Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Marian-83994 said: Personally I do not see this as connected to liturgy and the priesthood. Maybe I am m...
(Quote) Marian-83994 said:




Personally I do not see this as connected to liturgy and the priesthood. Maybe I am missing this, But I know that our current pope also washed the feet of some HIV positive persons. That does not mean our liturgy must have HIV positive people or that these same folks should be who is to become ordained. Calm down. I think this is a separate case and a separate issue. I think the pope is trying to teach us to serve, not setting a precedent for who can be on the altar.

Lets not derive what is not there from something a bit different.

--hide--


Marian, it's not whether or not you see it as connected to the priesthood, the fact is that it is connected and intended to allude to the priesthood. That isn't subjective, that is what that ceremony is about. You really don't have a right to act like it means nothing and tell us to "calm down" when we are apparently knowledgeable about this. I recommend you learn about the ceremony and how it came about and what it has meant all these years to the Church. It's an objective fact and always has been that it is a reinactment of what Christ did for the apostles and the apostles alone.

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Marian-83994 said: Personally I do not see this as connected to liturgy and the priesthood. Maybe I am m...
(Quote) Marian-83994 said:




Personally I do not see this as connected to liturgy and the priesthood. Maybe I am missing this, But I know that our current pope also washed the feet of some HIV positive persons. That does not mean our liturgy must have HIV positive people or that these same folks should be who is to become ordained. Calm down. I think this is a separate case and a separate issue. I think the pope is trying to teach us to serve, not setting a precedent for who can be on the altar.

Lets not derive what is not there from something a bit different.

--hide--


Marian, it's not whether or not you see it as connected to the priesthood, the fact is that it is connected and intended to allude to the priesthood. That isn't subjective, that is what that ceremony is about. You really don't have a right to act like it means nothing and tell us to "calm down" when we are apparently knowledgeable about this. I recommend you learn about the ceremony and how it came about and what it has meant all these years to the Church. It's an objective fact and always has been that it is a reinactment of what Christ did for the apostles and the apostles alone.

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: ... the Pope ignoring it was not prudent:
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: ... the Pope ignoring it was not prudent:
--hide--


But did he ignore it? Do we know for certain, assuming that he is allowed to do so, that he did not issue a personal indult to himself (say, to be effective only for the duration of the mass in the jail)? Does an indult have to be a written document? Can it take the form of a clear verbal expression by the Pope to suitable official witnesses?


Still, if he did issue an exception for himself, should he have done so? A law (or rubric or regulation) is only as worthy as the the moral reasons for its existence but violating it or ignoring it should not be contemplated if to do so will cause more harm than good. In some cases, even a 'bad' law should be honoured until it can be properly changed.


If we believe:

that admitting women to the feet-washing ceremony, especially women in jail ('set the prisoners free' and all that Isaiah stuff), is a good thing


that it would be a good thing for the world to see the pope washing the feet of some members of the uncouth, unruly, uneducated and probably unholy underclass, the category that should probably sit at the back of the synagogue beating their breasts because they would have nothing to congratulate themselves about while sitting at the front


that the next opportunity to do this after all the i s are dotted and t s are crossed won't be until next year, if the bureaucracy doesn't sit on the idea for longer


then it's probably quite reasonable for the leader of this organisation to use his leadership discretion in favour of acting quickly and acting now. Leaders are expected to follow the rules but sometimes, for the greater good as they so see it, they are expected to act quickly to bend (ie. make defensible exemptions from) them.



Did Jesus come to break the Old Testament? No, he came, he says, to fulfill it. Along the way, he permitted his disciples to pluck and eat corn on the Sabbath (although he himself seems not to have done the same) and he performed 'works' of healing also on the Sabbath. Why? For the greater good, the Sabbath not being a value in itself but only valued for its help to those who believe in God. As for whether the rules were bent or broken, we only have Jesus' word that not a jot or tittle of the Law will pass away. I guess that means the laws were bent rather than broken. (Even so, Peter had a vision (from God) that he was allowed to eat, among other things, pigs. Even though that looks rather like a breaking of the dietary laws, I guess it's probably just a bending, although how you're going to explain this as such is bound to be interesting to an Old Testament Jew.)




So, the question of whether the 'selecti viri' rule is still a good one in this day and age, a question of whether the 'men only' rubric is made for men or whether men are made for the rubric, is actually quite important to the question of whether Pope Francis acted imprudently. Obedience to a holy law is holy because the reasons for the law, being holy, are valid. Obedience to a law made defective because the reasons are no longer valid is holy if disobedience will cause disorder, the Holy Spirit being a spirit or order. If there is no harm in the way in which the law is avoided, why should there be an impediment?


I guess, from previous performance in washing feet in Buenos Aires, this Pope thinks it's time for the 'men only' idea to go. Perhaps, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, by a written or perhaps only a verbal assertion of his will as Pope to permit himself as Bishop of Rome to wash the feet of a female (not necessarily a menber of the flock) and a Muslim (definitely not a member of the flock!) living within his diocese, he was only bending the rubric, not breaking it. And only bending it for himself (as a moral example) until, after the proper processes are followed, it can be changed for the church in general. So, every one else should follow the rubric until it is properly changed, unless they receive an exemption.



Of course, for those who think proper study of the matter indicate that the 'men only' rule should never be changed, the Pope hasn't only acted imprudently but quite against the Holy Spirit. The stakes are quite high when one seeks to criticise some of the things that a pope does because in those things, you're not merely saying the the pope is making a mistake; you're also saying that in doing so, he must in some way, if only for a moment, have been removed from under the umbrella of the Holy Spirit and handed over to Satan. Perhaps we should follow a presumption that a Pope never does anything that will harm the church and if something he does seems puzzling, we should first search for all the possible reasons as to why he may be correct before giving in to the in-built human urge to pick a bone.




LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) Linda-624584 said: This I guess according to your "viewpoint&q...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
Linda-624584 said:

This I guess according to your "viewpoint" my Priest and many in my area "think women and children should be ordained", and they "don't understand what the liturgy represents."

I'll be sure to questioned him tonight before he washes the feet of the female elect.


The issue isn't whether it is theologically appropriate to wash the feet of women or children; it is about ignoring the law that is in effect.

Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer who serves as a consultant to the Vatican, addresses this incident in his blog. While he personally believes theMandatum should not be restricted to men only, he points out that the law at this point in time is very clear on that restriction and, that given the present law, the Pope ignoring it was not prudent:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com

--hide--



Hi Jerry et alia,

Peters writes:

"By disregarding his own law in this matter, Francis violates, of course, no divine directive, nor does he—to anticipate an obvious question—achieve the abrogation of a law which, as it happens, I would not mind seeing abrogated. What he does do, I fear, is set a questionable example at Supper time."

Notwithstanding Peters's analogy between dads,dinnertime habits, and Francis's washing of female feet, even Peters regards Francis's actions as "... inspiring although, granted, I do not have to deal with complications for others being caused by the pope’s simplicity."

Honestly, there are far more important things to worry about.

Jim ☺

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Peters writes:"By disregarding his own law in this...
(Quote) James-17080 said:


Peters writes:

"By disregarding his own law in this matter, Francis violates, of course, no divine directive,

--hide--


Ah, the weasibility of words or, more to the point, the difference between words and meaning.



The words are probably true enough, I suppose. There probably is no formal written commandment in Scripture or Tradition that says specifically a pope must not disregard the formal laws of the Church because if there were, a sanction would have to be applied to the pope to prevent him from doing so. This flies in the face of the accepted notion that the Pontiff is Supreme. You can't apply a sanction to a Supreme because that would make him not supreme. You can't fire the guy or declare him mentally incompetent. You can only declare him dead but that's only reporting the existence of a fact that was created by God, as opposed to you yourself creating the fact of terminating his employment.



However, if the Holy Church, the Body of Christ in every location of the material universe, makes a law, surely it's God's law until, in its privilege
to bind and loose, the Holy Church changes it. So, if someone says that Francis is disregarding a church law, surely that someone is saying that Francis is being disobedient to a general understanding held by both God and Church that the Church represents God’s will to anyone who may be living in any location of the material universe. A general understanding is not a directive but it is meant to be directive. If Francis is disregarding
a church law, he must be in a state of disobedience to God’s will. Big thing to say! Especially when you're saying it (and where is your charism to say these things, my dear, hmmmmm?)



How should you express your concern about something the Pope has done? Is he ‘wrong’? Can the Vicar (stand-in, deputy) of Christ be ‘wrong’? Was the Holy Spirit deliberately influencing two-thirds of 115 good and wise men to pick a dud for some long-term strategic reason maybe? Anyway, how do you deliberately influence two-thirds of 115 good and wise men to pick a dud without, in some sense, clouding their minds or
playing some trick on them - in other words, treating them as tools rather than as images of God in their own right? Would the Holy Spirit do that?



I guess you express your concern by using words that state what the Pope has done in this or that case and then using words that wonder about how that accords with your understanding of what the Church is about. "The Pope is probably correct but I'm puzzled ...." To do otherwise is to imply that the Holy Spirit influenced a conclave of men with intentions to do the right thing to do the opposite, which seems to be a calumny against the Holy Spirit, or that the majority of men in the conclave acted stupidly or corruptly, ie., outside the wishes of the Holy Spirit, which seems to be a calumny against, at least, most of the conclave.

But what some may consider to be a precious pussyfooting about with words in a Republic founded on the stout Protestant principle of I-have-the-truth-in-me is only because the Pope isn’t a creature of an electorate (not even the conclave that elected him) who can scold him when he doesn’t do what they want, but a creation of the Holy Spirit.



How, in a robust democratic environment, do you critique the actions of a creation of the Holy Spirit?




LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

"The Official End of the Reform of the Reform - by example"

"During the evening Mass at Rome's Casal del Marmo prison for minors, Pope Francis washed the feet of 12 young people of different nationalities and faiths, including at least two Muslims and two women, who are housed at the juvenile detention facility."

(Catholic News Service)

"1st: We are not invested in what goes on in a Novus Ordo setting. So, really, we are not disappointed by it -- though we are still surprised when it moves farther and farther away from traditional practices. We are just reporting it, as we did before any other venue in English." 2nd: Of course the optional mandatum is something that, while widely symbolic of the link between Christ and His Apostles, is ruled by pure Ecclesiastical Law, not Divine Law, and, regarding it, the Supreme Legislator can do (almost) as he pleases, even remove its presence from a liturgical environment. As long as there are specific standing rules about it (viri, men), however, even the Supreme Authority is bound to humbly obey them, unless he formally changes them beforehand. It really is not that hard to understand this basic matter of legal logic, is it? 3rd: Dear adversaries of this blog (yes, they do exist, and seem to be some of our most faithful readers!), please do not shoot the messenger."

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new
The pope is allowed to wash the girl's feet. But I feel uncomfortable about the fact that he didnt formally inform us beforehand. It makes me feel uncomfortable like it did when they allowed 'girl altarboys'(ok--a bit of Yogi Berra there).

For those more knowledgable about church law than myself(which probbly includes most on here)--what is your opinion about altargirls?? Isn't it a similar situation??
LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

www.usccb.org

I thought everyone might like to read the above from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Most importantly, the focus of the act on charity and love and humble service to one another.

I see nothing wrong with his action, I think it is statement emphasizing the humble service to one another in acts charity. I also believe he has the authority to do so. Likewise I don't think it is my place to question nor criticize it. I am not privy to the Pope's thoughts, nor am I in a position to interpret the rubrics. Some things are essential and some things are not. I do not think the Pope is one bent on bending every rule to his whim, and I trust in him to know the essential versus the nonessential in liturgical application.

The action of Christ washing the feet of his disciples (it doesn't specify only the twelve - Apostles) mirrors likewise the washing of Jesus' feet by the woman of ill repute who washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair and kissed and anointed them with oil.

And contrary to the assumption I do not think women should be ordained it is not their place. Not do I see this as a scandal against liturgical law. I see it as a pastoral expression of what the liturgical act is meant to signify.

I have been concerned with something since the election of our Pope and I heard it with Benedict as well, all of the criticism and discussion of whether or not he is good, bad, conservative, moderate, a rebel etc etc. None of that matters. We all seem to be forgeting that Christ promised the Advocate would always be with us and would guide the Church and protect it. It doesn't matter if the priest is what we think is right or even if we assume the Cardinals were all working off their own desires. I have faith in the Holy Spirit, and while I may not understand the choice and may even question it, I trust that the Holy Spirit guided the selection of this man to be our Pope at this point and time for purposes that may only be known to God. And, I am going to try to surrender my fears, wants, expectations to the Will of God, so that my heart is open to learn what I am to learn, experience what I am supposed to experience.

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Tom-112790 said: The pope is allowed to wash the girl's feet. But I feel uncomfortable about the fact that he didnt for...
(Quote) Tom-112790 said: The pope is allowed to wash the girl's feet. But I feel uncomfortable about the fact that he didnt formally inform us beforehand. It makes me feel uncomfortable like it did when they allowed 'girl altarboys'(ok--a bit of Yogi Berra there).

For those more knowledgable about church law than myself(which probbly includes most on here)--what is your opinion about altargirls?? Isn't it a similar situation??
--hide--
We better not go there right now shhh laughing

LOCKED
Mar 28th 2013 new

It is BOTH a canonical issue and a theological one, because he is making a theological statement by disobeying canon law (actually, a few statements at that). Maundy Thursday is the celebration of TWO (2) Sacraments of the Church: The institution of the Holy Eucharist, and the institution of the priesthood.

LOCKED
Posts 21 - 30 of 200