[quote="waanju, post:1, topic:308490"]
The only Mass I have access to (for just one more week yay!!!) is given by a very nice priest who unfortunately tends to take certain liberties in saying Mass/giving his homilies. For most of this year, his homilies have been okay, if rather empty and sentimental, they did not seem to have anything actually wrong with them. The past few masses, however, Father has been giving homilies that strike me as "off". For example, saying that the emphasis of Mass is participation and togetherness and that people emphasize the Eucharist too much, among other somewhat strange (if not outright wrong, I don't know) ideas. Last week, for example, he read this article as his homily ncronline.org/node/40386 and it just gave me a bit of pause, because it condemns the EF as being silly, like people reenacting civil war battles, and says that's liturgically dangerous... but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Pope said EF masses were totally fine. This is a rather small point, but I think it kind of goes along with a sort of agenda that Father seems to be interested in representing (I'm also a little concerned at the implication that his holiness is wrong).
Anyways, is it okay for me to sort of ignore the homily and just pray silently/ meditate on the Gospel? As I only have one more Mass with Father, I'm more concerned over what to do if I find myself in a similar situation in the future.
That article is from a news source that I struggle to call authentically 'Catholic' in that they publish all kinds of material contrary to Church teachings. It's a liberal publication through and through, with maybe a few exceptions. The cut-line underneath the photo calls the Mass a "Tridentine-Rite Mass". There is no such thing, and that simply kicks off an uninformed, ignorant rant on a perfectly valid form of the Roman Rite. The author displays a blatant enmity towards traditional orthodox Catholicism and this is highlighted by his apparent misunderstanding that the Paschal Mystery only takes into account Christ's Resurrection, a very incomplete understanding. The Paschal Mystery, includes as key elements the Passion and Death as well as the Resurrection of our Lord. There is no Easter Sunday without the suffering and Passion of Good Friday. This is the problem with removing crucifixes from our Church's to be replaced by bare crosses or resurrection crosses. Our salvation was merited by Christ's death on the Cross, regardless of the creative theology that some folks like to toss around these days.
And I'm sorry, but I've had it with these people who continually propagate the false notion that up until Vatican II nobody in the pews had any idea what was going on. This is absolute nonsense. I have missale from the early 1900's that provide Latin-English translations (Latin on the left page with the corresponding English translation on the right) and I believe these were also available in the 19th century and perhaps even before. These missale lay out the propers and ordinary of the Mass with easy to follow directions and cues so that one can pray the Mass along with the Priest. I find a low EF Mass to be a beautiful and reverent (quiet) liturgical prayer to God. Did some people pray the rosary during Mass, sure. I see people texting their friends during Mass these days. One prays the Rosary. The same cannot be said for those concerning themselves with text messaging dring Mass. In the decades leading up to Vatican II there was most certainly missale available to the faithful for those who wanted to "fully and actively participate". Any other claim is just misleading.
Moving on, this notion that Vatican II "went back" to the "sources" or to the way Church Fathers did things has a real flaw. It negates and dismisses, or rather discards, centuries of Sacred Tradition. If one wants to reincorporate a 6th century practice excluding natural organic development and understanding (tradition) from the centuries in between, one forgets that Holy Mother Church always moves forward drawing from Sacred Tradition as it evolves and is handed down through Apostolic succession.
Vatican II was not a "Super-Council" that trumps the 2000 years of Sacred Church Tradition and teachings and the Ecumenical Council's before it. To consider something this way is to buy into the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture. The Holy Father has spoken often about how this is an inappropriate way to interpret the Council.
Lastly, the comments under the article are a case in point of how poorly catechized many of the faithful are. We live in a "me" centred society and this philosophy has carried over into our liturgy, so now it's no longer always focused on God, but on the individual or community.
To answer the OP's question, you could listen and simply mentally dismiss what the Priest has said t your discretion. You do not have to give your assent to the contents of a homily, though I would suggest that you discern carefully. If the homily is way out to lunch to the point where you cannot in good conscience continue to sit and provide silent approval to what is being said, I have heard of cases where parishioners simply walked out. That is a pretty serious course of action which I would not advocate unless extraordinary circumstances warrant doing so.