Posted on 03/30/2013 11:39:36 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
You know who else consistently violated religious rules? Jesus. I am a cradle practical Catholic, but I have enough Protestant blood in me to approve of Pope Francis wanting to stip the Church of many unnecessary trappings and traditions. Ermine stolls, gold pectoral crosses, and a rule prohbiting washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday are not in any way necessary to the mission of the Church.
Are the “Ten”Commandments,”rules”? I am talking about positive human law. And canon law generally falls into this category.
There’s no excuse for “willfully ignorant”.
No, Robby. The Ten Commandments are just suggestions.
They are our brothers and sisters but not because they are Muslims.
With all due respect to canon law, the Ten Commandments are somewhat more axiomatic.
The appearance that Church rules and canon law are "Good enough for thee, but not for me." If the pope need not obey Church rules, why should any of us? If the pope can make the rubrics moot, why not your humble village pastor? If the pope can arbitrarily make up the rules as he goes along, why not the pro-choice pols and the LGBT crowd?
This has real implications in a world that rejects God and His rules.
Maybe its much ado about nothing. Maybe its Pharisaical.
But Christ said, "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
How is any given faithful Catholic to know which things the Church binds on earth can be arbitrarily ignored, and which are important? In an age when Catholics are so poorly catechized after 50 years of the "Spirit of VII," this type of action increases the confusion and gives a green light to dissent and liturgical abuse.
Canon (Church law) prohbits the washing of women’s feet as part of the Holy Thursday service on the basis that Jesus only washed the feet of the Apostles, who were all men. This also relates the the Church law that only men can become priests.
This rule, however, is not dogma - such as belief in the Triune God, eg. and the Pope has the right to change the Holy Thursday rule. Instead of opennly changing the law, Pope Francis just ignored it. Some people believe that this means Pope Francis is open to women priests or deacons. Others are upset b/c they think that rather than breaking the law, Pope Francis just should have changed it as it may invite other breaches of canon law.
I understand about the ladyfolk. Are there other aspects of this story that involve Pope Francis violating other rubrics or canons? I'm not talking about traditions (conducting the Mass outside of a church, etc.).
sitetest
Not that I'm aware.
That's all fine, but stripping unnecessary trappings is not comparable with breaking Church law. It's sends a bad signal to 1.2 billion Catholics implying that they don't have to follow Church law, and makes him a terrible role model for priests.
To be largely “willfully ignorant” of an event in the news is not something for which some needs to be excused.
Regarding Pope Francis, I’ve decided to intentionally not to pay too close attention to his actions and words for now. He’s new in his position. I might actually wait a whole month or something before I get ready to put him under a microscope and jump down his throat for misdeeds, real or imagined.
sitetest
>By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.<
.
Although The Passion of Our Lord is the Gospel, it was sung by a woman in our church. Needless to say that she is neither a priest nor deacon.
I must admit, she has a fabulous voice and did a fantastic job.
I hope you can help me out with this.
Abortion is not wrong because the Church says so, correct? The Church says so because it is wrong.
Washing girl’s feet is wrong because the Church says so. But in this case, the Church does not say so because it violates the natural law, or even that it violates the deposit of faith, correct? It’s a man-made rule, which existed at one time for a purpose, and which Christ’s vicar may do with as he pleases, no?
The Pope could not - cannot - proclaim that abortion is OK, or that women can be priests.
But as to what priests should wear, or whose feet are washed - those are things he may decide at his pleasure, are they not?
John Paul I only got 33 days.
Okay. Thanks.
sitetest
That gets to the heart of the matter.
I was a protestant for 60 years, and while I confess that I believe all the truths that the Catholic church teaches, there is much I do not understand. I still have protestant reflexes.
How is any faithful Catholic to know which things the Church binds on Earth can be arbitrarily ignored?
I suppose the answer is, "none of them". But how you approach a font containing Holy Water and whether or not you can dismember infants in the womb are not at all the same thing.
Rubrics and customs are proclaimed by Christ's vicar to encourage the faithful. They are entirely invented out of human ingenuity, they have changed many times, and will do so again.
The commands of the natural law, expressed both as revelation and exegesis of scripture, are invariant. They never change, nor can they change.
Your "faithful Catholic" should have learned the difference by third grade.
I agree with you that, especially in America, there are adult Catholics who do not know the difference. There are even seminary graduates who apparently feel that varying a liturgical custom and murdering the innocence of a little boy are of the same order of importance.
But there is a difference, and the difference is very important.
Yes, but...
You obviously understand this distinction, but many Catholics do not.
Here's an example:
We oppose abortion because its a violation of natural law. Its always intrinsically evil.
But now our bishops tell us to be truly "pro-life," we must also oppose capital punishment. Why? Well, most would assume we must lump capital punishment alongside abortion in the pro-life world because capital punishment must be intrinsically evil, a violation of natural law. But guess what? Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. Its just a prudential decision of our Pope JPII that we should oppose capital punishment, its not intrinsically evil, its not a violation of natural law. Never was, is not now, cannot be.
Confusing, isn't it? So is it prudent to lump opposition to capital punishment alongside opposition to abortion, when one is a intrinsically evil and one isn't, and very few if any Catholics grasp the difference, let alone care?
Most Catholics don't make or understand these fine distinctions, they just figure, heck, if the Church can say something is evil today, i.e., capital punishment, that in the past she said was perfectly acceptable, then all things are up for grabs, including things that once were always taught as evil becoming acceptable, like usury, or birth control, or gay marriage.
If we can eat meat on Fridays now, but we couldn't before, why can't we have women priests now, which we couldn't before?
If the pope can disregard the rules for washing women's feet without first changing the law, why can't a bishop ordain women without first having the law changed?
Catholics don't understand these distinctions any more, so the Pope's making rubrics moot sets up anarchy and confusion.
He might not intend that, but there it is nonetheless.
Have you read Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”? It’s a wonderful reference.
It contains a breakdown of the different levels of teaching authority, which clarified things greatly for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.