Posted on 03/30/2013 11:39:36 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
In two weeks Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum than Pope Benedict did since the day he promulgated it.
After the decision by Pope Francis to wash the feet of two women on Holy Thursday, conservative Catholic priests and laypeople alike will now be looking for ways out of the dilemma posed by the foot washing rite of the Holy Thursday Mass.
The foot washing rite is actually optional, though that fact is little grasped by liberals who impose the options they like as obligatory on those who would prefer to opt out. Liturgical law prescribes that only men (viri in Latin) can be chosen for that rite. Priests who want to adhere to the law will find themselves facing fierce opposition by liberals demanding that women be included. Bishops will be hard-pressed to explain how priests should keep to the liturgical law when the Pope himself flouts it. By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.
Priests who opt to omit the foot washing from Holy Thursday Mass will be seen – paradoxically – as dissenting from the law that clearly excludes women’s feet from being washed. To avoid the dilemma entirely, priests and lay Catholics who wish to see proper liturgical law observed will find a suitable option in the older form of the Roman Rite, the so-called “Tridentine” form emancipated in 2007 by Pope Benedict.
After Summorum Pontificum went into force, a clarifying document called Universae Ecclesiae was issued to help people interpret correctly how how to implement Pope Benedict’s provisions. Universae Ecclesiae says that all customs or liturgical practices not in force in 1962 (such as altars girls, communion in the hand and now, apparently, washing women’s feet), are not to be integrated into liturgies in the older form of the Roman Rite. Priests and lay Catholics who want Holy Thursday without dilemmas and controversies and fights about whose feet can be washed, have the legitimate option of the traditional Roman Missal which is, effectively, bullet proof.
Don’t kid yourselves. Many priests and lay Catholics are upset by the Pope’s move and the dilemma this poses at the local level throughout much of the western Church.
War-weary Catholics are back in the trenches, but they now have Summorum Pontificum. And Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum then Pope Benedict ever did.
There is an adage: Qui bene distinguit, bene docet, that is, someone who makes distinctions well, teaches well.
Distinguished canonist Ed Peters makes good distinctions about the Holy Father’s disregard for the Church’s duly promulgated law when he chose to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday. My emphases and [comments].
Retrospectives on the Mandatum rite controversies
March 29, 2013It’s a very big Church and there are many issues competing for the pope’s attention. Let me address just that issue I know something about, namely, ecclesiastical law, and try to talk sensibly about it. I’ll leave to finer minds the task of situating legal concerns in the wider ecclesial context.
For starters, perhaps Fr. Lombardi was misquoted or taken out of context when he apparently said, “the pope’s decision [to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday] was ‘absolutely licit’ for a rite that is not a church sacrament.” That remark is confusing because it implies that liceity is a concept that applies only to sacraments; but of course, liceity is an assessment of any action’s consistency with applicable law (canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc). One would never limit questions of Mass liceity to, say, the matter used for the Eucharist or the words of institution (that is, the sacrament at Mass) [NB]as if all other rubrics were merely optional. No one understands liceity so narrowly, [ehem... I think some people do.] and so, as I say, we are probably dealing with an incomplete answer.
In any case, I think some conclusions can be drawn about the foot-washing incident already.
[Here is an obvious point that must be made to help liberals sober up a little.] 1. If liturgical law permitted the washing of women’s feet at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, [then] no one would have noticed the pope’s doing it. What was newsworthy (apparently, massively newsworthy) is that, precisely because liturgical law does not authorize it, the pope’s performance of the action was huge news.
2. I and many others have long been open to revising the Mandatum rite so as to permit the washing of women’s feet [I am not among them. However, Peters is making a different point...] although I understand that strong symbolic elements are in play and I might be under-appreciating arguments for the retention of the rite as promulgated by Rome. I take no position on that larger issue, it being ultimately a question for experts in other disciplines. My focus is on the law as issued by Rome (c. 838).
[We get to the crux of the canonical issue...] 3. Few people seem able to articulate when a pope is bound by canon law (e.g., when canon law legislates matters of divine or natural law) and when he may ignore it (e.g., c. 378 § 1 on determining the suitability of candidates for the episcopate or appointing an excessive number of papal electors contrary to UDG 33). Those are not hard cases. Most Church laws, however, fall between these two poles and require careful thinking lest confusion for—nay, dissension among—the faithful arise. Exactly as happened here. [In spades!] Now, even in that discussion, the question is not usually whether the pope is bound to comply with the law (he probably is not so bound), but rather [pay attention...], how he can act contrary to the law without implying, especially for others who remain bound by the law but who might well find it equally inconvenient, that inconvenient laws may simply be ignored because, well, because the pope did it. [That, ladies and gents, is the problem. Liberals are going to claim that because of what Francis did, they can do whatever they wish. Indeed, they will claim that others who uphold the clearly written law are wrong to up hold the law. They will, like gnostics, appeal to some vague super-principle which trumps all law (and reason).]
4. A pope’s ignoring of a law is not an abrogation of the law but, especially where his action reverberated around the world, it seems to render the law moot. [moot - "doubtful, theoretical, meaningless, debatable"] For the sake of good order, then [Peters' own recommendation...], the Mandatum rubrics should be modified to permit the washing of women’s feet or, perhaps upon the advice of Scriptural and theological experts, the symbolism of apostolic ministry asserted by some to be contained in the rite should be articulated and the rule reiterated. What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.
Get that last point?
What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.
This is a huge problem.
Liberals such as Michael Sean Winters, who does not in this matter seem to make distinctions at all, think that Peters and I are “obsessively focused on whether or not a bishop or priest can/should wash the feet of women during the Mandatum Rite in the Mass of the Lord’s Supper”. He is wrong. That’s just your usual liberal misappropriation of the situation.
Peters and I are actually concerned about the good order of the Church. A canonist and a man in Holy Orders ought to be. Winters, on the other hand, writes for the paper of record for dissenters and antinomians.
What this foot washing issue does is reveal how vast the gulf is now that divides those who maintain that order, law and reason are necessary in the Church and society and those who, like gnostics who possess secret powers of interpretation of even more secret teachings, apply super-principles which trump lesser matters such as reason, law and order.
The new gnostics (liberals) call upon “fairness” and feelings. There can be no valid response possible by argument or reason or precedent.
For a long time I have argued that we need a level of liturgical celebration which brings about an encounter with the transcendent, which cuts beyond our (by now) useless linear arguments. People today can’t follow a linear argument. You get to the end and they conclude, “That might be true for you…”. Now, however, we may be seeing more clearly, in reactions to what Francis is doing (not necessarily in what Francis is doing), the exaltation of the golden calf of immanence.
Have we entered an age of a new gnosticism, wherein only those who feel a certain way are the true authoritative interpreters?
Of course, the whole congregation includes laymen and laywomen.
I've never heard of the Good Friday Gospel being sung, except in Latin. Did this woman chant it in English?
Actually, I've seen this type of comment a number of times now in various blog posts.
Why is it no priests immediately wanted to emulate BXVI administering Holy Communion on the tongue and only to those kneeling yet because of this Mandatum aberration numerous priests acted on it within minutes?
The priest sings it at two parishes I know of in Philadelphia. They are both predominantly African American parishes - not sure if race has anything to do with it. My own parish (predominantly Caucasian) very nearby these other two does things the usual way.
As does the reception of Communion by abortion promoters, notorious adulterers, and homosexual advocates. It conveys the accurate message that one can promote abortion and homosexual behavior and engage in adultery and still be considered a good Catholic; that those views are equal to the teachings of the Church. If not, there would be actual consequences to publicly espousing them as legitimate Catholic beliefs.
It has become quite obvious that the Church leaders don't really think that abortion, homosexuality and adultery are anything that important. So why would liturgy and rubrics be?
The Catholic faith has been boiled down to: Be nice--especially to the poor, then do as you please.
I don't believe this. Our parish has always done men and women and let me tell you, they have to head to the highways and byways to find people as it is. It's not a popular tradition. I don't know anybody who'd be crying tears if they cut it out. ANd I don't believe there's anybody - male or female - who's so itching to be a part of it that they'd oust two guys who'd already agreed to do it.
There is always, and must be, a Faithful Remnant.
I'm with you. I don't see it as a big deal either. But then I'm not bothered by pants wearing female lectors so what do I know?
Nobody's saying he didn't have the authority, nor that he didn't have a good intention.
BUT... he also gave an example of simply disregarding the rule, instead of using his legitimate power to actually change the rule. That is, he could/should have first formally legislated, "From here on in, you can wash the feet of girls/women".
But he didn't, he just did his own thing on the spot.
The EneMedia have apparently latched onto this as a signal for "Whee! The Catholic Church has declared a New Age of No Rules", and in fact, some of the looseygooseys amongst the liberal clerics are sure to see it just that way ("Yahoo, the Pope disregards rules for the sake of compassion, and so can I. Next up, I'm marryin' lesbians...")
They're wrong, of course, but that's the Zeitgeist.
In sum, this would not have been the Pope's intention, but this may be the result. There are a lot of overexcited looseygoosies out there, who could turn this into another poop-typhoon like the one in the immediate aftermath of VII. We haven't even finished repairing he damage caused by that one, and people are afraid of "Here it comes again!"
I’m not too concerned about this aspect, though I’ve seen it expressed by several female posters on several blog posts. I don’t think the grandfatherly PFI is placing himself in the near occasion of sin in this regard at this point in his career. On the other hand, Jesus did permit his own feet to be anointed by a women who was a known sinner, and she cleansed His feet with her hair.Since I'm not a man, I don't know when "grandfatherly" kicks in, but I'm more concerned over the countless young priests who now will adopt his actions. Who needs temptation?! As far as Mary Magdalene cleansing Jesus' feet, He never returned the same.
I don't see how the expression "one another's feet" (the Greek simply says "υμεις οφειλετε αλληλων νιπτειν τους ποδας", i.e. "you owe others to wash the feet") can overcome this aspect of master vs. disciple.
Moreover, verse 16 speaks specifically of "apostle", further restricting those receiving this commandment to future priests.
Now, not every boy who gets his feet washed by a priest on Holy Thursday will become a priest, but the potential is there, because he is a boy. The potential is not there if he is a girl. This aspect is neglected if women's feet are washed.
I think this is an occasional departure and the expansion of the meaning to service in general, but when done to girls, or women, or even men of full age, the aspect of priestly preparation suffers -- and we sure could use more young priests.
—— When your laws get in the way of the beautiful thing the Pope did, you and your laws have issues. ——
You are ignorant.
And opinionated.
You are free to remain so.
Yes, I believe that.
There are other aspects, though.
Assuming, as I think we ALL do, that (1) the Pope had the authority to make this small ritual adjustment, and (2) he had the best of intentions, the one sticking point is:
Did he just inadvertently give the nod to all self-proclaimed compassionate Lone Ranger types to do the same?
Bottom line: we live in a culture that is confused and corrupt without precedent. Pope Francis may want people to hear that "Compassion is our calling," but what many actually WILL hear is, "T'hell with laws, I'm just going to do what feels right. You can't criticize me! My intentions are good!"
The short route to chaos. And we've had enough experience with chaos over the past 40 years to know what it looks like, and to be troubled when we see it coming again.
P.S.I think Pope Francis' penchant for forceful, decisive action is also going to impel him to correct egregious error, hopefully in a swifter way than his precedessors. So my basic stance is still "Watch and Pray."
Watch and Pray, Pray, Pray.
I, too, have minor uncertain vibes on this Pope at the moment..... the cascade of 'umbleness' right off the bat makes me a little nervous.
We'll see.....he definitely has my heartfelt prayers. It ain't easy being Pope!
Leni
To which I say, do not despair, the Holy Spirit chose him for a reason. It is not our’s to say that God was wrong. If Pope Francis does not improve the Church or , Heaven forbid, does things that make things worse, then that is God’s plan. God knows what will happen and He has already dealt with it. What we have to do is keep our eyes on the prize and live our own vocations as well as we can with the help of God.
Yup.
The Passion is often sung on Palm Sunday. There’s no reason it couldn’t be sung on Good Friday—unless one were to judge that this is too “festive” for Good Friday. Personally, I think it would be. I prefer stark for Good Friday.
I hope the Vatican’s official comments have made clear that the Pope is entitled to bend the rubrics, but that this effects no change in the duties of all other priests.
In the Novus Ordo, for many years, it was incorrect, at the “Ecce Agnus Dei,” for the priest to hold the Host over the chalice (rather than the paten), as in the Old Mass. (It is now okay.) JPII did this at least a few times when celebrating an N.O. Mass. Even if he did it by mistake, it was correct, because he was Pope. The liturgy is whatever the Pope chooses to do or happens to be doing.
“I hope the Vatican’s official comments have made clear that the Pope is entitled to bend the rubrics, but that this effects no change in the duties of all other priests.”
You’ve got to be kidding. In other words, do what the Church says, not what I do.
Thank you. I am getting an education here.
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.