Homily
HOMILY
A sermon or discourse upon some point of religion delivered in a plain manner, so as to be easily understood by the common people. The Greek homily, says M. Fleury, signifies a familiar discourse like the Latin sermo, and discourses delivered in the church took these denominations, to intimate that they were not harangues, or matters of ostentation and flourish, like those of profane orators, but familiar and useful discourses, as of a master to his disciples, or a father to his children. All the homilies of the Greek and Latin fathers are composed by bishops. We have none of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and many other learned persons, because in the first ages none but bishops were admitted to preach. The privilege was not ordinarily allowed to priests till toward the fifth century. St. Chrysostom was the first presbyter that preached statedly, Origen and St. Augustine also preached, but it was by a peculiar license or privilege.
Photius distinguishes homily from sermon, in that the homily was performed in a more familiar manner; the prelate interrogating and talking to the people, and they in their turn answering and interrogating him, so that it was properly a conversation; whereas the sermon was delivered with more form, and in the pulpit, after the manner of the orators. The practice of compiling homilies which were to be committed to memory, and recited by ignorant or indolent priests, commenced towards the close of the eighth century; when Charlemange ordered Paul, Deacon, and Alcuin, to form homilies or discourses upon the Gospels and Epistles from the ancient doctors of the church. This gave rise to that famous collection entitled the Homiliarium of Charlemagne; and which being followed as a model by many productions of the same kind, composed by private persons, from a principle of pious zeal, contributed much (says Mosheim) to nourish the indolence and to perpetuate the ignorance of a worthless clergy. There are still extant several fine homilies composed by the ancient fathers, particularly St. Chrysostom and St. Gregory.
The Clementine homilies are nineteen homilies in Greek, published by Cotelerius, with two letters prefixed, one of them written in the name of Peter, the other in the name of Clement, to James, bishop of Jerusalem; in which last letter they are entitled Clement’s Epitome of the Preaching and Travels of Peter. According to Le Clerc, these homilies were composed by an Ebionite, in the second century; but Montfaucon supposes that they were forged long after the age of St. Athanasius. Dr. Lardner apprehends that the Clementine homilies were the original or first edition of the Recognitions; and that they are the same with the work censured by Eusebius under the title of Dialogues of Peter and Appion.
Homilies of the Church of England are those which were composed at the reformation to be read in churches, in order to supply the defect of sermons.
See the quarto edition of the Homilies, with notes, by a divine of the church of England.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
homily
Name applied, since the time of Origen (c.185-253), to a didactic commentary, without formal introduction, division, or conclusion, on some part of Sacred Scripture, the aim being to explain the literal, and evolve the spiritual, meaning of the text. Among the famous homilists are Origen , Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint Chrysostum, Saint Augustine, and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. The oldest homily extant is the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. At present there are four methods of treating the homily:
to treat separately each sentence of the Gospel
to focus the entire content of the Gospel in a single idea
to select some virtue or vice arising out of the Gospel, and to treat it to the exclusion of all else
to paraphrase and explain the entire Gospel, and then make an application of it
New Catholic Dictionary
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Homily
The word homily is derived from the Greek word homilia (from homilein), which means to have communion or hold intercourse with a person. In this sense homilia is used in I Cor., xv, 33. In Luke, xxiv, 14, we find the word homiloun, and in Acts, xxiv, 26, homilei, both used in the sense of “speaking with”. In Acts, xx, 11, we meet the term homilesas; here it is used, for the first time, to signify a sermon to the Christians in connexion with the breaking of bread: it was evidently an informal discourse, or exposition of doctrine, for we are told that St. Paul “talked a long time . . . until daylight”. Thereafter the word was used as a sign of Christian worship (Justin, “Apol. I”, c. lxvii; Ignatius, “Ep. ad Polyc.”, v). Origen was the first to distinguish between logos (sermo) and homilia (tractatus). Since Origen’s time homily has meant, and still means, a commentary, without formal introduction, division, or conclusion, on some part of Sacred Scripture, the aim being to explain the literal, and evolve the spiritual, meaning of the Sacred Text. The latter, as a rule, is the more important; but if, as in the case of Origen, more attention be paid to the former, the homily will be called expository rather than moral or hortatory. It is the oldest form of preaching. Christ himself may be said, but with a difference to be noted later, to have preached in this style (cf. Luke 4:16-20). It was the kind of preaching that was used by the Apostles and Fathers in addressing the faithful. In the “First Apology” of Justin Martyr (c. lxvii) we read: “On the day called Sunday, all assembled in the same place, where the memorials [apomnemoneumata] of the Apostles and Prophets were read . . . and when the reader has finished, the bishop delivers a sermon”, etc. In this connexion, the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” (ninth edition) says: “The custom of delivering expositions or comments more or less extemporaneous on the lessons of the day at all events passed over soon and readily into the Christian Church” [i.e., from the Jewish synagogue]. From this the Catholic view differs, and maintains that the kind of homily referred to by Justin was not a continuation of the Jewish commentary on Scripture, but was an essential part of Christian worship, a continuation of the Apostolic sermon, in fulfilment of Christ’s commission to His disciples. Both indeed had an external similarity (see Luke 4:16-20), but in essence one differed from the other as much as the Christian religion differed from the Jewish.
The oldest homily extant is the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; it is now generally admitted, however, that it is not by Clement (see Bardenhewer, “Patrologie”, tr. Shahan, p. 29). We have a hundred and ninety-six by Origen; some from St. Athanasius, although he was more of a controversialist than a homilist; the brief and antithetic homilies of St. Leo the Great have also come down to us; and the more important ones of St. Gregory the Great. Also well-known homilists are: Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, Isidore, Bede, Bernard of Clairvaux; and there are many others. Even after the art of rhetoric was brought to bear on preaching, the homiletic form continued, so that there were recognized two styles of preaching, the extempore, unpolished, or familiar, and the polished, or carefully prepared, style. Fine examples of both may be seen in St. Chrysostom; also in St. Augustine, who, in referring to his homiletic preaching, said that he humbled himself that Christ might be exalted. The homiletic was the favourite style of preaching during the Middle Ages; and many of the sermons then preached might, from the frequent use of the Sacred Text, be called Scriptural mosaics (see Neale, “Mediaeval Sermons”).
At present there are four recognized ways of treating the homily, but not all to be equally commended.
The first method consists in treating separately each sentence of the Gospel. This was the uniform method of St. Anselm, as we gather from the sixteen sermons that have come down to us. It is not to be recommended, for it gives, at best, but a fragmentary and scattered treatment. The second method is quite the opposite; it focuses the entire content of the Gospel in a single idea. It is usually called the “higher homily”, and differs from the formal or set sermon only in the absence of introduction and peroration. It is clear that only certain Gospels can be treated in this way. The third kind selects some virtue or vice arising out of the Gospel, and treats one or the other to the exclusion of all else. This kind of homily is commonly called a “prone”. The fourth kind is that which first paraphrases and explains the entire Gospel, and then makes an application of it. This, the method of St. Chrysostom, seems, except where the “higher homily” applies, to be the best, because it can guard against the besetting defect of the homily, namely, a tendency to lack of unity and continuity.
The advantages of the homily are that it is a form of preaching which was in use from the very beginning of Christianity; it is simple and easily understood; it affords a better opportunity than the formal sermon for interweaving Sacred Scripture. The most appropriate time for the homily is at the early Mass; for the formal sermon, at the principal Mass; and for the catechetical sermon (see HOMILETICS), at the evening devotions. As to its place in the Mass, the homily is usually preached after the first Gospel; but St. Francis de Sales would prefer that it come after the Communion, and in his letter to the Archbishop of Bourges he quotes the words of St. Chrysostom: “Quam os illud quod SS. Mysteria suscepit, daemonibus terrible est”; also those of St. Paul (2 Corinthians 13:3): “in experimentum quaeritis ejus, qui in me loquitur Christus.”
For Clementine Homilies, see CLEMENTINES.
———————————–
KEPPLER in “Kirchenlex.”, s.v. “Homiletik”; DUCHESNE, “Christian Worship” (tr. St. Louis, 1908); SCHMID, “Manual of Patrology” (St. Louis, 1899); THOMASSIN, “Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Doctrina” (Paris, 1688); DIGBY, “Mores Catholici” (London, 1846); NEALE, “Mediaeval Sermons” (London, 1856); MACNAMARA, “Sacred Rhetoric” (Dublin, 1882); POTTER, “Sacred Eloquence” (New York, 1891); SCHUECH, “The Priest in the Pulpit” (tr. New York, 1905); HAMON, “Traite de la Predication” (Paris, 1906); MOURRET, “Lecons sur l’art de precher” (Paris, 1909). BARDENHEWER, “Patrology”, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908): See bibliography of HOMILETICS.
P.A. BEECHER Transcribed by M.E. Smith
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Homily
(Gr. , communion, a meeting; hence A discourse adapted to the people), the name of a certain class of sermons. It is now applied to a simple exposition of a text, in contradistinction from the discussion of a topic. In the early Church the term , oration, was applied to less familiar discourses; to the plainer, much as the term lecture is now used.
1. The distinction between the homily and the sermon is thus set forth by Vinet. The special character of the homily is, not that it has to do most frequently with recitals, or that it is more familiar than other discourses, but that its chief business is to set in relief the successive parts of an extended text, subordinating them to its contour, its accidents, its chances, if we may so speak, more than can be done in the sermon, properly so called. Nothing distinguishes, essentially, the homily from the sermon except the comparative predominance of analysis; in other terms, the prevalence of explanation over system. The difficulty as to unity presented by this kind of discourse never amounts to impossibility. We do not at random cut from the general text of the sacred book the particular text of a homily. The selection is not arbitrary. The limit of the text is predetermined by reference to unity, which, therefore, we shall be at no loss to discover in it. The only danger is that unity of subject will be relinquished, as the thread of a path may be buried and lost beneath an intertwined and tufted vegetation. As the preacher appears to be more sustained by his text in the homily than in the synthetic sermon, the former is thought to be easier of execution. It certainly is easier to make a homily than a sermon, but a good sermon is made with more facility than a good homily. The great masters in the art of preaching Bourdaloue, for example have not succeeded in homily. The most excellent judges in the matter of preaching have recommended the homily (Homiletics, p. 148 sq.).
2. In the primitive Church we find the style of the homily already in the discourses of Christ and his apostles. They frequented the synagogues of the Jews wherever they went, and in these it was customary, after the reading of the Scriptures, to give an invitation to any one to comment upon what had been read. In this way the disciples frequently took occasion to speak of Christ and his doctrines. Thus we find in the Acts (Act 1:15; Act 2:14; Act 4:7; Act 5:29; Act 13:40-41; Act 17:22; Act 20:18; Act 20:22-24) brief notices of several addresses made by Peter and Paul, and one by Stephen, which give us quite a distinct impression of their style of address. Tertullian and Justin Martyr inform us that a like practice was common in the churches of Africa and Asia. We meet together to read the Holy Scriptures, and, when circumstances permit, to admonish one another. In such sacred discourse we establish our faith, we encourage our hope, we confirm our trust, and quicken our obedience to the word by a renewed application of its truths (Tertullian, Apol. p. 39).
(a) A similar mode of discourse we find again in the early Greek Church, beginning with Origen (A.D. 320). This was in some respects, however, a new style of address, as it inclined to an allegorical mode of interpreting the Scriptures. But, aside from this characteristic, the sermons, or rather, homilies of this period, were soon followed by all the preachers, as Origen was considered by all a standard who was to be imitated, while there were others less commendable. In general they were faulty in style, corrupt with philosophical terms and rhetorical flourishes, forms of expression extravagant and farfetched, Biblical expressions unintelligible to the people, unmeaning comparisons, absurd antitheses, spiritless interrogations, senseless exclamations, and bombast. The causes which contributed to form this style are due to the prevalence of pagan philosophy among the Christian preachers of this time, many of whom were converts from paganism, and had received an imperfect preparation before entering on the discharge of their sacred office.
(b) In the early Latin Church, the homilies of this period are, if anything, even greatly inferior to those in the Greek. The cause of this was, as in the Greek Church, the imperfect education of those in the ministry, more especially their ignorance of the original languages of the Bible. See Eschenburg, Versuche. Gesch. der ffenil. Religionsvortrge, p. 300 sq.
3. In the Church of Rome, at an early period, when few of the priests were capable of preaching, discourses were framed out of the fathers, chiefly expository, to be read from the pulpits. These were also called homilies. SEE HOMILILRIUM.
4. In England, homilies were early in use in the Anglo-Saxon Church. AElfric, archbishop of Canterbury, who, after Alfred, ranks first among the Anglo-Saxon vernacular writers, finding that but few persons of his day (latter part of the 10th century) could read the Gospel doctrines, as they were written in the Latin, the language of the Church, was led to compile a collection of eighty homilies, some of which were perhaps written by himself, but most of which he translated from the Latin. In these Anglo- Saxon homilies almost every vital doctrine which distinguished the Romish from the Protestant Church meets with a direct contradiction, and they proved of no little value in the religious controversy at the period of the English Reformation. They condemn especially, among other things, without reserve, the doctrine of transubstantiation (q.v.) as a growing error, and go to prove that the novelties, which are generally charged to the Protestants, are really of older date than the boasted argument of apostolical tradition. Some of the MSS. of these homilies, however, which had been stored away in monastic libraries, are found to be mutilated by the removal of all such obnoxious passages (comp. Soames, Inquiry into the Doctrines of the Anglo-Saxon Church, Bampton Lecture, Oxford, 1830, 8vo). A second collection of AElfric’s, undertaken at the request of Ethelward, commemorates the different saints revered by the Anglo-Saxon Church, and, like the former collection, was divided into two books. Of these homilies were published, An English-Saxon Homily on the Birthday of St. Gregory, used anciently in the English-Saxon Church, giving an Account of the Conversion of the English from Paganism to Christianity, translated into modern English, with notes, etc., by Elizabeth Elstob (London 1709, 8vo; new ed. London 1839, 8vo); Elfrici Homilie, ed. Eliz. Elstob (of which only 36 pages were ever published; Oxford 1710, fol.). Another attempt was The English-Saxon Homilies of Elfrici, translated by Eliz. Elstob (Oxford 1715, folio, of which only two leaves were printed, now preserved in the British Museum). Besides these, there are some Anglo-Saxon homilies extant, to which the name of Lupus Episcopus is generally affixed. They are by Wanley (Catalog. of A. S. MSS. p. 140 sq.), and apparently with good reason attributed to Wulfstan (q.v.), one of the Anglo-Saxon prelates of the 11th century. The most remarkable of these is the one entitled in the MS. Sermo lupi ad Anglos quando Dani maxinmepersecuti sunt eos, in which the author sets before the eyes of his countrymen the crimes which had disgraced the age preceding that in which he wrote, and the increasing wickedness of their own time. See Wright, Biog. British Lit. p. 487 sq., 506 sq. SEE ELFRIC.
5. In the Church of England, the term homily has acquired a special meaning from the fact that in the time of the Reformation, a number of easy and simple discourses were composed to be read in the churches. The Thirty-fifth Article of religion says, The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward VI; and, therefore, we judge them to be read in churches by the ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.’ The following are the titles of the homilies:
1. Of the right use of the church.
2. Against peril of idolatry.
3. Of repairing and keeping clean of churches.
4. Of good work,; first of fasting.
5. Against gluttony and drunkenness.
6. Against excess of apparel.
7. Of prayer.
8. Of the time and place of prayer.
9. That common prayers and sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
10. Of the reverend estimation of God’s Word.
11. Of alms doing.
12. Of the nativity of Christ.
13. Of the passion of Christ.
14. Of the resurrection of Christ.
15. Of the worthy receiving of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
16. Of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
17. For the Rogation days.
18. Of the state’ of matrimony.
19. Of repentance.
20. Against idleness.
21. Against rebellion.
The first volume of these homilies is supposed to have been composed by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley and Latimer at the beginning of the Reformation, when a competent number of ministers of sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be found. It was published, as already stated, in the article above cited, in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. The second volume was perhaps prepared under Edward VI, but it was not published until 1563, during the reign of Elizabeth (comp. Hardwick, Church History during the Reformation, p. 206, 211. 249). In neither of these books can the several homilies be assigned to their several authors with any certainty. In the second book no single homily of them all has been appropriated. In the first, that on Salvation’ was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on Faith’ and Good Works.’ Internal evidence, arising out of certain homely expressions and peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like of which appear in Latimer’s sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the bishop of Worcester as having been engaged in the homily against Brawling and Contention;’ the one against Adultery’ may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to be found; of the rest nothing is known but by the merest conjecture. All members of the Church of England agree that the homilies contain a godly and wholesome doctrine,’ but they are not agreed as to the precise degree of authority to be attached to them. In them, the authority of the fathers of the first six general councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of marriage and other ordinances, and regeneration in holy baptism, and the real presence in the Eucharist, are asserted (Bp. Burnet). One of the best editions of the Homilies is that by Corrie at the University press (Cambridge, 1850, 8vo), and the latest, and perhaps most complete edition, is that published at Oxford (1859, 8vo). See also Darling, Cyclop. Bibliog. 1, 1524; Wheatly, Common Prayer, p. 272; Baxter, Ch. History, p. 379 sq., 486 sq.; Browne, Exposit. 39 Articles, p. 782 sq.; Wesley, Works (see Index, vol. 7); Forbes, On the 39 Articles, 2, 685 aq.; Buchanan, Justific. p. 193, 198; Hook, Ch. Dict. p. 303.
6. For the Clementine Homilies, SEE CLEMENTINES; and on the points above given, see Schmidt, Die Homilie (Halle, 1827, 8vo); Augusti, Denkwrdigk. a. d. Christi. Archaeol. 6, 266 sq.; Schone, Geschichtsforsch. fiber die Kirsch. Gebr. 1, 74 sq.; 2, 226-53; De concionibus veterum, in Hoornbeck’s Discellanae sacrae (Ultraj. 1689); Schrckh, Kirchengesch. 4, 20, 21, 81 sq.; Neander, Ch. Hist. 3, 126; Fuhrmann, Handwrterb. d. Kirchengesch. 2, 335; Bingham, Orig. Ecclesiastes book 14 ch. 4; Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 18; Primit. Ch. p. 387; Apostol. and Primit. Ch. 13; Bickersteth, Christ. Stud. Ass. p. 325, 470; Taylor, Anc. Christ.; Siegel, Handb. christl. kirchl. Alterth. 2, 328 sq.; London Review, June 1854, Jan. 1857; Bib. Sacr. May and Aug. 1849; Presb. Quart. Rev. April, 1862, art. 2; Methodist Quart. Rev. 1, 283; 7, 63 sq. SEE HOMILETICS; SEE HOMILISTS; SEE POSTILLE.