Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: http://canonlawblog.word...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: canonlawblog.wordpress.com

It is from Dr. Ed Peters' Canon Law Blog In the Light of the Law.

I would also like to quote Dr. Peters' 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."

and his concluding paragraph:

"Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times."

I recommend all posters in this thread take a look at the article and read it carefully. It is in line with common sense.

--hide--
Thanks for the link Chelsea wave

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Bernard-2709 said: What does that mean
(Quote) Bernard-2709 said:

What does that mean

--hide--


I like Vatican II, is what it means. Face value. There is room within Vatican II for traditionalists (as long as they are still aligned) in my view point, and I am liking Pope Francis.

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: http://canonlawblog.word...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: canonlawblog.wordpress.com

It is from Dr. Ed Peters' Canon Law Blog In the Light of the Law.

I would also like to quote Dr. Peters' 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."

and his concluding paragraph:

"Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times."

I recommend all posters in this thread take a look at the article and read it carefully. It is in line with common sense.

--hide--


The use of the homily is not a good example.

The women at the Holy Thursday ceremony were recieving the foot washing, they were not giving it. Likewise, as Canon law stipulates, it is a priest who gives the Homily, it is women who with men, recieve it.



04/02/2013 new

I would suggest that those who have a problem with the comments of Rev. Feerico Lombardi (Vatican's chief spokesman) should take up the issue directly with the Vatican. It seems to me that they have the authorithy on this matter.


Ed

04/02/2013 new
(Quote) Amber-931533 said: Exactly. I am not a canon law expert nor do I feel it is my place to interpret canon law for the Pope. I trust ...
(Quote) Amber-931533 said:

Exactly. I am not a canon law expert nor do I feel it is my place to interpret canon law for the Pope. I trust the Holy Spirit and am very excited about Pope Francis and appreciate his demonstrative love and humility.

--hide--


I was really confused by the "I trust the Holy Spirit" comment. Because the Pope does something means that it's the will of the Holy Spirit? Popes makes mistakes all of the time, just like the rest of us. I don't agree with Popes, Cardinals, Bishops or Priests washing women or girls' feet on Holy Thursday for the simple fact that Jesus didn't. What was happening on Holy Thursday? The institution of the Eucharist. Jesus was teaching his future Bishops. Jesus saw everything that would happen throughout all of time and history, including this discussion. If he wanted women included in this tradition he would have been the first to wash their feet. NOTHING Christ did was without significance. I strongly recommend that everyone get a copy of "A Catechism of Modernism." Just because things are changing doesn't mean it's a good thing.
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: http://canonlawblog.word...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: canonlawblog.wordpress.com

It is from Dr. Ed Peters' Canon Law Blog In the Light of the Law.

I would also like to quote Dr. Peters' 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."

and his concluding paragraph:

"Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times."

I recommend all posters in this thread take a look at the article and read it carefully. It is in line with common sense.

--hide--

The artilce is technically correct, but completely misses the point.

Cardinal Lombardi's may be lame, but the simple fact is that the Pope holds a unique position in the Church. As such he can act contrary to a rule of Canon Law on his own authority at any time with no one's p[ermission needed nor is he constrained from doing so unless he has first published a change. It is by its nature neither a change in the law nor a precedent that anyone else can follow without appropriate authority.

Despite what the rubrics say, a few years ago Cardinal O'Malley was, in fact, given Vatican permission to allow the washing of women's feet as part of the ritual. That offical action by the Vatican was Precedent setting.

So even if someone wants to be a stickler and insist the Pope cannot do something outside the rubrics, they would still be wrong since the Vatican already had approved the practice with the implication that it is somnething the Ordinary of a Diocese can allow.

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I was really confused by the "I trust the Holy Spirit" comment. Because the Pope does...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said:

I was really confused by the "I trust the Holy Spirit" comment. Because the Pope does something means that it's the will of the Holy Spirit? Popes makes mistakes all of the time, just like the rest of us. I don't agree with Popes, Cardinals, Bishops or Priests washing women or girls' feet on Holy Thursday for the simple fact that Jesus didn't. What was happening on Holy Thursday? The institution of the Eucharist. Jesus was teaching his future Bishops. Jesus saw everything that would happen throughout all of time and history, including this discussion. If he wanted women included in this tradition he would have been the first to wash their feet. NOTHING Christ did was without significance. I strongly recommend that everyone get a copy of "A Catechism of Modernism." Just because things are changing doesn't mean it's a good thing.
--hide--

The point Christ was making in the washing of the feet had noithing directly to do with the establishment of the Eucharist.

Rather it had to do with His establishment of the priesthood. And His point was, that as Priests it was there duty to serve, not to be served. And that is the point of the ritual today as it has been since Christ first did it.

04/02/2013 new

I think there is a big difference between being all worried in week 3 what Pope Francis will do about the Latin mass (i.e. not continue to encourage it like Pope Benedict did), and what kind of example he will set concerning matters of liturgy.

I myself am bothered by the Holy Thursday events, for this reason: the rubrics say it is supposed to be 12 men.

www.usccb.org

Yes the Pope is the ultimate authority and he does not have to get anyone's permission (as any other church/diocese is supposed to do on this issue, as pointed out above). But the problem for me is that he sets an example by everything he does (just the same way he sets an example of humility and poverty by riding the bus, and living in 2 rooms instead of the papal apartment) and the example he set on Holy Thursday is implicitly giving a big OKAY to this practice.

I will bet $500 that next Holy Thursday that there are many more churches (than there are already doing this without any permission) taking up this practice, and pastors having to listen to parishioners say "why can't we", and capitulating, and that to me is not okay. By one "example" he opened up the floodgate on this practice that is contrary to the rubrics.

There are reasons for rules and rubrics, and I think the Pope should be the one to always enforce those, not make an exception for himself and thereby setting an example of noncompliance (without permission, for everyone besides him). I don't think it is a good idea.

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The artilce is technically correct, but completely misses the point. Cardinal Lomb...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The artilce is technically correct, but completely misses the point.

Cardinal Lombardi's may be lame, but the simple fact is that the Pope holds a unique position in the Church. As such he can act contrary to a rule of Canon Law on his own authority at any time with no one's p[ermission needed nor is he constrained from doing so unless he has first published a change. It is by its nature neither a change in the law nor a precedent that anyone else can follow without appropriate authority.

Despite what the rubrics say, a few years ago Cardinal O'Malley was, in fact, given Vatican permission to allow the washing of women's feet as part of the ritual. That offical action by the Vatican was Precedent setting.

So even if someone wants to be a stickler and insist the Pope cannot do something outside the rubrics, they would still be wrong since the Vatican already had approved the practice with the implication that it is somnething the Ordinary of a Diocese can allow.

--hide--


Paul,

There is no doubt that the Holy Father, as the master of Church Law, can dispense from the law as he chooses. Church Law is his law, and he is not bound by it in the same way his subjects are; he is only bound insofar as he wishes to bind himself. This is not the point of Dr. Peters' article.

The point is that the explanation is based upon fallacious logic: because the Maundy Thursday pedilavium ritual is not a sacrament, the action of the Pope is absolutely licit - and the Vatican Press Office press statement leads people to the belief that:

1) Circumstance defines liturgical practice.
2) Following this Church law detracts attention from the essence of the Gospel
and
3) that rubrics are understandable by (and ultimately applicable only to) “refined experts of liturgical rules”

04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The artilce is technically correct, but completely misses the point. Cardinal Lombardi'...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The artilce is technically correct, but completely misses the point.

Cardinal Lombardi's may be lame, but the simple fact is that the Pope holds a unique position in the Church. As such he can act contrary to a rule of Canon Law on his own authority at any time with no one's p[ermission needed nor is he constrained from doing so unless he has first published a change. It is by its nature neither a change in the law nor a precedent that anyone else can follow without appropriate authority.

Despite what the rubrics say, a few years ago Cardinal O'Malley was, in fact, given Vatican permission to allow the washing of women's feet as part of the ritual. That offical action by the Vatican was Precedent setting.

So even if someone wants to be a stickler and insist the Pope cannot do something outside the rubrics, they would still be wrong since the Vatican already had approved the practice with the implication that it is somnething the Ordinary of a Diocese can allow.

--hide--



Paul,

Your scholarship in this area is well past mine, so for the sake of this post I will assume that what you are saying is true.

I am sure you would concede that the Church is facing no small crisis today with Catholics everywhere (but particularly in the West) shrugging their shoulders and doing whatever they want, despite what the Church teaches; this includes clergy, who routinely adjust the rubrics of the Mass to suit their whim or the whims of the parishioners.

Would you not concede that if the Pope was able to do this as you say, it would have been far better for the Vatican to release a prepared statement either beforehand or immediately upon completion of the Mass with the warning that the Pope's actions are not to be taken as permission for priests and bishops everywhere to do the same? Must these issues always fall on the shoulders of concerned lay people?

Posts 21 - 30 of 78