Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
Archbishop Raymond Burke
According to London’s Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has told a Catholic organization to rescind its invitation to former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass at London’s Westminster Cathedral in June.
On his Holy Smoke blog, the Telegraph’s Damian Thompson says the Latin Mass Society had invited Burke – now the head of the Vatican’s supreme court – to be the main celebrant at its annual Latin Mass at the famous cathedral. Canon law says only the bishop of a diocese – in this case Murphy-O’Connor - can invite another bishop to celebrate Mass at a church in his diocese.
“In accordance with Canon 838, it is the Cardinal who lays down in the church entrusted to his care the liturgical regulations which are binding on all,” a spokesman for Murphy-O’Connor told Thompson. Archbishop Burke “is welcome to attend”, but “it wasn’t really the position of the Latin Mass Society to invite him in the first place.”
One of Murphy-O’Connor’s auxiliary bishops will celebrate the Mass instead, according to Thompson.
The Latin Mass got a boost in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI issued a papal decree – called a motu proprio – that expanded the use of the ancient Mass. The decree freed any priest to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass without the permission of his bishop.
The traditional Latin Mass, also referred to as the Tridentine Mass, Classical Latin Mass, Old Rite, Classical Roman Rite or Mass of Ages, was largely set aside by the church in the 1960s when the Second Vatican Council approved changes in the liturgy.
The Latin Mass is thick with pageantry, solemnity and symbolism and is often referred to as “smells and bells” for its generous use of incense and music.
Burke is one of the most devoted supporters of the old Latin rite among U.S. bishops. Just before Benedict issued the motu proprio, Burke ordained two deacons of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, a priestly organization devoted to the Latin Mass whose St. Louis chapter is based at St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis. It was the first time the traditional Latin liturgy was used in an ordination in St. Louis in more than 40 years.
Tim Townsend has been the religion reporter at the Post-Dispatch since June 2004. He previously covered personal finance and consumer news for The Wall Street Journal. He holds master's degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Yale Divinity School. In 2005 he won the Templeton Religion Reporter of the Year Award, given by the Religion Newswriters Association. 
“Another” thinks posting ideas such as “God is imaginary” or showing “proof of God’s existence” is “silly stuff” for a religion-themed blog. Please suggest a more appropriate form, “Another”. How about the Sports Blog, where people pray mightily for their favorite teams and players to prevail? How about the Crime Page, where victims of “God’s Plan” or “God’s inability/unwillingness to intervene” are evident daily? The Health Section, where miracle cures abound for all except amputees? Or maybe the Science News, where academics accept Intelligent Design de facto and argue about whether evidence for Evolution is meaningful or even relevant?
Hey “Another”, have you been reading a Physics Book? Which one? Which physics book says “every force has an equal and opposing force”? Is that the Book of Deuteronomy, the Book of Acts, Yet Another Science Book, or the Book of Silly Physics? What “equal and opposing force” keeps that fluffy jabberwocky inside your head? That’s right… there isn’t one!
Do you think that it is verifiably true that “it is the essence of communication that independent of the words used the intent is always delivered”? Always? Have you never heard the term “miscommunication”? Go look it up in your dictionary. It’s listed near “more silliness”.
Finally, I couldn’t help but notice how your formal definition of “silly” aptly describes unquestioned belief in magical beings. Isn’t that what you choose to do? “Another”, you cast stones like a girl. But you do make me laugh!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
silly–adjective 1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish:
Posting on a religion blog that there is no proof of God, God is imaginary, and it is by definition silly is silliness.
It is human nature, you will get this returned to you in the same manner in which you have delivered it.
In physics, it is every force has an equal and opposing force. The same dynamic exists in thought and self expression.
If you want a different outcome you may consider a different intent. I suspect you are satisfied with the response you generate, in that it reinforces your view of a belief in God.
It is the essence of communication that independent of the words used the intent is always delivered.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s a medieval monarchy.. that’s why they call it Cannon Law.
Mary Magdalene
“It was His career or mine”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The name of this blog is “Civil Religion”. Where is the moderation?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello “mike w”,
Thank you for the favor of your reply in post#6, page#2 at 12:20 pm Feb 18.
You seem to suggest that I possess “silly beliefs and faith systems”, lowering them to make them somehow on par with yours. How do you know?
Perhaps you have read some of my posts, here and elsewhere? If so, great! Can you point out the “silly” parts, please?
If not, then you are just assuming that my “beliefs” are just as silly as yours. And that is just plain silly!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wowee, What a communist thought.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
stirring,
I’d take “priestcraft” over “poof – from nothing everything” any day.
Fortunately those aren’t the only options.
You’r not the only one that gets to make fun of others for “silly” beliefs and faith systems – after all you have your own.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First Tom-
For someone that is easily offended, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just more BS in the catholic organization. None of them can get along. They are all pushing for more power. It won’t get them to heaven.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To those +Raymond naysayers, it wasn’t because of him that this has happened. He got stuck in the middle of a controversy between Murphy-O’Connor and the LMS. The Cardinal has been less than generous in allowing the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass to be celebrated in his diocese, as the rest of the English bishops have. The LMS invited +Raymond presuming the Cardinal would, as stated elsewhere, allow the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura to celebrate the Mass. They should not, however, have presumed that and should have received explicit permission given the difficulties they have had with +Cormac in the past. +Raymond got caught in the middle of what is an internal English dispute. To make it look like “Top canon lawyer gets trapped by canon law” is wrong.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor obviously concluded that Archbishop Burke would use the celebratory opportunity to excommunicate everyone in the UK who speaks English instead of Latin. Good riddance.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The reference to ‘payback’ his the nail on the head – this was Cormac’s payback for last year, when he was unable to stop a Vatican cardinal saying the old Mass in his cathedral.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t really see why this is a big deal. It seems perfectly within the right of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor to rescind the invitation, and while it might have been disappointing to Archbishop Burke, judging by the kind of person he ACTUALLY is (not as he is portrayed in much of the St. Louis media), he probably didn’t consider this as big a story as others seem to think it is. Thomas makes a good point about Canon 390, but it only seems prudent that this organization would have asked permission in the first place. Anyway, my point is that this story should hardly be seen as irony (he was invited to attend anyway), but I guess one can spin a story anyway they want if they’re looking for dirt.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ha Ha burke I hope it bothers him. Canon law no I bet it is becuase no one likes him. How about a lot less Canon law and a lot more like Jesus. My only hope is that someday my decendants (and these are three who will have children) will be able to live in a world without Religious clubs. It is such a waste of time and so hurtful. Being good to others and embracing others is correct. Rules and separating people (with respect to these various clubs) wrong. now that i have upset all the fanatics i will go
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
–Seems like arguing over minutiae to me. Of course we spent 700 years writing ‘THE’ last and ultimate definition book of the Bible (the Talmud), and we still argue over it, so I guess we’re no better. Ultimately it does seem like karma paid it’s due to the Archbishop, doesn’t it?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Faithful,
Yeah, that’s why he’s having his own bishop celebrate the “hyperconservative” group’s Mass…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim,
I am disappointed in your lack of due diligence in adequately researching for this story.
You wrote, “Canon law says only the bishop of a diocese – in this case Murphy-O’Connor – can invite another bishop to celebrate Mass at a church in his diocese.” Nowhere does canon law “say” this.
To the contrary, canon 390 of the Code of Canon Law states that outside of his diocese, a bishop can celebrate a pontifical rite with only the presumed consent of the local bishop, in this case, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. Express consent is not required.
The Latin Mass Society was perfectly reasonable in presuming that a Prefect of a Vatican Dicastery was welcome, as a representative of the Roman Pontiff, to celebrate Mass in the Cathedral of Westminster.
Next time, please do your homework. Don’t state a factually verifiable error as truth, which is what you did. Anything less is indicative of bias on your part as a journalist.
Doubting Thomas
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No need smirk, Burkeites. Perhaps the Cardinal is tired of all the politicking and concessions to the St. Pius X crowd by hyperconservatives.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why bicker, vicar? Haven’t you consulted “God” on the matter? Why not? Doesn’t “prayer” work as advertised? Who made up Canon 838, anyway? Man, or man’s made “God”?
It sounds like a bunch of priestcraft to me.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What an ironic story. Ap. Burke has always paid great attention to the letter of the law and every minute regulation and rule of church governance. When he was in St. Louis this is the very kind of move he often made – using a technicality to block something or someone whose views did not match his own under the guise of “just following the rules.” So in a way the tables are now turned when he and his views are not especially welcome in London. I hope he appreciates the irony.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hmmmm…payback’s a bitch sometimes, eh Burke?
Sadly this probably doesn’t faze him one iota even though he has orchestrated his share of UN-INVITES and oppressive behavior all in the name of the church.
He makes Jesus cry.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand that the Cardinal has the authority to do this. However, what is he trying to accomplish?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0