Homily

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

DSJJ

Guest
I’ve been going to a new church lately and everytime I go the priest dosen’t give the homily at the anbo. He walks down off the sanctuary and gives the homily as he paces up and down the main aisle. He constantly ask the congregation questions and if they don’t answer correctly he sometimes makes jokes. He sometimes also sits in the pew next to the person he is asking the question to. This seems strange. Is this allowed?
 
Seems to push some boundries, perhaps.

Yes, homilists are permitted to walk about, and in our seminary in the Archdiocese of Detroit, they are encouraged to do so, at least in the homilitics class for Deacons…so I have heard from our Deacon.

Telling jokes…sure, as long as they serve the Gospel message are are not used for the purpose of “entertainment”.

Sitting down with someone…that may be crossing the line; can’t say for sure if there is a prohibition against this, but it seems a bit over the line.

Asking questions of the congregation? Why not, again, if it serves the Gospel or serves a catechetical purpose? The homily shouldn’t be turned into “Jeopardy” or a quiz show, but there are creative ways of preaching that some homilists can use to effectively preach the Gospel.
 
I would say not based upon 136 from the GIRM.
  1. The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another
    suitable place, gives the homily. When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed.
However, obviously, the phrases “when appropriate” and “in another suitable place” are open to interpretation.
 
cajun2core said:
I would say not based upon 136 from the GIRM.
  1. The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another
    suitable place, gives the homily. When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed.
However, obviously, the phrases “when appropriate” and “in another suitable place” are open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I think the key word would be “standing … in another suitable place”. It does not say “walking around in suitable places”, or anything like that. I think a step or two is fine, but all out walking around, besides being irreverent, seems to violate GIRM 136.
 
I love the comment, “We’re not Protestants”.

I sometimes wonder about Catholics, who think that they have 100% of the answers, and no other religion has any.

They might want to ask themselves why there are more Protestants in the Western world than there are Catholics, and just why some of the Protestant churches are growing MUCH faster than the Catholic Church is (especially in the America’s and Africa). Why are millions of baptized Catholics in Latin America (Mexico all the way down to Argentina) leaving the Catholic Church and joining Protestant sects?

Instead of always taking a legalistic approach (which Jesus specifically condemned among the Pharisees), it might be a lot more helpful to start looking at just why people are leaving our Church? People just might want to start looking at what it is about some of those Protestant Churches that is attracting people away from their roots?

Why would a Priest ask questions during a homily? I can think of dozens of reasons why this might be happening. To help the congregation actually think about the subject matter perhaps? To more fully discuss the subject matter, and do it in a way that does not come across as “Preaching”?

Could it be that the Homilist is trying to engage people more fully? That is hard to do when standing at the Ambo.

If it were not for illegal immigrants coming into the US, the Catholic population here would be dropping. Our schools are losing students and closing all over the country. Our parishes are failing, and churches are being closed because there is neither enough people, or enough Priests, to keep them going.

Yet our perfectionists start looking at “A Priest walks around while giving a homily”, and think that this is either strange, illicit or possibly both?

Let’s get real folks.

Show me one passage in the entire New Testament where Jesus stood in one spot and preached. Tell me of one time, in his entire ministry, when he confined himself to an Ambo (or the equivalent).

Stop looking for legalistic reasons to condemn a Priest, and start looking for what will draw people into the church.
 
grasscutter said:
We’re not protestants! :ehh:

I wouldn’t enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I would say : modern protestants. When I was young (I have a Calvinist cousin) the protestant ministers were much more strict in their sermons than the Catholic priests. Always on the pulpit, always strict time (usually 30 minutes), no joking, keeping himself to the passage which was read from the Bible.
 
Sorry. That was an offhand joke and I wasn’t actually intending to bash protestants. I agree that there are things we can learn about other faiths.

I think what it is, is my aversion to anything overly demonstrative and/or touchy-feely which wouldn’t describe the less modern protestant churches.
 
Interaction between the priests and the conregation is more common in the East, why should it be any different in the West? When Jesus was preaching many people ask many questions, it wasn’t a monologue all the time.

A priest pretty much has a lot of leeway in homilies. The objective is to deliver a teaching, and the Church pretty much gives every priest a lot of room on how they can deliver that teaching.
 
It can be quite a surprise when a Byzantine priest Comes and stands past the tetrapod, questioning the parish, and supplying correct answers.

But it should be noted that the Eastern Catholics have different rubrics; the GIRM is specific to the Roman Missal, not even the whole of the Roman Church.
 
I totally agree with Old Medic.

Our Priest has a style that is engaging, energetic, and passionate. He walks in front of the congregation…he walks down the aisle…he asks people tough questions about faith, prayer, and the scriptures but doesn’t ever put people on the spot (at least intentionally). His homilies include humour, and stories designed to help us think. He must be doing something right…each of his 7 Masses on Sunday are full (500 people per mass). Simply stated…he is the best I have ever seen and his folksy speaking style has helped bring a huge number of people back to the Catholic church. He’s so good that he now has his own weekly radio show.

People need to be talked to…not at. The more people are engaged…the more open they become to receiving God’s word and understanding the message. If humour and a less rigid style help people be engaged and open to the message…I say go for it.

Sometimes, when I read some of these posts, as Catholics I think that we need to lighten up a bit. Faith is serious business and my faith is the most important thing in my life. I often imagine Jesus preaching to the crowds…and I honestly believe that while his message was serious…he probably used humour as well to engage people and speak to them on a level that they understood. I can’t imagine Jesus without a sense of humour actually.

Just my two cents.
 
fosgrove said:
**Sometimes, when I read some of these posts, as Catholics I think that we need to lighten up a bit. Faith is serious business and my faith is the most important thing in my life. ** I often imagine Jesus preaching to the crowds…and I honestly believe that while his message was serious…he probably used humour as well to engage people and speak to them on a level that they understood. I can’t imagine Jesus without a sense of humour actually.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
The two sentences in bold above are at odds with each other. Faith is, indeed, serious business. That is why we shouldn’t lighten up.

We should expect our priests to follow the laws and instructions closely. There is no reason that a priest cannot speak to people on their level and use humor, too, while standing where he is supposed to stand according to the instructions.

I had the misfortune to have a parish priest who, while very good in many ways, insisted on striding back and forth, up and down, while preaching. Most people like to look at the person who is speaking, and because the priest was a moving target, we ended up behaving as if we were looking at a tennis match - heads going back and forth constantly. It is most trying. Many times I felt like telling him “stand still, for Heaven’s sake, you give me a headache every time you preach!”
 
TheMc said:
I think the key word would be “standing … in another suitable place”. It does not say “walking around in suitable places”, or anything like that. I think a step or two is fine, but all out walking around, besides being irreverent, seems to violate GIRM 136.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that this rubric means that I as a deacon can only stand still and not move at all; or my actions are illicit? That seems a little like we are adding to the meaning of the rule, don’t you think?

My pastor, over 50 years ordained, stands in the center and walks back and forth and delivers some of the best scripture filled and spiritual homilies you have ever heard. Are his actions illicit? No, they are not. Also, my bishop does the same, a good portion of priests and deacons do this. Are we all guilty of abuse in your mind? That seems a little harsh, don’t you think? After all, canon 1752 is “supreme law”.

I think we back our selves into a corner sometimes with all these imposed meanings to the written rules. Standing most definitely does not mean not walking, that’s silly.

On the other hand, I have seen some walk so fast and so far from the center that he becomes a distraction more than a minister, that is the other extreme.

I would agree with one poster, sometimes we just need to lighten up. There are enough true abuses that need to be called out, this is not one of them.😉
 
Aramis said:
It can be quite a surprise when a Byzantine priest Comes and stands past the tetrapod, questioning the parish, and supplying correct answers.

But it should be noted that the Eastern Catholics have different rubrics; the GIRM is specific to the Roman Missal, not even the whole of the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
What the GIRM supplies is merely suggestions. Even the language is not absolute as to where the priest should stand. The Homily is very free form, the only absolute requirement is that an ordained man give it.
 
Joan_M said:
The two sentences in bold above are at odds with each other. Faith is, indeed, serious business. That is why we shouldn’t lighten up.

We should expect our priests to follow the laws and instructions closely. There is no reason that a priest cannot speak to people on their level and use humor, too, while standing where he is supposed to stand according to the instructions.

I had the misfortune to have a parish priest who, while very good in many ways, insisted on striding back and forth, up and down, while preaching. Most people like to look at the person who is speaking, and because the priest was a moving target, we ended up behaving as if we were looking at a tennis match - heads going back and forth constantly. It is most trying. Many times I felt like telling him “stand still, for Heaven’s sake, you give me a headache every time you preach!”
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don’t see the contradiction. A homilist who leaves the ambo and walks and possibly interacts with the people is not lightening up, he is teaching and ministering. I do believe we need to lighten up a little sometimes and stop being enforcers of rules that don’t exist, at least not in the strict sense that we sometimes expect.
 
136 from the GIRM
When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed.
Click to expand...
The parish I finally gave up on;
The striding up and down the aisle priest, would say “We believe” nary 2 seconds after the last word of his homily and while turning to walk back up the aisle. He didn’t give so much as 5 seconds to contemplate the message of the Gospel before launching into the Creed.
Further, his frequently shouted “Can I get an Amen?!” during his homilies was extremely off putting.
 
cajun2core said:
I would say not based upon 136 from the GIRM.
  1. The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another
    suitable place, gives the homily. When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed.
However, obviously, the phrases “when appropriate” and “in another suitable place” are open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
The provision for “another suitable place” gives both pastoral room for giving the homily somewhere other than at the ambo or the chair, and disciplinary room if the bishop decides that one or more of his priests are pushing beyond the boundary of “suitable.”

Some humble feedback that sitting in the congregation is pushing the boundaries of “suitable” is hardly out of place: “Father, I realize that it is allowed to give the homily somewhere other than the ambo, as long as the place is suitable, but sitting with us during your homily seems a bit beyond the pale to me. I found it distracting. Would you mind not doing that again?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top