Jorge Bergoglio goes from the supreme "lawbreaker" the Church in Buenos Aires to the Church's "lawmaker!"
Pope proves that if you disobey a law long enough, the Church will change it.
His "god of surprises" has more in store!
 |
| Jorge Card. Bergoglio breaks the Law of the Church and washes women's feet in Buenos Aires |
That's right ladies, you can wear a short skirt and give a little flash to Father Bobby as he pours water on your feet in front of the congregation. But don't worry, he'll probably have no interest because he's as queer as this decision.
The picture above is when Francis was just plain out Cardinal Jorge. This means that the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires broke liturgical law and thus, Canon Law. When he became Pope, and chose to repeat this as Pope the last three years, he had the right to dispense with the Law. As Cardinal, and whenever he did this before becoming a Cardinal, he did not have the right. This means that the current Bishop of Rome did not respect the Law of the Church in these matters before. If he intentionally broke the law of the Church, was that, objectively speaking, a mortal sin? He surely knew what the was, he surely knew better. Hence, he has no respect for Law, but yet, he has changed the Law at his own whim. He has told all of this for well over a year now, that he hates Law, even as recently as Monday morning and then he changes it. He hates it but he knows it is necessary, yet, he would like no law. We have as Pope, an anarchist!
You and I, however; we are the dissenters. We are the sinners of course. We are those not open to his "god of surprises." We are those nasty, trads who bite!
Well, surprise!
The picture above is when Francis was just plain out Cardinal Jorge. This means that the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires broke liturgical law and thus, Canon Law. When he became Pope, and chose to repeat this as Pope the last three years, he had the right to dispense with the Law. As Cardinal, and whenever he did this before becoming a Cardinal, he did not have the right. This means that the current Bishop of Rome did not respect the Law of the Church in these matters before. If he intentionally broke the law of the Church, was that, objectively speaking, a mortal sin? He surely knew what the was, he surely knew better. Hence, he has no respect for Law, but yet, he has changed the Law at his own whim. He has told all of this for well over a year now, that he hates Law, even as recently as Monday morning and then he changes it. He hates it but he knows it is necessary, yet, he would like no law. We have as Pope, an anarchist!
You and I, however; we are the dissenters. We are the sinners of course. We are those not open to his "god of surprises." We are those nasty, trads who bite!
Well, surprise!
Does Franciscus have the legal power to do this? Of course he does.
Does he have the moral authority? NO, not in a million years. Not in a lifetime does he have the moral authority to do this. He has changed the whole meaning of the Rite!
It is another example of dissenters changing practice, changing doctrine.
Communion-in-the-hand.
Girl Altar Boys.
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Liturgical abuse, legalised through the breaking of the law.
So, how do you like the god of surprises, so far, eh?
What kind of Pope is this? I, I, I! Who is this Argentine Peronist!
Is it true then? Did he really stand up and shout that he would strip the 13 Cardinals of their red hats? "Full power has been given to me, I run the show around here?" Did he say it? Because if he didn't, he sure acts like it!
No Wojtyla, No Ratzinger would ever have gotten away with this. Nor would they have tried.
What a blatant, idiotic, abominable decision on the part of the Bishop of Rome. The lawbreaker has become the lawmaker and a bad one at that.
Fathers reading this! You have a choice.
The Washing of the Feet was not part of the Mass until 1955. It was a rite reserved to Cathedrals, Monasteries, Seminaries and Religious Houses. When it was put after the homily on Holy Thursday in the "Reformed Holy Week" by Pius XII at the urging of Annibale Bugnini and other modernists hidden away in the liturgical offices of the Vatican, it was the first time in 2000 years that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was interrupted for a para-liturgy. It was then and remains in the traditional Missal and in the modernist Missal, an "option." It does not have to be done. It can be optioned out! So, option it out! The decree only changes what it expressly seeks to change.
It does not apply to the traditional Mass.
Where is the consultation with the "brother bishops?" Where is the "collegiality?" This Pope has become a dictator, an absolutist, a Peronist!
The Washing of the Feet was not part of the Mass until 1955. It was a rite reserved to Cathedrals, Monasteries, Seminaries and Religious Houses. When it was put after the homily on Holy Thursday in the "Reformed Holy Week" by Pius XII at the urging of Annibale Bugnini and other modernists hidden away in the liturgical offices of the Vatican, it was the first time in 2000 years that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was interrupted for a para-liturgy. It was then and remains in the traditional Missal and in the modernist Missal, an "option." It does not have to be done. It can be optioned out! So, option it out! The decree only changes what it expressly seeks to change.
It does not apply to the traditional Mass.
Where is the consultation with the "brother bishops?" Where is the "collegiality?" This Pope has become a dictator, an absolutist, a Peronist!
But mark my words; a future pope will undo this liturgical crime.
You have one choice friends, leave the Novus Ordo. Get out of it and get into Tradition in every way. It is going to come crashing down. It is a valid Mass when, blah, blah, blah; but it cannot be reformed, it can only be abrogated and it will be!
Mark. My. Words.
Here is the Latin Decree from the Congregation, no doubt, forced upon them:To my Venerable Brother Cardinal ROBERT SARAHPrefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsYour Eminence,As I had the opportunity to tell you, for some time I have been reflecting on the rite of "washing of the feet," contained in the Liturgy of the Mass of the Lord's Supper, in order to improve the methods of implementation, to express the full meaning of the gesture made by Jesus at the Last Supper, his gift of himself "to the end" for the salvation of the world, his boundless charity. After careful consideration, I came to the decision to make a change in the rubrics of the Roman Missal.Therefore I order to appear a change to the heading under which the people chosen to receive the washing of the feet should be men or boys, so that from now on the Church's Pastors can choose the participants in the rite among all the members of the People's God. It also recommends that the chosen is provided an adequate explanation of the meaning of the rite itself.Grateful for the valuable service of this dicastery, I assure you, Your Eminence, to the Secretary and to all the staff of my remembrance in prayer and, formulating my best wishes for Christmas, I send to all my Apostolic Blessing.From the Vatican, 20 December 2014FRANCISCUS
In Missa in Cena Domini, post lectionem Evangelii secundum Ioannem, ad humilitatem et caritatem Christi erga discipulos suos quasi scaenice demonstrandam, instauratio Hebdomadae sanctae, decreto Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria (die 30 Novembris 1955), dedit facultatem, ubi ratio pastoralis id suadebatur, lotionem pedum agendi duodecim virorum.A non-official English translation.
Qui ritus, in liturgia romana, traditus fuerat nomine Mandatum Domini de caritate fraterna ex Iesu verbis (cfr Io 13, 34), quae Antiphona in celebratione resonabant.
Episcopi et presbyteri hoc ritu agentes intime invitantur ad sese conformandum Christo qui «non venit ministrari sed ministrare» (Mt 20, 28) et, caritate «in finem» (Io 13, 1) compulsus, vitam dare pro totius generis humani salute.
Ut participantibus haec plena significatio ritus exprimatur bonum visum est Summo Pontifici Francisco normam variare quae in rubricis Missalis Romani (p. 300 n. 11) legitur: «Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris…», quae idcirco sequenti modo mutari debet: «Qui selecti sunt ex populo Dei deducuntur a ministris…» (et consequenter in Caeremoniali Episcoporum n. 301 et n. 299 b: «sedes pro designatis»), ita ut pastores seligere possint parvum fidelium coetum ad repraesentandam varietatem et unitatem uniuscuiusque portionis populi Dei. Qui coetus constare potest ex viris et mulieribus, et convenienter ex iuvenibus et senibus, sanis et aegrotis, clericis, consecratis, laicis.
Quam innovationem haec Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, vigore facultatum a Summo Pontifice tributarum, in libris liturgicis Ritus Romani inducit, pastores admonens de proprio munere instituendi, apta manuductione, sive fideles qui seliguntur, sive alios ut ritui participent scienter, actuose et fructuose.
Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.
Ex aedibus Congregationis de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, die 6 mensis Ianuarii anno 2016, in sollemnitate Epiphaniae Domini.In the Mass, the Lord's Supper, after the reading of the Gospel according to John, in order to demonstrate the humility and the love of Christ's love for his disciples, and as it were, dramatically, for the establishment of Holy Week and the decree of the greatest mysteries of our Redemption (the day 30 of November, 1955), given us the possibility, where he was advised to give a pastoral reason, the washing, the feet of twelve men of action.
This rite is celebrated, in the Roman rite, and delivered to the words of Jesus had been the name of the Lord's commandment of brotherly love (cf. Jn 13, 34), which is echoed in the celebration of Antiphon.
Intimately thanks to the conformation of this rite are invited to the bishops and priests were Christ himself who "came not to be served but to serve" (Mt 20, 28) You know, in love "to the end" (Jn 13: 1), driven by, and the life I gave him for the salvation of the whole human race.
In order to take part in the rite are full of the meaning of an expression to change it in accordance with a good view of what is in the rubrics of the Roman Missal, the Sovereign Pontiff Francisco (p. 300 n. 11) we read: "Husbands selected the boys are taken by the ministers of ...», which therefore ought to be changed in the following manner: "For those who are selected the boys are taken by the ministers of the people of God ... "(and, consequently, in the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 301 and n. 299 b:" seats for the designated »), so that they can be to select a small group of the faithful in the representation of the variety and the unity of the pastors of each portion of the people of God. And they can be seen from a group of men and women, and was suitable for the young and old, the healthy and the infirm, the clergy, the consecrated life, lay associations.
How the renewal of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the strength of the faculties by the Supreme Pontiff, in the liturgical books of the Roman Rite and makes the gift of shepherds to train in mind about one's own, a suitable guidance, whether they be believers who are selected to participate in or to any other, that the rite of the conscious, active, and fruitful .
To the contrary notwithstanding.
From the offices of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the 6th day of the month of January in the year 2016, on the Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord.
In accord with Benedict XVI, Universae Ecclesiae, this does not apply to the Roman Missal of 1962 as nothing coming after 1962 which conflicts, is licit. For example, Girl Altar Boys, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, Anticipated Sunday liturgy. Should Jorge Bergoglio abrogate U.E., there will be literal hell to pay.
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/de/bollettino/pubblico/2016/01/21/0041/00085.html
62 comments:
It should be understood that the majority of Catholics (true followers of Christ) are prisoners of the NO Mass and don't have access TLM. We have not only to endure the insults of our Pope but also the indifference of our local Bishops who have totally embraced Modernism. As if that wasn't enough we are constantly harassed by our fellow Catholics to leave our NO parishes as if that was a distinct possibility. Where would be go when there are no options? Do we turn our backs on Jesus Christ by not attending Holy Mass & the few liturgical services offered? No, we don't. We accept the extra pain inflicted upon us in the knowledge that Christ has not abandoned us and that He will provide in His own time. We believe that we must show our constant fellowship with Him even when His prelates have abandoned us. In their craving for Modernism it is they who have abandoned Christ and left us with little of the rubrics of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic faith in which we grew up. It is imperative that we stay and see them all off, otherwise there will certainly be few followers of Christ to greet Him when He returns.
The Church is falling apart, and he has THIS to offer us....?
"That's right ladies, you can wear a short skirt and give a little flash to Father Bob as he pours water on your feet in front of the congregation. But don't worry, he'll probably have no interest because he's as queer as this decision".
I could have not put it better myself!
Ana Milan,
You demand your rights from your Bishop. Not that he will care, of course, not that this Pope will tell him to enforce the Law as in Summorum Pontificum.
Yes, you go to Mass and you offer it up.
Fight Ana.
Do not give up!
But, if the SSPX is nearby, you have every reason to go.
But, if the SSPX is nearby, you have every reason to go.
Well said Vox.
All aboard the MS(Modernist Ship)Bergoglio. Sample the vast manifest of dissent. There is something for every dissenter which wishes to denigrate historical Catholicism. Come and watch the stevedores, including the likes Kasper, Mariadaga, and Canada's own Tommy "Bear" Rosica, load and share their Modernist cargo. And don't worry, what you believe today, you need not believe tomorrow. All Catholic truth is poetic truth. Aristotle's principal of non-contradiction doesn't apply on the MS Bergoglio.
But you Catholics who are into divination need not come. What were those cardinals, who elected this apostate clown, smoking, at that conclave? I fear for the future. Get ready there is worse coming. Take off your Catholic lenses and, albeit painfully, put on some Modernist lenses. That is the only way you can come to grips with Jorge. Read or re-read Lamentabili Sane and see the 65 condemned propositions that fuel the MS Bergoglio.
Ana, some people are absolutely in a difficult position, but we have to be careful. Some have children that they are trying to bring up in the Faith. This can be almost impossible when the parish is against many things they are trying to teach their children.
Many Catholics during the time of the Reformation had little choices either, so the majority in places like England stayed put in their parishes.
And eventually lost the Faith.
It is a demonstrable fact that the pope, while a bishop, sometimes ignored and violated the Church's rubrics, established by popes.
I don't see why anyone would feel compelled to follow any changes to rubrics promulgated by him, now that he is the pope.
In the photo he's checking out her body, her chest I think. Smiling. See, he likes women too!
Vox: in the London diocese, the Latin Mass was moved to a small town outside of the main city. What are we to do if we do not have a car to drive there? Do we sit and suffer through the NO mess and offer it up?
I am very distressed by this and I worry that there are only more changes looming...
Vox, I am glad that you have finally given up on the Novus Ordo Mass. It is not Catholic anyways - no matter how reverently it is celebrated.
I would say that Pope Francis is the Pope of surprises and those surprises makes some of us sick to our stomachs. I came into the Church eleven years ago while the clergy sex scandal was still going on. I wonder if I would have come under the present circumstances with the shifting sand of uncertain Biblical beliefs. I thought the Church was firm in it's beliefs but now I see that the holy father is doing new and outrageous things.
To the anonymous who had mentioned the Diocese of London, I live in London and share your concern. I invite you to contact me by clicking on my name which will direct you to my blog and then go to the contact page. Would like to discuss your comment further.
Sorry if this message has been posted twice.
Anonymous in London,
Yes; the Mass communities once in London and in Kinkora has merged and it is now in St. Thomas at Holy Angels Sundays at 1:30. Please do as Joe Sales asked and get in touch with them. Support one another.
You might also contact https://londonlatinmass.wordpress.com/contact/. They may be able to connect you with someone passing through or coming from London who could assist you.
If you write directly to me at voxcantoris@rogers.com, I shall pass your particulars on directly to the people on the Committee.
Do not despair.
Not completely yet Tony. I need to think and pray on it. Some people depend on my work. I am not sure I can continue to do it.
I am seriously considering renouncing all work in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite towards restoration and any possible "Reform of the Reform." It is dead. It died in February 2013 as we were abandoned by our Papa and left to fend for ourselves against the modernist, Masonic and Peronist wolves! I will contemplate the never again attending the modernist mess of a Mass bequeathed by Paul VI, weddings, funerals, chanting - all of it. Thirty years nearly of work. for what? For this? This liturgical disgrace foisted upon us by a Bishop of Rome that writes, "I had...I have...I came...I order!"
Vox
I hear you, big time. I feel and understand your pain 100%. The Novus disOrdo is truly worthy of the Age of Aquarius. Conciliar Catholicism and the 1900 year continuum that brought us into the second half of the twentieth century are simply irreconcilable. How many times half you heard the tired question: "If only we had followed the council..." Yea right. Bishop after bishop during and after the council sold their souls to the conciliar genie, a genie that left the lamp long ago and cannot be put back. Jorge, riding this genie, has said: "There is no going back". His hatred (catholiphobia)of traditionalists is visceral. He and his band of ecclesial "criminals" will engineer the Church is such a way that the changes cannot be undone. And that is scary. Look what was done after the council. A new Mass but also a different Calendar was established. The new Calendar was clearly done to disrupt, further, any continuity with past, and it has a been remarkable success, for the novelty intoxicated innovators. It is as if the Catholic Church only began in 1962-65. The Documents of Vatican II, a virtual Newer Testament, are a blank cheque for any catechetical or liturgical novelty.
In a recent post you mentioned that pre-conciliar Catholicism was a mile wide and and inch deep. I understand what you were saying, but at least, despite the rot, active and passive, there were dimensions of width and depth. In other words there WAS SOMETHING THERE. Not so with dimensionless shape shifting contemporary Catholicism. Jorge, a Modernist Moloch, has barely begun.
The Man of Lawlessness
2 Thessalonians 2:4
He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.
http://gloria.tv/media/8vc2zCyCmb5
Bergoglio is not a pope because he was a public heretic in Argentina (modernist heretic) and The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope. And that his election is invalid. That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
Desecration washing of feet Mar 29, 2013 (Muslim woman)
Desecration washing of feet on Holy Thursday 2015 (Travesti)
Desecration washing of feet on Holy Thursday 2015 (Total 13 persons; 12 prisioner including woman an a travesti and one child)
2 John 1:9-11
Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.
I understand the anger present in this article about this change by Bergoglio and the frustration with the NO.
I have stated regularly on my blog, aguardian.blogspot.com, that this man is no longer the Pope. I stated, "officially" as a Catholic in good standing within the Roman Catholic Church, that because of previous public actions, Bergoglio has renounced the Papacy and the throne of St. Peter is unoccupied. As such, I consider this act to have no standing whatsoever.
I have also called on others to claim this as well, lay and religious alike. It is not a violation of obedience to claim the Truth. The Truth is that we have a vast, diabolical entity comprised of many lay and religious Catholics in the Church who serve demonic forces and are working to destroy the Church.
Since they can't destroy the Church, they can only cause great distress and threaten the immortal Souls of millions.
And with regards to Vox Cantoris, you can renounce the NO. But you MUST call for traditional Catholics to take back their parishes. We need to win back these battlegrounds. Don't leave the work of the parish to leftists who don't believe. Fight for your parishes! Volunteer! Accept responsibilities!
my blog: aguardian.blogspot.com
Too much anger not enough serenity.-Screwtape
I apologize Vox. I took it as if you said that you would never again attend ANY Novus Ordo Mass. Sorry.
Only just beginning Screw.
@ Guardian
You put it so succinctly:
"The Truth is that we have a vast, diabolical entity comprised of many lay and religious Catholics in the Church who serve demonic forces and are working to destroy the Church."
I would add: knowingly or unknowingly.
If only "they" listened to you, when you proclaimed this papacy invalid.
The anger in your post is very pleasing to my father's friends! Just sayin. -Screwtape
Thank you, Ana Milan, for stating my situation perfectly.
Read about the revolution, Communist infiltration. He fits right in. Dialogue. Collegiality. Womens movement. Penance. Penance.Fasting.Rosary.
What does this say about those Cardinals who elected him. It is not only the Pope we have to worry about. The sheep are without a shepard!
An open Letter to Pope Francis from a Jewish convert. http://revisionistreview.blogspot.ie/2016/01/an-open-letter-to-pope-francis-his.html
Board room Mass seminarians http://thepinoycatholic.blogspot.ie/
He's not smiling at her body as such ,he,s smiling at her abdomen ,she is with child as they used to say.its pretty obvious he is the rebel,he accuses others of being .
The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
ST. Pius X
I disagree. The Novus Ordo is here to stay. The Spirit of Vatican II is the dominant theology. Especially when you have neo-traditional and conservative Catholics- ranging from Church Militant to Catholic Answers, Michael Voris to Jimmy Akin- intentionally ignoring to willfully covering up Pope Francis's alleged and clear heretical statement. Neo-traditional and conservative Catholics are worse than the leftists, because the former groups purportedly love the Faith and would defend it, and yet they are shamefully silent, ignorant, or complicate in this current crisis.
Traditional Catholics account for such a minute percent of the overall Church- I'd imagine less than 1%- that there is now no hope for tradition. Vatican II annihilated the sensus fidelium of most Catholics.
Perhaps it's time for Orthodoxy.
Fr. Bergoglio is being assisted by a girl altar boy in that photo.
Christ is Born!
Dear Ana,
When my parents were married in June 1963, there was no Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the area. They had to attend the local Roman Catholic Church for a few months. Then St. Ann's was founded in October 1963 and they started to attend their own Liturgy again.
Our parish is an offshoot of St. Ann's. Just as in the Latin Church, there are few ordinations to the priesthood. The pastor of St. Ann's serves our parish as well. He offers 5 Liturgies between our two churches on the weekend (6 if he has a wedding or funeral on Saturday morning).
The reason why I mention all of this is that if (God Forbid!!!) our parish was shut down, we would have to go back to St. Ann's (about 5-10 miles away) or the local Roman Catholic Church which my parents first attended (and has the NO).
My mom has often told me that when she goes to the Roman Catholic Church she feels like she hasn't been in church. She is 82 and wouldn't understand anything about what we post (like discussing the crisis in the Church) but her sensus Fidei is still working. If (God forbid!) our parish did close down, my fear is that she would go to the NO because it's closer than St. Ann's.
Our Archbishop had to close and/or merge other parishes because of the lack of priests.
Please know that you are not alone. If I remember right, Our Lady said that the time would come when all we would have left is the Rosary. Another thing that might help (I do this if I can't make it to church) is to ask your Guardian Angel to attend the Liturgy/Mass on your behalf.
I hope this helps you. Vox, please forgive the length of this post.
In Christ the King,
Margaret
Bishop Robert C. Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, responded to the news in question with the following statement: "With regard to today’s decree from Pope Francis, with regard to the washing of the feet ritual during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, I accept this change with loving obedience - as I always would."
That is Bishop Morlino's calm and obedient response to Pope Francis' decree in question.
As the People of God, we must recall that we are taught, governed, and sanctified by the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis. We may discuss whether Pope Francis' liturgical innovation in question will benefit the Church.
But let us please do so in the spirit of peace and goodwill. Please keep in mind that Pope Francis is our spiritual father. He is our Pope. Pope Francis considered the matter...issued his decree...and did so with the hope that his decision will benefit Holy Mother Church.
Beginning with Pope Venerable Pius XII, who enacted several radical liturgical reforms, our past few Popes have tinkered endlessly with the Roman Liturgy.
Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reforms failed. The same applied to Pope Blessed Paul VI's liturgical reforms. Perhaps that will apply to Pope Francis' latest liturgical reform in question.
But as Catholics, we are called to think and act in charitable fashion. Therefore, let us accept that our Popes in question acted in goodwill in regard to their liturgical reforms. Let us apply that same charitable thinking to His Holiness Pope Francis.
Let us in charitable fashion debate Pope Francis' decree in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Christ is Born!
Thank you for posting your email address. I just sent you an email. Please check your inbox and your spam (my email message may have gone there too).
In Christ the King,
Margaret
Anonymous at 8:33
Thank you. Looking from the perspective of a converted Jew, it is worse than I cared to imagine. I should have cared to imagine.
@Dios me ama
"That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church."
But Bergolio was never excommunicated.
Perhaps, those Cardinals who voted for Pope Francis in conclave now feel that they were tricked by God?
(To paraphrase Pope Francis on the Blessed Virgin Mary)
As an aside, can we now dismiss any arguments against the SSPX as petty legalism?
My mother is being abused and beaten by her children. I am not to be angry? You think the old Scratch is happy about my anger. No, he is happy about the chaos he is creating. My anger is a justified response to the abuse these men are inflicting on my mother.
We have every right to be angry. Anger is a good response.
Would you, Mark and Screw say that Jesus was doing the work of Old Scratch when he threw the bastards out of the Temple?
Vox
Your anger is more of a righteous indignation, which is, of course, a proper anger. I do not see it opposed to charity and truth. Such indignation is completely warranted with Bergoglio. This changing the law of whose feet can be washed is just a symptom of a deeply entrenched hatred for historical Catholicism. Dress up secularism in Catholic garb and what do you get? You get Jorge and company, an operating system, that, at root, has more in common with liberal Protestantism than authentic Catholicism. Regarding Bergoglio, our bishops, loudly and clearly, should be leading the way in opposing him. Bishop Morlino, as noted above, took the safe groveling route. Most bishops will do the same. They are invertebrates.
On a separate note, I hardly consider moving to the SSPX as a viable solution to the modernist takeover of the Church, for, although they do not follow the Pope in his heresies, they still acknowledge him as Pope. The answer might be Eastern Orthodoxy after all.
Dear Vox,
I know exactly how you are feeling today, because I am feeling just the same - but on the opposite end of the pole. Can a heretic be a Pope - yes they cry. Is the Church indefectible - no they cry. Quotes from Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, theologians and canon lawyers by the dozen are coming out of my ears and don't make the slightest dent. One feels one is just bashing one's head against a brick wall! As we rudely used to say in the army - you can't fart against thunder! So what you say we just take a weekend off and go braai some pap and wors with maybe a drop of Old Brown? :)
Mark Thomas said...
Bishop Robert C. Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, responded to the news in question with the following statement: "With regard to today’s decree from Pope Francis, with regard to the washing of the feet ritual during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, I accept this change with loving obedience - as I always would."
That is Bishop Morlino's calm and obedient response to Pope Francis' decree in question.
That's nice.
However, the present pope, when he was an ordinary, did the exact opposite and disobeyed the liturgical laws of the Church, giving an example of disobedience to his flock.
But let us please do so in the spirit of peace and goodwill. Please keep in mind that Pope Francis is our spiritual father. He is our Pope. Pope Francis considered the matter...issued his decree...and did so with the hope that his decision will benefit Holy Mother Church.
And that same thing applies to the decrees that then Cardinal Bergoglio disobeyed.
But as Catholics, we are called to think and act in charitable fashion. Therefore, let us accept that our Popes in question acted in goodwill in regard to their liturgical reforms. Let us apply that same charitable thinking to His Holiness Pope Francis.
Did our present pope apply that same charitable thinking to the liturgical laws of his predecessors?
Was he acting in good will when he disobeyed his superior, the pope?
There is nothing that compels us to necessarily accept that a pope acts in good will in regard to any particular liturgical reform.
On the contrary, this particular change hints at bad will because it is rooted in disobedience. He has the authority to change it, sure. But he didn't when he wasn't pope, yet he disobeyed anyway.
That speaks volumes as to a person's "good will."
I didn't read the comments or the full comment on the news, perhaps some had my same thoughts but may I remind everybody what I wrote a while ago, that the "New Catholic Church" can't impose its new rituals and beliefs (Atheism-Globalism-worshiping Mother Earth) all of a sudden, overnight, it will do it gradually. And as we read the news every now and then, we realize that the change is coming little by little, as I predicted.
I wrote that we shouldn't be surprised if the next Pope (maybe not the one after Bergoglio, but a future Pope) will be a sodomite and that women will be "priests" and sodomite "marriage" will be allowed. These events might not happen in our lifetime, but they are coming.
For example, washing the feet of Transsexuals, Sodomites and Lesbians will be under the label of "the people of God". Gradually, the plot will be implemented, all under the guise of "mercy," and "accompaniment," and "people of God."
The "New Catholic Church" will gradually make those who have a superficial faith accept these types of people and this new lifestyle in the "New Catholic Church."
The "New Catholic Church" is using God to fulfill its mission of Denying God.
Yes DJR, you are absolutely correct; and Bishop Morlino is showing that "goodwill" that Archbishop/Cardinal Begoglio never had the good sense or Catholic heart to do.
I think this blogpost itself.
Dear Vox,
Please understand that I did not mean to discount the passion that you have for the True Religion. You and a holy man who defends and promotes the True Church. My point, which I didn't express well, is that beginning with myself, we should remain calm in the face of Pope Francis' decree in question.
We agree that His Holiness Pope Francis has the legal authority to permit priests to wash the feet. Whether that decree will benefit Holy Mother Church is debatable. We as Catholics have the right to discuss that question. Pope Francis has declared that he favors frank discussion within the Church. In the meantime, beginning with me, let us remain calm and charitable with the Vicar of Christ and each of us.
I have every reason to believe that Pope Francis acted in goodwill in regard to his decree in question. I believe that beginning with Pope Venerable Pius XII, our Popes, in regard to their radical liturgical reforms, have acted in goodwill.
Unfortunately, their reforms have failed to renew spiritually the (Latin) Church. But as I noted, we are called as Catholics to believe that our Popes acted in goodwill. However, we have every right as Catholics to discuss respectfully, for example, Pope Francis' latest reform (innovation) in question.
That is what I had wished to express via my initial comment here. I am sorry that I had failed in that regard. Again, Vox, I don't wish in any way to discount the holy passion that you have for the True Church.
You are a holy Catholic man. We need you and your important blog to promote, in particular, the Traditional Roman Mass. The TLM is the only way to turn to restore holy greatness to the Latin Church. Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo will not suffice in that regard.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
We have a revolutionary anti Catholic Pope who does not like the Papacy and it's long tradition in the Church. He has refused to sit in the Chair of Peter. He has refused his residence in the Papal Apartments. He has stated he wants to reduce the authority of the Pope by decentralized the whole Vatican to just being Bishop of Rome. This Pope is the enemy of the Papacy. He is a law breaker of the Holy Church who does not believe in the Absolute Truths of the Church. What he is and has made the Papacy is the Papacy for the Federation of the World Religions and an ally to the UN's agenda on Climate Change. This is a sign we are living in the Apocalypse right now this very instant in real time.
Ouch. DJR speaks with clarity on this issue.
Karl - dont be silly. SSPX is the only option. The accept Pope Francis, pray for him in the mass, in their rosaries, they just do not submit to his silly antics and disbelief just like St Athanasius, St Pio and MANY others did not submit. What would St Cyril do? Defend, rebuke, as he did with Arius. Wake up people, everyone is afraid to stand up for what is true. Go back to the Saints and get some courage.
Vox, in regard to your question about Jesus and the Moneychangers...(please correct me if I misunderstood your point):
I don't see the correlation between Jesus' response to the Moneychangers in the Temple and anger that somebody may harbor in regard to Pope Francis' decree in question.
Now, I most certainly recognize our collective right as Catholics to discuss (respectfully) Pope Francis' decree in question. Pope Francis has declared that he desires frank discussions with the Church. He has recognized our right (laymen) to announce our concerns to our spiritual leaders. We have every right as Catholics to do so.
I am not happy with Pope Francis' decision in question. If anything, to me, Pope Francis simply made it clear that the Novus Ordo is what it is. That is, as Pope Blessed Paul VI declared on November 26, 1969 A.D., the Novus Ordo is a "liturgical innovation".
But I don't equate Jesus' outrage at the Moneychangers with the type of outrage that has been expressed by many folks in regard to Pope Francis' decree to permit priests on Holy Thursday to wash women's feet during Mass.
As Catholics, we are called to accept that His Holiness Pope Francis issued his decree in question in goodwill. The Pope acted in goodwill to attempt to build up the Church. Whether Pope Francis' innovation in question will prove a holy success is debatable.
The Moneychangers, however, did not act in goodwill in regard to truth. They did not intend to honor God. They did not intend the Temple to be a place of true encounter with God. Conversely, Pope Francis' decree in question was issued in goodwill by the Vicar of Christ to, as he believes, build up the Body of Christ.
That is the major difference I see between the decree in question and the Moneychangers.
Again, as to whether the Pope's decree succeeds is debatable. We have the right as Catholics to discuss that matter. But there is a major difference between that which His Holiness Pope Francis did (which he did in goodwill) versus that which was done by the Moneychangers.
We all know that ultimately, the Novus Ordo is beyond repair. The Novus Ordo continues to collapse daily. The "reform of the reform" won't save the Novus Ordo...but the reform of the reform, should it move the Novus Ordo closer to the TLM, could transfer us years from now to the TLM.
The worst that I would attach to Pope Francis' decree in question is that he, unwittingly, highlighted the fact that the Novus Ordo is filled with innovations that have rendered said Mass beyond repair.
Yes, that should sadden us...but should that drive us to view Pope Francis, who acted in goodwill in regard to his decree, in same manner that Jesus Christ had viewed the Moneychangers?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."However, the present pope, when he was an ordinary, did the exact opposite and disobeyed the liturgical laws of the Church, giving an example of disobedience to his flock."
If he did so, then that was that. Nobody can change that. What is important is that we move forward...and now, Bishop Morlino has responded correctly to Pope Francis' decree in question. That is, Bishop Morlino has accepted in obedience the teaching in question from the Vicar of Christ.
DJR, that doesn't mean that we are not permitted to discuss the Pope's decree in question. Pope Francis' decree is a prudential decision...not an infallible decision. We have the right, as Pope Francis has recognized, to discuss such things. But as I noted, please do so in the spirit of peace and goodwill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DJR said: "Did our present pope apply that same charitable thinking to the liturgical laws of his predecessors? Was he acting in good will when he disobeyed his superior, the pope?"
DJR, again, whatever Father/Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio may have done on Holy Thursday is beside the point in regard to his (Pope Francis') decree in question. Father/Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio's actions are/were his actions. He has to answer for himself.
Conversely, each of us is responsible for our actions. Bishop Morlino is responsible for his actions. As a bishop, he is called to obey His Holiness Pope Francis. Again, discussing the decree in question is legitimate. But Bishop Morlino acted in proper Catholic fashion. Each of us called to follow Bishop Morlino's lead, which is the Catholic way to act. Accept in obedience the decree in question...but keep in mind that we have every right to discuss the decree in question.
-----------------------------------------------------
DJR said: "There is nothing that compels us to necessarily accept that a pope acts in good will in regard to any particular liturgical reform."
DJR, 2478 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "to avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."
His Holiness Pope Francis declared his reason behind his decree in question. He declared that his decree is intended to build up the Church and, for that matter, world.
Pope Francis said he had for some time reflected on the "rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity".
Therefore, in light of his declaration in question, the True Church teaches (#2478 CCC) that we are called to accept the intention of Pope Francis' decree "in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."
Whether the decree in question achieves Pope Francis' desire is a different matter. We have every right as Catholics to discuss in charitable fashion the Pope's decree in question. But we are called to accept Pope Francis' goodwill will in the issuance of his decree.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said: As Catholics, we are called to accept that His Holiness Pope Francis issued his decree in question in goodwill. The Pope acted in goodwill to attempt to build up the Church.
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that states Catholics are called to accept that the pope acted in good will in this matter, nor is anyone required to believe that what he did was an attempt to build up the Church.
When His Holiness Pope Stephen VI had the body of Pope Formosus dug up, put on trial, and thrown in the river, and then proclaimed Formosus to be an antipope, were Catholics called to accept that His Holiness Pope Stephen VI was acting in good will?
How about when His Holiness Pope Urban VI had some of his cardinals "offed"?
Or when some popes allowed members of their families to raid the Church's coffers?
If it can be demonstrated that some popes do not act in good will, and it most certainly can, then determining whether a pope does so in any particular instance is a judgment call (God's judgment of course being the only one that really matters anyway).
Acts that are grounded in disobedience do not evoke good will, rather, just the opposite. And there's no question that the pope, while Ordinary of Buenos Aires, was disobedient in this matter.
The fact that he now is in a position of authority and has the authority to change the discipline does not change the fact that it was conceived in bad will.
Therefore, whether this was done in good will is highly debatable.
Bishop Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, said the following: "With regard to today’s decree from Pope Francis, with regard to the washing of the feet ritual during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, I accept this change with loving obedience - as I always would."
One poster here labeled that as "groveling" on Bishop Morlino's part. It is sad, unfortunate, and uncharitable that Bishop Morlino's Catholic response to the Pope's decree is dismissed as "groveling". Sorry, that is not my understanding of Catholicism. Something is terribly wrong when acceptance of a valid decree by the Vicar of Christ is viewed as "groveling".
Again, whether the Pope's decree will benefit in holy fashion the Church (and world) is debatable. We have the right to engage in that discussion. But to attack Bishop Morlino's Catholic response to the decree is unfortunate.
Please recall that last year Bishop Morlino issued a letter to his subjects in which he exhorted them to shun the SSPX. He said that the inclusion of that sentiment in his letter was a proofreading mistake. Regardless, he took responsibility for the letter in question.
A few weeks later, His Holiness Pope Francis decreed that throughout the Holy Year, Catholics were free to receive the Holy Sacrament of Penance from SSPX priests. Bishop Morlino then apologized for having issued a letter that had exhorted Catholics to shun the SSPX.
Was that a case of "groveling"? Or was that the case of a bishop who done the right thing in regard to the SSPX...that is, he acknowledged that it was wrong to have exhorted Catholics to have shunned the SSPX?
Bishop Morlino accepts Papal decrees in the spirit of "loving obedience". Why on earth would anybody consider that holy Catholic way of thinking and acting as a form of "groveling"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... His Holiness Pope Francis declared his reason behind his decree in question. He declared that his decree is intended to build up the Church and, for that matter, world.
But a person does not have to believe that merely because the pope said it.
And it's not rash judgment if, in looking at the matter, one concludes that the pope acted in bad will.
Mark Thomas said... DJR, again, whatever Father/Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio may have done on Holy Thursday is beside the point in regard to his (Pope Francis') decree in question. Father/Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio's actions are/were his actions. He has to answer for himself.
It is not beside the point when making a rational judgment on whether the pope acted in good will. In fact, it is very pertinent to the question.
Do you contend that the true Church teaches that we are to accept every act of every pope in a favorable way?
If not, then how does one determine which acts to accept favorably and which acts to not accept favorably?
Mark Thomas said... Pope Francis said he had for some time reflected on the "rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity".
And that is evidence of bad will, as it gives the impression that the pope's thoughts on this matter are somehow of recent vintage, after he was elected Supreme Pontiff.
The fact of the matter is that he had been doing this for years, at a time when it was a disobedient act on his part.
Do you consider that to be a good example to clergy and laity or a bad one?
The reason given for the change, that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle, was not shared by the Church at the time the pope was Ordinary of Buenos Aires.
In fact, the Church thought just the opposite, that only men should be used. That's why the discipline was there.
But the cardinal knew better than the Church.
I'm an Eastern Catholic, and this move, does not look good on Pope Francis' part.
Of course the issue isn't that he changed the law, the issue is of course the arrogance of lawlessness which you have beautifully shown already...
The Eastern approach of bottom up, seems to be a better approach for the times of now.
May Pope Francis find Argentina, stay in it, retire, and may Cardinal Ranjith or Cardinal Burke take his office, Amen.
I have seen several of these foot-washing photos of Bergoglio, over the years, including when he was Cardinal Arch of Buenos Aires.
So many show him almost groveling on the floor at the feet of a half-dressed young woman. Now that partly may be the internet sorting, but still, the pictures are real from news sources and with captions.
Is it not degrading and embarrassing for Catholics that any priest would behave thus?
Forget about law and rubrics for a moment, and just consider that you would not even approve your teenage son to be in this position!
DJR said..."The fact of the matter is that he had been doing this for years, at a time when it was a disobedient act on his part. Do you consider that to be a good example to clergy and laity or a bad one?"
Did then-Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio have permission from Rome to make a pastoral decision in regard to Holy Thursday's foot-washing ceremony?
I ask that as I just found the following from 2005 A.D:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_holy_thursday/
Archbishop O'Malley to wash women's feet Holy Thursday
"Boston, Mass., Mar 22, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA).- After angering women during Holy Week last year, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley decided that he will wash the feet of women and men Holy Thursday, after having consulted with the Vatican, reported the Boston Globe. According to the archbishop’s spokeswoman, Ann Carter, the Congregation for Divine Worship “affirmed the liturgical requirement that only the feet of men be washed at the Holy Thursday ritual. However, it said the archbishop could make a pastoral decision that is best suited for his diocese."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous Mark Thomas said... Did then-Bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio have permission from Rome to make a pastoral decision in regard to Holy Thursday's foot-washing ceremony?
Well, to take the insinuations involved to their logical conclusion, one would have to conclude the following:
1. The present Holy Father, when he was a bishop but not the Bishop of Rome, actually had permission to wash the feet of women even though there was a rubric in place that said he did not.
2. He had permission to do this from two separate popes.
3. The two popes who allegedly gave him that permission, kept in place a public rubric prohibiting the practice.
4. They did this for over two decades.
5. Ergo, two popes said that he was allowed to wash the feet of women, at the same time they said he was NOT allowed to wash the feet of women, and they held this contradictory position for 20 years. Two popes, 20 years.
6. Many good priests pointed out for years that there was a binding and intact prohibition of the practice, a prohibition established by popes, and those priests were never contradicted by any pope, but of course the good priests were wrong.
7. Cardinal O'Malley had to consult with "the Vatican" in order to determine whether he could wash women's feet. It was useless thing to do because, even though the rubric forbids it, the permission was really there all along.
8. The act of the present Holy Father in changing the rubric was a meaningless gesture in regard to the lawfulness of washing women's feet. Even though the rubric prohibits the practice, it was actually permitted.
I ask that as I just found the following from 2005 A.D:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_holy_thursday/
Archbishop O'Malley to wash women's feet Holy Thursday
"Boston, Mass., Mar 22, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA).- After angering women during Holy Week last year, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley decided that he will wash the feet of women and men Holy Thursday, after having consulted with the Vatican, reported the Boston Globe. According to the archbishop’s spokeswoman, Ann Carter, the Congregation for Divine Worship “affirmed the liturgical requirement that only the feet of men be washed at the Holy Thursday ritual. However, it said the archbishop could make a pastoral decision that is best suited for his diocese."
In the first sentence it describes the Church's liturgical law prohibiting the practice; the second sentence states that the law can be ignored.
Is that the way the Church operates?
This wouldn't be the first time "the Vatican" made an erroneous claim.
Letter from the Secretariat of State, Cardinal J. Villot to Bishop R. Coffy, President of the liturgical commission of France, 11 October 1975. (Published in Notitiae 12 (1976) pages 81-83:
"... Through the Constitution Missale Romanum Pope Paul, as you know, orders that the new Missal is to replace the former one, notwithstanding any constitutions or apostolic ordinances of his predecessors -- including, therefore, all the determinations of the Constitution Quo primum. No one, in France or anywhere else, can therefore claim an indult granted by Quo primum and allowing use of the former Missal. This can be used exclusively in the case envisioned by the notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship, 14 June 1971, approved by Pope Paul. The notificatin of 28 October 1974 made it explicit once again that Ordinaries do not have the power to grant this permission (to use the former Order of Mass) for celebration with a congregation ... notwithstanding any custom, even one from time immemorial. ...".
"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church." ("Summorum Pontificum", July 7, 2007, art. 1)
DJR said..."In the first sentence it describes the Church's liturgical law prohibiting the practice; the second sentence states that the law can be ignored. Is that the way the Church operates? This wouldn't be the first time "the Vatican" made an erroneous claim."
I don't understand the situation in question. But the situation above reminded me of the massive confusion that existed in regard to the SSPX. For example, Pope Benedict XVI declared that the "fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."
However, many times the priests of the SSPX, who were suspended a divinis, had been granted permission from legitimate authorities to offer Masses inside Roman Basilicas and churches around the world. Bishops granted the SSPX use of churches to offer Mass.
Let us recall the following 2009 A.D. stories from Reuters:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/29/guestview-felley-ordains-sspx-priests-hints-timid-opening/
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/17/update-sspx-to-ordain-new-priests-despite-vatican-warning/
Rome had declared publicly that the SSPX were not to proceed with several planned ordinations to the priesthood. Rome declared that said ordinations were "illegitimate" and forbidden. However, Bishop Fellay claimed that he had an understanding with Rome that enabled him to proceed validly with the ordinations in question.
By Nicolas Senèze
Bishop Bernard Fellay has gone and done it. On the morning of June 29, before crowds of the faithful gathered on the large meadow outside the Saint Pius X seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (SSPX) ordained eight new priests.
"There is a tacit tolerance from Rome,” said the Swiss-born bishop, whose 20-year excommunication was lifted in January along with the three other bishops drummed out of the Church in 1988. “We did not have an explicit order not to do this. I have contacts with Rome, I’m not just making this up out of thin air."
------------------------------------------------------------
During that time, and back in the United States, Reuters reported that "soon after the Vatican declared the ordinations would be illegitimate, Father Yves Le Roux, rector of the SSPX’s St Thomas Aquinas seminary in Winona, Minnesota, said the ordination of 13 new priests there would go ahead on Friday.
“Absolutely. We are doing it,” he told our Vatican correspondent Philip Pullella by telephone. “This is something the Vatican feels it has to say. It’s a political statement but the reality is totally different.”
----------------------------------------------------------
How could Rome declare publicly that SSPX priests were suspended a divinis and did not exercise legitimate ministries, but then inform Bishop Fellay privately that the SSPX could offer Masses and proceed with priestly ordinations?
Perhaps in the same way that Rome could inform bishops, such as then-Archbishop O'Malley, that only the feet of men could be washed during Mass on Holy Thursday...but then inform said bishops that they had permission to ignore the teaching in question.
Again, perhaps then-bishop-Cardinal Bergoglio had received similar permission. I don't know.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... How could Rome declare publicly that SSPX priests were suspended a divinis and did not exercise legitimate ministries, but then inform Bishop Fellay privately that the SSPX could offer Masses and proceed with priestly ordinations?
I think the problem is that you use the words "Rome" and "Vatican" as being synonymous with the words "the pope."
If a policy privately comes from "the Vatican" or "Rome," you apparently assume that it comes from the pope.
There's no reason in the world to assume that, and the fact that contradictory things have been coming out of "the Vatican" or "Rome" for years now is living proof of that.
The popes promulgate rules and policies publicly. That's how popes act.
If "Rome" or "the Vatican" does something privately that contradicts the public policy, then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the popes are being disobeyed by "Rome" or "the Vatican" or whoever.
It's quite easy to understand that that's what has been happening lo these many years.
How do you think Communion in the Hand took hold everywhere?
Mark Thomas said... Perhaps in the same way that Rome could inform bishops, such as then-Archbishop O'Malley, that only the feet of men could be washed during Mass on Holy Thursday...but then inform said bishops that they had permission to ignore the teaching in question.
"Rome," whoever that is supposed to mean, has authority only insofar as it comes to "Rome" from the pope, and the two popes in question never gave their permission to change this rubric.
If they wanted to do that, they would have done so in the same way that the present pope has done it: officially promulgate a change in the rubric.
That's the way popes act.
It was never done; therefore, there was no permission to do it, "Rome" or "the Vatican" notwithstanding.
If that is not what happened, then we cannot escape the logical conclusion that would follow:
1. Two popes publicly kept in place a rule/rubric that states one thing but they privately gave permission to disobey the rule/rubric they publicly maintained, and during the time of the present pope's tenure as a bishop, it was two popes and a period of 20 years.
That would make any pope's rules the equivalent of Swiss cheese.
Shouldn't the obvious conclusion here be that the popes had rules/rubrics that "Rome" or "the Vatican" and the bishops then proceeded to disobey?
In any event, there's no evidence that the then-cardinal Bergoglio ever requested permission on the matter. It's doubtful in the extreme. He has publicly admitted that there are "rules" he does not like.
There's no reason not to believe this wasn't one of them.
Correction: "There's no reason to believe this was not one of them."
DJR said..."In any event, there's no evidence that the then-cardinal Bergoglio ever requested permission on the matter. It's doubtful in the extreme. He has publicly admitted that there are "rules" he does not like. There's no reason not to believe this wasn't one of them."
Okay. If that is the case, then so be it. I don't know. All that I know is that His Holiness Pope Francis has granted to priests the option to include women in the ritual in question. We will see whether bishops will pressure priests to turn that option into the de facto norm...akin to Communion in the hand, altar girls...
I don't know. Time will tell.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment