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

[maurin]

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.

Allowing anyone who is not an Ordained Catholic Priest or Deacon to preach a Homily is an act of false ecumenism. When an act of false ecumenism is committed by a Cardinal we have cause to not only get “worked up”, but to worry about the example that has been set.

I share your prayer for Unity, but not for unity at any cost, or by any means.

 

[iona_scribe]

I know you’re looking for traditionalists’ views, and I’m not quite a traditionalist (not yet at least ) but it does strike me as odd.

My parish considers itself very Vatican II friendly (don’t cringe, for the most part it’s very conservative there) and we set an example for our diocese in ecumenical relations (the honest kind, not the false kind).

We’ve had an Evangelical pastor as a guest speaker at a parish event, we have an ongoing book discussion group with a neighboring Orthodox church. We’ve even celebrated an ecumenical vespers service jointly with the Orthodox and Coptic churches in our community in honor of the Year of St. Paul.

But we don’t do any of these things during Mass. We acknowledge and respect that we are still separate in this regard, so we look to other respectful and creative ways to engage with each other apart from Mass.

I agree with brotherhrolf, I would give anything to see these wounds healed. And I’m still a young enough convert that I’m really not up in arms about this even though I don’t think it’s appropriate.

I just think we need to proceed with caution, and with honesty, and part of that means avoiding grey areas during Mass until we are all legitimately united in communion.

 

[levavi]

As the original poster, I feel I must intervene. I did not really want to open the debate as to the nature - essential, perceived or otherwise - of Anglicanism.

I used to be an Anglican and Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae was contributory to my conversion. I now look back at the Church of England as schismatic, divisive, and a peddler (in part) of false doctrines, particularly about the nature of the Church and of the sacraments. I cannot accept an Anglican clergyman as anything other than a layman.

I believe my views are still the views of the Catholic Church. There is no reason for a change.

Which is why I opened this topic. I feel myself truly scandalized that a Cardinal has contravened the GIRM in such a public way. It gives off the suggestion either that Rowan Williams is validly ordained or that the GIRM is to be disregarded, however you view the issue.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It gives off the suggestion either that Rowan Williams is validly ordained or that the GIRM is to be disregarded, however you view the issue.

It gives off the impression of mutual respect and understanding. It aims to prevent sectarianism and promote Christian unity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is an important figure in Christendom. Allowing him to preach a homily is a way of showing respect and love to our separated bretheren. It in no way implies that the Church is compromising her beliefs. On the contrary, it shows that Dr. Williams is becoming more Catholic in his beliefs; let us remember that during the homily the Archbishop expressed his belief in the Apparitions at Lourdes. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that he also believes in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, since this is what Our Blessed Mother revealed herself to be during those Apparitions.

We Catholics should not be offended if a prominent protestant leader reveals his belief in Our Lady of Lourdes, for by doing so, he is also implicitly accepting to doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

It could be said that this homily is a step towards Christian unity because it has enabled one of our separated bretheren, a prominent leader of protestantism, to implicity show his acceptance of a Catholic doctrine which has traditionally been renounced by protestantism as Mariolatry.

 

[levavi]

I think the issue is that the biggest advocates of the letter of the GIRM should be the people at the “top” of the Church.

And I really do think that people not so well versed in the historical and cultural problem of the Anglican Communion might well get the wrong end of the stick, unless the GIRM proposes an exception.

Besides, the principle of contravening the GIRM is a well known problem and openly flouting it like this, for whatever reason, causes scandal to faithful Catholics (whether you understand that or not).

 

[Dempsey1919]

And I really do think that people not so well versed in the historical and cultural problem of the Anglican Communion might well get the wrong end of the stick,

How might these people get the wrong end of the stick?

 

[levavi]

Dempsey:

The GIRM is quoted above, and clearly says that a layman may not preach the homily at Mass.

Another document of the Church (Apostolicae Curae) states that Anglican orders are “totally null and utterly void” –*i.e. Anglican ministers are layman.

Ergo, Anglican ministers should not be allowed to preach a homily during Mass.

To allow one to do so, not matter how “eminent” he is, or how “ecumenical” such a gesture might appear to some to be, would be to give the impression that the Church either recognizes Anglican orders as valid nowadays, or that the GIRM actually doesn’t matter.

Perhaps this is the right end of the stick?

 

[redrosetea]

Considering he views the Christmas story as myth, I wonder if he is even a Christian?

 

[Dempsey1919]

To allow one to do so, not matter how “eminent” he is, or how “ecumenical” such a gesture might appear to some to be, would be to give the impression that the Church either recognizes Anglican orders as valid nowadays, or that the GIRM actually doesn’t matter.

People who are well versed in this subject know that the decrees of Apostolicae Curae still stand. The only message this event sends is that the Church respects Archbishop Williams as the leader of a major Christian denomination; and I do believe that it helps to create warm relations between the two faiths. This event will not confuse anyone who is has a full and deep understanding of the Catholic faith. However, I do agree that this is a blatant disregard of the GIRM and may give certain elements within the Church to continue in their own liturgical abuses.

 

[Aramis]

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

May not proclaim the gospel DURING THE MASS.

Exception: When the passion is done as a group reading, similar to a radio play, the priest reads the words of Christ. The Concelebrant(s) and Deacon(s) take additional parts, then if any are left, instituted lectors, and then finally, lay readers.

Lay Readers may proclaim the Gospel outside of the Mass, when no priest nor deacon is available, for example, a communion service

 

[levavi]

Dempsey:

I’m not sure I like your tone. It seems from your last post that you are accusing me of

a) not knowing that Apostolicae Curae still stands – which I do; of course it does;
b) reading the situation incorrectly, viz. what the “only message” here is –*in my estimation there are many conflicting messages here (which is partly the problem);
c) that I do not have a “full and deep understanding of the Catholic faith” simply because I am applying the letter of the law to this situation –*there are norms of ecumenism and these do not envisage the Lourdes arrangement.

Besides, I believe you invalidate your point by saying that this situation was “a blatant disregard of the GIRM and may give certain elements within the Church to continue in their own liturgical abuses”.

I do not feel I need to read the situation in another way in order to “understand” it better. I prefer to hold fast to the directives that Rome gives for our mutual benefit.

 

[Unitas]

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.

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,[142] “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.[143] In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.[144]

[161.] As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass.[260] As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law.[261] This may be done only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet the need, and it may not be transformed from an exceptional measure into an ordinary practice, nor may it be understood as an authentic form of the advancement of the laity.[262] All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary, and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are Priests or Deacons.

Rowan Williams is a Christian and he shares the most important Christian beliefs with us. We agree on the more important elements of faith.

Really? Where can I see a list of teachings in order of importance? How do you know which ones are more important than others? What authority do you have to make that judgment?

He is also an accomplished preacher and public speaker.

And quite often wrong. Let’s not forget he’s not even Catholic.

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.

I see it as a travesty as instead of using the opportunity to teach Catholicism to the Catholic faithful, they get to be taught by a schismatic.

Although Rowan Williams is not member of the Catholic clergy, neither are the lay readers who participate in Catholic Masses daily throughout the world.

Lay readers are not giving the homily, nor are they allowed to.

They are able to read the Gospel despite not being priests.

Redemptionis Sacramentum"

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”,[139] is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister.[140] Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.[141]

No, laity are not able to read the Gospel.

If you have no problem with this, why would you have a problem with an accomplished theologian giving a homly?

I do have a problem with this. Not even Catholic theologians nor seminarians are allowed to give the homily, let alone a non-Catholic.

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.

The homily is reserved for the priest or deacon. Period. I guess the Vatican disagrees with you.

 

[iona_scribe]

To allow one to do so, not matter how “eminent” he is, or how “ecumenical” such a gesture might appear to some to be, would be to give the impression that the Church either recognizes Anglican orders as valid nowadays, or that the GIRM actually doesn’t matter.

I agree. As much as I support ecumenism, we have to be careful that ecumenical gestures don’t bend the rules, or we do a disservice not only to our efforts but to the very people we want to see united.

Something like this has the potential to lead less knowledgeable Catholics into indifferentism, and it also pushes away those Catholics who want nothing to do with ecumenism because things like this appear to be evidence that all of ecumenism is nothing but indifferentism. It’s also a poor witness of integrity to our separated brethren if we don’t follow our own instructions.

There are plenty of other creative ways to engage in ecumenism while maintaining our identity and integrity as the one true Church.

 

[iona_scribe]

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.

I agree completely, and you did a great job explaining the Hierarchy of Truths.

But we should be mindful to find an appropriate context for guest speakers and sharing that doesn’t cause any of our brothers and sisters to stumble.

 

[Dempsey1919]

But we should be mindful to find an appropriate context for guest speakers and sharing that doesn’t cause any of our brothers and sisters to stumble.

I agree. Perhaps inviting Dr. Williams to preach a homily was a bit imprudent due to the fact that it seems to have offended both Catholics and Anglicans; many Anglicans were apalled by this, most notably the Protestant Truth Society.

However, as I stated in my previous posts, I also recognise the significance of this event. Dr. Rowan Williams is the first senior clergyman of the Church of England to accept the apparitions at Lourdes as an historical fact. I view his actions as an acceptance of both the visions and the message. As I have said previously, the Archbishop is implicitly acknowledging the reality of the Immaculate Conception. I view this as a fantastic development in the movement towards Christian unity.

The fact that I see both the positive and negative aspects of this event does not imply a contradiction in my thoughts. I know that the total disregard of the GIRM is a bad thing, but I am also glad that the uniqueness of the Blessed Virgin is being recognised by an important leader in the protestant movement.

We are constantly seeing the Anglican Communion moving further away from the Apostolic faith. It is nice to see the leader of this Communion publicly demonstrating his faith in a Catholic doctrine that has traditionally been condemned by Protestants and the Orthodox alike.

 

[japhy]

Update: Warning! It turns out the English text of Unitatis Redintegratio on the Vatican web site suffers from “Spirit of Vatican II”-ism. Notes below…

Let’s set the record straight on the “hierarchy of truths”.

In the Catechism, paragraph 90, we read:… “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 11)
Before we go to the source document, let’s also see what the Directory of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism says:[Catechesis] should expound dearly, with charity and with due firmness the whole doctrine of the Catholic Church respecting in a particular way the order of the hierarchy of truths and avoiding expressions and ways of presenting doctrine which would be an obstacle to dialogue. (n. 61)

Students must learn to distinguish between on the one hand revealed truths, which all require the same assent of faith, and on the other hand the manner of stating those truths and theological doctrines. … Moreover, the “hierarchy of truths” of Catholic doctrine should always be respected; these truths all demand due assent of faith, yet are not all equally central to the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the Christian faith. (n. 74)
And now to the source, UR 11:The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith !!!???]. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

Update: Note! Imagine my surprise when I read “the fundamental Christian faith” in this document! That’s not how the Catechism quoted it! Let’s see where the flaw is:
“… they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 11, English translation on www.vatican.va)

“… cum diversus sit earum nexus cum fundamento fidei christianae.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 11, Latin original on www.vatican.va)
Ah, that’s the problem. The person/people who translated the Latin document into English didn’t know how to read Latin! See, fundamento might look, to the English eye, as an adjective (“fundamental”), and fidei christianae might look like the phrase “Christian faith”. But fundamento is a noun (“foundation”), and fidei christianae is in the genitive, meaning “of the Christian faith”.

These two articles (here and here) shed light on what this term hierarchy (which is set off by quotes in the Vatican II document) means in terms of ecumenism.

It doesn’t mean certain truths of the faith aren’t necessary to be believed. You’re not Catholic if you deny them! It means that, as an organic and ordered structure, the faith has a hierarchical schema by which its various truths are connected. The Assumption of Mary is not a principal truth, it is further down the hierarchy… you need to understand the more basic truths before the truth of the Assumption makes sense.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Let’s set the record straight on the “hierarchy of truths”.

Do you disagree with my explanation of the term in this thread?

 

[japhy]

Do you disagree with my explanation of the term in this thread?

Well, first I’d like to know where you got the list of the “most important Christian beliefs” from Post #8 (which you admitted was not exhaustive). Does that list include or exclude the primacy of the Roman See, the infallibility in certain conditions of the Magisterium of the Church, the Sacrament of the Eucharist and Holy Communion (noticeably absent from your list).

You state later in Post #8 that “Williams believes in the foundation of the Christian faith, which can also be said to be the most important part”, but you fail to prove what constitutes the “foundation of the Christian faith” because you haven’t given us the complete list. You say that he “believes in the most essential elements of the Christian faith”, but since he clearly does not believe in the authority of the Papacy, that must mean the Papacy is neither part of the “foundation of the Christian faith” nor an “essential element”. And yet the Petrine office is inextricably linked to the foundation of the Church, as Matthew 16:18 attests to.

You say in Post #14 that Williams “believes in the essential Christian doctrines”; if the Papacy is not one of those “essential Christian doctrines”, what is preventing him (or better yet, the Orthodox) from being in communion with the Catholic Church?

Later in Post #14 you give your description of the “hierarchy of truths”:

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.

The problem is that you are using adjectives which I am not sure it is our right to use: “important”, “essential”. The brief description of the “hierarchy” does not mention either of those two adjectives, only that they “vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith”. That is, the vary in degrees of centrality. The DPNE states it that way in paragraph 74, that “these truths all demand [the same] due assent of faith, yet are not all equally central to the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the Christian faith”.

I would not venture to say that being “less central” means either “less important” or “less essential”; I would only say that a “less central” truth of the faith requires an understanding of the “more central” truths in order to be logically connected to the “foundation of the Christian faith”.

To put it another way: I think I disagree with your explanation of the “hierarchy”, because of your use of words like “important” and “essential”.

Update: Another document which refers to the “hierarchy” is the 1974 Mysterium Ecclesiae, in paragraph 4:It is true that there exists an order as it were a hierarchy of the Church’s dogmas, as a result of their varying relationship to the foundation of the faith. This hierarchy means that some dogmas are founded on other dogmas which are the principal ones, and are illuminated by these latter. But all dogmas, since they are revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith.
The Latin reads principalioribus for “principal ones”. These are, indeed, the core, the first, the foremost, but only insofar as they (the principal dogmas) are the ones upon which all the others rely and depend. To say that others are less important because they are not principal is not our judgment.

 

[JPUSC]

My parish considers itself very Vatican II friendly (don’t cringe, for the most part it’s very conservative there) and we set an example for our diocese in ecumenical relations (the honest kind, not the false kind).

I’m from the same city. That’s St. John Neumann, isn’t it? I think St. Thomas More is a little more conservative.

 

[pnewton]

Dempsey, I am curious about one thing. Are you a traditionalist? I am wondering because your view on this seems a bit odd for a traditionalist.

Also, does AB Williams have valid orders (from a Catholic POV)? I have been told some Anglicans have valid orders, although they are few. If so, I think we would then be allowed to give the homily without a violation of the GIRM. If not, then it should not take place, if it did, inside a Catholic Mass.

I guess I am with brotherholf on this. It is worth a lot of effort to seal the breach with what remains of the Anglican Church that can be rejoined with.