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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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

Apr 10th 2013 new

When Pope Francis gets the protestants to notice his humility and holiness, we Catholics are in a far better place. We have been bashed in the press for so long, it's about time reporters noticed something good in the Catholic Church, especially with the Pope. I can only hope that more good things will be coming as time passes. No one seems to be concerned with what the traditionalits think. I know I don't!

Apr 11th 2013 new

I figure we have a near perfect Pope when the ultra conservatives don't like him because he's too liberal, the liberals don't like him because he's too conservative, and the average Catholic says "I should go to confession more because of him"! From all accounts everything he's doing in the Papacy is much like what he did in Argentina, and the Cardinal Electors would have known this about him; and Cardinal Electors were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Apr 11th 2013 new

I was not pleased because it appears that a rule was deliberately broken. The rubrics call for men to be selected. I would be more accepting of the Holy Father changing the rule and then doing it. If I establish rules in my home and then don't follow them (Dad has the "right" to do that) I'm sending a message that the rules don't have to be followed. We have many priests breaking many rules. If a priest tries to follow the rubrics on the mandatum (simply because he strives to be obedient) those opposed to the rubrics can say, "Even the pope doesn't follow that stupid rule." The vast majority of instances in the clergy scandal involved priests and teenage boys (homosexuality). That means we ordained a lot of men that were attracted to men, albeit young men. That is in direct violation of "rules," too.

I haven't heard that criticism of the action addressed when people challenge the traditionalists for being disappointed, but I think it is the biggest concern. Its funny that the trads were characterized as wanting pomp. I have never heard my most trad friends asking for more pomp. Soem of them are big on reverence and obedience, though.

Apr 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Bob-945720 said: I was not pleased because it appears that a rule was deliberately broken. The rubrics call for men ...
(Quote) Bob-945720 said:

I was not pleased because it appears that a rule was deliberately broken. The rubrics call for men to be selected. I would be more accepting of the Holy Father changing the rule and then doing it. If I establish rules in my home and then don't follow them (Dad has the "right" to do that) I'm sending a message that the rules don't have to be followed. We have many priests breaking many rules. If a priest tries to follow the rubrics on the mandatum (simply because he strives to be obedient) those opposed to the rubrics can say, "Even the pope doesn't follow that stupid rule." The vast majority of instances in the clergy scandal involved priests and teenage boys (homosexuality). That means we ordained a lot of men that were attracted to men, albeit young men. That is in direct violation of "rules," too.

I haven't heard that criticism of the action addressed when people challenge the traditionalists for being disappointed, but I think it is the biggest concern. Its funny that the trads were characterized as wanting pomp. I have never heard my most trad friends asking for more pomp. Soem of them are big on reverence and obedience, though.

--hide--

The Vatican left it up to the local Bishop to decide several, years ago. It did so in reply to a request by Cardinal O'Malley of Boston but the waiver applies to the whole Church. So the rubrics were changed. The fact that it has yet to be included in the Roman Missal is immaterial.+

Apr 11th 2013 new

(Quote) : The point is that Jesus was making priests .... There is a reason why Jesus did the feet washing on Holy Thursday...
(Quote) :

The point is that Jesus was making priests .... There is a reason why Jesus did the feet washing on Holy Thursday. If he didn't intend for this to be linked to the priesthood then he would have done this on a different day. Everything he said and did was significant. And I personally trust the years and years of tradition where only the men's feet were washed over this relatively new, wanting to be inclusive to everyone, watering down of our beautiful Catholic faith.
--hide--



Why does the mere fact of being biologically male entitle a man to have his feet washed? Yes, only men can become priests ... if they are single or widowed, and mentally competent. Why do married men have their feet washed? Can a celibate male homosexual praying and working to become heterosexual become a priest? No. Is someone going to announce from the pulpit in the week before Holy Week for married men, male homosexuals and males with mental disabilities (Downs Syndrome, alcohol-induced brain damage, stroke-induced mental impairment, etc.) to please self-select themselves out of the ceremony (as refusal of permission to participate may embarrass or offend) because none of them can sensibly symbolise the priesthood as none of them can become priests?



It's up to the Magisterium to interpret whether the 'simple' fact that Jesus only washed the feet of men destined to become bishops in his Church (we might leave aside the question of whether Judas Iscariot had his feet washed and, if so, what does that mean) leads to the simple conclusion that only lay males should have their feet washed. And why lay males? After all, if we go by the identities of the participants in the upper room, the ritual can just as easily be taken to mean that ecclesiastical authority is given for serving and not for lording it over people, ie., the pope should only be washing the feet of cardinals, bishops and priests as a lesson to them, bishops should only be washing the feet of priests as a lesson to them and priests should be washing ... well, nobody's feet because ... well ... there's nobody left unless you count deacons as possessing authority over the laity.




But that's apparently not how the Magisterium has interpreted the facts of what went on in the upper room. It has allowed lay males, who have no special authority per se in the church, to have their feet washed because, apparently, the lesson to be drawn is about service in general. If it can interpret the ritual to be one of service between lay people, and not just between ecclesiastics and the lay, why can't it extend the ritual to women or Muslims?



Anyway, seeing that women seem to do most of the non-ecclesiastical work in the parish, and pretty well know all about service, is the idea of restricting the ritual to males meant to elbow-nudge them discreetly into doing a bit more, hmm?

Apr 11th 2013 new

Faith without works is dead. Faith with works is alive because the purpose of faith is to be manifested or set apart/made holy in good works. I guess in that sense, the manifestation or setting aside of gravel in the parking lot, according to its purpose, makes it holy/alive as opposed to pieces of it thrown by hoodlums through the glass of your living room windows ---- as those latter pieces of gravel weren't created and set aside for the purpose of becoming part of your floor furnishings.


Gravel doesn't have free will. Angels, demons and humans do, and 'you make all things holy' needs to be read in the light of the principle that God respects an intelligent being's exercise of free will to cooperate (or not) with God in becoming holy.


Is Satan holy? His intellect and personality aren't but the eternal life or animating force in him is as sacred to God as the eternal life or animating force in you or me. God can but won't withdraw it because (we have to believe as an article of faith, I suppose) that Satan in his free will wishes to stay alive even though he knows the fate that awaits him. If we choose not to believe this proposition, we will, to be consistent, have to believe in the possibility that Satan can repent. Because Satan chooses to stay alive (just as he chooses not to repent), he cannot be extinguished by the only person who can do so.

Apr 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Pat-5351 said: This is interesting; didn't know about the new translation changes: The rubric found in th...
(Quote) Pat-5351 said:

This is interesting; didn't know about the new translation changes:

The rubric found in the Sacrementary used to read:

"Depending on pastoral circumstance, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at 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." The new translation of the Roman Missal contain the same directive:

"The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place. Then the Priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each one, and, with the help of the ministers, pours water over each one’s feet and then dries them." The Latin for "the men who have been chosen" is "viri selecti." It is important to note that while "men" can be read in English as mankind, the Latin word viri cannot be similarly generalized. Its meaning means unambiguously male persons. The Latin word homo could have been used to indicate a gender-neutral "mankind," but it was not. The rubric is clear; only men should have their feet washed by the priest so as to give the faithful. Source: causafinitaest.blogspot.com

--hide--



How come that only Pat's message - as far as I could read into the thread- seems to be the only quotation about the actual subject?
The subject is: "Pope's washing of women feet during Holy Thursday is against Canonical Law." It's not about 'nice traditions', about Vatican II, about other pope's opinions, about 'being nice'. Bible and Tradition work together here and we cannot just quote a saying of Jesus, or some action or letter from other Popes. It is the Church's authority that defines, by Law and by ordinances like the Sacramentary. It really annoys me how people can go and quote something that seems to legitimate their own opinion (whether contra or pro).

I think Pat's addition here didn't get enough attention. What do you all think about this statement?

In my POV, I have a doubt about the 'viri'. This term is not a definition, it's just a subject of the sentence. There is no "it should be men", there is "men's feet" will be washed. If the sex of 'viri' is that important, then it's even more important that chairs are used. So if the men are in a church pew, or in choirseats, the ritual is also illegitimate.

Of course we can say a lot. And I do agree that choosing men is the best way because of the connection with Eucharist and Priesthood (but married men can't also be priests... but their feet can be washed?). The Church, however, is also about pointing to the 'more' of God and if our Pope decides (with -again, IMHO- no prohibition) to accentuate that Christ's serving was for all people -and maybe that all people are made as 'a royal priesthood', then let him do that.

The worst thing in this whole thread, I think, is creating disharmony inside the Church and openly critizing the Pope. Please realize that there are main cases and lesser cases - our faithfulness to the Pope is the most important in this time of the world.

Apr 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Frank-901618 said: How come that only Pat's message - as far as I could read into the thread- seems ...
(Quote) Frank-901618 said:




How come that only Pat's message - as far as I could read into the thread- seems to be the only quotation about the actual subject?
The subject is: "Pope's washing of women feet during Holy Thursday is against Canonical Law." It's not about 'nice traditions', about Vatican II, about other pope's opinions, about 'being nice'. Bible and Tradition work together here and we cannot just quote a saying of Jesus, or some action or letter from other Popes. It is the Church's authority that defines, by Law and by ordinances like the Sacramentary. It really annoys me how people can go and quote something that seems to legitimate their own opinion (whether contra or pro).

I think Pat's addition here didn't get enough attention. What do you all think about this statement?

In my POV, I have a doubt about the 'viri'. This term is not a definition, it's just a subject of the sentence. There is no "it should be men", there is "men's feet" will be washed. If the sex of 'viri' is that important, then it's even more important that chairs are used. So if the men are in a church pew, or in choirseats, the ritual is also illegitimate.

Of course we can say a lot. And I do agree that choosing men is the best way because of the connection with Eucharist and Priesthood (but married men can't also be priests... but their feet can be washed?). The Church, however, is also about pointing to the 'more' of God and if our Pope decides (with -again, IMHO- no prohibition) to accentuate that Christ's serving was for all people -and maybe that all people are made as 'a royal priesthood', then let him do that.

The worst thing in this whole thread, I think, is creating disharmony inside the Church and openly critizing the Pope. Please realize that there are main cases and lesser cases - our faithfulness to the Pope is the most important in this time of the world.

--hide--

Hi Frank,

I think it also interesting that no one has made note of the fact that these things can be changed in two ways: By the Holy See (which is technically the Pope because he sits in the seat of the Holy See) or by a two thirds vote of the Bishops with a follow up approval by the Holy See. While there are others involved in governance in the Holy See and operate to advise, the Pope is the final word on it. I think the Pope operated appropriately within his authority.

Posts 71 - 78 of 78