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

[levavi]

I have posted this on another forum, but I am soliciting views from those who visit the Traditional Catholicism thread, as I am distressed by this issue, and I suspect that Apostolicae Curae will be taken more seriously here than some other places…

===

I am troubled to read that the “Archbishop of Canterbury”, Rowan Williams, preached at a Catholic Mass – at Lourdes, 24 September 2008. (See archbishopofcanterbury.org/1973)

According to the General Instruction of the Romal Missal:

"The Homily
“66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person.”

Yet, according to Apostolicae Curae:

“36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”

WHY HAS THIS HAPPENED?

 

[DL82]

Are you sure this was a Catholic mass? There are ‘High Church’ Anglicans who also call their eucharistic service ‘mass’, they are likely to be the sort of Anglicans who would go to Lourdes in the first place. Are you sure he wasn’t preaching to them?

 

[levavi]

From the “Archbishop”'s website:

Thursday 18 September 2008
The Archbishop of Canterbury will participate in anniversary celebrations at the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, at the invitation of the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, Monsignor Jacques Perrier.
He will preach at the International Mass on 24th September 2008 which is being celebrated by His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
The Archbishop will also participate in a Pilgrimage of bishops, clergy and laity of the Church of England, which is organised by the Society of Mary and the Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.
The Archbishop will be accompanied in Lourdes by the Church of England bishop with particular responsibility for chaplaincies in France, the Right Reverend David Hamid, the suffragan bishop of the Diocese in Europe.
Christian unity is designated as one of the elements of the Church’s mission to which the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes specifically contributes and is one of the strands being celebrated in the 150th anniversary celebrations.

 

[DL82]

I don’t really want to judge Cardinal Kaspar and his actions. I’m sure he had a good reason, and I’m sure Mr Williams’ homily was carefully vetted by the Cardinal in advance. I really don’t feel qualified to comment on something that happened between two very senior clerics. I’d certainly rather see this than the two fighting or publicly opposing eachother.

 

[603304529]

Cardinal Kasper is the problem…

You can’t judge the state of his soul, but I’m pretty sure you could judge his actions. The man seems to think that Roger Shultz was ok too - do a google on his interview regarding “Brother” Roger.

Here’s to Christian unity without the balwarks of Catholic truth!

 

[Dempsey1919]

I see no problem with this because Rowan Williams was not concelebrant; he was not taking part in the priestly actions of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Rowan Williams is a Christian and he shares the most important Christian beliefs with us. We agree on the more important elements of faith. He is also an accomplished preacher and public speaker. For these reasons, I see no problem in the fact that he delivered a speech during a Mass as long as his words were in accordance with Catholic teaching and understanding.

Although Rowan Williams is not member of the Catholic clergy, neither are the lay readers who participate in Catholic Masses daily throughout the world. They are able to read the Gospel despite not being priests. If you have no problem with this, why would you have a problem with an accomplished theologian giving a homly? I would have a problem if Rowan Williams was preaching theology that is contrary to Catholic doctrine, but I have no problem with things he preaches in accordance with Catholic belief.

Did you complain when Catholic Cardinals were invited to the Lambeth Council and were allowed to speak? Would you have a problem if the Pope gave a homly during an Anglican Service?

You have to remember that we are all brothers in Christ. In these very anti-Christian times, all Christians must endeavour to foster good relations with one another despite the fact that we have some disagreements.

Inviting a guest theologian to share a few words is hardly something to worry about as long as what he says is in agreement with Catholic teaching and doctrine.

 

[603304529]

“Rowan Williams is a Christian and he shares the most important Christian beliefs with us. We agree on the more important elements of faith. He is also an accomplished preacher and public speaker. For these reasons, I see no problem in the fact that he delivered a speech during a Mass as long as his words were in accordance with Catholic teaching and understanding.”

Sorry, but I can’t see how you can possibly say that the Archbishop of Canterbury shares the most important beliefs with us.

The dude is basically the head of the Anglican church. Like, they deny that the Pope is the head of the church. They allow women priests. Do they believe in the True Presence? They certainly don’t HAVE the Real Presence.

He was asked to speak after the gospel at a Catholic Mass (from my understanding) - thats a time that a sermon is given - not a talk/speech…

And lay people are not permitted to read the Gospel - thats reserved for the priest…

Yes, these are anti-Christian times. But are they times for Catholics to get all soft? Why does everyone have to speak Ambiguese? What happened to speaking the truth?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Sorry, but I can’t see how you can possibly say that the Archbishop of Canterbury shares the most important beliefs with us

I think you’ll find that he does. He believes in:

• The Holy Trinity
• The fall of Man
• The need for a Redeemer
• The Virgin Birth
• The Incarnation
• The Passion
• The Ressurection
• The Second Coming
• The Last Judgement and the Ressurection of the Dead
• The Holy Scriptures
• The Sacrament of Baptism
• The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

These are the most important Christian beliefs. I think you will find that he believes in them all. This list is not exhaustive; I am sure that he believes in other doctrines that are taught by the Catholic Church.

Like, they deny that the Pope is the head of the church. They allow women priests. Do they believe in the True Presence? They certainly don’t HAVE the Real Presence.

The Anglican Communion contains many elements of truth but you are correct in showing that the Communion also contains many errors. Only those in Communion with the Roman Pontiff contain the fullness of saving truth and doctrine. However, you need to recognise the fact that within the faith there is a Hierarchy of Truths:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Part One, Section One, Chapter 2, Article 2, Paragraph 90:

The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."

*Bold in text is mine

Therefore, Rowan Williams believes in the foundation of the Christian faith, which can also be said to be the most important part. He believes in the most essential elements of the Christian faith, but his understanding of the doctrines is faulty, and in many cases incorrect.

As Rowan Williams believes in the most essential elements of the Christian faith, I see no problem with him sharing his thoughts during a homly. He did not contradict any Catholic doctrine, nor did he concelebrate the Mass. I fail to see what the problem is. Please enlighten me.

 

[palmas85]

I see no problem with this because Rowan Williams was not concelebrant; he was not taking part in the priestly actions of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Rowan Williams is a Christian and he shares the most important Christian beliefs with us. We agree on the more important elements of faith. He is also an accomplished preacher and public speaker. For these reasons, I see no problem in the fact that he delivered a speech during a Mass as long as his words were in accordance with Catholic teaching and understanding.

Although Rowan Williams is not member of the Catholic clergy, neither are the lay readers who participate in Catholic Masses daily throughout the world. They are able to read the Gospel despite not being priests. If you have no problem with this, why would you have a problem with an accomplished theologian giving a homly? I would have a problem if Rowan Williams was preaching theology that is contrary to Catholic doctrine, but I have no problem with things he preaches in accordance with Catholic belief.

Did you complain when Catholic Cardinals were invited to the Lambeth Council and were allowed to speak? Would you have a problem if the Pope gave a homly during an Anglican Service?

You have to remember that we are all brothers in Christ. In these very anti-Christian times, all Christians must endeavour to foster good relations with one another despite the fact that we have some disagreements.

Inviting a guest theologian to share a few words is hardly something to worry about as long as what he says is in agreement with Catholic teaching and doctrine.

Lay readers may not proclaim the Gospel. I don’t know where you got that one from but it’s wrong.

 

[palmas85]

I think you’ll find that he does. He believes in:

• The Holy Trinity
• The fall of Man
• The need for a Redeemer
• The Virgin Birth
• The Incarnation
• The Passion
• The Ressurection
• The Second Coming
• The Last Judgement and the Ressurection of the Dead
• The Holy Scriptures
• The Sacrament of Baptism
• The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

These are the most important Christian beliefs. I think you will find that he believes in them all. This list is not exhaustive; I am sure that he believes in other doctrines that are taught by the Catholic Church.

The Anglican Communion contains many elements of truth but you are correct in showing that the Communion also contains many errors. Only those in Communion with the Roman Pontiff contain the fullness of saving truth and doctrine. However, you need to recognise the fact that within the faith there is a Hierarchy of Truths:

Therefore, Rowan Williams believes in the foundation of the Christian faith, which can also be said to be the most important part. He believes in the most essential elements of the Christian faith, but his understanding of the doctrines is faulty, and in many cases incorrect.

As Rowan Williams believes in the most essential elements of the Christian faith, I see no problem with him sharing his thoughts during a homly. He did not contradict any Catholic doctrine, nor did he concelebrate the Mass. I fail to see what the problem is. Please enlighten me.

I think the key phrase is that within the faith there is the heirarchy of truths. Not outside of it.

The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth. All the others, including the Anglicans do not. Therefore whatever they have or whatever they believe in is in fact distorted and not the full truth.

This whole trend towards saying well as long as they believe some of the truth everything is all right is very disturbing. Where do you draw the line? At what point does erroneous belief turn into something else, something darker?

Enlighten me.

 

[603304529]

I think you misunderstand the “hierarchy of truths”.

From my understanding, the hierarchy of truths does not define an importance of the truths, nor does it give “precedence” as one being more important that the other…

I don’t understand how one truth, when defining the Catholic faith, could be more important than the other, since a Catholic must believe all truth, and it is only the Catholic Church which does enjoy knowing all truth (if that be correct English!)

 

[Dempsey1919]

Lay readers may not proclaim the Gospel.

Yes, that has already been established. I simply typed the wrong word. The point is that they are permitted to read.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** I’m sure he had a good reason, and I’m sure Mr Williams’ homily was carefully vetted by the Cardinal in advance.**

**If you will not show him the respect of calling him by his ecclesiastical title of Archbishop Williams, at least call him Dr. Williams (which is actually more usual among the C of E).

How would you like it if sectarians were to call YOUR bishop as simply “Mr.”?**

 

[Dempsey1919]

If you will not show him the respect of calling him by his ecclesiastical title of Archbishop Williams, at least call him Dr. Williams (which is actually more usual among the C of E).

Fair enough. I see your point and I will now refer to him using his full title. The fact that he has a Ph.D further supports my view that he is a highly accomplished theologian who is more than able to preach a simple homly at a Catholic Mass.

I think the key phrase is that within the faith there is the heirarchy of truths. Not outside of it.

Your reasoning does not make sense. Dr. Williams shares some of our beliefs; he does not reject the entire Sacred Deposit of Faith. He is not outside of the Christian faith; he simply does not possess the complete Christian faith. He believes in the essential Christian doctrines but does not have a full understanding of the faith. Dr Williams is still a Christian just as a blind man is still a human. A blind man cannot fully understand creation because he does not have eyes to see. Dr Williams does not fully understand Christian faith because he has made himself blind to the light of understanding given by the Holy Spirit to the Successors of St. Peter and their followers. Although being blind to the fullness of salvific truth, Dr Williams still professes many elements of that truth.

I think you misunderstand the “hierarchy of truths”.

From my understanding, the hierarchy of truths does not define an importance of the truths, nor does it give “precedence” as one being more important that the other…

To categorise things in a hierarchy means to order them and rank them in importance. While all Catholic doctrines are important, others are more important than others; for example, belief in the Trinity is more essential than the belief in angels.

All Catholic doctrines are essential and must be believed, but some are more essential than others; hence there exists a hierarchy of beliefs.

 

[603304529]

“All Catholic doctrines are essential and must be believed, but some are more essential than others; hence there exists a hierarchy of beliefs.”

I hate to be a pain, and I don’t mean to pick on Dempsemy1919 personally, but:

es·sen·tial
adj.

1. Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
2. Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients. See Synonyms at indispensable.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or being a dysfunctional condition or a disease whose cause is unknown: essential hypertension.
4. Biochemistry Being a substance that is required for normal functioning but cannot be synthesized by the body and therefore must be included in the diet: essential amino acids.
   n.
5. Something fundamental.
6. Something necessary or indispensable.

ie, by the very definition of essential, there can be no beliefs more essential than others. ie. all the beliefs in the “hierarchy of beliefs” is essential, necessary, and indispensable…

Having a protestant preach during a Catholic Mass is scandalous, regardless of whether or not he actually preached any of his heresy from the pulpit or not…

 

[brotherhrolf]

Forty plus years ago, Abp. Williams’ homily would have been a scandal if it had not been completely and totally inconceivable in those days. But this is not forty plus years ago.

Forty plus years ago, we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend the memorial services of my protestant grandmother. You will note that I did not say the funeral services of my grandmother - that, we were not permitted to attend back in 1967.

The Brothers of the Sacred Heart (SC) taught me from 8th grade through 12th. Faith, they taught, can survive challenges. If not, it is not faith.

I don’t have a problem with Abp. Williams giving the homily even though my Irish ancestors suffered at the hands of the Anglicans.

My parents could not get married in church in 1947. They had to first get permission from the archbishop of New Orleans. They were married in the sacristy because my father was protestant. It was my father who woke me up and took me to serve all of those 6 am Masses (in Latin) when I was a kid.

Let us have some sensibility about this. The Abp. of Canterbury preaches a homily at Lourdes. Instead of looking at it with shock and chagrin…the Abp. of Canterbury preached a homily at Lourdes.

I am as traditional as they come but I desire to see the wounds of 500 years healed. You have no idea how it was to grow up wondering every day if your father died, would he go to heaven.

 

[JMMK]

The rule of having a member of the Catholic Clergy preach the homily is part of the GIRM. Being that it’s not an article of faith, who has the authority to grant a dispensation to allow this to happen?

I see the general strategy involved here. It’s much like when they called for the Anglican communion to hold together. Its easier to bring a cohesive group into the Church than individual parishes. The ones that don’t want to follow can splinter off from the main body. It’s wishful thinking, but a sensible strategy.

 

[maurin]

Let us have some sensibility about this. The Abp. of Canterbury preaches a homily at Lourdes. Instead of looking at it with shock and chagrin…the Abp. of Canterbury preached a homily at Lourdes.

I am as traditional as they come but I desire to see the wounds of 500 years healed. You have no idea how it was to grow up wondering every day if your father died, would he go to heaven.

Feenyism was condemned, was it not, more than just a couple of years before the Council, was it not? I am sorry that you were unnecesssarily bothered as a child…how difficult it must have been.

However, let us be sensible about it. Whether you gave the Homily or another layman gave the Homily, Brotherhrolf, it was not an Ordained Priest, or Deacon, who gave the Homily. Worse, a non-Catholic gave the Homily.

We ought to be shocked at any display of false ecumenism.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Feenyism was condemned, was it not, more than just a couple of years before the Council, was it not? I am sorry that you were unnecesssarily bothered as a child…how difficult it must have been.

However, let us be sensible about it. Whether you gave the Homily or another layman gave the Homily, Brotherhrolf, it was not an Ordained Priest, or Deacon, who gave the Homily. Worse, a non-Catholic gave the Homily.

We ought to be shocked at any display of false ecumenism.

I can understand exactly where you are coming from. It is exactly as I was brought up in the Faith as a child.

Allowing the Abp. of Canterbury to preach the homily was an act of ecumanism. Did not JPII get raked over the coals for allowing the Dalai Lama to speak at Assisi? I repeat what the good brothers taught me: Faith which cannot stand challenge is not faith.

I hope and pray for the restoration of our separated brothers and sisters. It was simply a homily - not asking the Abp. of Canterbury to concelebrate the Mass ------THAT would have been something to get worked up about.

 

[Dempsey1919]

ie, by the very definition of essential, there can be no beliefs more essential than others

Which is more important: Belief in the Incarnation or belief in the Communion of Saints? Which belief is more necessary for salvation?

Obviously, the belief in the Incarnation is more important because it is the very foundation of Christian belief.

In Catholic doctrine, all of the dogmas are connected. For example, you cannot fully understand the Incarnation without first understanding Original Sin. You will not understand the Immaculate Conception without first fully understanding the Incarnation. All dogmas are connected to one another and should not be thought of in isolation to one another.

When they talk about a “hierarchy of truths” they are referring to the fact that there are certain doctrines which are the core beliefs of Christianity; these beliefs are the foundations upon which all other beliefs are built. For example, the Incarnation is a core belief of Christianity. The Immaculate Conception sheds light on the Incarnation and enables us to better understand the human nature of Christ. Therefore when teaching the faith, it would be silly to teach people about the Immaculate Conception before teaching them about the Incarnation. It is impossible to understand the Immaculate Conception without first understanding how it sheds light on the Incarnation of Christ. The Incarnation is the foundation upon which belief in the Immaculate Conception rests.

Although the Incarnation is closer to the “foundation of Christian faith,” this does not mean that belief in the Immaculate Conception is unimportant. Belief in the Immaculate Conception is important precisely because it increases our knowledge of the Redeemer. Every single doctrine is important and must be believed because all doctrines are related to one another and increase our understanding of the entire Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is useful to think of the Sacred Deposit of Faith as a body; each doctrine makes up a part of the body, for example, belief in the Trinity is the head, belief in the Eternal Sonship of Christ is the brain, belief in the Passion is the heart, belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a hand etc. You will see that all doctrines are important because without them the body would be wounded, or incomplete. However, the heart is more important than a finger, just as certain doctrines are more important than others.

Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christian truth, which it articulates in the doctrines of the faith. However, other Christian denominations also believe in the doctrines which were given to them by the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Archbishop of Canterbury possesses a genuine, but incomplete faith in Christ. The truths he believes in originate from the Catholic Church. All Christian truth derives it’s origin from the Catholic Church because Christ has chosen the Church as his instrument of evangelisation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is a true and genuine Christian but he sees in part what we see in full. Dr. Williams is more than capable of expressing truth in his teaching and I trust in Cardinal Walter Kasper to determine whether he should be given the privelege of preaching a homly during Mass.

I am as traditional as they come but I desire to see the wounds of 500 years healed. You have no idea how it was to grow up wondering every day if your father died, would he go to heaven.

Totally agree. Well said.