[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Pope, The Law, And Me

Creative Minority Report

Posted by Patrick Archbold at 3/30/2013

Much discussed these last days, the Pope violated the rubrics surrounding the washing of feet.

Also much discussed, the Pope has rejected tradition in multiple other very visible ways.

Also, widely reported is the Pope's commentary that the Church should not be inwardly focused.

It is not my intent here to discuss whether the Pope is right or wrong, authorized or not, to do what he has done. Father Z and Ed Peters do an excellent job of summing this up and I recommend you read it. My concern now is elsewhere.

The Pope's disregard for established law and rubrics coupled with his statements has an effect and I am afraid it is not all good.

I fear that the Pope is inadvertently setting people in the Church against each other.

This is how the Pope's actions are now being framed in the popular mindset:

If you think that law and rubrics are there for a reason, the reason being the order and good of the Church and the faithful, and you are troubled about the violations then you are part of the problem. You are one of the inwardly focused people that the Pope is trying wrest the Church back from. If you think that law, rubrics, and tradition matter, you are the other--you are the problem. You are not humble and simple like the Pope. You are the past.

If, on the other hand, law, rubrics, and majesty in the worship of God have never been your thing, then life is good. The Pope, by example if not by word, is validating your worldview. You have never really cared about such things and have often violated them. The Pope has just shown that, as you always suspected, these things don't really matter, that things like law, rubrics, and majesty hinder evangelization and are simply the products of an inwardly focused Church. You are part of future Church.

But this unfortunately sets the good of the Church against itself, truly a house divided. This division makes its way down to the people. Look how quickly that happened forty years ago.

Is it alright, in the name of simplicity, for a Catholic not to go to Church on Sunday as long as he keeps the day holy in some way? Why not?

If you think that abstaining from meat on Fridays is silly and anachronistic and a sign of an inwardly focused Church, can you dispense with it if you abstain from something with more meaning to you? Why not?

Which laws, rubrics, and traditions still matter? Which are still binding?

But see, if you even ask the question, then you are part of the problem and part of the past.

I don't believe that this is the intent of the Holy Father, but to some degree it is already the result. If Pope Francis continues to show disregard for law, rubrics, and tradition, I fear this dreadful result.

There are many things the Pope can change, law and rubrics among them. If the Pope wishes to change them, he should do so properly. For one thing the Pope cannot change is human nature. Disregard for the law breeds only more disregard for the law.


[Note. I love the Pope and want him to succeed. I think renewed focus on the poor is wonderful and I support it wholeheartedly. But I do not accept, as some would have you believe, that law, rubrics, and tradition must be thrown overboard to achieve this renewed focus on the poor. I don't think the Pope supports this either, but I fear some of his actions give encouragement to those who do.]

*subhead*The wrong way.*subhead*

[Brian Kopp DPM]

This debate is raging everywhere in the Catholic online community. There’s no point ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room when popular commentators such as Fr. Z are even expressing grave concerns.

[JimRed]

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.

That which is not forbidden is mandatory.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[mnehring]

Much discussed these last days, the Pope violated the rubrics surrounding the washing of feet. Also much discussed, the Pope has rejected tradition in multiple other very visible ways.

Maybe we really are in the end times but the opposite of what many people think. Maybe the Pope is giving us all (Catholics, Protestants, and Anglicans) one final example of humility and Christ-like action versus holding on to old tradition and obsessing if he uses the right mass or genuflects correctly. Will all of us as a universal Christian church humble ourselves or will we grasp on to tradition?

[Salvation]

I saw this yesterday, but figured either you or NYer woud post it.

[BlessedBeGod]

There are many things the Pope can change, law and rubrics among them. If the Pope wishes to change them, he should do so properly. For one thing the Pope cannot change is human nature. Disregard for the law breeds only more disregard for the law.

Yes, this sums up exactly my concern with what he did. You just know there are people out there who now think they can disregard any of the laws of the Church because Francis did it. "So what? He did it, why can't I?"

The result is going to be chaos.

[Excellence]

[moot - "doubtful, theoretical, meaningless, debatable"]

Declaring Moslems to be "brothers and sisters" renders the whole Catholic Church moot. What part of "I am the Lord your God, and before me thou shalt have no other gods" does Francis not get.

[Lou Budvis]

You know who else consistently violated religious rules? Jesus. I am a cradle practical Catholic, but I have enough Protestant blood in me to approve of Pope Francis wanting to stip the Church of many unnecessary trappings and traditions. Ermine stolls, gold pectoral crosses, and a rule prohbiting washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday are not in any way necessary to the mission of the Church.

[353FMG]

>By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.<

.
Although The Passion of Our Lord is the Gospel, it was sung by a woman in our church. Needless to say that she is neither a priest nor deacon.

I must admit, she has a fabulous voice and did a fantastic job.

[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.

[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!

[informavoracious]

At a TLM I attend, the men whose feet are to be washed are prominent members of the parish who wear their Sunday best suits and clean socks. I have always thought it might be better to choose homeless men on the street. On the other hand, now that I have read that it is for disciples, that makes it wrong to wash the feet of Moslems. Jesus did not wash the feet of Judas, correct? When a Moslem imam bends down and washes the feet of the pope, then I will say we are on “equal footing” as to dialogue.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

People seem to forget how Christ saved the prostitue from stoning. That was against custom, too. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

...crickets.