Pope Francis ‘opens Holy Thursday foot-washing rite to women’

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LordHaveMercy said:
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.
Click to expand...
And even then, there is the question of whether the Pope can even judge himself, that if, does he have that power?

I would say no, since he is the source of the law’s authority, and as such, cannot be judged by his own laws in his own courts. From a legislative (not moral, as we all know) standpoint, as is the case in all monarchial systems, the Pope (as Sovereign) can do no wrong.
 
porthos11 said:
And even then, there is the question of whether the Pope can even judge himself, that if, does he have that power?

I would say no, since he is the source of the law’s authority, and as such, cannot be judged by his own laws in his own courts. From a legislative (not moral, as we all know) standpoint, as is the case in all monarchial systems, the Pope (as Sovereign) can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, at least from a legal perspective. However, our Holy Father reminds us frequently that he is a sinner like all of us, and capable of doing wrong. I think that is what you meant, just wanted to be sure. 😃
 
Presumably, the Pope’s confessor can judge his actions to be wrong. 😉
 
LordHaveMercy said:
Well, at least from a legal perspective. However, our Holy Father reminds us frequently that he is a sinner like all of us, and capable of doing wrong. I think that is what you meant, just wanted to be sure. 😃
Click to expand...
Yes. We’re talking strictly about Church law here, not moral or divine law.
 
Which came first, the tradition of washing feet as a way of imitating Jesus, or the rules about how to perform this behavior of Jesus?. And what is the important thing to be celebrating when we imitate Christ and His actions?
 
Bookcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
That about covers it. Now we all know what the Pope can do in regards to the ordinary affairs of the Church. 😃

Supreme
Full
Immediate
Universal

Washing of the Feet is now a settled issue.
 
pnewton said:
That about covers it. Now we all know what the Pope can do in regards to the ordinary affairs of the Church. 😃

Supreme
Full
Immediate
Universal

Washing of the Feet is now a settled issue.
Click to expand...
It is as “settled” today as it was last week/year/decade, it seems to me.

Dan
 
porthos11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the use of “monarchy” is helpful. It gives the wrong impression since we tend to think of “monarchy” in political/secular terms. See here, n. 7: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Let’s look at two examples of a purely ecclesiastical law. A confessor’s attempted absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment is invalid except in danger of death (c. 977). Let’s say the Pope acts contrary to this law. There is no problem, in your opinion?

Or, how about c. 1247: obligation to participate in Mass on Sundays/Days of Obligation. Can the Pope skip Mass with impunity?

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
I don’t think the use of “monarchy” is helpful. It gives the wrong impression since we tend to think of “monarchy” in political/secular terms. See here, n. 7: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Let’s look at two examples of a purely ecclesiastical law. A confessor’s attempted absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment is invalid except in danger of death (c. 977). Let’s say the Pope acts contrary to this law. There is no problem, in your opinion?

Or, how about c. 1247: obligation to participate in Mass on Sundays/Days of Obligation. Can the Pope skip Mass with impunity?

Dan
Click to expand...
Good points.

Also those from more democratic cultures and countries may not be that receiving of any “monarchical” figure. But I’m no sociologist.
 
dans0622 said:
That makes no sense to me at all. Is the Pope a member of the Church? I notice you did not quote that part of my comment.

Dan
Click to expand...
So it seems we have a dispute over the interpretation of Canon Law. We better run it up the chain and get the (name removed by moderator)ut from the highest authority on Canon Law. Who is that? It looks like it’s Pope Francis. 😛
 
Joe_5859 said:
So it seems we have a dispute over the interpretation of Canon Law. We better run it up the chain and get the (name removed by moderator)ut from the highest authority on Canon Law. Who is that? It looks like it’s Pope Francis. 😛
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? He can throw Canon Law out altogether and excommunicate everyone but himself if he so chooses. But prudence sometimes is the better course of action for stability of any group of people.
 
ProVobis said:
Are you kidding? He can throw Canon Law out altogether and excommunicate everyone but himself if he so chooses. But prudence sometimes is the better course of action for stability of any group of people.
Click to expand...
The smiley face with the tongue sticking out usually indicates joking, 😛
 
dans0622 said:
I don’t think the use of “monarchy” is helpful. It gives the wrong impression since we tend to think of “monarchy” in political/secular terms. See here, n. 7: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Let’s look at two examples of a purely ecclesiastical law. A confessor’s attempted absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment is invalid except in danger of death (c. 977). Let’s say the Pope acts contrary to this law. There is no problem, in your opinion?

Or, how about c. 1247: obligation to participate in Mass on Sundays/Days of Obligation. Can the Pope skip Mass with impunity?

Dan
Click to expand...
In all of your examples, the Pope can do whatever the heck he wants. He is not bound by his own laws and he has no problem. He can skip Mass with impunity by his own authority and not be guilty of violating Canon law (of course he would be guilty of violating moral law, which binds every man, if he does so habitually). But if he cannot, for example attend Mass for a good reason, he can just do so.

If the Pope becomes guilty of fornication and absolves his accomplice, he does so validly because of his own supreme power. The law is unable to prevent the Pope from exercising his power.

While he is a member of the Church, he is also the head of the Church in temporal affairs and matters of governance. He, and he alone, possesses the Keys. The power he possesses is full, supreme, and ordinary. This is what allows Canon Law to have its force in the first place.

Monarchy is not even an analogy. It is the governmental system of Vatican City, the Holy See, and the Catholic Church. Further, this monarchy is not constitutional; it is absolute.

So again, where matter purely ecclesiastical law are concerned, the Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator, is above all law, and he can do no wrong. That is what full and supreme means.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Won’t it be humbling/penance if he’s washing female feet as well? Perhaps even more humbling.

.
Click to expand...
Humbling? I’m not sure I’d be too happy if my wife or girlfriend were the one who was getting her feet washed like that. A hospital or nursing home is one thing…

But then I’m only a product of my own culture.
 
porthos11 said:
…So again, where matter purely ecclesiastical law are concerned, the Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator, is above all law, and he can do no wrong. That is what full and supreme means.
Click to expand...
That is a unique definition of “full” and “supreme.” … It seems to me that we’ve taken a trip “beyond the mountains” and I have found the journey to be rather chilling.

Dan
 
DaddyGirl said:
Won’t it be humbling/penance if he’s washing female feet as well? Perhaps even more humbling.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. As a straight male, I would feel much more comfortable washing the feet of a woman vs a man.

Unless of course, she has nasty warts, toe jam, or something like that 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top