D
Pope Francis includes women in papal feet washing ceremony for first time
- Status
L
Lormar
Guest
Forgive me, I mean no disrespect to the pope. I realize that he is above the rubrics and rules that the church puts forth for the rest of us. I thought that washing the feet of women is against the rubrics. Have I been misinformed? I ask because my former pastor was roundly castigated by a few women parishioners when he refused to include women in his foot washing ceremony a few years ago. I assumed he was only following the Holy Thursday rubrics, but maybe I have assumed the wrong thing?
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
I imagine Pope Francis knows whose feet he can wash. I’ll trust his judgment.
L
Lormar
Guest
Comment deleted
B
bellasbane
Guest
The Pope is not above the law. Nor is he a prisoner of tradition. He is the successor of Peter and final arbiter of how scripture and tradition should be interpreted. If he includes women in the foot washing ceremony on Holy Thursday, then those who barred women from it in the past did so in error and he is correcting this error.
M
Marie5890
Guest
According the Bro. JR, he actually is above Canon Law.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10540320#post10540320
“Everyone is assuming that he or she has a right to comment on what the pope does that is not a sin. There is no sin involved here, if he did wash female feet, because as Boniface said, the pope is above every rule and law in the Church. Therefore, he cannot break what does not bind him. The only law that binds him is revealed moral law. This is not a matter of revealed moral law. God is not trying to bind the pope, people are. But people don’t have that right”.
(Bolding is mine)
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
Well, even the Pope should act within the bounds of applicable law or go about changing it/dispensing it in an orderly fashion. So, I would be cautious about saying the Pope is above the rubrics, even regarding something rather minor such as this. Anyway, yes, the rubrics say that “men” may have their feet washed.
Dan
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
um, no, wait.
There was no ERROR and there was no BARRING.
There was an interpretation of a DISCIPLINE which apparently at least Pope Francis personally believes has ‘evolved’ into a different understanding.
Those who held to the earlier understanding were not ‘wrong’ in doing so. Pope Francis is not making a ‘change’ whereby something was ‘wrong’ before and now is ‘right’.
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
My answer was not a direct response to your post, but simply a statement of my own opinion. Do not take my statement as an affront to you. It was certainly not intended as such. I believe Pope Francis knows what he is doing and find no reason to question his actions on Holy Thursday. You are absolutely entitled to a different opinion.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
I basically agree with the first three sentences but not the last. Maybe this conclusion of yours is another reason why even the Pope should follow the law–when he doesn’t, people get confused. The law which says “men” may be selected to have their feet washed is still as binding today as it was yesterday. People who follow it later today are not in error and people who followed it over the course of the last 40 years were not in error either.
Dan
B
bellasbane
Guest
But the post to which I was responding stated that the pastor wasn’t just selecting men, but “refused to include women in his foot washing ceremony”. Those are two different things.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
From what I have read on here and other places before, it seems as though it is something that was a question mark as to what was/was not allowed. It would appear the debate has been settled.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
It appears that he did change it, or corrected a misinterpretation of it if that was the case. Either way, I think the way he did it was great. IMO an example is always better leadership than a press release.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
Other than the revealed moral law that was instituted by God, the Pope is not bound by any law. All other laws are human interpretations of what should happen, and the Pope is the final arbiter on earth for these interpretations. I am not clear on what the law officially says/said as I have heard different things. However, if it did say that only men could have their feet washed then those that followed that in the past would be correct certainly. However, I think if someone refuses to include women from this point forward, they would be in error based on what the Pope has done.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Since it’s the Pastor who invites those who are to have their feet washed (often through intermediaries such as the various group leaders in the parish) it is impossible for him to “bar” or “refuse to include” anyone - you cannot invite yourself to the ceremony, and when the pastor is asking various group leaders to invite members of their various groups, he will typically make it known whether he means to include women, or not - if you were not invited, then you are not “barred” - it’s only if you show up without an invitation that you would be “barred”.
F
Francoist
Guest
I believe that this is damaging to the sacred liturgy and to the whole life and sanctity of the Church.
B
bellasbane
Guest
The person specifically stated that the pastor “refused to include women”, which is an active verb. That is all the information we have.
What you are doing is making up excuses - and IMO not doing a very good job of it. Your argument is too contorted to make any sense.
Not invited = “barred” but also “not barred”. Do you see what I mean?
L
Lucky7
Guest
I wouldn’t go that far; however, you can expect to see the liberal/progressive Catholics taking thismove as a step in the right direction…you know, to female priests.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, good clarification.
Naturally Pope Francis’ ‘choice’ will make some waves, but when it comes right down to it, if the Holy Spirit has revealed that the current interpretation of ‘men’ can be broadened to include women IN THIS RITE OF FOOT WASHING IN ONE MASS PER YEAR, it is not the end of the world. After all, when women started to read at Mass, it wasn’t because the Instituted office for Acolytes suddenly decided to include women (it didn’t), it was because it was decided that those who read no longer needed to be instituted acolytes, and therefore that both men and women could now be readers,
Maybe people will start then to say that Pope Francis can ‘reverse the doctrine’ that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and cite this action, but so what? The proof of the pudding is in the action, and less than 20 years after Pope John Paul II’s statement, we are more likely to see the sun rise in the west than to see Pope Francis ordain a woman. . .
I refuse to get wound up over this because my faith doesn’t rest on a Pope or his actions (not that I am stating his actions are wrong! I’m not!), but on Jesus. I trust in Jesus and I know He will not permit His Vicar to teach anything unorthodox when it comes to faith and morals.
- Status