Monday 29 September 2008

Awfully confused messages: the Archbishop of Canterbury in Lourdes

I have a very high regard for the work of the shrine at Lourdes, and the sense of mission associated with it. I have a subscription to Lourdes Magazine, and regularly use it as a source for meditations and testimonies during our monthly Eucharistic Adoration in the parish. The celebration of the 150th anniversary of the apparitions to St Bernadette has been very well put together, with "12 missions" being expressed by different pilgrimages during the year. The pilgrimage to Lourdes of the Church of England's Society of Mary, in collaboration with the Anglican shrine of Walsingham, expresses the ecumenical mission of the Church. This pilgrimage took place from 22nd-26th September. Cardinal Walter Kasper, from the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was present in Lourdes at the time.

Now, it is great that a Church of England pilgrimage should visit Lourdes; and it is entirely appropriate for the shrine to make them welcome and, indeed, incorporate them into the overall programme for the 150th anniversary celebrations.
But .... a photograph such as this, from the web site of the Society of Mary and appearing also on the site of the Church Times, an Anglican newspaper, is totally confusing in the messages it communicates. Who, looking at this photograph, is not going to think that the Archbishop of Canterbury (whose status as an ordained minister is not recognised as being such by the Roman Catholic Church) and Cardinal Walter Kasper are not equally bishops?


Cardinal Walter Kasper and Archbishop Rowan Williams (Church of England), at the grotto in Lourdes

Some elements of the Church of England might believe that they are equally bishops, but the Roman Catholic Church does not think so. It is totally confusing to Catholics, and, perhaps more seriously, totally misleading to those in the Church of England.

It must also be totally confusing and misleading to those Anglicans, particularly clergy, who have been recieved into the Roman Catholic Church. Little wonder that one occasionally comes across ill informed understandings of what is acceptable ecumenical practice among the latter.

Equally, the posting on the Lourdes website of the programme for the pilgrimage without a clear distinction between "Mass" (ie Church of England, that the Catholic Church would not consider a valid sacramental celebration) and "Mass" (ie a valid, Roman Catholic celebration) is also confusing. I am not sure what the Church's discipline is as far as the use of altars normally used for the celebration of Mass by ministers of other denominations is concerned, but it certainly only adds to the confusion for the Society of Mary pilgrimage to be using the Rosary Basilica for one of their celebrations, and the St Joseph's Chapel for others.

That the Archbishop of Canterbury should preach at the International Mass is, I think, a clear breach of rubrics. One might consider the occasion, however, to be one sufficiently special to forgive the breach ... but one hopes that he could be distinguished from the Catholic bishops celebrating the Mass .... The text of the homily can be found here; rather "C of E", and shows some awareness of the context of Lourdes, but I am not sure I buy into the picture that it portrays of St Bernadette - "Only bit by bit does Bernardette find the words to let the world know; only bit by bit, we might say, does she discover how to listen to the Lady and echo what she has to tell us". The analogy of the apparitions at Lourdes to the visitation of Elizabeth by the Virgin Mary in the Gospel account is attractive, though Archbishop Williams does, I think, slew the picture of St Bernadette as a result.

I can't help thinking that, with a bit of imagination, it would have been possible to facilitate this Anglican pilgrimage without all the problems raised above. I do think we deserve some sort of clarification of exactly what was going on, if only to avoid giving wrong impressions to Anglican and Catholic clergy at a lower level as to what is acceptable ecumencial practice.

9 comments:

Jackie Parkes MJ said...

Great explanation..

Joe said...

I have had a further thought since posting this, and that refers to the nature of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Church of England.

It really is a rather particular section within the Church of England, and, at times, it gives a distinct feeling of "playing" at being Catholic whilst expressing an underlying protestant principle. Cardinal Newman highlighted this reflecting on the nature of the Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England as being a "party" just like the evangelical and liberal "parties".

The problem in Lourdes, though, is that this subtlety may not be appreciated. The ecumenical regard towards the Church of England needs to be broader than just the Anglo-Catholics, and that does not seem to be shown in the recent pilgrimage.

liturgy said...

It is worth reflecting on your claim "whose status as an ordained minister is not recognised as being such by the Roman Catholic Church"
Under canon 767 Rowan Williams ordination is here being recognised.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/3moufr

Blessings

Bosco+
http://www.liturgy.co.nz

Joe said...

Liturgy, who comments so far as I can understand from an Anglican perspective, illustrates clearly the confusion resulting from this event.

I would respond that it is extremely fanciful to see Archbishop William's preaching in Lourdes as , in the light of Canon 767 of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, a recognition of the validity of his ordination.

It is, in straightforward reality, just an act that is a breach of the provisions of Canon 767.

Whether or not the circumstances excuse the breach may be a matter of opinion - I am inclined to be generous in this consideration - but the confusion that is resulting needs to be dispelled quite strongly.

liturgy said...

Cardinal Walter Kasper, from the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was not merely "present in Lourdes at the time" as your post indicates;
he was actually presiding at the Mass at which the Archbishop of Canterbury preached.

Unlike you, I am not prepared to judge how "fanciful" your opinions are until Cardinal Walter Kasper explains why, following your interpretation, he was prepared to so publicly sanction "just an act that is a breach of the provisions of Canon 767"

Until then, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck I'll stay with my post's reflection.

Blessings

Bosco+
Liturgy

Joe said...

Liturgy:

We will have to agree to differ about the significance of Archbishop William's preaching in Lourdes.

But I would add that I am happy, as a question of courtesy and ordinary charity, to describe the Archbishop of Canterbury by his customary/accepted title of Archbishop - but I do not by that make a theological statement about the validity of his ordination (which, as a Roman Catholic, I would not accept).

It is quite possible that Cardinal Kasper's situation in Lourdes represents a similar attitude of courtesy without any further theological intent.

I am not aware, for example, that Archbishop Williams concelebrated ...

liturgy said...

Yes, it is of note that when Roman Catholicism set up parallel episcopacy in England for the first time in 1850, unlike what it did in Utrecht, it did not set up a parallel Roman “Archbishop of Canterbury”. Whilst I could not, as you attempt, so quickly suggest motivations of the Cardinal, to equate using the customary title with breaching one’s own regulations is, I posit, confused.

Anonymous said...

zero says
I would like to add to what Liturgy writes about the duck business-if it dresses like one. The archbishop's vestments are as splendid as any i have seen in Rome!

Joe said...

Liturgy: what follows are your words with your emphasis. I think you have very clearly implied a motivation to the Catholic Church authorities involved and, by implication of his particular participation in the celebration, to Cardinal Kasper. I am quite entitled to suggest that the motivation might be quite different.

"What has, it seems to me, been lost in this dust-storm, is that in inviting the Archbishop to preach Roman Catholics appear to be accepting that the Archbishop of Canterbury is validly ordained".