How to clear up liturgical abuses?

[rkrispies]

Thank you all for your replies. I had a feeling that this wasn’t allowed regardless of this particular person’s formation status. I guess at this point I don’t know if this is a diocesan requirement for him to give these reflections during a Mass or just in general. Something I need to find out.

I can’t help but notice that no one has really addressed the second part, that of the blessing given at the end of his “reflection”. There has been a thread here regarding blessings by EMHC’s, which are not permitted, but I wonder if this extends to this case, where the Sign of the Cross was not used. Thoughts?

Chris

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you all for your replies. I had a feeling that this wasn’t allowed regardless of this particular person’s formation status. I guess at this point I don’t know if this is a diocesan requirement for him to give these reflections during a Mass or just in general. Something I need to find out.

I can’t help but notice that no one has really addressed the second part, that of the blessing given at the end of his “reflection”. There has been a thread here regarding blessings by EMHC’s, which are not permitted, but I wonder if this extends to this case, where the Sign of the Cross was not used. Thoughts?

Chris

Chris,
It seemed like the original poster was making clear that he did not simulate giving a blessing, so I think that might be why no one had anything to say about it.
*
Edit*
Looking at it again, the OP did say that he did the “Aaronic benediction” and I’m not sure what to make of that exactly (I mean, I know what it means of course but not what the implications would be). I don’t know what to make of it because we don’t know just what he did, other than that he did not make the sign of the cross. It realy depends upon what happened. If someone who isn’t a cleric simulates a blessing, that’s problematic. On the other extreme, for a person to simply read aloud words of Sacred Scripture, there’s nothing wrong with that. Perhaps he used those words as the closing remarks of his simulated homily? It’s less important whether or not he simulated a blessing because he shouldn’t have been there giving a talk in the first place.

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you all for your replies. I had a feeling that this wasn’t allowed regardless of this particular person’s formation status. I guess at this point I don’t know if this is a diocesan requirement for him to give these reflections during a Mass or just in general. Something I need to find out.

I can’t help but notice that no one has really addressed the second part, that of the blessing given at the end of his “reflection”. There has been a thread here regarding blessings by EMHC’s, which are not permitted, but I wonder if this extends to this case, where the Sign of the Cross was not used. Thoughts?

Chris

Here is what the document Ecclesia de Mysterio has to say on the subject:

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

While he did not make the sign of the Cross, even using the words that Aaron would have used are suspect. Clergy use “you” when imparting a blessing. It was poor judgment on his part to do this.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is what the document Ecclesia de Mysterio has to say on the subject:

While he did not make the sign of the Cross, even using the words that Aaron would have used are suspect. Clergy use “you” when imparting a blessing. It was poor judgment on his part to do this.

There is no blessing at the homily in any case, so this whole thread is realy an expression of how one abuse keeps leading to more and more.

 

[adowcday]

First of all, the homily needs to be a homily, not a skit, not a play, not a dramatization. …

Regarding the altar call, this is something that should not be allowed. Inasmuch as this occured before the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest (or whoever allowed this to happen) is already causing confusion as to what the Mass is. This is a case of creativity and liberty gone awry. …

What was described in the OP is indeed serious enough to warrant intervention by the Bishop.

The sad truth is that the kids are not learning what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass truly is. It is more than evangelization. It is the fact that God lifts the veil between heaven and earth and time and space and we are present at the Sacrifice of Calvary. We are just as much there as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene. If this is not enough to move our hearts and draw us closer to the Lord, more than a mere verbal acknowledgment of accepting Jesus as our savior, then we have missed the boat.

The homily should be used to explain these sacred mysteries and guide the faithful deeper into them. The previous poster alluded to Catholics leaving the Church for these evangelical ecclesial communities. If they only knew what the Church taught and that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a direct encounter with the Word made Flesh, they would not be so quick to abandon Him or His Church.

First off, the person quoted in the original post didn’t say that the skit replaced the homily, but that the skit took place during the homily. There is nothing objectionable with “illustrating” the homily with a film clip, skit, etc.

Second, there is no confusion introduced as to what the mass means by offering an altar call. Even teens can figure out that they’re in a Catholic service celebrating the Mass even with a skit during the homily and an altar call.

I don’t think teens are nearly as stupid as you imply. I also don’t think that telling teens that the Mass is a direct encounter with Christ will make as big a difference as you think. Teens (and a lot of adults) know that the Church teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but they don’t believe that teaching or they have substantial doubt. The priest was trying to reach out to teens in a language they understand. Such a priest should be applauded and encouraged, not lectured to with a citation to the rubrics (which, again, apparently weren’t violated).

 

[diggerdomer]

I was at Mass a couple of weeks ago (2nd Sunday of Lent?) and an apparent lay man gave a “homily” much to my dismay. Then he proceeded to close it with the Aaronic benediction, which caused a bit more discomfort for me. I decided to write to the pastor, and ask him about it. I received a letter informing me that this particular man is in training to be a permanent deacon, and gave a “reflection on the Scripture”, which is required for his training. And because he did not use the sign of the Cross, no blessing occurred. In other words, despite all outward appearances of a homily and a blessing, neither occurred.

So I’m left wondering why a non-ordained man would be required to give a “homily” at Mass even though it’s not permitted? Or am I just confused for no good reason?

Chris

As I think has been made clear, the homily at Mass is restricted to the ordained. Someone else could give a “reflection” or whatever at that point in the Mass, but not as a replacement for the Homily. So, it’s fine for him to give a reflection, but that does not remove the requirement for a Homily.

I’m sorry I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to by the Aaronic benediction. As far as I know, it’s not part of the Catholic Mass, so we’d have to know more about its specifics to evaluate how appropriate it might have been to add it to the approved liturgy.

Cheers

 

[rpp]

As I think has been made clear, the homily at Mass is restricted to the ordained. Someone else could give a “reflection” or whatever at that point in the Mass, but not as a replacement for the Homily. So, it’s fine for him to give a reflection, but that does not remove the requirement for a Homily.

I’m sorry I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to by the Aaronic benediction. As far as I know, it’s not part of the Catholic Mass, so we’d have to know more about its specifics to evaluate how appropriate it might have been to add it to the approved liturgy.

Cheers

This is my understanding as well. The priest should have also made a homily as this was a Sunday Mass. And, like diggerdomer, I am unfamiliar with with te “Aaronic Benediction”. Can you, or someone, explain that for us, please?

 

[promethius]

What should my friend do? I suggested talking to another priest, or, if that doesn’t clear up the problem, contacting her bishop somehow. Does someone here with experience on this sort of issue have any help for my friend?

She needs to point out to her priest the fact that the “skit” during the homily is a liturgical abuse. These are the resources that she’ll need to point that out:

GIRM para 66:

As a rule, the homily must be given by the priest celebrant or is entrusted by him to a concelebrating priest, or, as circumstances dictate, may even be given by a deacon, but never by a lay person. In particular cases and with just cause, the homily may even be offered by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration, but cannot concelebrate…

Inaestimabile Donum

1. The purpose of the homily is to explain to the faithful the Word of God proclaimed in the readings, and to apply its message to the present. Accordingly the homily is to be given by the priest or the deacon.(15)

The “skit”, if tasteful, could be done during the announcements period at the end of mass (I think, there are probably people who could answer that with more clarity). The altar call has nothing inherently wrong with the practice, but, as you said, general absolution may not be granted except in grave circumstances (nor is it needed for venial sins, which are absolved in the liturgy of the Eucharist).

If the priest won’t listen to church guidance, she should direct these references along with a statement to her bishop. If all that process doesn’t work, she should find another parish to attend mass.

 

[promethius]

First off, the person quoted in the original post didn’t say that the skit replaced the homily, but that the skit took place during the homily. There is nothing objectionable with “illustrating” the homily with a film clip, skit, etc.

Incorrect. Guidance from the vatican clearly defines that the homily is to be delivered ONLY by the celebrating priest, a concelebrating priest, and in some circumstances by the bishop, deacon, or a priest who could not concelebrate but NEVER by a lay person. That includes “skits”.

 

[rkrispies]

The Aaronic Benediction is “May the Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord let his light shine upon thee. The Lord lift up his face upon thee and give thee peace.” or some form thereof. It comes from the Old Testamant (Numbers maybe?).

Chris

 

[zab]

The Aaronic Benediction is “May the Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord let his light shine upon thee. The Lord lift up his face upon thee and give thee peace.” or some form thereof. It comes from the Old Testamant (Numbers maybe?).

Chris

Kind of sounds like one of those Irish blessings. Should we can call them abuses too?

**An Irish Prayer **

May God give you…
For every storm, a rainbow,
For every tear, a smile,
For every care, a promise,
And a blessing in each trial.
For every problem life sends,
A faithful friend to share,
For every sigh, a sweet song,
And an answer for each prayer.

**An Old Celtic Blessing **
May the blessing of light be on you—
**light without and light within.
May the blessed sunlight shine on you
and warm your heart
till it glows like a great peat fire. **

 

[FrDavid96]

As I think has been made clear, the homily at Mass is restricted to the ordained. Someone else could give a “reflection” or whatever at that point in the Mass, but not as a replacement for the Homily. So, it’s fine for him to give a reflection, but that does not remove the requirement for a Homily.

I’m sorry I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to by the Aaronic benediction. As far as I know, it’s not part of the Catholic Mass, so we’d have to know more about its specifics to evaluate how appropriate it might have been to add it to the approved liturgy.

Cheers

Actually, a “reflection” at that time in the Mass is likewise not permitted, because it would easily be confused with a homily.
Redemptionis Sacramentum [74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.

We all know what happens in this kind of situation. Someone says "we’re going to have lay preaching at the Mass, but we’re going to use the word ‘reflection’ instead of the word ‘homily’ " In the end it amounts to the same thing.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, a “reflection” at that time in the Mass is likewise not permitted, because it would easily be confused with a homily.
Redemptionis Sacramentum [74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.

We all know what happens in this kind of situation. Someone says "we’re going to have lay preaching at the Mass, but we’re going to use the word ‘reflection’ instead of the word ‘homily’ " In the end it amounts to the same thing.

I am familiar with these instructions, but I disagree that it’s not permitted. It’s very restricted, yes, but I could envision a way to have it done licitly. There are just a lot of conditions and considerations to take into account.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am familiar with these instructions, but I disagree that it’s not permitted. It’s very restricted, yes, but I could envision a way to have it done licitly. There are just a lot of conditions and considerations to take into account.

Please explain:
How could you interpret the words
…it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion.
to mean that this sort of thing may be done at the place reserved for the homily? Becuase frankly I cannot imagine how such a thing could be licit given the clear words of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

If the Church says it can’t be done, then it can’t be done. There are no “conditions” or “considerations” in the Instruction. If something is specifically prohibited, then it’s prohibited.

What sort of “conditions” or “considerations” do you have in mind? I’m genuinely curious.

Edit: To avoid any confusion, here’s what is stated elsewhere in the same Instruction

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. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

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

“nor is to there be any exception” does not leave a lot of wiggle-room.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please explain:
How could you interpret the words
…it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion.
to mean that this sort of thing may be done at the place reserved for the homily? Becuase frankly I cannot imagine how such a thing could be licit given the clear words of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

If the Church says it can’t be done, then it can’t be done. There are no “conditions” or “considerations” in the Instruction. If something is specifically prohibited, then it’s prohibited.

What sort of “conditions” or “considerations” do you have in mind? I’m genuinely curious.

Edit: To avoid any confusion, here’s what is stated elsewhere in the same Instruction

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. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

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

“nor is to there be any exception” does not leave a lot of wiggle-room.

I acknowledge the instruction you note. I think there’s room for how strictly it’s interpreted. By this, I simply mean that the law cited says it’s permissible for such-and-such a thing to occur (even if it’s not preferable). What the instruction/law does NOT say is that such-and-such a thing is forbidden at other times. This may be a grey area, or a matter for canon lawyers. In general, though, canon law interprets restrictions very strictly and permissions very broadly, so I am probably leaning toward a broader interpretation than others would. Of course, this is just my opinion. I may be right or wrong, I’d probably need help from a canon lawyer.

Case in point, in our diocese it’s a routine practice for the Bishop’s appeal to usurp the homily. The Bishop requires parishes to play a video about the Appeal during the homily. Ok, I can live with that even though I think it may not be in the spirit of liturgical instructions. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it’s illicit. If we can play a video tape during the homily…then I think there’s some latitude. Most likely it depends on how each bishop and diocese applies these norms.

Cheers

 

[FrDavid96]

I acknowledge the instruction you note. I think there’s room for how strictly it’s interpreted. By this, I simply mean that the law cited says it’s permissible for such-and-such a thing to occur (even if it’s not preferable). What the instruction/law does NOT say is that such-and-such a thing is forbidden at other times. This may be a grey area, or a matter for canon lawyers. In general, though, canon law interprets restrictions very strictly and permissions very broadly, so I am probably leaning toward a broader interpretation than others would. Of course, this is just my opinion. I may be right or wrong, I’d probably need help from a canon lawyer.

Case in point, in our diocese it’s a routine practice for the Bishop’s appeal to usurp the homily. The Bishop requires parishes to play a video about the Appeal during the homily. Ok, I can live with that even though I think it may not be in the spirit of liturgical instructions. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it’s illicit. If we can play a video tape during the homily…then I think there’s some latitude. Most likely it depends on how each bishop and diocese applies these norms.

Cheers

Here’s the problem. The liturgical law says quite clearly that this sort of thing *should *happen outside of Mass, but if it must happen it is to be done at the end of Mass. Just because the liturgical law says that it might be permitted at one point does not mean that it can be done during the homily, especially given that the liturgical law also specifically forbids anything other than the homily to be done in place of the homily. So there is simply no room for interpretation. Prohibited means prohibited.

You say that laws which are permitting are to be interpreted broadly. I agree. But the conclusion is based on a false premise because there is no law permitting this sort of thing during the homily in the first place. On the contrary the law clearly says that it’s forbidden. There is no “grey area.” Pope John Paul II went to great lengths to make this point over and over again, and used some very strong language to say that it’s prohibited. This isn’t some obscure point of liturgical law that one need go searching to find. It’s presence is glaringly obvious.

I can see where you’re coming from now that you’ve given the example of playing a video during the time assigned to the homily. That example realy does put things into perspective (honestly, not sarcastically). Let’s just say that personally I’m keeping my clerical mouth shut on that point.

.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s the problem. The liturgical law says quite clearly that this sort of thing *should *happen outside of Mass, but if it must happen it is to be done at the end of Mass. Just because the liturgical law says that it might be permitted at one point does not mean that it can be done during the homily, especially given that the liturgical law also specifically forbids anything other than the homily to be done in place of the homily. So there is simply no room for interpretation. Prohibited means prohibited.

You say that laws which are permitting are to be interpreted broadly. I agree. But the conclusion is based on a false premise because there is no law permitting this sort of thing during the homily in the first place. On the contrary the law clearly says that it’s forbidden. There is no “grey area.” Pope John Paul II went to great lengths to make this point over and over again, and used some very strong language to say that it’s prohibited. This isn’t some obscure point of liturgical law that one need go searching to find. It’s presence is glaringly obvious.

I can see where you’re coming from now that you’ve given the example of playing a video during the time assigned to the homily. That example realy does put things into perspective (honestly, not sarcastically). Let’s just say that personally I’m keeping my clerical mouth shut on that point.

.

Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful and considerate response.

Peace

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful and considerate response.

Peace

Actually, when it is my PV’s turn to celebrate Mass and we have the Catholic Sharing Appeal going on, the video is played before Mass beigns. Then, the parochial vicar will preach the homily. Sometimes, if the video is played during the homily, he will preach the homily and then play the video or defer it to until after the post-Communion prayer. According to the GIRM, that is the place where the announcements should be made:

1. The concluding rites consist of

Brief announcements, if they are necessary;

The priest’s greeting and blessing, which on certain days and occasions is enriched and expressed in the prayer over the People or another more solemn formula;

The dismissal of the people by the deacon or the priest, so that each may go out to do good works, praising and blessing God;

The kissing of the altar by the priest and the deacon, followed by a profound bow to the altar by the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers.

Now regarding this statement:

Originally Posted by adowcday
First off, the person quoted in the original post didn’t say that the skit replaced the homily, but that the skit took place during the homily. There is nothing objectionable with “illustrating” the homily with a film clip, skit, etc.

There is indeed something objectionable. Nowhere in the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum nor Ecclesia de Mysterio does it mention that a skit can be done. Not even the Director for Childrenr’s Masses makes that claim:

1. The homily explaining the word of God should be given great prominence in all Masses with children. Sometimes the homily intended for children should become a dialogue with them, unless it is preferred that they should listen in silence.

The dialogue portion in the homily is not a skit; rather, it is a question and answer session between the children and celebrant. But, note that even with the children, no mention is made of skits. These do not belong within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They should be relegated to the parish hall outside of the confines and context of the sacred liturgy.

In fact, Paschale Solemnitatis, the Circular letter on Holy Week, notes the following:

1. The order for the celebration of the Lord’s passion (the liturgy of the word, the adoration of the cross, and Holy Communion) that stems from an ancient tradition of the Church should be observed faithfully and religiously and may not be changed by anyone on his own initiative.

This means that a Passion Play should not be imbedded within the Good Friday liturgy. Furthermore, the document notes that:

1. Devotions, such as the Way of the Cross, processions of the passion, and commemorations of the sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary are not, for pastoral reasons, to be neglected. The texts and songs used, however, should be adapted to the spirit of the liturgy of this day. Such devotions should be assigned to a time of day that makes it quite clear that the liturgical celebration, by its very nature, far surpasses them in importance. [74]

Thus, a parish could very well have a Passion Play on Good Friday; however, this is not to replace the Church’s Good Friday Liturgy.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Actually, when it is my PV’s turn to celebrate Mass and we have the Catholic Sharing Appeal going on, the video is played before Mass beigns. Then, the parochial vicar will preach the homily. Sometimes, if the video is played during the homily, he will preach the homily and then play the video or defer it to until after the post-Communion prayer. …
But, note that even with the children, no mention is made of skits. These do not belong within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. …

I agree, no mention is made of skits. But some parts of the Directory for Masses with Children come close:
“35. … In addition to these visual elements that belong to the celebration itself and to the place of celebration, it is appropriate to introduce other related elements that will permit children to perceive visually the wonderful works that God performed in creation and redemption and thus support their prayer. The liturgy should never appear as something dry and merely intellectual.
36. For the same reason, the use of pictures prepared by the children themselves may be useful, for example, as illustrations of a homily, as visual expressions of the intentions of the general intercessions, as as inspirations to reflection.”

So what visual elements made by children are permitted in the homily? Pictures. Sculptures? Videos? Puppets? Skits? If a video of a skit is permitted, why not a live skit?

Also in n. 47: “Depending on the text of the reading, it may be helpful for the children to read it in parts distributed among them, as is provided for the reading of the Lord’s passion during Holy Week.”

(The 2002 GIRM is confusing on this, with “32. Special celebrations of Mass should observe the guidelines established for them: … for Masses with children, cf. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory for Masses with Children, 1 November 1973: AAS 66 (1974), pp. 30-46;” But in n. 109: “But it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two lectors, one after the other, except as far as the Passion of the Lord is concerned.”)

 

[benedictgal]

I agree, no mention is made of skits. But some parts of the Directory for Masses with Children come close:
“35. … In addition to these visual elements that belong to the celebration itself and to the place of celebration, it is appropriate to introduce other related elements that will permit children to perceive visually the wonderful works that God performed in creation and redemption and thus support their prayer. The liturgy should never appear as something dry and merely intellectual.
36. For the same reason, the use of pictures prepared by the children themselves may be useful, for example, as illustrations of a homily, as visual expressions of the intentions of the general intercessions, as as inspirations to reflection.”

So what visual elements made by children are permitted in the homily? Pictures. Sculptures? Videos? Puppets? Skits? If a video of a skit is permitted, why not a live skit?

Also in n. 47: “Depending on the text of the reading, it may be helpful for the children to read it in parts distributed among them, as is provided for the reading of the Lord’s passion during Holy Week.”

(The 2002 GIRM is confusing on this, with “32. Special celebrations of Mass should observe the guidelines established for them: … for Masses with children, cf. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory for Masses with Children, 1 November 1973: AAS 66 (1974), pp. 30-46;” But in n. 109: “But it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two lectors, one after the other, except as far as the Passion of the Lord is concerned.”)

However, the Directory for Masses with Children’s provision kicks in if the children make up a majority of the faithful in attendance. If this is a Sunday Mass, then, there are problems. Furthermore, if I read the thread correctly, the person raising the issue of skits might be referring to a Mass where teenagers are present. They surely don’t count as the tagert group aimed at by the Directory.

Now, I have heard from reliable sources that the Directory for Masses with Children will either be scrapped or completely amended. For the time being, the EPs for Children are not even in the revised Roman Missal.