A very special "Thank You!" to Dr. K. for his information and comments and thanks to all who commented, helping to make this post a "true dialogue".
I have had a chance to read Dr. K's documentation, and to talk to a priest who is a Canon Lawyer, and have come to recognize that canon law does indeed prohibit "lay preaching" when it comes to the homily. I have been told that the DOR has it's own set of guidelines regarding "lay preaching" and I have talked to a couple of my contacts in the DOR about getting my hands on a copy, as of this posting I do not have it yet.
I am still not completely convinced that "lay preaching" at the time of the homily is an entirely bad thing, but I am willing to conceed that, at this time, it is strickly prohibited. Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est
That said, I would like to continue this dialogue, in regard to when, exactly, is "lay preaching" allowed.
I propse the following scenarios:
- Assuming that the homily is "allotted" 15 minutes of Mass time, would it be acceptable for the priest/deacon to give a 10 minute homily, and let a "lay preacher" reflect for the next 5 minutes?
- The same scenario as above, with the "lay preacher" speaking after the "prayer after the Eucharist", but before the final dismissal?
- What about during "Communion Services" during the week that are in place of a "Daily Mass"?
- What about prayer services that do not include Eucharist?
The comment, "lay preaching blurs the lines between the the "sacramental priesthood" and that of the "lay preisthood".
In a word, HOGWASH!!
I know the difference between a priest and/or deacon and a lay person, and I have yet to meet someone who cannot make that distinction. As I said, in this particular diocese, the lines get blurred, I believe, when you have "alb-wearing lay preachers" homilizing and then standing behind the altar during consecration! This situation, to me is much larger than the "lay preaching" issue, goes to help illustrate my point of "for who's glory" even more, and is something that I hope to explore in another post sometime soon.
I am looking forward to hearing more thoughts and insights on this issue.
And again, my deepest appreciation to all who have helped to make this a "true dialogue".
Peace to All!
+1 for using the word hogwash! Not that I necessarily agree with the context of it, but I love that word and you reminded me that I need to start using it more frequently :-)
ReplyDeleteHi Persis,
ReplyDeleteI'm all for allowing qualified lay people to preach at the time reserved for the homily. Preaching is the right of all the baptized - not just those who are ordained. Preaching is part of the prophetic office of Christ. If preaching at Mass can be delegated to the non-ordained, then it is not a ministry of the ordained such as annointing, absolution or presiding at the Eucharist. For example, during their Ad-Lima vists in 2005, the Swiss Bishops reported that they obtained Vatican permission for lay people to deliver homilies under some limited circumstances
Rome's norms trump all. Okay, sure, in 2005 some bishops said they had the right. Time did not stop then. Redemptionis Sacramentum is clear and undeniable. The answer is "no."
ReplyDeleteIt is not the right of the faithful. No one has a right to do anything in the Lord's eyes. To presume that we do have a right is to presume that we, the debtors of creation, are in fact owed by the Creator. This is not so. To insinuate such a thing is not only wrong, but heretical.
However, we do have the right to preach - just not at Mass. Preach the Gospel by your demeanor. If you really feel this is inadequate, perhaps you should re-examine your spirituality. The sacerdotal ministry is something of inestimable value, as is the Mass, all Sacraments and the entire Church. To presume that we few individuals in a wayward diocese have the ability, much less, "the right" to change thousands of years of Tradition is deeply and most disturbingly flawed.
Respectfully Gen , it is not "thousands of years of tradition".
ReplyDeleteIn the early "domestic church" the lines between 'lay' and 'ordained' were very blurred.
From what I have read so far, most of the theology that is espoused by the "traditional set" here in the DOR is that of the Scholastic period of the 12th & 13 Centuries, most notably, Thomas Aquinas.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Peace
If people want what they believe is the early domestic church, there are a number of Protestant sects to choose from. As many as the sands of the seashore. Too many people think that these early churches are better, but the truth is, nobody knows for certain how they really were. It was nearly 2000 years ago after all. Look at all those Protestant denominations. They're all very different, and many claim to be restoring some sort of early Christianity. Catholics, on the other hand, are not attempting to turn back the clock. That's because we have this thing called Tradition. Our Church is not suddenly bad that we need to overthrow the whole thing and start over from the year 28 A.D., despite what the Spirit of VII people like to think. The Church is perfection, the God-made institution, which will outlast all these pretend Christian communities.
ReplyDelete"Thousands of years" doesn't mean that the Church hasn't changed or been changed. The Church has existed for thousands of years, two if one wants to be literal.
ReplyDeleteIn the early "domestic Church," Persis, the lines were blurred out of necessity. If they had had public ordinations and fleets of priests flooding the streets of Rome, the persecutions would have been more hideous than they were (not that they were a cake-walk). The Church was adrift in a sea of confusion. That is not the case now. People make confusion of their own free will. "Oh, well, I feel that ________, so I will believe that the Church permits ________." No. The Church does not leave matters of liturgy up to individuals.
Vatican II opened the Church up to the laity. However, once it was opened, the laity got our grimey little fingers into the opening and started to pull. The same thing happened to President Garfield: he was wounded, but was expected to rebound and be more vibrant than before. However, the doctors, all claiming to be "experts," started to stick their fingers into the small hole. Well, within a week, they had bored an entirely different hole 18 inches into his abdomen. The wound would have healed by itself, but because the "experts" acted in such a manner as they saw fit, the president died of infection.
Now, of course, the Church cannot die of infection. However, it can become ailed by one, most definitely. This ailment is one which transcends physical abuses during Mass. It extends into the very demeanor and mental status of the people, clerics and laity alike. No one NEEDS to be a lay preacher. Sure, it would be nice if we could all mount the pulpit to speak. However, we cannot. On the rare (and rare they should be) occaisions when a lay preacher gets up, he or she MUST be relevant to the Mass of the day, have a reflection pertinent to the Scriptures which have been read, and once in the pulpit, not presume to vest like a priest or to claim clerical authority.
Clerical authority trumps all. First we are under cumpunction to follow our pope. This is mandatory for Catholics. To act contrary to his decrees, his ex cathedra statements etc. is to stop being Catholic and to start being Protestant. After our allegience to the pope, our allegience falls to our ordinary. This would be, as of this moment, Archbishop Dolan in New York City. After him, we follow Bishop Clark. After him we follow our pastor.
So, after considering this, what true and lasting authority does a nun or non-religious lay person have in concern to the Liturgy? None. It is there at the behest of Christ, not us. Yes, it is necessary and wholly needed, but we, mere human beings, cannot make it happen without Divine mandate. This is absolutely imperative. When we act of our own accord, how do we know whether or not the Holy Spirit moves us? Shakespeare declared "the devil can quote scripture for his own pourposes." This is when we defer with absolute humility to the Tradtion of the Church, which is thousands of years old, and has thousands of years of Tradition. If you want to trace all Tradition, then you need to go backe even further to the Old Testament patriarchs. This would be vastly more than 2000 years of purely "Church" Tradition. We need to look at the new in light of the old. To do anything less is to act rashly without concern for the fullness of revealed Truth.
Lay preaching is just unnecessary. I could see it, maybe, if a parish has no priest and must rely more on "prayer services" and "Communion services," but not when there is a perfectly qualified priest sitting right there.
ReplyDeleteWhat purpose is there to it, save "inclusion" and "making the people feel nice?" It's just an invention of some laity who feel more called to self-promotion than to prayer and humility.
Gen, I agree with you, to a point. My comment about "church tradition" was aimed more at the Anonymous poster than at you. But in reply to something in you second comment-
ReplyDelete"We need to look at the new in light of the old. To do anything less is to act rashly without concern for the fullness of revealed Truth."
I agree whole-heartedly with what you say, but we also must look at the "old" in the light of the "times" and not through the lens of "now".
My point, I guess is this...the Church is a living, breathing "institution" and must change if it is going to stay "healthy". That said, I believe that any change needs to be for the betterment of the promotion of faith, and not to one particular agenda. The Church is "perfect" the "people" who make her up, are not.
To Anonymous 1:08- I agree that some "lay preaching" is done from a "self-promotion" stand-point, but this is not always the case. I appeciate your comments, but a "blanket statement" such as yours is a perfect example of what I believe helps to kill any chance at dialogue.
I have a couple of thoughts:
ReplyDelete"From what I have read so far, most of the theology that is espoused by the "traditional set" here in the DOR is that of the Scholastic period of the 12th & 13 Centuries, most notably, Thomas Aquinas"
This is a very broad and general statement. Personally, I think we should avoid such generalities because what one intends by it is often not what someone else perceives to be your intent. Certainly, as Catholics, we believe in the development of doctrine. Was the church of the first few centuries the same as it is now? In outward appearances - no. But in essential content - yes. I put my trust in the authority of the Church. In saying that, I mean that I don't question every little decision of the Church. If I did that - I wouldn't have time for anything else. Often I am interested in knowing the "why" behind Church teaching, but other times I just accept it and don't really care that much. For me, this is how I feel about lay homilies. Would I be devastated if Rome allowed for it? No. But that's the rule. I've heard lots of good homilies by lay people. I've heard lots of lousy homilies by clergy. However, knowing the rules, I'm turned off by lay homilists simply because they're disobeying the rules.
I started writing more which I turned into a blog post:
http://www.fallaciesandfashions.com/2009/11/dissent-vs-constructive-criticism.html
Well, since I was the one to assert that lay preaching blurs the line between the ordained and lay priesthood, I'd like to respond to Persis labeling this argument as "HOGWASH."
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, what I said was that the practice "FURTHER blurs the line;" a difference in wording I think noting. If lay preaching were the only practice taking place in the diocese, then, no, I don't think the sacramental priesthood would be compromised. However, it is not (as Persis notes). And read Tmac's comment. I think it proves my assertion nicely.
I have no problem with lay preaching outside of the moment reserved for the homily. After Mass? Fine. After the Eucharistic prayer? Fine. Anytime during the week? Great. But not during the Mass. This is the one time that Holy Mother Church has mandated an ordained person must preach. And some priests are horrible at homiletics. It doesn't matter. They are marked DIFFERENTLY by Holy Orders. They have received grace different from the grace I have received (just as being a married woman I have received grace from the Sacrament of Marriage that a priest will never receive). This reality doesn't make one better than the other, it just makes him or her different. And it is this difference that should be recognized and protected.
It seems that some would like to make priests no more than sacramental Pez dispensers and it is that view with which I have a problem. Priests are so much more than sacrament machines. They are preachers, teachers, shepherds, spiritual fathers and alter-Christis. When the the laity assumes an increasing role which has been traditionally held by priests, the "blurring" intensifies. Why have priests at all if a lay person can do their jobs? I've seen priests and deacons step aside so as to let EMHCs distribute Communion. We have lay people leading Communion Services and of course we have lay preaching. Is it any wonder we have a vocation problem? I don't think so.
Persis, I don't doubt your ability to visibly recognize a priest or deacon or lay person and to understand the difference in roles. Unfortunately, this ability is not universal. I have heard several times the following comment "Well, there's really no difference between Fr. X and us. That's an old-fashioned way of thinking. The Church is more egalitarian today."
Let's face it. If we continue to marginalize the role of the priest, we all lose. Without the priest, we have no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, we have no Jesus. I'm not willing to make that sacrifice.
Very well said Nerina!
ReplyDeleteechoing anon 2:27 - well said, nerina
ReplyDeleteYes, very well said Nerina, and I do not disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly, there was a comment, that was sent to me via e-mail that I thought I got posted here that did not, it was offered up to the "gods of the internet", and now I can't find it anywhere!!
In this comment, was a comment, much like your's Nerina (but much more negative) about "blurring the lines" and it also contained some references to my "feel-good theology of the heretical spirit of VII lovers" to bring in Ben's comment regarding my statement about my perception of the "theology espoused by the traditional set". I in no way meant to imply that I believe that all people who have a more traditional view are stuck in the 12th & 13 centuries, or that I feel that marginalizing the priesthood is a good thing.
Again, thank you all for your comments, I have a feeling that a "part 3" will be coming soon!!
Stay tuned!!!
Peace!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh, dear. It looks as if the people have lost their voice! lol jk
ReplyDeletelay homilies are smelly
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I think the odor comes from unwashed albs.
ReplyDeleteI have even heard priests (cough Curt Cadorette cough) claim there was no difference between priests and laymen
ReplyDeleteand the other 2 priests who heard this in his talk did nothing to correct him (cough Brian Cool and Gary Tyman cough)
sort of like how there's no difference between men and women
ReplyDeletelay homilies are for losers
ReplyDeletePersis..I forgot to folo along in the combox, so sorry for my late entry.
ReplyDeleteI have ?. Above you said "but we also must look at the "old" in the light of the "times" and not through the lens of "now"."
What, to your belief, is the difference between "the light of the times" (I assume you didn't mean the New York Times..lol) and "through the lens of "now"? How is the "times" and "now" different to you? The "times" are what we are in right "now", no?