|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: White Smoke! Discuss the new pope...
|
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
The young Muslim woman in an Italian prison, perhaps an asylum-seeker caught up in crime -- I do wonder how much choice prisoners have in participating in such a public event and what significance it has for them. My Somali neighbour from up the road who is militantly Muslim was scandalised but his daughter thought it was 'liberating'.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Yours seems to be a really interesting neck of the woods, Mary. I am amazed that there is a discussion on this in the first place. Do you have any idea what the general take of the local Muslim community is on the Maundy Thursday footwashing of a Muslim girl?
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
My Somali neighbour from up the road who is militantly Muslim was scandalised...
Scandalised by love - excellent. Just like Jesus did it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There exists canon law about this rite. The pope broke it. Of course, the pope is the supreme law maker of the Church, and concerning this particular rite he could have legislated near anything he wanted, in advance. But he didn't. He broke his own law as it stood. So what precedent does this set for other Catholics?
Seriously, this is not about washing the feet of a woman. If he had changed the canon law for all so that this is possible in the rite, I would have had no complaints. But instead he has broken the canon law before all. I guess the consequences in the first instance are similar: priests will now wash whomsoever's feet they like. But they will now do so by ignoring canon law as the pope did, not by following an updated law. What other canon law might they then be inspired to disregard on their own devices?
This pope needs to understand that he is pope. Soon. He has already damaged the Church here. It's only a dent, but this could get worse.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There exists canon law about this rite. The pope broke it. Of course, the pope is the supreme law maker of the Church, and concerning this particular rite he could have legislated near anything he wanted, in advance. But he didn't. He broke his own law as it stood. So what precedent does this set for other Catholics?
Seriously, this is not about washing the feet of a woman. If he had changed the canon law for all so that this is possible in the rite, I would have had no complaints. But instead he has broken the canon law before all. I guess the consequences in the first instance are similar: priests will now wash whomsoever's feet they like. But they will now do so by ignoring canon law as the pope did, not by following an updated law. What other canon law might they then be inspired to disregard on their own devices?
This pope needs to understand that he is pope. Soon. He has already damaged the Church here. It's only a dent, but this could get worse.
Putting Canon Law as the centre on which the Church hinges, accusing the Pope of having "damaged" the Church??
Go on, Ingo, dig that hole a bit deeper, will you?
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I seem to recall that a Galilean carpenter turned preacher also broke "canon law" on many a Sabbath.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law is of course a "civil law", not a "common law". So no, this was not at all licit.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Before anyone else gets their knickers in a twist - as long ago as 10-12 years ago, my parish priest was washing the feet of women in the parish. They were members of the parish council.
I think that the rarefied air of canon law aside, this question has been settled in the troops, as I have seen it in other parishes, as well.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hmm. I would have thought that the Pope could change canon law by setting a precedent in his actions, first, but the implication of that would be that the written canon would have to be changed to avoid confusion to others.
In short, while there's a tension between a Papal act and the content of canon law, there's scope for confusion.
There's also a distinction there between imitating a Christ-act (which was of course confined to his disciples in the original) towards Christians and extending that act to someone of a different faith.
Is that a proper extension? Well, the Pope seems to think so! So I guess the canon law should be changed to recognise that development.
But ... the Pope may have been guilty of a fallible act from two POV.
1. Acting at variance with canon law could create an unwanted confusion.
2. It may well have been a charitable act, but it seems also to go further than the original intention of Jesus to cleanse the walk of his followers.
I should think this may take some time to sort out.
Should I consider becoming a Jesuit, IngoB? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Probably not. I think it was a good act, even if not necessarily fully thought through. A sign of a good heart.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
No, not really. If there is an established custom (30 years of continued use counts as established) that is not contrary to the law, then that has the force of law unless explicitly abolished.
This rite, which has only been part of the Mass of the Lords Supper since 1955 (before which it was a separate right for the vending of Holy Thursday rather than part of the Mass), is an optional part of the Mass and there are a number of fairly well documented occasions of diocesan bishops asking for a dispensation from the requirement that those washed are "viri selecti" for pastoral reasons. The most well-known of these is that granted to Sean Cardinal O'Malley in Boston, who was told by the Holy See to do what he judged to be pastorally expedient. I imagine that the Pope decided that what he was doing was pastorally expedient and dispensed himself. Whether that prudential judgement on his part as wise or not is a different question from whether it is licit or not and it doesn't belong to me to judge that.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Shouldn't really have anything to do with canon law but liturgical tradition, something which even the bishop of Rome is subject to (something Benedict at least understood...I'll miss him, even though I'm not a Roman Catholic). Anyway, if Francis has ignored liturgical tradition he's only following the example set by Pius X, Pius XII and Paul VI, all of which broke with liturgical tradition in one form or another.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
An older deacon at the Catholic church here is so upset, he could hardly speak this morning. He said what IngoB mentioned, that to change the official liturgical rules would have been a simple matter and that procedures should have been followed. He also said though, that the foot washing and the way Pope Francis spoke showed great reverence and a zeal for service. It wasn't a deliberate slight but the informality of someone from a different culture. Out here too, we are more prone to improvise and make do.
Desert Daughter, I'm in an area of the Overberg (stretching from the edge of the Karoo to the Hottentots-Holland mountains that overlook the Western Cape). In the last 15 years many refugees and asylum seekers have come here to avoid the xenophobic attacks in settlements closer to Cape Town, so we have Somali and Sudanese migrants competing with Angolan and Zimbabwean refugees and local Xhosa and Cape coloured workers for scarce jobs on farms or setting up small trading businesses. Many Somali shops were burned down in the recent riots, so it is a tense situation and the Muslim community keeps a very low profile. I doubt the Muslim Judicial Council in Cape Town would make any critical statement -- there is a long tradition of ecumenical activist work for justice.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, you are mistaken. Liturgical law is part of the Canon Law of the Latin Rite.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... the Pope may have been guilty of a fallible act from two POV.
Or from a third: that the act is simply not capable of falling within the conditions for his act to have been otherwise.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
True, Trisagion. Absolutely unwarrantable is a third category.
I withdraw my Jesuit request.
Mind you, I like this Pope. He seems to have creative nonconformist tendencies. Takes one to spot one.
This Papacy could be a bit of a roller-coaster ride.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He seems to have creative nonconformist tendencies. Takes one to spot one.
Apart from this being another manifestation of your continual attempt to claim for non-conformism anybody who does stuff you like, it is quite simply completely untrue. He is a 76 year old Jesuit Bishop. It seems to me that he is behaving in an entirely conformist way: conforming to the liturgical approach of his age, his order and his Order. The true non-conformist was his predecessor.
quote:
This Papacy could be a bit of a roller-coaster ride.
Whereas that of any of those of the last two hundred years have been what exactly?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
No, not really. If there is an established custom (30 years of continued use counts as established) that is not contrary to the law, then that has the force of law unless explicitly abolished.
This rite, which has only been part of the Mass of the Lords Supper since 1955 (before which it was a separate right for the vending of Holy Thursday rather than part of the Mass), is an optional part of the Mass and there are a number of fairly well documented occasions of diocesan bishops asking for a dispensation from the requirement that those washed are "viri selecti" for pastoral reasons. The most well-known of these is that granted to Sean Cardinal O'Malley in Boston, who was told by the Holy See to do what he judged to be pastorally expedient. I imagine that the Pope decided that what he was doing was pastorally expedient and dispensed himself. Whether that prudential judgement on his part as wise or not is a different question from whether it is licit or not and it doesn't belong to me to judge that.
So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ? I imagine he could then change cannon law later if he wanted to.
I would have thought there is a reasonable theological argument that Jesus washed apostles feet as a demonstration of service - so to widen the circle of people to whom you offer this service is in keeping with the principle he is thought to have been promoting.
In other words, either you are a) are trying to imitate a specific act done to specific people so you don't forget it happened, or b) are you trying enact the principles demonstrated in a specific act done to specific people. The pope seems to be going with b.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ? I imagine he could then change cannon law later if he wanted to.
Correct on both points (except the spelling of canon). In fact, since what he did was a voluntary act, there is no other possible explanation than that he did dispense himself. The suggestion that he was ignorant of the liturgical provisions around this rite is simply not credible, having regard to the number of ceremoniarii around him.
quote:
I would have thought there is a reasonable theological argument that Jesus washed apostles feet as a demonstration of service - so to widen the circle of people to whom you offer this service is in keeping with the principle he is thought to have been promoting.
I agree.
quote:
In other words, either you are a) are trying to imitate a specific act done to specific people so you don't forget it happened, or b) are you trying enact the principles demonstrated in a specific act done to specific people. The pope seems to be going with b.
...or both.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
This Papacy could be a bit of a roller-coaster ride.
Whereas that of any of those of the last two hundred years have been what exactly?
Echoing PeteC, is all.
BTW, I stand corrected on posting tendencies. We're a minority group, always on the lookout for fellow-travellers. I'll bear it in mind.
[ 29. March 2013, 11:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The link doesn't work.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<cross-post several deep>
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ?
I guess so, and hence what I said above (that this was "not at all licit") is wrong. If he indeed did dispense himself, then he obviously removed the contrary law for himself. Question for Trisagion: for this dispensation to be formally correct, would he have to have made that official somehow in advance? So that somewhere in the Vatican there's now a document (be it a short note) with his signature about this. Or can he just do this "on the fly" and "in the act", as it were?
At any rate, even if he can and formally did bypass the canon legal issues, I still think doing so is bad form.
[ 29. March 2013, 11:01: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The link doesn't work.
Apologies and thanks for the heads up. Corrected in situ.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Question for Trisagion: for this dispensation to be formally correct, would he have to have made that official somehow in advance?
No.
quote:
So that somewhere in the Vatican there's now a document (be it a short note) with his signature about this. Or can he just do this "on the fly" and "in the act", as it were?
He can do it however he likes.
quote:
At any rate, even if he can and formally did bypass the canon legal issues, I still think doing so is bad form.
I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I don't know how you can presume to judge the prudential judgements of another - especially one whose sacramental responsibilities you don't share - without a great deal more information than we can have.
I, too, have a very high regard for the Church's liturgical culture and reflexively feel extremely uncomfortable when people mess around with what we have received. However, it seems crystal clear what the Pope is seeking to do and why. I am not fit to tie his sandals (black shoes) let alone judge his pastoral initiatives.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
Victor Griffin, Church of Ireland Priest and former Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, well known for being one of the most outspoken voices in the Ireland of the 1980s said it best in his autobiography.
"Barring people from coming forward because they do not hold a particular theological or philosophical belief..is I believe usurping the place of God and becoming a judge of the worthiness or unworthiness of individuals. Religious legalism is then in command. 'We have a law and by that law he ought to die,' howled the mob crying out for Christ to be crucified. They believed it was God's law, divine law, the divine imprimatur. How often is Christ crucified with his love and compassion in the name of the law of the Church. We have a law...
But God is not in our hands. We are in His."
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
For those of us who are not Roman Catholics and do not spend our scarce leisure hours scouring Catholic Canon Law, what canon is Pope Francis being accused of having broken please?
Is it washing someone's feet, rather than having a Cardinal do it for him? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not in holy orders? Is it washing a woman's feet? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not a Catholic? Is it wearing the wrong garment while washing someone's feet? I have to admit, that if it is any of those, that would ilustrate the adage that the law is an ass, and Pope Francis is a better example to follow.
Or is it something else I haven't thought of?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
You've every business saying it.
There is little to be said in favour of those so scandalised save that it isn't the Pope washing per se the feet of whomsoever he wishes to which they object (suspicions to the contrary being set aside) but his doing so contrary to the liturgical rules within the context of a liturgical rite. This seems to be based on two things: first, a belief that the rite is intimately tied up with the institution of the priesthood and, second, that nobody, not even the Pope, is free to change the liturgy in a positivist manner.
The liturgical history of the rite reveals that it has been understood as linked to the institution of the priesthood but not as the operative divine act of institution rather than as the model of priestly service. If the act itself had been seen as the form of institution, there would be questions to be asked about why it is not preserved in the rite of ordination. More pertinent to the current controversy is that, if it were the act by which the priesthood was instituted then those currently outraged would have reason to be concerned since the gender of those washed, in the context of the rite, would then have significance within the debate around certain well-known DH issues. Since the act is not that, then the concern seems completely misplaced.
The second concern is, I think, better placed, in that one of the problems that has dogged the liturgy of the Latin Rite since 1570 has been a sort of positivist activity whereby the liturgy is adapted, changed and altered as a positive magisterial act rather than treated as something received which is to be conserved and handed on. Again, the problem here is that the Church has always done this: the only real question is whether a particular change is made in order to preserve the truth of the liturgical act or to alter it.
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For those of us who are not Roman Catholics and do not spend our scarce leisure hours scouring Catholic Canon Law, what canon is Pope Francis being accused of having broken please?
Is it washing someone's feet, rather than having a Cardinal do it for him? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not in holy orders? Is it washing a woman's feet? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not a Catholic? Is it wearing the wrong garment while washing someone's feet? I have to admit, that if it is any of those, that would ilustrate the adage that the law is an ass, and Pope Francis is a better example to follow.
Or is it something else I haven't thought of?
Enoch, have sympathy for those of us who spend not our scarce leisure hours but our working ones scouring Catholic Canon Law.
The issue is two-fold:
1. The missal refers to viri selecti - that is to men who have been chosen to have their feet washed and the word is gender specific;
2. The Code of Canon Law (canon 846.1) forbids anyone to add to, omit or alter anything prescribed in the rite on their own authority.
Since, however, the Pope is the supreme legislator within the Church and can alter whatever he wishes in matters that are not of Divine Law, he could change the provision from the gender exclusive "viri" to the inclusive "hominis". IngoB, together with others elsewhere, have claimed that had he done so they would have no objection to what has happened. This misses the point that the canonical maxim salus anima rum suprema lex - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - allows for those with the appropriate authority to dispense from the specific provisions of the law for appropriate reasons. There is a whole worked out system of who has the authority to dispense with which provisions (as you might expect) but what is not in doubt is that the Pope has the authority to dispense with this provision for himself or others if he thinks that there is a sufficiently important reason related to the salvation of souls. This being so, the debate simply becomes one about whether his prudential judgement in this or that case is correct. I maintain that I don't have either the position or the information necessary to make such a judgement.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So the LAW that says women must be excluded takes precedence? Or is it the LAW that says only priests can have their feet washed (which pretty well wipes out any hope that the rest of us can be served by anyone)?
The necessity to shrilly invoke THE LAW indicates the weakness of the case being shrilled about.
If the One-and-Only Church is not to be allowed to reach out to those in need, then the One-and-Only Church will even more rapidly descend to a very lonely place.
Apart from the gracious comments by Trisagion, I see no positive value in what is being said about THE LAW.
But then I'm only a rural backwater Anglican, even though I am engaged in a small attempt to bring my own church and Church into some recognition of the passage of centuries. Huffing and puffing about man-instituted ceremonial movements is totally counter-productive when one reads the commands of Jesus.
ISTM that Francis was chosen to be an instrument of Change, not to be a throwback to medieval scholasticism or pre-VII absolutism.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Bit of a tangent here - sorry if we've covered this up thread. What do our Orthodox pals make of Francis? I know that Francis got a Marian icon as a gift from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and three days later the Pope gave the icon as a gift to Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Apparently this passing on a gift as a gift went down a storm with the Ruskies.
Any other views from the East?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think I've got that.
1. The supreme law is the salvation of souls.
2. The Pope, as supreme earthly authority (vicar of Christ), may dispense with any aspect of Canon law and also make a positive magisterial change to a particular enactment of any liturgy in accordance with the supreme law.
3. In doing either or both of these things, he is not effecting a permanent change in either Canon Law in general or any specific liturgy.
4. Permanent changes to canon law (and liturgy) are more deliberate processes in accordance with the Tradition, and are made clear in writing once determined.
Is that right? In practice, and for the time being, these acts may be regarded as both licit and "one off"?
"Luminously Christ-like" is a fine and accurate description. A good act, showing a good heart (my earlier expression) was an understatement, to say the least, but not intended to be mealy-mouthed.
[ 29. March 2013, 16:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Well not quite, Barnabas. If the Pope makes a definitive, positive magisterial change to the Liturgy then that is of general application, whereas a dispensation is just that.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bit of a tangent here - sorry if we've covered this up thread. What do our Orthodox pals make of Francis? I know that Francis got a Marian icon as a gift from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and three days later the Pope gave the icon as a gift to Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Apparently this passing on a gift as a gift went down a storm with the Ruskies.
Any other views from the East?
I can share mine, for what they are worth (which is not very much). I really, really like him, more and more as I hear about him. I like the lack of pomp and circumstance (and as an Orthodox, I certainly don't have any objection to pomp and circumstance as a general principle). I like his humble attitude, and wish more high level clerics did this.
I like his apparent insistance on titling himself "bishop of Rome" rather than Pope. To me this signals that, perhaps, he would be willing to back down from the whole "primacy" issue, thus opening the door to possible reconciliation (obviously it would take a lot more, but this is a major, pivotal issue).
I like his attitude as displayed in the washing of the feet of not just "not priests" but incarcerated youth (i.e. "sinners"), and in particular that some of them are not men, and further that some of them are not even christian, let alone catholic. To me this signals that he sees his role as universal, but not as "universal boss" but rather as "universal servant". I see it as very positive, and as someone up-thread said, very Christ-like.
I disagree with him on some dead horse issues.. but I rather doubt that there will be a Pope in my lifetime who agrees with me on those issues, so I don't hold that against him. Within the parameters of general RCC theology and praxis, he seems to be about as close to perfect as I could hope for (from what I have seen so far.. which is likely only the surface).
He also seems to me to be less focused on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit, which appeals to me greatly. not to say that the letter of the law is not important, but rather that when the letter and the spirit seem to be in conflict, the spirit should win out. that's what I see in him.
I have more respect for him already than I ever did for the last two Popes (I don't really remember those before, even those within my lifetime).
I really look forward to reading more about what this Pope does in the years to come!
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
For exactly the wrong reasons.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bit of a tangent here - sorry if we've covered this up thread. What do our Orthodox pals make of Francis? I know that Francis got a Marian icon as a gift from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and three days later the Pope gave the icon as a gift to Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Apparently this passing on a gift as a gift went down a storm with the Ruskies.
Any other views from the East?
From an ex-traditionalist RC now Orthodox, I miss Benedict.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Well not quite, Barnabas. If the Pope makes a definitive, positive magisterial change to the Liturgy then that is of general application, whereas a dispensation is just that.
Is that always the case, or might it be possible that a one-off enactment of the Liturgy was just that? I hear you saying that the Pope can effect a permanent change in the Liturgy "on the fly" if he wants to. But he may not want to. He may want to do a thing just once.
This may expose an ignorance on my part of a feature of the Liturgy, but I can't find a hole in my own logic!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
For exactly the wrong reasons.
Care to expand on that a bit?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
Your good sense about all this makes me proud to be your brother in the Order of Deacons.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
For exactly the wrong reasons.
Care to expand on that a bit?
I can remember the feeling on The Ship at the time Benedict XVI was elected. That too was seen as a "sign of hope" mostly by those who wanted to see change but were not necessarily members of the RCC.
Things are much the same now.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
I think the choice of Pope Francis was brilliant: it's about time the New World was recognized at the Vatican!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
For exactly the wrong reasons.
Care to expand on that a bit?
I can remember the feeling on The Ship at the time Benedict XVI was elected. That too was seen as a "sign of hope" mostly by those who wanted to see change but were not necessarily members of the RCC.
Things are much the same now.
Isn't memory odd? I thought there was general dismay on the Ship when B16 was elected, which gradually lifted when he turned out to be not as bad as people feared.
Expectations are dodgy things - those who stir the highest hopes are bound to disappoint them, or so it seems to me. Does anyone else remember Obama being given a Nobel Prize before he became President? With a start like that could he possibly exceed expectations?
Don't get me wrong; I like, and am challenged by, all I've seen of Francis so far. But he needs our prayers as he's bound to hit stormy waters at some point. And, when he does, there will be no way to keep everyone happy.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Enoch, have sympathy for those of us who spend not our scarce leisure hours but our working ones scouring Catholic Canon Law.
The issue is two-fold:
1. The missal refers to viri selecti - that is to men who have been chosen to have their feet washed and the word is gender specific;
2. The Code of Canon Law (canon 846.1) forbids anyone to add to, omit or alter anything prescribed in the rite on their own authority.
Since, however, the Pope is the supreme legislator within the Church and can alter whatever he wishes in matters that are not of Divine Law, he could change the provision from the gender exclusive "viri" to the inclusive "hominis". IngoB, together with others elsewhere, have claimed that had he done so they would have no objection to what has happened. This misses the point that the canonical maxim salus anima rum suprema lex - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - allows for those with the appropriate authority to dispense from the specific provisions of the law for appropriate reasons. There is a whole worked out system of who has the authority to dispense with which provisions (as you might expect) but what is not in doubt is that the Pope has the authority to dispense with this provision for himself or others if he thinks that there is a sufficiently important reason related to the salvation of souls. This being so, the debate simply becomes one about whether his prudential judgement in this or that case is correct. I maintain that I don't have either the position or the information necessary to make such a judgement.
Wow.
Does that also mean that only a priest can wash anybody's feet? In a convent, could the Mother Superior wash a nun's feet, or would that be a liturgical outrage - she can't represent Christ and a nun can't be a 'vir'?
And how can a Pope's judgement be otherwise than prudential?
Besides, if the Holy Father does something that IngoB and an unknown South African deacon don't approve of, who is there that can discipline him?
[ 29. March 2013, 20:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm trying hard to restrain my enthusiasm, remembering the euphoria when Tony Blair was elected. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) I just hope Francis won't let us down.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
Yea, it's nice that he's got a down-to-earth style n all that sort of thing, but fundamentally there is not going to be a great deal difference -in terms of substance- than Benedict XVI
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
That's a curious comparison. For this to hold, one has to declare canon law to be equivalent to Leviticial law and/or Pharisaic regulations of late Judaism. If so, then we should simply abandon it outright. Furthermore, Jesus was quite insistent that law be maintained, even before unworthy judges. What he did do - by Divine power - is to remove uncharitable interpretations of the law, like counting healing as work on Sabbath. Again, are we saying then that canon law is uncharitable? This banging on about the supposed "law breaker" Christ is simplistic, and the immediate condemnation of those who prefer their liturgical rules to not be created by the ad-libbing of anyone, including the pope, is telling.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I don't know how you can presume to judge the prudential judgements of another - especially one whose sacramental responsibilities you don't share - without a great deal more information than we can have. ... However, it seems crystal clear what the Pope is seeking to do and why.
Nicely self-contradictory. I will go with your second opinion, it is indeed obvious enough what is going on. But the pope isn't just the bishop of Rome, and whatever advantage it has to keep the "humble rebel" media image up for a while longer, in the long term one cannot both rule and rebel. Neither is humility necessarily found in throwing out all signs of office. Also the washing of feet is not new liturgical battleground. All those priests and perhaps bishops who ignored liturgical law on this before, without dispensation, will feel that they have done the right thing. That may not be formally true, given that they could not dispense themselves, but that's how it will be perceived. Do we need that kind of signal?
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am not fit to tie his sandals (black shoes) let alone judge his pastoral initiatives.
You are not John the Baptist, and he is not Jesus Christ. Can we tone down the shouts of "santo subito" ("saint now") until the new pope has actually achieved something of substance for the Church?
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
More pertinent to the current controversy is that, if it were the act by which the priesthood was instituted then those currently outraged would have reason to be concerned since the gender of those washed, in the context of the rite, would then have significance within the debate around certain well-known DH issues. Since the act is not that, then the concern seems completely misplaced.
Let's be clear that this is a complete straw man. I know of nobody who has claimed that this is "the act by which the priesthood was instituted", on any side, ever. The association has always been via John 13. Since Christ was washing the feet of the apostles in scripture, the sex of those who were getting their feet washed has been associated with the sex of the apostles. Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, that view was and is common. And of course one has to wonder what the lawgiver was thinking about in specifying that only the feet of men should be washed, if not this association.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Again, the problem here is that the Church has always done this: the only real question is whether a particular change is made in order to preserve the truth of the liturgical act or to alter it.
I wish I could conjure up an un-ending stream of liturgical abuses for you to deal with, each and every one ferociously argued to "preserve the truth of the liturgical act", just - you know - updated for modern times and people. Unfortunately, other people would suffer as well if this happened, so I cannot really wish for this. But it would serve you right.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
Well, he certainly earned the applause and admiration of the secular world, the mainstream media, and our separated brethren - I'll leave it up to the Father what further reward he can expect for this.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
IngoB, together with others elsewhere, have claimed that had he done so they would have no objection to what has happened. This misses the point that the canonical maxim salus anima rum suprema lex - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - allows for those with the appropriate authority to dispense from the specific provisions of the law for appropriate reasons.
And if this is really such a "luminously Christlike act", wouldn't it have been better to allow it for every priest and bishop of the world? Wouldn't that have been an even more convincing sign, one that doesn't direct our attention so exclusively to the wonderful deeds of Pope Francis? And what about the salvation of the conservative, and yes, even traditional, souls entrusted to his care? Wouldn't this have avoided at least some hardship for them, without compromising the sign he was about to set? This liturgical change could have been handled better, better by any measure other than maximising publicity.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If the ONLY thing that happened was that the cost of some of the robes and other fineries was redirected to some poor people, that would be a noticeable improvement.
Recognising that the Pope is REQUIRED by the teachings of Jesus to be the servant of the least is a sign that +++F has some idea of what the Church is actually about.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
Your good sense about all this makes me proud to be your brother in the Order of Deacons.
And your gracious response, Trisagion, humbles my earlier dismay.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, are we saying then that canon law is uncharitable?
Perhaps - I only say perhaps - that's a question that might be considered, rather than merely being posed rhetorically.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
