Traditional sermons (a query)

[RPRPsych]

Dear Traditional CAFers (especially those who lived before the introduction of the Ordinary Form),

In a novel I’m reading, one of the main characters, who’s undergoing formation for the priesthood (he later becomes a very good and orthodox priest, so it’s not a Catholic-bashing novel) complains that “in the New Mass, we have to give a full-length sermon, whereas before, we just needed to expound a little on the Scripture readings.” Is this true? Were sermons shorter and more succinct pre-liturgical reform?

NOTE: just the facts, please. I’m not trying to start a fire-fight here, I’m asking out of genuine curiosity and ignorance, as I was born well after Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, and it’s all I know (and love)

 

[Nicene]

Not necessarily, look up “homily” on new advent. Some church fathers gave brief homilies while others gave much longer ones. If you pray the breviary many of the readings are homilies from the church fathers. Sts Augustine and Cyril for example have some rather long ones. Really just depends on the homilist.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Dear Traditional CAFers (especially those who lived before the introduction of the Ordinary Form),

In a novel I’m reading, one of the main characters, who’s undergoing formation for the priesthood (he later becomes a very good and orthodox priest, so it’s not a Catholic-bashing novel) complains that “in the New Mass, we have to give a full-length sermon, whereas before, we just needed to expound a little on the Scripture readings.” Is this true? Were sermons shorter and more succinct pre-liturgical reform?

NOTE: just the facts, please. I’m not trying to start a fire-fight here, I’m asking out of genuine curiosity and ignorance, as I was born well after Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, and it’s all I know (and love)

What’s your definition of “full length?”

 

[ChadS]

What’s your definition of “full length?”

Yes indeed, expounding on the scriptures could take five minutes or 3 1,000 pages books. Perhaps the real question may be is were pre-Vatican II homilies more likely to present a full, undiluted exposition of the faith that was loyal to the Church and its teachings? The idea being that post-V2 homilies are in some quarters personal opinions of what theology is or should be. Although to be fair since I’ve been Catholic I’ve heard some very good and faithful homilies delivered during OF masses that were no way watered down.

ChadS

 

[zab]

I can’t remember the sermons from over 50 years ago. I only remember the joke “Dominic go frisk 'em.”

 

[Dorothy]

I can’t remember the sermons from over 50 years ago. I only remember the joke “Dominic go frisk 'em.”

 

[kozlosap]

I can’t remember the sermons from over 50 years ago. I only remember the joke “Dominic go frisk 'em.”

I was 12 in 1965, sufficient to say, they seemed looooong to me,

 

[RPRPsych]

Thanks to all of you for your replies!

What’s your definition of “full length?”

I was paraphrasing from memory. Here’s the passage from the novel.
*
“And with all of this Bible-reading, it makes the Mass much more like a Protestant service, instead of the Holy Mass,” Luke objected. “But the thing that makes the New Mass most like a Protestant service is having a homily directly after the reading of Scripture. Formerly, the priest might expound on the Scripture readings for the week a little bit, but this new Mass expects us to come up with a full-fledged sermon every week, just like a Protestant minister would! This absolutely distracts from the centrality of the Eucharist.”*

Of course, though the novel portrays the Catholic faith in a positive light, it is written by a non-Catholic, so the author could easily have got his facts wrong.

 

[Dorothy]

Thanks to all of you for your replies!

I was paraphrasing from memory. Here’s the passage from the novel.
*
“And with all of this Bible-reading, it makes the Mass much more like a Protestant service, instead of the Holy Mass,” Luke objected. “But the thing that makes the New Mass most like a Protestant service is having a homily directly after the reading of Scripture. Formerly, the priest might expound on the Scripture readings for the week a little bit, but this new Mass expects us to come up with a full-fledged sermon every week, just like a Protestant minister would! This absolutely distracts from the centrality of the Eucharist.”*

Of course, though the novel portrays the Catholic faith in a positive light, it is written by a non-Catholic, so the author could easily have got his facts wrong.

I am a senior, senior citizen now, and remember from way back. The sermons/homilies or whatever you want to call them were the same length they are today. And, I remember learning a lot from them, as I do today.

The Scripture readings are wonderful, and of course, the source and summit of our faith is the Eucharist.
That is when we receive the Risen Christ to be with us on our journey to Him!

 

[twf]

Thanks to all of you for your replies!

I was paraphrasing from memory. Here’s the passage from the novel.
*
“And with all of this Bible-reading, it makes the Mass much more like a Protestant service, instead of the Holy Mass,” Luke objected. “But the thing that makes the New Mass most like a Protestant service is having a homily directly after the reading of Scripture. Formerly, the priest might expound on the Scripture readings for the week a little bit, but this new Mass expects us to come up with a full-fledged sermon every week, just like a Protestant minister would! This absolutely distracts from the centrality of the Eucharist.”*

Of course, though the novel portrays the Catholic faith in a positive light, it is written by a non-Catholic, so the author could easily have got his facts wrong.

In my experience of typical OF masses in North America, we hear the appointed readings of the day and then a 10 minute or so homily- some a bit shorter and some a bit longer depending on the priest. While this may be comparable to the experiences of Anglicans or Lutherans (high church protestants maintained much of the traditional structure of the mass and in post-Councilar times have adopted lectionaries based on our revised lectionary), it is not remotely comparable to the experience of evangelical “Bible believing” Christians. Despite the emphasis on being “Bible believers” you will rarely if ever see long passages of Scripture proclaimed in an evangelical service. In my experience you have 20-30 minutes of “praise and worship” (singing) and then go straight into a 30-60 minute sermon which may have verses quoted here and there, to emphasize a point of the sermon, but no structured readings. I find this comparison silly.

 

[RPRPsych]

I am a senior, senior citizen now, and remember from way back. The sermons/homilies or whatever you want to call them were the same length they are today. And, I remember learning a lot from them, as I do today.

The Scripture readings are wonderful, and of course, the source and summit of our faith is the Eucharist.
That is when we receive the Risen Christ to be with us on our journey to Him!

I fully agree with you. I wonder if the author was just making the character exaggerate or something.

In my experience of typical OF masses in North America, we hear the appointed readings of the day and then a 10 minute or so homily- some a bit shorter and some a bit longer depending on the priest. While this may be comparable to the experiences of Anglicans or Lutherans (high church protestants maintained much of the traditional structure of the mass and in post-Councilar times have adopted lectionaries based on our revised lectionary), it is not remotely comparable to the experience of evangelical “Bible believing” Christians. Despite the emphasis on being “Bible believers” you will rarely if ever see long passages of Scripture proclaimed in an evangelical service. In my experience you have 20-30 minutes of “praise and worship” (singing) and then go straight into a 30-60 minute sermon which may have verses quoted here and there, to emphasize a point of the sermon, but no structured readings. I find this comparison silly.

That has been my experience, too. (Of course, we sometimes get “retreat specialists”, usually of a Charismatic persuasion, in which case the homily runs 30-40 minutes and I get to take a little nap, punctuated by occasional awakenings when said specialist decides to raise his voice. Fortunately, such occurrences are rare. )

 

[otjm]

We didn’t have homilies before Vatican 2 - we had sermons, and the topic might be one that the bishop directed all priests to say at the next Sunday Mass.

Sermons were not a discourse on the readings of the day, but rather religious instructions or moral instructions, with no requirement that they had any connection to the readings.

While a homily may include religious or moral instructions, it is to come from the readings and not simply a topic of interest or an unrelated catechetical instruction.

Which is not to say that prior to Vatican 2, the priest never expounded on the readings. However, the change was in the direction of scripture based and related material, just as, after the OF came out, we expanded the amount of scripture at a Sunday Mass.

 

[RPRPsych]

We didn’t have homilies before Vatican 2 - we had sermons, and the topic might be one that the bishop directed all priests to say at the next Sunday Mass.

Sermons were not a discourse on the readings of the day, but rather religious instructions or moral instructions, with no requirement that they had any connection to the readings.

While a homily may include religious or moral instructions, it is to come from the readings and not simply a topic of interest or an unrelated catechetical instruction.

Which is not to say that prior to Vatican 2, the priest never expounded on the readings. However, the change was in the direction of scripture based and related material, just as, after the OF came out, we expanded the amount of scripture at a Sunday Mass.

Thanks! This definitely explains what Luke was going on about.

 

[otjm]

Thanks! This definitely explains what Luke was going on about.

:tiphat:

 

[twf]

We didn’t have homilies before Vatican 2 - we had sermons, and the topic might be one that the bishop directed all priests to say at the next Sunday Mass.

Sermons were not a discourse on the readings of the day, but rather religious instructions or moral instructions, with no requirement that they had any connection to the readings.

While a homily may include religious or moral instructions, it is to come from the readings and not simply a topic of interest or an unrelated catechetical instruction.

Which is not to say that prior to Vatican 2, the priest never expounded on the readings. However, the change was in the direction of scripture based and related material, just as, after the OF came out, we expanded the amount of scripture at a Sunday Mass.

The Church always emphasized that the Scriptures require interpretation. Unlike Protestants, Catholics were to turn to the Church for the proper meaning of this or that passage. Thus it seems very odd to me that the Scriptures would be proclaimed to the people without interpretation / commentary. The canon of Scripture exists, after all, primarily for this purpose: texts to be included in the divine worship.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

We didn’t have homilies before Vatican 2 - we had sermons, and the topic might be one that the bishop directed all priests to say at the next Sunday Mass.

Sermons were not a discourse on the readings of the day, but rather religious instructions or moral instructions, with no requirement that they had any connection to the readings.

While a homily may include religious or moral instructions, it is to come from the readings and not simply a topic of interest or an unrelated catechetical instruction.

Which is not to say that prior to Vatican 2, the priest never expounded on the readings. However, the change was in the direction of scripture based and related material, just as, after the OF came out, we expanded the amount of scripture at a Sunday Mass.

OTJM has quite well explained the distinction.

I will just add that, by the norms, the homily today is to be based on either the scriptural readings (the homilist may focus on one or several passages from the readings) or he may base it on a liturgical text used at the Mass being celebrated. He could, for example, make the basis for his homily be the Opening Oration or the preface of the Eucharistic Prayer.

It can happen still that the bishop will command that a pastoral letter of his be read at all Masses in his diocese in place of the homily. That, of course, is his right since he is the moderator of the liturgy in the diocese he governs.

Sermons had a much broader latitude. One could, for example, preach on a theme for a series of Sunday Masses and develop that theme across the span of time. The sermon in the vetus ordo Mass was also not seen as integrated into the liturgical action. That is why, for example, we would remove the maniple before giving the sermon and put it back on after or why the sign of the cross was made before and after the sermon. It was an opening and closing of parenthesis.

 

[twf]

OTJM has quite well explained the distinction.

I will just add that, by the norms, the homily today is to be based on either the scriptural readings (the homilist may focus on one or several passages from the readings) or he may base it on a liturgical text used at the Mass being celebrated. He could, for example, make the basis for his homily be the Opening Oration or the preface of the Eucharistic Prayer.

It can happen still that the bishop will command that a pastoral letter of his be read at all Masses in his diocese in place of the homily. That, of course, is his right since he is the moderator of the liturgy in the diocese he governs.

Sermons had a much broader latitude. One could, for example, preach on a theme for a series of Sunday Masses and develop that theme across the span of time. The sermon in the vetus ordo Mass was also not seen as integrated into the liturgical action. That is why, for example, we would remove the maniple before giving the sermon and put it back on after or why the sign of the cross was made before and after the sermon. It was an opening and closing of parenthesis.

Father - was there a tradition in some quarters to provide a reflection on the readings of the week? Surely it wasn’t a new concept after the council?
Our archbishop issues pastoral letters to be read at all masses from time to time, but typically the priest will still give a regular homily and close with the archbishop’s letter. The only exception is the annual Project Advance (archdiocese funding drive) video which typically replaces the homily one Sunday a year- with the Archbishop exhorting us to do our part.

 

[felsguy]

Were sermons shorter and more succinct pre-liturgical reform?

My recollection regarding their length is that it varied according to the individual priest and even his mood on a particular day. I can recall a couple of fire-and-brimstone types and their sermons seemed to go on and on and on if they were cranked up on certain topics. On the other hand, external circumstances such as the early start of some major sporting event or the lack of air conditioning on a very hot summer Sunday morning occasionally led to a very truncated sermon. I can no longer remember whether I actually heard it or just remember someone telling me that that on such a Sunday a priest once said nothing more than “if you think this is hot, just think what hell would be like.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father - was there a tradition in some quarters to provide a reflection on the readings of the week? Surely it wasn’t a new concept after the council?
Our archbishop issues pastoral letters to be read at all masses from time to time, but typically the priest will still give a regular homily and close with the archbishop’s letter. The only exception is the annual Project Advance (archdiocese funding drive) video which typically replaces the homily one Sunday a year- with the Archbishop exhorting us to do our part.

This is really a question you would have to ask a priest in Canada. I am sure that there are yet some still alive in your archdiocese who would be able to answer from their memories

I say that because “some quarters” is indeed the operative phrase. There was much more discretion for a sermon’s composition – and actually even its presentation. It very well may have been that in your province or broader region of Canada, one custom prevailed more than another

With the vetus ordo Mass, there were fewer readings at Mass; also, there was a one year cycle of readings and so each Sunday of the year had a fixed set of readings associated with it, barring the extraordinary

In fact, there was a broad latitude regarding sermons in pre-conciliar usage. Of course the readings and the liturgical observances were a source to draw upon. A priest, however, could choose to do a catechetical exposition, for example. Matters of local piety also entered into the calculation

With the reform, the Council Fathers said that the readings were to be given greater highlight and greater prominence. A richer selection of readings was to be provided. A multi-year lectionary was to be created. And the priest’s exposition was to henceforth to be a homily drawn from the readings proclaimed rather than the broader category of sermon, which was still a valid genre but for outside of Mass. All this was another element from the Liturgical Movement, which the Council Fathers incorporated into Sacrosanctum Concilium

As a one time liturgist, I would say that a case can well be made that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction with the prescription on top of prescription. While I favour the use of the homily, there are moments when a sermon may indeed be of more benefit to the faithful of today. At the least, for the priest with the cura animarum to have the discretion to make an informed analysis and determination and to be able to set aside the norm for a time could be very beneficial

 

[djames99]

They were to the point and contextual, no ambiguity or political correctness. No parallels to today’s protestant style. I was a young fellow then, but even as a boy, all sermons were understood. At St. Margaret Mary’s parish, we had an Irish priest and I enjoyed his sermons. You knew the tone of what was coming up by whether or not he placed his elbows on the podium and held up his chin. We would brace ourselves. Every person loved this man.

What a time, what a feeling of family.! The Holy Spirit was with this Catholic community. Call it what you will, the feeling of Holiness pervaded the era. Priests would be invited to dinner at someone’s house, and the sick received special blessings as well as the family.

A few years later when V2 came into being, it was a time for my service in the 30inf, 3rd Div. Germany. Then the military post church was shared by all denominations. When I had to miss a mass, I would attend a protestant service(second best?). Gradually over 3 years, I began to see the changes to the mass, and how little difference there was in the rituals compared to the protestant. The mass became an entertaining mass. Emphasis was placed on the stimuli of the congregation. The backs of the priest while he celebrated was now seen has insulting. Or, everyone had to “see” what he saw on the alter. “How dare he one up everyone else!” What called for patience and sacrifice at the mass, such as trying to pronounce latin words and syntax, was thrown out for the convenience of the community. Latin was a gift from us to God, and so we struggled with it for Him, besides, I would listen to a latin schola, or Miserere Dei any day over the trumpet and electric guitar stuff any day. It isn’t true that the children struggled with Latin. We were never forced to do so. At confirmation the children got an english missile. Adults, and some children’s books had the translation in the opposite page of the missile. (High school corriculum had manditory Latin). In Catholic schools today teachings that denoted obligation such as mortification became out of vogue. It paralleled the “me” society that was forming around it. Less emphasis was placed on sacrifice in general.

Back then children would correct each other, and were acutely aware of the possibility of sin minute to minute in their daily lives. No offense was taken by the subject, and they would go on to play hockey or whatever. Catholicism was a way of life. Even civil leaders ensured carpets would be rolled out for the Bishop. They welcomed opinions from the Bishop, and policies were implemented in line with this advice.

I had a heart warming moment after these military years when I attended a FSSP mass. I was in tears the whole time as every part of the mass passed. A little girl of 3 yrs following her formerly dressed parents was dressed up in white as she walked up the isle with hands folded in prayer wearing the veil on her head. Being an old timer with grandkids, I’m of course a habitual coochie cooer. I tried to get her attention has she passed, but it was received with eyes of annoyance!. I said to myself. “Yes! that’s it. Parents, your doing a fine job. A 3 yr old understanding the solemnity and holiness of the mass.” . I never saw so many children at a mass as I did since I was a child.

Finally, reading the bulletin, I was surprised when I saw what was collected for a Sunday. Some NO masses in my diocese would need 6 months to pass before they would collect what they did for one Sunday. One NO parish here is waiting for steeple repairs for 3 years. This EF parish asked for a traditional neoclassical carved pulpit and got it in no time flat. The EF mass is making a steady comeback, with the graphs showing a steady climb. Coming at the right time. The Holy Spirit is readying her for the effects of this generations errors.

Anyway I rambled on a bit, but nothing makes me happier than seeing the old way return. I’ll even insert one of those doo dads. :extrahappy: