www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things Worse Or Better Under Pope Francis?

It's not even clear to me that this constitutes an act of 'breaking tradition.'

Well on that we will have to agree to disagree. Christ washed the feet of His Apostles instituting them to priestly service, and throughout tradition - that is, up until the late 1960s - only men participated in the Rite of the Pedilavium.

The world truly is a funny place, because twenty-six years ago I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism after coming to the conclusion that Tradition and liturgy are important, but perhaps I was wrong. Clearly liturgy is not that important anymore to Catholics and Tradition has been replaced with instructions coming from the so-called "magisterium."

Respectfully, the rite of foot washing had a much broader meaning in the ancient church. It was closely associated with baptism itself in many places. St. Augustine seems to say that some had even come to think of it as a part of the baptismal rite itself in the African church. St. Ambrose discusses it in his De Sacramentis too. In Milan, it also followed baptism and he even seems to argue that it itself is one of the mysteries of the Church and not simply some symbolic gesture.

I think you could probably agree (?) on this much--if you thought the rite had no particular import or meaning for the institution of the priesthood, then the inclusion of women in it would be less troubling to you. And that (perhaps) if a person thought (as I do) of the rite in continuity with the tradition I just gestured toward, he might not be troubled by it either.

A tradition, even if venerable and proper, may sadly (at times) be broken, discarded; but not so of Tradition. But you know that. Oddly, those who disparage the magisterium, Vatican I and papal infallibility are the ones who deny Tradition, deny its "force." Whatever the Pope may do that I don't like I know he cannot take the Church into error and so I ultimately am at peace. Ironically the dogmatic pronouncement of his infallibility as Pope-ex-cathedra (which is also that of the Church) is also a dogmatic acknowledgment of his otherwise inherent fallibility.

In your opinion it can be broken. I do not agree with you or any of the others who seem to take the liturgy lightly.

As far as the pope not being able to lead the Church into error. I do not agree with that statement. Several popes were heretics, and officially taught their error as truth. As Adriaan Florenszoon Boeyens wrote:

"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment."

I am pleased with Pope Francis' focus upon the Cross of Christ and his - as I see it - sincere desire to help the poor. But I am not happy with his Low Church liturgical views. I gave up being a Low Churchman when I left the Methodist Church in the mid 1980s.

I do not take the liturgy lightly, I humbly assure you. I experienced, lived and loved the pre-VCII Roman liturgy and its pre-VCII renewal -- and have come to see, with respect, its shortcomings and those that followed the Council. Presently, regarding the Ruthenian liturgy, let's say I pay a price for not taking it lightly.

The word I used was "take."

You deny infallibility based on your incorrect understanding of what it is. Your argument, example, embodies inconsistency, contradiction: The cry is "heretics", "heretics", and "officially taught" but then no, really just "it is reported that..."

Also, "If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope.." is a wrong premise from which wrong conclusions are sure to follow. But even Pope Adrian VI didn't "take" the Church into error, did he? (Where, in what context did he say that?) Shows infallibility at work even though it would take 4 centuries to become doctrine, but that's Tradition for you.

Thank you for the correction, but I do not believe that the pope is prevented from either leading or taking the Church into error. Several popes have done that in the past, and I have no doubt there will be popes in the future who also do so.

Yeah, of course he later became pope and yet he clearly knew nothing about papal infallibility. But he was pope prior to the evolution of the modern doctrine.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because from my perspective you take the liturgy lightly.

May God grant you many years.

Ed Peters is apparently the only one with something sensible to say:

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/popes-like-dads-dont-have-a-choice-in-the-matter/


Popes, like dads, don’t have a choice in the matter
March 28, 2013
Pope and dads set examples whether they want to or not. If I have dessert despite not having finished my supper, my kids do not experience that family rule as something presumably oriented to their welfare, but rather, as an imposition to be borne until they, too, are old enough to make and break the rules.

Foot washing was not restricted to clerics or to men in the ancient church--it was performed on all the baptized. It clearly did not commemorate exclusively the institution of the priesthood. I am not referring to some hypothetical moment dreamed up by liturgists, but to the church of the Fathers, really attested in their writings. And this means that I take the liturgy lightly? And the Tradition?
I do not understand why the witness of the Fathers is unimportant and yet we can slide so comfortably in our talk between'pre-1960's' and 'throughout the tradition.' They are not the same. I feel the only conclusion I am left with is that you are allowing nostalgia for the preconciliar church to trump the memory of the apostolic church.

You would benefit from looking up The words "tradition" and "archaeologism" as concerns the liturgy and understanding the difference between the concepts.

The pope cannot take the Church into error? What about, no one can take the Church into error?

By singling out the pope in that statement, you make it sound like papal infallibility applies generally (and not just in specific exceptional instances as Vatican I taught).

And also (with) you, as they used to say. Consider:

I'd say the best analysis and conclusion is: How Should We Understand Pope Francis Washing Women's Feet? [ncregister.com]

Note:

• The NC Register is doctrinally and liturgically conservative.
  
• Aken actually quotes and references the pertinent texts (I like to see this -- shows thoroughness, rigor and a lack of bias.)
  
• He does a close reading (exegesis) of the text.
  
• He draws a balanced conclusion.

He notes the rubrics of the present missal do not mention the number 12 for the men and that the Mandantum ritual was add to the Mass only in the 1955 revision of Holy Week by Pius XII (often overlooked as a significant liturgical reform in the West prior to VCII). This is correct but to fill in, a 1924 edition of the Roman Missal has a form of the rite taking place just after the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper; a 1947 Liber Usualis has it as part of vespers (being a choir book it's short on rubrics); and the 1955 revision (I have the softback copy from that date) does, however, specify that after the homily, the deacon and subdeacon " inducunt duodecim viros selectos, binos et binos" for the washing of feet.

When legitimate, the mystical aspect of the Church trumps the legal/forensic. Problems arise when the Pope's legitimate inch becomes a license for others to take an illegitimate mile.