Well, there's some real shallow thinking at work... The reading of the Bible, particularly the Gospel, and its explanation in preaching, is also the real presence of Jesus Christ, speaking in and to the worshipping community at the Eucharist, Mass, Divine Liturgy, Lord's Supper, Holy Communion -- whatever you want to call it. Hence the reason why Christians who worship by the Byzantine and Eastern rites make such a big deal of a procession with the book of the Gospels before that act. Those who think the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist renders preaching unnecessary need to re-read Luke 24:13-32. There, on the road to Emmaus, it is the risen Christ's exposition of scripture to the two disciples ("Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures") that leads up and into the breaking of bread in which they recognize him ("When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them; then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him"). "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?" the disciples exclaimed in the wake of this encounter. "Opening the scriptures to us" -- that is the sacred function and value of preaching, and it precedes gathering at the table to partake of the Eucharist, so that our eyes may truly be opened and our hearts may burn within us in recognition of Jesus. All the more reason for preachers to take their job seriously and do it well. It is a sacramental act.

Gregory Orloff

Whoever wrote the op-ed you are referring to is simply wrong, even by Roman Catholic standards. At the liturgy we are invited to break open the Word as well as the Sacrament. It's not the thirteenth century no matter how much some of these folks want to pretend that it is.

I appreciate what Gregory and Peter have written, and believe that not everyone in the Roman church feels this way. Still, I recall that long ago, in a galxy far, far away, while I was in seminary I met a Roman seminarian. He told me that his (major and well known) Roman seminary had received a bequest designated for a progam in preaching. Such a program would have been consistent with the vocation of the order that had founded the seminary and university. However, the administration had thought it more appropriate use the money to start a program on social ministries (not a bad thing, but certainly a different focus). The seminarian who shared the story, at least, was disappointed.

Marshall Scott

"Opening the scriptures to us" -- that is the sacred function and value of preaching, and it precedes gathering at the table to partake of the Eucharist, so that our eyes may truly be opened and our hearts may burn within us in recognition of Jesus.

Gregory, exactly.

I don't buy it that preaching doesn't matter.

June Butler

Not buying either.

Now back to work on that sermon. . .

Of course preaching matters, if you want to keep your, um, job. I understand this post is asking whether good preaching is an essential part of the eucharist. But in the larger context, no matter how much clergy and laity may deny it, preaching matters because everyone has an opinion and experience of a clergy person's preaching. There's not much else that is measurable on that wide a basis, and that isn't blurred because it is part of a team effort with the laity -- fellowship, outreach, Sunday school. Preaching is a solo act. Pastoral visits are also solo acts -- and they too are overemphasized relative to the portfolio of things we want the clergy to attend to.

"The quality of a Mass doesn’t depend on the homily"

I could agree with that statement if it said "The 'efficacy' of a Mass doesn’t depend on the homily"

The quality of a mass depends on the quality of everything that's put into it. The quality of the priest is affected by that priest's skills in a multitude of areas, one of which is preaching. It would be wrong to judge a priest solely on the quality of his/her preaching. It would be wrong for the priest to neglect preaching on the grounds that "it doesn't really matter."

Bunker Hill+
Spearfish, SD

As backrower, my perspective is that a good homily is a bonus, and little more. I never find myself hoping for a good homily on any given Sunday. I don't think preaching could ever entice me into a church. It gives me the willies when people talk about how great their preacher is, as if that's a reason to attend church. To me it seems that attending a service for the preaching turns the whole thing into a show, which makes us into an audience rather than worshipers (sort of like tourists who ogle at "traditional" rites abroad). Plus, books have equally profound (and likely better developed) insights.

I wonder if those who would like to downplay preaching are motivated by a desire to mitigate the cults of personality that can develop around some preachers. Of course, I doubt we liturgical-types run into that much.

In short, for me preaching is like vestments: my taste is for more historically regal looking garments, but I'm not really disappointed if they are more contemporary.