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

[benedictgal]

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.

The big problem, in case you haven’t realized it, is the fact that this “talk” is occuring during the time reserved for the homily. This is the moment when the deacon, priest or bishop is suposed to preach on the Gospel. It is not the time for the equivalent of an “infomercial”, no matter how good the cause, to happen. The homily is more important than a plug for an organization or a cause.

 

[Brendan]

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.

The Holy See, that is why they published a document ( Redemptionis Sacramentum) and specifically listed out what abuses that the Vatican considers to be ‘grave’ abuses.

Non clergy giving homilies was on that list.

The same document also said that it was a duty of all Catholic, both faithful and ordained, to do all they can to prevent the grave abuses that the document listed.

So that is exactly what an obedient Catholic is supposed to do.

We don’t have the authority to say that a particular abuse should not be objected to, when the Vatican has said that it should be.

We are not allowed to make our own personal judgements as to what is allowed and what is not. Rather, we take what the Church tells us and act on in in the way that Church tells us to do.

 

[scylla]

Your Church is starting a school!??? That is fantastic news indeed.

I guess this is all a matter of ones priorities-where you see a grevious abuse and a waste of time I see a glorious announcement that your Church is going to start a school!

No my Parish is not starting a school, we have no school, and no assigned priest. There is a family that started a private school nearby, since our parish doesn’t have one but since it isn’t associated with the diocese, it isn’t supported. Unfortunately they refer people to the non-denominational church if they want to send their kids to school.

She teaches at a school in Africa, and the talk could certainly have taken place after communion. (there was not even an introduction by the Priest, which is a way to kinda hide the abuse)

We have about 600 total people attend Mass on Sunday\Sat in an area which has a population of about 30,000 people. We really need all the prayers we can get.

When the faith is forgotton, people forget the faith.

Last time I invited someone to RCIA they were talking about how women are oppressed and we should have women priests. My friend never came back.

Please pray for my Parish and Diocese.

Thanks
Scylla

 

[ethelzguy]

The big problem, in case you haven’t realized it, is the fact that this “talk” is occuring during the time reserved for the homily. This is the moment when the deacon, priest or bishop is suposed to preach on the Gospel. It is not the time for the equivalent of an “infomercial”, no matter how good the cause, to happen. The homily is more important than a plug for an organization or a cause.

Apparently the Bishop’s opinion on the matter trumps yours.

 

[ethelzguy]

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.”

At least you admit that there may be some latitude(s) in there. Thanks for an objective post.

 

[japhy]

At least you admit that there may be some latitude(s) in there. Thanks for an objective post.

Thank you. The two points of latitude here, just to be clear, are a) whether a bishop can entrust the homily to a lay-person, and b) whether lay-homilies are grave abuses.

It seems very odd to me that a Bishop would allow a lay-person to give a “homily”. Even more odd would be letting a lay-person give a testimony during the time allotted for the homily, when such testimonies are approved to be given near the end of Mass instead. Instead of doing what the Church clearly approves of, he would be doing something in a manner that is less pastoral because it circumvents simple protocols and can create confusion.

 

[bilop]

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

Depends on the priest, of course.

I’ve heard very edifying short homilies and incomprehensible long homilies.

At my old parish, one priest would give 3-5 minute homily every Sunday (he averaged about 35 min for the Mass). But the homily was always spot on the Scripture and referenced a lot of older traditions of the Church, like Alb Sunday after Easter. You really learned something.

A Priest can certainly give a 3-5 minute homily and leave 5-7 minutes for another talk.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

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.

I know that after Communion is preferable. However, often these talks precede a 2nd collection, so moving them later kind of defeates the purpose.

As long as there is a decent homily (even if only a couple of minutes), and the lay talks stays on point and doesn’t try to mimic a homily, I don’t have a major issue with the timing.

The important liturgical issue is lay people pretending to be priests, not having a second talk after the homily.

God Bless

 

[ethelzguy]

The important liturgical issue is lay people pretending to be priests, not having a second talk after the homily.

God Bless

:bowdown2: :hug3:

 

[japhy]

I know that after Communion is preferable. However, often these talks precede a 2nd collection, so moving them later kind of defeates the purpose.

Is the second collection a rigorously scheduled part of the Mass? I don’t know any document that says when a second collection may take place. In my parish, it happens after Communion has been completed, the Blessed Sacrament has been reserved, and the altar has been cleared, but before the post-Communion prayer.

I know other parishes that simply do both collections, one after another, during the Offertory.

Why not have the second collection after the talk, and before the final blessing and dismissal?

 

[benedictgal]

Is the second collection a rigorously scheduled part of the Mass? I don’t know any document that says when a second collection may take place. In my parish, it happens after Communion has been completed, the Blessed Sacrament has been reserved, and the altar has been cleared, but before the post-Communion prayer.

I know other parishes that simply do both collections, one after another, during the Offertory.

Why not have the second collection after the talk, and before the final blessing and dismissal?

Our parish combines both the regular and second collections. Immediately after the regular collection, the ushers return for the second one. However, ours are about once-a-month: diocesan and building fund. At the Cathedral, they have the second collection after the Post-Communion prayer.

But, it would make better sense to have the “announcement” by the nun after the Post-Communion prayer or after the final Blessing. At least you’re not interfering too much with the Mass.

 

[bilop]

Is the second collection a rigorously scheduled part of the Mass? I don’t know any document that says when a second collection may take place. In my parish, it happens after Communion has been completed, the Blessed Sacrament has been reserved, and the altar has been cleared, but before the post-Communion prayer.

I know other parishes that simply do both collections, one after another, during the Offertory.

Why not have the second collection after the talk, and before the final blessing and dismissal?

I imagine because quite a few people make a habit of receiving and leaving immediately. If you delay the talk and 2nd collection, you don’t reach approx. 25%, or more, of the congregation.

God Bless

 

[Tedster]

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.

Sorry Bob! I never claimed that *you *were liberal! I have no idea where you stand since I do not know you. I made a general statement.

And I am not a member of the GIRM police, I simply added my 2 cents on the subject at hand.

It does seem odd to me that one who claims not to be a liberal catholic would condone what the OP has described.

Sorry again. Back to proofing the bulletin!

 

[Tedster]

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:

Thanks for your approval. I’m glad I can count on your support.

Yes, it is an uphill battle. And if every one of my complaints ends up in the waste basket, I believe I will be rewarded for my efforts in the end. Yes… I DO think it will matter in the end. If it were not so, why has the Church spent so much time in defining and trying to correct these abuses?

 

[ethelzguy]

If it were not so, why has the Church spent so much time in defining and trying to correct these abuses?

Has it? From what I read at CAF, the only thing that has been done to “correct abuses” for the last 40+ years was B16’s statement that the TLM should be more available

 

[ethelzguy]

And if every one of my complaints ends up in the waste basket, I believe I will be rewarded for my efforts in the end.

Hmmmmm…I’ve never formally complained about anything. But I must say, about the second time one of my complaints got ignored, I think I’d get the picture…I am NOT in charge here.

 

[ethelzguy]

Just for grins…

Doesn’t the first letter in the acronym “GIRM” stand for “General”?

As opposed to “Absolute” or “Mandatory” ??

 

[Tedster]

Has it? From what I read at CAF, the only thing that has been done to “correct abuses” for the last 40+ years was B16’s statement that the TLM should be more available

Then I guess you have not read Redemptionis Sacramentum. This document comes from the CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT which has spent a little time researching and defining this document.

Maybe some research on your part would help before you make such claims. There are a couple of documents on the CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP page on the Vatican website. If you can get through these documents and still claim that the only thing done in the past 40 years was Summorum Pontificum, then your head is really buried in the sand.

BTW, Summorum Pontificum has very little, if anything at all, to do with stopping the abuses in the Novus Ordo.

 

[Spiller]

Has it? From what I read at CAF, the only thing that has been done to “correct abuses” for the last 40+ years was B16’s statement that the TLM should be more available

I don’t know about that – but I know what you mean

A new bishop and a new pastor can make a GREAT difference!

Most suspected that our former pastor and bishop “just didn’t get it” – that they were lazy, took the path of least resistance, couldn’t have cared any less about abuses, etc. However as Catholics we are taught to pray, obey and quietly wait for that special day – which is not always the worst advice.

Now that we have a new pastor and bishop (HUGE improvements) we are seeing TRUE RENEWAL! No more lip service and ceramic chalices! In retrospect, must of the responsibility for the horrible condition of my parish and diocese rested with my former pastor and bishop and there is really no way around that.

I love going to Mass now…

 

[Tedster]

Hmmmmm…I’ve never formally complained about anything.

No rock big enough, huh?

But I must say, about the second time one of my complaints got ignored, I think I’d get the picture…I am NOT in charge here.

So much for perseverance. Do you quit that easily at everything you do?

I agree that I am not in charge, but the Church tells me I AM empowered to do something about abuses. And I didn’t see the asterisk that said I should only try twice.