Pope Francis to wash feet of prisoners in pre-Easter Mass

[Luigi_Daniele]

it.** I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.** But so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me.’" - John 13:12-18

So the “not all of you” means everybody except Judas, no? IOW, it is not excluding laypeople, it is excluding Judas (and possibly all of our Lord’s enemies throughout time)?

Ergo, “chosen” doesn’t mean chosen as priests, but chosen as disciples, maybe?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I’ll ask again:

At the diocesan level is the Washing of the Feet limited to priests only?

Not that I am aware of. But it should be. At least restricted to priests and deacons, or else, not performed at all.

This is the real reform that is needed nowadays. Not doubling down on more confusion that only enables more descent of Christ true intent. It is amazing how few Catholics actually consult with the actual scriptures on these topics.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Not that I am aware of. But it should be. At least restricted to priests and deacons, or else, not performed at all.

This is the real reform that is needed nowadays. Not doubling down on more confusion that only enables more descent of Christ true intent. It is amazing how few Catholics actually consult with the actual scriptures on these topics.

I wonder if it was ever limited to priests only, though. What does a missionary priest alone in the sticks do? Wash his own feet 12 times? (sorry, couldn’t help myself )

 

[Cor_Cordis]

So the “not all of you” means everybody except Judas, no? IOW, it is not excluding laypeople, it is excluding Judas (and possibly all of our Lord’s enemies throughout time)?

Again, did Christ not CHOSE those whose feet He would wash? Did He just go with those He could find? If so, then He did not CHOSE but rather He settled. No?

Why wouldn’t He include Mary of Bethany? Did she not bathe His feet with precious nard and then break all social norms by undoing her hair and drying His feet with her feminine locks?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I wonder if it was ever limited to priests only, though. What does a missionary priest alone in the sticks do? Wash his own feet 12 times? (sorry, couldn’t help myself )

Again, if this is merely a ritual - then is it compulsory? And if it is not compulsory, then better not to do it than to do it corruptly - no?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Again, did Christ not CHOSE those whose feet He would wash? Did He just go with those He could find? If so, then He did not CHOSE but rather He settled. No?

Why wouldn’t He include Mary of Bethany? Did she not bath His feet with precious nard and then break all social norms by undoing her hair and drying His feet with her feminine locks?

Good point.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Again, if this is merely a ritual - then is it compulsory? And if it is not compulsory, then better not to do it than to do it corruptly - no?

This is an excellent question. May I suggest something? Would you write a question in the Ask an Apologist section to get clarification?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

This is an excellent question. May I suggest something? Would you write a question in the Ask an Apologist section to get clarification?

I tend to get in trouble in here frequently because of my natural tendencies toward hardy debate. So I would suggest that you take my question to that section. You have a more humble heart than I posses.

Let me know if you do.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I tend to get in trouble in here frequently because of my natural tendencies toward hardy debate. So I would suggest that you take my question to that section. You have a more humble heart than I posses.

Let me know if you do.

I wish.

I will give it a try.

 

[agnes_therese]

Again, if this is merely a ritual - then is it compulsory? And if it is not compulsory, then better not to do it than to do it corruptly - no?

According to the rubrics in the Missal, it is NOT compulsory. Emphasis mine: “After the Homily, where a pastoral reason suggests it, the Washing of the Feet follows.”

 

[Cor_Cordis]

According to the rubrics in the Missal, it is NOT compulsory. Emphasis mine: “After the Homily, where a pastoral reason suggests it, the Washing of the Feet follows.”

Ah yes. Thank you agnes.

Then I will pose my question again with the added weight of validity:

Since Feet Washing is not compulsory, then isn’t it better to not do it, than to do it corruptly?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Ergo, “chosen” doesn’t mean chosen as priests, but chosen as disciples, maybe?

Christ only washed the feet of the Twelve chosen Apostles, i.e. The first priests (Bishops) and Pope (Simon Peter)

 

[agnes_therese]

Ah yes. Thank you agnes.

Then I will pose my question again with the added weight of validity:

Since Feet Washing is not compulsory, then isn’t it better to not do it, than to do it corruptly?

Are you saying that Pope Francis has done something corruptly?

 

[JustaServant]

Ah yes. Thank you agnes.

Then I will pose my question again with the added weight of validity:

Since Feet Washing is not compulsory, then isn’t it better to not do it, than to do it corruptly?

Who are you to decide if something is done “corruptly”?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Are you saying that Pope Francis has done something corruptly?

Possibly.

Does he have special remission or exclusion based on his papal office and/or as a Jesuit? Maybe. I don’t know.

But does the Holy Spirit prevent him from doing something contrary to Liturgical law? No.

Have there been other Popes who have veered off course in the past? Yes.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Who are you to decide if something is done “corruptly”?

Well, observable liturgical law would indicate it, wouldn’t it?

Is the Pope infallible in this matter?

 

[Moore11]

Who are you to decide if something is done “corruptly”?

I cannot say if something was done corruptly. But by the same humility I cannot say it was done correctly as well… neither can you.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

From Fr. Z’s Blog:

“The foot washing rite is actually optional, though that fact is little grasped by liberals who impose the options they like as obligatory on those who would prefer to opt out. Liturgical law prescribes that only men (viri in Latin) can be chosen for that rite. Priests who want to adhere to the law will find themselves facing fierce opposition by liberals demanding that women be included. Bishops will be hard-pressed to explain how priests should keep to the liturgical law when the Pope himself flouts it. By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.”

 

[Lormar]

Canon lawyer Ed Peters wrote about it here:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/retrospectives-on-the-mandatum-rite-controversies/

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Canon lawyer Ed Peters wrote about it here:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/retrospectives-on-the-mandatum-rite-controversies/

I was just about to post this! Thanks!

" 3. Few people seem able to articulate when a pope is bound by canon law (e.g., when canon law legislates matters of divine or natural law) and when he may ignore it (e.g., c. 378 § 1 on determining the suitability of candidates for the episcopate or appointing an excessive number of papal electors contrary to UDG 33). Those are not hard cases. Most Church laws, however, fall between these two poles and require careful thinking lest confusion for—nay, dissension among—the faithful arise. Exactly as happened here. Now, even in that discussion, the question is not usually whether the pope is bound to comply with the law (he probably is not so bound), but rather, how he can act contrary to the law without implying, especially for others who remain bound by the law but who might well find it equally inconvenient, that inconvenient laws may simply be ignored because, well, because the pope did it.

4.** A pope’s ignoring of a law is not an abrogation of the law but, especially where his action reverberated around the world, it seems to render the law moot.** For the sake of good order, then, the Mandatum rubrics should be modified to permit the washing of women’s feet or, perhaps upon the advice of Scriptural and theological experts, the symbolism of apostolic ministry asserted by some to be contained in the rite should be articulated and the rule reiterated.** What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.**"