Is it a liturgical abuse for a priest to leave the sanctuary for the homily?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ohana said:
I think I have only seen ordained people come from behind the ambo into the congregation and when they have done so, the homily reaches a wide number of parishoners. Young and old, men and women, etc. We think he is being effective, not abusive! Bishop seems to think so too as he sends seminarians ordained into one of the the diaconites to him for training.

The point of the homily is to clarify and teach the word of God in such a manner that the faithful incorporate it into their daily lives, not to avoid offending anyoneā€™s sensibilities. Whatever works!
Click to expand...
Delivering the homily in this manner guarantees one thing: the homily is not being READ! This in turn guarantees one thing: less people will fall asleep!
 
Is it proper for the celebrant to leave the sanctuary while another cleric is delivering the homily?
 
ConstantineTG said:
If I create a meme with the image of Christ and a quote, would you just believe it? šŸ˜‰
Click to expand...
Yes especially if it referenced kittens and replaced the letter S with Zā€¦

Off Topic: Isnā€™t it kind of ironic that Richard Dawkins created the word ā€œmemeā€ and it is now being used for humour filled anecdotes all over the Internet including C.A.F
 
boldlygo said:
Delivering the homily in this manner guarantees one thing: the homily is not being READ! This in turn guarantees one thing: less people will fall asleep!
Click to expand...
šŸ‘ You bet. Sometimes I tend to listen to the homily with my eyes shut - reduces distraction and helps me concentrate and"hearā€™. Imagine my surprise when there was a voice beside me saying in effect, ā€œAre you sleeping!ā€ Made me laugh.
 
Pilgrim1701 said:
I suppose my sarcasm was the lowest form of wit, even if it went unnoticed.šŸ˜ƒ
It has just been an observation of mine that people on these boards seem to be waiting in the pews for the first opportunity to ā€˜pounceā€™ on their priest, and then look for advice here :rolleyes: on how to deal with it. Generally its something fairly petty, and rather than talk to their priest directly they take the anonymous approach of sounding off on the ā€˜interwebā€™; usually they are directed to take the other impersonal, possibly anonymous,and sometimes hostile approach of writing the aforementioned ā€˜strongly worded letterā€™.
Click to expand...
Pilgrim1701, I can assure you that I was not attempting to ā€œpounceā€ on my pastor. I do have a great deal of respect for him as I should. I was merely curious as to what the Church teaches about this. I was not going to write a letter to my bishop either. Believe me, my original post was completely benign.

EDIT TO ADD: Thanks to everyone who has answered my question. I appreciate it. šŸ™‚
 
coachdennis said:
Father Z has spoken, alleluia, alleluia!

Therefore there can be no more discussion on this topic because he has spoken!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Respectfully; why is it you havenā€™t offered anything constructive in Church Tradition and teachings to say given your two posts in this thread topic have said given extremely little advice?

Very little in the GIRM gives indication where in the Church a priest should be when giving a homily. The congregation assumes the rightful place should be at the Ambo because Homilies are an extension of the proclamation of the Word of God.

Every time a priest diligently and prayerfully prepares his Homily he must also consider the most effective mode of delivery. And he should remember that his first and foremost duty is to present Christā€™s message. Getting the message across to the best of his ability has to be his priority.

If his oratorical resources tend to draw attention away from the message and toward his personality, then in some way he is not completely fulfilling his mission.

The Priest Mission
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19031999_pretres_en.html

**Chapter Two

TEACHERS OF THE WORD**
last paragraph
Priests engaged in different pastoral tasks should help each other with fraternal advice on these and other matters such as the content of preaching and its theological and linguistic quality, style, the duration of homilies -which should always be reasonable, the proper use of the ambo, the development of an unaffected normal tone of voice and its inflection while preaching. Humility is necessary if the priest is to be helped by his brother priests and, indirectly, by the faithful who co-operate in his pastoral activities.
Click to expand...
 
The Pulpit is also a traditional place to hold the homily. There are many churches that have a pulpit outside of the sanctuary. So it looks like traditionally it is allowed. But maybe it is illict now?
 
centurionguard said:
Respectfully; why is it you havenā€™t offered anything constructive in Church Tradition and teachings to say given your two posts in this thread topic have said given extremely little advice?

Very little in the GIRM gives indication where in the Church a priest should be when giving a homily. The congregation assumes the rightful place should be at the Ambo because Homilies are an extension of the proclamation of the Word of God.

Every time a priest diligently and prayerfully prepares his Homily he must also consider the most effective mode of delivery. And he should remember that his first and foremost duty is to present Christā€™s message. Getting the message across to the best of his ability has to be his priority.

If his oratorical resources tend to draw attention away from the message and toward his personality, then in some way he is not completely fulfilling his mission.

The Priest Mission
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19031999_pretres_en.html

**Chapter Two

TEACHERS OF THE WORD**
last paragraph
Click to expand...
Your own comment answered your own question to my responses. Because there is no clear directive it is open to personal preferences. People need to be careful and not equate personal preferences and an individual priest doing something that he has options to do they donā€™t like with liturgical abuse. That happens many times on these forums and as a result many indiiduals have received clarification. That is a good thing! The first response I made was agreeing with the poster who felt, as I do, there are individuals who are quick to judgment.

That being said, Father Z statement on this, while should be read, is NOT the final word on this particular subject.
 
As a child of the 80s, I remember the shock and horror as the ā€œSpirit of Vatican IIā€ swept through our parish and our new associate pastor took to the aisle to preach. It was never quite a big deal to me, but it always struck me as a rather conceited thing to do, trying to put a personal mark on the homily by being different. We used the pulpit exclusively for centuries, and perhaps one of the best reasons was that it was built for the best acoustic response, and it was the best place to be seen and heard. With the lack of a significantly raised apse, and the advent of microphones, especially with long cords or wireless, the pulpit has a less important role, but it remains symbolic: this is where the Word of God is preached. This is where the authority lies.

There is nothing abusive about stepping down into the nave, as we have seen, the rubrics only say ā€œa suitable placeā€ which can be pastorally determined. But are homilists really prepared to lose that symbol of authority?
 
Elizium23 said:
As a child of the 80s, I remember the shock and horror as the ā€œSpirit of Vatican IIā€ swept through our parish and our new associate pastor took to the aisle to preach. It was never quite a big deal to me, but it always struck me as a rather conceited thing to do, trying to put a personal mark on the homily by being different. We used the pulpit exclusively for centuries, and perhaps one of the best reasons was that it was built for the best acoustic response, and it was the best place to be seen and heard. With the lack of a significantly raised apse, and the advent of microphones, especially with long cords or wireless, the pulpit has a less important role, but it remains symbolic: this is where the Word of God is preached. This is where the authority lies.

There is nothing abusive about stepping down into the nave, as we have seen, the rubrics only say ā€œa suitable placeā€ which can be pastorally determined. But are homilists really prepared to lose that symbol of authority?
Click to expand...
Everything you say is a valid opinionā€¦ but as a previous poster stated the goal is communicate the message the best way possible (thatā€™s a paraphrase). If a priest believes that this is the best way HE can communicate, and he is allowed to do that by the instructions and/or rubrics, then he would NOT be doing his priestly duty by ā€œburyingā€ his best way (using his gift) of communicating Godā€™s Word in the homily.

I donā€™t see putting a ā€œpersonal markā€ and being "differentā€™ as necessarily a bad thing, if it occurs within the confides of what is allowed in the homily. I believe the Holy Spirit uses our ā€œpersonalitiesā€ as instruments to do Godā€™s work. If the priest is approaching his homily in a prayerful manner, that will come through regardless of where he speaks.
 
coachdennis said:
Your own comment answered your own question to my responses. Because there is no clear directive it is open to personal preferences. People need to be careful and not equate personal preferences and an individual priest doing something that he has options to do they donā€™t like with liturgical abuse. That happens many times on these forums and as a result many indiiduals have received clarification. That is a good thing! The first response I made was agreeing with the poster who felt, as I do, there are individuals who are quick to judgment.

That being said, Father Z statement on this, while should be read, is NOT the final word on this particular subject.
Click to expand...
If your saying I answered my own question with regards to the GIRM, it has no directive where either the Gospel or Homily should be read.

Taken from the USCCB usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-2.cfm
The Homily
Click to expand...
  1. The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended,[62] for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or 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.[63]
Click to expand...
  1. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the Priest Celebrant himself or be entrusted by him to a concelebrating Priest, or from time to time and, if appropriate, to the Deacon, but never to a lay person.[64] 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.
Click to expand...
On Sundays and Holydays of Obligation there is to be a Homily at every Mass that is celebrated with the people attending, and it may not be omitted without a grave reason. On other days it is recommended, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent, and Easter Time, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers.[65]
Click to expand...
It is appropriate for a brief period of silence to be observed after
the Homily.
Click to expand...
** THE TEN MOST COMMON LITURGICAL ABUSES
And Why Theyā€™re Wrong** archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

(ā€œNote this text has been archived by catholic.comā€) which would seem to state it is obsolete
  1. Replacing or omitting the homily.
Click to expand...
A priest may omit the homily only on weekdays that are not holy days. On Sundays and holy days he must give a homily (Sacrosanctum Concilium; CIC 767); it should relate the readings to one another and indicate how their message can be applied to the lives of his parishioners (Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntianidi; Inter Oecumenici). No priest can substitute announcements, financial reports, or pleas in place of the homily, nor add such things to it. Of course the Holy See isnā€™t going to make a fuss if he takes a couple of sentences at the end of the homily to make an announcement, tell how much is in the building fund, or mention a second collection.
Click to expand...
Nobody who is not a priest, deacon, or bishop can give the homily at Mass; nobody who is not ordained can give a ā€œtalkā€ or ā€œreflectionā€ in place of the homily (CIC 766ā€“768). Although some few groups like the Society for the Propagation of the Faith have a dispensation to speak on behalf of an order or mission at the time appointed for the homily, it is never permitted without that dispensationā€”not even if he (or, worse, she) gives a short homily before launching into the appeal. An ordained minister gives a homily structured on certain guidelines; thatā€™s it.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, he may not leave the sanctuary during the homily (GIRM 97).
Click to expand...
In the NEW USCCB GIRM ("GIRM 97 is now omitted. So the question here there seems to be no clear cut definition in the New GIRM where the Gospel or the Homily can be preached. Or at the very least up to present, its up to any interpretation. :confused:
 
Dear Centurianguard,

This is what you wrote after my two responses:

Respectfully; **why **is it you havenā€™t offered anything constructive in Church Tradition and teachings to say given your two posts in this thread topic have said given extremely little advice?

**Very little in the GIRM gives indication where in the Church a priest should be when giving a homily. **

I attempted to respond so to explain to why I answered the way I did and bolded the above sentence, Because there is little in the GIRM, I expressed my agreement with a previous poster of the trend on this forum to equate personal preferences/likes with liturgical abuse. You provided the explanation as to why i posted what I did.

My second response was sarcastic, and obviously the attempt at humor failed in your eyes, but the truth of my sarcasm remains ā€“ Father Z is not the beginning and the end of liturgical officialdom. Not everything he says is fact, sometimes it is his opinion. As you can see from some comments that followed my post some people agreed with me.

I hope that clears it up for you.
 
thistle said:
It is NOT a liturgical abuse.
Click to expand...
Thanks! This discussion has developed into something it was not meant to be. Some like to come here and dictate what the law is, even though it is only their personal preference. Preaching from another suitable place is just that, it is allowed and it is licit.

Now some of you can twist things from the GIRM, or something from the al knowing father Z, but the simple fact remains, it is valid and licit to have the homily preached from somewhere other than the ambo or the chair. Get over it.

Iā€™ve have seminarians tell me how wrong it is the way I preach, I suggest that they go tell our bishop, he preaches just as I do; in fact he walks down the aisle, I do not. I stay in the sanctuary, just walk between the ambo and the podium
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top