Who may preach?

[monty]

[Presbyter's question took the When do the children leave? topic off in an interesting new direction, which we can pursue in this new topic - musicus, moderator.]

........it would be interesting to see the priest go and celebrate the Liturgy of the Word with the children on a Sunday, leaving the adults in church to get on with it themselves!

Who do you envisage preaching, doc?

A visiting missionary? Or the odd occasion when someone is doing an appeal?

[docmattc]

Who do you envisage preaching, doc?

Who preaches/breaks the Word/discusses the readings with the children now? Presumably the children don't just have the readings proclaimed but from a children's lectionary? Why is it OK for some non-ordained amateur break the Word with children when we wouldn't tolerate that back in church.

If Children's Liturgy is an equally valid celebration of the Word, then it clearly needs an ordained preacher. If its doesn't require that, then its not on a par with the Liturgy of the Word back in church.

I'm not suggesting that anyone bar the correct ministers should preach, but this highlights (along with Vox Americana's post) the somewhat anomalous nature of Children's Liturgies. I'm not suggesting either that we shouldn't have them, but there's clearly something not thought through.

[presbyter]

Why is it OK for some non-ordained amateur break the Word with children when we wouldn't tolerate that back in church.

It's NOT OK!! My CLOW leader just happens to be an R.E. teacher with a degree in theology - for which I give much thanks. There's nothing amateur about her at all!

Don't your leaders of CLOW have the opportunity of at least some formation from your diocesan adult R.E. centre - if not the possibility of studying for a certificate in catechetics?

[alan29]

Who do you envisage preaching, doc?

Who preaches/breaks the Word/discusses the readings with the children now? Presumably the children don't just have the readings proclaimed but from a children's lectionary? Why is it OK for some non-ordained amateur break the Word with children when we wouldn't tolerate that back in church.

If Children's Liturgy is an equally valid celebration of the Word, then it clearly needs an ordained preacher. If its doesn't require that, then its not on a par with the Liturgy of the Word back in church.

I'm not suggesting that anyone bar the correct ministers should preach, but this highlights (along with Vox Americana's post) the somewhat anomalous nature of Children's Liturgies. I'm not suggesting either that we shouldn't have them, but there's clearly something not thought through.

Does ordination make a person a more effective preacher? Not in my experience.
Alan

[docmattc]

Don't your leaders of CLOW have the opportunity of at least some formation from your diocesan adult R.E. centre - if not the possibility of studying for a certificate in catechetics?

To the best of my knowledge, willingness and a clean CRB check are all that's required. The diocese does offer an adult education course, but I've never heard any suggestion that it might be useful for CWOL leaders to go on it.

Does ordination make a person a more effective preacher?

No, but it makes them a licit preacher, who has at least nominally been trained in theology, biblical study etc.

[FrGareth]

........it would be interesting to see the priest go and celebrate the Liturgy of the Word with the children on a Sunday, leaving the adults in church to get on with it themselves!

While I was still a deacon, my celebrant did this once, leaving me to preach.

I haven't yet done it myself while I've had a deacon available, but one day...

Why is it OK for some non-ordained amateur break the Word with children when we wouldn't tolerate that back in church.

We could tolerate it in church (the non-ordained aspect, though not amateurism) if it was a children's Mass...

Note the 1974 Directory on Masses With Children, par. 74: http://www.adoremus.org/DMC-73.html#anchor4432598

"With the consent of the pastor or rector of the church, one of the adults may speak to the children after the gospel, especially if the priest finds it difficult to adapt himself to the mentality of children."

I don't believe that this was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law or by subsequent Instructions on (the limitations of) Collaborative Ministry, but perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the minutae of canon law could give a definitive answer.

FrGareth

[Hare]

........it would be interesting to see the priest go and celebrate the Liturgy of the Word with the children on a Sunday, leaving the adults in church to get on with it themselves!

While I was still a deacon, my celebrant did this once, leaving me to preach.

I haven't yet done it myself while I've had a deacon available, but one day...

Why is it OK for some non-ordained amateur break the Word with children when we wouldn't tolerate that back in church.

We could tolerate it in church (the non-ordained aspect, though not amateurism) if it was a children's Mass...

Note the 1974 Directory on Masses With Children, par. 74: http://www.adoremus.org/DMC-73.html#anchor4432598

"With the consent of the pastor or rector of the church, one of the adults may speak to the children after the gospel, especially if the priest finds it difficult to adapt himself to the mentality of children."

I don't believe that this was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law or by subsequent Instructions on (the limitations of) Collaborative Ministry, but perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the minutae of canon law could give a definitive answer.

FrGareth

Going slightly off topic here, sorry, but what exactly constitutes a "Children's Mass" please? On the first Sunday in the month, we do not have a CLOTW - they stay in for the whole Mass, and it used to be called "Family Mass". However, the CLOTW leaders are now calling it a "Children's Mass" and expecting the Children"s Lectionary and Eucharistic Prayers For Children to be used, and the music "dumbed down" (certainly no Latin - we normally sing the Credo) My interpretation of "Children"s Mass" is that the majority of the assembly would be children, eg at a school Mass. But here, we are talking 15/20 children out of a congregation of about 100.....

[Nick Baty]

Did I read somewhere that the CDW is planning to scrap the children's Eucharistic Prayers anyway?

[FrGareth]

what exactly constitutes a "Children's Mass" please?

The Directory on Masses With Children (DMC: http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/DCM.pdf) defines a “Children’s Mass” as a Mass celebrated for a congregation which entirely or mostly consists of “children who have not yet reached the age of pre-adolescence” (DMC 6), who have not yet, or have only recently, made their first Holy Communion (DMC 1). So the concessions listed could apply for a Mass celebrated in a primary school (even on a Holy Day when there might be a small number of visitors from outside), but they do not apply to a Sunday Mass which is designated the “family Mass” and may or may not have a special Liturgy of the Word for Children in parallel with the adult service. Such a Sunday Mass may make use of one, but only one, of the concessions allowed for a Children’s Mass, with the bishop’s permission (DMC 19).

Did I read somewhere that the CDW is planning to scrap the children's Eucharistic Prayers anyway?

Try http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60199 - but it's not about scrapping them, only about not including them in the main body of the Missale Romanum. I also heard recently that they would no longer be published in Latin, but can't find a source for that on the net.

FrGareth

[festivaltrumpet]

I don't believe that this was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law or by subsequent Instructions on (the limitations of) Collaborative Ministry, but perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the minutae of canon law could give a definitive answer.

I bow to greater authority, but the following paragraph (and those surrounding it) seems to make the Church's current position clear.

It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[Southern Comfort]

I don't believe that this was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law or by subsequent Instructions on (the limitations of) Collaborative Ministry, but perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the minutae of canon law could give a definitive answer.

I bow to greater authority, but the following paragraph (and those surrounding it) seems to make the Church's current position clear.

It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

This makes no difference whatsoever. As FrGareth already quoted, the Directory on Masses with Children specifically states that an adult may speak to the children after the Gospel, and this is not abrogated by the CCL ─ quite the reverse, in fact: see canons 759 and 230 §3, which positively encourage lay people to take part in the Church's ministry of the word, and canon 766 which says

The laity may be allowed to preach in a church or oratory if in certain circumstances it is necessary, or in particular cases it would be advantageous, according to the provisions of the Episcopal Conference and without prejudice to can. 767 §1

Canon 766 is a 180° about-turn from canon 1342 §2 of the 1917 Code which forbade any lay person to preach in church at all.

And what does canon 767 §1 itself say?

The most important form of preaching is the homily, which is part of the liturgy, and is reserved to a priest or deacon.

In other words, a lay person can speak to the people, preach, give a reflection, call it what you like, just so long as you don't call it a homily. To be even clearer, a lay person may preach, but a lay person may not preach a homily. There is a difference. Redemptionis Sacramentum is specifically talking about a lay person preaching a homily, not lay preaching in general.

But in order to preach at all, canon 767 §4 implies that the permission would need to be given by the parish priest or rector of the church. The Americans drafted some guidelines on lay preaching in 1988 ─ these would have required permission to be sought from the diocesan bishop ─ but Rome never approved the guidelines so the question is still moot. The Canadian bishops, following canon 766, have authorised lay preaching as follows:

1) When there is no priest or deacon who can converse in the language of the people;
2) When the liturgy of the word is celebrated without a priest or a deacon; [this would apply to Liturgy of the Word with Children]
3) When seminarians who have begun their studies in theology are sent to parishes as part of their pastoral formation;
4) When certain circumstances require the participation of lay persons (financial questions, special appeals, special circumstances);
5) When the diocesan bishop judges it opportune.

A very useful book for dealing with this whole area is Lay Preaching: state of the question by Patricia A. Parachini, published by the Liturgical Press in 1999.

I have the impression that many of our bishops are not averse to lay people preaching, and Fr Allen Morris, when he was secretary at the Liturgy Office, positively encouraged it.

This question is really related to the diminishing differences between lay and ordained, which have become more apparent in recent times. Years ago, John Ainslie said something along the lines of "No one has yet explained why, if a lay person can now sing the Exsultet, formerly reserved to a deacon, they may not also proclaim the Gospel". And, as we know, the Gospel is de facto proclaimed by lay people every Sunday ─ in Liturgy of the Word with Children.

On a somewhat different topic in this thread:

Did I read somewhere that the CDW is planning to scrap the children's Eucharistic Prayers anyway?

Try http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60199 - but it's not about scrapping them, only about not including them in the main body of the Missale Romanum. I also heard recently that they would no longer be published in Latin, but can't find a source for that on the net.

FrGareth

The international LITNETWK private forum discussed this some time ago. The clarification, correctly stated by Fr Gareth, that this only meant not including the Prayers in the main body of the new Missal, not scrapping them altogether, came from Fr Bruce Harbert, the outgoing secretary of ICEL.

The reason they will no longer be published in Latin is because they were originally written in French and German, and then translated into Latin. They were then retranslated back from the Latin into their original languages (can you believe it?) ─ and those versions were considerably at variance with the originals! Bruce Harbert was told this amusing little piece of liturgical history (he was apparently unaware of it previously) and has seemingly passed it on to the CDW, which clearly does not wish to appear foolish any longer, at least regarding this particular matter. There is no source on the net that I am aware of confirming their decision. They find the whole episode more than somewhat embarrassing, given that their current position is that nothing may be used which is not translated from the Latin. The solution? Don't have the Prayers in Latin; therefore they may not be printed in a vernacular Missal which must only contain translations from the Latin; but don't actually stop people from using them.... And ICEL have declared their intention (according to Fr Harbert) of actually reissuing them in a separate booklet in a new English version (heaven knows what that will look like!).

[Southern Comfort]

It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

I omitted to mention that RS's problem is that in some places it had already attained the force of custom by the time RS came out (2005). It only takes 30 years to reach that status in Canon Law.

This, by the way, if you've been following it, is one of the nubs of the problem surrounding the parish in Brisbane where the PP has been chucked out by the bishop, a handful of people are now going to Mass with the stand-in PP (who is actually also the Cathedral Dean and a very nice guy and doesn't deserve to be put in this situation), while something like 1200 people from the parish are going to Mass down the road with the previous PP in another building that they are renting. The Archbishop, who I think has been very badly advised, has now suspended the previous PP's faculties, but the parish are ignoring this as mere spite and are just carrying on. And yes, religious and lay people do regularly preach there.

[johnquinn39]

[/quote]

(can you believe it?) [/quote]

Unfortunately, yes.

[festivaltrumpet]

SouthernComfort takes what might be considered to be a broader interpretation of the documents than is perhaps merited by their texts. It is clear from the texts that a member of the laity may indeed address the congregation, but not as a substitute for a homily within the Mass. Perhaps this is the prompt for Presbyter's question rather higher up the page.

The statement "Any previous norm...is abrogated" cannot be countermanded by citing exactly these previous norms as justification.

The Americans drafted some guidelines on lay preaching in 1988 ─ these would have required permission to be sought from the diocesan bishop ─ but Rome never approved the guidelines so the question is still moot.

The question is no longer moot as the US conference re-issued guidelines in 2001 which have received regognitio. These state quite clearly:

Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily.
So Southern Comfort is wrong to suggest

In other words, a lay person can speak to the people, preach, give a reflection, call it what you like, just so long as you don't call it a homily.

The lay faithful may not address the congregation proceeding the Gospel merely by titling that address a reflection.

The argument in favour of custom is somewhat weak when Rome is specifically prohibiting a practice, customary or otherwise. Would SouthernComfort similarly argue that the statement on the use of the Name of God is null and void because Dan Schutte's "You are near" has been sung for greater than 3 decades? Would he argue that the Pentecost Octave shold have remained by force of custom, even after the new calendar sadly abolished it?

Perhaps debate should be continued in an independent thread. It is distanced from the original topic and an ursine intervention is therefore possible.

[musicus]

Thank you for the suggestion, festivaltrumpet.
And my apologies to presbyter for accidentally deleting his original post - this forum's management software is labyrinthine and unforgiving.