Limits of a priest's homily

[Moscati]

Our priest has sung a cappella as part of his homily once–it was a little children’s Sunday school-type song he learned as a boy (it tied in quite nicely).

Of course, the deacon who also sometimes preaches then sang the “High Hopes” song about the ant in his homily the next week. It definitely didn’t work as well . . . and I’ve never heard him do it again.

I’m curious about the requirement to stay behind the ambo, though. That same deacon (who is a pretty good homilist, if a bit simplistic) often paces around while he’s talking. Is that actually not allowed?

 

[CDNowak]

Our priest has sung a cappella as part of his homily once–it was a little children’s Sunday school-type song he learned as a boy (it tied in quite nicely).

Of course, the deacon who also sometimes preaches then sang the “High Hopes” song about the ant in his homily the next week. It definitely didn’t work as well . . . and I’ve never heard him do it again.

I’m curious about the requirement to stay behind the ambo, though. That same deacon (who is a pretty good homilist, if a bit simplistic) often paces around while he’s talking. Is that actually not allowed?

While there is provision for “another suitable place” there is not a provision for movement.
GIRM 136:

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.

 

[choy]

While there is provision for “another suitable place” there is not a provision for movement.

standing could simple mean, well, standing as opposed to sitting. but doesn’t outright disqualify some movement

i don’t mind if priests move a bit, especially if it helps deliver their point

we had a guest priest who’s Chaldean and he moves around a bit during his homilies. but you can really see the passion in his face when he tells his stories. he’s seen so much horror with the persecution of Christians in Iraq that he always has a story that he can relate to the readings

 

[Digitonomy]

Musicam Sacram is another instruction, so it is at the same level of authority as De Musica Sacra. Unless there is a provision in Musicam Sacram that is directly contrary to a provision in De Musica Sacra, both of them would have been in effect in 1967.

A change in the underlying liturgical law is required to invalidate an instruction. In this case, I’m guessing (I’m not a canon lawyer) that it was the 1970 GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) for the new mass that derogated De Musica Sacra.

Here is the canon law on instructions:

Can. 34 §1. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. Those who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competence.

§2. The ordinances of instructions do not derogate from laws. If these ordinances cannot be reconciled with the prescripts of laws, they lack all force.

§3. Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation of the competent authority who issued them or of the superior of that authority but also by the cessation of the law for whose clarification or execution they were given.

This is interesting. When would the previous law have been issued? I notice that De Musica Sacra cited three prior documents as relevant “in our time,” dating back to 1903.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is interesting. When would the previous law have been issued? I notice that De Musica Sacra cited three prior documents as relevant “in our time,” dating back to 1903.

Liturgical law is promulgated most completely via the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. I’ve never read any of the GIRMs for the old mass, but in general, De Musica Sacra would have first interpreted the GIRM that was in effect in 1958, and would have continued though subsequent GIRMs (e.g., 1962) that did not alter the relevant provisions that De Musica Sacra interpreted.

 

[Digitonomy]

Liturgical law is promulgated most completely via the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. I’ve never read any of the GIRMs for the old mass, but in general, De Musica Sacra would have first interpreted the GIRM that was in effect in 1958, and would have continued though subsequent GIRMs (e.g., 1962) that did not alter the relevant provisions that De Musica Sacra interpreted.

The Wikipedia entry for GIRM states that it was first published in 1969.

This document unified and replaced a number of documents that were printed in earlier editions:

* Rubricae Generales Missalis (General Rubrics of the Missal), amplified and revised by Pope Clement VIII in 1604 and completely rewritten by Pope John XXIII in 1960[1]
* Additiones et Variationes in Rubricis Missalis ad normam Bullae "Divino afflatu" et subsequentium S. R. C. decretorum (Additions and Variations to the Rubrics of the Missal in accordance with the Bull Divino afflatu and subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites), which existed in Missals printed only between 1920 and 1962
* Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae (Rite to be observed in celebrating Mass), revised by Pope Clement VIII in 1604 and Pope John XXIII in 1962.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Wikipedia entry for GIRM states that it was first published in 1969.

I didn’t know that – Thanks for pointing that out! I know the 1917 code of canon law, like the 1983 version, does not cover liturgical law, so the liturgical law in 1958 must have come from some other source.

 

[Digitonomy]

I didn’t know that – Thanks for pointing that out! I know the 1917 code of canon law, like the 1983 version, does not cover liturgical law, so the liturgical law in 1958 must have come from some other source.

What I’m trying to figure out is whether Inter Sollicitudenes (listed as Tra le Sollecitudini on its own page) from 1903 had any force in 1958 according to your theory. If there was relevant liturgical law promulgated between 1903 and 1958, then it would seem not. Yet the fact that Pius cited it suggests that it was understood to be more than simply an outdated instruction. On the other hand, it may be that under the 1917 code, instructions were not as easily abrogated as under the 1983 code.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What I’m trying to figure out is whether Inter Sollicitudenes (listed as Tra le Sollecitudini on its own page) from 1903 had any force in 1958 according to your theory. If there was relevant liturgical law promulgated between 1903 and 1958, then it would seem not. Yet the fact that Pius cited it suggests that it was understood to be more than simply an outdated instruction. On the other hand, it may be that under the 1917 code, instructions were not as easily abrogated as under the 1983 code.

Canon 34 of the 1983 code seems to have no corresponding rule in the 1917 code, so I don’t know how instructions were dealt with back then.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a link to a modern commentary on canon 34.

 

[Digitonomy]

Here is a link to a modern commentary on canon 34.

That’s great. Thanks for the link.

What’s not clear to me is that the GIRM represents liturgical law, as opposed to instruction, which seems to be the case from its title. If the latter is true, then the underlying law on which De Musica Sacra clarifies would still be in place. I would also tend to argue (without any authority on the subject) that unless a canon from the 1983 code differs significantly from similar canon(s) from 1917, that any instructions based on the earlier canons would likewise remain in force.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What’s not clear to me is that the GIRM represents liturgical law, as opposed to instruction, which seems to be the case from its title. If the latter is true, then the underlying law on which De Musica Sacra clarifies would still be in place.

I’m pretty sure that the GIRM is the highest form of liturgical law, a complete restatement of the relevant provisions. The name “General Instruction” is unfortunately confusing.

I would also tend to argue (without any authority on the subject) that unless a canon from the 1983 code differs significantly from similar canon(s) from 1917, that any instructions based on the earlier canons would likewise remain in force.

I agree with this assessment. The mere existence of a new GIRM is not sufficient to revoke previous instructions - there must be an actual change in the relevant underlying provision of law. In this instance, the role of the laity is so different between the old mass and the new mass that it seems to me that any instruction for the old mass that deals with how to convey information to the laity (e.g., no use of projectors) would lose force as regards the new mass unless it was reissued/restated.

It would be nice if an actual canon lawyer would comment on this matter!