FIYH 81-83: More Method

It was Sacrosanctum Concilium that described the ideal experience of liturgy for worshippers: inspiration that the Christian life may be more evident and better lived in the world outside of liturgy. Where the homily is concerned, the preacher is charged with tying together the timeless witness of Scripture with the lived experience of the faith community.

[81] This method also respects the understanding of the homily that is central to this document: a scriptural interpretation of human existence which enables a community to recognize God’s active presence, to respond to that presence in faith through liturgical word and gesture, and beyond the liturgical assembly, through a life lived in conformity with the Gospel.

Get your act together, the bishops counsel. They don’t give a blueprint, but rather suggest the preacher devise a plan that allows for consistency. What good is it if week to week the homilist blunders about the week prior, spending energy and time on the peripherals?

[82] The most important feature of any method is precisely that it be methodical, that is, orderly and regular. In the preparation of the homily, as in other creative endeavors, the total amount of time we spend preparing may be less important than our observance of a regular pattern of activity spread out over a certain period of time. Doing the same thing each day for the same amount of time is often a condition for success, whether this be in study, in prayer, in writing, or in artistic achievement. A regular daily pattern of activity for the preparation of the Sunday homily is likewise often the key factor in effective preaching over the long term.

The bishops foresee the temptation to forego preparation as time “unproductive.” A good number of pastoral ministers might apply this advice to their tasks that require preparation. Rehearsal for any music minister comes to mind as an example. And if the pastor is unwilling to invest in preparation, how might the expectation of others be encouraged? 

[83] Each of us called to the regular ministry of preaching needs to determine just what part of each day of the week is going to be devoted to the preparation of the Sunday homily. The time we spend each day need not be lengthy, but it needs to be determined ahead of time and be held sacred. Schedules, of course, are always to be adjusted for emergencies, but unless we determine in advance that a particular time is going to be used for a particular purpose, and stick to it, it is all too easy to have our entire day filled with appointments and meetings which we felt we could not turn down or postpone because “we had nothing special planned.”

  

Any preachers in the reading audience with suggestions on how they do it?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 78-80: Homiletic Method

Most of the remainder of FIYH will be under the get-to-it heading of “Homiletic Method.” This “Chapter” IV moves from the theory of people, preacher, and homily to the practical methods one can employ.

As we read through these first three sections, consider if you agree or disagree with the statements about art and form.

[78] Every art is based on a theory and a method, and preaching is no exception. Some artists, it is true, work solely from inspiration. They do not know why or how they do what they do. Consequently, they are incapable of passing their insight on to others. But they have a method nonetheless, and if their work is lasting, their method will sooner or later be uncovered by interpreters and critics of their work.

For any preachers among the readers here, have you mentored other preachers, or would you foresee that possibility in the future?

[79] Artists who are conscious of their method are in a much more advantageous position than those who are not. They are able to channel and direct their work more easily, can work more efficiently within time constraints, and can adapt their method to changed circumstances and demands. They know what they are doing and how they go about doing it, and they can pass this information on to others who might like to learn from them.

As we move through these last dozen posts of FIYH, consider how your own homiletic method may vary or be similar to what is suggested here.

[80] Ultimately, individual preachers will have to develop their own method for moving from the Scriptures to the homily, learning from their own successes and failures, as well as from other preachers through whose words they have heard the Word of God. The description of a method for building the homily that follows is not intended as-nor could it possibly be-a foolproof system for producing outstanding homilies week after week. Rather it provides a model that includes the major components of the creative process (data gathering, incubation, insight, communication) and does so within the framework of a week.

 

 

 

  

 

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 74-77: Challenges for the Preacher

The bishops describe the challenge pastors of large parishes know well:

[74] But is it really possible to create this readiness for praise and thanksgiving in congregations as large and diverse as those in which many of us minister? In these congregations some people will be feeling a sense of loss because of a recent bereavement; some facing marital difficulties; some having problems adjusting emotionally to school,. job, home or community; some struggling with a deep sense of guilt stemming from their inability to deal maturely with their sexuality, or because of their addiction to drugs or alcohol. Others in our congregations will be struggling with the relevance of the Gospel to oppressive economic structures, to world peace, or to the many forms of discrimination in our society. Is it really possible to say to these people, “Look at the way in which God is present in your lives and turn to him with praise and thanksgiving?”

If the preacher looks out at the assembly and sees a collection of problems to be solved, the answer will be “no.”

 

If, however, the preacher sees the liturgical experience of the Word and Sacrament as a means by which people can face their struggles with hope, then I would contend there is hope. The homily is not a fix-it tool. The bishops are also wise in suggesting that the preacher must also cultivate an awareness of dependency on God, if there is any hope for homilies to speak to people in trouble, touch them, and be the catalyst for change and hope.

[75] Obviously, it will not always be easy to do this. And we will never be able to do it, at least not with any honesty and integrity, if we have not recognized the active presence of God in our own lives, as broken and shattered as they may be, and out of that brokenness affirm that it is still good to praise him and even to give him thanks. We need to remember in situations like this that our celebration of the Eucharist is done in memory of Jesus Christ who, on the night before he died, turned to God and praised and thanked him out of the very depths of his distress. Praise and thanksgiving, therefore, do not automatically imply the presence of euphoria.

 

The bishops draw another important connection from the Word and homily to the Eucharist. They also suggest that not only is praise of God not necessarily an indicator of euphoria, but that it should also be separate from our moods or attitudes:

[76] We can and must praise God even when we do not feel like it, for praise and thanksgiving are rooted in and grow out of faith, not feeling, a faith which interprets this world by saying that in spite of appearances often to the contrary, our God is a loving God. It is for this reason that even at the time of death, we celebrate a Eucharist, because we believe that for his faithful ones life is changed, not, as appearances would seem to indicate, taken away.

The bishops sum up:

[77] The challenge to preachers then is to reflect on human life with the aid of the Word of God and to show by their preaching, as by their lives, that in every place and at every time it is indeed right to praise and thank the Lord.

 

There’s a good bit within these four sections. To me, it’s best summed up by preachers acknowledging the challenge before them, then not trying to overreach into an expectation of solving other people’s problems. Letting God’s Word into peoples’ lives, breaking it open, and making connections: what more could a good preacher do? All this recipe calls for is to invite listeners to identify Jesus Christ as a participant in their lives, especially their struggles. The preacher, once again, is called to teach others to fish, rather than giving out the fish, to allude to the proverb.

Comments?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 71-73: Challenges for the Congregation

Authentic pastoral ministers know that being “pastoral” is not akin to spoonfeeding the laity and coddling their every experience. Conversion is a challenging and often troubling experience.

If the encounter with the Living Word uncovers the need for metanoia, then the homily can be a means of achieving change:

[71] It may very well be that what God is doing in the life of a congregation at some particular moment is asking them to change in a way that is demanding and disorienting. The homily can be one way of helping to bring about that change, and it can still lead to a response of praise and thanksgiving by showing that our former way of life, comfortable as it may have been, was a Way that led to death, while the new way, with all of its demands and difficulties, is a way that leads to life.

Ultimately, the bishops are speaking of the human entry into the Paschal Mystery: dying to self so as to enter into a deeper relationship with the Risen Christ.

Did you know there is preaching outside the homily? People may not turn out for it in numbers as great for Mass, but it is part of the ministry of the Word nonetheless:

[72] But even though the liturgical homily can incorporate instruction and exhortation, it will not be able to carry the whole weight of the Church’s preaching. There will still need to be special times and occasions for preaching that addresses human values in such a way as to dispose the hearers to be open to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, preaching intended to bring the hearers to an inner conversion of heart, and preaching intended to instruct the faithful in matters of doctrine or morality. These three kinds of preaching-sometimes referred to as pre-evangelization, evangelization, and catechesis-can be found today in evan­gelistic gatherings, the adult catechumenate, youth ministry programs, spiritual renewal programs, Bible study groups and many forms of religious education.

[73] The homily can complement all these forms of preaching by attending more specifically to what it is to accomplish. Such would be to show how and where the mystery of our faith, focused upon by that day’s Scripture readings, is occurring in our lives. This would bring the hearers to a more explicit and deepened faith, to an expression of that faith in the liturgical celebration and, following the celebration, in their life and work.

If the homily is truly to be a complementary aspect of a greater preaching effort, it will require more coordination and planning than we ordinarily see in parishes. Any parishes with hopeful signs or experiences on this front?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 69-70: A Pastoral Approach

Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me.” (John 10:14) This is the origin of the adjective “pastoral,” an important term even if it is occasionally misapplied. 

[69] In the last analysis the only proper response to these questions is a pastoral one. Priests will have to decide what form of preaching is most suitable for a particular congregation at a particular time. We would simply like to make two points here. First of all, social science research contends that the oral presentation of a single person is not a particularly effective way to impart new information or to bring about a change in attitude or behavior. It is, however, well suited to make explicit or to reinforce attitudes or knowledge previously held. The homily, therefore, which normally is an oral presentation by a single person, will be less effective as a means of instruction and/or exhortation than of interpretation that is, as a means of enabling people to recognize the implications, in liturgy and in life, of the faith that is already theirs.

The bishops, note, are not saying the homily is ineffective; they are referring to sociology and psychology to remind us that the homily is not the most effective way to communicate or inspire conversion. What does this mean? The homily must be part of a coordinated liturgical effort that includes music, ritual, and other factors that support change.

[70] The second point to be made is that the liturgical homily, which draws on the Scriptures to interpret peoples’ lives in such a way that they can recognize the saving presence of God and turn to him with praise and thanksgiving, does not exclude doctrinal instruction and moral exhortation. Such instruction and exhor­tation’ however, are here situated in a broader context, namely, in the recognition of God’s active presence in the lives of the people and the praise and thanksgiving that this response elicits.

The distinction is important. A homily may include “doctrinal instruction and moral exhortation.” When it includes little or nothing else, it is not a homily, and decidedly not liturgical. The bishops allude to the importance of the key elements of liturgy, God’s presence and the act of giving praise to God.

 

Thoughts?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 68: Limits and Possibilities

The next ten numbered sections fall under the heading of “The Limits and Possibilities of Liturgical Preaching.” The bishops ask six questions many clergy and most concerned Catholics might frame:

[68] But isn’t all this too limited a view of preaching? Does it really respond to the needs of the people? Doesn’t regular Sunday preaching have to take into account the ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of large numbers of Catholics, even those who participate regularly in the Sunday Eucharist, and deal in some systematic way with the fundamentals of the faith? Is there not a crying need for regular and sustained teaching about the moral imperatives that flow from an acceptance of the Good News? What about all those times when people’s lives are shattered, when they simply are psychologically incapable of offering God praise and thanks, when it seems they have nothing to be thankful for? How do we speak to all the people in our congregations who have yet to hear the basic Gospel message calling them to faith and conversation, or who may even need a form of preaching that heightens their sensitivity to basic human realities and in this way readies them for the hearing of the Gospel?

As we’ll see in the next few posts, perhaps another question to add is this: Do we expect too much from the Sunday homily, given the varied and great pastoral needs of the faithful? Granted, we know the Sunday liturgy is the locus where the preacher has the best chance to reach the most people, at least in some minimal way.

To me, it is essential the preacher knows the community well–very well. A visiting preacher must certainly ask questions of the pastor or others to allow an acquaintance, however, brief, with the people. Lacking that, we might get a message, even a fruitful one, but is it liturgical preaching?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 65-67: Style, Continued

After that long weekend break, let’s renew our examination of the US bishops’ document on the Sunday homily. Specifically, we’re looking at homiletic style: 

[65] Another way of structuring the homily, and one that is more in keeping with its function of enabling people to celebrate the liturgy with deepened faith, is to begin with a description of a contemporary human situation which is evoked by the scriptural texts, rather than with an interpretation or reiteration of the text. After the human situation has been addressed, the homilist can turn to the Scriptures to interpret this situation, showing how the God described therein is also present and active in our lives today. The conclusion of the homily can then be an invitation to praise this God who wills to be lovingly and powerfully present in the lives of his people.

Many preachers I know follow this more or less. Some are attached to humor in that human situation, but many vary the sort of life’s reiteration. Using the dialogue between that introduction and the Scriptures is a good model for the interaction of faith and action or  in the conversation between God and the created world. At minimum, it can jolt the believer out of a mode of petition prayer: looking for the commonalities between one’s experience and the Word and moving to deeper faith from there.

That said, the bishops state a caution and they encourage a certain creativity:

[66] The point of the preceding paragraph is not to substitute a new straight jacket for an old one. There is no one correct form for the homily. On occasion it may be a dramatic and engaging story, on another a well-reasoned exposition of a biblical theme showing its relevance to the contemporary situation, or the liturgical day, feast or season. It might also take the form of a dialogue between two preachers or involve the approved local use of visual or audio media. Ideally, the form and style will be determined by the form and style of the Scriptures from which it flows, by the character of the liturgy of which it is a part, and by the composition and expectations of the congregation to which it is addressed, and not exclusively by the preference of the preacher.

Creativity, at times, gets a bad rap these days, but these suggestions all presume a lively sense of liturgy, artistry, and imagination by the homilist.

[67] Whatever its form, the function of the Eucharistic homily is to enable people to lift up their hearts, to praise and thank the Lord for his presence in their lives. It will do this more effectively if the language it uses is specific, graphic, and imaginative. The more we can turn to the picture language of the poet and the storyteller, the more we will be able to preach in a way that invites people to respond from the heart as well as from the mind.  

Homilist as artist: a more engaging and all-encompassing notion than homilist as simple catechist or moral preacher.

Comments, especially with regard to the more creative ideas suggested in section 66?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 63-64: Style

How should the homily be rendered? The bishops discuss the biblical roots and the stylistic possibilities:

[63] As regards the structure and style of the homily, we can take a lead from the use of the Greek word homileo in the New Testament. While the etymology of the word suggests communicating with a crowd, its actual use in the New Testament implies a more personal and conversational form of address than that used by the classical Greek orator. The word is employed in reference to the conversation the two disciples engaged in on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:14) and of the conversation Antonius Felix, Procurator of Judea, had with Paul when the latter was held prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 24:26). The New Testament usage suggests that a homily should sound more like a personal conversation, albeit a conversation on matters of utmost importance, than like a speech or a classroom lecture. What we should strive for is a style that is purposeful and personal, avoiding whatever sounds casual and chatty on the one extreme or impersonal and detached on the other.

Steering the middle course … okay.

[64] One of the ways we can move toward a more personal style of address in our homilies is by the way we structure them. Many homilies seem to fall into the same three-part pattern: “In today’s readings … This reminds us … Therefore let us … ” The very structure of such homilies gives the impression that the preacher’s principal purpose is to interpret scriptural texts rather than communi­cate with real people, and that he interprets these texts primarily to extract ethical demands to impose on a congregation. Such preachers may offer good advice, but they are rarely heard as preachers of good news, and this very fact tends to distance them from their listeners.

Remember this was written in 1981-82. Do you think this problem still exists? Or perhaps the bishops don’t have this quite right?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 60-62: The Homily and the Liturgy of the Eucharist

The bishops address some liturgical issues with the homily. They make a connection between the homily and the liturgy of the Eucharist:

[60] A homily is not a talk given on the occasion of a liturgical celebration. It is “a part of the liturgy itself.” In the Eucharistic celebration the homily points to the presence of God in people’s lives and then leads a congregation into the Eucharist, providing, as it were, the motive for celebrating the Eucharist in this time and place.

Do you think this appeal to God’s presence is a real one?

[61] This integral relation of the homily to the liturgy of the Eucharist which follows the liturgy of the word has implications for the way in which the homily is composed and delivered. In the first place, the homily should flow quite naturally out of the readings and into the liturgical action that follows. To set the homily apart by beginning or ending it with a sign of the cross, or by delivering it in a style that is totally different from the style used in the rest of the liturgy, might only reinforce the impression that the homily is simply a talk given on the occasion of a liturgical gathering, one that could just as well be given at another time and in another context.

Homilists are nearly always concerned about speaking on what has already been proclaimed. How many homilists have a mind to look ahead, to address important aspects of the liturgy to come? I hardly see the sign of the cross used to mark the homily, but I wonder about the more frequent use of announcements, or personal sharing, or even the stab taken at humor. On that last point, I’m not saying humor isn’t appropriate for liturgy, but sometimes it sticks out as sort of a joke-of-the-week. If a homilist has to be explicit in tying a joke into the body of a homily, I’d think we have a candidate for the stylistic disconnect explained above.

[62] Although the preaching of the homily properly belongs to the presiding minister of the Eucharistic celebration, there may occasionally be times when. it is fitting for someone else, priest or deacon, to preach. On these occasions the integral relation of the homily to the rest of the liturgy will be safeguarded if the preacher is present and actively involved in the whole of the liturgical celebration. The practice of having a preacher slip in to read the Gospel and preach the homily, and then slip out again, does not do justice to the liturgical integrity of the homily.

This is a good one for others, especially liturgists and clergy to weigh in on. I’ve served in parishes where one preacher prepared all the homilies for a given weekend. It’s a pragmatic choice when a parish has more than one preacher. On the surface it would make sense to consider the time used to prepare two or more homilies versus one homilist’s preparation and the utilization of that prep time at all Masses. Additionally, it can unify the preached message in a parish community weekend to weekend.

However, if the connection to the Eucharist is important enough, it can tear at that unity for the preacher to enter the celebration just for a particular “duty,” then leave. Or do you ask a preacher to attend all the Masses? That’s not an uncommon expectation of music directors, so why would an every-other-week preacher be exempt?

What do you think?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 58-59: The Homily Service

Even before the internet age, bishops were concerned about the potential abuse of “ready-to-preach” homilies First the bad news:

[58] This pastoral dimension of the homily is the principal reason why some homily services, especially those that do little more than provide ready-to-preach homilies, can actually be a hindrance to effective preaching. Since the homily is integrally related to the liturgy, arid since liturgy presupposes a community that gathers to celebrate it, the homily is by definition related to a community. Homily services can be helpful in the interpretation of scriptural texts (though generally not as much as some basic exegetical resources) and give some ideas on how these texts can be related to contemporary human concerns. But they cannot provide individual preachers with specific indications of how these texts can be heard by the particular congregations to whom they will preach.

What are homily services good for?

[59] Homily services can provide valuable assistance to the preacher when they are concerned to relate the interpretation of the lectionary texts to the liturgical season in which they appear, and when they are attentive to the lectio continua principle of the lectionary. They may also be helpful in suggesting some possi­bilities for the development of a homily, or in providing suitable examples and illustrations. The primary help that a good homily service will offer is to make available to the preacher recent exegetical work on the specific texts that appear in the lectionarv and to indicate some ways in which this biblical word can be heard in the present as God’s Word to his people. They can never replace the homilist’s own prayer, study, and work.

I’ll confess I wrote for a homily service many years ago. I’ll also confess I had doubts about what I was doing. It wasn’t so much the quality of writing, but that I was making it much easier for preachers. The best homily preparation I was ever involved in was in my first parish. The pastor welcomed staff input on both the Scriptures as well as the pastoral situation in the parish: what the tenor of the people was, what the concerns were, and so on. I found later that was an uncommon experience.

 

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 56-57: Faithfulness to the Congregation

Some pastoral advice that will contribute to the fruitfulness of the homily:

[56] If the homily must be faithful to the Scriptures for it to be the living Word of God, it must also be faithful to the congregation to whom this living Word of God is addressed. The homily will be effective in enabling a community to worship God with praise and thanksgiving only if individuals in that community recog­nize there a word that responds to the implicit or explicit questions of their lives.

[57] There are many ways in which priests get to know their congregations and allow themselves to be known by them: involvement with parish organizations, individual and family counseling, social contacts, visits to the sick and the bereaved, planning for weddings and baptisms, the sacrament of reconciliation, and, equally as important, simply being with people as a friend and member of the community. The preacher will be able to draw on all these contacts when he turns to the Scriptures to seek there a Word from the Lord for the lives of his people.

Some priests demur on the angle of friendship and community involvement with the laity. I think it happens to a greater or lesser degree to pretty much everyone. My take on the bishops mentioning friendship as a virtue is a recognition of certain qualities of that relationship. Being a confessor, a counsellor, and a pastor can involve a profound intimacy with people. Being a friend is a different way of being involved. Maybe it’s not deeper, or more sacramental. Friendship presumes a certain mutuality.

Might that mutuality be helpful to the preacher? I think there’s a quality that goes beyond the one-sided nature of a sacramental minister. Pastoral relationships are also strongly one-sided: the priest is there to counsel, to listen, to serve.

But having friends among lay people would seem to provide additional insights to flesh out the whole picture in a parish or other community.

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 55: Incubation

The bishops suggest that the preacher’s interaction with the Scripture is not solely an intellectual exchange of scholarly information and personal details of the parishioners. The homily is a creative composition based in part on the subconscious of the minister, and also the serendipity of the Lectionary choices for a particular community:

[55] Such prayerful listening to the text demands time, not just the time of actual reading and praying and studying but, just as importantly, the time of standing back and letting the text dwell in our unconscious mind. This period of “incuba­tion” as it is often called, is essential to all human creative effort. It is especially important for the homilist when reflecting upon texts which have become overly familiar, or which seem inappropriate for a given situation. With the use of a lectionary, the readings assigned for a particular day may seem to have little to say to a specific congregation at a specific time in its life. However, if the text and the actual human situation are allowed to interact with one another, a powerful interpretative word of faith will often emerge. But for this to happen we need to dwell with the text and allow it to dwell with us. Only then will the text reveal new meaning to us, a new and fresh way of interpreting and speaking about our world.

Agree? Disagree? Comment?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 53-54: Getting Behind The Scriptures

The bishops suggest the Scriptures be used not as cover, but as real words God speaks to real people:

[53] To preach from the Scriptures in this way means that we have to “get behind them,” as it were. We have to hear these texts as real words addressed to real people. Scholarly methods of interpreting Scripture can help us do this by putting us in touch with the life situations that originated these texts, or by making us more aware of the different ways language can function as a conveyer of meaning. But scholarly methods are not enough. As we emphasized in the second chapter, the preacher needs to listen to these texts meditatively and prayerfully.

This is a suitable balance, don’t you think? Scholarship is indeed far from enough. And a preacher who relies on intellect rather than prayer and knowledge of the assembly is failing miserably.

[54] As preachers we go to the Scriptures saying, “What is the human situation to which these texts were originally addressed? To what human concerns and questions might these same texts have spoken through the Church’s history? What is the human situation to which they can speak today? How can they help us to understand, to interpret our lives in such a way that we can turn to God with praise and thanksgiving?” Only when we approach the Scriptures in this way do they have any possibility of becoming a living word for us and for others.

Even the Scriptures themselves were written for a human situation in the past. That others later found benefit is a credit to the inspiration of the texts, but it gives us the needed perspective and reminder that those very texts were rooted in human spiritual needs. Much the same needs are present today in any liturgical assembly. The preacher might see the homily as a continuation of this tradition, don’t you think?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

FIYH 51-52: Interpreting People’s Lives

The notion of a liturgy with a “theme” does have a place in the Roman Rite.  But it’s generally not on Sunday.

[51] In the section of the lectionary entitled “Masses for Various Occasions,” we find the thematic principle at work in a way that corresponds more closely to what some liturgical planners refer to as the theme of a liturgy: e.g., readings appropriate for Christian unity, or for peace and justice. Such thematic liturgies have their place, as the lectionary title indicates, on various or special occasions, rather than at the regular Sunday liturgy.

The bishops turn a bit more attention to how they see the Scriptures interacting with the homily. Above all, the homily is not a teaching moment as one would experience in a classroom:

[52] It is to these given texts that the preacher turns to prepare the homily for a community that will gather for the Sunday liturgy. Since the purpose of the homily is to enable the gathered congregation to celebrate the liturgy with faith, the preacher does not so much attempt to explain the Scriptures as to interpret the human situation through the Scriptures. In other words, the goal of the liturgical preacher is not to interpret a text of the Bible (as would be the case in teaching a Scripture class) as much as to draw on the texts of the Bible as they are presented in the lectionary to interpret peoples’ lives. To be even more precise, the preacher’s purpose will be to turn to these Scriptures to interpret peoples’ lives in such a way that they will be able to celebrate Eucharist-or be reconciled with God and one another, or be baptized into the Body of Christ, depending on the particular liturgy that is being celebrated.

Some preachers attempt to show their intellectual prowess by using the tools of scholarship in an overt way in the homily. I mean the various ways in which one can study and interpret the Bible: historical criticism, form criticism, redaction, etc.. The bishops clearly come down against this. In fact, they assume a preacher will know the community so well so as to help them make connections between their lives and apt examples as the Lectionary presents itself to the community.

The bishops also see the Word, proclaimed and preached, as a liminal experience leading the people into the celebration of the sacraments. That’s a solidly Catholic approach, but one we would do well to remember. It also differentiates us somewhat from non-sacramental churches and their approach to liturgy. Is there ever a time in which the Word becomes the prime focus in liturgy?

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

 

 

FIYH 50: The Lectionary

Why are the readings at Catholic liturgy set up as they are? What relationship does that have to the homily?

[50] The homily is not so much on the Scriptures as from and through them. In the Roman Catholic tradition, the selection of texts to be read at the Eucharistic liturgy is normally not left to the preacher, but is determined ahead of time and presented in the form of a lectionary. The basic purpose of a lectionary is twofold: to ensure that the Scripture texts appropriate to a feast or season are read at that time, and to provide for a comprehensive reading of the Scriptures. Thus, we find in the lectionary two principles guiding the selection of texts: the thematic principle (readings chosen to correspond to the “theme” of a feast or season), and the lectio continua principle (readings taken in order from a book of the Bible which is being read over a given period of time).

I think I see the distinction the bishops are attempting. If the homily were on Scripture, it would really be more about the teaching and catechesis. Ideally Scripture is the source of content. Ideally Scripture is the means by which God’s love and will are communicated to the faithful.

(All texts from Fulfilled in Your Hearing are copyright © 1982 USCCB. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)