Pope Francis washes feet

[crazzeto]

What culture? The media like to hype up a story to boost their viewing figures or feed into whatever agenda they are pushing at a given time. We Catholics can’t control that. Pope John Paul II usually got good press because his focus happened to coincide with the interests of the prevailing powers in the West and their sycphantic media. I don’t remember many “Traditional” Catholics complaining about all his media exposure or the way they did a “personality cult” job on him. History will be kinder to Pope Benedict than the current crop of journalists and commentators.

Rather than nitpicking about whose feet are washed, let’s just pray that God will send the Archangel Michael to protect our Pope and the Holy Spirit to inspire him.

Yes exactly, the culture of the world at large which faithful Catholics largely must resist but ultimately which we are all a product of as well. ‘The Culture’. We have a culture generally hostile to our beliefs, this is what I’m referring too. I include Catholics (yes, we faithful ones) because ultimately we’re a product of our times, and whether we want to be or not sometimes even our own views are skewed by cultural expectation.

 

[JMJ91]

I thought that the most sacred liturgical day of the year is to commemorate the Last Supper, the institution of the Holy Eucharist. I did not think it was to commemorate the institution of charitable acts among unbelievers. Did not Jesus say, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs”?

May God bless Pope Francis for his charitable acts, and may God preserve that which is holy.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I thought that the most sacred liturgical day of the year is to commemorate the Last Supper, the institution of the Holy Eucharist. I did not think it was to commemorate the institution of charitable acts among unbelievers. Did not Jesus say, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs”?

May God bless Pope Francis for his charitable acts, and may God preserve that which is holy.

And I thought the most sacred liturgical day of the year was Easter.

 

[Mariem2]

Yes exactly, the culture of the world at large which faithful Catholics largely must resist but ultimately which we are all a product of as well. ‘The Culture’. We have a culture generally hostile to our beliefs, this is what I’m referring too. I include Catholics (yes, we faithful ones) because ultimately we’re a product of our times, and whether we want to be or not sometimes even our own views are skewed by cultural expectation.

That makes sense. Defying and questioning authority is one aspect of the culture you describe. Could that explain traditionalists questioning Pope Francis washing the Muslim woman’s feet?

I hate this cult of the personality that started with the papacy of JP2. Church teaching is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow whatever the personality of our pope. There’s a thread elsewhere on this forum, started by a Protestant, the gist of which is complimenting us on having a more likable pope than Pope Benedict. The poster goes on to say that he hopes that having a more likable pope will allow his fellow protestants hate us less and maybe see us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I seem to be the only person who found that post offensive. Someone actually posted there the Pope Benedict broke new ground by bringing the Washing of the Feet ceremony to a detention centre.

I like the fact that Pope Francis is placing emphasis on our duty to help the poor. Now that our duty to the poor has been re-asserted, a few high profile excommunications wouldn’t go astray to underline his statement that the Catholic Church isn’t just some NGO.

 

[crazzeto]

That makes sense. Defying and questioning authority is one aspect of the culture you describe. Could that explain traditionalists questioning Pope Francis washing the Muslim woman’s feet?

I hate this cult of the personality that started with the papacy of JP2. Church teaching is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow whatever the personality of our pope. There’s a thread elsewhere on this forum, started by a Protestant, the gist of which is complimenting us on having a more likable pope than Pope Benedict. The poster goes on to say that he hopes that having a more likable pope will allow his fellow protestants hate us less and maybe see us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I seem to be the only person who found that post offensive. Someone actually posted there the Pope Benedict broke new ground by bringing the Washing of the Feet ceremony to a detention centre.

I like the fact that Pope Francis is placing emphasis on our duty to help the poor. Now that our duty to the poor has been re-asserted, a few high profile excommunications wouldn’t go astray to underline his statement that the Catholic Church isn’t just some NGO.

Too me, the ‘traditionalist’ (I use quotes, because I actually am one in my spirituality) will I think sometimes tend to view the church almost as a self serving institution. I don’t know that they would use such words, or that such words are 100% accurate but those are the best I have. Such a view would tend to be very rigid about jurisdictional/legal issues in the church almost as if they were a part of church doctrine (I see this in discussions about Vatican II).

It’s important, to my mind to remember what Pope Benedict XVI said about the Church. That fundamentally she is an encounter with Christ. The institution is important because that encounter must be an authentic encounter, thus the institutional church should serve this end. I think you can end up with this other view, if you sort of flip that and place the encounter with Christ at the service of the institution of the Church.

 

[30miller]

I am simply a Catholic. Not a “traditionalist” on the right end of things or a “spirit of Vatican II’er” on the left end.
I have read all kinds of analysis of Francis’ washing the feet of Muslims and women on Holy Thursday on several sites including here. My analysis is simple and straightforward and is based on no “right” or “left” leaning.
Our Holy Thursday readings and rituals are our re-enactment and remembering of Holy Thursday and not any other day specific or otherwise. On Holy Thursday Christ by the action of washing their feet instructed the Apostles (the 12 refers to them, no one else, as they were who he was celebrating the feast with, etc. Other speculation is ridiculous) of the Humility they were to go forward with in the future spreading his Gospel. Christ = the teacher here. The Apostles = the students who had just given the last 3 years of their lives to Him and obviously needed to learn this lesson yet, at least that’s what Christ obviously thought, which is good enough for me.
In our Holy Thursday re-creation the Pope = the teacher (in persona Christi) and 12 priests or deacons = the students who have given up the secular life for the priesthood and who need to receive the lesson the Pope is teaching. It’s as much about teaching and learning as it is about humility. Does anyone really think Christ never mentioned humility before that to them. Christ was doubling-down on the importance of that teaching-learning act to emphacize the importance of Humility and Service!
Christ did NOT leave the upper room and go out and wash the feet of unknown apostates (the Muslims in Francis’ case) or unknown women ON HOLY THURSDAY! He washed the feet of the select 12 who had given up the most to follow Him and who were mostly destined to suffer greatly for Him in the rest of their lives up to and including martyrdom in His name.
Francis has over 300+ OTHER days PER year to directly teach humility and service to anyone and everyone he chooses to. I think he seriously blew it here by needlessly challenging the heartfelt beliefs many held for solidly good and rational reasons. And he reinforced the illicit washings that those on the left had inovated over the years. In doing so he served only to legitimize more illicit experimentation in the future.
My wish was and is that he will travel with some devout Catholics to an area in the world where the apostates are murdering Christians - as his namesake did when he travelled with the Fifth Crusaders to the area of conflict and then went alone to the Sultan’s camp and personally asked him to convert to the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church - and ask today’s apostates to convert and join us. Sounds fanciful but there’s no reason it couldn’t be done - in fact, with much less effort today than it was for St. Francis.

 

[OneSheep]

… I think he seriously blew it here by needlessly challenging the heartfelt beliefs many held for solidly good and rational reasons. And he reinforced the illicit washings that those on the left had inovated over the years. In doing so he served only to legitimize more illicit experimentation in the future.
.

You feel disappointed about the subjects selected for the washing of the feet. I am thinking that you have a need for order, as we all do, and that this act was somewhat a violation of that. You would like all people to adhere to the rules and see this as the best way the world can be, that the set rules define the Kingdom. There is great security in this view.

I understand. There definitely is a place for rules.

But there is also a place for the Holy Spirit. Change indeed happens, because people become more and more aware of what hurts our society at large. Laws once protected slavery when once slavery was seen as a good thing. (Millenia ago, people not taken as slaves after battle victory were killed instead.) Laws protecting slavery became outdated, because the rationale for keeping the laws no longer applied.

Laws “protected” society from having women in positions of authority and leadership because of division of labor. Women and men were playing their roles as a matter of survival of the tribe, and these roles remained in position, held tight by cultural mores long after their utility. Eventually, our economy changed enough so that the utility of division of labor no longer became a necessity for many people. The rules for division of labor, rather than being a means of security, became more of a slavery for many people. Rules always impinge on freedom, so rules have to be very worthwhile. What I am seeing in the rules that allow for equal rights, for example, is the Spirit moving in our society.

All rules are well-intended when they are set, based on the circumstances at hand. We rely on the Spirit to help us change the rules when human situations change. This is a very important part of our faith.

One extra note: when someone violates our rules, this is an opportunity for forgiveness.

 

[jwinch2]

commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-traditionalists-have-point.html

So there’s been a ton of concern trolling about how bad traditionalists have looked over the whole footwashing issue, and how they really just need to pipe down. Yet little noticed is how even if some might have reacted badly, there was a point behind it all. This point was proved by Fr. Thomas Rosica of the Vatican’s Press Office in a statement on Pope Francis’ ignoring of established liturgical laws. It is statements like this that make traditionalism so appealing. I’d like to examine why.

First, it speaks of the populist nature that is inherent in traditionalism. According to Fr. Rosica, liturgical rubrics really just matter to experts instead of the faithful. This kind of thinking is what led to the wasteland of the Post Vatican II era. It essentially tells the Catholic faithful to keep their mouths shut, don’t care about what is in the liturgy, just pray, pay, and obey. This kind of age led to rampant liturgical abuse, and tracked in almost linear fashion with the decline of faith following the Council. Blessed John Paul II admitted near the end of his pontificate that he allowed this attitude to fester way too much, and that it damaged far more than just the state of the liturgy. It is for this reason that the work Redemptionis Sacramentum states the following:

On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not someone is a liturgical scholar or expert. They still have an expectation of a liturgy according to the norms…

…These concerns aren’t just the concerns of traditionalists, and I would argue that is what makes our way of doings things so appealing to many in light of this controversy.

 

[jwinch2]

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/some-thoughts-on-the-vpo-statement-regarding-the-mandadtum-rite-controversy/
Edward Peters:

The Church is passing through a period in which the relationship between ecclesiastical law and the life of faith is widely misunderstood and the very content of Church law is often poorly explained. My attempts to address this double problem include explaining how law is important to a faith community, but even more, I try to explain what the law is at present—for one can hardly debate how ecclesiastical law ought to read if one does not know what it already says.

The controversy over Pope Francis’ disregard of a liturgical law in the Mandatum rite exposes, I think, how many others in the Church misunderstand important aspects of ecclesiastical law and how a misguided attempt to explain Church law can actually provoke more issues for the faithful than it settles.

(Removed excessive quote as per forum Rules)

 

[jwinch2]

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/some-thoughts-on-the-vpo-statement-regarding-the-mandadtum-rite-controversy/

Additum: Permit me to express some impatience with the continuing recirculation of a bad theory.

Every time I turn around, someone is citing Fr. Lombardi’s comment that the pope’s washing of women’s feet on Holy Thursday is “absolutely licit” because it’s not a sacrament. Now, whatever one might finally conclude about the liceity of the pope’s action, it simply CANNOT be defended on the grounds that Lombardi uses.

Consider: the homily is not a sacrament (obviously); the homily is optional at weekday Masses (c. 767 § 3); the homily is reserved to clerics (c. 767 § 1). Okay? So, if a priest decides, as a gesture of charity and to model Christ’s inclusivity, to allow a woman (well, any lay person) to preach the homily at a weekday Mass, is his action suddenly licit?

And don’t tell us this does not really happen.

We could multiply this example many times over, of course.

My apologies to the moderation staff for the extensive quotes. However, I did not wish to give the impression that I was cherry picking certain parts of Dr. Peter’s discussion so I decided to present it in its entirety.

 

[Sirach2]

My apologies to the moderation staff for the extensive quotes. However, I did not wish to give the impression that I was cherry picking certain parts of Dr. Peter’s discussion so I decided to present it in its entirety.

Did you have a serious reason for posting these links? Or perhaps a question? Or affirmation of Dr. Peters’ views?

We need to remember that a canon lawyer, whom I respect completely, is not the Pope and has no authority to judge the Pope’s actions. He may disagree and state this publicly, but it is, in the end, just his professional opinion and concern. The final decision rested with Pope Francis.

 

[jwinch2]

Did you have a serious reason for posting these links? .

Yes.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes.

And?

 

[opus101]

Did you have a serious reason for posting these links? Or perhaps a question? Or affirmation of Dr. Peters’ views?

We need to remember that a canon lawyer, whom I respect completely, is not the Pope and has no authority to judge the Pope’s actions. He may disagree and state this publicly, but it is, in the end, just his professional opinion and concern. The final decision rested with Pope Francis.

 

[jwinch2]

And?

I would think it is pretty obvious. Dr. Peters provides a learned perspective on the topic at hand. In addition, it is a perspective which is contrary in some areas to the prevailing opinion among many in the Church. As such, I thought his opinions might be interesting to those participating in this discussion.

The other article highlights some of the reasons that some Catholics have such concerns with what happened on Holy Thursday.

You are free to disagree with their opinions as you like, or provide counter arguments if you so desire.

 

[Mariem2]

I would think it is pretty obvious. Dr. Peters provides a learned perspective on the topic at hand. In addition, it is a perspective which is contrary in some areas to the prevailing opinion among many in the Church. As such, I thought his opinions might be interesting to those participating in this discussion.

The other article highlights some of the reasons that some Catholics have such concerns with what happened on Holy Thursday.

You are free to disagree with their opinions as you like, or provide counter arguments if you so desire.

Couldn’t Dr. Peters have written privately to the Pope explaining his concerns and asking the Pope for guidance? Whenever any so-called Liberal Catholics utter an implied criticism of the Hierarchy they are all but labelled Heretics but when a traditionalist does so it’s called “a learned perspective on the topic at hand”. No fear that his public questioning of the Pope’s actions could “provoke more issues for the faithful that it settles”? Maybe Dr. Peters could learn a little humility from Pope Francis.

 

[Lucky7]

Couldn’t Dr. Peters have written privately to the Pope explaining his concerns and asking the Pope for guidance? Whenever any so-called Liberal Catholics utter an implied criticism of the Hierarchy they are all but labelled Heretics but when a traditionalist does so it’s called “a learned perspective on the topic at hand”. No fear that his public questioning of the Pope’s actions could “provoke more issues for the faithful that it settles”? Maybe Dr. Peters could learn a little humility from Pope Francis.

Liberal Cahtolics are labelled heretics when they promote heretical views, such as gay marriage, female ordination, etc. When they criticize the heirarchy for things like covering up sexual abuse, I would argue they have every right to do so. The latter doesn’t make them heretics.

 

[opus101]

Why did Dr. Peters conveniently leave out information regarding the Pope’s ability to dispense with a rubrical detail for pastoral reasons? This is also a part of Canon Law.

Is it possible that some canon lawyers have been defending the law on this point so vigorously in the past, that they are embarrassed by the Pope’s licit actions, and are trying to protect their own reputations rather than admit that there can be exceptions to the rule?

In their refusal to admit their own fault, they impute fault on the Pope, either by direct statements or inference.

That is no small thing, and it foments division in the Church.

IMO it is wiser, and far more respectful, to let the Pope be Pope, and assume that God has a plan in these actions, and that, in the end, everything will turn out for the good.

No Canon Lawyer, no matter how well respected, is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

And you can obey every Canon Law on the books and still go to hell. Canon Law is not what saves us. I’m not saying that we need not obey it, nor am I saying that dispensations do not need to be sought before departing from it.

 

[jwinch2]

Couldn’t Dr. Peters have written privately to the Pope explaining his concerns and asking the Pope for guidance?

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.

Whenever any so-called Liberal Catholics utter an implied criticism of the Hierarchy they are all but labelled Heretics but when a traditionalist does so it’s called “a learned perspective on the topic at hand”. No fear that his public questioning of the Pope’s actions could “provoke more issues for the faithful that it settles”? Maybe Dr. Peters could learn a little humility from Pope Francis.

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.

 

[30miller]

Totally agree.

commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-traditionalists-have-point.html