Posted on 12/19/2019 8:29:28 AM PST by Salvation
A recent analysis by the Pew Research Center shows the rather unsurprising fact that sermons at Catholic masses are much shorter than those at Protestant and Evangelical services. The Catholic News Agency reports:
An analysis of nearly 50,000 sermons, given across a variety of Christian denominations during the months of April and May this year, found that the median length of a sermon was 37 minutes, but for Catholic priests, the average length was just 14 minutes.
Pew found that historically black Protestant sermons had the longest median length of 54 minutes, while mainline Protestant sermons were an average of 25 minutes long, with evangelical churches falling in between at 39 minute [sic] per sermon (CNA).
Catholic clergy are generally considered to be poorer preachers than their Protestant counterparts, and I would argue that the shorter sermon length has something to do with that. The expectation that a sermon be brief, about twelve minutes, affects what is said and how it is said. It also makes a number of forms of preaching, some of them among the most satisfying for the congregation, impossible.
Some years ago, a brother priest asked one of his parishioners who had left for a large Protestant denomination why he had done so. “They teach the Word,” was the man’s answer. We can certainly lament that the man would not have left the faith had he understood the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but people also have a hunger for God’s Word effectively taught and presented. For this reason, a good sermon deeply rooted in a biblical text is very satisfying. Long before I was ordained a priest, I listened to recordings of Protestant preachers like Adrian Rogers and Tony Evans. I marveled at how these men could take a text and teach from it line by line, creatively applying it to life. Even if I did not agree with every point they made or thought that they missed something that a Catholic would see, they saw the text as full of meaning and served up rich spiritual fare for their listeners.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen had this ability, too. He’d find a crucial point most others would miss and develop it beautifully. I remember once he noted that the disciples had forgotten to bring bread with them on the boat and emphasized the detail in the text that said, “They had only one loaf with them in the boat.” With the authority that only Sheen could command he proceeded to say, “And the loaf was Christ, who alone is our necessary Bread.” From this insightful teaching he went on to develop four aspects of it.
This sort of teaching and preaching takes time. I would argue that the relative inferiority of Catholic preaching isn’t just that Catholic clergy are poorly trained; it is also the limited time tolerated by the faithful. With such an abbreviated length, Catholic sermons tend to present a single principle drawn from the readings without being able to fully develop it. Good biblically based preaching usually involves going through a passage in the following steps: read it, analyze it, organize it, illustrate it, and then apply it. This sort of preaching isn’t likely to happen in a twelve-minute homily.
I also am told by many Catholics that priests need to teach more from the pulpit. There is a very long list of topics that they want to hear preached about more. I would argue that this also requires more than a mere twelve minutes.
I do not say that every member of the clergy should preach longer. Some simply don’t have the skill to do so. Others are in situations were a longer sermon is not possible due to the overall Mass schedule. There are also going to be ethnic/racial differences that factor in. So, neither do I argue that longer sermons teaching in depth out of a biblical text should be used in all situations. However, I do argue that if they want the “better” sermons of the denominations noted for excellent preaching, more Catholics might want to consider tolerating a longer sermon, at least at certain Masses.
I have spent most of my priesthood in predominantly African-American parishes. In such congregations, longer sermons are assumed. The people have high expectations of the sermon; they also interact with the preacher through encouraging interjections such as “Amen” and “All right now.” In these settings I routinely preach about thirty minutes; it is a great luxury. This permits me to preach through a biblical text examining its stages or exploring several aspects of the teaching it sets forth. Most of you who read my Sunday sermons posted here or listen to them online know this. One sermon might cover four aspects of discipleship derived from a Gospel pericope. Another might explore the stages of faith the man born blind goes through in the Gospel of John. Most of my parishioners would be surprised if I gave a ten-minute sermon, wondering what had happened. Once when I gave a short sermon a woman playfully rebuked me, saying, “Father, you left too much fruit in the tree this morning. We need a better harvest next week.”
Some Catholics have told me that they think long sermons are a mistake no matter who is in the pulpit because the purpose of the Mass is not to be a glorified bible study; it is an act of worship. Perhaps, but isn’t the Lord being worshipped when the faithful are attending to His proclaimed and preached Word with devotion?
Over the years, I have found that people have pretty strong opinions about sermons, both length and content. I suppose the best way for me to end this piece is by saying that perhaps we can all make a little room for one another in the Church. Some priests preach longer and are good at it. Some are not and better off keeping the sermon short and to the point. Other priests preach brilliant, memorable homilies that are quite brief. Vive la différence! Even in my own parish, not every liturgy is the same: our 11:00 AM Mass runs well over an hour, while our 7:00 PM Mass is no longer than forty-five minutes. Hence, in my own sermons, both content and length vary.
The one thing that is most clear to me is that rigid declarations that no sermon should be longer than a certain number of minutes (8, 10, 12, or whatever) are disrespectful of legitimate differences across cultures, liturgical traditions, and even personal temperaments. Pastors and congregations can and should work out their own situations and provide variety even there. Live and let live.
This sermon clip shows that, when I have to, I can preach in under four minutes. This was a half-hour TV Mass and only four minutes for the sermon is allotted. I certainly don’t consider it one of my better efforts and would liked to have developed the possibility that St. John did have supernatural grace. But all that one can do in so brief a moment is to throw out a few thoughts and exit gracefully. In my written online sermon I developed, in three stages, going from the imperfect gift we merely want to the perfect gift that God is actually offering. In my recorded parish homily, given the generous time allotted in that setting I was able to sample well from the Prophets as well as the Gospel text itself.
See my post below, please.
Er, see my post ABOVE!
Conservative Presbyterian churches that I have been a member of tend to run 90 minutes.
Justin Wilson (Cajun comic) had a great story about a Catholic boy and a Protestant boy who became friends. Each was curious about the other’s church so they decided that both would attend both services.
They go to the Catholic service first and the little Catholic boy explains the mass, each ritual and its symbolism to the Protestant kid.
The next Sunday they go to the Protestant church. At the beginning the entire congregation stands and sings a hymn. The preacher goes to the pulpit and lays a big pocket watch on the Bible. The Catholic kid asks, “What does that mean, huh? The other kid responds, “Not a damn ting, I garontee!”
A good part of what I've learned about RC priests has been on these forums....from Roman Catholic priest....one in particular who has been banned.
In the United States, priests must have a four-year university degree in philosophy plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology with a focus on Biblical research. A Master of Divinity is the most common degree.
The MDiv is the standard degree for the vast majority of theology students.
I do question the emphasis on Biblical research based on the MDiv requirements of the RC seminaries I've reviewed.
I'll ask you again....are you a priest?
Also, many more evangelical Christians than Catholics are actually reading the Bible themselves in any given week. If you aren’t reading the Bible for yourself, then for the most part those Scripture readings go in one ear and out the other.
And when the actual Scripture Roman Catholics is exposed to is examined they are missing a good part of it.
This presumes attendance on Sundays and Major Feasts (three year cycle).
NT% 40.8%
OT% 3.7%
Prior to Vatican II it was worse.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
The average Roman Catholic is exposed to very little Scripture over a three year period...for those attending.
The Roman Catholic is further hampered in their desire (?) to study Scripture in that Rome has only dogmatically defined a small number of verses.
And, as we have been told on these forums, an individual cannot read and understand the Scriptures on their own.
This leaves the Roman Catholic at a great disadvantage IF they try to read and understand Scripture.
Since I attend daily Mass I hear/read Biblical passages daily. I've been attending Mass and hearing these readings all my life.
Please don't assume that "Scripture readings go in one ear and out the other." You don't know me. In fact, it's downright insulting. I have no intention of insulting YOU so please try to afford me the same courtesy. THANK YOU.
Pax tibi. [Peace be with you.]
Monsignor Pope is spot on in his observations. My late uncle who passed away years ago and was an outstanding priest always said 10 minutes max in sermon length. Any time after that you would “start to loose attention spans.” I tend to believe he was right!
THAT'S for sure.
Do you watch EWTN [Eternal Word Television Network]?
I do and I've seen Bishop Sheen many times. What an orator he was!
Priests are like any other folks--they have unique talents which they try to bring to their priesthood. Some are good orators, others are good writers.
Priests are far more intelligent and educated than the priests of 100 years ago. But, they CHOSE to heed the call of God and devote their ENTIRE adult lives to serving God. They are priests until the day they die.
That commitment staggers the imagination.
TEN MINUTES is perfect.
We have a pastor who had been an attorney. He likes to hear himself talk, I think. HIS sermons are way too long (20-25 minutes) and my mind tends to "wander."
I want to YAWN just thinking of it.
We have a pastor who had been an attorney. He likes to hear himself talk, I think. HIS sermons are way too long (20-25 minutes) and my mind tends to "wander."
I want to YAWN just thinking of it.
People are willing to give sporting events three hours of their day, they'll watch a two hour movie, a 30 minute show on tv, etc....
Yet you're willing to give a whole 10 minutes to hear the preaching of the Word????
IF all Roman Catholics are of this mindset it helps explain a lot of things about RCs.
You would not have made it in the early church. It would run somewhere around 3 hours.
Rather, believing in a christ whose appearance does not correspond to what he materially is, but which "true body and blood" is imagined to be consumed under the appearance is non-existent bread and wine (until the non-existent hosts manifest decay/corruption) is pure delusion, regardless of psychological effects it may provide to those who believe the fantasy of the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper.
As said before, nowhere in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels) is the primary unique function of pastors that of offering the Lord's supper, nor as it being a sacrifice for sins, nor is it described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
Instead, in the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching, (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by the latter of which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) for the word is what called spiritual food, "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32) and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)
Neither are distinctive Catholic teachings manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed.
But of course, you have been shown this before, and as you persist in your provocative promotions of RC teaching then you should not complain about the reproof it should result in.
50 minutes! In the at least 1500 services I have been part of as a born again Christ in evangelical fellowships I do not think any were as short as that, with most lasting about 2 hours or more. In conservative Baptist and Pentecostal churches the sermons were about 35-45 minutes, and in the latter churches so was the worship. Praise the Lord.
When I was a weekly Mass-going adult RC the only priest that I recall giving sermons which came close to being life-giving, sounding like he had the Spirit of Christ, was a guest priest in a RCC (where I was not sppsd to go to) in a neighboring town. He was a liaison btwn the marginalized charismatic Catholics (which then were a definitive different breed) and the standard traditional church.
And in Scripture primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching, (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by the latter of which they “feed the flock.” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) For the word is what called spiritual food, "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32) and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)
In contrast, nowhere in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels) is the primary unique function of pastors that of offering the Lord's supper, nor as it being a sacrifice for sins, nor is it described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself. And of-course, neither are distinctive Catholic teachings manifest therein either.
That is the focus, with that being their primary unique function, in clear contrast to what we see in the the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed
Not guilty yes, but not as having no sinful nature. Else all who are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit would be sinless, yet this is not what is manifest. Forgiven yes, but not as sinless like as the fabricated Mary of Catholicism is asserted to be.
So now Catholics are contradicting Scripture twice over regarding claiming people are sinless.
Probably an attempt to retain the worship of Mary despite John being greater than her.
You are serious? See my previous posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.