Question for FSSP church goers

[sw85]

You would probably enjoy the sermons posted at Audio Sancto: audiosancto.org

Beat me to it. Most of the sermons here are by FSSP priests. They are simply astounding. Moreover, FSSP parishes tend to draw a very specific demographic which is more open to substantive homilies, so yes, I think you are probably more likely to hear a high-quality sermon at an FSSP parish than elsewhere.

 

[commenter]

When I hear sermons by diocesan priests, they typically only hit hard on the “big three”–co-habitation, abortion, and contraceptives.

I would be happy to live in your diocese, if even the liberals hit hard on all 3 of those. In my diocese we are happy if they hit on that second one. Forget the first and third.

In fairness to priests, if laity were as intensely evaluated as they are, laity like me would be afraid to judge any priest, about anything. That’s the bishop’s job, not mine.

Actually my pastor is a diocesan priest, and he does hit hard on those 3, and many others.
Diocesan priests, and religious order priests, vary on both sides. There’s nothing wrong with a homile - a good priest can draw a strong lesson (i. e. a lesson towards conversion) from the reading for the day. The problem is that homiletics in many places have degenerated into Bible study, so the priest thinks he has done his job if his class (I mean, his congregation) have a better understanding of the Scriptures. But genuine preaching should call the hearers to conversion - I mean, their own conversion. In recent decades, many homilies especially on college campuses would denounce the sins of politicians (especially Republicans), big business, the military generals, and other people, none of whom are hearing this sermon.
Nowadays, the big fad is to denounce international sex traffickers, again, none of whom are hearing this sermon. People like to hear sermons about sin, as long as it’s the kinds of sins other people commit.

People don’t like to hear about the kinds of sins they themselves are committing, or tempted towards. Those are the sermons that do us the most good. As long as a priest or bishop talks about immigration legislation, or the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, or real motive behind the author of Second Isaiah, people will label him loving, and “pastoral”. If a pastor preaches against contraception, or the kind of sexual sins his parishioners are likely tempted towards, or excessive time watching TV and the internet, he will be labelled a hardliner, an extremist.

 

[OraLabora]

Why does a “hard-hitting” homily about conversion have to always be about sin? One of the best homilies I ever heard was at a weekday Mass, took less than a minute to deliver, was two sentences long, and was about growth in charity, something at least as important to our conversion as avoiding sin.

 

[sw85]

Why does a “hard-hitting” homily about conversion have to always be about sin? One of the best homilies I ever heard was at a weekday Mass, took less than a minute to deliver, was two sentences long, and was about growth in charity, something at least as important to our conversion as avoiding sin.

I for one would be happy to hear homilies about anything substantive. That includes sin, yes, but it also includes things like practical (ideally, from saints) advice about how to overcome and resist sin, grow in holiness and charity, how to pray; reviews of Christology and Mariology; etc. etc.

 

[kozlosap]

Beat me to it. Most of the sermons here are by FSSP priests. They are simply astounding. Moreover, FSSP parishes tend to draw a very specific demographic which is more open to substantive homilies, so yes, I think you are probably more likely to hear a high-quality sermon at an FSSP parish than elsewhere.

The Sunday after the Sandyhook massacre I attended mass at our local FSSP parish. The young priest spoke about indulgences! I was astounded having been a member of a Jesuit parish for many years where the homilies are thought provoking and actually follow the Gospels. I understand the difference in theological education between the Jesuits and Dominican’s vs that of a FSSP Priest, but PLEASE, sometimes the parish needs help to cope with a tragedy such as Sandyhook.

 

[OaTmEaL]

The Sunday after the Sandyhook massacre I attended mass at our local FSSP parish. The young priest spoke about indulgences! I was astounded having been a member of a Jesuit parish for many years where the homilies are thought provoking and actually follow the Gospels. I understand the difference in theological education between the Jesuits and Dominican’s vs that of a FSSP Priest, but PLEASE, sometimes the parish needs help to cope with a tragedy such as Sandyhook.

Perhaps the priest thought that it would be better to give a sermon unrelated to the tragedy so that Holy Mass could be a kind of “spiritual escape” for those who were inundated with sadness at every turn.

Maybe the priest decided a sermon that would elicit emotions, at a time when the emotions of most people were worn with exhaustion, would not be edifying.

The priests of the FSSP are well trained and carefully mentored. I’m sure that this was a very calculated decision that was based on sound fundamental spiritual principles and the prudence of experience.

 

[sw85]

The Sunday after the Sandyhook massacre I attended mass at our local FSSP parish. The young priest spoke about indulgences! I was astounded having been a member of a Jesuit parish for many years where the homilies are thought provoking and actually follow the Gospels. I understand the difference in theological education between the Jesuits and Dominican’s vs that of a FSSP Priest, but PLEASE, sometimes the parish needs help to cope with a tragedy such as Sandyhook.

I’m confused, since you list your location as California. Sandyhook was on the other side of the country. Why in the world would you need a homily to help you “cope” with something that didn’t affect the life of your parish?

I would propose that the idea of Mass-as-group-therapy is exactly what people go to FSSP parishes to avoid.

 

[TimothyH]

A “hard hitting” direct approach isn’t always the best.

Paul tried the direct approach with the Greeks in Athens when he talked about the resurrection of the dead. They laughed at him and walked away. Paul had to learn what to say, when to say it and that the way a message is delivered is often as important as its contents for his audience to accept it.

Jesus understood this and often spoke in parables. This got the attention of his audience and they were receptive. They asked for further explanation, understood and accepted his teaching.

The OP used the term “Hard hitting.” Those are his words, not mine. A hammer and a baseball bat are useful implements but not always the best tools for getting an audience to accept something difficult for them to hear.

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

A “hard hitting” direct approach isn’t always the best.

Paul tried the direct approach with the Greeks in Athens when he talked about the resurrection of the dead. They laughed at him and walked away. Paul had to learn what to say, when to say it and that the way a message is delivered is often as important as its contents for his audience to accept it.

Jesus understood this and often spoke in parables. This got the attention of his audience and they were receptive. They asked for further explanation, understood and accepted his teaching.

The OP used the term “Hard hitting.” Those are his words, not mine. A hammer and a baseball bat are useful implements but not always the best tools for getting an audience to accept something difficult for them to hear.

-Tim-

Touché!

 

[commenter]

The Sunday after the Sandyhook massacre I attended mass at our local FSSP parish. The young priest spoke about indulgences! I was astounded having been a member of a Jesuit parish for many years where the homilies are thought provoking and actually follow the Gospels. I understand the difference in theological education between the Jesuits and Dominican’s vs that of a FSSP Priest, but PLEASE, sometimes the parish needs help to cope with a tragedy such as Sandyhook.

Suppose CNN, your daily newspaper, and your public school were in the habit of ignoring major events of that day, and were focusing week after week on supernatural realities, grace, spiritual growth, and personal moral good and evil; (by “personal” I mean you and me, not mass killers). Suppose the secular media reminded us that on that day there were far more children killed in abortion clinics than schools. If we lived in that world, perhaps the Sunday sermon would be the only place you would need the “help to cope with a tragedy such as Sandy hook”.

But that’s not the world we live in. Huffington Post and AOL did not neglect to give sermons on Sandy Hook, they did neglect to provide sermons things like the morality of contraception, morality of masturbation and ways to overcome it, the sin of vanity, the sin of flirting when you are married to someone else, the sin of excess consumption - not by the “rich” but by people like us; your local politicians did not use this time to reflect that life is short, and we should all be preparing for eternity, they no doubt talked about other things.

The “hard hitting” sermons are the ones that communicate truths that we don’t get in the many sermons we get outside church. That doesn’t mean the several sermons I heard from the media about Sandy Hook were bad, it just means the Church shouldn’t be redundant. The most important sins I need to hear about, and repent, are the ones I tend to commit. For me, “vanity” is a bigger sin than mass murder.

 

[aTraditionalist]

commenter:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzereus

When I hear sermons by diocesan priests, they typically only hit hard on the “big three”–co-habitation, abortion, and contraceptives.

I would be happy to live in your diocese, if even the liberals hit hard on all 3 of those. In my diocese we are happy if they hit on that second one. Forget the first and third.

In fairness to priests, if laity were as intensely evaluated as they are, laity like me would be afraid to judge any priest, about anything. That’s the bishop’s job, not mine.

Actually my pastor is a diocesan priest, and he does hit hard on those 3, and many others.
Diocesan priests, and religious order priests, vary on both sides. There’s nothing wrong with a homile - a good priest can draw a strong lesson (i. e. a lesson towards conversion) from the reading for the day. The problem is that homiletics in many places have degenerated into Bible study, so the priest thinks he has done his job if his class (I mean, his congregation) have a better understanding of the Scriptures. But genuine preaching should call the hearers to conversion - I mean, their own conversion. In recent decades, many homilies especially on college campuses would denounce the sins of politicians (especially Republicans), big business, the military generals, and other people, none of whom are hearing this sermon.
Nowadays, the big fad is to denounce international sex traffickers, again, none of whom are hearing this sermon. People like to hear sermons about sin, as long as it’s the kinds of sins other people commit.

People don’t like to hear about the kinds of sins they themselves are committing, or tempted towards. Those are the sermons that do us the most good. As long as a priest or bishop talks about immigration legislation, or the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, or real motive behind the author of Second Isaiah, people will label him loving, and “pastoral”. If a pastor preaches against contraception, or the kind of sexual sins his parishioners are likely tempted towards, or excessive time watching TV and the internet, he will be labelled a hardliner, an extremist.

Or the worst label, uncharitable.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Salvelinus]

Check out video sancto and audio sancto.
Most if not all of these will be traditional sermons by FSSP or another traditional orthodox form of Catholicism (not watered down peace and love earthly concerns and feelings).

 

[Sonny89]

I think it’s first important to recognize that there is a difference between sermons and homilies. They are not synonyms.

A homily brings the day’s scripture readings to everyday life.
A sermon is a preaching on catechises, not limited to the daily readings (could be Biblical, or on sin, etc).

Sermons were used before Vatican II, then they changed to Homilies. My Monsignor said that in the pre VII days, many priests used to have themes to their sermons. For example, “for the next 7 weeks, I’m going to discuss the seven deadly sins, discussing one each week. Today, I will start with pride.”

The Sermon was how Adult Faith Formation was accomplished.

But after Vatican II, more emphasis was placed on Scripture. The catechises went away (in the form of Sermons) to allow for the Homily, which focuses on the Scriptures. A good homilist is going to know the scriptures very well and be able to tie them back to daily life.

It takes more scriptural knowledge for a priest to be a good homilist than it does to give a a good sermon. To give a good sermon, a priest must be good at explaining the teachings of the Church, which I think most are when you sit down, on-on-one, with them. Plus, being a good speaker helps for both.

Also, a sermon is preached, while a homily is given.

If I’m not mistaken, FSSP priests usually preach sermons rather than giving homilies. When, a Diocesan priest performs a EF Mass, he may do either, but most I’ve been to give a homily.

Hope this is helpful.

God Bless.

Dear Phil19034,

Peace & All Good

I just happened across this in my travels through CAF (thanks to Divine Providence I’m sure) and I just wanted to thank you for this explanation-Ive never quite “got” the difference between a Sermon and a Homily but now I understand it much more clearly. Thank you!

In my experience at the local FSSP Parish, Father usually preaches a sermon rather than giving a homily also.

God Bless,

Sonny

 

[kozlosap]

I’m confused, since you list your location as California. Sandyhook was on the other side of the country. Why in the world would you need a homily to help you “cope” with something that didn’t affect the life of your parish?

I would propose that the idea of Mass-as-group-therapy is exactly what people go to FSSP parishes to avoid.

So, hold on a second, Sandyhook was only was a tragedy and spiritual crisis if you live in that neighborhood? Beyond comprehension.

 

[Sonny89]

I would be happy to live in your diocese, if even the liberals hit hard on all 3 of those. In my diocese we are happy if they hit on that second one. Forget the first and third.

People don’t like to hear about the kinds of sins they themselves are committing, or tempted towards. Those are the sermons that do us the most good. As long as a priest or bishop talks about immigration legislation, or the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, or real motive behind the author of Second Isaiah, people will label him loving, and “pastoral”. If a pastor preaches against contraception, or the kind of sexual sins his parishioners are likely tempted towards, or excessive time watching TV and the internet, he will be labelled a hardliner, an extremist.

Peace and all Good to you!

Amen! Just because the medicine doesn’t taste nice, that doesn’t mean we don’t need to be taking it! Often a short, sharp shock is what is most necessary to help motivate people to change their ways and really get them pondering.

i’ve certainly noticed this in my diocese, many of those who attend the Ordinary Form , or who regularly hear sermons and homilies which avoid preaching against errors “closer to home” among the congregation don’t have many nice things to say about the FSSP Priests or their congregation

 

[commenter]

So, hold on a second, Sandyhook was only was a tragedy and spiritual crisis if you live in that neighborhood? Beyond comprehension.

1. Sandyhook was a tragedy for all, sin affects everyone, regardless of where they live.
   No argument there.
2. In terms of sermons/homilies, the best one is the one we didn’t hear already during the week. The Media doesn’t always lie, but it shines a spotlight on certain truths, the same truths repeatedly, and also casts a shadow repeatedly over other truths. A good preacher will look at what truths are already being covered by the media (in other words, what sermons his flock have already heard from their daily newspaper, etc). He will then focus attention, not on the familiar, but on whatever truths are shadowed by the Media.

Sandyhook was a spiritual crisis, but it was the spiritual crisis Americans were already told about that week, before they got to church. Good preachers bring to the minds and hearts of their people truths or spiritual crises that the congregation had* not *already thought or felt or prayed about. When a good preacher or teacher does their job, you say, maybe much later, “that’s the only place I heard that. If it wasn’t for him, I would never have learned or felt that.” But you might not appreciate the good preacher or teacher till years later.

1. Yes your feelings are important! Mine too! Sandyhook and all these situations need our prayers, regardless of where you live.

 

[Sonny89]

1. In terms of sermons/homilies, the best one is the one we didn’t hear already during the week. The Media doesn’t always lie, but it shines a spotlight on certain truths, the same truths repeatedly, and also casts a shadow repeatedly over other truths. A good preacher will look at what truths are already being covered by the media (in other words, what sermons his flock have already heard from their daily newspaper, etc). He will then focus attention, not on the familiar, but on whatever truths are shadowed by the Media.

Sandyhook was a spiritual crisis, but it was the spiritual crisis Americans were already told about that week, before they got to church. Good preachers bring to the minds and hearts of their people truths or spiritual crises that the congregation had* not *already thought or felt or prayed about. When a good preacher or teacher does their job, you say, maybe much later, “that’s the only place I heard that. If it wasn’t for him, I would never have learned or felt that.” But you might not appreciate the good preacher or teacher till years later.

Peace and all Good to you!

I agree. The media is a really powerful teaching tool, and Saint Maximilian Kolbe has shown how powerful it can be when geared towards preaching the Gospel.

Even today’s media,with all it’s bias & varying agenda can still get things right. It’s the preacher’s job to correct any errors or misconception, as far as he can and insofar as they may relate to the Faith and morals & the Church & then to make sure that their flock gets the rest of the picture-those things no covered elsewhere.

I’ve certainly had experiences where things a Priest has said in a Homily or Sermon have taken a while to sink in & details I didn’t think about much at first have really come to stick out.