Pope Francis' Holy Thursday Mass: 3 minute homily, women's feet washed
#21
(03-28-2013, 02:05 PM)tridentinist Wrote:Is it wrong to hope that the security issues of the Pope residing in the Domus Sanctae Marthae may cause this pontificate to be a brief one, if you get my drift?

I don't want to come off as lecturing you about a mote, because I have many planks in my own eye, but are you saying what I think you're saying here? As soon as you mentioned 'security issues' this became a remark in bad taste at the very least.

Regarding the topic of the thread, it's slightly depressing. Of course I can foresee the exact reactions about Pharisiasm, nasty traditionalists, hard-hearted women-haters, etc. etc. that will emerge on the dot in reaction to any criticism about this. Maybe the answer is proper perspective - of course I wouldn't be scandalized or surprised at an NO liturgy veering from the rubrics at a parish or diocesan level, maybe we shouldn't expect much different from the Holy See.
Reply
#22
It seems very clear to me now that God has given us the Pope we deserve and not the one we need.

Chastisement it is folks, chastisement it is and do penance because judgement I believe may be closer than unticipated.
Reply
#23
This goes against the rubric from what I understand (can a Pope privately dispense himself from a rubric?), but I wouldn't read any deep theological message into it.  From what I can tell, the thinking is "Christ came to serve all, both men and women" not "Christ came to ordain all, men and women."  

I think stuff like this comes from a liturgical school of thought, which personally I don't agree with, that the traditional significance of an action or symbol does not matter as much as what it means to the ignorant pewsitter.  As someone who once was such a pewsitter, I just assumed it was about service, not ordination (I can't even remember if there were women or not in the ones I saw back in the past because it simply was not an issue that would have even been on my radar, even though I believed only men could be priests). Personally, I think it's better to explain the traditional meaning, than to meet the presumed meaning (even if the presumed meaning is also a good and worthy thing).
Reply
#24
(03-28-2013, 02:16 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:01 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: it is pathetic that if true, we have a pope that broke the church's liturgical rules on washing only men's feet to signify the apostles.

Makes you wonder, what intended message is he sending by placing women in this position that signifies the priesthood...

We have always washed the feet of both men and women at Holy Thursday. Been doing it for years and years. Are the liturgical rules to not include women binding in ALL archdioceses? Or can a bishop make allowances?
Reply
#25
(03-28-2013, 02:52 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:16 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:01 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: it is pathetic that if true, we have a pope that broke the church's liturgical rules on washing only men's feet to signify the apostles.

Makes you wonder, what intended message is he sending by placing women in this position that signifies the priesthood...

We have always washed the feet of both men and women at Holy Thursday. Been doing it for years and years. Are the liturgical rules to not include women binding in ALL archdioceses? Or can a bishop make allowances?

From Fr. Z:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/of-holy-t...solutions/

"...let it be remember (sic) that the Church’s legislation allows for the washing of the feet of only men.  MEN = VIRI = MEN.  Not manish women or any other critter.  Even if some claim to have received permission to wash the feet of women, and even if the claims were true, those permissions would in no way change the law for the rest of the world.  Period.  Furthermore, I have never seen a letter or a copy of a letter from the Congregation in Rome granting such a permission.  I doubt anyone else has either."

This document on the USCCB website, http://old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml  , seems to imply that a "version" of the rite has appeared in the U.S. in which the feet of women are washed.  Mention of special permission from the Vatican for this variation is conspicuously absent.
Reply
#26
(03-28-2013, 01:53 PM)Oatmeal Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 01:52 PM)Pheo Wrote: So...did he actually end up including non-Catholics and non-Christians in the spectacle?

Yep, at least two muslims.  Just confirmed by the press secretary.

I am almost afraid to ask, but did he give them Holy Communion?
Reply
#27
At our parish (NO), they did not do the washing of the feet last year, but the last time they did do it, there were a variety of people, including a young girl and an old woman. I thought nothing of it at the time, and when someone said that including women violates even the NO rubrics, I was surprised and had to check. And so it does -- the rubrics do specify "men". If it is supposed to signify the apostles and the priesthood, this makes perfect sense, and washing the feet of girls and/or Muslims makes no sense at all.

However, there is another way to look at it. I always thought that the point Christ was making by washing the feet of the apostles was that they were to serve, rather than lording it over people -- and that the reason we still perform that ritual is to remind the priests that their function is to serve their flock. In this sense, any and all members of the flock should be eligible to have their feet washed. And I believe Pope Francis made a reference to going after the 1% of the flock that has strayed (although the actual percentage may be much larger) rather than the 99% that have not. If Muslims are seen as strays that need to be brought back, then it does make sense to include them in the ritual.

I'm not claiming that any of this is actual Catholic teaching, but it is a way of making sense of what he (Pope Francis) is doing. And I have to admit that I find it refreshing rather than disgusting.
Reply
#28
Thank you, oatmeal.

Because the gospel of the mandatum read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the "Teacher and Lord" who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality,2 the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.

While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary which mentions only men ("viri selecti"), it may nevertheless be said that the intention to emphasize service along with charity in the celebration of the rite is an understandable way of accentuating the evangelical command of the Lord, "who came to serve and not to be served," that all members of the Church must serve one another in love.

Reply
#29
(03-28-2013, 02:01 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: it is pathetic that if true, we have a pope that broke the church's liturgical rules on washing only men's feet to signify the apostles.
Now the flood gates are open for every crazy liturgical nazi to come out and do whatever they want with the public prayer of the church and Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
God help us!

You don't know how right you are.    
Reply
#30
(03-28-2013, 02:59 PM)Oatmeal Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:52 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:16 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(03-28-2013, 02:01 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: it is pathetic that if true, we have a pope that broke the church's liturgical rules on washing only men's feet to signify the apostles.

Makes you wonder, what intended message is he sending by placing women in this position that signifies the priesthood...

We have always washed the feet of both men and women at Holy Thursday. Been doing it for years and years. Are the liturgical rules to not include women binding in ALL archdioceses? Or can a bishop make allowances?

From Fr. Z:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/of-holy-t...solutions/

"...let it be remember (sic) that the Church’s legislation allows for the washing of the feet of only men.  MEN = VIRI = MEN.  Not manish women or any other critter.  Even if some claim to have received permission to wash the feet of women, and even if the claims were true, those permissions would in no way change the law for the rest of the world.  Period.  Furthermore, I have never seen a letter or a copy of a letter from the Congregation in Rome granting such a permission.  I doubt anyone else has either."

This document on the USCCB website, http://old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml  , seems to imply that a "version" of the rite has appeared in the U.S. in which the feet of women are washed.  Mention of special permission from the Vatican for this variation is conspicuously absent.

Cardinal (then Archbishop) Sean just washed men's feet on his first Holy Thursday in Boston in 2005(?). The liberals screamed and he said he would write to the Vatican for a ruling. He said they (the Vatican) replied that it was up to him so he no longer just did men's feet.
Lynne

+JMJ+

"Certainly, you must be informed about modern errors because preaching the truth involves preaching about distancing oneself from error; but do not make the negative, secondary aspect into the most important! Your first aim is not to fight against error but to know the truth. Your central concern should be study, your sanctification, silence, meditation, and the exercise of charity." - Archbishop Lefebvre
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)