Pope Francis washing feet -Question on liturgical abuses & abandoning tradition?

[LUVArchangelati]

Someone I know brought this issue to my attention a couple weeks ago & I haven’t gotten around to asking until now… I have read many comments and articles (most from uber-liberals) on the Holy Father’s choice to break with tradition & wash the feet of criminals, Muslims, (Orthodox) & (2) women. . .
most digress into ridiculous arguments about the (supposed) possibility of female priests, others say it was all symbolic so it doesn’t matter, and some say- he’s the Pope, he can do whatever the heck he wants!

It’s my understanding that this is not true- There is technically a distinction between papal authority, Solemn & Ordinary Infallibility (?) [This is why Pope Alexander VI’s personal actions (you might know him as the Borgia Pope) are to be considered separate from his Papal actions- yes, even he was infallible!] I’m not saying Pope Francis’ washing of the feet is the same as Pope Alexander’s controversies but… it’s important to remember that there is in fact a difference between doctrine & dogma and that the Pope (no matter who it is) will not be capable of changing the Church (unless it is God’s will) [though as we’ve all seen with Vatican II, priests & bishops can cause serious harm & abuses to the liturgy… though this doesn’t invalidate VII, just their false interpretations of it]…

Perhaps I am digressing now… I wanted to point out this for consideration…
The Congregation for Divine Worship’s PASCHALIS SOLLEMNITATIS includes the following-

"51. 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.[58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

I am reminded of the Fulton Sheen’s “A priest is not his own” … surely the same must be said for the pope as well (right?) A pope is not at liberty to change a doctrine or abandon a liturgical rubric because he fancies to do so (it must be divinely inspired and officially altered before he can publicly go against it -right?) … I have read all the protestant/progressive claims in defense of this and I’m not trying to attack Pope Francis … I’m just wondering…

What’s up with this? Is Ecumenism an adequate do-what-you-want excuse or does anyone else’s intuition tell them this is funky? If there is something theologically lacking, or significant reason to do so, surely the rubric should be changed officially before unofficially enacted - right? Otherwise isn’t this simply a liturgical abuse (no matter who it comes from)?]

Please note: I’m not asking about the obscure justifications used by the “progressive” protestants which are self proclaimed Catholics (I’m referring here to the liberals that see this as a welcomed move towards the heretical ideal of “female priests”)… I would like to know - does the pope have the authority to change any liturgical rite (in this case the Mandatum) without *first * doing so in an official capacity?

*If you still don’t understand what I’m asking - consider this … Prior to Vatican II, if a priest, bishop (or even a pope) decided to celebrate Mass in a vernacular language, (regardless of whether the ruling would be eventually changed or not) was that not justifiably considered heretical? …
I suppose I’ve long been skeptical of priests doing things for “in the spirit of” their beliefs rather than in conjunction with the Church… I think even Martin Luther used this claim… I’m not saying Pope Francis is a modern equivalent to that Protestant heretic but I don’t see it (alone) as a sufficient claim for the justification of ‘willy-nilly’ change. (Wow- I realize what a bitter cynic I must sound like … to anybody that does not know my undying loyalty to the Church…) I’m not saying the Holy Father’s actions were wrong (necessarily) - I’m just wondering if anybody can explain this more clearly? (without relying on the weak excuses aforementioned) Please - help me understand.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility, but rather with Biblical interpretation, pastoral application of some parts of relevant bits instead of or over or exclusive of others in certain situations, etc. The Pope had the authority to do what he did.

 

[otjm]

There are potentially any number of issues at play here, and I don’t pretend to know or understand them all. I will try to help a bit.

     "It's my understanding that this is not true- There is technically a distinction between papal authority, Solemn & Ordinary Infallibility (?) "

This has nothing to do with Solemn or Ordinary Infallibility. Infallibility has only to do with statements of Faith or Morals and this is neither. It has to do with discipline (as in law and rubrics - which are law).

     "A pope is not at liberty to change a doctrine or abandon a liturgical rubric because he fancies to do so (it must be divinely inspired and officially altered before he can publicly go against it -right?) "

Actually, that is not right. As to law, the Pope is the law giver. Under almost all circumstances, he is going to follow the law he and/or his predecessor(s) promulgated, but there is nothing absolutely requiring him to do so. And as noted, this is not doctrine. In fact, it is not even a required rubric on Holy Thursday; it is optional (and does not require 12, although that number is the most frequent number it would seem). And as to being divinely inspired, I will leave that to others but I know of no such teaching. I think prudence is the term that is usually associated with laws (e.g. Canon, rubrics, etc.).

also, the term “go against” is probably not correct as it would seem an opposite; this was not “opposite” but rather “different from in part”.

     "Is Ecumenism an adequate do-what-you-want excuse or does anyone else's intuition tell them this is funky? "

I suspect this is far from a “do what you want”; I also suspect that the Pope ws trying to teach us all something, and we are getting lost in a legalistic approach which is obfuscating what he is trying to teach.

     " If there is something theologically lacking, or significant reason to do so, surely the rubric should be changed officially before unofficially enacted - right? Otherwise isn't this simply a liturgical abuse (no matter who it comes from)?] "

Since he is the law giver, and the ultimate one to dispense from or modify the requirement, it cannot be an abuse. To be an abuse, there would have to be a higher law giver. There isn’t, as this is not a divinely inspired rubric - no matter what someone may posit. It is not part of Scripture or of Tradition, but rather part of tradition and as such is modifiable. and as for a single instance, no the law does not have to be officially modified.

Keep in mind he is a Jesuit, and the order has historically had exemptions to various laws; he is also strongly trained in Franciscan spirituality and that is another whole area of exemption/dispensation.

     "*If you still don't understand what I'm asking - consider this ... Prior to Vatican II, if a priest, bishop (or even a pope) decided to celebrate Mass in a vernacular language, (regardless of whether the ruling would be eventually changed or not) was that not justifiably considered heretical?"

No, not in the least,. Heresy has only to do with doctrine, and the vernacular or the use of an official language is not doctrinal in the least.

There are two general philosophies of law within the Roman rite; one is called Germanic, and the other is called Mediterranean.

The Germanic approach is encapsulated by “What is not permitted is forbidden”.

The Mediterranean is encapsulated by “Whatever is not prohibited is allowed”. Both can be taken to extremes (and in no way am I suggestging this was an extreme). It would appear that our Pope is closer in approach to the Mediterranean model. That is not an “anything goes” model, but it is far from absolutist. Most of the people who seem to be quite disturbed appear to also take the Germanic approach; there is room within the Church for both.

Bro. JR in another thread commented on some of what may be the "why’ that the Pope did what he did, and views it rom both a spiritual and a Gospel message position. Sorry, I do not have the citation; but it is in one of the longer threads and is well worth seeking out.

 

[Corki]

When it comes to the rubrics of the Mass, many - if not most- of them can be dispensed by the proper authority. The Pope is the ultimate authority on the Liturgy; there is no one he would go to that has authority over him. It’s not so much that “the rules don’t apply to him” but that he can dispense himself. He is not changing the rubric for anyone else, that would be done officially. He is just doing it for himself in that particular instance.

 

[porthos11]

It must be accepted that the Pope had the authority to do what he did. He is the Pope.
It does not, however, have to be accepted that it was wise or prudent to do so the way he did. Given how rampant disregard is for liturgical law, it may have been better for the Pope to legislate the change first, then do it. Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that while he did it licitly by virtue of his being the Pope, he may have unwittingly given ammo to those who are NOT the Pope to violate liturgical law (“Oh, see? The Pope himself did it, which means I can.”)

 

[MarkThompson]

He is not changing the rubric for anyone else, that would be done officially. He is just doing it for himself in that particular instance.

Although this is true in a juridical sense, like it or not it is nonetheless clear that he is signalling that this particular rubric is insignificant and does not really command obedience. I have long suspected that this rubric would be allowed to die the slow death of desuetude rather than be repealed formally. I would only expect to see it officially gone whenever the 4th Edition of the Missale Romanum comes out, which may be decades from now.

 

[otjm]

It must be accepted that the Pope had the authority to do what he did. He is the Pope.
It does not, however, have to be accepted that it was wise or prudent to do so the way he did. Given how rampant disregard is for liturgical law, it may have been better for the Pope to legislate the change first, then do it. Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that while he did it licitly by virtue of his being the Pope, he may have unwittingly given ammo to those who are NOT the Pope to violate liturgical law (“Oh, see? The Pope himself did it, which means I can.”)

And the sad part of that is those same people may not have a clue what the Pope was trying to teach.

Oh how I wish I had marked Bro. JR’s comments.

 

[PJM]

=LUVArchangelati;10609568]Someone I know brought this issue to my attention a couple weeks ago & I haven’t gotten around to asking until now… I have read many comments and articles (most from uber-liberals) on the Holy Father’s choice to break with tradition & wash the feet of criminals, Muslims, (Orthodox) & (2) women. . .
most digress into ridiculous arguments about the (supposed) possibility of female priests, others say it was all symbolic so it doesn’t matter, and some say- he’s the Pope, he can do whatever the heck he wants!

It’s my understanding that this is not true- There is technically a distinction between papal authority, Solemn & Ordinary Infallibility (?) [This is why Pope Alexander VI’s personal actions (you might know him as the Borgia Pope) are to be considered separate from his Papal actions- yes, even he was infallible!] I’m not saying Pope Francis’ washing of the feet is the same as Pope Alexander’s controversies but… it’s important to remember that there is in fact a difference between doctrine & dogma and that the Pope (no matter who it is) will not be capable of changing the Church (unless it is God’s will) [though as we’ve all seen with Vatican II, priests & bishops can cause serious harm & abuses to the liturgy… though this doesn’t invalidate VII, just their false interpretations of it]…

Perhaps I am digressing now… I wanted to point out this for consideration…
The Congregation for Divine Worship’s PASCHALIS SOLLEMNITATIS includes the following-

"51. 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.[58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

I am reminded of the Fulton Sheen’s “A priest is not his own” … surely the same must be said for the pope as well (right?) A pope is not at liberty to change a doctrine or abandon a liturgical rubric because he fancies to do so (it must be divinely inspired and officially altered before he can publicly go against it -right?) … I have read all the protestant/progressive claims in defense of this and I’m not trying to attack Pope Francis … I’m just wondering…

What’s up with this? Is Ecumenism an adequate do-what-you-want excuse or does anyone else’s intuition tell them this is funky? If there is something theologically lacking, or significant reason to do so, surely the rubric should be changed officially before unofficially enacted - right? Otherwise isn’t this simply a liturgical abuse (no matter who it comes from)?]

Please note: I’m not asking about the obscure justifications used by the “progressive” protestants which are self proclaimed Catholics (I’m referring here to the liberals that see this as a welcomed move towards the heretical ideal of “female priests”)… I would like to know - does the pope have the authority to change any liturgical rite (in this case the Mandatum) without *first * doing so in an official capacity?

*If you still don’t understand what I’m asking - consider this … Prior to Vatican II, if a priest, bishop (or even a pope) decided to celebrate Mass in a vernacular language, (regardless of whether the ruling would be eventually changed or not) was that not justifiably considered heretical? …
I suppose I’ve long been skeptical of priests doing things for “in the spirit of” their beliefs rather than in conjunction with the Church… I think even Martin Luther used this claim… I’m not saying Pope Francis is a modern equivalent to that Protestant heretic but I don’t see it (alone) as a sufficient claim for the justification of ‘willy-nilly’ change. (Wow- I realize what a bitter cynic I must sound like … to anybody that does not know my undying loyalty to the Church…) I’m not saying the Holy Father’s actions were wrong (necessarily) - I’m just wondering if anybody can explain this more clearly? (without relying on the weak excuses aforementioned) Please - help me understand.

You seem informed

Do you not understand the difference in a church PRACTICE and a Doctrine or Dogma?

PRACTICES CAN BE CHANGED!

Did Pope Francis NOT MODEL CHRIST and charity for the world in this acrion:shrug:

PLEASE don’t let others do YOUR thinking and tell us what WE BELEIVE! AMEN!

 

[Megan7]

This has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility, but rather with Biblical interpretation, pastoral application of some parts of relevant bits instead of or over or exclusive of others in certain situations, etc. The Pope had the authority to do what he did.

 

[catholictiger]

The Pope is the shepherd of rome, and the ordinary I guess you could say of rome. He as Bishop of rome has every power to do what he wants with the red so to speak as Father Z likes to do (do the red say the black). Every Bishop has the power to change liturgical practices if he chooses he is the chief liturgist the head of the diocese and so on and so forth. While yes the rubrics say only to wash the feet of men Bishops have the authority to change that if they so choose to. Only think bishops really can’t do is things that would make the mass invalid.

now I don’t know if I can back this up with documentation but people I trust talk in this way. A bishop being a descendent of the apostles has the power and rightly should to be the chief liturgist for his diocese meaning he can decide things that may not be in the red.

 

[Alan55]

Don’t you think that it’s a bit much to accuse Pope Francis I of liturgical abuse over foot washing? Foot washing is not a sacrament, and no dogma or even doctrine is implicated in foot washing. It is a mere rubric. Pope Francis may have bucked years of tradition, but I doubt very much that he’s done anything wrong whatsoever.

 

[OraLabora]

I really don’t see the point of this thread. This issue has been beaten to death here on this forum. There really was no need to start another thread on this.

 

[Corki]

The Pope is the shepherd of rome, and the ordinary I guess you could say of rome. He as Bishop of rome has every power to do what he wants with the red so to speak as Father Z likes to do (do the red say the black). Every Bishop has the power to change liturgical practices if he chooses he is the chief liturgist the head of the diocese and so on and so forth. While yes the rubrics say only to wash the feet of men Bishops have the authority to change that if they so choose to. Only think bishops really can’t do is things that would make the mass invalid.

now I don’t know if I can back this up with documentation but people I trust talk in this way. A bishop being a descendent of the apostles has the power and rightly should to be the chief liturgist for his diocese meaning he can decide things that may not be in the red.

You are basically right on the Pope but not quite on the Bishops. Once a liturgical rubric has been approved, not even a Bishop can change it on his own accord. He can request that a variant be approved by the Vatican or he can dictate from among choices already in the Missal. But he can’t ignore a rubric or make up a new one.

 

[Joe_5859]

When it comes to the rubrics of the Mass, many - if not most- of them can be dispensed by the proper authority. The Pope is the ultimate authority on the Liturgy; there is no one he would go to that has authority over him. It’s not so much that “the rules don’t apply to him” but that he can dispense himself. He is not changing the rubric for anyone else, that would be done officially. He is just doing it for himself in that particular instance.

I don’t understand why this has been such a source for commentary.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

Making false accusations against anyone is very serious. It is more serious when it is against the Roman Pontiff. CAF will not endorse or allow such accusations to be made on our forums. Please inform yourselves before posting.

Also, please read sticky “Pope Watch”