Pope Francis washes feet

[30miller]

Again - totally agree with jwinch2.

Perhaps, and I suppose this is a fair point. However, I believe it is a false narrative to think that people are not going to discuss things such as this when they occur. It should be done with charity of course, but charity does not mean keeping one’s mouth shut. In addition, Canon Law specifically provides the right, as well as the obligation, to the Faithful to speak up, particularly if they have knowledge and competence in a particular area.
Canon 212 - 3
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

So, while could argue that Dr. Peters would be better served to express his opinion on the matter privately, Canon Law would seem to suggest that making his opinion known to the rest of the Faithful is well within his right, and perhaps his duty. Whether or not he perceives he has a duty to speak on the issue would I suppose depend on the dictates of his conscience. Unless of course you are suggesting his conscience to be improperly formed on the issue, which I suppose is possible. However, I am unaware of any Church teaching or Canon which states or implies that it is impossible for a Pope to make an error of judgement in situations where he is not intending to use his authority to declare doctrine to be binding upon the Faithful.

I find it very interesting, and telling for that matter, that in situations where Dr. Peters did not agree with the traditional view people on this forum had zero problem citing him with great frequency. I can recall more than one thread where this has happened. In fact, I have been on the receiving end of this in a discussion on the application of Canon 915 more than once. Furthermore, to suggest that Dr. Peters is a traditionalist would be entirely false. He is far from that.

I also find it quite telling that being concerned with following the rubrics of the Mass is somehow now a “traditionalist” view. Was Blessed John Paul II a traditionalist? He seemed pretty concerned with following the Mass to me, so I guess he must be. I also find it extremely telling and to be fair, shocking, that people were allowed to question the actions of Pope Benedict on a variety of issues through his pontificate here on CAF. I can recall many such discussions on a variety of issues.

Finally, while it is certainly fair to question the actions of someone, it is not in keeping with Church teaching to question their interior disposition. So, while you are free to question the wisdom of Dr. Peters writing what he did, perhaps you should suspend judgement of his humility or lack thereof.

 

[opus101]

jwinch:

You did not cite the source of your quote, and it implies that it was from me. I was the first person you quoted, but you didn’t cite the source for the next one. It wasn’t me. Watch this in the future.

You neglected to address the main point of my post, which was that Dr. Peters neglected to mention anything about Canon Law in regard to dispensations.

According to Canon Law, how would a Pope “apply” eek for a dispensation from a rubric in a Mass that he himself will be the celebrant?

So far, no one has come up with an answer.

And please cite the source for your quote that begins “Whenever any so-called liberals…”

 

[jwinch2]

jwinch:

You did not cite the source of your quote, and it implies that it was from me. I was the first person you quoted, but you didn’t cite the source for the next one. It wasn’t me. Watch this in the future.

I have not cited or quoted any of your posts or responded to them until this one, and at no time have I implied that I was quoting from you.

In addition, yes, I did cite the source of my quote. It is based on the person who’s post I replied to, which was not you. Perhaps this is why another user name is in the quote to begin with when it says: Originally Posted by Mariem2. The second part of the quote was a continuation of Mariem2’s post which was the only one I responded to.

So yes, someone may wish to watch this in the future, but it probably isn’t me.

 

[opus101]

. However, I believe it is a false narrative to think that people are not going to discuss things such as this when they occur. It should be done with charity of course, but charity does not mean keeping one’s mouth shut.

jwinch, it was you who earlier charged the Pope with “violating” the law. That is not exactly a charitable way to describe the situation. In fact, it is that very comment (which you insisted upon) that has inspired me to defend the Pope on this matter.

The Pope did not “violate” Canon Law. A “violation” implies a certain disregard that could even be sinful. Rather than “violate” the law, he “dispensed” with part of the rubrical requirements for a specific liturgical action on his own initiative as Vicar of Christ, for pastoral reasons. That is not a “violation”.

Canon Law itself provides for dispensations. It also provides for dispensations from things that will be quite “imminent” ( the Mass of the Last Supper was barely 2 weeks after his installation as Pope) without even requesting one from the Vatican ,if the request is something that is usually granted (and the washing of women’s feet is something that is usually granted). If an ordinary Bishop can do this, why not the Pope?

And if the actions of the Pope can be fairly criticized, then so can the actions of any Canon lawyer.

 

[opus101]

I have not cited or quoted any of your posts or responded to them until this one, and at no time have I implied that I was quoting from you.

In addition, yes, I did cite the source of my quote. It is based on the person who’s post I replied to, which was not you. Perhaps this is why another user name is in the quote to begin with when it says: Originally Posted by Mariem2. The second part of the quote was a continuation of Mariem2’s post which was the only one I responded to.

So yes, someone may wish to watch this in the future, but it probably isn’t me.

Wow. I swore I saw a quote from opus101 at the beginning of the post, and now I don’t see it.
Apparently I misread it. My apologies.

 

[jwinch2]

jwinch, it was you who earlier charged the Pope with “violating” the law. That is not exactly a charitable way to describe the situation. In fact, it is that very comment (which you insisted upon) that has inspired me to defend the Pope on this matter.

Defend away. I have never argued that you cannot, or should not do so.

The Pope did not “violate” Canon Law. A “violation” implies a certain disregard that could even be sinful. Rather than “violate” the law, he “dispensed” with part of the rubrical requirements for a specific liturgical action on his own initiative as Vicar of Christ, for pastoral reasons. That is not a “violation”.

To my understanding a dispensation is a formal process, not something which is done on the fly.

Canon Law itself provides for dispensations. It also provides for dispensations from things that will be quite “imminent” ( the Mass of the Last Supper was barely 2 weeks after his installation as Pope) without even requesting one from the Vatican ,if the request is something that is usually granted (and the washing of women’s feet is something that is usually granted). If an ordinary Bishop can do this, why not the Pope?

I have never stated that the Pope is required to solicit permission or request a dispensation from anyone. I agree completely that this is something he can do on his own authority. However, when changes have been made to the liturgy in the past Popes have issued documents to the affect explaining what was to be done and why. In short, they themselves, or through proxies such as Msgr Marini, have issued the dispensation along with an explanation of their reasoning. That is all I have suggested. For example, one can see the myriad of documents on such things posted on the Vatican website from Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Whether or not Pope Francis had time to do this or not is certainly up for discussion.

And if the actions of the Pope can be fairly criticized, then so can the actions of any Canon lawyer.

I have never said otherwise. In fact, I specifically stated that people are free to disagree with his positions on the matter. However, the man is an acknowledged expert, and his opinions are worth noting.

Whether you happen to like them or not is a different discussion and I do not begrudge you your opinion on the matter. However, it might be more productive to discuss the issue from a position of attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

 

[jwinch2]

Wow. I swore I saw a quote from opus101 at the beginning of the post, and now I don’t see it.
Apparently I misread it. My apologies.

We all have our moments, myself more than most. Apology accepted.

 

[Mariem2]

I find it very interesting, and telling for that matter, that in situations where Dr. Peters did not agree with the traditional view people on this forum had zero problem citing him with great frequency. I can recall more than one thread where this has happened. In fact, I have been on the receiving end of this in a discussion on the application of Canon 915 more than once. Furthermore, to suggest that Dr. Peters is a traditionalist would be entirely false. He is far from that.

I also find it quite telling that being concerned with following the rubrics of the Mass is somehow now a “traditionalist” view. Was Blessed John Paul II a traditionalist? He seemed pretty concerned with following the Mass to me, so I guess he must be. I also find it extremely telling and to be fair, shocking, that people were allowed to question the actions of Pope Benedict on a variety of issues through his pontificate here on CAF. I can recall many such discussions on a variety of issues.

Finally, while it is certainly fair to question the actions of someone, it is not in keeping with Church teaching to question their interior disposition. So, while you are free to question the wisdom of Dr. Peters writing what he did, perhaps you should suspend judgement of his humility or lack thereof. It might also be important to actually read Dr. Peters’ article carefully so that it can be recognized that he spends the overwhelming majority of his time talking about the explanation of the Pope’s actions provided by the Vatican and critiquing them rather than the specific actions of the Pope.

To be honest, I never heard of Dr. Peters until he was quoted on this thread. I never heard the terms “liberal” and “traditional” or “left” and “right” applied to faithful Catholics until I joined CAF. People (of all persuasions) tend to quote reputable scholars when it suits their argument. My argument is that we have a Pope, successor to Peter and until this pope or any future pope contradicts the Deposit of Faith, I will bow to his authority, just as I did during the days of JP2 and Benedict XVI when I wasn’t always best pleased with how they were handling things.

In my opinion, a few prayers said for Pope Francis would be a lot more beneficial to the Church than someone showing off his superior knowledge to make it look like the Pope is doing the Church a disservice. No doubt that wasn’t Dr. Peters’ intention, but that’s how it looks to an ignoramus like me. Remember that the vast majority of us Catholics aren’t nearly as conversant as people like you and Dr. Peters with every dotted i, crossed t, comma and full stop in Canon Law.

I accept that I shouldn’t have questioned Dr. Peters’ humility. No doubt he was acting according to his conscience but maybe you could all just back off and give Pope Francis a chance to get his feet under the table before making public pronouncements that to some of us great unwashed (neither pun intended) appear to be calling into question his suitability as Pope. Giving Pope Francis a hard time won’t undo injustices done to Pope Benedict who was indeed an excellent pontiff.

I’ll leave you to your theological discussion because I’ve discovered that a nearby Church is having celebrations tomorrow to mark Divine Mercy Sunday and I need to find out whether I’m too late to qualify for the special graces.

God Bless, and don’t worry because I’m sure that Pope Francis’ heart is very receptive to the Holy Spirit. With our prayers and support, the Church is in safe hands.

 

[opus101]

To my understanding a dispensation is a formal process, not something which is done on the fly.

and:

I have never stated that the Pope is required to solicit permission or request a dispensation from anyone. I agree completely that this is something he can do on his own authority.

In the above statements, you contradict yourself.

However, when changes have been made to the liturgy in the past Popes have issued documents to the affect explaining what was to be done and why.

And they probably had ample time to do just that. Pope Francis had been in the midst of a major flurry of activity and new responsibilities for a mere 2 weeks. I don’t doubt you about the Vatican website, but why not provide a link to what you are referring to?

However, it might be more productive to discuss the issue from a position of attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

Likewise, jwinch. I have been referring to the argument on this and other threads. My argument is that it is not correct to charge Pope Francis with “violation” of the law.

 

[opus101]

I’m not a Canon Lawyer, and am wondering about the application of the following:

Canon 1373: A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary BECAUSE OF SOME ACT OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY OR MINISTRY, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

I’m not saying that anyone has been incited toward hatred here, but that accusing the Pope of Canon Law violations can certainly incite others toward animosity, even if that is not one’s intention.

Also, Canon 1390:2 is interesting:

“A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding censure.”

and section C: “The calumniator can also be compelled to make amends.”
"

 

[Lormar]

The directive to wash the feet of men, and only men, was found in paragraph 51 of PASCHALIS SOLLEMNITATIS, The Preparation And Celebration Of The Easter Feasts, Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship, January 16, 1988. The English translation of paragraph 51 reads:

1. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve. This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

The document was originally circulated in Latin, and the word translated into English as ‘men’ is ‘vir’, literally ‘adult men’. Barely a year ago, an alert CA Forum Member also referenced the Sacramentary which reads:

The men vir] who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers, he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.

Pope Francis had already broken with that instruction in 2005, when he washed the feet of women at Buenos Aires’ Sarda maternity hospital. It’s no surprise that he did it again yesterday.

I just went to the Vatican’s website to search for Paschalis Sollemnitatis. The document appears to have been taken down.

So it appears I must relax my opposition to having my (female) feet washed by the priest, as I did a decade ago when I refused because of Paschalis Sollemnitatis and the Sacramentary. However I still see no instruction from the Vatican which approves of a group-participation foot-bath, so commonly practiced in American parishes.

I found this post from page 6. It is self-explanatory.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh really? Where, by whom, and by what scholarly authority?

Among many other Catholic sources, the scholarly authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2053.

As another poster noted, you imply an artificial hierarchy of Law “versus” Love. There is no such dichotomy in authentic Christian understanding of scripture. Mt. 22:40 expresses the containment of the law within love. Jesus understood (we know because he expounded on this) that to love God was not “higher” than keeping the commandments, but rather that keeping the commandments demonstrated the theological virtue of charity, as did (no less so and no more so) the love of neighbor. Love is not “beyond” the Law. Rather, an attitude of Love (will, rather than emotion) perfects our practice of law, and our fidelity to God’s law reveals the extent of our love.

A major concept that the entire Gospel of Matthew communicates it is that Law and Love are mutual and interdependent. Every magisterial teaching about Jesus affirms this.

That said, I repeat, as I have very often on CAF, that what Pope Francis did is awesome, and that whatever anyone’s private feelings, misgivings, etc. are of any “new style” of his, all of us Catholics owe him our assumptive loyalty and obedience. We should look upon Him as our spiritual teacher and seek to model ourselves after his examples of practical charity.

End of story.

 

[JustaServant]

Ya’ll are still up in arms about this??
Let it go.
What the Pope did was a great thing. Just because he didn’t dot the “I’s” or cross the “T’s” to your satisfaction is immaterial. You’re not the Pope, he is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ya’ll are still up in arms about this??
Let it go.
What the Pope did was a great thing. Just because he didn’t dot the “I’s” or cross the “T’s” to your satisfaction is immaterial. You’re not the Pope, he is.

I’m not sure what the plural pronoun “Ya’ll” is all about. Do not include me, please, among the “ya’ll” you’re apparently referring to. My posts do not demonstrate such thinking. You accuse incorrectly.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Because some people cannot seem to follow the ****** Pope Watch. rule.