After the homily?

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

Well..it appears from the apologist answer that this is NOT an abuse...(which is what I thought).

Are you talking about something you heard on the radio? If so, please elaborate.

I don't see any problem with the priest doing this as part of his homily (except that I don't like it). The homilist basically has free reign to determine the topic and how that topic will be presented to somehow relate to scripture and Church teaching. However, there shouldn't be a non-cleric interloper sharing that part of the mass.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Brendan

If it considered to be part of the homily, then a layman should not have given that. It falls to the priest or deacon to do so.

The GIRM is very clear.

After the homily comes a period of silence ( GIRM 66) and then Creed (GIRM 67)

This was neither.

If the bishop wished to direct a change in the order of the Mass, that would involve him applying for an indult from the CDWDS to do that..

Sorry, I missed where the OP said it was not a Priest. Did the OP say it was not a Deacon or another Priest but a lay person???

[Annabelle Marie]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

Are you talking about something you heard on the radio? If so, please elaborate.

I don't see any problem with the priest doing this as part of his homily (except that I don't like it). The homilist basically has free reign to determine the topic and how that topic will be presented to somehow relate to scripture and Church teaching. However, there shouldn't be a non-cleric interloper sharing that part of the mass.

From the link on #11...I had the question but then answers posted were confusing so I did a search.

The priest did give the homily...and then the lay person came up for the capital campaign.

It is unusual...but fact of the matter is...people do leave right after communion.... doin it at the end isn't going to catch everyone.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

If a priest gives the homily...can someone speak after him?

There are those I know who insist it was not right but I don't know about that. The priest gave the homily..yes a homily..not a sermon...he didn't really shorten it at all..and it was a good one.

After that was a short appeal for the capital campaign which I believe that was placed there as then the pledge forms could be collected with the collection. I don't feel that the Mass was really disrupted.

But there are those I know who think this was an abuse. I think it would have been if the priest had not given his homily and this was in place of that...which it was not.

Announcements are to be done after the Prayers After Communion. Unless the priest makes the plea himself, or another ordained man speaks, the time for homily is the time for someone ordained to speak.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

It is unusual...but fact of the matter is...people do leave right after communion.... doin it at the end isn't going to catch everyone.

Makes sense, but it still ruins the order of the Mass.

[Annabelle Marie]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Announcements are to be done after the Prayers After Communion. Unless the priest makes the plea himself, or another ordained man speaks, the time for homily is the time for someone ordained to speak.

See post #11...I think I got it answered by looking at Michelle's answer....not an abuse...

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

From the link on #11

I think you're putting too much stock in the staff apologists. They do not have to cite their sources, or explain their logic, and no one gets to challenge their answers within the thread. This gives them a veneer of omniscience. But it's just a veneer, underneath it they're just people, and there are several regular posters here who predictably provide very thorough and well-thought out answers that compare favorably with the AAA threads.

A difference that's worth noting on the regular threads is that each member is basically shooting his mouth off. If it's a well-educated and well-articulated mouth, that's great, but there is plenty of noise from less thoughtful, or sometimes even thoughtless, members. On the other hand, one assumes that the writing of the staff apologists is vetted for spelling, grammar, and accuracy by knowledgeable folks. So it is prudent to give a respectful hearing to their answers. But it doesn't make an opinion a fact. Absent any supportive sources, or any logic why we should ignore the straightforward reading Brendan took on this issue, I think this apologist's answer is only an opinion, at best.

[Annabelle Marie]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

I think you're putting too much stock in the staff apologists. They do not have to cite their sources, or explain their logic, and no one gets to challenge their answers within the thread. This gives them a veneer of omniscience. But it's just a veneer, underneath it they're just people, and there are several regular posters here who predictably provide very thorough and well-thought out answers that compare favorably with the AAA threads.

A difference that's worth noting on the regular threads is that each member is basically shooting his mouth off. If it's a well-educated and well-articulated mouth, that's great, but there is plenty of noise from less thoughtful, or sometimes even thoughtless, members. On the other hand, one assumes that the writing of the staff apologists is vetted for spelling, grammar, and accuracy by knowledgeable folks. So it is prudent to give a respectful hearing to their answers. But it doesn't make an opinion a fact. Absent any supportive sources, or any logic why we should ignore the straightforward reading Brendan took on this issue, I think this apologist's answer is only an opinion, at best.

Why? Because I don't think Brendan always has the best answers...actually I hardly ever think he has the best answers. And I would put the apologist answer over Brendan's any day...that's why.

Who is Brendan that I would follow him vs. what an apologist hired by CAF would have to say? Add to that my knowledge of our priest, who I highly doubt would do anything that was an abuse....and ya...I'm sticking with the apologist vs. Joe bloke off the internet....

[bmadamsberry]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

It is unusual...but fact of the matter is...people do leave right after communion....

I call it the Judas Shuffle (and I've heard it called that, as well), because Judas left to betray Jesus right after he received.

[bmadamsberry]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Announcements are to be done after the Prayers After Communion.

Announcements are not "to be done" during the Concluding Rites. Instead, they can be done. The difference being that "can" signifies that announcements may be made at other (approved) times, and do not have to be placed solely and only during the Concluding Rites. So, for example, they could be done before Mass begins and not done during the CR.

[pnewton]

Of course this is not an abuse. A good rule of thumb is that if this question needs to be asked, it is not worth worrying about, unless you are the bishop or one that is advising him. The local bishop is the sole authority in properly administering the GIRM. If he deems it to be acceptable for some mission appeal after the homily, then it is acceptable. If one had a direct contradiction of the GIRM (A as opposed to not A), then there might be room for debate.

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

I think you're putting too much stock in the staff apologists.

I think they got this answer from Edward Peters. I heard him give it a few years back on CAL.

Absent any supportive sources, or any logic why we should ignore the straightforward reading Brendan took on this issue, I think this apologist's answer is only an opinion, at best.

The only authority is the bishop and the priest. That is whose opinion should get the default acceptance. Do not forget that the "G" in GIRM stands for "General". However, here is your link from the GIRM:
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wors...-chapter-9.cfm

387. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the High Priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful in some sense derives and upon whom it depends, must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese.

Everything else is opinion.

[thomas jd]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

Why? Because I don't think Brendan always has the best answers...actually I hardly ever think he has the best answers. And I would put the apologist answer over Brendan's any day...that's why.

Who is Brendan that I would follow him vs. what an apologist hired by CAF would have to say? Add to that my knowledge of our priest, who I highly doubt would do anything that was an abuse....and ya...I'm sticking with the apologist vs. Joe bloke off the internet....

I gave you the correct answer on post #2 and #7, this is not the first time this question has been asked and answered.
The first two times I spoke at mass the pastors insisted that I speak after the Homily, I e-mailed my Bishop asking when was the proper time for the laity to speak. It was he that arranged my talks and he that sent me to the parishes!
He sent the reply that is posted.
He also is a Canon lawyer.
There are many that erronously post on this site proving that a little knowledge is dangerous!

[Diana Catherine]

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

From the link on #11...I had the question but then answers posted were confusing so I did a search.

The priest did give the homily...and then the lay person came up for the capital campaign.

It is unusual...but fact of the matter is...people do leave right after communion.... doin it at the end isn't going to catch everyone.

We have had this type of campaign announcement right after the homily before also but recently Father has moved it to the beginning of mass. I agree after mass would not be good, not just for those who sadly leave early but because at that point people will get restless, not listen and again, sadly be thinking to themselves it is time to go why are you adding this now, so we may have short announcements after mass but that is all.

Ours is usually a video campaign so maybe that is why it was moved to the beginning of mass. You hate to see mass interupted for a video but it has happened.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by pnewton

Of course this is not an abuse. A good rule of thumb is that if this question needs to be asked, it is not worth worrying about, unless you are the bishop or one that is advising him.

I'm a little confused. This is a rule of thumb for this specific question (in which case it's not really a rule of thumb, just the answer to the question)? Or is it the rule of thumb for any liturgical abuse?

Originally Posted by pnewton

The only authority is the bishop and the priest. That is whose opinion should get the default acceptance.

There is the opinion of the bishop/priest, and then there is what is objectively correct according to canon and liturgical law. They are not always the same. I once heard the judicial vicar for the diocese explain that a mass does not fulfill one's Sunday obligation if it doesn't use the readings of the day.

I'm not in favor, as some are, of contradicting my priest or bishop, or making a scene, or escalating the discussion to the CDW in Rome. This is pretty small potatoes. If the bishop sees fit to allow this, fair enough - Rome's approach to collegiality and deferring to the pastoral judgment of local authority is much more permissive than many on this board would accept. But, the question is whether it's technically allowed, or technically an abuse. I lean toward the latter.

Originally Posted by pnewton

I think they got this answer from Edward Peters. I heard him give it a few years back on CAL.

I would love to listen to this - do they still have the shows archived, and do you recall what year it was? I didn't realize Ed Peters was ever on CAL, or I might have listened to those already.

[Annabelle Marie]

Originally Posted by thomas jd

I gave you the correct answer on post #2 and #7, this is not the first time this question has been asked and answered.
The first two times I spoke at mass the pastors insisted that I speak after the Homily, I e-mailed my Bishop asking when was the proper time for the laity to speak. It was he that arranged my talks and he that sent me to the parishes!
He sent the reply that is posted.
He also is a Canon lawyer.
There are many that erronously post on this site proving that a little knowledge is dangerous!

Thanks thomas jd....I suspected as much. Because the priest did give his homily...and because I have NEVER known him to do anything that would be an abuse in any form.

Sometimes people can let their own preferences and opinions turn into law......

It's sad when our worship becomes like that....people get caught up into details and forget the heart of worship.

Thanks again