Now there are “rules” regarding how we participate at the liturgy? I am not speaking about the content of the homily but the fact that laity delivered it. It is about time the laity is invited to actively participate in the homily. I believe this was a huge concern in the synodal meetings and I attended several. Even Pope Francis made reference to the poor homilies presented today.Every time I read this legalistic horror, I can’t help think of Jesus and what He would say about such disdain.I pray every day that I will get to heaven.Can’t wait to see the “canonists” there.
How do you know what Jesus would say about this? Have you received some private revelation? I’m not being facetious, but rather I am genuinely interested. I think one of the best ways to know what Jesus would say on a given issue that he does not explicitly address in the Gospels or that other New Testament writers do not explicitly address in their inspired writings is to listen to the Church that Christ established and to which he gave legitimate teaching and governing authority. With respect to the homily, the Church has determined what is appropriate and what is not. It seems to me that we should not summarily dismiss it. It also seems to me that substituting our own private sense of what Jesus what say for what the Church has actually said is an easy way to make the Church into an organization that reflects our own preferences rather than a reality that we receive from Christ the head through the mediation of his ministers. Even if homilies are poor, I don’t see how inviting laity to give the homily is the necessary solution. Surely better formation of the ordained is also a possibility, and one that is consistent with what the Church has said with regard to permissible homilists. Lastly, the laity can actively participate in the homily without delivering it, namely by attentive listening and reflection, just as the laity is called to actively participate in other parts of the liturgy reserved to the ordained without physically performing the action.
James, my comment was a wonder about what Jesus would say. I have no idea about what Jesus WOULD say. You mention “ what the church has said” .I assume,perhaps in error, that you know you ARE the church. You were baptized priest,prophet and king. For me, attentive listening and reflection are no longer possible. Thanks for your response.
I appreciate the response. I am a member of Christ’s body, the Church, but I myself am not the Church. There is a clear distinction between the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, both in the New Testament and in the teaching of the Church. Each has its proper role, and some activities are reserved to the ordained. God bless.
You can't separate the content of the "homily" with the fact that lay people delivered it. One of the (many) big issues with lay homilies is that they are impossible to manage from a content perspective. The Mass is (part of) the public prayer of the Church, so the manner in which it is celebrated must be in accord with the theology of the Mass else serious consequences will follow - lex orandi lex credendi.
Some may counter that homilies are generally terrible - I agree! But this would only make the situation worse. The solution to that problem is to better form priests and to treat homiletics as a core part of being a priest instead of an afterthought with constant haranguing everybody that a <8min bland homily is the best you can do hope for
Another thing to note - the whole get the laity moving around and doing things at Mass hasn't led to any sort of broad "active participation" that was hoped for. Perhaps the underlying assumptions of what leads to a true interior engagement with the liturgy were wrong?
Mr. Depfer III and Mr. Karamazov formulated excellent replies to your post. I am appalled at the thought of lay persons giving a homily, particularly one which celebrates the practice of sodomy. The worst homily delivered by a priest on the topic of the day's scriptures is infinitely better than the occurrence in Chicago.
Your insinuation canonists that canonists are unlikely to get to heaven doesn’t change the fact that the law exists and that it takes humility to be willing to follow and enforce it. It also doesn’t make St. Raymond of Penyafort happy.
> Now there are “rules” regarding how we participate at the liturgy?
Speaking as a mother: yes, there are in fact rules, and I have MANY TIMES reminded one or more of my children what SOME of those rules are (e.g.: we do not exclaim "thank God it is finally over" at the end of a homily; we do not punch one another, particularly after the Our Father in which we are supposed to have repented of any additional lapses in this matter that were subsequent to the Confiteor; we do not turn around and attempt to have conversations with the people behind us; we do not make animal sounds even if our gift for mimicry is indeed very great). I have NOT YET had to tell them not to get up and deliver a homily (this is one of the things that has never occurred to them to attempt) and so I will add this to the list of things for which I give thanks tonight.
"Because the homily is an integral part of the liturgy, it is not only an instruction, it is also an act of worship. When we read the homilies of the Fathers, we find that many of them concluded their discourse with a doxology and the word "Amen": they understood that the purpose of the homily was not only to sanctify the people, but to glorify God. The homily is a hymn of gratitude for the magnalia Dei, which not only tells those assembled that God’s Word is fulfilled in their hearing, but praises God for this fulfillment.
Given its liturgical nature, the homily also possesses a sacramental significance: Christ is present in the assembly gathered to listen to his word and in the preaching of his minister, through whom the same Lord who spoke long ago in the synagogue at Nazareth now instructs his people. In the words of Verbum Domini: "The sacramentality of the Word can thus be understood by analogy with the real presence of Christ under the appearances of the consecrated bread and wine. By approaching the altar and partaking in the Eucharistic banquet we truly share in the body and blood of Christ. The proclamation of God’s word at the celebration entails an acknowledgment that Christ himself is present, that he speaks to us, and that he wishes to be heard" (VD 56).
5. It is because the homily is an integral part of the Church’s worship that it is to be delivered only by bishops, priests, or deacons. So intimate is the bond between the table of the Word and the table of the altar that it is fitting that "The Homily should be given by the priest celebrant himself" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal 66), or, in any case, always by one ordained to preside or assist at the altar. Well-trained lay leaders can also give solid instruction and moving exhortation, and opportunities for such presentations should be provided in other contexts; but it is the intrinsically liturgical nature of the homily that demands that it be given only by those ordained to lead the Church’s worship (cf. Redemptionis sacramentum 161)."
He may want changes to be done with how homilies are delivered, but having lay people give them is not one of them.
Hard for me to believe that the pastor of the Chicago parish would allow such a thing if he thought Cupich would come down on him given how much of an autocrat he's shown himself to be in liturgical matters. I would love for his Eminence to prove me wrong on this. If you're truly worried about liturgical unity, it doesn't get more divisive than allowing two guys to come into a Mass and talk about their relationship and adopted kids on the feast of Corpus Christi.
We shall see. Not responding forcefully after all that Cupich has done in the name of unity to the TLM would only confirm what most people already think.
I seem to have missed seeing Jeffrey Burrill’s letter of contrition such as the Alabama priest wrote. Bishop William Patrick Callahan - can you share that with us?
"But it’s striking that when the issue was raised, and questions asked, the archdiocese declined to comment — that’s what might leave Chicago Catholics wondering whether such a thing is actually a matter of concern for the archdiocese."
No comment on the Lord's Day, leading into a state and federal holiday? Absent fire and brimstone from heaven, or rioting in the streets, I am not sure why this is so important a story that it should be driven by the Pillar's news cycle. It takes a reasonable amount of time to gather information to share with reporters and editors.
Given that this post questions whether the lack of Archdiocesan comment could indicate a lack of care and concern on the part of the Archdiocese, and by default, Cardinal Cupich, I think it would be helpful to know what the request for comment entailed, and how that request was declined. A polite discussion with a media spokesperson ending in no comment would weigh differently in my mind than say, an email sent to that same spokesperson with no guarantee that he or she might see it. What were the circumstances?
I hope the Archdiocese of Chicago looks into this, takes appropriate action, and provides comment to you within a reasonable amount of time. I continue to hope that Catholic journalism, motivated by Christ's love, can be different than the secular press. I especially hope that when we are necessarily plunged into the sacrifice of the Cross each time we are plunged into the sacrifice of the Mass, we at least can occasionally recall St. Paul's words that love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
Thanks for the additional information. As the spokesman in our small, trouble-free diocese, :-) I almost always have a comment, because time has taught me that many people can and will assume the worst when I don't.
If you're playing "spot the typo" I already saw a "has" that should have been a "have." And I fixed it.
You shoulda been quicker.
The Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter also has particular law regarding hook-up app usage among clerics.
Now there are “rules” regarding how we participate at the liturgy? I am not speaking about the content of the homily but the fact that laity delivered it. It is about time the laity is invited to actively participate in the homily. I believe this was a huge concern in the synodal meetings and I attended several. Even Pope Francis made reference to the poor homilies presented today.Every time I read this legalistic horror, I can’t help think of Jesus and what He would say about such disdain.I pray every day that I will get to heaven.Can’t wait to see the “canonists” there.
I regret that you feel that way Matthew. Thank you for being polite in stating that.
How do you know what Jesus would say about this? Have you received some private revelation? I’m not being facetious, but rather I am genuinely interested. I think one of the best ways to know what Jesus would say on a given issue that he does not explicitly address in the Gospels or that other New Testament writers do not explicitly address in their inspired writings is to listen to the Church that Christ established and to which he gave legitimate teaching and governing authority. With respect to the homily, the Church has determined what is appropriate and what is not. It seems to me that we should not summarily dismiss it. It also seems to me that substituting our own private sense of what Jesus what say for what the Church has actually said is an easy way to make the Church into an organization that reflects our own preferences rather than a reality that we receive from Christ the head through the mediation of his ministers. Even if homilies are poor, I don’t see how inviting laity to give the homily is the necessary solution. Surely better formation of the ordained is also a possibility, and one that is consistent with what the Church has said with regard to permissible homilists. Lastly, the laity can actively participate in the homily without delivering it, namely by attentive listening and reflection, just as the laity is called to actively participate in other parts of the liturgy reserved to the ordained without physically performing the action.
James, my comment was a wonder about what Jesus would say. I have no idea about what Jesus WOULD say. You mention “ what the church has said” .I assume,perhaps in error, that you know you ARE the church. You were baptized priest,prophet and king. For me, attentive listening and reflection are no longer possible. Thanks for your response.
I appreciate the response. I am a member of Christ’s body, the Church, but I myself am not the Church. There is a clear distinction between the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, both in the New Testament and in the teaching of the Church. Each has its proper role, and some activities are reserved to the ordained. God bless.
You can't separate the content of the "homily" with the fact that lay people delivered it. One of the (many) big issues with lay homilies is that they are impossible to manage from a content perspective. The Mass is (part of) the public prayer of the Church, so the manner in which it is celebrated must be in accord with the theology of the Mass else serious consequences will follow - lex orandi lex credendi.
Some may counter that homilies are generally terrible - I agree! But this would only make the situation worse. The solution to that problem is to better form priests and to treat homiletics as a core part of being a priest instead of an afterthought with constant haranguing everybody that a <8min bland homily is the best you can do hope for
Another thing to note - the whole get the laity moving around and doing things at Mass hasn't led to any sort of broad "active participation" that was hoped for. Perhaps the underlying assumptions of what leads to a true interior engagement with the liturgy were wrong?
Mr. Depfer III and Mr. Karamazov formulated excellent replies to your post. I am appalled at the thought of lay persons giving a homily, particularly one which celebrates the practice of sodomy. The worst homily delivered by a priest on the topic of the day's scriptures is infinitely better than the occurrence in Chicago.
Very specific my response was not to content of homily but to horror that lay persons delivered it.
Your insinuation canonists that canonists are unlikely to get to heaven doesn’t change the fact that the law exists and that it takes humility to be willing to follow and enforce it. It also doesn’t make St. Raymond of Penyafort happy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_of_Penyafort
Never sad canonists would not get to heaven
“Can’t wait to see the ‘canonists’ there”
Exactly- never said they would not get to heaven
> Now there are “rules” regarding how we participate at the liturgy?
Speaking as a mother: yes, there are in fact rules, and I have MANY TIMES reminded one or more of my children what SOME of those rules are (e.g.: we do not exclaim "thank God it is finally over" at the end of a homily; we do not punch one another, particularly after the Our Father in which we are supposed to have repented of any additional lapses in this matter that were subsequent to the Confiteor; we do not turn around and attempt to have conversations with the people behind us; we do not make animal sounds even if our gift for mimicry is indeed very great). I have NOT YET had to tell them not to get up and deliver a homily (this is one of the things that has never occurred to them to attempt) and so I will add this to the list of things for which I give thanks tonight.
This is what the CDW put out under Pope Francis about homilies:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20140629_direttorio-omiletico_en.html
"Because the homily is an integral part of the liturgy, it is not only an instruction, it is also an act of worship. When we read the homilies of the Fathers, we find that many of them concluded their discourse with a doxology and the word "Amen": they understood that the purpose of the homily was not only to sanctify the people, but to glorify God. The homily is a hymn of gratitude for the magnalia Dei, which not only tells those assembled that God’s Word is fulfilled in their hearing, but praises God for this fulfillment.
Given its liturgical nature, the homily also possesses a sacramental significance: Christ is present in the assembly gathered to listen to his word and in the preaching of his minister, through whom the same Lord who spoke long ago in the synagogue at Nazareth now instructs his people. In the words of Verbum Domini: "The sacramentality of the Word can thus be understood by analogy with the real presence of Christ under the appearances of the consecrated bread and wine. By approaching the altar and partaking in the Eucharistic banquet we truly share in the body and blood of Christ. The proclamation of God’s word at the celebration entails an acknowledgment that Christ himself is present, that he speaks to us, and that he wishes to be heard" (VD 56).
5. It is because the homily is an integral part of the Church’s worship that it is to be delivered only by bishops, priests, or deacons. So intimate is the bond between the table of the Word and the table of the altar that it is fitting that "The Homily should be given by the priest celebrant himself" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal 66), or, in any case, always by one ordained to preside or assist at the altar. Well-trained lay leaders can also give solid instruction and moving exhortation, and opportunities for such presentations should be provided in other contexts; but it is the intrinsically liturgical nature of the homily that demands that it be given only by those ordained to lead the Church’s worship (cf. Redemptionis sacramentum 161)."
He may want changes to be done with how homilies are delivered, but having lay people give them is not one of them.
Hard for me to believe that the pastor of the Chicago parish would allow such a thing if he thought Cupich would come down on him given how much of an autocrat he's shown himself to be in liturgical matters. I would love for his Eminence to prove me wrong on this. If you're truly worried about liturgical unity, it doesn't get more divisive than allowing two guys to come into a Mass and talk about their relationship and adopted kids on the feast of Corpus Christi.
We shall see. Not responding forcefully after all that Cupich has done in the name of unity to the TLM would only confirm what most people already think.
I seem to have missed seeing Jeffrey Burrill’s letter of contrition such as the Alabama priest wrote. Bishop William Patrick Callahan - can you share that with us?
"But it’s striking that when the issue was raised, and questions asked, the archdiocese declined to comment — that’s what might leave Chicago Catholics wondering whether such a thing is actually a matter of concern for the archdiocese."
No comment on the Lord's Day, leading into a state and federal holiday? Absent fire and brimstone from heaven, or rioting in the streets, I am not sure why this is so important a story that it should be driven by the Pillar's news cycle. It takes a reasonable amount of time to gather information to share with reporters and editors.
Given that this post questions whether the lack of Archdiocesan comment could indicate a lack of care and concern on the part of the Archdiocese, and by default, Cardinal Cupich, I think it would be helpful to know what the request for comment entailed, and how that request was declined. A polite discussion with a media spokesperson ending in no comment would weigh differently in my mind than say, an email sent to that same spokesperson with no guarantee that he or she might see it. What were the circumstances?
I hope the Archdiocese of Chicago looks into this, takes appropriate action, and provides comment to you within a reasonable amount of time. I continue to hope that Catholic journalism, motivated by Christ's love, can be different than the secular press. I especially hope that when we are necessarily plunged into the sacrifice of the Cross each time we are plunged into the sacrifice of the Mass, we at least can occasionally recall St. Paul's words that love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
thanks Father. An archdiocesan spokesperson indeed confirmed that the archdiocese would not comment, in response to questions.
I think "didn't respond" would have been a different thing, and deserving of a different possible interpretation.
I do hope this liturgy will be looked into, and there will be some clearer resolution.
But I also think there is a difference between "we're just learning about this and looking into it" and "we don't intend to comment."
Thanks for the additional information. As the spokesman in our small, trouble-free diocese, :-) I almost always have a comment, because time has taught me that many people can and will assume the worst when I don't.
I know. And I think things like "we are just learning about this, so we need to look into it, etc" are a different story.
https://onthismountain.substack.com/p/the-now-ification-of-yesteryear
And the Vatican once again tells the local Churchea and bishops how to do their jobs. One size fits all is not going to work for the Universal Church.
Marriage is a union between a Man and a Women. There are no same sex marriages.
Go Bolts!
Go Bolts!