From the GIRM (2011 version):
Although it does not actually specify that he cannot move while talking, the nave of the church is neither the chair nor the ambo. As to whether or not the nave qualifies as “another worthy place” seems dubious to me, but I tend to read these things very conservatively, and church architecture is not my field of study. I would imagine “another worthy place” is intended to allow for the priest to use another area as required by the architecture of the church or perhaps his own physical limitations. I could see this being necessary if the chair were obstructed from view (by a rood or something of the sort) and the priest being too old and infirm to climb the stairs of the pulpit chose to give the sermon from central opening of the rood, where the gates of the altar rail would fall (or the Royal Doors in Eastern churches). Properly speaking, though, this is a sort of ambo as well (at least in the Eastern use of the word). Of course I am assuming that these rubrics allow for alternate uses because of traditional architecture, since more modern architecture would allow for the chair to be easily visible and centrally located and the ambo to be on or near the same level as the altar.
Yes.
I don’t thinks there’s anything to prevent him from doing this. If he does it, though, I don’t expect people take in much of his homily. There was a lecturer when I was at university who spent each lecture walking from one end of the lecture hall to the other. When he got there he walked all the way back. He spent the entire lecture doing this; walking non-stop. It looked like the students were watching a tennis match. I think his idiosyncrasy distracted many students.
While this may be literally true, in that the priest is physically capable of moving around, this does nothing to help the discussion, and at any rate I feel quite sure that the original poster meant to say “may” and not “can”. If you are answering the “may” with a simple yes, you are not only wrong, but completely oblivious to the fact that I already quoted legitimate authority on the issue. There is a little room for interpretation in the GIRM, but not enough that “yes” is a responsible answer.
Are you serious? Did you read what I quoted? I gave you the quote from the GIRM that prevents this. This isn’t a university lecture; it’s part of the Mass!
Are you serious? Did you read what I said? I explained how distracting it is. I did not condone it in anyway!
I didn’t say you condoned it. I said the reason the priest shouldn’t do this isn’t that it’s distracting; it’s that it isn’t allowed. This is the problem, Matthew. We may agree on the end result, but your argument still goes back to opinion, not authoritative documents. That means that the next person that comes along can just disagree with you. The Mass isn’t about opinions, even if we happen to share similar views.
My university instructors never left their podium when giving lectures.
That’s the problem when citing the Church’s laws. They mustn’t be taken out of context. Does the law impose a penalty? No. Does it restrict the free exercise of rights? No. Does it make an exception to the law? No. Therefore, the law can be interpreted widely. You have made one interpretation of it, i.e. the priest cannot move from the place where he starts his homily. There can be more than one interpretation of a law.
Only one of mine did; not all of them.
As I said it distracts. The congregants will observe the walk; they won’t hear the talk.
It is up to the local ordinary to correct the problem and impose a penalty suitable to the situation. It is likely that the priest does not know he is not supposed to move. That does not mean that the rules are not rules just because they aren’t assigned a specific penalty for each time they are broken.
Interpretation is what happens with laws. If laws were so crystal clear then there would be no need for commentaries. That is why it is possible to interpret a law widely. The questions I asked were from Canon 18. It is only if a law imposes a penalty and/or it restricts the free exercise of someone’s rights and/or it is an exception from a law that requires very strict interpretation of the law. Other laws can be interpreted more widely. The GIRM rubric does not say to a priest that thou shall wonder around while preaching. Likewise it doesn’t say explicitly that moving from one spot isn’t permitted
Yes, I agree; it’s really distracting. As, in my above mentioned example, it used to infuriate me in those lectures. It created a barrier to learning. What your priest is doing is causing an unnecessary distraction from his homily’s message.
