Canon law expert and advisor Edward Peters blogs at http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/ and disagrees in his latest posts with your claim that “whatever the Pope does in the liturgy is correct, by definition.”
You posted before the Pope’s washing of the feet of women and non-Catholics in violation of canon law. Peters goes into the questions this action raises. I believe a Papal visit after the usual liturgical ceremony in a church would have been as effective a gesture of concern. Similarly, in regard to the 2011 Mass of Cardinal Bergoglio, why dilute the worship of Christ by turning the Mass into a spectacle with balloons, banners, puppets, and birds flying off? Why not have the rally before of after the Mass?
Thanks to E. Pluribus Unum for posting this for discussion. Vatican II allowed the liturgy to become politicized. We need to restore the dignity and focus of the Mass as the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice for us.
What I meant was the the Pope has, technically, the authority to violate the rubrics. I didn’t mean that it was ipso facto a good decision. I think the Pope did harm by washing the feet of women.
As you will note:
Ed Peters does not question that the Pope had the authority to wash the feet of women, contrary to the rubrics. The question is: Are there many who will claim the same authority even though they—not being Pope—have no such authority?
The answer is: Yes. Which means that the Pope’s action, though within his legal authority, undoubtedly will have negative effects.