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

[japhy]

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

Where does the law use that term? Canon 767 says that “the homily … is reserved to a priest or deacon” (homilia … sacerdoti aut diacono reservatur). This has been repeated recently by Redemptionis Sacramentum. I have heard that there are very specific exceptions to this rule (such as permission given to Dominicans who are not yet ordained), but these are not written into the general law of the Church (as far as I have found).

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.

Canon 838 says:Can. 838 §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

…

§4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.
The Bishop is “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 19). The question, then, is whether the local Ordinary can dispense with whatever regulations of the liturgy seem appropriate to him. Can my bishop dictate that the priest’s chair should not be in the sanctuary, or that we should sit for the Eucharistic Prayer, or that a woman should read the gospel every week? I don’t think so. The question is whether an Ordinary, of his own competency, can dismiss with a regulation of Canon Law and an instruction in the GIRM and permit a non-Catholic to give a homily.

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.

The Bishop is the highest authority only when he is not operating outside of his competency.

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.

So the assumption is that the local Ordinary received permission from Cardinal Kasper, who had the authority to permit it.

Is it certain the homily was given during a Mass? This Zenit article says “ecumenical celebration” and never mentions the word “Mass”.

 

[Dempsey1919]

He may very well be leading the way to reunification with HMC.

I doubt that the Archbishop had this in mind when he delivered the homily expressing his beliefs in St. Bernadette and Our Lady of Lourdes. Relations between Canterbury and Rome have become increasingly strained due to the recent developments regarding female ordination to the Bishopric, and I think this visit to Lourdes was an attempt by the Archbishop of Canterbury to improve the fractured bonds which connected the two Churches together in ecumenical friendship.

I would like to think that this visit was the start of reunion, but I know that this will never happen; the Church of England is very unlikely to reunite with Rome. For this to take place, laws regarding the Monarchy would have to be changed, and I think this is highly unlikely.

 

[7_Sorrows]

if the article said ecumenical celebration, then why should anyone be upset that he was there? i went to a synagogue once that had an ecumenical thanksgiving service and there was someone representing islam and a priest was there and a pastor and it was very interesting.

i don’t feel i am biased because i used to be episcopalian because i didn’t agree with a lot of the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

i agree with Dempsey. i don’t believe that the anglican communion and the roman catholic communion will ever be able to unite. unless someday, there is an extraordinary Archbishop of Canterbury named that isn’t afraid to steer the anglican communion back to its catholic roots.

 

[maurin]

i agree with Dempsey.

With great respect and courtesy, I don’t agree with either of you.

i don’t believe that the anglican communion and the roman catholic communion will ever be able to unite.

I believe we will, if it is God’s Will. Based on Jesus’ prayer of Unity in John’s Gospel, I believe it is His Will.

unless someday, there is an extraordinary Archbishop of Canterbury named that isn’t afraid to steer the anglican communion back to its catholic roots.

ANd there will be, one day. One who is inspired with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We must storm Heaven with our prayers.

 

[JReducation]

Where does the law use that term? Canon 767 says that “the homily … is reserved to a priest or deacon” (homilia … sacerdoti aut diacono reservatur). This has been repeated recently by Redemptionis Sacramentum. I have heard that there are very specific exceptions to this rule (such as permission given to Dominicans who are not yet ordained), but these are not written into the general law of the Church (as far as I have found).

Canon 838 says:Can. 838 §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

…

§4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.
The Bishop is “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 19). The question, then, is whether the local Ordinary can dispense with whatever regulations of the liturgy seem appropriate to him. Can my bishop dictate that the priest’s chair should not be in the sanctuary, or that we should sit for the Eucharistic Prayer, or that a woman should read the gospel every week? I don’t think so. The question is whether an Ordinary, of his own competency, can dismiss with a regulation of Canon Law and an instruction in the GIRM and permit a non-Catholic to give a homily.

The Bishop is the highest authority only when he is not operating outside of his competency.

So the assumption is that the local Ordinary received permission from Cardinal Kasper, who had the authority to permit it.

Is it certain the homily was given during a Mass? This Zenit article says “ecumenical celebration” and never mentions the word “Mass”.

I was asked to explain what is allowed to the Ordinary of a diocese, not to convince you. There is nothing more that I can do.

If you persist in seeing the error or the evil in this event and in the minds of the persons who organized it, you will never enjoy its fruits, because the other will be a thorn on your side.

Remember, when it comes to the Church, one never knows what Rome dispenses with or provides and indult for. The Holy See is not subject to everything in the GIRM. There are ares of it that it has full authority over.

It is almost inconceivable to believe that all of this took place without the Pope Benedict XVI’s prior knowledge and consent. Even Benedict XVI has made exceptions to the GIRM and multiple occasions. If the Pope or the appropriate authority allow an exception within their competence, then there is nothing to feel guilty about.

But only you can choose to look for the possible good or the violation of law.

Good luck and pray for the rest of us.

JR

 

[7_Sorrows]

i pray maurin you are right that God does have a plan and will put in place such a man to be Archbishop of Canterbury that will be guided by the Holy Spirit to unite the two communions.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I believe we will, if it is God’s Will. Based on Jesus’ prayer of Unity in John’s Gospel, I believe it is His Will.

Maybe certain Churches belonging to the Anglican Communion will formally unite with Rome, but I cannot see the Church of England reuniting with Rome. For that to happen, laws would have to be changed, and the Queen would lose her role as head of the Church, and would probably have to convert herself.

However, I view the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be a small step in the right direction.

 

[brotherhrolf]

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.

Well and good. This is not the nineteenth century. The Anglican church then was not on the verge of collapse in the nineteenth century. Sentiment? No. Say rather that I adhere to the rules of this forum.

Someone, somewhere in the hierarchy of HMC issued the invitation and permitted Abp. Williams to speak. The decision was made “above my pay grade” as we used to say in the military. Sadly, if I had a nickel for every time the GIRM was violated, I would be a wealthy man.

In this case, the benefits have the potential to far outweigh the technical violations of the GIRM. The archbishop of Canterbury - the primate of the English Church preaches a homily at Lourdes in which he acknowledges St. Bernadette Soubirou and Our Lady and you are going to cite the GIRM? Respectfully, I disagree.

 

[japhy]

If you persist in seeing the error or the evil in this event and in the minds of the persons who organized it, you will never enjoy its fruits, because the other will be a thorn on your side. … But only you can choose to look for the possible good or the violation of law.

I think you misunderstood my post. I am not approaching this in an “all or nothing” way. I am pleased that Archbishop Williams expressed a faith in the Immaculate Conception. I am surprised it was expressed in a homily at a Catholic Mass (if it was indeed at Mass). There is the unfortunate possibility that this could lead to scandal, or to leading other bishops (or worse, priests) to think that there has been some change in policy and start allowing non-ordained (Catholic or not) to preach at Mass. This is why it is important (to me and some others here) to consider the situation closely.

Remember, when it comes to the Church, one never knows what Rome dispenses with or provides and indult for.

And that is what I ended my post with: “So the assumption is that the local Ordinary received permission from Cardinal Kasper, who had the authority to permit it.”

 

[brotherhrolf]

I doubt that the Archbishop had this in mind when he delivered the homily expressing his beliefs in St. Bernadette and Our Lady of Lourdes. Relations between Canterbury and Rome have become increasingly strained due to the recent developments regarding female ordination to the Bishopric, and I think this visit to Lourdes was an attempt by the Archbishop of Canterbury to improve the fractured bonds which connected the two Churches together in ecumenical friendship.

I would like to think that this visit was the start of reunion, but I know that this will never happen; the Church of England is very unlikely to reunite with Rome. For this to take place, laws regarding the Monarchy would have to be changed, and I think this is highly unlikely.

I agree with you as far as the United Kingdom goes. Things are quite different here in the States. In my diocese alone we have two married ex-Episcopalian priests with kids. My point is that the whole Anglican Communion is in disarray. We have an opportunity to welcome some of the prodigal sons home.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I agree with you as far as the United Kingdom goes. Things are quite different here in the States.

Yes, the Anglican Communion contains much diversity and I imagine that the Episcopalian Church has more chance of reunion. For one thing, I doubt the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury really bothers the average American Episcopalian; they are probably only interested in the affairs of their own national Church.

 

[PJM]

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?

Yes, I heard of this. I too was destressed.

However, I am mature enough in our faith to know the reality that not everyone who calls themselves “Catholic,” are in fact, informed, practcing RC’s.

I read recently that the Catholic faith is the largest faith in America, the second largest group, is “fallen away catholic.” I wonder if there is not a large third group? Those who practice without believe, and without obedience?

Why has this happened?
Catholics who (think) know more, and know better than do the Holy father and Christ Himself!

Where sin abounds so does grace, but, oh what a but, so does our free will. Pride my friend is the root of all evil.

God bless,
Pat Miron
Marian Catecheist

 

[brotherhrolf]

Yes, the Anglican Communion contains much diversity and I imagine that the Episcopalian Church has more chance of reunion. For one thing, I doubt the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury really bothers the average American Episcopalian; they are probably only interested in the affairs of their own national Church.

I suspect that you are quite correct. Particularly after I read the comments on UK websites. In the final analysis, God help us! May we reunite with our separated brothers and sisters.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, the Anglican Communion contains much diversity and I imagine that the Episcopalian Church has more chance of reunion. For one thing, I doubt the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury really bothers the average American Episcopalian; they are probably only interested in the affairs of their own national Church.

dempsey are you talking tongue in cheek when you imagine the episcopal church in america has more chance of reunion with rome.

i would disagree there as the mainline episcopal church now has moved far away from the traditional teachings of rome. the episcopal church is part of the anglican communion and has caused much conflict within the anglican communion because of their liberal perspective on interpretation of scripture.
the episcopal church has a female as the head of the ECUSA and they have one bishop who is openly gay and recently he married his partner for a june wedding. in fact, i think when the Pope was in washington d.c. over the summer, Bishop Schori (not sure of how she spells her last name) was snubbed by the Pope at one of the events. so the episcopal church would be last in line to unite with rome i am pretty sure.

maybe i misunderstood your post. if i did, i apologize.

 

[Dempsey1919]

maybe i misunderstood your post. if i did, i apologize.

You read my post correctly. The reasoning behind my remark is that the Episcopalian Church does not have a Monarchy to contend with. In the USA, there is a complete separation of Church and State; wereas in the UK, the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England. The Queen is the head of the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the most senior clergyman.

 

[7_Sorrows]

yes, i meant to comment on that. you bring up a good point of reminding us that the Queen is the head of the Church of England and if they ever did unite, the Queen could no longer claim to be the head of the Church and historically that would be a big event considering it was a little over 500 years ago that King Henry VIII created this title for himself and the future monarchs of England.

i believe the Archbishop of Canterbury is also appointed by the Prime Minister is that correct?

from that standpoint, i do see your point, but i also feel that the episcopal church here in america will never want to unite with rome. they are content being protestant and catholic.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The issue of the Monarch as head of the church does not apply to ECUSA.

7sorrows - all those things are true and I don’t dispute you but I do believe that there are a lot of folks in the Epicopal Church who aren’t happy with what has happened.

Dempsey, I’d like to believe that the same thing is true for y’all over in the UK. HMC has a lot to gain if she plays her cards right.

 

[7_Sorrows]

right, the issue of the head of state does not apply to ECUSA because it is not in England, it is in america and the Queen is not over us since the revolution.

did i give you the impression i thought differently?

i am not sure what the overall feelings are with a lot of the episcopalians.
i know many anglican churches have popped up in the u.s. and people are leaving the episcopal churches to be able to worship a more traditional faith.
it is very sad what has happened in the episcopal church the last 40 years and what is happening now.

 

[JReducation]

I think you misunderstood my post. I am not approaching this in an “all or nothing” way. I am pleased that Archbishop Williams expressed a faith in the Immaculate Conception. I am surprised it was expressed in a homily at a Catholic Mass (if it was indeed at Mass). There is the unfortunate possibility that this could lead to scandal, or to leading other bishops (or worse, priests) to think that there has been some change in policy and start allowing non-ordained (Catholic or not) to preach at Mass. This is why it is important (to me and some others here) to consider the situation closely.

And that is what I ended my post with: "So the assumption is that the local Ordinary received permission from Cardinal Kasper, who had the authority to permit it."

The authority goes the other way around. The local bishop is the Ordinary, not a Vatican Prelate. The only Vatican Prelate who is an Ordinary around the world is the Pope.

The local bishop gave Cardinal Kasper the permission to have the Archbishop of Canterbury preach at the Cardinal’s mass. This is allowed by law. As you saw in one of the posts above by another poster. It says that the Pope is the supreme liturgist, but the bishops have certain rights under law too.

Also, let us look at this logically. The Archbishop had asked to visit the Lourdes shrine. He and Kasper had spoken about his interest hin Lourdes. Kasper had to get permission from the local bishop to have the Archbishop of Canterbury preach at a mass. That’s why the invitation came from the local bishop and not from Kasper. Kasper does not have the authority to invite someone into a diocese that is not his own to preach at a mass, even one where he is the main celebrant.

None of these negotiations or plans could have taken place under stealth, without Pope Benedict’s prior knowledge. The poop would have hit the fan if the Pope had found out about it on the evening news. Besides the plans were worked out months ahead of time. The Vatican officials report to the Pope regularly. One can safely assume that neither Kasper nor the local bishop would have put themselves in a situation where they would be publicly embarassed by going behind the Pope’s back and ending up on the front page of every paper in Europe. These men have not achieve positions of power for being stupid or undiplomatic.

With this logic in mind and given Pope Benedict’s previous dispensations on certain parts of the GIRM, such as communion to non Catholics in public, even after being Pope, it is safe to believe that he knew and approved.

Given his tendency to keep his cards very well covered, it is safe to assume that he is not going to offer the world wide Catholic community an explanation. Benedict believes that the Pope owes no explanation to the latiy except in those matters where the laity is expected to conform or that reach a point where he has to say something.

He had discouraged the bishops from openly discussing the sex abuse scandal, when he was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation. He also discouraged Pope John Paul from addressing it in public. He was quoted as saying that the media was exploiting the situation for its own profit. I can’t remember where he said this. It was many years ago. But if I remember, I’ll share it.

He was not promoting or defending this horibble acts. He was exercising his office as the defender of the faith. In his mind the less he said, the less the world could throw back into the face of the Church. This is an attitude that he maintains.

This may not be a bad policy. Sometimes too much explanation can come back to bite you in the bum. Soemtimes it’s better to exercise your authority and keep going to the next task.

We have to learn to trust that bishops and priests are intelligent enough to know this. They’re not morons. Some are out there, but not because they’re unintelligent. They see things their own way and they do things as they see them. That’s a whole different story.

We do not have to be concerned about them misunderstanding.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

right, the issue of the head of state does not apply to ECUSA because it is not in England, it is in america and the Queen is not over us since the revolution.

did i give you the impression i thought differently?

i am not sure what the overall feelings are with a lot of the episcopalians.
i know many anglican churches have popped up in the u.s. and people are leaving the episcopal churches to be able to worship a more traditional faith.
it is very sad what has happened in the episcopal church the last 40 years and what is happening now.

According to resent news, it looks likethis may change in England too. The Monarch may no longer be the Head of the Church and the Defender of the Faith as is the proper title. Parliament is considering allowing Catholics the right of succession.

JR