Posted on 03/29/2013 8:31:16 PM PDT by OKRA2012
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world's poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
nothing is out of their realm to criticize...
OMG - possible quasi-monarchists!!!
That's what I'm attracted to...A place where the preacher prays from his heart instead of repeating some mindless, repetitious phrase that is engrained in his head...
Okay, I think I see your point.
Yeah, I was attracted to that too, then I gave up on that.
It’s complex, I guess.
In the movie, the new Pope, IIRC, actually acted out in a Christian way, and gave away the wealth of the church to the needy.
The bureaucracy of the church...was astonished. And it resisted the new direction.
It upset the entire established order. But...but...you can't do that? Oh, yes, I can. And I am obligated to. And you do so, too.
An old movie. I think it was Anthony Quinn?
I remember very little of it, more's the pity.
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, 2013
It’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?
I think some of the traditionalists had gotten used to having a Pope who wasn’t going to challenge their view of the world. Francis is challenging them to get back to the basics of Faith and evangelization, and they don’t like it one bit. None of us like to have our assumptions challenged.
You seem to posit the pope's challenge versus tradition, and I can't imagine what that means. How is the Gospel message and evangelizing somehow anti-tradition? Traditional liturgy is every bit as much a part of "the basics of Faith" as any other actions are. I don't think traditionalists are upset at having such assumptions challenged, since they don't reject such things in the first place, but rather are likely just nervous given the conditions which they have existed under for many years.
We really must try to at least consider how life has been for these people and why they feel as they do now. Charity compels us in this. We must consider that the Mass they love was the Mass of the Church and the saints for hundreds and hundreds of years, and much of it for even longer. It is not an evil thing, but a beautiful one. And yet they saw it suppressed for decades by unsympathetic bishops and cardinals without any real explanation or regard for the history of the Mass itself. And then, after all those years, they were allowed to celebrate it again, but often hundreds of miles from their homes and only once or twice a month. And now, after inching ahead under the last pope they see a pope elected from among that hostile unsympathetic group of cardinals. Can you really blame them for being jumpy? I don't. I understand very well why they are watching every move of the pope and looking for hints about what is coming. His actions likely don't bode anything in regard to how you worship, but they might in the case of people like traditionalists. Their situation is very different from mine and likely yours, and we all do well to remember that.
You have a unique definition for the words most and respect.
Most Catholics here think that Ann Barnhardt is a certifiable nut.
Since when, EVER, did AP care about what a couple of Catholic blogs (and mainly one, Rorate Caeli) were saying about the Bishop of Rome? I mean, there are (rapidly calculating) 41,009 Catholic blogs --- or maybe that's 42,778 plus or minus 10,000 --- anyway, lots, and AP picks up on, maybe, TWO that are busting negative on the Pope?
It's just embarrassing to see how AP cranks up the Media Narrative Machine to parlay this microscopic kerfuffle into a freakin' schism.
That's no to deny that Liturgy is important. I'll put my bonafides right out there: I'm a foundng member of our parish Schola Cantorum and I am very ardently, personally committed to the restoration of the beautiful Latin Liturgy, right here in Upper East Tennessee. I think it is one of the keys to the sacred continuity and universality which is Christ's enduring gift to His Bride.
Having said that: give me a break, Associated Press. You don't know a zuccheto from a zucchini. The whole thing is useful to you because it's a way to foment factionalism. Respectfully, Miz Winfield: Butt Out.
And to all y'all, from us elitists in Upper East Tennessee: Christus Resurrexit and I don't mean maybe, Alleluia.
In the movie, the new Pope, IIRC, actually acted out in a Christian way, and gave away the wealth of the church to the needy.
You know, this stuff always sounds great when you talk about it, but if it really happened would it be so wonderful? I don't think so. If the Church gave away all the buildings and art, would the poor go away? No. But, now they would have no beautiful churches to pray in and no beautiful art to inspire them. Why do we, in our places of comfort, condescend to believe that the poor don't appreciate beauty? Why do people suggest that the poor don't want to pray in a beautiful church, or listen to beautiful music, or see beautiful art? I have been poor, quite poor, and I can tell you that a beautiful church was one thing I looked to as my own. It was there for me. I could go and pray and experience the reverence and awe as my own, and nobody could take it away. The truth is that those churches were built largely by the donations of poor people because they believed in them and wanted to worship God in a way which felt heavenly, and now we talk as if we should just give them away to feed some people today. Generation after generation of Catholics have found solace and comfort in worshiping in such churches, and we would sell all that out for a gesture that could only help a few people right now. I just don't see how selling Saint Peters and turning it into a museum charging entrance fees would in any way measure up to what it is for everybody now.
If you think that's “mindless repetitious phrases,” I wonder how you will enjoy Heaven, where the blessed saints join the angels ceaselessly repeating their "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts," in eternal light and bliss?
Liturgy is a privileged place where earth and heaven meet. I can hardly believe there exists anyone utterly unable to see the good in something which nurtured and still nurtures countless God-loving souls, something profoundly significant and so, so beautiful.
“Diffrent strokes” and all, but that's sad.
Don't make the assumption that he'll get there. Remember, he admittedly and knowingly turned his back on the Bride of Christ.
No, the traditionalists want the filth and heretical priests kicked out of the Church-—and Biden and his ilk to be excommunicated.
They want the homomafia OUT-—they are just like the people in the White House-—Alinsky Marxist thugs——raping the seminarians and if they complain they get harassed and chased out. Time will tell, if this pope is an anti-pope or not. We will see.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fr-dariusz-okos-major-article-with-pope.html
If seeing images of the Pope washing the feet of women is the worst thing that happened to those observers that day... They’re living a life that needs a bit of shaking up. Jeeeze....
The Papacy - ostentious, elaborate ceremonies, elaborate dress.
Jesus Christ - humility, simple clothes (note purple robe supplied by Romans upon trial), had no home of his own, traveled by foot, wore sandles, plain robe.
St. Francis of Assissi - encouraged the priests that followed him to deny oneself the luxuries that the were accustomed in their families that they grown up in. (Priests did not come from the peasants).
Pope Francis is advocating the Papacy to be like St. Francis of Assisi. Not celebrities.
You can’t get any more “traditional” than this:
John 13:1-17
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet
13 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”
7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”
10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
How can the MSM make fun of the Catholic church if the Pope doesn't use the trappings the Leftists like to criticize .
“And yet the priests can, and regularly do, say whatever they want regardless of whether it is in the texts and nobody asks them to leave. Why the different standard for them? That is the height of clericalism, a very specific form of elitism, and we should reject it.”
That makes me nuts when priests change the liturgy. Actually the bishop (if you have a good one) can make all the difference and make them “say the black and do the red”.
What makes you think he’s planning on selling St. Peter’s? The thing that is making traditionalists look silly at best is that they are freaking out over nothing and projecting dire consequences from changes to “traditions” that are less than 100 years old in some cases or unimportant in others. Popes didn’t always live at the Vatican, for example, so this is hardly something to
lose sleep over. The Mozzetta that had so many people shrieking with horror is also something that had been abandoned by other popes, too.
I don’t see that he has done anything that threatens either Tradition or the liturgy in any way. His own masses are perfectly correct Novus Ordo masses. He doesn’t sing because he can’t - he has only one lung - and kneeling is obviously a problem because I saw at the mass that he’s not good on stairs and needs people to steady him, so I assume he has knee problems. But his mass was reverent and solemn.
I don’t like the Novus Ordo mass very much, but it is what it is, and Francis didn’t dream it up. In my opinion, the Pope who really diminished theiturhy and spent a lot of time calling attention to himself was JPII, but for some reason traditionalists love him. Go figure.
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.