Thank you, Pope Francis! / Have we entered an age of a new gnosticism?

Fr. Z's blog ^ | 3/30/2013 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Thank you, Pope Francis!

Posted on 30 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, Universae Ecclesiae | Tagged foot washing, Pope Francis, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | 74 Comments

Have we entered an age of a new gnosticism?

Posted on 29 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope Francis, The Drill | Tagged antinomian, antinomianism, can. 838, canon law, Ed Peters, foot washing, immanentism, liceity, Pope Francis | 145 Comments

[steve86]

But as to what priests should wear, or whose feet are washed - those are things he may decide at his pleasure, are they not?

Of course he can. But many Catholics are uncomfortable waking up each morning, checking Father Z's site or whatever, and/or finding out by accident what rubrics changed overnight. Is it too much to ask for a statement or direction if more liberalizations are planned? Normally rubrics are solid and unchanging over periods of many years. Have we now entered a era of rapid changes to accommodate a rapidly changing world? I sure hope not. This would be anathema to an orthodox Catholic.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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.

Sounds like we're on the same page in this regard.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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.

Which is wise and prudent, and something I too had planned on doing until this current issue arose two days ago.

I'm trying to work through it myself, and a lot of folks I know personally are really frustrated by this and having a hard time sorting it out. If even Fr. Z is flustered by these developments, I don't feel so bad for being flustered.

As I said earlier, I attend the Novus Ordo mass daily. I attend the TLM almost every Sunday. Honestly, I attend the latter on Sundays not so much because I love the TLM, but because I hate liturgical abuse, and there are none at the TLM.

To see our Pope ignore the rubrics is to my sensibilities very troubling.

[sitetest]

Dear Dr. Brian Kopp,

“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?”

Precisely, Brian.

My own late mother found it difficult to make the distinction. She was pro-abortion for many years, probably pro-contraception to her death (although at 77, the practical aspect of her belief had long since faded into irrelevancy), and she'd often justify these false beliefs by declaring, “Well, if the Church could change the prohibition against meat on Fridays...”

But she grew up dirt poor in the Italian ghetto in the first half of the 20th century, taught by Irish priests who looked down on their charges, thinking them incapable of understanding the finer points of Catholic teaching. It was news to her when I'd try to explain the difference between dogma, doctrine, and discipline.

She knew how to feel like a Catholic, how to act like a Catholic, but never how to think, how to reason as a Catholic. I think that's in part because of the execrable catechesis that is generally provided by the Church in most times, in most places, and in part because we live in a society to which a Catholic way of thinking is alien.

sitetest

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

—— 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. ——

This perfectly expresses the problem.

The spirit of disobedience that has bedeviled the Church since Vatican II has been reawakened with one simple act.

I sense an monumental pastoral error.

[SpirituTuo]

With respect to all, I don’t think this violates Canon Law. If it does, where is the appropriate citation?

Secondly, a local ordinary has pretty broad discretion on the application of various rules concerning both the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as well as keeping/not keeping of certain feast days/fasts (e.g. St. Patrick’s Day during Lent), etc.

So, did Pope Francis take latitude in a ritual? It would appear. Is this one case the big deal others are making it? I’m not so sure, but could be wrong.

[Treeless Branch]

Wow the Catholics who are objecting to the feet cleaning sound like the Pharisees who objected to Jesus’ disobeying of the jewish law. When your laws get in the way of the beautiful thing the Pope did, you and your laws have issues.

[annalex]

Washing girl’s feet is wrong because the Church says so

Not quite. It is not wrong for you, me, or any priest, or the pope to kneel and wash anyone's feet as a sign of service we owe all others. Well, so long as the person whose feet are being washed consents, and the parent consents, and it is understood correctly as a symbol of humble service and not some flirty thing.

The only possible wrong here is purely skewing of the rubrics. The rubrics say "wash the feet of select men (viri)" and the pope washed the feet of men and then also washed the feet of select women, instead of proceeding to the next rubric straight way.

In other words, he improvised a bit in a rite that itself is not very old: it dates, correct me if I am wrong, to 1955. And he is not any priest but the pope. Legalistically, it is not a big deal; I would hesitate to call it abuse of liturgy. Any priest that would take this example and, in what would be true abuse, ad-lib through the Eucharistic prayer would be a complete fool. Yes, we have such fools, but we can't allow their obtuseness limit good priests, which our pope certainly is.

A greater concern that I see is not legalistic but theological. Christ washed His disciples' feet in order to prepare them specifically for priestly service, not generally for a life of charity. The former understanding necessitates them being men because priests are all men. The latter understanding is novel, and does not fit the narrative of the Last Supper. That is a problem for me.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The spirit of disobedience that has bedeviled the Church since Vatican II has been reawakened with one simple act.

I sense an monumental pastoral error.

Fortunately, the Vatican monitors these discussions now and takes them into consideration. They read the blogs, more than most people realize. I know this from my own statcounter account and from talking to other bloggers.

The controversy forced Fr. Lombardi to address this scandal. That's a good thing. They're listening, they know this stirred up a hornet's nest, and hopefully this will be related to Pope Francis and he will realize this kind of action has real world consequences.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

See my tagline.

[Lou Budvis]

What you post about the conflation of abortion and the death penalty (and other things like welfare that got woven into the ‘Seamless Garment’) is true and has done great damage to American Catholicism (to the benefit of the democrat party).

However, I strongly believe that Pope Francis has a strong “Phase 2” in the works. I think his goal is to first re-evangelize and then re-assert authority on the truly important matters. If you read comments on lib websites, you’ll notice that many of the commenters now continually take shots at Pope Francis after initially cheering him. I think they fear that he may bring people back to the Faith.

[sitetest]

Dear Dr. Brian Kopp,

We are fortunate to live somewhere where there are many, many Catholic parishes to attend. We love the pastor of our territorial parish, but he's a big ham up on the altar, and I've just gotten too old and crotchety to put up with it. We rarely, if ever, attend Mass there.

These days, we usually just go down to the Shrine (the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception) in DC. Msgr. Rossi runs a pretty tight ship, and Masses there range from Masses celebrated with no egregious deviations from the rubrics to Masses celebrated by priests who took the time to do it right, letting the light of Christ shine through the liturgy rather than their own egos.

I'll continue to wait with Pope Francis. I wonder whether actions that would appear reasonable in one culture - Latin America - might not be quite right on a wider stage. Perhaps the new pope will learn that what flies in Buenos Aires may be less helpful to the Universal Church. I don't know. Maybe I'm just too rule-bound and uptight, LOL. For now, I'll just wait and watch and hope that he'll catch on and do a bang-up job of it.

sitetest

[Jim Noble]

Christ washed His disciples' feet in order to prepare them specifically for priestly service

Really?

John 13:14 says " If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet."

It is not the custom that priests only wash other priests feet, correct? So we know that the term "one another's feet" applies to the non-ordained.

Very few of the men whose feet have been washed at Mass in this ritual are being prepared for priestly service, correct?

So, since the ritual does not apply only to priests or candidates for the priesthood, what's the big deal?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Think how much of this angst could be put away, how much good will our Pope Francis could instantly create, if, unlike his predecessor, he simply offered a humble low Traditional Latin Mass in the near future?

It need not be a papal mass at St. Peters or the Lateran. Just a simple humble low PUBLIC Traditional Latin Mass at some out of the way chapel or parish.

Since he does not feel bound by precedence or rubrics, he need not worry about lacking all the trappings and papal household elements his predecessor may have felt were necessary to “do it right.”

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Mandatum Files

The Problem

In many parishes around the country, the mandatum - the washing of the feet - is performed incorrectly.

The washing of the feet is supposed to be done (a) by a priest (b) upon men.

Instead, it is done by those not ordained to Holy Orders.
Or it is done on women and children instead of men.
Or the celebrant washes not the feet, but the hands or other body parts.

The Last Supper is the ritual wherein Jesus established both the Eucharist and the priesthood that performs the sacrifice of the Mass.
While very liturgical abuse is a tragedy, liturgical abuse of the Holy Thursday Mass is among the worst of abuses, since it mis-represents the priesthood, through which the sacraments come to us.

The law of prayer is the law of belief.
If we don't pray the Mass of Holy Thursday correctly, we suborn our own priests.
When they abuse the right, they suborn and disrespect themselves.
Liturgical abuse, especially this liturgical abuse, is as unjust as a suicide.

This website is meant to address the common excuses used by laypeople and ordained men for their refusal to be obedient to the Catholic Faith.

The Mandatum Files

A depository of information on the Holy Thursday Mandatum rite in the Catholic Church.
Learn about the rubrics for the washing of feet!

• The Problem
• Scripture on the Washing of Hands and Feet
• Washing of Hands and Feet - Catholic Encyclopedia
• Lavabo: The Washing of Hands - Catholic Encyclopedia
• What Vatican II Had To Say
• The Liturgical Directions
• The USCCB Opinion (1987)
• The Authority of the USCCB
• The Vatican Correction (1988)
• Pope John Paul II's Corrections (2003)
• Commentary from the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum (2004)
• The Curious Case of Archbishop O'Malley (2004)
• Commentary from the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum (2006-2011)
• Rome Speaks Again (2008)
• What Can I Do?
• Further Reading
• The E-Book Is Now Available.
• Frequently Asked Questions

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Francis changed a seemingly small rubric in the ceremony of foot-washing, when he washed the feet of girls at the Rome juvenile detention center.

Almost everybody concedes that

• he had the authority to do it (as Bishop of Rome, he's also chief liturgical authority for the Diocese of Rome), and
• he had the best of intentions (to show what it is to serve and love the lost sheep)

BUT... he also gave an example of disregarding the rules, instead of using his legitimate power to actually change the rule (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 in the priesthood are sure to see it as just that ("Yahoo, the Pope disregards rules for the sake of compassion, and so can I. Next up, I'm marryin' lesbians...")

In sum, this would not have been the Pope's intention, but this may be the result.

Stay tuned!

Watch and pray!

[NYer]

I don't believe that this is the intent of the Holy Father, but to some degree it is already the result.

Agreed. I read through some of the comments on his original thread regarding the washing of 2 women's feet. One poster commented that in a matter of minutes, her parish pastor tossed two men from that night's lineup and substituted two women. Fr. Z gave Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt suggesting that he did this as an act of charity, something he has done for years as a cardinal and has not yet made the mental conversion of its implications on the church as a whole. Let's give him some time to adjust to this new role. I sympathize with the pope as I too prefer a simpler life. Give him some time.

[mlizzy]

As an aside to the main argument, kissing a woman anywhere on her body (unless maybe she's really old, sick, etc.) can easily be sensual; men are "programmed," if you will, to be excited by same.

So by PF's actions, is he unknowingly "promoting" something not completely upright and holy? Jesus never kissed the feet of women, and it might be well and good if we followed suit (Church rule).

Prayers for Pope Francis!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear Excellence, "brothers and sisters" can be used in different senses.

One may mean "brothers and sisters in that we are all one part of the human family, sons of Adam according to the flesh."

(This makes us brothers and sisters because of our relationship to Adam, our common ancestor.)

The Bible refers to God as the "Father [meaning Creator] of all" (Ephesians 4:6)

(This makes us brothers and sisters because of our relationship as creatures of God, our Creator.)

What we are NOT, is brothers and sisters to Muslims as born-again in Baptism or in the Christian Faith, since they do not share our Baptism or the experience of being born-again or the Adoption. They are not of the household of the Faith. They are not our brothers and sisters "in Christ". Nor would they claim to be.

So they are our brothes and sisters in some ways, but not in others.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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.