F
fre803
Guest
I think that there are a number of options in the novus ordo that are too-often abused and await courageous priests to eliminate them.
- Status
F
FAB
Guest
I know many disagree, but my Diocese follows:
As a result our parish has the entire community take part. It is a wonderful moment to truly teach “what I have done, you must also do” in the sense of service to each other.
P
pnewton
Guest
Two things. First, where this line is may be clear, especially to a canon lawyer, but if a clarification is not issued, who decides in the absence of a statement from the Vatican what is a change and an implementation? By introducing this distinction, all we do is move up the language one level, while the principle is unchanged.
Finally, unless one asks, how does one know if such permission has been given? I thought the Catechism teaches us that in each and every circumstance we are to avoid rash judgment by assuming the most favorable understanding of the actions of others. If we are to do this with each other, should we not do so with our leaders?
P
pnewton
Guest
An exactly whom is the Pope disobeying? To whom does he owe obedience?
F
fre803
Guest
That objection is more forceful in the abstract than it is in this particular instance. Wherever the line might be drawn, this is an easy case. The rubric says “viri selecti”; washing the feet of viri selecti is implementation; washing the feet of people who are not viri selecti is change. It’s straightforward. Where the Church means “anyone,” she knows how to say that (e.g. Canon 912: “Quilibet baptizatus”). Where the Church means “laity,” she knows how to say that (e.g. Canon 224: “Christifideles laici”). Where the Church wants to refer to “persons,” generically, she knows how to say that (e.g. Canon 1086 §1: “Matrimonium inter duas personas”). And when she wants to refer to men specifically and women specifically, she knows how to say that, too (e.g. Canon 1083 § 1: “Vir ante decimum sextum aetatis annum completum, mulier ante decimum quartum item completum, matrimonium valide inire non possunt”). Vir means man. Not anyone, not layperson, not person, but man. I regret that. I would change it. But it says what it says, it is absolutely clear in what it says, and it demands obedience.
The Church: The laws of the Church, the liturgical tradition of the Church, and, insofar as he is creating scandal and division, the faith of the Church. If Francis thinks the rubric is stupid, he should change it, not simply disobey it.
P
pnewton
Guest
“The Church” is not a person. As this is not a matter of faith and morals, there is nothing in “The Church” that is greater in authority than the Pope when it comes to matters of discipline.
The Holy Father is teaching. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
P
pnewton
Guest
And this too is yet an opinion. From this, we cannot escape. We have an authority structure in the Church. “Sola canon law”, “sola GIRM” “sola Tradition” makes considerably less sense than its erroneous cousin, sola scriptura.
F
fre803
Guest
And for that reason, if Francis simply changed the rubric, no one could gainsay that choice. But he didn’t. He simply disobeyed it. And that has consequences, which brings me to your second point:
I certainly agree that Francis was teaching. He was teaching “if you don’t like the rules, you can just ignore them.” He was teaching: “today is the day of the dissenter.” He was teaching (to invert a t-shirt popular when our beloved pope-Emeritus, his holiness Pope Benedict the Great was elected, that “the cafeteria is open again.” It was a bad move that inaugurated a papacy that has (and this, by contrast to what I’ve said above, really is just opinion) yet to make a good move. It was arrogant, willful, prideful, scandalous in the ordinary sense, and arguably scandalous in the technical sense. It should not have been done, but because it was done, it is incumbent on all faithful “sons”—and daughters—“of the Church” to step in as did the Sons of Noah in Genesis 9:21 et seq. and to make clear that the rubric says viri selecti and that the disobedience of one man does not license disobedience on the part of any other man.
P
pnewton
Guest
He is teaching as did the Master that Man was not made for the Sabbath, or any other rules. Not that rules are not important, just that they aren’t transcendent. There were Pharisees then that refused to accept any violation of a rule. Did they worship God or the rules? Do we love God, or stuff about God? The Pharisees then did not get the difference even in the presence of God. Can we learn from their error?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Limiting ourselves to this particular topic: the text is clear enough “viri selecti” It’s obvious on its face that including women in the rite is a violation of the rubrics. And frankly, no one disputes that. I’ve never once encountered anyone (not anyone in a position to know better, surely not any bishop) who defended the practice by saying “this is a legitimate reading of the rubrics in the missal.” Instead, the position is always defended (if at all) by saying things like “this is what the ritual means or intends.”
Keep in mind that a different topic (one not so clear) might very well be very different situation.
More about that in my final paragraph…
Again, limiting ourselves to this topic.
If such permission had been granted by Rome, that could only happen if a bishop actually requested such permission. Think of it this way: any bishop who would make an effort to ask for a dispensation would surely share that fact openly–at the very least with his pastors. After all, why ask for the permission if he’s not going to tell the pastors that he was given permission? Not-doing-so is plain illogical. How long would it take for that information to get out there to the public? The idea that permission of that sort would somehow be kept secret just doesn’t make any sense. Do you see what I mean here?
We (meaning the general Catholic public nationwide who follow this sort of thing) know that a certain Cardinal in Boston (whose name I won’t mention out of respect, since I don’t want to make this about him personally) did ask for, and did receive, such permission. Think of how widespread that information has become. Next ask yourself “if my own bishop had such permission for his diocese, what is the likelihood that I did not hear about it?” I don’t know you personally, but knowing you from CAF, I gather you’re rather informed about what happens in your diocese. Do you think it would have happened, but you never heard about it? No one mentioned it to you? I don’t see that as very likely. Yes, there is the “benefit of the doubt” but that’s not meant to stretch the limits of reason.
And let’s get back to the Good Cardinal…realize that the very fact that he asked for permission, and that permission was given tells us 2 very important things. 1. The Cardinal realized that to act on his own would be to act beyond his own competence—and that’s saying quite a bit, given that he’s a Cardinal. 2. The Holy See by granting that permission (rather than saying “you don’t need it”) expressed the fact that such permission is indeed needed.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I would suggest some caution here. Unless he told us that he intended to teach anything by what he did, we should not be ascribing any motivation to his choice. Was he teaching us to be Christ-like by presiding at the Holy Thursday services? Of course. Was he teaching us about rubrics by deciding whose feet to wash? I think not, since he made not public statements to that effect.
O
otjm
Guest
I learned it from a Canon Law professor. So if either you or Father David have an issue with it, the issue is not with me. I have also heard it from other sources which are Church related, and it came up in a law school class in international law. It may well be that people are not familiar with the principle, but that is not proof that it is not factual. As I noted, Americans in general tend to take a very Germanic approach to law.
Like Father David, I would appreciate it if Rome were to respond to a long standing issue, as it obviously aggravates a significant number of people. On the other hand, given the current administration, some might argue that leaving things alone could be the better approach. Father David’s comment about eliminating it may be the best approach; it interrupts the normal flow of the liturgy and no matter which side is taken, people are going to be unhappy. Just different people.
As the principle is well known in law, there is no confusion there; the confusion is with those who have never heard of it.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That may be the case, but it has no application in interpreting liturgical norms.
With regard to canon law, it still doesn’t apply because the Code itself says that laws which bind are interpreted strictly, while laws which loose are interpreted broadly.
I’m not doubting that it’s true. I never doubted it or disputed it. I’m saying that it has no actual application or relevance when it comes to the Church’s liturgical norms.
O
otjm
Guest
Wht the professor taught and Cardinal Arinze’s comment, as well as 25 years of silence in the face of practice, and 48 years of silence about holding hands during the Our Father are all to the contrary. So we can agree to disagree. It seems time to move on to another topic.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No. I won’t agree to disagree. What you keep posting has nothing to do with how liturgical laws (insert words like “norms” or “rubrics”) are interpreted in the Catholic Church.
It’s a bit of trivia and it might make some interesting conversation about different approaches to law (all of that I readily admit), but when you say (as you often do) that this bit of trivia has any bearing on liturgical laws, it’s misleading and downright false. It is not how rubrics are interpreted. No matter how many times you post it, it still won’t be true.
F
FAB
Guest
An excellent article on the subject form NCR:
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/when-pope-francis-washes-womens-feet-arguments-follow-whos-right
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/when-pope-francis-washes-womens-feet-arguments-follow-whos-right
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
They don’t say where the information originated, but PrayTell Blog is reporting:
This just in:
The 12 people who will have their feet washed by Pope Francis include 9 Italians, 1 Muslim from Libya, a young man from Cape Verde, and an Ethiopian woman. There will be 9 men and 3 women aged 16-86. Source]
This just in:
The 12 people who will have their feet washed by Pope Francis include 9 Italians, 1 Muslim from Libya, a young man from Cape Verde, and an Ethiopian woman. There will be 9 men and 3 women aged 16-86. Source]
- Status