Catholic Online Forum

And yet people are touched by Christ more by the skilled preaching of Protestants and Evangelicals and less so by the sacramental preaching in the Catholic Church. If ordination magically makes someone a more effective preacher, why is preaching so ineffective in the Church? Even if we don't compare it to our Separated Brethren, we all must admit that Catholic preaching is, on the whole, woeful and ineffective.

[/quote]
I couldn't figure it out either. I looked around for the full text and couldn't find it anywhere. I figured maybe it contained the questionable thinking.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

I agree, Jeff. And the reason it isn't effective is because of the low quality of the homilist's delivery and the low quality message. Most people who have great homilists today really do not understand how blessed they are to have these priests. I like to visit different parishes in my diocese, and, on the whole, it seems homiletics courses given in the seminaries were woefully few and/or easy, especially during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. That, and during the same time period it seems the laity were considered no more intelligent than small children, and so the content of the homilies failed to capture interest as well. It is so very rare that I encounter a homilist that delivers a focused, poignant, relevant message anymore.



On the surface, I'm having difficulty understanding the problem with the statement that Christ "arose" as well. Does that not agree with the credal statement that "On the third day, he rose again from the dead?" There must be some context missing, or an inaccuracy somewhere, because to say Christ arose indicates his divine power over death, in my opinion.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

All,

He arose from the dead is fine. Nothing wrong there. But if someone says "He was not raised, He arose" don't you hear little alarm bells? Why is this person making this unusual distinction? What is it this person is trying to say?

Well, he might be attacking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. St Paul repeatedly tells us "Christ was raised from the dead". (2 Timothy 2:8; Romans 6:4; Romans 6: &c.)



A perfectly orthodox proposition can readily admit of heterodox interpretation. This is an example.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James,



It would be interesting to read any clarifications from him. When I see the statement, absent anything else, I think along the lines of the difference between the Assumption and the Ascension. Protestants will hammer us for believing Mary rose to heaven on her own power, when we refer to the event using a very different term from "Ascension."

"He was not raised" perhaps could be interpreted to deny dogma on the Trinity, as if Christ were a second God. That would be the only alarm bell raised in my mind, although I tend to see affirmation of Christ's divinity in the statement.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Dean,

I'm sure nothing heterodox was intended. (Otherwise why would Pappa Ratzinger have subsequently so favoured him?) Other potential bishops have missed out for a lot less.

When error is everywhere so unashamed and open, it is wise to be careful.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I guess I must be stupid, because I don't see the problem in those terms. Certainly, it's not poor preaching/sermons that are causing people to leave the church. I think if you really investigated the situation, you'd find that "good" preachers get followers to their own message but not so much to Our Lord's message. We've seen that happen in the Catholic Church, too. Much of it is based upon emotion, and people will stay with the preacher until they don't get the emotional "hit" anymore, and then they'll find a new preacher who's "better."

And meanwhile, I was taught that the Sacraments are the ordinary means of grace, and I don't see preaching on that list. Perhaps we may feel grace-filled after a particularly good homily or retreat, but long after those things are forgotten, we'll still be going to Confession and Communion.

Heretical or nonsense homilies, on the other hand, are another problem. Better to skip the homily altogether and just give us the grace of Mass.

The grass is brown everywhere. People are leaving the Christian churches of every flavor, and the ones that are growing today are just stealing from someone else and yet another church will be stealing their congregation within five years. Somehow, I suspect y'all know that, because although you wish for better "preaching" (whatever you may mean by that), you're still Catholics.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Only with a prayer life can preaching be effective. The Cure of Ars was not learned and not smart but his sermons moved people to come back to God because of his deep prayer life. He had this supernatural touch because of his love of God and others.
It all boils down to this: One cannot give what one does not have. One cannot give Love (which is God) unless one is filled with Love (God).

The Church tells us that a life of personal prayer, and love of God is what makes preaching effective in the salvation of souls (see below).
So a preacher whose sermons are very powerful in their effect on souls could only be a priest with love for God and a prayer life. In other words he has to be abiding on the Vine to be able to give these good fruits.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1Co 13:1


For it is not by pouring forth a copious stream of words, not by using subtle arguments, not by delivering violent harangues, that the salvation of souls is effected. The preacher who is content with those means is nothing but "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." [I Cor. xiii:1] What gives a man's words life and vigor and makes them promote wonderfully the salvation of souls is Divine grace: "God gave the increase." [I Cor. iii:6] But the grace of God is not gained by study and practice: it is won by prayer. Therefore he who is little given to prayer or neglects it altogether, vainly spends his time and labor in preaching, for in God's sight his sermons profit neither himself nor those who hear him.
......Only those who glow with love themselves know how to set on fire the hearts of others.

HUMANI GENERIS REDEMPTIONEM

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... em_en.html

There is an essential relationship between personal prayer and preaching. From meditating on the Word of God in personal prayer, comes that spontaneous "primacy of witness of life which discovers the power of the love of God and makes his word convincing.(33) Effective preaching is another fruit of personal prayer. Such preaching is effective not only because of its speculative coherence but because it comes from a prayerful, sincere heart which is aware that sacred ministers are bound not to impart their own wisdom but the Word of God and ceaselessly to invite all to conversion and holiness".(34) The preaching of Christ's sacred ministers, to be effective, requires that it be based on their spirit of filial prayer: "sit orator antequam dictor".(35)
THE PRIEST AND THE THIRD CHRISTIAN MILLENNIUM
TEACHER OF THE WORD, MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS AND LEADER OF THE COMMUNITY
CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... es_en.html

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

We say "he rose" in the Creed.

_________________
Rob

And yet, we see that preaching is effective from non-Catholics.


Well, we're not discussing intelligence; we're discussing homiletics, which does not necessarily require great intelilgence.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

I wasn't discussing why people leave the church; I was discussing how priesthood does not appear to actually result in good or better preaching.

Dr. Scott Hahn is one of the best preachers I've ever heard. He's not ordained anything.


Again, I wasn't discussing what is more important, preaching or sacraments. I was JUST talking about how ordination does not seem to lead to good preaching, as everyone here (except Dean and I) seem to assert.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Non Catholic Christians can have a strong prayer life.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

"And yet"?

Non-Catholics can have prayer lives just as well as Catholics can.

_________________
Rob

You do seem to assert that preaching is somehow related to the Church's problems. It's my assertion that it may be yet another symptom of the bigger problem, but it's not a serious lack in the Catholic Church.

I wouldn't argue that ordination makes men great preachers. You seem to think that's a serious problem. I would argue that whether or not they're great preachers isn't as important to them being priests as bringing us the Sacraments.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

A priest without a prayer life will not be a good preacher just as the Church tells us.
Many saints that were not priests were very good preachers.
St Teresa of Avila (for example) is still preaching to us today. Her life of prayer is what made her a good preacher and a Doctor of the Church.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

From the The Catechism of the Cure of Ars:

St. Bernard tells us that everything has come to us through Mary; and we may also say that everything has come to us through the priest; yes, all happiness, all graces, all heavenly gifts. If we had not the Sacrament of Orders, we should not have Our Lord. Who placed Him there, in that tabernacle? It was the priest. Who was it that received your soul, on its entrance into life? The priest. Who nourishes it, to give it strength to make its pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, by washing that soul, for the last time, in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest -- always the priest. And if that soul comes to the point of death, who will raise it up, who will restore it to calmness and peace? Again the priest. You cannot recall one single blessing from God without finding, side by side with this recollection, the image of the priest.

Go to confession to the Blessed Virgin, or to an angel; will they absolve you? No. Will they give you the Body and Blood of Our Lord? No. The Holy Virgin cannot make her Divine Son descend into the Host. You might have two hundred angels there, but they could not absolve you. A priest, however simple he may be, can do it; he can say to you, "Go in peace; I pardon you. " Oh, how great is a priest! The priest will not understand the greatness of his office till he is in Heaven. If he understood it on earth, he would die, not of fear, but of love. The other benefits of God would be of no avail to us without the priest. What would be the use of a house full of gold, if you had nobody to open you the door! The priest has the key of the heavenly treasures; it is he who opens the door; he is the steward of the good God, the distributor of His wealth. Without the priest, the Death and Passion of Our Lord would be of no avail.
...................
If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. St. Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, "There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul. "

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

The problem in assessing that assertion is that there's no way to know. We don't know how good or bad the prayer life of any preacher is.

But it is clear to me that being a priest doesn't make one a good preacher, and not being a priest does not make one a bad preacher. That's the issue I was trying to address.

As for whether this is a big problem in the church, I think it is. It is easy to say that the sacraments are more important, but if preaching is irrelevant, then it is pointless to preach to bring about conversion (Scripture does tell us that faith comes by hearing), and it is pointless to preach at all. It does matter. It must matter. And being poor is hurting the Church, both those who stay in and, I think, it is a contributing factor to people departing the church.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

OK, you've clarified what I think you're saying.



And that's what I disagree with.

From where I'm sitting, having lived in three different US regions with three distinct religious situations, no one is leaving because of preaching. (You seem to be an example of what I'm describing. ) No one is staying because of preaching. And that goes for any church you can name. They're leaving and staying for other reasons.

I gather you're seeing large numbers of Catholics leaving and going elsewhere and this worries you. I've watched that process for about 30 years, and have seen enough to know they don't stay at those churches, either. Preaching, or lack of it, is cited as their problem, but it's really something deeper than that.

I would agree that when there are sermons and talks and preaching and catechesis of any kind, they need to be as well done as possible, and as clear as possible so as to reinforce the truths of our faith and introduce them to those who don't know them yet.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Jeff,



He was at one time an ordained Presbyterian minister, I do agree he is a fine preacher.

_________________
Bob C

Rose,

I don't know if its possible to quantify why Catholics leave or stay in the church. I will tell you this one of the reasons we have stayed in the parish we live in rather then move when we had an opportunity, is the very fine preaching we receive at our parish.

Every time we travel and come back home the difference is obvious.

_________________
Bob C

Perhaps I need to state it with more emphasis, because you're disagreeing with a position I'm not taking.

I think it is a contributing factor to people departing the Church. I did not say it was the only reason. I did not say it was the primary reason. I did not say it was a deterministic factor (which is one where, if it is present, it automatically leads to the next conclusion). I said it was a contributing factor.

Thus, neither I nor Dean is a counter-example of what I'm discussing.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

And yet he is not permitted to preach in a Catholic Mass because he is not a cleric.

It is difficult for me to reconcile the teaching that priests have a particular charism to preach when I don't see it with my own eyes or ears. It's like the Church is telling me that I have three hands when I can clearly see I have two.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff,

It is easy for me to see that some priests (and Deacons) have a particular skill at preaching and others not so much, perhaps their skills lie elsewhere. BTW, I'm not arguing your point just mulling it over in my head.

_________________
Bob C

Is that a teaching of the Church? Because you're right, there are some ordained men who are colossally bad at preaching if they're compared to people like Scott Hahn or better-known protestant preachers. And not everyone God calls is good at talking; look at Moses and how he needed his brother to cover that aspect of his ministry.

If so, than maybe the description of preaching developed here is looking at it the wrong way? Is it possible that this teaching is attached to a different definition of "preach" than we're used to, similar to words like "mystery" and "grace"? I buy soap from an order of Dominican Sisters who are part of the Order of Preachers, but they're monastic and contemplative rather than out in the world.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Jeff:

You have formed a tempest in a teapot. The Church has never said that priests have a special "charism" to preach in the sense that the gift to preach well accompanies Holy Orders. That is a misunderstanding of charism in this context. Rather, the charism or mission of the Holy Spirit has to do with the essence of the liturgy.

The Eucharist calls for the Word to be proclaimed, and then for that same Word to conduct and impel the People of God to offer Eucharist and go forth into the world to be a light and a leaven.

Whoever presides at Eucharist should preside not only at proclamation but at the breaking open of that proclamation (homily) in the form of preaching and Breaking of the Bread. This provides the Eucharist with a unity and integrity under the same presider, as Christ also at the Last Supper proclaimed God's deeds of Passover and then "ritualized" those deeds in the divine Banquet.

Thus, preaching is a "mission" given to Holy Orders by virtue of the integrity of liturgy, but besides being a mission, it is also a skill, like when you parent as a dad. Being a dad is a mission or charism you have, but it is also a skill you have to cultivate, learn from, develop, and improve upon constantly, less for lack of working at the skill, you break down and become poor at the mission entrusted to you in your son.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

We should keep in mind that "charism" simply means gift or grace. It is not magical, not the sprinkles that fall off of Tinkerbell's fairy wand or the spells of Harry Potter. The Holy Spirit takes a person as they are, with their limitations, and gives them a grace or gift. It might be the gift of healing, prophecy, tongues, teaching, or even administration.

Certain "charismata" have the nature of "duty" or "mission for the Church" or "job description" and are to be seen as a responsibility entrusted by the Holy Spirit for the good of the Church. These responsibilities, and the graces or strength to carry them, build on our nature, our abilities and capacities. That means that the more we do, the more the Holy Spirit helps. The less we do, the less the Holy Spirit is able to work through us.

Holy Orders possesses certain charisms that have to do with power, authority, and teaching for the service of the Church. But the Holy Spirit does not promise either priests or laity to wave a magical wand and make it easy to exercise charisms attached to their vocations. Parents have charisms too, given for their calling as spouses and moms and dads. Some are pretty fantastic spouses and parents. Others are a total disgrace. So it is with priests. The Holy Spirit does not promise these charisms will show any great effect or fruit without effort on their part, and the work it takes to develop the skills that go with exercising a charism. In fact, Christ warned His collaborators not to be lazy and without initiative. Thus you have the parable of the talents.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Fr. Sotelo:

I have to disagree with your statement about Harry Potter. As Rowling presented it in those novels, the magical abilities of the "wizards" and "witches" were most likely to be considered as gifts of the Holy Spirit. Similar to talents in music, mathematics or athleticism in the real world these "magical abilities" were presented as morally neutral talents, requiring development and which could be used for good or for evil. There was no real hint of diabolism presented.

_________________
Kent Wendler

As Jeff states, poor preaching is a contributing factor. And faith does come by hearing. I endure poor preaching at my parish because my "head faith" keeps me grounded in the sacraments and my "involved faith" keeps me grounded where I believe my gifts can do the most good, regardless of the fact that a great part of the liturgy of the word, which is part of the great sacrament of the Mass, is outright not done very well at my parish.

But, for those who do not have "head faith," which can help people to endure failures in many aspects of the Church's proclamation of the Gospel, how is that level of faith achieved, if not first through hearing? Is there hearing if the message is always muddled?

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Well, I've heard people say that, and the same people say it again and again, every.single.time they change churches. That tells me that there's far less to do with the preaching and far more to do with something else that they're not inclined to discuss with me. Fair enough. It's a great catch-all excuse, and it gives us something to whine about when our faith makes us struggle. "If Father would only preach better, I wouldn't be going through this rough patch." Never mind that many of the Saints struggled with their Faith and rough patches, sometimes struggling with their own priests' frailties, too.

This isn't the proper thread for this discussion at all, and it's my fault, I know. I think we need a different discussion about what everyone actually means by "preaching" (there's a difference between what Scott Hahn does during a retreat or conference and what ought to happen during a Homily, for example), and what place it holds in the Catholic Faith.

I know the protestants like a good preacher, sometimes more than they like Our Lord, and I would tend to think that's not what's wanted. Indeed we could easily name well known Catholic preachers who achieved high status and went straight down the primrose path, taking other souls with them. We could name a great many preachers of other things, even outside of religion, that do the same thing.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

I know it wasn't intended as such but these comments come across as belonging to the Church in spite of the Church. Actually, I feel that way occasionally.

_________________
BobA

If we combine Dean's concern over "faith through hearing" with Father Sotelo's assertion that is is crucial that the presider preach and interpret the message as well as offer the sacrifice (which I don't understand because it is sometimes done by three different men; perhaps because each acts in persona Christi?) in imitation of Christ who did all three, it seems we are just stuck with bad preachers. The alternative, permitting lay people to preach in Mass, is not an option because of this abstract unity which, while I understand it in theory, I frankly don't see as compelling in the face of reality.

Probably another area in which I am deficient.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff, Rose, and Kim,
Thank you for continuing to discuss this matter. (Perhaps it should be moved to a separate thread?) Anyway...



They have no Liturgy. They've got to be at least good at something.

Seriously, when I said it's not the HOW but the WHO that preaches the Gospel that matters, I meant, at Mass. Protestant preachers have as long as two hours of preaching time because they have no Mass. Catholic priests have much less than that at Mass. I think of preaching at Mass as ceremonial. It's part of the liturgy - the breaking open of the Word; almost the same as the breaking of the Body of the Lord and pouring out of His Blood at the Agnus Dei.

Therefore preaching at Mass should be done by ordained clergy (deacon, priest, bishop or Pope.) Sometimes even deacons have curtailed preaching rights (as former Marquette Bishop Sample did in his diocese.)

I believe that while the Homily is part of the liturgy, it's not Bible study. For this reason, I think it's not a good idea to round up children from the Mass at the point of the Gospel and Homily, taking them away from their parents and into a separate room where a catechist reads and explains the Gospel to them - purportedly in terms their young minds can understand. What is the point of having them miss a valid part of the Mass so they can hear it invalidly?



I'm glad that Kim brought up the subject of the Cure d'Ars, whose own sister wasn't much impressed with his preaching. Yet people all over Europe, even those that didn't understand the kind of French patois that he spoke, came to hear him at Mass. St. Vincent Ferrer was a Spaniard, yet he was able to preach, although not very eloquently (but during Mass) in Brittany and Geneva in his lifetime. As Kim said, if there's anything that is much desired in our priests, it's holiness - it's having an intimate relationship with the Lord.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

I wouldn't say deficient, because it's an interesting question that brought me out of my personal rule of "don't get into it." And I'm thinking my way through this, so a month from now, I may have a completely different take.

If each of those priests/deacons is ordained, than each can act in persona Christi (insofar as it's something he has faculties to do), can't he? So it's really just Our Lord using each of the three people insofar as their skills and abilities are able, yes? Yet I think this is another sort of question that leads Fr. Z to say that concelebration should be safe, legal, and extremely rare. People get confused, and it sounds like, from what you're saying, one of those things that the head understands but it still feels weird?

As I've understood things while growing up Catholic, and then growing my Catholic Faith as an adult over the past ten to fifteen years, Mass is not intended to be Wal-Mart. The ends of Mass are worship, adoration, expiation, and petition, according to what I've been taught. I'm really thinking my way through this, because somehow the Liturgy of the Word must fit into that in a way that's different from what I've previously understood. I was raised Catholic, but spent a fair amount of my teen and college years hanging out in evangelical protestant environments, and I think my understanding is colored by that. Whereas my protestant friends would consider the preaching to be the main focus of their Sunday service, I'm starting to suspect that the Homily is the little part even of the Liturgy of the Word. Simply listening to the Word of God (which is Our Lord Jesus, after all) and receiving it, even if I don't understand it, seems to be what's called for.

We very well may need other things (like Scott Hahn) to help us grow in the Faith if we wish to have a broader understanding. We may need catechesis classes and that sort of thing. Our parish has two "discussion groups" (cough-adult-catechesis-cough) that meet while the kids are in CCD. We've only had that for a couple of years, and I don't get to go because I teach the kids, but I've been hearing really good things. The Spanish one is facilitated by a Spanish professor at a local University, and the English one is being facilitated by a couple who usually teach CCD to older kids but are taking this year off from that.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Some helpful words from Pope Benedict XVI :

Furthermore, connected with this there is also the famous problem of the homily. From the purely functional viewpoint I can understand it very well: perhaps the parish priest is weary or has already preached again and again, or perhaps he is elderly and overburdened with tasks.

As a result, if there should be a pastoral assistant skilled in interpreting the Word of God convincingly, one might spontaneously ask: why should not the pastoral assistant speak; he is better at it so the people will draw greater benefit from it.

This, however, is the purely functional viewpoint. Instead, people should take into account the fact that the homily is not a discursive interruption in the Liturgy but part of the sacramental event, and that it brings the Word of God into the present of this community.

It is the moment when this community as a subject truly wants to be called into question, to be brought to listen to and accept the Word. This means that the homily itself is part of the mystery, of the celebration of the mystery, and therefore cannot simply be detached from it.
Above all, however, I think it is also important not to reduce the priest to the sacrament and to jurisdiction -- in the conviction that all his other tasks could be done equally well by others -- but to preserve the integrity of his office.

Moreover, the priesthood is only beautiful if the mission to be carried out is kept intact, without having bits and pieces chopped off here and there.

And the priest's duty to connect the sacrifice with the Word, which is an integral part of the whole, has always been part of this role, even in the Old Testament.

From the purely practical viewpoint, we must then, of course, see to providing priests with the necessary help so that they are also able to carry out properly the ministry of the Word. As a rule, this interior oneness, both of the essence of the Eucharistic Celebration and of the essence of the priestly ministry, is of great importance.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s ... ss-bishops

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

Actually, there are times when I do belong to the Church in spite of whom I encounter in her. And I know individuals who have left because of whom they encounter. For them it's not an excuse offered to cover up some deeper issue. Certain individuals do not have the head faith (i.e. little understanding of the sacraments, of truth) that would work to keep them in the pews when human failings and negative situations cross their paths. If it doesn't feel right, if I'm not happy, if I'm not entertained, then I'm gone. Part of what keeps me where I am is the sure knowledge that my own failures contribute to the problem, but also because I have evaluated the teachings and the liturgy to the best of my intellectual ability and found the Church to be true. No person's failings other than my own then could cause me to renounce membership in her. I don't believe the same can be said of all, who leave at the drop of a hat, however.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

I do agree with what Jeff and Dean are saying.

Most of those who participate here on COL are devout, committed, well-informed, active Catholics. They understand the importance of the Liturgy.

But it's important to consider that there are many Catholics who, while attending Mass regular (out of habit, perhaps?), are not well-informed or terribly involved — and, of course, many Masses at larger parishes will include those who only attend occasionally.

The difference for some of those people could well be whether the homily was well done or indifferent.

I don't expect every priest or deacon to be a dynamic, inspirational speaker.

But neither should they be indifferent.

Many years ago, we had a priest who would read his homily, never looking up from his notes.

Now, ideally and given the Mass was licit and valid, that should not make one bit of difference if we, in fact, are attending Mass for exactly the right reason.

But as time went by, Masses became less attended. Many people were attending Mass at neighboring parishes. Others just quit attending.

But we are a fallen species. We need every bit of help we can get on this difficult road to salvation. A well-delivered homily may be the difference for someone.

That's not perfect … but, then, neither are we!

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

I think we have to define things like "good preaching" and "indifferent".

President Obama is an amazingly good preacher. And oh my goodness, President Clinton is mesmerizing. I went to a rally he talked at that was held a few blocks from my house, and came away finally understanding why people voted for him.

So were Jim Jones and David Koresh from all accounts... And that priest in Florida.

Let's get down to specifics.

What in the world are y'all talking about?

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Rose, good preaching to me has 3 basic requirements. If they aren't present, then it's not good preaching.

1) There is no heterodoxy
2) The preaching is relevant to the readings and to the audience
3) The preaching is focused, so that I can remember what the homilist said as late as when I'm driving out of the church parking lot

I don't need an engaging homilist. One of my favorite priests while I was growing up gave 5 minute homilies and basically read from his notes in sing-song fashion. Yet the content of his reflections on the readings of the Mass were brilliant.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

1. It should be valid (done during the Mass.)
2. It should by ordained clergy (deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, Pope.)
3. It may be "good preaching" by the world's standards, but if it's not valid it's Bible study at best, or worst, it's theatre.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

As we get to #3 we see this is Dean's list, not necessarily the world's most objective list?

Ok, so I would say most of the homilies I've heard in my life qualify for #1 and #2.

#3 is so subjective, though, especially since two people can hear the same homily and have vastly different reactions... how do we fix that?

Meanwhile, I agree that this is all necessary to a homily, but most of the non-Catholics I know would consider it "adequate preaching," rather than "good preaching".

So part of the disagreement we've been having comes down to definitions, yet again.

And also meanwhile, how does our definition fit in with the Dominicans, who (I believe) are OP regardless of whether they're even in the world?

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Marie,

We're referring specifically to homilies. Therefore, #1 and #2 (and #3 by extension) are assumed.

However, a licit homily by those standards <> by necessity a good homily.

The question is not what is the minimum for a licit homily. What makes a licit homily good? That's a higher standard than a priest showing up and punting.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

This quote from Fr. Z. was, and still is for me and probably for many others on this Forum a doorway to sanctity.




Mary

_________________
"Those who encounter the Risen Jesus
and entrust themselves docilely to him have nothing to fear.
This is the message that Christians are called to spread
to the very ends of the earth." Benedict XVI

I think of good preaching as that which can affect a soul in a spiritual manner. If it leads to the glory of God and the salvation of souls, then it is good preaching.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

I'm beginning to see why Cardinal Ravasi is so highly regarded a homilist.



http://www.news.va/en/news/wisdom-is-ac ... -suffering

see also
http://www.news.va/en/news/cardinal-rav ... d-of-his-2
and
http://www.news.va/en/news/cardinal-rav ... aby-weaned

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)