Women preaching?!

[benedictgal]

Nonsense. It says no such thing nor indicates anything resembling your personal interpretation.

Preferable yet not mandated.

You’re imposing a personal opinion as Church teaching when it clearly is not.

Actually, Father, with all due respect, we also need to look at RS 74 in relation to RS 161:

1. Preaching
   [161.] As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass.260 **As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law.261 **This may be done only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet the need, and it may not be transformed from an exceptional measure into an ordinary practice, nor may it be understood as an authentic form of the advancement of the laity.262 All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary, and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are Priests or Deacons.

We need to look at both of these sections and not just bits and pieces.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In the case of Liturgical abuse, no, it seldom is. The priest is allowing it. And the duty, per RS, is to notify the bishop… not the offending priest.

All notifying the offending priest does is give him time to prepare a defense of the illicit act prior to the bishop calling him upon it.

I believe our obligation is to consider the priest is acting in good faith, and not presume that he’s being disobedient. There have been times when I asked the pastor why he was doing someting different in the liturgy, and he explained it to me, thereby informing me of something I did not know. We ought to first seek to understand, not presume abuse.

I think the principle of subsidiarity applies. The following link describes a very good protocol for those times we believe it is our duty to manifest our opinion for the good of the Church. I do not recommend you bypass working out the issue with the pastor.

CUF - Effective Lay Witness Protocol

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Actually, Father, with all due respect, we also need to look at RS 74 in relation to RS 161:

We need to look at both of these sections and not just bits and pieces.

For starters, 161 deals with preaching outside of Mass whereas we have been discussing the permitted “instruction or witness” that takes place following the Prayer after Communion.

And furthermore, nothing you quoted states that the homily must be longer than the lay “instruction or witness.”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In the case of Liturgical abuse, no, it seldom is. The priest is allowing it. And the duty, per RS, is to notify the bishop… not the offending priest.

All notifying the offending priest does is give him time to prepare a defense of the illicit act prior to the bishop calling him upon it.

And when you call/write the bishop’s office, the bishop’s representative will ask you, “Have you tried asking/discussing this with your pastor?”

 

[benedictgal]

For starters, 161 deals with preaching outside of Mass whereas we have been discussing the permitted “instruction or witness” that takes place following the Prayer after Communion.

And furthermore, nothing you quoted states that the homily must be longer than the lay “instruction or witness.”

However, if you look at the section on RS that treats the homily, you will find that:

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

[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

[68.] The diocesan Bishop must diligently oversee the preaching of the homily,149 also publishing norms and distributing guidelines and auxiliary tools to the sacred ministers, and promoting meetings and other projects for this purpose so that they may have the opportunity to consider the nature of the homily more precisely and find help in its preparation.

Obviously, the Holy See views the homily as something very important. Even if it might not outright say it, the preaching of the homily should not necessarily be truncated just to allow a lay person to have an extended “talk”. I do not think that this was the intention of the Holy See to do that.

 

[benedictgal]

I believe our obligation is to consider the priest is acting in good faith, and not presume that he’s being disobedient. There have been times when I asked the pastor why he was doing someting different in the liturgy, and he explained it to me, thereby informing me of something I did not know. We ought to first seek to understand, not presume abuse.

I think the principle of subsidiarity applies. The following link describes a very good protocol for those times we believe it is our duty to manifest our opinion for the good of the Church. I do not recommend you bypass working out the issue with the pastor.

CUF - Effective Lay Witness Protocol

However, while CUF is a good resource, the organization is not an ecclesial body. Redemptionis Sacramentum already gives us the framework that we should go by since it comes directly from the Holy See.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Obviously, the Holy See views the homily as something very important. Even if it might not outright say it, the preaching of the homily should not necessarily be truncated just to allow a lay person to have an extended “talk”. I do not think that this was the intention of the Holy See to do that.

So basically, its your personal opinion. Unless you’ve become a mind reader than you can’t speak as to what the “intention of the Holy See” is.

A bishop/priest isn’t violating any liturgical norm if he preaches a shortened homily to allow time for a RS permitted “instruction or witness” following the Prayer after Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

So basically, its your personal opinion. Unless you’ve become a mind reader than you can’t speak as to what the “intention of the Holy See” is.

A bishop/priest isn’t violating any liturgical norm if he preaches a shortened homily to allow time for a RS permitted “instruction or witness” following the Prayer after Communion.

With all due resepct, I would beg to differ with you on this one, Father. The reason why Redemptionis Sacramentum was promulgated by the Holy See and was a collaborative effort between two discasteries, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacramens, was because there were lots of abuses that were going on in the Mass. “Lay preaching” was one of them.

Having worked in the Texas Legislature and drafted legislation, I do know something about legislative intent. Sadly, there are those who will try to find loopholes to stretch the legislation. However, because RS twice emphasizes the fact that it is preferable to have this lay testimony “outside of the Mass”, I do not believe that it would be a stretch to conclude that such orations by the lay faithful should not be longer than the homily.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Having worked in the Texas Legislature and drafted legislation, I do know something about legislative intent.

There’s a world of difference between American civil legislation and what comes out of Vatican Congregations. There are some similiarities, but they ain’t the same game. So-called perceived “legislative intent” is simply an individual’s way of trying to portray one’s private personal opinion as a law.

Sadly, there are those who will try to find loopholes to stretch the legislation. However, because RS twice emphasizes the fact that it is preferable to have this lay testimony “outside of the Mass”, I do not believe that it would be a stretch to conclude that such orations by the lay faithful should not be longer than the homily.

That’s a completely made up pulled out of thin air personal opinion. You have a right to it, as do others to the completely opposite view.

 

[benedictgal]

There’s a world of difference between American civil legislation and what comes out of Vatican Congregations. There are some similiarities, but they ain’t the same game. So-called perceived “legislative intent” is simply an individual’s way of trying to portray one’s private personal opinion as a law.

That’s a completely made up pulled out of thin air personal opinion. You have a right to it, as do others to the completely opposite view.

However, Father, with all due respect, I do not believe it to be as “thin air” as you would have us believe. I believe that my opinion is actually consistent with what both sections of RS have stated.

As far as American legislative processess are concerned, they seem to be, to a certain extent, analogous here. In this case, the ultimate lawmaking authority is the Holy See. It’s not too big of a stretch to see where the Holy See was heading when it made its statements regarding the issue of lay preaching and when it should, preferably, happen.

 

[Spirithound]

All notifying the offending priest does is give him time to prepare a defense of the illicit act prior to the bishop calling him upon it.

He probably already has his defense. Either it’s an allowed option, or it’s “meaningful” to him, or he’s being “pastoral”. The Bible tells us to speak to the person with whom we have the disagreement first.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, Father, with all due respect, I do not believe it to be as “thin air” as you would have us believe. I believe that my opinion is actually consistent with what both sections of RS have stated.

And I do not see what you’re claiming as being anywhere in the document RS.

As far as American legislative processess are concerned, they seem to be, to a certain extent, analogous here. In this case, the ultimate lawmaking authority is the Holy See. It’s not too big of a stretch to see where the Holy See was heading when it made its statements regarding the issue of lay preaching and when it should, preferably, happen.

Apples and oranges. Just because they’re both round doesn’t make them the same…

 

[benedictgal]

And I do not see what you’re claiming as being anywhere in the document RS.

Apples and oranges. Just because they’re both round doesn’t make them the same…

However, Father, what a lay person has to say is not necessarily as compelling as the homily. It seems to me (and I am not saying that you are doing this) that we have, perhaps gotten so used to stretching things a bit that when the Holy See is trying to reign in a bad practice, we just look the other way and try to find loopholes to justify something. Pushing the envelope is not, I believe, what the Holy See had in mind.

If the laity want to preach, the appropriate venue is outside of the Mass. Their remarks should not overtake and overshadow the homily. What I have written is consistent with both sections of RS.

 

[Aramis]

He probably already has his defense. Either it’s an allowed option, or it’s “meaningful” to him, or he’s being “pastoral”. The Bible tells us to speak to the person with whom we have the disagreement first.

And the disagreement, fundamentally, is with the bishop assigning that priest who fails to obey the rules.

Per the ancient canons of the Ecumenical Councils, it is the bishop’s parish, and the bishop’s diocese. The bishop absolutely MUST be informed. Confronting the priest seldom has any positive effect; informing the bishop and the CDWS often has some, even if minor, effect.

 

[mdgspencer]

Should you go to the mass anyways?
This is a question that has to do with your own spiritual life. I don’t think there would be anything wrong on your part if you went–any sin involved in rejecting the liturgical law of the Church only involves those responsible for this. But I would think it better not to go if you were troubled during the mass because of this. The mass is time for worship–if this abuse makes your mind turn towards it rather than God, I would think it better to go elsewhere.
I have gone to masses at several parishes in my area where there were liturgical abuses of a comparable seriousness–not one of the worst instances of liturgical abuses, but still liturgical abuses. I went for awhile, but it did trouble me somewhat, so finally I avoided mass there alltogether.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, Father, what a lay person has to say is not necessarily as compelling as the homily.

Well, depends who you ask on that, LOL.

It seems to me (and I am not saying that you are doing this) that we have, perhaps gotten so used to stretching things a bit that when the Holy See is trying to reign in a bad practice, we just look the other way and try to find loopholes to justify something. Pushing the envelope is not, I believe, what the Holy See had in mind.

I understand what you’re saying, however, I think we fail to understand the real extent of liturgical abuses around the globe that the Holy See is trying to combat. Many of these regulations are aimed at putting a stop to some really egregious situations. Some of them are also aimed at preventing local idiosyncrasies from becoming considered having achieved “force of custom.”

I agree with you to an extent, however, what one person considers “pushing the envelope” another person considers a common sense application of current regulations to meet a particular set of circumstances. Which is why, I think, we need to be careful about imposing our own interpretations of things as if they were indeed law.

If the laity want to preach, the appropriate venue is outside of the Mass. Their remarks should not overtake and overshadow the homily. What I have written is consistent with both sections of RS.

All RS states is that such lay instruction or testimony: 1. should not be a regular occurance; 2. is not confused for a homily; 3. is done following the Prayer after Communion; and 4. the homily cannot be dispensed on their account.

Anything beyond that is personal interpretation and preference…

 

[ThomasJC]

So, I went. And it wasn’t good. She did the homily completely. But it wasn’t good. There were only half of the people that attend usually. I felt that a huge part of the mass was missing

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, I went. And it wasn’t good. She did the homily completely. But it wasn’t good. There were only half of the people that attend usually. I felt that a huge part of the mass was missing

I think such unapproved adaptations are exactly what the Church is discussing in Inaestimable Donum:

The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. The Second Vatican Council’s admonition in this regard must be remembered: “No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority” [Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 22, 3].