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

[maurin]

… or disapproved. It is not confusing at all. I fully understand how Cardinal Kasper might have not had time to report to us here and justify his actions. When it comes to our hierarchy, I prefer to think the best, rather than the worst.

And I fervently would like to share your feelings about this, pnewton. Really, I would. However, I live in an area where episodes such as this are used as the example–or excuse-- for false ecumenism. At the Parish closest to my house there was a sign that said that a ‘minister’ from the local Baptist Church will speak at Mass, as well as provide the music ministry on one particular Sunday. I believe that was about 4 or 5 weeks ago.

The Pastor of this particular Parish makes reference to his ‘life partner’ from before his Seminary days, in his homilies from time to time–probably he should call this partner a ‘partial life’ partner, being that he hopefully is no longer partnered with this person.

 

[JReducation]

My dear brother, then you are missing the fact that your words are your opinion, and not fact, if there is no way to prove your assertions.

I do, by the way, appreciate your fraternal tone. We may disagree–strongly!-- and yet still remain civil and concerned for each other. I offer you my sincere thanks in this regard.

As I said before, when things like this happen, the only thing that we can do is to do the math. We look at the rules and protocols and how they work. We assume that they are followed until proven otherwise.

To assume that the Cardinal was acting on his own is to start at the other end. That is starting with the assuption that there was deliberate deception and the intent to pull the wool over the Pope’s eyes.

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I do not deny that such things have been done, but only anarchists begin with the worse possibility. The rational man begins with the positive until it is proven that the positive is not possible.

Think about it and pray over it. It’s the best that I can offer. I will do the same.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

As I said before, when things like this happen, the only thing that we can do is to do the math. We look at the rules and protocols and how they work. We assume that they are followed until proven otherwise.

To assume that the Cardinal was acting on his own is to start at the other end. That is starting with the assuption that there was deliberate deception and the intent to pull the wool over the Pope’s eyes.

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I do not deny that such things have been done, but only anarchists begin with the worse possibility. The rational man begins with the positive until it is proven that the positive is not possible.

Think about it and pray over it. It’s the best that I can offer. I will do the same.

Fraternally,

JR

Fraternally, dear brother, it seems that you continuing to assert what you (pnewton) have admitted cannot be proven. Because I trust His Holiness, I do not believe he approved of such a travesty prior to the event.

And, I’m not very good at Math at all…even with a calculator. I sell Jewelry, and working with a customer today, I attempted to reduce by 40 percent and then a further 15 percent an item which was originally priced at 1,900 $. I came up with 1255 before tax. He looked at me and laughed. So did I!

 

[maurin]

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I do not deny that such things have been done, but only anarchists begin with the worse possibility. The rational man begins with the positive until it is proven that the positive is not possible.

JR

Hey, JR, if you want, please by all means come spend some time in Sunny Wellington, Florida on your winter vacation and make the rounds of these Parishes…maybe you will not view me as an irrational man who begins with negative until it is proven that the positive is possible!!!

I’m jealous if you actually live in an area whose Churches are obviously Catholic.

 

[maurin]

She would have written the letter to Caridnal Arinze and asked the question. Also, do not forget that she was a good friend of the Vatican.

Fraternally,

JR

Actually, JR, she wrote to the Pope in Avignon and warned him not to make her complain to his only superior–God.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, JR, she wrote to the Pope in Avignon and warned him not to make her complain to his only superior–God.

I know that she wrote to the Pope. In those days the Congregation for the Liturgy did not exsist. Today she would go that route. That’s why they’re there.

By the way, I notice that you’re in the Palm Beach diocese. You guys had one of the holiest bishops I know, Bishop Sean, OFM Cap.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

I know that she wrote to the Pope. In those days the Congregation for the Liturgy did not exsist. Today she would go that route. That’s why they’re there.

By the way, I notice that you’re in the Palm Beach diocese. You guys had one of the holiest bishops I know, Bishop Sean, OFM Cap.

Fraternally,

JR

I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing the Holy Bishop. I did, though, live in this Diocese BRIEFLY when O’Connel was being defended by his Priests, even though he admitted to having molested several young men under his charge when he was rector of a high school Seminary in the mid-west.

Again, though, JR, how do you know what St. Catherine would have done? You are assuming, yes? But you don’t “know” do you?

Is this another one of those math things?

 

[JReducation]

I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing the Holy Bishop. I did, though, live in this Diocese BRIEFLY when O’Connel was being defended by his Priests, even though he admitted to having molested several young men under his charge when he was rector of a high school Seminary in the mid-west.

Again, though, JR, how do you know what St. Catherine would have done? You are assuming, yes? But you don’t “know” do you?

Is this another one of those math things?

Then write the Pope, if you are inspired by Catherine of Siena, by all means. Also remember, Catherine was an obedient daughter of St. Dominic. Like St. Dominic she professed what he professed to his audience when he preached.

“I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to share with you.”

Yes, Cardinal Sean is a very holy man. You may want to check out his blog. It’s full of interesting information and anecdotes.

cardinalseansblog.org/2007/11/

On this site Fra. Sean (as he is addressed within our religious family) gives some wonderful insights into the spirituality of our family that many people may find helpful in living the Gospel life and understanding the Church today.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

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).

---

Really thinking on this maurin — it is only conjecture on the part of a few that our Pope “approved” of Dr. Williams preaching at that Mass. While the Pope “may” have been aware that the Dr. was invited- but even so — it is highly unlikely he would have given approval for the Dr. to preach the homily.

 

[JReducation]

---

Really thinking on this maurin — it is only conjecture on the part of a few that our Pope “approved” of Dr. Williams preaching at that Mass. While the Pope “may” have been aware that the Dr. was invited- but even so — it is highly unlikely he would have given approval for the Dr. to preach the homily.

Having worked for five different dioceses, I have often found that the Holy See will often leave certain decisions to be made by the local Ordinary or the Major Superior, whichever case is most applicable. This is not to be interpreted as either endorsement or disapproval, but as an attempt on the part of the Holy See to allow certain matters to be decided at the local level according the the prescripts of law. They Holy Father only becomes involved when his Secrataries for the various congregations have done everything in their power to correct a situation and have been unable to do so, as happened with SSPX and other situations.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Having worked for five different dioceses, I have often found that the Holy See will often leave certain decisions to be made by the local Ordinary or the Major Superior, whichever case is most applicable. This is not to be interpreted as either endorsement or disapproval, but as an attempt on the part of the Holy See to allow certain matters to be decided at the local level according the the prescripts of law. They Holy Father only becomes involved when his Secrataries for the various congregations have done everything in their power to correct a situation and have been unable to do so, as happened with SSPX and other situations.

Fraternally,

JR

---

Within the limits of the Ordinary’s competence.

Article 3

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm(70) since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, § 1.(72)

 

[JReducation]

---

Within the limits of the Ordinary’s competence.

Article 3

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm(70) since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, § 1.(72)

I know this canon very well and so do many people. That’s why we say, that given the protocol of the Church and the fact that the Vatican has not responded to the publication of the story, it may be possible that an indult was granted by the Pope as he has done in other situations, such as giving communion to non Catholics.

God is in charge here. Let us trust God and the Holy Father.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

Having worked for five different dioceses, I have often found that the Holy See will often leave certain decisions to be made by the local Ordinary or the Major Superior, whichever case is most applicable. This is not to be interpreted as either endorsement or disapproval, but as an attempt on the part of the Holy See to allow certain matters to be decided at the local level according the the prescripts of law. They Holy Father only becomes involved when his Secrataries for the various congregations have done everything in their power to correct a situation and have been unable to do so, as happened with SSPX and other situations.

Fraternally,

JR

So this is a fraternal admission that what you have asserted before, that His Holiness knew of and approved this travesty of etiquette, is really only your opinion?

 

[Walking_Home]

I know this canon very well and so do many people. That’s why we say, that given the protocol of the Church and the fact that the Vatican has not responded to the publication of the story, it may be possible that an indult was granted by the Pope as he has done in other situations, such as giving communion to non Catholics.

God is in charge here. Let us trust God and the Holy Father.

Fraternally,

JR

---

So your are basing yourself on what – air.

 

[JReducation]

So this is a fraternal admission that what you have asserted before, that His Holiness knew of and approved this travesty of etiquette, is really only your opinion?

Of course it is only my opinion. I don’t expect to ever find out more on this either. It is not customary for the Catholic Church to provide further information on such situations unless they feel that they have to do so.

Did Pope Benedict offer an explanation why he gave Brother Roger holy communion or accepted his confession of faith in the Eucharist, but never formally entered the Catholic Church?

Did Pope Benedict offer an explanation why he gave communion to Tony Blair while Blair was still in RCIA?

Did Pope Benedict offer an explanation why he prayed and preached at a Jewish synagogue several times?

Did Pope Benedict explain why he supported the Assisi gathering?

To be honest, I can’t see how any Pope would even want to offer explanations for everything he decides or allows. He would never get anything done. There are always lots of questions from all sides.

We have to look at what has been customary during this pontificate and assume that this is part of the same, until proven wrong.

Otherwise, we would be upset every time something happened that we don’t understand or that we disagree with. The Christian life is meant to be lived wihtout fear, always trusting in God and his Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

Then write the Pope, if you are inspired by Catherine of Siena, by all means. Also remember, Catherine was an obedient daughter of St. Dominic. Like St. Dominic she professed what he professed to his audience when he preached.

“I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to share with you.”

Yes, Cardinal Sean is a very holy man. You may want to check out his blog. It’s full of interesting information and anecdotes.

cardinalseansblog.org/2007/11/

On this site Fra. Sean (as he is addressed within our religious family) gives some wonderful insights into the spirituality of our family that many people may find helpful in living the Gospel life and understanding the Church today.

Fraternally,

JR

I’m certain that Fra. Sean is a very holy man, thank you for sharing his blog.

As I have stated to 7 Sorrows, I am not here either to persuade. Just to converse. What I have found as an ideal situation for me is an ideal situation for me.

I do believe quite strongly that only by identifying that which is true, and that which is only our opinion in our dialogue is really the best and only way that we can have a constructive conversation. You will probably not change my mind, as we do not share the same experiences. I do not wish to change yours for the same reason.

But I will note again the pleasure I receive from conversing with you.

 

[maurin]

We have to look at what has been customary during this pontificate and assume that this is part of the same, until proven wrong.

JR

emphasis mine.

What do you mean, ‘proven wrong?’

But JR, if all we did was that which you suggest we do, how would anyone ever know that that which The Magisterium or the Pope did, when not covered by the gift of infallibility, was either right or wrong?

You have either totally confused me, or presented an impossible situation, I am not sure.

 

[JReducation]

I’m certain that Fra. Sean is a very holy man, thank you for sharing his blog.

As I have stated to 7 Sorrows, I am not here either to persuade. Just to converse. What I have found as an ideal situation for me is an ideal situation for me.

I do believe quite strongly that only by identifying that which is true, and that which is only our opinion in our dialogue is really the best and only way that we can have a constructive conversation. You will probably not change my mind, as we do not share the same experiences. I do not wish to change yours for the same reason.

But I will note again the pleasure I receive from conversing with you.

What you say is true and I wish that many more posters would come to these posts with the same fraternal attitude. We come to converse and share ideas, not to convert others to our way of thinking or doing.

When we reduce our exchanges to arguments, then we no loner learn or even think clearly. We become defensive and often offensive. That’s not what Christians are to do. We are called to be men and women of peace.

Our holy father Francis always said that we should always speak with a peaceful mind. There is a wonderful story about this. He arrived to visit a friary and the friars were telling him about something that had happened a few days before. Father Francis (not a priest, but always called Father) was very angry.

When the friars finished speaking, he got up and left the room. He took a walk. As he walked he prayed that he would no longer be angry toward his brothers who had done something very wrong, but thought it was the right thing to do. He prayed that he could see a way to respond that would be charitable and offer correction too. His prayer was answered.

We don’t often do that on these forums. We become upset by what other posters say and we go after them, like a dog after a bone. I too am enjoying our exchange, because I don’t feel like the dog or the bone. LOL

On another subject, I do encourage anyone to read Cardinal Sean’s blog. Fra. Sean is very interesting and presents many interesting little tidbits that are informative, entertaining and inspiring.

I wish more people would now him personally. He blows you away.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[7_Sorrows]

I do appreciate you trying to make sense of all this, 7 Sorrows, and allow me to extend once again my sincerest and most urgent apologies for confusing you.

These things do not bother me because I assist at SSPX Masses. Rather, I began to assist at SSPX Masses precisely because these things have always bothered me.

To be perfectly honest with you, there is nothing I would have preferred more than if there were a bastion of Reverence–a Reverent Novus Ordo Parish would have sufficed— away from the thoroughly modernist and liberal circuses I found myself in the midst of 9 months ago when I moved to this Diocese. In fact I searched and searched and searched for a Reverent Parish with a Reverent and Loyal Priest in this Diocese. I had always managed to find at least one–or at least one which was tolerable–in the diverse geographic areas my work moved me to.

It was the hardest decision I ever had to make in my life, going to the SSPX. But they are the only ones Preaching and Teaching the Church’s Doctrines, Dogmas and Morality in this area. I have found everything that I have yearned for right here.

Of course, 7 Sorrows, the SSPX are in an Irregular Canonical Status–The Church cannot recommend that any of the faithful assist at their Masses, and neither do I make such a recommendation. What is right for me, is right for me. My most fervent prayer is one for regularization of the status of the SSPX. So that, ‘ut unum sint’, they all be one.

i am familiar with what SSPX is and what kind of a church it is. there is one just down the street from my house and i have known a few people who have attended. one was an elderly couple, another was a neighbor from columbia and another was a young man whose brother is a priest there.
i know about 10 years ago when i had not yet begun roman catholic, but was attending bible study at a local roman catholic parish, a priest made several comments about the SSPX parish that if you were baptized there or married there it would not be valid by the Pope. i am not sure if that has changed.
the bishop in my diocese has given permission for the latin mass to be said according to the new mass and there is a society that has the old latin mass on sunday afternoons at another parish. the latin mass done before vatican II was much longer, and the people dressed more conservatively and it was quiet. there was not a lot of participation from the congregation. the priest did most of the service. he had his back to the altar. i don’t understand what the difference is between that organization that meets at that church than SSPX to be honest with you. i assume since the bishop gave permission for that congregation to use on of its churches that sacraments would be considered valid. i understand that you desire tradition and truth and a firm set of standards for what you believe.

 

[JReducation]

emphasis mine.

What do you mean, ‘proven wrong?’

But JR, if all we did was that which you suggest we do, how would anyone ever know that that which The Magisterium or the Pope did, when not covered by the gift of infallibility, was either right or wrong?

You have either totally confused me, or presented an impossible situation, I am not sure.

Sorry, I didn’t meant to confuse. Maybe I didn’t say it correctly. Let me try again. Give me another chance here.

When I look at things that the happen and I wait for the Pope to say something and he doesn’t, I simply assume that he has either

a) approved it and has moved on or

b) dealt with it and moved on.

In either case, he’s not talking about it.

I’ve gotten used to Pope Benedict doing many things that he does not talk about, because I look at what he has done that has ruffled feathers and he has never referred to either the event or to the ruffled feathers.

He has done this so often, that one concludes that this is his style of government. He doesn’t explain himself unless he absolutely has to.

Look at all the ruffled feathers around the EF and OF. He wrote the cover letter to the Motu Proprio and said no more.

Look at the way he is dealing with SSPX. He gave them an ultimatum at the end of the summer. What happened after that? Who really knows? Benedict has said nothing. I’m sure that it didn’t die there. He really wants the SSPX to regularize their situation. But he has not said anything in public.

Not explaining to the general public is part of this man’s style. The only thing we can do when something happens is to make assumptions based on previous things that he has done, until he or someone in authority say something that proves our assumptions to be wrong.

I’m speaking about our assumptions. We can make assumptions based on Bendict’s history as Pope. We go with them, until he says something or the Vatican says something that proves our assumptions are wrong.

Assumptions must always be made based on a person’s record. When I make my assumptions on this event, I’m basing them on other things that Benedict has allowed that are contrary to the GIRM. Knowing that he has authority over the GIRM, I am comfortable with his decision.

Until someone proves that he had nothing to do with this or that he did not know this, I just assume that he did, because he has known other things too and he has done other things that are not provided for in Canon Law or in the GIRM. This would not be the first time.

My impression of Pope Benedict is that he is very protective of the power of the papacy. I go this impression from the wording in his letter to the SSPX this past summer. From that, I can extrapolate that he may feel that he rather play his cards very close to his chest.

Again, I can be completely wrong. I’m basing my assumption on his behaviour since he’s been Pope.

Hope this helps clarify what I’m trying to say. ;;;crossing my fingers;;;

Fraternally,

JR