Cardinal Murphy OConnor of Westminster refuses Archbishop Burke in Wesminster

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nonetheless, I stand by my statement. In charity, I would have allowed the slip in protocol pass with a mild reminder to the organizers.

However, life is not always perfect.
Yes life is far from perfect.

I noticed something when I read the article. It appears that this is not the first time that this organization has done this.

It says that last years EF Mass was celebrated by Cardinal Hoyos. I wonder if Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor did just as you said and then this year they did the same thing.

One can allow a slip in protocol to pass only so many times before one must assert their rights.
 
I know, thistle, that I have thought as much of some of the things you have written, but respected your personhood enough not to actually write it out loud.

thanks for such a good example!
Well thank you for respecting my personhood. Having read hundreds of your posts in many threads I must be the only one whose personhood you respect considering the bigotted and hateful things you have said about so many people in the forums.
 
Well thank you for respecting my personhood. Having read hundreds of your posts in many threads I must be the only one whose personhood you respect considering the bigotted and hateful things you have said about so many people in the forums.
NEVER have I resorted to name-calling inappropriate for any venue save a playground or a gutter. NEVER have I said things which were either bigotted or hateful. When others have made substantiated defenses, I have publicly thanked them for having changed my mind. If you were to be honest, you would recall that I publicly apologized to YOU for having been wrong, and publicly recanted my position.

But it seems its ok for the liberals and the modernists to cast aspersions like “bigotted” and “hateful” without substantiation, or apology.

Good for you thistle! You’re a real lady. Again, thank you for your example.
 
JR, not that I doubt your word on this, but…This is ridiculous! Why would religious belonging to certain orders require special permission to celebrate the EF??? Does this not seem like madness to you?
Religious take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Are you suggesting they should ignore one of their vows and NOT have the permission of their superior? Does that not seem like madness to you?
 
I am 100% on the side of the Latin Mass Society, but I hope someone there thinks to apologize to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor for neglecting to ask for his permission before issuing the invitation to Archbishop Burke.
 
Cardinals alone, apart from the pope, have the right to celebrate Mass anywhere without recourse to the local ordinary. Thus, Cardinal Hoyos did not need permission, Archbishop Burke DID.
 
Cardinals alone, apart from the pope, have the right to celebrate Mass anywhere without recourse to the local ordinary. Thus, Cardinal Hoyos did not need permission, Archbishop Burke DID.
But I still think it appropriate for a group to let the local ordinary know when they will have someone from out side the diocese coming in to celebrate a liturgy for them.

Can you give me the Canon for this though? All I could find was Canon 357 §2 which is confusing to me if it covers this as it says;

Can. 357§2 Cardinals living outside Rome and outside their own diocese, are exempt in what concerns their person from the power of governance of the Bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.

My reading of this says that this only applies to where the Cardinal is living and then only to his own concerns which to me would not cover a public liturgy.
 
But I still think it appropriate for a group to let the local ordinary know when they will have someone from out side the diocese coming in to celebrate a liturgy for them.
Oh, ABSOLUTELY!

Can you give me the Canon for this though? All I could find was Canon 357 §2 which is confusing to me if it covers this as it says;
HMMM, I can’t give you a citation, Byz! I don’t remember where I read it.
 
HMMM, I can’t give you a citation, Byz! I don’t remember where I read it.
I read the commentary for Canon 357 and it seems to say that this Canon supports this idea but I just don’t see it.

But then I am not a Canon Lawyer.
 
It seems to me that common courtesy and common sense would dictate that a Cardinal would not simply waltz into the seat of another Archbishop to celebrate Mass without asking permission of the Ordinary before time. If Cardinal Murphy O’Connor was not asked for his permission before the LMS invited Archbishop Burke, then I think he has every right to be ticked off. If Archbishop Burke accepted the invitation, it would be safe to assume that he did so because he was led to believe that the Cardinal of Westminster was fully informed of the LMS intentions. If he was mislead, then he should be royally ticked as well.
It would be really nice to know the whole story instead of a rumour circulated by a blogger before everyone gets their knickers in a twist over the situation.
 
Cardinals alone, apart from the pope, have the right to celebrate Mass anywhere without recourse to the local ordinary. Thus, Cardinal Hoyos did not need permission, Archbishop Burke DID.
Is there a distinction to be made between the right to say mass and the right to use a particular church?

I have heard that Cardinals are especially careful in using this privilege. I suspect they make some sort of polite request, with the knowledge that it must be granted.
 
Assuming this story to be true (as a blogger site is not always accurate), if the LMS owes Cardinal Murphy an apology for not asking him first, then Cardinal Murphy owes a HUGE apology for refusing Archbishop Burke.

I don’t know who runs the LMS but perhaps they didn’t realize that permission would be needed for a very high ranking Vatican prelate to say Mass in a Cathedral.

This is scandalous.
 
NEVER have I resorted to name-calling inappropriate for any venue save a playground or a gutter. NEVER have I said things which were either bigotted or hateful. When others have made substantiated defenses, I have publicly thanked them for having changed my mind. If you were to be honest, you would recall that I publicly apologized to YOU for having been wrong, and publicly recanted my position.

But it seems its ok for the liberals and the modernists to cast aspersions like “bigotted” and “hateful” without substantiation, or apology.

Good for you thistle! You’re a real lady. Again, thank you for your example.
You apologised because you jumped in too quickly to state a fact which was then proven wrong. However, I agree on that you recanted which I appreciate.

I’m not talking about getting facts wrong. I’m talking about the downright nasty way you talk to people.

I’m not permitted under forum rules to copy and paste your comments that I’m referring to as that would get me suspended probably but everyone reading this who has been on the the end of your nasty comments will know what I mean.

By the way I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve told you I’m not a lady. To me that just proves you simply don’t listen properly to what anyone says. In one ear and out the other. You are always right, never wrong. If anyone disagrees with you then its off to Hell with them.
 
You apologised because you jumped in too quickly to state a fact which was then proven wrong. However, I agree on that you recanted which I appreciate.
if I had jumped in too quickly I would have apologized for jumping in too quickly. What I apologized for is that I was wrong, plain and simple.
I’m not talking about getting facts wrong. I’m talking about the downright nasty way you talk to people.
If liberal modernists don’t like being called liberal modernists than they should cease being liberal modernists. This is the worst I have ever called anyone, and I agree, it is nasty.
I’m not permitted under forum rules to copy and paste your comments that I’m referring to as that would get me suspended probably but everyone reading this who has been on the the end of your nasty comments will know what I mean.
Now this is where you’ve lost any and all credibility, thistle. If something is posted on the forum, and has not been deleted by a mod, then you are welcome to link to it. Link to it, or move on. Noone’s interested in your slander.

But judging from some of the unfortunate adjectives you have used in this very thread in describing another poster’s post or idea, it would seem your outrage is feigned at best, or just downright silly at worst.
By the way I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve told you I’m not a lady. To me that just proves you simply don’t listen properly to what anyone says. In one ear and out the other. You are always right, never wrong. If anyone disagrees with you then its off to Hell with them.
you/ve told me once, now that I think about it. Once. maybe that’s why you’ve lost track of the number of times, because it was once. Mea culpa. And all that it proves is that I am absent minded, but your posts must come across as feminine to me. That is not meant to be an insult. many people have mistaken ‘maurin’ for maureen. I simply ignore it. you should too. it wasn’t meant to hurt you. I apologize if it has.

And as far as that last sentence of yours go, don’t exercises in hyperbole tire you? “off to hell” with them? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
 
Religious take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Are you suggesting they should ignore one of their vows and NOT have the permission of their superior? Does that not seem like madness to you?
Thanks for the reply, Suscipe. Here’s the thing that I’m wondering about, though; priests are required to say Mass, and it’s not as though they’d be saying a different rite by using the TLM (right or wrong?). Why would a Roman Catholic priest need permission to say the Mass of the Roman Catholic rite?
 
JR, not that I doubt your word on this, but…This is ridiculous! Why would religious belonging to certain orders require special permission to celebrate the EF??? Does this not seem like madness to you?

After 40 years we have just had confirmation from the pope in regard to the point we’ve been arguing, that is, that the TLM had never been abrogated. So why would non-secular priests need permission to pray the Mass that is their birth-right? See what I mean? Just curious.
The reason for this is a matter of jurisdiction. Male religious superiors are Ordinaries, just like bishops. Therefore, they have the final say as to what is allowed within their religious community and what is consistent with their charism.

The Holy Fathers have always wanted to make sure that the internal unity of the religious community is not compromised over something like this, which is not a matter of dogma and is not an ABSOLUTE pastoral necessity.

Also, priests in religioius orders, are religious first. Therefore, their first allegiance is to their brothers. They must act according to the wishes of their brothers. When the brothers cannot agree, the superior can overrule the community and make a decision.

This is to protect the community. To do so, the Holy Father included this paragraph in “Summorum Pontificum.”

If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

As you see, the decision is not to be made by the individual religious, even if he is ordained. Religious who are ordained have no authority over their ministry. Their vow of obedience to their founder and their superior is above all things.

The Holy Father is clear that the decision must be in accord with the law of the Church and the rules of the community. If a community has adopted the Ordinary Form as its celebration of the mass. The major superior can grant the permission as an exception, but not as routine, because he must consider the decrees and statutes of his community. He can’t override them.

On the other hand, if there is nothing against it in the statutes of the religious community, then the community votes on it. That’s a chapter. What the chapter decides becomes the law of the community.

The major superior may override a chapter when the unity or the charism of the community is at risk. It is his job to represent the founder and to maintain the community on the course that the founder set for it. No religious community of men can deviate from the founder, unless the founder gave them that possibility when he established it. Religious communities of men are not as flexible as other groups.

They are governed by five tiers of authority: Founder, Pope, Rule, Chapter and Major Superior. In this case,the Pope is saying that they have to follow their rules and their major superior.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that a bishop wants a group of Dominicans to celebrate the EF every Sunday in one of the parishes. The parish belongs to the bishop. The Dominican superior has to authorize it or he has to pull his religious out of that parish. He cannot overrule the bishop and decide not to celebrate the EF. However, the bishop cannot overrule him and force the religious to do so. Therefore, they get a divorce. The religious community must abandon the parish and return it to the bishop.

This has happened. Bishops have asked religious to implement certain policies in their parishes. Religious superiors have had to inform the bishop that such policies are in conflict with their founder and their statutes. When no solution can be found, the religious must humbly leave the parish.

That’s why I always advise people who live in parishes run by religious to be very careful how they push for the EF. Hypothetically, they can push the religious right out of the parish and find that the bishop has no one to put in their place. In that case, the parish must close down. Religious are not bound by obedience to bishops, unless they belong to an order founded by the local bishop. All other religious have Pontifical Rights. They answer only to the Pope. They obey the bishop as long as the bishop asks for what is within their rules. Religious may never submit to the laity. That is not allowed by the Church. Because in the past, very powerful lay people manipulated religious communities (kings, aristocrats, etc).

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Thanks for the reply, Suscipe. Here’s the thing that I’m wondering about, though; priests are required to say Mass, and it’s not as though they’d be saying a different rite by using the TLM (right or wrong?). Why would a Roman Catholic priest need permission to say the Mass of the Roman Catholic rite?
Several things come to mind.

One is concelebration. In the monastery where I am an Oblate, there is a concelebrated Mass each day. If one of the priests wanted to use the EF, what would happen to the other priests who normally would have been concelebrants?

Just in general, switching forms would mean that other people would also have to make changes. The altar is set up differently and a different sacramentary and lectionary would be used. That means someone needs to tell the sacristan to do things differently and tell the lector to prepare different readings. The Mass setting would be different so the choirmaster would have to know and the choir would prepare different music.

It wouldn’t be up to one monk to decide that he wants to change things around and then order all the other monks to make changes in what they do. It would be more appropriate for the monk who wanted the EF to talk with the abbot and get permission.
 
Several things come to mind.

One is concelebration. In the monastery where I am an Oblate, there is a concelebrated Mass each day. If one of the priests wanted to use the EF, what would happen to the other priests who normally would have been concelebrants?

Just in general, switching forms would mean that other people would also have to make changes. The altar is set up differently and a different sacramentary and lectionary would be used. That means someone needs to tell the sacristan to do things differently and tell the lector to prepare different readings. The Mass setting would be different so the choirmaster would have to know and the choir would prepare different music.

It wouldn’t be up to one monk to decide that he wants to change things around and then order all the other monks to make changes in what they do. It would be more appropriate for the monk who wanted the EF to talk with the abbot and get permission.
That is what Summorum Pontificum says. A monk is a religious in a community of Pontifical Right with solemn vows. Therefore, he cannot decide to celebrate the Extraordinary Form for the community without the permission of the Abbot. Some communities allow them to celebrate it alone in a space that is designed appropriately for this, if they have such a space. The same applies to friars.

Because the community liturgy is the center of the life of a Benedictine Abbey, there is no way that any Benedictine can change the form without the consent of the Abbot, even if it’s just one time.

The Franciscans have the same rule. Ony the Guardian can authorize the celebration of the EF in their cloister or in their parishes. It has to be approved by their major superior.

If you watched the day that the Poor Clares had the EF celebrated for them, the FSSP came to do it. The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word do not have permission to celebrate the EF. They can celebrate the OF in Latin. These rules can change, but they have to go through a chain of command.

For many orders of friars and monks, concelebration is part of their statutes. They can’t change it unless it comes from above.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Has anyone determined if this actually occurred? The British press is notorious for tabloid reporting. Also, the article contains too many wiggle words for me to trust it. The European press, in particular, has become distinctly antagonistic toward the Holy Father as well as Mother Church. I Googled this and only the single, unsubstantiated article appears. I am very skeptical of this. Should we debate this before we are certain it even occurred?
 
Has anyone determined if this actually occurred? The British press is notorious for tabloid reporting. Also, the article contains too many wiggle words for me to trust it. The European press, in particular, has become distinctly antagonistic toward the Holy Father as well as Mother Church. I Googled this and only the single, unsubstantiated article appears. I am very skeptical of this. Should we debate this before we are certain it even occurred?
You make a good point. We cannot always take as Gospel what the secular press says. Also, the reporter may not be anti-Catholic, but may simply not understand all of the technicalities involved. This has often happened where reporters say that the Church did or did not do this. But they have no clue why. It raises everyone’s hackles.

Good point 👍

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top