Cathcon- It is a salutary thing to visit the captives, as the Bible states, but the washing of the feet of the twelve who represent the Twelve Apostles is confined to adult Christian men. One of the two girls whose feet he washed was Muslim. Given the way the action will be viewed in the Middle East, it is hardly prudent.
Post scriptum!
We will see whether it is a
particular case as Lombardi suggests or the beginning of a journey. Given his active support for the charismatic movement in his Diocese, one can only be concerned that he could be prepared to ordain women, under a movement of the spirit. For much of the last fifty years, we had the Spirit of Vatican II used to justify all sorts of unacceptable practices, which were never the working of the Holy Spirit.
How can the Pope maintain discipline in the Church if he himself does not conform himself to prevailing ecclesiastical legislation? He has the power to change legislation but it would be advisable to do that first.
More
precisely put by a canon lawyer and see also for a discussion of
What is Pope Francis really saying?.
And for a
further analysis of why this matters.
And a
very thorough analysis from Vatican Insider.
.jpeg)
Comments
Except that he can be about service and love without setting a precedent of liturgical abuse. (and yes I know it’s not a abuse if the Pope does it because he has the authority to dispense anything he wants without positive harm)
Minor abuses snowball into the pest of “the Mass is about pleasing the people” and thus spawn major liturgical abuses which in turn harm Catholic doctrine. Following ancient Tradition is more than following what was given before just because; every single action and word in the liturgy as meaning and symbolism. To dispose of them at your will is not humility, love, or service; it is focusing on your own preference.
Rubrics cultivate holy obedience and humility, which is the foundation of charity and love and hence the springboard of true service in Christ.
Deviation from rubrics, rejection of Tradition, and liturgical abuse not only spawns the mentality that the liturgy is a up to the people and priest to mold into their own likening (thus spitting upon centuries of organic development) but also implicitly harms the characteristic of God and his Holy Church as unchanging.
This does not mean that things do not develop but rather there is a consistency to the past which has developed and unfolded as time progresses without contradiction. Hence contradiction is a rupture and harms the sense of the sacred.
Thus by extension it harms the Catholicity of the development of doctrine and the unchanging truths of the faith. Doctrine like the liturgy organically develops over time and cultivates into a rich body of truth; to rupture this development shakes the very foundation of the Catholic person concisely and/or subconsciously.
Again, rubrics and following the path of Tradition cultivate holy obedience and humility, which is the foundation of charity and love. Doing what has always been done in the past not only secures the orthodox symbolism in the acts but also says “this is not about me, this is about what has been handed down,” hence true humility by not doing want YOU want. Therefore cultivating the virtue of humility increases grace and by extension enables the person to carry the mission of service and love.
Rites have been written by men, so we can recognize the divine presence. Excluding women and presenting them as unworthy to have their feet washed means that we see women them as second class citizens dishonoring the commandment of love of Jesus.
That is horrible abusive expression of laws that should be suppressed and abrogated immediately.
I thank God for a pope that reaches for the poor, who preaches the love and the beatitudes with actions and not with empty words.
Love can´t be regulated. Lets support our pope, otherwise we will be reduce our Catholic Church to a sectarian club of Pharisees.
Firstly his not wearing the red papal shoes and some of the papal vestments usually worn at the appearance on the balcony struck me as rather pointless. It seemed to be saying “Look at me; I am different and so humble”. The shoes and vestments represent the office not the man.
Then the personal paying of his hotel bill – again a pointless gesture. The Pope does not have his own money, it the Church’s money. Once again it seems to be saying, “Look how humble I am.”
He then announced he would not live in the papal apartments. Does leaving them empty solve anything?
He next announced he would not wash the feet of priests and bishops, but rather prisoners.
But this misses the whole symbolism that the Pope represents both Peter and Our Lord washing his fellow apostles’ feet. No one gave this Pope the right to change this special symbolism.
He has now washed the feet of two women at the Maundy Thursday ceremony – in direct contravention of his own Church’s liturgical rules.
I can’t even begin to imagine what harm this will do. All those faithful Catholics who have been battling innovations by liberal and trendy priests, have now had the rug pulled right out from under them - it will be literally open go. Whenever a priest wants to do something in violation of the Church’s liturgical rules the faithful who try to quote Church rules to their priest will have the Pope’s own disobedience thrown back at them.
I really think that when someone makes such a repeated point of being publically “humble” it becomes a display of their own pride. It is a though what he is doing is saying, “Look at me, I am different from the previous popes. I much more humble than they were.”
It has been said that when you meet a truly humble man you will not be struck by his humility, it won’t jump out at you or be on show. Rather it will come up in lots of little ways as you get to know him and you gradually realise that he does not promote himself and that he puts others ahead of himself. I am seeing the opposite in the new Pope. He seems determined to prove how humble he is, by doing lots of things that people cannot help but notice.
By rapidly dropping or changing what all the previous popes did he is also, in fact, making a public criticism of them.
In the recent history of the Church two big dangers have manifest themselves. One is contempt for the Pope’s leadership and authority. This has been the hallmark of so many bishops, priests, monks and nuns in the last 40 years that enormous harm has come to the Church as a result. However, the opposite danger is also a problem. Many orthodox Catholics have been so horrified at the contempt shown by the liberals to the Pope’s leadership that they have gone to the opposite extreme. They have drifted into the mistake of extreme Ultramontanism. They are putting the office of the Pope beyond any criticism. For example people have said, with regards to the Pope washing the feet of females, words to the effect, that even though it is contrary to the Church’s liturgical laws, “He is the Pope so he can do it”.
While it may be technically correct that the Pope can disregard some liturgical rules, the Pope is not above the laws of his own Church and it sends out a really bad example. Popes are not above criticism. Papal Infallibility is a very carefully prescribed doctrine. It does not mean that every word a Pope says, or everything a Pope does or even everything a Pope writes, is infallible.
No doubt Pope Francis has some great qualities which will become apparent as time goes on, but so far I have much cause for concern.
Firstly his not wearing the red papal shoes and some of the papal vestments usually worn at the appearance on the balcony struck me as rather pointless. It seemed to be saying “Look at me; I am different and so humble”. The shoes and vestments represent the office not the man.
Then the personal paying of his hotel bill – again a pointless gesture. The Pope does not have his own money, it the Church’s money. Once again it seems to be saying, “Look how humble I am.”
He then announced he would not live in the papal apartments. Does leaving them empty solve anything?
He next announced he would not wash the feet of priests and bishops, but rather prisoners. But this misses the whole symbolism that the Pope represents both Peter and Our Lord washing his fellow apostles’ feet. No one gave this Pope the right to change this special symbolism.
He has now washed the feet of two women at the Maundy Thursday ceremony – in direct contravention of his own Church’s liturgical rules.
I can’t even begin to imagine what harm this will do. All those faithful Catholics who have been battling innovations by liberal and trendy priests, have now had the rug pulled right out from under them - it will be literally open go. Whenever a priest wants to do something in violation of the Church’s liturgical rules the faithful who try to quote Church rules to their priest will have the Pope’s own disobedience thrown back at them.
I really think that when someone makes such a repeated point of being publically “humble” it becomes a display of their own pride. It is a though what he is doing is saying, “Look at me, I am different from the previous popes. I much more humble than they were.”
It has been said that when you meet a truly humble man you will not be struck by his humility, it won’t jump out at you or be on show. Rather it will come up in lots of little ways as you get to know him and you gradually realise that he does not promote himself and that he puts others ahead of himself. I am seeing the opposite in the new Pope. He seems determined to prove how humble he is, by doing lots of things that people cannot help but notice.
By rapidly dropping or changing what all the previous popes did he is also, in fact, making a public criticism of them.
In the recent history of the Church two big dangers have manifest themselves. One is contempt for the Pope’s leadership and authority. This has been the hallmark of so many bishops, priests, monks and nuns in the last 40 years that enormous harm has come to the Church as a result. However, the opposite danger is also a problem. Many orthodox Catholics have been so horrified at the contempt shown by the liberals to the Pope’s leadership that they have gone to the opposite extreme. They have drifted into the mistake of extreme Ultramontanism. They are putting the office of the Pope beyond any criticism. For example people have said, with regards to the Pope washing the feet of females, words to the effect, that even though it is contrary to the Church’s liturgical laws, “He is the Pope so he can do it”.
While it may be technically correct that the Pope can disregard some liturgical rules, the Pope is not above the laws of his own Church and it sends out a really bad example. Popes are not above criticism. Papal Infallibility is a very carefully prescribed doctrine. It does not mean that every word a Pope says, or everything a Pope does or even everything a Pope writes, is infallible.
No doubt Pope Francis has some great qualities which will become apparent as time goes on, but so far I have much cause for concern.