Traditionalists views on Rowan Williams' having given the homily at a Catholic Mass?

[brotherhrolf]

Maurin, I spent several years on active duty and reserve duty in the US military (Navy). I’ve spent 30 years of employment for the State of Louisiana, Safe to say, I know bureaucracy.

Proper way? How can we claim a “proper way” when our own church is in disarray? My bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio. You seem to question my disdain of bureauocracy yet I know that bureaucracry is the life blood of the Chruch.

I spent years in the miliary. I’ve spent years as a civil servant. If anything, I am pragmatic.

There are hundreds of things that I, personally, could take my board to task. The world does not follow rules according to Hoyle. The Board does a lot of things which are not according to Hoyle (i.e. state law and the rules and regs of the Board).

Maybe I’m just a cynical state employee of thirty years. There is state law and there is the GIRM. The utter reality is that neither is held to account. according to the law.

I am a bitter cynic after serving for 30 years in state govermnet… Somewhere, somehow I have to believe that the Magesterium had to vet the approval of Abp. Williams homily.

 

[pnewton]

The Anglican Communion is in disarray. There is a “crack in the dam”. I fervently pray for the return of our separated brothers and sisters. And I am more than willing to rely upon the judgment of those “above my pay grade”.

As should we all. This is an opportune time in the life of the Anglican community.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Maurin, I spent several years on active duty and reserve duty in the US military (Navy). I’ve spent 30 years of employment for the State of Louisiana, Safe to say, I know bureaucracy.

Proper way? How can we claim a “proper way” when our own church is in disarray? My bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio. You seem to question my disdain of bureauocracy yet I know that bureaucracry is the life blood of the Chruch.

I spent years in the miliary. I’ve spent years as a civil servant. If anything, I am pragmatic.

There are hundreds of things that I, personally, could take my board to task. The world does not follow rules according to Hoyle. The Board does a lot of things which are not according to Hoyle (i.e. state law and the rules and regs of the Board).

Maybe I’m just a cynical state employee of thirty years. There is state law and there is the GIRM. The utter reality is that neither is held to account. according to the law.

I am a bitter cynic after serving for 30 years in state govermnet… Somewhere, somehow I have to believe that the Magesterium had to vet the approval of Abp. Williams homily.

Very true words. The world of politics and the governance of the Church are so similar in many ways.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Oh, indeed. State government doesn’t always go according to the law nor do I think that the Magesterium should always go according to the GIRM. Frankly, I am simply floored by Abp. Williams acknowledging the BVM. It is radical.

England before Henry VIII had a huge dedication to Our Lady. Maybe I just know too much history. I know that my English Catholic ancestors suffered. Yes, Maurin, we could stand on the law. I just thik there is a greater good to be had here…

I stand behind my father as a brother wishing welcome to our separated bretheren. It wasn’t the people back in the 1500s, it was Henry VIII. It wasn’t protestantism but rather politics. I’m Irish but I welcome our English brothers and sisters.

We have enough problems in HMC. I stand ready to welcome the prodial son.

 

[7_Sorrows]

now i see maurin why you are making such a big deal about this because you belong to SSPX.

it does explain a lot.

believe me, i am sure in the many talks between Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope has tried to show the Archbishop what he needs to do to get on the right “bus” and why he is on the wrong “bus” -
to use your analogy. i think the Pope knows that he needs to be patient and do what he can to keep the relationship open and friendly and i think the Archbishop partaking in a ecumenical celebration at Lourdes was a step forward. however, i can see why it bothers you.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Oh, indeed. State government doesn’t always go according to the law nor do I think that the Magesterium should always go according to the GIRM. Frankly, I am simply floored by Abp. Williams acknowledging the BVM. It is radical.

**England before Henry VIII had a huge dedication to Our Lady. **Maybe I just know too much history. I know that my English Catholic ancestors suffered. Yes, Maurin, we could stand on the law. I just thik there is a greater good to be had here…

Devotion to the Blessed Virgin was so strong in pre-Reformation England that the entire country came to be known throughout Europe as “The Dowry of Mary.” Many Ancient English Kings consecrated our nation to the Blessed Lady, and devotion to her was always very fervent. England belonged to the Blessed Virgin; it was our gift to her. This is why I am pleased that the Archbishop of Canterbury has revealed his devotion to the Blessed Mother in front of all her sons in the Catholic Church.

Brotherhrolf, you may be interested to know that many, many Catholics in England trace their ancestry to Ireland. Catholicism in England experienced a massive revival during the potato famine due to the massive Irish immigration. I trace my roots to Irish Catholics; my great-grandparents are all from Ireland. Catholicism was almost wiped out during the Reformation; and the Irish immigrants brought the Church back to life especially in places like Manchester and Liverpool.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Most traditionalists are narrow-minded and pessimistic when it comes to ecumenism. Many think all ecumenism is false ecumenism and do not see any of the good that it does. Although the GIRM was supposedly disregarded; it was disregarded in order to promote the greater good.

 

[maurin]

Most traditionalists are narrow-minded and pessimistic when it comes to ecumenism. Many think all ecumenism is false ecumenism and do not see any of the good that it does. Although the GIRM was supposedly disregarded; it was disregarded in order to promote the greater good.

I’ve found most liberals and modernists to be quite tolerant of all but Traditionalists. When it comes to the Traditionalists, most liberals and modernists are narrow minded and pessimistic. Actually, I suspect that they have no idea what “Traditionalist” means, seeing that there aren’t any really obvious role models of Traditionalism in the hierarchy.

We’re all for Ecumenism, Dempsey. Nothing would make us happier than if the whole world became Catholic. In fact, it is our constant prayer, and a part of the prayers of the Mass when we pray for others.

The only thing that would make us happier is if the liberals and modernists became Traditional Catholics. We’re pretty certain that if Catholics behaved as Traditional Catholics the mainstream protestants, such as the 'anglo-“Catholics” would enter full Communion more quickly. Instead–and I know more than a couple of ‘anglo-“Catholics”’ who feel this way–they feel as if they are trading in one modernist Church for another, judging from what they’ve seen in the Churches local.

Not a good example the liberals set.

 

[maurin]

I am a bitter cynic after serving for 30 years in state govermnet… Somewhere, somehow I have to believe that the Magesterium had to vet the approval of Abp. Williams homily.

you hadt me at hello, brotherhrolf, and then you lost me at 'bitter cynic."

But I understand. I’m pretty cynical myself after having moved to this Diocese of unbridled liberalism.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve found most liberals and modernists to be quite tolerant of all but Traditionalists. When it comes to the Traditionalists, most liberals and modernists are narrow minded and pessimistic. Actually, I suspect that they have no idea what “Traditionalist” means, seeing that there aren’t any really obvious role models of Traditionalism in the hierarchy.

We’re all for Ecumenism, Dempsey. Nothing would make us happier than if the whole world became Catholic. In fact, it is our constant prayer, and a part of the prayers of the Mass when we pray for others.

The only thing that would make us happier is if the liberals and modernists became Traditional Catholics. We’re pretty certain that if Catholics behaved as Traditional Catholics the mainstream protestants, such as the 'anglo-“Catholics” would enter full Communion more quickly. Instead–and I know more than a couple of ‘anglo-“Catholics”’ who feel this way–they feel as if they are trading in one modernist Church for another, judging from what they’ve seen in the Churches local.

Not a good example the liberals set.

---

Well said.

 

[maurin]

now i see maurin why you are making such a big deal about this because you belong to SSPX.

it does explain a lot.

believe me, i am sure in the many talks between Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope has tried to show the Archbishop what he needs to do to get on the right “bus” and why he is on the wrong “bus” -
to use your analogy. i think the Pope knows that he needs to be patient and do what he can to keep the relationship open and friendly and i think the Archbishop partaking in a ecumenical celebration at Lourdes was a step forward. however, i can see why it bothers you.

I do appreciate you trying to make sense of all this, 7 Sorrows, and allow me to extend once again my sincerest and most urgent apologies for confusing you.

These things do not bother me because I assist at SSPX Masses. Rather, I began to assist at SSPX Masses precisely because these things have always bothered me.

To be perfectly honest with you, there is nothing I would have preferred more than if there were a bastion of Reverence–a Reverent Novus Ordo Parish would have sufficed— away from the thoroughly modernist and liberal circuses I found myself in the midst of 9 months ago when I moved to this Diocese. In fact I searched and searched and searched for a Reverent Parish with a Reverent and Loyal Priest in this Diocese. I had always managed to find at least one–or at least one which was tolerable–in the diverse geographic areas my work moved me to.

It was the hardest decision I ever had to make in my life, going to the SSPX. But they are the only ones Preaching and Teaching the Church’s Doctrines, Dogmas and Morality in this area. I have found everything that I have yearned for right here.

Of course, 7 Sorrows, the SSPX are in an Irregular Canonical Status–The Church cannot recommend that any of the faithful assist at their Masses, and neither do I make such a recommendation. What is right for me, is right for me. My most fervent prayer is one for regularization of the status of the SSPX. So that, ‘ut unum sint’, they all be one.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, I suspect that they have no idea what “Traditionalist” means, seeing that there aren’t any really obvious role models of Traditionalism in the hierarchy.

I can understand why. After all, there is no set meaning and it changes depending on the context. For example, I would think that obedience to the Holy Father would be such a integral part of Tradition as to be inseparable from any definition.

 

[maurin]

I can understand why. After all, there is no set meaning and it changes depending on the context. For example, I would think that obedience to the Holy Father would be such a integral part of Tradition as to be inseparable from any definition.

I understand how confusing it must be for you, pnewton, and you are right, obedience and submission to the Holy Father is a priority Traditionally.

However, Traditionally, a non-Catholic would never have been considered an appropriate Preacher at a Catholic Mass. Observer in the pews, yes, he would be most welcome. After all, as the sun bronzes the skin through constant exposure, the Blessed Sacrament softens the heart and imparts Grace when sitting and basking in Its rays. But in the Sanctuary? No. Preaching? Absolutely not.

It still has not been shown (if it has, I missed it, mea culpa) that Pope Benedict or anyone from the Magisterium (except Cardinal Kasper) actually approved this travesty of Etiquette. I’ve seen a lot of “obviouslys” and “of courses” peppered into the propaganda, but no actual proof that His Holiness proffered his approval.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve found most liberals and modernists to be quite tolerant of all but Traditionalists. When it comes to the Traditionalists, most liberals and modernists are narrow minded and pessimistic. Actually, I suspect that they have no idea what “Traditionalist” means, seeing that there aren’t any really obvious role models of Traditionalism in the hierarchy.

We’re all for Ecumenism, Dempsey. Nothing would make us happier than if the whole world became Catholic. In fact, it is our constant prayer, and a part of the prayers of the Mass when we pray for others.

The only thing that would make us happier is if the liberals and modernists became Traditional Catholics. We’re pretty certain that if Catholics behaved as Traditional Catholics the mainstream protestants, such as the 'anglo-“Catholics” would enter full Communion more quickly. Instead–and I know more than a couple of ‘anglo-“Catholics”’ who feel this way–they feel as if they are trading in one modernist Church for another, judging from what they’ve seen in the Churches local.

Not a good example the liberals set.

Pope Benedict XVI is far from liberal or modernist. He is practical and scholarly, but quite Traditional.

We also have to be very careful here. As has been stated before, the proper authorities were in the loop in this situation.

It has already been said, that it seems most likely that the Holy Father and the Bishop of Lourdes knew that the Archbishop was going to preach at a mass celebrated by the Cardinal. We have already established that only the Bishop of Lourdes and the Pope have the authority to authorize this. Cardinal Kasper does not have jurisdiction. Cardinal Kasper had to ask for permission to make this happen. The permission was granted by someone who has the authority to grant it.

If we pass judgment on the Holy Father or the Bishop of Lourdes, on a decision that they have the right to make, then we are playing an authoritative role that is not legitimately ours. We have no authority over the Pope or the Bishop of a diocese.

Because we have no authority over the Pope or the Bishop of any diocese, they do not owe us accountability either. That’s a very Protestant idea, because in Protestantism the laity hires and fires the bishops. Therefore they are accountable to the laity.

In our Church, bishops are consecrated by other bishops with the consent of the Pope. The only person to whom bishops must be accountable is to the Pope. The Pope is not accountable to anyone but God.

The only right that you and I have is the right to private judgment. Saints like Francis, Vincent and Ignatius would say that our private judgment has no authority over the authority that has always been believed, that is the authority of Peter, both his ordinary and extraordinary authority have been part of Sacred Tradition. The Pope’s authority has been part of what Catholics have believed since the birth of the Church. We can only disobey sin, never legitimate authority.

If you feel that strongly that the Vatican must explain this decision you can ask the question by writing Cardinal Arinze at the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. It is Cardinal Arinze’s job to speak for the Holy Father on all matters regarding liturgy.

One thing that I have learned over many years of reflection is this. Our life of prayer, Eucharist, silence, contemplation, study and charity must never be unattended to fight battles over what others should do or not do. Sts. Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Clare, Teresa, Therese, Ignatius & Vincent, as well as others such as Bl. Mother Teresa, Bl. John XXIII or B. Pier Giorgio were sanctified by this way of life.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

Pope Benedict XVI is far from liberal or modernist. He is practical and scholarly, but quite Traditional.

We also have to be very careful here. As has been stated before, the proper authorities were in the loop in this situation.

It has already been said, that it seems most likely that the Holy Father and the Bishop of Lourdes knew that the Archbishop was going to preach at a mass celebrated by the Cardinal. We have already established that only the Bishop of Lourdes and the Pope have the authority to authorize this. Cardinal Kasper does not have jurisdiction. Cardinal Kasper had to ask for permission to make this happen. The permission was granted by someone who has the authority to grant it.

If we pass judgment on the Holy Father or the Bishop of Lourdes, on a decision that they have the right to make, then we are playing an authoritative role that is not legitimately ours. We have no authority over the Pope or the Bishop of a diocese.

Because we have no authority over the Pope or the Bishop of any diocese, they do not owe us accountability either. That’s a very Protestant idea, because in Protestantism the laity hires and fires the bishops. Therefore they are accountable to the laity.

In our Church, bishops are consecrated by other bishops with the consent of the Pope. The only person to whom bishops must be accountable is to the Pope. The Pope is not accountable to anyone but God.

The only right that you and I have is the right to private judgment. Saints like Francis, Vincent and Ignatius would say that our private judgment has no authority over the authority that has always been believed, that is the authority of Peter, both his ordinary and extraordinary authority have been part of Sacred Tradition. The Pope’s authority has been part of what Catholics have believed since the birth of the Church. We can only disobey sin, never legitimate authority.

If you feel that strongly that the Vatican must explain this decision you can ask the question by writing Cardinal Arinze at the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. It is Cardinal Arinze’s job to speak for the Holy Father on all matters regarding liturgy.

One thing that I have learned over many years of reflection is this. Our life of prayer, Eucharist, silence, contemplation, study and charity must never be unattended to fight battles over what others should do or not do. Sts. Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Clare, Teresa, Therese, Ignatius & Vincent, as well as others such as Bl. Mother Teresa, Bl. John XXIII or B. Pier Giorgio were sanctified by this way of life.

Fraternally,

JR

I AM NO SAINT, JR, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, AND UNDERSTAND THIS when reading my following question:

What do you think St. Catherine of Siena would make of your post?

 

[JReducation]

I understand how confusing it must be for you, pnewton, and you are right, obedience and submission to the Holy Father is a priority Traditionally.

However, Traditionally, a non-Catholic would never have been considered an appropriate Preacher at a Catholic Mass. Observer in the pews, yes, he would be most welcome. After all, as the sun bronzes the skin through constant exposure, the Blessed Sacrament softens the heart and imparts Grace when sitting and basking in Its rays. But in the Sanctuary? No. Preaching? Absolutely not.

It still has not been shown (if it has, I missed it, mea culpa) that Pope Benedict or anyone from the Magisterium (except Cardinal Kasper) actually approved this travesty of Etiquette. I’ve seen a lot of “obviouslys” and “of courses” peppered into the propaganda, but no actual proof that His Holiness proffered his approval.

My dear brother . . . you are speaking about the Vatican. They do not make it a habit of putting such things on paper for public view. Of course, if you’re going to argue that the Holy Father did not know, because no one has produced a piece of paper saying that he did, then you are senencing yourself to judging Cardinal Kasper and the Bishop of Lourdes. You’re not going to find that piece of paper. You’re setting yourself up for frustration.

That’s not the way the Vatican works. They don’t make public, every memo or the minutes of every meeting. I don’t know any governement that works that way. Some things we just extrapolate using logic and the rules that are in place.

In this case, the rules say that this had to play itself out with the permission of the Bishop of Lourdes, not Cardinal Kasper. The press has reported that the Bishop of Lourdes was the person who extended the invitation. What is the liekelihood that he would do so without the Vatican knowing it?

If you’re looking for written proof, you’re going to frustrate yourelf and spend time and energy judging someone whom you have no right to judge.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

Pope Benedict XVI is far from liberal or modernist. He is practical and scholarly, but quite Traditional.

I have called, or implied that Pope Benedict is a liberal or modernist?

Allow me, then to set the record straight.

Pope Benedict XVI is my Pope. I have nothing but love in my heart for him. I applaud and am grateful for the direction and guidance he is giving the CHurch, and I pray he do more. I pray for his long reign.

This is a sincere post and real sentiments, lest anyone suspect motives unseemly.

 

[JReducation]

I AM NO SAINT, JR, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, AND UNDERSTAND THIS when reading my following question:

What do you think St. Catherine of Siena would make of your post?

She would have written the letter to Caridnal Arinze and asked the question. Also, do not forget that she was a good friend of the Vatican.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[pnewton]

I understand how confusing it must be for you, pnewton, and you are right, obedience and submission to the Holy Father is a priority Traditionally…It still has not been shown (if it has, I missed it, mea culpa) that Pope Benedict or anyone from the Magisterium (except Cardinal Kasper) actually approved this travesty of Etiquette. I’ve seen a lot of “obviouslys” and “of courses” peppered into the propaganda, but no actual proof that His Holiness proffered his approval.

… or disapproved. It is not confusing at all. I fully understand how Cardinal Kasper might have not had time to report to us here and justify his actions. When it comes to our hierarchy, I prefer to think the best, rather than the worst.

 

[maurin]

My dear brother . . . you are speaking about the Vatican. They do not make it a habit of putting such things on paper for public view.
JR

My dear brother, then you are missing the fact that your words are your opinion, and not fact, if there is no way to prove your assertions.

I do, by the way, appreciate your fraternal tone. We may disagree–strongly!-- and yet still remain civil and concerned for each other. I offer you my sincere thanks in this regard.