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

[Br_Mark]

Just an interesting side note: yes Iam aware of the papal decree making anglican orders “null and void” and the "rules that are contained in the GIRM stating that only someone that is ordained may preach at Mass; there is also the old latin maxim that “might makes right”.

Pope Paul VI gave Archbishop Michael Ramsey (Anglican) his Episcopal Ring and received him at the Vatican as a brother bishop. Pope John Paul II gave Archbishop Rowan Williams(Anglican) a pectorial cross. And in turn Archbishop Williams gave Pope Benedict a pectorial cross when he became the Bishop of Rome.

Both the Episcopal Ring and Pectorial Cross are symbols of the office of bishop. So if the present pope as well as former popes have viewed the person holding the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury as fellow bishops, then there is no “breaking of the rules that are contained in the GIRM”.

Just somethings to think about !

Br Mark, OSB

 

[7_Sorrows]

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

i have heard that they want to change the law to allow a catholic the right of succession to the throne. there was a member of the royal family who was engaged to a Catholic and she had to renounce her faith to join the church of england before they could marry this summer in order for her husband to have the right of succession to the throne. others have commented that it has been talked about for sometime, but they haven’t done anything about it. perhaps when Charles becomes king, they will change the law. if that ever happens. i have heard that roman catholicism is really growing in england and may surpass anglicanism soon.

 

[maurin]

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. .

And yet, you remain unmoved that an even bigger violation from much higher up “the paygrade” has occurred, in the name of “ecumenism” which is really only false ecumenism. Are you so used to the abuses that they no longer phase you? I don’t mean that discourteously–it’s a sincere question.

ISadly, 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.

And respectfully, brotherhrolf, yes, I too could have retired a while ago if I had that same nickel. But even if it comes from above or below one’s paygrade, anyone who is not an ordained Deacon or Priest may not preach a homily at Mass. Period. We should not stand for false ecumenism. Ecumenism yes, false ecumenism, no.

The situation was inappropriate, confusing to some and offensive to others.

 

[JReducation]

And yet, you remain unmoved that an even bigger violation from much higher up “the paygrade” has occurred, in the name of “ecumenism” which is really only false ecumenism. Are you so used to the abuses that they no longer phase you? I don’t mean that discourteously–it’s a sincere question.

And respectfully, brotherhrolf, yes, I too could have retired a while ago if I had that same nickel. But even if it comes from above or below one’s paygrade, anyone who is not an ordained Deacon or Priest may not preach a homily at Mass. Period. **We should not stand for false ecumenism. Ecumenism yes, false ecumenism, no. **
The situation was inappropriate, confusing to some and offensive to others.

The highlight is mine.

I have one complex question for you. It is pretty obvious that the Holy Father knew about this. The more information that we get on this event, the more obvious it becomes that the Holy Father knew and approved.

Being the case that the Holy Father is above the GIRM, how can anyone take a position such as the one that you propose, that we not stand for it?

We have no authority over the Pope. Whatever he allows, that is not heresy, immorality or a crime is not up to the rest of the Church to debate with him.

As I have pointed out and I’m sure you have noticed, because you’re an intelligent person. Benedict XVI does not make it a habit to explain himseelf to the laity. He has said many things on a number of occasions and done things that were outside the rules, but not immoral or heretical, just outside the rules and he offered no apologies and no explananations.

Why are we up in arms about something that he knew about, allowed and has chosen to make no comment on?

I think the discussion is mute if the Pope gives it his blessing. That’s his right. It’s not like his making this exception a daily occurrence.

We know that Pope Benedict XVI has a long personal relationship with Archibishop Williams. He must have known his feelings on Lourdes and felt comfortable that it was an appropriate message that would be delivered.

The result was, that it was an excellent message, especially for the Protestant community.

In the end, the conversion of men is more important than one rule of the GIRM being dispensed on one occasion. The Archibishop did not concelebrate at the mass. He preached on the Virgin Mary. That’s not a catastrophic incident nor a daily occurrence.

You must learn to trust your Pope. I believe that he knew about this or hell would have broken lose. There has been no news to that effect from any source.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[7_Sorrows]

i agree with you JReducation. i am sure the Pope new of the invitation and he approved it. the event was honoring the 150th anniversary of our lady appearing at Lourdes.

i have a question for maurin - what is false ecumenism?

i am new to the Catholic faith, but if someone wants to visit Lourdes because of a health concern, do they only have to be Catholic? i would think anyone who believes in the healing power of Lourdes should be able to visit there and pray for healing. is anyone welcome there, not just Catholics?

 

[maurin]

The highlight is mine.

I have one complex question for you. It is pretty obvious that the Holy Father knew about this. The more information that we get on this event, the more obvious it becomes that the Holy Father knew and approved.

Being the case that the Holy Father is above the GIRM, how can anyone take a position such as the one that you propose, that we not stand for it?

We have no authority over the Pope. Whatever he allows, that is not heresy, immorality or a crime is not up to the rest of the Church to debate with him.

As I have pointed out and I’m sure you have noticed, because you’re an intelligent person. Benedict XVI does not make it a habit to explain himseelf to the laity. He has said many things on a number of occasions and done things that were outside the rules, but not immoral or heretical, just outside the rules and he offered no apologies and no explananations.

Why are we up in arms about something that he knew about, allowed and has chosen to make no comment on?

I think the discussion is mute if the Pope gives it his blessing. That’s his right. It’s not like his making this exception a daily occurrence.

We know that Pope Benedict XVI has a long personal relationship with Archibishop Williams. He must have known his feelings on Lourdes and felt comfortable that it was an appropriate message that would be delivered.

The result was, that it was an excellent message, especially for the Protestant community.

In the end, the conversion of men is more important than one rule of the GIRM being dispensed on one occasion. The Archibishop did not concelebrate at the mass. He preached on the Virgin Mary. That’s not a catastrophic incident nor a daily occurrence.

You must learn to trust your Pope. I believe that he knew about this or hell would have broken lose. There has been no news to that effect from any source.

Fraternally,

JR

JR, the Pope of the time knew the goings on at the Assisi Conference, and for all the ranting and ravings that went on, anything I read from the Vatican concerning it was apologetical; I believe one story I read on Zenit was something to the effect that ‘communication was lacking between the non-Catholics and the Catholics’, or something similar. Mistakes do happen, and can be excused of course.

No, JR, you are quite correct, the Pope need not explain anything to me or to you. However, if the Pope gave a thumbs up to a non-Catholic preaching at a Holy Mass, then there is, what is the expression?— ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ (No offense meant, please, to our Danish friends).

 

[maurin]

i have a question for maurin - what is false ecumenism?

I sincerely apologize to you, 7 Sorrows, if my posts are confusing to you. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Let’s see if I can give you an analogy:

Ecumenism: your friend is going to Florida, but you notice he jumped on the Bus to Canada. You tell him immediately, offer to carry his bags to the correct Bus, shake his hand and help him board.

False ecumenism: your friend is going to Florida, but you notice he jumped on the Bus to Canada. You smile, wave and say, ‘have a safe trip’, because you know that he’ll eventually reach Florida.

 

[7_Sorrows]

you mean like indifference maurin?

so you are saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is guilty of false ecumenism in your opinion?

or did i still get it wrong?

 

[The_Thinker]

Rowan Williams has said some pretty controversial and bizarre things in the past ie regarding the Nativity. Not keen on him myself. Maybe he’s looking to make some friends in Higher Places, and a new post…!!!

 

[JReducation]

JR, the Pope of the time knew the goings on at the Assisi Conference, and for all the ranting and ravings that went on, anything I read from the Vatican concerning it was apologetical; I believe one story I read on Zenit was something to the effect that ‘communication was lacking between the non-Catholics and the Catholics’, or something similar. Mistakes do happen, and can be excused of course.

No, JR, you are quite correct, the Pope need not explain anything to me or to you. However, if the Pope gave a thumbs up to a non-Catholic preaching at a Holy Mass, then there is, what is the expression?— ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ (No offense meant, please, to our Danish friends).

The subscript is mine.

First, I think Denmark is safe for the moment.

My suggestion to you is to relax on this one. I don’t believe that anything is rotten anywhere. The GIRM is subject to the Pope and there is also some room for the Ordinary of the Diocese to move. It’s not a rigid coat, when we’re speaking about the Holy Father or his bishops. It is only as rigid as the Holy Father wants it to be and only when he wants it to be.

I know that this has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, but they are good examples of the Pope’s authority over the GIRM.

1. He gave communion to Tony Blair while Blair was still in RCIA and told the resf of the world to mind its own business.
2. Brother Roger of Taize was never formally received into the Catholic Church. He professed faith in the sacraments of the Catholic Church and asked for Holy Communion. He also expressed proper respect for the authority of Peter. Pope Benedict gave him Holy Communion in public. There are pictures everywhere. He even gave him communion in the hand. HE SENT Cardianl Kasper to France to Brother Roger’s funderal.
3. He refers to the leaders of the Orthodox Churches by their ecclesiastical title “Your Holiness”.
4. He asked a Rabbi to bless him and he blessed the Rabbi. I think it was the other way around, but they blessed each other.
5. Benedict XVI offered special support for Fr. Hans Küng’s efforts to build a Weltethos, or a moral framework based on values shared among religions which can also be recognized by secular reason, while Traditionalists want to burn Father Kung for heresy.
6. He retracted the apologia regarding the Assisi meeting of 1986. He praised the meeting as a good thing.

I know about this because the Superior General of the Franciscans was interviewed about this, maybe a year or two ago. He reminded the press that the Church at Assisi is the property of the Franciscan Order and is not a Catholic parish. Therefore, anything that takes place there is under the jurisdiction of the Guardian of the House and the Holy Father to whom the Major Superior answers, not to the local bishop of Assisi. It was said that to make the local bishop happy, the Pope Benedict XVI has asked him to take over the oversight of the public affairs at the Basilica, but only in dialogue with the Major Superior of the Franciscans, reminding him that the Franciscan Order answers directly to the papacy.

1. The Motu Proprio releasing the EF caught everyone by surprise. He did not consult anyone on this. He invited a handful of Cardinals to Rome to explain his rationale, not even the entire college.

The list goes on. As we can see. This is not a Pope who is going to give up the traditions of the Church, her doctrine or her morals. He’s going to defend them.

**That being said, the one tradition that he’s going to stand firmly by is the authority of the papacy. **This is going to rattle many people. It already has.

Many had the false notion that Pope Benedict XVI was going to be a conservative traditional legalist. Well, he is conservative. He is traditionalist. But he is not a legalist when it comes to his authority.

This is his right as the Pontiff.

As we can see, this is a man who is very well educated in theology, philosophy and has a great deal of Vatican experience. He knows how to deal with the complexities of the Vatican. His personal holiness is unquestionable.

My fraternal suggestion to you and others is to relax. This is a good man who knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. He is also a man who is used to power and is going to use it. Let us not forget that he was the second most powerful man in the Church for many years.

I believe he knew what was going to happen at Lourdes. The Cardinal Kasper was going to celebrate the mass. He had to ask the local bishop for permission to invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach, because Cardinal Kasper does not have jurisdiction in that diocese. The local bishop granted the faculties to preach, which he can do as an extraordinary measure. And Cardinal Kasper kept the Holy Father in the loop all the time.

Like all good leaders, the Holy Father never showed any signs that he knew anything nor has he responded to the publicity in the news. Had he not known about it, he would have called the local bishop to task. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local bishop and not Cardinal Kasper. The Congregation for Bishops would have already intervened.

My guess is that all is well in the Vatican with this. As our holy father Francis told us in our Rule and other places, we must blindly obey every wish that comes from the Pontiff and the Bishops. We may only disobey sin.

In this case, there is no sin involved, because all the people who had the right to authorize this were involved.

Be at peace and pray for me.

JR

 

[JReducation]

you mean like indifference maurin?

so you are saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is guilty of false ecumenism in your opinion?

or did i still get it wrong?

He is saying that the Holy Father may be guilty of false ecumenism, if he knew this and allowed it. In the strict sense of Ecumenism, the idea is dialogue and cooperation to reach unity.

But the problem that Maurin is having is that the Pope can redifine Ecumenism for a single event, for a specific group or for the entire Church. The Pope cannot deny dogma or promote sin.

But how we go about working toward unity of the Christian community is really not a matter of dogma or morals, unless an action violates either of these. In this case, there is no violation of a dogma or a moral law.

The law involved here is a liturgical law. The Pope is the supreme liturgist. And bishops have some authority over the liturgy in their dioceses too.

So, as I said in my post above, the Pope and the Bishop of Lourdes acted within their right, even if their action offended some and scandalized others. It probably offended and scandalized Protestants more than Catholics.

JR

 

[rjs1]

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

Absolutely! Only a priest or deacon may read the Gospel at mass.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I sincerely apologize to you, 7 Sorrows, if my posts are confusing to you. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Let’s see if I can give you an analogy:

Ecumenism: your friend is going to Florida, but you notice he jumped on the Bus to Canada. You tell him immediately, offer to carry his bags to the correct Bus, shake his hand and help him board.

False ecumenism: your friend is going to Florida, but you notice he jumped on the Bus to Canada. You smile, wave and say, ‘have a safe trip’, because you know that he’ll eventually reach Florida.

i thought your analogy was funny by the way. you are my friend, but not a good enough friend that i care enough to tell you that you got on the wrong bus and are headed to canada and it makes no difference to me how or when you reach florida.

i think living in this desert heat does something to your concentration.

 

[7_Sorrows]

He is saying that the Holy Father may be guilty of false ecumenism, if he knew this and allowed it. In the strict sense of Ecumenism, the idea is dialogue and cooperation to reach unity.

But the problem that Maurin is having is that the Pope can redifine Ecumenism for a single event, for a specific group or for the entire Church. The Pope cannot deny dogma or promote sin.

But how we go about working toward unity of the Christian community is really not a matter of dogma or morals, unless an action violates either of these. In this case, there is no violation of a dogma or a moral law.

The law involved here is a liturgical law. The Pope is the supreme liturgist. And bishops have some authority over the liturgy in their dioceses too.

So, as I said in my post above, the Pope and the Bishop of Lourdes acted within their right, even if their action offended some and scandalized others. It probably offended and scandalized Protestants more than Catholics.

JR

thanks JR for explaining this to me. i think i get it now. i agree with you and your reasoning. i think i am frustrating maurin, with my inability to grasp the point he is making so i better leave the topic to you two.

 

[maurin]

The subscript is mine.

First, I think Denmark is safe for the moment.

My suggestion to you is to relax on this one. I don’t believe that anything is rotten anywhere. The GIRM is subject to the Pope and there is also some room for the Ordinary of the Diocese to move. It’s not a rigid coat, when we’re speaking about the Holy Father or his bishops. It is only as rigid as the Holy Father wants it to be and only when he wants it to be.

I know that this has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, but they are good examples of the Pope’s authority over the GIRM.

1. He gave communion to Tony Blair while Blair was still in RCIA and told the resf of the world to mind its own business.
2. Brother Roger of Taize was never formally received into the Catholic Church. He professed faith in the sacraments of the Catholic Church and asked for Holy Communion. He also expressed proper respect for the authority of Peter. Pope Benedict gave him Holy Communion in public. There are pictures everywhere. He even gave him communion in the hand. HE SENT Cardianl Kasper to France to Brother Roger’s funderal.
3. He refers to the leaders of the Orthodox Churches by their ecclesiastical title “Your Holiness”.
4. He asked a Rabbi to bless him and he blessed the Rabbi. I think it was the other way around, but they blessed each other.
5. Benedict XVI offered special support for Fr. Hans Küng’s efforts to build a Weltethos, or a moral framework based on values shared among religions which can also be recognized by secular reason, while Traditionalists want to burn Father Kung for heresy.
6. He retracted the apologia regarding the Assisi meeting of 1986. He praised the meeting as a good thing.

I know about this because the Superior General of the Franciscans was interviewed about this, maybe a year or two ago. He reminded the press that the Church at Assisi is the property of the Franciscan Order and is not a Catholic parish. Therefore, anything that takes place there is under the jurisdiction of the Guardian of the House and the Holy Father to whom the Major Superior answers, not to the local bishop of Assisi. It was said that to make the local bishop happy, the Pope Benedict XVI has asked him to take over the oversight of the public affairs at the Basilica, but only in dialogue with the Major Superior of the Franciscans, reminding him that the Franciscan Order answers directly to the papacy.

1. The Motu Proprio releasing the EF caught everyone by surprise. He did not consult anyone on this. He invited a handful of Cardinals to Rome to explain his rationale, not even the entire college.

The list goes on. As we can see. This is not a Pope who is going to give up the traditions of the Church, her doctrine or her morals. He’s going to defend them.

**That being said, the one tradition that he’s going to stand firmly by is the authority of the papacy. **This is going to rattle many people. It already has.

Many had the false notion that Pope Benedict XVI was going to be a conservative traditional legalist. Well, he is conservative. He is traditionalist. But he is not a legalist when it comes to his authority.

This is his right as the Pontiff.

As we can see, this is a man who is very well educated in theology, philosophy and has a great deal of Vatican experience. He knows how to deal with the complexities of the Vatican. His personal holiness is unquestionable.

My fraternal suggestion to you and others is to relax. This is a good man who knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. He is also a man who is used to power and is going to use it. Let us not forget that he was the second most powerful man in the Church for many years.

I believe he knew what was going to happen at Lourdes. The Cardinal Kasper was going to celebrate the mass. He had to ask the local bishop for permission to invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach, because Cardinal Kasper does not have jurisdiction in that diocese. The local bishop granted the faculties to preach, which he can do as an extraordinary measure. And Cardinal Kasper kept the Holy Father in the loop all the time.

Like all good leaders, the Holy Father never showed any signs that he knew anything nor has he responded to the publicity in the news. Had he not known about it, he would have called the local bishop to task. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local bishop and not Cardinal Kasper. The Congregation for Bishops would have already intervened.

My guess is that all is well in the Vatican with this. As our holy father Francis told us in our Rule and other places, we must blindly obey every wish that comes from the Pontiff and the Bishops. We may only disobey sin.

In this case, there is no sin involved, because all the people who had the right to authorize this were involved.

Be at peace and pray for me.

JR

so basically…all is wine and roses. Because all the people who had the right to authorize this were not only involved but had personal infallibility… Relax…take it eaaaaaassssyyyyyyy!

Yeah, right.

I thank the Lord daily for the Society of Saint Pius the X.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I thank the Lord daily for the Society of Saint Pius the X.

This explains a lot.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Y’all stay up a lot later than me.

Yes, Maurin, I am unmoved. The Abp. of Canterbury just doesn’t pop into Fatima to deliver a homily. What I think or care about doesn’t matter one iota to the Magesterium. I am fairly certain that the Magesterium of HMC had something to do with this remarkable occassion.

We have far, far too much to worry about in our own house. (Splinter in our brother’s eye as oppossed to the plank in our own). Maybe it’s just me and history. I choose not to condemn those who were led into error by Henry VIII. I am, after all, of Irish ancestry. Who suffered more at the hands of the English?

I have to believe that the Holy Father was more than aware of this. No bishop (particularly the bishop overseeing Lourdes) is going to do somethig so radical as inviting the Abp. of Canterbury to preach at Lourdes of all places without approval from “up the chain of command”.

The Anglican Communion is in disarray. There is a “crack in the dam”. I fervently pray for the return of our separated brothers and sisters. And I am more than willing to rely upon the judgment of those “above my pay grade”.

 

[maurin]

This explains a lot.

Dempsey,

This certainly isn’t isn’t the first time I’ve made it known that in the midst of the Diocese where I live where Priests routinely flout the Teachings of the Catholic Church on Morals and the Faith in their homilies and the Bishop remains silent, that I am firmly in the camp of the SSPX.

I live in an area where these episodes play out to their absurd ends at Altar.

Those of us who assist at the SSPX Masses know firmly without any doubt that Rome is the center of the Church, and that the Pope has authority and Teaches Infallibly.

When he has used his infallibility in the area of Faith and Morals there is no problem. The problem is when he doesn’t use this gift, yet ‘breaks the rules.’ And then watch the end result of these “examples” played out in the local Parishes–especially here.

But I really do wonder if most people really see the rupture between Catholicism and this false ecumenicism, as it is played out locally.

You and others are free to believe that all is fine.

Although I am sure the gates of hell will not ultimately prevail, those gates are holding strong in this area.

Of course, I’m sure yours is the most reverent of Dioceses and you know nothing of the situation in this and other Dioceses.

 

[maurin]

Y’all stay up a lot later than me.

Yes, Maurin, I am unmoved. The Abp. of Canterbury just doesn’t pop into Fatima to deliver a homily. What I think or care about doesn’t matter one iota to the Magesterium. I am fairly certain that the Magesterium of HMC had something to do with this remarkable occassion.

We have far, far too much to worry about in our own house. (Splinter in our brother’s eye as oppossed to the plank in our own). Maybe it’s just me and history. I choose not to condemn those who were led into error by Henry VIII. I am, after all, of Irish ancestry. Who suffered more at the hands of the English?

I have to believe that the Holy Father was more than aware of this. No bishop (particularly the bishop overseeing Lourdes) is going to do somethig so radical as inviting the Abp. of Canterbury to preach at Lourdes of all places without approval from “up the chain of command”.

The Anglican Communion is in disarray. There is a “crack in the dam”. I fervently pray for the return of our separated brothers and sisters. And I am more than willing to rely upon the judgment of those “above my pay grade”.

yes, brotherhrolf,

history is filled with the lower paygrades obediently and blindly following those in the upper paygrades. The 20th century alone is filled with such examples!

Please don’t make it sound as if I am against any Christian ecclesial community joining Full Communion with the Catholic Church, brotherhrolf.

I pray for unity daily, with the protestants, the Orthodox of all persuasions and especially for a regularization of status for the SSPX.

But there is a proper way and an improper way. There is a way that does not cause scandal or confusion among the masses.

 

[maurin]

He is saying that the Holy Father may be guilty of false ecumenism, if he knew this and allowed it. In the strict sense of Ecumenism, the idea is dialogue and cooperation to reach unity.

But the problem that Maurin is having is that the Pope can redifine Ecumenism for a single event, for a specific group or for the entire Church. The Pope cannot deny dogma or promote sin.

But how we go about working toward unity of the Christian community is really not a matter of dogma or morals, unless an action violates either of these. In this case, there is no violation of a dogma or a moral law.

The law involved here is a liturgical law. The Pope is the supreme liturgist. And bishops have some authority over the liturgy in their dioceses too.

So, as I said in my post above, the Pope and the Bishop of Lourdes acted within their right, even if their action offended some and scandalized others. It probably offended and scandalized Protestants more than Catholics.

JR

JR,

this is all true what you write. All true, except for your last sentence. what your last sentence shows is that more protestants than Catholics are fully aware of what their communities, wrongly, teach.

A bigger problem, I think, is that Catholics do not know what the Church teaches, and so are content to follow the leader. And when one follows the leader, without the foundation and knowledge that the leader possesses, and one tries to ‘put into practice’ on the local level what they think they’ve seen, well then you have the disarray of many of the Churches local.

We as Catholics deserve better examples than what you have listed in the post of yours below the one I have quoted in this one. And if we don’t have better examples, then we need better catechesis and explanations for what we have witnessed. Surely there aren’t very many children who have been satisfied by a parent’s admonition to “do what I say, not what I do.”