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

[levavi]

To clarify my position:

It is not that I don’t like the idea of an Anglican preaching at a Catholic Mass (which I don’t, but that is not my point);

it is that I don’t like the GIRM being violated, causing scandal and confusion.

We don’t know whether Rowan Williams is validly ordained: if he is, it would only be by an freak occurrence of contact with Old Catholics or some such like. The main point is that he is the figurehead of a schismatic ecclesial communion. I naturally rejoice when any Catholic doctrine is embraced by a Protestant, but Williams remains a non-Catholic.

Whatever the letter of the law of the GIRM or indeed Williams’ presumed orders, I do not think a non-Catholic should be preaching at a Catholic Mass.

 

[japhy]

To clarify my position: I don’t like the GIRM being violated, causing scandal and confusion.

And I think there are two major reasons why it could have happened:

1. the priest who was celebrating the Mass, who is known for his “ecumenical flair”, made the decision on his own; or
2. a particular indult for this particular occasion was granted, because of
   a) the location,
   b) the dogma of faith related to the location,
   c) the man (and his position in the Anglican communion), and
   d) the content of the man’s homily.

 

[levavi]

If an indult was granted, it should be made public, to avoid scandal.

 

[Dempsey1919]

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.

I attend the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite almost exclusively. I study Latin and I often pray in this language. I prefer pre-conciliar forms of piety and worship. I also prefer traditional Gothic style Church architecture, and traditional vestments. Based on all of this, I would say that I would be classed as a traditionalist.

However, I have no issues with Vatican II; in fact, I think the theology expressed in these documents is beautiful. I have no problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, although I feel that the EF is far superior in terms of expressing Catholic doctrine correctly.

I believe in everything the Church teaches. Although I would be classed as a traditionalist, I do not label myself as one. I simply wish to be known as a faithful Catholic.

Why are my views odd for a traditionalist?

…

Regarding your other question:

Anglican Orders are completely null, void, and invalid.

Pope Leo XIII stated in Apostolicae Curae (1896):

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.

The Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession during the reign of King Edward VI due to the fact that the ceremony used during the Consecration of Bishops was changed; this change made the ordinations invalid.

Many Anglicans, especially the so-called Anglican catholics claim that certain Anglican Orders are still valid. They claim that they received Apostolic Succession from the Old Catholic Church. However, the claim that there is any Apostolic Succession within Anglicanism is tenuous at best.

 

[pnewton]

Why are my views odd for a traditionalist?

The willingness for a non-Priest to give a homily at Mass and lay readers reading the gospel. But do not get me wrong, I do not care and surely we do not need to pidgeon-hole peopls so strictly.

Regarding your other question:

However, the claim that there is any Apostolic Succession within Anglicanism is tenuous at best.

I check back to see where I got that idea. It was from Anglican priest who later received valid orders from a valid Bishop because they knew the Anglican orders to be defective.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The willingness for a non-Priest to give a homily at Mass and lay readers reading the gospel.

Regarding the lay readers reading the gospel: I got that part wrong. I hardly ever attend the OF and so the whole idea of lay readers is quite odd to me. I do not condone or want lay people to read the Gospel.

Regarding the Homily by Dr. Rowan Williams, yes I agree that it was wrong to contravene the GIRM but I can also see the significance of what he actually said during the homily. Re-read my earlier posts and you will see why I think this homily was also a positive event.

The “traditionalists” here seem to spend a lot of time complaining but they never look for the positives. The only reason my views seem odd is because I don’t always focus on the negatives. Some traditionalists (i.e SSPX, Sedevacantists etc) spend far too much time complaining and not enough time praying.

 

[levavi]

I absolutely focus on positives, but I don’t want to ignore negatives when they arise. In my opinion, this is a serious negative.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I absolutely focus on positives, but I don’t want to ignore negatives when they arise. In my opinion, this is a serious negative.

It is a negative that the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion has publicly expressed his belief in Our Lady of Lourdes, and by extension, in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

In the long run, what is more significant, that the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a homily as a guest at a Catholic Mass, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury implicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Furthermore, was it wrong for the Anglicans to invite Catholic Cardinals as guests to the Lambeth Council? Also, do not forget the fact that these Cardinals issued statements during the Council.

 

[levavi]

Oh this is just getting silly.

Can one not separate positives from negatives?

To my mind, it is perfectly possible to express dissatisfaction as a Catholic that the GIRM appears to have been disregarded without detracting from the joy of a Marian apparition being accepted by a schismatic.

 

[maurin]

It is a negative that the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion has publicly expressed his belief in Our Lady of Lourdes, and by extension, in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

In the long run, what is more significant, that the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a homily as a guest at a Catholic Mass, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury implicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception?

Dempsey,

I’m almost certain that anyone who reads this is absolutely pleased and thankful that God gave this man the Grace to believe such a fundamental Truth of the Faith. That is not the issue.

The issue is that he is not Catholic. The Church does not permit anyone who is not ordained either Deacon or Priest (all Priests are Deacons, btw), to either Proclaim or Preach the Word of God during Mass.

It is appropriate to be happy that the man, by the Grace of God, believes in Dogmas of the Church. It is appropriate to be disappointed that the Teachings of the Church were ignored. Again.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Oh this is just getting silly.

This is not silly.

Please answer my questions.

Do you disagree with the fact that Pope John Paul II delivered a speech and said the Lord’s Prayer in the Anglican Cathedral during his visit to Liverpool in 1982? The Holy Father did not concelebrate, but he did say a few words. Is this a serious negative?

I repeat: Was it a serious negative that the Anglicans invited Catholic Cardinals to express their views during the Lambeth Council?

What is more important: that the Archbishop acknowledged his belief in the apparitions at Lourdes, or that he said a few words during the Mass? Which has more historical significance or importance to Christian unity?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Proclaim or Preach the Word of God during Mass.

The Archbishop of Canterbury did neither, as far as I know. I have read the trascript of his speech and all he does is give his reflections on the Apparations of Our Lady and the life of St. Bernadette.

 

[pnewton]

Can one not separate positives from negatives?

Yes, but only at high levels of energy.

 

[levavi]

Do you disagree with the fact that Pope John Paul II delivered a speech and said the Lord’s Prayer in the Anglican Cathedral during his visit to Liverpool in 1982? The Holy Father did not concelebrate, but he did say a few words. Is this a serious negative?

I repeat: Was it a serious negative that the Anglicans invited Catholic Cardinals to express their views during the Lambeth Council?

What is more important: that the Archbishop acknowledged his belief in the apparitions at Lourdes, or that he said a few words during the Mass? Which has more historical significance or importance to Christian unity?

The Anglicans do not have rules over this sort of thing, and not being an Anglican I cannot say whether it offends me or not.

From my position as a Catholic I am annoyed the GIRM was apparently disregarded. All other putative merits to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[pnewton]

Regarding the Homily by Dr. Rowan Williams, yes I agree that it was wrong to contravene the GIRM but I can also see the significance of what he actually said during the homily. Re-read my earlier posts and you will see why I think this homily was also a positive event.

I appreciate where you (and others here) are coming from. I checked the title of this thread and I think you are on the money. After all, this is not just about a violation that might haven taken place, but a great opportunity for reaching what might be our closest Protestant brethren.

 

[maurin]

all he does is give his reflections on the Apparations of Our Lady and the life of St. Bernadette.

What is more important: that the Archbishop acknowledged his belief in the apparitions at Lourdes, or that he said a few words during the Mass? Which has more historical significance or importance to Christian unity?

Both, actually, are of equal importance: that he responded to the Grace God gave him in order to realize a fundamental Dogma of the Faith, AND that NOONE but a validly ordained Deacon or Priest give the Homily or speak during the time reserved for such speaking during the Mass.

He certainly could have been invited to speak AFTER the Mass had finished.

 

[JPUSC]

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.

I just wanted to say that I found the story of how your father would wake you up every Sunday to serve Mass very touching. He sounds like a very good father. Did he ever join the Church?

 

[iona_scribe]

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

Hello neighbor! Yes, I am from SJN

I’ve not yet visited St. Thomas More, but I’m guessing they must be a little more conservative if they have a once a month Latin mass. My husband and I have visited St. John the Baptist recently for theirs, but we need to do a little more Latin homework before we try again.

My church is made up of a pretty diverse group of people that all manage to pull together in an orthodox direction when everything averages out. One of our priests who prefers to be the celebrant of the charismatic Mass is also the one that always encourages us to dress appropriately, pray the Rosary, and incorporate more Latin into the liturgy.

I have to say I’ve always been happy with the direction and decorum of our ecumenical activities.

 

[JPUSC]

Hello there neighbor.

St. John the Baptist and St. Michael’s Abbey are great places to attend Mass. I like the Tridentine Mass at SJB, and in the St. Thomas More one, the Norbertine priest explains some of the Latin since the parishoners aren’t too familar with it.

In terms of style, STM and SJN are probably about the same with the exception of STM’s once a month Tridentine Mass. STM has LifeTeen, I believe. I think I’ve heard of a group from your parish called “Journey”. How is it like?

Also in the same area, St. Cecilia in Tustin has a wonderful pastor and will soon have a Tridentine Mass. It is also the designated pilgrimage spot for the Holy Year of St. Paul for our area so get your indulgences while you can, lol.