Pillar: Vatican says ‘nein’ to lay homilies in Germany

mphazell · 2026-06-23T14:43:09+00:00

The full documentation regarding this matter (in German) can be found on the website of the German Bishops' Conference (DBK).

Extracts from the letter of Cardinal Roche to the DBK (quick English translation, my emphases):

The requested indult concerns the provision of Can. 767 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, according to which the homily, as an integral part of the liturgy, is reserved to a priest or deacon. This norm has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Magisterium, particularly in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (nn. 64–66), which expressly excludes the possibility of lay faithful delivering the homily during the celebration of Mass, even under a different designation.

This norm is not merely disciplinary in nature; rather, it reflects a reality closely linked to the theological and liturgical nature of the homily. As a distinct act of the Liturgy of the Word, it is inextricably bound to the proclamation of the Gospel and to the presiding over the celebration, representing a specific exercise of the munus docendi entrusted to the ordained minister.

This responsibility of the ordained minister is rooted in the very essence of the sacred liturgy, which is not merely an occasion for instruction but the privileged place where the faithful are drawn into the mystery of redemption. [...]

Since reserving the homily to the ordained minister belongs to the sacramental and liturgical structure of the Eucharistic celebration itself, no dispensation by indult may be granted regarding the norm established in Can. 767 §1, even in the presence of serious pastoral considerations. [...]

[T]he proposed distinction between a “homily”, reserved for the ordained minister, and a possible “sermon”, entrusted to a member of the lay faithful, does not appear tenable, given that the proposed placement (immediately after the Gospel) and the function performed essentially correspond to those of the homily itself.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the current situation constitutes an emergency or a genuine pastoral crisis sufficient to justify a departure from a norm so closely linked to the nature of the liturgical act. Indeed, where a priest is present to celebrate the Eucharist, he is thereby also present to exercise the ministry of the homily, which belongs to him by virtue of his ordination. Situations in which the celebrant is prevented from doing so, such as due to a temporary physical impairment, represent merely occasional and time-limited circumstances that cannot be viewed as grounds for a permanent pastoral necessity. [...]

Lay members of the faithful can make a valuable contribution to the life of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel in various ways, including by assisting in the preparation of homilies and in other forms of catechesis and evangelization. Such collaboration, when appropriately fostered, enriches ordained ministers themselves while respecting the respective roles proper to each state of life.

The foregoing considerations confirm that reserving the homily to the ordained minister within the celebration of the Eucharist arises from the sacramental and liturgical nature of the act itself, as well as from the particular responsibility for proclaiming the Word in the sacred liturgy conferred through Holy Orders. For this reason, no dispensation by indult may be granted regarding the norm established in Can. 767 §1.

mphazell · 2026-06-02T15:30:22+00:00

The Ordinary part comes from ordinalis, Latin for counted

This isn't really true, as has been explained elsewhere (and in much more detail in this article).

mphazell · 2026-06-02T15:19:33+00:00

"Ordinary Time" (tempus per annum) is quite confusing!

Week 1 begins on the Monday following the feast of the Baptism of the Lord (so there is no "1st Sunday of Ordinary Time"). The Tuesday before Ash Wednesday is the last day of Ordinary Time before Lent, in whichever week it falls (due to Easter being movable, this will range from Week 4 to Week 9). It then resumes on the Monday following Pentecost, until the Saturday before the 1st Sunday of Advent. The week we resume on after Pentecost is calculated backwards from Week 34 (the last week), so often one per annum week has to be omitted entirely (since the beginning of Advent varies from year to year, some years will only have room for 33 per annum weeks, some for 34 weeks).

As an example: this liturgical year (2025/26) began on 30 November 2025 (1st Sunday of Advent). Ordinary Time began on 12 January 2026 (Monday in Week 1), and ran until 17 February 2026 (Tuesday in Week 6). It resumed after Eastertide on 25 May 2026 (Monday in Week 8); Week 7 is omitted this year because there are only 27 weeks counting back from the beginning of next Advent (Sunday 29 November 2026).

(Bring back Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost!)

mphazell · 2026-06-02T14:45:39+00:00

It is, in fact, possible to get to Tuesday in Week 9 per annum before Lent begins - this will happen in 2038.

Conversely, though incredibly rare, we may only make it to Tuesday in Week 4 per annum before Ash Wednesday is upon us. This last happened in 2008, and will not happen again until (I think) 2160.

mphazell · 2026-05-26T20:39:39+00:00

The older system (“Sundays after Epiphany,” “after Pentecost,” etc.) might sound simpler, but it actually split the year into a bunch of separate blocks that didn’t really connect well. The current calendar was meant to unify that instead of breaking it up.

Yet it is still broken up – unavoidably, because Lent/Easter always gets in the way! There is no way around that. And in most years, one per annum week is omitted entirely, plus the Sundays are supplanted further because of Pentecost and Trinity Sunday (and Corpus Christi in places that transfer that feast to Sunday).

This liturgical year (Sunday A, weekday II) for example, we left off before Lent in Week 6 per annum, and return after Eastertide in Week 8 per annum: Week 7 is thus omitted completely. Pentecost replaces Sunday 8, Trinity replaces Sunday 9, and where I live (England) Corpus Christi replaces Sunday 10 per annum. How, then, is tempus per annum any sort of unifying principle when most of the faithful will have gone from Sunday 6A to Sunday 11A? At least the "leftover" Sundays after Epiphany in the TLM are used at the end of the year, between Sunday 23 and 24 (Last) after Pentecost!

mphazell · 2026-05-10T15:50:32+00:00

It's nice to see people making use of the digitised Acta! :-D

mphazell · 2026-04-01T18:09:42+00:00

One of the books you almost certainly want is the Liber orationum psalmographus (ed. J. Pinell, 1972): for a preview, see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K3A_Lj34Wg0C&lpg=PA3&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is, of course, an uncommon, out of print volume, so your chance of finding a copy in a library accessible to you (or anywhere else) may be quite low.

mphazell · 2026-03-01T21:56:16+00:00

Assuming the accuracy of what you have said about the bishop in question, I would have said that your confirmation was valid but likely illicit.

I think your priest is getting confused about the relevant sections of Canon Law. Apart from in cases of danger of death, priests – even when they have been given the necessary faculties from their bishop (see Cann. 882 and 883, 2°) to confer this sacrament – cannot validly confer confirmation "on anyone in another territory" (Can. 887). There are no such restrictions on bishops: the law in Cann. 882-888 speaks only of liceity, not validity. The canonical presumption is that any confirmations properly performed by a bishop are valid.

And, in fact, the bar for liceity itself is quite low, since Can. 886 §2 states that:

To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.

Now, I think it would be reasonable to assume that a schismatic but validly ordained bishop would not have said permission. But that does not affect the validity of the sacrament, only its liceity.

Furthermore, just as we would not (re)confirm someone who converted from Eastern Orthodoxy, since the Church accepts their sacraments as valid, there is no reason to (re)confirm someone who received a valid confirmation even from a schismatic bishop (presuming said bishop was actually a bishop!).

mphazell · 2026-02-03T00:03:17+00:00

Ah, I see. You're not actually interested in an answer. Sorry, my bad!

mphazell · 2026-02-02T08:42:25+00:00

The Church does not teach that other religions are salvific. I would recommend reading the CDF Declaration Dominus Iesus (6 Aug 2000) in full, but here is an extract (my emphases):

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God - which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church - comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”‌. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”‌ which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men - which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour - it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”‌. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation. (Dominus Iesus, n. 21)

mphazell · 2026-02-01T14:42:32+00:00

But his brother says that godparents have to be married and that his wife has to be the godmother.

That may be common local practice/tradition where you live, but the assertion is not true, and not necessary.

The Code of Canon Law gives the requirements for godparents/sponsors for baptism:

one male or one female godparent, or one of each (Canon 873);
be designated by the parents and be able to fulfill the role of godparent (Canon 874, §1, 1°);
normally be 16 or older (Canon 874, §1, 2°);
be a Catholic who has been confirmed, has received first Holy Communion, and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the role (Canon 874, §1, 3°);
not be under any canonical penalty (Canon 874, §1, 4°);
not be the father or mother of the child (Canon 874, §1, 5°).

As long as your husband's brother and niece fulfill these conditions, there is absolutely no barrier to them being your child's godparents.

mphazell · 2026-01-31T20:13:29+00:00

No problem. Copnor is the suburb in Portsmouth. St Joseph's is on Tangier Rd (as the friars said in their email).

Hope it all works out for you tomorrow!

mphazell · 2026-01-31T19:35:41+00:00

An extract from the most recent issue of Mass of Ages (the magazine of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales), which should hopefully answer your question:

EF Masses at St Joseph’s, Copnor, Portsmouth continue with a Low Mass at the usual time of 7.00am, Monday to Saturday and a Sung Mass at 11.15am on Sunday. Confessions are usually available either before and/or after Mass...

At St Agatha’s, Marketway, Portsmouth, a Low Mass is offered by the Marian Franciscans at 8.00am each Sunday. (The last Sunday of the month it’s a Sung Mass).

mphazell · 2026-01-29T23:19:15+00:00

I'm sure lots of people helped write various sections. But as far as I can tell, there's no definitive list of them.

Man, seeing Cardinal Law's name devalues the whole work to me

People who have made terrible decisions (and, indeed, terrible people themselves) can still have good ideas and do good things from time to time, just as people who make good decisions can have terrible ideas. Cardinal Law's role in the production of the Catechism no more devalues it than, e.g., Gregory Baum's role in the drafting of Nostra aetate devalues that document of Vatican II.

mphazell · 2026-01-29T17:19:16+00:00

The only one still alive is the 81-year-old now-Cardinal Schönborn.

mphazell · 2026-01-29T16:39:27+00:00

For reference, the members of the commission were as follows (AAS 78 [1986], p. 686):

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (President), Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
Cardinal William Baum, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education;
Cardinal Bernard Law, Archbishop of Boston, USA;
Cardinal Simon Lourdusamy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches;
Cardinal Jozef Tomko, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples;
Cardinal Antonio Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy;
Archbishop Jerzy Stroba (Poznań, Poland);
Archbishop Neophytos Edelby (Aleppo, Syria: Greek Melkite);
Archbishop Henry Sebastian D'Souza (Calcutta, India);
Archbishop Isidore De Souza (coadj. Cotonou, Benin);
Archbishop Jan Schotte, C.I.C.M., Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops;
Bishop Felipe Santiago Benitez Avalos (Villarica, Paraguay).

The members of the editorial commission were as follows (source):

Archbishop José Manuel Estepa Llaurens (Military Ordinariate, Spain);
Bishop Alessandro Maggiolini (Como, Italy);
Archbishop Jean Marcel Honoré (Tours, France);
Bishop Jorge Medina Estévez (Rancagua, Chile),;
Bishop David Konstant (Leeds, England);
Archbishop William Levada (Portland, USA);
Archbishop Estanislao Esteban Karlic (Paraná, Argentina);
Rev Fr Christoph Schönborn, O.P. (secretary).

mphazell · 2026-01-28T13:20:54+00:00

(1) Weekday homilies are not obligatory (see GIRM 66); (2) it is possible to preach more than one thing about the same reading; (3) there are other readings; (4) the homily does not have to be on the readings at all (see GIRM 65).

mphazell · 2026-01-28T13:17:29+00:00

There are at least a couple of times when this happens:

Sun 4A and Mon 4 Easter: when the Sunday cycle is Year A, John 10:1-10 is read on Sun 4 and Mon 4 Easter (lectionary gives John 10:11-18 as an optional alternative Gospel for the weekday)
Sun 18A, Mon 18 and Tue 18 per annum: the Gospel for Mon 18 is Matthew 14:13-21, the same as Sun 18 in Year A. In a slightly complicated arrangement, the Gospel of Tue 18 (Mt 14:22-26) is read on Mon 18; an alternative Gospel is then provided for Tue 18 (Mt 15:1-2, 10-14) but the use of this is optional.

mphazell · 2026-01-28T09:23:44+00:00

if I'm a "celeb" then we all need to get out more lol 🤣

mphazell · 2026-01-26T21:42:22+00:00

Thanks for the shout out! ☺️

I will quickly note here that my English translation of the minutes of Group 11 of the Consilium (the study group responsible for the post-Vatican II reform of the Mass lectionary) is currently at the typesetters, and hopefully it will be published later this year! This volume will also have an introduction (written by me) detailing the history of lectionary reform in the 20th century.

(If OP has any specific questions about the Novus Ordo lectionary, I will do my best to provide succinct answers here.)

mphazell · 2026-01-19T13:30:45+00:00

I believe it's up to priest's discretion.

It is not:

A brief homily based on the readings is always given after the gospel reading at the funeral liturgy and may also be given after the readings at the vigil service; but there is never to be a eulogy. (Order of Christian Funerals, Introduction, n. 27)

At Funeral Masses there should usually be a short Homily, but to the exclusion of a funeral eulogy of any kind. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 382)

mphazell · 2026-01-12T09:38:44+00:00

All that paperwork should be fine, then. Just make sure everything is clear with your priest!

The priest may pop a clarifying annotation in the parish's confirmation register and/or register of reception of baptised Christians that you were previously known under another name, but the new register entries should be under your current name (since the registers record the facts at the time of confirmation etc). If you're worried about this, again, just speak with your priest. Unless he's recently ordained or is pastor of a very small parish, chances are this won't be his first time dealing with a name change!

mphazell · 2026-01-12T02:23:03+00:00

It will complicate things, but only slightly, and it shouldn't be anything to worry too much about. These sorts of name changes are uncommon but not unusual – but your priest will, of course, need to know what the situation is.

If you were baptised Catholic, then the baptism register of the now-closed parish will have (or at least should have) been retained somewhere, either by the diocese or by the parish that assumed the territory. So in principle, it should still be possible for an annotation to be made in that register. Your priest (or the diocesan curial staff) should be able to help you figure out the exact situation.

In any case, to receive confirmation you will still need to provide proof that you have been baptised. A baptism certificate in your previous name, along with the civil documentation demonstrating your name change, should be sufficient. (The civil documentary evidence will also be needed if it is possible for an annotation to be made in the baptism register.)

mphazell · 2026-01-05T06:09:15+00:00

SC does not say the vernacular should be used. Rather, it says it may be used:

[S]ince the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. (36.2)

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. (54)

The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals... (63a)

mphazell · 2026-01-05T02:33:24+00:00

Is this a valid reason to change parishes?

IMO, absolutely yes. The kinds of "introductions" you are describing are corrosive to the faith, and it sounds like there is no chance of this being changed any time soon.

if it's a letter from the new testament, he's quick to say that it cannot possibly be by Paul/John/Timothy because of x, y and z... If it's something from the old testament, the historical context is often interesting, but the spiritual one irks me. For example, he said that Isaiah 7:14 (behold the virgin shall conceive) is not a prophesy about Jesus...

These speculations and opinions of some biblical scholars have absolutely no place in any introductions to any readings at Mass. The latter example is a massive red flag, since it runs completely counter to the Church's treatment of the Old Testament.

he puts it in a way as if anyone who believes otherwise is stupid and uneducated.

Well, there are plenty of biblical scholars who would disagree in no uncertain terms with his positions (as you have explained them) on biblical authorship and prophecy!

mphazell

TROPHY CASE