Pope Francis' Holy Thursday Mass: 3 minute homily, women's feet washed
(04-04-2013, 10:02 AM)Pheo Wrote:
(04-04-2013, 08:49 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: But with regards to the washing of women's feet, he is not bound by the rubrics of the Holy Thursday liturgy. End of story.

What's the end goal in this line of reasoning?  I don't deny that he is the highest authority, but you seem to be saying something like: "yes, what Pope Francis did was likely imprudent, a break with small-'t' tradition, probably set the wrong example, and obfuscated the symbolism of this ritual...but it's OK, because he's allowed to."

Even if a pope is working within the bounds of his authority, he can still be providing a shining example of "how not to Pope."  Please see Pope Benedict IX.

I will willingly admit that the Holy Father's actions were imprudent and should not have been done. I'm arguing against the contention that the Holy Father, in making his decision, broke a liturgical law. He did not, simply because he is not legally bound by those laws in the first place.
Reply
(04-04-2013, 10:02 AM)Pheo Wrote:
(04-04-2013, 08:49 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: But with regards to the washing of women's feet, he is not bound by the rubrics of the Holy Thursday liturgy. End of story.

What's the end goal in this line of reasoning?  I don't deny that he is the highest authority, but you seem to be saying something like: "yes, what Pope Francis did was likely imprudent, a break with small-'t' tradition, probably set the wrong example, and obfuscated the symbolism of this ritual...but it's OK, because he's allowed to."

Even if a pope is working within the bounds of his authority, he can still be providing a shining example of "how not to Pope."  Please see Pope Benedict IX.

I think it is legitimate to express concern about what the Pope did and to question whether it is OK.  But we have to be clear that we are talking about imprudence, bad example and creating confusion.  If we frame our concerns in terms of breaking laws or abandoning doctrine, we are being inaccurate and ourselves creating confusion.
Reply
sadly I bet 99.9% of the NO parishoners have no idea that this was wrong or a bad idea -- and I mean the regular Mass attendees... those who are not familiar with the TLM or how things were done "before"   and I think the only ones that will latch on to this outside of Trad circles and make a big deal about it will be the media and those with a progressive/inclusive agenda who see it as a harbinger for more female involvement, leading up to female priests.... they will make the giant leap from washed feet to ordination in the blink of an eye...
Reply
(04-04-2013, 10:50 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: I will willingly admit that the Holy Father's actions were imprudent and should not have been done. I'm arguing against the contention that the Holy Father, in making his decision, broke a liturgical law. He did not, simply because he is not legally bound by those laws in the first place.
(04-04-2013, 10:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: I think it is legitimate to express concern about what the Pope did and to question whether it is OK.  But we have to be clear that we are talking about imprudence, bad example and creating confusion.  If we frame our concerns in terms of breaking laws or abandoning doctrine, we are being inaccurate and ourselves creating confusion.


Understood.  I can see how this approach frames the issue differently, although it's interesting to note the traditional reasons for persisting in this particular ritual.  Dom Guéranger describes it this way in The Liturgical Year:
Dom Guéranger Wrote:After having, on this day, washed the feet of His disciples, Jesus said to them: 'Know ye what I have done to you? You call Me Master and Lord: and You say well, for so I am. If then I, being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you, also, ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.' Although the meaning of these words is that, after the example of our divine Master, we should practise works of fraternal charity towards our neighbour, yet the literal imitation of this our Saviour's act has always been observed in the Church.

This may not be a matter of Divine Law or even clearly established Ecclesial Law, but I can't help but think that a literal imitation our Lord's example ought to be subject to more than just papal whim.  With this traditional context in mind, the visceral reaction of many trads against Pope Francis' questionable example becomes much more understandable.
Reply
(04-04-2013, 11:25 AM)Pheo Wrote: This may not be a matter of Divine Law or even clearly established Ecclesial Law, but I can't help but think that a literal imitation our Lord's example ought to be subject to more than just papal whim.  With this traditional context in mind, the visceral reaction of many trads against Pope Francis' questionable example becomes much more understandable.

That is a good point.  I do think that the visceral reaction of many trads is understandable.  I was actually defending it in a PM to someone.  The problem is that visceral reactions tend to add more heat than light.  I can understand why people do it but I do not think it helps the situation.
Reply
(04-04-2013, 10:02 AM)Pheo Wrote:
(04-04-2013, 08:49 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: But with regards to the washing of women's feet, he is not bound by the rubrics of the Holy Thursday liturgy. End of story.

Even if a pope is working within the bounds of his authority, he can still be providing a shining example of "how not to Pope."  Please see Pope Benedict IX.

Yes.  Ecclesiastical law isn't 'mere rubrics' in this case, but  follows upon the example of Christ. Aren't even Popes very wrong to deviate from this? Can't we say that what they do is most likely objectively sinful, even though we can't judge them, as men or certainly as Popes?
Reply
(04-04-2013, 05:05 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(04-04-2013, 10:02 AM)Pheo Wrote:
(04-04-2013, 08:49 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: But with regards to the washing of women's feet, he is not bound by the rubrics of the Holy Thursday liturgy. End of story.

Even if a pope is working within the bounds of his authority, he can still be providing a shining example of "how not to Pope."  Please see Pope Benedict IX.

Yes.  Ecclesiastical law isn't 'mere rubrics' in this case, but  follows upon the example of Christ. Aren't even Popes very wrong to deviate from this? Can't we say that what they do is most likely objectively sinful, even though we can't judge them, as men or certainly as Popes?a

That would depend if the rubric is something that has been part of the Holy Thursday rite since the early years of the Church, or if it was a later legislation on the part of the Church, or some sort of organic development that occurred after the early years of the Church. If (a) then the Holy Father should've followed through with the rubrics since it seems to have been an apostolic institution in order to imitate Christ's example. If (b) then of course the Holy Father isn't bound since previous popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. If © then I would say that the Holy Father acted rashly, and was perhaps imprudent, but did not do as wrong as he would have if (a) were the case.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)