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

[estesbob]

**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!

Yes you did and I am going to link to that post everytime i am accused of being a knuckle dragging backwards concersative Catholic.

 

[Tedster]

Yes you did and I am going to link to that post everytime i am accused of being a knuckle dragging backwards concersative Catholic.

No I didn’t. The post was #101. I said:

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

Where do I say that ESTESBOB is liberal? Or are you just being a bit defensive? And as far as the “knuckle” comment, are you embellishing your case just a tad?

 

[estesbob]

No I didn’t. The post was #101. I said:

Where do I say that ESTESBOB is liberal? Or are you just being a bit defensive? And as far as the “knuckle” comment, are you embellishing your case just a tad?

Well at least we share something in common-we have a GREAT Bishop.

 

[Tedster]

Well at least we share something in common-we have a GREAT Bishop.

AGREED!

 

[ethelzguy]

Then I guess you have not read Redemptionis Sacramentum.

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

We’ve all read documents infinitum, ad nauseum. The same stuff gets posted here at CAF daily, almost as frequently as puppet and clown Mass links…

Clearly the disagreement centers on interpretation of said documents. A familiar story where religion is concerned.

Some of us read the documents and interpret them to say “be on the lookout for rocks”…others read them and interpret them to say “you are personally responsible to find and remove every grain of sand, and shall be rewarded in Heaven by the grain”.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[ethelzguy]

No rock big enough, huh?

Not in my parishes, yet anyway.

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

**I wouldn’t consider constant griping and bellyaching about my Church and her Clergy to fall under “perseverance”. And no, I’m anything but a quitter, as evidenced by my posts **

 

[japhy]

Just for grins. Doesn’t the first letter in the acronym “GIRM” stand for “General”? As opposed to “Absolute” or “Mandatory”?

Since when are those word opposites? True, the Latin GIRM (IGMR) is modified according to each Conference of Bishops, but that doesn’t make the modified GIRM any less “absolute” or “mandatory”. You’re barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[benedictgal]

We’ve all read documents infinitum, ad nauseum. The same stuff gets posted here at CAF daily, almost as frequently as puppet and clown Mass links…

Clearly the disagreement centers on interpretation of said documents. A familiar story where religion is concerned.

Some of us read the documents and interpret them to say “be on the lookout for rocks”…others read them and interpret them to say “you are personally responsible to find and remove every grain of sand, and shall be rewarded in Heaven by the grain”.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between.

jActually, I don’t see what is so hard to understand. Rome has pretty much said “NO”, rather emphatically, to lay people delivering the homily. Incidentally, the homily shouldn’t be substituted for a plug to raise money or support a cause, no matter how worthy they may be. The homily is supposed to focus on the readings (especially the Gospel) and on the liturgy. It’s not the time to hold an ecclesial infomercial.

The problem is that some people just can’t see the Truth about what is spelled out in both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. In fact, there are some people in these threads who seem to think that both documents are optional. That is not how Rome sees them at all.

 

[ethelzguy]

Since when are those word opposites? True, the Latin GIRM (IGMR) is modified according to each Conference of Bishops, but that doesn’t make the modified GIRM any less “absolute” or “mandatory”. You’re barking up the wrong tree here.

Just asked a question, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

I am not implying that the words are “opposite”. But clearly the word “General” is not as specific as words like “Absolute” or “Mandatory”…correct?

So, if the book is called the “General Instruction…” there is a rather clear implication that it is something less than “Absolute”.

Guess I’ll have to take a peek at my Sacrementary tonight

 

[ethelzguy]

Actually, I don’t see what is so hard to understand. Rome has pretty much said “NO”, rather emphatically, to lay people delivering the homily.

This appears to be FACT, which I will agree with you on.

Incidentally, the homily shouldn’t be substituted for a plug to raise money or support a cause, no matter how worthy they may be. The homily is supposed to focus on the readings (especially the Gospel) and on the liturgy. It’s not the time to hold an ecclesial infomercial.

**This sounds a little more like OPINION, and perhaps at the crux of the OP. Did the nun give a homily or an infomercial? **

The problem is that some people just can’t see the Truth about what is spelled out in both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. In fact, there are some people in these threads who seem to think that both documents are optional. That is not how Rome sees them at all.

I don’t see them as optional at all…but I do see areas of disagreement on how they are interpreted and how those interpretations are applied.

 

[benedictgal]

Just to be perfectly clear, none of the documents speak to having what amounts to an ecclesial informercial take the place of the homily. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it perfectly clear that what occurs after the Gospel must be the homily:

67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church.147 It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ Himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.148

Furthermore, even though it is not addressed, the idea of having an extended announcement or plea in lieu of the homily is wrong because the priest is taking upon himself a duty that does not correspond to him.

31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”.71 They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.72 For as Saint Ambrose said, “It is not in herself … but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.73 Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

Therefore, he cannot substitute or manhandle the Mass just because he sees fit to do so. What was indicated in the OP is wrong on all levels.

 

[japhy]

Just asked a question, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, and lest someone interpret it the wrong way, I answered it, tongue-properly-placed.

I am not implying that the words are “opposite”. But clearly the word “General” is not as specific as words like “Absolute” or “Mandatory”?

You said “as opposed to”. You are putting the word “general” in opposition to the words “absolute” and “mandatory”. It is not for us to interpret whether the “General” Instruction is meant to be absolute or not, or mandatory or not. However, the GIRM provides instructions for several cases, not just a general one – Mass with a deacon, Mass without a deacon, Mass without a congregation, etc. – and contains rules which are, at face value, mandatory (that is, they aren’t qualified by the words “normally”, “usually”, “generally”, etc.).

 

[ethelzguy]

Just to be perfectly clear, none of the documents speak to having what amounts to an ecclesial informercial take the place of the homily. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it perfectly clear that what occurs after the Gospel must be the homily:

Furthermore, even though it is not addressed, the idea of having an extended announcement or plea in lieu of the homily is wrong because the priest is taking upon himself a duty that does not correspond to him. .

Ah-ah-ah…you’re trying to have it both ways here…one paragraph you’re quoting chapter and verse as indisputable fact, then in the next, you’re creating opinion from words “even though it is not addressed”

Are we havin FUN yet?:hug3:

 

[ethelzguy]

Yes, and lest someone interpret it the wrong way, I answered it, tongue-properly-placed.

You said “as opposed to”. You are putting the word “general” in opposition to the words “absolute” and “mandatory”. It is not for us to interpret whether the “General” Instruction is meant to be absolute or not, or mandatory or not. However, the GIRM provides instructions for several cases, not just a general one – Mass with a deacon, Mass without a deacon, Mass without a congregation, etc. – and contains rules which are, at face value, mandatory (that is, they aren’t qualified by the words “normally”, “usually”, “generally”, etc.).

ok, I DID say “as opposed”…my mistake

 

[benedictgal]

Ah-ah-ah…you’re trying to have it both ways here…one paragraph you’re quoting chapter and verse as indisputable fact, then in the next, you’re creating opinion from words “even though it is not addressed”

Are we havin FUN yet?:hug3:

I think either there may be some flippancy involve on the other end or one is being sacrastic just to be sarcastic.

What I am saying is that there are those who will justify their actions by stating that RS doesn’t cover nuns giving sales pitches for causes in lieu of the homily. This is an example of someone’s personal tastes and idiosyncracies getting in the way of what the document actually says.

The bottom line is that no one, be it the prest or the laity has any authority to tinker with the Mass. What is happening in the OP’s case is just that: a tinkering with the Mass that should not occur.

Perhaps there are some who seem to think that the rubrics don’t matter, but, all I can say is look at what happened when Aaron’s sons were flippant about the manner and form prescribed by Yahwah as to how to worship Him. The consequences were not very pretty.

 

[ethelzguy]

I think either there may be some flippancy involve on the other end or one is being sacrastic just to be sarcastic.

What I am saying is that there are those who will justify their actions by stating that RS doesn’t cover nuns giving sales pitches for causes in lieu of the homily. This is an example of someone’s personal tastes and idiosyncracies getting in the way of what the document actually says.

The bottom line is that no one, be it the prest or the laity has any authority to tinker with the Mass. What is happening in the OP’s case is just that: a tinkering with the Mass that should not occur.

Perhaps there are some who seem to think that the rubrics don’t matter, but, all I can say is look at what happened when Aaron’s sons were flippant about the manner and form prescribed by Yahwah as to how to worship Him. The consequences were not very pretty.

Just tryin’ to lighten it up a little, that’s all. The truth is, that somebody, (a priest, bishop, whatever) obviously interprets the documents differently than you or I do. And, as they are in postitions of authority above us…we can make all the noise we want, but may likely be viewed as noisy gongs clanging in the wind…

 

[benedictgal]

Just tryin’ to lighten it up a little, that’s all. The truth is, that somebody, (a priest, bishop, whatever) obviously interprets the documents differently than you or I do. And, as they are in postitions of authority above us…we can make all the noise we want, but may likely be viewed as noisy gongs clanging in the wind…

Hoewver, it was precisely why documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum came into being. Misued authority can certainly lead to abuse. Rampant misinterpretations can also lead to abuse. That is why Rome pretty much has to spell things out for bishops and priests. That is also why Rome has a mechanism set in place to report abuses (in cases like the OP).

My father wrote to the Holy See after sending our bishop a letter (certified, return receipt requested). The letter was never acknowledged by the local Ordinary. However, within three weeks of sending his letter to Rome, my father received both the orange international card and a letter from the Congregation acknowledging receipt of the letter and informing him that an investigation would be ensuing. Now, if the local Ordinary can’t even send an acknowledgment from across town, how is that the Prefect can send an acknowldegment across the ocean?

 

[estesbob]

Just tryin’ to lighten it up a little, that’s all. The truth is, that somebody, (a priest, bishop, whatever) obviously interprets the documents differently than you or I do. And, as they are in postitions of authority above us…we can make all the noise we want, but may likely be viewed as noisy gongs clanging in the wind…

Well I have changed my mind-I think the Priest should be excomunicated and the Nun run ouf of town on a rail(after burning her school down). And I think we need to discuss what punishmnent for the parishioners who sat by while this sacrilege took place.

 

[LRThunder]

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

It is more than opinion…people have backed this up.

Besides, I don’t think you want to go down the “bishops feel otherwise” road. Remember Archbishop Lefebreve (sp?). He felt what he did was right and necessary, even though he was disobedient to Pope John Paul II regarding the consecration of the SSPX bishops.

Clergy, ie the priests and bishops have the right and duty to safeguard the teachings of the Church. If these lay homilists had important matters to speak on, they could’ve done so at Mass after Communion, or outside of Mass. Such talks would’ve been more than permissible.

 

[THurifer2]

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