Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I If popes wish to change the Mass, what has been done in the past is that they issue a statement or declaration to that affect, explaining why and what it means PRIOR to celebrating the Mass in this way.
That’s what some are saying, but it’s not true.

The Pope can dispense an issue like this easily, and without writing a declaration.

Who would he be sending this document to anyway? Himself?

Maybe he didn’t have any self-addressed stamped envelopes. :rolleyes:
 
And don’t even try to tell me that this will not be taken as some as a push for women’s ordination, because it is already happening.
The sky is not falling.
Those who interpret it that way already have strong feelings about that to begin with.
The answer to them will be “no” just as always. Their interpretation will be proved wrong.
Have some faith.
 
Bishops can and do ask for permission from Rome to be able to allow the washing of women’s feet in their diocese, and Rome (seemingly routinely) grants this permission. Dioceses ARE allowed to deviate from this rule if their bishop gets permission from Rome on this. This has been happening for many years (under Pope Benedict).
I think that some people may have heard this, but most probably didn’t. In an interview with Cardinal Sean of Boston, he was asked this question. I don’t recall why they asked it. He said that he had asked Rome the same question, “Can we wash women’s feet on Holy Thursday.” The answer from Rome was that while the norm is to wash the feet of men, as it is in the rubrics, the feet of women can be washed if there is a pastoral reason to do so. This response came from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. It was rather interesting, because the Congregation did not say that the priest has to ask the bishop. They simply said, “when there is a pastoral reason to do so.”

What can we take away from this response? First, we can see that the norm is men. That’s very clear in the rubrics. Second, we see a flexibility in those who wrote the rubrics, which is the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. The Congregation is being more flexible than we are. It’s saying that there are situations when it is a higher good to include women than to exclude them from this ritual. However, the rubric does not mention this. My guess is that it does not do so, because rubrics generally don’t speak to the exception, but only to the norm. That does not mean that those who wrote the rubric do not make room for exceptions.

Rubric comes from an ancient Latin term that meant “red”. You know, “Do the red and say the black.” It stands to reason that if you’re looking at a ritual book, it would give you the rules for the ritual. It’s a ritual book, not a law book. A law book may give you all of the possible exceptions, if the writer can conceive them all. A ritual book is like a recipe book. It’s going to give you what is normative. However, unless the books says that women’s feet cannot be washed. then the Sacred Congregation’s answer to Cardinal Sean is licit.

Of course we must recall that is this congregation that wrote the rubric in the first place. So the members of the congregation know what they were thinking when they wrote it.
I am sooo confused by all of this :confused: :o :crying:
There is one thing that I teach our brothers, but it is very useful for laymen as well. What the Holy Father and the bishops do need not be scrutinized unless it directly affects us. There are many times when they make choices based on what they know and on what they believe is the right thing to do or what is the greater good. However, they don’t tell us the reason behind those choices, because we’re not involved. We’re not even on their radar screen. If one were to ask them why they did something, we would get a response. But to expect them to give an explanation each time they do something different is too much to ask. And to analyze what they do, when it does not affect us, is not the best use of our time and energy. We have to trust that they did what they believed was the best for the target population. Sometimes, they don’t even tell the target population why they’re doing something. This is not new.

What is new here is that we have access to things like Internet, TV, radio, newspapers and other means of communication. Today, more than ever before, we get to see what the bishop or the pope is doing, when in the past, this was all done without anyone knowing anything.

When we start to over analyze what the pope did and why the pope did it, unless you have the pope in you living room where you can ask him, all that you’re going to get is second hand responses or conjectures. These may or may not help you understand.

The problem for the individual begins when he does not understand why the pope washed women’s feet. He tries to find out why? He can’t ask the pope directly. He can’t speak directly to those around the pope. The information that he’s getting from the media is only part of the whole. If the person feels that he must absolutely know the whole and does not know, then he feels confused, hurt, frightened, or even disappointed. In the meantime, the pope knows what he did, why he did it and he’s satisfied. The people whom he served are satisfied and those who are back here analyzing are getting high blood pressure over this.

So, I tell my brothers that they have more important things to do than to analyze events and actions that do not directly impact on their life and work. To do so can become a distraction and a cause of unnecessary frustration.
 
I prefer to look at what previous popes have stated, and then ask whether or not what is happening now is in continuity with that.
No pope can bind another pope, except in matters of dogma and morals. A pope does not have to go by what his predecessors said.
In addition, yes, the pope can violate the rubrics of the Mass, as we just saw last Thursday.
In Catholic Canon Law, this is not possible. While the pope must show due regard for the law as any other law abiding Catholic, if he feels that the law does not apply in a given situation, it is not a violation of the law. He has the right and authority to make that decision.
If popes wish to change the Mass, what has been done in the past is that they issue a statement or declaration to that affect, explaining why and what it means PRIOR to celebrating the Mass in this way.
This has been done only when the change is a permanent one, not when the pope is making an exception.
And don’t even try to tell me that this will not be taken as some as a push for women’s ordination, because it is already happening. thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3726461.ece
It’s like everything else. Those who are looking to push women’s ordination are going to find any peg to hang their hat.

On the flip side of this, those who are pushing for abuses are gong to find any peg on which to hang their hat.

The bottom line is that the extremes will always find something to aid their cause. If they can’t find something, they spin it so that it works. The Church has to be prudent. This is true. At the same time, she can’t walk on eggshells either, worrying about what the right and left extremes are going to think all the time.

In this case, the Holy Father’s office has said that there was a greater good in doing this than in not doing it. One must always choose the greater good. Do we have to agree? No, absolutely not. No pope that I have ever studied has ever asked the faithful if they agree on anything that they do. I don’t think that we’ve ever had a pope who has said that he cares one fig and one banana what the faithful like or don’t like.

They care very much about what is good for those who are immediately present, then for those who are remotely present.
 
It’s like everything else. Those who are looking to push women’s ordination are going to find any peg to hang their hat.

On the flip side of this, those who are pushing for abuses are gong to find any peg on which to hang their hat.

The bottom line is that the extremes will always find something to aid their cause. If they can’t find something, they spin it so that it works.
👍
 
If popes wish to change the Mass, what has been done in the past is that they issue a statement or declaration to that affect, explaining why and what it means PRIOR to celebrating the Mass in this way.
He wasn’t “changing the Mass”, he was dispensing the need to follow the rubric, for pastoral reasons, for that particular Mass.

Read here, under the section labeled “Pope”:newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm

and from Canon Law itself:intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P9.HTM
 
I have to ask this question, because it’s been bugging me for weeks. Well, only since the election of Pope Francis. When I sit and listen to priests, brothers, sisters, theologians and apologists speak about this pope, the one thing that comes up in everyone’s mind is that he’s a consecrated religious. He is a Jesuit who is heavily influenced by the Franciscan school of ministry. We don’t speak of him as a Pope without speaking about his roots in the religious life. Because to do so is to take him out of context. When you take someone out of context, you’re not going to understand them and you’re going to miss a lot of the richness that’s there.

God gives to the Church many gifts and one of the greatest gifts that he has given to the Church is the religious life. In Vita Consecrata the Church states that even though the consecrated life is not part of the hierarchy of the Church, it is essential to the life of the Church. It is so essential that is is born in Christ’s life itself. Christ was the first consecrated religious. He lived in community with his Apostles. He lived according to the Evangelical Counsels. He was a servant to all. He was a contemplative. He was a mystic and he was a common laborer. The mission given to him by his Father was his Rule of Life. That’s really beautiful.

However, when people discuss Pope Francis on these forums and other forums on the Internet, they talk about him as if they were speaking about Pope Benedict, John Paul II, John XXIII and so forth. None of those popes were consecrated religious. In fact the popes whom we have had who came to us from the religious life were very revolutionary. Let’s take Clement V. The Benedictine who legalized abdication. Pius V, the Dominican who unified the Roman Rite. Clement XIV, the Franciscan who suppressed the Jesuits, because his order asked him to do so. Those are just some of the religious. The point is that these men brought rather interesting qualities, thoughts, behaviors, customs, changes and gifts to the papacy.

We look at Pope Francis and I don’t see many people on these forums

a. Remember that he’s a religious

b. Remember that he is a Jesuit trained in Ignatian thought and Ignatian pedegogy; therefore, when he speaks he’s going to use that system.

c. Remember the he is a follower of the Franciscan school of ministry, which is very emphatic that voluntary poverty is a means to salvation and necessary if one is to do pastoral care among the voiceless.

d. Remember that he is a consecrated religious who is disciplined in asceticism and trained to live without many things that most people take for granted. When presented with these extras, the immediate reaction of the religious is a question. “Do I really need this?”

e. Remember that every religious, even if he’s a pope, has a duty to his vows. They do not cease to exist.

Why do we take Pope Francis out of context? We do we not factor in that he’s a religious whenever we analyze what he does or say?
Who Is the Greatest? Mark 9

33 Then they came to Capernaum; and when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” 34 But they were silent, for on the way they had argued with one another who was the greatest. 35 He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.”
 
No, I’m sorry, it was a few days ago and I don’t remember exactly where I was at the time (on the Vatican web news site.) Sometimes I click on a specific article and then go on to another link from there.
I also read news on EWTN’s web site and Zenit, they are both faithful to the Catholic Church also.
Sometimes I am reading articles on the home page of this site, at www.catholic.com
But I know I was on the Vatican news web site when I read of that particular article, I don’t know how long they stay on there. You would just have to search for them.

Here Is one from EWTN:
ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7353

Here is one from the Vatican:
news.va/en/news/pope-mass-of-our-lords-supper-full-text

Here is one from Zenit:
,That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.
zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-spokesman-on-participation-of-2-women-in-foot-washing-ceremony

zenit.org/en

Happy Hunting 😃
thank you for those links. I had already read that basic story elsewhere either in this thread or another. One did provide me with an addtional fact…that there were 40 individuals of which 12 were chosen. Unfortunately, these articles didn’t completely clear things up for me.
 
He wasn’t “changing the Mass”, he was dispensing the need to follow the rubric, for pastoral reasons, for that particular Mass.
And, if I may add, for only one, particular, optional part of that particular Mass.
 
Who would he be sending this document to anyway? Himself?

Maybe he didn’t have any self-addressed stamped envelopes. :rolleyes:
Maybe he did send himself a letter? Maybe he even sent himself a reply to the letter he recieved from himself?

Maybe it read,

"Dear Bishop of Rome,

Thank you for your letter of request to deviate from the rubrics of the Mandatum.

Having carefully considered your rationale for this proposed deviation of the rubrics, I hereby grant you your request.

Yours,

The Supreme Pontif."
 
I guess this won’t go down well on a Traditional Catholicism forum, but… I am a female who has had her feet washed twice over the course of about 10-15 years. It’s one of the most moving and significant experiences I have had.
My diocese has altar girls and most parishes have allowed some women to have their feet washed for some years, now.
But to assume that therefore the place is full of liberal clergy/bishops who take liberties with the celebration of the liturgy could not be more wrong.
I have never seen the NO Mass celebrated with anything but the utmost orthodoxy and reverence. The congregation are quiet and attentive wherever I’ve been - no exaggeration. The altar girls ditto.
I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong or threatening about women having their feet washed. Permission must have been given.
Personally, I found it a great grace. And I certainly am not alarmed for a single nanosecond that Pope Francis washed women’s feet. It’s simply doing what Jesus told his disciples to do - follow the pattern of service that He had just shown them.
At the Last Supper, only men were present. Does that mean that only men should be allowed to receive Holy Communion? Hardly.
 
I would be interested in knowing, from a European/Islamic history/politics expert, if there was any historical or political significance in Pope Francis’ choice to wash the feet of a Muslim woman.

There may not be.

But I’m wondering if one reason why so many are having a difficult time with this is that we are viewing it through the red, white, and blue glasses of citizens of the United States, where everyone is equal.

Oh, yes, of course we still have race, class, and sex prejudice in the U.S., but we see a lot less of it than we did when I was growing up in the 1960s. Nowadays, no one thinks anything of it when black and white children play together–Martin Luther King’s dream has come true, and little black girls and little white girls do walk hand in hand (and if the gay marriage advocates have their way, black and white women will get married. :rolleyes:).

In the U.S., prejudice and racism/classism/sexism/age-ism is illegal, and those who are caught practicing prejudice are in trouble with the law.

For the most part in the U.S., equality is accepted everywhere as the norm, and most of us cannot see or comprehend any difference in worth between men, women, Christians, Muslims, etc. In our daily lives, we treat people equally (no matter how we feel in our hearts).

Yes, I do realize there are still some prejudices in the U.S. that have become “politically correct” in the last decade. It is OK to look down on Christian fundamentalists and on pro-life Catholics. It is OK to look down on “fat” people and consider them inferior. It is definitely OK to look down and even criminalize people who smoke. It is OK to look down on rednecks. It is kind of OK to look down on Southerners who speak with a strong Southern drawl. And recently, it has become OK to look down on people who own guns.

But again, for the most part, when it comes to differences between people that they are born with; e.g., color, race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, etc., we in the U.S. consider all people equal.

This means that for us, washing the feet of a Muslim woman would not be considered “significant” other than in the context of possibly breaking a “liturgical rule.” But NONE of us, even the most ardent traditionalist Catholics, have any objection to touching or serving a Muslim woman. No one is questioning Pope Francis’ kindness, humility, etc., because here in the U.S., we are accustomed to treating all people equally.

But is this true among Muslim peoples? Does a Muslim woman have the same status in Muslim countries as a Muslim man? Did Pope Francis send any kind of shocking message to Muslim peoples and nations?

Or how about in Europe? Do the Europeans look down upon Muslim women as “2nd class citizens?” When Pope Francis washed the feet of the Muslim woman, was he telling Europeans to “stop looking down on Muslim women”?

Or in other countries in the world? Are Muslim women “equal?” Are WOMEN equal? What did Pope Francis’ action say to these countries?

What effect did Pope Francis’ choice to wash the feet of a Muslim women have on all these groups of peoples? Did his choice rock their world and make a strong statement about equality that we in the U.S. just aren’t comprehending because we know next-to-nothing about other cultures, religions, and politics?

Back in the 1950s, Rosa Parks made a decision to not give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Nowadays, that act means nothing. People get on a bus in the U.S. and no one expects anyone to give up their seat (although many of us still believe a man should offer his seat to a woman, especially an older woman or a pregnant woman, but…we also believe that a healthy young woman should give up HER seat for a frailer, older man, or for an older woman or pregnant woman).

But back in the 1950s, Ms. Park’s action was immensely significant, and it is often credited with beginning the modern civil rights movement in the United States. Children who study history need to be “sent back in time” so to speak, so that they will comprehend the tremendous significance of Ms. Park’s simple action.

And that’s what I’m wondering about this action of Pope Francis. Do we in the U.S. need to be “sent overseas” or “sent back in time” so that we can more fully comprehend the Pope’s action? Was it his way of sending out a truly significant message to peoples in the world other than U.S. citizens? After all, as much as all of us love our country and are proud of the U.S., we are not the center of the earth and the axis around which all of the earth turns. The Pope is the Pope of ALL the world’s Catholics, not just the U.S. Catholics.

Thanks to anyone who can answer this query.
 
I guess this won’t go down well on a Traditional Catholicism forum, but… I am a female who has had her feet washed twice over the course of about 10-15 years…
👍 Good for you, and good for your priest.
But to assume that therefore the place is full of liberal clergy/bishops who take liberties with the celebration of the liturgy could not be more wrong.
I have never seen the NO Mass celebrated with anything but the utmost orthodoxy and reverence.
Your parish sounds very much like mine.
 
Maybe he did send himself a letter? Maybe he even sent himself a reply to the letter he recieved from himself? …
Hello,

It really is not that mysterious nor does it lead to farcical procedures. Legislators (papal or otherwise) make and change the law all the time and there is an established protocol for it. In the case of dispensations, there is also an established protocol which, for the sake of good, legal order, should be followed.

I find the comments of “jwinch” to be on the right track.

Dan
 
Though “Limosa” is extremely new on this site, I have lurked before (though not recently). I came back on because I really wanted to see what the denizens of such a “traditional” virtual community thought of Pope Francis. I missed the beginning (where it sounds like there were a few fireworks!), but I have gradually been heartened by the tone of this thread and a few others like it, especially as the longer historical perspective has been explained, explored and absorbed (thank you brother JR!).

I don’t think I will ever see eye-to-eye with or understand those here or elsewhere who yearn for mozzettas and red shoes (should we bring back the tiara??), but I feel encouraged by the openness to a different style of papacy that many of you have expressed. I had also checked out Rorate coeli (thanks to the AP article), and Fisheaters (after a reference on here) and was shocked by the outrageous opinions expressed there (to name only one, “this pope has done more harm in two weeks than any pope in history.” Really? Including the Borgias? but I digress). CAF has proven to be more reasoned than I had feared.

Thank you for allowing me to eavesdrop.
 
Hello,

In the case of dispensations, there is also an established protocol which, for the sake of good, legal order, should be followed.
Then please share with us the established protocol that a Pope would use for dispensing with the rubric for washing the feet of only men , in a particular unusual circumstance.
I would like to know what he should have done.

Although the washing of the feet at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Last Supper is a beautiful sign of what Christ did for the Apostles (men) on the night of their ordination, and a reminder of what he mandated that they do as well, it has a wider interpretation as well. Keep in mind that the “men” who have their feet washed (unless it’s at a Cathedral where many other priests are concelebrating) are not ordained priests, in fact most of them are married men with children and even grandchildren. Does that make it a push for abolishing the celibacy requirement, or a call for the ordination of married men? Of course not.
And including women, for pastoral reasons in certain situations, is not a push for women’s ordination.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Pope was dispensing with the rubric for aMass that he himself was presiding over. This wasn’t a situation where he would be responding to the request of someone else.
 
Then please share with us the established protocol that a Pope would use for dispensing with the rubric for washing the feet of only men , in a particular unusual circumstance.
I would like to know what he should have done.

Although the washing of the feet at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Last Supper is a beautiful sign of what Christ did for the Apostles (men) on the night of their ordination, and a reminder of what he mandated that they do as well, it has a wider interpretation as well. Keep in mind that the “men” who have their feet washed (unless it’s at a Cathedral where many other priests are concelebrating) are not ordained priests, in fact most of them are married men with children and even grandchildren. Does that make it a push for abolishing the celibacy requirement? Of course not.
And including women, for pastoral reasons in certain situations, is not a push for women’s ordination.
Protocol would probably be to contact his local ordinary (he is his own ordinary)? Perhaps contact the CWDWS (he’s in charge of these people anyway)?

Does Pope Francis need to write a global newsletter with details of every bureaucratic process he needs to do?

Or maybe this is as simple as dispensing of something for a pastoral reason, and he has the authority to dispense.
 
Protocol would probably be to contact his local ordinary (he is his own ordinary)? Perhaps contact the CWDWS (he’s in charge of these people anyway)?

Does Pope Francis need to write a global newsletter with details of every bureaucratic process he needs to do?

Or maybe this is as simple as dispensing of something for a pastoral reason, and he has the authority to dispense.
👍

He’s the man with the keys and the power to bind and loose.
There’s no need to set ourselves up as the higher authority whom the Pope has to consult for his every pastoral move that does not contradict faith and morals. His higher authority is God Himself.
Some think it’s Canon lawyer XYZ or Father (insert initial).

The reason why some are in such a dither about this is because they have publicly harped on this subject for so many years that they are embarrassed that the Pope’s actions might indicate that they were too rigid with its application. The hardest words to say, sometimes, are :“I was wrong.”
 
Another thing has come to mind.

The Pope presided at the Mass of the Last Supper only 2 weeks after his installation!

With all of the flurry of activity, myriad of decisions to make, short term plans for Holy Week, etc., he certainly had no time to “apply for a dispensation”:eek:.

Even with regular Bishops, if there is an imminent situation in which there is not enough time to appeal to the Vatican, they can grant a dispensation anyway, if it is one that would normally be granted under normal circumstances. see canons 87 and 88:intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P9.HTM

Certainly the Pope himself has this faculty!

Good grief.

I think all of this brouhaha is just sour grapes from the Javerts of the church.

Henceforth, I shall refer to an unamed internet blogging priest as “Inspector Javert”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top