- Status
M
Modern_Revert
Guest
We’ve always had men, women and children - ie. the Parishioners! for the washing of the feet.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Thank you for this observation. It does seem like a shift in symbolism, but it’s a shift from one Christian idea to another, not from a Christian idea to a non-Christian one.
It seems Pope Francis agrees with that new symbolism:
The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has for some time reflected on the “rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity”.
Honestly, I think this is the symbolic value that most people already attached to the rite, which is probably why people were irked that women were not included (and why many priests included them anyway). If it’s about Jesus’ “limitless charity” and if he came to save all people, then why not include men and women?
I’m sure people will still complain about it as they continue to complain about girl altar servers. But at least we are no longer in a situation where a large number of Holy Thursday Masses are disregarding the rubrics.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It will be interesting to see if the Pope chooses not to wash non-Christian’s feet during the rite this year. That would appear to be contrary to the rite. According to his own decree, the people selected to have their feet washed are to be from the “People of God” or “the faithful.” These are defined by the Church as baptized Christians:
“The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PT.HTM
“The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PT.HTM
P
phil19034
Guest
I was thinking this too.
It seems like a tread is growing among dissent Catholics… “If you disagree with a discipline or tradition, defy it until eventually it is changed. Once changed, the dissent will be vindicated.”
Obviously, this has existed for centuries, but thanks to modern communications, I think this is becoming a bigger issue. Also, this is an issue not unique to the Church, it is in our modern society too.
Bishops need to pick their battles, but ignoring dissent only lends it approval. A truly slippery slope.
L
Lormar
Guest
I agree - communion in the hand, altar girls - got their official stamp after it had become already illicitly widespread.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The Pope is the* lawgiver *of such laws…
and can freely exercise his authority…
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think that’s a valid concern, but I don’t know that holding firm on this particular issue is likely to change that human inclination. The “Roman Catholic Women Priests” movement has already been doing just that for almost 15 years now by illicitly (and invalidly, though they wouldn’t admit that) attempting to ordain women to the priesthood. They would still be doing that regardless of these types of changes.
I think the best course of action is not to turn this into a bigger deal than it really is. If we react such that it implies this change is one small step away from women’s ordination and the complete breakdown of orthodoxy, that will scandalize people way more than this change by itself.
P
Pulvis
Guest
There are some who would do well to study and learn just what the Holy Father can, and cannot do. Ignorance is a dangerous thing.
D
dans0622
Guest
Yes, he can legislate even for the entire Church. That does not mean that he is exempt from the laws he makes for the entire Church. He is a member of the Church.
As to the use of “freely” in c. 331, it doesn’t mean he can do whatever he wants or is not bound to observe the law. It is referring to the fact that he cannot be compelled to act by external agents (such as the civil authority). Someday, maybe I’ll finish the article I want to write on that canon…
Dan
K
kozlosap
Guest
You think being passive aggressive towards the Holy Father is necessary? He lives out the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy for the entire world to see and to, hopefully, emulate.
R
RACJ
Guest
Pope Francis is more insightful than Jesus Christ? Please tell me that I misunderstand you.
P
phil19034
Guest
Don’t get me wrong… I agree. I think on it’s own merits, this was the best thing for the Pope to do. I don’t believe this is heterodox, it was a lower case tradition, that can be changed.
I just don’t like that some dissents will feel vindicated by this. I also don’t understand why some felt that it was so important to include women (see my first post in this thread)
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Right. I notice I responded to two posts of yours in the two different threads on the topic.
I see what you’re getting at and to some extent share your concern. I think the feeling of vindication has been present largely since Pope Francis was elected. I have the occasion to hang around with some Catholics of that stripe who are involved in various ministries and I could definitely pick up on a reinvigoration that took place since Pope Francis became pope. Whereas before they were sullenly headed towards retirement thinking that their life’s work was being undone before their very eyes, they now feel vindicated. And, yes, sadly some of it is based on media misrepresentations of what the pope has said or done.
I try to look at what the Holy Spirit may be calling us to through this, though. Perhaps it is an opportunity for us to become less polarized. To find a way forward together rather than as “us vs. them.” Or maybe I’m being naively optimistic.
T
twf
Guest
As long as the law remains the law it is the law. I think it would be more accurate to say that the Pope can dispense himself in a given place or time.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually yes I would say it does…
B
Bookcat
Guest
In link above from CIC
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Correct.
In the Catholic Church, it is completely true that the Pope is indeed above the law. This is an absolute monarchy we’re talking about here. Laws have force only because the Pope has promulgated them, that is to say, they derive their power from him. They therefore cannot bind him, as he is the fount of authority in the Church.
L
LordHaveMercy
Guest
Yes. Besides, it is also true that in the Catholic Church, a judgement that an individual has broken Church law is also made on the Pope’s authority, so nobody can judge the Pope, other than the Pope. So not only can he not break the law, but he would be the only one who could judge himself to have broken the law, so ultimately unless Pope Francis says that Pope Francis violated Pope Francis’s law, we just accept the change as lawful.
- Status