Sister going to do the "Homily" in my Parish...

[Brendan]

It does not surprise me that one who pitches a fit over a Nun speaking at Mass about the start of a new school would also be a member of the spell police.

The issue is NOT about a Nun speaking at a Mass. The issue is about having her do the Homily instead of speaking at the time assigned for such talks( after Communion before the final blessing).

So it’s not an issue of Nuns talking about schools, it is about disobedience in our clergy.

 

[ethelzguy]

You seem to be saying that it is OK to overlook “small” abuses. If that is what you are saying, do you also believe it is OK to overlook “small” sins? Lying, for example, might not be considered as bad as murder, would you agree? By your reasoning, should we just overlook lying as a sin? No.

Why, then, would you think that ANY abuse should be overlooked? All abuses lead to more abuses and before you know it, we have a mess, not a Mass.

Bingo. Sins are divided into mortal and venial. Perhaps so-called abuses should be seen in a similar light?

Reading Church documents is much like reading the Bible. Many people come away with many opinions as to what they say. This is a classic case.

Some of us read the documents that tell us to report abuse and see ourselves reporting the “rocks and boulders”, while others feel the need to go off on grit and sand.

I hardly think that the Church documents call for us to go to Mass with our audit clipboards, looking for something to report. After all, aren’t we supposed to be at Mass getting ourselves “properly disposed” to receive the Blessed Sacrement?

 

[benedictgal]

Follow one of the most treasured and long-standing traditions of Catholicism…obey…submit yourself to the authority of the Church.

The authority of the Church, as indicated in both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum, which are texts that legislate the Liturgy, expressly prohibit the preaching by lay men and women.

If you are still nebulous about just who the laity are ethelzguy, this quote from RS should clear things up for you:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,142 “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.143 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”.144

[65.] 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 §1.145 This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] 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.146

The non-ordained part if the key phrase. Religious men and women are not ordained clergy. They are consecrated, but, do not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Thus, the only ones woh are allowed to preach, by virtue of their reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are deacons, priests and bishops.

What the OP indicated is illicit and the bishop should be notified.

 

[ethelzguy]

---

The Church has provided sufficient information via Her documents — so that we can determine whether something is an abuse or not.

And, therein lies the problem. Different folks have different views on what constitutes a legitmate “abuse”.

Driving 3 mph over the speed limit is technically speeding, but murder is a bit more serious.

Bottom line here…the authority lies with the Church, not you, not me. Guest speakers during the homily has been going on for literally decades. And, I’m certain Rome is and has been well aware of it. If they choose to allow it, then I have and will continue to submit to their authority.

Some of you chronic complainers seem to think that Rome is completely oblivious to everything that goes on. Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[Tedster]

It does not surprise me that one who pitches a fit over a Nun speaking at Mass about the start of a new school would also be a member of the spell police.

Keep evading the issue, Bob. I never “pitched a fit” as you would say. I only agree that the OP should report it for what it is… an abuse.

It does not surprise me that liberal catholics get so upset when we try to correct their errors!

 

[ethelzguy]

but a lay homilist is a major abuse. .

That is YOUR opinion…obviously the Bishops feel otherwise, as these “talks” have been going on for decades.

 

[ethelzguy]

Keep evading the issue, Bob. I never “pitched a fit” as you would say. I only agree that the OP should report it for what it is… an abuse.

It does not surprise me that liberal catholics get so upset when we try to correct their errors!

And, it does not surprise me, that so many petty abuse complaints fall on deaf ears and wind up in file 13 either…

 

[Tedster]

Some of us read the documents that tell us to report abuse and see ourselves reporting the “rocks and boulders”, while others feel the need to go off on grit and sand.

I hardly think that the Church documents call for us to go to Mass with our audit clipboards, looking for something to report. After all, aren’t we supposed to be at Mass getting ourselves “properly disposed” to receive the Blessed Sacrement?

Then you continue searching for your rocks and boulders, and let us continue to sweep out the sand, if that is how we read the documents. Or do we need to rely on your interpretation?

 

[benedictgal]

It does not surprise me that one who pitches a fit over a Nun speaking at Mass about the start of a new school would also be a member of the spell police.

However, Bob, there is a time and a place for everything. Making a pitrch for a school when the time, according to liturgical norm and rubrics is supposed to be dedicated to preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ is wrong. If she wants to promte the school, then put an announcement in the bulletin or make a very small announcement after the Post-Communion prayer (and then have her make herself available after Mass for further explanation), but, do not insert something into the Mass that doesn’t belong there.

 

[Tedster]

Bingo. Sins are divided into mortal and venial. Perhaps so-called abuses should be seen in a similar light?

Unfortunately they are not. An abuse is an abuse. Period. An they should be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Church. Period.

 

[japhy]

Bingo. Sins are divided into mortal and venial. Perhaps so-called abuses should be seen in a similar light?

Yes, Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS) classifies certain abuses as “grave”. And what’s with “so-called”? A nun giving a talk in the place of a homily is an abuse, no matter what level of abusiveness it is.

RS n. 64 says that a priest may never entrust the homily to a layperson. (It doesn’t say that a bishop can not entrust it to a layperson, so perhaps that’s a loophole that allows a bishop to grant permission for a layperson to give a “homily” in some parish of his diocese.)

RS n. 65 says that any previous norm that would have allowed for laypeople to give homilies at Mass is abrogated, and the practice itself is reprobated so that it cannot be considered long-standing custom.

RS n. 74 says that if laypeople are to give “testimonies”, it would best if they were outside the context of Mass entirely; otherwise, they should come after the prayer after Communion. They should not be regularly done, nor feel like a homily, nor done instead of a homily.

RS n. 153 says that laypeople may not assume the role of a priest or deacon. This could be interpreted to include the giving of a “homily” by a layperson. If so, then according to RS n. 173 which provides a listing of those offenses named which are considered “grave”, a layperson giving a “homily” is a grave offense. To be honest, though, this is only an interpretation: the list of grave offenses does not include nn. 64, 65, or 74, and their omission leads me to believe they are not objectively grave offenses.

Update: And about those abuses which are not grave, RS n. 174 says this: “Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.”

 

[bilop]

That is YOUR opinion…obviously the Bishops feel otherwise, as these “talks” have been going on for decades.

There is a major difference between a “talk” and a lay person giving a homily.

In my area (NY) we sometimes have “talks”, like from a seminarian before the annual seminary collection, or from the Little Sisters of the Poor, when there is a special collection.

But, they do NOT give a homily. The priest introduces them, and says a few words on the scripture, thus fufilling the obligation for a homily. Their “talk” is strictly limited to describing their activities and the appeal. They respect the difference, and do not try to act as a priest.

It is **SO EASY **to do this the right way. The priest literally needs to say like three sentences summing up the point of the Gospel.

Why can’t people do it the right way. The only reason I can see is because some people want to “play priest”. And these people usually have heterodox agendas.

God Bless

 

[benedictgal]

There is a major difference between a “talk” and a lay person giving a homily.

In my area (NY) we sometimes have “talks”, like from a seminarian before the annual seminary collection, or from the Little Sisters of the Poor, when there is a special collection.

But, they do NOT give a homily. The priest introduces them, and says a few words on the scripture, thus fufilling the obligation for a homily. Their “talk” is strictly limited to describing their activities and the appeal. They respect the difference, and do not try to act as a priest.

It is **SO EASY **to do this the right way. The priest literally needs to say like three sentences summing up the point of the Gospel.

Why can’t people do it the right way. The only reason I can see is because some people want to “play priest”. And these people usually have heterodox agendas.

God Bless

What could be done, because it does sound like in your cae, they’re looking for loopholes large enough to drive a semi-through, is to have the homily preached and then, if these folks insist on talking, allow them a few, brief sentences, after the Post-Communion prayer or after the Final Blessing (prior to the dismissal). That would be the correct way to do it.

 

[Brendan]

It is **SO EASY **to do this the right way. The priest literally needs to say like three sentences summing up the point of the Gospel.

Why can’t people do it the right way. The only reason I can see is because some people want to “play priest”. And these people usually have heterodox agendas.

God Bless

Actually, even that way is wrong. The Mass has a specific timeslot for these talks. It is right after Communion, but before the final blessing.

So, if time is a concern, the priest could give a short homily (“Jesus love you”), and then proceed with the Creed, prayers of the faithful etc…

Then, after Communion, is the time when the seminarian can come up, or Sister to tell about their misson work, etc…

As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything under Heaven, and the time for talks is after Communion.

 

[estesbob]

Keep evading the issue, Bob. I never “pitched a fit” as you would say. I only agree that the OP should report it for what it is… an abuse.

It does not surprise me that liberal catholics get so upset when we try to correct their errors!

Well this is the first time I have ever been called a “liberal” Catholic. Of course when one is a member of the GIRM police I guess anyone who doesnt spend Mass noting each mistaken word , guesture or phrase(after of course proofing the bulletin for spelling and grammar errors) must be a Liberal

It the kind of attitude we see in this thread that makes dialogue with Liberal Catholics so difficult.

 

[benedictgal]

Well this is the first time I have ever been called a “liberal” Catholic. Of course when one is a member of the GIRM police I guess anyone who doesnt spend Mass noting each mistaken word , guesture or phrase(after of course proofing the bulletin for spelling and grammar errors) must be a Liberal

It the kind of attitude we see in this thread that makes dialogue with Liberal Catholics so difficult.

Since when are we denigrating people for making an honest and sincere attempt at doing right by both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. May I remind you what Francis Cardinal Arinze said regarding those who choose not to follow the norms:

1. Harm Done by Non-Observance of Liturgical Norms

Looking at things from a different perspective, we can appreciate negatively the importance of the observance of liturgical norms if we list some of the damages which can be introduced by ignoring these norms.

**Liturgical abuses can confuse the congregation and occasion uncertainty, perplexity, scandal, opposition and factionalism. In more severe cases, they can obscure the Catholic faith and prevent the people from sharing fully in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ. To ignore liturgical norms can also reinforce a false understanding of freedom. In ecumenical efforts it introduces problems and sometimes a wrong presentation of the Catholic faith.17 **

To ignore liturgical norms can in a subtle way introduce secularization and gradual banalization into the liturgy. In this short-sighted vision, a church building may no longer be seen as a sacred place. Do the people then come to church for Mass as to a “meeting” like in a stadium or congress hall? Do they talk in church as if it were not appreciated as a sacred place separated from secular daily events? Does this tendency regard the norms on the use of liturgical vestments as triumphalism? Does it lead to a type of secular leveling down which prefers to say cup instead of chalice, plate instead of paten, dress instead of vestment, and president instead of priest celebrant?

To ignore liturgical norms can gradually introduce such erosions.

If that weren’t enough to drive home the point, the good Cardinal goes on to say:

. Holy Scripture Stresses the Observance of Norms

In the Old Testament severe punishment was meted out to those to whom the conduct of worship had been entrusted but who ignored the detailed norms for such worship which God gave the chosen people through Moses. The two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, offered unlawful fire and were burnt to death in the sanctuary even in their vestments (cf. Lev 10:1-3; Num 3:4). Korah, Dathan and Abiram rebelled against Moses and Aaron and the ground opened and swallowed them and all their families (cf. Num 16:1-35). And Uzzah touched the Ark to adjust it into its proper position and was struck dead on the spot (cf. II Sam 6:6-7).

No doubt, God is more merciful in the New Testament. But we should not for that reason tempt His patience. Saint Paul castigated those who introduced abuses into the dignified celebration of the Eucharist at gatherings of the Christian community, such as factions, drunkenness and unwillingness of the rich to share with the poor (cf. II Cor 11:17-34).

Let us thank and adore the Lord Jesus who gave us the sacrifice and sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Let us heed the appeal of Pope John Paul II:

I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity.18

Bob, where is the fidelity to the norms (so greatly implored by the late Pope John Paul II and with equal vigor by Pope Benedict XVI) when nuns who are not allowed to deliver a homily do so in defiance to what the Church has already stated?

What is happening in the OP’s case is blatantly wrong on so many levels.

 

[ethelzguy]

Then you continue searching for your rocks and boulders, and let us continue to sweep out the sand, if that is how we read the documents. Or do we need to rely on your interpretation?

By all means, go ahead and rely on YOUR interpretation…and watch your petty complaints continue to fall on deaf ears and wind up in waste baskets.

By all means, burn all your spiritual capital on things that really won’t matter in the end…:banghead:

 

[ethelzguy]

Bob, where is the fidelity to the norms (so greatly implored by the late Pope John Paul II and with equal vigor by Pope Benedict XVI) when nuns who are not allowed to deliver a homily do so in defiance to what the Church has already stated?

What is happening in the OP’s case is blatantly wrong on so many levels.

But as the thread has shown, the nun didn’t actually deliver a “homily” did she? She talked about a new school opening.

I’m sure someone will still insist that her talk was abuse, but apparently she did NOT give a homily on the readings of the day, as normal.

 

[ethelzguy]

lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop

Fine and dandy. But WHO decides what actually constitues abuse? If the priests and bishops are ignoring your complaints, I suspect the answer is somewhat obvious.

 

[japhy]

The priest introduces them, and says a few words on the scripture, thus fufilling the obligation for a homily. … The priest literally needs to say like three sentences summing up the point of the Gospel.

Is it an edifying homily? Or is merely an obligation-filler?