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

[Dempsey1919]

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.

Whether the Anglicans have rules concerning this sort of ecumenism is not the point. My question is do you have a problem with the fact that Catholic clergymen take part in Anglican worship and governing councils? As Anglicans are separated from the See of Peter, do you think it is appropriate for a Successor of Peter to say a few words during an Anglican Service?

 

[redrosetea]

Dempsey, I think I might…Do they support gay marriage? That is clearly not a Christan practice

If they do ,no Catholic should be a part of any of their services

 

[levavi]

Dempsey, I think your comments are quite inflammatory and less than charitable.

This should be a place for careful, considered, mature conversation. Not a place for asking accusatory questions.

I did not start the topic to debate what is appropriate at an Anglican event, even if it concerns inviting Cardinals to speak.

I do not believe that the GIRM should be contravened on an ad hoc basis no matter by whom, no matter for whom. End of.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I happened to read some of the articles in the British papers about Abp. Williams and the on-line responses. I don’t think we have that kind of animus against Catholics here amongst the Episcopalians nor do I know what is going on in Great Britain.

Dempsey, here in south Louisiana as a member of a cathedral choir, I have sung in concerts with my Episcopal separated brothers and sisters three blocks away. I have sung at choral evensong where we were the choir. From a personal standpoint, it is always disconcerting to me to see them genuflecting and making the sign of the cross. It has always felt like they were trying to “out Catholic” us. As a student of United States history I am more than aware that such behaviors were not the norm in the past in the Episcopalian church.

I am also aware of John Cardinal Newman and the Oxford movement. Could we not view the Abp. of Canterbury’s assent about Fatima as a plea? Sure, we could take a hard line but I see opportunity here. Could this not be a case of the prodigal son trying to return to the father?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

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!

I hate to jump in late in a conversation and bring up something old, but this seems to have just been glossed over.

Brother Roger of the Taizé Community was into ecumenism with Protestants, and even started out as one himself, but he became Catholic, even if he never formally used the term. Yes, Cardinal Kasper treated Brother Roger as a Catholic, and even presided over his funeral, but so did Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, who gave him Eucharist. Brother Roger went to morning Mass, believed the Catholic Marian doctrines, and so forth.

Wikipedia’s entry on him says:

From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a “conversion” that would imply a break with his origins. In 1980, during a European Meeting in Rome, he said in St Peter’s Basilica in the presence of Pope John Paul II: “I have found my own identity as a Christian by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A8re_Roger

He was a cultural Calvinist, if such a thing can exist: he knew that a lot of Reformed were in love with Our Saviour, and didn’t want to turn his back on fellow Christians (even if they fundamentally misunderstand some aspects of theology). It’s not like he was trying to say, “the Pope is the head of the Church, but is wrong on TULIP.” He was saying, “the Pope is the head of the Church, but Protestants aren’t all a bunch of heathens who hate God, either.”

If he wants to accept Catholic doctrine, call himself merely “Christian,” and maintain fellowship with Catholics and Protestants alike for the furtherance of the Gospel, what possible harm is this? Just because his focus was on emphasizing what we have in common, rather than what divides us?

I understand the need to preserve Catholic doctrine, and I reject the whole “big tent, believe what you want” approach, but if the man’s doctrine is correct, and his heart is in the right place, why criticize Cardinal Kasper, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict for recognizing this?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

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.

That sounds like my idea priest, and my ideal parish!

 

[7_Sorrows]

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

i was going to post this myself redrosetea. wasn’t it last holiday season that the controversy occured with his remarks that he didn’t believe that the pictures portrayed on christmas cards despict the actual nativity scene.

i remember looking at my advent calendar that had the traditional christmas card scene on it and feeling so sad. at this time, i was still episcopalian.

however, because of this remark and others, i finally decided this summer to become roman catholic so i can thank good ol’ rowan for that!!! i just didn’t see him a strong spiritual leader of such a large communion in such an important time. he was willing to sit on the fence.

as far as being asked to speak at a catholic mass, i guess as long as he was invited i don’t see anything wrong with it. sometimes i think we should do that more often. i used to attend a church where a rabbi would come every now and then and give a sermon. he also taught a class on the book of Job.
a protestant pastor came once and preached a sermon on palm sunday.
i wasn’t catholic at this time, but it was interesting.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Dempsey, I think your comments are quite inflammatory and less than charitable.

Show me where I have been inflammatory, or uncharitable?

I don’t think I’ve been anything of the sort. I’ve simply asked a few questions in order to emphasise my point. Also, I have not insulted you directly. The problem lies in the way you have interpreted my posts. I have not insinuated that you do not understand Apostolicae Curae, nor have I questioned your understanding of Catholicism. Furthermore, I have even agreed with your point concerning the disregarding of the GIRM.

Although we disagree on this issue, I would not use this as an excuse to belittle you, or imply that you are somehow less intelligent than I am. As I have already stated, I agree with some of your arguments but not others. Don’t be so defensive and don’t automatically interpret my posts as being negative, because most of the time they are not.

 

[levavi]

Dempsey, I take your comments at face value.

Rhetorical questions that actually have nothing to do with the subject are interesting, but divert attention.

The issue is that a Cardinal appears to have unilaterally contravened the GIRM. Personally, I think that is serious.

I am amazed that posts on this forum spiral out of control.

 

[JReducation]

There are two things happening here.

1. The fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury preached at a Catholic mass.
2. The fact that what he preached is Catholic Marian doctrine.

If we look at the first point, the law uses the term “ordinarilly”, meaning that the ordinary homilist at a mass is a Roman Catholic cleric.

Given that this was an extraordinary situation, because it was the first time that a Protestant Leader publicly professes belief in Marian theology and theology of the saints, I can see how the bishop of the diocese, who is the liturgist for his diocese according to Canon Law, would permit an exception. Just as we have extraordianry ministers of holy communion. This takes nothing away from the ordinary minister.

Ordinarilly an Ordianry is a bishop, but not always. Many times he’s a religious superior who need not be a cleric as long as he’s a Major Superior such as a Provincial Superior.

The point is that when the term ordinarilly is used, instead of always, there is room for the Church to make extraordinary exceptions in extraordinary situations. The highest authority in any diocese is the Bishop. As long as the Bishop acts in union with the Holy Father, he has nothing to apologize for.

In this case, the local Bishop acted with the cooperation of a member of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Casper. The Cardinal and the Archbishop had discussed this event and the Archbishop’s faith before. There were no surprises.

The ones who were more scandalized were the Protestants, becaue the Archbishop broke with some very serious rules of the Reformation Communities:

1. He accepted a Marian miracle.
2. He accepted the congent of the Marian miracle, which included the Immaculate Conception.
3. He accepted the role of saints in the Church.
4. He praised not one, but two saints, Bernadette and Teresa of Avila
5. He said that the Church needs the saints and their prayers.

He expressed these beliefs of his own free will, not under preasure from the Catholic Church. The only reason that he was invited to attend was probably because of his believe in Marian and Mystical Theologies.

Given all of the above, the local bishop nor the Cardinal Casper have anything to apologize for. Everything was coordinated and they committed no sin nor violated any Church law. A violation would be only if the rule said that homilies may ONLY be preached by clerics. But when it uses ordinarilly, it leaves room for the Ordinary of the Diocese to make exceptions, as long as the exceptions don’t become the rule there is nothing for the Church to worry about.

If the local Bishop decided to give the Archbishop of Canterbury an indult to preach, there is no reason why he has to make it public to the world. That’s his perrogative.

Just as when Benedict XVI gave communion to Tony Blair before he became Catholic. He was asked why and his answer was so ambiguous that it almost sounded like a MYOB. Or when Brother Roger of Taize said that he believed what the Catholic Church taught, he never made a public profession of faith or was formally accepted into the Church. However, he was allowed to receive communion by two popes and to be burried by a Vatican official, because he was in communion with Rome, even though he never recanted his Calvinist roots.

In other words, the Vatican and the bishops can make exceptions to almost any rule, as long as it’s not binding by morals or dogma.

We Catholics have to be confident enough to let them do their job.

Look at these articles and see if there was any harm done. I see none. As to the GIRM, the bishop gave permission, that’s all that the law requires.

The episcopal authority is also part of Catholic Tradition. We cannot limit the authority of the bishops at our conveneience. It is one thing if they violate morals and dogma, it is another if they make exceptions to rules and they truly are exceptions.

One would think that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be visiting Lourdes that frequently or preaching at an international mass that often. Just like the Popes don’t visit Canterbury that often or preach there that often. Or visit New York too often and preach at a synagogue, but its been done. Those are extraordinary situations.

Just my two cents.

Here are two articles that give the story rather well.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13904

nzcatholic.org.nz/viewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=1595

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Dempsey1919]

JReducation, thank you for a very informative post. I would like to say that I couldn’t agree more. You have managed to express all of my beliefs concerning this topic in one single post. Well said!!

Rhetorical questions that actually have nothing to do with the subject are interesting, but divert attention.

The questions I asked were very appropriate, given the topic of this thread. I wanted to see if you disagreed with Catholic clergy who preach at Anglican services, in the same way that you disagreed with Anglicans preaching at Catholic Masses. Also, the comparison between the Pope is especially appropriate as both are the leaders of their respective Churches. Therefore, I fail to see how this thread ever spiralled out of control.

The issue is that a Cardinal appears to have unilaterally contravened the GIRM. Personally, I think that is serious.

See the post above by JReducation. He explains the issues concerning the GIRM perfectly.

 

[JReducation]

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.

The underscore is mine.

Yes some over reactive people tried to rake the Pope over the coals, as if anyone really has the authority to do that. The Pope’s reaction and that of the Roman Curia was to blow it off for three reasons.

1. Those who made the loudest noise were not aware that the reason Assisi was chosen for this meeting is because Assisi is outside of the jurisdiction of the diocese. The Ordinary in Assisi is the Superior General of The Friars Minor Conventual (Conventual-Franciscans), who at that time was a Lay Brother. The Vatican had granted the three branches of the Franciscan Order autonomy from the bishops. They are an exempt religious order of pontifical right. Only the Pope has authority over their Major Superiors.
2. If the Major Superior authorized the gathering, which he was not going to deny the Pope, there were no rules broken. The Basilica of St. Francis is not a parish. It is the private church of the Friars Minor (Franciscan Friars) given to them by the Holy See. It is completely under the jurisdiction of the Superior General. John Paul was treated unfairly, because he acted within the law of the Church and the Franciscan Order.
3. The third reason why this was out of line is because you’re not supposed to rake the Pope over the coals unless he engages the Church in something that is materially sinful or something that is a heresy. Having a non-Catholic speak at the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi is neither. There was no violation of canon law, morals, or doctrine. Canon law is very clear on the difference between parishes and oratories of religious orders.

Some may say that it was not the wisest decision that John Paul II ever made, we’ll never know that. But the hell that was raised over this issue was unjust to him and to the Friars Minor.

This may be happening with this case as well. There may be dispensations and indults and rules and policies that we not know about. If there is one thing that I’ve learned about Benedict XVI is that he does not like to explain himself to the laity. He will do so only if his decision or what he permits those under him to do is for the entire laity to know about, such as the Motu Proprio. He has permitted and prohibitted other things that only those directly affected know about and others know about it through them.

As I mentioned in my other post, he admitted Tony Blair to communion while Blair was still in RCIA and refused to explain himself. His only answer was, “It was the charitable thing to do.” We all know that charity can cover a multitude of things.

Don’t hold your breadth for Benedict XVI to explain why he allowed Cardinal Kasper and the local bishop, whose name escapes me, to invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach at a mass. Remember, the final word is not Cardinal Kasper’s. The final word is the local bishop. Cardinal Kasper has no jurisdiction in the diocese. He may work for the Holy See, but he is a visiting bishop. He presided at the mass. But it must be the local Ordinary who gives permission to preach.

None of these events are kept secret from the Holy Father. They’re too big and the “blank” would hit the fan if the Holy Father found out about it in the evening news. This type of event is reported to him before the fact. If Kasper and Williams had been talking about this, I sincerely doubt that Benedict was out of the loop.

Once again, we may be raking someone over the coals who does not deserve it, as happened with the Assisi speach.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[John_Augustine]

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)

You have an ANGLICAN Archbishop of CANTERBURY at a CATHOLIC MASS in the shrine of LOURDES; and you’re NOT happy about this?

I don’t understand why people aren’t thrilled that an Anglican leader took such a daring step which will earn him so much criticism amongst his own flock!

 

[JPUSC]

I don’t understand why people aren’t thrilled that an Anglican leader took such a daring step which will earn him so much criticism amongst his own flock!

It’s not will earn him criticism…it’s will earn him even more criticism:

Afterwards he was severely criticised by the Protestant Truth Society, a group of Anglicans and nonconformists committed to upholding the ideals of the Protestant Reformation.
The Rev Jeremy Brooks, director of ministry for the group, said: 'All true Protestants will be appalled that the Archbishop of Canterbury has visited Lourdes, and preached there.

‘Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation ejected, including apparitions, mariolatry and the veneration of saints.

Lourdes is a magnet for Roman Catholics who make the pilgrimage to the site from all over Europe

‘The archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God” is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.’

He added: ‘At a time when our country is crying out for clear Biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant archbishop is behaving as little more than a papal puppet.’

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1060951/Rowan-Williams-Anglican-leader-accept-visions-Virgin-Mary-fact.html

 

[maurin]

So the protestants are upset that a protestant is behaving --admirably of course–as a Catholic.

Such a shame that the Catholics aren’t behaving more like the protestants–outraged that basic rules of the Mass are ignored. But such is the life of the Novus Ordo Missae–most rules are ignored, anyway, even by the Hierarchy. It isn’t bad enough that Catholic laymen and women give the homilies at some Parishes, we now should be gracious that non-Catholic laymen are giving it?

We rejoice with the Angels and the Saints in Heaven that the archbishop has trumpeted his agreement with Divinely revealed Dogmas. As soon as he comes home and submits humbly to the Successor that occupies Peter’s Chair, we can rejoice with our brothers and sisters in the churches and gladly listen to his homilies and joyfully assist at the Liturgies he Celebrates. We should storm Heaven with our prayers that he and his flock take the fullest step and reenter full Communion with the Church.

Until then, it more appropriate that he speak at a nice dinner after Mass, or over in the multi-purpose room or Parish Hall over coffee and doughnuts.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Until then, it more appropriate that he speak at a nice dinner after Mass, or over in the multi-purpose room or Parish Hall over coffee and doughnuts.

I respectfully disagree. This is a huge “crack in the dam”. We all can see that the worldwide Anglican communion is on the verge of being torn asunder. Abp. Williams’ homily is nothing short of mind-boggling. He may very well be leading the way to reunification with HMC. Wouldn’t THAT be nice?

I am of Irish ancestry. I know what the Church of Ireland and the Church of England did to my ancestors. I am also of English Catholic ancestry. If I am going to make a mistake, I am going to make the “mistake” of the father welcoming home the prodigal son. I don’t want to be the older brother.

 

[maurin]

I respectfully disagree. This is a huge “crack in the dam”. We all can see that the worldwide Anglican communion is on the verge of being torn asunder. Abp. Williams’ homily is nothing short of mind-boggling. He may very well be leading the way to reunification with HMC. Wouldn’t THAT be nice?

I am of Irish ancestry. I know what the Church of Ireland and the Church of England did to my ancestors. I am also of English Catholic ancestry. If I am going to make a mistake, I am going to make the “mistake” of the father welcoming home the prodigal son. I don’t want to be the older brother.

All very nice sentiment, brotherhrolf, very sweet. Yes. But sentiment it is. One may ‘respectfully disagree’ with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, but one must also ‘respectfully comply with’ its rubrics and directives.

What would be nicest is that the rules were followed, while welcoming home the prodigal son. Both can–and have been–done very well. Ask Cardinal Newman.

 

[Dempsey1919]

What would be nicest is that the rules were followed, while welcoming home the prodigal son. Both can–and have been–done very well. Ask Cardinal Newman.

It has been established previously that the GIRM may not have been broken. Read JReducation’s post and you will see how this could have been permissible.

 

[maurin]

This is a huge “crack in the dam”. We all can see that the worldwide Anglican communion is on the verge of being torn asunder. Abp. Williams’ homily is nothing short of mind-boggling. He may very well be leading the way to reunification with HMC. Wouldn’t THAT be nice?

The 'Anglo-“Catholics” ’ have seen the results of relativism, modernism and ‘the bending of the rules’ in the name of (a false) charity, which is the rending of their ‘Communion.’ Aren’t they seeking the Rock and Bulwark against these things? Is this not why there is a huge “crack in the dam?” Is this not why they have been considering, as did their great-great grandparents in the “Oxford movement” did, full Communion with Rome?

But instead we further confuse our own Catholic masses by having them be homilized by non Catholics at their own Masses.

Isn’t this the example the so-called Anglo-Catholics are fleeing? Is THAT nice?

How many people do you know who submit to the flu virus after having been ‘innoculated’ by the flu virus?

 

[maurin]

It has been established previously that the GIRM may not have been broken. Read JReducation’s post and you will see how this ***could have been ***permissible.

emphases mine.

not at all convincing.