Homily on ascension and spirit as not literal?

[worldwonder]

Hello. I am a new Catholic and one of my trusted mentors was very shaken by the homily at his Catholic Church the last two Saturday nights. The main Priest sat down and a young unidentified man stood up to give the homily. He said that the ascension was not literal that Christ had always been with God. The next week he said that the spirit had always been with the people and they did not literally talk in tongues. I agreed that the guy was off, but was confused by how upset he was about it. However, after praying on it…I’m now bothered too because the Catechism is clear on the Ascension as being Literal. However, I still can’t get my brain around why I’m bothered or why it is so significant spiritually - I’m sure because of my lack of knowledge and protestant upbringing. Can someone explain the significance and also tell me the route my friend should take to “report” the misguidance.

Most Sincerely!

 

[LRThunder]

Sounds heretical if you ask me.

As bad as that is, was the young man a priest? If he wasn’t, then that was a major abuse. Only clergy can give homilies/sermons. If he wasn’t a deacon, priest, or bishop, you need to report that to the bishop immediately.

 

[japhy]

The main Priest sat down and a young unidentified man stood up to give the homily.

Can you clarify what you mean by “unidentified”? Was he a deacon, priest, or bishop? Was he dressed in clerical attire? Or was this just some layman?

He said that the ascension was not literal that Christ had always been with God.

I think that qualifies as “heresy”. Sorry. It’s certainly not Catholic doctrine.

The next week he said that the spirit had always been with the people and they did not literally talk in tongues.

I think that also qualifies as “heresy”. Sorry again. To deny that the Holy Spirit was at some specific point in time sent is denying a Catholic doctrine. And to claim that Luke was lying when he wrote that the disciples spoke and the myriad listeners heard in their own languages is to question the accuracy of Scripture.

Seriously, what else is this guy going to teach?! He could start arguing that, since the Spirit “had always been with the people”, it’s with us all the time, and we needn’t be baptized, we needn’t repent of sin, etc. And that there’s a lot more in the Bible that we don’t need to take literally (like that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; or that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord). He’s not teaching the Catholic faith, that’s for sure.

I’m now bothered too because the Catechism is clear on the Ascension as being Literal. However, I still can’t get my brain around why I’m bothered or why it is so significant spiritually - I’m sure because of my lack of knowledge and protestant upbringing.

Think of the people who don’t know that the Catechism says the Ascension is literal. Think of the people who will just assume, since they heard it preached at Mass, that it’s the truth. That’s what bothers me. I might know better, but some people might not, and their faith is being poisoned… at Mass!

Can someone explain the significance and also tell me the route my friend should take to “report” the misguidance.

First, contact the priest (or your pastor) about your concerns. The man was not speaking the Catholic faith, and if he’s not ordained, he’s not even permitted to give a homily at Mass. (I suggest writing a letter first, but maybe you are comfortable speaking directly.)

Second, if nothing happens, send a copy of the letter (if you wrote one) and your explanation of the events to your Bishop.

Third, pray for your priest, pray for that misguided man, and pray for the people at your parish who might now be confused and troubled because of what they heard.

 

[rpp]

Japhy makes good points.

Based on your comments, I would describe both as outright heresies. Making such statements in a “homily” may constitute apostasy.

And Japhy’s other question is also important. Is this man a deacon, priest or bishop? Even a consecrated, but not ordained, monk or friar (or nun) cannot give a homily. Was the man wearing vestments?

Yes, bring this up with the priest. If you do not get a satisfactory answer, which should include a public clarification since these were public statements, do not hesitate to write a letter to the bishop.

May God bless you and grant you strength and patience.

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, japhy is right. If the young man delivering the “homily” is not a priest, then there is a huge red flag. According to 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

[65.] ***It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.145 This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.146***

Regarding what is more than likely heretical content, Redemptionis Sacramentum also has this to say:

[67.] ***Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church.147 It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ Himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, ***care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.148

Unfortunately, it sounds as if the young man who spoke somehow got the True Gospel of Jesus Christ confused with the heresy of gnosticism, which does not recognize Jesus as True Man and has a very negative, almost sinister view of the human body.

The Church has never, ever taught what this young man apparently was espousing. Jesus is True God and True Man. When He ascended to the Father, he didn’t unzip His wounded and glorified Body and go up like a spirit orb (like Glenda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). Jesus’ Body is an integral part of Who He is.

As far as Pentecost is concerned, the young man who spoke obviously has no understanding of the marvelous miracle that occurred. The Holy Spirit undid the damage that the residents of Babel inflicted upon themselves when the Lord confused their language and no one understood each other. In fact, this reading of the Tower of Babel is one of the options that can be used in the Vigil Mass of Pentecost. Why? When Peter and the Eleven spoke to the crowds, as disparate as they were, each man understood the Apostles in his own language, the total reverse of what happened in Babel.