S
stpurl
Guest
I didn’t say Easter.
I said specifically a fire on December 21 to burn the solstice log. Those words.
I said specifically a fire on December 21 to burn the solstice log. Those words.
- Status
N
neophyte
Guest
I don’t understand why people are jumping on the OP. He saw something unusual and asked a reasonable question. I can’t see any hint of wanting to be a liturgical abuse cop or of questioning the motives of the people involved.
Simple question: are there circumstances under which a layman may give the homily? Simple answer: … well, maybe not so simple.
But seriously, chill out.
Simple question: are there circumstances under which a layman may give the homily? Simple answer: … well, maybe not so simple.
But seriously, chill out.
Last edited:
T
TomH1
Guest
Thank you! I was beginning to feel a little battered and bruised. But, you live and learn and I shan’t be putting my head above the parapet again.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I felt the same. However, given that we have had so many threads where someone asking this type of question was actually looking to play “liturgical abuse cop”, people get a little bit trigger happy. And sure enough, other posters then showed up who were more clearly critical of things they have seen in modern churches.
N
neophyte
Guest
That’s too bad, but it’s a good example of why folks elsewhere on the web talk about how CAF is a pack of jerks. Ask away, and tell the bullys to pound sand.
What Tis_Bearself says is true: there are a number of amateur church cops around, and it’s easy to get reactive even if we mean well. Please don’t let someone’s worst moments chase you away.
Last edited:
T
TomH1
Guest
That’s not me and I know you are not saying it is.
I hope when I’m in church my focus is on worshipping God and not whether, for example, I can see the priest’s Roman collar or if he’s got an amice on under his alb.
Whilst I don’t go looking for problems it is my hope that in the liturgy the clergy do the red and say the black. I like to think Holy Mother Church chose rubrics and words for very good reasons and did not pluck them out of thin air. Therefore, I believe that is a good reason to do what the Church sets out.
I really was not sure about who could give the homily or may be even speak at that point in the Mass and call it something other than a homily. But, the monks said a female presbyterian minister gave the homily at Mass. I assumed the brothers were telling the truth. As I know Catholic clergy should not jointly celebrate the Eucharist with ministers of other Christian traditions and as we believe it’s Divine Law women can’t be ordained I was a little taken aback that a female Protestant minister was giving the homily at a Catholic Mass.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The abbey I’m and oblate of uses the OF but is very conservative (Gregorian chant, etc.), as are many abbeys of the Solesmes congregation.
Until 2006 all homilies were preached by the abbot. In 2006 he resigned due to age, and the new abbot (who turns 80 in 2020, please pray for vocations) hates giving homilies; odd because he is so excellent at both preparing and delivering them. So he scandalized everyone by having a different monk (always a priest!) give the homily every Sunday. He does include himself in the rotation though.
Abbots do have quite a bit of leeway in regulating liturgy. They’re the equivalent of bishops except for the fact that they cannot ordain, and their realm is limited to their abbey, and any daughter priories attached to it. So in some monasteries it wouldn’t surprise me to find “the exception that confirms the rule”. I am guessing that if the abbot let someone else give the homily, it was of major importance. He may have skirted around the “rule” by giving a brief one or two line homily himself and then saying that the invited person had a message for everyone, for example he may have preached on the necessity for alms to the poor and then had the invitee talk briefly about her own mission to the poor.
It’s also a tradition in our abbey, if an in-house retreat is being given by someone from the outside, that person is asked to deliver the homily at Mass at the end of the retreat. So far I’ve never seen a retreat given by anyone other than a priest though, either from the order or outside the order.
It would be impossible to find fault with the abbot without knowing the exact context. If he did indeed give his own homily (or one of his priest-monks or deacons), however brief, then I think he respected the “rule” even if a bit loosely. Newsletters may not give a complete picture.
Until 2006 all homilies were preached by the abbot. In 2006 he resigned due to age, and the new abbot (who turns 80 in 2020, please pray for vocations) hates giving homilies; odd because he is so excellent at both preparing and delivering them. So he scandalized everyone by having a different monk (always a priest!) give the homily every Sunday. He does include himself in the rotation though.
Abbots do have quite a bit of leeway in regulating liturgy. They’re the equivalent of bishops except for the fact that they cannot ordain, and their realm is limited to their abbey, and any daughter priories attached to it. So in some monasteries it wouldn’t surprise me to find “the exception that confirms the rule”. I am guessing that if the abbot let someone else give the homily, it was of major importance. He may have skirted around the “rule” by giving a brief one or two line homily himself and then saying that the invited person had a message for everyone, for example he may have preached on the necessity for alms to the poor and then had the invitee talk briefly about her own mission to the poor.
It’s also a tradition in our abbey, if an in-house retreat is being given by someone from the outside, that person is asked to deliver the homily at Mass at the end of the retreat. So far I’ve never seen a retreat given by anyone other than a priest though, either from the order or outside the order.
It would be impossible to find fault with the abbot without knowing the exact context. If he did indeed give his own homily (or one of his priest-monks or deacons), however brief, then I think he respected the “rule” even if a bit loosely. Newsletters may not give a complete picture.
R
Redd_Jackal
Guest
Before a certain bishop passed on, we experienced the grave liturgical abuse of lay preaching. The first time this occurred, the pastoral associate–a non-habitted nun–talked about attending a presentation given by Desmond Tutu.
Some years later with a new bishop, at a different parish, another habit-less nun missionary began her plea for monetary support with “I know your diocese does not permit women to preach…” at some point during weekend Mass.
Some years later with a new bishop, at a different parish, another habit-less nun missionary began her plea for monetary support with “I know your diocese does not permit women to preach…” at some point during weekend Mass.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Those would be sisters, not nuns. I know it is commonplace to call all religious women « nuns », but in point of fact nuns are by definition cloistered and always in a habit, and would be highly unlikely to be found outside the papal enclosure except for very grave reasons, e.g. a medical appointment or a dying parent.
Also, some congregations of sisters never had a habit.
Also, some congregations of sisters never had a habit.
Do Sisters Have to Wear Their Habits?
Q: When I was a child in Catholic school, the nuns all wore full habits which reached all the way down to the floor. Nowadays we’re lucky if they’ll even wear a cross that identifies them as a nun…
canonlawmadeeasy.com
R
Redd_Jackal
Guest
They were of a religious order, but off topic here.
Last edited:
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Irrelevant; @OraLabora‘s post above is still correct.
As to your previous comment, there was a time when laity were given permission to preach such that it wouldn’t properly be labeled abuse; that time has ended and such preaching is no longer permitted.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I am not sure why people want to oversimplify this, so I am just going to repeat what I quoted before:
D
Dovekin
Guest
I cannot even tell. What you are trying to say.
If what you mean to say is that understanding canon law is complicated, and that my comment oversimplifies it, i will agree with you. That is my point anyway. What I quoted should not be read apart from the the traditions and customs associated with preaching.
If what you mean to say is that understanding canon law is complicated, and that my comment oversimplifies it, i will agree with you. That is my point anyway. What I quoted should not be read apart from the the traditions and customs associated with preaching.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Absolutely wrong!
S
stpurl
Guest
I’m not sure you are correct. I believe that there may be protocol in place for certain special circumstances in which women may give a talk but I do not believe that they can give a homily at the average Catholic parish in Anywhere USA.
Right here on Catholic Answers Jimmy Akins as recently as July 2019 said
BUT (remember, this is NOT the homily)
Preaching any other time is fine, if your bishop says so (see Ecclesia de Mysterio , practical provisions, art. 3 §2). What’s more, laity can preach homilies in non-Eucharistic liturgies (ibid., 3 §4)!
Right here on Catholic Answers Jimmy Akins as recently as July 2019 said
further
Canon law thus prohibited laypeople from preaching the homily at the time. In 2001, the bishops followed up on the invitation in canon 766 to make provisions for lay preaching in churches and oratories—and that canon specifically prohibited them from allowing lay people to preach the homily.
BUT (remember, this is NOT the homily)
So, if you have expertise or experience that would benefit people, you can preach, by the permission of your bishop, just not during the homily slot.
Preaching any other time is fine, if your bishop says so (see Ecclesia de Mysterio , practical provisions, art. 3 §2). What’s more, laity can preach homilies in non-Eucharistic liturgies (ibid., 3 §4)!
D
Dovekin
Guest
If what you mean to say is that understanding canon law is complicated, and that my comment oversimplifies it, i will agree with you. That is my point anyway.
I am only saying that there are people who are entrusted with the authority to make decisions. Scripture and tradition are authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, as Dei Verbum affirmed at Vatican 2. Private interpretation of canon law is like private interpretation of Scripture.
Your analysis is fine as far as ir goes. It just does not cover the issues with the situation described.
I am only saying that there are people who are entrusted with the authority to make decisions. Scripture and tradition are authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, as Dei Verbum affirmed at Vatican 2. Private interpretation of canon law is like private interpretation of Scripture.
Your analysis is fine as far as ir goes. It just does not cover the issues with the situation described.
S
stpurl
Guest
I credited all the quotes etc and gave the source, Jimmy Akins, right here on Catholic Answers, from July 2019.
As you see he specifically cited all the relevant canons that specifically forbid lay people to give a homily at Mass, as well as the circumstances under which lay people may preach, and the circumstances under which, in a non Eucharistic liturgy situation lay people may give a homily (i.e not at Mass).
But they may not do so at Mass. That is reserved to priests and deacons.
As you see he specifically cited all the relevant canons that specifically forbid lay people to give a homily at Mass, as well as the circumstances under which lay people may preach, and the circumstances under which, in a non Eucharistic liturgy situation lay people may give a homily (i.e not at Mass).
But they may not do so at Mass. That is reserved to priests and deacons.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
As I said, your analysis was fine. I agreewith it.
The only complaint I have is that it does not address most of the issues raised by the OP.
The only complaint I have is that it does not address most of the issues raised by the OP.
S
stpurl
Guest
Well at the original post it was mentioned as MASS specifically, and a nonCatholic minister. So actually according to all the canons, that would have been illicit. If it had been at an ecumenical service (not a Mass), it would have been fine. If it had been at a communion service and not a Mass, fine.
Even if the bishop had allowed it (we all know that the emeritus bishop of Rochester, Bishop Clark, allowed lay men and women saying homilies in his diocese for some 30 years even though it was not permitted for ANY bishop to contravene the rules), it would still be wrong.
The whole thing comes down to ‘can’ versus ‘may’. People ask, “Can something” when they mean ‘may something’. Can refers to the ability to do something, ‘may’ to the correctness of doing something.
So we ‘can’ receive the Eucharist in mortal sin, we ‘can’ allow women to say homilies at Mass, we ‘can’ mess up the GIRM, etc.
But we ‘may’ not do any wrong thing if we wish to do God’s will.
Even if the bishop had allowed it (we all know that the emeritus bishop of Rochester, Bishop Clark, allowed lay men and women saying homilies in his diocese for some 30 years even though it was not permitted for ANY bishop to contravene the rules), it would still be wrong.
The whole thing comes down to ‘can’ versus ‘may’. People ask, “Can something” when they mean ‘may something’. Can refers to the ability to do something, ‘may’ to the correctness of doing something.
So we ‘can’ receive the Eucharist in mortal sin, we ‘can’ allow women to say homilies at Mass, we ‘can’ mess up the GIRM, etc.
But we ‘may’ not do any wrong thing if we wish to do God’s will.
D
Dovekin
Guest
The first thing I said in this discussion: “The service … described is a Catholic Eucharistic Liturgy that already has diverged from the Directory by bringing ministers of different communities together.” We agree on this point.
If you want to start there, you will uncover significant issues that were not addressed in the discussion up to now.
- Status