the responsibility of knowing Church teaching, which is why we ought to be reading the Catechism and other solid Catholic writings, such as those by the Saints. If people aren’t doing those things they are only cheating themselves out of their own faith.

Our priests have encouraged our people to read, to attend Scripture and small groups for prayer and other such activities. They cannot make anyone attend nor can they re-teach us during Mass what we ought to know from our own efforts to learn and understand our faith.
Click to expand...
AMEN!
 
I agree that we need to be responsible for knowing Church teachings - but only because we haven’t learned them from our catechism classes. Della’s right that we should’ve learned about these things in Sunday school, CCD, etc. The problem is that we didn’t.

I got confirmed as a senior in high school ('88). Our parish at the time stretched that preparation into four years (every Sunday evening). The sad thing is that I didn’t know what Confirmation really was until I asked a priest about it during Confession prior to being confirmed. Sure I can take some ownership for that. But I learned more in 15 minute during that confession than 4 years of socializing with my peers and then breaking up into small group discussions.

Sorry about the digression but I just want to provide an example of how too many in my generation were catechised.

If priests could just plant a seed when daily scripture readings provide obvious support for Catholic teaching, maybe it’d cause those who are lacking in knowledge to learn more on their own.
 
As Deacon Ed pointed out the Homily formula is supposed to be directly related to the Readings of the Day, the prayers of the mass of the day and the relevant aspects of the Liturgical Calendar. There is an old ribinacal saying that roughly states that the Scriptures are Three-Dimentional meaning that there is an infinite depth to each passage and in each passage there is something further to grasp concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity. It should be welcomed when a priest can offer a different albeit ortodox view of a particular part of Scripture even if one is expecting a well pointed catechetical lesson.
 
40.png
Della:
For those of us with a love for apologetics, we might feel that more teaching ought to be given from the pulpit, but the homilest is concerned with imparting living the life of a Catholic not with what we all should have learned in Sunday school, Catholic school, CCD, RCIA, etc.

The homily is not a pedagogic tool, by and large, but rather words of encouragement to the faithful who ought to already know about Peter and the papacy and other issues.

As Catholics we are to take on ourselves the responsibility of knowing Church teaching, which is why we ought to be reading the Catechism and other solid Catholic writings, such as those by the Saints. If people aren’t doing those things they are only cheating themselves out of their own faith.

Our priests have encouraged our people to read, to attend Scripture and small groups for prayer and other such activities. They cannot make anyone attend nor can they re-teach us during Mass what we ought to know from our own efforts to learn and understand our faith.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last statement. We need to educate ourselves and be responsible for our own education outside of the Sunday service.

I think many people would be floored by some of the theological viewpoints and facts that are out there. I was reading a book on Catholic theology very recently for a class I am taking. This book was written by a catholic theologian who teaches at a catholic university.

One of the shocking points relates to the gospel reading this past Sunday - where Jesus says that Peter is his rock and on this rock I will build my church. He states that this gospel verse was added by the Petrine church after the death of Jesus in order to signify Peter as the head. It stated that the word “church” is only listed in the bible twice and this is one of them. It stated that Jesus never instituted a “church” per se but that he really started small faith communities to remember his teachings and these communities grew into the “church” we have today. The writers of the four gospels wrote these passages many years after the death of Jesus and tweaked some of the passages to reflect the regional church beliefs of that time period. Remember, you had the regional churches of the time (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, etc).

Now understand that I summarized a chapter into a paragraph so don’t go balistic. He makes his points wrapped in facts and figures. I talked to a priest who said that this gentleman is probably correct too - so I really wigged out.

My point is, imagine if a priest or deacon got up on the altar and started talking about this???
 
Some friends and I were talking about this vvery subject last night. This may sound a bit mean but I think it holds true. Today (not just catholics) we are much dumber than the liety of the early Church. If you read the homilies of the Early Church Fathers they are repleate with so very complicated Theological and Philosophical discussion. However, the anacdotal evidence from that time period is that it was understood in fact there is a record of roars fo applause during the homilies of St. John Crysostom so much so that he would have to stop for a while and continue thus causing his homilies to last hours instead of minutes. However, today the average people can rarly understand these documents. I find the hubris of our modern age facinating.
 
40.png
mosher:
Some friends and I were talking about this vvery subject last night. This may sound a bit mean but I think it holds true. Today (not just catholics) we are much dumber than the liety of the early Church. If you read the homilies of the Early Church Fathers they are repleate with so very complicated Theological and Philosophical discussion. However, the anacdotal evidence from that time period is that it was understood in fact there is a record of roars fo applause during the homilies of St. John Crysostom so much so that he would have to stop for a while and continue thus causing his homilies to last hours instead of minutes. However, today the average people can rarly understand these documents. I find the hubris of our modern age facinating.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken. The average attention span of adults has shortened to the point where it is about the same today as that of a five year-old of the 1950s! This is due, in part, to the influence of television and newpapers. When I studied journalism I learned that the first sentence was what grabbed the reader and needed to present a precis of the story. The basic elements of the story should be found in the first paragraph, and then the rest of the story simply fleshed it out. Television has also contributed to this as we can simply change channels whenever we like.

In the days of the early Church entertainement was via story – the people listened to long stories holding the details in their minds. It was the same for the people of the 20s, 30s and 40s with radio. Someone (I don’t remember who, called radio “television of the mind”). I love to read books because I build images in my mind of the people, places and events. How many people actually read for entertainment today?

It’s not a matter of education – it’s a matter of discipline (the same thing that’s required to be a disciple).

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Your point is well taken. The average attention span of adults has shortened to the point where it is about the same today as that of a five year-old of the 1950s! This is due, in part, to the influence of television and newpapers. When I studied journalism I learned that the first sentence was what grabbed the reader and needed to present a precis of the story. The basic elements of the story should be found in the first paragraph, and then the rest of the story simply fleshed it out. Television has also contributed to this as we can simply change channels whenever we like.

In the days of the early Church entertainement was via story – the people listened to long stories holding the details in their minds. It was the same for the people of the 20s, 30s and 40s with radio. Someone (I don’t remember who, called radio “television of the mind”). I love to read books because I build images in my mind of the people, places and events. How many people actually read for entertainment today?

It’s not a matter of education – it’s a matter of discipline (the same thing that’s required to be a disciple).

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Very true, however would you not say that some aspect of education is there because today one is hard pressed to find a person that can actually understand the difference between substance, accidents, matter, form, essence, existence, nature etc. The basic language of philosophy that holds together theological inquiry is lost on most people today because modern education does not touch on these basic principles.
 
Deacon Ed:
Your point is well taken. The average attention span of adults has shortened to the point where it is about the same today as that of a five year-old of the 1950s! This is due, in part, to the influence of television and newpapers. When I studied journalism I learned that the first sentence was what grabbed the reader and needed to present a precis of the story. The basic elements of the story should be found in the first paragraph, and then the rest of the story simply fleshed it out. Television has also contributed to this as we can simply change channels whenever we like.

In the days of the early Church entertainement was via story – the people listened to long stories holding the details in their minds. It was the same for the people of the 20s, 30s and 40s with radio. Someone (I don’t remember who, called radio “television of the mind”). I love to read books because I build images in my mind of the people, places and events. How many people actually read for entertainment today?

It’s not a matter of education – it’s a matter of discipline (the same thing that’s required to be a disciple).

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Would it be a matter of feeding the flock according to what their needs are?

Do we need to return to a sermon?
Catechesis?
Combination?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Would it be a matter of feeding the flock according to what their needs are?

Do we need to return to a sermon?
Catechesis?
Combination?
Click to expand...
I think that this is something that needs to be determined by the pastor based on what he thinks is flock needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top