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

The rite of the Pedilavium was not performed on "all the baptized" during the liturgy celebrated on Holy Thursday in the ancient Church. That rite commemorated the institution of the priesthood by Christ at the Last Supper. The foot washing you are talking about was associated with baptism, and if Pope Francis wants to wash the feet of every Catholic living in Rome outside of the mass celebrated on Holy Thursday . . . I say more power to him. Finally, flouting Tradition and the rubrics of the liturgy are not acts of humility; instead, they are - if anything - prideful acts.

It's interesting that you say that. I read it and thought it was at best ridiculous and at worst sophism. I had dared to hope that with the last papacy, Roman Catholics had finally completed the long period of really laughable self-deception. I see now that this is not so.

Read on in what I said.

It's difficult to be entirely contextual in a single (reasonably long) sentence. But taking up your point, how to fix it: Whatever the Pope may do that I don't like I know he cannot take the Church into error (of course no one can) and so I ultimately am at peace.

I gave reasons why I consider Akin as giving a good analysis and presentation of the issue. I read closely and critically, in science as a profession, in theology as believer and some-time scholar, and I find rather the opposite of "ridiculous and ... sophism."

Pope Benedict was my kind of Pope: his Papacy was a comfort for me and, I felt, a consolation for the Church. Pope Francis can make me uncomfortable, but if I were to conclude as you do I know in my heart that I would be just like one of the Sadducees condemning Jesus, or a Saul on his horse to Damascus.

Interesting. So if I understand this correctly, it seems that the "singling out" of the Pope was incidental.

But I have to ask, if that's the case then why did you link it to infallibility, e.g. when you said:

?

I don't see a logical line here. Why are you uncomfortable? Has His Holiness put a pin in your chair? Or are you uncomfortable because in fact you have concluded and prefer not to have?

This seems to be the singular fact of Mr. Akin's strained analysis: nobody can avoid concluding what everybody is concluding except by writing a thousand words to excuse the inexcusable. I'm not saying the Holy Father has committed the worst sin, or any sin for that matter, but he has exhibited terrifically poor judgement which cannot help confuse and damage the faithful.

Next he'll be eating dinner with them!!!!

"After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the Pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an Ecumenical Council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the Pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The Pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith..."

—Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy,

But what's he know, eh? It's a shiny new day.

Interesting article:

I had forgotten that quote, JDC, but it had a profound influence on my decision to become Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox) many years ago.

I recorded my own thoughts on the matter in a blog post entitled Taking License from Pope Francis I [priestofthechurch.wordpress.com]. It will be especially important for the whole Church to remember that the Pope is only acting in a definitive way as Chief Pastor when he is acting in concert with Tradition. Tradition is prior to papal authority, and must serve as its measure; it is NOT subordinate to papal authority.

In trying to accommodate your concern it seems I've created further issues. Perhaps you can suggest some suitable statement that would be acceptable and then I might just be able to agree with it. I must be missing a nuance or some subtlety. I have presumed that the Pope is considered unique as the only person/office that has been (in colloquial terms) declared to be infallible.

I disagree. Your response made your position somewhat more understandable, but not completely.


Hmmm ... I'm sure there are many statements that one of us could make, that the other one could agree it.

No need to be snide.

The mere reaching of a conclusion does not make me "uncomfortable." Some of the words of Jesus in the Gospels make me uncomfortable. Some examples of others make me conscious of those words.

"...nobody can avoid concluding what everybody is concluding.." I'm not. Grandiose words may sound good to some but to me they don't suggest a strong argument.

I wouldn't put it like that but I appreciate your concern. As I wrote in response to your father/kids analogy (I had some connection problems at the time and the version I intended, which follows, differs slightly from the one submitted):

Apotheoun, I think this statement of yours helps me better understand your position.

I think we probably will continue to disagree about how to judge the pope's actions on Holy Thursday. That said, I think I understand your point of view more clearly now and I agree in principle with what you (and others) have gone on to say in this thread--about Tradition as the measure of magisterial authority and about the authority of the liturgy.
There are probably differences remaining, but I will say that I certainly think those differences are smaller.

I'm only more unable to appreciate this position. I do not see it being established that even tradition -- not to even speak of Tradition -- has been flouted.

Why is the washing of feet by the Pope outside of the Mass ok but such a breach if within the Mass? I gave references showing that the position of the foot washing rite within the Mass dates, in terms of its immediately prior position outside the Mass, from the 1955 reform of Pius XII. This seems to indicated it has not evolved as some inherent Tradition from the prototype of the washing of feet by Jesus. Also, in the West it is prescribed for parochial use by the presbyter, not just the bishop, thus removing it even further from the link with the priesthood that has been alleged but not demonstrated or corroborated. (In the Ruthenian Recension the rite is in the Archieratikon).

I say this in general (not just to the respondents): that it is odd that those who are apt to take a dim view of the legal element in the Church are now so adamant about this (I'd say) legitimate adaptation of rubrics by the Pope.